  [1] Thucyd. v, 17-29. [2] Thucyd. v, 18. [3] Thucyd. v, 14, 22, 76. [4] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10. [5] Thucyd. v, 21, 22. [6] Thucyd. v, 23. The treaty of alliance seems to have been drawn up at Sparta, and approved or concerted with the Athenian envoys; then sent to Athens, and there adopted by the people; then sworn to on both sides. The interval between this second treaty and the first (?? p???? ?ste???, v, 24), may have been more than a month; for it comprised the visit of the LacedÆmonian envoys to Amphipolis and the other towns of Thrace, the manifestation of resistance in those towns, and the return of Klearidas to Sparta to give an account of his conduct. [7] Thucyd. v, 24. [8] Thucyd. iv, 19. ?a?eda?????? d? ??? p???a????ta? ?? sp??d?? ?a? d????s?? p?????, d?d??te? ?? e?????? ?a? ??a??a? ?a? ????? f???a? p????? ?a? ???e??t?ta ?? ???????? ?p???e??, ??ta?t???te? d? t??? ?? t?? ??s?? ??d?a?. [9] Thucyd. v, 26. ??? e???? ?? e?????? a?t?? ??????a?, etc. [10] Thucyd. v, 28. ?at? ??? t?? ?????? t??t?? ? te ?a?eda??? ???sta d? ?a??? ????se ?a? ?pe??f?? d?? t?? ??f????.—(????a?) ????? ?? ?? t? sfet??? ?a?? (Athenian) ?? d? t? ??e???? ?p?epe? (LacedÆmonian) t?? p??e?? ??a???es?a?, etc. (v, 46)—??? p??t?? ?? (to the LacedÆmonians) d?? ??f???? ? ??as??, etc. [11] Aristophan. Pac. 665-887. [12] Thucyd. v, 21-35. [13] Thucyd. v, 32. [14] Thucyd. v, 35. ?????te? ?e? ?? et’ ????a??? t??t???, ?? ? ????s?, ????? ??a???s??s?? ??????? d? p????e?t? ??e? ?????af??, ?? ??? ???? t??? ? ?s???ta? ?f?t????? p??e???? e??a?. [15] Thucyd. v, 35. t??t?? ??? ????te? ?? ????a??? ??d?? ???? ?????e???, ?pet?pe??? t??? ?a?eda??????? ?d?? d??a??? d?a??e?s?a?, ?ste ??te ????? ?pa?t???t?? a?t?? ?ped?d?sa?, ???? ?a? t??? ?? t?? ??s?? ??d?a? ete????t? ?p?ded???te?, etc. [16] Thucyd. v, 35. p??????? d? ?a? p????? ????? ?e?????? ?? t? ???e? t??t?, etc. [17] Thucyd. v, 28. Aristophan. Pac. 467, about the Argeians, d????e? ?s??f?????te? ??f?ta. He characterizes the Argeians as anxious for this reason to prolong the war between Athens and Sparta. This passage, as well as the whole tenor of the play, affords ground for affirming that the Pax was represented during the winter immediately preceding the Peace of Nikias, about four or five months after the battle of Amphipolis and the death of Kleon and Brasidas; not two years later, as Mr. Clinton would place it, on the authority of a date in the play itself, upon which he lays too great stress. [18] Thucyd. v, 67. ???e??? ?? ?????? ????de?, ??? ? p???? ?? p????? ?s??s?? t?? ?? t?? p??e?? d??s?? pa?e??e. Diodorus (xii, 75) represents the first formation of this Thousand-regiment at Argos as having taken place just about this time, and I think he is here worthy of credit; so that I do not regard the expression of ThucydidÊs ?? p????? as indicating a time more than two years prior to the battle of Mantineia. For Grecian military training, two years of constant practice would be a long time. It is not to be imagined that the Argeian democracy would have incurred the expense and danger of keeping up this select regiment during all the period of their long peace, just now coming to an end. [19] Thucyd. v, 29. ? et? ????a??? sf?? ?????ta? ?a?eda?????? d????sas?a?: compare Diodorus, xii, 75. [20] Thucyd. v, 28. [21] Thucyd. iv, 134. [22] Thucyd. v, 29. t??? ??? ?a?t??e?s? ???? t? t?? ???ad?a? ?at?st?apt? ?p?????, ?t? t?? p??? ????a???? p????? ??t??, ?a? ??????? ?? pe????es?a? sf?? t??? ?a?eda??????? ???e??, ?pe?d? ?a? s????? ????. As to the way in which the agreement of the members of the confederacy modified the relations between subordinate and imperial states, see farther on, pages 25 and 26, in the case of Elis and Lepreum. [23] Thucyd. i, 125. [24] Thucyd. v, 29. ?p?st??t?? d? t?? ?a?t?????, ?a? ? ???? ?e??p????s?? ?? ????? ?a??stat? ?? ?a? sf?s? p???t??? t??t?, ??????te? p???? t? t? e?d?ta? etast??a? a?t???, ?a? t??? ?a?eda??????? ?a d?’ ????? ????te?, etc. [25] Thucyd. v, 30. ????????? d? pa???t?? sf?s? t?? ??????, ?s?? ??d’ a?t?? ?d??a?t? t?? sp??d?? (pa?e???esa? d? a?t??? a?t?? p??te???) ??t??e??? t??? ?a?eda???????, ? ?? ?d?????t?, ?? d?????te? ??t?????, etc. [26] Thucyd. v, 30. [27] Thucyd. v, 31. ????t?? d? ?a? ?e?a??? t? a?t? ?????te? ?s??a???, pe?????e??? ?p? t?? ?a?eda??????, ?a? ??????te? sf?s? t?? ???e??? d????at?a? a?t??? ????a????????? ?ss?? ??f???? e??a? t?? ?a?eda?????? p???te?a?. These words, pe?????e??? ?p? t?? ?a?eda??????, are not clear, and have occasioned much embarrassment to the commentators, as well as some propositions for altering the text. It would undoubtedly be an improvement in the sense, if we were permitted (with Dobree) to strike out the words ?p? t?? ?a?eda?????? as a gloss, and thus to construe pe?????e??? as a middle verb, “waiting to see the event,” or literally, “keeping a look-out about them.” But taking the text as it now stands, the sense which I have given to it seems the best which can be elicited. Most of the critics translate pe?????e??? “slighted or despised by the LacedÆmonians.” But in the first place, this is not true as a matter of fact: in the next place, if it were true, we ought to have an adversative conjunction instead of ?a? before ??????te?, since the tendency of the two motives indicated would then be in opposite directions. “The Boeotians, though despised by the LacedÆmonians, still thought a junction with the Argeian democracy dangerous.” And this is the sense which Haack actually proposes, though it does great violence to the word ?a?. Dr. Thirlwall and Dr. Arnold translate pe?????e??? “feeling themselves slighted;” and the latter says, “The Boeotians and Megarians took neither side; not the LacedÆmonian, for they felt that the LacedÆmonians had slighted them; not the Argive, for they thought that the Argive democracy would suit them less than the constitution of Sparta.” But this again puts an inadmissible meaning on ?s??a???, which means “stood as they were.” The Boeotians were not called upon to choose between two sides or two positive schemes of action: they were invited to ally themselves with Argos, and this they decline doing: they prefer to remain as they are, allies of LacedÆmon, but refusing to become parties to the peace. Moreover, in the sense proposed by Dr. Arnold, we should surely find an adversative conjunction in place of ?a?. I submit that the word pe?????? does not necessarily mean “to slight or despise,” but sometimes “to leave alone, to take no notice of, to abstain from interfering.” Thus, Thucyd. i, 24. ?p?d?????—p?p??s?? ?? t?? ?e????a? p??se??—de?e??? ? sf?? pe?????? f?e????????, etc. Again, i, 69, ?a? ??? t??? ????a???? ??? ???? ???’ ????? ??ta? pe?????te, etc. The same is the sense of pe???de?? and pe????es?a?, ii, 20. In all these passages there is no idea of contempt implied in the word: the “leaving alone” or “abstaining from interference,” proceeds from feelings quite different from contempt. So in the passage here before us, pe?????e??? seems the passive participle in this sense. ThucydidÊs, having just described an energetic remonstrance sent by the Spartans to prevent Corinth from joining Argos, means to intimate (by the words here in discussion) that no similar interference was resorted to by them to prevent the Boeotians and Megarians from joining her: “The Boeotians and Megarians remained as they were, left to themselves by the LacedÆmonians, and thinking the Argeian democracy less suitable to them than the oligarchy of Sparta.” [28] Thucyd. v, 31. ?a? ???? t?? ?tt???? p????? ?p?fe???? ?pe?ta pa?sa???? d?? p??fas?? t?? p?????, ?? ??e??? ?p?????a???, ?? d’ ?t??p??t? p??? t??? ?a?eda???????. For the agreement here alluded to, see a few lines forward. [29] Thucyd. v, 31. t?? ???????? p??f????te? ?? ? e???t?, ? ????te? ?? t?? ?tt???? p??e?? ?a??sta?t? t??e?, ta?ta ????ta? ?a? ??e??e??, ?? ??? ?s?? ????te? ?f?sta?ta?, etc. Of the agreement here alluded to among the members of the Peloponnesian confederacy, we hear only in this one passage. It was extremely important to such of the confederates as were imperial cities; that is, which had subordinates or subject-allies. Poppo and Bloomfield wonder that the Corinthians did not appeal to this agreement in order to procure the restitution of Sollium and Anaktorium. But they misconceive the scope of the agreement, which did not relate to captures made during the war by the common enemy. It would be useless for the confederacy to enter into a formal agreement that none of the members should lose anything through capture made by the enemy. This would be a question of superiority of force, for no agreement could bind the enemy. But the confederacy might very well make a covenant among themselves, as to the relations between their own imperial immediate members, and the mediate or subordinate dependencies of each. Each imperial state consented to forego the tribute or services of its dependency, so long as the latter was called upon to lend its aid in the general effort of the confederacy against the common enemy. But the confederacy at the same time gave its guarantee, that the imperial state should reËnter upon these suspended rights, so soon as the war should be at an end. This guarantee was clearly violated by Sparta in the case of Elis and Lepreum. On the contrary, in the case of Mantineia, mentioned a few pages back, p. 19, the Mantineians had violated the maxim of the confederacy, and Sparta was justified in interfering at the request of their subjects to maintain the autonomy of the latter. [30] Thucyd. v, 32. ?????????? d? ??a???? ?sp??d?? ?? p??? ????a????. Upon which Dr. Arnold remarks: “By ?sp??d?? is meant a mere agreement in words, not ratified by the solemnities of religion. And the Greeks, as we have seen, considered the breach of their word very different from the breach of their oath.” Not so much is here meant even as that which Dr. Arnold supposes. There was no agreement at all, either in words or by oath. There was a simple absence of hostilities, de facto, not arising out of any recognized pledge. Such is the meaning of ??a????, i, 66; iii, 25, 26. The answer here made by the Athenians to the application of Corinth is not easy to understand. They might, with much better reason, have declined to conclude the ten day’s armistice with the Boeotians, because these latter still remained allies of Sparta, though refusing to accede to the general peace; whereas the Corinthians, having joined Argos, had less right to be considered allies of Sparta. Nevertheless, we shall still find them attending the meetings at Sparta, and acting as allies of the latter. [31] Thucyd. v, 33, 34. The Neodamodes were Helots previously enfranchised, or the sons of such. [32] Thucyd. iv, 80. [33] Thucyd. v, 34. ?t???? ?p???sa?, ?t??a? d? t??a?t??, ?ste ?te ???e??, ?te p??a????? t?, ? p?????ta?, ??????? e??a?. [34] Thucyd. v, 32. [35] Thucyd. v, 35-39. I agree with Dr. Thirlwall and Dr. Arnold in preferring the conjecture of Poppo, ?a???d??, in this place. [36] Thucyd. v, 36. [37] Thucyd. v, 37. ?pesta????? ?p? te t?? ??e?????? ?a? ?e?????? ?a? ?s?? f???? ?sa? a?t???, etc. [38] Thucyd. v, 36. [39] Thucyd. v, 38. ???e??? t?? ?????, ??? ? e?p?s??, ??? ???a ??f?e?s?a? ? ? sf?s? p??d?a????te? pa?a????s?? ... ta?? t?ssa?s? ???a?? t?? ????t??, a?pe? ?pa? t? ????? ????s?. [40] Thucyd. v, 38. [41] See Colonel Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. ii, ch. xvii, p. 370. [42] Thucyd. v, 3. [43] Thucyd. v, 41. ???? d? ?a?eda??????? t? ?? p??t?? ?d??e? ???a e??a? ta?ta? ?pe?ta (?pe????? ??? t? ????? p??t?? f????? ??e??) ???e????sa? ?f’ ??? ??????, ?a? ???e????a?t?. By the forms of treaty which remain, we are led to infer that the treaty was not subscribed by any signatures, but drawn up by the secretary or authorized officer, and ultimately engraved on a column. The names of those who take the oath are recorded, but seemingly no official signature. [44] Thucyd. v. 42. [45] Thucyd. v. 42. [46] Thucyd. v. 43. ??????d?? ... ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?t? t?te ????, ?? ?? ???? p??e?, ????at? d? p??????? t??e???. The expression cf Plutarch, however, ?t? e???????, seems an exaggeration (Alkibiad. c. 10). Kritias and ChariklÊs, in reply to the question of SokratÊs, whom they had forbidden to converse with or teach young men, defined a young man to be one under thirty years of age, the senatorial age at Athens (Xenophon, Memor. i. 2. 35). [47] Plato, Protagoras, c. 10, p. 320; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 2, 3, 4; IsokratÊs, De Bigis, Orat. xvi, p. 353, sect. 33, 34; Cornel. Nepos, Alkibiad. c. 1. [48] ??p???a d? p??? t??t?? (S????t?) ???? ?????p??, ? ??? ?? t?? ????t? ?? ??? ??e??a?, t? a?s???es?a? ??t?????. This is a part of the language which Plato puts into the mouth of AlkibiadÊs, in the Symposion, c. 32, p. 216; see also Plato, Alkibiad. i, c. 1, 2, 3. Compare his other contemporary, Xenophon, Memor. i, 2, 16-25. F?se? d? p????? ??t?? ?a? e????? p???? ?? a?t? t? f????e???? ?s????tat?? ?? ?a? t? f???p??t??, ?? d???? ?st? t??? pa?d????? ?p???as? (Plutarch, Alkib. c. 2). [49] I translate, with some diminution of the force of the words, the expression of a contemporary author, Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2. 24. ??????d?? d’ a? d?? ?? ?????? ?p? p????? ?a? se??? ???a???? ????e???, etc. [50] Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, c. 49; Thucyd. vi, 16; Antipho apud AthenÆum, xii, p. 525. [51] AthenÆus, ix, p. 407. [52] Thucyd. vi, 15. I translate the expression of ThucydidÊs, which is of great force and significance—f?????te? ??? a?t?? ?? p????? t? ??e??? t?? te ?at? t? ?a?t?? s?a pa?a???a? ?? t?? d?a?ta?, etc. The same word is repeated by the historian, vi, 28. t?? ????? a?t?? ?? t? ?p?t?de?ata ?? d??t???? pa?a???a?. The same phrase is also found in the short extract from the ???d???a of Antipho (AthenÆus, xii, p. 525). The description of AlkibiadÊs, given in that Discourse called the ???t???? ?????, erroneously ascribed to DemosthenÊs (c. 12, p. 1414), is more discriminating than we commonly find in rhetorical compositions. ???t? d’, ??????d?? e???se?? f?se? ?? p??? ??et?? p???? ?e???? d?a?e?e???, ?a? t? ?? ?pe??f????, t? d? tape????, t? d’ ?pe??????, ??? p?????????? ?p? d? t?? S????t??? ????a? p???? ?? ?pa????????ta t?? ???, t? d? ???p? t? e???e? t?? ????? ????? ?p??????e???. Of the three epithets, whereby the author describes the bad tendencies of AlkibiadÊs, full illustrations will be seen in his proceedings, hereafter to be described. The improving influence here ascribed to SokratÊs is unfortunately far less borne out. [53] Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 4; Cornel. Nepos, Alkibiad. c. 2; Plato, Protagoras, c. 1. I do not know how far the memorable narrative ascribed to AlkibiadÊs in the Symposium of Plato (c. 33, 34, pp. 216, 217) can be regarded as matter of actual fact and history, so far as SokratÊs is concerned; but it is abundant proof in regard to the general relations of AlkibiadÊs with others: compare Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 29, 30; iv. 1-2. Several of the dialogues of Plato present to us striking pictures of the palÆstra, with the boys, the young men, the gymnastic teachers, engaged in their exercises or resting from them, and the philosophers and spectators who came there for amusement and conversation. See particularly the opening chapters of the Lysis and the CharmidÊs; also the Rivales, where the scene is laid in the house of a ??aat?st??, or schoolmaster. In the Lysis, SokratÊs professes to set his own conversation with these interesting youths as an antidote to the corrupting flatteries of most of those who sought to gain their good-will. ??t? ???, ? ?pp??a?e?, t??? pa?d????? d?a???es?a?, tape?????ta ?a? s?st?????ta, ???? ?, ?spe? s?, ?a?????ta ?a? d?a???pt??ta (Lysis, c. 7, p. 210). See, in illustration of what is here said about AlkibiadÊs as a youth, Euripid. Supplic. 906 (about ParthenopÆus), and the beautiful lines in the Atys of Catullus, 60-69. There cannot be a doubt that the characters of all the Greek youth of any pretensions were considerably affected by this society and conversation of their boyish years; though the subject is one upon which the full evidence cannot well be produced and discussed. [54] Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 10. [55] See the description in the Protagoras of Plato, c. 8, p. 317. [56] See Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 12-24, 39-47. ???t?a? ?? ?a? ??????d??, ??? ???s???t?? a?t??? S????t??? ????s?t??, ?? ?????? ???e?t?? a?t?, ???’ e???? ?? ????? ?????te p??est??a? t?? p??e??. ?t? ??? S????te? ?????te? ??? ?????? t?s? ????? ?pe?e????? d?a???es?a? ? t??? ???sta p??tt??s? t? p???t???.... ?pe? t????? t???sta t?? p???te?????? ?p??a?? ??e?tt??e? e??a?, S????te? ?? ??? ?t? p??s?esa?, ??d? ??? a?t??? ????? ??es?e?? e?te p??s?????e?, ?p?? ??, ???ta??? ??e???e??? ?????t?? t? d? t?? pÓ?e?? ?p?att??, ??pe? ??e?e? ?a? S????te? p??s?????. Compare Plato, Apolog. Sokrat. c. 10, p. 23; c. 22, p. 33. Xenophon represents AlkibiadÊs and Kritias as frequenting the society of SokratÊs, for the same reason and with the same objects as Plato affirms that young men generally went to the Sophists: see Plato, Sophist. c. 20, p. 232 D. “Nam et Socrati (observes Quintilian, Inst. Or. ii, 16) objiciunt comici, docere cum, quomodo pejorem causam meliorem reddat; et contra Tisiam et Gorgiam similia dicit polliceri Plato.” The representation given by Plato of the great influence acquired by SokratÊs over AlkibiadÊs, and of the deference and submission of the latter, is plainly not to be taken as historical, even if we had not the more simple and trustworthy picture of Xenophon. IsokratÊs goes so far as to say that SokratÊs was never known by any one as teacher of AlkibiadÊs: which is an exaggeration in the other direction. IsokratÊs, Busiris, Or. xi. sect. 6, p. 222. [57] Plato, Symposium, c. 35-36, p. 220, etc. [58] See the representation, given in the Protagoras of Plato, of the temper in which the young and wealthy HippokratÊs goes to seek instruction from Protagoras, and of the objects which Protagoras proposes to himself in imparting the instruction. Plato, Protagoras, c. 2, p. 310 D.; c. 8, p. 316 C.; c. 9, p. 318, etc.: compare also Plato, Meno. p. 91, and Gorgias, c. 4. p. 449 E., asserting the connection, in the mind of Gorgias, between teaching to speak and teaching to think—???e?? ?a? f???e??, etc. It would not be reasonable to repeat, as true and just, all the polemical charges against those who are called Sophists, even as we find them in Plato, without scrutiny and consideration. But modern writers on Grecian affairs run down the Sophists even more than Plato did, and take no notice of the admissions in their favor which he, though their opponent, is perpetually making. This is a very extensive subject, to which I hope to revert. [59] I dissent entirely from the judgment of Dr. Thirlwall, who repeats what is the usual representation of SokratÊs and the Sophists, depicting AlkibiadÊs as “ensnared by the Sophists,” while SokratÊs is described as a good genius preserving him from their corruptions (Hist. of Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxiv, pp. 312, 313, 314). I think him also mistaken when he distinguishes so pointedly SokratÊs from the Sophists; when he describes the Sophists as “pretenders to wisdom;” as “a new school;” as “teaching that there was no real difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong,” etc. All the plausibility that there is in this representation, arises from a confusion between the original sense and the modern sense of the word Sophist; the latter seemingly first bestowed upon the word by Plato and Aristotle. In the common ancient acceptation of the word at Athens, it meant not a school of persons professing common doctrines, but a class of men bearing the same name, because they derived their celebrity from analogous objects of study and common intellectual occupation. The Sophists were men of similar calling and pursuits, partly speculative, partly professional; but they differed widely from each other, both in method and doctrine. (See for example IsokratÊs, cont. Sophistas, Orat. xiii; Plato, Meno. p. 87 B.) Whoever made himself eminent in speculative pursuits, and communicated his opinions by public lecture, discussion, or conversation, was called a Sophist, whatever might be the conclusions which he sought to expound or defend. The difference between taking money, and expounding gratuitously, on which SokratÊs himself was so fond of dwelling (Xenoph. Memor. i, 6, 12), has plainly no essential bearing on the case. When ÆschinÊs the orator reminds the dikasts, “Recollect that you Athenians put to death the Sophist SokratÊs, because he was shown to have been the teacher of Kritias,” (Æschin. cont. Timarch. c. 34, p. 74,) he uses the word in its natural and true Athenian sense. He had no point to make against SokratÊs, who had then been dead more than forty years; but he describes him by his profession or occupation, just as he would have said, HippokratÊs the physician, Pheidias the sculptor, etc. Dionysius of Halikarn. calls both Plato and IsokratÊs sophists (Ars Rhetor. De Compos. Verborum, p. 208 R.). The Nubes of AristophanÊs, and the defences put forth by Plato and Xenophon, show that SokratÊs was not only called by the name Sophist, but regarded just in the same light as that in which Dr. Thirlwall presents to us what he calls “the new School of the Sophists;” as “a corruptor of youth, indifferent to truth or falsehood, right or wrong,” etc. See a striking passage in the Politicus of Plato, c. 38, p. 299 B. Whoever thinks, as I think, that these accusations were falsely advanced against SokratÊs, will be careful how he advances them against the general profession to which SokratÊs belonged. That there were unprincipled and immoral men among the class of Sophists—as there are and always have been among schoolmasters, professors, lawyers, etc., and all bodies of men—I do not doubt; in what proportion, we cannot determine. But the extreme hardship of passing a sweeping condemnation on the great body of intellectual teachers at Athens, and canonizing exclusively SokratÊs and his followers, will be felt, when we recollect that the well-known Apologue, called the Choice of Hercules, was the work of the Sophist Prodikus, and his favorite theme of lecture (Xenophon, Memor. ii, 1, 21-34). To this day, that Apologue remains without a superior, for the impressive simplicity with which it presents one of the most important points of view of moral obligation: and it has been embodied in a greater number of books of elementary morality than anything of SokratÊs, Plato, or Xenophon. To treat the author of that Apologue, and the class to which he belonged, as teaching “that there was no real difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood,” etc., is a criticism not in harmony with the just and liberal tone of Dr. Thirlwall’s history. I will add that Plato himself, in a very important passage of the Republic (vi, c. 6, 7, pp. 492-493), refutes the imputation against the Sophists of being specially the corruptors of youth. He represents them as inculcating upon their youthful pupils that morality which was received as true and just in their age and society; nothing better, nothing worse. The grand corruptor, he says, is society itself; the Sophists merely repeat the voice and judgment of society. Without inquiring at present how far Plato or SokratÊs were right in condemning the received morality of their countrymen, I most fully accept his assertion that the great body of the contemporary professional teachers taught what was considered good morality among the Athenian public: there were doubtless some who taught a better morality, others who taught a worse. And this may be said with equal truth of the great body of professional teachers in every age and nation. Xenophon enumerates various causes to which he ascribes the corruption of the character of AlkibiadÊs; wealth, rank, personal beauty, flatterers, etc.; but he does not name the Sophists among them (Memorab. i, 2. 24, 25). [60] Cornel. Nepos, Alkibiad. c. 1; Satyrus apud AthenÆum, xii, p. 534; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 23. ?? ??? t????t?? de?, t????t?? e?’ ???, says Odysseus, in the PhiloktÊtÊs of SophoklÊs. [61] I follow the criticism which Plutarch cites from Theophrastus, seemingly discriminating and measured: much more trustworthy than the vague eulogy of Nepos, or even of DemosthenÊs (of course not from his own knowledge), upon the eloquence of AlkibiadÊs (Plutarch, Alkib. c. 10); Plutarch, Reipubl. Gerend. PrÆcept. c. 8, p. 804. AntisthenÊs, companion and pupil of SokratÊs, and originator of what is called the Cynic philosophy, contemporary and personally acquainted with AlkibiadÊs, was full of admiration for his extreme personal beauty, and pronounced him to be strong, manly, and audacious, but unschooled, ?pa?de?t??. His scandals about the lawless life of AlkibiadÊs, however, exceed what we can reasonably admit, even from a contemporary (AntisthenÊs ap. AthenÆum, v, p. 220, xii, p. 534). AntisthenÊs had composed a dialogue called AlkibiadÊs (Diog. LaËrt. vi, 15). See the collection of the Fragmenta Antisthenis (by A. G. Winckelmann, Zurich, 1842, pp. 17-19). The comic writers of the day—Eupolis, AristophanÊs, PherekratÊs, and others—seem to have been abundant in their jests and libels against the excesses of AlkibiadÊs, real or supposed. There was a tale, untrue, but current in comic tradition, that AlkibiadÊs, who was not a man to suffer himself to be insulted with impunity, had drowned Eupolis in the sea, in revenge, for his comedy of the BaptÆ. See Meineke, Fragm. Com. GrÆ. Eupolidis ??pta? and ???a?e? (vol. ii, pp. 447-494), and AristophanÊs ???fa???, p. 1166: also Meineke’s first volume, Historia Critica Comic. GrÆc. pp. 124-136; and the Dissertat. xix, in Buttmann’s Mythologus, on the BaptÆ and the Cotyttia. [62] Thucyd. vi, 15. Compare Plutarch, Reip. Ger. PrÆc. c. 4, p. 800. The sketch which Plato draws in the first three chapters of the ninth Book of the Republic, of the citizen who erects himself into a despot and enslaves his fellow-citizens, exactly suits the character of AlkibiadÊs. See also the same treatise, vi, 6-8, pp. 491-494, and the preface of Schleiermacher to his translation of the Platonic dialogue called AlkibiadÊs the first. [63] Aristophan. RanÆ, 1445-1453; Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 16; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 9. [64] Thucyd. v, 43, vi, 90; IsokratÊs, De Bigis, Or. xvi, p. 352, sect. 27-30. Plutarch (Alkibiad. c. 14) carelessly represents AlkibiadÊs as being actually proxenus of Sparta at Athens. [65] Thucyd. v, 43. ?? ??t?? ???? ?a? f????at? f????e???? ??a?t???t?, ?t? ?a?eda?????? d?? ?????? ?a? ????t?? ?p?a?a? t?? sp??d??, a?t?? d?? t?? ?e?t?ta ?pe??d??te? ?a? ?at? t?? pa?a??? p???e??a? p?t? ??sa? ?? t??sa?te?, ?? t?? p?pp?? ?pe?p??t?? a?t?? t??? ?? t?? ??s?? a?t?? a??a??t??? ?e?ape??? d?e??e?t? ??a?e?sas?a?. ?a?ta???e? te ?????? ??ass??s?a? t? te p??t?? ??te?pe?, etc. [66] Thucyd. v, 43. [67] Thucyd. v, 48. [68] Thucyd. v, 44. ?f????t? d? ?a? ?a?eda?????? p??se?? ?at? t????, etc. [69] Thucyd. viii, 6. ??d?? t? ?f??e???t? pat????? ?? t? ???sta f????—??e? ?a? t????a ?a??????? ? ????a a?t?? ?at? t?? ?e??a? ?s?e?? ??d??? ??? ??????d?? ??a?e?t?. I incline to suspect, from this passage, that the father of Endius was not named AlkibiadÊs, but that Endius himself was nevertheless named ??d??? ??????d??, in consequence of the peculiar intimacy of connection with the Athenian family in which that name occurred. If the father of Endius was really named AlkibiadÊs, Endius himself would naturally, pursuant to general custom, be styled ??d??? ??????d??: there would be nothing in this denomination to call for the particular remark of ThucydidÊs. But according to the view of the Scholiast and most commentators, all that ThucydidÊs wishes to explain here is, how the father of Endius came to receive the name of AlkibiadÊs. Now if he had meant this, he surely would not have used the terms which we read: the circumstance to be explained would then have reference to the father of Endius, not to Endius himself, nor to the family generally. His words imply that the family, that is, each successive individual of the family, derived his Laconian designation (not from the name of his father, but) from his intimate connection of hospitality with the Athenian family of AlkibiadÊs. Each successive individual attached to his own personal name the genitive case ??????d??, instead of the genitive of his real father’s name. Doubtless this was an anomaly in Grecian practice; but on the present occasion, we are to expect something anomalous; had it not been such, ThucydidÊs would not have stepped aside to particularize it. [70] Thucyd. v, 45. ???a??ta? d? p??? a?t??? t????d? t? ? ??????d??? t??? ?a?eda??????? pe??e?, p?st?? a?t??? d???, ?? ? ??????s?s?? ?? t? d?? a?t????t??e? ??e??, ????? te a?t??? ?p?d?se?? (pe?se?? ??? a?t?? ????a????, ?spe? ?a? ??? ??t????e??) ?a? t???a ???a????e??. ?????e??? d? a?t??? ?????? te ?p?st?sa? ta?ta ?p?atte, ?a? ?p?? ?? t? d?? d?aa??? a?t??? ?? ??d?? ?????? ?? ?? ????s??, ??d? ?????s?? ??d?p?te ta?t?, t??? ???e???? ??????? p???s?. [71] Plutarch (Alkibiad. c. 14). ?a?ta d’ e?p?? ?????? ?d??e? a?t???, ?a? et?st?se? ?p? t?? ?????? pa?t?pas? p?ste???ta? a?t?, ?a? ?a?????ta? ?a t?? de???t?ta ?a? s??es??, ?? ?? t?? t????t?? ??d??? ??sa?. Again, Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10. [72] Plutarch, Alkib. c. 14. ???t?e??? d’ ?p? t?? ??????d?? p??? f??a????p??, ?f’ ??? ?f?????? t???????s??, ??? ?fasa? ??e?? a?t????t??e?. [73] Thucyd. v, 45. ?? ????a??? ????t? ??e????t?, ???? t?? ??????d?? p???? ????? ? p??te??? ?ata???t?? t?? ?a?eda??????, ?s?????? te ?a? ?t???? ?sa? e???? pa?a?a?e?? t??? ???e????, etc. Compare Plutarch, Alkib. c. 14; and Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10. [74] Euripid. Andromach. 445-455; Herodot. ix, 54. [75] Thucyd. v, 46. [76] Thucyd. v, 46; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 10. [77] Thucyd. v, 47. ?p?? sf?? a?t?? ?a? t?? ?????? ?? ?????s?? ???te???. [78] Thucyd. v, 48. ?a? t?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????s?? ??ast??. The tense and phrase here deserve notice, as contrasted with the phrase in the former part of the treaty—t?? ?????? ?? ?????s?? ???te???. The clause imposing actual obligation to hinder the passage of troops, required to be left open for application to the actual time. [79] Thucyd. v, 47. [80] Thucyd. v, 48. [81] Thucyd. v, 48-50. [82] ?ata???t?? d? ?a? ???p?as? st???? ?a???? ????? ???p???? t??? ???? (Thucyd. v, 47), words of the treaty. [83] Dorieus of Rhodes was victor in the Pankration, both in Olymp. 88 and 89, (428-424 B.C.). Rhodes was included among the tributary allies of Athens. But the athletes who came to contend were privileged and (as it were) sacred persons, who were never molested or hindered from coming to the festival, if they chose to come, under any state of war. Their inviolability was never disturbed even down to the harsh proceeding of Aratus (Plutarch, Aratus, c. 28). But this does not prove that Rhodian visitors generally, or a Rhodian theÔry, could have come to Olympia between 431-421 in safety. From the presence of individuals, even as spectators, little can be inferred: because, even at this very Olympic festival of 420 B.C., Lichas the Spartan was present as a spectator, though all LacedÆmonians were formally excluded by proclamation of the Eleians (Thucyd. v, 50). [84] Of the taste and elegance with which these exhibitions were usually got up in Athens, surpassing generally every other city in Greece, see a remarkable testimony in Xenophon, Memorabil. iii, 3, 12. [85] Thucyd. vi, 16. ?? ??? ?????e? ?a? ?p?? d??a?? e??? ??? t?? p???? ????sa? t? ?? d?ap?epe? t?? ???p?a?e ?e???a?, p??te??? ??p????te? a?t?? ?atapep??e?s?a?? d??t? ??ata ?? ?pt? ?a???a, ?sa ??de?? p? ?d??t?? p??te???, ?????s? te, ?a? de?te??? ?a? t?ta?t?? ??e????, ?a? t???a ????? t?? ????? pa?es?e?as???. The full force of this grandiose display cannot be felt unless we bring to our minds the special position both of Athens and the Athenian allies towards Olympia,—and of AlkibiadÊs himself towards Athens, Argos, and the rest of Greece,—in the first half of the year 420 B.C. AlkibiadÊs obtained from EuripidÊs the honor of an epinikian ode, or song of triumph, to celebrate this event; of which a few lines are preserved by Plutarch (Alkib. c. 11). It is curious that the poet alleges AlkibiadÊs to have been first, second, and third, in the course; while AlkibiadÊs himself, more modest and doubtless more exact, pretends only to first, second, and fourth. EuripidÊs informs us that AlkibiadÊs was crowned twice and proclaimed twice—d?? stef???t’ ??a?? ?????? ??? pa?ad???a?. Reiske, Coray, and SchÄfer, have thought it right to alter this word d?? to t???, without any authority, which completely alters the asserted fact. Sintenis in his edition of Plutarch has properly restored the word d??. How long the recollection of this famous Olympic festival remained in the Athenian public mind, is attested partly by the Oratio de Bigis of IsokratÊs, composed in defence of the son of AlkibiadÊs at least twenty-five years afterwards, perhaps more. IsokratÊs repeats the loose assertion of EuripidÊs, p??t??, de?te???, and t??t?? (Or. xvi, p. 353, sect. 40). The spurious Oration called that of AndokidÊs against AlkibiadÊs also preserves many of the current tales, some of which I have admitted into the text, because I think them probable in themselves, and because that oration itself may reasonably be believed to be a composition of the middle of the fourth century B.C. That oration puts all the proceedings of AlkibiadÊs in a very invidious temper and with palpable exaggeration. The story of AlkibiadÊs having robbed an Athenian named DiomÊdÊs of a fine chariot, appears to be a sort of variation on the story about Tisias, which figures in the oration of IsokratÊs; see Andokid. cont. Alkib. sect. 26: possibly AlkibiadÊs may have left one of the teams not paid for. The aid lent to AlkibiadÊs by the Chians, Ephesians, etc., as described in that oration, is likely to be substantially true, and may easily be explained. Compare AthenÆ. i, p. 3. Our information about the arrangements of the chariot-racing at Olympia is very imperfect. We do not distinctly know how the seven chariots of AlkibiadÊs ran,—in how many races,—for all the seven could not, in my judgment, have run in one and the same race. There must have been many other chariots to run, belonging to other competitors: and it seems difficult to believe that ever a greater number than ten can have run in the same race, since the course involved going twelve times round the goal (Pindar, Ol. iii, 33; vi, 75). Ten competing chariots run in the race described by SophoklÊs (Electr. 708), and if we could venture to construe strictly the expression of the poet,—d??at?? ??p????? ????,—it would seem that ten was the extreme number permitted to run. Even so great a number as ten was replete with danger to the persons engaged, as may be seen by reading the description in SophoklÊs (compare Demosth. ???t. ???. p. 1410), who refers indeed to a Pythian and not an Olympic solemnity: but the main circumstances must have been common to both; and we know that the twelve turns (d?de????apt?? d?de??d????) were common to both (Pindar, Pyth. v, 31). AlkibiadÊs was not the only person who gained a chariot victory at this 90th Olympiad, 420 B.C. Lichas the LacedÆmonian also gained one (Thucyd. v, 50), though the chariot was obliged to be entered in another name, since the LacedÆmonians were interdicted from attendance. Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxiv, p. 316) says: “We are not aware that the Olympiad, in which these chariot-victories of AlkibiadÊs were gained, can be distinctly fixed. But it was probably Olymp. 89, B.C. 424.” In my judgment, both Olymp. 88 (B.C. 428) and Olymp. 89 (B.C. 424) are excluded from the possible supposition, by the fact that the general war was raging at both periods. To suppose that in the midst of the summer of these two fighting years, there was an Olympic truce for a month, allowing Athens and her allies to send thither their solemn legations, their chariots for competition, and their numerous individual visitors, appears to me contrary to all probability. The Olympic month of B.C. 424, would occur just about the time when Brasidas was at the Isthmus levying troops for his intended expedition to Thrace, and when he rescued Megara from the Athenian attack. This would not be a very quiet time for the peaceable Athenian visitors, with the costly display of gold and silver plate and the ostentatious theÔry, to pass by, on its way to Olympia. During the time when the Spartans occupied Dekeleia, the solemn processions of communicants at the Eleusinian mysteries could never march along the Sacred Way from Athens to Eleusis. Xen. Hell. i, 4, 20. Moreover, we see that the very first article both of the Truce for one year and of the Peace of Nikias, expressly stipulate for liberty to all to attend the common temples and festivals. The first of the two relates to Delphi expressly: the second is general, and embraces Olympia as well as Delphi. If the Athenians had visited Olympia in 428 or 424 B.C. without impediment, these stipulations in the treaties would have no purpose nor meaning. But the fact of their standing in the front of the treaty, proves that they were looked upon as of much interest and importance. I have placed the Olympic festival wherein AlkibiadÊs contended with his seven chariots, in 420 B.C., in the peace, but immediately after the war. No other festival appears to me at all suitable. Dr. Thirlwall farther assumes, as a matter of course, that there was only one chariot-race at this Olympic festival, that all the seven chariots of AlkibiadÊs ran in this one race, and that in the festival of 420 B.C., Lichas gained the prize: thus implying that AlkibiadÊs could not have gained the prize at the same festival. I am not aware that there is any evidence to prove either of these three propositions. To me they all appear improbable and unfounded. We know from Pausanias (vi, 13, 2) that even in the case of the stadiodromi, or runners who contended in the stadium, all were not brought out in one race. They were distributed into sets, or batches, of what number we know not. Each set ran its own heat, and the victors in each then competed with each other in a fresh heat; so that the victor who gained the grand final prize was sure to have won two heats. Now if this practice was adopted with the foot-runners, much more would it be likely to be adopted with the chariot-racers in case many chariots were brought to the same festival. The danger would be lessened, the sport would be increased, and the glory of the competitors enhanced. The Olympic festival lasted five days, a long time to provide amusement for so vast a crowd of spectators. AlkibiadÊs and Lichas may therefore both have gained chariot-victories at the same festival: of course only one of them can have gained the grand final prize, and which of the two that was it is impossible to say. [86] Thucyd. v, 49, 50. [87] Thucyd. v, 50. ?a?eda?????? ?? e?????t? t?? ?e???, ??s?a? ?a? ??????, ?a? ????? ?????? ?? d? ????? ?????e? ??e?????, p??? ?ep?eat??. [88] Thucyd. v, 28. ?at? ??? t?? ?????? t??t?? ? te ?a?eda??? ???sta d? ?a??? ????se, ?a? ?pe??f?? d?? t?? ??f????, ?? te ???e??? ???sta ?s??? t??? p?s?, etc. [89] See a previous note, p. 56. [90] Thucyd. v, 50. ???a? ? ???es????? ?a?eda?????? ?? t? ????? ?p? t?? ?ad????? p????? ??ae?, ?t? ?????t?? t?? ?a?t?? ?e?????, ?a? ??a????????t?? ????t?? d??s??? ?at? t?? ??? ????s?a? t?? ?????se?? p??e???? ?? t?? ????a ???d?se t?? ???????, ????e??? d???sa? ?t? ?a?t?? ?? t? ??a. We see by comparison with this incident how much less rough and harsh was the manner of dealing at Athens, and in how much more serious a light blows to the person were considered. At the Athenian festival of the Dionysia, if a person committed disorder or obtruded himself into a place not properly belonging to him in the theatre, the archon or his officials were both empowered and required to repress the disorder by turning the person out, and fining him, if necessary. But they were upon no account to strike him. If they did, they were punishable themselves by the dikastery afterwards (Demosth. cont. Meidiam, c. 49). [91] It will be seen, however, that the LacedÆmonians remembered and revenged themselves upon the Eleians for this insult twelve years afterwards during the plenitude of their power (Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 2, 21; Diodor. xiv, 17). [92] Thucyd. v, 51, 52. [93] Thucyd. v, 48-50. [94] Plato, Symposion, c. 35, p. 220. de???? ??? a?t??? ?e???e?, p???? ???? de???t?t??, etc. [95] Thucyd. v, 52. IsokratÊs (De Bigis, sect. 17, p. 349) speaks of this expedition of AlkibiadÊs in his usual loose and exaggerated language: but he has a right to call attention to it as something very memorable at the time. [96] Thucyd. v, 52. [97] Thucyd. v, 53, with Dr. Arnold’s note. [98] Thucyd. v, 54. ?de? d? ??de?? ?p?? st?ate???s?? ??d? a? p??e?? ?? ?? ?p?f??sa?. This incident shows that Sparta employed the military force of her allies without any regard to their feelings, quite as decidedly as Athens; though there were some among them too powerful to be thus treated. [99] Thucyd. v, 54. ???e??? d’ ??a????s??t?? a?t?? (the LacedÆmonians), t?? p?? t?? ?a??e??? ???? ??e????te? tet??d? f?????t??, ?a? ????te? t?? ???a? ta?t?? p??ta t?? ??????, ?s?a??? ?? t?? ?p?da???a? ?a? ?d????? ?p?da????? d? t??? ??????? ?pe?a????t?? ?? ?? ?? t?? ??a p???fas?sa?t?, ?? d? ?a? ?? e????a? t?? ?p?da???a? ?????te? ?s??a???. In explaining this passage, I venture to depart from the views of all the commentators; with the less scruple, as it seems to me that even the best of them are here embarrassed and unsatisfactory. The meaning which I give to the words is the most strict and literal possible: “The Argeians, having set out on the 26th of the month before Karneius, and keeping that day during the whole time, invaded the Epidaurian territory, and went on ravaging it.” By “during the whole time” is meant, during the whole time that this expedition lasted. That is, in my judgment, they kept the twenty-sixth day of the antecedent month for a whole fortnight or so; they called each successive day by the same name; they stopped the computed march of time; the twenty-seventh was never admitted to have arrived. Dr. Thirlwall translates it (Hist. Gr. vol. iii, ch. xxiv, p. 331): “They began their march on a day which they had always been used to keep holy.” But surely the words p??ta t?? ?????? must denote some definite interval of time, and can hardly be construed as equivalent to ?e?. Moreover the words, as Dr. Thirlwall construes them, introduce a new fact which has no visible bearing on the main affirmation of the sentence. The meaning which I give may perhaps be called in question on the ground that such tampering with the calendar is too absurd and childish to have been really committed. Yet it is not more absurd than the two votes of the Athenian assembly (in 290 B.C.), who being in the month of Munychion, first passed a vote that that month should be the month AnthestÊrion; next, that it should be the month BoÊdromion; in order that Demetrius PoliorkÊtÊs might be initiated both in the lesser and greater mysteries of DÊmÊtÊr, both at once and at the same time. Demetrius arrived at Athens in the month Munychion, and went through both ceremonies with little or no delay; the religious scruple, and the dignity of the Two Goddesses being saved by altering the name of the month twice (Plutarch, Demetrius, c. 26). Besides, if we look to the conduct of the Argeians themselves at a subsequent period (B.C. 389, Xenophon, Hellen. iv, 7, 2, 5; v, 1, 29), we shall see them playing an analogous trick with the calendar in order to get the benefit of the sacred truce. When the LacedÆmonians invaded Argos, the Argeians despatched heralds with wreaths and the appropriate insignia, to warn them off on the ground of its being the period of the holy truce,—though it really was not so,—??? ?p?te ??????? ? ??????, ???’ ?p?te ????e?? ?????e? ?a?eda??????, t?te ?p?fe??? t??? ??a?—?? d’ ???e??? ?pe? ????sa? ?? d???s?e??? ????e??, ?pe?a?, ?spe? e???esa?, ?stefa??????? d?? ?????a? ?p?f????ta? sp??d??. On more than one occasion, this stratagem was successful: the LacedÆmonians did not dare to act in defiance of the summons of the heralds, who affirmed that it was the time of the truce, though in reality it was not so. At last, the Spartan king Agesipolis actually went both to Olympia and Delphi, to put the express question to those oracles, whether he was bound to accept the truce at any moment, right or wrong, when it might suit the convenience of the Argeians to bring it forward as a sham plea (?p?f??e??). The oracles both told him that he was under no obligation to submit to such a pretence; accordingly, he sent back the heralds, refusing to attend to their summons, and invaded the Argeian territory. Now here is a case exactly in point, with this difference; that the Argeians, when they are invaders of Epidaurus, falsify the calendar in order to blot out the holy truce where it really ought to have come: whereas when they are the party invaded, they commit similar falsification in order to introduce the truce where it does not legitimately belong. I conceive, therefore, that such an analogous incident completely justifies the interpretation which I have given of the passage now before us in ThucydidÊs. But even if I were unable to produce a case so exactly parallel, I should still defend the interpretation. Looking to the state of the ancient Grecian calendars, the proceeding imputed to the Argeians ought not to be looked on as too preposterous and absurd for adoption, with the same eyes as we should regard it now. With the exception of Athens, we do not know completely the calendar of a single other Grecian city: but we know that the months of all were lunar months, and that the practice followed in regard to intercalation, for the prevention of inconvenient divergence between lunar and solar time, was different in each different city. Accordingly, the lunar month of one city did not, except by accident, either begin or end at the same time as the lunar month of another. M. Boeckh observes (ad Corp. Inscr. t. i, p. 734): “Variorum populorum menses, qui sibi secundum legitimos annorum cardines respondent, non quovis conveniunt anno, nisi cyclus intercalationum utrique populi idem sit: sed ubi differunt cycli, altero populo prius intercalante mensem dum non intercalat alter, eorum qui non intercalarunt mensis certus cedit jam in eum mensem alterorum qui prÆcedit illum cui vulgo respondet certus iste mensis: quod tamen negligere solent chronologi.” Compare also the valuable Dissertation of K. F. Hermann, Ueber die Griechische Monatskunde, GÖtting. 1844, pp. 21-27, where all that is known about the Grecian names and arrangement of months is well brought together. The names of the Argeian months we hardly know at all (see K. F. Hermann, pp. 84-124): indeed, the only single name resting on positive proof, is that of a month HermÆus. How far the months of Argos agreed with those of Epidaurus or Sparta we do not know, nor have we any right to presume that they did agree. Nor is it by any means clear that every city in Greece had what may properly be called a system of intercalation, so correct as to keep the calendar right without frequent arbitrary interferences. Even at Athens, it is not yet satisfactorily proved that the Metonic calendar was ever actually received into civil use. Cicero, in describing the practice of the Sicilian Greeks about reckoning of time, characterizes their interferences for the purpose of correcting the calendar as occasional rather than systematic. Verres took occasion from these interferences to make a still more violent change, by declaring the Ides of January to be the calends of March (Cicero, Verr. ii, 52, 129). Now where a people are accustomed to get wrong in their calendar, and to see occasional interferences introduced by authority to set them right, the step which I here suppose the Argeians to have taken about the invasion of Epidaurus will not appear absurd and preposterous. The Argeians would pretend that the real time for celebrating the festival of Karneia had not yet arrived. On that point, they were not bound to follow the views of other Dorian states, since there does not seem to have been any recognized authority for proclaiming the commencement of the Karneian truce, as the Eleians proclaimed the Olympic and the Corinthians the Isthmiac truce. In saying, therefore, that the twenty-sixth of the month preceding Karneius should be repeated, and that the twenty-seventh should not be recognized as arriving for a fortnight or three weeks, the Argeian government would only be employing an expedient the like of which had been before resorted to; though, in the case before us, it was employed for a fraudulent purpose. The Spartan month Hekatombeus appears to have corresponded with the Attic month HekatombÆon; the Spartan month following it, Karneius, with the Attic month Metageitnion (Hermann, p. 112), our months July and August; such correspondence being by no means exact or constant. Both Dr. Arnold and GÖller speak of Hekatombeus as if it were the Argeian month preceding Karneius: but we only know it as a Spartan month. Its name does not appear among the months of the Dorian cities in Sicily, among whom nevertheless Karneius seems universal. See Franz, Comm. ad Corp. Inscript. GrÆc. No. 5475, 5491, 5640. Part xxxii, p. 640. The tricks played with the calendar at Rome, by political authorities for party purposes, are well known to every one. And even in some states of Greece, the course of the calendar was so uncertain as to serve as a proverbial expression for inextricable confusion. See Hesychius—?? ??? t?? ???a; ?p? t?? ??? e????st??? ??de?? ??? ??de? ?? ??? t?? ? ???a, ?t? ??? ?st?s?? a? ???a?, ???’ ?? ??ast?? ?????s?? ????s?. See also Aristoph. Nubes, 605. [100] Thucyd. v, 55. ?a? ????a??? a?t??? ?????? ?????sa? ?p??ta? ?a? ??????d?? st?at????: p???e??? t??? ?a?eda??????? ??est?ate?s?a?? ?a? ?? ??d?? ?t? a?t?? ?de?, ?p?????. This is the reading which Portus, Bloomfield, Didot, and GÖller, either adopt or recommend; leaving out the particle d? which stands in the common text after p???e???. If we do not adopt this reading, we must construe ??est?ate?s?a?, as Dr. Arnold and Poppo construe it, in the sense of “had already completed their expedition and returned home.” But no authority is produced for putting such a meaning upon the verb ??st?ate??: and the view of Dr. Arnold, who conceives that this meaning exclusively belongs to the preterite or pluperfect tense, is powerfully contradicted by the use of the word ??est?ate????? (ii, 7), the same verb and the same tense, yet in a meaning contrary to that which he assigns. It appears to me the least objectionable proceeding of the two, to dispense with the particle d?. [101] Thucyd. v, 56. [102] Thucyd. v, 37. [103] Thucyd. v, 58. ?? d? ???e??? ????te? ??????? ???a? ?d? ?? t?? ?e?a?, etc. [104] Thucyd. v, 60. ?? d? ?a?eda?????? ?a? ?? ??a??? e?p??t? ?? ?? ??e?t? d?? t?? ????, ?? a?t?? d? e???? ?at’ ???????? p???? t?? ????, etc. [105] Thucyd. v, 60. ???e??? d? ?a? a?t?? ?t? ?? p???? p????? a?t?? e???? t??? spe?sa????? ??e? t?? p??????, etc. [106] Thucyd. v, 60. [107] Thucyd. v, 62. [108] Thucyd. v, 64. ?s?? ??? ?f?st??e?, etc. [109] Thucyd. v, 63. [110] Thucyd. v, 64. ??ta??a d? ???e?a t?? ?a?eda?????? ????eta? a?t?? te ?a? t?? ????t?? pa?d?e? ??e?a ?a? ??a ??p? p??te???. The out-march of the Spartans just before the battle of PlatÆa (described in Herodot. vii, 10) seems, however, to have been quite as rapid and instantaneous. [111] Thucyd. v, 64. ???????e ??? d?? ?s??. [112] The LacedÆmonian kings appear to have felt a sense of protection in encamping near a temple of HÊraklÊs, their heroic progenitor (see Xenophon, Hellen. vii, 1, 31). [113] Thucyd. v, 65. See an exclamation by an old Spartan mentioned as productive of important consequences, at the moment when a battle was going to commence, in Xenophon, Hellen. vii, 4, 25. [114] Thucyd. v, 66. ???sta d? ?a?eda?????? ?? ? ?????t?, ?? t??t? t? ?a??? ??ep????sa?? d?? ?a?e?a? ??? e???se?? ? pa?as?e?? a?t??? ?????et?, etc. [115] Thucyd. v, 66. S?ed?? ??? t? p??, p??? ??????, t? st?at?ped?? t?? ?a?eda?????? ?????te? ?????t?? e?s?, ?a? t? ?p?e??? t?? d?????? p?????? p??s??e?. Xenophon, De Republ. Laced. xi, 5. ?? pa?a???a? ?spe? ?p? ??????? ?p? t?? ????t????? ???? d?????ta?: compare xi, 8, t? ????t???? pa?e????ta? e?? ?t?p?? pa?’ ?sp?da ?a??stas?a?, etc. [116] Thucyd. v, 66. e???? ?p? sp??d?? ?a??sta?t? ?? ??s?? t?? ?a?t??, ???d?? t?? as????? ??asta ?????????? ?at? t?? ????, etc. [117] Xenophon, Cyrop. iv, 2. 1: see Diodor. xv, c. 32; Xenophon, Rep. Laced. xiii, 6. [118] Thucyd. v, 67. [119] Very little can be made out respecting the structure of the LacedÆmonian army. We know that the enÔmoty was the elementary division, the military unit: that the pentekosty was composed of a definite (not always the same) number of enÔmoties: that the lochus also was composed of a definite (not always the same) number of pentekosties. The mora appears to have been a still larger division, consisting of so many lochi (according to Xenophon, of four lochi): but ThucydidÊs speaks as if he knew no division larger than the lochus. Beyond this very slender information, there seems no other fact certainly established about the LacedÆmonian military distribution. Nor ought we reasonably to expect to find that these words enÔmoty, pentekosty, lochus, etc., indicate any fixed number of men: our own names regiment, company, troop, brigade, division, etc., are all more or less indefinite as to positive numbers and proportion to each other. That which was peculiar to the LacedÆmonian drill, was, the teaching a small number of men like an enÔmoty (twenty-five, thirty-two, thirty-six men, as we sometimes find it), to perform its evolutions under the command of its enÔmotarch. When this was once secured, it is probable that the combination of these elementary divisions was left to be determined in every case by circumstances. ThucydidÊs states two distinct facts. 1. Each enÔmoty had four men in front. 2. Each enÔmoty varied in depth, according as every lochagus chose. Now Dobree asks, with much reason, how these two assertions are to be reconciled? Given the number of men in front, the depth of the enÔmoty is of course determined, without any reference to the discretion of any one. These two assertions appear distinctly contradictory; unless we suppose (what seems very difficult to believe) that the lochage might make one or two of the four files of the same enÔmoty deeper than the rest. Dobree proposes, as a means of removing this difficulty, to expunge some words from the text. One cannot have confidence, however, in the conjecture. [120] Thucyd. v, 69. ?a?eda?????? d? ?a?’ ???st??? te ?a? et? t?? p??e???? ???? ?? sf?s?? a?t??? ?? ?p?sta?t? t?? pa?a???e?s?? t?? ???? ??a???? ??s?? ?p?????t?, e?d?te? ????? ?? p????? e??t?? p?e?? s????sa? ? ????? d?’ ?????? ?a??? ?????t?? pa?a??es??. [121] Thucyd. v, 70. ???e??? ?? ?a? ?? ??a???, ??t???? ?a? ???? ??????te?, ?a?eda?????? d?, ?ad??? ?a? ?p? a???t?? p????? ??? ???a?est?t??, ?? t?? ?e??? ?????, ???’ ??a ?a??? et? ????? a????te? p??s?????e? ?a? ? d?aspas?e?? a?t?? ? t????, ?pe? f??e? t? e???a st?at?peda ?? ta?? p??s?d??? p??e??. [122] Thucyd. v, 67. ??te d? ???a? ?? e?????? S????ta? a?t??? ?a??sta?t?, ?e? ta?t?? t?? t???? ???? ?a?eda?????? ?p? sf?? a?t?? ????te?, etc. The strong and precise language, which ThucydidÊs here uses, shows that this was a privilege pointedly noted and much esteemed: among the LacedÆmonians, especially, ancient routine was more valued than elsewhere. And it is essential to take notice of the circumstance, in order to appreciate the generalship of Agis, which has been rather hardly criticized. [123] Thucyd. v, 72. (?? ?a?eda?????? t??? ???e????) ?t?e?a? ??d? ?? ?e??a? t??? p?????? ?p?e??a?ta?, ???’ ?? ?p?sa? ?? ?a?eda?????? e???? ??d??ta?, ?a? ?st?? ??? ?a? ?atapat????ta?, t?? ? f???a? t?? ???at??????. The last words of this sentence present a difficulty which has perplexed all the commentators, and which none of them have yet satisfactorily cleared up. They all admit that the expressions, t??, t?? ?, preceding the infinitive mood as here, signify design or purpose; ??e?a being understood. But none of them can construe the sentence satisfactorily with this meaning: accordingly they here ascribe to the words a different and exceptional meaning. See the notes of Poppo, GÖller, and Dr. Arnold, in which notes the views of other critics are cited and discussed. Some say that t?? ? in this place means the same as ?ste ?: others affirm, that it is identical with d?? t? ? or with t? ?. “Formula t??, t?? ? (say Bauer and GÖller), plerumque consilium significat: interdum effectum (i. e. ?ste ?); hic causam indicat (i. e. d?? t? ?, or t? ?).” But I agree with Dr. Arnold in thinking that the last of these three alleged meanings is wholly unauthorized; while the second, which is adopted by Dr. Arnold himself, is sustained only by feeble and dubious evidence; for the passage of ThucydidÊs (ii, 4. t?? ? ??fe??e??) may be as well construed, as Poppo’s note thereupon suggests, without any such supposed exceptional sense of the words. Now it seems to me quite possible to construe the words t?? ? f???a? here in their regular and legitimate sense of ??e?a t??, or consilium. But first an error must be cleared up which pervades the view of most of the commentators. They suppose that those Argeians, who are here affirmed to have been “trodden under foot,” were so trodden down by the LacedÆmonians in their advance. But this is in every way improbable. The LacedÆmonians were particularly slow in their motions, regular in their ranks, and backward as to pursuit, qualities which are dwelt upon by ThucydidÊs in regard to this very battle. They were not at all likely to overtake such terrified men as were only anxious to run away: moreover, if they did overtake them, they would spear them, not trample them under foot. To be trampled under foot, though possible enough from the numerous Persian cavalry (Herodot. vii, 173; Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 4, 12), is not the treatment which defeated soldiers meet with from victorious hostile infantry in the field, especially LacedÆmonian infantry. But it is precisely the treatment which they meet with, if they be in one of the hinder ranks, from their own panic-stricken comrades in the front rank, who find the enemy closing upon them, and rush back madly to get away from him. Of course it was the Argeians in the front rank who were seized with the most violent panic, and who thus fell back upon their own comrades in the rear ranks, overthrowing and treading them down to secure their own escape. It seems quite plain that it was the Argeians in front—not the LacedÆmonians—who trod down their comrades in the rear (there were probably six or eight men in every file), in order to escape themselves before the LacedÆmonians should be upon them: compare Xen. Hellenic. iv, 4, 11; Œconomic. viii, 5. There are therefore in the whole scene which ThucydidÊs describes, three distinct subjects: 1. The LacedÆmonians 2. The Argeians soldiers, who were trodden down. 3. Other Argeian soldiers, who trod them down in order to get away themselves. Out of these three he only specifies the first two; but the third is present to his mind, and is implied in his narrative, just as much as if he had written ?atapat????ta? ?p’ ?????, or ?p’ ???????, as in Xenoph. Hellen. iv. 4, 11. Now it is to this third subject, implied in the narrative, but not formally specified (i. e. those Argeians who trod down their comrades in order to get away themselves), or rather to the second and third conjointly and confusedly, that the design or purpose (consilium) in the words t?? ? f???a? refers. Farther, the commentators all construe t?? ? f???a? t?? ???at??????, as if the last word were an accusative case coming after f???a? and governed by it. But there is also another construction, equally good Greek, and much better for the sense. In my judgment, t?? ???at?????? is here the accusative case coming before f???a? and forming the subject of it. The words will thus read (??e?a) t?? t?? ???at?????? ? f???a? (?pe????sa? a?t???): “in order that the actual grasp of the LacedÆmonians might not be beforehand in coming upon them;” “might not come upon them too soon,” i. e. “sooner than they could get away.” And since the word ???at?????? is an abstract active substantive, so, in order to get at the real meaning here, we may substitute the concrete words with which it correlates, i. e. t??? ?a?eda??????? ???ata?a??ta?, subject as well as attribute, for the active participle is here essentially involved. The sentence would then read, supposing the ellipsis filled up and the meaning expressed in full and concrete words—?st?? ??? ?a? ?atapat????ta? ?p’ ??????? fe????t?? (or ?a??????), ??e?a t?? t??? ?a?eda??????? ? f???a? ???ata?a??ta? a?t??? (t??? fe????ta?): “As soon as the LacedÆmonians approached near, the Argeians gave way at once, without staying for hand-combat: and some were even trodden down by each other, or by their own comrades running away in order that the LacedÆmonians might not be beforehand in catching them sooner than they could escape.” Construing in this way the sentence as it now stands, we have t?? ? f???a? used in its regular and legitimate sense of purpose, or consilium. We have moreover a plain and natural state of facts, in full keeping with the general narrative. Nor is there any violence put upon the words. Nothing more is done than to expand a very elliptical sentence, and to fill up that entire sentence which was present to the writer’s own mind. To do this properly is the chief duty, as well as the chief difficulty, of an expositor of ThucydidÊs. [124] Thucyd. v, 73; Diodor. xii, 79. [125] Thucyd. v, 73. [126] Thucyd. v, 75. ?a? t?? ?p? t?? ??????? t?te ?p?fe?????? a?t?a? ?? te a?a??a? d?? t?? ?? t? ??s? ??f????, ?a? ?? t?? ????? ?????a? te ?a? ?ad?t?ta, ??? ???? t??t? ?pe??sa?t?? t??? ??, ?? ?d?????, ?a????e???, ???? d?, ?? a?t?? ?e? ??te?. [127] Thucyd. v, 72. [128] Thucyd. i, 141. [129] Thucyd. v, 75. [130] Thucyd. v, 75. [131] Aristotle (Politic. v, 4, 9) expressly notices the credit gained by the oligarchical force of Argos in the battle of Mantineia, as one main cause of the subsequent revolution, notwithstanding that the Argeians generally were beaten: ?? ??????? e?d????sa?te? ?? ?a?t??e??, etc. An example of contempt entertained by victorious troops over defeated fellow-countrymen, is mentioned by Xenophon in the Athenian army under AlkibiadÊs and Thrasyllus, in one of the later years of the Peloponnesian war: see Xenophon, Hellen. i, 2, 15-17. [132] Thucyd. v, 76; Diodor. xii, 80. [133] Thucyd. v, 77. The text of ThucydidÊs is incurably corrupt, in regard to several words of this clause; though the general sense appears sufficiently certain, that the Epidaurians are to be allowed to clear themselves in respect to this demand by an oath. In regard to this purifying oath, it seems to have been essential that the oath should be tendered by one litigant party and taken by the other: perhaps therefore s?e? or ??e? ??? (Valckenaer’s conjecture) might be preferable to e?e? ???. To Herodot. vi, 86, and Aristotel. Rhetoric. i, 16, 6, which Dr. Arnold and other commentators notice in illustration of this practice, we may add the instructive exposition of the analogous practice in the procedure of Roman law, as given by Von Savigny, in his System des heutigen RÖmischen Rechts, sects. 309-313, vol. vii, pp. 53-83. It was an oath tendered by one litigant party to the opposite, in hopes that the latter would refuse to take it; if taken, it had the effect of a judgment in favor of the swearer. But the Roman lawyers laid down many limits and formalities, with respect to this jusjurandum delatum, which Von Savigny sets forth with his usual perspicuity. [134] Thucyd. v, 77. ?p?de??a?ta? d? t??? ??????? ??a??s?a?, a? ?a a?t??? d???? a? d? t? ?a? ???? d??? t??? ???????, ???ad’ ?p????e??. See Dr. Arnold’s note, and Dr. Thirlwall, Hist. Gr. ch. xxiv. vol. iii, p. 342. One cannot be certain about the meaning of these two last words, but I incline to believe that they express a peremptory and almost a hostile sentiment, such as I have given in the text. The allies here alluded to are Athens, Elis, and Mantineia; all hostile in feeling to Sparta. The LacedÆmonians could not well decline admitting these cities to share in this treaty as it stood; but would probably think it suitable to repel them even with rudeness, if they desired any change. I rather imagine, too, that this last clause (?p?de??a?ta?) has reference exclusively to the Argeians, and not to the LacedÆmonians also. The form of the treaty is, that of a resolution already taken at Sparta, and sent for approval to Argos. [135] Thucyd. v, 79. ?? d? t??? t?? p????? ? ?f????a, ? t?? ??t?? ? t?? ??t?? ?e??p????s??, a?te pe?? ???? a?te pe?? ????? t????, d?a?????e?. The object of this clause I presume to be, to provide that the joint forces of LacedÆmon and Argos should not be bound to interfere for every separate dispute of each single ally with a foreign state, not included in the alliance. Thus, there were at this time standing disputes between Boeotia and Athens, and between Megara and Athens: the Argeians probably would not choose to pledge themselves to interfere for the maintenance of the alleged rights of Boeotia and Megara in these disputes. They guard themselves against such necessity in this clause. M. H. Meier, in his recent Dissertation (Die Privat. Schiedsrichter und die Öffentlichen DiÄteten Athens (Halle, 1846), sect. 19, p. 41), has given an analysis and explanation of this treaty which seems to me on many points unsatisfactory. [136] All the smaller states in Peloponnesus are pronounced by this treaty to be (if we employ the language employed with reference to the Delphians peculiarly in the Peace of Nikias) a?t??????, a?t?te?e??, a?t?d?????, Thucyd. v, 19. The last clause of this treaty guarantees a?t?d??Ía? to all, though in language somewhat different, t??? d? ?ta?? ?at? p?t??a d????es?a?. The expression in this treaty a?t?p???e? is substantially equivalent to a?t?te?e?? in the former. It is remarkable that we never find in ThucydidÊs the very convenient Herodotean word d?s?d???? (Herodot. vi, 42), though there are occasions in these fourth and fifth books on which it would be useful to his meaning. [137] Thucyd. v. 81; Diodor. xii, 81. [138] Compare Thucyd. v, 80, and v, 83. [139] The instances appear to have been not rare, wherein Grecian towns changed masters, by the citizens thus going out of the gates all together, or most part of them, for some religious festival. See the case of Smyrna (Herodot. i, 150), and the precautionary suggestions of the military writer Æneas, in his treatise called Poliorketicus, c. 17. [140] Thucyd. v, 80. ?a? ?ste??? ?p?da?????? ??a?e?s?e??? t?? sp??d??, a?t?? ?? ????a??? ?p?d?sa? t? te???sa. We are here told that the Athenians RENEWED their truce with the Epidaurians: but I know no truce previously between them except the general truce for a year, which the Epidaurians swore to, in conjunction with Sparta (iv, 119), in the beginning of B.C. 423. [141] Thucyd. v, 81. ?a? ?a?eda?????? ?a? ???e???, ?????? ???te???, ??st?ate?sa?te? t? t’ ?? S?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?at?st?sa? a?t?? ?? ?a?eda?????? ?????te?, ?a? et’ ??e??a ???af?te??? ?d? ?a? t?? ?? ???e? d??? ?at???sa?, ?a? ????a???a ?p?t?de?a t??? ?a?eda??????? ?at?st?: compare Diodor. xii, 80. [142] Pausanias, ii, 20, 1. [143] See Herodot. v, 87; Euripid. Hecub. 1152, and the note of Musgrave on line 1135 of that drama. [144] Thucyd. v, 82; Diodor. xii, 80. [145] Diodorus (xii, 80) says that it lasted eight months: but this, if correct at all, must be taken as beginning from the alliance between Sparta and Argos, and not from the first establishment of the oligarchy. The narrative of ThucydidÊs does not allow more than four months for the duration of the latter. [146] Thucyd. v, 82. ????desa? d? t?? te???s?? ?a? t?? ?? ?e??p????s? t???? p??e??. [147] Thucyd. v, 82. ?a? ?? ?? ???e??? pa?d?e?, ?a? a?t?? ?a? ???a??e? ?a? ????ta?, ?te??????, etc. Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 15. [148] Pausanias, ii, 36, 3. [149] Thucyd. i, 107. [150] Thucyd. v, 83. Diodorus inaccurately states that the Argeians had already built their long walls down to the sea—p???e??? t??? ???e???? ???d?????a? t? a??? te??? ???? t?? ?a??ss?? (xii, 81). ThucydidÊs uses the participle of the present tense—t? ????d???e?a te??? ????te? ?a? ?atas???a?te?, etc. [151] Thucyd. v, 116. ?a?eda??????, e???sa?te? ?? t?? ???e?a? st?ate?e?? ... ??e????sa?. ?a? ???e??? d?? t?? ??e???? ????s?? t?? ?? t? p??e? t???? ?p?t?p?sa?te?, t??? ?? ?????a??, ?? d’ a?t??? ?a? d??f????. I presume ????s?? here is not used in its ordinary meaning of loitering delay, but is to be construed by the previous verb e???sa?te?, and agreeably to the analogy of iv, 126—“prospect of action immediately impending:” compare Diodor. xii, 81. [152] Thucyd. vi, 7. [153] Thucyd. v, 115. [154] Thucyd. vi, 105. The author of the loose and inaccurate Oratio de Pace, ascribed to AndokidÊs, affirms that the war was resumed by Athens against Sparta on the persuasion of the Argeians (Orat. de Pac. c. 1, 6, 3, 31, pp. 93-105). This assertion is indeed partially true: the alliance with Argos was one of the causes of the resumption of war, but only one among others, some of them more powerful. ThucydidÊs tells us that the persuasions of Argos, to induce Athens to throw up her alliance with Sparta were repeated and unavailing. [155] Thucyd. v, 83. [156] Dr. Thirlwall (History of Greece, vol. iii, ch. xxiv, p. 360) places this vote of ostracism in midwinter or early spring of 415 B.C., immediately before the Sicilian expedition. His grounds for this opinion are derived from the Oration called AndokidÊs against AlkibiadÊs, the genuineness of which he seems to accept (see his Appendix ii, on that subject, vol. iii, p. 494, seq.). The more frequently I read over this Oration, the more do I feel persuaded that it is a spurious composition of one or two generations after the time to which it professes to refer. My reasons for this opinion have been already stated in previous notes, nor do I think that Dr. Thirlwall’s Appendix is successful in removing the objections against the genuineness of the speech. See my preceding vol. vi, ch. xlvii, p. 6, note. [157] Aristophan. Pac. 680. [158] Thucyd. viii, 73. ?p?????? t? t??a t?? ????a???, ??????? ?????p??, ?st?a??s???? ?? d?? d???e?? ?a? ????at?? f???, ???? d?? p?????a? ?a? a?s????? t?? p??e??. According to Androtion (Fragm. 48, ed. Didot.)—?st?a??s???? d?? fa???t?ta. Compare about Hyperbolus, Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11; Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 13; Ælian. V. H. xii, 43; Theopompus, Fragm. 102, 103, ed. Didot. [159] Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 13; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 11. Theophrastus says that the violent opposition at first, and the coalition afterwards, was not between Nikias and AlkibiadÊs, but between PhÆax and AlkibiadÊs. The coalition of votes and parties may well have included all three. [160] Thucyd. iii, 91. [161] In reference to this argumentation of the Athenian envoy, I call attention to the attack and bombardment of Copenhagen by the English government in 1807, together with the language used by the English envoy to the Danish Prince Regent on the subject. We read as follows in M. Thiers’s Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire:— “L’agent choisi Étoit digne de sa mission. C’Étoit M. Jackson qui avait ÉtÉ autrefois chargÉ d’affaires en France, avant l’arrivÉe de Lord Whitworth, À Paris, mais qu’on n’avoit pas pÛ y laisser, À cause du mauvais esprit qu’il manifestoit en toute occasion. Introduit auprÈs du rÉgent, il allÉgua de prÉtendues stipulations secrÈtes, en vertu desquelles le Danemark devoit, (disoit on) de grÉ ou de force, faire partie d’une coalition contre l’Angleterre: il donna comme raison d’agir la necessitÉ oÙ se trouvoit le cabinet Britannique de prendre des prÉcautions pour que les forces navales du Danemark et le passage du Sund ne tombassent pas au pouvoir des FranÇois: et en consÉquence il demanda au nom de son gouvernement, qu’on livrÂt À l’armÉe Angloise la forteresse de Kronenberg qui commande de Sund, le port de Copenhague, et enfin la flotte elle-mÊme—promettant de garder le tout en dÉpÔt, pour le compte du Danemark, qui seroit remis en possession de ce qu’on alloit lui enlever, dÈs que le danger seroit passÉ. M. Jackson assura que le Danemark ne perdroit rien, que l’on se conduiroit chez lui en auxiliaires et en amis—que les troupes Britanniques payeroient tout ce qu’elles consommeroient.—Et avec quoi, rÉpondit le prince indignÉ, payeriez vous notre honneur perdu, si nous adhÉrions À cette infame proposition?—Le prince continuant, et opposant À cette perfide intention la conduite loyale du Danemark, qui n’avoit pris aucune prÉcaution contre les Anglois, qui les avoit toutes prises contre les FranÇois, ce dont on abusoit pour le surprendre—M. Jackson rÉpondit À cette juste indignation par une insolente familiaritÉ, disant que la guerre Étoit la guerre, qu’il falloit se rÉsigner À ces nÉcessitÉs, et cÉder au plus fort quand on Étoit le plus foible. Le prince congÉdia l’agent Anglois avec des paroles fort dures, et lui dÉclara qu’il alloit se transporter À Copenhague, pour y remplir ses devoirs de prince et de citoyen Danois.” (Thiers, Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire, tome viii, livre xxviii, p. 190.) [162] Plutarch, AlkibiadÊs, c. 16. This is doubtless one of the statements which the composer of the Oration of AndokidÊs against AlkibiadÊs found current in respect to the conduct of the latter (sect. 123). Nor is there any reason for questioning the truth of it. [163] Thucyd. v, 106. t? d? ?????? a?t?? ???sa?, ?p?????? ?ste??? pe?ta??s???? p??a?te?. Lysander restored some Melians to the island after the battle of Ægospotami (Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 9): some, therefore, must have escaped or must have been spared. [164] Such is also the opinion of Dr. Thirlwall, Hist. Gr. vol. iii, ch. xxiv, p. 348. [165] Dionys. Hal. Judic. de Thucydid. c. 37-42, pp. 906-920, Reisk: compare the remarks in his Epistol. ad Cn. Pompeium, de PrÆcipuis Historicis, p. 774, Reisk. [166] Plutarch, Alkibiad. 16. t??? ????a???? ?e? t? p?a?tata t?? ????t?? t??? ?a?t?as? t??e?????, pa?d??? ?a? f??a????p?a?. To the same purpose Plutarch, Solon, c. 15. [167] Compare also what Brasidas says in his speech to the Akanthians, v, 86 ?s???? d??a??se?, ?? ? t??? ?d??e?, etc. [168] See above, vol. v, ch. xliii, pp. 204-239, for the history of these events. I now take up the thread from that chapter. [169] Mr. Mitford, in the spirit which is usual with him, while enlarging upon the suffering occasioned by this extensive revolution both of inhabitants and of property throughout Sicily, takes no notice of the cause in which it originated, namely, the number of foreign mercenaries whom the Gelonian dynasty had brought in and enrolled as new citizens (Gelon alone having brought in ten thousand, Diodor. xi, 72), and the number of exiles whom they had banished and dispossessed. I will here notice only one of his misrepresentations respecting the events of this period, because it is definite as well as important (vol. iv, p. 9, chap. xviii, sect. 1). “But thus (he says) in every little state, lands were left to become public property, or to be assigned to new individual owners. Everywhere, then, that favorite measure of democracy, the equal division of the lands of the state, was resolved upon: a measure impossible to be perfectly executed; impossible to be maintained as executed; and of very doubtful advantage, if it could be perfectly executed and perfectly maintained.” Again, sect. iii, p. 23, he speaks of “that incomplete and iniquitous partition of lands,” etc. Now, upon this we may remark:— 1. The equal division of the lands of the state, here affirmed by Mr. Mitford, is a pure fancy of his own. He has no authority for it whatever. Diodorus says (xi, 76) ?ate????????sa? t?? ???a?, etc.; and again (xi, 86) he speaks of t?? ??adas?? t?? ???a?: the redivision of the territory; but respecting equality of division, not one word does he say. Nor can any principle of division in this case be less probable than equality; for one of the great motives of the redivision was to provide for those exiles who had been dispossessed by the Gelonian dynasty: and these men would receive lots, greater or less, on the ground of compensation for loss, greater or less as it might have been. Besides, immediately after the redivision, we find rich and poor mentioned, just as before (xi, 86). 2. Next, Mr. Mitford calls “the equal division of all the lands of the state” the favorite measure of democracy. This is an assertion not less incorrect. Not a single democracy in Greece, so far as my knowledge extends, can be produced, in which such equal partition is ever known to have been carried into effect. In the Athenian democracy, especially, not only there existed constantly great inequality of landed property, but the oath annually taken by the popular heliastic judges had a special clause, protesting emphatically against redivision of the land or extinction of debts. [170] Thucyd. vi, 17. [171] Diodor. xi, 86, 87. The institution at Syracuse was called the petalism; because, in taking the votes, the name of the citizen intended to be banished was written upon a leaf of olive, instead of a shell or potsherd. [172] Diodor. xi. 87, 88. [173] Diodor. xi, 78, 88, 90. The proceeding of Duketius is illustrated by the description of Dardanus in the Iliad, xx, 216:— ?t?sse d? ?a?da????, ?pe? ??p? ????? ??? ?? ped?? pep???st?, p???? e??p?? ?????p??, ???’ ??’ ?p??e?a? ????? p???p?d???? ?d??. Compare Plato, de Legg. iii, pp. 681, 682. [174] Diodor. xi, 76. [175] Diodor. xi, 91, 92. ? d? d??? ?spe? t??? ?? f??? s??e?? ?pa?te? ???? t?? ???t??. [176] Xenophon, Hellen. i, 5, 19; Pausanias, vi, 7, 2. [177] Mr. Mitford recounts as follows the return of Duketius to Sicily: “The Syracusan chiefs brought back Duketius from Corinth, apparently to make him instrumental to their own views for advancing the power of their commonwealth. They permitted, or rather encouraged him to establish a colony of mixed people, Greeks and Sicels, at CalÉ ActÉ, on the northern coast of the island,” (ch. xviii, sect. i, vol. iv, p. 13.) The statement that “the Syracusans brought back Duketius, or encouraged him to come back, or to found the colony of KalÊ AktÊ,” is a complete departure from Diodorus on the part of Mr. Mitford; who transforms a breach of parole on the part of the Sikel prince into an ambitious manoeuvre on the part of Syracusan democracy. The words of Diodorus, the only authority in the case, are as follows (xii, 8): ??t?? d? (Duketius) ?????? ?????? e??a? ?? t? ???????, t?? ??????a? ???se, ?a? p??sp???s?e??? ???s?? ?p? t?? ?e?? ?a?t? ded?s?a?, ?t?sa? t?? ?a??? ??t?? ?? S??e???, ?at?p?e?se? e?? t?? ??s?? et? p????? ????t????? s??epe????t? d? ?a? t?? S??e??? t??e?, ?? ??? ?? ?a? ??????d??, ? t?? ???ta??? d??aste???. ??t?? ?? ??? pe?? t?? ????s?? t?? ?a??? ??t?? ????et?? ???a?a?t???? d?, ?a ?? f??????te? t??? S??a??s????, ?a d’ ???a????te? a?t??? ?t? ?????t??? ??ta ?????? p?????? d??s?sa? ??e? t?? ???a?a?t???? ?????, p??e?? ????e??a? t??? S??a??s????. [178] Diodor. xii, 8. [179] Diodor. xii, 29. For the reconquest of MorgantinÊ, see Thucyd. iv, 65. Respecting this town of Trinakia, known only from the passage of Diodorus here, Paulmier (as cited in Wesseling’s note), as well as Mannert (Geographie der Griechen und RÖmer, b. x, ch. xv, p. 446), intimate some skepticism; which I share so far as to believe that Diodorus has greatly overrated its magnitude and importance. Nor can it be true, as Diodorus affirms, that Trinakia was the only Sikel township remaining unsubdued by the Syracusans, and that, after conquering that place, they had subdued them all. We know that there were no inconsiderable number of independent Sikels, at the time of the Athenian invasion of Sicily (Thucyd. vi, 88; vii, 2). [180] Diodor. xii, 30. [181] Diodor. xiii, 81. [182] Diodor. xiii. 82, 83, 90. [183] See Aristotle as cited by Cicero, Brut. c. 12; Plato, PhÆdr. p. 267, c. 113, 114; Dionys. Halic. Judicium de Isocrate, p. 534 R. and Epist. ii, ad AmmÆum, p. 792; also Quintilian, iii, 1, 125. According to Cicero (de Inventione, ii, 2), the treatises of these ancient rhetoricians, “usque a principe illo et inventore TisiÂ,” had been superseded by Aristotle, who had collected them carefully, “nominatim,” and had improved upon their expositions. Dionysius laments that they had been so superseded (Epist. ad AmmÆ. p. 722). [184] Diogen. LaËrt. viii, 64-71; Seyfert, Akragas und sein Gebiet, sect. ii, p. 70; Ritter, Geschichte der Alten Philosophie, vol. i. ch. vi, p. 533, seqq. [185] Thucyd. iv. 61-64. This is the tenor of the speech delivered by HermokratÊs at the congress of Gela in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war. His language is remarkable: he calls all non-Sicilian Greeks ????f?????. [186] The inscription in Boeckh’s Corpus Inscriptt. (No. 74, part i, p. 112) relating to the alliance between Athens and Rhegium, conveys little certain information. Boeckh refers it to a covenant concluded in the archonship of ApseudÊs at Athens (Olymp. 86, 4, B.C. 433-432, the year before the Peloponnesian war), renewing an alliance which was even then of old date. But it appears to me that the supposition of a renewal is only his own conjecture; and even the name of the archon, ApseudÊs, which he has restored by a plausible conjecture, can hardly be considered as certain. If we could believe the story in Justin iv, 3, Rhegium must have ceased to be Ionic before the Peloponnesian war. He states, that in a sedition at Rhegium, one of the parties called in auxiliaries from Himera. These HimerÆan exiles having first destroyed the enemies against whom they were invoked, next massacred the friends who had invoked them: “ausi facinus nulli tyranno comparandum.” They married the Rhegine women, and seized the city for themselves. I do not know what to make of this story, which neither appears noticed in ThucydidÊs, nor seems to consist with what he does tell us. [187] Thucyd. i, 36. [188] Thucyd. ii, 7. ?a? ?a?eda??????? ??, p??? ta?? a?t?? ?pa????sa??, ?? ?ta??a? ?a? S??e??a? t??? t??e???? ????????, ?a?? ?pet????sa? p??e?s?a? ?at? ??e??? t?? p??e??, ?? ?? t?? p??ta ?????? pe?ta??s??? ?e?? ?s?e???, etc. Respecting the construction of this perplexing passage, read the notes of Dr. Arnold, Poppo, and GÖller: compare Poppo, ad Thucyd. vol. i, ch. xv, p. 181. I agree with Dr. Arnold and GÖller in rejecting the construction of a?t?? with ?? ?ta??a? ?a? S??e??a?, in the sense of “those ships which were in Peloponnesus from Italy and Sicily.” This would be untrue in point of fact, as they observe: there were no Sicilian ships of war in Peloponnesus. Nevertheless I think, differing from them, that a?t?? is not a pronoun referring to ?? ?ta??a? ?a? S??e??a?, but is used in contrast with those words, and really means, “in or about Peloponnesus.” It was contemplated that new ships should be built in Sicily and Italy, of sufficient number to make the total fleet of the LacedÆmonian confederacy, including the triremes already in Peloponnesus, equal to five hundred sail. But it was never contemplated that the triremes in Italy and Sicily alone should amount to five hundred sail, as Dr. Arnold, in my judgment, erroneously imagines. Five hundred sail for the entire confederacy would be a prodigious total: five hundred sail for Sicily and Italy alone, would be incredible. To construe the sentence as it stands now, putting aside the conjecture of ??e? instead of ?a??, or ?pet???? instead of ?pet????sa?, which would make it run smoothly, we must admit the supposition of a break or double construction, such as sometimes occurs in ThucydidÊs. The sentence begins with one form of construction and concludes with another. We must suppose, with GÖller, that a? p??e?? understood as the nominative case to ?pet????sa?. The dative cases (?a?eda???????—????????) are to be considered, I apprehend, as governed by ??e? ?pet????sa?: that is, these dative cases belong to the first form of construction, which ThucydidÊs has not carried out. The sentence is begun as if ??e? ?pet????sa? were intended to follow. [189] Thucyd. vi, 34: compare iii, 86. [190] Thucyd. vi, 86. [191] Thucyd. iii, 86; Diodor. xii, 53; Plato, Hipp. Maj. p. 282, B. It is remarkable that ThucydidÊs, though he is said, with much probability, to have been among the pupils of Gorgias, makes no mention of that rhetor personally as among the envoys. Diodorus probably copied from Ephorus, the pupil of IsokratÊs. Among the writers of the Isokratean school, the persons of distinguished rhetors, and their supposed political efficiency, counted for much more than in the estimation of ThucydidÊs. Pausanias (vi, 17, 3) speaks of Tisias also as having been among the envoys in this celebrated legation. [192] Thucyd. iii, 88; Diodor. xii, 54. [193] Thucyd. iii, 90; vi, 6. [194] Thucyd. iii, 99. [195] Thucyd. iii, 103. [196] Thucyd. iii, 115. [197] Thucyd. iii, 115. [198] See the preceding vol. vi, ch. lii. [199] Thucyd. iv, 48. [200] Thucyd. iii, 115; iv, 1. [201] Thucyd. iv, 24. ?a? ???????te? ?p? t?? ????a??? d?? t????? ?p?p?e?sa?, ?? ??ast?? ?t????, ?? t? ???e?a st?at?peda, t? te ?? t? ?ess??? ?a? ?? t? ?????, ?a? ?a?? ?p???sa?te?, etc. I concur in Dr. Arnold’s explanation of this passage, yet conceiving that the words ?? ??ast?? ?t???? designate the flight as disorderly, insomuch that all the Lokrian ships did not get back to the Lokrian station, nor all the Syracusan ships to the Syracusan station: but each separate ship fled to either one or the other, as it best could. [202] Thucyd. iv, 25. ?p?s??s??t?? ??e???? ?a? p??ea???t??. I do not distinctly understand the nautical movement which is expressed by ?p?s??s??t??, in spite of the notes of the commentators. And I cannot but doubt the correctness of Dr. Arnold’s explanation, when he says “The Syracusans, on a sudden, threw off their towing-ropes, made their way to the open sea by a lateral movement, and thus became the assailants,” etc. The open sea was what the Athenians required, in order to obtain the benefit of their superior seamanship. [203] Thucyd. iv, 25. [204] Thucyd. iv, 48. [205] Compare a similar remark made by the Syracusan HermokratÊs, nine years afterwards, when the great Athenian expedition against Syracuse was on its way, respecting the increased disposition to union among the Sicilian cities, produced by common fear of Athens (Thucyd. vi, 33). [206] Thucyd. iv, 58. [207] See the speech of HermokratÊs, Thucyd. iv, 59-64. One expression in this speech indicates that it was composed by ThucydidÊs many years after its proper date, subsequently to the great expedition of the Athenians against Syracuse in 415 B.C.; though I doubt not that ThucydidÊs collected the memoranda for it at the time. HermokratÊs says: “The Athenians are now near us with a few ships, lying in wait for our blunders,”—?? d??a?? ????te? e??st?? t?? ??????? t?? te ?a?t?a? ??? t????s??, ????a?? ?a?s? pa???te?, etc. (iv, 60). Now the fleet under the command of Eurymedon and his colleagues at Rhegium included all or most of the ships which had acted at Sphakteria and Korkyra, together with those which had been previously at the strait of Messina under PythodÔrus. It could not have been less than fifty sail, and may possibly have been sixty sail. It is hardly conceivable that any Greek, speaking in the early spring of 424 B.C., should have alluded to this as a small fleet: assuredly, HermokratÊs would not thus allude to it, since it was for the interest of his argument to exaggerate rather than extenuate, the formidable manifestations of Athens. But ThucydidÊs, composing the speech after the great Athenian expedition of 415 B.C., so much more numerous and commanding in every respect, might not unnaturally represent the fleet of Eurymedon as “a few ships,” when he tacitly compared the two. This is the only way that I know, of explaining such an expression. The Scholiast observes that some of the copies in his time omitted the words ????a?? ?a?s?: probably they noticed the contradiction which I have remarked; and the passage may certainly be construed without those words. [208] Thucyd. iv, 65. We learn from Polybius (Fragm. xii, 22, 23, one of the Excerpta recently published by Maii, from the Cod. Vatic.) that TimÆus had in his twenty-first book described the congress of Gela at considerable length, and had composed an elaborate speech for HermokratÊs: which speech Polybius condemns, as a piece of empty declamation. [209] Thucyd. v, 5. [210] Thucyd. vi, 13-52. [211] Thucyd. iv, 65. [212] Thucyd. v, 4. ?e??t???? ???, ?pe????t?? ????a??? ?? S??e??a? et? t?? ??as??, p???ta? te ?pe????a?t? p??????, ?a? ? d??? t?? ??? ?pe??e? ??ad?sas?a?. ?? d? d??at?? a?s??e??? S??a??s???? te ?p????ta? ?a? ???????s? t?? d???. ?a? ?? ?? ?p?a????sa? ?? ??ast??, etc. Upon this Dr. Arnold observes: “The principle on which this ??adas?? ??? was redemanded, was this; that every citizen was entitled to his portion, ??????, of the land of the state, and that the admission of new citizens rendered a redivision of the property of the state a matter at once of necessity and of justice. It is not probable that in any case the actual ?????? (properties) of the old citizens were required to be shared with the new members of the state; but only, as at Rome, the ager publicus, or land still remaining to the state itself, and not apportioned out to individuals. This land, however, being beneficially enjoyed by numbers of the old citizens, either as common pasture, or as being farmed by different individuals on very advantageous terms, a division of it among the newly-admitted citizens, although not, strictly speaking, a spoliation of private property, was yet a serious shock to a great mass of existing interests, and was therefore always regarded as a revolutionary measure.” I transcribe this note of Dr. Arnold rather from its intrinsic worth than from any belief that analogy of agrarian relations existed between Rome and Leontini. The ager publicus at Rome was the product of successive conquests from foreign enemies of the city: there may, indeed, have been originally a similar ager publicus in the peculiar domain of Rome itself, anterior to all conquests; but this must at any rate have been very small, and had probably been all absorbed and assigned in private property before the agrarian disputes began. We cannot suppose that the Leontines had any ager publicus acquired by conquest, nor are we entitled to presume that they had any at all, capable of being divided. Most probably the lots for the new citizens were to be provided out of private property. But unfortunately we are not told how, nor on what principles and conditions. Of what class of men were the new emigrants? Were they individuals altogether poor, having nothing but their hands to work with; or did they bring with them any amount of funds, to begin their settlement on the fertile and tempting plain of Leontini? (compare Thucyd. i, 27, and Plato de Legib. v, p. 744, A.) If the latter, we have no reason to imagine that they would be allowed to acquire their new lots gratuitously. Existing proprietors would be forced to sell at a fixed price, but not to yield their properties without compensation. I have already noticed, that to a small self-working proprietor, who had no slaves, it was almost essential that his land should be near the city; and provided this were insured, it might be a good bargain for a new resident having some money, but no land elsewhere, to come in and buy. We have no means of answering these questions: but the few words of ThucydidÊs do not present this measure as revolutionary, or as intended against the rich, or for the benefit of the poor. It was proposed, on public grounds, to strengthen the city by the acquisition of new citizens. This might be wise policy, in the close neighborhood of a doubtful and superior city, like Syracuse; though we cannot judge of the policy of the measure without knowing more. But most assuredly Mr. Mitford’s representation can be noway justified from ThucydidÊs: “Time and circumstances had greatly altered the state of property in all the Sicilian commonwealths, since that incomplete and iniquitous partition of lands, which had been made, on the general establishment of democratical government, after the expulsion of the family of Gelon. In other cities, the poor rested under their lot; but in Leontini, they were warm in project for a fresh and equal partition; and to strengthen themselves against the party of the wealthy, they carried, in the general assembly, a decree for associating a number of new citizens.” (Mitford, H. G. ch. xviii, sect. ii, vol. iv, p. 23.) I have already remarked, in a previous note, that Mr. Mitford has misrepresented the redivision of lands which took place after the expulsion of the Gelonian dynasty. That redivision had not been upon the principle of equal lots: it is not therefore correct to assert, as Mr. Mitford does, that the present movement at Leontini arose from the innovation made by time and circumstances in that equal division: as little is it correct to say, that the poor at Leontini now desired “a fresh and equal partition.” ThucydidÊs says not one word about equal partition. He puts forward the enrolment of new citizens as the substantive and primary resolution, actually taken by the Leontines; the redivision of the lands, as a measure consequent and subsidiary to this, and as yet existing only in project (?pe??e?). Mr. Mitford states the fresh and equal division to have been the real object of desire, and the enrolment of new citizens to have been proposed with a view to attain it. His representation is greatly at variance with that of ThucydidÊs. [213] Justin (iv, 4) surrounds the Sicilian envoys at Athens with all the insignia of misery and humiliation, while addressing the Athenian assembly: “Sordid veste, capillo barbÂque promissis, et omni squaloris habitu ad misericordiam commovendam conquisito, concionem deformes adeunt.” [214] Thucyd. v, 4, 5. [215] Thucyd. vi, 6; Diodor. xii, 82. The statement of Diodorus—that the EgestÆans applied not merely to Agrigentum but also to Syracuse—is highly improbable. The war which he mentions as having taken place some years before between Egesta and LilybÆum (xi, 86) in 454 B.C., may probably have been a war between Egesta and Selinus. [216] Thucyd. vi, 34. [217] Thucyd. vi, 6; Diodor. xii, 83. [218] Thucyd. vi, 6. ?? ??????te? ?? ????a??? ?? ta?? ?????s?a?? t?? te ??esta??? p??????? ?e???t?? ?a? t?? ???a???e???t?? a?t??? ???f?sa?t?, etc. Mr. Mitford takes no notice of all these previous debates, when he imputes to the Athenians hurry and passion in the ultimate decision (ch. xviii. sect. ii, vol. iv, p. 30.) [219] Thucyd. vi, 46. ?d?? ?e??se?? p????e??? t?? t?????t??, t? te ?? a?t?? ???st?? ??p?ata ?a? ???s? ?a? ?????? ??????a?te?, ?a? t? ?? t?? ????? p??e?? ?a? F????????? ?a? ??????d?? a?t?s?e???, ?s?fe??? ?? t?? ?st??se?? ?? ???e?a ??ast??. ?a? p??t?? ?? ?p? t? p??? t??? a?t??? ???????, ?a? pa?ta??? p????? fa???????, e????? t?? ??p????? t??? ?? t?? t?????? ????a???? pa?e????, etc. Such loans of gold and silver plate betoken a remarkable degree of intimacy among the different cities. [220] Thucyd. vi, 46; Diodor. xii, 83. [221] To this winter or spring, perhaps, we may refer the representation of the lost comedy ???f???? of AristophanÊs. Iberians were alluded to in it, to be introduced by Aristarchus; seemingly, Iberian mercenaries, who were among the auxiliaries talked of at this time by AlkibiadÊs and the other prominent advisers of the expedition, as a means of conquest in Sicily (Thucyd. vi, 90). The word ???f???? was a nickname (not difficult to understand) applied to AlkibiadÊs, who was just now at the height of his importance, and therefore likely enough to be chosen as the butt of a comedy. See the few fragments remaining of the ???f????, in Meineke, Fragm. Comic. Gr. vol. ii, pp. 1162-1167. [222] Thucyd. vi, 8; Diodor. xii, 83. [223] Thucyd. vi, 8. ? d? ????a?, ????s??? ?? ??????? ???e??, etc. The reading ????s??? appears better sustained by MSS., and intrinsically more suitable, than ????sa?, which latter word probably arose from the correction of some reader who was surprised that Nikias made in the second assembly a speech which properly belonged to the first, and who explained this by supposing that Nikias had not been present at the first assembly. That he was not present, however, is highly improbable. The matter, nevertheless, does require some explanation; and I have endeavored to supply one in the text. [224] Thucyd. vi, 9-14. ?a? s?, ? p??ta??, ta?ta, e?pe? ??e? s?? p??s??e?? ??des?a? te t?? p??e??, ?a? ???e? ?e??s?a? p???t?? ??a???, ?p???f??e, ?a? ???a? p??t??e? a???? ????a????, ???sa?, e? ????de?? t? ??a??f?sa?, t? ?? ??e?? t??? ????? ? et? t?s??d’ ?? a?t???? a?t?a? s?e??, t?? d? p??e?? ?a??? ???e?sa???? ?at??? ?? ?e??s?a?, etc. I cannot concur in the remarks of Dr. Arnold, either on this passage or upon the parallel case of the renewed debate in the Athenian assembly, on the subject of the punishment to be inflicted on the MitylenÆans (see above, vol. vi, ch. 1, p. 338, and Thucyd. iii, 36). It appears to me that Nikias was here asking the prytanis to do an illegal act, which might well expose him to accusation and punishment. Probably he would have been accused on this ground, if the decision of the second assembly had been different from what it actually turned out; if they had reversed the decision of the former assembly, but only by a small majority. The distinction taken by Dr. Arnold between what was illegal and what was merely irregular, was little marked at Athens: both were called illegal, t??? ????? ??e??. The rules which the Athenian assembly, a sovereign assembly, laid down for its own debates and decisions, were just as much laws as those which it passed for the guidance of private citizens. The English House of Commons is not a sovereign assembly, but only a portion of the sovereign power: accordingly, the rules which it lays down for its debates are not laws, but orders of the House: a breach of these orders, therefore, in debating any particular subject, would not be illegal, but merely irregular or informal. The same was the case with the French Chamber of Deputies, prior to the revolution of February, 1848: the rules which it laid down for its own proceedings were not laws, but simply le rÉglement de la Chambre. It is remarkable that the present National Assembly now sitting (March, 1849) has retained this expression, and adopted a rÉglement for its own business; though it is in point of fact a sovereign assembly, and the rules which it sanctions are, properly speaking, laws. Both in this case, and in the MitylenÆan debate, I think the Athenian prytanis committed an illegality. In the first case, every one is glad of the illegality, because it proved the salvation of so many MitylenÆan lives. In the second case, the illegality was productive of practical bad consequences, inasmuch as it seems to have brought about the immense extension of the scale upon which the expedition was projected. But there will occur in a few years a third incident, the condemnation of the six generals after the battle of ArginusÆ, in which the prodigious importance of a strict observance of forms will appear painfully and conspicuously manifest. [225] Thucyd. vi, 16, 17. [226] Thucyd. vi, 17. ?a? ??? ??te ????p?st?? p? ????? ?e??p????s??? ?? ??? ??????t?, e?te ?a? p??? ?????ta?, etc. The construction of ????p?st?? here is not certain: yet I cannot think that the meaning which Dr. Arnold and others assign to it is the most suitable. It rather seems to mean the same as in vii, 4, and vii, 47: “enemies beyond our hopes of being able to deal with.” [227] Thucyd. vi, 16-19. [228] Thucyd. vi, 22. [229] Thucyd. vi, 23. ?pe? ??? f???e???, ?a? e?d?? p???? ?? ??? d??? ???e?sas?a?, ?t? d? p?e?? e?t???sa? (?a?ep?? d? ?????p??? ??ta?), ?t? ?????sta t? t??? pa?ad??? ?a?t?? ????a? ??p?e??, pa?as?e?? d? ?p? t?? e???t?? ?sfa??? ??p?e?sa?. ?a?ta ??? t? te ??p?s? p??e? ea??tata ????a?, ?a? ??? t??? st?ate?s?????? s?t???a? e? d? t? ????? d??e?, pa???? a?t? t?? ?????. [230] Plutarch. Compare Nikias and Crassus, c. 3. [231] Thucyd. vi, 1. ?? p???? t??? ?p?de?ste??? p??e??, etc.: compare vii, 28. [232] Compare Plutarch, PrÆcept. Reipubl. Gerend. p. 804. [233] Thucyd. v, 99; vi, 1-6. [234] Thucyd. vi, 6. ?f??e??? ?? t? ????est?t? p??f?se?, t?? p?s?? (S??e??a?) ???e??, ???e?? d? ?a e?p?ep?? ????e??? t??? ?a?t?? ??????es? ?a? t??? p??s?e?e??????? ???????. Even in the speech of AlkibiadÊs, the conquest of Sicily is only once alluded to, and that indirectly; rather as a favorable possibility, than as a result to be counted upon. [235] Thucyd. vi, 15. ?a? ???sta st?at???sa? te ?p????? ?a? ??p???? S??e??a? te d?’ a?t?? ?a? ?a???d??a ???es?a?, ?a? t? ?d?a ?a e?t???sa? ???as? te ?a? d??? ?fe??se??. ?? ??? ?? ????at? ?p?? t?? ?st??, ta?? ?p????a?? e???s?? ? ?at? t?? ?p?????sa? ??s?a? ????t? ?? te t?? ?pp?t??f?a? ?a? t?? ???a? dap??a?, etc. Compare vi, 90. Plutarch (Alkib. c. 19; Nikias, c. 12). Plutarch sometimes speaks as if, not AlkibiadÊs alone (or at least in conjunction with a few partisans), but the Athenians generally, set out with an expectation of conquering Carthage as well as Sicily. In the speech which AlkibiadÊs made at Sparta after his banishment (Thucyd. vi, 90), he does indeed state this as the general purpose of the expedition. But it seems plain that he is here describing, to his countrymen generally, plans which were only fermenting in his own brain, as we may discern from a careful perusal of the first twenty chapters of the sixth book of ThucydidÊs. In the inaccurate Oratio de Pace ascribed to AndokidÊs (sect. 30), it is alleged that the Syracusans sent an embassy to Athens, a little before this expedition, entreating to be admitted as allies of the Athenians, and affirming that Syracuse would be a more valuable ally to Athens than Egesta or Katana. This statement is wholly untrue. [236] Thucyd. viii, 1. [237] Thucyd. vi, 31. ?p?f???? te p??? t? ?? d??s??? ?s?? d?d??t?? t??? ??a??ta?? t?? ?a?t?? ?a? ta?? ?p??es?a??, ?a? t???a s?e???? ?a? ?atas?e?a?? p???te??s? ???sa????, etc. Dobree and Dr. Arnold explain ?p??es?a?? to mean the petty officers, such as ??e???t??, ?e?e?st??, etc. GÖller and Poppo construe it to mean “the servants of the sailors.” Neither of the two seems to me satisfactory. I think the word means “to the crews generally;” the word ?pe??s?a being a perfectly general word comprising all who received pay in the ship. All the examples produced in the notes of the commentators testify this meaning, which also occurs in the text itself two lines before. To construe ta?? ?p??es?a?? as meaning “the crews generally, or the remaining crews, along with the thranitÆ,” is doubtless more or less awkward. But it departs less from ordinary construction than either of the two senses which the commentators propose. [238] Thucyd. vii, 13. ?? ?????, ?? ?? ??a??ast?? ?s??te?, etc. [239] Thucyd. vi, 26. I do not trust the statement given in ÆschinÊs, De Fals. Legat. c. 54, p. 302, and in AndokidÊs, De Pace, sect. 8, that seven thousand talents were laid by as an accumulated treasure in the acropolis during the Peace of Nikias, and that four hundred triremes, or three hundred triremes, were newly built. The numerous historical inaccuracies in those orations, concerning the facts prior to 400 B.C., are such as to deprive them of all authority, except where they are confirmed by other testimony; even if we admitted the oration ascribed to AndokidÊs as genuine, which in all probability it is not. But there exists an interesting Inscription which proves that the sum of three thousand talents at least must have been laid by, during the interval between the conclusion of the Peace of Nikias and the Sicilian Expedition, in the acropolis; and that over and above this accumulated fund, the state was in condition to discharge, out of the current receipts, various sums which it had borrowed during the previous war from the treasury of various temples, and seems to have had besides a surplus for docks and fortifications. The Inscription above named records the vote passed for discharging these debts, and for securing the sums so paid in the opisthodomus, or back-chamber, of the Parthenon, for account of those gods to whom they respectively belonged. See Boeckh’s Corp. Inscr. part ii, Inscr. Att. No. 76, p. 117; also the Staats-haushaltung der Athener of the same author, vol. ii, p. 198. This Inscription belongs unquestionably to one of the years between 421-415 B.C., to which year we cannot say. [240] Thucyd. vi, 31; Diodor. xiii, 2, 3. [241] Plutarch (Nikias, c. 12, 13; Alkibiad. c. 17). Immediately after the catastrophe at Syracuse, the Athenians were very angry with those prophets who had promised them success (Thucyd. viii, 1). [242] Cicero, Legg. ii, 11. “Melius GrÆci atque nostri; qui, ut augerent pietatem in Deos, easdem illos urbes, quas nos, incolere voluerunt.” How much the Grecian mind was penetrated with the idea of the god as an actual inhabitant of the town, may be seen illustrated in the Oration of Lysias, cont. Andokid. sects. 15-46: compare Herodotus, v, 67; a striking story, as illustrated in this History, vol. iii, ch. ix, p. 34; also Xenophon, Hellen. vi, 4-7; Livy, xxxviii, 43. In an Inscription in Boeckh’s Corp. Insc. (part ii, No. 190, p. 320) a list of the names of Prytaneis, appears, at the head of which list figures the name of AthÊnÊ Polias. [243] Pausanias, i, 24, 3; iv, 33, 4; viii, 31, 4; viii, 48, 4; viii, 41, 4; Plutarch, An Seni sit Gerenda Respubl. ad finem; Aristophan. Plut. 1153, and Schol.: compare O. MÜller, ArchÄologie der Kunst, sect. 67; K. F. Hermann, Gottesdienstl. Alterth. der Griechen, sect. 15; Gerhard, De Religione Hermarum. Berlin, 1845. [244] Thucyd. vi, 27. ?s?? ??a? ?sa? ??????? ?? t? p??e? t? ????a??? ... ?? ???t? ?? p?e?st?? pe??e??p?sa? t? p??s?pa. AndokidÊs (De Myst. sect. 63) expressly states that only a single one was spared—?a? d?? ta?ta ? ???? ?? ???te p??te?, ? pa?? t?? pat??a? ????a? t?? ?et??a?, ?? pe??e??p?, ???? t?? ???? t?? ?????s?. Cornelius Nepos (Alkibiad. c. 3) and Plutarch (Alkib. c. 13) copy AndokidÊs: in his life of Nikias (c. 18) the latter uses the expression of ThucydidÊs—?? p?e?st??. This expression is noway at variance with AndokidÊs, though it stops short of his affirmation. There is great mixture of truth and falsehood in the Oration of AndokidÊs; but I think that he is to be trusted as to this point. Diodorus (xiii, 2) says that all the HermÆ were mutilated, not recognizing a single exception. Cornelius Nepos, by a singular inaccuracy, talks about the HermÆ as having been all thrown down (dejicerentur). [245] It is truly astonishing to read the account given of this mutilation of the HermÆ, and its consequences, by Wachsmuth, Hellen. AlterthÜmer, vol. ii, sect. 65, pp. 191-196. While he denounces the Athenian people, for their conduct during the subsequent inquiry, in the most unmeasured language, you would suppose that the incident which plunged them into this mental distraction, at a moment of overflowing hope and confidence, was a mere trifle: so briefly does he pass it over, without taking the smallest pains to show in what way it profoundly wounded the religious feeling of Athens. BÜttner (Geschichte der politischen HetÆrieen zu Athen. p. 65), though very brief, takes a fairer view than Wachsmuth. [246] Pausanias, i, 17, 1; i, 24, 3; Harpokration v, ??a?. See Sluiter, Lectiones AndocideÆ, cap. 2. Especially the ????at?de? ?e?ape?a? (Eurip. Ion. 187) were noted at Athens: ceremonial attentions towards the divine persons who protected the public streets, a function performed by Apollo Aguieus, as well as by Hermes. [247] Herodot. viii, 144; Æschylus, Pers. 810; Æschyl. Agam. 339. The wrath for any indignity offered to the statue of a god or goddess, and impatience to punish it capitally, is manifested as far back as the ancient epic poem of Arktinus: see the argument of the ????? ???s?? in Proclus, and Welcker, Griechische TragÖdien, SophoklÊs, sect. 21, vol. i, p. 162. Herodotus cannot explain the indignities offered by Kambyses to the Egyptian statues and holy customs upon any other supposition than that of stark madness, ???? e?????; Herod. iii, 37-38. TimÆus the Sicilian historian (writing about 320-290 B.C.) represented the subsequent defeat of the Athenians as a divine punishment for the desecration of the HermÆ, inflicted chiefly by the Syracusan HermokratÊs, son of Hermon and descendant of the god Hermes (TimÆi Fragm. 103-104, ed. Didot; Longinus, de Sublim. iv, 3). The etymological thread of connection, between the HermÆ and HermokratÊs, is strange enough: but what is of importance to remark, is the deep-seated belief that such an act must bring after it divine punishment, and that the Athenians as a people were collectively responsible, unless they could appease the divine displeasure. If this was the view taken by the historian TimÆus a century and more after the transaction, much more keenly was it present to the minds of the Athenians of that day. [248] Thucyd. viii, 97; Plato, Legg. ix, pp. 871 b, 881 d. ? t?? ???? ??a, etc. Demosthen. Fals. Legat. p. 363, c. 24, p. 404, c. 60; Plutarch, Solon, c. 24. [249] Dr. Thirlwall observes, in reference to the feeling at Athens after the mutilation of the HermÆ:— “We indeed see so little connection between acts of daring impiety and designs against the state, that we can hardly understand how they could have been associated together as they were in the minds of the Athenians. But perhaps the difficulty may not without reason have appeared much less to the contemporaries of AlcibiadÊs, who were rather disposed by their views of religion to regard them as inseparable.” (Hist. Gr. ch. xxv, vol. iii, p. 394.) This remark, like so many others in Dr. Thirlwall’s history, indicates a tone of liberality forming a striking contrast with Wachsmuth; and rare indeed among the learned men who have undertaken to depict the democracy of Athens. It might, however, have been stated far more strongly; for an Athenian citizen would have had quite as much difficulty in comprehending our disjunction of the two ideas, as we have in comprehending his association of the two. [250] Thucyd. vi, 27. ?a? t? p???a e?????? ???a???? t?? te ??? ??p??? ?????? ?d??e? e??a?, ?a? ?p? ?????s?? ?a ?e?t???? p?a??t?? ?a? d??? ?ata??se?? ?e?e??s?a?. Cornelius Nepos, Alcibiad. c. 3. “Hoc quum appareret non sine magnimultorum consensione esse factam,” etc. [251] Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 18; PherekratÊs, Fr. Inc. 84, ed. Meineke; Fragment. Comic. GrÆc. vol. ii, p. 358, also p. 1164; Aristoph. Frag. Inc. 120. [252] Plutarch, Alkib. c. 18; Pseudo-Plutarch, Vit. X, Orator. p. 834, who professes to quote from Kratippus, an author nearly contemporary. The Pseudo-Plutarch, however, asserts, what cannot be true, that the Corinthians employed Leontine and EgestÆan agents to destroy the HermÆ. The Leontines and EgestÆans were exactly the parties who had greatest interest in getting the Sicilian expedition to start: they are the last persons whom the Corinthians would have chosen as instruments. The fact is, that no foreigners could well have done the deed: it required great familiarity with all the buildings, highways, and byways of Athens. The Athenian Philochorus (writing about the date 310-280 B.C.) ascribed the mutilation of the HermÆ to the Corinthians; if we may believe the scholiast on AristophanÊs; who, however, is not very careful, since he tells us that ThucydidÊs ascribed that act to AlkibiadÊs and his friends; which is not true (Philochor. Frag. 110, ed. Didot; Schol. Aristoph. Lysistr. 1094). [253] Thucyd. vi, 34. [254] See Thucyd. v, 45; v, 50; viii, 5. Xenophon, Hellen. iv, 7, 4. [255] See the remarkable passage in the contemporary pleading of Antiphon on a trial for homicide (Orat. ii. Tetralog. 1. 1, 10). ?s?f???? ?’ ??? ?st? t??de ?a??? ?a? ??a???? ??ta e?? t? te??? t?? ?e?? e?s???ta ?a??e?? t?? ???e?a? a?t?? ?p? te t?? a?t?? t?ap??a? ???ta s???atap?p???a? t??? ??a?t????? ?? ??? t??t?? a? te ?f???a? ??????ta? d?st??e?? ?’ a? p???e?? ?a??sta?ta?. ???e?a? ??? ??? t?? t????a? ???sa?????, a?t? t??t? t? t??t?? ?se?ata ??a???ta?, ?d?a? ?? t?? s?f???? ?a?a??? d? t?? p???? ?atast?sa?. Compare Antiphon, De CÆde Herodis, sect. 83 and SophoklÊs, Œdip. Tyrann. 26, 96, 170, as to the miseries which befell a country, so long as the person guilty of homicide remained to pollute the soil and until he was slain or expelled. See also Xenophon, Hiero. iv, 4, and Plato, Legg. x, p. 885-910, at the beginning and the end of the tenth book. Plato ranks (????) outrage against sacred objects as the highest and most guilty species of ????; deserving the severest punishment. He considers that the person committing such impiety, unless he be punished or banished, brings evil and the anger of the gods upon the whole population. [256] Thucyd. vi, 27. [257] AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, sect. 20. [258] AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, sects. 14, 15, 36; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 18. [259] Those who are disposed to imagine that the violent feelings and proceedings at Athens by the mutilation of the HermÆ were the consequence of her democratical government, may be reminded of an analogous event of modern times from which we are not yet separated by a century. In the year 1766, at Abbeville in France, two young gentlemen of good family—the Chevalier d’Etallonde and Chevalier de la Barre—were tried, convicted, and condemned for having injured a wooden crucifix which stood on the bridge of that town: in aggravation of this offence they were charged with having sung indecent songs. The evidence to prove these points was exceedingly doubtful; nevertheless, both were condemned to have their tongues cut out by the roots, to have their right hands cut off at the church gate, then to be tied to a post in the market-place with an iron chain, and burnt by a slow fire. This sentence, after being submitted by way of appeal to the Parliament of Paris, and by them confirmed, was actually executed upon the Chevalier de la Barre—d’Etallonde having escaped—in July, 1766; with this mitigation, that he was allowed to be decapitated before he was burnt; but at the same time with this aggravation, that he was put to the torture, ordinary and extraordinary, to compel him to disclose his accomplices (Voltaire, Relation de la Mort du Chevalier de la Barre, Œuvres, vol. xlii, pp. 361-379, ed. Beuchot: also Voltaire, Le Cri du Sang Innocent, vol. xii, p. 133). I extract from this treatise a passage showing how—as in this mutilation of the HermÆ at Athens—the occurrence of one act of sacrilege turns men’s imagination, belief, and talk, to others, real or imaginary:— “Tandis que Belleval ourdissoit sÉcrÈtement cette trame, il arriva malheureusement que le crucifix de bois, posÉ sur le pont d’Abbeville, Étoit endommagÉ, et l’on soupÇonna que des soldats ivres avoient commis cette insolence impie. “Malheureusement l’evÊque d’Amiens, Étant aussi evÊque d’Abbeville, donna À cette aventure une cÉlÉbritÉ et une importance qu’elle ne mÉritoit pas. Il fit lancer des monitoires: il vint faire une procession solennelle auprÈs du crucifix; et on ne parla en Abbeville que de sacrilÈges pendant une annÉe entiÈre. On disoit qu’il se formoit une nouvelle secte qui brisoit les crucifix, qui jettoit par terre toutes les hosties, et les perÇoit À coups de couteaux. On assuroit qu’ils avoient rÉpandu beaucoup de sang. Il y eut des femmes qui crurent en avoir ÉtÉ tÉmoins. On renouvela tous les contes calomnieux rÉpandus contre les Juifs dans tant de villes de l’Europe. Vous connoissez, Monsieur, jusqu’À quel point la populace porte la credulitÉ et le fanatisme, toujours encouragÉ par les moines. “La procÉdure une fois commencÉe, il y eut une foule de dÉlations. Chacun disoit ce qu’il avoit vu ou cru voir—ce qu’il avoit entendu ou cru entendre.” It will be recollected that the sentence on the Chevalier de la Barre was passed, not by the people, nor by any popular judicature, but by a limited court of professional judges sitting at Abbeville, and afterwards confirmed by the Parlement de Paris, the first tribunal of professional judges in France. [260] AndokidÊs (De Myster. s. 11) marks this time minutely—?? ?? ??? ?????s?a t??? st?at????? t??? e?? S??e??a?, ????? ?a? ?a??? ?a? ??????d?, ?a? t?????? ? st?at???? ?d? ????e? ? ?a????? ??ast?? d? ????????? ?? t? d?? e?pe?, etc. [261] Andokid. de Myster. s. 11-13. [262] Thucyd. vi, 29. IsokratÊs (Orat. xvi, De Bigis, sects. 7, 8) represents these proceedings before the departure for Sicily, in a very inaccurate manner. [263] Thucyd. vi, 29. ?? d’ ??????, ded??te? t? te st??te?a, ? e????? ???, ?? ?d? ???????ta?, ? te d??? ? a?a????ta?, ?e?ape??? ?t? d?’ ??e???? ?? t’ ???e??? ???est??te??? ?a? t?? ?a?t????? t??e?, ?p?t?ep?? ?a? ?p?spe?d??, ?????? ??t??a? ?????te?, ?? ??e??? ??? ?? p?e?? a?t?? ?a? ? ?atas?e?? t?? ??????, ?????ta d? ????es?a? ?? ???a?? ??ta??, ????e??? ?? e?????? d?a????, ?? ?e???? ???? a?t?? ?p??t?? p???e??, et?pept?? ???s???ta a?t?? ?????sas?a?. Compare Plutarch, Alkib. c. 19. [264] The account which AndokidÊs gives of the first accusation against AlkibiadÊs by Pythonikus, in the assembly, prior to the departure of the fleet, presents the appearance of being substantially correct, and I have followed it in the text. It is in harmony with the more brief indications of ThucydidÊs. But when AndokidÊs goes on to say, that “in consequence of this information, Polystratus was seized and put to death, while the rest of the parties denounced fled, and were condemned to death in their absence,” (sect. 13,) this cannot be true. AlkibiadÊs most certainly did not flee, and was not condemned at that time. If AlkibiadÊs was not then tried, neither could the other persons have been tried, who were denounced as his accomplices in the same offence. My belief is that this information, having been first presented by the enemies of AlkibiadÊs before the sailing of the fleet, was dropped entirely for that time, both against him and against his accomplices. It was afterwards resumed, when the information of AndokidÊs himself had satisfied the Athenians on the question of the Hermokopids: and the impeachment presented by Thessalus son of Kimon against AlkibiadÊs, was founded, in part at least, upon the information presented by Andromachus. If Polystratus was put to death at all, it could only have been on this second bringing forward of the charge, at the time when AlkibiadÊs was sent for and refused to come home. But we may well doubt whether he was put to death at that time or on that ground, when we see how inaccurate the statement of AndokidÊs is as to the consequences of the information of Andromachus. He mentions PanÆtius as one of those who fled in consequence of that information, and were condemned in their absence: but PanÆtius appears afterwards, in the very same speech, as not having fled at that time (sects. 13, 52, 67). Harpokration states (v. ????st?at??), on the authority of an oration ascribed to Lysias, that Polystratus was put to death on the charge of having been concerned in the mutilation of the HermÆ. This is quite different from the statement of AndokidÊs, and would lead us to suppose that Polystratus was one of those against whom AndokidÊs himself informed. [265] Thucyd. vi, 43; vii, 57. [266] Thucyd. vi, 32; Diodor. xiii, 3. [267] Thucyd. vi, 44. [268] Thucyd. vi, 44-46. [269] Thucyd. vi, 32-35. Mr. Mitford observes: “It is not specified by historians, but the account of ThucydidÊs makes it evident, that there had been a revolution in the government of Syracuse, or at least a great change in its administration, since the oligarchical Leontines were admitted to the rights of Syracusan citizens (ch. xviii, sect. iii, vol. iv, p. 46). The democratical party now bore the sway,” etc. I cannot imagine upon what passage of ThucydidÊs Mr. Mitford founds this conjecture, which appears to me pure fancy. He had spoken of the government as a democracy before, he continues to speak of it as a democracy now, in the same unaltered vituperative strain. [270] Thucyd. vi, 41. t? d? ?a? ?p?ee??e?a ?d?, etc. [271] Thucyd. vi, 34. ? d? ???sta ??? te ????? ?p??a????, ?e?? d? d?? t? ?????e? ?s???? ???st’ ?? ????? pe????s?e, ??? e???seta?. That “habitual quiescence” which HermokratÊs here predicates of his countrymen, forms a remarkable contrast with the restless activity, and intermeddling carried even to excess, which PeriklÊs and Nikias deprecate in the Athenians (Thucyd. i, 144; vi, 7). Both of the governments, however, were democratical. This serves as a lesson of caution respecting general predications about all democracies; for it is certain that one democracy differed in many respects from another. It may be doubted, however, whether the attribute here ascribed by HermokratÊs to his countrymen was really deserved, to the extent which his language implies. [272] Thucyd. vi, 33-36. [273] Thucyd. vi, 32-35. t?? d? S??a??s??? ? d??? ?? p???? p??? ???????? ???d? ?sa?, etc. [274] Thucyd. vi, 35. pa?e???? d’ a?t??? ????a???a?, ?? d??? te p??st?t?? ?? ?a? ?? t? pa???t? p??a??tat?? t??? p??????, ??e?e t???de, etc. The position ascribed here to Athenagoras seems to be the same as that which is assigned to Kleon at Athens—???? d?a????? ?at’ ??e???? t?? ?????? ?? ?a? t? p???e? p??a??tat??, etc. (iv, 21). Neither d??? p??st?t?? nor d?a?????, denotes any express functions, or titular office (see the note of Dr. Arnold), at least in these places. It is possible that there may have been some Grecian town constitutions, in which there was an office bearing that title: but this is a point which cannot be affirmed. Nor would the words d??? p??st?t?? always imply an equal degree of power: the person so designated might have more power in one town than in another. Thus in Megara (iv, 67) it seems that the oligarchical party had recently been banished: the leaders of the popular party had become the most influential men in the city. See also iii, 70, Peithias at Korkyra. [275] Thucyd. vi, 36-40. I give the substance of what is ascribed to Athenagoras by ThucydidÊs, without binding myself to the words. [276] Thucyd. vi, 36. t??? d’ ????????ta? t? t??a?ta ?a? pe??f???? ??? p?????ta? t?? ?? t???? ?? ?a????, t?? d? ????es?a?, e? ? ????ta? ??d???? e??a?. [277] Thucyd. vi, 38. ???? ta?ta, ?spe? ??? ????, ?? te ????a??? ?????s???te?, t? sf?te?a a?t??, e? ??d’ ?t?, s????s?, ?a? ?????de ??d?e? ??te ??ta, ??te ?? ?e??e?a, ????p????s??. ??? ??? ?? ??? p??t??, ???’ ?e? ?p?staa?, ?t?? ?????? ?e t????sde, ?a? ?t? t??t?? ?a??????t?????, ? ??????, ????????? ?atap???a?ta? t? ??te??? p????? a?t??? t?? p??e?? ???e??. ?a? d?d???a ??t?? ?p?te p???? pe????te? ?a? ?at????s?s??, etc. [278] Thucyd. vi, 39. f?se? t?? d????at?a? ??te ???et?? ??t’ ?s?? e??a?, t??? d’ ????ta? t? ???ata ?a? ???e?? ???sta e?t?st???. ??? d? f?? p??ta ??, d??? ??pa? ????s?a?, ????a???a? d? ????? ?pe?ta, f??a?a? ?? ???st??? e??a? ????t?? t??? p???s????, ???e?sa? d’ ?? ??t?sta t??? ???et???, ????a? d’ ?? ????sa?ta? ???sta t??? p??????? ?a? ta?ta ????? ?a? ?at? ??? ?a? ??pa?ta ?? d????at?? ?s????e??. Dr. Arnold translates f??a?a? ????t??, “having the care of the public purse,” as if it were f??a?a? t?? d??s??? ????t??. But it seems to me that the words carry a larger sense, and refer to the private property of these rich men, not to their functions as keepers of what was collected from taxation or tribute. Looking at a rich man from the point of view of the public, he is guardian of his own property until the necessities of the state require that he should spend more or less of it for the public defence or benefit: in the interim, he enjoys it as he pleases, but he will for his own interest take care that the property does not perish (compare vi, 9). This is the service which he renders, quatenus, rich man, to the state; he may also serve it in other ways, but that would be by means of his personal qualities; thus he may, for example, be intelligent as well as rich (???et?? as well as p???s???), and then he may serve the state as counsellor, the second of the two categories named by Athenagoras. What that orator is here negativing is, the better title and superior fitness of the rich to exercise command, which was the claim put forward in their behalf. And he goes on to indicate what is their real position and service in a democracy; that they are to enjoy the revenue, and preserve the capital, of their wealth, subject to demands for public purposes when necessary, but not to expect command, unless they are personally competent. Properly speaking, that which he here affirms is true of the small lots of property taken in the mass, as well as of the large, and is one of the grounds of defence of private property against communism. But the rich man’s property is an appreciable item to the state, individually taken; moreover, he is perpetually raising unjust pretensions to political power, so that it becomes necessary to define how much he is really entitled to. [279] Thucyd. vi, 39. ????a???a d? t?? ?? ???d???? t??? p?????? etad?d?s?, t?? d’ ?fe???? ?? p?e??e?te? ????, ???? ?a? ??pa? ?fe????? ??e?? ? ??? ?? te d???e??? ?a? ?? ???? p???????ta?, ?d??ata ?? e???? p??e? ?atas?e??. [281] Thucyd. vi, 45. [282] Thucyd. vi, 47; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 14. [283] Thucyd. vi, 48. ??t?? ?d? S??a???sa?? ?a? Se??????t? ?p??e??e??, ?? ? ?? ?? ??esta???? ??a???s??, ?? d? ?e??t????? ??s? ?at?????e??. [284] Compare iv, 104, describing the surprise of Amphipolis by Brasidas. [285] Thucyd. vi, 49. [286] Thucyd. vi, 50. [287] PolyÆnus (i, 40, 4) treats this acquisition of Katana as the result, not of accident, but of a preconcerted plot. I follow the account as given by ThucydidÊs. [288] Thucyd. vi, 52. [289] Thucyd. vi. 53-61. [290] AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, sects. 14, 15, 35. In reference to the deposition of AgaristÊ, AndokidÊs again includes AlkibiadÊs among those who fled into banishment in consequence of it. Unless we are to suppose another AlkibiadÊs, not the general in Sicily, this statement cannot be true. There was another AlkibiadÊs, of the deme Phegus: but AndokidÊs in mentioning him afterwards (sect. 65), specifies his deme. He was cousin of AlkibiadÊs, and was in exile at the same time with him (Xenoph. Hellen. i, 2, 13). [291] AndokidÊs (sects. 13-34) affirms that some of the persons, accused by Teukrus as mutilators of the HermÆ, were put to death upon his deposition. But I contest his accuracy on this point. For ThucydidÊs recognizes no one as having been put to death except those against whom AndokidÊs himself informed (see vi, 27, 53, 61). He dwells particularly upon the number of persons, and persons of excellent character, imprisoned on suspicion; but he mentions none as having been put to death except those against whom AndokidÊs gave testimony. He describes it as a great harshness, and as an extraordinary proof of the reigning excitement, that the Athenians should have detained so many persons upon suspicion, on the evidence of informers not entitled to credence. But he would not have specified this detention as extraordinary harshness, if the Athenians had gone so far as to put individuals to death upon the same evidence. Besides, to put these men to death would have defeated their own object, the full and entire disclosure of the plot and the conspirators. The ignorance in which they were of their internal enemies, was among the most agonizing of all their sentiments; and to put any prisoner to death until they arrived, or believed themselves to have arrived, at the knowledge of the whole, would tend so far to bar their own chance of obtaining evidence: ? d? d??? ? t?? ????a??? ?se??? ?a??, ?? ?et?, t? saf??, ?a? de???? p????e??? p??te??? e? t??? ?p????e???ta? sf?? t? p???e? ? e?s??ta?, etc. Wachsmuth says (p. 194): “The bloodthirsty dispositions of the people had been excited by the previous murders: the greater the number of victims to be slaughtered, the better were the people pleased,” etc. This is an inaccuracy quite in harmony with the general spirit of his narrative. It is contradicted, implicitly, by the very words of ThucydidÊs which he transcribes in his note 108. [292] Andokid. de Mysteriis, sects. 27-28. ?a? ??d?????? ?p?? t?? ?????. [293] Andokid. de Myster. sect. 36. It seems that DiognÊtus, who had been commissioner of inquiry at the time when Pythonikus presented the first information of the slave Andromachus, was himself among the parties denounced by Teukrus (And. de Mys. sects. 14, 15). [294] Thucyd. vi, 53-60. ?? d???????te? t??? ???t??, ???? p??ta? ?p?pt?? ?p?de??e???, d?? p?????? ?????p?? p?st?? p??? ???st??? t?? p???t?? ????a????te? ?at?d???, ???s??te??? ????e??? e??a? asa??sa? t? p???a ?a? e??e??, ? d?? ???t?? p?????a? t??? ?a? ???st?? d?????ta e??a? a?t?a???ta ????e??t?? d?af??e??.... ... de???? p????e???, e? t??? ?p????e???ta? sf?? t? p???e? ? e?s??ta?.... [295] Andokid. de Myst. sect. 36. [296] Plutarch (Alkib. c. 20) and Diodorus (xiii, 2) assert that this testimony was glaringly false, since on the night in question it was new moon. I presume, at least, that the remark of Diodorus refers to the deposition of DiokleidÊs, though he never mentions the name of the latter, and even describes the deposition referred to with many material variations as compared with AndokidÊs. Plutarch’s observation certainly refers to DiokleidÊs, whose deposition, he says, affirming that he had seen and distinguished the persons in question by the light of the moon, on a night when it was new moon, shocked all sensible men, but produced no effect upon the blind fury of the people. Wachsmuth (Hellenisch. Alterth. vol. ii, ch. viii, p. 194) copies this remark from Plutarch. I disbelieve altogether the assertion that it was new moon on that night. AndokidÊs gives in great detail the deposition of DiokleidÊs, with a strong wish to show that it was false and perfidiously got up. But he nowhere mentions the fact that it was new moon on the night in question; though if we read his report and his comments upon the deposition of DiokleidÊs, we shall see that he never could have omitted such a means of discrediting the whole tale, if the fact had been so (Andokid. de Myster. sects. 37-43). Besides, it requires very good positive evidence to make us believe, that a suborned informer, giving his deposition not long after one of the most memorable nights that ever passed at Athens, would be so clumsy as to make particular reference to the circumstance that it was full moon (e??a? d? pa?s??????), if it had really been new moon. [297] Andokid. de Myster. sects. 37-42. [298] Considering the extreme alarm which then pervaded the Athenian mind, and their conviction that there were traitors among themselves whom yet they could not identify, it is to be noted as remarkable that they resisted the proposition of their commissioners for applying torture. We must recollect that the Athenians admitted the principle of the torture, as a good mode of eliciting truth as well as of testing depositions,—for they applied it often to the testimony of slaves,—sometimes apparently to that of metics. Their attachment to the established law, which forbade the application of it to citizens, must have been very great, to enable them to resist the great special and immediate temptation to apply it in this case to Mantitheus and Aphepsion, if only by way of exception. The application of torture to witnesses and suspected persons, handed down from the Roman law, was in like manner recognized, and pervaded nearly all the criminal jurisprudence of Europe until the last century. I hope that the reader, after having gone through the painful narrative of the proceedings of the Athenians after the mutilation of the HermÆ, will take the trouble to peruse by way of comparison the Storia della Colonna Infame, by the eminent Alexander Manzoni, author of “I Promessi Sposi.” This little volume, including a republication of Verri’s “Osservazioni sulla Tortura,” is full both of interest and instruction. It lays open the judicial enormities committed at Milan in 1630, while the terrible pestilence was raging there, by the examining judges and the senate, in order to get evidence against certain suspected persons called Untori; that is, men who were firmly believed by the whole population, with very few exceptions, to be causing and propagating the pestilence by means of certain ointment which they applied to the doors and walls of houses. Manzoni recounts with simple, eloquent, and impressive detail, the incredible barbarity with which the official lawyers at Milan, under the authority of the senate, extorted, by force of torture, evidence against several persons, of having committed this imaginary and impossible crime. The persons thus convicted were executed under horrible torments: the house of one of them, a barber named Mora, was pulled down, and a pillar with an inscription erected upon the site, to commemorate the deed. This pillar, the Colonna Infame, remained standing in Milan until the close of the 18th century. The reader will understand, from Manzoni’s narrative, the degree to which public excitement and alarm can operate to poison and barbarize the course of justice in a Christian city, without a taint of democracy, and with professional lawyers and judges to guide the whole procedure secretly, as compared with a pagan city, ultra-democratical, where judicial procedure as well as decision was all oral, public, and multitudinous. [299] Andokid. de Myst. sects. 41-46. [300] Andokid. de Myst. sect. 48: compare Lysias, Orat. xiii, cont. Agorat. sect. 42. [301] Plutarch (Alkib. c. 21) states that the person who thus addressed himself to, and persuaded AndokidÊs, was named TimÆus. From whom he got the latter name, we do not know. [302] The narrative, which I have here given in substance, is to be found in Andokid. de Myst. sects. 48-66. [303] Thucyd. vi, 60. ?a? ? ?? a?t?? te ?a?’ ?a?t?? ?a? ?at’ ????? ???e? t? t?? ????, etc. To the same effect, see the hostile oration of Lysias contra Andocidem, Or. vi, sects. 36, 37, 51: also AndokidÊs himself, De Mysteriis, sect. 71; De Reditu, sect. 7. If we may believe the Pseudo-Plutarch (Vit. x, Orator, p. 834), AndokidÊs had on a previous occasion been guilty of drunken irregularity and damaging a statue. [304] Thucyd. vi, 60. ??ta??a ??ape??eta? e?? t?? dede????, ?spe? ?d??e? a?t??tat?? e??a?, ?p? t?? ???des?t?? t????, e?te ??a ?a? t? ??ta ???sa?, e?te ?a? ??? ?p’ ?f?te?a ??? e????eta?? t? d? saf?? ??de?? ??te t?te ??te ?ste??? ??e? e?pe?? pe?? t?? d?as??t?? t? ?????. If the statement of AndokidÊs in the Oratio de Mysteriis is correct, the deposition previously given by Teukrus the metic must have been a true one; though this man is commonly denounced among the lying witnesses (see the words of the comic writer Phrynichus ap. Plutarch, Alkib. c. 20). ThucydidÊs refuses even to mention the name of AndokidÊs, and expresses himself with more than usual reserve about this dark transaction, as if he were afraid of giving offence to great Athenian families. The bitter feuds which it left behind at Athens, for years afterwards, are shown in the two orations of Lysias and of AndokidÊs. If the story of Didymus be true, that ThucydidÊs after his return from exile to Athens died by a violent death (see Biogr. Thucyd. p. xvii. ed. Arnold), it would seem probable that all his reserve did not protect him against private enmities arising out of his historical assertions. [305] Thucyd. vi, 60. ? d? d??? ? t?? ????a??? ?se??? ?a??, ?? ?et?, t? saf??, etc.: compare Andokid. de Mysteriis, sects. 67, 68. [306] Andokid. de Myster. sect 66; Thucyd. vi, 60; Philochorus, Fragment. 111, ed. Didot. [307] Thucyd. vi, 60. ? ??t?? ???? p???? pe??fa??? ?f???t?: compare Andokid. de Reditu, sect. 8. [308] See Andokid. de Mysteriis, sect. 17. There are several circumstances not easily intelligible respecting this ??af? pa?a????, which AndokidÊs alleges that his father Leogoras brought against the senator Speusippus, before a dikastery of six thousand persons (a number very difficult to believe), out of whom he says that Speusippus only obtained two hundred votes; but if this trial ever took place at all, we cannot believe that it could have taken place until after the public mind was tranquillized by the disclosures of AndokidÊs, especially as Leogoras was actually in prison along with AndokidÊs immediately before those disclosures were given in. [309] See for evidence of these general positions respecting the circumstances of AndokidÊs, the three Orations: AndokidÊs de Mysteriis, AndokidÊs de Reditu Suo, and Lysias contra Andokidem. [310] Homer, Hymn. Cerer. 475. Compare the Epigram cited in Lobeck, Eleusinia, p. 47. [311] Lysias cont. Andokid. init. et fin.; Andokid. de Myster. sect. 29. Compare the fragment of a lost Oration by Lysias against KinÊsias (Fragm. xxxi, p. 490, Bekker; AthenÆus, xii, p. 551), where KinÊsias and his friends are accused of numerous impieties, one of which consisted in celebrating festivals on unlucky and forbidden days, “in derision of our gods and our laws,”—?? ?ata?e???te? t?? ?e?? ?a? t?? ???? t?? ?et????. The lamentable consequences which the displeasure of the gods had brought upon them are then set forth: the companions of KinÊsias had all miserably perished, while KinÊsias himself was living in wretched health and in a condition worse than death: t? d’ ??t?? ????ta t?s??t?? ?????? d?ate?e??, ?a? ?a?’ ???st?? ???a? ?p????s???ta ? d??as?a? te?e?t?sa? t?? ???, t??t??? ????? p??s??e? t??? t? t??a?ta ?pe? ??t?? ??e?ate??s?. The comic poets Strattis and Plato also marked out KinÊsias among their favorite subjects of derision and libel, and seem particularly to have represented his lean person and constant ill health as a punishment of the gods for his impiety. See Meineke, Fragm. Comic. GrÆc. (Strattis), vol. ii, p. 768 (Plato), p. 679. [312] Lysias cont. Andokid. sects. 50, 51; Cornel. Nepos, Alcib. c. 4. The expressions of Pindar (Fragm. 96) and of SophoklÊs (Fragm. 58, Brunck.—Œdip. Kolon. 1058) respecting the value of the Eleusinian mysteries, are very striking: also Cicero, Legg. ii, 14. Horace will not allow himself to be under the same roof, or in the same boat, with any one who has been guilty of divulging these mysteries (Od. iii. 2, 26), much more then of deriding them. The reader will find the fullest information about these ceremonies in the Eleusinia, forming the first treatise in the work of Lobeck called Aglaophamus; and in the Dissertation called Eleusinia, in K. O. MÜller’s Kleine Schriften. vol ii, p. 242, seqq. [313] Diodor. xiii. 6 [314] We shall find these sacred families hereafter to be the most obstinate in opposing the return of AlkibiadÊs from banishment (Thucyd. viii, 53). [315] Thucyd. vi, 53-61. [316] Plutarch, Alkib. c. 22. T?ssa??? ?????? ?a???d??, ??????d?? ??e????? S?a???d?? e?s???e??e? ?d??e?? pe?? t? ?e?, t?? ???t?a ?a? t?? ?????, ?p????e??? t? ?st???a, ?a? de??????ta t??? a?t?? ?ta????? ?? t? ????? t? ?a?t??, ????ta st???? ??a?pe? ?e??f??t?? ???? de????e? t? ?e??, ?a? ???????ta a?t?? ?? ?e??f??t??, ????t???a d? d?d?????, ?????a d? Te?d???? F??e?a? t??? d’ ?????? ?ta?????, ?sta? p??sa???e???ta ?a? ?p?pta?, pa?? t? ???a ?a? t? ?a?est???ta ?p? t’ ????p?d?? ?a? ??????? ?a? t?? ?e???? t?? ?? ??e?s????. [317] Thucyd. vi, 61. [318] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 2, 13. [319] Thucyd. vi. 61; Plutarch, Alkib. c. 22-33; Lysias, Orat. vi, cont. Andokid. sect. 42. Plutarch says that it would have been easy for AlkibiadÊs to raise a mutiny in the army at Katana, had he chosen to resist the order for coming home. But this is highly improbable. Considering what his conduct became immediately afterwards, we shall see good reason to believe that he would have taken this step, had it been practicable. [320] To appreciate fairly the violent emotion raised at Athens by the mutilation of the HermÆ and by the profanation of the mysteries, it is necessary to consider the way in which analogous acts of sacrilege have been viewed in Christian and Catholic penal legislation, even down to the time of the first French Revolution. I transcribe the following extract from a work of authority on French criminal jurisprudence—Jousse, TraitÉ de la Justice Criminelle, Paris, 1771, part iv, tit. 27, vol. iii, p. 672:— “Du Crime de Leze-MajestÉ Divine.—Les Crimes de Leze MajestÉ Divine, sont ceux qui attaquent Dieu immÉdiatement, et qu’on doit regarder par cette raison comme les plus atroces et les plus exÉcrables.—La MajestÉ de Dieu peut Être offensÉe de plusieurs maniÈres.—1. En niant l’existence de Dieu. 2. Par le crime de ceux qui attentent directement contre la DivinitÉ: comme quand on profane ou qu’on foule aux pieds les saintes Hosties; ou qu’on frappe les Images de Dieu dans le dessein de l’insulter. C’est ce qu’on appelle Crime de Leze-MajestÉ Divine au prÉmier Chef.” Again in the same work, part iv, tit. 46, n. 5, 8, 10, 11, vol. iv, pp. 97-99:— “La profanation des Sacremens et des MystÈres de la RÉligion est un sacrilÈge des plus exÉcrables. Tel est le crime de ceux qui emploient les choses sacrÉes À des usages communs et mauvais, en dÉrision des MystÈres; ceux qui profanent la sainte Eucharistie, ou qui en abusent en quelque maniÈre que ce soit; ceux qui en mÉpris de la RÉligion, profanent les Fonts-Baptismaux; qui jettent par terre les saintes Hosties, ou qui les emploient À des usages vils et profanes: ceux qui, en dÉrision de nos sacrÉs MystÈres, les contrefont dans leurs dÉbauches; ceux qui frappent, mutilent, abattent, les Images consacrÉes À Dieu, ou À la Sainte Vierge, ou aux Saints, en mÉpris de la RÉligion; et enfin, tous ceux qui commettent de semblables impiÉtÉs. Tous ces crimes sont des crimes de Leze-MajestÉ divine au prÉmier chef, parce qu’ils s’attaquent immÉdiatement À Dieu, et ne se font À aucun dessein que de l’offenser.” “... La peine du SacrilÈge, par l’Ancien Testament, Étoit celle du feu, et d’Être lapidÉ.—Par les Loix Romaines, les coupables Étoient condamnÉs au fer, au feu, et aux bÊtes farouches, suivant les circonstances.—En France, la peine du sacrilÈge est arbitraire, et dÉpend de la qualitÉ et des circonstances du crime, du lieu, du temps, et de la qualitÉ de l’accusÉ.—Dans le sacrilÈge au prÉmier chef, qui attaque la DivinitÉ, la Sainte Vierge, et les Saints, v. g. À l’Égard de ceux qui foulent aux pieds les saintes Hosties, ou qui les jettent À terre, ou en abusent, et qui les emploient À des usages vils et profanes, la peine est le feu, l’amende honorable, et le poing coupÉ. Il en est de mÊme de ceux qui profanent les Fonts-Baptismaux; ceux qui, en dÉrision de nos MystÈres, s’en moquent et les contrefont dans leurs dÉbauches: ils doivent Être punis de peine capitale, parce que ces crimes attaquent immÉdiatement la DivinitÉ.” M. Jousse proceeds to cite several examples of persons condemned to death for acts of sacrilege, of the nature above described. [321] The proceedings in England in 1678 and 1679, in consequence of the pretended Popish Plot, have been alluded to by various authors, and recently by Dr. Thirlwall, as affording an analogy to that which occurred at Athens after the mutilation of the HermÆ. But there are many material differences, and all, so far as I can perceive, to the advantage of Athens. 1. The “hellish and damnable plot of the Popish Recusants,” (to adopt the words of the Houses of Lords and Commons,—see Dr. Lingard’s History of England, vol. xiii, ch. v, p. 88,—words, the like of which were doubtless employed at Athens in reference to the Hermokopids,) was baseless, mendacious, and incredible, from the beginning. It started from no real fact: the whole of it was a tissue of falsehoods and fabrications proceeding from Oates, Bedloe, and a few other informers of the worst character. At Athens, there was unquestionably a plot; the Hermokopids were real conspirators, not few in number. No one could doubt that they conspired for other objects besides the mutilation of the HermÆ. At the same time, no one knew what these objects were, nor who the conspirators themselves were. If before the mutilation of the HermÆ, a man like Oates had pretended to reveal to the Athenian people a fabricated plot implicating AlkibiadÊs and others, he would have found no credence. It was not until after and by reason of that terror-striking incident, that the Athenians began to give credence to informers. And we are to recollect that they did not put any one to death on the evidence of these informers. They contented themselves with imprisoning on suspicion, until they got the confession and deposition of AndokidÊs. Those implicated in that deposition were condemned to death. Now AndokidÊs, as a witness, deserves but very qualified confidence; yet it is impossible to degrade him to the same level even as Teukrus or DiokleidÊs, much less to that of Oates and Bedloe. We cannot wonder that the people trusted him, and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was the least evil that they should trust him. The witnesses upon whose testimony the prisoners under the Popish Plot were condemned, were even inferior to Teukrus and DiokleidÊs in presumptive credibility. The Athenian people have been censured for their folly in believing the democratical constitution in danger, because the HermÆ had been mutilated. I have endeavored to show, that, looking to their religious ideas, the thread of connection between these two ideas is perfectly explicable. And why are we to quarrel with the Athenians because they took arms, and put themselves on their guard, when a LacedÆmonian or a Boeotian armed force was actually on their frontier? As for the condemnation of AlkibiadÊs and others for profaning and divulging the Eleusinian mysteries, these are not for a moment to be put upon a level with the condemnations in the Popish Plot. These were true charges, at least there is strong presumptive reason for believing that they were true. Persons were convicted and punished for having done acts which they really had done, and which they knew to be legal crimes. Whether it be right to constitute such acts legal crimes, or not, is another question. The enormity of the Popish Plot consisted in punishing persons for acts which they had not done, and upon depositions of the most lying and worthless witnesses. The state of mind into which the Athenians were driven after the cutting of the HermÆ, was indeed very analogous to that of the English people during the circulation of the Popish Plot. The suffering, terror, and distraction, I apprehend to have been even greater at Athens: but the cause of it was graver and more real, and the active injustice which it produced was far less than in England. “I shall not detain the reader (says Dr. Lingard, Hist. Engl. xiii, p. 105) with a narrative of the partial trials and judicial murders of the unfortunate men, whose names had been inserted by Oates in his pretended discoveries. So violent was the excitement, so general the delusion created by the perjuries of the informer, that the voice of reason and the claims of justice were equally disregarded. Both judge and jury seemed to have no other object than to inflict vengeance on the supposed traitors. To speak in support of their witnesses, or to hint the improbability of the informations, required a strength of mind, a recklessness of consequences, which falls to the lot of few individuals: even the king himself, convinced as he was of the imposture, and contemptuously as he spoke of it in private, dared not exercise his prerogative of mercy to save the lives of the innocent.” It is to be noted that the House of Lords, both acting as a legislative body, and in their judicial character when the Catholic Lord Stafford was tried before them (ch. vi, pp. 231-241), displayed a degree of prejudice and injustice quite equal to that of the judges and juries in the law-courts. Both the English judicature on this occasion, and the Milanese judicature on the occasion adverted to in a previous note, were more corrupted and driven to greater injustice by the reigning prejudice, than the purely popular dikastery of Athens in this affair of the HermÆ, and of the other profanations. [322] Plutarch, Alkib. c. 22. [323] Thucyd. ii, 65. t? te ?? t? st?at?p?d? ???te?a ?p?????, etc. [324] The statements respecting the age and life of LaÏs appear involved in inextricable confusion. See the note of GÖller ad Philisti, Fragment. v. [325] Diodor. viii, 6; Thucyd. vi, 62. ?a? t??d??p?da ?p?d?sa?, ?a? ??????t? ?? a?t?? e???s? ?a? ??at?? t??a?ta. The word ?p?d?sa? seems to mean that the prisoners were handed over to their fellow-countrymen, the natural persons to negotiate for their release, upon private contract of a definite sum. Had ThucydidÊs said ?p?d??t?, it would have meant that they were put up to auction for what they would fetch. This distinction is at least possible, and, in my judgment, more admissible than that proposed in the note of Dr. Arnold. If, however, we refer to Thucyd. vi, 88, with Duker’s note, we shall see that etap?pe?? is sometimes, though rarely, used in the sense of etap?pes?a?. The case may perhaps be the same with ?p?d?sa? for ?p?d??t?. [326] Thucyd. vi, 63; vii, 42. [327] Thucyd. vi, 63; Diodor. xiii, 6. [328] Thucyd. vi, 65, 66; Diodor. xiii, 6; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 13. [329] Thucyd. vi, 67-69. [330] Thucyd. vi, 68, 69. ????? d? ?a? p??? ??d?a? pa?d?e? te ?????????, ?a? ??? ?p????t??? ?spe? ???? ?a? p??s?t? S??e???ta?, ?? ?pe?f?????s? ?? ???, ?p?????s? d? ??? d?? t? t?? ?p?st??? t?? t???? ?ss? ??e??. This passage illustrates very clearly the meaning of the adverb pa?d?e?. Compare pa?dae?, pa????e?, Æschylus, Sept. Theb. 275. [331] Thucyd. vi, 70. ???? d’ ?pe???t?????, t? ?? ?????e?a, ?a? ??? ?t??? pe?a??es?a? d??e??, t??? d? ???est?ta?, p??? e??? ??p????? ? ????????? pa???e??. The Athenians, unfortunately for themselves, were not equally unmoved by eclipses of the moon. The force of this remark will be seen in the next chapter but one. [332] Thucyd. vi, 70. [333] Thucyd. vi, 71. Plutarch (Nikias, c. 16) states that Nikias refused from religious scruples to invade the sacred precinct, though his soldiers were eager to seize its contents. Diodorus (xiii, 6) affirms erroneously that the Athenians became masters of the Olympieion. Pausanias too says the same thing (x, 28, 3), adding that Nikias abstained from disturbing either the treasures or the offerings, and left them still under the care of the Syracusan priests. Plutarch farther states that Nikias stayed some days in his position before he returned to Katana. But the language of ThucydidÊs indicates that the Athenians returned on the day after the battle. [334] Thucyd. vi, 71-74. [335] Thucyd. vi, 21-26. [336] Thucyd. vi, 20. [337] Thucyd. i, 69. ?s????ete ??? ???? ???????, ? ?a?eda??????, ?? t? d???e? t??? ???? t? e???se? ????e???, ?a? ???? ??? ???????? t?? a???s?? t?? ??????, ???? d?p?as???????, ?ata????te?. [338] ??s???? d? ?as???ta? ?pe??e??, ? ?ste??? ?p?etap?pes?a?, t? p??t?? ?s??pt?? ???e?sa?????: “It is disgraceful to be driven out of Sicily by superior force, or to send back here afterwards for fresh reinforcements, through our own fault in making bad calculations at first.” (Thucyd. vi, 21.) This was a part of the last speech by Nikias himself at Athens, prior to the expedition. The Athenian people in reply had passed a vote that he and his colleagues should fix their own amount of force, and should have everything which they asked for. Moreover, such was the feeling in the city, that every one individually was anxious to put down his name to serve (vi, 26-31). ThucydidÊs can hardly find words sufficient to depict the completeness, the grandeur, the wealth public and private, of the armament. As this goes to establish what I have advanced in the text,—that the actions of Nikias in Sicily stand most of all condemned by his own previous speeches at Athens,—so it seems to have been forgotten by Dr. Arnold, when he wrote his note on the remarkable passage, ii, 65, of ThucydidÊs,—?? ?? ???a te p????, ?? ?? e???? p??e?, ?a? ????? ????s?, ?a?t???, ?a? ? ?? S??e??a? p????? ?? ?? t?s??t?? ????? ???t?a ?? p??? ??? ?p?esa?, ?s?? ?? ??p??a?te?, ?? t? p??sf??a t??? ????????? ?p??????s???te?, ???? ?at? t?? ?d?a? d?a???? pe?? t?? t?? d??? p??stas?a?, t? te ?? t? st?at?p?d? ???te?a ?p?????, ?a? t? pe?? t?? p???? p??t?? ?? ???????? ?ta?????sa?. Upon which Dr. Arnold remarks:— “ThucydidÊs here expresses the same opinion which he repeats in two other places (vi, 31; vii, 42). namely, that the Athenian power was fully adequate to the conquest of Syracuse, had not the expedition been mismanaged by the general, and insufficiently supplied by the government at home. The words ?? t? p??sf??a t??? ????????? ?p??????s???te? signify “not voting afterwards the needful supplies to their absent armament:” for Nikias was prevented from improving his first victory over the Syracusans by the want of cavalry and money; and the whole winter was lost before he could get supplied from Athens. And subsequently the armament was allowed to be reduced to great distress and weakness, before the second expedition was sent to reinforce it.” GÖller and Poppo concur in this explanation. Let us in the first place discuss the explanation here given of the words t? p??sf??a ?p??????s???te?. It appears to me that these words do not signify “voting the needful supplies.” The word ?p??????s?e?? cannot be used in the same sense with ?p?p?pe??—pa?as?e?? (vii, 2-15), ??p????e??. As it would not be admissible to say ?p??????s?e?? ?p?a, ??a?, ?pp???, ???ata, etc., so neither can it be right to say ?p??????s?e?? t? p??sf??a, if this latter word were used only as a comprehensive word for these particulars, meaning “supplies.” The words really mean: “taking farther resolutions (after the expedition was gone) unsuitable or mischievous to the absent armament.” ???sf??a is used here quite generally, agreeing with ???e?ata, or some such word: indeed, we find the phrase t? p??sf??a used in the most general sense, for “what is suitable;” “what is advantageous or convenient:” ????s? t? p??sf??a—p??sseta? t? p??sf??a—t? p??sf??’ ???at’—t? p??sf??a d???? ??—t? ta?sde p??sf????. Euripid. Hippol. 112; Alkestis, 148; Iphig. Aul. 160, B; Helen. 1299; Troades, 304. ThucydidÊs appears to have in view the violent party contests which broke out in reference to the HermÆ and the other irreligious acts at Athens, after the departure of the armament, especially to the mischief of recalling AlkibiadÊs, which grew out of those contests. He does not allude to the withholding of supplies from the armament; nor was it the purpose of any of the parties at Athens to withhold them. The party acrimony was directed against AlkibiadÊs exclusively, not against the expedition. Next, as to the main allegation in Dr. Arnold’s note, that one of the causes of the failure of the Athenian expedition in Sicily, was, that it was “insufficiently supplied by Athens.” Of the two passages to which he refers in ThucydidÊs (vi, 31; vii, 42), the first distinctly contradicts this allegation, by setting forth the prodigious amount of force sent; the second says nothing about it, and indirectly discountenances it, by dwelling upon the glaring blunders of Nikias. After the Athenians had allowed Nikias in the spring to name and collect the force which he thought requisite, how could they expect to receive a demand for farther reinforcements in the autumn, the army having really done nothing? Nevertheless, the supplies were sent, as soon as they could be, and as soon as Nikias expected them. If the whole winter was lost, that was not the fault of the Athenians. Still harder is it in Dr. Arnold, to say, “that the armament was allowed to be reduced to great distress and weakness before the second expedition was sent to reinforce it.” The second expedition was sent the moment that Nikias made known his distress and asked for it; his intimation of distress coming quite suddenly, almost immediately after most successful appearances. It appears to me that nothing can be more incorrect or inconsistent with the whole tenor of the narrative of ThucydidÊs, than to charge the Athenians with having starved their expedition. What they are really chargeable with, is, the having devoted to it a disproportionate fraction of their entire strength, perfectly enormous and ruinous. And so ThucydidÊs plainly conceives it, when he is describing both the armament of Nikias and that of DemosthenÊs. ThucydidÊs is very reserved in saying anything against Nikias, whom he treats throughout with the greatest indulgence and tenderness. But he lets drop quite sufficient to prove that he conceived the mismanagement of the general as the cause of the failure of the armament, not as “one of two causes,” as Dr. Arnold here presents it. Of course, I recognize fully the consummate skill, and the aggressive vigor so unusual in a Spartan, of Gylippus, together with the effective influence which this exercised upon the result. But Gylippus would never have set foot in Syracuse, had he not been let in, first through the apathy, next through the contemptuous want of precaution, shown by Nikias (vii, 42). [339] Thucyd. v, 7. See volume vi of this History, chap. liv, p. 464. [340] Thucyd. vi, 72, 73. [341] Thucyd. vi, 75. ?te?????? d? ?? S??a??s??? ?? t? ?e???? p??? te t? p??e?, t?? ?ee??t?? ??t?? p???s?e???, te???? pa?? p?? t? p??? t?? ?p?p???? ????, ?p?? ? d?’ ???ss???? e?ap?te???st?? ?s??, ?? ??a sf?????ta?, etc. I reserve the general explanation of the topography of Syracuse for the next chapter, when the siege begins. [342] Thucyd. vi, 75. [343] Thucyd. vi, 77-80. [344] Thucyd. vi, 83-87. [345] Thucyd. vi, 86. ?e?? ?? ?e ??te ?e??a? d??at?? ? e?’ ???? e? te ?a? ?e??e??? ?a??? ?ate??asa?e?a, ?d??at?? ?atas?e??, d?? ???? te p??? ?a? ?p???? f??a??? p??e?? e????? ?a? pa?as?e?? ?pe???t?d??, etc. This is exactly the language of Nikias in his speech to the Athenians. vi, 11. [346] Thucyd. vi, 88. [347] Compare the remarks of AlkibiadÊs, Thucyd. vi, 91. [348] Thucyd. vi, 88. [349] Thucyd. vi, 88; vii, 42. [350] Plutarch (Alkib. c. 23) says that he went to reside at Argos; but this seems difficult to reconcile with the assertion of ThucydidÊs (vi, 61) that his friends at Argos had incurred grave suspicions of treason. Cornelius Nepos (Alkib. c. 4) says, with greater probability of truth, that AlkibiadÊs went from Thurii, first to Elis, next to Thebes. IsokratÊs (De Bigis, Orat. xvi, s. 10) says that the Athenians banished him out of all Greece, inscribed his name on a column, and sent envoys to demand his person from the Argeians; so that AlkibiadÊs was compelled to take refuge with the LacedÆmonians. This whole statement of IsokratÊs is exceedingly loose and untrustworthy, carrying back the commencement of the conspiracy of the Four Hundred to a time anterior to the banishment of AlkibiadÊs. But among all the vague sentences, this allegation that the Athenians banished him out of all Greece stands prominent. They could only banish him from the territory of Athens and her allies. Whether he went to Argos, as I have already said, seems to me very doubtful: perhaps Plutarch copied the statement from this passage of IsokratÊs. But under all circumstances, we are not to believe that AlkibiadÊs turned against his country, or went to Sparta, upon compulsion. The first act of his hostility to Athens, the disappointing her of the acquisition of MessÊnÊ, was committed before he left Sicily. Moreover, ThucydidÊs represents him as unwilling indeed to go to Sparta, but only unwilling because he was afraid of the Spartans; in fact, waiting for a safe-conduct and invitation from them. ThucydidÊs mentions nothing about his going to Argos (vi, 88). [351] Thucyd. vi, 88. [352] Thucyd. vi, 89. ???? ??? t???????? ?e? p?te d??f???? ?se?, p?? d? t? ??a?t???e??? t? d??aste???t? d??? ???asta?? ?a? ?p’ ??e???? ??pa??e??e? ? p??stas?a ??? t?? p??????. It is to be recollected that the LacedÆmonians had been always opposed to t??a????, or despots, and had been particularly opposed to the Peisistratid t??a????, whom they in fact put down. In tracing his democratical tendencies, therefore, to this source, AlkibiadÊs took the best means of excusing them before a LacedÆmonian audience. [353] Thucyd. vi, 89. ?e?? d? t?? ??pa?t?? p???st?e?, d??a????te? ?? ? s??at? e??st? ? p???? ?t??e ?a? ??e??e??t?t? ??sa, ?a? ?pe? ?d??at? t??, t??t? ???d?as??e??? ?pe? d????at?a? ?e ?a? ??????s??e? ?? f??????t?? t?, ?a? a?t?? ??de??? ?? ?e????, ?s? ?a? ???d???sa??? ???? pe?? ??????????? ????a? ??d?? ?? ?a???? ?????t?? ?a? t? e??st??a? a?t?? ??? ?d??e? ??? ?sfa??? e??a?, ??? p??e??? p??s?a??????. [354] The establishment and permanent occupation of a fortified post in Attica, had been contemplated by the Corinthians even before the beginning of the war (Thucyd. i, 122). [355] Thucyd. vi, 92. ?a? ?e???? ??de?? ???? d??e?? ??? e??a?, e? t? ?a?t?? et? t?? p??e??t?t??, f???p???? p?te d???? e??a?, ??? ????at?? ?p????a?. [356] Thucyd. vi, 92. ?? te f???p??? ??? ?? ? ?d????a? ???, ???’ ?? ? ?sfa??? ?p???te????. ??d’ ?p? pat??da ??sa? ?t? ????a? ??? ???a?, p??? d? ????? t?? ??? ??sa? ??a?t?s?a?. ?a? f???p???? ??t?? ?????, ??? ?? ?? t?? ?a?t?? ?d???? ?p???sa? ? ?p??, ???’ ?? ?? ?? pa?t?? t??p?? d?? t? ?p???e?? pe??a?? a?t?? ??a?ae??. [357] Thucyd. vi, 89-92. [358] Thucyd. vi, 28. [359] See a remarkable passage of Thucyd. viii, 89, ???? t? ?p?a????ta, ?? ??? ?p? t?? ?????, ??ass??e??? t?? f??e?, and the note in explanation of it, in a later chapter of this History, chap. lxii. [360] Thucyd. vi, 12-17. [361] Plutarch, Alkib. c. 17. [362] Lucan, Pharsal. iv, 819. [363] Thucyd. vi, 93; Plutarch, Alkib. c. 23; Diodor. xiii, 7. [364] Thucyd. vi, 104. [365] Horses were so largely bred in Sicily, that they even found their way into Attica and Central Greece, SophoklÊs, Œd. Kolon. 312:— ???a??’ ??? Ste????sa? ???, ?ss??, ??t?a?a? ?p? ????? e?sa?. If the Scholiast is to be trusted, the Sicilian horses were of unusually great size. [366] Thucyd. vi, 95-98. [367] At the neighboring city of Gela, also, a little without the walls, there stood a large brazen statue of Apollo; of so much sanctity, beauty, or notoriety, that the Carthaginians in their invasion of the island, seven years after the siege of Syracuse by Nikias, carried it away with them and transported it to Tyre (Diodor. xiii, 108). [368] Thucyd. vi, 75. ?te?????? d? ?a? ?? S??a??s??? ?? t? ?e???? t??t? p??? te t? p??e?, t?? ?ee??t?? ??t?? p???s?e???, te???? pa?? p?? t? p??? t?? ?p?p???? ????, ?p?? ? d?’ ???ss???? e?ap?te???st?? ?s??, ?? ??a sf?????ta?, etc. [369] Thucyd. vi, 96. [370] Thucyd. vi, 97. [371] Thucyd. vi, 98. ??????? p??? t?? S???? ?? ????a???, ??ape? ?a?e??e??? ?te???sa? t?? ?????? d?? t?????. [372] The Athenians seem to have surpassed all other Greeks in the diligence and skill with which they executed fortifications: see some examples, Thucyd. v, 75-82; Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 4, 18. [373] Dr. Arnold, in his note on Thucyd. vi, 98, says that the Circle is spoken of, in one passage of ThucydidÊs, as if it had never been completed. I construe this one passage differently from him (vii, 2, 4)—t? ???? t?? ?????? p??? t?? ???????? ?p? t?? ?t??a? ???assa?: where I think t? ???? t?? ?????? is equivalent to ?t????? t?? ??????, as plainly appears from the accompanying mention of Trogilus and the northern sea. I am persuaded that the Circle was finished; and Dr. Arnold himself indicates two passages in which it is distinctly spoken of as having been completed. [374] Thucyd. vi, 99. ?p?te????e?? d? ?e???? ?d??e? e??a? (t??? S??a???s????) ? ??e???? (the Athenians) ?e???? ??e?? t? te????? ?a? e? f??se?a?, ?p????se?? ????es?a?, ?a? ?a ?a? ?? t??t? e? ?p??????e?, ???? ??t?p?pe?? a?t?? t?? st?at???, ?a? f???e?? ?? a?t?? t??? sta????? p???ata?a????te? t?? ?f?d???? ??e????? d? ?? pa??????? t?? ????? p??ta? ?? p??? sf?? t??pes?a?. The Scholiast here explains t?? ?f?d??? to mean t? ?s?a; adding ????a d? t? ?p?a???a? d???e?a, d?? t? te?at?de? e??a? t? ??????. Though he is here followed by the best commentators, I cannot think that his explanation is correct. He evidently supposes that this first counter-wall of the Syracusans was built—as we shall see presently that the second counter-work was—across the marsh, or low ground between the southern cliff of EpipolÆ and the Great Harbor. “The ground being generally marshy (te?at?de?) there were only a few places where it could be crossed.” But I conceive this supposition to be erroneous. The first counter-wall of the Syracusans was carried, as it seems to me, up the slope of EpipolÆ, between the Athenian circle and the southern cliff: it commenced at the Syracusan newly-erected advanced wall, inclosing the TemenitÊs. This was all hard, firm ground, such as the Athenians could march across at any point: there might perhaps be some roughness here and there, but they would be mere exceptions to the general character of the ground. It appears to me that t?? ?f?d??? means simply, “the attacks of the Athenians,” without intending to denote any special assailable points; p???ata?a??e?? t?? ?f?d???, means “to get beforehand with the attacks,” (see Thucyd. i, 57, v, 30.) This is in fact the more usual meaning of ?f?d?? (compare vii, 5; vii, 43; i, 6; v, 35; vi, 63), “attack, approach, visit,” etc. There are doubtless other passages in which it means, “the way or road through which the attack was made:” in one of these, however (vii, 51), all the best editors now read ?s?d?? instead of ?f?d??. It will be seen that arguments have been founded upon the inadmissible sense which the Scholiast here gives to the word ?f?d??: see Dr. Arnold, Memoir on the Map of Syracuse, Appendix to his ed. of Thucyd. vol. iii, p. 271. [375] Thucyd. vi, 100. [376] Thucyd. vi, 101. ?? d’ ?ste?a?? ?p? t?? ?????? ?te?????? ?? ????a??? t?? ?????? t?? ?p?? t?? ?????, ?? t?? ?p?p???? ta?t? p??? t?? ??a? ????a ???, ?a? ?pe? a?t??? ?a??tat?? ?????et? ?ata?s? d?? t?? ????? ?a? t?? ????? ?? t?? ????a t? pe??te???sa. I give in the text what I believe to be the meaning of this sentence, though the words ?p? t?? ?????? are not clear, and have been differently construed. GÖller, in his first edition, had construed them as if it stood ????e??? ?p? t?? ??????: as if the fortification now begun on the cliff was continuous and in actual junction with the Circle. In his second edition, he seems to relinquish this opinion, and to translate them in a manner similar to Dr. Arnold, who considers them as equivalent to ?p? t?? ?????? ???e???, but not at all implying that the fresh work performed was continuous with the Circle, which he believes not to have been the fact. If thus construed, the words would imply, “starting from the Circle as a base of operations.” Agreeing with Dr. Arnold in his conception of the event signified, I incline, in construing the words, to proceed upon the analogy of two or three passages in Thucyd. i, 7; i, 46; i, 99; vi, 64—?? d? pa?a?a? p??e?? d?? t?? ??ste?a? ?p?p??? ??t?s???sa? ?p? ?a??ss?? ????? ???s??sa? ... ?st? d? ????, ?a? p???? ?p?? a?t?? ?e?ta? ?p? ?a??ss?? ?? t? ??a??t?d? t?? Tesp??t?d??, ?f???. In these passages ?p? is used in the same sense as we find ?p??e?, iv, 125, signifying “apart from, at some distance from;” but not implying any accompanying idea of motion, or proceeding from, either literal or metaphorical. “The Athenians began to fortify, at some distance from their Circle, the cliff above the marsh,” etc. [377] Thucyd. vi, 102; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 18. Diodorus erroneously places the battle, in which Lamachus was slain, after the arrival of Gylippus (xiii, 8). [378] Thucyd. vi, 102. [379] Thucyd. vi, 102. [380] Thucyd. vi, 103. ??a d? e???? ?????p?? ?p?????t?? ?a? ????? ? p??? p????????????, etc. [381] Diodorus, however, is wrong in stating (xiii, 7) that the Athenians occupied the temple of Zeus Olympius and the polichnÊ, or hamlet, surrounding it, on the right bank of the Anapus. These posts remained always occupied by the Syracusans, throughout the whole war (Thucyd. vii, 4, 37). [382] Thucyd. vi, 103. p???? ????et? p??? te ??e???? ?a? p?e?? ?t? ?at? t?? p????. [383] Thucyd. vii, 55. [384] Thucyd. vii, 49-86. [385] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 18. [386] Thucyd. vi, 104. ?? a?t??? a? ???e??a? ?f??t?? de??a? ?a? p?sa? ?p? t? a?t? ??e?s??a?, ?? ?d? pa?te??? ?p?tete???s??a? a? S??????sa? e?s?, t?? ?? S??e??a? ????t? ??p?da ??de?a? e??e? ? G???pp??, t?? d? ?ta??a? ????e??? pe??p???sa?, etc. Compare Plutarch, Nikias. c. 18. It will be seen from ThucydidÊs, that Gylippus heard this news while he was yet at Leukas. [387] Thucyd. vi, 104. ??a? (G???pp??) pa??p?e? t?? ?ta??a? ?a? ??pas?e?? ?p’ ????? ?at? t?? ?e???a??? ???p??, ?? ??p?e? ta?t? ??a?, ?at? ????a? ?st???? ?p?f??eta? ?? t? p??a???, ?a? p???? ?e?as?e?? ?? t? ???sta ???a?t? p??s?s?e?. Though all the commentators here construe the words ?at? ????a? ?st???? as if they agreed with ?? or ??e??, I cannot but think that these words really agree with G???pp??. Gylippus is overtaken by this violent off-shore wind while he is sailing southward along the eastern shore of what is now called Calabria Ultra: “setting his ship towards the north or standing to the north (to use the English nautical phrase), he is carried out to sea, from whence, after great difficulties, he again gets into Tarentum.” If Gylippus was carried out to sea when in this position, and trying to get to Tarentum, he would naturally lay his course northward. What is meant by the words ?at? ????a? ?st????, as applied to the wind, I confess I do not understand; nor do the critics throw much light upon it. Whenever a point of the compass is mentioned in conjunction with any wind, it always seems to mean the point from whence the wind blows. Now, that ?at? ????a? ?st???? means “a wind which blows steadily from the north,” as the commentators affirm, I cannot believe without better authority than they produce. Moreover, Gylippus could never have laid his course for Tarentum, if there had been a strong wind in this direction; while such a wind would have forwarded him to Lokri, the very place whither he wanted to go. The mention of the TerinÆan gulf is certainly embarrassing. If the words are right (which perhaps may be doubted), the explanation of Dr. Arnold in his note seems the best which can be offered. Perhaps, indeed,—for though improbable, this is not wholly impossible,—ThucydidÊs may himself have committed a geographical inadvertence, in supposing the TerinÆan gulf to be on the east side of Calabria. [388] Thucyd. vi, 104. [389] Thucyd. vii, 1. [390] Thucyd. vii, 2-7. [391] Thucyd. vi, 103; vii, 2; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 19. [392] Thucyd. vii, 2. [393] Thucyd. vii, 3. ?? d? ????a???, a?f??d??? t?? te G???pp?? ?a? t?? S??a??s??? sf?s?? ?p???t??, etc. [394] Compare an incident in the ensuing year, Thucyd. vii, 32. The Athenians, at a moment when they had become much weaker than they were now, had influence enough among the Sikel tribes to raise opposition to the march of a corps coming from the interior to the help of Syracuse. This auxiliary corps was defeated and nearly destroyed in its march. [395] Thucyd. vii, 3. [396] Thucyd. vii, 4. [397] Thucyd. vii, 4. [398] Thucyd. vii, 5; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 19. [399] Thucyd. vii, 5, 6. [400] Thucyd. vii, 7. ?et? d? t??t?, a? te t?? ????????? ??e? ?a? ?p?a???t?? ?a? ?e??ad??? ?s?p?e?sa? a? ?p????p?? d?de?a (???e d? a?t?? ??as???d?? ?????????), ?a? ???ete???sa? t? ???p?? t??? S??a??s???? ???? t?? ???a?s??? te?????. These words of ThucydidÊs are very obscure, and have been explained by different commentators in different ways. The explanation which I here give does not, so far as I know, coincide with any of them; yet I venture to think that it is the most plausible, and the only one satisfactory. Compare the Memoir of Dr. Arnold on his Map of Syracuse (Arn. Thucyd. vol. iii, p. 273), and the notes of Poppo and GÖller. Dr. Arnold is indeed so little satisfied with any explanation which had suggested itself to him that he thinks some words must have dropped out. [401] Thucyd. vii, 7. [402] Thucyd. vii, 8. [403] Thucyd. vii, 9. ?? ???a?? p???a?? ?p?st??a??. The word despatches, which I use to translate ?p?st??a??, is not inapplicable to oral, as well as to written messages, and thus retains the ambiguity involved in the original; for ?p?st??a??, though usually implying, does not necessarily imply, written communications. The words of ThucydidÊs (vii, 8) may certainly be construed to imply that Nikias had never on any previous occasion sent a written communication to Athens; and so Dr. Thirlwall understands them, though not without hesitation (Hist. Gr. ch. xxvi, vol. iii, p. 418). At the same time, I think them reconcilable with the supposition that Nikias may previously have sent written despatches, though much shorter than the present, leaving details and particulars to be supplied by the officer who carried them. Mr. Mitford states the direct reverse of that which Dr. Thirlwall understands: “Nicias had used the precaution of frequently sending despatches in writing, with an exact account of every transaction.” (Ch. xviii, sect v, vol. iv, p. 100.) Certainly, the statement of ThucydidÊs does not imply this. [404] It seems, that in Greek ship-building, moist and unseasoned wood was preferred, from the facility of bending it into the proper shape (Theophrastus, Hist. Plant. v, 7, 4). [405] Thucyd. vii, 13. ?a? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??a??ast?? ?s??te?, e???? ?at? t?? p??e?? ?p??????s??, ?? d? ?p? e????? ?s??? t? p??t?? ?pa????te?, ?a? ???e??? ???at?e?s?a? ????? ? a?e?s?a?, ?pe?d? pa?? ????? ?a?t???? te d? ?a? t???a ?p? t?? p??e??? ???est?ta ???s??, ?? ?? ?p’ a?t????a? p??f?se? ?p?????ta?, ?? d? ?? ??ast?? d??a?ta?? p???? d’ ? S??e??a. All the commentators bestow long notes in explanation of this phrase ?p’ a?t????a? p??f?se? ?p?????ta?: but I cannot think that any of them are successful. There are even some who despair of success so much, as to wish to change a?t????a? by conjecture; see the citations in Poppo’s long note. But surely the literal sense of the words is here both defensible and instructive: “Some of them depart under pretence (or profession) of being deserters to the enemy.” All the commentators reject this meaning, because they say, it is absurd to talk of a man’s announcing beforehand that he intends to desert to the enemy, and giving that as an excuse for quitting the camp. Such is not, in my judgment, the meaning of the word p??f?se? here. It does not denote what a man said before he quitted the Athenian camp, he would of course say nothing of his intention to any one, but the color which he would put upon his conduct after he got within the Syracusan lines. He would present himself to them as a deserter to their cause; he would profess anxiety to take part in the defence; he would pretend to be tired of the oppressive Athenian dominion; for it is to be recollected, that all or most of these deserters were men belonging to the subject-allies of Athens. Those who passed over to the Syracusan lines would naturally recommend themselves by making profession of such dispositions, even though they did not really feel any such; for their real reason was, that the Athenian service had now become irksome, unprofitable, and dangerous; and the easiest manner of getting away from it was, to pass over as a deserter to Syracuse. Nikias distinguishes these men from others, “who got away, as they could find opportunity, to some part or other of Sicily.” These latter also would of course keep their intention of departing secret, until they got safe away into some Sicilian town; but when once there, they would make no profession of any feeling which they did not entertain. If they said anything, they would tell the plain truth, that they were making their escape from a position which now gave them more trouble than profit. It appears to me that the words ?p’ a?t????a? p??f?se? will bear this sense perfectly well, and that it is the real meaning of Nikias. Even before the Peloponnesian war was begun, the Corinthian envoy at Sparta affirms that the Athenians cannot depend upon their seamen standing true to them, since their navy was manned with hired foreign seamen rather than with natives—???t? ??? ? ????a??? d??a?? ????? ? ???e?a (Thucyd. i, 121). The statement of Nikias proves that this remark was to a great extent well founded. [406] Thucyd. vii, 11-15. [407] Thucyd. vii, 10. [408] Thucyd. vii, 16. There is here a doubt as to the reading, between one hundred and twenty talents, or twenty talents. I agree with Dr. Arnold and other commentators in thinking that the money taken out by Eurymedon was far more probably the larger sum of the two, than the smaller. The former reading seems to deserve the preference. Besides, Diodorus states that Eurymedon took out with him one hundred and forty talents: his authority, indeed, does not count for much, but it counts for something, in coincidence with a certain force of intrinsic probability (Diodor. xiii, 8). On an occasion such as this, to send a very small sum, such as twenty talents, would produce a discouraging effect upon the armament. [409] Thucyd. vii, 42. [410] Plutarch (Nikias, c. 20) tells us that the Athenians had been disposed to send a second armament to Sicily, even before the despatch of Nikias reached them: but that they had been prevented by certain men who were envious (f????) of the glory and good fortune of Nikias. No judgment can be more inconsistent with the facts of the case than this, facts recounted in general terms even by Plutarch himself. [411] Thucyd. vi, 93. [412] Thucyd. vii, 18. [413] Thucyd. vi, 105; vii, 18. [414] Thucyd. vii, 18. [415] Diodor. xiii, 8. [416] Thucyd. vii, 17. [417] Thucyd. vii, 19-58. S???????? ??a??ast?? st?ate???te?. [418] Thucyd. vii, 19-28, with Dr. Arnold’s note. [419] Thucyd. vii, 20. ?a t?? ?e?e?e?a? t? te???s?, etc. Compare IsokratÊs, Orat. viii, De Pace, s. 102, p. 236, Bekk. [420] Thucyd. vii, 20-27. [421] Thucyd. vii, 26. [422] Thucyd. vii, 31. ??t? d’ a?t? (DemosthenÊs) pe?? ta?ta (Anaktorium) ?????d?? ?pa?t?, ?? t?te t?? ?e????? t? ???ata ???? t? st?at?? ?pep?f??, ?a? ??????e?, etc. The meaning of this passage appears quite unambiguous, that Eurymedon had been sent to Sicily in the winter, to carry the sum of one hundred and twenty talents to Nikias, and was now on his return (see Thucyd. vii, 11). Nor is it without some astonishment that I read in Mr. Mitford: “At Anactorium, DemosthenÊs found Eurymedon collecting provisions for Sicily,” etc. Mr. Mitford then says in a note (quoting the Scholiast, ?t?? t? p??? t??f?? ???s?a, ?a? t? ???p? s??te????ta a?t???, Schol.): “This is not the only occasion on which ThucydidÊs uses the term ???ata for necessaries in general. Smith has translated accordingly: but the Latin has pecuniam, which does not express the sense intended here,” (ch. xviii, sect. vi, vol. iv, p. 118.) There cannot be the least doubt that the Latin is here right. The definite article makes the point quite certain, even if it were true (which I doubt) that ThucydidÊs sometimes uses the word ???ata to mean “necessaries in general.” I doubt still more whether he ever uses ???? in the sense of “collecting.” [423] Thucyd. vii, 31. [424] Thucyd. vii, 21. Among the topics of encouragement dwelt upon by HermokratÊs, it is remarkable that he makes no mention of that which the sequel proved to be the most important of all, the confined space of the harbor, which rendered Athenian ships and tactics unavailing. [425] Thucyd. vii, 23; Diod. xiii, 9; Plut. Nikias, c. 20. [426] Thucyd. vii, 23, 24. [427] Thucyd. vii, 25. [428] Thucyd. vii, 25. [429] Thucyd. vii, 38. [430] Thucyd. vii, 25. [431] Thucyd. vii, 32, 33. [432] Thucyd. vii, 33. [433] Thucyd. vii, 36. t? d? p??te??? ?a??? t?? ??e???t?? d????s? e??a?, t? ??t?p????? ???????sa?, ???st’ ?? a?t?? ???sas?a?? p?e?st?? ??? ?? a?t? s??se??, etc. Diodor. xiii, 10. [434] Compare Thucyd. vii, 34-30; Diodor. xiii. 10; Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1335. See also the notes of Arnold, Poppo, and Didot, on the passages of ThucydidÊs. It appears as if the ??t???de? or sustaining beams were something new, now provided for the first time, in order to strengthen the epÔtid and render it fit to drive in collision against the enemy. The words which ThucydidÊs employs to describe the position of these ??t???de?, are to me very obscure, nor do I think that any of the commentators clear them up satisfactorily. It is Diodorus who specifies that the Corinthians lowered the level of their prows, so as to strike nearer to the water, which ThucydidÊs does not mention. A captive ship, when towed in as a prize, was disarmed by being deprived of her beak (AthenÆus, xii, p. 535). Lysander reserved the beaks of the Athenian triremes captured at Ægospotami to grace his triumphal return (Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 3, 8). [435] Thucyd. vii, 37, 38. [436] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 20. Diodorus (xiii, 10) represents the battle as having been brought on against the wish and intention of the Athenians generally, not alluding to any difference of opinion among the commanders. [437] Thucyd. vii, 41. a? ?e?a?a? de?f???f????: compare Pollux, i, 85, and Fragment vi, of the comedy of the poet PherekratÊs, entitled ??????; Meineke, Fragm. Comic. GrÆc. vol. ii, p. 258, and the Scholiast. ad Aristoph. Equit. 759. [438] Thucyd. vii, 40. ?? d’ ????a???, ???sa?te? a?t??? ?? ?ss?????? sf?? p??? t?? p???? ??a????sas?a?, etc. [439] Thucyd. vii, 40. [440] Thucyd. vii, 41. [441] Thucyd. vii, 42. [442] Thucyd. vii, 33-57. [443] Thucyd. vii, 35. [444] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 21. [445] Thucyd. vii, 42. [446] Thucyd. vii, 47-50. [447] Thucyd. vii, 42. [448] Thucyd. vii, 43. [449] Thucyd. vii, 43. Diodorus tells us that DemosthenÊs took with him ten thousand hoplites, and ten thousand light troops, numbers which are not at all to be trusted (xiii, 11). Plutarch (Nikias, c. 21) says that Nikias was extremely averse to the attack on EpipolÆ: ThucydidÊs notices nothing of the kind, and the assertion seems improbable. [450] Thucyd. vii, 42, 43. ?a? (DemosthenÊs) ???? t? pa?ate???sa t?? S??a??s???, ? ?????sa? pe??te???sa? sf?? t??? ????a????, ?p???? te ??, ?a? e? ?p???at?se?? t?? t?? te ?p?p???? t?? ??a?se??, ?a? a???? t?? ?? a?ta?? st?at?p?d??, ??d??? ?? a?t? ??f??? (??d? ??? ?p?e??a? ?? sf?? ??d??a) ?pe??et? ?p???s?a? t? pe???. vii, 43. ?a? ???a? ?? ?d??ata ?d??e? e??a? ?a?e?? p??se????ta? ?a? ??a??ta?, etc. Dr. Arnold and GÖller both interpret this description of ThucydidÊs (see their notes on this chapter, and Dr. Arnold’s Appendix, p. 275) as if Nikias, immediately that the Syracusan counter-wall had crossed his blockading line, had evacuated his circle and works on the slope of EpipolÆ, and had retired down exclusively into the lower ground below. Dr. Thirlwall too is of the same opinion (Hist. Gr. vol. iii, ch. xxvi, pp. 432-434). This appears to me unauthorized and incorrect. What conceivable motive can be assigned to induce Nikias to yield up to the enemy so important an advantage? If he had once relinquished the slope of EpipolÆ, to occupy exclusively the marsh beneath the southern cliff, Gylippus and the Syracusans would have taken good care that he should never again have mounted that cliff; nor could he ever have got near to the pa?ate???sa. The moment when the Athenians did at last abandon their fortifications on the slope of EpipolÆ (t? ??? te???) is specially marked by ThucydidÊs afterwards, vii, 60: it was at the last moment of desperation, when the service of all was needed for the final maritime battle in the Great Harbor. Dr. Arnold (p. 275) misinterprets this passage, in my judgment, evading the direct sense of it. The words of ThucydidÊs, vii, 42—e? ?p???at?se?? t?? t?? te ?p?p???? t?? ??a?se??, ?a? a???? t?? ?? a?ta?? st?at?p?d??—are more correctly conceived by M. Firmin Didot, in the note to his translation, than by Arnold and GÖller. The st?at?ped?? here indicated does not mean the Athenian circle, and their partially completed line of circumvallation on the slope of EpipolÆ. It means the ground higher up than this, which they had partially occupied at first while building the fort of Labdalum, and of which they had been substantially masters until the arrival of Gylippus who had now converted it into a camp or st?at?ped?? of the Syracusans. [451] Diodor. xiii, 11. [452] Thucyd. vii, 44, 45. [453] Thucyd. vii, 46. Plutarch (Nikias, c. 21) states that the number of slain was two thousand. Diodorus gives it at two thousand five hundred (xiii, 11). ThucydidÊs does not state it at all. These two authors probably both copied from some common authority, not ThucydidÊs; perhaps Philistus. [454] Thucyd. vi, 47. [455] Thucyd. vii, 48. ? d? ????a? ?????e ?? ?a? a?t?? p????? sf?? t? p???ata e??a?, t? d? ???? ??? ????et? a?t? ?s?e?? ?p?de?????a?, ??d’ ?fa??? sf?? ??f???????? et? p????? t?? ??a????s?? t??? p??e???? ?ata????t??? ????es?a?? ?a?e?? ??? ??, ?p?te ??????t?, t??t? p?????te? p???? ?tt??. It seems probable that some of the taxiarchs and trierarchs were present at this deliberation, as we find in another case afterwards, c. 60. Possibly, DemosthenÊs might even desire that they should be present, as witnesses respecting the feeling of the army; and also as supporters, if the matter came afterwards to be debated in the public assembly at Athens. It is to this fact that the words ?fa??? et? p????? seem to allude. [456] Thucyd. vii, 48. ?????? ???es?a? a?t?? ?e, ?p?st?e??? t?? ????a??? f?se??, ?p? a?s??? ?e a?t?? ?a? ?d???? ?p’ ????a??? ?p???s?a?, ????? ? ?p? t?? p??e???, e? de?, ???d??e?sa? t??t? pa?e??, ?d??. The situation of the last word ?d?? in this sentence is perplexing, because it can hardly be construed except either with ?p???s?a? or with a?t?? ?e: for Nikias could not run any risk of perishing separately by the hands of the enemy, unless we are to ascribe to him an absurd rhodomontade quite foreign to his character. Compare Plutarch Nikias, c. 22. [457] Thucyd. vii, 48. t??e?? ??? ?f? ????a? p??s?a???????, etc. [458] Thucyd. vii, 49. ? d? ???s????? pe?? ?? t?? p??s?a??s?a? ??d’ ?p?s??? ??ed??et?—t? d? ??pa? e?pe??, ??de?? t??p? ?? ?f? ???s?e?? ?? t? a?t? ?t? ??e??, ???’ ?t? t???sta ?d? ?a? ? ???e?? ??a??stas?a?. ?a? ? ?????d?? a?t? ta?ta ???????e?e?. [459] Thucyd. vii, 69; Diodor. xiii, 12. [460] Thucyd. vii, 48. ? ?p?st?e???, t? ?? ???? ?t? ?p’ ?f?te?a ???? ?a? d?as??p?? ??e??e, t? d’ ?fa?e? t?te ???? ??? ?f? ?p??e?? t?? st?at???. The insignificance of the party in Syracuse which corresponded with Nikias may be reasonably inferred from Thucyd. vii, 55. It consisted in part of those Leontines who had been incorporated into the Syracusan citizenship (Diodor. xiii, 18). PolyÆnus (i, 43, 1) has a tale respecting a revolt of the slaves or villeins (????ta?) at Syracuse during the Athenian siege, under a leader named SosikratÊs, a revolt suppressed by the stratagem of HermokratÊs. That various attempts of this sort took place at Syracuse during these two trying years, is by no means improbable. In fact, it is difficult to understand how the numerous predial slaves were kept in order during the great pressure and danger, prior to the coming of Gylippus. [461] Thucyd. vii, 49. ??t??????t?? d? t?? ??????, ????? t?? ?a? ????s?? ??e???et?, ?a? ?a ?p????a ? t? ?a? p???? e?d?? ? ????a? ?s??????ta?. The language of Justin respecting this proceeding is just and discriminating: “Nicias, seu pudore male actÆ rei, seu metu destitutÆ spei civium, seu impellente fato, manere contendit.” (Justin, iv, 5.) [462] This interval may be inferred (see Dodwell, Ann. Thucyd. vii, 50) from the state of the moon at the time of the battle of EpipolÆ, compared with the subsequent eclipse. [463] Thucyd. vii, 50. ?? a?t??? ??d? ? ????a? ?t? ????? ??a?t???t?, etc. Diodor. xiii, 12. ? ????a? ??a???s?? s??????sa?, etc. [464] Thucyd. vii, 60. [465] Diodor. xiii, 12. ?? st?at??ta? t? s?e?? ??et??e?t?, etc. Plutarch, Nikias, c. 23. [466] The moon was totally eclipsed on this night, August 27, 413 B.C., from twenty-seven minutes past nine to thirty-four minutes past ten P.M. (Wurm, De Ponderib. GrÆcor. sect. xciv, p. 184), speaking with reference to an observer in Sicily. ThucydidÊs states that Nikias adopted the injunction of the prophets, to tarry thrice nine days (vii, 50). Diodorus says three days. Plutarch intimates that Nikias went beyond the injunction of the prophets, who only insisted on three days, while he resolved on remaining for an entire lunar period (Plutarch, Nikias, c. 23). I follow the statement of ThucydidÊs: there is no reason to believe that Nikias would lengthen the time beyond what the prophets prescribed. The erroneous statement respecting this memorable event, in so respectable an author as Polybius, is not a little surprising (Polyb. ix, 19). [467] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 22; Diodor. xiii, 12; Thucyd. vii, 50. StilbidÊs was eminent in his profession of a prophet: see Aristophan. Pac. 1029, with the citations from Eupolis and Philochorus in the Scholia. Compare the description of the effect produced by the eclipse of the sun at Thebes, immediately prior to the last expedition of Pelopidas into Thessaly (Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 31). [468] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 24. [469] Thucyd. vii, 52, 53; Diodor. xiii, 13. [470] Thucyd. vii, 55. ?? ?? ????a??? ?? pa?t? d? ????a? ?sa?, ?a? ? pa??????? a?t??? ??a? ??, p??? d? e???? ?t? t?? st?ate?a? ? et?e???. [471] Thucyd. vii, 56. ?? d? S??a??s??? t?? te ????a e???? pa??p?e?? ?de??, etc. This elate and visible manifestation of feeling ought not to pass unnoticed, as an evidence of Grecian character. [472] Thucyd. vii, 56. [473] Thucyd. vii, 57, 58. [474] Thucyd. vii, 59; Diodor. xiii, 14. [475] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 24. [476] Thucyd. vii, 60. [477] Thucyd. vii, 62. ? d? ????? ??e?d?e? ?p? t? t?? ?????? ste??t?t? p??? t?? ?????ta ????? t?? ?e?? ?ses?a?, etc. [478] Thucyd. vii, 62. ?? t??t? ??? d? ??a???se?a, ?ste pe??a?e?? ?p? t?? ?e??, ?a? t? ?te a?t??? ??a????es?a?, ?te ??e????? ???, ?f????? fa??eta?. [479] Thucyd. vii, 63. ???? d? ?a?ta?? pa?a???, ?a? ?? t? a?t? t?de ?a? d??a?, ? ??pep????a? t? ta?? ??f??a?? ??a? ... ??e???? te t?? ?d???? ????e?s?a?, ?? ???a ?st? d?as?sas?a?, ?? t??? ????a??? ?????e??? ?a? ? ??te? ???, t?? te f???? t? ?p?st?? ?a? t?? t??p?? t? ??se?, ??a???es?e ?at? t?? ????da, ?a? t?? ????? t?? ?et??a? ??? ??ass?? ?at? t? ?fe?e?s?a?, ?? te t? f?e??? t??? ?p?????? ?a? t? ? ?d??e?s?a? p??? p?e???, ete??ete, ?ste ???????? ???? ??e?????? ??? t?? ????? ??te?, d??a??? a?t?? ??? ? ?atap??d?d?te, etc. Dr. Arnold (together with GÖller and Poppo), following the Scholiast, explain these words as having particular reference to the metics in the Athenian naval service. But I cannot think this correct. All persons in that service—who were freemen, but yet not citizens of Athens—are here designated; partly metics, doubtless, but partly also citizens of the islands and dependent allies,—the ????? ?a??ta? alluded to by the Corinthians and by PeriklÊs at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. i, 121-143) as the ???t? d??a?? ????? ? ???e?a of Athens. Without doubt there were numerous foreign seamen in the warlike navy of Athens, who derived great consideration as well as profit from the service, and often passed themselves off for Athenian citizens when they really were not so. [480] Thucyd. vii, 64. ?t? ?? ?? ta?? ?a?s?? ??? ??? ?s?e???, ?a? p???? t??? ????a???? e?s? ?a? ??e?, ?a? ? ?p????p?? p????, ?a? t? ??a ???a t?? ??????.... [481] See the striking chapter of Thucyd. vii, 69. Even the tame style of Diodorus (xiii, 15) becomes animated in describing this scene. [482] Thucyd. vii, 65. [483] Thucyd. vii, 66, 67. [484] Thucyd. vii, 68. p??? ??? ?ta??a? te t??a?t?? ... ???? p??s???e?, ?a? ???s?e? ?a ?? ????tat?? e??a? p??? t??? ??a?t????, ?? ?? ?? ?p? t????? t?? p??spes??t?? d??a??s?s?? ?p?p??sa? t?? ????? t? ????e???, ?a d? ??????? ???as?a? ???e??s?e??? ???, ?a? (t? ?e??e??? p??) ?d?st?? e??a?. This plain and undisguised invocation of the angry and revengeful passions should be noticed, as a mark of character and manners. [485] Diodorus, xiii, 14. Plutarch has a similar statement, in reference to the previous battle: but I think he must have confused one battle with the other, for his account can hardly be made to harmonize with ThucydidÊs (Plutarch, Nikias, c. 24). It is to be recollected that both Plutarch and Diodorus had probably read the description of the battles in the Great Harbor of Syracuse, contained in Philistus; a better witness, if we had his account before us, even than ThucydidÊs; since he was probably at this time in Syracuse and was perhaps actually engaged. [486] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 24, 25. TimÆus reckoned the aid of HÊraklÊs as having been one of the great causes of Syracusan victory over the Athenians. He gave several reasons why the god was provoked against the Athenians: see TimÆus, Fragm. 104, ed. Didot. [487] The destructive impact of these metallic masses at the head of the ships of war, as well as the periplus practised by a lighter ship to avoid direct collision against a heavier, is strikingly illustrated by a passage in Plutarch’s Life of Lucullus, where a naval engagement between the Roman general, and Neoptolemus the admiral of Mithridates, is described. “Lucullus was on board a Rhodian quinquerime, commanded by Damagoras, a skilful Rhodian pilot; while Neoptolemus was approaching with a ship much heavier, and driving forward to a direct collision: upon which Damagoras evaded the blow, rowed rapidly round, and struck the enemy in the stern.” ... de?sa? ? ?aa???a? t? ???? t?? as??????, ?a? t?? t?a??t?ta t?? ?a???at??, ??? ?t???se s?pese?? ??t?p?????, ???’ ????? ?? pe??a????? ?p?st???a? ????e?se? ?p? p???a? ?sas?a?? ?a? p?es?e?s?? ??ta??a t?? ?e?? ?d??at? t?? p????? ??a? ?e??????, ?te d? t??? ?a?atte???s? t?? ???? ??es? p??spes??sa?.—Plutarch, Lucull. c. 3. [488] Thucyd. vii, 71. [489] Thucyd. vii, 60. t?? ?a?? ?p?sa? ?sa? ?sa? ?a? d??ata? ?a? ?p???te?a?. [490] Thucyd. vii, 60. p??ta t??? ?s?????te? p????sa?—??a???sa?te? ?sa??e?? ?st?? ?a? ?p?s??? ?d??e? ?????a? et???? ?p?t?de??? e??a?. Compare also the speech of Gylippus, c. 67. [491] The language of Theokritus, in describing the pugilistic contest between Pollux and the Bebrykian Amykus, is not inapplicable to the position of the Athenian ships and seamen when cramped up in this harbor (Idyll. xxii, 91):— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?? d’ ?t????e? ???e? ??ate??? ????de??ea ?a?s??es???, ?e?d??te? ? p?? ?? ?p???sa? da?se?e?, ???? ??? ste???, ??t?? ??a??????? ????. Compare Virgil’s picture of Entellus and DarÊs, Æneid, v, 430. [492] Thucyd. vii, 72. [493] Diodor. xiii, 18. [494] Thucyd. vii, 73; Diodor. xiii, 18. [495] Thucyd. vi, 64. [496] Xenophon, Anab. iv, 5, 15, 19; v, 8, 15. [497] Thucyd. vii, 77. [498] Thucyd. vii, 74. [499] Thucyd. vii, 77. ?a?t?? p???? ?? ?? ?e??? ???a ded??t?a?, p???? d? ?? ?????p??? d??a?a ?a? ??ep?f???a. ???’ ?? ? ?? ??p?? ??? ??ase?a t?? ?????t??, a? d? ??f??a? ?? ?at’ ???a? d? f???s?. ???a d’ ?? ?a? ??f?se?a?? ??a?? ??? t??? te p??e???? e?t???ta?, ?a? e? t? ?e?? ?p?f????? ?st?ate?sae?, ??????t?? ?d? tet????e?a. I have translated the words ?? ?at’ ???a?, and the sentence of which they form a part, differently from what has been hitherto sanctioned by the commentators, who construe ?at’ ???a? as meaning “according to our desert,” understand the words a? ??f??a? ?? ?at’ ???a? as bearing the same sense with the words ta?? pa?? t?? ???a? ?a??p?a??a?? some lines before; and likewise construe ??, not with f???s?, but with ?at’ ???a?, assigning to f???s? an affirmative sense. They translate: “Quare, quamvis nostra fortuna, prorsus afflicta videatur (these words have no parallel in the original) rerum tamen futurarum spes est audax: sed clades, quas nullo nostro merito accepimus, nos jam terrent. At fortasse cessabunt,” etc. M. Didot translates: “Aussi j’ai un ferme espoir dans l’avenir, malgrÉ l’effroi que des malheurs non mÉritÉs nous causent.” Dr. Arnold passes the sentence over without notice. This manner of translating appears to me not less unsuitable in reference to the spirit and thread of the harangue, than awkward as regards the individual words. Looking to the spirit of the harangue, the object of encouraging the dejected soldiers would hardly be much answered by repeating—what in fact had been glanced at in a manner sufficient and becoming, before—that “the unmerited reverses terrified either Nikias or the soldiers.” Then as to the words; the expressions ???’ ??, ???, ??, and d?, seem to me to denote, not only that the two halves of the sentence apply both of them to Nikias, but that the first half of the sentence is in harmony, not in opposition, with the second. MatthiÆ (in my judgment, erroneously) refers (Gr. Gr. § 623) ??? to some words which have preceded; I think that ??? contributes to hold together the first and the second affirmation of the sentence. Now the Latin translation refers the first half of the sentence to Nikias, and the last half to the soldiers whom he addresses; while the translation of M. Didot, by means of the word malgrÉ, for which there is nothing corresponding in the Greek, puts the second half in antithesis to the first. I cannot but think that ?? ought to be construed with f???s?, and that the words ?at’ ???a? do not bear the meaning assigned to them by the translators. ???a? not only means, “desert, merit, the title to that which a man has earned by his conduct,” as in the previous phrase pa?? t?? ???a?, but it also means, “price, value, title to be cared for, capacity of exciting more or less desire or aversion,” in which last sense it is predicated as an attribute, not only of moral beings, but of other objects besides. Thus Aristotle says (Ethic. Nikom. iii, 11): ? ??? ??t?? ???? ????? ??ap? t?? t??a?ta? ?d???? t?? ???a?? ? d? s?f??? ?? t????t??, etc. Again, ibid. iii, 5. ? ?? ??? ? de? ?a? ?? ??e?a, ?p????? ?a? f???e???, ?a? ?? de?, ?a? ?te, ????? d? ?a? ?a????, ??d?e???? ?at’ ???a? ???, ?a? ?? ?? ? ?????, p?s?e? ?a? p??tte? ? ??d?e???. Again, ibid. iv, 2. ??? t??t? ?st? t?? e?a??p?ep???, ?? ? ?? p??? ???e?, e?a??p?ep?? p??e??? t? ??? t????t?? ??? e??p????t??, ?a? ???? ?at’ ???a? t?? dapa??at??. Again, ibid. viii, 14. ???e??? ??? ??ta ?? fas? de?? ?s?? ??e??? ?e?t?????a? te ??? ???es?a?, ?a? ?? f???a?, e? ? ?at’ ???a? t?? ????? ?sta? t? ?? t?? f???a?. Compare also ib. viii, 13. Xenophon, Cyrop. viii, 4, 32. t? ??? p???? d?????ta ??e?? ? ?at’ ???a? t?? ??s?a? fa??es?a? ?fe????ta t??? f?????, ??e?e??e??a? ????e d??e? pe???pte??. Compare Xenophon, Memorab. ii, 5, 2. ?spe? t?? ???et??, ??t? ?a? t?? f????, e?s?? ???a?; also ibid. i, 6, 11, and IsokratÊs, cont. Lochit. Or. xx, s. 8. The words ?at’ ???a? in ThucydidÊs appear to me to bear the same meaning as in these passages of Xenophon and Aristotle, “in proportion to their value,” or to their real magnitude. If we so construe them, the words ???’ ??, ???, ??, and d?, all fall into their proper order: the whole sentence after ???’ ?? applies to Nikias personally, is a corollary from what he had asserted before, and forms a suitable point in an harangue for encouraging his dispirited soldiers: “Look how I bear up, who have as much cause for mourning as any of you. I have behaved well both towards gods and towards men: in return for which, I am comparatively comfortable both as to the future and as to the present: as to the future, I have strong hopes; at the same time that, as to the present, I am not overwhelmed by the present misfortunes in proportion to their prodigious intensity.” This is the precise thing for a man of resolution to say upon so terrible an occasion. The particle d? has its appropriate meaning, a? d? ??f??a? ?? ?at’ ???a? d? f???s?; “and the present distresses, though they do appall me, do not appall me assuredly in proportion to their actual magnitude.” Lastly, the particle ?a? (in the succeeding phrase, t??a d’ ?? ?a? ??f?se?a?) does not fit on to the preceding passage as usually construed: accordingly the Latin translator, as well as M. Didot, leave it out, and translate: “At fortasse cessabunt.” “Mais peut-Être vont-ils cesser.” It ought to be translated: “And perhaps they may even abate,” which implies that what had been asserted in the preceding sentence is here intended not to be contradicted, but to be carried forward and strengthened: see KÜhner, Griech. Gramm. sects. 725-728. Such would not be the case as the sentence is usually construed. [500] Thucyd. vii, 77. ??a?? ??? t??? te p??e???? e?t???ta?, ?a? e? t? ?e?? ?p?f????? ?st?ate?sae?, ?p?????t?? ?d? tet????e?a? ????? ??? p?? ?a? ????? t???? ?d? ?f’ ?t?????, ?a? ?????pe?a d??sa?te? ??e?t? ?pa???. ?a? ??? e???? ??? t? te ?p? t?? ?e?? ??p??e?? ?p??te?a ??e??? ???t?? ??? ?p’ a?t?? ????te??? ?d? ?s?? ? f?????. This is a remarkable illustration of the doctrine, so frequently set forth in Herodotus, that the gods were jealous of any man or any nation who was preËminently powerful, fortunate, or prosperous. Nikias, recollecting the immense manifestation and promise with which his armament had started from PeirÆus, now believed that this had provoked the jealousy of some of the gods, and brought about the misfortunes in Sicily. He comforts his soldiers by saying that the enemy is now at the same dangerous pinnacle of exaltation, whilst they have exhausted the sad effects of the divine jealousy. Compare the story of Amasis and PolykratÊs in Herodotus (iii, 39), and the striking remarks put into the mouth of Paulus Æmilius by Plutarch (Vit. Paul. Æmil. c. 36). [501] Thucyd. vii, 77. ??d?e? ??? p????, ?a? ?? te???, ??d? ??e? ??d??? ?e?a?. [502] Thucyd. vii, 78. [503] Thucyd. vii, 79. ?f’ ?? ?? ????a??? ????? ?t? ??????, ?a? ??????? ?p? t? sfet??? ?????? ?a? ta?ta p??ta ????es?a?. [504] Thucyd. vi, 70. [505] Thucyd. vii, 80-82. [506] Dr. Arnold (Thucyd. vol. iii, p. 280, copied by GÖller, ad vii, 81) thinks that the division of DemosthenÊs reached and passed the river Kakyparis; and was captured between the Kakyparis and the Erineus. But the words of Thucyd. vii, 80, 81, do not sustain this. The division of Nikias was in advance of DemosthenÊs from the beginning, and gained upon it principally during the early part of the march, before daybreak; because it was then that the disorder of the division of DemosthenÊs was the most inconvenient: see c. 81—?? t?? ???t?? t?te ???eta?????sa?, etc. When ThucydidÊs, therefore, says, that “at daybreak they arrived at the sea,” (?a d? t? ?? ?f??????ta? ?? t?? ???atta?, c. 80,) this cannot be true both of Nikias and of DemosthenÊs. If the former arrived there at daybreak, the latter cannot have come to the same point till some time after daybreak. Nikias must have been beforehand with DemosthenÊs when he reached the sea, and considerably more beforehand when he reached the Kakyparis: moreover, we are expressly told that Nikias did not wait for his colleague, that he thought it for the best to get on as fast as possible with his own division. It appears to me that the words ?f??????ta?, etc. (c. 80), are not to be understood both of Nikias and DemosthenÊs, but that they refer back to the word a?t???, two or three lines behind: “the Athenians (taken generally) reached the sea,” no attention being at that moment paid to the difference between the front and the rear divisions. The Athenians might be said, not improperly, to reach the sea, at the time when the division of Nikias reached it. [507] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 27. [508] Thucyd. vii, 81. ?a? t?te ????? (sc. DemosthenÊs) t??? S??a??s???? d?????ta? ?? p??????e? ????? ? ?? ???? ???et?sset?, ??? ??d?at???? ??????ta? te ?p’ a?t??, ?a? ?? p???? ????? a?t?? te ?a? ?? et’ a?t?? ????a??? ?sa?? ??e??????te? ??? ?? t? ??????, ? ????? ?? te????? pe????, ?d?? d? ???e? te ?a? ???e?, ???a? d? ??? ????a? e??e?, ??????t? pe??stad??. I translate ?d?? d? ???e? te ?a? ???e? differently from Dr. Arnold, from Mitford, and from others. These words are commonly understood to mean that this walled plantation was bordered by two roads, one on each side. Certainly the words might have that signification; but I think they also may have the signification (compare ii, 76) which I have given in the text, and which seems more plausible. It certainly is very improbable that the Athenians should have gone out of the road, in order to shelter themselves in the plantation; since they were fully aware that there was no safety for them except in getting away. If we suppose that the plantation lay exactly in the road, the word ??e??????te? becomes perfectly explicable, on which I do not think that Dr. Arnold’s comment is satisfactory. The pressure of the troops from the rear into the hither opening, while those in the front could not get out by the farther opening, would naturally cause this crowd and huddling inside. A road which passed right through the walled ground, entering at one side and coming out at the other, might well be called ?d?? d? ???e? te ?a? ???e?. Compare Dr. Arnold’s Remarks on the Map of Syracuse, vol. iii, p. 281; as well as his note on vii, 81. I imagine the olive-trees to be here named, not for either of the two reasons mentioned by Dr. Arnold, but because they hindered the Athenians from seeing beforehand distinctly the nature of the inclosure into which they were hastening, and therefore prevented any precautions from being taken, such as that of forbidding too many troops from entering at once, etc. [509] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 27; Thucyd. vii, 82. [510] This statement depends upon the very good authority of the contemporary Syracusan, Philistus: see Pausanias, i, 29, 9; Philisti Fragm. 46, ed. Didot. [511] Thucyd. vii, 83. [512] Plutarch (Nikias. c. 27) says eight days, inaccurately. [513] Thucyd. vii, 85. See Dr. Arnold’s note. [514] Thucyd. vii, 84. ... ?a???? ????e? t??? ????a????, p????t?? te t??? p?????? ?s?????, ?a? ?? ????? ??t? t? p?t?? ?? sf?s?? a?t??? ta?ass??????. [515] Thucyd. vii, 85, 86; Philistus, Fragm. 46, ed. Didot; Pausanias, i. 29, 9. [516] Thucyd. vii, 85; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 27. [517] ThucydidÊs states, roughly, and without pretending to exact means of knowledge, that the total number of captives brought to Syracuse under public supervision, was not less than seven thousand—???f??sa? d? ?? ??pa?te?, ????e?? ?? ?a?ep?? ??e?pe??, ??? d? ??? ???ss??? ?pta??s?????? (vii, 87). As the number taken with DemosthenÊs was six thousand (vii, 82), this leaves one thousand as having been obtained from the division of Nikias. [518] Thucyd. vii, 85. p????? d? ??? ?a? d??f????, ?? ?? ?a? pa?a?t??a, ?? d? ?a? d???e?sa?te? ?a? d?ad?d??s???te? ?ste???. The word pa?a?t??a means, during the retreat. [519] Lysias pro Polystrato. Orat. xx, sects. 26-28, c. 6, p. 686 R. [520] Thucyd. vii, 87. Diodorus (xiii, 20-32) gives two long orations purporting to have been held in the Syracusan assembly, in discussing how the prisoners were to be dealt with. An old citizen, named Nikolaus, who has lost his two sons in the war, is made to advocate the side of humane treatment; while Gylippus is introduced as the orator recommending harshness and revenge. From whom Diodorus borrowed this, I do not know; but his whole account of the matter appears to me untrustworthy. One may judge of his accuracy when one finds him stating that the prisoners received each two choenikes of barley-meal, instead of two kotylÆ; the choenix being four times as much as the kotylÊ (Diodor. xiii, 19). [521] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 29; Diodor. xiii, 33. The reader will see how the Carthaginians treated the Grecian prisoners whom they took in Sicily, in Diodor. xiii, 111. [522] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 28; Diodor. xiii, 19. [523] Thucyd. vii, 86; Plutarch, Nikias, c. 28. The statement which Plutarch here cites from TimÆus respecting the intervention of HermokratÊs, is not in any substantial contradiction with Philistus and ThucydidÊs. The word ?e?e?s???ta? seems decidedly preferable to ?ata?e?s???ta?, in the text of Plutarch. [524] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 28. Though Plutarch says that the month Karneius is “that which the Athenians call Metageitnion,” yet it is not safe to affirm that the day of the slaughter of the Asinarus was the 16th of the Attic month Metageitnion. We know that the civil months of different cities seldom or never exactly coincided. See the remarks of Franz on this point, in his comment on the valuable Inscriptions of Tauromenium, Corp. Inscr. Gr. No. 5640, part xxxii, sect 3, p. 640. The surrender of Nikias must have taken place, I think, not less than twenty-four or twenty-five days after the eclipse, which occurred on the 27th of August, that is, about Sept. 21. Mr. Fynes Clinton (F. H. ad ann. 413 B.C.) seems to me to compress too much the interval between the eclipse and the retreat; considering that that interval included two great battles, with a certain delay before, between, and after. The et?p???? noticed by Thucyd. vii, 79. suits with Sept. 21: compare Plutarch, Nikias, c. 22. [525] Thucyd. vii, 87. [526] Pausan. i, 29, 9; Philist. Fragm. 46, ed. Didot. Justin erroneously says that DemosthenÊs actually did kill himself, rather than submit to surrender, before the surrender of Nikias; who, he says, did not choose to follow the example:— “DemosthenÊs, amisso exercitu a captivitate gladio et voluntari morte se vindicat: Nicias autem, ne Demosthenis quidem exemplo, ut sibi consuleret, admonitus, cladem suorum auxit dedecore captivitatis.” (Justin, iv, 5.) Philistus, whom Pausanias announces himself as following, is an excellent witness for the actual facts in Sicily; though not so good a witness for the impression at Athens respecting those facts. It seems certain, even from ThucydidÊs, that Nikias, in surrendering himself to Gylippus, thought that he had considerable chance of saving his life, Plutarch too so interprets the proceeding, and condemns it as disgraceful, see his comparison of Nikias and Crassus, near the end. DemosthenÊs could not have thought the same for himself: the fact of his attempted suicide appears to me certain, on the authority of Philistus, though ThucydidÊs does not notice it. [527] Thucyd. vii, 86. ?a? ? ?? t??a?t? ? ?t? ????tata t??t?? a?t?? ?te????e?, ???sta d? ????? ?? t?? ?e ?p’ ??? ??????? ?? t??t? d?st???a? ?f???s?a?, d?? t?? ?e???s???? ?? t? ?e??? ?p?t?de?s??. So stood the text of ThucydidÊs, until various recent editors changed the last words, on the authority of some MSS., to d?? t?? p?sa? ?? ??et?? ?e???s???? ?p?t?de?s??. Though Dr. Arnold and some of the best critics prefer and adopt the latter reading, I confess it seems to me that the former is more suitable to the Greek vein of thought, as well as more conformable to truth about Nikias. A man’s good or bad fortune, depending on the favorable or unfavorable disposition of the gods towards him, was understood to be determined more directly by his piety and religious observances, rather than by his virtue, see passages in IsokratÊs de Permutation. Orat. xv, sect. 301; Lysias, cont. Nikomach. c. 5, p. 854, though undoubtedly the two ideas went to a certain extent together. Men might differ about the virtue of Nikias; but his piety was an incontestable fact; and his “good fortune” also, in times prior to the Sicilian expedition, was recognized by men like AlkibiadÊs, who most probably had no very lofty opinion of his virtue (Thucyd. vi, 17). The contrast between the remarkable piety of Nikias, and that extremity of ill-fortune which marked the close of his life, was very likely to shock Grecian ideas generally, and was a natural circumstance for the historian to note. Whereas if we read, in the passage, p?sa? ?? ??et??, the panegyric upon Nikias becomes both less special and more disproportionate, beyond what even ThucydidÊs (as far as we can infer from other expressions, see v, 16) would be inclined to bestow upon him—more, in fact, than he says in commendation even of PeriklÊs. [528] A good many of the features depicted by Tacitus (Hist. i, 49) in Galba, suit the character of Nikias, much more than those of the rapacious and unprincipled Crassus, with whom Plutarch compares the latter:— “Vetus in famili nobilitas, magnÆ opes: ipsi medium ingenium, magis extra vitia, quam cum virtutibus. Sed claritas natalium, et metus temporum, obtentui fuit, ut quod segnitia fuit, sapientia vocaretur. Dum vigebat Ætas, militari laude apud Germanias floruit: proconsul, Africam moderate; jam senior, citeriorem Hispaniam, pari justiti continuit. Major privato visus dum privatus fuit, et omnium consensu capax imperii, nisi imperasset.” [529] Thucyd. i, 122-142; vi, 90. [530] Thucyd. viii. 4. About the extensive ruin caused by the LacedÆmonians to the olive-grounds in Attica, see Lysias, Or. vii, De Ole SacrÂ, sects. 6, 7. An inscription preserved in M. Boeckh’s Corp. Inscr. (part ii, No. 93, p. 132), gives some hint how landlords and tenants met this inevitable damage from the hands of the invaders. The deme ÆxÔneis lets a farm to a certain tenant for forty years, at a fixed rent of one hundred and forty drachmÆ; but if an invading enemy shall drive him out or injure his farm, the deme is to receive one half of the year’s produce, in place of the year’s rent. [531] Thucyd. vii, 28, 29. [532] Thucyd. vii, 27. [533] Thucyd. vii, 28. [534] Upon this new assessment on the allies, determined by the Athenians, Mr. Mitford remarks as follows:— “Thus light, in comparison of what we have laid upon ourselves, was the heaviest tax, as far as we learn from history, at that time known in the world. Yet it caused much discontent among the dependent commonwealths; the arbitrary power by which it was imposed being indeed reasonably execrated, though the burden itself was comparatively a nothing.” This admission is not easily reconciled with the frequent invectives in which Mr. Mitford indulges against the empire of Athens, as practising a system of extortion and oppression ruinous to the subject-allies. I do not know, however, on what authority he affirms that this was “the heaviest tax then known in the world;” and that “it caused much discontent among the subject commonwealths.” The latter assertion would indeed be sufficiently probable, if it be true that the tax ever came into operation; but we are not entitled to affirm it. Considering how very soon the terrible misfortunes of Athens came on, I cannot but think it a matter of uncertainty whether the new assessment ever became a reality throughout the Athenian empire. And the fact that ThucydidÊs does not notice it as an additional cause of discontent among the allies, is one reason for such doubts. [535] Thucyd. vii, 29, 30, 31. I conceive that ??s? ?? e???? is the right reading, and not ??s? e????, in reference to MykalÊssus. The words ?? ?p? e???e?, in c. 31, refer to the size of the city. The reading is, however, disputed among critics. It is evident from the language of ThucydidÊs that the catastrophe at MykalÊssus made a profound impression throughout Greece. [536] Thucyd. vii, 30; Pausanias. i, 23, 3. Compare Meineke, ad Aristophanis Fragment. ???e?, vol. ii, p. 1069. [537] See above, vol. vi, ch. xlix, p. 196 of this History. [538] See the preceding chapter. [539] Thucyd. vii, 31. Compare the language of Phormion, ii. 88, 89. [540] Thucyd. vii, 34. [541] Plutarch, Nikias, c. 30. He gives the story without much confidence, ????a???? d? fas?, etc. [542] Thucyd. viii, 1. [543] Thucyd. viii, 1. ???ta d? pa?ta???e? a?t??? ???pe?, etc. [544] Thucyd. viii, 1. ?pe?d? d? ????sa?, ?a?ep?? ?? ?sa? t??? ??p??????e?s? t?? ??t???? t?? ??p????, ?spe? ??? a?t?? ??f?s?e???, etc. From these latter words, it would seem that ThucydidÊs considered the Athenians, after having adopted the expedition by their votes, to have debarred themselves from the right of complaining of those speakers who had stood forward prominently to advise the step. I do not at all concur in his opinion. The adviser of any important measure always makes himself morally responsible for its justice, usefulness, and practicability; and he very properly incurs disgrace, more or less according to the case, if it turns out to present results totally contrary to those which he had predicted. We know that the Athenian law often imposed upon the mover of a proposition not merely moral, but even legal, responsibility; a regulation of doubtful propriety under other circumstances, but which I believe to have been useful at Athens. It must be admitted, however, to have been hard upon the advisers of this expedition, that—from the total destruction of the armament, neither generals nor soldiers returning—they were not enabled to show how much of the ruin had arisen from faults in the execution, not in the plan conceived. The speaker in the Oration of Lysias—pe?? d?e?se?? t?? ?????? ?de?f?? (Or. xviii, sect. 2)—attempts to transfer the blame from Nikias upon the advisers of the expedition, a manifest injustice. DemosthenÊs (in the Oration De CoronÂ, c. 73) gives an emphatic and noble statement of the responsibility which he cheerfully accepts for himself as a political speaker and adviser; responsibility for seeing the beginnings and understanding the premonitory signs of coming events, and giving his countrymen warning beforehand: ?de?? t? p???ata ????e?a ?a? p??a?s??s?a? ?a? p??e?pe?? t??? ??????. This is the just view of the subject; and, applying the measure proposed by DemosthenÊs, the Athenians had ample ground to be displeased with their orators. [545] Thucyd. viii, 1. p??ta d? p??? t? pa?a???a pe??de??, ?pe? f??e? d??? p??e??, ?t???? ?sa? e?ta?te??; compare Xenoph. Mem. iii, 5, 5. [546] Thucyd. viii, 1-4. About the functions of this Board of ProbÛli, much has been said for which there is no warrant in ThucydidÊs: t?? te ?at? t?? p???? t? ?? e?t??e?a? s?f????sa?, ?a? ????? t??a p?es?t???? ??d??? ???s?a?, ??t??e? pe?? t?? pa???t?? ?? ?? ?a???? ? p?????e?s??s?. ???ta d? p??? t? pa?a???a pe??de??, ?pe? f??e? d??? p??e??, ?t???? ?sa? e?ta?te??. Upon which Dr. Arnold remarks: “That is, no measure was to be submitted to the people, till it had first been approved by this council of elders.” And such is the general view of the commentators. No such meaning as this, however, is necessarily contained in the word ????????. It is, indeed, conceivable that persons so denominated might be invested with such a control; but we cannot infer it, or affirm it, simply from the name. Nor will the passages in Aristotle’s Politics, wherein the word ???????? occurs, authorize any inference with respect to this Board in the special case of Athens (Aristotel. Politic. iv, 11, 9; iv, 12, 8; vi, 5, 10-13). The Board only seems to have lasted for a short time at Athens, being named for a temporary purpose, at a moment of peculiar pressure and discouragement. During such a state of feeling, there was little necessity for throwing additional obstacles in the way of new propositions to be made to the people. It was rather of importance to encourage the suggestion of new measures, from men of sense and experience. A Board destined merely for control and hindrance, would have been mischievous instead of useful under the reigning melancholy at Athens. The Board was doubtless merged in the Oligarchy of Four Hundred, like all the other magistracies of the state, and was not reconstituted after their deposition. I cannot think it admissible to draw inferences as to the functions of this Board of ProbÛli now constituted, from the proceedings of the ProbÛlus in Aristophanis Lysistrata, as is done by Wachsmuth (Hellenische Alterthumskunde, i, 2, p. 198), and by Wattenbach (De Quadringentorum Athenis Factione, pp. 17-21, Berlin 1842). SchÖmann (Ant. Jur. Pub. GrÆcor. v, xii, p. 181) says of these ????????: “Videtur autem eorum potestas fere annua fuisse.” I do not distinctly understand what he means by these words; whether he means that the Board continued permanent, but that the members were annually changed. If this be his meaning, I dissent from it. I think that the Board lasted until the time of the Four Hundred, which would be about a year and a half after its first institution. [547] Thucyd. viii, 2, 3. ?a?eda?????? d? t?? p??sta??? ta?? p??es?? ??at?? ?e?? t?? ?a?p???a? ?p?????t?, etc.; compare also c. 4—pa?es?e?????t? t?? ?a?p???a?, etc. [548] Thucyd. viii, 5. ??t?? ??d?? ???? ? ?spe? ???????? ?? ?atas?e?? t?? p?????: compare ii, 7. [549] Thucyd. viii, 2: compare ii, 7; iii, 86. [550] Thucyd. viii, 3. [551] Thucyd. viii, 5. [552] Thucyd. viii, 7-24. [553] Thucyd. viii, 5. ?p? as????? ??? ?e?st? ?t???a?e pep?a????? (Tissaphernes) t??? ?? t?? ?a?t?? ????? f?????, ??? d?’ ????a???? ?p? t?? ??????d?? p??e?? ?? d???e??? p??sses?a? ?p?fe???se. ???? te ??? f????? ????? ?????e ???e?s?a? ?a??sa? t??? ????a????, etc. I have already discussed this important passage at some length, in its bearing upon the treaty concluded thirty-seven years before this time between Athens and Persia. See the note to volume v, chap. xlv, pp. 337-339, of this History. [554] Thucyd. viii, 29. ?a? ???? ?? t??f??, ?spe? ?p?st? ?? t? ?a?eda????, ?? d?a??? ?tt???? ???st? p?sa?? ta?? ?a?s? d??d??e, t?? d? ???p?? ?????? ????et? t??????? d?d??a?, etc. [555] The satrapy of Tissaphernes extended as far north as Antandrus and Adramyttium (Thucyd. viii, 108). [556] Thucyd. viii, 6. [557] Thucyd. viii, 6-12; Plutarch, Alkibiad. c. 23, 24; Cornelius Nepos, Alkibiad. c. 3. [558] Thucyd. viii, 6. [559] Thucyd. viii, 8. [560] Thucyd. viii, 10. ?? d? t??t? t? ?s??a ????et?? ?a? ?? ????a??? (?p???????sa? ???) ??e????? ?? a?t?? ?a? ?at?d??a ????? a?t??? t? t?? ???? ?f???. The language of ThucydidÊs in this passage deserves notice. The Athenians were now at enmity with Corinth: it was therefore remarkable, and contrary to what would be expected among Greeks, that they should be present with their theÔry, or solemn sacrifice, at the Isthmian festival. Accordingly ThucydidÊs, when he mentions that they went thither, thinks it right to add the explanation—?p???????sa? ???—“for they had been invited;” “for the festival truce had been formally signified to them.” That the heralds who proclaimed the truce should come and proclaim it to a state in hostility with Corinth, was something unusual, and merited special notice: otherwise, ThucydidÊs would never have thought it worth while to mention the proclamation, it being the uniform practice. We must recollect that this was the first Isthmian festival which had taken place since the resumption of the war between Athens and the Peloponnesian alliance. The habit of leaving out Athens from the Corinthian herald’s proclamation had not yet been renewed. In regard to the Isthmian festival, there was probably greater reluctance to leave her out, because that festival was in its origin half Athenian; said to have been established, or revived after interruption, by Theseus; and the Athenian theÔry enjoyed a p??ed??a, or privileged place, at the games (Plutarch, Theseus, c. 25; Argument. ad Pindar. Isthm. Schol.). [561] Thucyd. viii, 11. [562] Thucyd. viii, 12. [563] Thucyd. viii, 14. [564] Thucyd. viii, 9. ??t??? d’ ????et? t?? ?p?st???? t?? ?e??, ?? ?? p????? t?? ???? ??? e?d?te? t? p?ass?e?a, ?? d? ?????? ???e?d?te?, t? te p????? ?? ????e??? p? p?????? ??e??, p??? t? ?a? ?s????? ???s?, ?a? t??? ?e??p????s???? ????t? p??sde??e??? ??e??, ?t? d??t????. Also viii, 14. ? d? ??????d?? ?a? ? ?a???de?? ... p??????e??e??? t?? ??p?ass??t?? ???? t?s?, ?a? ?e?e???t?? ?atap?e?? ? p??e?p??ta? ?? t?? p????, ?f??????ta? a?f??d??? t??? ?????. ?a? ?? ?? p????? ?? ?a?at? ?sa? ?a? ??p???e?? t??? d’ ??????? pa?es?e?ast? ?ste ????? te t??e?? ????e??????, ?a? ?e?????? ????? ?p? te t?? ??????d??, ?? ???a? te ??e? p???a? p??sp????s?, ?a? t? pe?? t?? p???????a? t?? ?? ?e??a?? ?e?? ?? d???s??t??, ?f?sta?ta? ????, ?a? a???? ?????a???, ????a???. [565] See the remarkable passage of Thucyd. viii, 24, about the calculations of the Chian government. [566] Thucyd. viii, 15. [567] Thucyd. viii, 16. [568] Thucyd. viii, 17-19. [569] Thucyd. viii, 18. [570] Thucyd. viii, 84-109. [571] Thucyd. viii, 44. [572] Thucyd. viii, 21. ????et? d? ?at? t?? ?????? t??t?? ?a? ? ?? S?? ?pa??stas?? ?p? t?? d??? t??? d??at???, et? ????a???, ?? ?t???? ?? t??s? ?a?s? pa???te?. ?a? ? d??? ? Sa??? ?? d?a??s???? ?? t??a? t??? p??ta? t?? d??at?? ?p??te??e, tet?a??s???? d? f??? ????sa?te? ?a? a?t?? t?? ??? a?t?? ?a? ????a? ?e??e???, ????a??? te sf?s?? a?t????a? et? ta?ta ?? ea???? ?d? ??f?sa????, t? ???p? d?????? t?? p????, ?a? t??? ?e?????? eted?d?sa? ??te ????? ??de???, ??te ??d???a? ??d’ ??a??s?a? pa?’ ??e???? ??d’ ?? ??e????? ??de?? ?t? t?? d??? ????. [573] Thucyd. viii, 21. The dispositions and plans of the “higher people” at Samos, to call in the Peloponnesians and revolt from Athens, are fully admitted even by Mr. Mitford, and implied by Dr. Thirlwall, who argues that the government of Samos cannot have been oligarchical, because, if it had been so, the island would already have revolted from Athens to the Peloponnesians. Mr. Mitford says (ch. xix, sect. iii, vol. iv, p. 191): “Meanwhile the body of the higher people at Samos, more depressed than all others since their reduction on their former revolt, were proposing to seize the opportunity that seemed to offer through the prevalence of the Peloponnesian arms, of mending their condition. The lower people, having intelligence of their design, rose upon them, and, with the assistance of the crews of three Athenian ships then at Samos, overpowered them,” etc. etc. etc. “The massacre and robbery were rewarded by a decree of the Athenian people, granting to the perpetrators the independent administration of the affairs of their island; which, since the last rebellion, had been kept under the immediate control of the Athenian government.” To call this a massacre is perversion of language. It was an insurrection and intestine conflict, in which the “higher people” were vanquished, but of which they also were the beginners, by their conspiracy—which Mr. Mitford himself admits as a fact—to introduce a foreign enemy into the island. Does he imagine that the “lower people” were bound to sit still and see this done? And what means had they of preventing it, except by insurrection; which inevitably became bloody, because the “higher people” were a strong party, in possession of the powers of government, with great means of resistance. The loss on the part of the assailants is not made known to us, nor indeed the loss in so far as it fell on the followers of the geÔmori. ThucydidÊs specifies only the number of the geÔmori themselves, who were persons of individual importance. I do not clearly understand what idea Mr. Mitford forms to himself of the government of Samos at this time. He seems to conceive it as democratical, yet under great immediate control from Athens, and that it kept the “higher people” in a state of severe depression, from which they sought to relieve themselves by the aid of the Peloponnesian arms. But if he means by the expression, “under the immediate control of the Athenian government,” that there was any Athenian governor or garrison at Samos, the account here given by ThucydidÊs distinctly refutes him. The conflict was between two intestine parties, “the higher people and the lower people.” The only Athenians who took part in it were the crews of three triremes, and even they were there by accident (?? ?t???? pa???te?), not as a regular garrison. Samos was under an indigenous government; but it was a subject and tributary ally of Athens, like all the other allies, with the exception of Chios and Methymna (Thucyd. vi, 85). After this resolution, the Athenians raised it to the rank of an autonomous ally, which Mr. Mitford is pleased to call “rewarding massacre and robbery,” in the language of a party orator rather than of an historian. But was the government of Samos, immediately before this intestine contest, oligarchical or democratical? The language of ThucydidÊs carries to my mind a full conviction that it was oligarchical, under an exclusive aristocracy, called The GeÔmori. Dr. Thirlwall, however (whose candid and equitable narrative of this event forms a striking contrast to that of Mr. Mitford), is of a different opinion. He thinks it certain that a democratical government had been established at Samos by the Athenians, when it was reconquered by them (B.C. 440) after its revolt. That the government continued democratical during the first years of the Peloponnesian war, he conceives to be proved by the hostility of the Samian exiles at AnÆa, whom he looks upon as oligarchical refugees. And though not agreeing in Mr. Mitford’s view of the peculiarly depressed condition of the “higher people” at Samos at this later time, he nevertheless thinks that they were not actually in possession of the government. “Still (he says), as the island gradually recovered its prosperity, the privileged class seems also to have looked upward, perhaps contrived to regain a part of the substance of power under different forms, and probably betrayed a strong inclination to revive its ancient pretensions on the first opportunity. That it had not yet advanced beyond this point, may be regarded as certain; because otherwise Samos would have been among the foremost to revolt from Athens: and on the other hand, it is no less clear, that the state of parties there was such as to excite a high degree of mutual jealousy, and great alarm in the Athenians, to whom the loss of the island at this juncture would have been almost irreparable.” (Hist. of Gr. ch. xxvii, vol. iii, p. 477 2d edit.) Manso (Sparta, book iv, vol. ii, p. 266) is of the same opinion. Surely, the conclusion which Dr. Thirlwall here announces as certain, cannot be held to rest on adequate premises. Admitting that there was an oligarchy in power at Samos, it is perfectly possible to explain why this oligarchy had not yet carried into act its disposition to revolt from Athens. We see that none of the allies of Athens—not even Chios, the most powerful of all—revolted without the extraneous pressure and encouragement of a foreign fleet. AlkibiadÊs, after securing Chios, considered MilÊtus to be next in order of importance, and had, moreover, peculiar connections with the leading men there (viii, 17); so that he went next to detach that place from Athens. MilÊtus, being on the continent, placed him in immediate communication with TissaphernÊs, for which reason he might naturally deem it of importance superior even to Samos in his plans. Moreover, not only no foreign fleet had yet reached Samos, but several Athenian ships had arrived there: for StrombichidÊs, having come across the Ægean too late to save Chios, made Samos a sort of central station (viii, 16). These circumstances combined with the known reluctance of the Samian demos, or commonalty, are surely sufficient to explain why the Samian oligarchy had not yet consummated its designs to revolt. And hence the fact, that no revolt had yet taken place, cannot be held to warrant Dr. Thirlwall’s inference, that the government was not oligarchical. We have no information how or when the oligarchical government at Samos got up. That the Samian refugees at AnÆa, so actively hostile to Samos and Athens during the first ten years of the Peloponnesian war, were oligarchical exiles acting against a democratical government at Samos (iv, 75), is not in itself improbable; yet it is not positively stated. The government of Samos might have been, even at that time, oligarchical; yet, if it acted in the Athenian interest, there would doubtless be a body of exiles watching for opportunities of injuring it, by aid of the enemies of Athens. Moreover, it seems to me, that if we read and put together the passages of ThucydidÊs, viii, 21, 63, 73, it is impossible without the greatest violence to put any other sense upon them, except as meaning that the government of Samos was now in the hands of the oligarchy, or geÔmori, and that the Demos rose in insurrection against them, with ultimate triumph. The natural sense of the words ?pa??stas??, ?pa??staa?, is that of insurrection against an established government: it does not mean, “a violent attack by one party upon another;” still less does it mean, “an attack made by a party in possession of the government:” which nevertheless it ought to mean, if Dr. Thirlwall be correct in supposing that the Samian government was now democratical. Thus we have, in the description of the Samian revolt from Athens—Thucyd. i, 115 (after ThucydidÊs has stated that the Athenians established a democratical government, he next says that the Samian exiles presently came over with a mercenary force)—?a? p??t?? ?? t? d?? ?pa??st?sa?, ?a? ????t?sa? t?? p?e?st??, etc. Again, v, 23—about the apprehended insurrection of the Helots against the Spartans—?? d? ? d???e?a ?pa??st?ta?: compare Xenoph. Hellen. v, 4, 19; Plato, Republ. iv, 18, p. 444; Herodot. iii, 39-120. So also d??at?? is among the words which ThucydidÊs uses for an oligarchical party, either in government or in what may be called opposition (i, 24; v, 4). But it is not conceivable to me that ThucydidÊs would have employed the words ? ?pa??stas?? ?p? t?? d??? t??? d??at???—if the Demos had at that time been actually in the government. Again, viii, 63, he says, that the Athenian oligarchical party under Peisander a?t?? t?? Sa??? p???t???a?t? t??? d??at??? ?ste pe???s?a? et? sf?? ????a??????a?, ?a?pe? ?pa?ast??ta? a?t??? ???????? ??a ? ????a????ta?. Here the motive of the previous ?pa??stas?? is clearly noted; it was in order that they might not be under an oligarchical government: for I agree with KrÜger (in opposition to Dr. Thirlwall), that this is the clear meaning of the words, and that the use of the present tense prevents our construing it, “in order that their democratical government might not be subverted, and an oligarchy put upon them,” which ought to be the sense, if Dr. Thirlwall’s view were just. Lastly, viii, 73, we have ?? ??? t?te t?? Sa??? ?pa?ast??te? t??? d??at??? ?a? ??te? d???, etaa???e??? a????—??????t? te ?? t??a??s???? ?????ta?, ?a? ?e???? t??? ?????? ?? d?? ??t? ?p???ses?a?. Surely these words—?? ?pa?ast??te? t??? d??at??? ?a? ??te? d???—“those who having risen in arms against the wealthy and powerful, were now a demos, or a democracy,” must imply, that the persons against whom the rising had taken place had been a governing oligarchy. Surely, also, the words etaa???e??? a????, can mean nothing else except to point out the strange antithesis between the conduct of these same men at two different epochs not far distant from each other. On the first occasion, they rose up against an established oligarchical government, and constituted a democratical government. On the second occasion, they rose up in conspiracy against this very democratical government, in order to subvert it, and constitute themselves an oligarchy in its place. If we suppose that on the first occasion, the established government was already democratical, and that the persons here mentioned were not conspirators against an established oligarchy, but merely persons making use of the powers of a democratical government to do violence to rich citizens, all this antithesis completely vanishes. On the whole, I feel satisfied that the government of Samos, at the time when Chios revolted from Athens, was oligarchical, like that of Chios itself. Nor do I see any difficulty in believing this to be the fact, though I cannot state when and how the oligarchy became established there. So long as the island performed its duty as a subject ally, Athens did not interfere with the form of its government. And she was least of all likely to interfere during the seven years of peace intervening between the years 421-414 B.C. There was nothing then to excite her apprehensions. The degree to which Athens intermeddled generally with the internal affairs of her subject-allies, seems to me to have been much exaggerated. The Samian oligarchy, or geÔmori, dispossessed of the government on this occasion, were restored by Lysander after his victorious close of the Peloponnesian war,—Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 3, 6—where they are called ?? ???a??? p???ta?. [574] Thucyd. viii, 13. [575] Thucyd. viii, 20-23. [576] See the earlier part of this History, vol. vi, ch. l, pp. 257, 258. [577] Thucyd. viii, 22. [578] Thucyd. viii, 20. [579] Thucyd. viii, 23. ?pe???s?? d? p???? ?at? p??e?? ?a? ? ?p? t?? ?e?? pe???, ?? ?p? t?? ????sp??t?? ?????se? ???a?. Dr. Arnold and GÖller suppose that these soldiers had been carried over to Lesbos to coÖperate in detaching the island from the Athenians. But this is not implied in the narrative. The land-force marched along by land to KlazomenÆ and KymÊ (? pe??? ?a ?e??p????s??? te t?? pa???t?? ?a? t?? a?t??e? ?????? pa??e? ?p? ??a?????? te ?a? ????). ThucydidÊs does not say that they ever crossed to Lesbos: they remained near KymÊ, prepared to march forward, after that island should have been conquered, to the Hellespont. Haacke is right, I think, in referring the words ? ?p? t?? ?e?? pe??? to what had been stated in c. 17; that AlkibiadÊs and Chalkideus, on first arriving with the Peloponnesian five triremes at Chios, disembarked on that island their Peloponnesian seamen and armed them as hoplites for land-forces; taking aboard fresh crews of seamen from the island. The motive to make this exchange was, the great superiority of bravery, in heavy armor and stand-up fighting, of Peloponnesians as compared with Chians or Asiatic Greeks (see Xenoph. Hell. iii, 2, 17). These foot-soldiers taken from the Peloponnesian ships are the same as those spoken of in c. 22: ? pe??? ?a ?e??p????s??? te t?? pa???t?? ?a? t?? a?t??e? ?????? ... ? ?p? t?? ?e?? pe???. Farther, these troops are again mentioned in c. 24, as ?? et? ?a???d??? ?????te? ?e??p????s???, where Dr. Arnold again speaks of them in his note incorrectly. He says: “The Peloponnesians who came with Chalkideus must have been too few to offer any effectual resistance to one thousand heavy-armed Athenians, being only the epibatÆ of five ships.” The fact is that they were not merely the epibatÆ, but the entire crews, of five ships; comprising probably from eight hundred to one thousand men (?? ?? t?? ?? ?e??p????s?? ?e?? t??? ?a?ta? ?p??sa?te? ?? ??? ?ata??p????s?, c. 17), since there were a remnant of five hundred left of them, after some months’ operations and a serious defeat (viii, 32). [580] Thucyd. viii, 24, with Dr. Arnold’s note. [581] Aristotel. Politic. iv, 4, 1; AthenÆus, vi, p. 265. [582] Thucyd. viii, 24. ?a? et? t??t? ?? ?? ???? ?d? ????t? ?pe??sa?, ?? d? (????a???) t?? ???a?, ?a??? ?ates?e?as???? ?a? ?pa?? ??sa? ?p? t?? ??d???? ???? t?te, d?ep????sa?. ???? ??? ???? et? ?a?eda???????, ?? ??? ?s????, e?da????sa?te? ?a ?a? ?s?f????sa?, ?a? ?s? ?ped?d?? ? p???? a?t??? ?p? t? e????, t?s? d? ?a? ???s???t? ?????te???, etc. viii. 45. ?? ???? ... p???s??tat?? ??te? t?? ???????, etc. [583] Thucyd. viii, 25, 26. [584] Thucyd. viii, 26, 27. [585] Phrynichus the Athenian commander was afterwards displaced by the Athenians,—by the recommendation of Peisander, at the time when this displacement suited the purpose of the oligarchical conspirators,—on the charge of having abandoned and betrayed AmorgÊs on this occasion, and caused the capture of Iasus (Thucyd. viii, 54). Phrynichus and his colleagues were certainly guilty of grave omission in not sending notice to AmorgÊs of the sudden retirement of the Athenian fleet from MilÊtus, the ignorance of which circumstance was one reason why AmorgÊs mistook the Peloponnesian ships for Athenian. [586] Thucyd. viii, 28. [587] Thucyd. viii, 29. What this new rate of pay was, or by what exact fraction it exceeded the half drachma, is a matter which the words of ThucydidÊs do not enable us to make out. None of the commentators can explain the text without admitting some alteration or omission of words: nor do any of the explanations given appear to me convincing. On the whole, I incline to consider the conjecture and explanation given by Paulmier and Dobree as more plausible than that of Dr. Arnold and GÖller, or of Poppo and Hermann. [588] Thucyd. viii, 36. [589] Thucyd. viii, 30; compare Dr. Arnold’s note. [590] Thucyd. viii, 31, 32. [591] Thucyd. viii, 32, 33. [592] Thucyd. viii, 33, 34. [593] Thucyd. viii, 34-38. ?e?f?????—????a? ????, etc. That the Athenians should select Lesbos on this occasion as the base of their operations, and as the immediate scene of last preparations, against Chios,—was only repeating what they had once done before (c. 24), and what they again did afterwards (c. 100). I do not feel the difficulty which strikes Dobree and Dr. Thirlwall. Doubtless Delphinium was to the north of the city of Chios. [594] Thucyd. viii, 38-40. About the slaves in Chios, see the extracts from Theopompus and NymphodÔrus in AthenÆus, vi, p. 265. That from NymphodÔrus appears to be nothing but a romantic local legend, connected with the Chapel of the Kind-hearted Hero (????? e??????) at Chios. Even in antiquity, though the institution of slavery was universal and noway disapproved, yet the slave-trade, or the buying and selling of slaves, was accounted more or less odious. [595] See the life of Lysias the Rhetor, in Dionysius of Halikarnassus, c. i, p. 453, Reisk., and in Plutarch, Vit. x, Orat. p. 835. [596] Thucyd. viii, 35-109. [597] Thucyd. viii, 35, 36. ?a? ??? ?s??? ?d?d?t? ??????t??, etc. [598] Thucyd. viii, 37. ?a? ?? t?? t?? ?? t? as????? ????, ? ?s?? as??e?? ???e?, ?p? t?? ?a?eda?????? ?? ? t?? ??????, as??e?? ?????t? ?a? ????t? ?at? t? d??at??. The distinction here drawn between the king’s territory, and the territory over which the king holds empire, deserves notice. By the former phrase, is understood, I presume, the continent of Asia, which the court of Susa looked upon, together with all its inhabitants, as a freehold exceedingly sacred and peculiar (Herodot. i, 4): by the latter, as much as the satrap should find it convenient to lay hands upon, of that which had once belonged to Darius son of Hystaspes or to Xerxes, in the plenitude of their power. [599] Thucyd. viii, 38. ?p?p???? ?? ????t? ?fa???eta?. [600] Thucyd. viii, 39. ?a? e???t? a?t???, ?? ????t?? ?f???????? t?? te ????? ???ep?e?e?s?a?, ? ???e? ???sta ??e??, etc. [601] Thucyd. viii, 42. [602] Thucyd. viii, 43. This defeat of CharmÎnus is made the subject of a jest by AristophanÊs, Thesmophor. 810, with the note of Paulmier. [603] Thucyd. viii, 43. [604] Thucyd. viii, 44. ?? d’ ?? t?? ??d??, ?p??????e?????? ?p? t?? d??at?t?t?? ??d???, t?? ????? e???? p?e??, etc. ... ?a? p??sa???te? ?ae??? t?? ??d?a? p??t?, ?a?s? t?ssa?s? ?a? ??e?????ta, ??ef??sa? ?? t??? p??????, ??? e?d?ta? t? p?ass?e?a, ?a? ?f????, ????? te ?a? ?te???st?? ??s?? t?? p??e??, etc. We have to remark here, as on former occasions of revolts among the dependent allies of Athens, that the general population of the allied city manifests no previous discontent, nor any spontaneous disposition to revolt. The powerful men of the island—those who, if the government was democratical, formed the oligarchical minority, but who formed the government itself, if oligarchical—conspire and bring in the Peloponnesian force, unknown to the body of the citizens, and thus leave to the latter no free choice. The real feeling towards Athens on the part of the body of the citizens is one of simple acquiescence, with little attachment on the one hand, yet no hatred, or sense of practical suffering, on the other. [605] Thucyd. viii, 44: compare c. 57. [606] Thucyd. viii, 40-55. [607] Thucyd. viii, 39. [608] Thucyd. viii, 45. Suggestions of AlkibiadÊs to TissaphernÊs—?a? t??? t?????????? ?a? t??? st?at????? t?? p??e?? ?d?das?e? ?ste d??ta ???ata a?t?? pe?sa?, ?ste ???????sa? ta?ta ?a?t?, p??? t?? S??a??s???? t??t?? d?, ??????t?? ??a?t???t? ???? ?p?? t?? ??pa?t?? ??a?????. About the bribes to Astyochus himself, see also c. 50. Transcriber's note
|
|
