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

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

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

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

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

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

[510] Pausanias, vi, 7, 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare about φιλοτιμία, Herodot. iii, 53.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[530] Thucyd. v, 52.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[539] Xenophon, ut sup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[543] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 28.

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

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

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

[546] Pausanias, ix, 11, 4.

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

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

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

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

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

[551] Xen. Hellen. ut sup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[565] Pausanias, ix, 32, 6.

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

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

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

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

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

[570] Diodor. xiv, 38-82.

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

[572] Diodor. xiv, 82.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are some difficulties and obscurities in the description which Xenophon gives of the Lacedæmonian march. His words run—ἐν τούτῳ οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, καὶ δὴ Τεγεάτας παρειληφότες καὶ Μαντινέας, ἐξῄεσαν τὴν ἀμφίαλον. These last three words are not satisfactorily explained. Weiske and Schneider construe τὴν ἀμφίαλον (very justly) as indicating the region lying immediately on the Peloponnesian side of the isthmus of Corinth and having the Saronic Gulf on one side, and the Corinthian Gulf on the other; in which was included Sikyon. But then it would not be correct to say, that “the Lacedæmonians had gone out by the bimarine way.” On the contrary, the truth is, that “they had gone out into the bimarine road or region,—which meaning however would require a preposition—ἐξῄεσαν εἰς τὴν ἀμφίαλον. Sturz in his Lexicon (v. ἐξιέναι) renders τὴν ἀμφίαλον—viam ad mare—which seems an extraordinary sense of the word, unless instances were produced to support it; and even if instances were produced, we do not see why the way from Sparta to Sikyon should be called by that name; which would more properly belong to the road from Sparta down the Eurotas to Helos.

Again, we do not know distinctly the situation of the point or district called τὴν Ἐπιεικίαν (mentioned again, iv, 4, 13). But it is certain from the map, that when the confederates were at Nemea, and the Lacedæmonians at Sikyon,—the former must have been exactly placed so as to intercept the junction of the contingents from Epidaurus, Trœzen, and Hermionê, with the Lacedæmonian army. To secure this junction, the Lacedæmonians were obliged to force their way across that mountainous region which lies near Kleônæ and Nemea, and to march in a line pointing from Sikyon down to the Saronic Gulf. Having reached the other side of these mountains near the sea, they would be in communication with Epidaurus and the other towns of the Argolic peninsula.

The line of march which the Lacedæmonians would naturally take from Sparta to Sikyon and Lechæum, by Tegea, Mantineia, Orchomenus, etc., is described two years afterwards in the case of Agesilaus (iv, 5, 19).

[580] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 18. The coloring which Xenophon puts upon this step is hardly fair to the Thebans, as is so constantly the case throughout his history. He says that “they were in no hurry to fight” (οὐδέν τι κατήπειγον τὴν μάχην ξυνάπτειν) so long as they were on the left, opposed to the Lacedæmonians on the opposite right; but that as soon as they were on the right (opposed to the Achæans on the opposite left), they forthwith gave the word. Now it does not appear that the Thebans had any greater privilege on the day when they were on the right, than the Argeians or Athenians had when each were on the right respectively. The command had been determined to reside in the right division, which post alternated from one to the other; why the Athenians or Argeians did not make use of this post to order the attack, we cannot explain.

So again, Xenophon says, that in spite of the resolution taken by the Council of War to have files sixteen deep, and no more,—the Thebans made their files much deeper. Yet it is plain, from his own account, that no mischievous consequences turned upon this greater depth.

[581] See the instructive description of the battle of Mantineia—in Thucyd. v, 71.

[582] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 20-23.

The allusion to this incident in Demosthenes (adv. Leptinem, c. 13, p. 472) is interesting, though indistinct.

[583] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 19. καὶ γὰρ ἦν λάσιον τὸ χωρίον—which illustrates the expression in Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 20. ἐν Κορίνθῳ χωρίων ἰσχυρῶν κατειλημμένων.

[584] Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 19.

Plato in his panegyrical discourse (Menexenus, c. 17, p. 245 E.) ascribes the defeat and loss of the Athenians to “bad ground”—χρησαμένων δυσχωρίᾳ.

[585] Diodor. xiv, 83.

The statement in Xenophon (Agesil. vii, 5) that near ten thousand men were slain on the side of the confederates, is a manifest exaggeration; if indeed the reading be correct.

[586] Xen. Agesil. i, 37; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 15. Cornelius Nepos (Agesilaus, c. 4) almost translates the Agesilaus of Xenophon; but we can better feel the force of his panegyric, when we recollect that he had had personal cognizance of the disobedience of Julius Cæsar in his province to the orders of the Senate, and that the omnipotence of Sylla and Pompey in their provinces were then matter of recent history. “Cujus exemplum (says Cornelius Nepos about Agesilaus) utinam imperatores nostri sequi voluissent!”

[587] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 2-5; Xen. Agesil. i, 38; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 16.

[588] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 24.

[589] Xenoph. Agesil. vii, 5; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 16.

[590] Xen. Hellen. iv, 2, 4-9; Diodor. xiv, 83.

[591] Plutarch (Agesil. c. 17; compare also Plutarch, Apophth. p. 795, as corrected by Morus ad Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 15) states two moræ or regiments as having joined Agesilaus from Corinth; Xenophon alludes only to one, besides that mora which was in garrison at Orchomenus (Hellen. iv, 3, 15; Agesil. ii, 6).

[592] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 13.

Ὁ μὲν οὖν Ἀγησίλαος πυθόμενος ταῦτα, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον χαλεπῶς ἔφερεν· ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἐνεθυμήθη, ὅτι τοῦ στρατεύματος τὸ πλεῖστον εἴη αὐτῷ, οἷον ἀγαθῶν μὲν γιγνομένων ἡδέως μετέχειν, εἰ δέ τι χαλεπὸν ὁρῷεν, οὐκ ἀνάγκην εἶναι κοινωνεῖν αὐτοῖς, etc.

These indirect intimations of the real temper even of the philo-Spartan allies towards Sparta are very valuable when coming from Xenophon, as they contradict all his partialities, and are dropped here almost reluctantly, from the necessity of justifying the conduct of Agesilaus in publishing a false proclamation to his army.

[593] Lysias, Orat. xvi, (pro Mantitheo) s. 20. φοβουμένων ἁπάντων εἰκότως, etc.

[594] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 19.

[595] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 17. ἀντεξέδραμον ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀγησιλάου φάλαγγος, etc.

[596] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 19; Xen. Agesil. ii, 12.

[597] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 16; Xen. Agesil. ii, 9.

Διηγήσομαι δὲ καὶ τὴν μάχην· καὶ γὰρ ἐγένετο οἵα οὐκ ἄλλη τῶν γ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν.

[598] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 19; Xen. Agesil. ii, 12.

Καὶ συμβαλόντες τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐωθοῦντο, ἐμάχοντο, ἀπέκτεινον, ἀπέθνησκον. Καὶ κραυγὴ μὲν οὐδεμία παρῆν, οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ σιγή· φωνὴ δέ τις ἦν τοιαύτη, οἵαν ὀργή τε καὶ μάχη παράσχοιτ᾽ ἄν.

[599] Xen. Agesil. ii, 13. Ὁ δὲ, καίπερ πολλὰ τραύματα ἔχων πάντοσε καὶ παντοίοις ὅπλοις, etc.

Plutarch, Agesil. c. 18.

[600] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 19; Xen. Agesil. ii, 12.

[601] Xen. Agesil. ii, 14. Ἐπεί γε μὴν ἔληξεν ἡ μάχη, παρῆν δὴ θεάσασθαι ἔνθα συνέπεσον ἀλλήλοις, τὴν μὲν γῆν αἵματι πεφυρμένην, νεκροὺς δὲ κειμένους φιλίους καὶ πολεμίους μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, ἀσπίδας δὲ διατεθρυμμένας, δόρατα συντεθραυσμένα, ἐγχειρίδια γυμνὰ κουλεῶν τὰ μὲν χαμαί, τὰ δ᾽ ἐν σώμασι, τὰ δ᾽ ἔτι μετὰ χειρός.

[602] Xen. Agesil. ii, 15. Τότε μὲν οὖν (καὶ γὰρ ἦν ἤδη ὀψέ) συνελκύσαντες τοὺς τῶν πολεμίων νεκροὺς εἴσω φάλαγγος, ἐδειπνοποιήσαντο καὶ ἐκοιμήθησαν.

Schneider in his note on this passage, as well as ad. Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 21—condemns the expression τῶν πολεμίων as spurious and unintelligible. But in my judgment, these words hear a plain and appropriate meaning, which I have endeavored to give in the text. Compare Plutarch, Agesil. c. 19.