[519] Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 25; Plutarch, Apophthegm. p. 194 B.; Pausan. ix, 14, 4; Cornelius Nepos, Epaminond. c. 7, 8; Ælian, V. H. xiii, 42.

Pausanias states the fact plainly and clearly; the others, especially Nepos and Ælian, though agreeing in the main fact, surround it with colors exaggerated and false. They represent Epaminondas as in danger of being put to death by ungrateful and malignant fellow-citizens; Cornelius Nepos puts into his mouth a justificatory speech of extreme insolence (compare Arist. Or. xlvi, περὶ τοῦ παραφθέγματος—p. 385 Jebb.; p. 520 Dindorf.); which, had it been really made, would have tended more than anything else to set the public against him,—and which is moreover quite foreign to the character of Epaminondas. To carry the exaggeration still farther, Plutarch (De Vitioso Pudore, p. 540 E.) describes Pelopidas as trembling and begging for his life.

Epaminondas had committed a grave illegality, which could not be passed over without notice in his trial of accountability. But he had a good justification. It was necessary that he should put in the justification; when put in, it passed triumphantly. What more could be required? The facts, when fairly stated, will not serve as an illustration of the alleged ingratitude of the people towards great men.

[520] Diodorus (xv, 81) states that Pelopidas was Bœotarch without interruption, annually re-appointed, from the revolution of Thebes down to his decease. Plutarch also (Pelopid. c. 34) affirms that when Pelopidas died, he was in the thirteenth year of his appointment; which may be understood as the same assertion in other words. Whether Epaminondas was rechosen, does not appear.

Sievers denies the reappointment as well of Pelopidas as of Epaminondas. But I do not see upon what grounds; for, in my judgment, Epaminondas appears again as commander in Peloponnesus during this same year (369 B.C.) Sievers holds Epaminondas to have commanded without being Bœotarch; but no reason is produced for this (Sievers, Geschicht. Griech. bis zur Schlacht von Mantinea, p. 277).

[521] Æschines, De Fals. Leg. c. 13, p. 249; Isokrates, Or. v, (Philipp.) s. 124. Ὁ γὰρ πατήρ σου (Isokrates to Philip) πρὸς τὰς πόλεις ταύτας (Sparta, Athens, Argos, and Thebes), αἷς σοι παραινῶ προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν, πρὸς ἁπάσας οἰκείως εἶχε.

The connection of Amyntas with Thebes could hardly have been considerable; that with Argos, was based upon a strong legendary and ancestral sentiment rather than on common political grounds; with Athens, it was both political and serious; with Sparta, it was attested by the most essential military aid and coöperation.

[522] Xen. Hellen. vi, 1, 17.

[523] Æschines, De Fals. Leg. c. 13, p. 249.

[524] Demosthen. cont. Timotheum. c. 8, p. 1194; Xenoph. Hellen. vi, 1, 11.

[525] Æschines, De Fals. Leg. c. 13, p. 248. τὴν πατρικὴν εὔνοιαν, καὶ τὰς εὐεργεσίας ἃς ὑμεῖς ὑπήρξατε Ἀμύντᾳ, τῷ Φιλίππου πατρὶ, etc.

Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. c. 30, p. 660. τὴν πατρικὴν φιλίαν ἀνανεοῦθαι (Philip to the Athenians): compare ibid. c. 29, p. 657.

[526] Xen. Hellen. vi, 5, 2.

[527] Demosthen. (Philippic. ii, c. 4, p. 71; De Halonneso, c. 3, p. 79; De Rebus Chersones. c. 2, p. 91); also Epistol. Philipp. ap. Demosthen. c. 6, p. 163.

[528] Compare the aspirations of Athens, as stated in 391 B.C., when the propositions of peace recommended by Andokides were under consideration, aspirations, which were then regarded as beyond all hope of attainment, and imprudent even to talk about (Andokides, De Pace, s. 15). φέρε, ἀλλὰ Χεῤῥόνησον καὶ τὰς ἀποικίας καὶ τὰ ἐγκτήματα καὶ τὰ χρέα ἵνα ἀπολάβωμεν; Ἀλλ’ οὔτε βασιλεὺς, οὔτε οἱ σύμμαχοι, συγχωροῦσιν ἡμῖν, μεθ’ ὧν αὐτὰ δεῖ πολεμοῦντας κτήσασθαι.

[529] Æschines, De Fals. Leg. c. 14, p. 250.

Συμμαχίας γὰρ Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων συνελθούσης, εἷς ὢν τούτων Ἀμύντας ὁ Φιλίππου πατὴρ, καὶ πέμπων σύνεδρον, καὶ τῆς καθ’ ἐαυτὸν ψήφου κύριος ὢν, ἐψηφίσατο Ἀμφίπολιν τὴν Ἀθηναίων συνεξαιρεῖν μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων Ἑλλήνων Ἀθηναίοις. Καὶ τοῦτο τὸ κοινὸν δόγμα τῶν Ἑλλήνων, καὶ τοὺς ψηφισαμένους, ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων γραμμάτων μάρτυρας παρεσχόμην.

The remarkable event to which Æschines here makes allusion, must have taken place either in the congress held at Sparta, in the month preceding the battle of Leuktra, where the general peace was sworn, with universal autonomy guaranteed,—leaving out only Thebes; or else, at the subsequent congress held three or four months afterwards at Athens, where a peace, on similar conditions generally, was again sworn under the auspices of Athens as president.

My conviction is, that it took place on the latter occasion,—at Athens. First, the reference of Æschines to the δημόσια γράμματα leads us to conclude that the affair was transacted in that city; secondly, I do not think that the Athenians would have been in any situation to exact such a reserve in their favor, prior to the battle of Leuktra; thirdly, the congress at Sparta was held, not for the purpose of συμμαχία or alliance, but for that of terminating the war and concluding peace; while the subsequent congress at Athens formed the basis of a defensive alliance, to which, either then or soon afterwards, Sparta acceded.

[530] The pretensions advanced by Philip of Macedon (in his Epistola ad Athenienses, ap. Demosthen. p. 164), that Amphipolis or its locality originally belonged to his ancestor Alexander son of Amyntas, as having expelled the Persians from it,—are unfounded, and contradicted by Thucydides. At least, if (which is barely possible) Alexander ever did acquire the spot, he must have lost it afterwards; for it was occupied by the Edonian Thracians, both in 465 B.C., when Athens made her first unsuccessful attempt to plant a colony there,—and in 437 B.C., when she tried again with better success under Agnon, and established Amphipolis (Thucyd. iv, 102).

The expression of Æschines, that Amyntas in 371 B.C. “gave up or receded from” Amphipolis (ὧν δ’ Ἀμύντας ἀπέστη—De Fals. Leg. 1 c.) can at most only be construed as referring to rights which he may have claimed, since he was never in actual possession of it; though we cannot wonder that the orator should use such language in addressing Philip son of Amyntas, who was really master of the town.

[531] Diodor. xv, 60.

[532] Xenoph. Hellen. vi, 4, 33, 34.

Diodorus (xv, 61) calls Alexander of Pheræ brother of Polydorus; Plutarch (Pelopid. c. 29) calls him nephew. Xenophon does not expressly say which; but his narrative seems to countenance the statement of Diodorus rather than that of Plutarch.

[533] Diodor. xv, 61.

[534] Diodor. xv, 67.

The transactions of Macedonia and Thessaly at this period are difficult to make out clearly. What is stated in the text comes from Diodorus; who affirms, however, farther,—that Pelopidas marched into Macedonia, and brought back as a hostage to Thebes the youthful Philip, brother of Alexander. This latter affirmation is incorrect; we know that Philip was in Macedonia, and free, after the death of Alexander. And I believe that the march of Pelopidas into Macedonia, with the bringing back of Philip as a hostage, took place in the following year 368 B.C.

Justin also states (vii, 5) erroneously, that Alexander of Macedon gave his brother Philip as a hostage, first to the Illyrians, next to the Thebans.

[535] Demosthen. De Fals. Leg. c. 58, p. 402; Diodorus, xv, 71.

Diodorus makes the mistake of calling this Ptolemy son of Amyntas and brother of Perdikkas; though he at the same time describes him as Πτολεμαῖος Ἀλωρίτης, which description would hardly be applied to one of the royal brothers. Moreover, the passage of Æschines, Fals. Leg. c. 14, p. 250, shows that Ptolemy was not son of Amyntas; and Dexippus (ap. Syncellum, p. 263) confirms the fact.

See these points discussed in Mr. Fynes Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, Appendix, c. 4.

[536] Diodor. xvi, 2.

[537] Æschines, Fals. Legat. c. 13, 14, p. 249, 250; Justin, vii, 6.

Æschines mentions Ptolemy as regent, on behalf of Eurydikê and her younger sons. Æschines also mentions Alexander as having recently died, but says nothing about his assassination. Nevertheless there is no reason to doubt that he was assassinated, which we know both from Demosthenes and Diodorus; and assassinated by Ptolemy, which we know from Plutarch (Pelop. c. 27), Marsyas (ap. Athenæum, xiv. p. 629), and Diodorus. Justin states that Eurydikê conspired both against her husband Amyntas, and against her children, in concert with a paramour. The statements of Æschines rather tend to disprove the charge of her having been concerned in the death of Amyntas, but to support that of her having been accomplice with Ptolemy in the murder of Alexander.

Assassination was a fate which frequently befel the Macedonian kings. When we come to the history of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, it will be seen that Macedonian queens were capable of greater crimes than those imputed to Eurydikê.

[538] Æschines, Fals. Leg. c. 13, 14, p. 249, 250; Cornelius Nepos, Iphicrates, c. 3.

[539] Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 669, s. 150.

μισθοῖ πάλιν αὑτὸν (Charidemus) τοῖς Ὀλυνθίοις, τοῖς ὑμετέροις ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔχουσιν Ἀμφίπολιν κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον.

Demosthenes is here speaking of the time when Timotheus superseded Iphikrates in the command, that is, about 365-364 B.C. But we are fairly entitled to presume that the same is true of 369 or 368 B.C.

[540] Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 669, s. 149, c. 37.

[541] Demosthen. cont. Aristokr. p. 669, s. 149, c. 37.

The passage in which the orator alludes to these hostages of the Amphipolitans in the hands of Iphikrates, is unfortunately not fully intelligible without farther information.

(Charidemus) Πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς Ἀμφιπολιτῶν ὁμήρους, οὓς παρ’ Ἁρπάλου λαβὼν Ἰφικράτης ἔδωκε φυλάττειν αὐτῷ, ψηφισαμένων ὑμῶν ὡς ὑμᾶς κομίσαι, παρέδωκεν Ἀμφιπολίταις· καὶ τοῦ μὴ λαβεῖν Ἀμφίπολιν, τοῦτ’ ἐμπόδιον κατέστη.

Who Harpalus was,—or what is meant by Iphikrates “obtaining (or capturing) from him the Amphipolitan hostages”—we cannot determine. Possibly Harpalus may have been commander of a body of Macedonians or Thracians acting as auxiliaries to the Amphipolitans, and in this character exacting hostages from them as security. Charidemus, as we see afterwards when acting for Kersobleptes, received hostages from the inhabitants of Sestos (Demosth. cont. Aristokrat. p. 679. c. 40 s. 177).

[542] Demosthen. De Rhodior. Libertat. c. 5, p. 193.

[543] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 1.

The words τῷ ὑστέρῳ ἔτει must denote the year beginning in the spring of 369 B.C. On this point I agree with Dr. Thirlwall (Hist. Gr. vol. v, ch. 40, p. 145 note); differing from him however (p. 146 note), as well as from Mr. Clinton, in this,—that I place the second expedition of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus (as Sievers places it, p. 278) in 369 B.C.; not in 368 B.C.

The narrative of Xenophon carries to my mind conviction that this is what he meant to affirm. In the beginning of Book VII, he says, τῷ δ’ ὑστέρῳ ἔτει Λακεδαιμονίων καὶ τῶν συμμάχων πρέσβεις ἦλθον αὐτοκράτορες Ἀθήναζε, βουλευσόμενοι καθ’ ὅ,τι ἡ συμμαχία ἔσοιτο Λακεδαιμονίοις καὶ Ἀθηναίοις.

Now the words τῷ δ’ ὑστέρῳ ἔτει denote the spring of 369 B.C.

Xenophon goes on to describe the assembly and the discussion at Athens, respecting the terms of alliance. This description occupies, from vii, 1, 1 to vii, 1, 14, where the final vote and agreement is announced.

Immediately after this vote, Xenophon goes on to say,—Στρατευομένων δ’ ἀμφοτέρων αὐτῶν καὶ τῶν συμμάχων (Lacedæmonians, Athenians, and allies) εἰς Κόρινθον, ἔδοξε κοινῇ φυλάττειν τὸ Ὄνειον. Καὶ ἐπεὶ ἐπορεύοντο οἱ Θηβαῖοι καὶ οἱ σύμμαχοι, παραταξάμενοι ἐφύλαττον ἄλλος ἄλλοθεν τοῦ Ὀνείου.

I conceive that the decision of the Athenian assembly,—the march of the Athenians and Lacedæmonians to guard the lines of Oneion,—and the march of the Thebans to enter Peloponnesus,—are here placed by Xenophon as events in immediate sequence, with no long interval of time between them. I see no ground to admit the interval of a year between the vote of the assembly and the march of the Thebans; the more so, as Epaminondas might reasonably presume that the building of Megalopolis and Messene, recently begun, would need to be supported by another Theban army in Peloponnesus during 369 B.C.

It is indeed contended (and admitted even by Sievers) that Epaminondas could not have been reëlected Bœotarch in 369 B.C. But in this point I do not concur. It appears to me that the issue of the trial at Thebes was triumphant for him; thus making it more probable,—not less probable,—that he and Pelopidas were reëlected Bœotarchs immediately.

[544] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 10-14.

[545] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 15, 16; Diodor. xv, 68.

[546] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 16; Polyænus, ii, 2, 9.

This was an hour known to be favorable to sudden assailants, affording a considerable chance that the enemy might be off their guard. It was at the same hour that the Athenian Thrasybulus surprised the troops of the Thirty, near Phylê in Attica (Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 6).

[547] Xen. Hellen. ib.; Pausanias, ix, 15, 2.

Pausanias describes the battle as having been fought περὶ Λέχαιον; not very exact, topographically, since it was on the other side of Corinth, between Corinth and Kenchreæ.

Diodorus (xv, 68) states that the whole space across, from Kenchreæ on one sea to Lechæum on the other, was trenched and palisaded by the Athenians and Spartans. But this cannot be true, because the Long Walls were a sufficient defence between Corinth and Lechæum; and even between Corinth and Kenchreæ, it is not probable that any such continuous line of defence was drawn, though the assailable points were probably thus guarded. Xenophon does not mention either trench or palisade.

[548] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 14-17; Diodor. xv, 68.

[549] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 18; vii, 2, 11; Diodor. xv, 69.

This march against Sikyon seems alluded to by Pausanias (vi, 3, 1); the Eleian horse were commanded by Stomius, who slew the enemy’s commander with his own hand.

The stratagem of the Bœotian Pammenes in attacking the harbor of Sikyon (Polyænus, v, 16, 4) may perhaps belong to this undertaking.

[550] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 18, 22, 44; vii, 3, 2-8.

[551] Xen. Hellen. vii, 2, 5-9.

This incident may have happened in 369 B.C., just about the time when Epaminondas surprised and broke through the defensive lines of Mount Oneium. In the second chapter of the seventh Book, Xenophon takes up the history of Phlius, and carries it on from the winter of 370-369 B.C., when Epaminondas invaded Laconia, through 369, 368, 367 B.C.

[552] Xen. Hellen. vii, 2, 17.

[553] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 19; Diodor. xv, 69.

[554] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 22; Diodor. xv, 70.

Diodorus states that these mercenaries had been furnished with pay for five months; if this is correct, I presume that we must understand it as comprehending the time of their voyage from Sicily and back to Sicily. Nevertheless, the language of Xenophon would not lead us to suppose that they remained in Peloponnesus even so long as three months.

I think it certain however that much more must have passed in this campaign than what Xenophon indicates. Epaminondas would hardly have forced the passage of the Oneium for such small objects as we find mentioned in the Hellenica.

An Athenian Inscription, extremely defective, yet partially restored and published by M. Boeckh (Corp. Inscr. No. 85 a. Addenda to vol. i, p. 897), records a vote of the Athenian people and of the synod of Athenian confederates—praising Dionysius of Syracuse,—and recording him with his two sons as benefactors of Athens. It was probably passed somewhere near this time; and we know from Demosthenes that the Athenians granted the freedom of their city to Dionysius and his descendants (Demosthenes ad Philipp. Epistol. p. 161, as well as the Epistle of Philip, on which this is a comment). The Inscription is too defective to warrant any other inferences.

[555] Pausanias, ix, 15, 2.

[556] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 23.

[557] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 25.

Στρατευσάμενοι δὲ καὶ εἰς Ἀσίνην τῆς Λακωνικῆς, ἐνίκησάν τε τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων φρουρὰν, καὶ τὸν Γεράνορα, τὸν πολέμαρχον Σπαρτιάτην γεγενημένον, ἀπέκτειναν, καὶ τὸ προάστειον τῶν Ἀσιναίων ἐπόρθησαν.

Diodorus states that Lykomedes and the Arcadians took Pellênê, which is in a different situation, and can hardly refer to the same expedition (xv, 67).

[558] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 26.

[559] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 30, 31.

[560] Polyb. iv, 77.

[561] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 26; vii, 4, 12.

[562] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 27. Ἐκεῖ δὲ ἐλθόντες, τῷ μὲν θεῷ οὐδὲν ἐκοινώσαντο, ὅπως ἂν ἡ εἰρήνη γένοιτο, αὐτοὶ δὲ ἐβουλεύοντο.

[563] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 27; Diodor. xv, 70.

Diodorus states that Philiskus was sent by Artaxerxes; which seems not exact; he was sent by Ariobarzanes in the name of Artaxerxes. Diodorus also says that Philiskus left two thousand mercenaries with pay provided, for the service of the Lacedæmonians; which troops are never afterwards mentioned.

[564] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 33.

[565] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 27.

[566] See this fact indicated in Isokrates, Archidamus (Or. vi,) s. 2-11.

[567] Pausanias, vi, 2, 5.

Two Messenian victors had been proclaimed during the interval; but they were inhabitants of Messênê in Sicily. And these two were ancient citizens of Zanklê, the name which the Sicilian Messênê bore before Anaxilaus the despot chose to give to it this last-mentioned name.

[568] See the contrary, or Spartan, feeling,—disgust at the idea of persons who had just been their slaves, presenting themselves as spectators and competitors in the plain of Olympia,—set forth in Isokrates, Or. vi, (Archidamus) s. 111, 112.

[569] Plutarch, Pelopid. c. 26.

[570] Æschines, De Fals. Leg. c. 14, p. 249.

... διδάσκων, ὅτι πρῶτον μὲν ὑπὲρ Ἀμφιπόλεως ἀντέπραττε (Ptolemy) τῇ πόλει (to Athens), καὶ πρὸς Θηβαίους διαφερομένων Ἀθηναίων, συμμαχίαν ἐποιήσατο, etc.

Neither Plutarch nor Diodorus appear to me precise in specifying and distinguishing the different expeditions of Pelopidas into Thessaly. I cannot but think that he made four different expeditions; two before his embassy to the Persian court (which embassy took place in 367 B.C.; see Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hellen. on that year, who rightly places the date of the embassy), and two after it.

1. The first was, in 369 B.C., after the death of Amyntas, but during the short reign, less than two years, of his son Alexander of Macedon.

Diodorus mentions this fact (xv, 67), but he adds, what is erroneous, that Pelopidas on this occasion brought back Philip as a hostage.

2. The second was in 368 B.C.; also mentioned by Diodorus (xv, 71) and by Plutarch (Pelop. c. 26).

Diodorus (erroneously, as I think) connects this expedition with the seizure and detention of Pelopidas by Alexander of Pheræ. But it was really on this occasion that Pelopidas brought back the hostages.

3. The third (which was rather a mission than an expedition) was in 366 B.C., after the return of Pelopidas from the Persian court, which happened seemingly in the beginning of 366 B.C. In this third march, Pelopidas was seized and made prisoner by Alexander of Pheræ, until he was released by Epaminondas. Plutarch mentions this expedition, clearly distinguishing it from the second (Pelopidas, c. 27—μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πάλιν, etc.); but with this mistake, in my judgment, that he places it before the journey of Pelopidas to the Persian court; whereas it really occurred after and in consequence of that journey, which dates in 367 B.C.

4. The fourth and last, in 364-363 B.C.; wherein he was slain (Diodor. xv. 80; Plutarch, Pelopid. c. 32).

[571] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 28.

[572] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 28. The place here called Midea cannot be identified. The only place of that name known, is in the territory of Argos, quite different from what is here mentioned. O. Müller proposes to substitute Malæa for Midea; a conjecture, which there are no means of verifying.

[573] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 28-32; Diodor. xv, 72; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 33.

[574] I think that this third expedition of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus belongs to 367 B.C.; being simultaneous with the embassy of Pelopidas to the Persian court. Many chronologers place it in 366 B.C., after the conclusion of that embassy; because the mention of it occurs in Xenophon after he has brought the embassy to a close. But I do not conceive that this proves the fact of subsequent date. For we must recollect that the embassy lasted several months; moreover the expedition was made while Epaminondas was Bœotarch; and he ceased to be so during the year 366 B.C. Besides, if we place the expedition in 366 B.C., there will hardly be time left for the whole career of Euphron at Sikyon, which intervened before the peace of 366 B.C. between Thebes and Corinth (see Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 44 seq.).

The relation of cotemporaneousness between the embassy of Pelopidas to Persia, and the expedition of Epaminondas, seems indicated when we compare vii, 1, 33 with vii, 1, 48—Συνεχῶς δὲ βουλευόμενοι οἱ Θηβαῖοι, ὅπως ἂν τὴν ἡγεμονίαν λάβοιεν τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ἐνόμισαν εἰ πέμψειαν πρὸς τὸν Περσῶν βασιλέα, etc. Then Xenophon proceeds to recount the whole embassy, together with its unfavorable reception on returning, which takes up the entire space until vii, 2, 41, when he says—Αὖθις δ’ Ἐπαμεινώνδας, βουληθεὶς τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς προσυπαγαγέσθαι, ὅπως μᾶλλον σφίσι καὶ οἱ Ἀρκάδες καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι σύμμαχοι προσέχοιεν τὸν νοῦν, ἔγνωκε στρατευτέον εἶναι ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀχαΐαν.

This fresh expedition of Epaminondas is one of the modes adopted by the Thebans of manifesting their general purpose expressed in the former words,—συνεχῶς βουλευόμενοι, etc.

[575] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 42-44.

The neutrality before observed, is implied in the phrase whereby Xenophon describes their conduct afterwards; ἐπεὶ δὲ κατελθόντες οὐκέτι ἐμέσευον, etc.

[576] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 42.

His expression marks how completely these terms were granted by the personal determination of Epaminondas, overruling opposition,—ἐνδυναστεύει ὁ Ἐπαμεινώνδας, ὥστε μὴ φυγαδεῦσαι τοὺς κρατίστους, μηδὲ τὰς πολιτείας μεταστῆσαι, etc.

[577] Diodor. xv, 75.

[578] Xenoph. Hellen. vii, 1, 43; Plutarch, Pelopid. c. 25.

Diodorus (xv, 72) refers the displeasure of the Thebans against Epaminondas to the events of the preceding year. They believed (according to Diodorus) that Epaminondas had improperly spared the Spartans, and not pushed his victory so far as might have been done, when he forced the lines of Mount Oneium in 369 B.C. But it is scarcely credible that the Thebans should have been displeased on this account; for the forcing of the lines was a capital exploit, and we may see from Xenophon that Epaminondas achieved much more than the Spartans and their friends believed to be possible.

Xenophon tells us that the Thebans were displeased with Epaminondas, on complaint from the Arcadians and others, for his conduct in Achaia two years after the action at Oneium; that is, in 367 B.C. This is much more probable in itself, and much more consistent with the general series of facts, than the cause assigned by Diodorus.

[579] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 23.

For a similar case, in which exiles from many different cities, congregating in a body, became strong enough to carry their restoration in each city successively, see Thucyd. i, 113.

[580] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 44-46; Diodor. xv, 70.

[581] Xen. Hellen, vii, 3, 8.

[582] Xen. Hellen. vii, 2, 6-9.

[583] Xen. Hellen. vii, 2, 10.

[584] Xen. Hellen. vii, 2, 11-15.

[585] This change of politics at Pellênê is not mentioned by Xenophon, at the time, though it is noticed afterwards (vii, 4, 17) as a fact accomplished; but we must suppose it to have occurred now, in order to reconcile sections 11-14 with sections 18-20 of vii, 2.

The strong Laconian partialities of Xenophon induce him to allot not only warm admiration, but a space disproportionate compared with other parts of his history, to the exploits of the brave little Phliasian community. Unfortunately, here, as elsewhere, he is obscure in the description of particular events, and still more perplexing when we try to draw from him a clear idea of the general series.

With all the defects and partiality of Xenophon’s narrative, however, we must recollect that it is a description of real events by a contemporary author who had reasonable means of information. This is a precious ingredient, which gives value to all that he says; inasmuch as we are so constantly obliged to borrow our knowledge of Grecian history either from authors who write at second-hand and after the time,—or from orators whose purposes are usually different from those of the historian. Hence I have given a short abridgment of these Phliasian events as described by Xenophon, though they were too slight to exercise influence on the main course of the war.

[586] Xen. Hellen. vii, 2, 18-23.

[587] Xen. Hellen. vii, 3, 9.

[588] Xen. Hellen. vii, 3, 4-6.

[589] This refers to the secret expedition of Pelopidas and the six other Theban conspirators from Athens to Thebes, at the time when the Lacedæmonians were masters of that town and garrisoned the Kadmeia. The conspirators, through the contrivance of the secretary Phyllidas, got access in disguise to the oligarchical leaders of Thebes, who were governing under Lacedæmonian ascendency, and put them to death. This event is described in a former chapter, Ch. lxxvii, p. 85 seq.

[590] Xen. Hellen. vii, 3, 7-11.

To the killing of Euphron, followed by a defence so characteristic and emphatic on the part of the agent,—Schneider and others refer, with great probability, the allusion in the Rhetoric of Aristotle (ii, 24, 2)—καὶ περὶ τοῦ Θήβῃσιν ἀποθανόντος, περὶ οὗ ἐκέλευε κρῖναι, εἰ δίκαιος ἦν ἀποθανεῖν ὡς οὐκ ἄδικον ὂν ἀποκτεῖναι τὸν δικαίως ἀποθανόντα.

[591] Xen. Hellen. vii, 3, 12.

[592] Xen. Hellen. vii, 4, 1.

[593] Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 22.

[594] It is plain that Messênê was the great purpose with Pelopidas in his mission to the Persian court; we see this not only from Cornelius Nepos (Pelop. c. 4) and Diodorus (xv, 81), but also even from Xenophon, Hellen. vii, 1, 36.

[595] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 33-38; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 30; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 22.

The words of Xenophon ἠκολούθει δὲ καὶ Ἀργεῖος must allude to some Argeian envoy; though the name is not mentioned, and must probably have dropped out,—or perhaps the word τις, as Xenophon may not have heard the name.

It would appear that in the mission which Pharnabazus conducted up to the Persian court (or at least undertook to conduct) in 408 B.C., envoys from hostile Greek cities were included in the same company (Xen. Hellen. i, 3, 13), as on the present occasion.

[596] Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 22.

His colleague Ismenias, however, is said to have dropped his ring, and then to have stooped to pick it up, immediately before the king; thus going through the prostration.

[597] Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 30.

[598] Xen. Hellen. vii, 1, 36. Ἐκ δὲ τούτου ἐρωτώμενος ὑπὸ βασιλέως ὁ Πελοπίδας τί βούλοιτο ἑαυτῷ γραφῆναι, εἶπεν ὅτι Μεσσήνην τε αὐτόνομον εἶναι ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, καὶ Ἀθηναίους ἀνέλκειν τὰς ναῦς: εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μὴ πείθοιντο, στρατεύειν ἐπ’ αὐτούς· εἴ τις δὲ πόλις μὴ ἐθέλοι ἀκολουθεῖν, ἐπὶ ταύτην πρῶτον ἰέναι.

It is clear that these are not the exact words of the rescript of 367 B.C., though in the former case of the peace of Antalkidas (387 B.C.) Xenophon seems to have given the rescript in its exact words (v, 1, 31).

What he states afterwards (vii, 1, 38) about Elis and Arcadia proves that other matters were included. Accordingly I do not hesitate to believe that Amphipolis also was recognized as autonomous. This we read in Demosthenes, Fals. Leg. p. 383, c. 42. Καὶ γάρ τοι πρῶτον μὲν Ἀμφίπολιν πόλιν ἡμετέραν δούλην κατέστησεν (the king of Persia), ἣν τότε σύμμαχον αὐτῷ καὶ φίλην ἔγραψεν. Demosthenes is here alluding to the effect produced on the mind of the Great King, and to the alteration in his proceedings, when he learnt that Timagoras had been put to death on returning to Athens; the adverb of time τότε alludes to the rescript given when Timagoras was present.

In the words of Xenophon,—εἴ τις δὲ πόλις μὴ ἐθέλοι ἀκολουθεῖν,—the headship of Thebes is declared or implied. Compare the convention imposed by Sparta upon Olynthus, after the latter was subdued (v, 3, 26.)