[326] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 3; Diodor. xiii, 107.

[327] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 2; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13.

[328] Cornelius Nepos, Lysand. c. 2; Polyæn. i, 45, 4. It would appear that this is the same incident which Plutarch (Lysand. c. 19) recounts as if the Milesians, not the Thasians, were the parties suffering. It cannot well be the Milesians, however, it we compare chapter 8 of Plutarch’s Life of Lysander.

[329] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13. πολλαῖς δὲ παραγινόμενος αὐτὸς σφαγαῖς καὶ συνεκβάλλων τοὺς τῶν φίλων ἐχθροὺς, etc.

[330] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 6. εὐθὺς δὲ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Ἑλλὰς ἀφειστήκει Ἀθηναίων, πλὴν Σαμίων· οὗτοι δὲ, σφαγὰς τῶν γνωρίμων ποιήσαντες, κατεῖχον τὴν πόλιν.

I interpret the words σφαγὰς τῶν γνωρίμων ποιήσαντες to refer to the violent revolution at Samos, described in Thucyd. viii, 21, whereby the oligarchy were dispossessed and a democratical government established. The word σφαγὰς is used by Xenophon (Hellen. v, 4, 14), in a subsequent passage, to describe the conspiracy and revolution effected by Pelopidas and his friends at Thebes. It is true that we might rather have expected the preterite participle πεποιηκότες than the aorist ποιήσαντες. But this employment of the aorist participle in a preterite sense is not uncommon with Xenophon: see κατηγορήσας, δόξας, i, 1, 31; γενομένους, i, 7, 11; ii, 2, 20.

It appears to me highly improbable that the Samians should have chosen this occasion to make a fresh massacre of their oligarchical citizens, as Mr. Mitford represents. The democratical Samians must have been now humbled and intimidated, seeing their subjugation approaching; and only determined to hold out by finding themselves already so deeply compromised though the former revolution. Nor would Lysander have spared them personally afterwards, as we shall find that he did, when he had them substantially in his power (ii, 3, 6), if they had now committed any fresh political massacre.

[331] Xenoph. Memorab. ii, 8, 1; ii, 10, 4; Xenoph. Sympos. iv, 31. Compare Demosthen. cont. Leptin. c. 24, p. 491.

A great number of new proprietors acquired land in the Chersonese through the Lacedæmonian sway, doubtless in place of these dispossessed Athenians; perhaps by purchase at a low price, but most probably by appropriation without purchase (Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 8, 5).

[332] Xenoph. Hellen. i, 2, 1; Demosthen. cont. Leptin. c. 14, p. 474. Ekphantus and the other Thasian exiles received the grant of ἀτέλεια, or immunity from the peculiar charges imposed upon metics at Athens.

[333] This interesting decree or psephism of Patrokleidês is given at length in the Oration of Andokidês de Mysteriis, sects. 76-80: Ἃ δ᾽ εἴρηται ἐξαλεῖψαι, μὴ κεκτῆσθαι ἰδίᾳ μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι, μηδὲ μνησικακῆσαι μηδέποτε.

[334] Andokid. de Myst. s. 76. καὶ πίστιν ἀλλήλοις περὶ ὁμονοίας δοῦναι ἐν ἀκροπόλει.

[335] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 11. τοὺς ἀτίμους ἐπιτίμους ποιήσαντες ἐκαρτέρουν.

[336] Andokidês de Mysteriis, sects. 80-101; Lysias, Orat. xviii, De Bonis Niciæ Fratr. sect. 9.

At what particular moment the severe condemnatory decree had been passed by the Athenian assembly against the exiles serving with the Lacedæmonian garrison at Dekeleia, we do not know. The decree is mentioned by Lykurgus, cont. Leokrat. sects. 122, 123, p. 164.

[337] Isokratês adv. Kallimachum, sect. 71; compare Andokidês de Reditu suo, sect. 21, and Lysias cont. Diogeiton. Or. xxxii, sect. 22, about Cyprus and the Chersonese, as ordinary sources of supply of corn to Athens.

[338] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 9; Diodor. xiii, 107.

[339] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 12-15; Lysias cont. Agorat. sects. 10-12.

[340] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 16; Lysias, Orat. xiii, cont. Agorat. sect. 12; Lysias, Orat. xii, cont. Eratosthen. sects. 65-71.

See an illustration of the great suffering during the siege, in Xenophon Apolog. Socrat. s. 18.

[341] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 15-21; compare Isokratês, Areopagit. Or. vii, sect. 73.

[342] Lysias, Orat. xiii, cont. Agorat. sects. 15, 16, 17; Orat. xxx, cont. Nikomach. sects. 13-17.

This seems the most probable story as to the death of Kleophon, though the accounts are not all consistent, and the statement of Xenophon, especially (Hellen. i, 7, 35), is not to be reconciled with Lysias. Xenophon conceived Kleophon as having perished earlier than this period, in a sedition (στάσεως τινος γενομένης ἐν ᾗ Κλεοφῶν ἀπέθανε), before the flight of Kallixenus from his recognizances. It is scarcely possible that Kallixenus could have been still under recognizance, during this period of suffering between the battle of Ægospotami and the capture of Athens. He must have escaped before that battle. Neither long detention of an accused party in prison before trial, nor long postponement of trial when he was under recognizance were at all in Athenian habits.

[343] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 19; vi, 5, 35-46; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15.

The Thebans, a few years afterwards, when they were soliciting aid from the Athenians against Sparta, disavowed this proposition of their delegate Erianthus, who had been the leader of the Bœotian contingent serving under Lysander at Ægospotami, honored in that character by having his statue erected at Delphi, along with the other allied leaders who took part in the battle, and along with Lysander and Eteonikus (Pausan. x, 9, 4).

It is one of the exaggerations so habitual with Isokratês, to serve a present purpose, when he says that the Thebans were the only parties, among all the Peloponnesian confederates, who gave this harsh anti-Athenian vote (Isokratês, Orat. Plataic. Or. xiv, sect. 34).

Demosthenês says that the Phocians gave their vote, in the same synod, against the Theban proposition (Demosth. de Fals. Legat. c. 22, p. 361).

It seems from Diodor. xv, 63, and Polyæn. i, 45, 5, as well as from some passages in Xenophon himself, that the motives of the Lacedæmonians, in thus resisting the proposition of the Thebans against Athens, were founded in policy more than in generosity.

[344] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 20; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 14; Diodor. xiii, 107. Plutarch gives the express words of the Lacedæmonian decree, some of which words are very perplexing. The conjecture of G. Hermann, αἱ χρήδοιτε instead of ἃ χρὴ δόντες, has been adopted into the text of Plutarch by Sintenis, though it seems very uncertain.

[345] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 23. Lysias (Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 71) lays the blame of this wretched and humiliating peace upon Theramenês, who plainly ought not to be required to bear it; compare Lysias, Orat. xiii, cont. Agorat. sects. 12-20.

[346] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15. He says, however, that this was also the day on which the Athenians gained the battle of Salamis. This is incorrect: that victory was gained in the month Boedromion.

[347] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 18.

[348] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 20; ii, 3, 8; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 14. He gives the contents of the skytalê verbatim.

[349] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15; Lysias cont. Agorat. sect. 50. ἔτι δὲ τὰ τείχη ὡς κατεσκάφη, καὶ αἱ νῆες τοῖς πολεμίοις παρεδόθησαν, καὶ τὰ νεώρια καθῃρέθη, etc.

[350] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 23. Καὶ τὰ τείχη κατέσκαπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐλητρίδων πολλῇ προθυμίᾳ, νομίζοντες ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἄρχειν τῆς ἐλευθερίας.

Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15.

[351] Lysias cont. Eratosth. Or. xii, sect. 75, p. 431, R.; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15; Diodor. xiv, 3.

[352] Lysander dedicated a golden crown to Athênê in the acropolis, which is recorded in the inscriptions among the articles belonging to the goddess.

See Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Attic. Nos. 150-152, p. 235.

[353] Lysias. Or. xiii, cont. Agorat. s. 80.

[354] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 18; ii, 3, 46; Plutarch, Vit. x, Orator. Vit. Lycurg. init.

M. E. Meier, in his Commentary on Lykurgus, construes this passage of Plutarch differently, so that the person therein specified as exile would be, not Aristodemus, but the grandfather of Lykurgus. But I do not think this construction justified: see Meier, Comm. de Lykurg. Vitâ, p. iv, (Halle, 1847).

Respecting Chariklês, see Isokratês, Orat. xvi, De Bigis, s. 52.

[355] See Stallbaum’s Preface to the Charmidês of Plato, his note on the Timæus of Plato, p. 20, E, and the Scholia on the same passage.

Kritias is introduced as taking a conspicuous part in four of the Platonic dialogues; Protagoras, Charmidês, Timæus and Kritias; the last only a fragment, not to mention the Eryxias.

The small remains of the elegiac poetry of Kritias are to be found in Schneidewin, Delect. Poet. Græc. p. 136, seq. Both Cicero (De Orat. ii, 22, 93) and Dionys. Hal. (Judic. de Lysiâ, c. 2, p. 454; Jud. de Isæo, p. 627) notice his historical compositions.

About the concern of Kritias in the mutilation of the Hermæ, as affirmed by Diognêtus, see Andokidês de Mysteriis, s. 47. He was first cousin of Andokidês, by the mother’s side.

[356] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 35.

[357] Xenoph. Hellen ii, 3, 35; Memorab. i, 2, 24.

[358] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2. ἐπεὶ δὲ αὐτὸς μὲν (Kritias) προπετὴς ἦν ἐπὶ τὸ πολλοὺς ἀποκτεῖναι, ἅτε καὶ φυγὼν ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου, etc.

[359] Lysias cont. Agorat. Or. xiii, s. 23, p. 132.

[360] Lysias cont. Eratosth. Or. xii, s. 78, p. 128. Theramenês is described, in his subsequent defence, ὀνειδίζων μὲν τοῖς φεύγουσιν ὅτι δι᾽ αὑτὸν κατέλθοιεν, etc.

The general narrative of Xenophon, meagre as it is, harmonizes with this.

[361] Lysias cont. Eratosth. Or. xii, s. 44, p. 124. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἡ ναυμαχία καὶ ἡ συμφορὰ τῇ πόλει ἐγένετο, δημοκρατίας ἔτι οὔσης, ὅθεν τῆς στάσεως ἦρξαν, πέντε ἄνδρες ἔφοροι κατέστησαν ὑπὸ τῶν καλουμένων ἑταίρων, συναγωγεῖς μὲν τῶν πολιτῶν, ἄρχοντες δὲ τῶν συνωμοτῶν, ἐναντία δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ πλήθει πράττοντες.

[362] Lysias cont. Agorat. Or. xiii, s. 28 (p. 132); s. 35, p. 133. Καὶ παρορμίσαντες δύο πλοῖα Μουνυχίασιν, ἐδέοντο αὐτοῦ (Ἀγοράτου) παντὶ τρόπῳ ἀπελθεῖν Ἀθήνηθεν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔφασαν συνεκπλευσεῖσθαι, ἕως τὰ πράγματα κατασταίη, etc.

Lysias represents this accusation of the generals, and this behavior of Agoratus, as having occurred before the surrender of the city, but after the return of Theramenês, bringing back the final terms imposed by the Lacedæmonians. He thus so colors it, that Agoratus, by getting the generals out of the way, was the real cause why the degrading peace brought by Theramenês was accepted. Had the generals remained at large, he affirms, they would have prevented the acceptance of this degrading peace, and would have been able to obtain better terms from the Lacedæmonians (see Lysias cont. Agor. sects. 16-20).

Without questioning generally the matters of fact set forth by Lysias in this oration (delivered a long time afterwards, see s. 90), I believe that he misdates them, and represents them as having occurred before the surrender, whereas they really occurred after it. We know from Xenophon, that when Theramenês came back the second time with the real peace, the people were in such a state of famine, that farther waiting was impossible: the peace was accepted immediately that it was proposed; cruel as it was, the people were glad to get it (Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 22). Besides, how could Agoratus be conveyed with two vessels out of Munychia, when the harbor was closely blocked up? and what is the meaning of ἕως τὰ πράγματα κατασταίη, referred to a moment just before the surrender?

[363] Lysias cont. Agorat. Or. xiii, sects. 38, 60, 68.

[364] Lysias cont. Eratosth. Or. xii, s. 74: compare Aristotle ap. Schol. ad Aristophan. Vesp. 157.

[365] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 2.

[366] Lysias cont. Eratosth. Or. xii, sects. 74-77.

[367] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 6-8.

[368] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 8.

[369] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 16; Diodor. xiii, 106.

[370] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 2, 11: Lysias cont. Agorat. Orat. xiii, sects. 23-80.

Tisias, the brother-in-law of Chariklês, was a member of this senate (Isokratês, Or. xvi, De Bigis, s. 53).

[371] Plato, Epist. vii, p. 324, B.; Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 54.

[372] Isokratês cont. Kallimach. Or. xviii, s. 6, p. 372.

[373] Lysias, Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 5, p. 121. Ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ οἱ τριάκοντα πονηροὶ μὲν καὶ συκοφάνται ὄντες εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν κατέστησαν, φάσκοντες χρῆναι τῶν ἀδίκων καθαρὰν ποιῆσαι τὴν πόλιν, καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς πολίτας ἐπ᾽ ἀρετὴν καὶ δικαιοσύνην τραπέσθαι, etc.

[374] Plato, Epist. vii, p. 324, B.C.

[375] Lysias cont. Agorat. s. 38.

[376] Lysias cont. Agorat. s. 40.

[377] Lysias cont. Agorat. s. 41.

[378] Lysias cont. Eratosth. s. 18; Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 51; Isokrat. Orat. xx, cont. Lochit. s. 15, p. 397.

[379] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 12, 28, 38. Αὐτὸς (Theramenês) μάλιστα ἐξορμήσας ἡμᾶς, τοῖς πρώτοις ὑπαγομένοις ἐς ἡμᾶς δίκην ἐπιτιθέναι, etc.

[380] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 13. ἕως δὴ τοὺς πονηροὺς ἐκποδὼν ποιησάμενοι καταστήσαιντο τὴν πολιτείαν.

[381] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 15, 23, 42; Isokrat. cont. Kallimach. Or. xviii, s. 30, p. 375.

[382] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 42; ii, 4, 14. οἱ δὲ καὶ οὐχ ὅπως ἀδικοῦντες, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐπιδημοῦντες ἐφυγαδευόμεθα, etc.

Isokratês, Orat. xvi, De Bigis, s. 46, p. 355.

[383] Plutarch, Vit. x, Orator. p. 838.

[384] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 39-41; Lysias, Orat. xviii, De Bonis Niciæ Fratris, sects. 5-8.

[385] Plato, Apol. Sokratês, c. 20, p. 32. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὀλιγαρχία ἐγένετο, οἱ τριάκοντα αὖ μεταπεμψάμενοί με πέμπτον αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν θόλον προσέταξαν ἀγαγεῖν ἐκ Σαλαμῖνος Λέοντα τὸν Σαλαμίνιον, ἵν᾽ ἀποθάνοι· οἷα δὴ καὶ ἄλλοις ἐκεῖνοι πολλοῖς πολλὰ προσέταττον, βουλόμενοι ὡς πλείστους ἀναπλῆσαι αἰτιῶν.

Isokrat. cont. Kallimach. Or. xviii, sect. 23, p. 374. ἐνίοις καὶ προσέταττον ἐξαμαρτάνειν. Compare also Lysias, Or. xii, cont. Eratosth. sect. 32.

We learn, from Andokidês de Myster. sect. 94, that Melêtus was one of the parties who actually arrested Leon, and brought him up for condemnation. It is not probable that this was the same person who afterwards accused Sokratês. It may possibly have been his father, who bore the same name; but there is nothing to determine the point.

[386] Plato, Apol. Sokrat. ut sup.; Xenoph. Hellen. ii. 4, 9-23.

[387] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 17, 19, 48. From sect. 48, we see that Theramenês actually made this proposition: τὸ μέντοι σὺν τοῖς δυναμένοις καὶ μεθ᾽ ἵππων καὶ μετ᾽ ἀσπίδων ὠφελεῖν διὰ τούτων τὴν πολιτείαν, πρόσθεν ἄριστον ἡγούμην εἶναι καὶ νῦν οὐ μεταβάλλομαι.

This proposition, made by Theramenês and rejected by the Thirty, explains the comment which he afterwards made, when they drew up their special catalogue or roll of three thousand; which comment otherwise appears unsuitable.

[388] Thucyd. viii, 89-92. τὸ μὲν καταστῆσαι μετόχους τοσούτους, ἀντικρὺς ἂν δῆμον ἡγούμενοι.

[389] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 8, 19; ii, 4, 2, 8, 24.

[390] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 51.

[391] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 20, 41: compare Lysias. Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. sect. 41.

[392] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 21; Isokratês adv. Euthynum, sect. 5, p. 401; Isokratês cont. Kallimach. sect. 23, p. 375; Lysias, Or. xxv, Δημ. Καταλ. Ἀπολ. sect. 21, p. 173.

The two passages of Isokratês sufficiently designate what this list, or κατάλογος, must have been; but the name by which he calls it—ὁ μετὰ Λυσάνδρου (or Πεισάνδρου) κατάλογος—is not easy to explain.

[393] Lysias, Orat. vi, cont. Andok. sect. 46; Or. xii, cont. Eratosth. sect 49.

[394] Xenoph. Memor. i, 2, 12. Κριτίας μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐν τῇ ὀλιγαρχίᾳ πάντων κλεπτίστατός τε καὶ βιαιότατος ἐγένετο, etc.

[395] Lysias, Or. xii. cont. Eratosthen. sects. 8, 21. Lysias prosecuted Eratosthenês before the dikastery some years afterwards, as having caused the death of Polemarchus. The foregoing details are found in the oration, spoken as well as composed by himself.

[396] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 3, 56.

[397] See Lysias, Or. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 66.

[398] Diodor. xiv, 5. Diodorus tells us that Sokratês and two of his friends were the only persons who stood forward to protect Theramenês, when Satyrus was dragging him from the altar. Plutarch (Vit. x, Orat. p. 836) ascribes the same act of generous forwardness to Isokratês. There is no good ground for believing it, either of one or of the other. None but senators were present; and as this senate had been chosen by the Thirty, it is not likely that either Sokratês or Isokratês were among its members. If Sokratês had been a member of it, the fact would have been noticed and brought out in connection with his subsequent trial.

The manner in which Plutarch (Consolat. ad Apollon. c. 6, p. 105) states the death of Theramenês, that he was “tortured to death” by the Thirty is an instance of his loose speaking.

Compare Cicero about the death of Theramenês (Tuscul. Disp. i, 40, 96). His admiration for the manner of death of Theramenês doubtless contributed to make him rank that Athenian with Themistoklês and Periklês (De Orat. iii. 16, 59).

[399] The epithets applied by Aristophanês to Theramenês (Ran. 541-966) coincide pretty exactly with those in the speech just noticed, which Xenophon ascribes to Kritias against him.

[400] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 1; Lysias, Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 97; Orat. xxxi, cont. Philon. s. 8, 9; Herakleid. Pontic. c. 5; Diogen. Laërt. i, 98.

[401] Xenoph. Hellen. l. c. ἦγον δὲ ἐκ τῶν χωρίων, ἵν᾽ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ φίλοι τοὺς τούτων ἀγροὺς ἔχοιεν· φευγόντων δὲ ἐς τὸν Πειραιᾶ, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν πολλοὺς ἄγοντες, ἐνέπλησαν Μέγαρα καὶ Θήβας τῶν ὑποχωρούντων.

[402] Lysias, Or. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 49; Or. xxv, Democrat. Subvers. Apolog. s. 20; Or. xxvi, cont. Evandr. s. 23.

[403] Æschinês, Fals. Legat. c. 24, p. 266, and cont. Ktesiph. c. 86, p. 455; Isokratês, Or. iv, Panegyr. s. 131; Or. vii, Areopag. s. 76.

[404] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 1; Diodor. xiv, 6; Lysias, Or. xxiv, s. 28; Or. xxxi, cont. Philon. s. 10.

[405] Lysias, Or. xii, cont. Eratosth. sects. 98, 99: παντάχοθεν ἐκκηρυττόμενοι; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 99; Diodor xiv, 6; Demosth. de Rhod. Libert. c. 10.

[406] Xenoph. Memor. i, 2, 31. Καὶ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις ἔγραψε, λόγων τέχνην μὴ διδάσκειν.—Isokratês, cont. Sophist. Or. xiii, s. 12. τὴν παίδευσιν τὴν τῶν λόγων.

Plutarch (Themistoklês, c. 19) affirms that the Thirty oligarchs, during their rule, altered the position of the rostrum in the Pnyx, the place where the democratical public assemblies were held: the rostrum had before looked towards the sea, but they turned it so as to make it look towards the land, because the maritime service and the associations connected with it were the chief stimulants of democratical sentiment. This story has been often copied and reasserted, as if it were an undoubted fact; but M. Forchhammer (Topographie von Athen, p. 289, in Kieler Philol. Studien. 1841) has shown it to be untrue and even absurd.

[407] Aristot. Polit. v, 9, 2.

[408] Xenoph. Memorab. i, 2, 33-39.

[409] Justin (vi, 10) mentions the demand thus made and refused. Plutarch (Lysand. c. 27) states the demand as having been made by the Thebans alone, which I disbelieve. Xenophon, according to the general disorderly arrangement of facts in his Hellenika, does not mention the circumstance in its proper place, but alludes to it on a subsequent occasion as having before occurred (Hellen. iii, 5, 5). He also specifies by name no one but the Thebans as having actually made the demand; but there is a subsequent passage, which shows that not only the Corinthians, but other allies also, sympathized in it (iii, 5, 12).

[410] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 17; Plutarch, Institut. Lacon. p. 239.

[411] Pausan. vi, 3, 6. The Samian oligarchical party owed their recent restoration to Lysander.

[412] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 18, 19.

[413] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 30. Οὕτω δὲ προχωρούντων, Παυσανίας ὁ βασιλεὺς (of Sparta), φθονήσας Λυσάνδρῳ εἰ κατειργασμένος ταῦτα ἅμα μὲν εὐδοκιμήσοι, ἅμα δὲ ἰδίας ποιήσοιτο τὰς Ἀθήνας, πείσας τῶν Ἐφόρων τρεῖς, ἐξάγει φρουράν. Ξυνείποντο δὲ καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι πάντες, πλὴν Βοιωτῶν καὶ Κορινθίων. Οὗτοι δ᾽ ἔλεγον μὲν ὅτι οὐ νομίζοιεν εὐορκεῖν ἂν στρατευόμενοι ἐπ᾽ Ἀθηναίους, μηδὲν παράσπονδον ποιοῦντας· ἔπραττον δὲ ταῦτα, ὅτι ἐγίγνωσκον Λακεδαιμονίους βουλομένους τὴν τῶν Ἀθηναίων χώραν οἰκείαν καὶ πιστὴν ποιήσασθαι. Compare also iii, 5, 12, 13, respecting the sentiments entertained in Greece about the conduct of the Lacedæmonians.

[414] Diodor. xiv, 10-13.

[415] Thucyd. iv.

[416] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 2; Diodor. xiv, 32; Pausan. i, 29, 3; Lysias, Or. xiii, cont. Agorat. sect. 84; Justin, v, 9; Æschinês, cont. Ktesiphon, c. 62, p. 437; Demosth. cont. Timokrat. c. 34, p. 742. Æschinês allots more than one hundred followers to the captors of Phylê.

The sympathy which the Athenian exiles found at Thebes is attested in a fragment of Lysias, ap. Dionys. Hal. Jud. de Lysiâ, p. 594 (Fragm. 47, ed. Bekker).

[417] Lysias, Or. xii, cont. Eratosth. sect. 41, p. 124.

[418] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 2, 5, 14.

[419] See an analogous case of a Lacedæmonian army surprised by the Thebans at this dangerous hour, Xenoph. Hellen. vii, i, 16; compare Xenoph. Magistr. Equit. vii, 12.

[420] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 5, 7. Diodorus (xiv, 32, 33) represents the occasion of this battle somewhat differently. I follow the account of Xenophon.

[421] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 8. I apprehend that ἀπογράφεσθαι here refers to prospective military service; as in vi, 5, 29, and in Cyropæd. ii, 1, 18, 19. The words in the context, πόσης φυλακῆς προσδεήσοιντο, attest that such is the meaning; though the commentators, and Sturz in his Lexicon Xenophonteum, interpret differently.

[422] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 8.

[423] Both Lysias (Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 53; Orat. xiii, cont. Agorat. s. 47) and Diodorus (xiv, 32) connect together these two similar proceedings at Eleusis and at Salamis. Xenophon mentions only the affair at Eleusis.

[424] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 9. Δείξας δέ τι χωρίον, ἐς τοῦτο ἐκέλευσε φανερὰν φέρειν τὴν ψῆφον. Compare Lysias, Or. xiii, cont. Agorat. s. 40, and Thucyd. iv, 74, about the conduct of the Megarian oligarchical leaders: καὶ τούτων περὶ ἀναγκάσαντες τὸν δῆμον ψῆφον φανερὰν διενεγκεῖν, etc.

[425] Lysias (Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 53) gives this number.

[426] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 10, 13. ἡμέραν πέμπτην, etc.

[427] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 12.

[428] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 12, 20.

[429] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 19; Cornel. Nepos, Thrasybul. c. 2.

[430] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 22.

[431] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 22; Lysias, Orat. xii, cont. Eratosth. s. 55: οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ Πειραιέως κρείττους ὄντες εἴασαν αὐτοὺς ἀπελθεῖν, etc.

[432] Xenoph. Hellen. ii, 4, 24.