[748] Thucyd. v, 10. Οἰόμενος φθήσεσθαι ἀπελθὼν, etc.

[749] Contrast the brave death of the Lacedæmonian general Anaxibius, when he found himself out-generalled and surprised by the Athenian Iphikratês (Xenoph. Hellen. iv, 8, 38).

[750] Amphipolis was actually thus attacked by the Athenians eight years afterwards, by ships on the Strymon, Thucyd. vii, 9. Εὐετίων στρατηγὸς Ἀθηναίων, μετὰ Περδίκκου στρατεύσας ἐπ᾽ Ἀμφίπολιν Θρᾳξὶ πολλοῖς, τὴν μὲν πόλιν οὐχ εἷλεν, ἐς δὲ τὸν Στρύμονα περικομίσας τριήρεις ἐκ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐπολιόρκει, ὁρμώμενος ἐξ Ἱμεραίου. (In the eighteenth year of the war.) But the fortifications of the place seem to have been materially altered during the interval. Instead of one long wall, with three sides open to the river, it seems to have acquired a curved wall, only open to the river on a comparatively narrow space near to the lake; while this curved wall joined the bridge southerly by means of a parallel pair of long walls with road between.

[751] Plato, Symp. c. 36, p. 221.

[752] Thuc. iv, 81. δόξας εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ἀγαθὸς, etc.

[753] Thucyd. v, 116.

[754] Aristophan. Equit. 55, 391, 740, etc. In one passage of the play, Kleon is reproached with pretending to be engaged at Argos in measures for winning the alliance of that city, but in reality, under cover of this proceeding, carrying on clandestine negotiations with the Lacedæmonians (464). In two other passages, he is denounced as being the person who obstructs the conclusion of peace with the Lacedæmonians (790, 1390).

[755] Thucyd. v, 17; iii, 45. καταφανέστερος μὲν εἶναι κακουργῶν, καὶ ἀπιστότερος διαβάλλων—βιαιότατος τῶν πολιτῶν.

[756] Aristophan. Acharn. 8, with the Scholiast, who quotes from Theopompus. Theopompus, Fragment, 99, 100, 101, ed. Didot.

[757] The public speaking of Kleon was characterized by Aristotle and Theopompus (see Schol. ad Lucian. Timon, c. 30), not as wheedling, but as full of arrogance; in this latter point too like that of the elder Cato at Rome (Plutarch, Cato, c. 14). The derisory tone of Cato in his public speaking, too, is said to have been impertinent and disgusting (Plutarch, Reipub. Gerend. Præcept. p. 803, c. 7).

[758] An epigram which Plutarch (Cato, c. 1) gives us from a poet contemporary of Cato the Censor, describes him:—

Livy says, in an eloquent encomium on Cato (xxxix, 40): “Simultates nimio plures et exercuerunt eum, et ipse exercuit eas: nec facile dixeris utrum magis presserit eum nobilitas, an ille agitaverit nobilitatem. Asperi procul dubio animi, et linguæ acerbæ et immodice liberæ fuit: sed invicti a cupiditatibus animi et rigidæ innocentiæ: contemptor gratiæ, divitiarum.... Hunc sicut omni vitâ, tum censuram petentem premebat nobilitas; coierantque candidati omnes ad dejiciendum honore eum; non solum ut ipsi potius adipiscerentur, nec quia indignabantur novum hominem censorem videre; sed etiam quod tristem censuram, periculosamque multorum famæ, et ab læso a plerisque et lædendi cupido, expectabant.”

See also Plutarch (Cato, c. 15, 16: his comparison between Aristeidês and Cato, c. 2) about the prodigious number of accusations in which Cato was engaged, either as prosecutor or as party prosecuted. His bitter feud with the nobilitas is analogous to that of Kleon against the Hippeis.

I need hardly say that the comparison of Cato with Kleon applies only to domestic politics: in the military courage and energy for which Cato was distinguished, Kleon is utterly wanting, nor are we entitled to ascribe to him anything like the superiority of knowledge and general intelligence which we find recorded of Cato.

The expression of Cicero respecting Kleon: “turbulentum quidem civem, sed tamen eloquentem,” (Cicero, Brutus, 7) appears to be a translation of the epithets of Thucydidês—βιαιότατος—τῷ δήμῳ πιθανώτατος (iii, 45).

The remarks made too by Latin critics on the style and temper of Cato’s speeches, might almost seem to be a translation of the words of Thucydidês about Kleon. Fronto said about Cato: “Concionatur Cato infeste, Gracchus turbulente, Tullius copiose. Jam in judiciis sævit idem Cato, triumphat Cicero, tumultuatur Gracchus.” See Dübner’s edition of Meyer’s Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, p. 117 (Paris, 1837).

[759] Plutarch, Reip. Ger. Præcept. p. 806. Compare two other passages in the same treatise, p. 805, where Plutarch speaks of the ἀπόνοια καὶ δεινότης of Kleon; and p. 812, where he says, with truth, that Kleon was not at all qualified to act as general in a campaign.

[760] Aristophan. Ran. 566-576.

[761] Here again we find Cato the elder represented as constantly in the forum at Rome, lending aid of this kind, and espousing the cause of others who had grounds of complaint (Plutarch, Cato, c. 3), πρωῒ μὲν εἰς ἀγορὰν βαδίζει καὶ παρίσταται τοῖς δεομένοις—τοὺς μὲν θαυμαστὰς καὶ φίλους ἐκτᾶτο διὰ τῶν ξυνηγοριῶν, etc.

[762] Aristophan. Equit. 1271:—

[763] It appears that the complaint was made ostensibly against Kalistratus, in whose name the poet brought out the “Babylonians,” (Schol. ad Arist. Vesp. 1284), and who was of course the responsible party, though the real author was doubtless perfectly well known. The Knights was the first play brought out by the poet in his own name.

[764] See Acharn. 377, with the Scholia, and the anonymous biography of Aristophanês.

Both Meineke (Aristoph. Fragm. Comic. Gr. vol. ii, p. 966) and Ranke (Commentat. de Aristoph. Vitâ, p. cccxxx) try to divine the plot of the “Babylonians;” but there is no sufficient information to assist them.

[765] Aristoph. Acharn. 355-475.

[766] See the Arguments prefixed to these three plays; and Acharn. 475, Equit. 881.

It is not known whether the first comedy, entitled The Clouds (represented in the earlier part of B.C. 423, a year after the Knights, and a year before the Wasps), appeared at the Lenæan festival of January, or at the urban Dionysia in March. It was unsuccessful, and the poet partially altered it with the view to a second representation. If it be true that this second representation took place during the year immediately following (B.C. 422: see Mr. Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, ad ann. 422), it must have been at the urban Dionysia in March, just at the time when the truce for one year was coming to a close; for the Wasps was represented in that year at the Lenæan festival, and the same poet would hardly be likely to bring out two plays. The inference which Ranke draws from Nubes 310, that it was represented at the Dionysia, is not, however, very conclusive (Ranke, Commentat. de Aristoph. Vitâ, p. ccxxi, prefixed to his edition of the Plutus).

[767] See the obscure passage, Vespæ, 1285, seqq.; Aristoph. Vita Anonymi, p. xiii, ed. Bekker; Demosthen. cont. Meid. p. 532.

It appears that Aristophanês was of Æginetan parentage (Acharn. 629); so that the γραφὴ ξενίας (indictment for undue assumption of the rights of an Athenian citizen) was founded upon a real fact. Between the time of the conquest of Ægina by Athens, and the expulsion of the native inhabitants in the first year of the Peloponnesian war (an interval of about twenty years), probably no inconsiderable number of Æginetans became intermingled or intermarried with Athenian citizens. Especially men of poetical talent in the subject-cities would find it their interest to repair to Athens: Ion came from Chios, and Achæus from Eretria; both tragic composers.

The comic author Eupolis seems also to have directed some taunts against the foreign origin of Aristophanês, if Meineke is correct in his interpretation of a passage (Historia Comicor. Græc. i, p. 111).

[768] Thucyd. v, 17-30. The statement in cap. 30 seems to show that this was the ground on which the Athenians were allowed to retain Sollium and Anaktorium. For if their retention of these two places had been distinctly and in terms at variance with the treaty, the Corinthians would doubtless have chosen this fact as the ostensible ground of their complaint: whereas they preferred to have recourse to a πρόσχημα, or sham plea.

[769] Compare v, 39 with v, 18, which seems to me to refute the explanation suggested by Dr. Arnold, and adopted by Poppo.

The use of the word ἀποδόντων in regard to the restoration of Amphipolis to Athens, and of the word παρέδοσαν in regard to the relinquishment of the other cities, deserves notice. Those who drew up the treaty, which is worded in a very confused way, seem to have intended that the word παρέδοσαν should apply both to Amphipolis and the other cities, but that the word ἀποδόντων should apply exclusively to Amphipolis. The word παρέδοσαν is of course applicable to the restoration of Amphipolis, for that which is restored is of course delivered up. But it is remarkable that this word παρέδοσαν does not properly apply to the other cities: for they were not delivered up to Athens, they were only relinquished, as the clauses immediately following farther explain. Perhaps there is a little Athenian pride in the use of the word, first to intimate indirectly that the Lacedæmonians were to deliver up various cities to Athens, then to add words afterwards, which show that the cities were only to be relinquished, not surrendered to Athens.

The provision, for guaranteeing liberty of retirement and carrying away of property, was of course intended chiefly for the Amphipolitans, who would naturally desire to emigrate, if the town had been actually restored to Athens.

[770] Thucyd. v, 19.

[771] Thucyd. v, 17-30. παραβήσεσθαί τε ἔφασαν (the Lacedæmonians said) αὐτοὺς (the Corinthians) τοὺς ὅρκους, καὶ ἤδη ἀδικεῖν ὅτι οὐ δέχονται τὰς Ἀθηναίων σπονδὰς, εἰρημένον, κύριον εἶναι ὅτι ἂν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ξυμμάχων ψηφίσηται, ἢν μή τι θεῶν ἢ ἡρώων κώλυμα ᾖ.

[772] Compare Thucyd. iv, 119; v, 19. Though the words of the peace stand ὤμοσαν κατὰ πόλεις (v, 18), yet it seems that this oath was not actually taken by any of the allied cities; only by the Lacedæmonians themselves, upon the vote of the majority of the confederates (v, 17: compare v, 23).

[773] Thucyd. v, 22.