[405] Diodor. xvi. 83.

[406] Plutarch. Timoleon, c. 39. Ἐν τοιαύτῃ δὲ γηροτροφούμενος τιμῇ μετ᾽ εὐνοίας, ὥσπερ πατὴρ κοινὸς, ἐκ μικρᾶς προφάσεως τῷ χρόνῳ συνεφαψαμένης ἐτελεύτησεν.

[407] Plutarch, Timoleon, c. 39; Diodor, xvi. 90.

[408] Plutarch. Timoleon, c. 36. Ὁ μάλιστα ζηλωθεὶς ὑπὸ Τιμολέοντος Ἐπαμεινώνδας, etc.

Polybius reckons Hermokrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus, to be the most complete men of action (πραγματικωτάτους) of all those who had played a conspicuous part in Sicilian affairs (Polyb. xii. 25. ed. Didot).

[409] Demosthenes, Orat. pro Megalopolit. p. 203, 204, s. 6-10; p. 206. s. 18—and indeed the whole Oration, which is an instructive exposition of policy.

[410] Xen. Hellen. vii. 4, 6, 10.

[411] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 23; vii 5, 4. Diodor. xv. 62. The Akarnanians had been allies of Thebes at the time of the first expedition of Epaminondas into Peloponnesus; whether they remained so at the time of his last expedition, is not certain. But as the Theban ascendency over Thessaly was much greater at the last of those two periods than at the first, we may be sure that they had not lost their hold upon the Lokrians and Malians who (as well as the Phokians) lay between Bœotia and Thessaly.

[412] Vol. X. Ch. lxxvii. p. 161; Ch. lxxviii. p. 195; Ch. lxxx. p. 312.

[413] Orchomenus was conterminous with the Phokian territory (Pausanias, ix. 39, 1.)

[414] Isokrates, Or. viii. De Pace, s. 21; Demosthenes adv. Leptinem, p. 490. s. 121; pro Megalopol. p. 208. s. 29; Philippic ii. p. 69. s. 15.

[415] Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 5, 4; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 35. Wachsmuth states, in my judgment, erroneously, that Thebes was disappointed in her attempt to establish ascendency in Thessaly (Hellenisch. Alterthümer, vol. ii. x. p. 338).

[416] Plato, Kriton, p. 53 D; Xenoph. Memorab. i. 2. 24; Demosthen. Olynth. i. p. 15. s. 23; Demosth. cont. Aristokratem, p. 658. s. 133.

“Pergit ire (the Roman consul Quinctius Flamininus) in Thessaliam: ubi non liberandæ modo civitates erant, sed ex omni colluvione et confusione in aliquam tolerabilem formam redigendæ. Nec enim temporum modo vitiis, ac violentiâ et licentiâ regiâ (i. e. the Macedonian) turbati erant; sed inquieto etiam ingenio gentis, nec comitia, nec conventum nec concilium ullum, non per seditionem et tumultum, jam inde a principio ad nostram usque ætatem, traducentis” (Livy, xxxiv. 51).

[417] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 19.

[418] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 32.

[419] Demosthenes adv. Polyklem. p. 1207. s. 5, 6; Diodor. xv. 61-95. See my previous Volume X. Ch. lxxx. p. 370.

[420] I concur with Mr. Fynes Clinton (Fast. Hellen. ad. ann. 359 B. C., and Appendix, c. 15) in thinking that this is the probable date of the assassination of Alexander of Pheræ; which event is mentioned by Didorus (xvi. 14) under the year 357-356 B. C., yet in conjunction with a series of subsequent events, and in a manner scarcely constraining us to believe that he meant to affirm the assassination itself as having actually taken place in that year.

To the arguments adduced by Mr. Clinton, another may be added, borrowed from the expression of Plutarch (Pelopidas, c. 35) ὀλίγον ὕστερον. He states that the assassination of Alexander occurred “a little while” after the period when the Thebans, avenging the death of Pelopidas, reduced that despot to submission. Now this reduction cannot be placed later than 363 B. C. That interval therefore which Plutarch calls “a little while,” will be three years, if we place the assassination in 359 B. C., six years, if we place it in 357-356 B. C. Three years is a more suitable interpretation of the words than six years.

[421] Xenoph. Hiero, i. 38; ii. 10; iii. 8.

[422] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 4, 36, 37; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 35; Conon, ap. Photium, Narr. 50. Codex, 186; Cicero, de Offic. ii. 7. The details of the assassination, given in these authors, differ. I have principally followed Xenophon, and have admitted nothing positively inconsistent with his statements.

[423] Justin, vii. 5; Diodor. xvi. 2. The allusion in the speech of Philotas immediately prior to his execution (Curtius, vi. 43. p. 591, Mützell) supports the affirmation of Justin—that Perdikkas was assassinated.

[424] Antipater (the general of Philip and viceroy of his son Alexander in Macedonia) is said to have left an historical work, Περδίκκου πράξεις Ἰλλυρικὰς (Suidas, v. Ἀντίπατρος), which can hardly refer to any other Perdikkas than the one now before us.

[425] Athenæus, xi. p. 506 E. Πλάτων, ὃν Σπεύσιππός φησι φίλτατον ὄντα Ἀρχελάῳ, etc.

[426] Diogenes Laert. v. 1, 1.

[427] Athenæus, xi. p. 506 E. p. 508 E. The fourth among the letters of Plato (alluded to by Diogenes Laert. iii. 62) is addressed to Perdikkas partly in recommendation and praise of Euphræus. There appears nothing to prove it to be spurious; but whether it be spurious or genuine, the fact that Plato corresponded with Perdikkas is sufficiently probable.

[428] Justin, vi. 9; vii. 5. “Philippus obses triennio Thebis habitus,” etc.

Compare Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 26; Diodor. xv. 67; xvi. 2; and the copious note of Wesseling upon the latter passage. The two passages of Diodorus are not very consistent; in the latter, he states that Philip had been deposited at Thebes by the Illyrians, to whom he had been made over as a hostage by his father Amyntas. This is highly improbable; as well for other reasons (assigned by Wesseling), as because the Illyrians, if they ever received him as a hostage, would not send him to Thebes, but keep him in their own possession. The memorable interview described by Æschines—between the Athenian general Iphikrates and the Macedonian queen Eurydikê with her two youthful sons Perdikkas and Philip—must have taken place some time before the death of Ptolemy Alorites, and before the accession of Perdikkas. The expressions of Æschines do not, perhaps, necessarily compel us to suppose the interview to have taken place immediately after the death of Alexander (Æschines, Fal. Leg. p. 31, 32): yet it is difficult to reconcile the statement of the orator with the recognition of three years’ continuous residence at Thebes. Flathe (Geschichte Makedoniens, vol. i. p. 39-47) supposes Æschines to have allowed himself an oratorical misrepresentation, when he states that Philip was present in Macedonia at the interview with Iphikrates. This is an unsatisfactory mode of escaping from the difficulty; but the chronological statements, as they now stand, can hardly be all correct. It is possible that Philip may have gone again back to Thebes, or may have been sent back, after the interview with Iphikrates; we might thus obtain a space of three years for his stay, at two several times, in that city. We are not to suppose that his condition at Thebes was one of durance and ill-treatment. See Mr. Clinton, Fast. Hell. App. iv. p. 229.

[429] Athenæus, xi. p. 506. διατρέφων δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα δύναμιν (Philippus), etc. About Derdas, see Xenoph. Hellen. v. 2, 38.

[430] It was in after times a frequent practice with the Roman Senate, when imposing terms of peace on kings half-conquered, to require hostages for fidelity, with a young prince of the royal blood among the number; and it commonly happened that the latter, after a few years’ residence at Rome, returned home an altered man on many points.

See the case of Demetrius, younger son of the last Philip of Macedon, and younger brother of Perseus (Livy, xxxiii. 13; xxxix. 53; xl. 5), of the young Parthian princes, Vonones (Tacitus, Annal. ii. 1, 2), Phraates (Tacit. Annal. vi. 32), Meherdates (Tacit. Ann. xii. 10, 11).

[431] Even in the opinion of very competent judges: see Æschines, Fals. Leg. c. 18. p. 253.

[432] Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 26. ζηλωτὴς γεγονέναι ἔδοξεν Ἐπαμεινώνδου, τὸ περὶ τοὺς πολέμους καὶ τὰς στρατηγίας δραστήριον ἴσως κατανοήσας, ὃ μικρὸν ἦν τῆς τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἀρετῆς μόριον, etc.

[433] Justin, vii. 4. Menelaus, the father of Amyntas and grandfather of Philip, is stated to have been an illegitimate son; while Amyntas himself is said to have been originally an attendant or slave of Æropus (Ælian, V. H. xii. 43). Our information respecting the relations of the successive kings, and pretenders to the throne, in Macedonia, is obscure and unsatisfactory. Justin (l. c.) agrees with Ælian in calling the father of Amyntas Menelaus; but Dexippus (ap. Syncellum, p. 263) calls him Aridæus; while Diodorus (xiv. 92) calls him Tharraleus.

[434] Justin, xxix. 1.

[435] Diodor xvi. 2; Justin, vii. 5; Quint. Curt. vi. 48, 26.

[436] Justin, vii. 5. Amyntas lived through the reign of Philip, and was afterwards put to death by Alexander, on the charge of conspiracy. See Justin, xii 6; Quintus Curtius, vi. 34, 17; with the note of Mützell.

[437] Justin, viii. 3. “Post hæc Olynthios aggreditur (Philip): receperant enim per misericordiam, post cædem unius, duos fratres ejus, quos Philippus, ex novercâ genitos, velut participes regni, interficere gestiebat.”

[438] Arrian, Exp. Alex. iv. 11. οὐ βίᾳ, ἀλλὰ νόμῳ Μακεδόνων ἄρχοντες διετέλεσαν (Alexander and his ancestors before him).

[439] The trial of Philotas, who is accused by Alexander for conspiracy before an assembly of the Macedonian soldiers near to head-quarters, is the example most insisted on of the prevalence of this custom, of public trial in criminal accusations. Quintus Curtius says (vi. 32. 25), “De capitalibus rebus vetusto Macedonum more inquirebat exercitus; in pace erat vulgi: et nihil potestas regum valebat, nisi prius valuisset auctoritas.” Compare Arrian, iii. 26; Diodor. xvii. 79, 80.

That this was an ancient Macedonian custom, in reference to conspicuous persons accused of treason, we may readily believe; and that an officer of the great rank and military reputation of Philotas, if suspected of treason, could hardly be dealt with in any other way. If he was condemned, all his relatives and kinsmen, whether implicated or not, became involved in the same condemnation. Several among the kinsmen of Philotas either fled or killed themselves; and Alexander then issued an edict pardoning them all, except Parmenio; who was in Media, and whom he sent secret orders instantly to despatch. If the proceedings against Philotas, as described by Curtius, are to be taken as correct, it is rather an appeal made by Alexander to the soldiery, for their consent to his killing a dangerous enemy, than an investigation of guilt or innocence.

Olympias, during the intestine contests which followed after the death of Alexander, seems to have put to death as many illustrious Macedonians as she chose, without any form of trial. But when her enemy Kassander got the upper hand, subdued and captured her, he did not venture to put her to death without obtaining the consent of a Macedonian assembly (Diodor. xix. 11, 51; Justin, xiv. 6; Pausanias, i. 11, 2). These Macedonian assemblies, insofar as we read of them, appear to be summoned chiefly as mere instruments to sanction some predetermined purpose of the king or the military leader predominant at the time. Flathe (Geschicht. Makedon. p. 43-45) greatly overrates, in my judgment, the rights and powers enjoyed by the Macedonian people.

[440] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 1, 6, 16.

[441] Diodor. xvi. 2, 3.

[442] Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 660. s. 144.

[443] Diodor. xvi. 3; Demosthen. cont. Aristokrat. p. 660 ut sup. τῶν ἡμετέρων τινὰς πολιτῶν, etc. Justin, vii 6.

[444] Diodor. xvi. 3.

[445] Diodor. xvi. 4.

[446] See the remarks of Niebuhr, on these migrations of Gallic tribes from the west, and their effect upon the prior population established between the Danube and the Ægean Sea (Niehbuhr, Vorträge über alte Geschichte, vol. iii. p. 225, 281; also the earlier work of the same author—Kleine Schriften, Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der Skythen, p. 375).

[447] Theopompus, Fragm. 35, ed. Didot; Cicero de Officiis, ii. 11; Diodor. xvi. 4.

[448] Arrian, vii. 9, 2, 3.

[449] Diodor. xvi. 4-8. Frontinus (Strategem. ii. 3, 2) mentions a battle gained by Philip against the Illyrians; wherein, observing that their chosen troops were in the centre, he placed his own greatest strength in his right wing, attacked and beat their left wing; then came upon their centre in flank and defeated their whole army. Whether this be the battle alluded to, we cannot say. The tactics employed are the same as those of Epaminondas at Leuktra and Mantinea; strengthening one wing peculiarly for the offensive, and keeping back the rest of the army upon the defensive.

[450] See Vol. X. Ch. lxxx. p. 379 seqq.

[451] Demosthenes, Orat. de Chersonese, p. 98, s. 34. φέρε γὰρ, πρὸς Διὸς, εἰ λόγον ὑμᾶς ἀπαιτήσειαν οἱ Ἕλληνες ὧν νυνὶ παρείκατε καιρῶν διὰ ῥᾳθυμίαν, etc.

[452] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 23. Εὐβοεῖς ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων: also vii. 5, 4. Βοιωτοὺς ἔχων πάντας καὶ Εὐβοέας (Epaminondas), etc.

Winiewski, in his instructive commentary upon the historical facts of the Oration of Demosthenes de Coronâ, states erroneously that Eubœa continued in the dependence of Athens without interruption from 377 to 358 B. C. (Winiewski, Commentarii Historici et Chronologici in Demosthenis Orationem de Coronâ, p. 30).

[453] Xenoph. Hellen. vii. 4, 1; Diodor. xv. 76; Demosthen. de Coronâ, p. 259. s. 123.

[454] Demosthenes, Orat. de Chersones. p. 108. s. 80. τοὺς Εὐβοέας σώζειν, ὅτε Θηβαῖοι κατεδουλοῦντ᾽ αὐτοὺς, etc.: compare Demosthen. de Coronâ, p. 259. s. 123. Θηβαίων σφετεριζομένων τὴν Εὔβοιαν, etc.; and Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 397. c. 31. ἐπειδὴ διέβησαν εἰς Εὔβοιαν Θηβαῖοι, καταδουλώσασθαι τὰς πόλεις πειρώμενοι, etc.

[455] Demosthen. Orat. de Chersones. p. 108. s. 80. Εἶπέ μοι, βουλεύεσθε, ἔφη (Timotheus), Θηβαίους ἔχοντες ἐν νήσῳ, τί χρήσεσθε, καὶ τί δεῖ ποιεῖν; Οὐκ ἐμπλήσετε τὴν θάλασσαν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τριηρῶν; Οὐκ ἀναστάντες ἤδη πορεύσεσθε εἰς τὸν Πειραιᾶ; Οὐ καθέλξετε τὰς ναῦς;

[456] See, in illustration of these delays, Demosthenes, Philippic i. p. 50 s. 42.

Any citizen who thought that he had been called upon out of his fair turn to serve a trierarchy or other expensive duty, and that another citizen had been unduly spared, might tender to this latter an exchange of properties, offering to undertake the duty if the other’s property were made over to him. The person, to whom tender was made, was compelled to do one of three things; either, 1. to show, at legal process, that it was not his turn, and that he was not liable; 2. or to relieve the citizen tendering from the trierarchy just imposed upon him; 3. or to accept the exchange, receiving the other’s property, and making over his own property in return; in which case the citizen tendering undertook the trierarchy.

This obligatory exchange of properties, with the legal process attached to it, was called Antidosis.

[457] That Timotheus was commander, is not distinctly stated by Demosthenes, but may be inferred from Plutarch, De Gloriâ Athen. p. 350 F. ἐν ᾧ Τιμόθεος Εὔβοιαν ἠλευθέρου, which, in the case of a military man like Timotheus, can hardly allude merely to the speech which he made in the assembly. Diokles is mentioned by Demosthenes as having concluded the convention with the Thebans; but this does not necessarily imply that he was commander: see Demosth. cont. Meidiam, p. 570 s. 219.

About Philinus as colleague of Demosthenes in the trierarchy, see Demosthen. cont. Meidiam, p. 566. s. 204.

[458] Diodorus (xvi. 7) states that the contest in Eubœa lasted for some considerable time.

Demosthenes talks of the expedition as having reached its destination in three days, Æschines in five days; the latter states also that within thirty days the Thebans were vanquished and expelled (Demosthenes cont. Androtion. p. 597. s. 17; Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 397. c. 31).

About Chares and the mercenaries, see Demosthenes cont. Aristokrat. p. 678. s. 206.

[459] Demosthenes cont. Androtion. p. 616. s. 89; cont. Timokrat. p. 756. s. 205.

[460] Æschines cont. Ktesiphont. p. 401, 403, 404. c. 32. 33; Demosthenes pro Megalopolitan. p. 204. s. 16.

[461] See Vol. X. Ch. lxxx. p. 381, 382.

[462] Demosthenes, De Rhodior. Libertat. p. 194. s. 17. παρὸν αὐτοῖς (the Rhodians) Ἕλλησι καὶ βελτίοσιν αὐτῶν ὑμῖν ἐξ ἴσου συμμαχεῖν, etc.

[463] Diodor. xv. 95.

[464] Demosthenes, Philip, i. 46. s. 28. ἐξ οὗ δ᾽ αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ τὰ ξενικὰ ὑμῖν στρατεύεται, τοὺς φίλους νικᾷ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους, οἱ δ᾽ ἐχθροὶ μείζους τοῦ δέοντος γεγόνασιν. Καὶ παρακύψαντα ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως πόλεμον, πρὸς Ἀρτάβαζον ἢ πανταχοῦ μᾶλλον οἴχεται πλέοντα· ὁ δὲ στρατηγὸς ἀκολουθεῖ· εἰκότως· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἄρχειν μὴ διδόντα μισθόν.

Ibid. p. 53. s. 51. Ὅποι δ᾽ ἂν στρατηγὸν καὶ ψήφισμα κενὸν καὶ τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος ἐλπίδας ἐκπέμψητε, οὐδὲν ὑμῖν τῶν δεόντων γίγνεται, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ἐχθροὶ καταγελῶσιν, οἱ δὲ σύμμαχοι τεθνᾶσι τῷ δέει τοὺς τοιούτους ἀποστόλους.

Ibid. p. 53. s. 53. Νῦν δ᾽ εἰς τοῦθ᾽ ἥκει τὰ πράγματα αἰσχύνης, ὥστε τῶν στρατηγῶν ἕκαστος δὶς καὶ τρὶς κρίνεται παρ᾽ ὑμῖν περὶ θανάτου, πρὸς δὲ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς οὐδεὶς οὐδ᾽ ἅπαξ αὐτῶν ἀγωνίσασθαι περὶ θανάτου τολμᾷ, ἀλλὰ τὸν τῶν ἀνδραποδιστῶν καὶ λωποδυτῶν θάνατον μᾶλλον αἱροῦνται τοῦ προσήκοντος.

Compare Olynthiac ii. p. 26. s. 28; De Chersoneso, p. 95. s. 24-27, cont. Aristokrat. p. 639. s. 69; De Republ. Ordinand. περὶ Συντάξεως, p. 167. s. 7. Also Æschines de Fals. Legat. p. 264. c. 24; Isokrates, De Pace, s. 57. 160.

[465] Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 3, 18; vi. 5, 2.

[466] Demosthenes, De Rhodior. Libertat. p. 191. s. 3. ᾐτιάσαντο γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἐπιβουλεύειν αὑτοῖς Χῖοι καὶ Βυζάντιοι καὶ Ῥόδιοι, καὶ διὰ ταῦτα συνέστησαν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸν τελευταῖον τουτονὶ πόλεμον· φανήσεται δ᾽ ὁ μὲν πρυτανεύσας ταῦτα καὶ πείσας Μαύσωλος, φίλος εἶναι φάσκων Ῥοδίων, τὴν ἐλευθερίαν αὐτῶν ἀφῃρημένος.

[467] Demosthen. de Rhodior. Libert. p. 195. s. 17. p. 198 s. 34; de Pace, p. 63. s. 25; Diodor. xvi. 7.

[468] Demosthen. de Pace, p. 63. s. 25. (ἐῶμεν) τὸν Κᾶρα τὰς νήσους καταλαμβάνειν, Χίον καὶ Κῶν καὶ Ῥόδον, καὶ Βυζαντίους κατάγειν τὰ πλοῖα, etc.

Compare Demosthenes adv. Polykl. p. 1207 s. 6. p. 1211. s. 22; adv. Leptinem, p. 475. s. 68.

[469] Thucyd. viii. 15.

[470] The account of this event comes to us in a meagre and defective manner, Diodorus xvi. 7; Cornelius Nepos, Chabrias, c. 4; Plutarch, Phokion, c. 6.

Demosthenes, in an harangue delivered three years afterwards, mentions the death of Chabrias, and eulogizes his conduct at Chios among his other glorious deeds; but gives no particulars (Demosth. cont. Leptin. p. 481, 482).

Cornelius Nepos says that Chabrias was not commander, but only serving as a private soldier on shipboard. I think this less probable than the statement of Diodorus, that he was joint-commander with Chares.

[471] It appears that there was a great and general scarcity of corn during this year 357 B. C. Demosthenes adv. Leptinem, p. 467. s. 38. προπέρυσι σιτοδείας παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις γενομένης, etc. That oration was delivered in 355 B. C.

[472] I follow chiefly the account given of these transactions by Diodorus, meagre and unsatisfactory as it is (xvi. 21). Nepos (Timotheus, c. 3) differs from Diodorus on several points. He states that both Samos and the Hellespont had revolted from Athens; and that the locality in which Chares made his attack, contrary to the judgment of his two colleagues, was near Samos—not in the Hellespont. He affirms farther that Menestheus, son of Iphikrates, was named as colleague of Chares; and that Iphikrates and Timotheus were appointed as advisers of Menestheus.

As to the last assertion—that Timotheus only served as adviser to his junior relative and not as a general formally named—this is not probable in itself; nor seemingly consistent with Isokrates (Or. xv. De Permutat. s. 137), who represents Timotheus as afterwards passing through the usual trial of accountability. Nor can Nepos be correct in saying that Samos had now revolted: for we find it still in possession of Athens after the Social War, and we know that a fresh batch of Athenian Kleruchs were afterwards sent there.

On the other hand, I think Nepos is probably right in his assertion, that the Hellespont now revolted (“descierat Hellespontus”). This is a fact in itself noway improbable, and helping us to understand how it happened that Chares conquered Sestos afterwards in 353 B. C. (Diodor. xvi. 34), and that the Athenians are said to have then recovered the Chersonesus from Kersobleptes.

Polyænus (iii. 9, 29) has a story representing the reluctance of Iphikrates to fight, as having been manifested near Embata; a locality not agreeing either with Nepos or with Diodorus. Embata was on the continent of Asia, in the territory of Erythræ.

See respecting the relations of Athens with Sestos, my last preceding volume, Vol. X. Ch. lxxx. p. 380 note.

Our evidence respecting this period is so very defective, that nothing like certainty is attainable.

[473] Deinarchus cont. Philokl. s. 17. ἕκατον ταλάντων τιμήσαντες (Τιμόθεον), ὅτι χρήματ᾽ αὐτὸν Ἀριστοφῶν ἔφη παρὰ Χίων εἰληφέναι καὶ Ῥοδίων: compare Deinarch. cont. Demosthen. s. 15, where the same charge of bribery is alluded to, though αὐτὸς ἔφη is put in place of αὐτὸν Ἀριστοφῶν ἔφη, seemingly by mistake of the transcriber.

[474] See Aristotel. Rhetoric. ii. 24; iii. 10. Quintilian, Inst. Or. v. 12, 10.

[475] Isokrates, Or. xv. (Permutat.) s. 137. εἰ τοσαύτας μὲν πόλεις ἑλόντα, μηδεμίαν δ᾽ ἀπολέσαντα, περὶ προδοσίας ἔκρινε (ἡ πόλις Τιμόθεον), καὶ πάλιν εἰ διδόντος εὐθύνας αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰς μὲν πράξεις Ἰφικράτους ἀναδεχομένου, τὸν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν χρημάτων λόγον Μενεσθέως, τούτους μὲν ἀπέλυσε, Τιμόθεον δὲ τοσούτοις ἐζημίωσε χρήμασιν, ὅσοις οὐδένα πώποτε τῶν προγεγενημένων.

[476] Isokrates, Or. xv. (Permutat.) s. 146. Ταῦτα δ᾽ ἀκούων ὀρθῶς μὲν ἔφασκέ με λέγειν, οὐ μὴν οἷός τ᾽ ἦν τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλεῖν, etc.

Isokrates goes at some length into the subject from s. 137 to s. 147. The discourse was composed seemingly in 353 B. C., about one year after the death of Timotheus, and four years after the trial here described.

[477] Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 534, 535; Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 2. 39.

[478] Dionysius Halikarnass., Judicium de Lysiâ, p. 481; Justin, vi. 5. Aristotle in his Rhetorica borrows several illustrations on rhetorical points from the speeches of Iphikrates; but none from any speeches of Timotheus.

[479] Polyænus, iii. 9, 29. That this may have been done with the privity and even by the contrivance of Iphikrates, is probable enough. But it seems to me that any obvious purpose of intimidating the Dikastery would have been likely to do him more harm than good.

[480] Rehdantz (Vitæ Iphicratis, Chabriæ, et Timothei, p. 224 seqq.), while collecting and discussing instructively all the facts respecting these two commanders, places the date of this memorable trial in the year 354 B. C.; three years after the events to which it relates, and two years after the peace which concluded the Social War. Mr. Clinton (Fast. Hellenici, B. C. 354) gives the same statement. I dissent from their opinion on the date and think that the trial must have occurred very soon after the abortive battle in the Hellespont—that is in 357 B. C. (or 356 B. C.), while the Social War was still going on.

Rehdantz and Mr. Clinton rely on the statement of Dionysius Halikarnass. (De Dinarcho Judicium, p. 667). Speaking of an oration falsely ascribed to Deinarchus, Dionysius says, that it was spoken before the maturity of that orator—εἴρηται γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ Τιμοθέου ζῶντος, κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τὸν τῆς μετὰ Μενεσθέως στρατηγίας, ἐφ᾽ ᾗ τὰς εὐθύνας ὑποσχὼν, ἑάλω. Τιμόθεος δὲ τὰς εὐθύνας ὑπέσχηκεν ἐπὶ Διοτίμου, τοῦ μετὰ Καλλίστρατον, ὅτε καὶ.... These are the last words in the MS., so that the sentence stands defective; Mr. Clinton supplies ἐτελεύτησεν, which is very probable.

The archonship of Diotimus is in 354-353 B. C.; so that Dionysius here states the trial to have taken place in 354 B. C. But on the other hand, the same Dionysius, in another passage, states the same trial to have taken place while the Social War was yet going on; that is, some time between 358 and 355 B. C. De Lysiâ Judicium, p. 480. ἐν γὰρ τῷ συμμαχικῷ πολέμῳ τὴν εἰσαγγελίαν Ἰφικράτης ἠγώνισται, καὶ τὰς εὐθύνας ὑπέσχηκε τῆς στρατηγίας, ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου γίγνεται καταφανές· οὗτος δὲ ὁ πόλεμος πίπτει κατὰ Ἀγαθοκλέα καὶ Ἐλπίνην ἄρχοντας. The archonships of Agathokles and Elpines cover the interval between Midsummer 357 B. C. and Midsummer 355 B. C.

It is plain that these two passages of Dionysius contradict each other. Rehdantz and Mr. Clinton notice the contradiction, but treat the passage first cited as containing the truth, and the other as erroneous. I cannot but think that the passage last cited is entitled to most credit, and that the true date of the trial was 357-356 B. C., not 354 B. C. When Dionysius asserts that the trial took place while the Social War was yet going on, he adds, “as is evident from the speech itself—ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γίγνεται τοῦ λόγου καταφανές.” Here therefore there was no possibility of being misled by erroneous tables; the evidence is direct and complete; whereas he does not tell us on what authority he made the other assertion, about the archonship of Diotimus. Next, it is surely improbable that the abortive combat in the Hellespont, and the fierce quarrel between Chares and his colleagues, probably accompanied with great excitement in the fleet, could have remained without judicial settlement for three years. Lastly, assuming the statement about the archonship of Diotimus to be a mistake, we can easily see how the mistake arose. Dionysius has confounded the year in which Timotheus died, with the year of his trial. He seems to have died in 354 B. C. I will add that the text in this passage is not beyond suspicion.

[481] Cornelius Nepos, Timoth. c. 4; Rehdantz, Vit. Iph., Ch. et Timoth. p. 235; Isokrates, Or. xv. (Permutat.) s. 108, 110. 137.

[482] Diodor. xvi. 22. Demosthenes (Philippic. i. p. 46. s. 28) has an emphatic passage, alluding to this proceeding on the part of Chares; which he represents as a necessary result of the remissness of the Athenians, who would neither serve personally themselves, nor supply their general with money to pay his foreign troops—and as a measure which the general could not avoid.

... ἐξ οὗ δ᾽ αὐτὰ καθ᾽ αὑτὰ τὰ ξενικὰ ὑμῖν στρατεύεται, τοὺς φίλους νικᾷ καὶ τοὺς συμμάχους, οἱ δ᾽ ἐχθροὶ μείζους τοῦ δέοντος γεγόνασιν, καὶ παρακύψαντα ἐπὶ τὸν τῆς πόλεως πόλεμον, πρὸς Ἀρτάβαζον καὶ πανταχοῦ μᾶλλον οἴχεται πλέοντα· ὁ δὲ στρατηγὸς ἀκολουθεῖ· εἰκότως—οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἄρχειν, μὴ διδόντα μισθόν. Compare the Scholia on the same oration, a passage which occurs somewhat earlier, p. 44. s. 22.

It seems evident, from this passage, that the Athenians were at first displeased with such diversion from the regular purpose of the war, though the payment from Artabazus afterwards partially reconciled them to it; which is somewhat different from the statement of Diodorus.

From an inscription (cited in Rehdantz, Vitæ Iphicratis, Chabriæ, etc., p. 158) we make out that Chares, Charidemus, and Phokion, were about this time in joint-command of the Athenian fleet near Lesbos, and that they were in some negotiation as to pecuniary supplies with the Persian Orontes on the mainland. But the inscription is so mutilated, that no distinct matter of fact can be ascertained.

[483] Diodor. xvi. 22. I place little reliance on the Argument prefixed to the Oration of Isokrates De Pace. As far as I am able to understand the facts of this obscure period, it appears to me that the author of that Argument has joined them together erroneously, and misconceived the situation.

The assertion of Demosthenes, in the Oration against Leptines (p. 481. s. 90), respecting the behavior of the Chians towards the memory of Chabrias, seems rather to imply that the peace with Chios had been concluded before that oration was delivered. It was delivered in the very year of the peace 355 B. C.

[484] Demosthenes adv. Leptinem, p. 464. s. 26, 27; and De Coronâ, p. 305 s. 293.

[485] Diodor. xvi. 8.