NEW YORK:
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, 329 AND 331 PEARL STREET.
1880.
CONTENTS. VOL. IX.
PART II.
CONTINUATION OF HISTORICAL GREECE.
CHAPTER LXIX.
CYRUS THE YOUNGER AND THE TEN THOUSAND GREEKS.
Spartan empire. — March of the Ten Thousand Greeks.
— Persian kings — Xerxes — Artaxerxes Longimanus. — Darius Nothus.
— Cyrus the younger in Ionia — his vigorous operations against
Athens. — Youth and education of Cyrus. — His esteem for the Greeks
— his hopes of the crown. — Death of Darius Nothus — succession of
Artaxerxes Mnemon. — Secret preparations of Cyrus for attacking
his brother. — Klearchus and other Greeks in the service of Cyrus.
— Strict administration, and prudent behavior, of Cyrus. — Cyrus
collects his army at Sardis. — The Ten Thousand Greeks — their
position and circumstances. — Xenophon. — How Xenophon came to join
the Cyreian army. — Cyrus marches from Sardis — Kolossæ — Kelænæ.
— Peltæ — Keramôn-Agora, Käystru-Pedion. — Distress of Cyrus for
money — Epyaxa supplies him. — Thymbrium. — Tyriæum — Review of the
Greeks by Cyrus. — Ikonium — Lykaonia — Tyana. — Pass over Taurus
into Kilikia. — Syennesis of Kilikia — his duplicity — he assists
Cyrus with money. — Cyrus at Tarsus — mutiny of the Greeks — their
refusal to go farther. — Klearchus tries to suppress the mutiny
by severity — he fails. — He tries persuasion — his discourse to
the soldiers. — His refusal to march farther — well received. —
Deceitful manœuvres of Klearchus to bring the soldiers round to
Cyrus. — The soldiers agree to accompany Cyrus farther — increase of
pay. — March onward — from Tarsus to Issus. — Flight of Abrokomas —
abandonment of the passes. — Gates of Kilikia and Syria. — Desertion
of Xenias and Pasion — prudence of Cyrus. — Cyrus marches from the
sea to Thapsakus on the Euphrates. — Partial reluctance of the
army — they ford the Euphrates. — Separate manœuvre of Menon. —
Abrokomas abandons the defence of the river — his double dealing.
— Cyrus marches along the left bank of the Euphrates — the Desert
— privations of the army. — Pylæ — Charmandê — dangerous dispute
between the soldiers of Klearchus and those of Menon. — Entry into
Babylonia — treason of Orontes — preparation for battle. — Discourse
of Cyrus to his officers and soldiers. — Conception formed by
Cyrus of Grecian superiority. — Present of Cyrus to the prophet Silanus. —
Cyrus passes the undefended trench — Kunaxa — sudden appearance of
the king’s army — preparation of Cyrus for battle. — Last orders
of Cyrus. — Battle of Kunaxa — easy victory of the Greeks on their
side. — Impetuous attack of Cyrus upon his brother — Cyrus is slain.
— Flight of Ariæus and the Asiatic force of Cyrus. — Plunder of the
Cyreian camp by Artaxerxes. Victorious attitude of the Greeks. —
Character of Cyrus. — If Cyrus had succeeded, he would have been
the most formidable enemy to Greece.
Dismay of the Greeks on learning the death of Cyrus.
Klearchus offers the throne to Ariæus. — Artaxerxes summons the
Greeks to surrender — their reply — language of Phalinus. — Ariæus
refuses the throne, but invites the Greeks to join him for retreat.
— The Greeks rejoin Ariæus — interchange of oaths — resolution to
retreat together. — Position of the Greeks — to all appearance
hopeless. — Commencement of the retreat, along with Ariæus —
disorder of the army. — Heralds from the Persians to treat about a
truce. — The heralds conduct the Greeks to villages furnished with
provisions. March over the canals. — Abundant supplies obtained in
the villages. — Visit of Tissaphernes — negotiations. — Convention
concluded with Tissaphernes, who engages to conduct the Greeks home.
— Motives of the Persians — favorable dispositions of Parysatis
towards Cyrus. — Long halt of the Greeks — their quarrel with
Ariæus. — Secret despair of Klearchus. — Retreating march begun,
under Tissaphernes — they enter within the Wall of Media — march
to Sittakê. — Alarm and suspicions of the Greeks — they cross the
Tigris. — Retreating march up the left bank of the Tigris — to
the Great Zab. — Suspicions between the Greeks and Tissaphernes.
— Klearchus converses with Tissaphernes — and is talked over. —
Klearchus, with the other Grecian generals, visits Tissaphernes in
his tent. — Tissaphernes seizes the Greek generals. They are sent
prisoners to the Persian court, and there put to death. — Menon
is reserved to perish in torture — sentiments of queen Parysatis.
— How Klearchus came to be imposed upon. — Plans of Tissaphernes
— impotence and timidity of the Persians. — The Persians summon
the Grecian army to surrender. — Indignant refusal of the Greeks —
distress and despair prevalent among them. — First appearance of
Xenophon — his dream. — He stimulates the other captains to take
the lead and appoint new officers. — Address of Xenophon to the
officers. New generals are named, Xenophon being one. — The army
is convened in general assembly — speech of Xenophon. — Favorable
augury from a man sneezing. — Encouraging topics insisted on by
Xenophon. — Great impression produced by his speech — the army
confirm the new generals proposed. — Great ascendency acquired
over the army at once by Xenophon — qualities whereby he obtained
it. — Combination of eloquence and confidence, with soldier-like
resource and bravery. — Approach of the Persian Mithridates — the
Greeks refuse all parley. — The Greeks cross the Zab and resume
their march, harassed by the Persian cavalry. — Sufferings of the
Greeks from marching under the attacks of the cavalry. Successful
precautions taken. — Tissaphernes renews the attack, with some effect. —
Comfortable quarters of the Greeks. They halt to repel the cavalry,
and then march fast onward. — Victory of the Greeks — prowess of
Xenophon. — The Greeks embarrassed as to their route — impossibility
either of following the Tigris farther, or of crossing it. — The
strike into the mountains of the Karduchians. — They burn much of
their baggage — their sufferings from the activity and energy of the
Karduchians. — Extreme danger of their situation. — Xenophon finds
out another road to turn the enemy’s position. — The Karduchians
are defeated and the road cleared. — Danger of Xenophon with the
rear division and baggage. — Anxiety of the Greeks to recover the
bodies of the slain. — They reach the river Kentritês, the northern
boundary of Karduchia. — Difficulties of passing the Kentritês —
dream of Xenophon. — They discover a ford and pass the river. —
Xenophon with the rear-guard repels the Karduchians and effects his
passage. — March through Armenia. Heavy snow and severe cold. — They
ford the Eastern Euphrates or Murad. — Distressing marches — extreme
misery from cold and hunger. — Rest in good quarters — subterranean
villages well stocked with provisions. — After a week’s rest, they
march onward — their guide runs away. — They reach a difficult pass
occupied by the Chalybes — raillery exchanged between Xenophon and
Cheirisophus about stealing. — They turn the pass by a flank-march,
and force their way over the mountain. — March through the country
of the Taochi — exhaustion of provisions — capture of a hill-fort. —
Through the Chalybes, the bravest fighters whom they had yet seen —
the Skythini. — They reach the flourishing city of Gymnias. — First
sight of the sea from the mountain-top Thêchê — extreme delight
of the soldiers. — Passage through the Makrônes. — Through the
Kolchians — who oppose them and are defeated. — Kolchian villages —
unwholesome honey. — Arrival at Trapezus on the Euxine (Trebizond).
— Joy of the Greeks — their discharge of vows to their gods —
their festivals and games. — Appendix.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE TEN THOUSAND GREEKS, FROM THE TIME THAT
THEY REACHED TRAPEZUS, TO THEIR JUNCTION WITH THE LACEDÆMONIAN
ARMY IN ASIA MINOR.
Greek cities on the Euxine — Sinôpê with her colonies
Kerasus, Kotyôra, and Trapezus. — Indigenous inhabitants — their
relations with the Greek colonists. — Feelings of the Greeks on the
Euxine when the Ten Thousand descended among them. — Uncertainty and
danger of what they might do. — Plans of the army — Cheirisophus
is sent to Byzantium to procure vessels for transporting them. —
Regulations for the army proposed by Xenophon during his absence.
— Adopted by the army — their intense repugnance to farther
marching. — Measures for procuring transports. Marauding expeditions
for supplies, against the Colchians and the Drilæ. — The army
leave Trapezus, and march westward along the coast to Kerasus. —
Acts of disorder and outrage committed by various soldiers near
Kerasus. — March to Kotyôra — hostilities with the Mosynœki. — Long
halt at Kotyôra — remonstrance from the Sinopians. — Speech of
Hekatonymus of Sinôpê to the army — reply of Xenophon. — Success of
the reply — good understanding established with Sinôpê. — Consultation
of the army with Hekatonymus, who advises going home by sea. —
Envoys sent by the army to Sinôpê to procure vessels. — Poverty
and increasing disorganization or the army. — Ideas of Xenophon
about founding a new city in the Euxine, with the army. — Sacrifice
of Xenophon to ascertain the will of the gods — treachery of the
prophet Silanus. — Silanus, Timasion, and others raise calumnies
against Xenophon. General assembly of the army. — Accusations against
Xenophon — his speech in defence. — He carries the soldiers with him
— discontent and flight of Silanus. — Fresh manœuvres of Timasion
— fresh calumnies circulated against Xenophon — renewed discontent
of the army. — Xenophon convenes the assembly again. — his address
in defence of himself. — His remonstrance against the disorders in
the army. — Vote of the army unanimously favorable to Xenophon —
disapproving the disorders, and directing trial. — Xenophon’s appeal
to universal suffrage, as the legitimate political authority. Success
of his appeal. — Xenophon recommends trial of the generals before
a tribunal formed of the lochages or captains. Satisfaction of the
army with Xenophon. — Manner in which discipline was upheld by the
officers. — Complete triumph of Xenophon. His influence over the
army, derived from his courage, his frankness, and his oratory. —
Improved feeling of the army — peace with the Paphlagonian Korylas.
— The army pass by sea to Sinôpê. — Return of Cheirisophus —
resolution of the army to elect a single general — they wish to elect
Xenophon, who declines — Cheirisophus is chosen. — The army pass by
sea to Herakleia — they wish to extort money from the Herakleots
— opposition of Cheirisophus and Xenophon. — Dissatisfaction of
the army — they divide into three factions. 1. The
Arcadians and Achæans. 2. A division under Cheirisophus. 3. A
division under Xenophon. — Arcadian division start first and act for
themselves — they get into great danger, and are rescued by Xenophon
— the army reünited at Kalpê — old board of generals reëlected, with
Neon in place of Cheirisophus. — Distress for provisions at Kalpê
— unwillingness to move in the face of unfavorable sacrifices —
ultimate victory over the troops of the country. — Halt at Kalpê —
comfortable quarters — idea that they were about to settle there as a
colony. — Arrival of Kleander, the Spartan harmost, from Byzantium,
together with Dexippus. — Disorder in the army: mutiny against
Kleander, arising from the treachery of Dexippus. — Indignation
and threats of Kleander — Xenophon persuades the army to submit —
fear of Sparta. — Satisfaction given to Kleander, by the voluntary
surrender of Agasias with the mutinous soldier. — Appeal to the mercy
of Kleander, who is completely soothed. — Kleander takes the command,
expressing the utmost friendship both towards the army and towards
Xenophon. — Unfavorable sacrifices make Kleander throw up the command
and sail away. — March of the army across the country from Kalpê to
Chalkêdon. — Pharnabazus bribes Anaxibius to carry the army across
the Bosphorus into Europe — false promises of Anaxibius to the army.
— Intention of Xenophon to leave the army immediately and go home —
first proposition addressed to him by Seuthes of Thrace. — The army
cross over to Byzantium — fraud and harsh dealing of Anaxibius, who
sends the army at once out of the town. — Last orders of Anaxibius
as the soldiers were going out of the gates. — Wrath and mutiny of
the soldiers, in going away — they rush again into the gates, and
muster within the town. — Terror of Anaxibius and all within the
town. — The exasperated soldiers masters of Byzantium — danger of
all within it — conduct of Xenophon. — Xenophon musters the soldiers
in military order and harangues them. — Xenophon calms the army, and
persuades them to refrain from assaulting the town — message sent by
them to
Anaxibius — they go out of Byzantium, and agree to accept Kœratadas
as their commander. — Remarkable effect produced by Xenophon —
evidence which it affords of the susceptibility of the Greek mind
to persuasive influences. Xenophon leaves the army, and goes into
Byzantium with the view of sailing home. Kœratadas is dismissed from
the command. — Dissension among the commanders left. — Distress of
the army — Aristarchus arrives from Sparta to supersede Kleander
— Polus on his way to supersede Anaxibius. — Pharnabazus defrauds
Anaxibius, who now employs Xenophon to convey the Cyreians across
back to Asia. — Aristarchus hinders the crossing — his cruel dealing
towards the sick Cyreians left in Byzantium. — His treacherous scheme
for entrapping Xenophon. — Xenophon is again implicated in the
conduct of the army — he opens negotiations with Seuthes. — Position
of Seuthes — his liberal offers to the army. — Xenophon introduces
him to the army, who accept the offers. — Service of the army with
Seuthes, who cheats them of most of their pay. — The army suspect
the probity of Xenophon — unjust calumnies against him — he exposes
it in a public harangue, and regains their confidence. — Change of
interest in the Lacedæmonians, who become anxious to convey the
Cyreians across into Asia, in order to make war against the satraps.
— Xenophon crosses over with the army to Asia — his poverty — he is
advised to sacrifice to Zeus Meilichios — beneficial effects. — He
conducts the army across Mount Ida to Pergamus. — His unsuccessful
attempt to surprise and capture the rich Persian Asidates. — In a
second attempt he captures Asidates — valuable booty secured. —
General sympathy expressed for Xenophon — large share personally
allotted to him. — The Cyreians are incorporated in the army of the
Lacedæmonian general Thimbron — Xenophon leaves the army, depositing
his money in the temple at Ephesus. — His subsequent return to Asia,
to take command of Cyreians as a part of the Lacedæmonian army. —
Xenophon in the Spartan service, with Agesilaus against Athens —
he is banished. — He settles at Skillus near Olympia, on an estate
consecrated to Artemis. — Charms of the residence — good hunting —
annual public sacrifice offered by Xenophon. — Later life of Xenophon
— expelled from Skillus after the battle of Leuktra — afterwards
restored at Athens. — Great impression produced by the retreat of
the Ten Thousand upon the Greek mind.
Sequel of Grecian affairs generally — resumed. —
Spartan empire — how and when it commenced. — Oppression and
suffering of Athens under the Thirty. — Alteration of Grecian
feeling towards Athens — the Thirty are put down and the democracy
restored. — The Knights or Horsemen, the richest proprietors at
Athens, were the great supporters of the Thirty in their tyranny.
— The state of Athens, under the Thirty, is a sample of that
which occurred in a large number of other Grecian cities, at the
commencement of the Spartan empire. — Great power of Lysander — he
establishes in most of the cities Dekarchies, along with a Spartan
harmost. — Intimidation exercised everywhere by Lysander in favor
of his own partisans. — Oppressive action of these Dekarchies. — In
some
points, probably worse than the Thirty at Athens. — Bad conduct of
the Spartan harmosts — harsh as well as corrupt. No justice to be
obtained against them at Sparta. — Contrast of the actual empire of
Sparta, with the promises of freedom which she had previously held
out. — Numerous promises of general autonomy made by Sparta — by
the Spartan general Brasidas, especially. — Gradual change in the
language and plans of Sparta towards the close of the Peloponnesian
war. — Language of Brasidas contrasted with the acts of Lysander. —
Extreme suddenness and completeness of the victory of Ægospotami left
Lysander almost omnipotent. — The dekarchies became partly modified
by the jealousy at Sparta against Lysander. The harmosts lasted
much longer. — The Thirty at Athens were put down by the Athenians
themselves, not by any reformatory interference of Sparta. — The
empire of Sparta much worse and more oppressive than that of Athens.
— Imperial Athens deprived her subject-allies of their autonomy, but
was guilty of little or no oppression. — Imperial Sparta did this,
and much worse — her harmosts and decemvirs are more complained of
than the fact of her empire. — This more to be regretted, as Sparta
had now an admirable opportunity for organizing a good and stable
confederacy throughout Greece. — Sparta might have reörganized the
confederacy of Delos, which might now have been made to work well. —
Insupportable arrogance of Lysander — bitter complaints against him,
as well as against the dekarchies. — Lysander offends Pharnabazus,
who procures his recall. His disgust and temporary expatriation. —
Surrender of the Asiatic Greeks to Persia, according to the treaty
concluded with Sparta. — Their condition is affected by the position
and ambitious schemes of Cyrus, whose protection they seek against
Tissaphernes. — After the death of Cyrus, Tissaphernes returns as
victor and satrap to the coast of Asia Minor. — Alarm of the Asiatic
Greeks, who send to ask aid from Sparta. The Spartans send Thimbron
with an army to Asia. His ill-success and recall — he is superseded
by Derkyllidas. — Conduct of the Cyreians loose as to pillage. —
Derkyllidas makes a truce with Tissaphernes, and attacks Pharnabazus
in the Troad and Æolis. — Distribution of the Persian empire;
relation of king, satrap, sub-satrap. — Mania, widow of Zênis, holds
the subsatrapy of Æolis under Pharnabazus. Her regular payment and
vigorous government. — Military force, personal conquests, and large
treasures, of Mania. — Assassination of Mania, and of her son, by her
son-in-law Meidias, who solicits the satrapy from Pharnabazus, but is
indignantly refused. — Invasion and conquest of Æolis by Derkyllidas,
who gets possession of the person of Meidias. — Derkyllidas acquires
and liberates Skêpsis and Gergis, deposing Meidias, and seizing
the treasures of Mania. — Derkyllidas concludes a truce with
Pharnabazus, and takes winter quarters in Bithynia. — Command of
Derkyllidas — satisfaction of Sparta with the improved conduct of
the Cyreians. — Derkyllidas crosses into Europe, and employs his
troops in fortifying the Chersonesus against the Thracians. — He
captures and garrisons Atarneus. — He makes war upon Tissaphernes
and Pharnabazus, upon the Mæander. — Timidity of Tissaphernes — he
concludes a truce with Derkyllidas. — Derkyllidas is superseded
by Agesilaus. — Alienation towards Sparta had grown up among her
allies in Central Greece. — Great energy imparted to Spartan action
by Lysander immediately after the victory of Ægospotami; an energy
very unusual with Sparta. — The Spartans had kept all the advantages
of victory to themselves — their allies were allowed nothing. —
Great power of the Spartans — they take revenge upon those who
had displeased them — their invasion of Elis. — The Spartan king
Agis invades the Eleian territory. He retires from it immediately
in consequence of an earthquake. — Second invasion of Elis by Agis — he
marches through Triphylia and Olympia; victorious march, with much
booty. — Insurrection of the oligarchical party in Elis — they are
put down. — The Eleians are obliged to submit to hard terms of peace.
— Sparta refuses to restore the Pisatans to the Olympic presidency.
— Triumphant position of Sparta — she expels the Messenians from
Peloponnesus and its neighborhood.
Triumphant position of Sparta at the close of the war —
introduction of a large sum of gold and silver by Lysander — opposed
by some of the Ephors. — The introduction of money was only one among
a large train of corrupting circumstances which then became operative
on Sparta. — Contrast between Sparta in 432 B.C.,
and Sparta after 404 B.C. — Increase of peculation,
inequality, and discontent at Sparta. — Testimonies of Isokrates
and Xenophon to the change of character and habits at Sparta. —
Power of Lysander — his arrogance and ambitious projects — flattery
lavished upon him by sophists and poets. — Real position of the
kings at Sparta. — His intrigues to make himself king at Sparta —
he tries in vain to move the oracles in his favor — scheme laid
for the production of sacred documents, as yet lying hidden, by
a son of Apollo. — His aim at the kingship fails — nevertheless
he still retains prodigious influence at Sparta. — Death of Agis,
king of Sparta — doubt as to the legitimacy of his son Leotychides.
Agesilaus, seconded by Lysander, aspires to the throne. — Character
of Agesilaus. — Conflicting pretensions of Agesilaus and Leotychides.
— Objection taken against Agesilaus on the ground of his lameness,
— oracle produced by Diopeithes — eluded by the interpretation of
Lysander. — Agesilaus is preferred as king — suspicions which always
remained attached to Lysander’s interpretation. — Popular conduct of
Agesilaus — he conciliates the ephors — his great influence at Sparta
— his energy, combined with unscrupulous partisanship. — Dangerous
conspiracy at Sparta — terror-striking sacrifices. — Character and
position of the chief conspirator Kinadon — state of parties at
Sparta — increasing number of malcontents. — Police of the ephors —
information laid before them. — Wide-spread discontent reckoned upon
by the conspirators. — Alarm of the ephors — their manœuvres for
apprehending Kinadon privately. — Kinadon is seized, interrogated,
and executed — his accomplices are arrested, and the conspiracy
broken up. — Dangerous discontent indicated at Sparta. — Proceedings
of Derkyllidas and Pharnabazus in Asia. — Persian preparations for
reviving the maritime war against Sparta — renewed activity of
Konon. — Agesilaus is sent with a land-force to Asia, accompanied by
Lysander. — Large plans of Agesilaus, for conquest in the interior
of Asia. — General willingness of the Spartan allies to serve in the
expedition, but refusal from Thebes, Corinth, and Athens. — Agesilaus
compares himself with Agamemnon — goes to sacrifice at Aulis — is
contemptuously hindered by the Thebans. — Arrival of Agesilaus
at Ephesus — he concludes a fresh armistice with Tissaphernes.
— Arrogant behavior and overweening ascendency of Lysander —
offensive to the army and to Agesilaus. — Agesilaus humbles and degrades
Lysander, who asks to be sent away. — Lysander is sent to command at
the Hellespont — his valuable service there. — Tissaphernes breaks
the truce with Agesilaus, who makes war upon him and Pharnabazus — he
retires for the purpose of organizing a force of cavalry. — Agesilaus
indifferent to money for himself, but eager in enriching his friends.
— His humanity towards captives and deserted children. — Spartan side
of his character — exposure of naked prisoners — different practice
of Asiatics and Greeks. — Efforts of Agesilaus to train his army, and
to procure cavalry. — Agesilaus renews the war against Tissaphernes,
and gains a victory near Sardis. — Artaxerxes causes Tissaphernes to
be put to death and superseded by Tithraustes. — Negotiations between
the new satrap and Agesilaus — the satraps in Asia Minor hostile to
each other. — Commencement of action at sea against Sparta — the
Athenian Konon, assisted by Persian ships and money, commands a fleet
of eighty sail on the coast of Karia. — Rhodes revolts from the
Spartan empire — Konon captures an Egyptian corn-fleet at Rhodes. —
Anxiety of the Lacedæmonians — Agesilaus is appointed to command at
sea as well as on land. — Severity of the Lacedæmonians towards the
Rhodian Dorieus — contrast of the former treatment of the same man by
Athens. — Sentiment of a multitude compared with that of individuals.
— Efforts of Agesilaus to augment the fleet — he names Peisander
admiral. — Operations of Agesilaus against Pharnabazus. — He lays
waste the residence of the satrap, and surprises his camp — offence
given to Spithridates. — Personal conference between Agesilaus and
Pharnabazus. — Friendship established between Agesilaus and the son
of Pharnabazus — character of Agesilaus. — Promising position and
large preparations for Asiatic land-warfare, of Agesilaus — he is
recalled with his army to Peloponnesus. — Efforts and proceedings
of Konon in command of the Persian fleet — his personal visit to
the Persian court. — Pharnabazus is named admiral jointly with
Konon. — Battle of Knidus — complete defeat of the Lacedæmonian
fleet — death of Peisander the admiral.
FROM THE BATTLE OF KNIDUS TO THE REBUILDING OF THE LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.
War in Central Greece against Sparta — called the
Corinthian war. — Relations of Sparta with the neighboring states
and with her allies after the accession of Agesilaus. Discontent
among the allies. — Great power of Sparta, stretching even to
Northern Greece — state of Herakleia. — Growing disposition in
Greece to hostility against Sparta, when she becomes engaged in the
war against Persia. — The satrap Tithraustes sends an envoy with
money into Greece, to light up war against Sparta — his success
at Thebes, Corinth, and Argos. — The Persian money did not create
hostility against Sparta, but merely brought out hostile tendencies
pre-existing. Philo-Laconian sentiment of Xenophon. — War between
Sparta and Thebes — the Bœotian war. — Active operations of Sparta
against Bœotia — Lysander is sent to act from Herakleia on the
northward — Pausanias conducts an army from Peloponnesus. — The
Thebans apply to Athens for aid — remarkable proof of the altered
sentiment in
Greece. — Speech of the Theban envoy at Athens. — Political feeling
at Athens — good effects of the amnesty after the expulsion of the
Thirty. — Unanimous vote of the Athenians to assist Thebes against
Sparta. — State of the Bœotian confederacy — Orchomenus revolts
and joins Lysander, who invades Bœotia with his army and attacks
Haliartus. — Lysander is repulsed and slain before Haliartus. —
Pausanias arrives in Bœotia after the death of Lysander — Thrasybulus
and an Athenian army come to the aid of the Thebans. — Pausanias
evacuates Bœotia, on receiving the dead bodies of Lysander and the
rest for burial. — Anger against Pausanias at Sparta; he escapes
into voluntary exile; he is condemned in his absence. — Condemnation
of Pausanias not deserved. — Sparta not less unjust in condemning
unsuccessful generals than Athens. — Character of Lysander — his
mischievous influence, as well for Sparta as for Greece generally. —
His plans to make himself king at Sparta — discourse of the sophist
Kleon. — Encouragement to the enemies of Sparta, from the death of
Lysander — alliance against her between Thebes, Athens, Corinth,
and Argos — the Eubœans and others join the alliance. — Increased
importance of Thebes — she now rises to the rank of a primary power
— the Theban leader Ismenias. — Successful operations of Ismenias
to the north of Bœotia — capture of Herakleia from Sparta. — Synod
of anti-Spartan allies at Corinth — their confident hopes — the
Lacedæmonians send to recall Agesilaus from Asia. — Large muster near
Corinth of Spartans and Peloponnesians on one side, of anti-Spartan
allies on the other. — Boldness of the language against Sparta —
speech of the Corinthian Timolaus. — The anti-Spartan allies take
up a defensive position near Corinth — advance of the Lacedæmonians
to attack them. — Battle of Corinth — victory of the Lacedæmonians
in their part of the battle; their allies in the other parts being
worsted. — Lacedæmonian ascendency within Peloponnesus is secured,
but no farther result gained. — Agesilaus — his vexation on being
recalled from Asia — his large plans of Asiatic conquest. — Regret
of the Asiatic allies when he quits Asia — he leaves Euxenus in
Asia with four thousand men. — Agesilaus crosses the Hellespont and
marches homeward through Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly. — Agesilaus
and his army on the northern frontier of Bœotia — eclipse of the sun
— news of the naval defeat at Knidus. — Bœotians and their allies
mustered at Korôneia. — Battle of Korôneia — Agesilaus with most of
his army is victorious; while the Thebans on their side are also
victorious. — Terrible combat between the Thebans and Spartans; on
the whole, the result is favorable to the Thebans. — Victory of
Agesilaus, not without severe wounds — yet not very decisive — his
conduct after the battle. — Army of Agesilaus withdraws from Bœotia —
he goes to the Pythian games — sails homeward across the Corinthian
Gulf — his honorable reception at Sparta. — Results of the battles
of Corinth and Korôneia. Sparta had gained nothing by the former,
and had rather lost by the latter. — Reverses of Sparta after the
defeat of Knidus. Loss of the insular empire of Sparta. Nearly all
her maritime allies revolt to join Pharnabazus and Konon. — Abydos
holds faithfully to Sparta, under Derkyllidas. — Derkyllidas holds
both Abydos and the Chersonesus opposite, in spite of Pharnabazus
— anger of the latter. — Pharnabazus and Konon sail with their
fleet to Peloponnesus and Corinth. — Assistance and encouragement
given by Pharnabazus to the allies at Corinth — Remarkable fact
of the Persian satrap and fleet at Corinth. — Pharnabazus leaves
the fleet with Konon in the Saronic Gulf, and aids him, with
money, to rebuild the Long Walls of Athens. — Konon rebuilds the
Long Walls — hearty coöperation of the allies. — Great importance of
this restoration — how much it depended upon accident — Maintenance
of the lines of Corinth against Sparta, was one essential condition
to the power of rebuilding the Long Walls. The lines were not
maintained longer than the ensuing year.
FROM THE REBUILDING OF THE LONG WALLS OF ATHENS TO THE PEACE OF ANTALKIDAS.
Large plans of Konon — organization of a mercenary
force at Corinth. — Naval conflicts of the Corinthians and
Lacedæmonians, in the Corinthian Gulf. — Land-warfare — the
Lacedæmonians established at Sikyon — the anti-Spartan allies
occupying the lines of Corinth from sea to sea. — Sufferings of
the Corinthians from the war being carried on in their territory.
Many Corinthian proprietors become averse to the war. — Growth and
manifestation of the philo-Laconian party in Corinth. Oligarchical
form of the government left open nothing but an appeal to force.
— The Corinthian government forestall the conspiracy by a coup
d’état. — Numerous persons of the philo-Laconian party are banished;
nevertheless Pasimêlus the leader is spared, and remains at Corinth.
— Intimate political union and consolidation between Corinth and
Argos. — Pasimêlus admits the Lacedæmonians within the Long Walls
of Corinth. Battle within those walls. — The Lacedæmonians are
victorious — severe loss of the Argeians. — The Lacedæmonians pull
down a portion of the Long Walls between Corinth and Lechæum, so as
to open a free passage across. They capture Krommyon and Sidus. —
Effective warfare carried on by the light troops under Iphikrates
at Corinth — Military genius and improvements of Iphikrates. —
The Athenians restore the Long Walls between Corinth and Lechæum
— expedition of the Spartan king Agesilaus, who, in concert with
Teleutias, retakes the Long Walls and captures Lechæum. — Alarm
of Athens and Thebes at the capture of the Long Walls of Corinth.
Propositions sent to Sparta to solicit peace. The discussions come to
no result. — Advantages derived by the Corinthians from possession of
Peiræum. At the instigation of the exiles, Agesilaus marches forth
with an army to attack it. — Isthmian festival — Agesilaus disturbs
the celebration. The Corinthian exiles, under his protection,
celebrate it; then, when he is gone, the Corinthians from the city
perform the ceremony over again. — Agesilaus attacks Peiræum, which
he captures, together with the Heræum, many prisoners, and much
booty. — Triumphant position of Agesilaus. Danger of Corinth. The
Thebans send fresh envoys to solicit peace — contemptuously treated
by Agesilaus. — Sudden arrival of bad news, which spoils the triumph.
— Destruction of a Lacedæmonian mora by the light troops under
Iphikrates. — Daring and well-planned manœuvres of Iphikrates. — Few
of the mora escape to Lechæum. — The Lacedæmonians bury the bodies
of the slain, under truce asked and obtained. Trophy erected by
Iphikrates. — Great effect produced upon the Grecian mind by this
event. Peculiar feelings of Spartans; pride of the relatives of the
slain. — Mortification of Agesilaus — he marches up to the walls
of Corinth and defies Iphikrates — he then goes back humiliated to
Sparta. — Success of Iphikrates — he retakes Krommyon, Sidus, and Peiræum —
Corinth remains pretty well undisturbed by enemies. The Athenians
recall Iphikrates. — Expedition of Agesilaus against Akarnania —
successful, after some delay — the Akarnanians submit, and enrol
themselves in the Lacedæmonian confederacy. — The Lacedæmonians under
Agesipolis invade Argos. — Manœuvre of the Argeians respecting the
season of the holy truce. Agesipolis consults the oracles at Olympia
and Delphi. — Earthquake in Argos after the invasion of Agesipolis —
he disregards it. — He marches up near to Argos — much plunder taken
— he retires. — Transactions in Asia — efforts of Sparta to detach
the Great King from Athens. — The Spartan Antalkidas is sent as envoy
to Tiribazus. Konon and other envoys sent also, from Athens and the
anti-Spartan allies. — Antalkidas offers to surrender the Asiatic
Greeks, and demands universal autonomy throughout the Grecian world —
the anti-Spartan allies refuse to accede to those terms. — Hostility
of Sparta to all the partial confederacies of Greece, now first
proclaimed under the name of universal autonomy. — Antalkidas gains
the favor of Tiribazus, who espouses privately the cause of Sparta,
though the propositions for peace fail. Tiribazus seizes Konon —
Konon’s career is now closed, either by death or imprisonment.
— Tiribazus cannot prevail with the Persian court, which still
continues hostile to Sparta. Struthas is sent down to act against the
Lacedæmonians in Ionia. — Victory of Struthas over Thimbron and the
Lacedæmonian army. Thimbron is slain. — Diphridas is sent to succeed
Thimbron. — Lacedæmonian fleet at Rhodes — intestine disputes in the
island. — The Athenians send aid to Evagoras at Cyprus. Fidelity
with which they adhered to him, though his alliance had now become
inconvenient. — Thrasybulus is sent with a fleet from Athens to the
Asiatic coast — his acquisitions in the Hellespont and Bosphorus.
— Victory of Thrasybulus in Lesbos — he levies contributions along
the Asiatic coast — he is slain near Aspendus. — Character of
Thrasybulus. — Agyrrhius succeeds Thrasybulus — Rhodes still holds
out against the Lacedæmonians. — Anaxibius is sent to command at
the Hellespont in place of Derkyllidas — his vigorous proceedings
— he deprives Athens of the tolls of the strait. — The Athenians
send Iphikrates with his peltasts and a fleet to the Hellespont. His
stratagem to surprise Anaxibius. — Defeat and death of Anaxibius.
— The Athenians are again masters of the Hellespont and the strait
dues. — The island of Ægina — its past history. — The Æginetans are
constrained by Sparta into war with Athens. The Lacedæmonian admiral
Teleutias at Ægina. He is superseded by Hierax. His remarkable
popularity among the seamen. — Hierax proceeds to Rhodes, leaving
Gorgôpas at Ægina. Passage of the Lacedæmonian Antalkidas to Asia. —
Gorgôpas is surprised in Ægina, defeated, and slain, by the Athenian
Chabrias; who goes to assist Evagoras in Cyprus. — The Lacedæmonian
seamen at Ægina unpaid and discontented. Teleutias is sent thither to
conciliate them. — Sudden and successful attack of Teleutias upon the
Peiræus. — Unprepared and unguarded condition of Peiræus — Teleutias
gains rich plunder, and sails away in safety. — He is enabled to
pay his seamen — activity of the fleet — great loss inflicted upon
Athenian commerce. — Financial condition of Athens. The Theôrikon. —
Direct property-taxes. — Antalkidas goes up with Tiribazus to Susa —
his success at the Persian court — he brings down the terms of peace
asked for by Sparta, ratified by the Great King, to be enforced by
Sparta in his name. — Antalkidas in command of the Lacedæmonian and
Syracusan fleets in the Hellespont, with Persian aid. His successes
against the Athenians. — Distress and discouragement of Athens —
anxiety of the anti-Spartan allies for peace. — Tiribazus summons them
all to Sardis, to hear the convention which had been sent down by
the Great King. — Terms of the convention, called the peace of
Antalkidas. — Congress at Sparta for acceptance or rejection. All
parties accept. The Thebans at first accept under reserve for the
Bœotian cities. — Agesilaus refuses to allow the Theban reserve, and
requires unconditional acceptance. His eagerness, from hatred of
Thebes, to get into a war with them single-handed. The Thebans are
obliged to accept unconditionally. — Agesilaus forces the Corinthians
to send away their Argeian auxiliaries. The philo-Argeian Corinthians
go into exile; the philo-Laconian Corinthians are restored.
CHAPTER LXIX. CYRUS THE YOUNGER AND THE TEN THOUSAND GREEKS.
HISTORY OF GREECE.
PART II.
In my last volume,
I brought down the History of Grecian affairs to the close of the
Peloponnesian war, including a description of the permanent loss of
imperial power, the severe temporary oppression, the enfranchisement
and renewed democracy, which marked the lot of defeated Athens.
The defeat of that once powerful city, accomplished by the Spartan
confederacy,—with large pecuniary aid from the young Persian
prince Cyrus, satrap of most of the Ionian seaboard,—left
Sparta mistress, for the time, of the Grecian world. Lysander, her
victorious admiral, employed his vast temporary power for the purpose
of setting up, in most of the cities, Dekarchies or ruling Councils
of Ten, composed of his own partisans; with a Lacedæmonian Harmost
and garrison to enforce their oligarchical rule. Before I proceed,
however, to recount, as well as it can be made out, the unexpected
calamities thus brought upon the Grecian world, with their eventual
consequences,—it will be convenient to introduce here the
narrative of the Ten Thousand Greeks, with their march into the
heart of the Persian empire and their still more celebrated Retreat.
This incident, lying apart from the main stream of Grecian affairs,
would form an item, strictly speaking, in Persian history rather
than in Grecian. But its effects on the Greek mind, and upon the
future course of Grecian affairs, were numerous and important; while as an
illustration of Hellenic character and competence measured against
that of the contemporary Asiatics, it stands preeminent and full of
instruction.
This march from Sardis up to the neighborhood of Babylon,
conducted by Cyrus the younger and undertaken for the purpose of
placing him on the Persian throne in the room of his elder brother
Artaxerxes Mnemon,—was commenced about March or April in the
year 401 B.C. It was about six months afterwards, in
the month of September or October of the same year, that the battle
of Kunaxa was fought, in which, though the Greeks were victorious,
Cyrus himself lost his life. They were then obliged to commence their
retreat, which occupied about one year, and ultimately brought them
across the Bosphorus of Thrace to Byzantium, in October or November,
400 B.C.
The death of king Darius Nothus, father both of Artaxerxes and
Cyrus, occurred about the beginning of 404 B.C.,
a short time after the entire ruin of the force of Athens at
Ægospotami. His reign of nineteen years, with that of his father
Artaxerxes Longimanus which lasted nearly forty years, fill up almost
all the interval from the death of Xerxes in 465 B.C.
The close of the reigns both of Xerxes and of his son Artaxerxes had
indeed been marked by those phenomena of conspiracy, assassination,
fratricide, and family tragedy, so common in the transmission of
an Oriental sceptre. Xerxes was assassinated by the chief officer
of the palace, named Artabanus,—who had received from him at a
banquet the order to execute his eldest son Darius, but had not
fulfilled it. Artabanus, laying the blame of the assassination
upon Darius, prevailed upon Artaxerxes to avenge it by slaying
the latter; he then attempted the life of Artaxerxes himself, but
failed, and was himself killed, after carrying on the government
a few months. Artaxerxes Longimanus, after reigning about forty
years, left the sceptre to his son Xerxes the second, who was
slain after a few months by his brother Sogdianus; who again was
put to death after seven months, by a third brother Darius Nothus
mentioned above.[1]
The wars between the Persian
empire, and Athens as the head of the confederacy of Delos (477-449
B.C.), have been already related in one of my
earlier volumes. But the internal history of the Persian empire
during these reigns is scarcely at all known to us; except a
formidable revolt of the satrap Megabyzus, obscurely noticed in the
Fragments of Ktesias.[2] About 414 B.C. the
Egyptians revolted. Their native prince Amyrtæus maintained his
independence,—though probably in a part only, and not the whole,
of that country,[3]—and was succeeded by a native Egyptian
dynasty for the space of sixty years. A revolt of the Medes, which
took place in 408 B.C., was put down by Darius, and
subsequently a like revolt of the Kadusians.[4] The peace concluded in
449 B.C., between Athens and the Persian empire,
continued without open violation, until the ruinous catastrophe
which befel the former near Syracuse, in 413 B.C.
Yet there had been various communications and envoys from Sparta
to the Persian court, endeavoring to procure aid from the Great
King during the early years of the war; communications so confused
and contradictory, that Artaxerxes (in a letter addressed to
the Spartans, in 425 B.C., and carried by his
envoy Artaphernes who was captured by the Athenians), complained
of being unable to understand what they meant,—no two Spartans
telling the same story.[5] It appears that Pissuthnes, satrap of
Sardis, revolted from the Persian king, shortly after this period,
and that Tissaphernes was sent by the Great King to suppress this
revolt; in which having succeeded, by bribing the Grecian commander
of the satrap’s mercenary troops, he was rewarded by the possession
of the satrapy.[6] We find Tissaphernes satrap in the year 413
B.C., commencing operations jointly with the
Spartans, for detaching the Asiatic allies from Athens, after her
reverses in Sicily; and employing the Spartans successfully against
Amorges, the revolted son of Pissuthnes, who occupied the strong
maritime town of Iasus.[7]
The increased vigor of Persian operations against Athens,
after Cyrus, the younger son of Darius Nothus, came down to the
Ionic coast in 407 B.C., has been recounted in my
preceding volume; together with the complete prostration of Athenian
power, accomplished during the ensuing three years. Residing at
Sardis and placed in active coöperation with Greeks, this ambitious
and energetic young prince soon became penetrated with their
superior military and political efficiency, as compared with the
native Asiatics. For the abilities and character of Lysander, the
Peloponnesian admiral, he contracted so much admiration, that, when
summoned to court during the last illness of his father Darius
in 405 B.C., he even confided to that officer
the whole of his tribute and treasure, to be administered in
furtherance of the war;[8] which during his absence was brought to a
victorious close.
Cyrus, born after the accession of his father to the throne, was
not more than eighteen years of age when first sent down to Sardis
(in 407 B.C.) as satrap of Lydia, Phrygia, and
Kappadokia, and as commander of that Persian military division which
mustered at the plain of Kastôlus; a command not including the Ionic
Greeks on the seaboard, who were under the satrapy of Tissaphernes.[9]
We cannot place much confidence in the account which Xenophon gives
of his education; that he had been brought up with his brother
and many noble Persian youths in the royal palace,—under
the strictest discipline and restraint, enforcing modest habits,
with the reciprocal duties of obedience and command, upon all of
them, and upon him with peculiar success.[10] It is contradicted
by all the realities which we read about the Persian court, and
is a patch of Grecian rather than of Oriental sentiment, better
suited to the romance of the Cyropædia that to the history of the
Anabasis. But in the Persian accomplishments of horsemanship, mastery of the bow
and of the javelin, bravery in the field, daring as well as endurance
in hunting wild beasts, and power of drinking much wine without
being intoxicated,—Cyrus stood preeminent; and especially
so when compared with his elder brother Artaxerxes, who was at
least unwarlike, if not lazy and timid.[11] And although the
peculiar virtue of the Hellenic citizen,—competence for
alternate command and obedience,—formed no part of the
character of Cyrus, yet it appears that Hellenic affairs and ideas
became early impressed upon his mind; insomuch that on first coming
down to Sardis as satrap, he brought down with him strong interest
for the Peloponnesian cause, and strenuous antipathy to that
ancient enemy by whom the Persian arms had been so signally humbled
and repressed. How zealously he coöperated with Lysander and the
Peloponnesians in putting down Athens, has been shown in my last
preceding volume.[12]
An energetic and ambitious youth like Cyrus, having once learnt
from personal experience to appreciate the Greeks, was not slow
in divining the value of such auxiliaries as instruments of power
to himself. To coöperate effectively in the war, it was necessary
that he should act to a certain extent upon Grecian ideas, and
conciliate the good will of the Ionic Greeks; so that he came
to combine the imperious and unsparing despotism of a Persian
prince, with something of the regularity and system belonging to
a Grecian administrator. Though younger than Artaxerxes, he seems
to have calculated from the first upon succeeding to the Persian
crown at the death of his father. So undetermined was the law of
succession in the Persian royal family, and so constant the dispute
and fratricide on each vacancy of the throne, that such ambitious
schemes would appear feasible to a young man of much less ardor
than Cyrus. Moreover he was the favorite son of queen Parysatis,[13]
who greatly preferred him to his elder brother Artaxerxes. He was
born after the accession of Darius to the throne, while Artaxerxes
had been born prior to that event; and, as this latter consideration
had been employed seventy years earlier by queen Atossa[14] in determining her
husband Darius son of Hystaspes to declare (even during his lifetime)
her son Xerxes as his intended successor, to the exclusion of an
elder son by a different wife, and born before his accession,—so
Cyrus, perhaps, anticipated the like effective preference to himself
from the solicitations of Parysatis. Probably his hopes were farther
inflamed by the fact that he bore the name of the great founder of
the monarchy; whose memory every Persian reverenced. How completely
he reckoned on becoming king, is shown by a cruel act performed about
the early part of 405 B.C. It was required as a part
of Persian etiquette that every man who came into the presence of the
king should immerse his hands in certain pockets or large sleeves,
which rendered them for the moment inapplicable to active use; but
such deference was shown to no one except the king. Two first cousins
of Cyrus,—sons of Hieramenês, (seemingly one of the satraps or high
Persian dignitaries in Asia Minor), by a sister of Darius,—appeared
in his presence without thus concealing their hands;[15]
upon which Cyrus ordered them both to be put to death. The father and
mother preferred bitter complaints of this atrocity to Darius; who
was induced to send for Cyrus to visit him in Media, on the ground,
not at all fictitious, that his own health was rapidly declining.
If Cyrus expected to succeed to the crown, it was important
that he should be on the spot when his father died. He accordingly
went up from Sardis to Media, along with his body guard of three
hundred Greeks, under the Arcadian Xenias; who were so highly
remunerated for this distant march, that the rate of pay was
long celebrated.[16] He also took with him Tissaphernes as an
ostensible friend; though there seems to have been a real enmity
between them. Not long after his arrival, Darius died; but without
complying with the request of Parysatis that he should declare
in favor of
Cyrus as his successor. Accordingly Artaxerxes, being proclaimed
king, went to Pasargadæ, the religious capital of the Persians, to
perform the customary solemnities. Thus disappointed, Cyrus was
farther accused by Tissaphernes of conspiring the death of his
brother; who caused him to be seized, and was even on the point of
putting him to death, when the all-powerful intercession of Parysatis
saved his life.[17] He was sent down to his former satrapy
at Sardis, whither he returned with insupportable feelings of
anger and wounded pride, and with a determined resolution to leave
nothing untried for the purpose of dethroning his brother. This
statement, given to us by Xenophon, represents doubtless the story
of Cyrus and his friends, current among the Cyreian army. But if we
look at the probabilities of the case, we shall be led to suspect
that the charge of Tissaphernes may well have been true, and the
conspiracy of the disappointed Cyrus against his brother, a reality
instead of a fiction.[18]
The moment when Cyrus returned to Sardis was highly favorable to
his plans and preparations. The long war had just been concluded
by the capture of Athens and the extinction of her power. Many
Greeks, after having acquired military tastes and habits, were now
thrown out of employment; many others were driven into exile, by
the establishment of the Lysandrian Dekarchies throughout all the
cities at once. Hence competent recruits, for a well-paid service
like that of Cyrus, were now unusually abundant. Having already a
certain number of Greek mercenaries, distributed throughout the
various garrisons in his satrapy, he directed the officers in command
to strengthen their garrisons by as many additional Peloponnesian
soldiers as they could obtain. His pretext was,—first,
defence against Tissaphernes, with whom, since the denunciation
by the latter, he was at open war,—next, protection of the
Ionic cities on the seaboard, who had been hitherto comprised under
the government of Tissaphernes, but had now revolted of their own
accord, since the enmity of Cyrus against him had been declared.
Miletus alone had been prevented from executing this resolution,
for Tissaphernes, reinforcing his garrison in that place, had
adopted violent measures of repression, killing or banishing several
of the leading men. Cyrus, receiving these exiled Milesians with every
demonstration of sympathy, immediately got together both an army
and a fleet, under the Egyptian Tamos,[19] to besiege Miletus
by land and sea. He at the same time transmitted to court the
regular tribute due from these maritime cities, and attempted,
through the interest of his mother Parysatis, to procure that they
should be transferred from Tissaphernes to himself. Hence the
Great King was deluded into a belief that the new levies of Cyrus
were only intended for private war between him and Tissaphernes;
an event not uncommon between two neighboring satraps. Nor was it
displeasing to the court that a suspected prince should be thus
occupied at a distance.[20]
Besides the army thus collected around Miletus, Cyrus found means
to keep other troops within his call, though at a distance and
unsuspected. A Lacedæmonian officer named Klearchus, of considerable
military ability and experience, presented himself as an exile at
Sardis. He appears to have been banished, (as far as we can judge
amidst contradictory statements,) for gross abuse of authority, and
extreme tyranny, as Lacedæmonian Harmost at Byzantium, and even for
having tried to maintain himself in that place after the Ephors had
formally dismissed him. The known efficiency, and restless warlike
appetite of Klearchus,[21] procured for him the confidence of Cyrus,
who gave him the large sum of ten thousand Darics, (about £7600),
which he employed in levying an army of mercenary Greeks for the
defence of the Grecian cities in the Chersonese against the Thracian
tribes in their neighborhood; thus maintaining the troops until they were required
by Cyrus. Again, Aristippus and Menon,—Thessalians of
the great family of the Aleuadæ at Larissa, who had maintained
their tie of personal hospitality with the Persian royal family
ever since the time of Xerxes, and were now in connection
with Cyrus,[22]—received from him funds to maintain
a force of two thousand mercenaries for their political purposes in
Thessaly, subject to his call whenever he should require them. Other
Greeks, too, who had probably contracted similar ties of hospitality
with Cyrus by service during the late war,—Proxenus, a
Bœotian; Agias and Sophænetus, Arcadians; Sokrates, an Achæan,
etc.,—were also empowered by him to collect mercenary soldiers.
His pretended objects were, partly the siege of Miletus; partly
an ostensible expedition against the Pisidians,—warlike and
predatory mountaineers who did much mischief from their fastnesses in
the south-east of Asia Minor.
Besides these unavowed Grecian levies, Cyrus sent envoys
to the Lacedæmonians to invoke their aid, in requital for the
strenuous manner in which he had seconded their operations against
Athens,—and received a favorable answer. He farther got
together a considerable native force, taking great pains to
conciliate friends as well as to inspire confidence. “He was
straightforward and just, like a candidate for command,”—to
use the expression of Herodotus respecting the Median Dëiokês;[23]
maintaining order and security throughout his satrapy, and punishing
evil doers in great numbers, with the utmost extremity of rigor;
of which the public roads exhibited abundant living testimony,
in the persons of mutilated men, deprived of their hands, feet,
or eyesight.[24] But he was also exact in rewarding faithful
service,
both civil and military. He not only made various expeditions
against the hostile Mysians and Pisidians, but was forward in
exposing his own person, and munificent, rewarding the zeal of all
soldiers who distinguished themselves. He attached men to his person
both by a winning demeanor and by seasonable gifts. As it was the
uniform custom, (and is still the custom in the East), for every
one who approached Cyrus to come with a present in his hand,[25]
so he usually gave away again these presents as marks of distinction
to others. Hence he not only acquired the attachment of all in his
own service, but also of those Persians whom Artaxerxes sent down on
various pretences for the purpose of observing his motions. Of these
emissaries from Susa, some were even sent to obstruct and enfeeble
him. It was under such orders that a Persian named Orontes, governor
of Sardis, acted, in levying open war against Cyrus; who twice
subdued him, and twice pardoned him, on solemn assurance of fidelity
for the future.[26] In all agreements, even with avowed
enemies, Cyrus kept faith exactly; so that his word was trusted by
every one.
Of such virtues, (rare in an Oriental ruler, either ancient
or
modern,)—and of such secret preparations,—Cyrus sought to reap the
fruits at the beginning of 401 B.C. Xenias, his
general at home, brought together all the garrisons, leaving a
bare sufficiency for defence of the towns. Klearchus, Menon, and
the other Greek generals were recalled, and the siege of Miletus
was relinquished; so that there was concentrated at Sardis a
body of seven thousand seven hundred Grecian hoplites, with five
hundred light armed.[27] Others afterwards joined on the march,
and there was, besides, a native army of about one hundred
thousand men. With such means Cyrus set forth, (March or April,
401 B.C.), from Sardis. His real purpose was kept
secret; his ostensible purpose, as proclaimed and understood
by every one except himself and Klearchus, was to conquer and
root out the Pisidian mountaineers. A joint Lacedæmonian and
Persian fleet, under the Lacedæmonian admiral Samius, at the
same time coasted round the south of Asia Minor, in order to
lend coöperation from the sea-side.[28] This Lacedæmonian
coöperation passed for a private levy effected by Cyrus himself;
for the ephors would not formally avow hostility against the
Great King.[29]
The body of Greeks, immortalized under the name of the Ten
Thousand, who were thus preparing to plunge into so many unexpected
perils,—though embarking on a foreign mercenary service, were
by no means outcasts, or even men of extreme poverty. They were for
the most part persons of established position, and not a few even
opulent. Half of them were Acadians or Achæans.
Such was the reputation of Cyrus for honorable and munificent
dealing, that many young men of good family had run away from
their fathers and mothers; others of mature age had been tempted
to leave their wives and children; and there were even some who
had embarked their own money in advance of outfit for other
poorer men, as well as for themselves.[30] All calculated on a
year’s
campaign in Pisidia; which might perhaps be hard, but would
certainly be lucrative, and would enable them to return with
a well-furnished purse. So the Greek commanders at Sardis all
confidently assured them; extolling, with the emphasis and eloquence
suitable to recruiting officers, both the liberality of Cyrus[31]
and the abundant promise of all men of enterprise.
Among others, the Bœotian Proxenus wrote to his friend Xenophon,
at Athens, pressing him strongly to come to Sardis, and offering
to present him to Cyrus, whom he, (Proxenus,) “considered as a
better friend to him than his own country;[32]” a striking evidence of
the manner in which such foreign mercenary service overlaid Grecian
patriotism, which we shall recognize more and more as we advance
forward. This able and accomplished Athenian,—entitled to
respectful gratitude, not indeed from Athens his country, but from
the Cyreian army and the intellectual world generally,—was
one of the class of Knights or Horsemen, and is said to have served
in that capacity at the battle of Delium.[33] Of his previous life
we know little or nothing, except that he was an attached friend and
diligent hearer of Sokrates; the memorials of whose conversation we
chiefly derive from his pen, as we also derive the narrative of the
Cyreian march. In my last preceding chapter on Sokrates, I have made
ample use of the Memorabilia of Xenophon; and I am now about to draw
from his Anabasis (a model of perspicuous and interesting narrative)
the account of the adventures of the Cyreian army, which we are
fortunate in knowing from so authentic a source.
On receiving the invitation from Proxenus, Xenophon felt much
inclined to comply. To a member of that class of Knights, which
three years before had been the mainstay of the atrocities of the
Thirty, (how far he was personally concerned, we cannot say,)
it is probable that residence in Athens was in those times not
peculiarly agreeable to him. He asked the opinion of Sokrates; who,
apprehensive lest service under Cyrus, the bitter enemy of Athens,
might expose him to unpopularity with his countrymen, recommended an
application to the Delphian oracle. Thither Xenophon went; but in
truth he had already made up his mind beforehand. So that instead
of asking, “whether he ought to go or refuse,”—he simply put
the question, “To which of the gods must I sacrifice, in order to
obtain safety and success in a journey which I am now meditating?”
The reply of the oracle,—indicating Zeus Basileus as the god
to whom sacrifice was proper,—was brought back by Xenophon;
upon which Sokrates, though displeased that the question had not
been fairly put as to the whole project, nevertheless advised, since
an answer had now been given, that it should be literally obeyed.
Accordingly Xenophon, having offered the sacrifices prescribed, took
his departure first to Ephesus and thence to Sardis, where he found
the army about to set forth. Proxenus presented him to Cyrus, who
entreated him earnestly to take service, promising to dismiss him
as soon as the campaign against the Pisidians should be finished.[34]
He was thus induced to stay, yet only as a volunteer or friend of
Proxenus, without accepting any special post in the army, either as
officer or soldier. There is no reason to believe that his service
under Cyrus had actually the effect apprehended by Sokrates, of
rendering him unpopular at Athens. For though he was afterwards
banished, this sentence was not passed against him until after the
battle of Korôneia in 394 B.C., where he was in arms
as a conspicuous officer under Agesilaus, against his own countrymen
and their Theban allies,—nor need we look farther back for the
grounds of the sentence.
Though Artaxerxes, entertaining general suspicions of his
brother’s ambitious views, had sent down various persons to watch
him, yet Cyrus had contrived to gain or neutralize these spies,
and
had masked his preparations so skilfully, that no intimation
was conveyed to Susa until the march was about to commence. It
was only then that Tissaphernes, seeing the siege of Miletus
relinquished, and the vast force mustering at Sardis, divined
that something more was meant than the mere conquest of Pisidian
freebooters, and went up in person to warn the king; who began his
preparations forthwith.[35] That which Tissaphernes had divined was
yet a secret to every man in the army, to Proxenus as well as the
rest,—when Cyrus, having confided the provisional management
of his satrapy to some Persian kinsmen, and to his admiral the
Egyptian Tamos, commenced his march in a south-easterly direction
from Sardis, through Lydia and Phrygia.[36] Three days’ march, a
distance stated at twenty-two parasangs,[37] brought him to the Mæander; one
additional march of eight parasangs, after crossing that river,
forwarded him to Kolossæ, a flourishing city in Phrygia, where Menon overtook
him with a reinforcement of one thousand hoplites, and five hundred
peltasts,—Dolopes, Ænianes, and Olynthians. He then marched
three days onward to Kelænæ, another Phrygian city, “great and
flourishing,” with a citadel very strong both by nature and art.
Here he halted no less than thirty days, in order to await the
arrival of Klearchus, with his division of one thousand hoplites,
eight hundred Thracian peltasts, and two hundred Kretan bowmen; at
the same time Sophænetus arrived with one thousand farther hoplites,
and Sosias with three hundred. This total of Greeks was reviewed
by Cyrus
in one united body at Kelænæ; eleven thousand hoplites and two
thousand peltasts.[38]
As far as Kelænæ, his march had been directed straight towards
Pisidia, near the borders of which territory that city is situated.
So far, therefore, the fiction with which he started was kept up.
But on leaving Kelænæ, he turned his march away from Pisidia, in
a direction nearly northward; first in two days, ten parasangs,
to the town of Peltæ; next in two days farther, twelve parasangs,
to Keramôn-Agora, the last city in the district adjoining Mysia.
At Peltæ, in a halt of three days, the Arcadian general Xenias
celebrated the great festival of his country, the Lykæa, with
its usual games and matches, in the presence of Cyrus. From
Keramôn-Agora, Cyrus marched in three days the unusual distance of
thirty parasangs,[39] to a city called Käystru-Pedion, (the
plain
of Käystrus), where he halted for five days. Here his repose was
disturbed by the murmurs of the Greek soldiers, who had received no
pay for three months, (Xenophon had before told us that they were
mostly men who had some means of their own), and who now flocked
around his tent to press for their arrears. So impoverished was
Cyrus by previous disbursements,—perhaps also by remissions of
tribute for the purpose of popularizing himself,—that he was
utterly without money, and was obliged to put them off again with
promises. And his march might well have ended here, had he not been
rescued from embarrassment by the arrival of Epyaxa, wife of the
Kilikian prince Syennesis, who brought to him a large sum of money,
and enabled him to give to the Greek soldiers four months’ pay at
once. As to the Asiatic soldiers, it is probable that they received
little beyond their maintenance.
Two ensuing days of march, still through Phrygia, brought the
army to Thymbrium; two more to Tyriæum. Each day’s march is called
five parasangs[40]. It was here that Cyrus, halting three
days, passed the army in review, to gratify the Kilikian princess
Epyaxa, who was still accompanying the march. His Asiatic troops
were first made to march in order before him, cavalry and infantry
in their separate divisions; after which he himself in a chariot,
and Epyaxa in a Harmamaxa, (a sort of carriage or litter covered
with an awning which opened or shut at pleasure), passed all along
the front of the Greek line, drawn up separately. The hoplites were
marshalled four deep, all in their best trim; brazen helmets, purple
tunics, greaves or leggings, and the shields rubbed bright, just
taken out of the wrappers in which they were carried during a mere march.[41]
Klearchus commanded on the left, and Menon on the right; the other
generals being distributed in the centre. Having completed his review
along the whole line, and taken a station with the Kilikian princess
at a certain distance in front of it, Cyrus sent his interpreter to
the generals, and desired that he might see them charge. Accordingly,
the orders were given, the spears were protended, the trumpets
sounded, and the whole Greek force moved forward in battle array with
the usual shouts. As they advanced, the pace became accelerated, and
they made straight against the victualling portion of the Asiatic
encampment. Such was the terror occasioned by the sight, that all
the Asiatics fled forthwith, abandoning their property,—Epyaxa
herself among the first, quitting her palanquin. Though she had
among her personal guards some Greeks from Aspendus, she had never
before seen a Grecian army, and was amazed as well as terrified;
much to the satisfaction of Cyrus, who saw in the scene an augury of
his coming success.[42]
Three days of farther march, (called twenty parasangs in all)
brought the army to Ikonium, (now Konieh), the extreme city of
Phrygia; where Cyrus halted three days. He then marched for five
days (thirty parasangs) through Lykaonia; which country, as being
out of his own satrapy, and even hostile, he allowed the Greeks
to plunder. Lykaonia being immediately on the borders of Pisidia,
its inhabitants were probably reckoned as Pisidians, since they
were of the like predatory character:[43] so that Cyrus would
be partially realizing the pretended purpose of his expedition. He
thus, too, approached near to Mount Taurus, which separated him
from Kilikia; and he here sent the Kilikian princess, together with
Menon and his division, over the mountain, by a pass shorter and
more direct, but seemingly little frequented, and too difficult
for the whole army; in order that they might thus get straight
into Kilikia,[44] in the rear of Syennesis, who was occupying
the regular pass more to the northward. Intending to enter with his
main body through this latter pass, Cyrus first proceeded through
Kappadokia (four days’ march, twenty-five parasangs) to Dana or
Tyana, a flourishing city of Kappadokia; where he halted three days,
and where he put to death two Persian officers, on a charge of
conspiring against him.[45]
This regular pass over Taurus, the celebrated Tauri-Pylæ or
Kilikian Gates, was occupied by Syennesis. Though a road fit for
vehicles, it was yet three thousand six hundred feet above the level
of the sea, narrow, steep, bordered by high ground on each side, and
crossed by a wall with gates, so that it could not be forced if ever
so moderately defended.[46] But the Kilikian prince, alarmed at the
news that Menon had already crossed the mountains by the less
frequented pass to his rear, and that the fleet of Cyrus was sailing
along the coast, evacuated his own impregnable position, and fell
back to Tarsus; from whence he again retired, accompanied by most
of the inhabitants, to an inaccessible fastness on the mountains.
Accordingly Cyrus, ascending without opposition the great pass thus
abandoned, reached Tarsus after a march of four days, there rejoining
Menon and Epyaxa. Two lochi or companies of the division of Menon,
having dispersed on their march for pillage, had been cut off by the
natives; for which the main body of Greeks now took their revenge,
plundering both the city and the palace of Syennesis. That prince,
though invited by Cyrus to come back to Tarsus, at first refused,
but was at length prevailed upon by the persuasions of his wife, to
return under a safe conduct. He was induced to contract an alliance,
to exchange presents with Cyrus, and to give him a large sum of money
towards his expedition, together with a contingent of troops; in
return for which it was stipulated that Kilikia should be no farther
plundered, and that the slaves taken away might be recovered wherever
they were found.[47]
It seems evident, though Xenophon does not directly tell us so,
that the resistance of Syennesis, (this was a standing name or title
of the hereditary princes of Kilikia under the Persian crown), was a
mere feint; that the visit of Epyaxa with a supply of money to Cyrus,
and the admission of Menon and his division over Mount Taurus, were
manœuvres in collusion with him; and that, thinking Cyrus would be
successful, he was disposed to support his cause, yet careful at the
same time to give himself the air of having been overpowered, in
case Artaxerxes should prove victorious.[48]
At
first, however, it appeared as if the march of Cyrus was destined
to finish at Tarsus, where he was obliged to remain twenty days.
The army had already passed by Pisidia, the ostensible purpose of
the expedition, for which the Grecian troops had been engaged; not
one of them, either officer or soldier, suspecting anything to the
contrary, except Klearchus, who was in the secret. But all now saw
that they had been imposed upon, and found out that they were to
be conducted against the Persian king. Besides the resentment at
such delusion, they shrunk from the risk altogether; not from any
fear of Persian armies, but from the terrors of a march of three
months inward from the coast, and the impossibility of return,
which had so powerfully affected the Spartan King Kleomenes,[49] a century before; most of them being (as
I have before remarked) men of decent position and family in their
respective cities. Accordingly they proclaimed their determination
to advance no farther, as they had not been engaged to fight against
the Great King.[50]
Among the Grecian officers, each (Klearchus, Proxenus, Menon,
Xenias, etc.) commanded his own separate division, without any
generalissimo except Cyrus himself. Each of them probably sympathized
more or less in the resentment as well as in the repugnance of the
soldiers. But Klearchus, an exile and a mercenary by profession, was
doubtless prepared for this mutiny, and had assured Cyrus that it
might be overcome. That such a man as Klearchus could be tolerated
as a commander of free and non-professional soldiers, is a proof
of the great susceptibility of the Greek hoplites for military
discipline. For though he had great military merits, being brave,
resolute, and full of resource in the hour of danger, provident for
the subsistence of his soldiers, and unshrinking against fatigue and
hardship,—yet his look and manner were harsh, his punishments
were perpetual as well as cruel, and he neither tried nor cared to
conciliate his soldiers; who accordingly stayed with him, and were
remarkable for exactness of discipline, so long as political orders
required them,—but preferred service under other commanders, when they
could obtain it.[51] Finding his orders to march forward
disobeyed, Klearchus proceeded at once in his usual manner to enforce
and punish. But he found resistance universal; he himself with the
cattle who carried his baggage, was pelted when he began to move
forward, and narrowly escaped with his life. Thus disappointed in his
attempt at coercion, he was compelled to convene the soldiers in a
regular assembly, and to essay persuasion.
On first appearing before the assembled soldiers, this harsh and
imperious officer stood for a long time silent, and even weeping; a
remarkable point in Grecian manners,—and exceedingly impressive
to the soldiers, who looked on him with surprise and in silence. At
length he addressed them: “Be not astonished, soldiers, to see me
deeply mortified. Cyrus has been my friend and benefactor. It was
he who sheltered me as an exile, and gave me ten thousand Darics,
which I expended not on my own profit or pleasure, but upon you,
and in defence of Grecian interests in the Chersonese against
Thracian depredators. When Cyrus invited me, I came to him along
with you, in order to make him the best return in my power for
his past kindness. But now, since you will no longer march along
with me, I am under the necessity either of renouncing you or of
breaking faith with him. Whether I am doing right or not, I cannot
say; but I shall stand by you, and share your fate. No one shall say
of me that, having conducted Greek troops into a foreign land, I
betrayed the Greeks and chose the foreigner. You are to me country,
friends, allies; while you are with me, I can help a friend, and
repel an enemy. Understand me well; I shall go wherever you go, and
partake your fortune.”[52]
This speech, and the distinct declaration of Klearchus that he
would not march forward against the King, was heard by the soldiers
with much delight; in which those of the other Greek divisions
sympathized, especially as none of the other Greek commanders had
yet announced a similar resolution. So strong was this feeling among
the soldiers of Xenias and Pasion, that two thousand of them left their
commanders, coming over forthwith, with arms and baggage, to the
encampment of Klearchus.
Meanwhile Cyrus himself, dismayed at the resistance encountered,
sent to desire an interview with Klearchus. But the latter, knowing
well the game that he was playing, refused to obey the summons. He,
however, at the same time despatched a secret message to encourage
Cyrus with the assurance that everything would come right at
last,—and to desire farther that fresh invitations might be
sent, in order that he (Klearchus) might answer by fresh refusals.
He then again convened in assembly both his own soldiers and those
who had recently deserted Xenias to join him. “Soldiers (said he), we
must recollect that we have now broken with Cyrus. We are no longer
his soldiers, nor he our paymaster; moreover, I know that he thinks
we have wronged him,—so that I am both afraid and ashamed to go
near him. He is a good friend,—but a formidable enemy; and has
a powerful force of his own, which all of you see near at hand. This
is no time for us to slumber. We must take careful counsel whether
to stay or go; and if we go, how to get away in safety, as well as
to obtain provisions. I shall be glad to hear what any man has to
suggest.”
Instead of the peremptory tone habitual with Klearchus, the troops
found themselves now, for the first time, not merely released from
his command, but deprived of his advice. Some soldiers addressed the
assembly, proposing various measures suitable to the emergency; but
their propositions were opposed by other speakers, who, privately
instigated by Klearchus himself, set forth the difficulties either
of staying or departing. One among these secret partisans of the
commander even affected to take the opposite side, and to be
impatient for immediate departure. “If Klearchus does not choose to
conduct us back (said this speaker) let us immediately elect other
generals, buy provisions, get ready to depart, and then send to ask
Cyrus for merchant-vessels,—or at any rate for guides in our
return march by land. If he refuses both these requests, we must
put ourselves in marching order, to fight our way back; sending
forward a detachment without delay to occupy the passes.” Klearchus
here interposed to say, that as for himself, it was impossible for
him to continue in command; but he would faithfully obey any other
commander
who might be elected. He was followed by another speaker, who
demonstrated the absurdity of going and asking Cyrus, either for a
guide, or for ships, at the very moment when they were frustrating
his projects. How could he be expected to assist them in getting
away? Who could trust either his ships or his guides? On the other
hand, to depart without his knowledge or concurrence was impossible.
The proper course would be to send a deputation to him, consisting
of others along with Klearchus, to ask what it was that he really
wanted; which no one yet knew. His answer to the question should
be reported to the meeting, in order that they might take their
resolution accordingly.
To this proposition the soldiers acceded; for it was but too plain
that retreat was no easy matter. The deputation went to put the
question to Cyrus; who replied that his real purpose was to attack
his enemy Abrokomas, who was on the river Euphrates, twelve days’
march onward. If he found Abrokomas there, he would punish him as he
deserved. If, on the other hand, Abrokomas had fled, they might again
consult what step was fit to be taken.
The soldiers, on hearing this, suspected it to be a deception,
but nevertheless acquiesced, not knowing what else to do. They
required only an increase of pay. Not a word was said about
the Great King, or the expedition against him. Cyrus granted
increased pay of fifty per cent. upon the previous rate. Instead
of one daric per month to each soldier, he agreed to give a
daric and a half.[53]
This remarkable scene at Tarsus illustrates the character of the
Greek citizen-soldier. What is chiefly to be noted, is, the appeal
made to their reason and judgment,—the habit, established more
or less throughout so large a portion of the Grecian world, and
attaining its maximum at Athens, of hearing both sides and deciding
afterwards. The soldiers are indignant, justly and naturally, at the
fraud practised upon them. But instead of surrendering themselves
to this impulse arising out of the past, they are brought to look
at the actualities of the present, and take measure of what is best
to be done for the future. To return back from the place where they
stood, against the wish of Cyrus, was an enterprise so full of difficulty and
danger, that the decision to which they came was recommended by the
best considerations of reason. To go on was the least dangerous
course of the two, besides its chances of unmeasured reward.
As the remaining Greek officers and soldiers followed the example
of Klearchus and his division, the whole army marched forward from
Tarsus, and reached Issus, the extreme city of Kilikia, in five days’
march,—crossing the rivers Sarus[54] and Pyramus. At Issus,
a flourishing and commercial port in the angle of the Gulf so called,
Cyrus was joined by his fleet of fifty triremes,—thirty-five
Lacedæmonian and twenty-five Persian triremes; bringing a
reinforcement of seven hundred hoplites, under the command of the
Lacedæmonian Cheirisophus, said to have been despatched by the
Spartan Ephors.[55] He also received a farther reinforcement
of four hundred Grecian soldiers; making the total of Greeks in
his army fourteen thousand, from which are to be deducted the one hundred
soldiers of Menon’s division, slain in Kilikia.
The arrival of this last body of four hundred men was a fact of
some importance. They had hitherto been in the service of Abrokomas
(the Persian general commanding a vast force, said to be three
hundred thousand men, for the king, in Phœnicia and Syria), from whom
they now deserted to Cyrus. Such desertion was at once the proof of
their reluctance to fight against the great body of their countrymen
marching upwards, and of the general discouragement reigning
amidst the king’s army. So great, indeed, was that discouragement,
that Abrokomas now fled from the Syrian coast into the interior;
abandoning three defensible positions in succession—1. The
Gates of Kilikia and Syria. 2. The pass of Beilan over Mount Amanus.
3. The passage of the Euphrates.—He appears to have been
alarmed by the easy passage of Cyrus from Kappadokia into Kilikia,
and still more, probably, by the evident collusion of Syennesis
with the invader.[56]
Cyrus had expected to find the gates of Kilikia and Syria
stoutly defended, and had provided for this emergency by bringing
up his fleet to Issus, in order that he might be able to transport
a division by sea to the rear of the defenders. The pass was at
one day’s march from Issus. It was a narrow road for the length of
near half a mile, between the sea on one side and the steep cliffs
terminating mount Amanus on the other. The two entrances, on the side
of Kilikia as well as on that of Syria, were both closed by walls
and gates; midway between the two the river Kersus broke out from
the mountains and flowed into the sea. No army could force this pass
against defenders; but the possession of the fleet doubtless enabled
an assailant to turn it. Cyrus was overjoyed to find it undefended.[57]
And here we cannot but notice the superior ability and forethought
of Cyrus as compared with the other Persians opposed to him. He had
looked at this as well as at the other difficulties of his march,
beforehand, and had provided the means of meeting them; whereas,
on the king’s side, all the numerous means and opportunities of
defence are successively abandoned; the Persians have no confidence, except in
vast numbers,—or when numbers fail, in treachery.
Five parasangs, or one day’s march from this pass, Cyrus reached
the Phœnician maritime town of Myriandrus; a place of great
commerce, with its harbor full of merchantmen. While he rested
here seven days, his two generals Xenias and Pasion deserted him;
privately engaging a merchant vessel to carry them away with their
property. They could not brook the wrong which Cyrus had done them
in permitting Klearchus to retain under his command those soldiers
who had deserted them at Tarsus, at the time when the latter played
off his deceitful manœuvre. Perhaps the men who had thus deserted
may have been unwilling to return to their original commanders,
after having taken so offensive a step. And this may partly account
for the policy of Cyrus in sanctioning what Xenias and Pasion could
not but feel as a great wrong, in which a large portion of the army
sympathized. The general belief among the soldiers was, that Cyrus
would immediately despatch some triremes to overtake and bring
back the fugitives. But instead of this, he summoned the remaining
generals, and after communicating to them the fact that Xenias and
Pasion were gone, added,—“I have plenty of triremes to overtake
their merchantmen if I chose, and to bring them back. But I will
do no such thing. No one shall say of me, that I make use of a man
while he is with me,—and afterwards seize, rob, or ill-use
him, when he wishes to depart. Nay, I have their wives and children
under guard as hostages, at Tralles;[58] but even these shall
be given up to them, in consideration of their good behavior down
to the present day. Let them go if they choose, with the full
knowledge that they behave worse towards me than I towards them.”
This behavior, alike judicious and conciliating, was universally
admired, and produced the best possible effect upon the spirits
of the army; imparting a confidence in Cyrus which did much to
outweigh the
prevailing discouragement, in the unknown march upon which they
were entering.[59]
At Myriandrus Cyrus finally quitted the sea, sending back
his fleet,[60] and striking with his land-force eastward
into the interior. For this purpose it was necessary first to cross
mount Amanus, by the pass of Beilan; an eminently difficult road,
which he was fortunate enough to find open, though Abrokomas might
easily have defended it, if he had chosen.[61] Four days’ march
brought the army to the Chalus (perhaps the river of Aleppo),
full of fish held sacred by the neighboring inhabitants; five
more days, to the sources of the river Daradax, with the palace
and park of the Syrian satrap Belesys; three days farther, to
Thapsakus on the Euphrates. This was a great and flourishing town,
a centre of commerce enriched by the important ford or transit of
the river Euphrates close to it, in latitude about 35° 40′ N.[62]
The river,
when the Cyreians arrived, was four stadia, or somewhat less than
half an English mile, in breadth.
Cyrus remained at Thapsakus five days. He was now compelled
formally to make known to his soldiers the real object of the
march, hitherto, in name at least, disguised. He accordingly sent
for the Greek generals, and desired them to communicate publicly
the fact, that he was on the advance to Babylon against his
brother,—which to themselves, probably, had been for some time
well known. Among the soldiers, however, the first announcement
excited loud murmurs, accompanied by accusation against the generals,
of having betrayed them, in privity with Cyrus. But this outburst
was very different to the strenuous repugnance which they had before
manifested at Tarsus. Evidently they suspected, and had almost made
up their minds to, the real truth; so that their complaint was soon
converted into a demand for a donation to each man, as soon as they
should reach Babylon; as much as that which Cyrus had given to his
Grecian detachment on going up thither before. Cyrus willingly
promised them five minæ per head (about £19 5s.), equal to more
than a year’s pay, at the rate recently stipulated of a daric and a
half per month. He engaged to give them, besides, the full rate of
pay until they should have been sent back to the Ionian coast. Such
ample offers satisfied the Greeks, and served to counterbalance at
least, if not to efface, the terrors of that unknown region which
they were about to tread.
But before the general body of Greek soldiers had pronounced
their formal acquiescence, Menon with his separate division was
already in the water, crossing. For Menon had instigated his men to
decide separately for themselves, and to execute their decision,
before the others had given any answer. “By acting thus (said he)
you will confer special obligation on Cyrus, and earn corresponding
reward. If the others follow you across, he will suppose that they do so
because you have set the example. If, on the contrary, the others
should refuse, we shall all be obliged to retreat: but he will
never forget that you, separately taken, have done all that you
could for him.” Such breach of communion, and avidity for separate
gain, at a time when it vitally concerned all the Greek soldiers to
act in harmony with each other, was a step suitable to the selfish
and treacherous character of Menon. He gained his point, however,
completely; for Cyrus, on learning that the Greek troops had actually
crossed, despatched Glus the interpreter to express to them his
warmest thanks, and to assure them that he would never forget the
obligation; while at the same time, he sent underhand large presents
to Menon separately.[63] He passed with his whole army immediately
afterwards; no man being wet above the breast.
What had become of Abrokomas and his army, and why did he not
defend this passage, where Cyrus might so easily have been arrested?
We are told that he had been there a little before, and that he had
thought it sufficient to burn all the vessels at Thapsakus, in the
belief that the invaders could not cross the river on foot. And
Xenophon informs us that the Thapsakenes affirmed the Euphrates to
have been never before fordable,—always passed by means of
boats; insomuch that they treated the actual low state of the water
as a providential interposition of the gods in favor of Cyrus;
“the river made way for him to come and take the sceptre.” When
we find that Abrokomas came too late afterwards for the battle of
Kunaxa, we shall be led to suspect that he too, like Syennesis in
Kilikia, was playing a double game between the two royal brothers,
and that he was content with destroying those vessels which formed
the ordinary means of communication between the banks, without
taking any means to inquire whether the passage was practicable
without them. The assertion of the Thapsakenes, in so far as it was
not a mere piece of flattery to Cyrus, could hardly have had any
other foundation than the fact, that they had never seen the river
crossed on foot (whether practicable or not), so long as there were
regular ferry-boats.[64]
After crossing the Euphrates,
Cyrus proceeded, for nine days’ march,[65] southward along its
left bank, until he came to its affluent, the river Araxes or
Chaboras, which divided Syria from Arabia. From the numerous and
well-supplied villages there situated, he supplied himself with a
large stock of provisions, to confront the desolate march through
Arabia on which they were about to enter, following the banks of
the Euphrates still further southward. It was now that he entered
on what may be called the Desert,—an endless breadth or
succession of undulations, “like the sea,” without any cultivation or
even any tree; nothing but wormwood and various aromatic shrubs.[66]
Here too the astonished Greeks saw, for the first time, wild asses,
antelopes, ostriches, bustards, some of which afforded sport, and
occasionally food, to the horsemen who amused themselves by chasing
them; though the wild ass was swifter than any horse, and the ostrich
altogether unapproachable. Five days’ march brought them to Korsôtê,
a town which had been abandoned by its inhabitants,—probably,
however, leaving the provision dealers behind, as had before happened
at Tarsus, in Kilikia;[67] since the army here increased their
supplies for the onward march. All that they could obtain was
required, and was indeed insufficient, for the trying journey which
awaited them. For thirteen successive days, and ninety computed
parasangs, did they march along the left bank of the Euphrates,
without provisions, and even without herbage except in some few
places. Their flour was exhausted, so that the soldiers lived for
some days altogether upon meat, while many baggage-animals perished
of hunger. Moreover the ground was often heavy and difficult, full
of hills and narrow valleys, requiring the personal efforts of every
man to push the cars and waggons at particular junctures; efforts in
which the Persian courtiers of Cyrus, under his express orders, took
zealous part, toiling in the dirt with their ornamented attire.[68]
After these thirteen days of hardship, they reached Pylæ; near
the entrance of the cultivated territory of Babylonia, where
they seem to have halted five or six days to rest and refresh.[69]
There
was on the opposite side of the river, at or near this point, a
flourishing city named Charmandê; to which many of the soldiers crossed over (by
means of skins stuffed with hay), and procured plentiful supplies,
especially of date-wine and millet.[70]
It was during this halt opposite Charmandê that a dispute occurred
among the Greeks themselves, menacing to the safety of all. I have
already mentioned that Klearchus, Menon, Proxenus, and each of the
Greek chiefs, enjoyed a separate command over his own division,
subject only to the superior control of Cyrus himself. Some of the
soldiers of Menon becoming involved in a quarrel with those of
Klearchus, the latter examined into the case, pronounced one of
Menon’s soldiers to have misbehaved, and caused him to be flogged.
The comrades of the man thus punished resented the proceeding to
such a degree, that as Klearchus was riding away from the banks of
the river to his own tent, attended by a few followers only through
the encampment of Menon,—one of the soldiers who happened to
be cutting wood, flung the hatchet at him, while others hooted and
began to pelt him with stones. Klearchus, after escaping unhurt from
this danger to his own division, immediately ordered his soldiers to
take arms and put themselves in battle order. He himself advanced at
the head of his Thracian peltasts, and his forty horsemen, in hostile
attitude against Menon’s division; who on their side ran to arms,
with Menon himself at their head, and placed themselves in order of
defence. A slight accident might have now brought on irreparable
disorder and bloodshed, had not Proxenus, coming up at the moment
with a company of his hoplites, planted himself in military array
between the two disputing parties, and entreated Klearchus to desist
from farther assault. The latter at first refused. Indignant that
his recent insult and narrow escape from death should be treated so
lightly, he desired Proxenus to retire. His wrath was not appeased,
until Cyrus himself, apprised of the gravity of the danger, came
galloping up with his personal attendants and his two javelins
in hand. “Klearchus, Proxenus, and all you Greeks (said he), you
know not what you are doing. Be assured that if you now come to
blows, it will be the hour of my destruction,—and of your own
also, shortly after me. For if your force be ruined, all these
natives whom you see around, will become more hostile to us even
than the men now serving with the King.” On hearing this (says
Xenophon) Klearchus came to his senses, and the troops dispersed
without any encounter.[71]
After passing Pylæ, the territory called Babylonia began. The
hills flanking the Euphrates, over which the army had hitherto
been passing, soon ceased, and low alluvial plains commenced.[72]
Traces were now discovered, the first throughout their long march,
of a hostile force moving in their front, ravaging the country
and burning the herbage. It was here that Cyrus detected the
treason of a Persian nobleman named Orontes, whom he examined
in his tent, in the presence of various Persians possessing his
intimate confidence, as well as of Klearchus with a guard of
three
thousand hoplites. Orontes was examined, found guilty, and privately
put to death.[73]
After three days’ march, estimated by Xenophon at twelve
parasangs, Cyrus was induced by the evidences before him, or by
the reports of deserters, to believe that the opposing army was
close at hand, and that a battle was impending. Accordingly, in the
middle of the night, he mustered his whole army, Greeks as well
as barbarians; but the enemy did not appear as had been expected.
His numbers were counted at this spot, and it was found that there
were, of Greeks ten thousand four hundred hoplites, and two thousand
five hundred peltasts; of the barbarian or Asiatic force of Cyrus,
one hundred thousand men with twenty scythed chariots. The numbers
of the Greeks had been somewhat diminished during the march, from
sickness, desertion, or other causes. The reports of deserters
described the army of Artaxerxes at one million two hundred thousand
men, besides the six thousand horse-guards commanded by Artagerses,
and two hundred scythed chariots, under the command of Abrokomas,
Tissaphernes, and two others. It was ascertained afterwards, however,
that the force of Abrokomas had not yet joined, and later accounts
represented the numerical estimation as too great by one-fourth.
In expectation of an action, Cyrus here convened the generals as
well as the Lochages (or captains) of the Greeks; as well to consult
about suitable arrangements, as to stimulate their zeal in his cause.
Few points in this narrative are more striking than the language
addressed by the Persian prince to the Greeks, on this as well as on
other occasions.
“It is not from want of native forces, men of Hellas, that I have
brought you hither, but because I account you better and braver than
any number of natives. Prove yourselves now worthy of the freedom
which you enjoy; that freedom for which I envy you, and which I would
choose, be assured, in preference to all my possessions a thousand
times multiplied. Learn now from me, who know it well, all that you
will have to encounter,—vast numbers and plenty of noise; but
if you despise these, I am ashamed to tell you what worthless stuff you will find
in these native men. Behave well,—like brave men, and trust me
for sending you back in such condition as to make your friends at
home envy you; though I hope to prevail on many of you to prefer my
service to your own homes.”
“Some of us are remarking, Cyrus, (said a Samian exile named
Gaulitês), that you are full of promises at this hour of danger, but
will forget them, or perhaps will be unable to perform them, when
danger is over.... As to ability, (replied Cyrus), my father’s empire
reaches northward to the region of intolerable cold, southward to
that of intolerable heat. All in the middle is now apportioned in
satrapies among my brother’s friends; all, if we are victorious,
will come to be distributed among mine. I have no fear of not having
enough to give away, but rather of not having friends enough to
receive it from me. To each of you Greeks, moreover, I shall present
a wreath of gold.”
Declarations like these, repeated by Cyrus to many of the Greek
soldiers, and circulated among the remainder, filled all of them
with confidence and enthusiasm in his cause. Such was the sense of
force and superiority inspired, that Klearchus asked him,—“Do
you really think, Cyrus, that your brother will fight you?... Yes,
by Zeus, (was the reply); assuredly, if he be the son of Darius and
Parysatis, and my brother, I shall not win this prize without a
battle.” All the Greeks were earnest with him at the same time not to
expose his own person, but to take post in the rear of their body.[74]
We shall see presently how this advice was followed.
The declarations here reported, as well as the expressions
employed before during the dispute between Klearchus and the soldiers
of Menon near Charmandê—being, as they are, genuine and
authentic, and not dramatic composition such as those of Æschylus
in the Persæ, nor historic amplification like the speeches ascribed
to Xerxes in Herodotus,—are among the most valuable evidences
respecting the Hellenic character generally. It is not merely the
superior courage and military discipline of the Greeks which Cyrus
attests, compared with the cowardice of Asiatics,—but also
their fidelity and sense of obligation which he contrasts with the
time-serving treachery of the latter;[75] connecting these superior
qualities with the political freedom which they enjoy. To hear
this young prince expressing such strong admiration and envy for
Grecian freedom, and such ardent personal preference for it above
all the splendor of his own position,—was doubtless the most
flattering of all compliments which he could pay to the listening
citizen-soldiers. That a young Persian prince should be capable
of conceiving such a sentiment, is no slight proof of his mental
elevation above the level both of his family and of his nation. The
natural Persian opinion is expressed by the conversation between
Xerxes and Demaratus[76] in Herodotus. To Xerxes, the conception
of free citizenship,—and of orderly, self-sufficing
courage planted by a public discipline, patriotic as well as
equalizing,—was not merely repugnant, but incomprehensible. He
understood only a master issuing orders to obedient subjects, and
stimulating soldiers to bravery by means of the whip. His descendant
Cyrus, on the contrary, had learnt by personal observation to
enter into the feeling of personal dignity prevalent in the Greeks
around him, based as it was on the conviction that they governed
themselves and that there was no man who had any rights of his
own over them,—that the law was their only master, and that
in rendering obedience to it they were working for no one else
but for themselves.[77] Cyrus knew where to touch the sentiment
of Hellenic honor, so fatally extinguished after the Greeks lost
their political freedom by the hands of the Macedonians, and exchanged for
that intellectual quickness, combined with moral degeneracy, which
Cicero and his contemporaries remark as the characteristic of these
once high-toned communities.
Having concerted the order of battle with the generals, Cyrus
marched forward in cautious array during the next day, anticipating
the appearance of the king’s forces. Nothing of the kind was seen,
however, though abundant marks of their retiring footsteps were
evident. The day’s march, (called three parasangs) having been
concluded without a battle, Cyrus called to him the Ambrakiotic
prophet Silanus, and presented him with three thousand darics or
ten Attic talents. Silanus had assured him, on the eleventh day
preceding, that there would be no action in ten days from that time;
upon which Cyrus had told him,—“If your prophecy comes true,
I will give you three thousand darics. My brother will not fight at
all, if he does not fight within ten days.”[78]
In spite of the strong opinion which he had expressed in reply
to Klearchus, Cyrus now really began to conceive that no battle
would be hazarded by his enemies; especially as in the course
of this last day’s march, he came to a broad and deep trench
(thirty feet broad and eighteen feet deep), approaching so near
to the Euphrates as to leave an interval of only twenty feet for
passage. This trench had been dug by order of Artaxerxes across
the plain, for a length said to be of twelve parasangs (about
forty-two English miles, if the parasang be reckoned at thirty
stadia), so as to touch at its other extremity what was called
the walls of Media.[79] It had been dug as a special measure of defence
against the approaching invaders. Yet we hear with surprise, and
the invaders themselves found with equal surprise, that not a man
was on the spot to defend it; so that the whole Cyreian army and
baggage passed without resistance through the narrow breadth of
twenty feet. This is the first notice of any defensive measures taken
to repel the invasion,—except the precaution of Abrokomas in
burning the boats at Thapsakus. Cyrus had been allowed to traverse
all this immense space, and to pass through so many defensible
positions, without having yet struck a blow. And now Artaxerxes,
after having cut a prodigious extent of trench at the cost of so much
labor,—provided a valuable means of resistance, especially
against Grecian heavy-armed soldiers,—and occupied it seemingly until the
very last moment,—throws it up from some unaccountable panic,
and suffers a whole army to pass unopposed through this very narrow
gut. Having surmounted unexpectedly so formidable an obstacle, Cyrus
as well as the Greeks imagined that Artaxerxes would never think
of fighting in the open plain. All began to relax in that careful
array which had been observed since the midnight review, insomuch
that he himself proceeded in his chariot instead of on horseback,
while many of the Greek soldiers lodged their arms on the waggons
or beasts of burden.[80]
On the next day but one after passing the undefended trench, they
were surprised, at a spot called Kunaxa,[81] just when they were
about to halt for the mid-day meal and repose, by the sudden intimation that
the king’s army was approaching in order of battle on the open plain.
Instantly Cyrus hastened to mount on horseback, to arm himself, and
to put his forces in order, while the Greeks on their side halted and
formed their line with all possible speed.[82] They were on the right
wing of the army, adjoining the river Euphrates; Ariæus with the
Asiatic forces being on the left, and Cyrus himself, surrounded by a
body-guard of six hundred well-armed Persian horsemen, in the centre.
Among the Greeks, Klearchus commanded the right division of hoplites,
with Paphlagonian horsemen and the Grecian peltasts on the extreme
right, close to the river; Proxenus with his division stood next;
Menon commanded on the left. All the Persian horsemen around Cyrus
had breastplates, helmets, short Grecian swords, and two javelins
in their right hands; the horses also were defended by facings both
over the breast and head. Cyrus himself, armed generally like the
rest, stood distinguished by having an upright tiara instead of the
helmet. Though the first news had come upon them by surprise, the
Cyreians had ample time to put themselves in complete order; for
the enemy did not appear until the afternoon was advanced. First,
was seen dust, like a white cloud,—next, an undefined dark
spot, gradually nearing, until the armor began to shine, and the
component divisions of troops, arranged in dense masses, became
discernible. Tissaphernes was on the left, opposite to the Greeks,
at the head of the Persian horsemen, with white cuirasses; on his
right, stood the Persian bowmen, with their gerrha, or wicker shields, spiked so
as to be fastened in the ground while arrows were shot from behind
them; next, the Egyptian infantry with long wooden shields covering
the whole body and legs. In front of all was a row of chariots with
scythes attached to the wheels, destined to begin the charge against
the Grecian phalanx.[83]
As the Greeks were completing their array, Cyrus rode to the
front, and desired Klearchus to make his attack with the Greeks
upon the centre of the enemy; since it was there that the king in
person would be posted, and if that were once beaten, the victory
was gained. But such was the superiority of Artaxerxes in numbers,
that his centre extended beyond the left of Cyrus. Accordingly
Klearchus, afraid of withdrawing his right from the river, lest
he should be taken both in flank and rear, chose to keep his
position on the right,—and merely replied to Cyrus, that he
would manage everything for the best. I have before remarked[84]
how often the fear of being attacked on the unshielded side and on
the rear, led the Greek soldier into movements inconsistent with
military expediency; and it will be seen presently that Klearchus,
blindly obeying this habitual rule of precaution, was induced here to
commit the capital mistake of keeping on the right flank, contrary
to the more judicious direction of Cyrus.[85] The latter continued
for a short time riding slowly in front of the lines, looking
alternately at the two armies, when Xenophon, one of the small total
of Grecian horsemen, and attached to the division of Proxenus, rode
forth from the line to accost him, asking if he had any orders to
give. Cyrus desired him to proclaim to every one that the sacrifices
were favorable. Hearing a murmur going through the Grecian ranks, he
inquired from Xenophon what it was; and received for answer, that the
watchword was now being passed along for the second time. He asked,
with some surprise, who gave the watchword? and what it was? Xenophon
replied that it was “Zeus the Preserver, and Victory.”—“I
accept it,” replied Cyrus; “let that be the word;” and immediately
rode away to his own post in the centre, among the Asiatics.
The vast host of Artaxerxes, advancing steadily and without
noise, were now within less than half a mile of the Cyreians, when
the Greek troops raised the pæan or usual war-cry, and began to
move forward. As they advanced, the shout became more vehement,
the pace accelerated, and at last the whole body got into a run.[86]
This might have proved unfortunate, had their opponents been other
than Grecian hoplites; but the Persians did not stand to await the
charge. They turned and fled, when the assailants were yet hardly
within bow-shot. Such was their panic, that even the drivers of the
scythed chariots in front, deserting their teams, ran away along with
the rest; while the horses, left to themselves, rushed apart in all
directions, some turning round to follow the fugitives, others coming
against the advancing Greeks, who made open order to let them pass.
The left division of the king’s army was thus routed without a blow,
and seemingly without a man killed on either side; one Greek only
being wounded by an arrow, and another by not getting out of the way
of one of the chariots.[87] Tissaphernes alone,—who, with the
body of horse immediately around him, was at the extreme Persian
left, close to the river,—formed an exception to this universal
flight. He charged and penetrated through the Grecian peltasts, who
stood opposite to him between the hoplites and the river. These
peltasts, commanded by Episthenes of Amphipolis, opened their ranks
to let him pass, darting at the men as they rode by, yet without
losing any one themselves. Tissaphernes thus got into the rear of
the Greeks, who continued, on their side, to pursue the flying
Persians before them.[88]
Matters proceeded differently in the other parts of the field.
Artaxerxes, though in the centre of his own army, yet from his
superior numbers outflanked Ariæus, who commanded the extreme left
of the Cyreians.[89] Finding no one directly opposed to him,
he began to wheel round his right wing, to encompass his enemies;
not noticing the flight of his left division. Cyrus, on the other
hand, when he saw the easy victory of the Greeks on their side, was
overjoyed; and received from every one around him salutations, as
if he were already king. Nevertheless, he had self-command enough not
yet to rush forward as if the victory was already gained,[90]
but remained unmoved, with his regiment of six hundred horse around
him, watching the movements of Artaxerxes. As soon as he saw the
latter wheeling round his right division to get upon the rear of the
Cyreians, he hastened to check this movement by an impetuous charge
upon the centre, where Artaxerxes was in person, surrounded by the
body-guard of six thousand horse, under Artagerses. So vigorous
was the attack of Cyrus, that with his six hundred horse, he broke
and dispersed this body-guard, killing Artagerses with his own
hand. His own six hundred horse rushed forward in pursuit of the
fugitives, leaving Cyrus himself nearly alone, with only the select
few, called his “Table-Companions,” around him. It was under these
circumstances that he first saw his brother Artaxerxes, whose person
had been exposed to view by the flight of the body-guards. The sight
filled him with such a paroxysm of rage and jealous ambition,[91]
that he lost all thought of safety or prudence,—cried out,
“I see the man,”—and rushed forward with his mere handful
of companions to attack Artaxerxes, in spite of the numerous host
behind him. Cyrus made directly at his brother, darting his javelin
with so true an aim as to strike him in the breast, and wound him
through the cuirass; though the wound (afterwards cured by the
Greek surgeon Ktesias) could not have been very severe, since
Artaxerxes did not quit the field, but, on the contrary, engaged
in personal combat, he and those around him, against this handful
of assailants. So unequal a combat did not last long. Cyrus, being
severely wounded under the eye by the javelin of a Karian soldier,
was cast from his horse and slain. The small number of faithful
companions
around him all perished in his defence. Artasyras, who stood first
among them in his confidence and attachment, seeing him mortally
wounded and fallen, cast himself down upon him, clasped him in his
arms, and in this position either slew himself, or was slain by
order of the king.[92]
The head and the right hand of the deceased prince were
immediately cut off by order of Artaxerxes, and doubtless exhibited
conspicuously to view. This was a proclamation to every one that the
entire contest was at an end; and so it was understood by Ariæus,
who, together with all the Asiatic troops of Cyrus, deserted the
field and fled back to the camp. Not even there did they defend
themselves, when the king and his forces pursued them; but fled
yet farther back to the resting-place of the previous night. The
troops of Artaxerxes got into the camp and began to plunder it
without resistance. Even the harem of Cyrus fell into their power.
It included two Grecian women,—of free condition, good family,
and education,—one from Phokæa, the other from Miletus,
brought to him, by force, from their parents to Sardis. The elder
of these two, the Phokæan, named Milto, distinguished alike for beauty and
accomplished intelligence, was made prisoner and transferred to the
harem of Artaxerxes; the other, a younger person, found means to save
herself, though without her upper garments,[93] and sought shelter
among some Greeks who were left in the camp on guard of the
Grecian baggage. These Greeks repelled the Persian assailants with
considerable slaughter; preserving their own baggage, as well as
the persons of all who fled to them for shelter. But the Asiatic
camp of the Cyreians was completely pillaged, not excepting those
reserved waggons of provisions which Cyrus had provided in order that
his Grecian auxiliaries might be certain, under all circumstances,
of a supply.[94]
While Artaxerxes was thus stripping the Cyreian camp, he
was joined by Tissaphernes and his division of horse, who had
charged through between the Grecian division and the river. At
this time, there was a distance of no less than thirty stadia or
three and a half miles between him and Klearchus with the Grecian
division; so far had the latter advanced forward in pursuit of
the Persian fugitives. Apprised, after some time, that the king’s
troops had been victorious on the left and centre, and were
masters of the camp,—but not yet knowing of the death of
Cyrus,—Klearchus marched back his troops, and met the enemy’s
forces also returning. He was apprehensive of being surrounded
by superior numbers, and therefore took post with his rear upon
the river. In this position, Artaxerxes again marshalled his troops in
front, as if to attack him, but the Greeks, anticipating his
movement, were first in making the attack themselves, and forced
the Persians to take flight even more terror-stricken than before.
Klearchus, thus relieved from all enemies, waited awhile in hopes
of hearing news of Cyrus. He then returned to the camp, which was
found stripped of all its stores; so that the Greeks were compelled
to pass the night without supper, while most of them also had had
no dinner, from the early hour at which the battle had commenced.[95]
It was only on the next morning that they learnt, through Proklês
(descendant of the Spartan king Demaratus, formerly companion of
Xerxes in the invasion of Greece), that Cyrus had been slain;
news which converted their satisfaction at their own triumph into
sorrow and dismay.[96]
Thus terminated the battle of Kunaxa, and along with it the
ambitious hopes as well as the life of this young prince. His
character and proceedings suggest instructive remarks. Both in
the conduct of this expedition, and in the two or three years
of administration in Asia Minor which preceded it, he displayed
qualities such as are not seen in Cyrus called the Great, nor in
any other member of the Persian regal family, nor indeed in any
other Persian general throughout the history of the monarchy.
We observe a large and long-sighted combination,—a power
of foreseeing difficulties, and providing means beforehand for
overcoming them,—a dexterity in meeting variable exigencies,
and dealing with different parties, Greeks or Asiatics, officers
or soldiers,—a conviction of the necessity, not merely of
purchasing men’s service by lavish presents, but of acquiring
their confidence by straightforward dealing and systematic good
faith,—a power of repressing displeasure when policy
commanded, as at the desertion of Xenias and Pasion, and the first
conspiracies of Orontes; although usually the punishments which
he inflicted were full of Oriental barbarity. How rare were the
merits and accomplishments of Cyrus, as a Persian, will be best felt
when we contrast this portrait, by Xenophon, with the description
of the Persian satraps by Isokrates.[97] That many persons deserted
from Artaxerxes to Cyrus,—none, except Orontes, from Cyrus
to Artaxerxes,—has been remarked by Xenophon. Not merely
throughout the march, but even as to the manner of fighting at
Kunaxa, the judgment of Cyrus was sounder than that of Klearchus.
The two matters of supreme importance to the Greeks, were, to take
care of the person of Cyrus, and to strike straight at that of
Artaxerxes with the central division around him. Now it was the fault
of Klearchus, and not of Cyrus, that both these matters were omitted;
and that the Greeks gained only a victory comparatively insignificant
on the right. Yet in spite of such mistake, not his own, it appears
that Cyrus would have been victorious, had he been able to repress
that passionate burst of antipathy which drove him, like a madman,
against his brother. The same insatiable ambition, and jealous
fierceness when power was concerned, which had before led him to put
to death two first cousins, because they omitted, in his presence, an
act of deference never paid except to the king in person,—this
same impulse, exasperated by the actual sight of his rival brother,
and by that standing force of fraternal antipathy so frequent in
regal families,[98] blinded him, for the moment, to all
rational calculation.
We may however remark that Hellas, as a whole, had no cause to
regret the fall of Cyrus at Kunaxa. Had he dethroned his brother
and become king, the Persian empire would have acquired under his
hand such a degree of strength as might probably have enabled him to
forestall the work afterwards performed by the Macedonian kings, and
to make the Greeks in Europe as well as those in Asia his dependents.
He would have employed Grecian military organization against Grecian
independence, as Philip and Alexander did after him. His money would
have enabled him to hire an overwhelming force of Grecian officers
and soldiers, who would (to use the expression of Proxenus as
recorded by Xenophon[99]) have thought him a better friend to
them than their own country. It would have enabled him also to
take advantage of dissension and venality in the interior of each
Grecian city, and thus to weaken their means of defence while he
strengthened his own means of attack. This was a policy which none
of the Persian kings, from Darius son of Hystaspes down to Darius
Codomanus, had ability or perseverance enough to follow out; none of
them knew either the true value of Grecian instruments, or how to
employ them with effect. The whole conduct of Cyrus, in reference
to this memorable expedition, manifests a superior intelligence,
competent to use the resources which victory would have put in his
hands,—and an ambition likely to use them against the Greeks,
in avenging the humiliations of Marathon, Salamis, and the peace of
Kallias.
CHAPTER LXX. RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND GREEKS.
The
first triumphant feeling of the Greek troops at Kunaxa was exchanged,
as soon as they learnt the death of Cyrus, for dismay and sorrow;
accompanied by unavailing repentance for the venture into which
he and Klearchus had seduced them. Probably Klearchus himself too
repented, and with good reason, of having displayed, in his manner of
fighting the battle, so little foresight, and so little regard either
to the injunctions or to the safety of Cyrus. Nevertheless he still
maintained the tone of a victor in the field, and after expressions
of grief for the fate of the young prince, desired Proklês and Glus
to return to Ariæus, with the reply, that the Greeks on their side
were conquerors without any enemy remaining; that they were about
to march onward against Artaxerxes; and that if Ariæus would join
them, they would place him on the throne which had been intended for
Cyrus. While this reply was conveyed to Ariæus by his particular
friend Menon along with the messengers, the Greeks procured a meal
as well as they could, having no bread, by killing some of the
baggage animals; and by kindling fire, to cook their meat, from
the arrows, the wooden Egyptian shields which had been thrown away
on the field, and the baggage carts.[100]
Before any answer could be received from Ariæus, heralds
appeared coming from Artaxerxes; among them being Phalinus, a Greek
from Zakynthus, and the Greek surgeon Ktesias of Knidus, who was
in the service of the Persian king.[101] Phalinus, an
officer
of some military experience and in the confidence of Tissaphernes,
addressed himself to the Greek commanders; requiring them on the
part of the king, since he was now victor and had slain Cyrus, to
surrender their arms and appeal to his mercy. To this summons,
painful in the extreme to a Grecian ear, Klearchus replied that it
was not the practice for victorious men to lay down their arms.
Being then called away to examine the sacrifice which was going
on, he left the interview to the other officers, who met the
summons of Phalinus by an emphatic negative. “If the king thinks
himself strong enough to ask for our arms unconditionally, let him
come and try to seize them.” “The king (rejoined Phalinus) thinks
that you are in his power, being in the midst of his territory,
hemmed in by impassable rivers, and encompassed by his innumerable
subjects.”—“Our arms and our valor are all that remain to us
(replied a young Athenian); we shall not be fools enough to hand
over to you our only remaining treasure, but shall employ them still
to have a fight for your treasure.”[102] But though several
spoke in this resolute tone, there were not wanting others disposed
to encourage a negotiation; saying that they had been faithful to
Cyrus as long as he lived, and would now be faithful to Artaxerxes,
if he wanted their services in Egypt or anywhere else. In the midst
of this parley Klearchus returned, and was requested by Phalinus
to return a final answer on behalf of all. He at first asked the
advice of Phalinus himself; appealing to the common feeling of
Hellenic patriotism, and anticipating, with very little judgment,
that the latter would encourage the Greeks in holding out. “If
(replied Phalinus) I saw one chance out of ten thousand in your
favor, in the event of a contest with the king, I should advise you
to refuse the surrender of your arms. But as there is no chance
of safety for you against the king’s consent, I recommend you to
look out for safety in the only quarter where it presents itself.”
Sensible of the mistake which he had made in asking the question,
Klearchus rejoined,—“That is your opinion; now report our
answer: We think we shall be better friends to the king, if we
are to be his friends,—or more effective enemies, if we are
to be his enemies,—with our arms, than without them.” Phalinus, in
retiring, said that the king proclaimed a truce so long as they
remained in their present position,—but war, if they moved,
either onward or backward. And to this Klearchus acceded, without
declaring which he intended to do.[103]
Shortly after the departure of Phalinus, the envoys despatched to
Ariæus returned; communicating his reply, that the Persian grandees
would never tolerate any pretensions on his part to the crown, and
that he intended to depart early the next morning on his return; if
the Greeks wished to accompany him, they must join him during the
night. In the evening, Klearchus, convening the generals and the
lochages (or captains of lochi), acquainted them that the morning
sacrifice had been of a nature to forbid their marching against the
king,—a prohibition of which he now understood the reason,
from having since learnt that the king was on the other side of the
Tigris, and therefore out of their reach,—but that it was
favorable for rejoining Ariæus. He gave directions accordingly for a
night-march back along the Euphrates, to the station where they had
passed the last night but one prior to the battle. The other Grecian
generals, without any formal choice of Klearchus as chief, tacitly
acquiesced in his orders, from a sense of his superior decision and
experience, in an emergency when no one knew what to propose. The
night-march was successfully accomplished, so that they joined Ariæus
at the preceding station about midnight; not without the alarming
symptom, however, that Miltokythês the Thracian deserted to the king,
at the head of three hundred and forty of his countrymen, partly
horse, partly foot.
The first proceeding of the Grecian generals was to exchange
solemn oaths of reciprocal fidelity and fraternity with Ariæus.
According to an ancient and impressive practice, a bull, a
wolf, a boar, and a ram, were all slain, and their blood
allowed to run into the hollow of a shield; in which the Greek
generals dipped a sword, and Ariæus, with his chief companions,
a spear.[104] The latter, besides the promise of
alliance, engaged also to guide the Greeks, in good faith, down to
the Asiatic coast. Klearchus immediately began to ask what route he
proposed to take; whether to return by that along which they had
come up, or by any other. To this Ariæus replied, that the road
along which they had marched was impracticable for retreat, from the
utter want of provisions through seventeen days of desert; but that
he intended to choose another road, which, though longer, would be
sufficiently productive to furnish them with provisions. There was,
however, a necessity (he added), that the first two or three days’
marches should be of extreme length, in order that they might get
out of the reach of the king’s forces, who would hardly be able to
overtake them afterwards with any considerable numbers.
They had now come ninety-three days’ march[105] from Ephesus, or ninety from
Sardis.[106] The distance from Sardis to Kunaxa is,
according to Colonel Chesney, about twelve hundred and sixty-five
geographical miles, or fourteen hundred and sixty-four English
miles. There had been at least ninety-six days of rest, enjoyed
at various places, so that the total of time elapsed must have
at least been one hundred and eighty-nine days, or a little more
than half a year;[107] but it was probably greater, since some
intervals of rest are not specified in number of days.
How to retrace their steps, was now the problem, apparently
insoluble. As to the military force of Persia in the field,
indeed, not merely the easy victory at Kunaxa, but still more
the undisputed march throughout so long a space, left them no
serious
apprehensions.[108] In spite of this great extent,
population, and riches, they had been allowed to pass through
the most difficult and defensible country, and to ford the broad
Euphrates, without a blow; nay, the king had shrunk from defending
the long trench which he had specially caused to be dug for the
protection of Babylonia. But the difficulties which stood between
them and their homes were of a very different character. How were
they to find their way back, or obtain provisions, in defiance of
a numerous hostile cavalry, which, not without efficiency even
in a pitched battle would be most formidable in opposing their
retreat? The line of their upward march had all been planned, with
supplies furnished, by Cyrus;—yet even under such advantages,
supplies had been on the point of failing, in one part of the
march. They were now, for the first time, called upon to think
and provide for themselves; without knowledge of either roads or
distances,—without trustworthy guides,—without any
one to furnish or even to indicate supplies,—and with a
territory all hostile, traversed by rivers which they had no means
of crossing. Klearchus himself knew nothing of the country, nor of
any other river except the Euphrates; nor does he indeed, in his
heart, seem to have conceived retreat as practicable without the
consent of the king.[109] The reader who casts his eye on a map
of Asia, and imagines the situation of this Greek division on the
left bank of the Euphrates, near the parallel of latitude 33°
30′—will hardly be surprised at any measure of despair, on the
part either of general or soldiers. And we may add that Klearchus had
not even the advantage of such a map, or probably of any map at all,
to enable him to shape his course.
In this dilemma, the first and most natural impulse was to
consult Ariæus who (as has been already stated) pronounced, with
good reason, that return by the same road was impracticable; and
promised to conduct them home by another road,—longer indeed,
yet better supplied. At daybreak on the ensuing morning, they began
their march in an easterly direction, anticipating that before night
they should reach some villages of the Babylonian territory, as
in fact they did;[110] yet not before they had been alarmed
in the
afternoon by the supposed approach of some of the enemy’s horse, and
by evidences that the enemy were not far off, which induced them to
slacken their march for the purpose of more cautious array. Hence
they did not reach the first villages before dark; and these too had
been pillaged by the enemy while retreating before them, so that
only the first-comers under Klearchus could obtain accommodation,
while the succeeding troops, coming up in the dark, pitched as they
could without any order. The whole camp was a scene of clamor,
dispute, and even alarm, throughout the night. No provisions could be
obtained. Early the next morning Klearchus ordered them under arms; and desiring
to expose the groundless nature of the alarm, caused the herald to
proclaim, that whoever would denounce the person who had let the
ass into the camp on the preceding night, should be rewarded with a
talent of silver.[111]
What was the project of route entertained by Ariæus, we cannot
ascertain;[112] since it was not farther pursued. For the
effect of the unexpected arrival of the Greeks as if to attack the
enemy,—and even the clamor and shouting of the camp during
the night—so intimidated the Persian commanders, that they
sent heralds the next morning to treat about a truce. The contrast
between this message, and the haughty summons of the preceding day
to lay down their arms, was sensibly felt by the Grecian officers,
and taught them that the proper way of dealing with the Persians was
by a bold and aggressive demeanor. When Klearchus was apprised of
the arrival of the heralds, he desired them at first to wait at the
outposts until he was at leisure; then, having put his troops into
the best possible order, with a phalanx compact on every side to the
eye, and the unarmed persons out of sight, he desired the heralds
to be admitted. He marched out to meet them with the most showy and
best-armed soldiers immediately around him, and when they informed
him that they had come from the king with instructions to propose a
truce, and to report on what conditions the Greeks would agree to it,
Klearchus replied abruptly,—“Well then,—go and tell the
king, that our first business must be to fight; for we have nothing
to eat, nor will any man presume to talk to Greeks about a truce,
without first providing dinner for them.” With this reply the heralds
rode off, but returned very speedily; thus making it plain that the
king, or the commanding officer, was near at hand. They brought word
that the king thought their answer reasonable, and had sent guides to
conduct them to a place where they would obtain provisions, if the
truce should be concluded.
After an affected delay and hesitation, in order to impose upon
the Persians, Klearchus concluded the truce, and desired that
the guides
would conduct the army to those quarters where provisions could
be had. He was most circumspect in maintaining exact order during
the march, himself taking charge of the rear guard. The guides
led them over many ditches and channels, full of water, and cut
for the purpose of irrigation; some so broad and deep that they
could not be crossed without bridges. The army had to put together
bridges for the occasion, from palm trees either already fallen,
or expressly cut down. This was a troublesome business, which
Klearchus himself superintended with peculiar strictness. He carried
his spear in the left hand, his stick in the right; employing the
latter to chastise any soldier who seemed remiss,—and even
plunging into the mud and lending his own hands in aid wherever
it was necessary.[113] As it was not the usual season of
irrigation for crops, he suspected that the canals had been filled on
this occasion expressly to intimidate the Greeks, by impressing them
with the difficulties of their prospective march; and he was anxious
to demonstrate to the Persians that these difficulties were no more
than Grecian energy could easily surmount.
At length they reached certain villages indicated by their guides
for quarters and provision; and here for the first time they had a
sample of that unparalleled abundance of the Babylonian territory,
which Herodotus is afraid to describe with numerical precision. Large
quantities of corn,—dates not only in great numbers, but of
such beauty, freshness, size and flavor, as no Greek had ever seen
or tasted, insomuch that fruit like what was imported into Greece,
was disregarded and left for the slaves,—wine and vinegar, both
also made from the date-palm: these are the luxuries which Xenophon
is eloquent in describing, after his recent period of scanty fare
and anxious apprehension; not without also noticing the headaches
which such new and luscious food, in unlimited quanity, brought upon
himself and others.[114]
After three days passed in these restorative quarters, they
were visited by Tissaphernes, accompanied by four Persian grandees
and a suite of slaves. The satrap began to open a negotiation
with Klearchus and the other generals. Speaking through an
interpreter, he stated to them that the vicinity of his satrapy to Greece
impressed him with a strong interest in favor of the Cyreian Greeks,
and made him anxious to rescue them out of their present desperate
situation; that he had solicited the king’s permission to save them,
as a personal recompense to himself for having been the first to
forewarn him of the schemes of Cyrus, and for having been the only
Persian who had not fled before the Greeks at Kunaxa; that the King
had promised to consider this point, and had sent him in the meantime
to ask the Greeks what their purpose was in coming up to attack
him; and that he trusted the Greeks would give him a conciliatory
answer to carry back, in order that he might have less difficulty
in realizing what he desired for their benefit. To this Klearchus,
after first deliberating apart with the other officers, replied,
that the army had come together, and had even commenced their march,
without any purpose of hostility to the King; that Cyrus had brought
them up the country under false pretences, but that they had been
ashamed to desert him in the midst of danger, since he had always
treated them generously; that since Cyrus was now dead, they had
no purpose of hostility against the King, but were only anxious
to return home; that they were prepared to repel hostility from
all quarters, but would be not less prompt in requiting favor or
assistance. With this answer Tissaphernes departed, and returned on
the next day but one, informing them that he had obtained the King’s
permission to save the Grecian army,—though not without great
opposition, since many Persian counsellors contended that it was
unworthy of the King’s dignity, to suffer those who had assailed
him to escape. “I am now ready (said he) to conclude a covenant and
exchange oaths with you; engaging to conduct you safely back into
Greece, with the country friendly, and with a regular market for you
to purchase provisions. You must stipulate on your part always to
pay for your provisions, and to do no damage to the country. If I do
not furnish you with provisions to buy, you are then at liberty to
take them where you can find them.” Well were the Greeks content to
enter into such a covenant, which was sworn, with hands given upon
it, by Klearchus, the other generals, and the lochages, on their
side,—and by Tissaphernes with the King’s brother-in-law on
the other. Tissaphernes then left them, saying that he would go back to
the King, make preparations, and return to reconduct the Greeks
home; going himself to his own satrapy.[115]
The statements of Ktesias, though known to us only indirectly
and not to be received without caution, afford ground for believing
that Queen Parysatis decidedly wished success to her son Cyrus in
his contest for the throne,—that the first report conveyed
to her of the battle of Kunaxa, announcing the victory of Cyrus,
filled her with joy, which was exchanged for bitter sorrow when
she was informed of his death,—that she caused to be slain
with horrible tortures all those, who though acting in the Persian
army and for the defence of Artaxerxes, had any participation
in the death of Cyrus—and that she showed favorable
dispositions towards the Cyreian Greeks.[116] It seems probable,
farther, that her influence may have been exerted to procure for them
an unimpeded retreat, without anticipating the use afterwards made
by Tissaphernes (as will soon appear) of the present convention.
And in one point of view, the Persian king had an interest in
facilitating their retreat. For the very circumstance which rendered
retreat difficult, also rendered the Greeks dangerous to him in
their actual position. They were in the heart of the Persian
empire, within seventy miles of Babylon; in a country not only
teeming with fertility, but also extremely defensible; especially
against cavalry, from the multiplicity of canals, as Herodotus
observed respecting Lower Egypt.[117] And Klearchus might
say to his Grecian soldiers,—what Xenophon was afterwards
preparing to say to them at Kalpê on the Euxine Sea, and what
Nikias also affirmed to the unhappy Athenian army whom he conducted
away from Syracuse[118]—that wherever they sat down,
they were sufficiently numerous and well-organized to become at
once a city. A body of such troops might effectually assist, and
would perhaps encourage, the Babylonian population to throw off
the Persian yoke, and to exonerate themselves from the prodigious
tribute which they now paid to the satrap. For these reasons, the advisers of
Artaxerxes thought it advantageous to convey the Greeks across the
Tigris out of Babylonia, beyond all possibility of returning thither.
This was at any rate the primary object of the convention. And it was
the more necessary to conciliate the good-will of the Greeks, because
there seems to have been but one bridge over the Tigris; which bridge
could only be reached by inviting them to advance considerably
farther into the interior of Babylonia.
Such was the state of fears and hopes on both sides, at the time
when Tissaphernes left the Greeks, after concluding his convention.
For twenty days did they await his return, without receiving from him
any communication; the Cyreian Persians under Ariæus being encamped
near them. Such prolonged and unexplained delay became, after a few
days, the source of much uneasiness to the Greeks; the more so as
Ariæus received during this interval several visits from his Persian
kinsmen, and friendly messages from the king, promising amnesty for
his recent services under Cyrus. Of these messages the effects were
painfully felt in manifest coldness of demeanor on the part of his
Persian troops towards the Greeks. Impatient and suspicious, the
Greek soldiers impressed upon Klearchus their fears, that the king
had concluded the recent convention only to arrest their movements,
until he should have assembled a larger army and blocked up more
effectually the roads against their return. To this Klearchus
replied,—“I am aware of all that you say. Yet if we now strike
our tents, it will be a breach of the convention and a declaration of
war. No one will furnish us with provisions; we shall have no guides;
Ariæus will desert us forthwith, so that we shall have his troops
as enemies instead of friends. Whether there be any other river for
us to cross, I know not; but we know that the Euphrates itself can
never be crossed, if there be an enemy to resist us. Nor have we any
cavalry,—while cavalry is the best and most numerous force of
our enemies. If the king, having all these advantages, really wishes
to destroy us, I do not know why he should falsely exchange all
these oaths and solemnities, and thus make his own word worthless in
the eyes both of Greeks and barbarians.”[119]
Such
words from Klearchus are remarkable, as they testify his own
complete despair of the situation,—certainly a very natural
despair,—except by amicable dealing with the Persians; and
also his ignorance of geography and the country to be traversed.
This feeling helps to explain his imprudent confidence afterwards in
Tissaphernes.
That satrap, however, after twenty days, at last came back, with
his army prepared to return to Ionia,—with the king’s daughter
whom he had just received in marriage,—and with another
grandee named Orontas. Tissaphernes took the conduct of the march,
providing supplies for the Greek troops to purchase; while Ariæus and
his division now separated themselves altogether from the Greeks,
and became intermingled with the other Persians. Klearchus and the
Greeks followed them, at the distance of about three miles in the
rear, with a separate guide for themselves; not without jealousy and
mistrust, sometimes shown in individual conflicts, while collecting
wood or forage, between them and the Persians of Ariæus. After three
days’ march (that is, apparently, three days, calculated from the
moment when they began their retreat with Ariæus) they came to the
Wall of Media, and passed through it,[120] prosecuting their
march onward through the country on its other or interior side. It
was of bricks cemented with bitumen, one hundred feet high, and
twenty feet broad; it was said to extend a length of twenty parasangs
(or about seventy miles, if we reckon the parasang at thirty stadia),
and to be not far distant from Babylon. Two days of farther march, computed as
eight parasangs, brought them to the Tigris. During these two days
they crossed two great ship canals, one of them over a permanent
bridge, the other over a temporary bridge laid on seven boats.
Canals of such magnitude must probably have been two among the four
stated by Xenophon to be drawn from the river Tigris, each of them a
parasang distant from the other. They were one hundred feet broad,
and deep enough even for heavy vessels; they were distributed by
means of numerous smaller channels and ditches for the irrigation of
the soil; and they were said to fall into the Euphrates; or rather,
perhaps, they terminated in one main larger canal cut directly from
the Euphrates to the Tigris, each of them joining this larger canal
at a different point of its course. Within less than two miles of the
Tigris was a large and populous city named Sittakê, near which the
Greeks pitched their camp, on the verge of a beautiful park or thick
grove full of all kinds of trees; while the Persians all crossed the
Tigris, at the neighboring bridge.
As Proxenus and Xenophon were here walking in front of the camp
after supper, a man was brought up who had asked for the former at
the advanced posts. This man said that he came with instructions
from Ariæus. He advised the Greeks to be on their guard, as there
were troops concealed in the adjoining grove, for the purpose of
attacking them during the night,—and also to send and occupy
the bridge over the Tigris, since Tissaphernes intended to break it
down, in order that the Greeks might be caught without possibility
of escape between the river and the canal. On discussing this
information with Klearchus, who was much alarmed by it, a young
Greek present remarked that the two matters stated by the informant
contradicted each other; for that if Tissaphernes intended to
attack the Greeks during the night, he would not break down the
bridge, so as both to prevent his own troops on the other side from
crossing to aid, and to deprive those on this side of all retreat
if they were beaten,—while, if the Greeks were beaten, there
was no escape open to them, whether the bridge continued or not.
This remark induced Klearchus to ask the messenger, what was the
extent of ground between the Tigris and the canal. The messenger
replied, that it was a great extent of country, comprising many large
cities and villages. Reflecting on this communication, the Greek
officers came to the conclusion that the message was a stratagem on the part
of Tissaphernes to frighten them and accelerate their passage across
the Tigris; under the apprehension that they might conceive the plan
of seizing or breaking the bridge and occupying a permanent position
in the spot where they were; which was an island, fortified on one
side by the Tigris,—on the other sides, by intersecting canals
between the Euphrates and the Tigris.[121] Such an island
was a
defensible position, having a most productive territory with numerous
cultivators, so as to furnish shelter and means of hostility for all
the king’s enemies. Tissaphernes calculated that the message now delivered
would induce the Greeks to become alarmed with their actual
position and to cross the Tigris with as little delay as possible.
At least this was the interpretation which the Greek officers put
upon his proceeding; an interpretation highly plausible, since,
in order to reach the bridge over the Tigris, he had been obliged
to conduct the Greek troops into a position sufficiently tempting
for them to hold,—and since he knew that his own purposes
were purely treacherous. But the Greeks, officers as well as soldiers, were
animated only by the wish of reaching home. They trusted, though not
without misgivings, in the promise of Tissaphernes to conduct them;
and never for a moment thought of taking permanent post in this
fertile island. They did not, however, neglect the precaution of
sending a guard during the night to the bridge over the Tigris, which
no enemy came to assail. On the next morning they passed over it in a
body, in cautious and mistrustful array, and found themselves on the
eastern bank of the Tigris,—not only without attack, but even
without sight of a single Persian, except Glus, the interpreter, and
a few others watching their motions.
After having crossed by a bridge laid upon thirty-seven pontoons,
the Greeks continued their march to the northward upon the eastern
side of the Tigris, for four days, to the river Physkus; said to be
twenty parasangs.[122] The Physkus was one hundred feet wide,
with a bridge, and the large city of Opis near it. Here, at the
frontier of Assyria and Media, the road from the eastern regions to
Babylon joined the road northerly on which the Greeks were marching.
An illegitimate brother of Artaxerxes was seen at the head of a
numerous force, which he was conducting from Susa and Ekbatana as
a reinforcement to the royal army. This great host halted to see
the Greeks pass by; and Klearchus ordered the march in column of
two abreast, employing himself actively to maintain an excellent
array, and halting more than once. The army thus occupied so long
a time in passing by the Persian host, that their numbers appeared
greater than the reality, even to themselves; while the effect upon
the Persian spectators was very imposing.[123] Here Assyria ended
and Media began. They marched, still in a northerly direction, for
six days through a portion of Media almost unpeopled, until they came
to some flourishing villages which formed a portion of the domain
of queen Parysatis; probably these villages, forming so marked an
exception to the desert character of the remaining march, were situated on the
Lesser Zab, which flows into the Tigris, and which Xenophon must have
crossed, though he makes no mention of it. According to the order
of march stipulated between the Greeks and Tissaphernes, the latter
only provided a supply of provisions for the former to purchase; but
on the present halt, he allowed the Greeks to plunder the villages,
which were rich and full of all sorts of subsistence,—yet
without carrying off the slaves. The wish of the satrap to put an
insult on Cyrus, as his personal enemy,[124] through Parysatis,
thus proved a sentence of ruin to these unhappy villagers. Five
more days’ march, called twenty parasangs, brought them to the
banks of the river Zabatus, or the Greater Zab, which flows
into the Tigris near a town now called Senn. During the first
of these five days, they saw on the opposite side of the Tigris
a large town called Kænæ, from whence they received supplies of
provisions, brought across by the inhabitants upon rafts supported
by inflated skins.[125]
On the banks of the Great Zab they halted three days,—days
of serious and tragical moment. Having been under feelings of
mistrust, ever since the convention with Tissaphernes, they
had followed throughout the whole march, with separate guides
of their own, in the rear of his army, always maintaining
their encampment apart. During their halt on the Zab, so many
various manifestations occurred to aggravate the mistrust, that hostilities
seemed on the point of breaking out between the two camps. To obviate
this danger Klearchus demanded an interview with Tissaphernes,
represented to him the threatening attitude of affairs, and insisted
on the necessity of coming to a clear understanding. He impressed
upon the satrap that, over and above the solemn oaths which had been
interchanged, the Greeks on their side could have no conceivable
motive to quarrel with him; that they had everything to hope from his
friendship, and everything to fear, even to the loss of all chance
of safe return, from his hostility; that Tissaphernes, also, could
gain nothing by destroying them, but would find them, if he chose,
the best and most faithful instruments for his own aggrandizement
and for conquering the Mysians and the Pisidians,—as Cyrus
had experienced while he was alive. Klearchus concluded his
protest by requesting to be informed, what malicious reporter had
been filling the mind of Tissaphernes with causeless suspicions
against the Greeks.[126]
“Klearchus (replied the satrap), I rejoice to hear such excellent
sense from your lips. You remark truly, that if you were to meditate
evil against me, it would recoil upon yourselves. I shall prove
to you, in my turn, that you have no cause to mistrust either the
king or me. If we had wished to destroy you, nothing would be
easier. We have superabundant forces for the purpose; there are
wide plains in which you would be starved,—besides mountains
and rivers which you would be unable to pass, without our help.
Having thus the means of destroying you in our hands, and having
nevertheless bound ourselves by solemn oaths to save you, we shall
not be fools and knaves enough to attempt it now, when we should
draw upon ourselves the just indignation of the gods. It is my
peculiar affection for my neighbors, the Greeks,—and my
wish to attach to my own person, by ties of gratitude, the Greek
soldiers of Cyrus,—which have made me eager to conduct you
to Ionia in safety. For I know that when you are in my service,
though the king is the only man who can wear his tiara erect
upon his head, I shall be able to wear mine erect upon my
heart, in full pride and confidence.”[127]
So powerful
was the impression made upon Klearchus by these assurances, that
he exclaimed,—“Surely those informers deserve the severest
punishment, who try to put us at enmity, when we are such good
friends to each other, and have so much reason to be so.” “Yes
(replied Tissaphernes), they deserve nothing less; and if you, with
the other generals and lochages, will come into my tent to-morrow, I
will tell you who the calumniators are.” “To-be-sure I will (rejoined
Klearchus), and bring the other generals with me. I shall tell you at
the same time, who are the parties that seek to prejudice us against
you.” The conversation then ended, the satrap detaining Klearchus
to dinner, and treating him in the most hospitable and confidential
manner.
On the next morning, Klearchus communicated what had passed
to the Greeks, insisting on the necessity that all the generals
should go to Tissaphernes pursuant to his invitation; in order
to reëstablish that confidence which unworthy calumniators had
shaken, and to punish such of the calumniators as might be Greeks.
So emphatically did he pledge himself for the good faith and
philhellenic dispositions of the satrap, that he overruled the
opposition of many among the soldiers; who, still continuing to
entertain their former suspicions, remonstrated especially against
the extreme imprudence of putting all the generals at once into
the power of Tissaphernes. The urgency of Klearchus prevailed.
Himself with four other generals,—Proxenus, Menon, Agias, and
Sokrates,—and twenty lochages or captains,—went to visit
the satrap in his tent; about two hundred of the soldiers going
along with them, to make purchases for their own account in the
Persian camp-market.[128]
On reaching the quarters of Tissaphernes,—distant nearly
three miles from the Grecian camp, according to habit,—the five
generals were admitted into the interior, while the lochages remained
at the entrance. A purple flag, hoisted from the top of the tent,
betrayed too late the purpose for which they had been invited to
come. The lochages and the Grecian soldiers who had accompanied them
were surprised and cut down, while the generals in the interior were
detained, put in chains, and carried up as prisoners to the Persian
court. Here Klearchus, Proxenus, Agias, and Sokrates were beheaded after a short
imprisonment. Queen Parysatis, indeed, from affection to Cyrus, not
only furnished many comforts to Klearchus in the prison, by the hands
of her surgeon, Ktesias, but used all her influence with her son
Artaxerxes to save his life; though her efforts were counteracted,
on this occasion, by the superior influence of queen Stateira, his
wife. The rivalry between these two royal women, doubtless arising
out of many other circumstances besides the death of Klearchus,
became soon afterwards so furious, that Parysatis caused Stateira
to be poisoned.[129]
Menon was not put to death along with the other generals. He
appears to have taken credit at the Persian court for the treason
of entrapping his colleagues into the hands of Tissaphernes. But
his life was only prolonged to perish a year afterwards in disgrace
and torture,—probably by the requisition of Parysatis,
who thus avenged the death of Klearchus. The queen-mother had
always power enough to perpetrate cruelties, though not always
to avert them.[130] She had already brought to a miserable end
every one, even faithful defenders of Artaxerxes, concerned in the
death of her son Cyrus.
Though Menon thought it convenient, when brought up to Babylon, to
boast of having been the instrument through whom the generals were
entrapped into the fatal tent, this boast is not to be treated as
matter of fact. For not only does Xenophon explain the catastrophe
differently, but in the delineation which he gives of Menon, dark
and odious as it is in the extreme, he does not advance any such
imputation; indirectly, indeed, he sets it aside.[131] Unfortunately for
the reputation of Klearchus, no such reasonable excuse can be
offered for his credulity, which brought himself as well as his
colleagues to so melancholy an end, and his whole army to the brink
of ruin. It appears that the general sentiment of the Grecian army,
taking just measure of the character of Tissaphernes, was disposed
to greater circumspection in dealing with him. Upon that system
Klearchus himself had hitherto acted; and the necessity of it might
have been especially present to his mind, since he had served
with the Lacedæmonian fleet at Miletus in 411 B.C.,
and had, therefore, had fuller experience than other men in the
army, of the satrap’s real character.[132] On a sudden he
now turns round, and on the faith of a few verbal declarations,
puts all the military chiefs into the most defenceless posture and
the most obvious peril, such as hardly the strongest grounds for
confidence could have justified. Though the remark of Machiavel is
justified by large experience,—that from the short-sightedness
of men and their obedience to present impulse, the most notorious
deceiver will always find new persons to trust him,—still
such misjudgment on the part of an officer of age and experience is
difficult to explain.[133] Polyænus intimates that beautiful
women, exhibited by the satrap at his first banquet to Klearchus
alone, served as a lure to attract him with all his colleagues to
the second; while Xenophon imputes the error to continuance of a
jealous rivalry with Menon. The latter,[134] it appears, having
always been intimate with Ariæus, had been thus brought into previous
communication with Tissaphernes, by whom he had been well received,
and by whom he was also encouraged to lay plans for detaching the
whole Grecian army from Klearchus, so as to bring it all under his
(Menon’s) command, into the service of the satrap. Such at least
was the suspicion of Klearchus; who, jealous in the extreme of
his own military authority, tried to defeat the scheme by bidding
still higher himself for the favor of Tissaphernes. Imagining
that Menon was the unknown calumniator who prejudiced the satrap
against him, he hoped to prevail on the satrap to disclose his name
and dismiss him.[135] Such jealousy seems to have robbed
Klearchus of his customary prudence. We must also allow for another
impression deeply fixed in his mind; that the salvation of the army
was hopeless without the consent of Tissaphernes, and, therefore,
since the latter had conducted them thus far in safety, when he might
have destroyed them before, that his designs at the bottom could
not be hostile.[136]
Notwithstanding these two great mistakes,—one on the present
occasion, one previously, at the battle of Kunaxa, in keeping the
Greeks on the right contrary to the order of Cyrus,—both
committed by Klearchus, the loss of that officer was doubtless a
great misfortune to the army; while, on the contrary, the removal of
Menon was a signal benefit,—perhaps a condition of ultimate
safety. A man so treacherous and unprincipled as Xenophon depicts
Menon, would probably have ended by really committing towards the
army that treason, for which he falsely took credit at the Persian
court in reference to the seizure of the generals.
The impression entertained by Klearchus, respecting the hopeless
position of the Greeks in the heart of the Persian territory after
the death of Cyrus, was perfectly natural in a military man who
could appreciate all the means of attack and obstruction which the
enemy had it in their power to employ. Nothing is so unaccountable
in this expedition as the manner in which such means were thrown
away,—the spectacle of Persian impotence. First, the whole
line of upward march, including the passage of the Euphrates,
left undefended; next, the long trench dug across the frontier of
Babylonia, with only a passage of twenty feet wide left near the
Euphrates, abandoned without a guard; lastly, the line of the Wall
of Media and the canals which offered such favorable positions for
keeping the Greeks out of the cultivated territory of Babylonia,
neglected in like manner, and a convention concluded, whereby the
Persians engaged to escort the invaders safe to the Ionian coast,
beginning by conducting them through the heart of Babylonia, amidst
canals affording inexpugnable defences if the Greeks had chosen to
take up a position among them. The plan of Tissaphernes, as far as
we can understand it, seems to have been, to draw the Greeks to some
considerable distance from the heart of the Persian empire, and then
to open his schemes of treasonable hostility, which the imprudence
of Klearchus enabled him to do, on the banks of the Great Zab, with
chances of success such as he could hardly have contemplated. We have
here a fresh example of the wonderful impotence of the Persians. We
should have expected that, after having committed so flagrant an act
of perfidy, Tissaphernes would at least have tried to turn it to
account; that he would have poured, with all his forces and all his
vigor, on the Grecian camp, at the moment when it was unprepared,
disorganized, and without commanders. Instead of which, when the
generals (with those who accompanied them to the Persian camp) had
been seized or slain, no attack whatever was made except by small
detachments of Persian cavalry upon individual Greek stragglers in
the plain. One of the companions of the generals, an Arcadian named
Nikarchus, ran wounded into the Grecian camp, where the soldiers
were looking from afar at the horsemen scouring the plain without
knowing what they were about,—exclaiming that the Persians
were massacring all the Greeks, officers as well as soldiers.
Immediately the Greek soldiers hastened to put themselves in defence,
expecting a general attack to be made upon their camp; but no
more Persians came near than a body of about three hundred horse,
under Ariæus and Mithridates (the confidential companions of the
deceased Cyrus), accompanied by the brother of Tissaphernes. These
men, approaching the Greek lines as friends, called for the Greek
officers to come forth, as they had a message to deliver from the
king. Accordingly, Kleanor and Sophænetus, with an adequate guard,
came to the front, accompanied by Xenophon, who was anxious to hear
news about Proxenus. Ariæus then acquainted them that Klearchus, having been
detected in a breach of the convention to which he had sworn, had
been put to death; that Proxenus and Menon, who had divulged his
treason, were in high honor at the Persian quarters. He concluded
by saying,—the king calls upon you to surrender your arms,
which now (he says) belong to him, since they formerly belonged to
his slave Cyrus.[137]
The step here taken seems to testify a belief on the part of
these Persians, that the generals being now in their power, the
Grecian soldiers had become defenceless, and might be required to
surrender their arms, even to men who had just been guilty of the
most deadly fraud and injury towards them. If Ariæus entertained such
an expectation, he was at once undeceived by the language of Kleanor
and Xenophon, who breathed nothing but indignant reproach; so that he
soon retired and left the Greeks to their own reflections.
While their camp thus remained unmolested, every man within it was
a prey to the most agonizing apprehensions. Ruin appeared impending
and inevitable, though no one could tell in what precise form it
would come. The Greeks were in the midst of a hostile country, ten
thousand stadia from home, surrounded by enemies, blocked up by
impassable mountains and rivers, without guides, without provisions,
without cavalry to aid their retreat, without generals to give
orders. A stupor of sorrow and conscious helplessness seized upon
all. Few came to the evening muster; few lighted fires to cook
their suppers; every man lay down to rest where he was; yet no
man could sleep, for fear, anguish, and yearning after relatives
whom he was never again to behold.[138]
Amidst the many causes of despondency which weighed down this
forlorn army, there was none more serious than the fact, that
not a single man among them had now either authority to command,
or obligation to take the initiative. Nor was any ambitious
candidate likely to volunteer his pretensions, at a moment when
the post promised nothing but the maximum of difficulty as well as
of hazard. A new, self-kindled, light—and self-originated
stimulus—was required, to vivify the embers of suspended
hope and action, in a mass paralyzed for the moment, but every way
capable of
effort. And the inspiration now fell, happily for the army, upon one
in whom a full measure of soldierly strength and courage was combined
with the education of an Athenian, a democrat, and a philosopher.
It is in true Homeric vein, and in something like Homeric
language, that Xenophon (to whom we owe the whole narrative
of the expedition) describes his dream, or the intervention
of Oneirus, sent by Zeus, from which this renovating impulse
took its rise.[139] Lying mournful and restless, like his
comrades, he caught a short repose; when he dreamt that he heard
thunder, and saw the burning thunder-bolt fall upon his paternal
house, which became forthwith encircled by flames. Awaking,
full of terror, he instantly sprang up; upon which the dream
began to fit on and blend itself with his waking thoughts, and
with the cruel realities of his position. His pious and excited
fancy generated a series of shadowy analogies. The dream was
sent by Zeus[140] the King, since it was from him that
thunder and lightning proceeded. In one respect, the sign was
auspicious,—that a great light had appeared to him from
Zeus, in the midst of peril and suffering. But on the other hand,
it was alarming, that the house had appeared to be completely
encircled by flames, preventing all egress, because this seemed
to indicate that he would remain confined where he was in the
Persian dominions, without being able to overcome the difficulties
which hedged him in. Yet doubtful as the promise was, it was
still the message of Zeus addressed to himself, serving as a
stimulus to him to break through the common stupor and take the
initiative movement.[141] “Why am I lying here? Night is
advancing;
at daybreak the enemy will be on us, and we shall be put to death
with tortures. Not a man is stirring to take measures of defence.
Why do I wait for any man older than myself, or for any man of a
different city, to begin?”
With these reflections, interesting in themselves and given
with Homeric vivacity, he instantly went to convene the lochagi or
captains who had served under his late friend Proxenus; and impressed
upon them emphatically the necessity of standing forward to put the
army in a posture of defence. “I cannot sleep, gentlemen; neither, I
presume, can you, under our present perils. The enemy will be upon
us at daybreak,—prepared to kill us all with tortures, as his
worst enemies. For my part, I rejoice that his flagitious perjury
has put an end to a truce by which we were the great losers; a truce
under which we, mindful of our oaths, have passed through all the
rich possessions of the king, without touching anything except what
we could purchase with our own scanty means. Now, we have our hands
free; all these rich spoils stand between us and him, as prizes for
the better man. The gods, who preside over the match, will assuredly
be on the side of us, who have kept our oaths in spite of strong
temptations, against these perjurers. Moreover, our bodies are more
enduring, and our spirits more gallant, than theirs. They are easier
to wound, and easier to kill, than we are, under the same favor of
the gods as we experienced at Kunaxa.
“Probably others also are feeling just as we feel. But let us not
wait for any one else to come as monitors to us; let us take the
lead, and communicate the stimulus of honor to others. Do you show
yourselves now the best among the lochages,—more worthy of
being generals than the generals themselves. Begin at once, and I desire
only to follow you. But if you order me into the front rank, I
shall obey without pleading my youth as an excuse,—accounting
myself of complete maturity, when the purpose is to save myself
from ruin.”[142]
All the captains who heard Xenophon cordially concurred in his
suggestion, and desired him to take the lead in executing it.
One captain alone,—Apollonides, speaking in the Bœotian
dialect,—protested against it as insane; enlarging upon their
desperate position, and insisting upon submission to the king, as the
only chance of safety. “How (replied Xenophon)? Have you forgotten
the courteous treatment which we received from the Persians in
Babylonia, when we replied to their demand for the surrender of our
arms by showing a bold front? Do not you see the miserable fate which
has befallen Klearchus, when he trusted himself unarmed in their
hands, in reliance on their oaths? And yet you scout our exhortations
to resistance, again advising us to go and plead for indulgence! My
friends, such a Greek as this man, disgraces not only his own city,
but all Greece besides. Let us banish him from our counsels, cashier
him, and make a slave of him to carry baggage.”—“Nay (observed
Agasias of Stymphalus), the man has nothing to do with Greece; I
myself have seen his ears bored, like a true Lydian.” Apollonides was
degraded accordingly.[143]
Xenophon with the rest then distributed themselves in order to
bring together the chief remaining officers in the army, who were
presently convened, to the number of about one hundred. The senior captain
of the earlier body next desired Xenophon to repeat to this larger
body the topics upon which he had just before been insisting.
Xenophon obeyed, enlarging yet more emphatically on the situation,
perilous, yet not without hope,—on the proper measures to be
taken,—and especially on the necessity that they, the chief
officers remaining, should put themselves forward prominently,
first fix upon effective commanders, then afterwards submit the
names to be confirmed by the army, accompanied with suitable
exhortations and encouragement. His speech was applauded and
welcomed, especially by the Lacedæmonian general Cheirisophus, who
had joined Cyrus with a body of seven hundred hoplites at Issus in
Kilikia. Cheirisophus urged the captains to retire forthwith, and
agree upon other commanders instead of the four who had been seized;
after which the herald must be summoned, and the entire body of
soldiers convened without delay. Accordingly Timasion of Dardanus
was chosen instead of Klearchus; Xanthiklês in place of Sokrates;
Kleanor in place of Agias; Philesius in place of Menon; and Xenophon
instead of Proxenus.[144] The captains, who had served under each of
the departed generals, separately chose a successor to the captain
thus promoted. It is to be recollected that the five now chosen were
not the only generals in the camp; thus for example, Cheirisophus had
the command of his own separate division, and there may have been one
or two others similarly placed. But it was now necessary for all the
generals to form a Board and act in concert.
At daybreak the newly constituted Board of generals placed
proper outposts in advance, and then convened the army in general
assembly, in order that the new appointments might be submitted
and confirmed. As soon as this had been done, probably on the
proposition of Cheirisophus (who had been in command before), that
general addressed a few words of exhortation and encouragement to
the soldiers. He was followed by Kleanor, who delivered, with the
like brevity, an earnest protest against the perfidy of Tissaphernes
and Ariæus. Both of them left to Xenophon the task, alike important
and arduous at this moment of despondency, of setting forth the case
at length,—working up the feelings of the soldiers to that
pitch of resolution which the emergency required,—and above all,
extinguishing all those inclinations to acquiesce in new treacherous
proposals from the enemy, which the perils of the situation would be
likely to suggest.
Xenophon had equipped himself in his finest military costume at
this his first official appearance before the army, when the scales
seemed to tremble between life and death. Taking up the protest of
Kleanor against the treachery of the Persians, he insisted that
any attempt to enter into convention or trust with such liars,
would be utter ruin,—but that if energetic resolution were
taken to deal with them only at the point of the sword, and punish
their misdeeds, there was good hope of the favor of the gods and
of ultimate preservation. As he pronounced this last word, one of
the soldiers near him happened to sneeze. Immediately the whole
army around shouted with one accord the accustomed invocation
to Zeus the Preserver; and Xenophon, taking up the accident,
continued,—“Since, gentlemen, this omen from Zeus the Preserver
has appeared at the instant when we were talking about preservation,
let us here vow to offer the preserving sacrifice to that god, and at
the same time to sacrifice to the remaining gods as well as we can,
in the first friendly country which we may reach. Let every man who
agrees with me, hold up his hand.” All held up their hands; all then
joined in the vow, and shouted the pæan.
This accident, so dexterously turned to profit by the rhetorical
skill of Xenophon, was eminently beneficial in raising the army out
of the depression which weighed them down, and in disposing them to
listen to his animating appeal. Repeating his assurances that the
gods were on their side, and hostile to their perjured enemy, he
recalled to their memory the great invasions of Greece by Darius and
Xerxes,—how the vast hosts of Persia had been disgracefully
repelled. The army had shown themselves on the field of Kunaxa worthy
of such forefathers; and they would for the future be yet bolder,
knowing by that battle of what stuff the Persians were made. As for
Ariæus and his troops, alike traitors and cowards, their desertion
was rather a gain than a loss. The enemy were superior in horsemen;
but men on horseback were, after all, only men, half-occupied in
the fear of losing their seats,—incapable of prevailing
against infantry firm on the ground,—and only better able
to run away. Now that the satrap refused to furnish them with
provisions to buy, they on their side were released from their covenant, and
would take provisions without buying. Then as to the rivers; those
were indeed difficult to be crossed in the middle of their course;
but the army would march up to their sources, and could then pass
them without wetting the knee. Or indeed, the Greeks might renounce
the idea of retreat, and establish themselves permanently in the
king’s own country, defying all his force, like the Mysians and
Pisidians. “If (said Xenophon) we plant ourselves here at our ease
in a rich country, with these tall, stately, and beautiful Median
and Persian women for our companions,[145]—we shall be
only too ready, like the Lotophagi, to forget our way home. We ought
first to go back to Greece, and tell our countrymen that if they
remain poor, it is their own fault, when there are rich settlements
in this country awaiting all who choose to come, and who have courage
to seize them. Let us burn our baggage-waggons and tents, and carry
with us nothing but what is of the strictest necessity. Above all
things,
let us maintain order, discipline, and obedience to the commanders,
upon which our entire hope of safety depends. Let every man promise
to lend his hand to the commanders in punishing any disobedient
individuals; and let us thus show the enemy that we have ten
thousand persons like Klearchus, instead of that one whom they have
so perfidiously seized. Now is the time for action. If any man,
however obscure, has anything better to suggest, let him come forward
and state it; for we have all but one object,—the common
safety.”
It appears that no one else desired to say a word, and that
the speech of Xenophon gave unqualified satisfaction; for
when Cheirisophus put the question, that the meeting should
sanction his recommendations, and finally elect the new generals
proposed,—every man held up his hand. Xenophon then moved that
the army should break up immediately, and march to some well-stored
villages, rather more than two miles distant; that the march
should be in a hollow oblong, with the baggage in the centre; that
Cheirisophus, as a Lacedæmonian, should lead the van; while Kleanor,
and the other senior officers, would command on each flank,—and
himself with Timasion, as the two youngest of the generals, would
lead the rear-guard.
This proposition was at once adopted, and the assembly broke up,
proceeding forthwith to destroy, or distribute among one another,
every man’s superfluous baggage,—and then to take their morning
meal previous to the march.
The scene just described is interesting and illustrative
in more than one point of view.[146] It exhibits that
susceptibility to the influence of persuasive discourse which formed
so marked a feature in the Grecian character,—a resurrection
of the collective body out of the depth of despair, under the
exhortation of one who had no established ascendency, nor anything
to recommend him, except his intelligence, his oratorical power, and
his community of interest with themselves. Next, it manifests, still
more strikingly, the superiority of Athenian training as compared
with that of other parts of Greece. Cheirisophus had not only been
before in
office as one of the generals, but was also a native of Sparta,
whose supremacy and name was at that moment all-powerful. Kleanor
had been before, not indeed a general, but a lochage, or one in the
second rank of officers;—he was an elderly man,—and he
was an Arcadian, while more than the numerical half of the army
consisted of Arcadians and Achæans. Either of these two, therefore,
and various others besides, enjoyed a sort of prerogative, or
established starting-point, for taking the initiative in reference
to the dispirited army. But Xenophon was comparatively a young man,
with little military experience;—he was not an officer at
all, either in the first or second grade, but simply a volunteer,
companion of Proxenus;—he was, moreover, a native of Athens,
a city at that time unpopular among the great body of Greeks, and
especially of Peloponnesians, with whom her recent long war had
been carried on. Not only, therefore, he had no advantages compared
with others, but he was under positive disadvantages. He had
nothing to start with except his personal qualities and previous
training; in spite of which we find him not merely the prime mover,
but also the ascendent person for whom the others make way. In
him are exemplified those peculiarities of Athens, attested not
less by the denunciation of her enemies than by the panegyric of
her own citizens,[147]—spontaneous and forward impulse,
as well in conception as in execution,—confidence under
circumstances which made others despair,—persuasive discourse and
publicity of discussion, made subservient to practical business,
so as at once to appeal to the intelligence, and stimulate the
active zeal, of the multitude. Such peculiarities stood out more
remarkably from being contrasted with the opposite qualities in
Spartans,—mistrust in conception, slackness in execution,
secrecy in counsel, silent and passive obedience. Though Spartans and
Athenians formed the two extremities of the scale, other Greeks stood
nearer on this point to the former than to the latter.
If, even in that encouraging autumn which followed immediately
upon the great Athenian catastrophe before Syracuse, the inertia
of Sparta could not be stirred into vigorous action without the
vehemence of the Athenian Alkibiades,—much more was it
necessary under the depressing circumstances which now overclouded
the unofficered Grecian army, that an Athenian bosom should be found
as the source of new life and impulse. Nor would any one, probably,
except an Athenian, either have felt or obeyed the promptings to
stand forward as a volunteer at that moment, when there was every
motive to decline responsibility, and no special duty to impel him.
But if by chance, a Spartan or an Arcadian had been found thus
forward, he would have been destitute of such talents as would
enable him to work on the minds of others[148]—of that
flexibility, resource, familiarity with the temper and movements
of an assembled crowd, power of enforcing the essential views and
touching the opportune chords, which Athenian democratical training imparted.
Even Brasidas and Gylippus, individual Spartans of splendid
merit, and equal or superior to Xenophon in military resource,
would not have combined with it that political and rhetorical
accomplishment which the position of the latter demanded. Obvious
as the wisdom of his propositions appears, each of them is left
to him not only to imitate, but to enforce;—Cheirisophus
and Kleanor, after a few words of introduction, consign to him
the duty of working up the minds of the army to the proper pitch.
How well he performed this, may be seen by his speech to the
army, which bears in its general tenor a remarkable resemblance
to that of Perikles addressed to the Athenian public in the
second year of the war, at the moment when the miseries of the
epidemic, combined with those of invasion, had driven them almost
to despair. It breathes a strain of exaggerated confidence, and an
undervaluing of real dangers, highly suitable for the occasion,
but which neither Perikles nor Xenophon would have employed at
any other moment.[149] Throughout the whole of his speech, and
especially in regard to the accidental sneeze near at hand which
interrupted the beginning of it, Xenophon displayed that skill and
practice in dealing with a numerous audience and a given situation,
which characterized more or less every educated Athenian. Other
Greeks, Lacedæmonians or Arcadians, could act, with bravery and in
concert; but the Athenian Xenophon was among the few who could think,
speak, and act, with equal efficiency.[150] It was this
tripartite accomplishment which an aspiring youth was compelled to set before
himself as an aim, in the democracy of Athens, and which the
sophists as well as the democratical institutions, both of them so
hardly depreciated, helped and encouraged him to acquire. It was
this tripartite accomplishment, the exclusive possession of which,
in spite of constant jealousy on the part of Bœotian officers and
comrades of Proxenus,[151] elevated Xenophon into the most ascendent
person of the Cyreian army, from the present moment until the time
when it broke up,—as will be seen in the subsequent history.
I think it the more necessary to notice this fact,—that
the accomplishments whereby Xenophon leaped on a sudden into such
extraordinary ascendency, and rendered such eminent service to his
army, were accomplishments belonging in an especial manner to the
Athenian democracy and education,—because Xenophon himself
has throughout his writings treated Athens not merely without the
attachment of a citizen, but with feelings more like the positive
antipathy of an exile. His sympathies are all in favor of the
perpetual drill, the mechanical obedience, the secret government
proceedings, the narrow and prescribed range of ideas, the silent and
deferential demeanor, the methodical, though tardy, action—of
Sparta. Whatever may be the justice of his preference, certain it
is, that the qualities whereby he was himself enabled to contribute
so much both to the rescue of the Cyreian army, and to his own
reputation,—were Athenian far more than Spartan.
While the Grecian army, after sanctioning the propositions of
Xenophon, were taking their morning meal before they commenced their
march, Mithridates, one of the Persians previously attached to Cyrus,
appeared with a few horsemen on a mission of pretended friendship.
But it was soon found out that his purposes were treacherous, and
that he came merely to seduce individual soldiers to desertion,—with a
few of whom he succeeded. Accordingly, the resolution was taken to
admit no more heralds or envoys.
Disembarrassed of superfluous baggage, and refreshed, the army
now crossed the Great Zab River, and pursued their march on the
other side, having their baggage and attendants in the centre,
and Cheirisophus leading the van, with a select body of three
hundred hoplites.[152] As no mention is made of a bridge, we
are to presume that they forded the river,—which furnishes a
ford (according to Mr. Ainsworth), still commonly used, at a place
between thirty and forty miles from its junction with the Tigris.
When they had got a little way forward, Mithridates again appeared
with a few hundred cavalry and bowmen. He approached them like a
friend; but as soon as he was near enough, suddenly began to harass
the rear with a shower of missiles. What surprises us most, is,
that the Persians, with their very numerous force, made no attempt
to hinder them from crossing so very considerable a river; for
Xenophon estimates the Zab at four hundred feet broad,—and
this seems below the statement of modern travellers, who inform
us that it contains not much less water than the Tigris; and
though usually deeper and narrower, cannot be much narrower at any
fordable place.[153] It is to be recollected that the Persians,
habitually marching in advance of the Greeks, must have reached the
river first, and were, therefore, in possession of the crossing,
whether bridge or ford. Though on the watch for every opportunity
of perfidy, Tissaphernes did not dare to resist the Greeks even
in the most advantageous position, and ventured only upon sending
Mithridates to harass the rear; which he executed with considerable
effect. The bowmen and darters of the Greeks, few in number, were
at the same time inferior to those of the Persians; and when Xenophon
employed his rear guard, hoplites and peltasts, to charge and repel
them, he not only could never overtake any one, but suffered much in
getting back to rejoin his own main body. Even when retiring, the
Persian horseman could discharge his arrow or cast his javelin behind
him with effect; a dexterity which the Parthians exhibited afterwards
still more signally, and which the Persian horsemen of the present
day parallel with their carbines. This was the first experience which
the Greeks had of marching under the harassing attack of cavalry.
Even the small detachment of Mithridates greatly delayed their
progress; so that they accomplished little more than two miles,
reaching the villages in the evening, with many wounded, and much
discouragement.[154]
“Thank Heaven,” (said Xenophon in the evening, when Cheirisophus
reproached him for imprudence in quitting the main body to charge
cavalry, whom yet he could not reach.) “Thank Heaven, that our
enemies attacked us with a small detachment only, and not with their
great numbers. They have given us a valuable lesson, without doing
us any serious harm.” Profiting by the lesson, the Greek leaders
organized during the night and during the halt of the next day, a
small body of fifty cavalry; with two hundred Rhodian slingers,
whose slings, furnished with leaden bullets, both carried farther
and struck harder than those of the Persians hurling large stones.
On the ensuing morning, they started before daybreak, since there
lay in their way a ravine difficult to pass. They found the ravine
undefended (according to the usual stupidity of Persian proceedings),
but when they had got nearly a mile beyond it, Mithridates reappeared
in pursuit with a body of four thousand horsemen and darters.
Confident from his achievement of the preceding day, he had promised,
with a body of that force, to deliver the Greeks into the hands of
the satrap. But the latter were now better prepared. As soon as
he began to attack them, the trumpet sounded,—and forthwith
the horsemen, slingers, and darters, issued forth to charge the
Persians, sustained by the hoplites in the rear. So effective was
the charge, that the Persians fled in dismay, notwithstanding
their superiority in number; while the ravine so impeded their
flight that many of them were slain, and eighteen prisoners
made. The Greek soldiers of their own accord mutilated the dead bodies, in
order to strike terror into the enemy.[155] At the end of
the day’s march they reached the Tigris, near the deserted city
of Larissa, the vast, massive, and lofty brick walls of which
(twenty-five feet in thickness, one hundred feet high, seven miles
in circumference) attested its former grandeur. Near this place was
a stone pyramid, one hundred feet in breadth, and two hundred feet
high; the summit of which was crowded with fugitives out of the
neighboring villages. Another day’s march up the course of the Tigris
brought the army to a second deserted city called Mespila, nearly
opposite to the modern city of Mosul. Although these two cities,
which seem to have formed the continuation or the substitute of the
once colossal Nineveh or Ninus, were completely deserted,—yet
the country around them was so well furnished with villages and
population, that the Greeks not only obtained provisions, but also
strings for the making of new bows, and lead for bullets to be used
for the slingers.[156]
During the next day’s march, in a course generally parallel
with the Tigris, and ascending the stream, Tissaphernes, coming
up along with some other grandees, and with a numerous army,
enveloped the Greeks both in flanks and rear. In spite of his
advantage of numbers, he did not venture upon any actual charge,
but kept up a fire of arrows, darts, and stones. He was, however,
so well answered by the newly-trained archers and slingers of the
Greeks, that on the whole they had the advantage, in spite of the
superior size of the Persian bows, many of which were taken and
effectively employed on the Grecian side. Having passed the night
in a well-stocked village, they halted there the next day in order
to stock themselves with provisions, and then pursued their march
for four successive days along a level country, until, on the
fifth day, they reached hilly ground with the prospect of still
higher hills beyond. All this march was made under unremitting
annoyance from the enemy, insomuch that though the order of the
Greeks was never broken, a considerable number of their men were wounded.
Experience taught them, that it was inconvenient for the whole army
to march in one inflexible, undivided, hollow square; and they
accordingly constituted six lochi or regiments of one hundred men
each, subdivided into companies of fifty, and enômoties or smaller
companies of twenty-five, each with a special officer (conformably
to the Spartan practice) to move separately on each flank, and
either to fall back, or fall in, as might suit the fluctuations of
the central mass, arising from impediments in the road or menaces
of the enemy.[157] On reaching the hills, in sight of an
elevated citadel or palace, with several villages around it, the
Greeks anticipated some remission of the Persian attack. But after
having passed over one hill, they were proceeding to ascend the
second, when they found themselves assailed with unwonted vigor
by the Persian cavalry from the summit of it, whose leaders were
seen flogging on the men to the attack.[158] This charge was so
efficacious, that the Greek light troops were driven in with loss,
and forced to take shelter within the ranks of the hoplites. After
a march both slow and full of suffering, they could only reach
their night-quarters by sending a detachment to get possession of
some ground above the Persians, who thus became afraid of a double
attack.
The villages which they now reached (supposed by Mr. Ainsworth
to have been in the fertile country under the modern town
called Zakhu),[159] were unusually rich in provisions;
magazines of flour, barley, and wine, having been collected there for
the Persian satrap. They reposed here three days, chiefly in order
to tend the numerous wounded, for whose necessities, eight of the
most competent persons were singled out to act as surgeons. On the
fourth day they resumed their march, descending into the plain. But
experience had now satisfied them that it was imprudent to continue
in march under the attack of cavalry, so that when Tissaphernes
appeared and began to harass them, they halted at the first village,
and when thus in station, easily repelled him. As the afternoon
advanced, the Persian assailants began to retire; for they were always
in the habit of taking up their night-post at a distance of near
seven miles from the Grecian position; being very apprehensive of
nocturnal attack in their camp, when their horses were tied by the
leg and without either saddle or bridle.[160] As soon as they had
departed, the Greeks resumed their march, and made so much advance
during the night, that the Persians did not overtake them either on
the next day or the day after.
On the ensuing day, however, the Persians, having made a forced
march by night, were seen not only in advance of the Greeks, but
in occupation of a spur of high and precipitous ground overhanging
immediately the road whereby the Greeks were to descend into the
plain. When Cheirisophus approached, he at once saw that descent
was impracticable in the face of an enemy thus posted. He therefore
halted, sent for Xenophon from the rear, and desired him to bring
forward the peltasts to the van. But Xenophon, though he obeyed
the summons in person and galloped his horse to the front, did not
think it prudent to move the peltasts from the rear, because he saw
Tissaphernes, with another portion of the army, just coming up; so
that the Grecian army was at once impeded in front, and threatened by
the enemy closing upon them behind. The Persians on the high ground
in front could not be directly assailed. But Xenophon observed,
that on the right of the Grecian army, there was an accessible
mountain-summit yet higher, from whence a descent might be made for a
flank attack upon the Persian position. Pointing out this summit to
Cheirisophus, as affording the only means of dislodging the troops
in front, he urged that one of them should immediately hasten with a
detachment to take possession of it, and offered to Cheirisophus the
choice either of going, or staying with the army. “Choose yourself,”
said Cheirisophus. “Well, then, (said Xenophon), I will go; since
I am the younger of the two.” Accordingly, at the head of a select detachment
from the van and centre of the army, he immediately commenced his
flank march up the steep ascent to this highest summit. So soon as
the enemy saw their purpose, they also detached troops on their side,
hoping to get to the summit first; and the two detachments were seen
mounting at the same time, each struggling with the utmost efforts
to get before the other,—each being encouraged by shouts and
clamor from the two armies respectively.
As Xenophon was riding by the side of his soldiers, cheering them
on and reminding them that their chance of seeing their country
and their families all depended upon success in the effort before
them, a Sikyonian hoplite in the ranks, named Sotêridas, said to
him,—“You and I are not on an equal footing, Xenophon. You are
on horseback; I am painfully struggling up on foot, with my shield
to carry.” Stung with this taunt, Xenophon sprang from his horse,
pushed Sotêridas out of his place in the ranks, took his shield as
well as his place, and began to march forward afoot along with the
rest. Though thus weighed down at once by the shield belonging to
an hoplite, and by the heavy cuirass of a horseman (who carried no
shield), he nevertheless put forth all his strength to advance, under
such double incumbrance, and to continue his incitement to the rest.
But the soldiers around him were so indignant at the proceeding of
Sotêridas, that they reproached and even struck him, until they
compelled him to resume his shield as well as his place in the ranks.
Xenophon then remounted and ascended the hill on horseback as far as
the ground permitted; but was obliged again to dismount presently, in
consequence of the steepness of the uppermost portion. Such energetic
efforts enabled him and his detachment to reach the summit first.
As soon as the enemy saw this, they desisted from their ascent,
and dispersed in all directions; leaving the forward march open to
the main Grecian army, which Cheirisophus accordingly conducted
safely down into the plain. Here he was rejoined by Xenophon on
descending from the summit. All found themselves in comfortable
quarters, amidst several well-stocked villages on the banks of the
Tigris. They acquired moreover an additional booty of large droves
of cattle, intercepted when on the point of being transported across the
river; where a considerable body of horse were seen assembled on
the opposite bank.[161]
Though here disturbed only by some desultory attacks on the part
of the Persians, who burnt several of the villages which lay in
their forward line of march, the Greeks became seriously embarrassed
whither to direct their steps; for on their left flank was the
Tigris, so deep that their spears found no bottom,—and on
their right, mountains of exceeding height. As the generals and the
lochages were taking counsel, a Rhodian soldier came to them with a
proposition for transporting the whole army across to the other bank
of the river by means of inflated skins, which could be furnished
in abundance by the animals in their possession. But this ingenious
scheme, in itself feasible, was put out of the question by the view
of the Persian cavalry on the opposite bank; and as the villages in
their front had been burnt, the army had no choice except to return
back one day’s march to those in which they had before halted. Here
the generals again deliberated, questioning all their prisoners as
to the different bearings of the country. The road from the south
was that in which they had already marched from Babylon and Media;
that to the westward, going to Lydia and Ionia, was barred to them
by the interposing Tigris; eastward (they were informed) was the way
to Ekbatana and Susa; northward, lay the rugged and inhospitable
mountains of the Karduchians,—fierce freemen who despised the
Great King, and defied all his efforts to conquer them; having once
destroyed a Persian invading army of one hundred and twenty thousand
men. On the other side of Karduchia, however, lay the rich Persian
satrapy of Armenia, wherein both the Euphrates and the Tigris could
be crossed near their sources, and from whence could choose their
farther course easily towards Greece. Like Mysia, Pisidia, and other
mountainous regions, Karduchia was a free territory surrounded
on all sides by the dominions of the Great King, who reigned
only in the cities and on the plains.[162]
Determining
to fight their way across these difficult mountains into Armenia,
but refraining from any public announcement, for fear that the
passes should be occupied beforehand,—the generals sacrificed
forthwith, in order that they might be ready for breaking up at a
moment’s notice. They then began their march a little after midnight,
so that soon after daybreak they reached the first of the Karduchian
mountain-passes, which they found undefended. Cheirisophus, with
his front division and all the light troops, made haste to ascend
the pass, and having got over the first mountain, descended on the
other side to some villages in the valley or nooks beneath; while
Xenophon with the heavy-armed and the baggage, followed at a slower
pace,—not reaching the villages until dark, as the road was
both steep and narrow. The Karduchians, taken completely by surprise,
abandoned the villages as the Greeks approached, and took refuge
on the mountains; leaving to the intruders plenty of provisions,
comfortable houses, and especially, abundance of copper vessels.
At first the Greeks were careful to do no damage, trying to invite
the natives to amicable colloquy. But none of the latter would
come near, and at length necessity drove the Greeks to take what
was necessary for refreshment. It was just when Xenophon and the
rear guard were coming in at night, that some few Karduchians first
set upon them; by surprise and with considerable success,—so
that if their numbers had been greater, serious mischief might
have ensued.[163]
Many fires were discovered burning on the mountains,—an
earnest of resistance during the next day; which satisfied the
Greek generals that they must lighten the army, in order to ensure
greater expedition as well as a fuller complement of available hands
during the coming march. They therefore gave orders to burn all
the baggage except what was indispensable, and to dismiss all the
prisoners; planting themselves in a narrow strait, through which
the army had to pass, in order to see that their directions were
executed. The women, however, of whom there were many with the army, could not be
abandoned; and it seems farther that a considerable stock of baggage
was still retained;[164] nor could the army make more than slow
advance, from the narrowness of the road and the harassing attack
of the Karduchians, who were now assembled in considerable numbers.
Their attack was renewed with double vigor on the ensuing day, when
the Greeks were forced, from want of provisions, to hasten forward
their march, though in the midst of a terrible snow-storm. Both
Cheirisophus in the front and Xenophon in the rear, were hard pressed
by the Karduchian slingers and bowmen; the latter, men of consummate
skill, having bows three cubits in length, and arrows of more than
two cubits, so strong that the Greeks when they took them could dart
them as javelins. These archers, amidst the rugged ground and narrow
paths, approached so near and drew the bow with such surprising
force, resting one extremity of it on the ground, that several Greek
warriors were mortally wounded even through both shield and corslet
into the reins, and through the brazen helmet into their heads;
among them especially, two distinguished men, a Lacedæmonian named
Kleonymus, and an Arcadian named Basias.[165] The rear division,
more roughly handled than the rest, was obliged continually to halt
to repel the enemy, under all the difficulties of the ground, which
made it scarcely possible to act against nimble mountaineers. On one
occasion, however, a body of these latter were entrapped into an
ambush, driven back with loss, and (what was still more fortunate)
two of their number were made prisoners.
Thus impeded, Xenophon sent frequent messages entreating
Cheirisophus to slacken the march of the van division; but
instead of obeying, Cheirisophus only hastened the faster,
urging Xenophon to follow him. The march of the army became
little better than a rout, so that the rear division reached
the halting-place in extreme confusion; upon which Xenophon
proceeded to remonstrate with Cheirisophus for prematurely
hurrying forward and neglecting his comrades behind. But the
other,—pointing out to his attention the hill before them,
and the steep path ascending it, forming their future line of
march, which was beset with numerous Karduchians,—defended
himself by saying that he had hastened forward in hopes of being able to
reach this pass before the enemy, in which attempt however he had
not succeeded.[166]
To advance farther on this road appeared hopeless; yet the guides
declared that no other could be taken. Xenophon then bethought
him of the two prisoners whom he had just captured, and proposed
that these two should be questioned also. They were accordingly
interrogated apart; and the first of them,—having persisted
in denying, notwithstanding all menaces, that there was any road
except that before them,—was put to death under the eyes of
the second prisoner. This latter, on being then questioned, gave
more comfortable intelligence; saying that he knew of a different
road, more circuitous, but easier and practicable even for beasts
of burden, whereby the pass before them and the occupying enemy
might be turned; but that there was one particular high position
commanding the road, which it was necessary to master beforehand
by surprise, as the Karduchians were already on guard there. Two
thousand Greeks, having the guide bound along with them, were
accordingly despatched late in the afternoon, to surprise this post
by a night-march; while Xenophon, in order to distract the attention
of the Karduchians in front, made a feint of advancing as if about
to force the direct pass. As soon as he was seen crossing the ravine
which led to this mountain, the Karduchians on the top immediately
began to roll down vast masses of rock, which bounded and dashed
down the roadway, in such manner as to render it unapproachable.
They continued to do this all night, and the Greeks heard the noise
of the descending masses long after they had returned to their camp
for supper and rest.[167]
Meanwhile the detachment of two thousand, marching by the
circuitous road, and reaching in the night the elevated position,
(though there was another above yet more commanding), held by the
Karduchians, surprised and dispersed them, passing the night by
their fires. At daybreak, and under favor of a mist, they stole
silently towards the position occupied by the other Karduchians in
front of the main Grecian army. On coming near they suddenly sounded
their trumpets, shouted aloud, and commenced the attack, which
proved completely successful. The defenders, taken unprepared, fled with little
resistance, and scarcely any loss, from their activity and knowledge
of the country; while Cheirisophus and the main Grecian force, on
hearing the trumpet which had been previously concerted as the
signal, rushed forward and stormed the height in front; some along
the regular path, others climbing up as they could and pulling each
other up by means of their spears. The two bodies of Greeks thus
joined each other on the summit, so that the road became open for
farther advance.
Xenophon, however, with the rear guard, marched on the
circuitous road taken by the two thousand, as the most practicable
for the baggage animals, whom he placed in the centre of his
division,—the whole array covering a great length of ground,
since the road was very narrow. During this interval, the dispersed
Karduchians had rallied, and reoccupied two or three high peaks,
commanding the road,—from whence it was necessary to drive
them. Xenophon’s troops stormed successively these three positions,
the Karduchians not daring to affront close combat, yet making
destructive use of their missiles. A Grecian guard was left on the
hindermost of the three peaks, until all the baggage train should
have passed by. But the Karduchians, by a sudden and well-timed
movement, contrived to surprise this guard, slew two out of the
three leaders, with several soldiers, and forced the rest to jump
down the crags as they could, in order to join their comrades in the
road. Encouraged by such success, the assailants pressed nearer to
the marching army, occupying a crag over against that lofty summit
on which Xenophon was posted. As it was within speaking distance,
he endeavored to open a negotiation with them in order to get
back the dead bodies of the slain. To this demand the Karduchians
at first acceded, on condition that their villages should not be
burnt; but finding their numbers every moment increasing, they
resumed the offensive. When Xenophon with the army had begun his
descent from the last summit, they hurried onward in crowds to
occupy it; beginning again to roll down masses of rock, and renew
their fire of missiles, upon the Greeks. Xenophon himself was here
in some danger, having been deserted by his shield-bearer; but he
was rescued by an Arcadian hoplite named Eurylochus, who ran to
give him the benefit of his own shield as a protection for both
in the retreat.[168]
After a march thus painful
and perilous, the rear division at length found themselves in
safety among their comrades in villages with well-stocked houses
and abundance of corn and wine. So eager, however, were Xenophon
and Cheirisophus to obtain the bodies of the slain for burial,
that they consented to purchase them by surrendering the guide,
and to march onward without any guide;—a heavy sacrifice
in this unknown country, attesting their great anxiety about
the burial.[169]
For three more days did they struggle and fight their way
through the narrow and rugged paths of the Karduchian mountains,
beset throughout by these formidable bowmen and slingers; whom
they had to dislodge at every difficult turn, and against whom
their own Kretan bowmen were found inferior, indeed, but still
highly useful. Their seven days’ march through this country, with
its free and warlike inhabitants, were days of the utmost fatigue,
suffering and peril; far more intolerable than anything which they
had experienced from Tissaphernes and the Persians. Right glad
were they once more to see a plain, and to find themselves near
the banks of the river Kentritês, which divided these mountains
from the hillocks and plains of Armenia,—enjoying comfortable
quarters in villages, with the satisfaction of talking over
past miseries.[170]
Such were the apprehensions of Karduchian invasion, that the
Armenian side of the Kentritês, for a breadth of fifteen miles, was
unpeopled and destitute of villages.[171] But the approach
of the Greeks having become known to Tiribazus, satrap of Armenia,
the banks of the river were lined with his cavalry and infantry to
oppose their passage; a precaution, which if Tissaphernes had taken at the
Great Zab at the moment when he perfidiously seized Klearchus and his
colleagues, the Greeks would hardly have reached the northern bank of
that river. In the face of such obstacles, the Greeks, nevertheless,
attempted the passage of the Kentritês, seeing a regular road on the
other side. But the river was two hundred feet in breadth (only half
the breadth of the Zab), above their breasts in depth, extremely
rapid, and with a bottom full of slippery stones; insomuch that they
could not hold their shields in the proper position, from the force
of the stream, while if they lifted the shields above their heads,
they were exposed defenceless to the arrows of the satrap’s troops.
After various trials, the passage was found impracticable, and they
were obliged to resume their encampment on the left bank. To their
great alarm they saw the Karduchians assembling on the hills in their
rear, so that their situation, during this day and night, appeared
nearly desperate. In the night, Xenophon had a dream,—the
first, which he has told us, since his dream on the terrific night
after the seizure of the generals,—but on this occasion, of
augury more unequivocally good. He dreamed that he was bound in
chains, but that his chains on a sudden dropped off spontaneously;
on the faith of which, he told Cheirisophus at daybreak that he had
good hopes of preservation; and when the generals offered sacrifice,
the victims were at once favorable. As the army were taking their
morning meal, two young Greeks ran to Xenophon with the auspicious
news that they had accidentally found another ford near half a mile
up the river, where the water was not even up to their middle, and
where the rocks came so close on the right bank that the enemy’s
horse could offer no opposition. Xenophon, starting from his meal
in delight, immediately offered libations to those gods who had
revealed both the dream to himself in the night, and the unexpected
ford afterwards to these youths; two revelations which he ascribed
to the same gods.[172]
Presently they marched in their usual order, Cheirisophus
commanding the van and Xenophon the rear, along the river to the
newly-discovered ford; the enemy marching parallel with them on
the opposite bank. Having reached the ford, halted, and grounded
arms, Cheirisophus placed a wreath on his head, took it off
again,
and then resumed his arms, ordering all the rest to follow
his example.[173] Each lochus (company of one hundred men)
was then arranged in column or single file, with Cheirisophus himself
in the centre. Meanwhile the prophets were offering sacrifice to the
river. So soon as the signs were pronounced to be favorable, all
the soldiers shouted the pæan, and all the women joined in chorus
with their feminine yell. Cheirisophus then at the head of the army,
entered the river and began to ford it; while Xenophon, with a large
portion of the rear division, made a feint of hastening back to the
original ford, as if he were about to attempt the passage there. This
distracted the attention of the enemy’s horse; who became afraid of
being attacked on both sides, galloped off to guard the passage at
the other point, and opposed no serious resistance to Cheirisophus.
As soon as the latter had reached the other side, and put his
division into order, he marched up to attack the Armenian infantry,
who were on the high banks a little way above; but this infantry,
deserted by its cavalry, dispersed without awaiting his approach. The
handful of Grecian cavalry, attached to the division of Cheirisophus,
pursued and took some valuable spoils.[174]
As soon as Xenophon saw his colleague successfully established on
the opposite bank, he brought back his detachment to the ford over
which the baggage and attendants were still passing, and proceeded
to take precautions against the Karduchians on his own side, who
were assembling in the rear. He found some difficulty in keeping
his rear division together, for many of them, in spite of orders,
quitted their ranks, and went to look after their mistresses or their
baggage in the crossing of the water.[175] The peltasts and
bowmen, who had gone over with Cheirisophus, but whom that general
now no longer needed, were directed to hold themselves prepared
on both flanks of the army crossing, and to advance a little way
into the water, in the attitude of men just about to recross. When
Xenophon was left with only the diminished rear-guard, the rest
having got over,—the Karduchians rushed upon him, and began
to shoot and sling. But on a sudden, the Grecian hoplites charged
with their accustomed pæan, upon which the Karduchians took to
flight,—having no arms for close combat on the plain. The
trumpet now being heard to sound, they ran away so much the faster;
while this was the signal, according to orders before given by
Xenophon, for the Greeks to suspend their charge, to turn back,
and to cross the river as speedily as possible. By favor of this
able manœuvre, the passage was accomplished by the whole army,
with little or no loss, about mid-day.[176]
They now found themselves in Armenia; a country of even,
undulating surface, but very high above the level of the sea, and
extremely cold at the season when they entered it,—December.
Though the strip of land bordering on Karduchia furnished no
supplies, one long march brought them to a village, containing
abundance of provisions, together with a residence of the satrap
Tiribazus; after which, in two farther marches, they reached the
river Teleboas, with many villages on its banks. Here Tiribazus
himself, appearing with a division of cavalry, sent forward his
interpreter to request a conference with the leaders; which being
held, it was agreed that the Greeks should proceed unmolested through
his territory, taking such supplies as they required,—but
should neither burn nor damage the villages. They accordingly
advanced onward for three days, computed at fifteen parasangs,
or three
pretty full days’ march; without any hostility from the satrap,
though he was hovering within less than two miles of them. They then
found themselves amidst several villages, wherein were regal or
satrapical residences, with a plentiful stock of bread, meat, wine,
and all sorts of vegetables. Here, during their nightly bivouac, they
were overtaken by so heavy a fall of snow, that the generals, on the
next day, distributed the troops into separate quarters among the
villages. No enemy appeared near, while the snow seemed to forbid any
rapid surprise. Yet at night, the scouts reported that many fires
were discernible, together with traces of military movements around;
insomuch that the generals thought it prudent to put themselves on
their guard, and again collected the army into one bivouac. Here,
in the night, they were overwhelmed by a second fall of snow, still
heavier than the preceding; sufficient to cover over the sleeping men
and their arms, and to benumb the cattle. The men, however, lay warm
under the snow and were unwilling to rise, until Xenophon himself
set the example of rising, and employing himself, without his arms,
in cutting wood and kindling a fire.[177] Others followed
his example, and great comfort was found in rubbing themselves
with pork-fat, oil of almonds, or of sesame, or turpentine. Having
sent out a clever scout named Demokrates, who captured a native
prisoner, they learned that Tiribazus was laying plans to intercept
them in a lofty mountain-pass lying farther on in their route; upon
which they immediately set forth, and by two days of forced march,
surprising in their way the camp of Tiribazus, got over the difficult
pass in safety. Three days of additional march brought them to the
Euphrates river,[178]—that is, to the eastern branch, now
called Murad. They found a ford and crossed it, without having the
water higher than the navel; and they were informed that its sources
were not far off.
Their four days of march, next on the other side of the Euphrates,
were toilsome and distressing in the extreme; through a plain covered
with deep snow (in some places six feet deep), and at times in the
face of a north wind so intolerably chilling and piercing, that at
length one of the prophets urged the necessity of offering sacrifices
to Boreas; upon which (says Xenophon[179]) the severity of the
wind abated conspicuously, to the evident consciousness of all. Many
of the slaves and beasts of burden, and a few even of the soldiers,
perished; some had their feet frost-bitten, others became blinded by
the snow, others again were exhausted by hunger. Several of these
unhappy men were unavoidably left behind; others lay down to perish,
near a warm spring which had melted the snow around, from extremity
of fatigue and sheer wretchedness, though the enemy were close upon
the rear. It was in vain that Xenophon, who commanded the rear-guard,
employed his earnest exhortations, prayers, and threats, to induce
them to move forward. The sufferers, miserable and motionless,
answered only by entreating him to kill them at once. So greatly was
the army disorganized by wretchedness, that we hear of one case in
which a soldier, ordered to carry a disabled comrade, disobeyed the
order, and was about to bury him alive.[180] Xenophon made a
sally, with loud shouts and clatter of spear with shield, in which
even the exhausted men joined,—against the pursuing enemy. He
was fortunate enough to frighten them away, and drive them to take
shelter in a neighboring wood. He then left the sufferers lying
down, with assurance that relief should be sent to them on the next
day,—and went forward, seeing all along the line of march the
exhausted soldiers lying on the snow, without even the protection of
a watch. He and his rear-guard, as well as the rest, were obliged
thus to pass the night without either food or fire, distributing
scouts in the best way the case admitted. Meanwhile, Cheirisophus
with the van division had got into a village, which they reached so
unexpectedly, that they found the women fetching water from a fountain
outside the wall, and the headman of the village in his house within.
This division here obtained rest and refreshment, and at daybreak
some of their soldiers were sent to look after the rear. It was with
delight that Xenophon saw them approach, and sent them back to bring
up in their arms, into the neighboring village, those exhausted
soldiers who had been left behind.[181]
Repose was now indispensable after the recent sufferings. There
were several villages near at hand, and the generals, thinking it
no longer dangerous to divide the army, quartered the different
divisions among them according to lot. Polykrates, an Athenian, one
of the captains in the division of Xenophon, requested his permission
to go at once and take possession of the village assigned to him,
before any of the inhabitants could escape. Accordingly, running
at speed with a few of the swiftest soldiers, he came upon the
village so suddenly as to seize the headman, with his newly-married
daughter, and several young horses intended as a tribute for the
king. This village, as well as the rest, was found to consist of
houses excavated in the ground (as the Armenian villages are at
the present day), spacious within, but with a narrow mouth like a
well, entered by a descending ladder. A separate entrance was dug
for conveniently admitting the cattle. All of them were found amply
stocked with live cattle of every kind, wintered upon hay; as well as
with wheat, barley, vegetables, and a sort of barley-wine or beer,
in tubs, with the grains of barley on the surface. Reeds or straws,
without any joint in them, were lying near, through which they
sucked the liquid.[182] Xenophon did his utmost to conciliate the
headman (who spoke Persian, and with whom he communicated through
the Perso-Grecian interpreter of the army), promising him that not one of
his relations should be maltreated, and that he should be fully
remunerated if he would conduct the army safely out of the country,
into that of the Chalybes which he described as being adjacent.
By such treatment the headman was won over, promised his aid, and
even revealed to the Greeks the subterranean cellars wherein the
wine was deposited; while Xenophon, though he kept him constantly
under watch, and placed his youthful son as a hostage under the care
of Episthenes, yet continued to treat him with studied attention
and kindness. For seven days did the fatigued soldiers remain in
these comfortable quarters, refreshing themselves and regaining
strength. They were waited upon by the native youths, with whom
they communicated by means of signs. The uncommon happiness which
all of them enjoyed after their recent sufferings, stands depicted
in the lively details given by Xenophon; who left here his own
exhausted horse, and took young horses in exchange, for himself and
the other officers.[183]
After this week of repose, the army resumed its march through
the snow. The headman, whose house they had replenished as well as
they could, accompanied Cheirisophus in the van as guide, but was
not put in chains or under guard; his son remained as an hostage
with Episthenes, but his other relations were left unmolested at
home. As they marched for three days without reaching a village,
Cheirisophus began to suspect his fidelity, and even became so
out of humor, though the man affirmed that there were no villages
in the track, as to beat him,—yet without the precaution of
putting him afterwards in fetters. The next night, accordingly,
this headman made his escape; much to the displeasure of Xenophon,
who severely reproached Cheirisophus, first for his harshness,
and next for his neglect. This was the only point of difference
between the two (says Xenophon), during the whole march; a fact
very honorable to both, considering the numberless difficulties
against which they had to contend. Episthenes retained the
headman’s youthful son, carried him home in safety, and became much
attached to him.[184]
Condemned thus to march without a guide, they could do no better
than march up the course of a river; and thus, from the villages
which had proved so cheering and restorative, they proceeded
seven days’ march all through snow, up the river Phasis; a river
not verifiable, but certainly not the same as is commonly known
under that name by Grecian geographers; it was one hundred feet
in breadth.[185] Two more days’ march brought them from
this river to the foot of a range of mountains; near a pass occupied
by an armed body of Chalybes, Taochi, and Phasiani.
Observing the enemy in possession of this lofty ground,
Cheirisophus halted until all the army came up; in order that the
generals might take counsel. Here Kleanor began by advising that they
should storm the pass with no greater delay than was necessary to
refresh the soldiers. But Xenophon suggested that it was far better
to avoid the loss of life which must thus be incurred, and to amuse
the enemy by feigned attack, while a detachment should be sent by
stealth, at night, to ascend the mountain at another point and turn
the position. “However (continued he, turning to Cheirisophus),
stealing a march upon the enemy is more your trade than mine. For I
understand that you, the full citizens and peers at Sparta, practise
stealing from your boyhood upward;[186] and that it is held
no way base, but even honorable, to steal such things as the law does
not distinctly forbid. And to the end that you may steal with the
greatest effect, and take pains to do it in secret, the custom is,
to flog you if you are found out. Here, then, you have an excellent
opportunity for displaying your training. Take good care that we be
not found out in stealing an occupation of the mountain now before
us; for if we are found out, we shall be well beaten.
“Why, as for that (replied Cheirisophus), you Athenians, also,
as I learn, are capital hands at stealing the public money, and
that too in spite of prodigious peril to the thief; nay, your most
powerful men steal most of all,—at least, if it be the most
powerful men among you who are raised to official command. So that
this
is a time for you to exhibit your training as well as for me
to exhibit mine.”[187]
We have here an interchange of raillery between the two
Grecian officers, which is not an uninteresting feature in the
history of the expedition. The remark of Cheirisophus, especially
illustrates that which I noted in a former chapter as true both of
Sparta and Athens[188],—the readiness to take bribes,
so general in individuals clothed with official power; and the
readiness, in official Athenians, to commit such peculation, in
spite of serious risk of punishment. Now this chance of punishment
proceeded altogether from those accusing orators commonly called
demagogues, and from the popular judicature whom they addressed. The
joint working of both greatly abated the evil, yet was incompetent
to suppress it. But according to the pictures commonly drawn of
Athens, we are instructed to believe that the crying public evil
was,—too great a license of accusation, and too much judicial
trial. Assuredly, such was not the conception of Cheirisophus; nor
shall we find it borne out by any fair appreciation of the general
evidence. When the peculation of official persons was thus notorious
in spite of serious risks, what would it have become if the door
had been barred to accusing demagogues, and if the numerous popular
dikasts had been exchanged for a few select judges of the same stamp
and class as the official men themselves?
Enforcing his proposition, Xenophon now informed his colleagues
that he had just captured a few guides by laying an ambush for
certain native plunderers who beset the rear; and that these guides
acquainted him that the mountain was not inaccessible, but pastured
by goats and oxen. He farther offered himself to take command of
the marching detachment. But this being overruled by Cheirisophus,
some of the best among the captains, Aristonymus, Aristeas, and
Nichomachus, volunteered their services and were accepted. After
refreshing the soldiers, the generals marched with the main army near
to the foot of the pass, and there took up their night-station, making
demonstrations of a purpose to storm it the next morning. But as
soon as it was dark, Aristonymus and his detachment started, and
ascending the mountain at another point, obtained without resistance
a high position on the flank of the enemy, who soon, however, saw
them and despatched a force to keep guard on that side. At daybreak
these two detachments came to a conflict on the heights, in which the
Greeks were completely victorious, while Cheirisophus was marching
up the pass to attack the main body. His light troops, encouraged
by seeing this victory of their comrades, hastened on to the charge
faster than their hoplites could follow. But the enemy was so
dispirited by seeing themselves turned, that they fled with little
or no resistance. Though only a few were slain, many threw away
their light shields of wicker or wood-work, which became the prey
of the conquerors.[189]
Thus masters of the pass, the Greeks descended to the level
ground on the other side, where they found themselves in some
villages well-stocked with provisions and comforts; the first in
the country of the Taochi. Probably they halted here some days;
for they had seen no villages, either for rest or for refreshment,
during the last nine days’ march, since leaving those Armenian
villages in which they had passed a week so eminently restorative,
and which apparently had furnished them with a stock of provisions
for the onward journey. Such halt gave time to the Taochi to carry
up their families and provisions into inaccessible strongholds, so
that the Greeks found no supplies, during five days’ march through
the territory. Their provisions were completely exhausted, when
they arrived before one of these strongholds, a rock on which
were seen the families and the cattle of the Taochi; without
houses or fortification, but nearly surrounded by a river, so as
to leave only one narrow ascent, rendered unapproachable by vast
rocks which the defenders hurled or rolled from the summit. By an
ingenious combination of bravery and stratagem, in which some of the
captains much distinguished themselves, the Greeks overcame this
difficulty, and took the height. The scene which then ensued was
awful. The Taochian women seized their children, flung them over the
precipice, and then cast themselves headlong also, followed by the men. Almost
every soul thus perished, very few surviving to become prisoners.
An Arcadian captain named Æneas, seeing one of them in a fine dress
about to precipitate himself with the rest, seized him with a view
to prevent it. But the man in return grasped him firmly, dragged
him to the edge of the rock, and leaped down to the destruction
of both. Though scarcely any prisoners were taken, however, the
Greeks obtained abundance of oxen, asses, and sheep, which fully
supplied their wants.[190]
They now entered into the territory of the Chalybes, which
they were seven days in passing through. These were the bravest
warriors whom they had seen in Asia. Their equipment was a spear
of fifteen cubits long, with only one end pointed,—a helmet,
greaves, stuffed corselet, with a kilt or dependent flaps,—a
short sword which they employed to cut off the head of a slain
enemy, displaying the head in sight of their surviving enemies
with triumphant dance and song. They carried no shield; perhaps
because the excessive length of the spear required the constant
employment of both hands,—yet they did not shrink from
meeting the Greeks occasionally in regular, stand-up fight. As
they had carried off all their provisions into hill-forts, the
Greeks could obtain no supplies, but lived all the time upon the
cattle which they had acquired from the Taochi. After seven days of
march and combat,—the Chalybes perpetually attacking their
rear,—they reached the river Harpasus (four hundred feet
broad), where they passed into the territory of the Skythini. It
rather seems that the territory of the Chalybes was mountainous; that
of the Skythini was level, and containing villages, wherein they
remained three days, refreshing themselves, and stocking themselves
with provisions.[191]
Four days of additional march brought them to a sight, the like
of which they had not seen since Opis and Sittakê on the Tigris
in Babylonia,—a large and flourishing city called Gymnias;
an earnest of the neighborhood of the sea, of commerce, and of
civilization. The chief of this city received them in a friendly
manner, and furnished them with a guide who engaged to conduct them,
after five days’ march, to a hill from whence they would have a view
of the sea. This was by no means their nearest way to the sea, for
the chief of Gymnias wished to send them through the territory of
some neighbors to whom he was hostile; which territory, as soon
as they reached it, the guide desired them to burn and destroy.
However, the promise was kept, and on the fifth day, marching still
apparently through the territory of the Skythini, they reached
the summit of a mountain called Thêchê, from whence the Euxine
Sea was visible.[192]
An animated shout from the soldiers who formed the van-guard
testified the impressive effect of this long-deferred spectacle,
assuring as it seemed to do, their safety and their return home.
To Xenophon and to the rear-guard,—engaged in repelling the
attack of natives who had come forward to revenge the plunder of
their territory,—the shout was unintelligible. They at first
imagined that the natives had commenced attack in front as well
as in the rear, and that the van-guard was engaged in battle. But
every moment the shout became louder, as fresh men came to the
summit and gave vent to their feelings; so that Xenophon grew
anxious, and galloped up to the van with his handful of cavalry to
see what had happened. As he approached, the voice of the overjoyed
crowd was heard distinctly crying out, Thalatta, Thalatta (The
sea, the sea), and congratulating each other in ecstasy. The main
body, the rear-guard, the baggage-soldiers driving up their horses
and cattle before them, became all excited by the sound, and
hurried up breathless to the summit. The whole army, officers and
soldiers, were thus assembled, manifesting their joyous emotions
by tears, embraces, and outpourings of enthusiastic sympathy. With
spontaneous impulse they heaped up stones to decorate the spot by
a monument and commemorative trophy; putting on the stones such
homely offerings as their means afforded,—sticks, hides,
and a few of the wicker shields just taken from the natives. To
the guide, who had performed his engagement of bringing them in
five days within sight of the sea, their gratitude was unbounded.
They presented him with a horse, a silver bowl, a Persian costume,
and ten darics in money; besides several of the soldiers’ rings, which he
especially asked for. Thus loaded with presents, he left them, having
first shown them a village wherein they could find quarters,—as
well as the road which they were to take through the territory
of the Makrônes.[193]
When they reached the river which divided the land of the
Makrônes from that of the Skythini, they perceived the former
assembled in arms on the opposite side to resist their passage. The
river not being fordable, they cut down some neighboring trees to
provide the means of crossing. While these Makrônes were shouting
and encouraging each other aloud, a peltast in the Grecian army
came to Xenophon, saying that he knew their language, and that he
believed this to be his country. He had been a slave at Athens,
exported from home during his boyhood,—he had then made his
escape (probably during the Peloponnesian war, to the garrison of
Dekeleia), and afterwards taken military service. By this fortunate
accident, the generals were enabled to open negotiations with the
Makrônes, and to assure them that the army would do them no harm,
desiring nothing more than a free passage and a market to buy
provisions. The Makrônes, on receiving such assurance in their
own language from a countryman, exchanged pledges of friendship
with the Greeks, assisted them to pass the river, and furnished
the best market in their power during the three days’ march across
their territory.[194]
The army now reached the borders of the Kolchians, who were found
in hostile array, occupying the summit of a considerable mountain
which formed their frontier. Here Xenophon, having marshalled the
soldiers for attack, with each lochus (company of one hundred men)
in single file, instead of marching up the hill in phalanx, or
continuous front with only a scanty depth,—addressed to them
the following pithy encouragement,—“Now, gentlemen, these
enemies before us are the only impediment that keeps us away from
reaching the point at which we have been so long aiming. We must even
eat them raw, if in any way we can do so.”
Eighty of these formidable companies of hoplites, each in
single file, now began to ascend the hill; the peltasts and bowmen
being partly distributed among them, partly placed on the flanks.
Cheirisophus and Xenophon, each commanding on one wing, spread their peltasts
in such a way as to outflank the Kolchians, who accordingly weakened
their centre in order to strengthen their wings. Hence the Arcadian
peltasts and hoplites in the Greek centre were enabled to attack and
disperse the centre with little resistance; and all the Kolchians
presently fled, leaving the Greeks in possession of their camp, as
well as of several well-stocked villages in their rear. Amidst these
villages the army remained to refresh themselves for several days. It
was here that they tasted the grateful, but unwholesome honey, which
this region still continues to produce,—unaware of its peculiar
properties. Those soldiers who ate little of it were like men greatly
intoxicated with wine; those who ate much, were seized with the most
violent vomiting and diarrhœa, lying down like madmen in a state of
delirium. From this terrible distemper some recovered on the ensuing
day, others two or three days afterwards. It does not appear that any
one actually died.[195]
Two more days’ march brought them to the sea, at the Greek
maritime city of Trapezus or Trebizond, founded by the inhabitants of
Sinôpê on the coast of the Kolchian territory. Here the Trapezuntines
received them with kindness and hospitality, sending them presents
of bullocks, barley-meal, and wine. Taking up their quarters in some
Kolchian villages near the town, they now enjoyed, for the first
time since leaving Tarsus, a safe and undisturbed repose during
thirty days, and were enabled to recover in some degree from the
severe hardships which they had undergone. While the Trapezuntines
brought produce for sale into the camp, the Greeks provided the
means of purchasing it by predatory incursions against the Kolchians
on the hills. Those Kolchians who dwelt under the hills and on the
plain were in a state of semi-dependence upon Trapezus; so that the
Trapezuntines mediated on their behalf and prevailed on the Greeks to leave
them unmolested, on condition of a contribution of bullocks.
These bullocks enabled the Greeks to discharge the vow which they
had made, on the proposition of Xenophon, to Zeus the Preserver,
during that moment of dismay and despair which succeeded immediately
on the massacre of their generals by Tissaphernes. To Zeus the
Preserver, to Hêraklês the Conductor, and to various other gods, they
offered an abundant sacrifice on their mountain camp overhanging the
sea; and after the festival ensuing, the skins of the victims were
given as prizes to competitors in running, wrestling, boxing, and
the pankration. The superintendence of such festival games, so fully
accordant with Grecian usage and highly interesting to the army,
was committed to a Spartan named Drakontius; a man whose destiny
recalls that of Patroklus and other Homeric heroes,—for he
had been exiled as a boy, having unintentionally killed another
boy with a short sword. Various departures from Grecian custom,
however, were admitted. The matches took place on the steep and stony
hill-side overhanging the sea, instead of on a smooth plain; and the
numerous hard falls of the competitors afforded increased interest
to the bystanders. The captive non-Hellenic boys were admitted
to run for the prize, since otherwise a boy-race could not have
been obtained. Lastly, the animation of the scene, as well as the
ardor of the competitors, was much enhanced by the number of their
mistresses present.[196]
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER LXX.
ON THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND
AFTER THEY QUITTED THE TIGRIS AND ENTERED THE KARDUCHIAN
MOUNTAINS.
It
would be injustice to this gallant and long-suffering body of men not
to present the reader with a minute description of the full length
of their stupendous march. Up to the moment when the Greeks enter
Karduchia, the line of march may be indicated upon evidence which,
though not identifying special halting-places or localities, makes
us certain that we cannot be far wrong on the whole. But after that
moment, the evidence gradually disappears, and we are left with
nothing more than a knowledge of the terminus, the general course,
and a few negative conditions.
Mr. Ainsworth has given, in his Book IV. (Travels in the Track of
the Ten Thousand, p. 155 seq.) an interesting topographical comment
on the march through Karduchia, and on the difficulties which the
Greeks would have to surmount. He has farther shown what may have
been their probable line of march through Karduchia; but the most
important point which he has established here, seems to be the
identity of the river Kentritês with the Buhtan-Chai, an eastern
affluent of the Tigris—distinguishing it from the river of
Bitlis on the west and the river Khabur on the south-east, with both
of which it had been previously confounded (p. 167). The Buhtan-Chai
falls into the Tigris at a village called Til, and “constitutes at
the present day, a natural barrier between Kurdistan and Armenia” (p.
166). In this identification of the Kentritês with the Buhtan-Chai,
Professor Koch agrees (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 78).
If the Greeks crossed the Kentritês near its confluence with the
Tigris, they would march up its right bank in one day to a situation
near the modern town of Sert (Mr. Ainsworth thinks), though Xenophon
takes no notice of the river of Bitlis, which nevertheless they must
have passed. Their next two days of march, assuming a direction
nearly north, would carry them (as Xenophon states, iv. 4, 2) beyond
the sources of the Tigris; that is, “beyond the headwaters of the
eastern tributaries to the Tigris.”
Three days of additional march brought them to the river
Teleboas—“of no great size, but beautiful” (iv. 4, 4). There
appear sufficient reasons to identify this river with the Kara-Su or
Black River, which flows through the valley or plain of Mush into
the Murad or Eastern Euphrates (Ainsworth, p. 172; Ritter, Erdkunde, part
x. s. 37. p. 682). Though Kinneir (Journey through Asia Minor and
Kurdistan, 1818, p. 484), Rennell (Illustrations of the Expedition of
Cyrus, p. 207) and Bell (System of Geography, iv. p. 140) identify it
with the Ak-Su or river of Mush—this, according to Ainsworth,
“is only a small tributary to the Kara-Su, which is the great river
of the plain and district.”
Professor Koch, whose personal researches in and around Armenia
give to his opinion the highest authority, follows Mr. Ainsworth in
identifying the Teleboas with the Kara-Su. He supposes, however, that
the Greeks crossed the Kentritês, not near its confluence with the
Tigris, but considerably higher up, near the town of Sert or Sort.
From hence he supposes that they marched nearly north-east in the
modern road from Sert to Bitlis, thus getting round the head or near
the head of the river called Bitlis-Su, which is one of the eastern
affluents to the Tigris (falling first into the Buhtan-Chai), and
which Xenophon took for the Tigris itself. They then marched farther,
in a line not far distant from the Lake of Van, over the saddle which
separates that lake from the lofty mountain Ali-Dagh. This saddle is
the water-shed which separates the affluents to the Tigris from those
to the Eastern Euphrates, of which latter the Teleboas or Kara-Su is
one (Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 82-84).
After the river Teleboas, there seems no one point in the march
which can be identified with anything approaching to certainty. Nor
have we any means even of determining the general line of route,
apart from specific places, which they followed from the river
Teleboas to Trebizond.
Their first object was to reach and cross the Eastern Euphrates.
They would of course cross at the nearest point where they could
find a ford. But how low down its course does the river continue to
be fordable, in mid-winter, with snow on the ground? Here professor
Koch differs from Mr. Ainsworth and colonel Chesney. He affirms that
the river would be fordable a little above its confluence with the
Tscharbahur, about latitude 39° 3′. According to Mr. Ainsworth, it
would not be fordable below the confluence with the river of Khanus
(Khinnis). Koch’s authority, as the most recent and systematic
investigator of these regions, seems preferable, especially as it
puts the Greeks nearly in the road now travelled over from Mush to
Erzerum, which is said to be the only pass over the mountains open
throughout all the winter, passing by Khinnis and Koili; see Ritter,
Erdkunde, x. p. 387. Xenophon mentions a warm spring, which the army
passed by during the third or fourth day after crossing the Euphrates
(Anab. iv, 5, 15). Professor Koch believes himself to have identified
this warm spring—the only one, as he states (p. 90-93), south
of the range of mountains called the Bingöldagh—in the district
called Wardo, near the village of Bashkan.
To lay down, with any certainty, the line which the Greeks
followed from the Euphrates to Trebizond, appears altogether
impossible. I cannot admit the hypothesis of Mr. Ainsworth, who
conducts the army across the Araxes to its northern bank, carries
them up northward to the latitude of Teflis in Georgia, then brings
them back again across the Harpa Chai (a northern affluent of the
Araxes, which he identifies with the Harpasus mentioned by Xenophon)
and the Araxes itself, to Gymnias, which he places near the site of
Erzerum. Professor Koch (p. 104-108), who dissents with good reason
from Mr. Ainsworth, proposes (though with hesitation and uncertainty)
a line of his own which appears to me open greatly to the same
objection as that of Mr. Ainsworth. It carries the Greeks too much to
the northward of Erzerum, more out of their line of march from the
place where they crossed the Eastern Euphrates, than can be justified
by any probability. The Greeks knew well that, in order to get home
they must take a westerly direction (see Anab. iii. 5, 15).
Their great and constant purpose would be to make way to the
westward, as soon as they had crossed the Euphrates; and the road
from that river, passing near the site of Erzerum to Trebizond, would
thus coincide, in the main, with their spontaneous tendency. They
had no motive to go northward of Erzerum, nor ought we to suppose it
without some proof. I trace out, therefore, a line of march much less
circuitous; not meaning it to be understood as the real road which
the army can be proved to have taken, but simply because it seems a
possible line, and because it serves as a sort of approximation to
complete the reader’s idea of the entire ground travelled over by the
Ten Thousand.
Koch hardly makes sufficient account of the overwhelming hardships
with which the Greeks had to contend, when he states (p. 96) that
if they had taken a line as straight, or nearly as straight as was
practicable, they might have marched from the Euphrates to Trebizond
in sixteen or twenty days, even allowing for the bad time of year.
Considering that it was mid-winter, in that very high and cold
country, with deep snow throughout; that they had absolutely no
advantages or assistance of any kind; that their sick and disabled
men, together with their arms, were to be carried by the stronger;
that there were a great many women accompanying them; that they
had beasts to drive along, carrying baggage and plunder,—the
prophet Silanus, for example, having preserved his three thousand
darics in coin from the field of Kunaxa until his return; that there
was much resistance from the Chalybes and Taochi; that they had to
take provisions where provisions were discoverable; that even a
small stream must have impeded them, and probably driven them out
of their course to find a ford,—considering the intolerable
accumulation of these and other hardships, we need not wonder at any
degree of slowness in their progress. It rarely happens that modern
travellers go over these regions in mid-winter; but we may see what
travelling is at that season, by the dreadful description which Mr.
Baillie Fraser gives of his journey from Tauris to Erzerum in the
month of March (Travels in Koordhistan, Letter XV). Mr. Kinneir
says (Travels, p. 353)—“The winters are so severe that all
communication between Baiburt and the circumjacent villages is cut
off for four months in the year, in consequence of the depth of the
snow.”
Now if we measure on Kiepert’s map the rectilinear
distance,—the air-line—from Trebizond to the place
where Koch represents the Greeks to have crossed the Eastern
Euphrates,—we shall find it one hundred and seventy English
miles. The number of days’ journey-marches which Xenophon mentions
are fifty-four; even if we include the five days of march undertaken
from Gymnias (Anab. iv. 7, 20), which, properly speaking, were
directed against the enemies of the governor of Gymnias, more than
for the promotion of their retreat. In each of those fifty-four days,
therefore, they must have made 3.14 miles of rectilinear progress.
This surely is not an unreasonably slow progress to suppose, under
all the disadvantages of their situation; nor does it imply any
very great actual departure from the straightest line practicable.
Indeed Koch himself (in his Introduction, p. 4) suggests various
embarrassments which must have occurred on the march, but which
Xenophon has not distinctly stated.
The river which Xenophon calls the Harpasus seems to be probably
the Tchoruk-su, as colonel Chesney and Prof. Koch suppose. At least
it is difficult to assign any other river with which the Harpasus can
be identified.
I cannot but think it probable that the city which Xenophon calls
Gymnias (Diodorus, xiv. 29, calls it Gymnasia) was the same as
that which is now called Gumisch-Khana (Hamilton), Gumush-Kaneh
(Ainsworth), Gemisch-Khaneh (Kinneir). “Gumisch-Khana (says Mr.
Hamilton, Travels in Asia Minor, vol. i. ch. xi. p. 168; ch. xiv. p.
234) is celebrated as the site of the most ancient and considerable
silver-mines in the Ottoman dominions.” Both Mr. Kinneir and Mr.
Hamilton passed through Gumisch-Khana on the road from Trebizond to
Erzerum.
Now here is not only great similarity of name, and likelihood of
situation,—but the existence of the silver mines furnishes a
plausible explanation of that which would otherwise be very strange;
the existence of this “great, flourishing, inhabited, city,” inland,
in the midst of such barbarians,—the Chalybes, the Skythini,
the Makrônes, etc.
Mr. Kinneir reached Gumisch-Khana at the end of the third day
after quitting Trebizond; the two last days having been very long
and fatiguing. Mr. Hamilton, who also passed through Gumisch-Khana,
reached it at the end of two long days. Both these travellers
represent
the road near Gumisch-Khana as extremely difficult. Mr. Ainsworth,
who did not himself pass through Gumisch-Khana, tells us (what is of
some importance in this discussion) that it lies in the winter-road
from Erzerum to Trebizond (Travels in Asia Minor, vol. ii. p. 394).
“The winter-road, which is the longest, passes by Gumisch-Khana, and
takes the longer portion of valley; all the others cross over the
mountain at various points, to the east of the road by the mines. But
whether going by the mountains or the valley, the muleteers often go
indifferently to the west as far as Ash Kaleh, and at other times
turn off by the villages of Bey Mausour and Kodjah Bunar, where they
take to the mountains.”
Mr. Hamilton makes the distance from Trebizond to Gumisch-Khana
eighteen hours, or fifty-four calculated post miles; that is, about
forty English miles (Appendix to Travels in Asia Minor, vol. ii. p.
389).
Now we are not to suppose that the Greeks marched in any direct
road from Gymnias to Trebizond. On the contrary, the five days’
march which they undertook immediately from Gymnias were conducted
by a guide sent from that town, who led them over the territories of
people hostile to Gymnias, in order that they might lay waste the
lands (iv. 7, 20). What progress they made, during these marches,
towards Trebizond, is altogether doubtful. The guide promised that on
the fifth day he would bring them to a spot from whence they could
view the sea, and he performed his promise by leading them to the top
of the sacred mountain Thêchê.
Thêchê was a summit (ἄκρον, iv. 7, 25), as might be expected. But
unfortunately it seems impossible to verify the particular summit
on which the interesting scene described by Xenophon took place.
Mr. Ainsworth presumes it to be the mountain called Kop-Dagh; from
whence, however, according to Koch, the sea cannot be discerned.
D’Anville and some other geographers identify it with the ridge
called Tekieh-Dagh, to the east of Gumisch-Khana; nearer to the sea
than that place. This mountain, I think, would suit pretty well for
the narrative in respect to position; but Koch and other modern
travellers affirm that it is neither high enough, nor near enough to
the sea, to permit any such view as that which Xenophon relates. It
stands on Kiepert’s map at a distance of full thirty-five English
miles from the sea, the view of which, moreover, seems intercepted
by the still higher mountain-chain now called Kolath-Dagh, a portion
of the ancient Paryadres, which runs along parallel to the coast. It
is to be recollected that in the first half of February, the time of
Xenophon’s visit, the highest peaks would certainly be all covered
with snow, and therefore very difficult to ascend.
There is a striking view obtained of the sea from the mountain
called Karakaban. This mountain, more than four thousand feet
high, lies rather above twenty miles from the sea, to the south of
Trebizond,
and immediately north of the still higher chain of Kolath-Dagh. From
the Kolath-Dagh chain, which runs east and west, there strike out
three or four parallel ridges to the northward, formed of primitive
slate, and cut down precipitously so as to leave deep and narrow
valleys between. On leaving Trebizond, the traveller ascends the hill
immediately above the town, and then descends into the valley on
the other side. His road to Karakaban lies partly along the valley,
partly along the crest of one of the four ridges just mentioned. But
throughout all this road, the sea is never seen; being hidden by the
hills immediately above Trebizond. He does not again see the sea
until he reaches Karakaban, which is sufficiently high to enable him
to see over those hills. The guides (as I am informed by Dr. Holland,
who twice went over the spot) point out with great animation this
view of the sea, as particularly deserving of notice. It is enjoyed
for a short space while the road winds round the mountain, and then
again lost.
Here is a view of the sea at once distant, sudden, impressive,
and enjoyed from an eminence not too high to be accessible to the
Cyreian army. In so far, it would be suitable to the description of
Xenophon. Yet again it appears that a person coming to this point
from the land-side (as Xenophon of course did), would find it in
his descending route, not in his ascending; and this can hardly be
reconciled with the description which we read in the Greek historian.
Moreover, the subsequent marches which Xenophon mentions after
quitting the mountain summit Thêchê, can hardly be reconciled with
the supposition that it was the same as what is now called Karakaban.
It is, indeed, quite possible, (as Mr. Hamilton suggests), that
Thêchê may have been a peak apart from any road, and that the guide
may have conducted the soldiers thither for the express purpose of
showing the sea, guiding them back again into the road afterwards.
This increases the difficulty of identifying the spot. However, the
whole region is as yet very imperfectly known, and perhaps it is
not impossible that there may be some particular locality even on
Tekiah-Dagh, whence, through an accidental gap in the intervening
mountains, the sea might become visible.
CHAPTER LXXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE TEN THOUSAND GREEKS, FROM THE TIME THAT THEY REACHED TRAPEZUS, TO THEIR JUNCTION WITH THE LACEDÆMONIAN ARMY IN ASIA MINOR.
We now commence a
third act in the history of this memorable body of men. After having
followed them from Sardis to Kunaxa as mercenaries to procure the
throne for Cyrus,—then from Kunaxa to Trapezus as men anxious
only for escape, and purchasing their safety by marvellous bravery,
endurance, and organization, we shall now track their proceedings
among the Greek colonies on the Euxine and at the Bosphorus of
Thrace, succeeded by their struggles against the meanness of the
Thracian prince Seuthes, as well as against the treachery and
arbitrary harshness of the Lacedæmonian commanders Anaxibius and
Aristarchus.
Trapezus, now Trebizond, where the army had recently found repose,
was a colony from Sinôpê, as were also Kerasus and Kotyôra, farther
westward; each of them receiving an harmost or governor from the
mother-city, and paying to her an annual tribute. All these three
cities were planted on the narrow strip of land dividing the Euxine
from the elevated mountain range which so closely borders on its
southern coast. At Sinôpê itself, the land stretches out into a
defensible peninsula, with a secure harbor, and a large breadth of
adjacent fertile soil. So tempting a site invited the Milesians, even
before the year 600 B.C., to plant a colony there,
and enabled Sinôpê to attain much prosperity and power. Farther
westward, not more than a long day’s journey for a rowing vessel from
Byzantium, was situated the Megarian colony of Herakleia, in the
territory of the Mariandyni.
The native tenants of this line of coast, upon whom the Greek
settlers intruded themselves (reckoning from the westward), were
the Bithynian Thracians, the Mariandyni, the Paphlagonians, the
Tibarêni, Chalybes, Mosynœki, Drilæ, and Kolchians. Here, as
elsewhere, these natives found the Greek seaports useful, in
giving a new value to inland produce, and in furnishing the great
men
with ornaments and luxuries to which they would otherwise have had
no access. The citizens of Herakleia had reduced into dependence
a considerable portion of the neighboring Mariandyni, and held
them in a relation resembling that of the natives of Esthonia
and Livonia to the German colonies in the Baltic. Some of the
Kolchian villages were also subject, in the same manner, to the
Trapezuntines;[197] and Sinôpê doubtless possessed a similar
inland dominion of greater or less extent. But the principal wealth
of this important city arose from her navy and maritime commerce;
from the rich thunny fishery attached to her promontory; from the
olives in her immediate neighborhood, which was a cultivation not
indigenous, but only naturalized by the Greeks on the seaboard;
from the varied produce of the interior, comprising abundant herds
of cattle, mines of silver, iron, and copper in the neighboring
mountains, wood for ship-building, as well as for house furniture,
and native slaves.[198] The case was similar with the three
colonies of Sinôpê, more to the eastward,—Kotyôra, Kerasus,
and Trapezus; except that the mountains which border on the
Euxine, gradually approaching nearer and nearer to the shore,
left to each of them a more confined strip of cultivable land.
For these cities the time had not yet arrived, to be conquered
and absorbed by the inland monarchies around them, as Miletus
and the cities on the eastern coast of Asia Minor had been. The
Paphlagonians were at this time the only indigenous people in
those regions who formed a considerable aggregated force, under
a prince named Korylas; a prince tributary to Persia, yet half
independent,—since he had disobeyed the summons of Artaxerxes
to come up and help in repelling Cyrus[199]—and now on
terms of established alliance with Sinôpê, though not without
secret designs, which he wanted only force to execute, against
that city.[200] The other native tribes to the eastward
were mountaineers both ruder and more divided; warlike on their own
heights, but little capable of any aggressive combinations.
Though we are told that Perikles had once despatched a detachment
of Athenian colonists to Sinôpê,[201] and had expelled
from thence the despot Timesilaus,—yet neither that city nor
any of
their neighbors appear to have taken a part in the Peloponnesian
war, either for or against Athens; nor were they among the number of
tributaries to Persia. They doubtless were acquainted with the upward
march of Cyrus, which had disturbed all Asia; and probably were not
ignorant of the perils and critical state of his Grecian army. But it
was with a feeling of mingled surprise, admiration, and alarm, that
they saw that army descend from the mountainous region, hitherto only
recognized as the abode of Kolchians, Makrônes, and other analogous
tribes, among whom was perched the mining city of Gymnias.
Even after all the losses and extreme sufferings of
the retreat, the Greeks still numbered, when mustered at
Kerasus,[202] eight thousand six hundred hoplites,
with peltasts or targeteers, bowmen, slingers, etc., making a total
of above ten thousand military persons. Such a force had never
before been seen in the Euxine. Considering both the numbers and
the now-acquired discipline and self-confidence of the Cyreians,
even Sinôpê herself could have raised no force capable of meeting
them in the field. Yet they did not belong to any city, nor
receive orders from any established government. They were like
those mercenary armies which marched about in Italy during the
fourteenth century, under the generals called Condottieri, taking
service sometimes with one city, sometimes with another. No one
could predict what schemes they might conceive, or in what manner
they might deal with the established communities on the shores of
the Euxine. If we imagine that such an army had suddenly appeared
in Sicily, a little time before the Athenian expedition against
Syracuse, it would have been probably enlisted by Leontini and
Katana in their war against Syracuse. If the inhabitants of
Trapezus had wished to throw off the dominion of Sinôpê,—or
if Korylas, the Paphlagonian, were meditating war against that
city,—here were formidable auxiliaries to second their wishes.
Moreover there were various tempting sites, open to the formation
of a new colony, which, with so numerous a body of original
Greek settlers, would probably have overtopped Sinôpê herself. There was
no restraining cause to reckon upon, except the general Hellenic
sympathies and education of the Cyreian army; and what was of not
less importance, the fact that they were not mercenary soldiers by
permanent profession, such as became so formidably multiplied in
Greece during the next generation,—but established citizens
who had come out on a special service under Cyrus, with the full
intention, after a year of lucrative enterprise, to return to their
homes and families.[203] We shall find such gravitation towards
home steadily operative throughout the future proceedings of the
army. But at the moment when they first emerged from the mountains,
no one could be sure that it would be so. There was ample ground for
uneasiness among the Euxine Greeks, especially the Sinopians, whose
supremacy had never before been endangered.
An undisturbed repose of thirty days enabled the Cyreians to
recover from their fatigues, to talk over their past dangers, and
to take pride in the anticipated effect which their unparalleled
achievement could not fail to produce in Greece. Having discharged
their vows and celebrated their festival to the gods, they held
an assembly to discuss their future proceedings; when a Thurian
soldier, named Antileon, exclaimed,—“Comrades, I am already
tired of packing up, marching, running, carrying arms, falling into
line, keeping watch, and fighting. Now that we have the sea here
before us, I desire to be relieved from all these toils, to sail
the rest of the way, and to arrive in Greece outstretched and asleep,
like Odysseus.” This pithy address being received with vehement
acclamations, and warmly responded to by all,—Cheirisophus
offered, if the army chose to empower him, to sail forthwith to
Byzantium, where he thought he could obtain from his friend the
Lacedæmonian admiral, Anaxibius, sufficient vessels for transport.
His proposition was gladly accepted; and he departed to execute the
project.
Xenophon then urged upon the army various resolutions and
measures, proper for the regulation of affairs during the absence
of Cheirisophus. The army would be forced to maintain itself by
marauding expeditions among the hostile tribes in the mountains.
Such expeditions, accordingly, must be put under regulation; neither
individual soldiers, nor small companies, must be allowed to go
out at pleasure, without giving notice to the generals; moreover,
the camp must be kept under constant guard and scouts, in the
event of surprise from a retaliating enemy. It was prudent also
to take the best measures in their power for procuring vessels;
since, after all, Cheirisophus might possibly fail in bringing
an adequate number. They ought to borrow a few ships of war from
the Trapezuntines, and detain all the merchant ships which they
saw; unshipping the rudders, placing the cargoes under guard, and
maintaining the crew during all the time that the ships might be
required for transport of the army. Many such merchant vessels were
often sailing by;[204] so that they would thus acquire the means
of transport, even though Cheirisophus should bring few or none from
Byzantium. Lastly, Xenophon proposed to require the Grecian cities to
repair and put in order the road along the coast, for a land-march;
since, perhaps, with all their efforts, it would be found impossible
to get together a sufficient stock of transports.
All the propositions of Xenophon were readily adopted by the army,
except the last. But the mere mention of a renewed land-march excited
such universal murmurs of repugnance, that he did not venture to put
that question to the vote. He took upon himself, however, to send
messages to the Grecian cities, on his own responsibility; urging
them to repair the roads, in order that the departure of the army might be
facilitated. And he found the cities ready enough to carry his
wishes into effect, as far as Kotyôra.[205]
The wisdom of these precautionary suggestions of Xenophon soon
appeared; for Cheirisophus not only failed in his object, but was
compelled to stay away for a considerable time. A pentekonter (or
armed ship with fifty oars) was borrowed from the Trapezuntines, and
committed to the charge of a Lacedæmonian Periœkus, named Dexippus,
for the purpose of detaining the merchant vessels passing by. This
man having violated his trust, and employed the ship to make his own
escape out of the Euxine, a second was obtained and confided to an
Athenian, Polykrates; who brought in successively several merchant
vessels. These the Greeks did not plunder, but secured the cargoes
under adequate guard, and only reserved the vessels for transports.
It became, however, gradually more and more difficult to supply the
camp with provisions. Though the army was distributed into suitable
detachments for plundering the Kolchian villages on the hills, and
seizing cattle and prisoners for sale, yet these expeditions did
not always succeed; indeed on one occasion, two Grecian lochi or
companies got entangled in such difficult ground, that they were
destroyed, to a man. The Kolchians united on the hills in increased
and menacing numbers, insomuch that a larger guard became necessary
for the camp; while the Trapezuntines,—tired of the protracted
stay of the army, as well as desirous of exempting from pillage the
natives in their own immediate neighborhood,—conducted the
detachments only to villages alike remote and difficult of access.
It was in this manner that a large force under Xenophon himself,
attacked the lofty and rugged stronghold of the Drilæ,—the
most warlike nation of mountaineers in the neighborhood of the
Euxine; well armed, and troublesome to Trapezus by their incursions.
After a difficult march and attack which Xenophon describes in
interesting detail, and wherein the Greeks encountered no small
hazard of ruinous defeat,—they returned in the end completely
successful, and with a plentiful booty.[206]
At length, after long awaiting in vain the reappearance of
Cheirisophus, increasing scarcity and weariness determined them
to leave
Trapezus. A sufficient number of vessels had been collected to
serve for the transport of the women, of the sick and wounded, and
of the baggage. All these were accordingly placed on board, under
the command of Philesius and Sophænetus, the two oldest generals;
while the remaining army marched by land, along a road which had
been just made good under the representations of Xenophon. In
three days they reached Kerasus, another maritime colony of the
Sinopeans, still in the territory called Kolchian; there they
halted ten days, mustered and numbered the army, and divided the
money acquired by the sale of their prisoners. Eight thousand six
hundred hoplites, out of a total probably greater than eleven
thousand, were found still remaining; besides targeteers and various
light troops.[207]
During the halt at Kerasus, the declining discipline of the
army became manifest as they approached home. Various acts of
outrage occurred, originating now, as afterwards, in the intrigues
of treacherous officers. A captain named Klearetus persuaded his
company to attempt the plunder of a Kolchian village near Kerasus,
which had furnished a friendly market to the Greeks, and which
rested secure on the faith of peaceful relations. He intended to
make off separately with the booty in one of the vessels; but his
attack was repelled, and he himself slain. The injured villagers
despatched three elders, as heralds, to remonstrate with the Grecian
authorities; but these heralds being seen in Kerasus by some of the
repulsed plunderers, were slain. A partial tumult then ensued, in
which even the magistrates of Kerasus were in great danger, and only
escaped the pursuing soldiers by running into the sea. This enormity, though
it occurred under the eyes of the generals, immediately before their
departure from Kerasus, remained without inquiry or punishment, from
the numbers concerned in it.
Between Kerasus and Kotyôra, there was not then (nor is there now)
any regular road.[208] This march cost the Cyreian army
not less than ten days, by an inland track departing from the
sea-shore, and through the mountains inhabited by the indigenous
tribes Mosynœki and Chalybes. The latter, celebrated for their
iron works, were under dependence to the former. As the Mosynœki
refused to grant a friendly passage across their territory, the
army were compelled to fight their way through it as enemies, with
the aid of one section of these people themselves; which alliance
was procured for them by the Trapezuntine Timesitheos, who was
proxenus of the Mosynœki, and understood their language. The
Greeks took the mountain fastnesses of this people, and plundered
the wooden turrets which formed their abodes. Of their peculiar
fashions Xenophon gives an interesting description, which I have
not space to copy.[209] The territory of the Tibarêni was more
easy and accessible. This people met the Greeks with presents, and
tendered a friendly passage. But the generals at first declined
the presents,—preferring to treat them as enemies and plunder
them; which in fact they would have done, had they not been
deterred by inauspicious sacrifices.[210]
Near Kotyôra, which was situated on the coast of the Tibarêni, yet
on the borders of Paphlagonia, they remained forty-five days, still
awaiting the appearance of Cheirisophus with the transports to carry
them away by sea. The Sinopian harmost or governor, did not permit
them to be welcomed in so friendly a manner as at Trapezus. No market
was provided for them, nor were their sick admitted within the walls.
But the fortifications of the town were not so constructed as to
resist a Greek force, the like of which had never before been seen
in those regions. The Greek generals found a weak point, made their
way in, and took possession of a few houses for the accommodation
of their sick; keeping a guard at the gate to secure free egress,
but doing no farther violence to the citizens. They obtained their
victuals partly from the Kotyôrite villages, partly from the
neighboring territory of Paphlagonia, until at length envoys arrived
from Sinôpê to remonstrate against their proceedings.
These envoys presented themselves before the assembled soldiers
in the camp, when Hekatonymus, the chief and the most eloquent
among them, began by complimenting the army upon their gallant
exploits and retreat. He then complained of the injury which Kotyôra
and Sinôpê, as the mother city of Kotyôra, had suffered at their
hands, in violation of common Hellenic kinship. If such proceedings
were continued, he intimated that Sinôpê would be compelled in
her own defence to seek alliance with the Paphlagonian prince
Korylas, or any other barbaric auxiliary who would lend them aid
against the Greeks.[211] Xenophon replied that if the Kotyôrites
had sustained any damage, it was owing to their own ill-will and to
the Sinopian harmost in the place; that the generals were under the
necessity of procuring subsistence for the soldiers, with house-room
for the sick, and that they had taken nothing more; that the sick men
were lying within the town, but at their own cost, while the other
soldiers were all encamped without; that they had maintained cordial
friendship with the Trapezuntines, and requited all their good
offices; that they sought no enemies except through necessity, being
anxious
only again to reach Greece; and that as for the threat respecting
Korylas, they knew well enough that that prince was eager to become
master of the wealthy city of Sinôpê, and would speedily attempt
some such enterprise if he could obtain the Cyreian army as his
auxiliaries.[212]
This judicious reply shamed the colleagues of Hekatonymus so much,
that they went the length of protesting against what he had said,
and of affirming that they had come with propositions of sympathy
and friendship to the army, as well as with promises to give them
an hospitable reception at Sinôpê, if they should visit that town
on their way home. Presents were at once sent to the army by the
inhabitants of Kotyôra, and a good understanding established.
Such an interchange of good will with the powerful city of Sinôpê
was an unspeakable advantage to the army,—indeed, an essential
condition to their power of reaching home. If they continued their
march by land, it was only through Sinopian guidance and mediation
that they could obtain or force a passage through Paphlagonia; while
for a voyage by sea, there was no chance of procuring a sufficient
number of vessels except from Sinôpê, since no news had been
received of Cheirisophus. On the other hand, that city had also a
strong interest in facilitating their transit homeward, and thus
removing formidable neighbors for whose ulterior purposes there
could be no guarantee. After some preliminary conversation with the
Sinopian envoys, the generals convoked the army in assembly, and
entreated Hekatonymus and his companions to advise them as to the
best mode of proceeding westward to the Bosphorus. Hekatonymus,
after apologizing for the menacing insinuations of his former
speech, and protesting that he had no other object in view except
to point out the safest and easiest plan of route for the army,
began to unfold the insuperable difficulties of a march through
Paphlagonia. The very entrance into the country must be achieved
through a narrow aperture in the mountains, which it was impossible
to force if occupied by the enemy. Even assuming this difficulty to
be surmounted, there were spacious plains to be passed over, wherein
the Paphlagonian horse, the most numerous and bravest in Asia,
would be found almost irresistible. There were also three or four
great rivers, which the army would be unable to pass,—the Thermodon
and the Iris, each three hundred feet in breadth,—the Halys,
two stadia or nearly a quarter of a mile in breadth,—the
Parthenius, also very considerable. Such an array of obstacles (he
affirmed) rendered the project of marching through Paphlagonia
impracticable; whereas the voyage by sea from Kotyôra to Sinôpê,
and from Sinôpê to Herakleia, was easy; and the transit from
the latter place, either by sea to Byzantium, or by land across
Thrace, yet easier.[213]
Difficulties like these, apparently quite real, were more than
sufficient to determine the vote of the army, already sick of
marching and fighting, in favor of the sea-voyage; though there
were not wanting suspicions of the sincerity of Hekatonymus. But
Xenophon, in communicating to the latter the decision of the army,
distinctly apprised him that they would on no account permit
themselves to be divided; that they would either depart or remain
all in a body, and that vessels must be provided sufficient for
the transport of all. Hekatonymus desired them to send envoys
of their own to Sinôpê to make the necessary arrangements.
Three envoys were accordingly sent,—Ariston, an Athenian,
Kalimachus, an Arcadian, and Samolas, an Achæan; the Athenian,
probably, as possessing the talent of speaking in the Sinopian
senate or assembly.[214]
During the absence of these envoys, the army still continued
near Kotyôra with a market provided by the town, and with
traders from Sinôpê and Herakleia in the camp. Such soldiers as
had no money wherewith to purchase, subsisted by pillaging the
neighboring frontier of Paphlagonia.[215] But they were
receiving no pay; every man was living on his own resources;
and instead of carrying back a handsome purse to Greece, as
each soldier had hoped when he first took service under Cyrus,
there seemed every prospect of their returning poorer than when
they left home.[216] Moreover, the army was now moving onward
without any definite purpose, with increasing dissatisfaction
and decreasing discipline; insomuch that Xenophon foresaw the
difficulties which would beset the responsible commanders when they
should come within the stricter restraints and obligations of the
Grecian world.
It was these considerations which helped to suggest to him the
idea of employing the army on some enterprise of conquest and
colonization in the Euxine itself; an idea highly flattering to
his personal ambition, especially as the army was of unrivalled
efficiency against an enemy, and no such second force could ever
be got together in those distant regions. His patriotism as a
Greek was inflamed with the thoughts of procuring for Hellas a new
autonomous city, occupied by a considerable Hellenic population,
possessing a spacious territory, and exercising dominion over many
indigenous neighbors. He seems to have thought first of attacking and
conquering some established non-Hellenic city; an act which his ideas
of international morality did not forbid, in a case where he had
contracted no special convention with the inhabitants,—though
he (as well as Cheirisophus) strenuously protested against doing
wrong to any innocent Hellenic community.[217] He contemplated the
employment of the entire force in capturing Phasis or some other
native city; after which, when the establishment was once safely
effected, those soldiers who preferred going home to remaining as
settlers, might do so without emperiling those who stayed, and
probably with their own purses filled by plunder and conquest in
the neighborhood. To settle as one of the richest proprietors and
chiefs,—perhaps even the recognized Œkist, like Agnon at
Amphipolis,—of a new Hellenic city such as could hardly fail to
become rich, powerful, and important,—was a tempting prospect
for one who had now acquired the habits of command. Moreover, the
sequel will prove, how correctly Xenophon appreciated the discomfort
of leading the army back to Greece without pay and without certain
employment.
It was the practice of Xenophon, and the advice of his master
Sokrates,[218] in grave and doubtful cases, where the
most careful reflection was at fault, to recur to the inspired authority of
an oracle or a prophet, and to offer sacrifice, in full confidence
that the gods would vouchsafe to communicate a special revelation
to any person whom they favored. Accordingly Xenophon, previous to
any communication with the soldiers respecting his new project, was
anxious to ascertain the will of the gods by a special sacrifice;
for which he invoked the presence of the Ambrakiot Silanus,
the chief prophet in the army. This prophet (as I have already
mentioned), before the battle of Kunaxa, had assured Cyrus that
Artaxerxes would not fight for ten days,—and the prophecy came
to pass; which made such an impression on Cyrus that he rewarded
him with the prodigious present of three thousand darics or ten
Attic talents. While others were returning poor, Silanus, having
contrived to preserve this sum throughout all the hardships of
the retreat, was extremely rich, and anxious only to hasten home
with his treasure in safety. He heard with strong repugnance the
project of remaining in the Euxine, and determined to traverse it
by intrigue. As far as concerned the sacrifices, indeed, which
he offered apart with Xenophon, he was obliged to admit that the
indications of the victims were favorable;[219] Xenophon himself being
too familiar with the process to be imposed upon. But he at the
same time tried to create alarm by declaring that a nice inspection
disclosed evidence of treacherous snares laid for Xenophon; which
latter indications he himself began to realize, by spreading
reports among the army that the Athenian general was laying
clandestine plans for keeping them away from Greece without their
own concurrence.[220]
Thus prematurely and insidiously divulged, the scheme found
some supporters, but a far larger number of opponents; especially
among those officers who were jealous of the ascendency of
Xenophon. Timasion and Thorax employed it as a means of alarming
the Herakleotic and Sinopian traders in the camp; telling them
that unless they provided not merely transports, but also pay for
the soldiers, Xenophon would find means to detain the army in the
Euxine, and would employ the transports when they arrived, not
for the homeward voyage, but for his own projects of acquisition
This news spread so much terror both at Sinôpê and Herakleia, that
large offers of money were made from both cities to Timasion, on
condition that he would ensure the departure of the army, as soon
as the vessels should be assembled at Kotyôra. Accordingly these
officers, convening an assembly of the soldiers, protested against
the duplicity of Xenophon in thus preparing momentous schemes without
any public debate or decision. And Timasion, seconded by Thorax,
not only strenuously urged the army to return, but went so far as
to promise to them, on the faith of the assurances from Herakleia
and Sinôpê, future pay on a liberal scale, to commence from the
first new moon after their departure; together with a hospitable
reception in his native city of Dardanus on the Hellespont, from
whence they could make incursions on the rich neighboring satrapy
of Pharnabazus.[221]
It was not, however, until these attacks were repeated from
more than one quarter,—until the Achæans Philesius and Lykon
had loudly
accused Xenophon of underhand manœuvring to cheat the army into
remaining against their will,—that the latter rose to repel
the imputation; saying, that all that he had done was, to consult
the gods whether it would be better to lay his project before the
army or to keep it in his own bosom. The encouraging answer of the
gods, as conveyed through the victims and testified even by Silanus
himself, proved that the scheme was not ill-conceived; nevertheless,
(he remarked) Silanus had begun to lay snares for him, realizing by
his own proceedings a collateral indication which he had announced to
be visible in the victims. “If (added Xenophon) you had continued as
destitute and unprovided as you were just now,—I should still
have looked out for a resource in the capture of some city which
would have enabled such of you as chose, to return at once; while the
rest stay behind to enrich themselves. But now there is no longer any
necessity; since Herakleia and Sinôpê are sending transports, and
Timasion promises pay to you from the next new moon. Nothing can be
better; you will go back safely to Greece, and will receive pay for
going thither. I desist at once from my scheme, and call upon all who
were favorable to it to desist also. Only let us all keep together
until we are on safe ground; and let the man who lags behind or
runs off, be condemned as a wrong-doer.”[222]
Xenophon immediately put this question to the vote, and every
hand was held up in its favor. There was no man more disconcerted
with the vote than the prophet Silanus, who loudly exclaimed against
the injustice of detaining any one desirous to depart. But the
soldiers put him down with vehement disapprobation, threatening that
they would assuredly punish him if they caught him running off. His
intrigue against Xenophon thus recoiled upon himself, for the moment.
But shortly afterwards, when the army reached Herakleia, he took
his opportunity for clandestine flight, and found his way back to
Greece with the three thousand darics.[223]
If Silanus gained little by his manœuvre, Timasion and his
partners gained still less. For so soon as it became known that
the army had taken a formal resolution to go back to Greece, and
that Xenophon himself had made the proposition, the Sinopians and the
Herakleots felt at their ease. They sent the transport vessels,
but withheld the money which they had promised to Timasion and
Thorax. Hence these officers were exposed to dishonor and peril;
for, having positively engaged to find pay for the army, they were
now unable to keep their word. So keen were their apprehensions,
that they came to Xenophon and told him that they had altered
their views, and that they now thought it best to employ the
newly-arrived transports in conveying the army, not to Greece, but
against the town and territory of Phasis at the eastern extremity
of the Euxine.[224] Xenophon replied, that they might convene
the soldiers and make the proposition, if they chose; but that
he would have nothing to say to it. To make the very proposition
themselves, for which they had so much inveighed against Xenophon,
was impossible without some preparation; so that each of them began
individually to sound his captains, and get the scheme suggested by
them. During this interval, the soldiery obtained information of
the manœuvre, much to their discontent and indignation; of which
Neon (the lieutenant of the absent Cheirisophus) took advantage, to
throw the whole blame upon Xenophon; alleging that it was he who had
converted the other officers to his original project, and that he
intended as soon as the soldiers were on shipboard, to convey them
fraudulently to Phasis instead of to Greece. There was something
so plausible in this glaring falsehood, which represented Xenophon
as the author of the renewed project, once his own,—and
something so improbable in the fact that the other officers should
spontaneously have renounced their own strong opinions to take up
his,—that we can hardly be surprised at the ready credence
which Neon’s calumny found among the army. Their exasperation
against Xenophon became so intense, that they collected in fierce
groups; and there was even a fear that they would break out into
mutinous violence, as they had before done against the magistrates of
Kerasus.
Well knowing the danger of such spontaneous and informal
assemblages, and the importance of the habitual solemnities of
convocation and arrangement, to ensure either discussion or
legitimate
defence,[225]—Xenophon immediately sent round the
herald to summon the army into the regular agora, with customary
method and ceremony. The summons was obeyed with unusual alacrity,
and Xenophon then addressed them,—refraining, with equal
generosity and prudence, from saying anything about the last
proposition which Timasion and others had made to him. Had he
mentioned it, the question would have become one of life and death
between him and those other officers.
“Soldiers (said he), I understand that there are some men here
calumniating me, as if I were intending to cheat you and carry you
to Phasis. Hear me, then, in the name of the gods. If I am shown to
be doing wrong, let me not go from hence unpunished; but if, on the
contrary, my calumniators are proved to be the wrong-doers, deal
with them as they deserve. You surely well know where the sun rises
and where he sets; you know that if a man wishes to reach Greece,
he must go westward,—if to the barbaric territories, he must
go eastward. Can any one hope to deceive you on this point, and
persuade you that the sun rises on this side, and sets on that? Can
any one cheat you into going on shipboard with a wind which blows
you away from Greece? Suppose even that I put you aboard when there
is no wind at all. How am I to force you to sail with me against
your own consent,—I being only in one ship, you in a hundred
and more? Imagine, however, that I could even succeed in deluding
you to Phasis. When we land there, you will know at once that
we are not in Greece; and what fate can I then expect,—a
detected impostor in the midst of ten thousand men with arms in
their hands? No,—these stories all proceed from foolish men,
who are jealous of my influence with you; jealous, too, without
reason,—for I neither hinder them from outstripping me
in your favor, if they can render you greater service,—nor
you from electing them commanders, if you think fit. Enough of
this, now; I challenge any one to come forward and say how it is
possible either to cheat, or to be cheated, in the manner laid
to my charge.”[226]
Having thus grappled directly with the calumnies of his enemies,
and dissipated them in such manner as doubtless to create a reaction
in his own favor, Xenophon made use of the opportunity to denounce
the growing disorders in the army; which he depicted as such
that, if no corrective were applied, disgrace and contempt must
fall upon all. As he paused after this general remonstrance, the
soldiers loudly called upon him to go into particulars; upon which
he proceeded to recall, with lucid and impressive simplicity, the
outrages which had been committed at and near Kerasus,—the
unauthorized and unprovoked attack made by Klearetus and his
company on a neighboring village which was in friendly commerce
with the army,—the murder of the three elders of the village,
who had come as heralds to complain to the generals about such
wrong,—the mutinous attack made by disorderly soldiers even
upon the magistrates of Kerasus, at the very moment when they were
remonstrating with the generals on what had occurred; exposing these
magistrates to the utmost peril, and putting the generals themselves
to ignominy.[227] “If such are to be our proceedings,
(continued Xenophon), look you well into what condition the army
will fall. You, the aggregate body,[228] will no longer
be the
sovereign authority to make war or peace with whom you please; each
individual among you will conduct the army against any point which
he may choose. And even if men should come to you as envoys, either
for peace or for other purposes, they may be slain by any single
enemy; so that you will be debarred from all public communications
whatever. Next, those whom your universal suffrage shall have chosen
commanders, will have no authority; while any self-elected general
who chooses to give the word, Cast! Cast! (i. e. darts or stones),
may put to death, without trial, either officer or soldier, as it
suits him; that is, if he finds you ready to obey him, as it happened
near Kerasus. Look, now, what these self-elected leaders have done
for you. The magistrate of Kerasus, if he was really guilty of
wrong towards you, has been enabled to escape with impunity; if
he was innocent, he has been obliged to run away from you, as the
only means of avoiding death without pretence or trial. Those who
stoned the heralds to death, have brought matters to such a pass,
that you alone, among all Greeks, cannot enter the town of Kerasus
in safety, unless in commanding force; and that we cannot even
send in a herald to take up our dead (Klearetus and those who were
slain in the attack on the Kerasuntine village) for burial; though
at first those who had slain them in self-defence were anxious to
give up the bodies to us. For who will take the risk of going in as
herald, from those who have set the example of putting heralds to
death? We generals were obliged to entreat the Kerasuntines to bury
the bodies for us.”[229]
Continuing in this emphatic protest against the recent disorders
and outrages, Xenophon at length succeeded in impressing his own
sentiment, heartily and unanimously, upon the soldiers. They passed a vote
that the ringleaders of the mutiny at Kerasus should be punished;
that if any one was guilty of similar outrages in future, he should
be put upon his trial by the generals, before the lochages or
captains as judges, and if condemned by them, put to death; and that
trial should be had before the same persons, for any other wrong
committed since the death of Cyrus. A suitable religious ceremony
was also directed to be performed, at the instance of Xenophon
and the prophets, to purify the army.[230]
This speech affords an interesting specimen of the political
morality universal throughout the Grecian world, though deeper and
more predominant among its better sections. In the miscellaneous
aggregate, and temporary society, now mustered at Kotyôra, Xenophon
insists on the universal suffrage of the whole body, as the
legitimate sovereign authority for the guidance of every individual
will; the decision of the majority, fairly and formally collected,
as carrying a title to prevail over every dissentient minority;
the generals chosen by the majority of votes, as the only persons
entitled to obedience. This is the cardinal principle to which he
appeals, as the anchorage of political obligation in the mind of
each separate man or fraction; as the condition of all success, all
safety, and all conjoint action; as the only condition either for
punishing wrong or protecting right; as indispensable to keep up
their sympathies with the Hellenic communities, and their dignity
either as soldiers or as citizens. The complete success of his speech
proves that he knew how to touch the right chord of Grecian feeling.
No serious acts of individual insubordination occurred afterwards,
though the army collectively went wrong on more than one occasion.
And what is not less important to notice,—the influence of
Xenophon himself, after his unreserved and courageous remonstrance,
seems to have been sensibly augmented,—certainly no way
diminished.
The circumstances which immediately followed were indeed well
calculated to augment it. For it was resolved, on the proposition
of Xenophon himself[231] that the generals themselves should
be tried
before the newly-constituted tribunal of the lochages or captains,
in case any one had complaint to make against them for past matters;
agreeably to the Athenian habit of subjecting every magistrate to
a trial of accountability on laying down his office. In the course
of this investigation, Philesius and Xanthiklês were fined twenty
minæ, to make good an assignable deficiency of that amount, in the
cargoes of those merchantmen which had been detained at Trapezus
for the transport of the army; Sophænetus, who had the general
superintendence of this property, but had been negligent in that
duty, was fined ten minæ. Next, the name of Xenophon was put up, when
various persons stood forward to accuse him of having beaten and
ill-used them. As commander of the rear-guard, his duty was by far
the severest and most difficult, especially during the intense cold
and deep snow; since the sick and wounded, as well as the laggards
and plunderers, all fell under his inspection. One man especially
was loud in complaints against him, and Xenophon questioned him, as
to the details of his case, before the assembled army. It turned out
that he had given him blows, because the man, having been intrusted
with the task of carrying a sick soldier, was about to evade the
duty by burying the dying man alive.[232] This interesting
debate (given in the Anabasis at length) ended by full approbation,
on the part of the army, of Xenophon’s conduct, accompanied with
regret that he had not handled the man yet more severely.
The statements of Xenophon himself give us a vivid idea of the
internal discipline of the army, even as managed by a discreet and
well-tempered officer. “I acknowledge (said he to the soldiers)
to have struck many men for disorderly conduct; men who were
content to owe their preservation to your orderly march and
constant fighting, while they themselves ran about to plunder and
enrich themselves at your cost. Had we all acted as they did, we
should have perished to a man. Sometimes, too, I struck men who
were lagging behind with cold and fatigue, or were stopping the
way so as to hinder others from getting forward; I struck them
with my fist,[233] in order to save them from the spear
of the enemy. You yourselves stood by, and saw me; you had arms
in your hands, yet none of you interfered to prevent me. I did it
for their good as well as for yours, not from any insolence of
disposition; for it was a time when we were all alike suffering
from cold, hunger, and fatigue; whereas I now live comparatively
well, drink more wine, and pass easy days,—and yet I strike
no one. You will find that the men who failed most in those times
of hardship, are now the most outrageous offenders in the army.
There is Boïskus,[234] the Thessalian pugilist, who pretended
sickness during the march, in order to evade the burthen of carrying
his shield,—and now, as I am informed, he has stripped several
citizens of Kotyôra of their clothes. If (he concluded) the blows
which I have occasionally given, in cases of necessity, are now
brought in evidence,—I call upon those among you also, to
whom I have rendered aid and protection, to stand up and testify
in my favor.”[235]
Many individuals responded to this appeal, insomuch that Xenophon
was not merely acquitted, but stood higher than before in the
opinion of the army. We learn from his defence that for a commanding
officer to strike a soldier with his fist, if wanting in duty,
was not considered improper; at least under such circumstances as
those of the retreat. But what deserves notice still more, is,
the extraordinary influence which Xenophon’s powers of speaking
gave him over the minds of the army. He stood distinguished from
the other generals, Lacedæmonian, Arcadian, Achæan, etc., by having
the power of working on the minds of the soldiers collectively;
and we see that he had the good sense, as well as the spirit,
not to shrink from telling them unpleasant truths. In spite
of such frankness—or rather, partly by means of such
frankness,—his ascendency as commander not only remained
unabated, as compared with that of the others, but went on
increasing. For whatever may be said about the flattery of orators
as a means of influence over the people,—it will be found that
though particular points may be gained in this way, yet wherever
the influence of an orator has been steady and long-continued (like
that of Perikles[236] or Demosthenes) it is owing in part to
the fact that he has an opinion of his own, and is not willing to
accommodate himself constantly to the prepossessions of his hearers.
Without the oratory of Xenophon, there would have existed no engine
for kindling or sustaining the sensus communis of the ten thousand
Cyreians assembled at Kotyôra, or for keeping up the moral authority
of the aggregate over the individual members and fractions. The
other officers could doubtless speak well enough to address short
encouragements, or give simple explanations, to the soldiers;
without this faculty, no man was fit for military command over
Greeks. But the oratory of Xenophon was something of a higher order.
Whoever will study the discourse pronounced by him at Kotyôra, will
perceive a dexterity in dealing with assembled multitudes,—a
discriminating use sometimes of the plainest and most direct appeal,
sometimes of indirect insinuation or circuitous transitions to work
round the minds of the hearers,—a command of those fundamental
political convictions which lay deep in the Grecian mind, but
were often so overlaid by the fresh impulses arising out of each
successive situation, as to require some positive friction to draw
them out from their latent state—lastly, a power of expansion
and varied repetition—such as would be naturally imparted
both by the education and the practice of an intelligent Athenian,
but would rarely be found in any other Grecian city. The energy and
judgment displayed by Xenophon in the retreat were doubtless not
less essential to his influence than his power of speaking; but in
these points we may be sure that other officers were more nearly
his equals.
The important public proceedings above
described not only restored the influence of Xenophon, but also
cleared off a great amount of bad feeling, and sensibly abated
the bad habits, which had grown up in the army. A scene which
speedily followed was not without effect in promoting cheerful and
amicable sympathies. The Paphlagonian prince Korylas, weary of the
desultory warfare carried on between the Greeks and the border
inhabitants, sent envoys to the Greek camp with presents of horses
and fine robes,[237] and with expressions of a wish to conclude
peace. The Greek generals accepted the presents, and promised to
submit the proposition to the army. But first they entertained the
envoys at a banquet, providing at the same time games and dances,
with other recreations amusing not only to them but also to the
soldiers generally. The various dances, warlike and pantomimic,
of Thracians, Mysians, Ænianes, Magnêtes, etc., are described by
Xenophon in a lively and interesting manner. They were followed on
the next day by an amicable convention concluded between the army and
the Paphlagonians.[238]
Not long afterwards,—a number of transports, sufficient
for the whole army, having been assembled from Herakleia and
Sinôpê,—all the soldiers were conveyed by sea to the latter
place, passing by the mouth of the rivers Thermodon, Iris, and Halys,
which they would have found impracticable to cross in a land-march
through Paphlagonia. Having reached Sinôpê after a day and a night of
sailing with a fair wind, they were hospitably received, and lodged
in the neighboring seaport of Armênê, where the Sinopians sent to
them a large present of barley-meal and wine, and where they remained
for five days.
It was here that they were joined by Cheirisophus, whose
absence
had been so unexpectedly prolonged. But he came with only a single
trireme, bringing nothing except a message from Anaxibius, the
Lacedæmonian admiral in the Bosphorus; who complimented the army,
and promised that they should be taken into pay as soon as they
were out of the Euxine. The soldiers, severely disappointed on
seeing him arrive thus empty-handed, became the more strongly bent
on striking some blow to fill their own purses before they reached
Greece. Feeling that it was necessary to the success of any such
project that it should be prepared not only skilfully, but secretly,
they resolved to elect a single general in place of that board of
six (or perhaps more) who were still in function. Such was now the
ascendency of Xenophon, that the general sentiment of the army at
once turned towards him; and the lochages or captains, communicating
to him what was in contemplation, intimated to him their own anxious
hopes that he would not decline the offer. Tempted by so flattering
a proposition, he hesitated at first what answer he should give. But
at length the uncertainty of being able to satisfy the exigencies
of the army, and the fear of thus compromising the reputation which
he had already realized, outweighed the opposite inducements. As
in other cases of doubt, so in this,—he offered sacrifice to
Zeus Basileus; and the answer returned by the victims was such as to
determine him to refusal. Accordingly, when the army assembled, with
predetermination to choose a single chief, and proceeded to nominate
him,—he respectfully and thankfully declined, on the ground
that Cheirisophus was a Lacedæmonian, and that he himself was not;
adding that he should cheerfully serve under any one whom they might
name. His excuse, however, was repudiated by the army; and especially
by the lochages. Several of these latter were Arcadians; and one of
them, Agasias, cried out, with full sympathy of the soldiers, that if
that principle were admitted, he, as an Arcadian, ought to resign his
command. Finding that his former reason was not approved, Xenophon
acquainted the army that he had sacrificed to know whether he ought
to accept the command, and that the gods had peremptorily forbidden
him to do so.[239]
Cheirisophus was then elected sole commander, and undertook the duty; saying
that he would have willingly served under Xenophon, if the latter
had accepted the office, but that it was a good thing for Xenophon
himself to have declined,—since Dexippus had already poisoned
the mind of Anaxibius against him, although he (Cheirisophus) had
emphatically contradicted the calumnies.[240]
On the next day, the army sailed forward, under the command of
Cheirisophus, to Herakleia; near which town they were hospitably
entertained, and gratified with a present of meal, wine, and
bullocks, even greater than they had received at Sinôpê. It now
appeared that Xenophon had acted wisely in declining the sole
command; and also that Cheirisophus, though elected commander, yet
having been very long absent, was not really of so much importance
in the eyes of the soldiers as Xenophon. In the camp near Herakleia,
the soldiers became impatient that their generals (for the habit
of looking upon Xenophon as one of them still continued) took no
measures to procure money for them. The Achæan Lykon proposed that
they should extort a contribution of no less than three thousand
staters of Kyzikus (about sixty thousand Attic drachmæ, or ten
talents, equal to two thousand three hundred pounds) from the
inhabitants of Herakleia; another man immediately outbid this
proposition, and proposed that they should require ten thousand
staters—a full month’s pay for the army. It was moved that
Cheirisophus and Xenophon should go to the Herakleots as envoys with
this demand. But both of them indignantly refused to be concerned in
so unjust an extortion from a Grecian city which had just received
the army kindly, and sent handsome presents. Accordingly, Lykon
with two Arcadian officers undertook the mission, and intimated
the demand, not without threats in case of non-compliance, to
the Herakleots. The latter replied that they would take it into
consideration. But they waited only for the departure of the envoys,
and then immediately closed their gates, manned their walls, and
brought in their outlying property.
The project being thus baffled, Lykon and the rest turned their
displeasure upon Cheirisophus and Xenophon, whom they accused of
having occasioned its miscarriage. And they now began to exclaim, that it
was disgraceful to the Arcadians and Achæans; who formed more than
one numerical half of the army and endured all the toil—to
obey as well as to enrich generals from other Hellenic cities;
especially a single Athenian who furnished no contingent to the
army. Here again it is remarkable that the personal importance of
Xenophon caused him to be still regarded as a general, though the
sole command had been vested, by formal vote, in Cheirisophus. So
vehement was the dissatisfaction, that all the Arcadian and Achæan
soldiers in the army, more than four thousand and five hundred
hoplites in number, renounced the authority of Cheirisophus, formed
themselves into a distinct division, and chose ten commanders from
out of their own numbers. The whole army thus became divided into
three portions—first, the Arcadians and Achæans; secondly,
one thousand and four hundred hoplites and seven hundred peltasts,
who adhered to Cheirisophus; lastly, one thousand seven hundred
hoplites, three hundred peltasts, and forty horsemen, (all the
horsemen in the army) attaching themselves to Xenophon; who however
was taking measures to sail away individually from Herakleia and
quit the army altogether, which he would have done had he not been
restrained by unfavorable sacrifices.[241]
The Arcadian division, departing first, in vessels from Herakleia,
landed at the harbor of Kalpê; an untenanted promontory of the
Bithynian or Asiatic Thrace, midway between Herakleia and Byzantium.
From thence they marched at once into the interior of Bithynia,
with the view of surprising the villages, and acquiring plunder.
But through rashness and bad management, they first sustained
several partial losses, and ultimately became surrounded upon an
eminence, by a large muster of the indigenous Bithynians from all
the territory around. They were only rescued from destruction by
the unexpected appearance of Xenophon with his division; who had
left Herakleia somewhat later, but heard by accident, during their
march, of the danger of their comrades. The whole army thus became
re-assembled at Kalpê, where the Arcadians and Achæans, disgusted
at the ill-success of their separate expedition, again established
the old union and the old generals. They chose Neon in place of
Cheirisophus, who,—afflicted by the humiliation put upon him, in
having been first named sole commander and next deposed within a
week,—had fallen sick of a fever and died. The elder Arcadian
captains farther moved a resolution, that if any one henceforward
should propose to separate the army into fractions, he should be
put to death.[242]
The locality of Kalpê was well suited for the foundation of a
colony, which Xenophon evidently would have been glad to bring about,
though he took no direct measures tending towards it; while the
soldiers were so bent on returning to Greece, and so jealous lest
Xenophon should entrap them into remaining, that they almost shunned
the encampment. It so happened that they were detained there for some
days without being able to march forth even in quest of provisions,
because the sacrifices were not favorable. Xenophon refused to lead
them out, against the warning of the sacrifices—although the
army suspected him of a deliberate manœuvre for the purpose of
detention. Neon, however, less scrupulous, led out a body of two
thousand men who chose to follow him, under severe distress for want
of provisions. But being surprised by the native Bithynians, with
the aid of some troops of the Persian satrap Pharnabazus, he was
defeated with the loss of no less than five hundred men; a misfortune
which Xenophon regards as the natural retribution for contempt of
the sacrificial warning. The dangerous position of Neon with the
remainder of the detachment was rapidly made known at the camp; upon
which Xenophon, unharnessing a waggon-bullock as the only animal near
at hand, immediately offered sacrifice. On this occasion, the victim
was at once favorable; so that he led out without delay the greater
part of the force, to the rescue of the exposed detachment, which was
brought back in safety to the camp. So bold had the enemy become,
that in the night the camp was attacked. The Greeks were obliged on
the next day to retreat into stronger ground, surrounding themselves
with a ditch and palisade. Fortunately a vessel arrived from
Herakleia, bringing to the camp at Kalpê a supply of barley-meal,
cattle, and wine; which restored the spirits of the army, enabling
them to go forth on the ensuing morning, and assume the aggressive
against the Bithynians and the troops of Pharnabazus. These troops
were completely defeated and dispersed, so that the Greeks returned
to their camp at Kalpê in the evening, both safe and masters of
the country.[243]
At Kalpê they remained some time, awaiting the arrival of Kleander
from Byzantium, who was said to be about to bring vessels for their
transport. They were now abundantly provided with supplies, not
merely from the undisturbed plunder of the neighboring villages,
but also from the visits of traders who came with cargoes. Indeed
the impression—that they were preparing, at the instance of
Xenophon, to found a new city at Kalpê—became so strong, that
several of the neighboring native villages sent envoys to ask on
what terms alliance would be granted to them. At length Kleander
came, but with two triremes only.[244]
Kleander was the Lacedæmonian harmost or governor of Byzantium.
His appearance opens to us a new phase in the eventful history of
this gallant army, as well as an insight into the state of the
Grecian world under the Lacedæmonian empire. He came attended by
Dexippus, who had served in the Cyreian army until their arrival at
Trapezus, and who had there been entrusted with an armed vessel for
the purpose of detaining transports to convey the troops home, but
had abused the confidence reposed in him by running away with the
ship to Byzantium.
It so happened that at the moment when Kleander arrived, the
whole army was out on a marauding excursion. Orders had been already
promulgated, that whatever was captured by every one when the
whole army was out, should be brought in and dealt with as public
property; though on days when the army was collectively at rest,
any soldier might go out individually and take to himself whatever
he could pillage. On the day when Kleander arrived, and found the
whole army out, some soldiers were just coming back with a lot of
sheep which they had seized. By right, the sheep ought to have
been handed into the public store. But these soldiers, desirous to
appropriate them wrongfully, addressed themselves to Dexippus, and
promised him a portion if he would enable them to retain the rest.
Accordingly the latter interfered, drove away those who claimed the
sheep as public property, and denounced them as thieves to Kleander;
who desired him to bring them before him. Dexippus arrested one of
them, a soldier belonging to the lochus or company of one of the best friends
of Xenophon,—the Arcadian Agasias. The latter took the man
under his protection; while the soldiers around, incensed not less
at the past than at the present conduct of Dexippus, broke out into
violent manifestations, called him a traitor and pelted him with
stones. Such was their wrath that not Dexippus alone, but the crew
of the triremes also, and even Kleander himself, fled in alarm; in
spite of the intervention of Xenophon and the other generals, who
on the one hand explained to Kleander, that it was an established
army-order which these soldiers were seeking to enforce—and on
the other hand controlled the mutineers. But the Lacedæmonian harmost
was so incensed as well by his own fright as by the calumnies of
Dexippus, that he threatened to sail away at once, and proclaim the
Cyreian army enemies to Sparta, so that every Hellenic city should be
interdicted from giving them reception.[245] It was in vain
that the generals, well knowing the formidable consequences of
such an interdict, entreated him to relent. He would consent only
on condition that the soldier who had begun to throw stones, as
well as Agasias the interfering officer, should be delivered
up to him. This latter demand was especially insisted upon by
Dexippus, who, hating Xenophon, had already tried to prejudice
Anaxibius against him, and believed that Agasias had acted by
his order.[246]
The situation became now extremely critical; since the soldiers
would not easily be brought to surrender their comrades,—who
had a perfectly righteous cause, though they had supported it by
undue violence,—to the vengeance of a traitor like Dexippus.
When the army was convened in assembly, several of them went so
far as to treat the menace of Kleander with contempt. But Xenophon
took pains to set them right upon this point. “Soldiers (said he),
it will be no slight misfortune if Kleander shall depart as he
threatens to do, in his present temper towards us. We are here close
upon the cities of Greece; now the Lacedæmonians are the imperial
power in Greece, and not merely their authorized officers, but
even each one of their individual citizens, can accomplish what he
pleases in the various cities. If then Kleander begins by shutting
us out from Byzantium, and next enjoins the Lacedæmonian harmosts
in the other cities to do the same, proclaiming us lawless and
disobedient to Sparta,—if, besides, the same representation
should be conveyed to the Lacedæmonian admiral of the fleet,
Anaxibius,—we shall be hard pressed either to remain or to
sail away; for the Lacedæmonians are at present masters, both on
land and at sea.[247] We must not, for the sake of any one or
two men, suffer the whole army to be excluded from Greece. We must
obey whatever the Lacedæmonians command, especially as our cities,
to which we respectively belong, now obey them. As to what concerns
myself, I understand that Dexippus has told Kleander that Agasias
would never have taken such a step except by my orders. Now, if
Agasias himself states this, I am ready to exonerate both him and
all of you, and to give myself up to any extremity of punishment.
I maintain too, that any other man whom Kleander arraigns, ought
in like manner to give himself up for trial, in order that you
collectively may be discharged from the imputation. It will be hard
indeed, if just as we are reaching Greece, we should not only be
debarred from the praise and honor which we anticipated, but should
be degraded even below the level of others, and shut out from the
Grecian cities.”[248]
After this speech from the philo-Laconian Xenophon,—so
significant a testimony of the unmeasured ascendency and interference
of the Lacedæmonians throughout Greece,—Agasias rose and
proclaimed, that what he had done was neither under the orders,
nor with the privity, of Xenophon; that he had acted on a personal
impulse of wrath, at seeing his own honest and innocent soldier
dragged away by the traitor Dexippus; but that he now willingly gave
himself up as a victim, to avert from the army the displeasure of
the Lacedæmonians. This generous self-sacrifice, which at the moment promised
nothing less than a fatal result to Agasias, was accepted by the
army; and the generals conducted both him and the soldier whom he
had rescued, as prisoners to Kleander. Presenting himself as the
responsible party, Agasias at the same time explained to Kleander
the infamous behavior of Dexippus to the army, and said that towards
no one else would he have acted in the same manner; while the
soldier whom he had rescued and who was given up at the same time,
also affirmed that he had interfered merely to prevent Dexippus
and some others from overruling, for their own individual benefit,
a proclaimed order of the entire army. Kleander, having observed
that if Dexippus had done what was affirmed, he would be the last
to defend him, but that no one ought to have been stoned without
trial,—desired that the persons surrendered might be left for
his consideration, and at the same time retracted his expressions of
displeasure as regarded all the others.[249]
The generals then retired, leaving Kleander in possession of the
prisoners, and on the point of taking his dinner. But they retired
with mournful feelings, and Xenophon presently convened the army
to propose that a general deputation should be sent to Kleander to
implore his lenity towards their two comrades. This being cordially
adopted, Xenophon, at the head of a deputation comprising Drakontius,
the Spartan, as well as the chief officers, addressed an earnest
appeal to Kleander, representing that his honor had been satisfied
with the unconditional surrender of the two persons required; that
the army, deeply concerned for two meritorious comrades, entreated
him now to show mercy and spare their lives; that they promised him
in return the most implicit obedience, and entreated him to take the
command of them, in order that he might have personal cognizance
of their exact discipline, and compare their worth with that of
Dexippus. Kleander was not merely soothed, but completely won over
by this address; and said in reply that the conduct of the generals
belied altogether the representations made to him, (doubtless by
Dexippus) that they were seeking to alienate the army from the
Lacedæmonians. He not only restored the two men in his power, but
also accepted the command of the army, and promised to conduct them
back into Greece.[250]
The prospects of the
army appeared thus greatly improved; the more so, as Kleander, on
entering upon his new functions as commander, found the soldiers so
cheerful and orderly, that he was highly gratified, and exchanged
personal tokens of friendship and hospitality with Xenophon. But when
sacrifices came to be offered, for beginning the march homeward,
the signs were so unpropitious, for three successive days, that
Kleander could not bring himself to brave such auguries at the outset
of his career. Accordingly, he told the generals, that the gods
plainly forbade him, and reserved it for them, to conduct the army
into Greece; that he should therefore sail back to Byzantium, and
would receive the army in the best way he could, when they reached
the Bosphorus. After an interchange of presents with the soldiers,
he then departed with his two triremes.[251]
The favorable sentiment now established in the bosom of Kleander
will be found very serviceable hereafter to the Cyreians at
Byzantium; but they had cause for deeply regretting the unpropitious
sacrifices which had deterred him from assuming the actual command at
Kalpê. In the request preferred to him by them that he would march
as their commander to the Bosphorus, we may recognize a scheme, and
a very well-contrived scheme, of Xenophon; who had before desired
to leave the army at Herakleia, and who saw plainly that the
difficulties of a commander, unless he were a Lacedæmonian of station
and influence, would increase with every step of their approach
to Greece. Had Kleander accepted the command, the soldiers would
have been better treated, while Xenophon himself might either have
remained as his adviser, or might have gone home. He probably would
have chosen the latter course.
Under the command of their own officers, the Cyreians now marched
from Kalpê across Bithynia to Chrysopolis,[252] (in the territory
of Chalkêdon on the Asiatic edge of the Bosphorus, immediately
opposite to Byzantium, as Scutari now is to Constantinople), where
they remained seven days, turning into money the slaves and plunder
which they had collected. Unhappily for them, the Lacedæmonian
admiral Anaxibius was now at Byzantium, so that their friend Kleander
was under his superior command. And Pharnabazus, the Persian satrap
of the north-western regions of Asia Minor, becoming much alarmed
lest they should invade his satrapy, despatched a private message
to Anaxibius; whom he prevailed upon, by promise of large presents,
to transport the army forthwith across to the European side of
the Bosphorus.[253] Accordingly, Anaxibius, sending for the
generals and the lochages across to Byzantium, invited the army to
cross, and gave them his assurance that as soon as the soldiers
should be in Europe, he would provide pay for them. The other
officers told him that they would return with this message and take
the sense of the army; but Xenophon, on his own account, said that
he should not return; that he should now retire from the army, and
sail away from Byzantium. It was only on the pressing instance
of Anaxibius that he was induced to go back to Chrysopolis and
conduct the army across; on the understanding that he should depart
immediately afterwards.
Here at Byzantium, he received his first communication from the
Thracian prince Seuthes; who sent Medosadês to offer him a reward
if he would bring the army across. Xenophon replied that the army
would cross; that no reward from Seuthes was needful to bring about
that movement; but that he himself was about to depart, leaving the
command in other hands. In point of fact, the whole army crossed
with little delay, landed in Europe, and found themselves within the
walls of Byzantium.[254] Xenophon, who had come along with them,
paid a visit shortly afterwards to his friend the harmost Kleander,
and took leave of him as about to depart immediately. But Kleander
told him that he must not think of departing until the army was
out of the city, and that he would be held responsible if they
stayed. In truth Kleander was very uneasy so long as the soldiers
were within the walls, and was well aware that it might be no
easy matter to induce them to go away. For Anaxibius had practised a gross
fraud in promising them pay, which he had neither the ability nor
the inclination to provide. Without handing to them either pay or
even means of purchasing supplies, he issued orders that they must go
forth with arms and baggage, and muster outside of the gates, there
to be numbered for an immediate march; any one who stayed behind
being held as punishable. This proclamation was alike unexpected and
offensive to the soldiers, who felt that they had been deluded, and
were very backward in obeying. Hence Kleander, while urgent with
Xenophon to defer his departure until he had conducted the army
outside of the walls, added—“Go forth as if you were about to
march along with them; when you are once outside, you may depart as
soon as you please.”[255] Xenophon replied that this matter must be
settled with Anaxibius, to whom accordingly both of them went, and
who repeated the same directions, in a manner yet more peremptory.
Though it was plain to Xenophon that he was here making himself a
sort of instrument to the fraud which Anaxibius had practised upon
the army, yet he had no choice but to obey. Accordingly, he as well
as the other generals put themselves at the head of the troops, who
followed, however reluctantly, and arrived most of them outside
of the gates. Eteonikus (a Lacedæmonian officer of consideration,
noticed more than once in my last preceding volume) commanding at
the gate, stood close to it in person; in order that when all the
Cyreians had gone forth, he might immediately shut it and fasten
it with the bar.[256]
Anaxibius knew well what he was doing. He fully anticipated that
the communication of the final orders would occasion an outbreak
among the Cyreians, and was anxious to defer it until they were
outside. But when there remained only the rearmost companies still in
the inside and on their march, all the rest having got out—he
thought the danger was over, and summoned to him the generals and
captains, all of whom were probably near the gates superintending
the march through. It seems that Xenophon, having given notice that
he intended to depart, did not answer to this summons as one of
the generals, but remained outside among the soldiers. “Take what supplies
you want (said Anaxibius) from the neighboring Thracian villages,
which are well furnished with wheat, barley, and other necessaries.
After thus providing yourselves, march forward to the Chersonesus,
and there Kyniskus will give you pay.”[257]
This was the first distinct intimation given by Anaxibius that
he did not intend to perform his promise of finding pay for the
soldiers. Who Kyniskus was, we do not know, nor was he probably known
to the Cyreians; but the march here enjoined was at least one hundred
and fifty English miles, and might be much longer. The route was not
indicated, and the generals had to inquire from Anaxibius whether
they were to go by what was called the Holy Mountain (that is, by
the shorter line, skirting the northern coast of the Propontis),
or by a more inland and circuitous road through Thrace;—also
whether they were to regard the Thracian prince, Seuthes, as a
friend or an enemy.[258]
Instead of the pay which had been formally promised to them by
Anaxibius if they would cross over from Asia to Byzantium, the
Cyreians thus found themselves sent away empty-handed, to a long
march,—through another barbarous country, with chance supplies
to be ravished only by their own efforts,—and at the end of
it a lot unknown and uncertain; while, had they remained in Asia,
they would have had at any rate the rich satrapy of Pharnabazus
within their reach. To perfidy of dealing was now added a brutal
ejectment from Byzantium, without even the commonest manifestations
of hospitality; contrasting pointedly with the treatment which the
army had recently experienced at Trapezus, Sinôpê, and Herakleia;
where they had been welcomed not only by compliments on their past
achievements, but also by an ample present of flour, meat, and wine.
Such behavior could not fail to provoke the most violent indignation
in the bosoms of the soldiery; and Anaxibius had therefore delayed
giving the order until the last soldiers were marching out, thinking
that the army would hear nothing of it until the generals came out of
the gates to inform them; so that the gates would be closed, and the
walls manned to resist any assault from without. But his calculations
were not realized. Either one of the soldiers passing by heard him
give the
order, or one of the captains forming his audience stole away from
the rest, and hastened forward to acquaint his comrades on the
outside. The bulk of the army, already irritated by the inhospitable
way in which they had been thrust out, needed nothing farther to
inflame them into spontaneous mutiny and aggression. While the
generals within (who either took the communication more patiently, or
at least, looking farther forward, felt that any attempt to resent
or resist the ill usage of the Spartan admiral would only make their
position worse) were discussing with Anaxibius the details of the
march just enjoined, the soldiers without, bursting into spontaneous
movement, with a simultaneous and fiery impulse, made a rush back to
get possession of the gate. But Eteonikus, seeing their movement,
closed it without a moment’s delay, and fastened the bar. The
soldiers on reaching the gate and finding it barred, clamored loudly
to get it opened, threatened to break it down, and even began to
knock violently against it. Some ran down to the sea-coast, and made
their way into the city round the line of stones at the base of the
city wall, which protected it against the sea; while the rearmost
soldiers who had not yet marched out, seeing what was passing, and
fearful of being cut off from their comrades, assaulted the gate
from the inside, severed the fastenings with axes, and threw it wide
open to the army.[259] All the soldiers then rushed up, and were
soon again in Byzantium.
Nothing could exceed the terror of the Lacedæmonians as well
as of the native Byzantines, when they saw the excited Cyreians
again within the walls. The town seemed already taken and on the
point of being plundered. Neither Anaxibius nor Eteonikus took the
smallest means of resistance, nor stayed to brave the approach of the
soldiers, whose wrath they were fully conscious of having deserved.
Both fled to the citadel—the former first running to the
sea-shore, and jumping into a fishing-boat to go thither by sea. He
even thought the citadel not tenable with its existing garrison, and
sent over to Chalkêdon for a reinforcement. Still more terrified were
the citizens of the town. Every man in the market-place instantly
fled; some to their houses, others to the merchant vessels in the
harbor, others to the triremes or ships of war, which they hauled
down to the water, and thus put to sea.[260]
To the
deception and harshness of the Spartan admiral, there was thus added
a want of precaution in the manner of execution, which threatened
to prove the utter ruin of Byzantium. For it was but too probable
that the Cyreian soldiers, under the keen sense of recent injury,
would satiate their revenge, and reimburse themselves for the want
of hospitality towards them, without distinguishing the Lacedæmonian
garrison from the Byzantine citizens; and that too from mere
impulse, not merely without orders, but in spite of prohibitions,
from their generals. Such was the aspect of the case, when they
became again assembled in a mass within the gates; and such would
probably have been the reality, had Xenophon executed his design of
retiring earlier, so as to leave the other generals acting without
him. Being on the outside along with the soldiers, Xenophon felt
at once, as soon as he saw the gates forced open and the army
again within the town, the terrific emergency which was impending;
first, the sack of Byzantium,—next, horror and antipathy,
throughout all Greece, towards the Cyreian officers and soldiers
indiscriminately,—lastly, unsparing retribution inflicted upon
all by the power of Sparta. Overwhelmed with these anxieties, he
rushed into the town along with the multitude, using every effort to
pacify them and bring them into order. They on their parts, delighted
to see him along with them, and conscious of their own force, were
eager to excite him to the same pitch as themselves, and to prevail
on him to second and methodize their present triumph. “Now is your
time, Xenophon, (they exclaimed), to make yourself a man. You have
here a city,—you have triremes,—you have money,—you
have plenty of soldiers. Now then, if you choose, you can enrich
us; and we in return can make you powerful.”—“You speak
well (replied he); I shall do as you propose; but if you want to
accomplish anything, you must fall into military array forthwith.”
He knew that this was the first condition of returning to anything
like tranquillity; and by great good fortune, the space called
the Thrakion, immediately adjoining the gate inside, was level,
open, and clear of houses; presenting an excellent place of arms
or locality for a review. The whole army,—partly from their
long military practice,—partly under the impression that
Xenophon was really about to second their wishes and direct some
aggressive operation,—threw themselves almost of their own
accord into regular array on the Thrakion; the hoplites eight deep, the
peltasts on each flank. It was in this position that Xenophon
addressed them as follows:—
“Soldiers! I am not surprised that you are incensed, and that you
think yourselves scandalously cheated and ill-used. But if we give
way to our wrath, if we punish these Lacedæmonians now before us
for their treachery, and plunder this innocent city,—reflect
what will be the consequence. We shall stand proclaimed forthwith
as enemies to the Lacedæmonians and their allies; and what sort
of a war that will be, those who have witnessed and who still
recollect recent matters of history may easily fancy. We Athenians
entered into the war against Sparta with a powerful army and
fleet, an abundant revenue, and numerous tributary cities in Asia
as well as Europe,—among them this very Byzantium in which
we now stand. We have been vanquished in the way that all of you
know. And what then will be the fate of us soldiers, when we
shall have as united enemies, Sparta with all her old allies and
Athens besides,—Tissaphernes and the barbaric forces on the
coast,—and most of all, the Great King whom we marched up
to dethrone and slay, if we were able? Is any man fool enough to
think that we have a chance of making head against so many combined
enemies? Let us not plunge madly into dishonor and ruin, nor incur
the enmity of our own fathers and friends; who are in the cities
which will take arms against us,—and will take arms justly,
if we, who abstained from seizing any barbaric city, even when
we were in force sufficient, shall nevertheless now plunder the
first Grecian city into which we have been admitted. As far as I
am concerned, may I be buried ten thousand fathoms deep in the
earth, rather than see you do such things; and I exhort you,
too, as Greeks, to obey the leaders of Greece. Endeavor, while
thus obedient, to obtain your just rights; but if you should fail
in this, rather submit to injustice than cut yourselves off from
the Grecian world. Send to inform Anaxibius that we have entered
the city, not with a view to commit any violence, but in the
hope, if possible, of obtaining from him the advantages which he
promised us. If we fail, we shall at least prove to him that we
quit the city, not under his fraudulent manœuvres, but under our
own sense of the duty of obedience.”[261]
This
speech completely arrested the impetuous impulse of the army,
brought them to a true sense of their situation, and induced them to
adopt the proposition of Xenophon. They remained unmoved in their
position on the Thrakion, while three of the captains were sent to
communicate with Anaxibius. While they were thus waiting, a Theban
named Kœratadas approached, who had once commanded in Byzantium under
the Lacedæmonians, during the previous war. He had now become a sort
of professional Condottiero or general, looking out for an army to
command, wherever he could find one, and offering his services to any
city which would engage him. He addressed the assembled Cyreians,
and offered, if they would accept him for their general, to conduct
them against the Delta of Thrace (the space included between the
north-west corner of the Propontis and the south-west corner of the
Euxine), which he asserted to be a rich territory presenting great
opportunity to plunder; he farther promised to furnish them with
ample subsistence during the march. Presently the envoys returned,
bearing the reply of Anaxibius, who received the message favorably,
promising that not only the army should have no cause to regret their
obedience, but that he would both report their good conduct to the
authorities at home, and do everything in his own power to promote
their comfort.[262] He said nothing farther about taking
them into pay; that delusion having now answered its purpose. The
soldiers, on hearing his communication, adopted a resolution to
accept Kœratadas as their future commander, and then marched out of
the town. As soon as they were on the outside, Anaxibius, not content
with closing the gates against them, made public proclamation that if
any one of them were found in the town, he should be sold forthwith
into slavery.
There are few cases throughout Grecian history in which an able
discourse has been the means of averting so much evil, as was
averted by this speech of Xenophon to the army in Byzantium. Nor
did he ever, throughout the whole period of his command, render
to them a more signal service. The miserable consequences, which
would have ensued, had the army persisted in their aggressive
impulse,—first, to the citizens of the town, ultimately
to themselves, while Anaxibius, the only guilty person, had the means
of escaping by sea, even under the worst circumstances,—are
stated by Xenophon rather under than above the reality. At the same
time no orator ever undertook a more difficult case, or achieved
a fuller triumph over unpromising conditions. If we consider the
feelings and position of the army at the instant of their breaking
into the town, we shall be astonished that any commander could have
arrested their movements. Though fresh from all the glory of their
retreat, they had been first treacherously entrapped over from Asia,
next roughly ejected, by Anaxibius; and although it may be said
truly that the citizens of Byzantium had no concern either in the
one or the other, yet little heed is commonly taken, in military
operations, to the distinction between garrison and citizens in an
assailed town. Having arms in their hands, with consciousness of
force arising out of their exploits in Asia, the Cyreians were at
the same time inflamed by the opportunity both of avenging a gross
recent injury, and enriching themselves in the process of execution;
to which we may add, the excitement of that rush whereby they had
obtained the reëntry, and the farther fact, that without the gates
they had nothing to expect except poor, hard, uninviting service in
Thrace. With soldiers already possessed by an overpowering impulse
of this nature, what chance was there that a retiring general, on
the point of quitting the army, could so work upon their minds as to
induce them to renounce the prey before them? Xenophon had nothing to
invoke except distant considerations, partly of Hellenic reputation,
chiefly of prudence; considerations indeed of unquestionable
reality and prodigious magnitude, yet belonging all to a distant
future, and therefore of little comparative force, except when set
forth in magnified characters by the orator. How powerfully he
worked upon the minds of his hearers, so as to draw forth these
far-removed dangers from the cloud of present sentiment by which
they were overlaid,—how skilfully he employed in illustration
the example of his own native city,—will be seen by all who
study his speech. Never did his Athenian accomplishments,—his
talent for giving words to important thoughts,—his promptitude
in seizing a present situation and managing the sentiments of an
impetuous multitude,—appear to greater advantage than when he
was thus suddenly called forth to meet a terrible emergency. His
pre-established reputation and the habit of obeying his orders,
were
doubtless essential conditions of success. But none of his colleagues
in command would have been able to accomplish the like memorable
change on the minds of the soldiers, or to procure obedience for any
simple authoritative restraint; nay, it is probable, that if Xenophon
had not been at hand, the other generals would have followed the
passionate movement, even though they had been reluctant,—from
simple inability to repress it.[263] Again,—whatever
might have been the accomplishments of Xenophon, it is certain
that even he would not have been able to work upon the minds of
these excited soldiers, had they not been Greeks and citizens as
well as soldiers,—bred in Hellenic sympathies and accustomed
to Hellenic order, with authority operating in part through voice
and persuasion, and not through the Persian whip and instruments
of torture. The memorable discourse on the Thrakion at Byzantium
illustrates the working of that persuasive agency which formed one of
the permanent forces and conspicuous charms of Hellenism. It teaches
us that if the orator could sometimes accuse innocent defendants and
pervert well-disposed assemblies,—a part of the case which
historians of Greece often present as if it were the whole,—he
could also, and that in the most trying emergencies, combat the
strongest force of present passion, and bring into vivid presence the
half-obscured lineaments of long-sighted reason and duty.
After conducting the army out of the city, Xenophon sent, through
Kleander, a message to Anaxibius, requesting that he himself might
be allowed to come in again singly, in order to take his departure
by sea. His request was granted, though not without much difficulty;
upon which he took leave of the army, under the strongest expressions
of affection and gratitude on their part,[264] and went into
Byzantium along with Kleander; while on the next day Kœratadas came
to assume the command according to agreement, bringing with him
a prophet, and beasts to be offered in sacrifice. There followed in his
train twenty men carrying sacks of barley-meal, twenty more with
jars of wine, three bearing olives, and one man with a bundle of
garlic and onions. All these provisions being laid down, Kœratadas
proceeded to offer sacrifice, as a preliminary to the distribution
of them among the soldiers. On the first day, the sacrifices being
unfavorable, no distribution took place; on the second day, Kœratadas
was standing with the wreath on his head at the altar, and with
the victims beside him, about to renew his sacrifice,—when
Timasion and the other officers interfered, desired him to abstain,
and dismissed him from the command. Perhaps the first unfavorable
sacrifices may have partly impelled them to this proceeding. But
the main reason was, the scanty store, inadequate even to one
day’s subsistence for the army, brought by Kœratadas,—and
the obvious insufficiency of his means.[265]
On the departure of Kœratadas, the army marched to take up its
quarters in some Thracian villages not far from Byzantium, under
its former officers; who however could not agree as to their future
order of march. Kleanor and Phryniskus, who had received presents
from Seuthes, urged the expediency of accepting the service of
that Thracian prince; Neon insisted on going to the Chersonese
under the Lacedæmonian officers in that peninsula (as Anaxibius had
projected); in the idea that he, as a Lacedæmonian, would there
obtain the command of the whole army; while Timasion, with the view
of re-establishing himself in his native city of Dardanus, proposed
returning to the Asiatic side of the strait.
Though this last plan met with decided favor among the army, it
could not be executed without vessels. These Timasion had little
or no means of procuring; so that considerable delay took place,
during which the soldiers, receiving no pay, fell into much distress.
Many of them were even compelled to sell their arms in order to get
subsistence; while others got permission to settle in some of the
neighboring towns, on condition of being disarmed. The whole army was
thus gradually melting away, much to the satisfaction of Anaxibius,
who was anxious to see the purposes of Pharnabazus accomplished.
By degrees, it would probably have been dissolved altogether, had
not a change of interest on the part of Anaxibius induced him to
promote its reorganization. He sailed from Byzantium to the Asiatic
coast, to acquaint Pharnabazus that the Cyreians could no longer
cause uneasiness, and to require his own promised reward. It seems
moreover that Xenophon himself departed from Byzantium by the same
opportunity. When they reached Kyzikus, they met the Lacedæmonian
Aristarchus; who was coming out as newly-appointed harmost of
Byzantium, to supersede Kleander, and who acquainted Anaxibius that
Polus was on the point of arriving to supersede him as admiral.
Anxious to meet Pharnabazus and make sure of his bribe, Anaxibius
impressed his parting injunction upon Aristarchus to sell for slaves
all the Cyreians whom he might find at Byzantium on his arrival, and
then pursued his voyage along the southern coast of the Propontis
to Parium. But Pharnabazus, having already received intimation of
the change of admirals, knew that the friendship of Anaxibius was
no longer of any value, and took no farther heed of him; while he
at the same time sent to Byzantium to make the like compact with
Aristarchus against the Cyreian army.[266]
Anaxibius was stung to the quick at this combination of
disappointment and insult on the part of the satrap. To avenge it, he
resolved to employ those very soldiers whom he had first corrupted
and fraudulently brought across to Europe, next cast out from
Byzantium, and lastly, ordered to be sold into slavery, so far as any
might yet be found in that town; bringing them back into Asia for
the purpose of acting against Pharnabazus. Accordingly he addressed
himself to Xenophon, and ordered him without a moment’s delay to
rejoin the army, for the purpose of keeping it together, of recalling
the soldiers who had departed, and transporting the whole body across
into Asia. He provided him with an armed vessel of thirty oars to
cross over from Parium to Perinthus, sending over a peremptory
order to the Perinthians to furnish him with horses in order that
he might reach the army with the greatest speed.[267] Perhaps it would
not have been safe for Xenophon to disobey this order, under
any circumstances. But the idea of acting with the army in Asia
against Pharnabazus, under Lacedæmonian sanction, was probably very
acceptable to him. He hastened across to the army, who welcomed his
return with joy, and gladly embraced the proposal of crossing to
Asia, which was a great improvement upon their forlorn and destitute
condition. He accordingly conducted them to Perinthus, and encamped
under the walls of the town; refusing, in his way through Selymbria,
a second proposition from Seuthes to engage the services of the
army.
While Xenophon was exerting himself to procure transports for the
passage of the army at Perinthus, Aristarchus the new harmost arrived
there with two triremes from Byzantium. It seems that not only
Byzantium, but also both Perinthus and Selymbria, were comprised in
his government as harmost. On first reaching Byzantium to supersede
Kleander, he found there no less than four hundred of the Cyreians,
chiefly sick and wounded; whom Kleander, in spite of the ill-will
of Anaxibius, had not only refused to sell into slavery, but had
billeted upon the citizens, and tended with solicitude; so much did
his good feeling towards Xenophon and towards the army now come
into play. We read with indignation that Aristarchus, immediately
on reaching Byzantium to supersede him, was not even contented
with sending these four hundred men out of the town; but seized
them,—Greeks, citizens, and soldiers as they were,—and
sold them all into slavery.[268] Apprised of
the movements of Xenophon with the army, he now came to Perinthus
to prevent their transit into Asia; laying an embargo on the
transports in the harbor, and presenting himself personally before
the assembled army to prohibit the soldiers from crossing. When
Xenophon informed him that Anaxibius had given them orders to cross,
and had sent him expressly to conduct them,—Aristarchus
replied, “Anaxibius is no longer in functions as admiral, and I am
harmost in this town. If I catch any of you at sea, I will sink you.”
On the next day, he sent to invite the generals and the captains
(lochages) to a conference within the walls. They were just about
to enter the gates, when Xenophon, who was among them, received a
private warning, that if he went in, Aristarchus would seize him,
and either put him to death or send him prisoner to Pharnabazus.
Accordingly Xenophon sent forward the others, and remained himself
with the army, alleging the obligation of sacrificing. The behavior
of Aristarchus,—who, when he saw the others without Xenophon,
sent them away, and desired that they would all come again in
the afternoon,—confirmed the justice of his suspicions, as
to the imminent danger from which he had been preserved by this
accidental warning.[269] It need hardly be added that Xenophon
disregarded the second invitation no less than the first; moreover a
third invitation, which Aristarchus afterwards sent, was disregarded
by all.
We have here a Lacedæmonian harmost, not scrupling to lay a
snare of treachery as flagrant as that which Tissaphernes had
practised on the banks of the Zab to entrap Klearchus and his
colleagues,—and that too against a Greek, and an officer of
the highest station and merit, who had just saved Byzantium from
pillage, and was now actually in execution of orders received from the
Lacedæmonian admiral Anaxibius. Had the accidental warning been
withheld, Xenophon would assuredly have fallen into this snare,
nor could we reasonably have charged him with imprudence,—so
fully was he entitled to count upon straightforward conduct under
the circumstances. But the same cannot be said of Klearchus, who
undoubtedly manifested lamentable credulity, nefarious as was the
fraud to which he fell a victim.
At the second interview with the other officers, Aristarchus,
while he forbade the army to cross the water, directed them to
force their way by land through the Thracians who occupied the Holy
mountain, and thus to arrive at the Chersonese; where (he said)
they should receive pay. Neon the Lacedæmonian, with about eight
hundred hoplites who adhered to his separate command, advocated
this plan as the best. To be set against it, however, there was the
proposition of Seuthes to take the army into pay; which Xenophon was
inclined to prefer, uneasy at the thoughts of being cooped up in the
narrow peninsula of the Chersonese, under the absolute command of
the Lacedæmonian harmost, with great uncertainty both as to pay and
as to provisions.[270] Moreover it was imperiously necessary
for these disappointed troops to make some immediate movement; for
they had been brought to the gates of Perinthus in hopes of passing
immediately on shipboard; it was mid-winter,—they were encamped
in the open field, under the severe cold of Thrace,—they had
neither assured supplies, nor even money to purchase, if a market
had been near.[271] Xenophon, who had brought them to the
neighborhood of Perinthus, was now again responsible for extricating
them from this untenable situation, and began to offer sacrifices,
according to his wont, to ascertain whether the gods would encourage
him to recommend a covenant with Seuthes. The sacrifices were so
favorable, that he himself, together with a confidential officer from
each of the generals, went by night and paid a visit to Seuthes, for
the purpose of understanding distinctly his offers and purposes.
Mæsadês, the father of Seuthes, had been apparently a dependent
prince under the great monarchy of the Odrysian Thracians; so formidable in
the early years of the Peloponnesian war. But intestine commotions
had robbed him of his principality over three Thracian tribes;
which it was now the ambition of Seuthes to recover, by the aid of
the Cyreian army. He offered to each soldier one stater of Kyzikus
(about twenty Attic drachmæ, or nearly the same as that which they
originally received from Cyrus) as pay per month; twice as much to
each lochage or captain,—four times as much to each of the
generals. In case they should incur the enmity of the Lacedæmonians
by joining him, he guaranteed to them all the right of settlement
and fraternal protection in his territory. To each of the generals,
over and above pay, he engaged to assign a fort on the sea-coast,
with a lot of land around it, and oxen for cultivation. And to
Xenophon in particular, he offered the possession of Bisanthê,
his best point on the coast. “I will also (he added, addressing
Xenophon) give you my daughter in marriage; and if you have any
daughter, I will buy her from you in marriage according to the
custom of Thrace.”[272] Seuthes farther engaged never on any
occasion to lead them more than seven days’ journey from the sea, at
farthest.
These offers were as liberal as the army could possibly expect;
and Xenophon himself, mistrusting the Lacedæmonians, as well as
mistrusted by them, seems to have looked forward to the acquisition
of a Thracian coast-fortress and territory (such as Miltiades,
Alkibiades, and other Athenian leaders had obtained before him)
as a valuable refuge in case of need.[273] But even if the
promise had been less favorable, the Cyreians had no alternative;
for they had not even present supplies,—still less any means
of subsistence throughout the winter; while departure by sea was
rendered impossible by the Lacedæmonians. On the next day, Seuthes
was introduced by Xenophon and the other generals to the army, who
accepted his offers and concluded the bargain.
They remained for two months in his service, engaged in
warfare against various Thracian tribes, whom they enabled him to
conquer and despoil; so that at the end of that period, he was in
possession of an extensive dominion, a large native force, and
a considerable tribute. Though the sufferings of the army from
cold were extreme, during these two months of full winter and
amidst
the snowy mountains of Thrace, they were nevertheless enabled
by their expeditions along with Seuthes to procure plentiful
subsistence; which they could hardly have done in any other manner.
But the pay which he had offered was never liquidated; at least,
in requital of their two months of service, they received pay only
for twenty days and a little more. And Xenophon himself, far from
obtaining fulfilment of those splendid promises which Seuthes had
made to him personally, seems not even to have received his pay as
one of the generals. For him, the result was singularly unhappy;
since he forfeited the good-will of Seuthes by importunate demand
and complaint for the purpose of obtaining the pay due to the
soldiers; while they on their side, imputing to his connivance the
non-fulfilment of the promise, became thus in part alienated from
him. Much of this mischief was brought about by the treacherous
intrigues and calumny of a corrupt Greek from Maroneia, named
Herakleides; who acted as minister and treasurer to Seuthes.
Want of space compels me to omit the narrative given by Xenophon,
both of the relations of the army with Seuthes, and of the warfare
carried on against the hostile Thracian tribes,—interesting
as it is from the juxtaposition of Greek and Thracian manners. It
seems to have been composed by Xenophon under feelings of acute
personal disappointment, and probably in refutation of calumnies
against himself as if he had wronged the army. Hence we may trace
in it a tone of exaggerated querulousness, and complaint that the
soldiers were ungrateful to him. It is true that a portion of the
army, under the belief that he had been richly rewarded by Seuthes
while they had not obtained their stipulated pay, expressed virulent
sentiments and falsehoods against him.[274] Until such suspicions
were refuted, it is no wonder that the army were alienated; but
they were perfectly willing to hear both sides,—and Xenophon
triumphantly disproved the accusation. That in the end, their
feelings towards him were those of esteem and favor, stands confessed
in his own words,[275] proving that the ingratitude of which he
complains was the feeling of some indeed, but not of all.
It is hard to say, however, what would have been the fate of this
gallant army, when Seuthes, having obtained from their arms in two months all
that he desired, had become only anxious to send them off without
pay,—had they not been extricated by a change of interest and
policy on the part of all-powerful Sparta. The Lacedæmonians had just
declared war against Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus,—sending
Thimbron into Asia to commence military operations. They then became
extremely anxious to transport the Cyreians across to Asia, which
their harmost, Aristarchus had hitherto prohibited,—and to
take them into permanent pay; for which purpose two Lacedæmonians,
Charmînus and Polynîkus were commissioned by Thimbron to offer
to the army the same pay as had been promised, though not paid,
by Seuthes; and as had been originally paid by Cyrus. Seuthes
and Herakleides, eager to hasten the departure of the soldiers,
endeavored to take credit with the Lacedæmonians for assisting
their views.[276] Joyfully did the army accept this
offer, though complaining loudly of the fraud practised upon them
by Seuthes; which Charmînus, at the instance of Xenophon, vainly
pressed the Thracian prince to redress.[277] He even sent Xenophon
to demand the arrear of pay in the name of the Lacedæmonians, which
afforded to the Athenian an opportunity of administering a severe
lecture to Seuthes.[278] But the latter was found less accessible
to the workings of eloquence than the Cyreian assembled soldiers;
nor did Xenophon obtain anything beyond a miserable dividend upon
the sum due;—together with civil expressions towards himself
personally,—an invitation to remain in his service with one
thousand hoplites instead of going to Asia with the army,—and
renewed promises, not likely now to find much credit, of a fort and
grant of lands.
When the army, now reduced by losses and dispersions to six
thousand men,[279] was prepared to cross into Asia, Xenophon
was desirous of going back to Athens, but was persuaded to remain
with them until the junction with Thimbron. He was at this time
so poor, having scarcely enough to pay for his journey home,
that he was obliged to sell his horse at Lampsakus, the Asiatic
town
where the army landed. Here he found Eukleides, a Phliasian
prophet with whom he had been wont to hold intercourse and offer
sacrifice at Athens. This man, having asked Xenophon how much he
had acquired in the expedition, could not believe him when he
affirmed his poverty. But when they proceeded to offer sacrifice
together, from some animals sent by the Lampsakenes as a present
to Xenophon, Eukleides had no sooner inspected the entrails of
the victims, than he told Xenophon that he fully credited the
statement. “I see (he said) that even if money shall be ever on its
way to come to you, you yourself will be a hindrance to it, even
if there be no other (here Xenophon acquiesced); Zeus Meilichios
(the Gracious)[280] is the real bar. Have you ever sacrificed
to him, with entire burnt-offerings, as we used to do together at
Athens?” “Never (replied Xenophon), throughout the whole march.” “Do
so now, then (said Eukleides), and it will be for your advantage.”
The next day, on reaching Ophrynium, Xenophon obeyed the injunction;
sacrificing little pigs entire to Zeus Meilichios, as was the custom
at Athens during the public festival called Diasia. And on the very
same day he felt the beneficial effects of the proceeding; for Biton
and another envoy came from the Lacedæmonians with an advance of pay
to the army, and with dispositions so favorable to himself, that they
bought back for him his horse, which he had just sold at Lampsakus
for fifty darics. This was equivalent to giving him more than one
year’s pay in hand (the pay which he would have received as general
being four darics per month, or four times that of the soldier), at a
time when he was known to be on the point of departure, and therefore
would not stay to earn it. The short-comings of Seuthes were now
made up
with immense interest, so that Xenophon became better off than any
man in the army; though he himself slurs over the magnitude of the
present, by representing it as a delicate compliment to restore to
him a favorite horse.
Thus gratefully and instantaneously did Zeus the Gracious
respond to the sacrifice which Xenophon, after a long omission,
had been admonished by Eukleides to offer. And doubtless Xenophon
was more than ever confirmed in the belief, which manifests itself
throughout all his writings, that sacrifice not only indicates, by
the interior aspect of the immolated victims, the tenor of coming
events,—but also, according as it is rendered to the right
god and at the right season, determines his will, and therefore the
course of events, for dispensations favorable or unfavorable.
But the favors of Zeus the Gracious, though begun, were not yet
ended. Xenophon conducted the army through the Troad, and across
mount Ida, to Antandrus; from thence along the coast to Lydia,
through the plain of Thêbê and the town of Adramyttium, leaving
Atarneus on the right hand, to Pergamus in Mysia, a hill-town
overhanging the river and plain of Käikus. This district was occupied
by the descendants of the Eretrian Gongylus, who, having been
banished for embracing the cause of the Persians when Xerxes invaded
Greece, had been rewarded (like the Spartan king Demaratus) with
this sort of principality under the Persian empire. His descendant,
another Gongylus, now occupied Pergamus, with his wife Hellas and
his sons Gorgion and Gongylus. Xenophon was here received with great
hospitality. Hellas acquainted him that a powerful Persian, named
Asidates, was now dwelling, with his wife, family, and property, in a
tower not far off, on the plain; and that a sudden night-march, with
three hundred men, would suffice for the capture of this valuable
booty, to which her own cousin should guide him. Accordingly, having
sacrificed and ascertained that the victims were favorable, Xenophon
communicated his plan after the evening meal to those captains who
had been most attached to him throughout the expedition, wishing to
make them partners in the profit. As soon as it became known, many
volunteers, to the number of six hundred, pressed to be allowed
to join. But the captains repelled them, declining to take more
than three hundred, in order that the booty might afford an ampler
dividend to each partner.
Beginning their march in the evening, Xenophon and his detachment
of three hundred reached about midnight the tower of Asidates; it was
large, lofty, thickly built, and contained a considerable garrison.
It served for protection to his cattle and cultivating slaves around,
like a baronial castle in the middle ages; but the assailants
neglected this outlying plunder, in order to be more sure of taking
the castle itself. Its walls however were found much stronger than
was expected; and although a breach was made by force about daybreak,
yet so vigorous was the defence of the garrison, that no entrance
could be effected. Signals and shouts of every kind were made by
Asidates to procure aid from the Persian forces in the neighborhood;
numbers of whom soon began to arrive, so that Xenophon and his
company were obliged to retreat. And their retreat was at last only
accomplished, after severe suffering and wounds to nearly half of
them, through the aid of Gongylus with his forces from Pergamus, and
of Proklês (the descendant of Demaratus) from Halisarna, a little
farther off seaward.[281]
Though his first enterprise thus miscarried, Xenophon soon laid
plans for a second, employing the whole army; and succeeded in
bringing Asidates prisoner to Pergamus, with his wife, children,
horses, and all his personal property. Thus (says he, anxious above
all things for the credit of sacrificial prophecy) the “previous
sacrifices (those which had promised favorably before the first
unsuccessful attempt) now came true.”[282] The persons of
this family were doubtless redeemed by their Persian friends for
a large ransom;[283] which, together with the booty brought in,
made up a prodigious total to be divided.
In making the division, a general tribute of sympathy
and admiration was paid to Xenophon, to which all the
army,—generals, captains, and soldiers,—and the
Lacedæmonians besides,—unanimously concurred. Like Agamemnon
at Troy, he was allowed to select for himself the picked lots of
horses, mules, oxen, and other items of booty; insomuch that he
became possessor of a share valuable enough to enrich him at once, in
addition to the fifty darics which he had before received. “Here
then Xenophon (to use his own language[284]) had no reason to
complain of the god” (Zeus Meilichios). We may add,—what he
ought to have added, considering the accusations which he had before
put forth,—that neither had he any reason to complain of the
ingratitude of the army.
As soon as Thimbron arrived with his own forces, and
the Cyreians became a part of his army, Xenophon took his
leave of them. Having deposited in the temple at Ephesus
that portion which had been confided to him as general, of
the tithe set apart by the army at Kerasus for the Ephesian
Artemis,[285] he seems to have executed his intention of
returning to Athens.[286] He must have arrived there, after an
absence of about two years and a half, within a few weeks, at
farthest, after the death of his friend and preceptor Sokrates,
whose trial and condemnation have been recorded in my last volume.
That melancholy event certainly occurred during his absence
from Athens;[287] but whether it had come to his knowledge
before he reached the city, we do not know. How much grief and
indignation it excited in his mind, we may see by his collection of
memoranda respecting the life and conversations of Sokrates, known by
the name of Memorabilia, and probably put together shortly after his
arrival.
That he was again in Asia, three years afterwards, on military
service under the Lacedæmonian king Agesilaus, is a fact attested by
himself; but at what precise moment he quitted Athens for his second
visit to Asia, we are left to conjecture. I incline to believe that
he did not remain many months at home, but that he went out again
in the next spring to rejoin the Cyreians in Asia,—became
again their commander,—and served for two years under the
Spartan general Derkyllidas before the arrival of Agesilaus. Such military
service would doubtless be very much to his taste; while a residence
at Athens, then subject and quiescent, would probably be distasteful
to him; both from the habits of command which he had contracted
during the previous two years, and from feelings arising out of the
death of Sokrates. After a certain interval of repose, he would
be disposed to enter again upon the war against his old enemy
Tissaphernes; and his service went on when Agesilaus arrived to
take the command.[288]
But during the two years after this latter event, Athens
became a party to the war against Sparta, and entered into
conjunction with the king of Persia as well as with the Thebans
and others; while Xenophon, continuing his service as commander
of the Cyreians, and accompanying Agesilaus from Asia back into
Greece, became engaged against the Athenian troops and their
Bœotian allies at the bloody battle of Korôneia. Under these
circumstances, we cannot wonder that the Athenians passed sentence
of banishment against him; not because he had originally taken
part in aid of Cyrus against Artaxerxes,—nor because
his political sentiments were unfriendly to democracy, as has
been sometimes erroneously affirmed,—but because he was
now openly in arms, and in conspicuous command, against his
own country.[289] Having thus become an exile, Xenophon was allowed
by the Lacedæmonians to settle at Skillus, one of the villages of
Triphylia, near Olympia in Peloponnesus, which they had recently
emancipated from the Eleians. At one of the ensuing Olympic
festivals, Megabyzus, the superintendent of the temple of Artemis
at Ephesus, came over as a spectator; bringing with him the money
which Xenophon had dedicated therein to the Ephesian Artemis. This
money Xenophon invested in the purchase of lands at Skillus, to be
consecrated in permanence to the goddess; having previously consulted
her by sacrifice to ascertain her approval of the site contemplated,
which site was recommended to him by its resemblance in certain
points to that of the Ephesian temple. Thus, there was near each of
them a river called by the same name Selinus, having in it fish and a
shelly bottom. Xenophon constructed a chapel, an altar, and a statue
of the goddess made of cypress-wood: all exact copies, on a reduced
scale, of the temple and golden statue at Ephesus. A column near them
was inscribed with the following words,—“This spot is sacred
to Artemis. Whoever possesses the property and gathers its fruits,
must sacrifice to her the tithe every year, and keep the chapel in repair
out of the remainder. Should any one omit this duty the goddess
herself will take the omission in hand.”[290]
Immediately near the chapel was an orchard of every description
of fruit-trees, while the estate around comprised an extensive range
of meadow, woodland, and mountain,—with the still loftier
mountain called Pholoê adjoining. There was thus abundant pasture
for horses, oxen, sheep, etc., and excellent hunting-ground near for
deer and other game; advantages not to be found near the Artemision
at Ephesus. Residing hard by on his own property, allotted to
him by the Lacedæmonians, Xenophon superintended this estate as
steward for the goddess; looking perhaps to the sanctity of her
name for protection from disturbance by the Eleians, who viewed
with a jealous eye the Lacedæmonian[291] settlers at Skillus,
and protested against the peace and convention promoted by Athens
after the battle of Leuktra, because it recognized that place,
along with the townships of Triphylia, as autonomous. Every year he
made a splendid sacrifice, from the tithe of all the fruits of the
property; to which solemnity not only all the Skilluntines, but also
all the neighboring villages, were invited. Booths were erected for
the visitors, to whom the goddess furnished (this is the language
of Xenophon) an ample dinner of barley-meal, wheaten loaves, meat,
game, and sweetmeats;[292] the game being provided by a general hunt,
which the sons of Xenophon conducted, and in which all the neighbors
took part if they chose. The produce of the estate, saving this tithe
and subject to the obligation of keeping the holy building in repair,
was enjoyed by Xenophon himself. He had a keen relish for both
hunting and horsemanship, and was among the first authors, so far as
we know, who ever made these pursuits, with the management of horses
and dogs, the subject of rational study and description.
Such was the use to which Xenophon applied the tithe voted by the army
at Kerasus to the Ephesian Artemis; the other tithe, voted at the
same time to Apollo, he dedicated at Delphi in the treasure-chamber
of the Athenians, inscribing upon the offering his own name and
that of Proxenus. His residence being only at a distance of
twenty stadia from the great temple of Olympia, he was enabled to
enjoy society with every variety of Greeks,—and to obtain copious
information about Grecian politics, chiefly from philo-Laconian
informants, and with the Lacedæmonian point of view predominant
in his own mind; while he had also leisure for the composition
of his various works. The interesting description which he
himself gives of his residence at Skillus, implies a state of
things not present and continuing,[293] but past and gone;
other testimonies too, though confused and contradictory, seem to
show that the Lacedæmonian settlement at Skillus lasted no longer
than the power of Lacedæmon was adequate to maintain it. During
the misfortunes which befel that city after the battle of Leuktra
(371 B.C.), Xenophon, with his family and his
fellow-settlers, was expelled by the Eleians, and is then said to
have found shelter at Corinth. But as Athens soon came to be not
only at peace, but in intimate alliance, with Sparta,—the sentence
of banishment against Xenophon was revoked; so that the latter part
of his life was again passed in the enjoyment of his birthright
as an Athenian citizen and Knight.[294] Two of his sons,
Gryllus and Diodorus, fought among the Athenian horsemen at the
cavalry combat which preceded the battle of Mantineia, where the
former was slain, after manifesting distinguished bravery; while
his grandson Xenophon became in the next generation the subject
of a pleading before the Athenian Dikastery, composed by the
orator Deinarchus.[295]
On bringing this accomplished and eminent leader to the close
of that arduous retreat which he had conducted with so much honor,
I have thought it necessary to anticipate a little on the future,
in order to take a glance at his subsequent destiny. To his exile
(in this point of view not less useful than that of Thucydides) we
probably owe many of those compositions from which so much of our
knowledge of Grecian affairs is derived. But to the contemporary
world, the retreat, which Xenophon so successfully conducted,
afforded a far more impressive lesson than any of his literary
compositions. It taught in the most striking manner the impotence of
the Persian land-force, manifested not less in the generals than in
the soldiers. It proved that the Persian leaders were unfit for any
systematic operations, even under the greatest possible advantages,
against a small number of disciplined warriors resolutely bent on
resistance; that they were too stupid and reckless even to obstruct
the passage of rivers, or destroy roads, or cut off supplies. It
more than confirmed the contemptuous language applied to them by
Cyrus himself, before the battle of Kunaxa; when he proclaimed that
he envied the Greeks their freedom, and that he was ashamed of the
worthlessness of his own countrymen.[296] Against such
perfect weakness and disorganization, nothing prevented the success of
the Greeks along with Cyrus, except his own paroxysm of fraternal
antipathy.[297] And we shall perceive hereafter the
military and political leaders of Greece,—Agesilaus,
Jason of Pheræ,[298] and others down to Philip and
Alexander[299]—firmly persuaded that with a
tolerably numerous and well-appointed Grecian force, combined with
exemption from Grecian enemies, they could succeed in overthrowing
or dismembering the Persian empire. This conviction, so important in
the subsequent history of Greece, takes its date from the retreat
of the Ten Thousand. We shall indeed find Persia exercising an
important influence, for two generations to come,—and at the
peace of Antalkidas an influence stronger than ever,—over
the destinies of Greece. But this will be seen to arise from the
treason of Sparta, the chief of the Hellenic world, who abandons the
Asiatic Greeks, and even arms herself with the name and the force
of Persia, for purposes of aggrandizement and dominion to herself.
Persia is strong by being enabled to employ Hellenic strength
against the Hellenic cause; by lending money or a fleet to one side
of the Grecian intestine parties, and thus becoming artificially
strengthened against both. But the Xenophontic Anabasis betrays her
real weakness against any vigorous attack; while it at the same time
exemplifies the discipline, the endurance, the power of self-action
and adaptation, the susceptibility of influence from speech and
discussion, the combination of the reflecting obedience of citizens
with the mechanical regularity of soldiers,—which confer such
immortal distinction on the Hellenic character. The importance of
this expedition and retreat, as an illustration of the Hellenic
qualities and excellence, will justify the large space which has been
devoted to it in this History.
CHAPTER LXXII. GREECE UNDER THE LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE.
The three preceding
Chapters have been devoted exclusively to the narrative of the
Expedition and Retreat, immortalized by Xenophon, occupying the two
years intervening between about April 401 B.C. and
June 399 B.C. That event, replete as it is with
interest and pregnant with important consequences, stands apart from
the general sequence of Grecian affairs,—which sequence I now
resume.
It will be recollected that as soon as Xenophon with his Ten
Thousand warriors descended from the rugged mountains between
Armenia and the Euxine to the hospitable shelter of Trapezus, and
began to lay their plans for returning to Central Greece,—they
found themselves within the Lacedæmonian empire, unable to advance
a step without consulting Lacedæmonian dictation, and obliged,
when they reached the Bosphorus, to endure without redress the
harsh and treacherous usage of the Spartan officers, Anaxibius and
Aristarchus.
Of that empire the first origin has been set forth in my last
preceding volume. It began with the decisive victory of Ægospotami
in the Hellespont (September or October 405 B.C.),
where the Lacedæmonian Lysander, without the loss of a man, got
possession of the entire Athenian fleet and a large portion of their
crews,—with the exception of eight or nine triremes with which
the Athenian admiral Konon effected his escape to Euagoras at Cyprus.
The whole power of Athens was thus annihilated, and nothing remained
for the Lacedæmonians to master except the city itself and Peiræus; a
consummation certain to happen, and actually brought to pass in April
404 B.C., when Lysander entered Athens in triumph,
dismantled Peiræus, and demolished a large portion of the Long Walls.
With the exception of Athens herself,—whose citizens deferred
the moment of subjection by an heroic, though unavailing, struggle
against the horrors of famine,—and of Samos,—no other Grecian
city offered any resistance to Lysander after the battle of
Ægospotami; which in fact not only took away from Athens her whole
naval force, but transferred it all over to him, and rendered him
admiral of a larger Grecian fleet than had ever been seen together
since the battle of Salamis.
I have recounted in my sixty-fifth chapter, the sixteen months
of bitter suffering undergone by Athens immediately after her
surrender. The loss of her fleet and power was aggravated by an
extremity of internal oppression. Her oligarchical party and her
exiles, returning after having served with the enemy against her,
extorted from the public assembly, under the dictation of Lysander
who attended it in person, the appointment of an omnipotent council
of thirty for the ostensible purpose of framing a new constitution.
These thirty rulers,—among whom Kritias was the most violent,
and Theramenes (seemingly) the most moderate, or at least the soonest
satiated,—perpetrated cruelty and spoliation on the largest
scale, being protected against all resistance by a Lacedæmonian
harmost and garrison established in the acropolis. Besides numbers of
citizens put to death, so many others were driven into exile with the
loss of their property, that Thebes and the neighboring cities became
crowded with them. After about eight months of unopposed tyranny, the
Thirty found themselves for the first time attacked by Thrasybulus
at the head of a small party of these exiles coming out of Bœotia.
His bravery and good conduct,—combined with the enormities of
the Thirty, which became continually more nefarious, and to which
even numerous oligarchical citizens, as well as Theramenes himself,
successively became victims,—enabled him soon to strengthen
himself, to seize the Peiræus, and to carry on a civil war which
ultimately put down the tyrants.
These latter were obliged to invoke the aid of a new Lacedæmonian
force. And had that force still continued at the disposal of
Lysander, all resistance on the part of Athens would have been
unavailing. But fortunately for the Athenians, the last few months
had wrought material change in the dispositions both of the
allies of Sparta and of many among her leading men. The allies,
especially Thebes and Corinth, not only relented in their hatred
and fear of Athens, now that she had lost her power,—but
even sympathized with her suffering exiles, and became disgusted
with the self-willed encroachments of Sparta; while the Spartan
king Pausanias, together with some of the ephors, were also jealous
of the arbitrary and oppressive conduct of Lysander. Instead of
conducting the Lacedæmonian force to uphold at all price the
Lysandrian oligarchy, Pausanias appeared rather as an equitable
mediator to terminate the civil war. He refused to concur in any
measure for obstructing the natural tendency towards a revival of
the democracy. It was in this manner that Athens, rescued from that
sanguinary and rapacious regime which has passed into history under
the name of the Thirty Tyrants, was enabled to reappear as a humble
and dependent member of the Spartan alliance,—with nothing but
the recollection of her former power, yet with her democracy again
in vigorous and tutelary action for internal government. The just
and gentle bearing of her democratical citizens, and the absence of
reactionary antipathies, after such cruel ill-treatment,—are
among the most honorable features in her history.
The reader will find in my last volume, what I can only rapidly
glance at here, the details of that system of bloodshed, spoliation,
extinction of free speech and even of intellectual teaching, efforts
to implicate innocent citizens as agents in judicial assassination,
etc.,—which stained the year of Anarchy (as it was termed in
Athenian annals[300]) immediately following the surrender of
the city. These details depend on evidence perfectly satisfactory;
for they are conveyed to us chiefly by Xenophon, whose sympathies are
decidedly oligarchical. From him too we learn another fact, not less
pregnant with instruction; that the knights or horsemen, the body of
richest proprietors at Athens, were the mainstay of the Thirty from
first to last, notwithstanding all the enormities of their career.
We learn from these dark, but well-attested details, to
appreciate the auspices under which that period of history called
the Lacedæmonian empire was inaugurated. Such phenomena were by
no means confined within the walls of Athens. On the contrary,
the year of Anarchy (using that term in the sense in which it was
employed by the Athenians) arising out of the same combination of causes
and agents, was common to a very large proportion of the cities
throughout Greece. The Lacedæmonian admiral Lysander, during his
first year of naval command, had organized in most of the allied
cities factious combinations of some of the principal citizens,
corresponding with himself personally; by whose efforts in their
respective cities he was enabled to prosecute the war vigorously,
and whom he repaid, partly by seconding as much as he could their
injustices in their respective cities,—partly by promising
to strengthen their hands still farther as soon as victory should
be made sure.[301] This policy, while it served as a stimulus
against the common enemy, contributed still more directly to
aggrandize Lysander himself; creating for him an ascendency of his
own, and imposing upon him personal obligations towards adherents,
apart from what was required by the interests of Sparta.
The victory of Ægospotami, complete and decisive beyond all
expectations either of friend or foe, enabled him to discharge these
obligations with interest. All Greece at once made submission to
the Lacedæmonians,[302] except Athens and Samos,—and these
two only held out a few months. It was now the first business
of the victorious commander to remunerate his adherents, and to
take permanent security for Spartan dominion as well as for his
own. In the greater number of cities, he established an oligarchy
of ten citizens, or a dekarchy,[303] composed of his own
partisans; while he at the same time planted in each a Lacedæmonian
harmost or governor, with a garrison to uphold the new oligarchy. The
dekarchy of ten Lysandrian partisans, with the Lacedæmonian harmost
to sustain them, became the general scheme of Hellenic government
throughout the Ægean, from Eubœa to the Thracian coast-towns, and
from Myletus to Byzantium. Lysander sailed round in person, with
his victorious fleet, to Byzantium and Chalkêdon, to the cities of
Lesbos, to Thasos, and other places,—while he sent Eteonikus
to Thrace, for the purpose of thus recasting the governments
everywhere. Not merely those cities which had hitherto been on
the Athenian side, but also those which had acted as allies of Sparta,
were subjected to the same intestine revolution and the same
foreign constraint.[304] Everywhere the new Lysandrian dekarchy
superseded the previous governments, whether oligarchical or
democratical.
At Thasus, as well as in other places, this revolution was
not accomplished without much bloodshed as well as treacherous
stratagem, nor did Lysander himself scruple to enforce, personally
and by his own presence, the execution and expulsion of suspected
citizens.[305] In many places, however, simple terrorism
probably sufficed. The new Lysandrian Ten overawed resistance and
procured recognition of their usurpation by the menace of inviting
the victorious admiral with his fleet of two hundred sail, and by
the simple arrival of the Lacedæmonian harmost. Not only was each
town obliged to provide a fortified citadel and maintenance for this
governor with his garrison, but a scheme of tribute, amounting to one
thousand talents annually, was imposed for the future, and assessed
ratably upon each city by Lysander.[306]
In what spirit these new dekarchies would govern, consisting as
they did of picked oligarchical partisans distinguished for audacity
and ambition,[307]—who, to all the unscrupulous lust
of power which characterized Lysander himself, added a thirst for
personal gain, from which he was exempt, and were now about to
reimburse
themselves for services already rendered to him,—the general
analogy of Grecian history would sufficiently teach us, though we
are without special details. But in reference to this point, we
have not merely general analogy to guide us; we have farther the
parallel case of the Thirty at Athens, the particulars of whose
rule are well known and have already been alluded to. These Thirty,
with the exception of the difference of number, were to all intents
and purposes a Lysandrian dekarchy; created by the same originating
force, placed under the like circumstances, and animated by the like
spirit and interests. Every subject town would produce its Kritias
and Theramenes, and its body of wealthy citizens like the knights
or horsemen at Athens to abet their oppressions, under Lacedæmonian
patronage and the covering guard of the Lacedæmonian harmost.
Moreover, Kritias, with all his vices, was likely to be better
rather than worse, as compared with his oligarchical parallel in any
other less cultivated city. He was a man of letters and philosophy,
accustomed to the conversation of Sokrates, and to the discussion of
ethical and social questions. We may say the same of the knights or
horsemen at Athens. Undoubtedly they had been better educated, and
had been exposed to more liberalizing and improving influences, than
the corresponding class elsewhere. If, then, these knights at Athens
had no shame in serving as accomplices to the Thirty throughout all
their enormities, we need not fear to presume that other cities
would furnish a body of wealthy men yet more unscrupulous, and a
leader at least as sanguinary, rapacious, and full of antipathies,
as Kritias. As at Athens, so elsewhere; the dekarchs would begin by
putting to death notorious political opponents, under the name of
“the wicked men;”[308] they would next proceed to deal in
the same manner with men of known probity and courage, likely to
take a lead in resisting oppression.[309] Their career of
blood would continue,—in spite of remonstrances from more
moderate persons among their own number, like Theramenes,—until
they contrived some stratagem for disarming the citizens,
which would enable them to gratify both their antipathies and
their rapacity by victims still more numerous,—many of
such victims being wealthy men, selected for purposes of pure
spoliation.[310] They would next despatch by force
any obtrusive monitor from their own number, like Theramenes;
probably with far less ceremony than accompanied the perpetration
of this crime at Athens, where we may trace the effect of
those judicial forms and habits to which the Athenian public
had been habituated,—overruled indeed, yet still not
forgotten. There would hardly remain any fresh enormity still
to commit, over and above the multiplied executions, except to
banish from the city all but their own immediate partisans, and
to reward these latter with choice estates confiscated from
the victims.[311] If called upon to excuse such tyranny,
the leader of a dekarchy would have sufficient invention to employ
the plea of Kritias,—that all changes of government were
unavoidably death-dealing, and that nothing less than such stringent
measures would suffice to maintain his city in suitable dependence
upon Sparta.[312]
Of course, it is not my purpose to affirm that in any other
city, precisely the same phenomena took place as those which
occurred in Athens. But we are nevertheless perfectly warranted
in regarding the history of the Athenian Thirty as a fair sample,
from whence to derive our idea of those Lysandrian dekarchies
which now overspread the Grecian world. Doubtless, each had its
own peculiar march; some were less tyrannical; but, perhaps, some
even more tyrannical, regard being had to the size of the city.
And in point of fact, Isokrates, who speaks with indignant horror
of these dekarchies, while he denounces those features which they
had in common with the triakontarchy at Athens,—extrajudicial
murders, spoliations, and banishments,—notices one enormity
besides, which we do not find in the latter, violent outrages upon
boys and women.[313] Nothing of this kind is ascribed
to Kritias and his companions;[314] and it is a
considerable proof of the restraining force of Athenian manners,
that men who inflicted so much evil in gratification of other
violent impulses, should have stopped short here. The decemvirs
named by Lysander, like the decemvir Appius Claudius at Rome, would
find themselves armed with power to satiate their lusts as well as
their antipathies, and would not be more likely to set bounds to
the former than to the latter. Lysander, in all the overweening
insolence of victory, while rewarding his most devoted partisans
with an exaltation comprising every sort of license and tyranny,
stained the dependent cities with countless murders, perpetrated on
private as well as on public grounds.[315] No individual
Greek had ever before wielded so prodigious a power of enriching
friends or destroying enemies, in this universal reorganization
of Greece;[316] nor was there ever any power more
deplorably abused.
It was thus that the Lacedæmonian empire imposed upon each of
the subject cities a double oppression;[317] the native decemvirs,
and the foreign harmost; each abetting the other, and forming
together an aggravated pressure upon the citizens, from which
scarce any escape was left. The Thirty at Athens paid the greatest
possible court to the harmost Kallibius,[318] and put to
death
individual Athenians offensive to him, in order to purchase his
coöperation in their own violences. The few details which we possess
respecting these harmosts (who continued throughout the insular and
maritime cities for about ten years, until the battle of Knidus, or
as long as the maritime empire of Sparta lasted,—but in various
continental dependencies considerably longer, that is, until the
defeat of Leuktra in 371 B.C.), are all for the most
part discreditable. We have seen in the last chapter the description
given by the philo-Laconian Xenophon, of the harsh and treacherous
manner in which they acted towards the returning Cyreian soldiers,
combined with their corrupt subservience to Pharnabazus. We learn
from him that it depended upon the fiat of a Lacedæmonian harmost
whether these soldiers should be proclaimed enemies and excluded
forever from their native cities; and Kleander, the harmost of
Byzantium, who at first threatened them with this treatment, was only
induced by the most unlimited submission, combined with very delicate
management, to withdraw his menace. The cruel proceeding of Anaxibius
and Aristarchus, who went so far as to sell four hundred of these
soldiers into slavery, has been recounted a few pages above. Nothing
can be more arbitrary or reckless than their proceedings. If they
could behave thus towards a body of Greek soldiers full of acquired
glory, effective either as friends or as enemies, and having generals
capable of prosecuting their collective interests and making their
complaints heard,—what protection would a private citizen of
any subject city, Byzantium or Perinthus, be likely to enjoy against
their oppression?
The story of Aristodemus, the harmost of Oreus in Eubœa, evinces
that no justice could be obtained against any of their enormities from the
ephors of Sparta. That harmost, among many other acts of brutal
violence, seized a beautiful youth, son of a free citizen at Oreus,
out of the palæstra,—carried him off,—and after vainly
endeavoring to overcome his resistance, put him to death. The father
of the youth went to Sparta, made known the atrocities, and appealed
to the ephors and Senate for redress. But a deaf ear was turned to
his complaints, and in anguish of mind he slew himself. Indeed, we
know that these Spartan authorities would grant no redress, not
merely against harmosts, but even against private Spartan citizens,
who had been guilty of gross crime out of their own country. A
Bœotian near Leuktra, named Skedasus, preferred complaint that two
Spartans, on their way from Delphi, after having been hospitably
entertained in his house, had first violated, and afterwards
killed, his two daughters; but even for so flagitious an outrage
as this, no redress could be obtained.[319] Doubtless,
when a powerful foreign ally, like the Persian satrap
Pharnabazus,[320] complained to the ephors of the conduct
of a Lacedæmonian harmost or admiral, his representations would
receive attention; and we learn that the ephors were thus induced
not merely to recall Lysander from the Hellespont, but to put to
death another officer, Thorax, for corrupt appropriation of money.
But for a private citizen in any subject city, the superintending
authority of Sparta would be not merely remote but deaf and
immovable, so as to afford him no protection whatever, and to leave
him altogether at the mercy of the harmost. It seems, too, that
the rigor of Spartan training, and peculiarity of habits, rendered
individual Lacedæmonians on foreign service more self-willed, more
incapable of entering into the customs or feelings of others, and
more liable to degenerate when set free from the strict watch of
home,—than other Greeks generally.[321]
Taking all these causes of evil together,—the
dekarchies, the harmosts, and the overwhelming dictatorship of
Lysander,—and construing other parts of the Grecian world by
the analogy of Athens under the Thirty,—we shall be warranted
in affirming that the first years of the Spartan Empire, which
followed upon the victory of Ægospotami, were years of all-pervading
tyranny and multifarious intestine calamity, such as Greece had
never before endured. The hardships of war, severe in many ways,
were now at an end, but they were replaced by a state of suffering
not the less difficult to bear because it was called peace. And what
made the suffering yet more intolerable was, that it was a bitter
disappointment, and a flagrant violation of promises proclaimed,
repeatedly and explicitly, by the Lacedæmonians themselves.
For more than thirty years preceding,—from times earlier
than the commencement of the Peloponnesian war,—the Spartans
had professed to interfere only for the purpose of liberating Greece,
and of putting down the usurped ascendency of Athens. All the allies
of Sparta had been invited into strenuous action,—all those
of Athens had been urged to revolt,—under the soul-stirring
cry of “Freedom to Greece.” The earliest incitements addressed by
the Corinthians to Sparta in 432 B.C., immediately
after the Korkyræan dispute, called upon her to stand forward in
fulfilment of her recognized function as “Liberator of Greece,”
and denounced her as guilty of connivance with Athens if she
held back.[322] Athens was branded as the “despot city;”
which had already absorbed the independence of many Greeks, and menaced that of
all the rest. The last formal requisition borne by the Lacedæmonian
envoys to Athens in the winter immediately preceding the war, ran
thus,—“If you desire the continuance of peace with Sparta,
restore to the Greeks their autonomy.”[323] When Archidamus,
king of Sparta, approached at the head of his army to besiege
Platæa, the Platæans laid claim to autonomy as having been solemnly
guaranteed to them by King Pausanias after the great victory near
their town. Upon which Archidamus replied,—“Your demand is
just; we are prepared to confirm your autonomy,—but we call
upon you to aid us in securing the like for those other Greeks who
have been enslaved by Athens. This is the sole purpose of our great
present effort.”[324] And the banner of general enfranchisement,
which the Lacedæmonians thus held up at the outset of the war,
enlisted in their cause encouraging sympathy and good wishes
throughout Greece.[325]
But the most striking illustration by far, of the seductive
promises held out by the Lacedæmonians, was afforded by the conduct
of Brasidas in Thrace, when he first came into the neighborhood
of the Athenian allies during the eighth year of the war (424
B.C.). In his memorable discourse addressed to
the public assembly at Akanthus, he takes the greatest pains to
satisfy them that he came only for the purpose of realizing the
promise of enfranchisement proclaimed by the Lacedæmonians at the
beginning of the war.[326] Having expected, when acting in such
a cause, nothing less than a hearty welcome, he is astonished to
find their gates closed against him. “I am come (said he) not to
injure, but to liberate the Greeks; after binding the Lacedæmonian
authorities by the most solemn oaths, that all whom I may bring
over shall be dealt with as autonomous allies. We do not wish to
obtain you as allies either by force or fraud, but to act as your
allies at a time when you are enslaved by the Athenians. You ought
not to suspect my purposes, in the face of these solemn assurances;
least of all ought any man to hold back through apprehension of
private enmities, and through fear lest I should put the city into
the hands of a few chosen partisans. I am not come to identify
myself with local faction: I am not the man to offer you an unreal
liberty by breaking down your established constitution, for the
purpose of enslaving either the Many to the Few, or the Few to the
Many. That would be more intolerable even than foreign dominion;
and we Lacedæmonians should incur nothing but reproach, instead
of reaping thanks and honor for our trouble. We should draw upon
ourselves those very censures, upon the strength of which we are
trying to put down Athens; and that, too, in aggravated measure,
worse than those who have never made honorable professions; since
to men in high position, specious trick is more disgraceful than
open violence.[327]—If (continued Brasidas) in spite
of my assurances, you still withhold from me your coöperation, I
shall think myself authorized to constrain you by force. We should
not be warranted in forcing freedom on any unwilling parties, except
with a view to some common good. But as we seek not empire for
ourselves,—as we struggle only to put down the empire of
others,—as we offer autonomy to each and all,—so we
should do wrong to the majority if we allowed you to persist in
your opposition.”[328]
Like the allied sovereigns of Europe in 1813, who, requiring the
most strenuous efforts on the part of the people to contend against
the Emperor Napoleon, promised free constitutions and granted
nothing after the victory had been assured,—the Lacedæmonians
thus held out the most emphatic and repeated assurances of general
autonomy in order to enlist allies against Athens; disavowing, even
ostentatiously, any aim at empire for themselves. It is true, that
after the great catastrophe before Syracuse, when the ruin of Athens
appeared imminent, and when the alliance with the Persian satraps
against her was first brought to pass, the Lacedæmonians began to
think more of empire,[329] and less of Grecian freedom; which,
indeed, so far as concerned the Greeks on the continent of Asia,
was surrendered to Persia. Nevertheless the old watchword still
continued. It was still currently believed, though less studiously
professed, that the destruction of the Athenian empire was aimed at
as a means to the liberation of Greece.[330]
The victory of Ægospotami with its consequences cruelly
undeceived every one. The language of Brasidas, sanctioned
by the solemn oaths of the Lacedæmonian ephors, in 424
B.C.—and the proceedings of the Lacedæmonian Lysander
in 405-404 B.C., the commencing hour of Spartan
omnipotence,—stand in such literal and flagrant contradiction, that
we might almost imagine the former to have foreseen the possibility
of such a successor, and to have tried to disgrace and disarm him
beforehand. The dekarchies of Lysander realized that precise ascendency of
a few chosen partisans which Brasidas repudiates as an abomination
worse than foreign dominion; while the harmosts and garrison,
installed in the dependent cities along with the native decemvirs,
planted the second variety of mischief as well as the first, each
aggravating the other. Had the noble-minded Kallikratidas gained a
victory at Arginusæ, and lived to close the war, he would probably
have tried, with more or less of success, to make some approach to
the promises of Brasidas. But it was the double misfortune of Greece,
first that the closing victory was gained by such an admiral as
Lysander, the most unscrupulous of all power-seekers, partly for his
country, and still more for himself,—next, that the victory was so
decisive, sudden and imposing, as to leave no enemy standing, or in
a position to insist upon terms. The fiat of Lysander, acting in the
name of Sparta, became omnipotent, not merely over enemies, but over
allies; and to a certain degree even over the Spartan authorities
themselves. There was no present necessity for conciliating
allies,—still less for acting up to former engagements; so that
nothing remained to oppose the naturally ambitious inspirations
of the Spartan ephors, who allowed the admiral to carry out the
details in his own way. But former assurances, though Sparta was
in a condition to disregard them, were not forgotten by others;
and the recollection of them imparted additional bitterness to the
oppressions of the decemvirs and harmosts.[331] In perfect
consistency with her misrule throughout Eastern
Greece,[332] too, Sparta identified herself with the
energetic tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse, assisting both to erect
and to uphold it; a contradiction to her former maxims of action
which would have astounded the historian Herodotus.
The empire of Sparta thus constituted at the end of 405
B.C., maintained itself in full grandeur
for somewhat above ten years, until the naval battle of
Knidus,[333] in 394 B.C. That defeat
destroyed
her fleet and maritime ascendency, yet left her in undiminished
power on land, which she still maintained until her defeat by
the Thebans[334] at Leuktra in 371 B.C.
Throughout all this time, it was her established system to keep
up Spartan harmosts and garrisons in the dependent cities on the
continent as well as in the islands. Even the Chians, who had
been her most active allies during the last eight years of the
war, were compelled to submit to this hardship; besides having
all their fleet taken away from them.[335] But the native
dekarchies, though at first established by Lysander universally
throughout the maritime dependencies, did not last as a system so
long as the harmosts. Composed as they were to a great degree of
the personal nominees and confederates of Lysander, they suffered
in part by the reactionary jealousy which in time made itself
felt against his overweening ascendency. After continuing for
some time, they lost the countenance of the Spartan ephors, who
proclaimed permission to the cities (we do not precisely know when)
to resume their preëxisting governments.[336] Some of the
dekarchies thus became dissolved, or modified in various ways, but
several probably still continued to subsist, if they had force enough
to maintain themselves; for it does not appear that the ephors ever
systematically put them down, as Lysander had systematically set them
up.
The government of the Thirty at Athens would never have been
overthrown if the oppressed Athenians had been obliged to rely
on a tutelary interference of the Spartan ephors to help them in
overthrowing it. My last volume has shown that this nefarious oligarchy came
to its end by the unassisted efforts of Thrasybulus and the Athenian
democrats themselves. It is true, indeed, that the arrogance and
selfishness of Sparta and of Lysander had alienated the Thebans,
Corinthians, Megarians, and other neighboring allies, and induced
them to sympathize with the Athenian exiles against the atrocities
of the Thirty,—but they never rendered any positive assistance
of moment. The inordinate personal ambition of Lysander had also
offended King Pausanias and the Spartan ephors, so that they too
became indifferent to the Thirty, who were his creatures. But this
merely deprived the Thirty of that foreign support which Lysander,
had he still continued in the ascendent, would have extended to them
in full measure. It was not the positive cause of their downfall.
That crisis was brought about altogether by the energy of Thrasybulus
and his companions, who manifested such force and determination
as could not have been put down without an extraordinary display
of Spartan military power; a display not entirely safe when the
sympathies of the chief allies were with the other side,—and
at any rate adverse to the inclinations of Pausanias. As it was
with the Thirty at Athens, so it probably was also with the
dekarchies in the dependent cities. The Spartan ephors took no
steps to put them down; but where the resistance of the citizens
was strenuous enough to overthrow them, no Spartan intervention
came to prop them up, and the harmost perhaps received orders not
to consider his authority as indissolubly linked with theirs. The
native forces of each dependent city being thus left to find their
own level, the decemvirs, once installed, would doubtless maintain
themselves in a great number; while in other cases they would be
overthrown,—or, perhaps, would contrive to perpetuate their
dominion by compromise and alliance with other oligarchical sections.
This confused and unsettled state of the dekarchies,—some still
existing, others half-existing, others again defunct,—prevailed
in 396 B.C., when Lysander accompanied Agesilaus
into Asia, in the full hope that he should have influence enough to
reorganize them all.[337] We must recollect that no other dependent city would
possess the same means of offering energetic resistance to its local
decemvirs, as Athens offered to the Thirty; and that the insular
Grecian cities were not only feeble individually, but naturally
helpless against the lords of the sea.[338]
Such then was the result throughout Greece, when that long war,
which had been undertaken in the name of universal autonomy, was
terminated by the battle of Ægospotami. In place of imperial Athens
was substituted, not the promised autonomy, but yet more imperial
Sparta. An awful picture is given by the philo-Laconian Xenophon, in
399 B.C., of the ascendency exercised throughout all
the Grecian cities, not merely by the ephors and the public officers,
but even by the private citizens, of Sparta. “The Lacedæmonians
(says he in addressing the Cyreian army) are now the presidents of
Greece; and even any single private Lacedæmonian can accomplish
what he pleases.”[339] “All the cities (he says in another place)
then obeyed whatever order they might receive from a Lacedæmonian
citizen.”[340] Not merely was the general ascendency thus
omnipresent and irresistible, but it was enforced with a stringency
of detail, and darkened by a thousand accompaniments of tyranny and
individual abuse, such as had never been known under the much-decried
empire of Athens.
We have more than one picture of the Athenian empire, in speeches
made by hostile orators who had every motive to work up the strongest
antipathies in the bosoms of their audience against it. We have the
addresses of the Corinthian envoys at Sparta when stimulating the
Spartan allies to the Peloponnesian war,[341]—that of the envoys
from Mitylênê delivered at Olympia to the Spartan confederates,
when the city had revolted from Athens and stood in pressing
need of support,—the discourse of Brasidas in the public
assembly at Akanthus,—and more than one speech also from
Hermokrates, impressing upon his Sicilian countrymen hatred as well
as fear of Athens.[342] Whoever reads these discourses, will see
that they dwell almost exclusively on the great political wrong
inherent in the very fact of her empire, robbing so many Grecian
communities of their legitimate autonomy, over and above the tribute
imposed. That Athens had thus already enslaved many cities, and was
only watching for opportunities to enslave many more, is the theme
upon which they expatiate. But of practical grievances,—of
cruelty, oppression, spoliation, multiplied exiles, etc., of
high-handed wrong committed by individual Athenians,—not one
word is spoken. Had there been the smallest pretext for introducing
such inflammatory topics, how much more impressive would have
been the appeal of Brasidas to the sympathies of the Akanthians!
How vehement would have been the denunciations of the Mitylenæan
envoys, in place of the tame and almost apologetic language which
we now read in Thucydides! Athens extinguished the autonomy of her
subject-allies, and punished revolters with severity, sometimes
even with cruelty. But as to other points of wrong, the silence
of accusers, such as those just noticed, counts as a powerful
exculpation.
The case is altered when we come to the period succeeding the
battle of Ægospotami. Here indeed also, we find the Spartan empire
complained of (as the Athenian empire had been before), in contrast
with that state of autonomy to which each city laid claim, and which
Sparta had not merely promised to ensure, but set forth as her only
ground of war. Yet this is not the prominent grievance,—other
topics stand more emphatically forward. The decemvirs and the
harmosts (some of the latter being Helots), the standing instruments
of Spartan empire, are felt as more sorely painful than the empire
itself; as the language held by Brasidas at Akanthus admits them
to be beforehand. At the time when Athens was a subject-city under
Sparta, governed by the Lysandrian Thirty and by the Lacedæmonian
harmost in the acropolis,—the sense of indignity arising from
the fact of subjection was absorbed in the still more terrible
suffering arising from the enormities of those individual rulers
whom the imperial state had set up. Now Athens set up no local
rulers,—no native Ten or native Thirty,—no resident
Athenian harmosts or garrisons. This was of itself an unspeakable
exemption, when compared with the condition of cities subject, not
only to the Spartan empire, but also under that empire to native
decemvirs like Kritias, and Spartan harmosts like Aristarchus or
Aristodemus. A city subject to Athens had to bear definite burdens
enforced by its own government, which was liable in case of default
or delinquency to be tried before the popular Athenian Dikastery.
But this same dikastery (as I have shown in a former volume, and
as is distinctly stated by Thucydides)[343] was the harbor of
refuge to each subject-city; not less against individual Athenian
wrong-doers than against misconduct from other cities. Those
who complained of the hardship suffered by a subject-city, from
the obligation of bringing causes to be tried in the dikastery
of Athens,—even if we take the case as they state it, and
overlook the unfairness of omitting those numerous instances
wherein the city was thus enabled to avert or redress wrong
done to its own citizens,—would have complained both more
loudly and with greater justice of an ever-present Athenian
harmost; especially if there were coexistent a native government
of Ten oligarchs, exchanging with him guilty connivances, like
the partnership of the Thirty at Athens with the Lacedæmonian
harmost Kallibius.[344]
In no one point can it be shown that the substitution of Spartan
empire in place of Athenian was a gain, either for the subject-cities
or for Greece generally; while in many points, it was a great and
serious aggravation of suffering. And this abuse of power is the
more deeply to be regretted, as Sparta enjoyed after the battle of
Ægospotami a precious opportunity,—such as Athens had never
had, and such as never again recurred,—of reorganizing the
Grecian world on wise principles, and with a view to Pan-hellenic
stability and harmony. It is not her greatest sin to have
refused to
grant universal autonomy. She had indeed promised it; but we might
pardon a departure from specific performance, had she exchanged the
boon for one far greater, which it was within her reasonable power,
at the end of 405 B.C., to confer. That universal
town autonomy, towards which the Grecian instinct tended, though
immeasurably better than universal subjection, was yet accompanied
by much internal discord, and by the still more formidable evil of
helplessness against any efficient foreign enemy. To ensure to the
Hellenic world external safety as well as internal concord, it was
not a new empire which was wanted, but a new political combination
on equitable and comprehensive principles; divesting each town of a
portion of its autonomy, and creating a common authority, responsible
to all, for certain definite controlling purposes. If ever a
tolerable federative system would have been practicable in Greece, it
was after the battle of Ægospotami. The Athenian empire,—which,
with all its defects, I believe to have been much better for the
subject-cities than universal autonomy would have been,—had
already removed many difficulties, and shown that combined and
systematic action of the maritime Grecian world was no impossibility.
Sparta might now have substituted herself for Athens, not as heir
to the imperial power, but as president and executive agent of a
new Confederacy of Delos,—reviving the equal, comprehensive,
and liberal principles, on which that confederacy had first been
organized.
It is true that sixty years before, the constituent members of
the original synod at Delos had shown themselves insensible to
its value. As soon as the pressing alarm from Persia had passed
over, some had discontinued sending deputies, others had disobeyed
requisitions, others again had bought off their obligations,
and forfeited their rights as autonomous and voting members, by
pecuniary bargain with Athens; who, being obliged by the duties
of her presidency to enforce obedience to the Synod against all
reluctant members, made successively many enemies, and was gradually
converted, almost without her own seeking, from President into
Emperor, as the only means of obviating the total dissolution
of the Confederacy. But though such untoward circumstances had
happened before, it does not follow that they would now have
happened again, assuming the same experiment to have been retried
by Sparta, with manifest sincerity of purpose and tolerable wisdom. The
Grecian world, especially the maritime portion of it, had passed
through trials not less painful than instructive, during this
important interval. Nor does it seem rash to suppose, that the
bulk of its members might now have been disposed to perform steady
confederate duties, at the call and under the presidency of Sparta,
had she really attempted to reorganize a liberal confederacy,
treating every city as autonomous and equal, except in so far
as each was bound to obey the resolutions of the general synod.
However impracticable such a scheme may appear, we must recollect
that even Utopian schemes have their transient moments, if not of
certain success, at least of commencement not merely possible but
promising. And my belief is, that had Kallikratidas, with his ardent
Pan-hellenic sentiment and force of resolution, been the final
victor over imperial Athens, he would not have let the moment of
pride and omnipotence pass over without essaying some noble project
like that sketched above. It is to be remembered that Athens had
never had the power of organizing any such generous Pan-hellenic
combination. She had become depopularized in the legitimate execution
of her trust, as president of the Confederacy of Delos, against
refractory members;[345] and had been obliged to choose between
breaking up the Confederacy, and keeping it together under the
strong compression of an imperial chief. But Sparta had not yet
become depopularized. She now stood without competitor as leader
of the Grecian world, and might at that moment have reasonably
hoped to carry the members of it along with her to any liberal
and Pan-hellenic organization, had she attempted it with proper
earnestness. Unfortunately she took the opposite course, under the
influence of Lysander; founding a new empire far more oppressive and
odious than that of Athens, with few of the advantages, and none
of the excuses, attached to the latter. As she soon became even
more unpopular than Athens, her moment of high tide, for beneficent
Pan-hellenic combination, passed away also,—never to return.
Having thus brought all the maritime Greeks under her
empire, with a tribute of more than one thousand talents
imposed upon them,—and continuing to be chief of her
landed alliance in Central Greece, which now included Athens as a
simple unit,—Sparta was the all-pervading imperial power
in Greece.[346] Her new empire was organized by the
victorious Lysander; but with so much arrogance, and so much
personal ambition to govern all Greece by means of nominees of his
own, decemvirs and harmosts,—that he raised numerous rivals
and enemies, as well at Sparta itself as elsewhere. The jealousy
entertained by king Pausanias, the offended feelings of Thebes and
Corinth, and the manner in which these new phenomena brought about
(in spite of the opposition of Lysander) the admission of Athens as a
revived democracy into the Lacedæmonian confederacy,—has been
already related.
In the early months of 403 B.C., Lysander was
partly at home, partly in Attica, exerting himself to sustain
the falling oligarchy of Athens against the increasing force of
Thrasybulus and the Athenian exiles in Peiræus. In this purpose
he was directly thwarted by the opposing views of king Pausanias,
and three out of the five ephors.[347] But though the
ephors thus checked Lysander in regard to Athens, they softened the
humiliation by sending him abroad to a fresh command on the Asiatic
coast and the Hellespont; a step which had the farther advantage
of putting asunder two such marked rivals as he and Pausanias had
now become. That which Lysander had tried in vain to do at Athens,
he was doubtless better able to do in Asia, where he had neither
Pausanias nor the ephors along with him. He could lend effective
aid to the dekarchies and harmosts in the Asiatic cities, against
any internal opposition with which they might be threatened. Bitter
were the complaints which reached Sparta, both against him and
against his ruling partisans. At length the ephors were prevailed
upon to disavow the dekarchies; and to proclaim that they would
not hinder the cities from resuming their former governments
at pleasure.[348]
But all the crying oppressions set forth in the complaints of the
maritime cities would have been insufficient to procure the recall
of Lysander from his command in the Hellespont, had not Pharnabazus
joined his remonstrances to the rest. These last representations
so strengthened the enemies of Lysander at Sparta, that a peremptory
order was sent to recall him. Constrained to obey, he came back to
Sparta; but the comparative disgrace, and the loss of that boundless
power which he had enjoyed on his command was so insupportable
to him, that he obtained permission to go on a pilgrimage to the
temple of Zeus Ammon in Libya, under the plea that he had a vow
to discharge.[349] He appears also to have visited
the temples of Delphi and Dodona,[350] with secret ambitious
projects which will be mentioned presently. This politic withdrawal
softened the jealousy against him, so that we shall find him, after
a year or two, reëstablished in great influence and ascendency. He
was sent as Spartan envoy, at what precise moment we do not know,
to Syracuse, where he lent countenance and aid to the recently
established despotism of Dionysius.[351]
The position of the Asiatic Greeks, along the coast of Ionia,
Æolis,
and the Hellespont, became very peculiar after the triumph of Sparta
at Ægospotami. I have already recounted how, immediately after
the great Athenian catastrophe before Syracuse, the Persian king
had renewed his grasp upon those cities, from which the vigorous
hand of Athens had kept him excluded for more than fifty years;
how Sparta, bidding for his aid, had consented by three formal
conventions to surrender them to him, while her commissioner Lichas
even reproved the Milesians for their aversion to this bargain;
how Athens also, in the days of her weakness, competing for the
same advantage, had expressed her willingness to pay the same
price for it.[352] After the battle of Ægospotami,
this convention was carried into effect; though seemingly not
without disputes between the satrap Pharnabazus on one side, and
Lysander and Derkyllidas on the other.[353] The latter was
Lacedæmonian harmost at Abydos, which town, so important as a
station on the Hellespont, the Lacedæmonians seem still to have
retained. But Pharnabazus and his subordinates acquired more
complete command of the Hellespontine Æolis and of the Troad,
than ever they had enjoyed before, both along the coast and in
the interior.[354]
Another element, however, soon became operative. The condition
of the Greek cities on the coast of Ionia, though according to
Persian regulations they belonged to the satrapy of Tissaphernes,
was now materially determined,—first, by the competing claims
of Cyrus, who wished to take them away from him, and tried to get
such transfer ordered at court,—next, by the aspirations
of that young prince to the Persian throne. As Cyrus rested his
hope of success on Grecian coöperation, it was highly important
to him to render himself popular among the Greeks, especially on
his own side of the Ægean. Partly his own manifestations of just
and conciliatory temper, partly the bad name and known perfidy of
Tissaphernes, induced the Grecian cities with one accord to revolt
from the latter. All threw themselves into the arms of Cyrus, except
Miletus, where Tissaphernes interposed in time, slew the leaders
of the intended revolt, and banished many of their partisans.
Cyrus, receiving the exiles with distinguished favor, levied an
army to besiege Miletus and procure their restoration; while he at the same
time threw strong Grecian garrisons into the other cities to protect
them against attack.[355]
This local quarrel was, however, soon merged in the more
comprehensive dispute respecting the Persian succession. Both
parties were found on the field of Kunaxa; Cyrus with the Greek
soldiers and Milesian exiles on one side,—Tissaphernes on
the other. How that attempt, upon which so much hinged in the
future history both of Asia Minor and of Greece, terminated, I have
already recounted. Probably the impression brought back by the
Lacedæmonian fleet which left Cyrus on the coast of Syria, after he
had surmounted the most difficult country without any resistance,
was highly favorable to his success. So much the more painful would
be the disappointment among the Ionian Greeks when the news of his
death was afterwards brought; so much the greater their alarm,
when Tissaphernes, having relinquished the pursuit of the Ten
Thousand Greeks at the moment when they entered the mountains of
Karduchia, came down as victor to the seaboard; more powerful than
ever,—rewarded[356] by the Great King, for the services
which he had rendered against Cyrus, with all the territory which
had been governed by the latter, as well as with the title of
commander-in-chief over all the neighboring satraps,—and
prepared not only to reconquer, but to punish, the revolted maritime
cities. He began by attacking Kymê;[357] ravaging the
territory, with great loss to the citizens, and exacting from them a
still larger contribution, when the approach of winter rendered it
inconvenient to besiege their city.
In such a state of apprehension, these cities sent to
Sparta, as the great imperial power of Greece, to entreat
her protection against the aggravated slavery impending
over them.[358] The Lacedæmonians had nothing farther to
expect from the king of Persia, with whom they had already broken
the peace by lending aid to Cyrus. Moreover, the fame of the Ten
Thousand Greeks, who were now coming home along the Euxine towards
Byzantium, had become diffused throughout Greece, inspiring signal
contempt for Persian military efficiency, and hopes of enrichment by
war against the Asiatic satraps. Accordingly, the Spartan ephors were
induced
to comply with the petition of their Asiatic countrymen, and to
send over to Asia Thimbron at the head of a considerable force:
two thousand Neodamodes (or Helots who had been enfranchised) and
four thousand Peloponnesians heavy-armed, accompanied by three
hundred Athenian horsemen, out of the number of those who had been
adherents of the Thirty, four years before; an aid granted by Athens
at the special request of Thimbron. Arriving in Asia during the
winter of 400-399 B.C., Thimbron was reinforced in
the spring of 399 B.C. by the Cyreian army, who
were brought across from Thrace as described in my last chapter,
and taken into Lacedæmonian pay. With this large force he became
more than a match for the satraps, even on the plains where they
could employ their numerous cavalry. The petty Grecian princes
of Pergamus and Teuthrania, holding that territory by ancient
grants from Xerxes to their ancestors, joined their troops to his,
contributing much to enrich Xenophon at the moment of his departure
from the Cyreians. Yet Thimbron achieved nothing worthy of so large
an army. He not only miscarried in the siege of Larissa, but was
even unable to maintain order among his own soldiers, who pillaged
indiscriminately both friends and foes.[359] Such loud complaints
were transmitted to Sparta of his irregularities and inefficiency,
that the ephors first sent him order to march into Karia, where
Tissaphernes resided,—and next, before that order was executed,
despatched Derkyllidas to supersede him; seemingly in the winter
399-398 B.C. Thimbron on returning to Sparta was
fined and banished.[360]
It is highly probable that the Cyreian soldiers, though excellent
in the field, yet having been disappointed of reward for the
prodigious toils which they had gone through in their long march,
and having been kept on short allowance in Thrace, as well as
cheated by Seuthes,—were greedy, unscrupulous, and hard to
be restrained, in the matter of pillage; especially as Xenophon,
their most influential general, had now left them. Their conduct
greatly improved under Derkyllidas. And though such improvement
was doubtless owing partly to the superiority of the latter over
Thimbron, yet it seems also partly ascribable to the fact that Xenophon, after
a few months of residence at Athens, accompanied him to Asia, and
resumed the command of his old comrades.[361]
Derkyllidas was a man of so much resource and cunning, as to
have acquired the surname of Sisyphus.[362] He had served
throughout all the concluding years of the war, and had been harmost
at Abydus during the naval command of Lysander, who condemned
him, on the complaint of Pharnabazus, to the disgrace of public
exposure with his shield on his arm;[363] this was (I presume)
a disgrace, because an officer of rank always had his shield
carried for him by an attendant, except in the actual encounter
of battle. Having never forgiven Pharnabazus for thus dishonoring
him, Derkyllidas now took advantage of a misunderstanding between
that satrap and Tissaphernes, to make a truce with the latter,
and conduct his army, eight thousand strong, into the territory
of the former.[364] The mountainous region of Ida generally
known as the Troad,—inhabited by a population of Æolic Greeks
(who had gradually Hellenized the indigenous inhabitants), and
therefore known as the Æolis of Pharnabazus,—was laid open to
him by a recent event, important in itself as well as instructive to
read.
The entire Persian empire was parcelled into so many satrapies;
each satrap being bound to send a fixed amount of annual tribute,
and to hold a certain amount of military force ready, for the court
at Susa. Provided he was punctual in fulfilling these obligations,
little inquiry was made as to his other proceedings, unless in the
rare case of his maltreating some individual Persian of high rank. In
like manner, it appears, each satrapy was divided into sub-satrapies
or districts; each of these held by a deputy, who paid to the
satrap a fixed tribute and maintained for him a certain military
force,—having liberty to govern in other respects as he pleased. Besides
the tribute, however, presents of undefined amount were of constant
occurrence, both from the satrap to the king, and from the deputy
to the satrap. Nevertheless, enough was extorted from the people
(we need hardly add), to leave an ample profit both to the one
and to the other.[365]
This region, called Æolis, had been entrusted by Pharnabazus to
a native of Dardanus named Zênis, who, after holding the post for
some time and giving full satisfaction, died of illness, leaving a
widow with a son and daughter still minors. The satrap was on the
point of giving the district to another person, when Mania, the widow
of Zênis, herself a native of Dardanus, preferred her petition to
be allowed to succeed her husband. Visiting Pharnabazus with money
in hand, sufficient not only to satisfy himself, but also to gain
over his mistresses and his ministers,[366]—she said
to him,—“My husband was faithful to you, and paid his
tribute so regularly as to obtain your thanks. If I serve you no
worse than he, why should you name any other deputy? If I fail
in giving you satisfaction, you can always remove me, and give
the place to another.” Pharnabazus granted her petition, and
had no cause to repent it. Mania was regular in her payment of
tribute,—frequent in bringing him presents,—and splendid,
beyond any of his other deputies, in her manner of receiving him
whenever he visited the district.
Her chief residence was at Skêpsis, Gergis, and
Kebrên,—inland towns, strong both by position and by
fortification, amidst the mountainous region once belonging to the
Teukri Gergithes. It was here too that she kept her treasures,
which, partly left by her husband, partly accumulated by herself,
had gradually reached an enormous sum. But her district also reached
down to the coast, comprising among other towns the classical name
of Ilium, and probably her own native city, the neighboring Dardanus. She
maintained, besides, a large military force of Grecian mercenaries
in regular pay and excellent condition, which she employed both
as garrison for each of her dependent towns, and as means for
conquest in the neighborhood. She had thus reduced the maritime
towns of Larissa, Hamaxitus, and Kolônæ, in the southern part of
the Troad; commanding her troops in person, sitting in her chariot
to witness the attack, and rewarding every one who distinguished
himself. Moreover, when Pharnabazus undertook an expedition against
the predatory Mysians or Pisidians, she accompanied him, and her
military force formed so much the best part of his army, that he
paid her the highest compliments, and sometimes condescended to
ask her advice.[367] So, when Xerxes invaded Greece, Artemisia,
queen of Halikarnassus, not only furnished ships among the best
appointed in his fleet, and fought bravely at Salamis, but also, when
he chose to call a council, stood alone, in daring to give him sound
opinions contrary to his own leanings; opinions which, fortunately
for the Grecian world, he could bring himself only to tolerate,
not to follow.[368]
Under an energetic woman like Mania, thus victorious and
well-provided, Æolis was the most defensible part of the satrapy
of Pharnabazus, and might probably have defied Derkyllidas, had
not a domestic traitor put an end to her life. Her son-in-law,
Meidias, a Greek of Skêpsis, with whom she lived on terms
of intimate confidence—“though she was scrupulously
mistrustful of every one else, as it is proper for a despot
to be,”[369]—was so inflamed by his own
ambition and by the suggestions of evil counsellors, who told
him it was a shame that a woman should thus be ruler while he was only
a private man, that he strangled her in her chamber. Following up
his nefarious scheme, he also assassinated her son, a beautiful
youth of seventeen. He succeeded in getting possession of the three
strongest places in the district, Kebrên, Skêpsis, and Gergis,
together with the accumulated treasure of Mania; but the commanders
in the other towns refused obedience to his summons, until they
should receive orders from Pharnabazus. To that satrap Meidias
instantly sent envoys, bearing ample presents, with a petition that
the satrap would grant to him the district which had been enjoyed
by Mania. Pharnabazus, repudiating the presents, sent an indignant
reply to Meidias,—“Keep them until I come to seize them, and
seize you, too, along with them. I would not consent to live, if I
were not to avenge the death of Mania.”[370]
At that critical moment, prior to the coming of the satrap,
Derkyllidas presented himself with his army, and found Æolis almost
defenceless. The three recent conquests of Mania,—Larissa,
Hamaxitus, and Kolônæ, surrendered to him as soon as he appeared;
while the garrisons of Ilium and some other places, who had taken
special service under Mania, and found themselves worse off now
that they had lost her, accepted his invitation to renounce Persian
dependence, declare themselves allies of Sparta, and hold their
cities for him. He thus became master of most part of the district,
with the exception of Kebrên, Skêpsis, and Gergis, which he was
anxious to secure before the arrival of Pharnabazus. On arriving
before Kebrên, however, in spite of this necessity for haste,
he remained inactive for four days,[371] because the
sacrifices were unpropitious; while a rash, subordinate officer,
hazarding an unwarranted attack during this interval, was repulsed
and wounded. The sacrifices at length became favorable, and
Derkyllidas was rewarded for his patience. The garrison, affected by
the example of those at Ilium and the other towns, disobeyed their
commander, who tried to earn the satrap’s favor by holding out
and assuring to him this very strong place. Sending out heralds
to proclaim that they would go with Greeks and not with Persians,
they admitted the Lacedæmonians at once within the gates. Having
thus fortunately captured, and duly secured this important town,
Derkyllidas marched against Skêpsis and Gergis, the former of
which was held by Meidias himself; who, dreading the arrival of
Pharnabazus, and mistrusting the citizens within, thought it best to
open negotiations with Derkyllidas. He sent to solicit a conference,
demanding hostages for his safety. When he came forth from the
town, and demanded from the Lacedæmonian commander on what terms
alliance would be granted to him, the latter replied,—“On
condition that the citizens shall be left free and autonomous;” at
the same time marching on, without waiting either for acquiescence
or refusal, straight up to the gates of the town. Meidias, taken
by surprise, in the power of the assailants, and aware that the
citizens were unfriendly to him, was obliged to give orders that
the gates should be opened; so that Derkyllidas found himself by
this manœuvre in possession of the strongest place in the district
without either loss or delay,—to the great delight of the
Skepsians themselves.[372]
Derkyllidas, having ascended the acropolis of Skêpsis to offer
a sacrifice of thanks to Athênê, the great patron goddess of Ilium
and most of the Teukrian towns,—caused the garrison of Meidias
to evacuate the town forthwith, and consigned it to the citizens
themselves, exhorting them to conduct their political affairs as
became Greeks and freemen. This proceeding, which reminds us of
Brasidas in contrast with Lysander, was not less politic than
generous; since Derkyllidas could hardly hope to hold an inland
town in the midst of the Persian satrapy except by the attachments
of the citizens themselves. He then marched away to Gergis, still
conducting along with him Meidias, who urgently entreated to be
allowed to retain that town, the last of his remaining fortresses.
Without giving any decided answer, Derkyllidas took him by his side,
and marched with him at the head of his army, arrayed only in double
file, so as to carry the appearance of peace, to the foot of the
lofty towers of Gergis. The garrison on the walls, seeing Meidias along with
him, allowed him to approach without discharging a single missile.
“Now, Meidias (said he), order the gates to be opened, and show
me the way in, to the temple of Athênê, in order that I may there
offer sacrifice.” Again Meidias was forced, from fear of being at
once seized as a prisoner, to give the order; and the Lacedæmonian
forces found themselves in possession of the town. Derkyllidas,
distributing his troops around the walls, in order to make sure
of his conquest, ascended to the acropolis to offer his intended
sacrifice; after which he proceeded to dictate the fate of Meidias,
whom he divested of his character of prince and of his military
force,—incorporating the latter in the Lacedæmonian army. He
then called upon Meidias to specify all his paternal property, and
restored to him the whole of what he claimed as such, though the
bystanders protested against the statement given in as a flagrant
exaggeration. But he laid hands on all the property, and all the
treasures of Mania,—and caused her house, which Meidias had
taken for himself, to be put under seal,—as lawful prey;
since Mania had belonged to Pharnabazus,[373] against whom the
Lacedæmonians were making war. On coming out after examining and
verifying the contents of the house, he said to his officers, “Now,
my friends, we have here already worked out pay for the whole
army, eight thousand men, for nearly a year. Whatever we acquire
besides, shall come to you also.” He well knew the favorable effect
which this intelligence would produce upon the temper, as well as
upon the discipline, of the army—especially upon the Cyreians, who
had tasted the discomfort of irregular pay and poverty.
“And where am I to live?” asked Meidias, who found himself turned
out of the house of Mania. “In your rightful place of abode, to be
sure (replied Derkyllidas); in your native town Skêpsis, and in your
paternal house.[374]” What became of the assassin afterwards,
we do not hear. But it is satisfactory to find that he did not reap
the anticipated reward of his crime; the fruits of which were an
important advantage to Derkyllidas and his army,—and a still
more important blessing to the Greek cities which had been governed
by Mania,—enfranchisement and autonomy.
This rapid, easy, and skilfully managed exploit,—the capture
of nine towns in eight days,—is all which Xenophon mentions
as achieved by Derkyllidas during the summer. Having acquired pay
for so many months, perhaps the soldiers may have been disposed
to rest until it was spent. But as winter approached, it became
necessary to find winter quarters, without incurring the reproach
which had fallen upon Thimbron of consuming the substance of allies.
Fearing, however, that if he changed his position, Pharnabazus
would employ the numerous Persian cavalry to harass the Grecian
cities, he tendered a truce, which the latter willingly accepted.
For the occupation of Æolis by the Lacedæmonian general was a sort
of watch-post (like Dekeleia to Athens,) exposing the whole of
Phrygia near the Propontis (in which was Daskylium the residence
of Pharnabazus) to constant attack.[375] Derkyllidas
accordingly only marched through Phrygia, to take up his winter
quarters in Bithynia, the north-western corner of Asia Minor,
between the Propontis and the Euxine; the same territory through
which Xenophon and the Ten Thousand had marched, on their road
from Kalpê to Chalkêdon. He procured abundant provisions and booty,
slaves as well as cattle, by plundering the Bithynian villages; not
without occasional losses on his own side, by the carelessness of
marauding parties.[376]
One of these losses was of considerable magnitude. Derkyllidas
had obtained from Seuthes in European Thrace (the same prince of
whom Xenophon had so much reason to complain) a reinforcement of
three hundred cavalry and two hundred peltasts,—Odrysian
Thracians. These Odrysians established themselves in a separate
camp, nearly two miles and a half from Derkyllidas, which they
surrounded with a palisade about man’s height. Being indefatigable
plunderers, they prevailed upon Derkyllidas to send them a guard of
two hundred hoplites, for the purpose of guarding their separate
camp with the booty accumulated within it. Presently the camp became
richly stocked, especially with Bithynian captives. The hostile
Bithynians, however, watching their opportunity when the Odrysians
were out marauding, suddenly attacked at daybreak the two hundred
Grecian hoplites in the camp. Shooting at them over the palisade
with darts and arrows, they killed and wounded some, while the
Greeks with their spears were utterly helpless, and could only reach
their enemies by pulling up the palisade and charging out upon
them; but the light-armed assailants, easily evading the charge of
warriors with shield and spear, turned round upon them when they
began to retire, and slew several before they could get back. In
each successive sally the same phenomena recurred, until at length
all the Greeks were overpowered and slain, except fifteen of them,
who charged through the Bithynians in the first sally,
and marched onward to join Derkyllidas, instead of returning with
their comrades to the palisade. Derkyllidas lost no time in sending
a reinforcement, which, however, came too late, and found only the
naked bodies of the slain. The victorious Bithynians carried away all
their own captives.[377]
At the beginning of spring the Spartan general returned to
Lampsakus, where he found Arakus and two other Spartans, just
arrived out as commissioners sent by the ephors. Arakus came with
instructions to prolong the command of Derkyllidas for another
year; as well as to communicate the satisfaction of the ephors with
the Cyreian army, in consequence of the great improvement in their
conduct, compared with the year of Thimbron. He accordingly assembled
the soldiers, and addressed them in a mingled strain of praise
and admonition; expressing his hope that they would continue the
forbearance which they had now begun to practise towards all Asiatic
allies. The commander of the Cyreians (probably Xenophon himself),
in his reply, availed himself of the occasion to pay a compliment
to Derkyllidas. “We (said he) are the same men now as we were in
the previous year; but we are under a different general; you need
not look farther for the explanation.[378]” Without denying
the superiority of Derkyllidas over his predecessor, we may remark
that the abundant wealth of Mania, thrown into his hands by accident
(though he showed great ability in turning the accident to account),
was an auxiliary circumstance, not less unexpected than weighty, for
ensuring the good behavior of the soldiers.
It was among the farther instructions of Arakus to visit all the
principal Asiatic Greeks, and report their condition at Sparta;
and Derkyllidas was pleased to see them entering on this survey
at a moment when they would find the cities in undisturbed peace
and tranquillity.[379] So long as the truce continued both
with Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, these cities were secure from
aggression, and paid no tribute; the land-force of Derkyllidas
affording to them a protection[380] analogous to that
which had been conferred by Athens and her powerful fleet, during the
interval between the formation of the Confederacy of Delos and the
Athenian catastrophe at Syracuse. At the same time, during the truce,
the army had neither occupation nor subsistence. To keep it together
and near at hand, yet without living at the cost of friends, was the
problem. It was accordingly with great satisfaction that Derkyllidas
noticed an intimation accidentally dropped by Arakus. Some envoys
(the latter said) were now at Sparta from the Thracian Chersonesus
(the long tongue of land bordering westward on the Hellespont),
soliciting aid against their marauding Thracian neighbors. That
fertile peninsula, first hellenized a century and a half before by
the Athenian Miltiades, had been a favorite resort for Athenian
citizens, many of whom had acquired property there during the naval
power of Athens. The battle of Ægospotami dispossessed and drove home
these proprietors, at the same time depriving the peninsula of its
protection against the Thracians. It now contained eleven distinct
cities, of which Sestos was the most important; and its inhabitants
combined to send envoys to Sparta, entreating the ephors to send
out a force for the purpose of building a wall across the isthmus
from Kardia to Paktyê; in recompense for which (they said) there was
fertile land enough open to as many settlers as chose to come, with
coast and harbors for export close at hand. Miltiades, on first going
out to the Chersonese, had secured it by constructing a cross-wall on
the same spot, which had since become neglected during the period of
Persian supremacy; Perikles had afterwards sent fresh colonists, and
caused the wall to be repaired. But it seems to have been unnecessary
while the Athenian empire was in full vigor,—since the Thracian
princes had been generally either conciliated, or kept off, by
Athens, even without any such bulwark.[381] Informed that the
request of the Chersonesites had been favorably listened to at
Sparta, Derkyllidas resolved to execute their project with his own
army. Having prolonged his truce with Pharnabazus, he crossed the
Hellespont into Europe, and employed his army during the whole
summer in constructing this cross-wall, about four and a quarter miles in
length. The work was distributed in portions to different sections of
the army, competition being excited by rewards for the most rapid and
workmanlike execution; while the Chersonesites were glad to provide
pay and subsistence for the army, during an operation which provided
security for all the eleven cities, and gave additional value to
their lands and harbors. Numerous settlers seem to have now come in,
under Lacedæmonian auspices,—who were again disturbed, wholly
or partially, when the Lacedæmonian maritime empire was broken up a
few years afterwards.[382]
On returning to Asia in the autumn, after the completion of this
work, which had kept his army usefully employed and amply provided
during six months, Derkyllidas undertook the siege of Artaneus, a
strong post (on the continental coast eastward of Mitylênê) occupied
by some Chian exiles, whom the Lacedæmonian admiral Kratesippidas
had lent corrupt aid in expelling from their native island a few
years before.[383] These men, living by predatory expeditions
against Chios and Ionia, were so well supplied with provisions that
it cost Derkyllidas a blockade of eight months before he could
reduce it. He placed in it a strong garrison well supplied, that it
might serve him as a retreat in case of need,—under an Achæan
named Drako, whose name remained long terrible from his ravages
on the neighboring plain of Mysia.[384]
Derkyllidas next proceeded to Ephesus, where orders presently
reached him from the ephors, directing him to march into Karia
and attack Tissaphernes. The temporary truce which had hitherto
provisionally kept off Persian soldiers and tribute-gatherers from
the Asiatic Greeks, was now renounced by mutual consent. These Greeks
had sent envoys to Sparta, assuring the ephors that Tissaphernes
would be constrained to renounce formally the sovereign rights of
Persia, and grant to them full autonomy, if his residence in Karia
were vigorously attacked. Accordingly Derkyllidas marched southward
across the Mæander into Karia, while the Lacedæmonian fleet under
Pharax coöperated along the shore. At the same time Tissaphernes,
on his side, had received reinforcements from Susa, together with
the appointment of generalissimo over all the Persian force in
Asia Minor; upon which Pharnabazus (who had gone up to court in the
interval to concert more vigorous means of prosecuting the war, but
had now returned)[385] joined him in Karia, prepared to commence
vigorous operations for the expulsion of Derkyllidas and his army.
Having properly garrisoned the strong places, the two satraps
crossed the Mæander at the head of a powerful Grecian and Karian
force, with numerous Persian cavalry, to attack the Ionian cities.
As soon as he heard this news, Derkyllidas came back with his
army from Karia, to cover the towns menaced. Having recrossed the
Mæander, he was marching with his army in disorder, not suspecting
the enemy to be near, when on a sudden he came upon their scouts,
planted on some sepulchral monuments in the road. He also sent some
scouts up to the neighboring monuments and towers, who apprised
him that the two satraps, with their joint force in good order,
were planted here to intercept him. He immediately gave orders
for his hoplites to form in battle array of eight deep, with the
peltasts, and his handful of horsemen, on each flank. But such
was the alarm caused among his troops by this surprise, that none
could be relied upon except the Cyreians and the Peloponnesians.
Of the insular and Ionian hoplites, from Priênê and other cities,
some actually hid their arms in the thick standing corn, and fled;
others, who took their places in the line, manifested dispositions
which left little hope that they would stand a charge; so that the
Persians had the opportunity of fighting a battle not merely with
superiority of number, but also with advantage of position and
circumstances. Pharnabazus was anxious to attack without delay.
But Tissaphernes, who recollected well the valor of the Cyreian
troops, and concluded that all the remaining Greeks were like them,
forbade it; sending forward heralds to demand a conference. As they
approached, Derkyllidas, surrounding himself with a body-guard of
the finest and best-equipped soldiers,[386] advanced to the
front of the line to meet them; saying that he, for his part, was
prepared
to fight,—but since a conference was demanded, he had no
objection to grant it, provided hostages were exchanged. This having
been assented to, and a place named for conference on the ensuing
day, both armies were simultaneously withdrawn; the Persians to
Tralles, the Greeks to Leukophrys, celebrated for its temple of
Artemis Leukophryne.[387]
This backwardness on the part of Tissaphernes even at a time when
he was encouraged by a brother satrap braver than himself, occasioned
to the Persians the loss of a very promising moment, and rescued the
Grecian army out of a position of much peril. It helps to explain
to us the escape of the Cyreians, and the manner in which they were
allowed to cross rivers and pass over the most difficult ground
without any serious opposition; while at the same time it tended to
confirm in the Greek mind the same impressions of Persian imbecility
as that escape so forcibly suggested.
The conference, as might be expected, ended in nothing.
Derkyllidas required on behalf of the Asiatic Greeks complete
autonomy,—exemption from Persian interference and tribute;
while the two satraps on their side insisted that the Lacedæmonian
army should be withdrawn from Asia, and the Lacedæmonian harmosts
from all the Greco-Asiatic cities. An armistice was concluded, to
allow time for reference to the authorities at home; thus replacing
matters in the condition in which they had been at the beginning
of the year.[388]
Shortly after the conclusion of this truce, Agesilaus, king of
Sparta, arrived with a large force, and the war in all respects
began to assume larger proportions,—of which more in the next
chapter.
But it was not in Asia alone that Sparta had been engaged in war.
The prostration of the Athenian power had removed that common bond of
hatred and alarm which attached the allies to her headship; while her
subsequent conduct had given positive offence, and had even excited
against herself the same fear of unmeasured imperial ambition which
had before run so powerfully against Athens. She had appropriated
to herself nearly the whole of the Athenian maritime empire, with
a tribute scarcely inferior, if at all inferior, in amount. How
far the total of one thousand talents was actually realised during
each successive year, we are not in a condition to say; but such was
the assessment imposed and the scheme laid down by Sparta for her
maritime dependencies,—enforced too by omnipresent instruments
of rapacity and oppression, decemvirs and harmosts, such as Athens
had never paralleled. When we add to this great maritime empire
the prodigious ascendency on land which Sparta had enjoyed before,
we shall find a total of material power far superior to that which
Athens had enjoyed, even in her day of greatest exaltation, prior to
the truce of 445 B.C.
This was not all. From the general dulness of character pervading
Spartan citizens, the full resources of the state were hardly ever
put forth. Her habitual short-comings at the moment of action are
keenly criticised by her own friends, in contrast with the ardor and
forwardness which animated her enemies. But at and after the battle
of Ægospotami, the entire management of Spartan foreign affairs
was found in the hands of Lysander; a man not only exempt from the
inertia usual in his countrymen, but of the most unwearied activity
and grasping ambition, as well for his country as for himself. Under
his direction the immense advantages which Sparta enjoyed from her
new position were at once systematized and turned to the fullest
account. Now there was enough in the new ascendency of Sparta, had
it been ever so modestly handled, to spread apprehension through the
Grecian world. But apprehension became redoubled, when it was seen
that her ascendency was organized and likely to be worked by her
most aggressive leader for the purposes of an insatiable ambition.
Fortunately for the Grecian world, indeed, the power of Sparta did
not long continue to be thus absolutely wielded by Lysander, whose
arrogance and overweening position raised enemies against him at
home. Yet the first impressions received by the allies respecting
Spartan empire, were derived from his proceedings and his plans
of dominion, manifested with ostentatious insolence; and such
impressions continued, even after the influence of Lysander himself
had been much abated by the counterworking rivalry of Pausanias and
others.
While Sparta separately had thus gained so much by the close
of the war, not one of her allies had received the smallest
remuneration or compensation, except such as might be considered
to be involved in the destruction of a formidable enemy. Even
the
pecuniary result or residue which Lysander had brought home
with him (four hundred and seventy talents remaining out of the
advances made by Cyrus), together with the booty acquired at
Dekeleia, was all detained by the Lacedæmonians themselves. Thebes
and Corinth indeed presented demands, in which the other allies
did not (probably durst not) join, to be allowed to share. But
though all the efforts and sufferings of the war had fallen upon
these allies no less than upon Sparta, the demands were refused,
and almost resented as insults.[389] Hence there
arose among the allies not merely a fear of the grasping
dominion, but a hatred of the monopolizing rapacity, of Sparta.
Of this new feeling, an early manifestation, alike glaring and
important, was made by the Thebans and Corinthians, when they
refused to join Pausanias in his march against Thrasybulus and
the Athenian exiles in Peiræus,[390]—less than
a year after the surrender of Athens, the enemy whom these two
cities had hated with such extreme bitterness down to the very
moment of surrender. Even Arcadians and Achæans too, habitually
obedient as they were to Lacedæmon, keenly felt the different way
in which she treated them, as compared with the previous years of
war, when she had been forced to keep alive their zeal against
the common enemy.[391]
The Lacedæmonians were however strong enough not merely to despise
this growing alienation of their allies, but even to take revenge
upon such of the Peloponnesians as had incurred their displeasure.
Among these stood conspicuous the Eleians; now under a government
called democratical, of which the leading man was Thrasydæus,—a
man who had lent considerable aid in 404 B.C. to
Thrasybulus and the Athenian exiles in Peiræus. The Eleians, in the
year 420 B.C., had been engaged in a controversy with
Sparta,—had employed their privileges as administrators of the Olympic
festival to exclude her from attendance on that occasion,—and
had subsequently been in arms against her along with Argos and
Mantineia. To these grounds of quarrel, now of rather ancient
date, had been added afterwards, a refusal to furnish aid in the
war against Athens since the resumption of hostilities in 414
B.C., and a recent exclusion of king Agis, who had
come in person to offer sacrifice and consult the oracle of Zeus
Olympius; such exclusion being grounded on the fact that he was
about to pray for victory in the war then pending against Athens,
contrary to the ancient canon of the Olympic temple, which admitted
no sacrifice or consultation respecting hostilities of Greek
against Greek.[392] These were considered by Sparta as
affronts; and the season was now favorable for resenting them, as
well as for chastising and humbling Elis.[393] Accordingly
Sparta sent an embassy, requiring the Eleians to make good the
unpaid arrears of the quota assessed upon them for the cost of
the war against Athens; and farther,—to relinquish their
authority over their dependent townships or Periœki, leaving the
latter autonomous.[394] Of these dependencies there were several,
no one very considerable individually, in the region called
Triphylia, south of the river Alpheus, and north of the Neda. One
of them was Lepreum, the autonomy of which the Lacedæmonians had
vindicated against Elis in 420 B.C., though during
the subsequent period it had again become subject.
The Eleians refused compliance with the demand thus sent,
alleging that their dependent cities were held by the right of
conquest. They even retorted upon the Lacedæmonians the charge of
enslaving Greeks;[395] upon which Agis marched with an army to
invade their territory, entering it from the north side where it
joined Achaia. Hardly had he crossed the frontier river Larissus
and begun his ravages, when an earthquake occurred. Such an event,
usually construed in Greece as a divine warning, acted on this
occasion so strongly on the religious susceptibilities of Agis, that
he not only withdrew from the Eleian territory, but disbanded his
army. His retreat gave so much additional courage to the Eleians,
that they sent envoys and tried to establish alliances among those
cities which they knew to be alienated from Sparta. Not even Thebes
and Corinth, however, could be induced to assist them; nor did they
obtain any other aid except one thousand men from Ætolia.
In the next summer Agis undertook a second expedition, accompanied
on this occasion by all the allies of Sparta; even by the Athenians,
now enrolled upon the list. Thebes and Corinth alone stood aloof. On
this occasion he approached from the opposite or southern side, that
of the territory once called Messenia; passing through Aulon, and
crossing the river Neda. He marched through Triphylia to the river
Alpheius, which he crossed, and then proceeded to Olympia, where he
consummated the sacrifice from which the Eleians had before excluded
him. In his march he was joined by the inhabitants of Lepreum,
Makistus, and other dependent towns, which now threw off their
subjection to Elis. Thus reinforced, Agis proceeded onward towards
the city of Elis, through a productive country under flourishing
agriculture, enriched by the crowds and sacrifices at the neighboring
Olympic temple, and for a long period unassailed. After attacking, not very
vigorously, the half-fortified city,—and being repelled by the
Ætolian auxiliaries,—he marched onward to the harbor called
Kyllênê, still plundering the territory. So ample was the stock of
slaves, cattle, and rural wealth generally, that his troops not only
acquired riches for themselves by plunder, but were also joined by
many Arcadian and Achæan volunteers, who crowded in to partake of
the golden harvest.[396]
The opposition or wealthy oligarchical party in Elis availed
themselves of this juncture to take arms against the government;
hoping to get possession of the city, and to maintain themselves in
power by the aid of Sparta. Xenias their leader, a man of immense
wealth, with several of his adherents, rushed out armed, and assailed
the government-house, in which it appears that Thrasydæus and his
colleagues had been banqueting. They slew several persons, and
among them one, whom, from great personal resemblance, they mistook
for Thrasydæus. The latter was however at that moment intoxicated,
and asleep in a separate chamber.[397] They then assembled
in arms in the market-place, believing themselves to be masters of
the city; while the people, under the like impression that Thrasydæus
was dead, were too much dismayed to offer resistance. But presently
it became known that he was yet alive; the people crowded to the
government-house “like a swarm of bees,”[398] and arrayed
themselves for his protection as well as under his guidance.
Leading them forth at once to battle, he completely defeated the
oligarchical insurgents, and forced them to flee for protection to
the Lacedæmonian army.
Agis presently evacuated the Eleian territory, yet not without
planting a Lacedæmonian harmost and a garrison, together with Xenias
and the oligarchical exiles, at Epitalium, a little way south of
the river Alpheius. Occupying this fort (analogous to Dekeleia in
Attica), they spread ravage and ruin all around throughout the autumn
and winter, to such a degree, that in the early spring, Thrasydæus
and the Eleian government were compelled to send to Sparta and
solicit peace. They consented to raze the imperfect fortifications of
their city, so as to leave it quite open. They farther surrendered
their harbor of Kyllênê with their ships of war, and relinquished
all authority over the Triphylian townships, as well as over Lasion,
which was claimed as an Arcadian town.[399] Though they pressed
strenuously their claim to preserve the town of Epeium (between
the Arcadian town of Heræa and the Triphylian town of Makistus),
on the plea that they had bought it from its previous inhabitants
at the price of thirty talents paid down,—the Lacedæmonians,
pronouncing this to be a compulsory bargain imposed upon weaker
parties by force, refused to recognize it. The town was taken away
from them, seemingly without any reimbursement of the purchase money
either in part or in whole. On these terms the Eleians were admitted
to peace, and enrolled again among the members of the Lacedæmonian
confederacy.[400]
The time of the Olympic festival seems to have been now
approaching, and the Eleians were probably the more anxious to obtain
peace from Sparta, as they feared to be deprived of their privilege
as superintendents. The Pisatans,—inhabitants of the district
immediately around Olympia,—availed themselves of the Spartan
invasion of Elis to petition for restoration of their original
privilege, as administrators of the temple of Zeus at Olympia with
its great periodical solemnity,—by the dispossession of the
Eleians as usurpers of that privilege. But their request met with
no success. It was true indeed that such right had belonged to the
Pisatans in early days, before the Olympic festival had acquired its
actual Pan-hellenic importance and grandeur; and that the Eleians
had only appropriated it to themselves after conquering the territory
of Pisa. But taking the festival as it then stood, the Pisatans,
mere villagers without any considerable city, were incompetent to do
justice to it, and would have lowered its dignity in the eyes of all
Greece.
Accordingly the Lacedæmonians, on this ground, dismissed the
claimants, and left the superintendence of the Olympic games
still in the hands of the Eleians.[401]
This triumphant dictation of terms to Elis, placed the
Lacedæmonians in a condition of overruling ascendency throughout
Peloponnesus, such as they had never attained before. To
complete their victory, they rooted out all the remnants of
their ancient enemies the Messenians, some of whom had been
planted by the Athenians at Naupaktus, others in the island of
Kephallenia. All of this persecuted race were now expelled, in
the hour of Lacedæmonian omnipotence, from the neighborhood of
Peloponnesus, and forced to take shelter, some in Sicily, others
at Kyrênê.[402] We shall in a future chapter have to
commemorate the turn of fortune in their favor.
CHAPTER LXXIII. AGESILAUS KING OF SPARTA. — THE CORINTHIAN WAR.
The close of
the Peloponnesian war, with the victorious organization of the
Lacedæmonian empire by Lysander, has already been described as a
period carrying with it increased sufferings to those towns which had
formerly belonged to the Athenian empire, as compared with what they
had endured under Athens,—and harder dependence, unaccompanied
by any species of advantage, even to those Peloponnesians and
inland cities which had always been dependent allies of Sparta. To
complete the melancholy picture of the Grecian world during these
years, we may add (what will be hereafter more fully detailed) that
calamities of a still more deplorable character overtook the Sicilian
Greeks; first, from the invasion of the Carthaginians, who sacked
Himera, Selinus, Agrigentum, Gela, and Kamarina,—next from the
overruling despotism of Dionysius at Syracuse.
Sparta alone had been the gainer; and that to a prodigious
extent, both in revenue and power. It is from this time, and from
the proceedings of Lysander, that various ancient authors dated
the commencement of her degeneracy, which they ascribe mainly
to her departure from the institutions of Lykurgus by admitting
gold and silver money. These metals had before been strictly
prohibited; no money being tolerated except heavy pieces of iron,
not portable except to a very trifling amount. That such was the
ancient institution of Sparta, under which any Spartan having in
his possession gold and silver money, was liable, if detected, to
punishment, appears certain. How far the regulation may have been in
practice evaded, we have no means of determining. Some of the ephors
strenuously opposed the admission of the large sum brought home
by Lysander as remnant of what he had received from Cyrus towards
the prosecution of the war. They contended that the admission of
so much gold and silver into the public treasury was a flagrant
transgression of the Lykurgean ordinances. But their resistance was
unavailing and the new acquisitions were received; though it still continued to
be a penal offence (and was even made a capital offence, if we may
trust Plutarch) for any individual to be found with gold and silver
in his possession.[403] To enforce such a prohibition, however,
even if practicable before, ceased to be practicable so soon as these
metals were recognized and tolerated in the possession, and for the
purposes of the government.
There can be no doubt that the introduction of a large sum of
coined gold and silver into Sparta was in itself a striking and
important phenomenon, when viewed in conjunction with the peculiar
customs and discipline of the state. It was likely to raise strong
antipathies in the bosom of an old fashioned Spartan, and probably
king Archidamus, had he been alive, would have taken part with the
opposing ephors. But Plutarch and others have criticised it too much
as a phenomenon by itself; whereas, it was really one characteristic
mark and portion of a new assemblage of circumstances, into which
Sparta had been gradually arriving during the last years of the
war, and which were brought into the most effective action by the
decisive success at Ægospotami. The institutions of Lykurgus,
though excluding all Spartan citizens, by an unremitting drill and
public mess, from trade and industry, from ostentation, and from
luxury,—did not by any means extinguish in their bosoms the
love of money;[404] while it had a positive tendency to
exaggerate, rather than to abate, the love of power. The Spartan
kings, Leotychides and Pleistoanax, had both been guilty of receiving
bribes; Tissaphernes had found means (during the twentieth year of
the Peloponnesian war) to corrupt not merely the Spartan admiral
Astyochus, but also nearly all the captains of the Peloponnesian
fleet, except the Syracusan Hermokrates; Gylippus, as well as his
father Kleandrides, had degraded himself by the like fraud; and
Anaxibius at Byzantium was not at all purer. Lysander, enslaved only
by his appetite for dominion, and himself a remarkable instance
of superiority to pecuniary corruption, was thus not the first to
engraft that vice on the minds of his countrymen. But though he found
it already diffused among them, he did much to impart to it a still
more decided predominance, by the immense increase of opportunities,
and enlarged booty for peculation, which his newly-organized Spartan
empire furnished. Not merely did he bring home a large residue in
gold and silver, but there was a much larger annual tribute imposed
by him on the dependent cities, combined with numerous appointments
of harmosts to govern these cities. Such appointments presented
abundant illicit profits, easy to acquire, and even difficult to
avoid, since the decemvirs in each city were eager thus to purchase
forbearance or connivance for their own misdeeds. So many new sources
of corruption were sufficient to operate most unfavorably on the
Spartan character, if not by implanting any fresh vices, at least by
stimulating all its inherent bad tendencies.
To understand the material change thus wrought in it, we have
only to contrast the speeches of king Archidamus and of the
Corinthians, made in 432 B.C. at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian war, with the state of facts at the end of the
war,—during the eleven years between the victory of Ægospotami
and the defeat of Knidus (405-394 B.C.). At the
former of the two epochs, Sparta had no tributary subjects, nor
any funds in her treasury, while her citizens were very reluctant
to pay imposts.[405] About 334 B.C.,
thirty-seven years after her defeat at Leuktra and her loss of
Messenia, Aristotle remarks the like fact, which had then again
become true;[406] but during the continuance of her
empire
between 405 and 394 B.C., she possessed a large
public revenue, derived from the tribute of the dependent cities.
In 432 B.C., Sparta is not merely cautious
but backward; especially averse to any action at a distance
from home.[407] In 404 B.C., after
the close of the war, she becomes aggressive, intermeddling, and
ready for dealing with enemies, or making acquisitions remote as
well as near.[408] In 432 B.C., her unsocial
and exclusive manners, against the rest of Greece, with her constant
expulsion of other Greeks from her own city, stand prominent among
her attributes;[409] while at the end of the war, her foreign
relations had acquired such great development as to become the
principal matter of attention for her leading citizens as well as for
her magistrates; so that the influx of strangers into Sparta, and
the efflux of Spartans into other parts of Greece became constant
and inevitable. Hence the strictness of the Lykurgean discipline
gave way on many points, and the principal Spartans especially
struggled by various shifts to evade its obligations. It was to these
leading men that the great prizes fell, enabling them to enrich
themselves at the expense either of foreign subjects or of the public
treasury, and tending more and more to aggravate that inequality of
wealth among the Spartans which Aristotle so emphatically notices
in his time;[410] since the smaller citizens had no similar
opportunities opened to them, nor any industry of their own, to
guard their properties against gradual subdivision and absorption,
and to keep them in a permanent state of ability to furnish that
contribution to the mess-table, for themselves and their sons, which
formed the groundwork of Spartan political franchise. Moreover, the
spectacle
of such newly-opened lucrative prizes,—accessible only to that
particular section of influential Spartan families who gradually
became known apart from the rest under the title of the Equals or
Peers,—embittered the discontent of the energetic citizens
beneath that privileged position, in such a manner as to menace
the tranquillity of the state,—as will presently be seen.
That sameness of life, habits, attainments, aptitudes, enjoyments,
fatigues, and restraints, which the Lykurgean regulations had so
long enforced, and still continued to prescribe,—divesting
wealth of its principal advantages, and thus keeping up the sentiment
of personal equality among the poorer citizens,—became more
and more eluded by the richer, through the venality as well as
the example of ephors and senators;[411] while for those who
had no means of corruption, it continued unrelaxed, except in so far
as many of them fell into a still more degraded condition by the loss
of their citizenship.
It is not merely Isokrates,[412] who attests
the corruption wrought in the character of the Spartans by
the possession of that foreign empire which followed the
victory of Ægospotami,—but also their earnest panegyrist
Xenophon. After having warmly extolled the laws of Lykurgus or
the Spartan institutions, he is constrained to admit that his
eulogies, though merited by the past, have become lamentably
inapplicable to that present which he himself witnessed. “Formerly
(says he,[413]) the Lacedæmonians used to prefer
their
own society and moderate way of life at home, to appointments
as harmosts in foreign towns, with all the flattery and all the
corruption attending them. Formerly, they were afraid to be seen
with gold in their possession; now, there are some who make even an
ostentatious display of it. Formerly, they enforced their (Xenêlasy
or) expulsion of strangers, and forbade foreign travel, in order that
their citizens might not be filled with relaxed habits of life from
contact with foreigners; but now, those who stand first in point
of influence among them, study above all things to be in perpetual
employment as harmosts abroad. There was a time when they took pains
to be worthy of headship; but now they strive much rather to get and
keep the command, than to be properly qualified for it. Accordingly,
the Greeks used in former days to come and solicit, that the Spartans
would act as their leaders against wrong-doers; but now they are
exhorting each other to concert measures for shutting out Sparta from
renewed empire. Nor can we wonder that the Spartans have fallen into
this discredit, when they have manifestly renounced obedience both to
the Delphian god, and to the institutions of Lykurgus!”
This criticism (written at some period between 394-371
B.C.) from the strenuous eulogist of Sparta is
highly instructive. We know from other evidences how badly the
Spartan empire worked for the subject cities; we here learn how
badly it worked for the character of the Spartans themselves,
and for those internal institutions which even an enemy of
Sparta, who detested her foreign policy, still felt constrained
to admire.[414] All the vices, here insisted upon by
Xenophon, arise from various incidents connected with her empire. The
moderate, home-keeping, old-fashioned, backward disposition,—of
which the Corinthians complain,[415] but for which king
Archidamus takes credit, at the beginning of the Peloponnesian
war,—is found exchanged, at the close of the war, for
a spirit of aggression and conquest, for ambition public as
well as private, and for emancipation of the great men from
the subduing[416] equality of the discipline enacted by
Lykurgus.
Agis the son of Archidamus (426-399 B.C.),
and Pausanias son of Pleistoanax (408-394 B.C.),
were the two kings of Sparta at the end of the war. But
Lysander, the admiral or commander of the fleet, was for
the time[417] greater than either of the two kings,
who had the right of commanding only the troops on land. I have
already mentioned how his overweening dictation and insolence
offended not only Pausanias, but also several of the ephors and
leading men at Sparta, as well as Pharnabazus the Persian satrap;
thus indirectly bringing about the emancipation of Athens from the
Thirty, the partial discouragement of the dekarchies throughout
Greece, and the recall of Lysander himself from his command. It was
not without reluctance that the conqueror of Athens submitted to
descend again to a private station. Amidst the crowd of flatterers
who heaped incense on him at the moment of his omnipotence, there
were not wanting those who suggested that he was much more worthy
to reign than either Agis or Pausanias; that the kings ought to be
taken, not from the first-born of the lineage of Eurysthenês and
Proklês, but by selection out of all the Herakleids, of whom Lysander
himself was one;[418] and that the person elected ought to be not
merely a descendant of Hêraklês, but a worthy parallel of
Hêraklês himself, while pæans were sung to the honor of Lysander
at Samos,[419]—while Chœrilus and Antilochus
composed poems in his praise,—while Antimachus (a poet highly
esteemed by Plato) entered into a formal competition of recited epic
verses called Lysandria, and was surpassed by Nikêratus, there
was another warm admirer, a rhetor or sophist of Halikarnassus,
named Kleon,[420] who wrote a discourse proving that
Lysander had well earned the regal dignity,—that personal
excellence ought to prevail over legitimate descent, and that the
crown ought to be laid open to election from the most worthy among
the Herakleids. Considering that rhetoric was neither employed nor
esteemed at Sparta, we cannot reasonably believe that Lysander
really ordered the composition of this discourse as an instrument of
execution for projects preconceived by himself, in the same manner as
an Athenian prosecutor or defendant before the dikastery used to arm
himself with a speech from Lysias or Demosthenes. Kleon would make
his court professionally through such a prose composition, whether
the project were first recommended by himself, or currently discussed
among a circle of admirers; while Lysander would probably requite
the compliment by a reward not less munificent than that which he
gave to the indifferent poet Antilochus.[421] And the composition
would be put into the form of an harangue from the admiral to
his countrymen, without any definite purpose that it should be
ever so delivered. Such hypothesis of a speaker and an audience
was frequent with the rhetors in their writings, as we may see
in Isokrates,—especially in his sixth discourse, called
Archidamus.
Either from his own ambition, or from the suggestions of others,
Lysander came now to conceive the idea of breaking the succession of
the two regal families, and opening for himself a door to reach the
crown. His projects have been characterized as revolutionary; but there
seems nothing in them which fairly merits the appellation, in the
sense which that word now bears, if we consider accurately what the
Spartan kings were in the year 400 B.C. In this view
the associations connected with the title of king, are to a modern
reader misleading. The Spartan kings were not kings at all, in any
modern sense of the term; not only they were not absolute, but they
were not even constitutional kings. They were not sovereigns, nor
was any Spartan their subject; every Spartan was the member of a
free Grecian community. The Spartan king did not govern; nor did he
reign, in the sense of having government carried on in his name and
by his delegates. The government of Sparta was carried on by the
ephors, with frequent consultation of the senate, and occasional,
though rare appeals, to the public assembly of citizens. The Spartan
king was not legally inviolable. He might be, and occasionally was,
arrested, tried, and punished for misbehavior in the discharge
of his functions. He was a self-acting person, a great officer
of state; enjoying certain definite privileges, and exercising
certain military and judicial functions, which passed as an
universitas by hereditary transmission in his family; but subject
to the control of the ephors as to the way in which he performed
these duties.[422] Thus, for example, it was his privilege to
command the army when sent on foreign service; yet a law was made,
requiring him to take deputies along with him, as a council of war,
without whom nothing was to be done. The ephors recalled Agesilaus
when they thought fit; and they brought Pausanias to trial and punishment,
for alleged misconduct in his command.[423] The only way in which
the Spartan kings formed part of the sovereign power in the state,
or shared in the exercise of government properly so called, was that
they had votes ex officio in the Senate, and could vote there by
proxy when they were not present. In ancient times, very imperfectly
known, the Spartan kings seem really to have been sovereigns; the
government having then been really carried on by them, or by their
orders. But in the year 400 B.C., Agis and Pausanias
had become nothing more than great and dignified hereditary officers
of state, still bearing the old title of their ancestors. To throw
open these hereditary functions to all the members of the Herakleid
Gens, by election from their number, might be a change better or
worse; it was a startling novelty (just as it would have been to
propose, that any of the various priesthoods, which were hereditary
in particular families, should be made elective), because of the
extreme attachment of the Spartans to old and sanctified customs; but
it cannot properly be styled revolutionary. The ephors, the senate,
and the public assembly, might have made such a change in full legal
form, without any appeal to violence; the kings might vote against
it, but they would have been outvoted. And if the change had been
made, the Spartan government would have remained, in form as well as
in principle, just what it was before; although the Eurystheneid and
Prokleid families would have lost their privileges. It is not meant
here to deny that the Spartan kings were men of great importance in
the state, especially when (like Agesilaus) they combined with their
official station a marked personal energy. But it is not the less
true, that the associations, connected with the title of king in
the modern mind, do not properly apply to them.
To carry his point at Sparta, Lysander was well aware that
agencies of an unusual character must be employed. Quitting Sparta
soon after his recall, he visited the oracles of Delphi, Dodona, and
Zeus Ammon in Libya,[424] in order to procure, by persuasion
or corruption, injunctions to the Spartans, countenancing his
projects. So great was the general effect of oracular injunctions
on the Spartan mind, that Kleomenes had thus obtained the
deposition of king Demaratus, and the exiled Pleistoanax, his
own
return;[425] bribery having been in both cases the
moving impulse. But Lysander was not equally fortunate. None of these
oracles could be induced, by any offers, to venture upon so grave a
sentence as that of repealing the established law of succession to
the Spartan throne. It is even said that the priests of Ammon, not
content with refusing his offers, came over to Sparta to denounce
his proceeding; upon which accusation Lysander was put on his trial,
but acquitted. The statement that he was thus tried and acquitted,
I think untrue. But his schemes so far miscarried,—and he was
compelled to resort to another stratagem, yet still appealing to the
religious susceptibilities of his countrymen. There had been born
some time before, in one of the cities of the Euxine, a youth named
Silenus, whose mother affirmed that he was the son of Apollo; an
assertion which found extensive credence, notwithstanding various
difficulties raised by the sceptics. While making at Sparta this new
birth of a son to the god, the partisans of Lysander also spread
abroad the news that there existed sacred manuscripts and inspired
records, of great antiquity, hidden and yet unread, in the custody
of the Delphian priests; not to be touched or consulted until some
genuine son of Apollo should come forward to claim them. With the
connivance of some among the priests, certain oracles were fabricated
agreeable to the views of Lysander. The plan was concerted that
Silenus should present himself at Delphi, tender the proofs of his
divine parentage, and then claim the inspection of these hidden
records; which the priests, after an apparently rigid scrutiny,
were prepared to grant. Silenus would then read them aloud in the
presence of all the spectators; and one would be found among them,
recommending to the Spartans to choose their kings out of all the
best citizens.[426]
So nearly did this project approach to consummation, that Silenus
actually presented himself at Delphi, and put in his claim. But
one of the confederates either failed in his courage, or broke
down, at the critical moment; so that the hidden records still
remained hidden. Yet though Lysander was thus compelled to abandon
his plan, nothing was made public about it until after his death. It
might probably have succeeded, had he found temple-confederates of
proper courage and cunning,—when we consider the profound and
habitual deference of the Spartans to Delphi; upon the sanction
of which oracle the Lykurgean institutions themselves were mainly
understood to rest. And an occasion presently arose, on which
the proposed change might have been tried with unusual facility
and pertinence; though Lysander himself, having once miscarried,
renounced his enterprise, and employed his influence, which continued
unabated, in giving the sceptre to another instead of acquiring
it for himself,[427]—like Mucian in reference to the
emperor Vespasian.
It was apparently about a year after the campaigns in Elis, that
king Agis, now an old man, was taken ill at Heræa in Arcadia, and
carried back to Sparta, where he shortly afterwards expired. His
wife Mimæa had given birth to a son named Leotychides, now a youth about
fifteen years of age.[428] But the legitimacy of this youth had
always been suspected by Agis, who had pronounced, when the birth
of the child was first made known to him, that it could not be his.
He had been frightened out of his wife’s bed by the shock of an
earthquake, which was construed as a warning from Poseidon, and was
held to be a prohibition of intercourse for a certain time; during
which interval Leotychides was born. This was one story; another was,
that the young prince was the son of Alkibiades, born during the
absence of Agis in his command at Dekeleia. On the other hand, it
was alleged that Agis, though originally doubtful of the legitimacy
of Leotychides, had afterwards retracted his suspicions, and fully
recognized him; especially, and with peculiar solemnity, during
his last illness.[429] As in the case of Demaratus about a
century earlier,[430]—advantage was taken of these doubts
by Agesilaus, the younger brother of Agis, powerfully seconded by
Lysander, to exclude Leotychides, and occupy the throne himself.
Agesilaus was the son of king Archidamus, not by Lampito
the mother of Agis, but by a second wife named Eupolia. He was
now at the mature age of forty,[431] and having been
brought up without any prospect of becoming king,—at least
until very recent times,—had passed through the unmitigated
rigor of Spartan drill and training. He was distinguished for
all Spartan virtues; exemplary obedience to authority, in
the performance of his trying exercises, military as well as
civil,—intense emulation, in trying to surpass every
competitor,—extraordinary courage, unremitting energy, as
well as facility in enduring hardship,—perfect simplicity and
frugality in all his personal habits,—extreme sensibility to
the opinion of his fellow-citizens. Towards his personal friends
or
adherents, he was remarkable for fervor of attachment, even
for unscrupulous partisanship, with a readiness to use all his
influence in screening their injustices or short-comings; while
he was comparatively placable and generous in dealing with rivals
at home, notwithstanding his eagerness to be first in every sort
of competition.[432] His manners were cheerful and popular,
and his physiognomy pleasing; though in stature he was not only
small but mean, and though he labored under the additional defect of
lameness on one leg,[433] which accounts for his constant refusal
to suffer his statue to be taken.[434] He was indifferent
to money, and exempt from excess of selfish feeling, except in his
passion for superiority and power.
In spite of his rank as brother of Agis, Agesilaus had never
yet been tried in any military command, though he had probably
served in the army either at Dekeleia or in Asia. Much of his
character, therefore, lay as yet undisclosed. And his popularity
may perhaps have been the greater at the moment when the throne
became vacant, inasmuch as, having never been put in a position to
excite jealousy, he stood distinguished only for accomplishments,
efforts, endurances, and punctual obedience, wherein even the
poorest citizens were his competitors on equal terms. Nay, so
complete was the self-constraint, and the habit of smothering
emotions, generated by a Spartan training, that even the cunning
Lysander himself did not at this time know him. He and Agesilaus
had been early and intimate friends,[435] both having been
placed as boys in the same herd or troop for the purposes of
discipline; a strong illustration of the equalizing character of
this discipline, since we know that Lysander was of poor parents
and condition.[436] He made the mistake of supposing Agesilaus
to be of a disposition particularly gentle and manageable; and this
was his main inducement for espousing the pretensions of the latter
to the throne, after the decease of Agis. Lysander reckoned, if by his means
Agesilaus became king, on a great increase of his own influence,
and especially on a renewed mission to Asia, if not as ostensible
general, at least as real chief under the tutelar headship of the new
king.
Accordingly, when the imposing solemnities which
always marked the funeral of a king of Sparta were
terminated,[437] and the day arrived for installation
of a new king, Agesilaus, under the promptings of Lysander, stood
forward to contest the legitimacy and the title of Leotychides, and
to claim the sceptre for himself,—a true Herakleid, brother
of the late king Agis. In the debate, which probably took place not
merely before the ephors and the senate but before the assembled
citizens besides, Lysander warmly seconded his pretensions. Of this
debate unfortunately we are not permitted to know much. We cannot
doubt that the mature age and excellent reputation of Agesilaus would
count as a great recommendation, when set against an untried youth;
and this was probably the real point (since the relationship of both
was so near) upon which decision turned;[438] for the
legitimacy of Leotychides was positively asseverated by his
mother Timæa,[439] and we do not find that the question of
paternity was referred to the Delphian oracle, as in the case of
Demaratus.
There was, however, one circumstance which stood much in the
way of Agesilaus,—his personal deformity. A lame king
of Sparta had never yet been known. And if we turn back more
than a century to the occurrence of a similar deformity in one
of the Battiad princes at Kyrênê,[440] we see the
Kyrenians taking it so deeply to heart, that they sent to ask
advice from Delphi, and invited over the Mantineian reformer
Demônax. Over and above this sentiment of repugnance, too, the
gods had specially forewarned Sparta to beware of “a lame reign.”
Deiopeithes, a prophet and religious adviser of high reputation,
advocated the cause of Leotychides. He produced an ancient oracle,
telling Sparta, that “with all her pride she must not suffer a lame
reign to impair her stable footing;[441] for if she did
so, unexampled suffering and ruinous wars would long beset
her.” This prophecy had already been once invoked, about eighty
years earlier,[442] but with a very different
interpretation. To Grecian leaders, like Themistokles or
Lysander, it was an accomplishment of no small value to be able
to elude inconvenient texts or intractable religious feelings,
by expository ingenuity. And Lysander here raised his voice (as
Themistokles had done on the momentous occasion before the battle
of Salamis),[443] to combat the professional expositors;
contending that by “a lame reign,” the god meant, not a bodily
defect in the king,—which might not even be congenital, but
might arise from some positive hurt,[444]—but the reign
of any king who was not a genuine descendant of Hêraklês.
The influence of Lysander,[445] combined doubtless
with a preponderance of sentiment already tending towards Agesilaus,
caused this effort of interpretative subtlety to be welcomed as
convincing, and led to the nomination of the lame candidate as
king. There was, however, a considerable minority, to whom this
decision appeared a sin against the gods and a mockery of the
oracle. And though the murmurs of such dissentients were kept
down by the ability and success of Agesilaus during the first
years of his reign; yet when, in his ten last years, calamity and
humiliation were poured thickly upon this proud city, the public
sentiment came decidedly round to their view. Many a pious Spartan
then
exclaimed, with feelings of bitter repentance, that the divine
word never failed to come true at last,[446] and that Sparta was
justly punished for having wilfully shut her eyes to the distinct
and merciful warning vouchsafed to her, about the mischiefs of
a “lame reign.”[447]
Besides the crown, Agesilaus at the same time acquired the
large property left by the late king Agis; an acquisition which
enabled him to display his generosity by transferring half of
it at once to his maternal relatives,—for the most part
poor persons.[448] The popularity acquired by this step
was still farther increased by his manner of conducting himself
towards the ephors and senate. Between these magistrates and the
kings, there was generally a bad understanding. The kings, not
having lost the tradition of the plenary power once enjoyed by
their ancestors, displayed as much haughty reserve as they dared,
towards an authority now become essentially superior to their
own. But Agesilaus,—not less from his own preëstablished
habits, than from anxiety to make up for the defects of his
title,—adopted a line of conduct studiously opposite. He not
only took pains to avoid collision with the ephors, but showed
marked deference both to their orders and to their persons. He
rose from his seat whenever they appeared; he conciliated both
ephors and senators by timely presents.[449] By such judicious
proceeding, as well as by his exact observance of the laws
and customs,[450] he was himself the greatest gainer.
Combined with that ability and energy in which he was never
deficient, it ensured to him more real power than had ever fallen to
the lot of any king of Sparta; power not merely over the military
operations abroad which usually fell to the kings,—but also over
the policy of the state at home. On the increase and maintenance
of that real power, his chief thoughts were concentrated; new
dispositions generated by kingship, which had never shown themselves
in him before. Despising, like Lysander, both money, luxury, and
all the outward show of power,—he exhibited, as a king,
an ultra-Spartan simplicity, carried almost to affectation, in
diet, clothing, and general habits. But like Lysander also, he
delighted in the exercise of dominion through the medium of knots
or factions of devoted partisans, whom he rarely scrupled to
uphold in all their career of injustice and oppression. Though an
amiable man, with no disposition to tyranny, and still less to
plunder, for his own benefit,—Agesilaus thus made himself
the willing instrument of both, for the benefit of his various
coadjutors and friends, whose power and consequence he identified
with his own.[451]
At the moment when Agesilaus became king, Sparta was at the
maximum of her power, holding nearly all the Grecian towns as subject
allies, with or without tribute. She was engaged in the task (as has
already been mentioned) of protecting the Asiatic Greeks against
the Persian satraps in their neighborhood. And the most interesting
portion of the life of Agesilaus consists in the earnestness with
which he espoused, and the vigor and ability with which he conducted,
this great Pan-hellenic duty. It will be seen that success in his
very promising career was intercepted[452] by his bad, factious
subservience to partisans, at home and abroad,—by his
unmeasured thirst for Spartan omnipotence,—and his indifference
or aversion to any generous scheme of combination with the cities
dependent on Sparta.
His attention, however, was first called to a dangerous internal
conspiracy with which Sparta was threatened. The “lame reign” was as
yet less than twelve months old, when Agesilaus, being engaged in
sacrificing at one of the established state solemnities, was apprised
by the officiating prophet, that the victims exhibited menacing
symptoms, portending a conspiracy of the most formidable character.
A second sacrifice gave yet worse promise; and on the third, the
terrified prophet exclaimed, “Agesilaus, the revelation before
us imports that we are actually in the midst of our enemies.”
They still continued to sacrifice, but victims were now offered
to the averting and preserving gods, with prayers that these
latter, by tutelary interposition, would keep off the impending
peril. At length, after much repetition, and great difficulty,
favorable victims were obtained; the meaning of which was soon made
clear. Five days afterwards, an informer came before the ephors,
communicating the secret, that a dangerous conspiracy was preparing,
organized by a citizen named Kinadon.[453]
The conspirator thus named was a Spartan citizen, but not one of
that select number called The Equals or The Peers. It has already
been mentioned that inequalities had been gradually growing up
among qualified citizens of Sparta, tending tacitly to set apart
a certain number of them under the name of The Peers, and all the
rest under the correlative name of The Inferiors. Besides this,
since the qualification of every family lasted only so long as
the citizen could furnish a given contribution for himself and
his sons to the public mess-table, and since industry of every
kind was inconsistent with the rigid personal drilling imposed
upon all of them,—the natural consequence was, that in each
generation a certain number of citizens became disfranchised and
dropped off. But these disfranchised men did not become Periœki
or Helots. They were still citizens, whose qualification, though
in abeyance, might be at any time renewed by the munificence
of a rich man;[454] so that they too, along with the lesser
citizens, were known under the denomination of The Inferiors. It
was to this class that Kinadon belonged. He was a young man of
remarkable strength and courage, who had discharged with honor his
duties in the Lykurgean discipline,[455] and had imbibed from
it that sense of personal equality, and that contempt of privilege, which
its theory as well as its practice suggested. Notwithstanding all
exactness of duty performed, he found that the constitution, as
practically worked, excluded him from the honors and distinctions
of the state; reserving them for the select citizens known under
the name of Peers. And this exclusion had become more marked and
galling since the formation of the Spartan empire after the victory
of Ægospotami; whereby the number of lucrative posts (harmosties and
others) all monopolized by the Peers, had been so much multiplied.
Debarred from the great political prizes, Kinadon was still employed
by the ephors, in consequence of his high spirit and military
sufficiency, in that standing force which they kept for maintaining
order at home.[456] He had been the agent ordered on
several of those arbitrary seizures which they never scrupled to
employ towards persons whom they regarded as dangerous. But this
was no satisfaction to his mind; nay, probably, by bringing him
into close contact with the men in authority, it contributed to
lessen his respect for them. He desired “to be inferior to no
man in Sparta,”[457] and his conspiracy was undertaken to
realize this object by breaking up the constitution.
It has already been mentioned that amidst the general insecurity
which pervaded the political society of Laconia, the ephors
maintained a secret police and system of espionage which reached its
height of unscrupulous efficiency under the title of the Krypteia.
Such precautions were now more than ever requisite; for the changes
in the practical working of Spartan politics tended to multiply the
number of malcontents, and to throw the Inferiors as well as the
Periœki and the Neodamodes (manumitted Helots), into one common
antipathy with the Helots, against the exclusive partnership of the
Peers. Informers were thus sure of encouragement and reward, and
the man who now came to the ephors either was really an intimate friend
of Kinadon, or had professed himself such in order to elicit the
secret. “Kinadon (said he to the ephors) brought me to the extremity
of the market-place, and bade me count how many Spartans there were
therein. I reckoned up about forty, besides the king, the ephors
and the senators. Upon my asking him why he desired me to count
them, he replied,—Because these are the men, and the only men,
whom you have to look upon as enemies;[458] all others in the
market-place, more than four thousand in number, are friends and
comrades. Kinadon also pointed out to me the one or two Spartans whom
we met in the roads, or who were lords in the country districts,
as our only enemies; every one else around them being friendly
to our purpose.” “How many did he tell you were the accomplices
actually privy to the scheme?”—asked the ephors. “Only a
few (was the reply); but those thoroughly trustworthy; these
confidants themselves, however, said that all around them were
accomplices,—Inferiors, Periœki, Neodamodes, and Helots,
all alike; for whenever any one among the classes talked about a
Spartan, he could not disguise his intense antipathy,—he talked
as if he could eat the Spartans raw.”[459]
“But how (continued the ephors) did Kinadon reckon upon getting
arms?” “His language was (replied the witness)—We of the
standing force have our own arms all ready; and here are plenty of
knives, swords, spits, hatchets, axes and scythes—on sale in
this market-place, to suit an insurgent multitude; besides, every man
who tills the earth, or cuts wood and stone, has tools by him which
will serve as weapons in case of need; especially in a struggle with
enemies themselves unarmed.” On being asked what was the moment fixed
for execution, the witness could not tell; he had been instructed
only to remain on the spot, and be ready.[460]
It does
not appear that this man knew the name of any person concerned,
except Kinadon himself. So deeply were the ephors alarmed, that they
refrained from any formal convocation even of what was called the
Lesser Assembly,—including the senate, of which the kings were
members ex officio, and, perhaps, a few other principal persons
besides. But the members of this assembly were privately brought
together to deliberate on the emergency; Agesilaus, probably, among
them. To arrest Kinadon at once in Sparta appeared imprudent;
since his accomplices, of number as yet unknown, would be thus
admonished either to break out in insurrection, or at least to make
their escape. But an elaborate stratagem was laid for arresting
him out of Sparta, without the knowledge of his accomplices. The
ephors, calling him before them, professed to confide to him (as
they had done occasionally before) a mission to go to Aulon (a
Laconian town on the frontier towards Arcadia and Triphylia) and
there to seize some parties designated by name in a formal skytalê
or warrant; including some of the Aulonite Periœki,—some
Helots,—and one other person by name, a woman of peculiar
beauty, resident at the place, whose influence was understood to
spread disaffection among all the Lacedæmonians who came thither, old
as well as young.[461] When Kinadon inquired what force he
was to take with him on the mission, the ephors, to obviate all
suspicion that they were picking out companions with views hostile
to him, desired him to go to the Hippagretês (or commander of
the three hundred youthful guards called horsemen, though they
were not really mounted) and ask for the first six or seven men
of the guard[462] who might happen to be in the way. But
they (the ephors) had already held secret communication with the
Hippagretês, and had informed him both whom they wished to be
sent, and what the persons sent were to do. They then despatched Kinadon
on his pretended mission telling him that they should place at his
disposal three carts, in order that he might more easily bring home
the prisoners.
Kinadon began his journey to Aulon, without the smallest
suspicion of the plot laid for him by the ephors; who, to make
their purpose sure, sent an additional body of the guards after
him, to quell any resistance which might possibly arise. But
their stratagem succeeded as completely as they could desire. He
was seized on the road, by those who accompanied him ostensibly
for his pretended mission. These men interrogated him, put him
to the torture,[463] and heard from his lips the names
of his accomplices; the list of whom they wrote down, and forwarded
by one of the guards to Sparta. The ephors, on receiving it,
immediately arrested the parties principally concerned, especially
the prophet Tisamenus; and examined them along with Kinadon, as
soon as
he was brought prisoner. They asked the latter, among other
questions, what was his purpose in setting on foot the conspiracy;
to which he replied,—“I wanted to be inferior to no man
at Sparta.” His punishment was not long deferred. Having been
manacled with a clog round his neck to which his hands were made
fast,—he was in this condition conducted round the city,
with men scourging and pricking him during the progress. His
accomplices were treated in like manner, and at length all of them
were put to death.[464]
Such is the curious narrative, given by Xenophon, of this
unsuccessful conspiracy. He probably derived his information from
Agesilaus himself; since we cannot easily explain how he could have
otherwise learnt so much about the most secret manœuvres of the
ephors, in a government proverbial for constant secrecy, like that of
Sparta. The narrative opens to us a glimpse, though sadly transient
and imperfect, of the internal dangers of the Spartan government. We
were aware, from earlier evidences, of great discontent prevailing
among the Helots, and to a certain extent among the Periœki. But
the incident here described presents to us the first manifestation
of a body of malcontents among the Spartans themselves; malcontents
formidable both from energy and position, like Kinadon and the
prophet Tisamenus. Of the state of disaffected feeling in the
provincial townships of Laconia, an impressive proof is afforded by
the case of that beautiful woman who was alleged to be so active
in political proselytism at Aulon; not less than by the passionate
expressions of hatred revealed in the deposition of the informer
himself. Though little is known about the details, yet it seems that
the tendency of affairs at Sparta was to concentrate both power
and property in the hands of an oligarchy ever narrowing among the
citizens; thus aggravating the dangers at home, even at the time
when the power of the state was greatest abroad, and preparing the
way for that irreparable humiliation which began with the defeat of
Leuktra.
It can hardly be doubted that much more wide-spread discontent
came to the knowledge of the ephors than that which is specially
indicated in Xenophon. And such discovery may probably have been
one of the motives (as had happened in 424 B.C. on
occasion
of the expedition of Brasidas into Thrace) which helped to bring
about the Asiatic expedition of Agesilaus, as an outlet for brave
malcontents on distant and lucrative military service.
Derkyllidas had now been carrying on war in Asia Minor for near
three years, against Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, with so much
efficiency and success, as both to protect the Asiatic Greeks on
the coast, and to intercept all the revenues which those satraps
either transmitted to court or enjoyed themselves. Pharnabazus had
already gone up to Susa (during his truce with Derkyllidas in 397
B.C.), and besides obtaining a reinforcement which
acted under himself and Tissaphernes in 396 B.C.
against Derkyllidas in Lydia, had laid schemes for renewing
the maritime war against Sparta.[465]
It is now that we hear again mentioned the name of Konon,
who, having saved himself with nine triremes from the defeat
of Ægospotami, had remained for the last seven years under the
protection of Evagoras, prince of Salamis, in Cyprus. Konon, having
married at Salamis, and having a son[466] born to him there,
indulged but faint hopes of ever returning to his native city, when,
fortunately for him as well as for Athens, the Persians again became
eager for an efficient admiral and fleet on the coast of Asia Minor.
Through representations from Pharnabazus, as well as from Evagoras
in Cyprus,—and through correspondence of the latter with the
Greek physician Ktesias, who wished to become personally employed in
the negotiation, and who seems to have had considerable influence
with queen Parysatis,[467]—orders were obtained, and funds
provided, to equip in Phœnicia and Kilikia a numerous fleet, under
the command of Konon. While that officer began to show himself,
and to act with such triremes as he found in readiness (about forty
in number) along the southern coast of Asia Minor from Kilikia
to Kaunus,[468]—further preparations were vigorously
prosecuted in the Phœnician ports, in order to make up the fleet to
three hundred sail.[469]
It was by a sort of accident that news of such equipment reached
Sparta,—in an age of the world when diplomatic residents were
as yet unknown. A Syracusan merchant named Herodas, having visited
the Phœnician ports for trading purposes, brought back to Sparta
intelligence of the preparations which he had seen, sufficient to
excite much uneasiness. The Spartans were taking counsel among
themselves, and communicating with their neighboring allies,
when Agesilaus, at the instance of Lysander, stood forward as a
volunteer to solicit the command of a land-force for the purpose
of attacking the Persians in Asia. He proposed to take with him
only thirty full Spartan citizens or peers, as a sort of Board or
Council of Officers; two thousand Neodamodes or enfranchised Helots,
whom the ephors were probably glad to send away, and who would be
selected from the bravest and most formidable; and six thousand
hoplites from the land-allies, to whom the prospect of a rich
service against Asiatic enemies would be tempting. Of these thirty
Spartans, Lysander intended to be the leader; and thus, reckoning on
his preëstablished influence over Agesilaus, to exercise the real
command himself, without the name. He had no serious fear of the
Persian arms, either by land or sea. He looked upon the announcement
of the Phœnician fleet to be an empty threat, as it had so often
proved in the mouth of Tissaphernes during the late war; while the
Cyreian expedition had inspired him further with ardent hopes of
another successful Anabasis, or conquering invasion of Persia from
the sea-coast inwards. But he had still more at heart to employ
his newly-acquired ascendency in reëstablishing everywhere the
dekarchies, which had excited such intolerable hatred and exercised
so much oppression, that even the ephors had refused to lend positive
aid in upholding them, so that they had been in several places broken
up or modified.[470] If the ambition of Agesilaus was
comparatively less stained by personal and factious antipathies,
and more Pan-hellenic in its aim, than that of Lysander,—it was
at the same time yet more unmeasured in respect to victory over
the Great King, whom he dreamed of dethroning, or at least of
expelling from Asia Minor and the coast.[471] So powerful was
the influence exercised by the Cyreian expedition over the schemes
and imagination of energetic Greeks: so sudden was the outburst of
ambition in the mind of Agesilaus, for which no one before had given
him credit.
Though this plan was laid by two of the ablest men in Greece, it
turned out to be rash and improvident, so far as the stability of
the Lacedæmonian empire was concerned. That empire ought to have
been made sure by sea, where its real danger lay, before attempts
were made to extend it by new inland acquisitions. And except for
purposes of conquest, there was no need of farther reinforcements
in Asia Minor; since Derkyllidas was already there with a force
competent to make head against the satraps. Nevertheless, the
Lacedæmonians embraced the plan eagerly; the more so, as envoys
were sent from many of the subject cities, by the partisans of
Lysander and in concert with him, to entreat that Agesilaus might
be placed at the head of the expedition, with as large a force
as he required.[472]
No difficulty probably was found in levying the proposed number
of men from the allies, since there was great promise of plunder
for the soldiers in Asia. But the altered position of Sparta with
respect to her most powerful allies was betrayed by the refusal of
Thebes, Corinth, and Athens to take any part in the expedition. The
refusal of Corinth, indeed, was excused professedly on the ground
of a recent inauspicious conflagration of one of the temples in the
city; and that of Athens, on the plea of weakness and exhaustion not
yet repaired. But the latter, at least, had already begun to conceive
some hope from the projects of Konon.[473]
The mere fact that a king of Sparta was about to take the
command and pass into Asia, lent peculiar importance to the
enterprise. The Spartan kings, in their function of leaders of
Greece, conceived themselves to have inherited the sceptre of
Agamemnon
and Orestes;[474] and Agesilaus, especially, assimilated
his expedition to a new Trojan war,—an effort of united
Greece, for the purpose of taking vengeance on the common Asiatic
enemy of the Hellenic name. The sacrifices having been found
favorable, Agesilaus took measures for the transit of the troops
from various ports to Ephesus. But he himself, with one division,
touched in his way at Geræstus, the southern point of Eubœa;
wishing to cross from thence and sacrifice at Aulis, (the port of
Bœotia nearly opposite to Geræstus on the other side of the strait)
where Agamemnon had offered his memorable sacrifice immediately
previous to departure for Troy. It appears that he both went to
the spot, and began the sacrifice, without asking permission from
the Thebans; moreover, he was accompanied by his own prophet, who
conducted the solemnities in a manner not consistent with the
habitual practice of the temple or chapel of Artemis at Aulis. On
both these grounds, the Thebans, resenting the proceeding as an
insult, sent a body of armed men, and compelled him to desist from
the sacrifice.[475] Not taking part themselves in the
expedition, they probably considered that the Spartan king was
presumptuous in assuming to himself the Pan-hellenic character of
a second Agamemnon; and they thus inflicted a humiliation which
Agesilaus never forgave.
Agesilaus seems to have reached Asia about the time when
Derkyllidas had recently concluded his last armistice with
Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus; an armistice, intended to allow time
for mutual communication both with Sparta and the Persian court.
On being asked by the satrap what was his purpose in coming,
Agesilaus merely renewed the demand which had before been made by
Derkyllidas—of autonomy for the Asiatic Greeks. Tissaphernes
replied by proposing a continuation of the same armistice, until
he could communicate with the Persian court,—adding that he
hoped to be empowered to grant the demand. A fresh armistice was
accordingly sworn to on both sides, for three months; Derkyllidas
(who with his army came now under the command of Agesilaus)
and Herippidas being sent to the satrap to receive his oath,
and take oaths to him in return.[476]
While the army was thus condemned to temporary inaction at
Ephesus, the conduct and position of Lysander began to excite
intolerable jealousy in the superior officers; and most of
all Agesilaus. So great and established was the reputation
of Lysander,—whose statue had been erected at Ephesus
itself in the temple of Artemis,[477] as well as in many
other cities,—that all the Asiatic Greeks looked upon him as
the real chief of the expedition. That he should be real chief,
under the nominal command of another, was nothing more than what had
happened before, in the year wherein he gained the great victory of
Ægospotami,—the Lacedæmonians having then also sent him out
in the ostensible capacity of secretary to the admiral Arakus, in
order to save the inviolability of their own rule, that the same
man should not serve twice as admiral.[478] It was through the
instigation of Lysander, and with a view to his presence, that
the decemvirs and other partisans in the subject cities had sent
to Sparta to petition for Agesilaus; a prince as yet untried and
unknown. So that Lysander,—taking credit, with truth, for
having ensured to Agesilaus first the crown, next this important
appointment,—intended for himself, and was expected by others,
to exercise a fresh turn of command, and to renovate in every town
the discomfited or enfeebled dekarchies. Numbers of his partisans
came to Ephesus to greet his arrival, and a crowd of petitioners
were seen following his steps everywhere; while Agesilaus himself
appeared comparatively neglected. Moreover, Lysander resumed all
that insolence of manner which he had contracted during his former
commands, and which on this occasion gave the greater offence,
since the manner of Agesilaus was both courteous and simple in a
peculiar degree.[479]
The thirty Spartan counsellors, over whom Lysander had been
named to preside, finding themselves neither consulted by him, nor
solicited by others, were deeply dissatisfied. Their complaints helped to
encourage Agesilaus, who was still more keenly wounded in his
own personal dignity, to put forth a resolute and imperious
strength of will, such as he had not before been known to possess.
He successively rejected every petition preferred to him by
or through Lysander; a systematic purpose which, though never
formally announced,[480] was presently discerned by the
petitioners, by the Thirty, and by Lysander himself. The latter
thus found himself not merely disappointed in all his calculations,
but humiliated to excess, though without any tangible ground of
complaint. He was forced to warn his partisans, that his intervention
was an injury and not a benefit to them; that they must desist
from obsequious attentions to him, and must address themselves
directly to Agesilaus. With that prince he also remonstrated on
his own account,—“Truly, Agesilaus, you know how to degrade
your friends.”—“Ay, to be sure (was the reply), those among
them who want to appear greater than I am; but such as seek to
uphold me, I should be ashamed if I did not know how to repay with
due honor.”—Lysander was constrained to admit the force
of this reply, and to request, as the only means of escape from
present and palpable humiliation, that he might be sent on some
mission apart; engaging to serve faithfully in whatever duty he
might be employed.[481]
This proposition, doubtless even more agreeable to Agesilaus
than to himself, being readily assented to, he was despatched on a
mission to the Hellespont. Faithful to his engagement of forgetting
past offences and serving with zeal, he found means to gain over
a Persian grandee named Spithridates, who had received some
offence from Pharnabazus. Spithridates revolted openly, carrying
a regiment of two hundred horse to join Agesilaus; who was thus
enabled to inform himself fully about the satrapy of Pharnabazus, comprising
the territory called Phrygia, in the neighborhood of the Propontis
and the Hellespont.[482]
The army under Tissaphernes had been already powerful at the
moment when his timidity induced him to conclude the first armistice
with Derkyllidas. But additional reinforcements, received since the
conclusion of the second and more recent armistice, had raised him to
such an excess of confidence, that even before the stipulated three
months had expired, he sent to insist on the immediate departure of
Agesilaus from Asia, and to proclaim war forthwith, if such departure
were delayed. While this message, accompanied by formidable reports
of the satrap’s force, filled the army at Ephesus with mingled alarm
and indignation, Agesilaus accepted the challenge with cheerful
readiness; sending word back that he thanked the satrap for perjuring
himself in so flagrant a manner, as to set the gods against him and
ensure their favor to the Greek side.[483] Orders were
forthwith given, and contingents summoned from the Asiatic Greeks,
for a forward movement southward, to cross the Mæander, and attack
Tissaphernes in Karia, where he usually resided. The cities on the
route were required to provide magazines, so that Tissaphernes,
fully anticipating attack in this direction, caused his infantry to
cross into Karia, for the purpose of acting on the defensive; while
he kept his numerous cavalry in the plain of the Mæander, with a
view to overwhelm Agesilaus, who had no cavalry, in his march over
that level territory towards the Karian hills and rugged ground. But
the Lacedæmonian king, having put the enemy on this false scent,
suddenly turned his march northward towards Phrygia and the satrapy
of Pharnabazus. Tissaphernes took no pains to aid his brother satrap,
who on his side had made few preparations for defence. Accordingly
Agesilaus, finding little or no resistance, took many towns and
villages, and collected abundance of provisions, plunder, and slaves.
Profiting by the guidance of the revolted Spithridates, and marching
as little as possible over the plains, he carried on lucrative
and unopposed incursions as far as the neighborhood of Daskylium,
the residence of the satrap himself, near the Propontis. Near the
satrapic residence, however, his small body of cavalry, ascending an
eminence, came suddenly upon an equal detachment of Persian cavalry,
under Rhathines and Bagæus; who attacked them vigorously, and drove
them back with some loss, until they were protected by Agesilaus
himself coming up with the hoplites. The effect of such a check (and
there were probably others of the same kind, though Xenophon does
not specify them) on the spirits of the army was discouraging. On
the next morning, the sacrifices being found unfavorable for farther
advance, Agesilaus gave orders for retreating towards the sea. He
reached Ephesus about the close of autumn; resolved to employ the
winter in organizing a more powerful cavalry, which experience proved
to be indispensable.[484]
This autumnal march through Phrygia was more lucrative than
glorious. Yet it enables Xenophon to bring to view different merits
of his hero Agesilaus; in doing which he exhibits to us ancient
warfare and Asiatic habits on a very painful side. In common both
with Kallikratidas and Lysander, though not with the ordinary Spartan
commanders, Agesilaus was indifferent to the acquisition of money
for himself. But he was not the less anxious to enrich his friends,
and would sometimes connive at unwarrantable modes of acquisition
for their benefit. Deserters often came in to give information of
rich prizes or valuable prisoners; which advantages, if he had
chosen, he might have appropriated to himself. But he made it a
practice to throw both the booty and the honor in the way of some
favorite officer; just as we have seen (in a former chapter) that
Xenophon himself was allowed by the army to capture Asidates and
enjoy a large portion of his ransom.[485] Again, when the army
in the course of its march was at a considerable distance from the
sea, and appeared to be advancing farther inland, the authorized
auctioneers, whose province it was to sell the booty, found the
buyers extremely slack. It was difficult to keep or carry what was
bought, and opportunity for resale did not seem at hand. Agesilaus, while he
instructed the auctioneers to sell upon credit, without insisting
on ready money,—at the same time gave private hints to a
few friends that he was very shortly about to return to the sea.
The friends thus warned, bidding for the plunder on credit and
purchasing at low prices, were speedily enabled to dispose of it
again at a seaport, with large profits.[486]
We are not surprised to hear that such lucrative graces procured
for Agesilaus many warm admirers; though the eulogies of Xenophon
ought to have been confined to another point in his conduct, now to
be mentioned. Agesilaus, while securing for his army the plunder
of the country over which he carried his victorious arms, took
great pains to prevent both cruelty and destruction of property.
When any town surrendered to him on terms, his exactions were
neither ruinous nor grossly humiliating.[487] Amidst all
the plunder realized, too, the most valuable portion was the
adult natives of both sexes, hunted down and brought in by
the predatory light troops of the army, to be sold as slaves.
Agesilaus was vigilant in protecting these poor victims from
ill-usage; inculcating upon his soldiers the duty, “not of
punishing them like wrong-doers, but simply of keeping them under
guard as men.[488]” It was the practice of the poorer
part of the native population often to sell their little children
for exportation to travelling slave-merchants, from inability to
maintain them. The children thus purchased, if they promised to be
handsome, were often mutilated, and fetched large prices as eunuchs,
to supply the large demand for the harems and religious worship of
many Asiatic towns. But in their haste to get out of the way of a
plundering army, these slave-merchants were forced often to leave by
the way-side the little children whom they had purchased, exposed
to the wolves, the dogs, or starvation. In this wretched condition,
they were found by Agesilaus on his march. His humane disposition
prompted him to see them carried to a place of safety, where he
gave them in charge of those old natives whom age and feebleness
had
caused to be left behind as not worth carrying off. By such active
kindness, rare, indeed, in a Grecian general, towards the conquered,
he earned the gratitude of the captives, and the sympathies of
every one around.[489]
This interesting anecdote, imparting a glimpse of the ancient
world in reference to details which Grecian historians rarely
condescend to unveil, demonstrates the compassionate disposition
of Agesilaus. We find in conjunction with it another anecdote,
illustrating the Spartan side of his character. The prisoners who
had been captured during the expedition were brought to Ephesus,
and
sold during the winter as slaves for the profit of the army.
Agesilaus,—being then busily employed in training his troops
to military efficiency, especially for the cavalry service during
the ensuing campaign,—thought it advisable to impress them
with contempt for the bodily capacity and prowess of the natives.
He therefore directed the heralds who conducted the auction, to put
the prisoners up to sale in a state of perfect nudity. To have the
body thus exposed, was a thing never done, and even held disgraceful
by the native Asiatics; while among the Greeks the practice was
universal for purposes of exercise,—or at least, had become
universal during the last two or three centuries,—for we
are told that originally the Asiatic feeling on this point had
prevailed throughout Greece. It was one of the obvious differences
between Grecian and Asiatic customs,[490]—that in
the former, both the exercises of the palæstra, as well as the
matches in the solemn games, required competitors of every rank
to contend naked. Agesilaus himself stripped thus habitually;
Alexander, prince of Macedon, had done so, when he ran at the
Olympic stadium,[491]—also the combatants out of the great
family of the Diagorids of Rhodes, when they gained their victories
in the Olympic pankratium,—and all those other noble pugilists,
wrestlers, and runners, descended from gods and heroes, upon whom
Pindar pours forth his complimentary odes.
On this occasion at Ephesus, Agesilaus gave special orders
to put up the Asiatic prisoners to auction naked; not at all by
way of insult, but in order to exhibit to the eye of the Greek
soldier, as he contemplated them, how much he gained by his own
bodily training and frequent exposure, and how inferior was the
condition of men whose bodies never felt the sun or wind. They
displayed a white skin, plump and soft limbs, weak and undeveloped
muscles, like men accustomed to be borne in carriages instead of
walking or running; from whence we indirectly learn that many
of them were men in wealthy circumstances. And the purpose of
Agesilaus was completely answered; since his soldiers, when they
witnessed such evidences of bodily incompetence, thought that
“the
enemies against whom they had to contend were not more formidable
than women.”[492] Such a method of illustrating the
difference between good and bad physical training, would hardly have
occurred to any one except a Spartan, brought up under the Lykurgean
rules.
While Agesilaus thus brought home to the vision of his soldiers
the inefficiency of untrained bodies, he kept them throughout
the winter under hard work and drill, as well in the palæstra as
in arms. A force of cavalry was still wanting. To procure it, he
enrolled all the richest Greeks in the various Asiatic towns, as
conscripts to serve on horseback; giving each of them leave to
exempt himself, however, by providing a competent substitute and
equipment,—man, horse, and arms.[493] Before the
commencement of spring, an adequate force of cavalry was thus
assembled at Ephesus, and put into tolerable exercise. Throughout
the whole winter, that city became a place of arms, consecrated
to drilling and gymnastic exercises. On parade as well as in the
palæstra, Agesilaus himself was foremost in setting the example
of obedience and hard work. Prizes were given to the diligent and
improving among hoplites, horsemen, and light troops; while the
armorers, braziers, leather-cutters, etc.,—all the various
artisans, whose trade lay in muniments of war, were in the fullest
employment. “It was a sight full of encouragement (says Xenophon,
who was doubtless present and took part in it), to see Agesilaus
and the soldiers leaving the gymnasium, all with wreaths on their
heads,
and marching to the temple of Artemis to dedicate their wreaths
to the goddess.”[494]
Before Agesilaus was in condition to begin his military operations
for the spring, the first year of his command had passed over.
Thirty fresh counsellors reached Ephesus from Sparta, superseding
the first thirty under Lysander, who forthwith returned home. The
army was now not only more numerous, but better trained, and more
systematically arranged than in the preceding campaign. Agesilaus
distributed the various divisions under the command of different
members of the new Thirty; the cavalry being assigned to Xenoklês,
the Neodamode hoplites to Skythês, the Cyreians to Herippidas, the
Asiatic contingents to Migdon. He then gave out that he should march
straight against Sardis. Nevertheless, Tissaphernes, who was in
that place, construing this proclamation as a feint, and believing
that the real march would be directed against Karia, disposed his
cavalry in the plain of the Mæander as he had done in the preceding
campaign; while his infantry were sent still farther southward within
the Karian frontier. On this occasion, however, Agesilaus marched
as he had announced, in the direction of Sardis. For three days he
plundered the country without seeing an enemy; nor was it until the
fourth day that the cavalry of Tissaphernes could be summoned back to
oppose him; the infantry being even yet at a distance. On reaching
the banks of the river Paktôlus, this Persian cavalry found the Greek
light troops dispersed for the purpose of plunder, attacked them
by surprise, and drove them in with considerable loss. Presently,
however, Agesilaus came up, and ordered his cavalry to charge,
anxious to bring on a battle before the Persian infantry could arrive
in the field. In efficiency, it appears, the Persian cavalry was a
full match for his cavalry, and in number apparently superior. But
when he brought up his infantry, and caused his peltasts and younger
hoplites to join the cavalry in a vigorous attack,—victory
soon declared on his side. The Persians were put to flight and
many of them drowned in the Paktôlus. Their camp, too, was taken,
with a valuable booty; including several camels, which Agesilaus
afterwards took with him into Greece. This success ensured to him
the unopposed mastery of all the territory around Sardis. He carried his
ravages to the very gates of that city, plundering the gardens and
ornamented ground, proclaiming liberty to those within, and defying
Tissaphernes to come out and fight.[495]
The career of that timid and treacherous satrap now approached
its close. The Persians in or near Sardis loudly complained of him
as leaving them undefended, from cowardice and anxiety for his own
residence in Karia; while the court of Susa was now aware that
the powerful reinforcement which had been sent to him last year,
intended to drive Agesilaus out of Asia, had been made to achieve
absolutely nothing. To these grounds of just dissatisfaction was
added a court intrigue; to which, and to the agency of a person
yet more worthless and cruel than himself, Tissaphernes fell a
victim. The queen mother, Parysatis, had never forgiven him for
having been one of the principal agents in the defeat and death
of her son Cyrus. Her influence being now reëstablished over the
mind of Artaxerxes, she took advantage of the existing discredit of
the satrap to get an order sent down for his deposition and death.
Tithraustes, the bearer of this order, seized him by stratagem
at Kolossæ in Phrygia, while he was in the bath, and caused him
to be beheaded.[496]
The mission of Tithraustes to Asia Minor was accompanied by
increased efforts on the part of Persia for prosecuting the war
against Sparta with vigor, by sea as well as by land; and also
for fomenting the anti-Spartan movement which burst out into
hostilities this year in Greece. At first, however, immediately
after the death of Tissaphernes, Tithraustes endeavored to open
negotiations with Agesilaus, who was in military possession of
the country around Sardis, while that city itself appears to
have been occupied by Ariæus, probably the same Persian who
had formerly been general under Cyrus, and who had now again revolted
from Artaxerxes.[497] Tithraustes took credit to the justice
of the king for having punished the late satrap; out of whose
perfidy (he affirmed) the war had arisen. He then summoned
Agesilaus, in the king’s name, to evacuate Asia, leaving the
Asiatic Greeks to pay their original tribute to Persia, but to
enjoy complete autonomy, subject to that one condition. Had
this proposition been accepted and executed, it would have
secured these Greeks against Persian occupation or governors; a
much milder fate for them than that to which the Lacedæmonians
had consented in their conventions with Tissaphernes sixteen
years before,[498] and analogous to the position in which the
Chalkidians of Thrace had been placed with regard to Athens, under
the peace of Nikias;[499] subject to a fixed tribute, yet
autonomous,—with no other obligation or interference. Agesilaus
replied that he had no power to entertain such a proposition without
the authorities at home, whom he accordingly sent to consult. But
in the interim he was prevailed upon by Tithraustes to conclude an
armistice for six months, and to move out of his satrapy into that
of Pharnabazus; receiving a contribution of thirty talents towards
the temporary maintenance of the army.[500] These satraps
generally acted more like independent or even hostile princes, than
coöperating colleagues; one of the many causes of the weakness of the
Persian empire.
When Agesilaus had reached the neighborhood of Kymê, on his march
northward to the Hellespontine Phrygia, he received a despatch from
home, placing the Spartan naval force in the Asiatic seas under
his command, as well as the land-force, and empowering him to name
whomsoever he chose as acting admiral.[501] For the first
time since the battle of Ægospotami, the maritime empire of
Sparta was beginning to be threatened, and increased efforts on
her part were becoming requisite. Pharnabazus, going up in person
to the court of Artaxerxes, had by pressing representations
obtained a large subsidy for fitting out a fleet in Cyprus and
Phœnicia, to act under the Athenian admiral Konon against the
Lacedæmonians.[502] That officer,—with a fleet of
forty triremes, before the equipment of the remainder was yet
complete,—had advanced along the southern coast of Asia Minor
to Kaunus, at the south-western corner of the peninsula, on the
frontier of Karia and Lykia. In this port he was besieged by the
Lacedæmonian fleet of one hundred and twenty triremes under Pharax.
But a Persian reinforcement strengthened the fleet of Konon to eighty
sail, and put the place out of danger; so that Pharax, desisting from
the siege, retired to Rhodes.
The neighborhood of Konon, however, who was now with his
fleet of eighty sail near the Chersonesus of Knidus, emboldened
the Rhodians to revolt from Sparta. It was at Rhodes that the
general detestation of the Lacedæmonian empire, disgraced in so
many different cities by the local dekarchies and by the Spartan
harmosts, first manifested itself. And such was the ardor of the
Rhodian population, that their revolt took place while the fleet
of Pharax was (in part at least) actually in the harbor, and they
drove him out of it.[503] Konon, whose secret encouragements had
helped to excite this insurrection, presently sailed to Rhodes
with his fleet, and made the island his main station. It threw
into his hands an unexpected advantage; for a numerous fleet of
vessels arrived there shortly afterwards, sent by Nephareus, the
native king of Egypt (which was in revolt against the Persians),
with marine stores and grain to the aid of the Lacedæmonians.
Not having been apprized of the recent revolt, these vessels
entered the harbor of Rhodes as if it were still a Lacedæmonian
island; and their cargoes were thus appropriated by Konon and
the Rhodians.[504]
In recounting the various revolts of the dependencies of Athens
which took place during the Peloponnesian war, I had occasion to
point out more than once that all of them took place not merely in
the absence of any Athenian force, but even at the instigation (in most
cases) of a present hostile force,—by the contrivance of
a local party,—and without privity or previous consent of
the bulk of the citizens. The present revolt of Rhodes, forming
a remarkable contrast on all these points, occasioned the utmost
surprise and indignation among the Lacedæmonians. They saw themselves
about to enter upon a renewed maritime war, without that aid which
they had reckoned on receiving from Egypt, and with aggravated
uncertainty in respect to their dependencies and tribute. It was
under this prospective anxiety that they took the step of nominating
Agesilaus to the command of the fleet as well as of the army, in
order to ensure unity of operations;[505] though a
distinction of functions, which they had hitherto set great
value upon maintaining, was thus broken down,—and, though
the two commands had never been united in any king before
Agesilaus.[506] Pharax, the previous admiral, was
recalled.[507]
But the violent displeasure of the Lacedæmonians against the
revolted Rhodians was still better attested by another proceeding.
Among all the great families at Rhodes, none were more distinguished
than the Diagoridæ. Its members were not only generals and high
political functionaries in their native island, but had attained
even Pan-hellenic celebrity by an unparalleled series of victories
at the Olympic and other great solemnities. Dorieus, a member of
this family, had gained the victory in the pankration at Olympia
on three successive solemnities. He had obtained seven prizes in
the Nemean, and eight in the Isthmian games. He had carried off the
prize at one Pythian solemnity without a contest,—no one daring
to stand up against him in the fearful struggle of the pankration.
As a Rhodian, while Rhodes was a subject ally of Athens during the
Peloponnesian war, he had been so pronounced in his attachment to
Sparta as to draw on himself a sentence of banishment; upon which he
had retired to Thurii, and had been active in hostility to Athens
after the Syracusan catastrophe. Serving against her in ships fitted out
at his own cost, he had been captured in 407 B.C. by
the Athenians, and brought in as prisoner to Athens. By the received
practice of war in that day, his life was forfeited; and over and
above such practice, the name of Dorieus was peculiarly odious to the
Athenians. But when they saw before the public assembly a captive
enemy, of heroic lineage, as well as of unrivalled athletic majesty
and renown, their previous hatred was so overpowered by sympathy and
admiration, that they liberated him by public vote, and dismissed
him unconditionally.[508]
This interesting anecdote, which has already been related in
my eighth volume,[509] is here again noticed as a contrast
to the treatment which the same Dorieus now underwent from the
Lacedæmonians. What he had been doing since, we do not know; but
at the time when Rhodes now revolted from Sparta, he was not only
absent from the island, but actually in or near Peloponnesus.
Such, however, was the wrath of the Lacedæmonians against Rhodians
generally, that Dorieus was seized by their order, brought to
Sparta, and there condemned and executed.[510] It seems hardly
possible that he can have had any personal concern in the revolt.
Had such been the fact, he would have been in the island,—or
would at least have taken care not to be within the reach of the
Lacedæmonians when the revolt happened. Perhaps, however, other
members of the Diagoridæ, his family, once so much attached to
Sparta, may have taken part in it; for we know, by the example of
the Thirty at Athens, that the Lysandrian dekarchies and Spartan
harmosts made themselves quite as formidable to oligarchical as
to democratical politicians, and it is very conceivable that the
Diagoridæ may have become less philo-Laconian in their politics.
This extreme difference in the treatment of the same man by
Athens and by Sparta raises instructive reflections. It exhibits
the difference both between Athenian and Spartan sentiment, and
between the sentiment of a multitude and that of a few. The grand and
sacred personality of the Hieronike Dorieus, when exhibited to the
senses of the Athenian multitude,—the spectacle of a man in
chains before them, who had been proclaimed victor and crowned on
so many solemn occasions before the largest assemblages of Greeks
ever brought together,—produced an overwhelming effect upon
their emotions; sufficient not only to efface a strong preëstablished
antipathy founded on active past hostility, but to countervail a
just cause of revenge, speaking in the language of that day. But the
same appearance produced no effect at all on the Spartan ephors and
senate; not sufficient even to hinder them from putting Dorieus to
death, though he had given them no cause for antipathy or revenge,
simply as a sort of retribution for the revolt of the island. Now
this difference depended partly upon the difference between the
sentiment of Athenians and Spartans, but partly also upon the
difference between the sentiment of a multitude and that of a few.
Had Dorieus been brought before a select judicial tribunal at Athens,
instead of before the Athenian public assembly,—or, had the
case been discussed before the assembly in his absence,—he
would have been probably condemned, conformably to usage, under the
circumstances; but the vehement emotion worked by his presence upon
the multitudinous spectators of the assembly, rendered such a course
intolerable to them. It has been common with historians of Athens
to dwell upon the passions of the public assembly as if it were
susceptible of excitement only in an angry or vindictive direction;
whereas, the truth is, and the example before us illustrates, that
they were open-minded in one direction as well as in another,
and that the present emotion, whatever it might be, merciful or
sympathetic as well as resentful, was intensified by the mere fact of
multitude. And thus, where the established rule of procedure happened
to be cruel, there was some chance of moving an Athenian assembly to
mitigate it in a particular case, though the Spartan ephors or senate
would be inexorable in carrying it out,—if, indeed, they did
not, as seems probable in the case of Dorieus, actually go beyond it
in rigor.
While Konon and the Rhodians were thus raising hostilities
against Sparta by sea, Agesilaus, on receiving at Kymê the news
of his nomination to the double command, immediately despatched
orders to the dependent maritime cities and islands, requiring
the
construction and equipment of new triremes. Such was the influence
of Sparta, and so much did the local governments rest upon its
continuance, that these requisitions were zealously obeyed.
Many leading men incurred considerable expense, from desire to
acquire his favor; so that a fleet of one hundred and twenty new
triremes was ready by the ensuing year. Agesilaus, naming his
brother-in-law, Peisander, to act as admiral, sent him to superintend
the preparations; a brave young man, but destitute both of skill
and experience.[511]
Meanwhile, he himself pursued his march (about the beginning of
autumn) towards the satrapy of Pharnabazus,—Phrygia south
and south-east of the Propontis. Under the active guidance of his
new auxiliary, Spithridates, he plundered the country, capturing
some towns, and reducing others to capitulate; with considerable
advantage to his soldiers. Pharnabazus, having no sufficient army
to hazard a battle in defence of his satrapy, concentrated all his
force near his own residence at Daskylium, offering no opposition
to the march of Agesilaus; who was induced by Spithridates to
traverse Phrygia and enter Paphlagonia, in hopes of concluding an
alliance with the Paphlagonian prince Otys. That prince, in nominal
dependence on Persia, could muster the best cavalry in the Persian
empire. But he had recently refused to obey an invitation from
the court at Susa, and he now not only welcomed the appearance
of Agesilaus, but concluded an alliance with him, strengthening
him with an auxiliary body of cavalry and peltasts. Anxious to
requite Spithridates for his services, and vehemently attached to
his son, the beautiful youth Megabates,—Agesilaus persuaded
Otys to marry the daughter of Spithridates. He even caused her to
be conveyed by sea in a Lacedæmonian trireme,—probably from
Abydos to Sinôpê.[512]
Reinforced by the
Paphlagonian auxiliaries, Agesilaus prosecuted the war with augmented
vigor against the satrapy of Pharnabazus. He now approached the
neighborhood of Daskylium, the residence of the satrap himself,
inherited from his father Pharnakês, who had been satrap before
him. This was a well-supplied country, full of rich villages,
embellished with parks and gardens for the satrap’s hunting and
gratification: the sporting tastes of Xenophon lead him also to
remark that there were plenty of birds for the fowler, with rivers
full of fish.[513] In this agreeable region Agesilaus passed
the winter. His soldiers, abundantly supplied with provisions, became
so careless, and straggled with so much contempt of their enemy, that
Pharnabazus, with a body of four hundred cavalry and two scythed
chariots, found an opportunity of attacking seven hundred of them by
surprise; driving them back with considerable loss, until Agesilaus
came up to protect them with the hoplites.
This partial misfortune, however, was speedily avenged. Fearful of
being surrounded and captured, Pharnabazus refrained from occupying
any fixed position. He hovered about the country, carrying his
valuable property along with him, and keeping his place of encampment
as secret as he could. The watchful Spithridates, nevertheless,
having obtained information that he was encamped for the night in
the village of Kanê, about eighteen miles distant, Herippidas (one
of the thirty Spartans) undertook a night-march with a detachment
to surprise him. Two thousand Grecian hoplites, the like number
of light-armed peltasts, and Spithridates with the Paphlagonian
horse, were appointed to accompany him. Though many of these
soldiers took advantage of the darkness to evade attendance, the
enterprise proved completely successful. The camp of Pharnabazus
was surprised at break of day; his Mysian advanced guards were put
to the sword, and he himself, with all his troops, was compelled to
take flight with scarcely any resistance. All his stores, plate,
and personal furniture, together with a large baggage-train and
abundance of prisoners, fell into the hands of the victors. As the
Paphlagonians under Spithridates formed the cavalry of the victorious
detachment, they naturally took more spoil and more prisoners than
the infantry. They were proceeding to carry off their acquisitions,
when Herippidas interfered and took everything away from them;
placing the entire spoil of every description, under the charge of
Grecian officers, to be sold by formal auction in a Grecian city;
after which the proceeds were to be distributed or applied by public
authority. The orders of Herippidas were conformable to the regular
and systematic proceeding of Grecian officers; but Spithridates and
the Paphlagonians were probably justified by Asiatic practice in
appropriating that which they had themselves captured. Moreover,
the order, disagreeable in itself, was enforced against them with
Lacedæmonian harshness of manner,[514] unaccompanied by
any guarantee that they would be allowed, even at last, a fair
share of the proceeds. Resenting the conduct of Herippidas as
combining injury with insult, they deserted in the night and fled
to Sardis, where the Persian Ariæus was in actual revolt against
the court of Susa. This was a serious loss, and still more serious
chagrin, to Agesilaus. He was not only deprived of valuable
auxiliary cavalry, and of an enterprizing Asiatic informant; but
the report would be spread that he defrauded his Asiatic allies of
their legitimate plunder, and others would thus be deterred from
joining him. His personal sorrow too was aggravated by the departure
of the youth Megabazus, who accompanied his father Spithridates
to Sardis.[515]
It was towards the close of this winter that a personal conference
took place between Agesilaus and Pharnabazus, managed by the
intervention of a Greek of Kyzikus named Apollophanês; who was
connected by ties of hospitality with both, and served to each as
guarantee for the good faith of the other. We have from Xenophon,
himself probably present, an interesting detail of this interview.
Agesilaus, accompanied by his thirty Spartan counsellors, being the first
to arrive at the place of appointment, all of them sat down upon the
grass to wait. Presently came Pharnabazus, with splendid clothing
and retinue. His attendants were beginning to spread fine carpets
for him, when the satrap, observing how the Spartans were seated,
felt ashamed of such a luxury for himself, and sat down on the grass
by the side of Agesilaus. Having exchanged salutes, they next shook
hands; after which Pharnabazus, who as the older of the two had been
the first to tender his right hand, was also the first to open the
conversation. Whether he spoke Greek well enough to dispense with the
necessity of an interpreter, we are not informed. “Agesilaus (said
he), I was the friend and ally of you Lacedæmonians while you were
at war with Athens; I furnished you with money to strengthen your
fleet, and fought with you myself ashore on horseback, chasing your
enemies into the sea. You cannot charge me with having ever played
you false, like Tissaphernes, either by word or deed. Yet, after this
behavior, I am now reduced by you to such a condition, that I have
not a dinner in my own territory, except by picking up your leavings,
like the beasts of the field. I see the fine residences, parks, and
hunting-grounds, bequeathed to me by my father, which formed the
charm of my life, cut up or burnt down by you. Is this the conduct
of men mindful of favors received, and eager to requite them? Pray
answer me this question; for, perhaps, I have yet to learn what is
holy and just.”
The thirty Spartan counsellors were covered with shame by this
emphatic appeal. They all held their peace; while Agesilaus, after
a long pause, at length replied,—“You are aware, Pharnabazus,
that in Grecian cities, individuals become private friends and guests
of each other. Such guests, if the cities to which they belong go to
war, fight with each other, and sometimes by accident even kill each
other, each in behalf of his respective city. So then it is that we,
being at war with your king, are compelled to hold all his dominions
as enemy’s land. But in regard to you, we would pay any price to
become your friends. I do not invite you to accept us as masters, in
place of your present master; I ask you to become our ally, and to
enjoy your own property as a freeman—bowing before no man and
acknowledging no master. Now freedom is in itself a possession of the
highest value. But this is not all. We do not call upon you to be a
freeman, and yet poor. We offer you our alliance, to acquire fresh
territory, not for the king, but for yourself; by reducing those
who are now your fellow-slaves to become your subjects. Now tell
me,—if you thus continue a freeman and become rich, what can
you want farther to make you a thoroughly prosperous man?”
“I will speak frankly to you in reply (said Pharnabazus). If the
king shall send any other general, and put me under him, I shall
willingly become your friend and ally. But if he imposes the duty
of command on me, so strong is the point of honor, that I shall
continue to make war upon you to the best of my power. Expect
nothing else.”[516]
Agesilaus, struck with this answer, took his hand and
said,—“Would that with such high-minded sentiments you
could become our friend! At any rate, let me assure you of
this,—that I will immediately quit your territory; and for the
future, even should the war continue, I will respect both you and
all your property, as long as I can turn my arms against any other
Persians.”
Here the conversation closed; Pharnabazus mounted his horse,
and rode away. His son by Parapita, however,—at that time
still a handsome youth,—lingered behind, ran up to Agesilaus,
and exclaimed,—“Agesilaus, I make you my guest.”—“I
accept it with all my heart,”—was the answer. “Remember me
by this,”—rejoined the young Persian,—putting into
the hands of Agesilaus the fine javelin which he carried. The
latter immediately took off the ornamental trappings from the
horse of his secretary Idæus, and gave them as a return present;
upon which the young man rode away with them, and rejoined
his father.[517]
There is a touching interest and emphasis in this interview as
described by Xenophon, who here breathes into his tame Hellenic
chronicle something of the romantic spirit of the Cyropædia. The
pledges exchanged between Agesilaus and the son of Pharnabazus were
not forgotten by either. The latter,—being in after days
impoverished and driven into exile by his brother, during the absence of
Pharnabazus in Egypt,—was compelled to take refuge in Greece;
where Agesilaus provided him with protection and a home, and even
went so far as to employ influence in favor of an Athenian youth, to
whom the son of Pharnabazus was attached. This Athenian youth had
outgrown the age and size of the boy-runners in the Olympic stadium;
nevertheless Agesilaus, by strenuous personal interference, overruled
the reluctance of the Eleian judges, and prevailed upon them to admit
him as a competitor with the other boys.[518] The stress laid by
Xenophon upon this favor illustrates the tone of Grecian sentiment,
and shows us the variety of objects which personal ascendency was
used to compass. Disinterested in regard to himself, Agesilaus was
unscrupulous both in promoting the encroachments, and screening
the injustices, of his friends.[519] The unfair privilege
which he procured for this youth, though a small thing in itself,
could hardly fail to offend a crowd of spectators familiar with the
established conditions of the stadium, and to expose the judges to
severe censure.
Quitting the satrapy of Pharnabazus,—which was now pretty
well exhausted, while the armistice concluded with Tithraustes must
have expired,—Agesilaus took up his camp near the temple of
Artemis, at Astyra in the plain of Thêbê (in the region commonly
known as Æolis), near the Gulf of Elæus. He here employed himself
in bringing together an increased number of troops, with a view to
penetrate farther into the interior of Asia Minor during the summer.
Recent events had greatly increased the belief entertained by the
Asiatics in his superior strength; so that he received propositions
from various districts in the interior, inviting his presence, and
expressing anxiety to throw off the Persian yoke. He sought also
to compose the dissensions and misrule which had arisen out of the
Lysandrian dekarchies in the Greco-Asiatic cities, avoiding as much
as possible sharp inflictions of death or exile. How much he achieved
in this direction, we cannot tell,[520] nor can it have
been possible, indeed, to achieve much, without dismissing the
Spartan harmosts and lessening the political power of his own
partisans; neither of which he did.
His plans were now all laid for penetrating farther than ever into
the interior, and for permanent conquest, if possible, of the western
portion of Persian Asia. What he would have permanently accomplished
towards this scheme, cannot be determined; for his aggressive march
was suspended by a summons home, the reason of which will appear in
the next chapter.
Meanwhile, Pharnabazus had been called from his satrapy to go and
take the command of the Persian fleet in Kilikia and the south of
Asia Minor, in conjunction with Konon. Since the revolt of Rhodes
from the Lacedæmonians, (in the summer of the preceding year, 395
B.C.) that active Athenian had achieved nothing.
The burst of activity, produced by the first visit of Pharnabazus
at the Persian court, had been paralyzed by the jealousies of the
Persian commanders, reluctant to serve under a Greek,—by
peculation of officers who embezzled the pay destined for the
troops,—by mutiny in the fleet from absence of pay,—and
by the many delays arising while the satraps, unwilling to spend
their own revenues in the war, waited for orders and remittances
from court.[521] Hence Konon had been unable to make
any efficient use of his fleet, during those months when the
Lacedæmonian fleet was increased to nearly double its former number.
At length he resolved,—seemingly at the instigation of his
countrymen at home[522] as well as of Euagoras prince of Salamis
in Cyprus, and through the encouragement of Ktesias, one of the
Grecian physicians resident at the Persian court,—on going
himself into the interior to communicate personally with Artaxerxes.
Landing on the Kilikian coast, he crossed by land to Thapsakus on the
Euphrates
(as the Cyreian army had marched), from whence he sailed down
the river in a boat to Babylon. It appears that he did not see
Artaxerxes, from repugnance to that ceremony of prostration which was
required from all who approached the royal person. But his messages,
transmitted through Ktesias and others,—with his confident
engagement to put down the maritime empire of Sparta and counteract
the projects of Agesilaus, if the Persian forces and money were
put into efficient action,—produced a powerful effect on the
mind of the monarch; who doubtless was not merely alarmed at the
formidable position of Agesilaus in Asia Minor, but also hated the
Lacedæmonians as main agents in the aggressive enterprise of Cyrus.
Artaxerxes not only approved his views, but made to him a large grant
of money, and transmitted peremptory orders to the coast that his
officers should be active in prosecuting the maritime war.
What was of still greater moment, Konon was permitted to
name any person whom he chose, as admiral jointly with himself.
It was by his choice that Pharnabazus was called from his
satrapy, and ordered to act jointly as commander of the fleet.
This satrap, the bravest and most straightforward among all
the Persian grandees, and just now smarting with resentment
at the devastation of his satrapy[523] by Agesilaus,
coöperated heartily with Konon. A powerful fleet, partly Phœnician,
partly Athenian or Grecian, was soon equipped, superior in
number even to the newly-organized Lacedæmonian fleet under
Peisander.[524] Euagoras, prince of Salamis
in Cyprus,[525] not only provided many triremes, but
served himself, personally, on board.
It was about the month of July, 394 B.C.,
that Pharnabazus and Konon brought their united fleet to the
south-western corner of Asia Minor; first, probably, to the friendly
island of Rhodes, next, off Loryma[526] and the mountain
called Dorion on the peninsula of Knidus.[527] Peisander, with
the fleet of Sparta and her allies, sailed out from Knidus to meet
them, and both parties prepared for a battle. The numbers of the
Lacedæmonians are reported by Diodorus at eighty-five triremes;
those of Konon and Pharnabazus at above ninety. But Xenophon,
without particularizing the number on either side, seems to
intimate the disparity as far greater; stating that the entire
fleet of Peisander was considerably inferior even to the Grecian
division under Konon, without reckoning the Phœnician ships under
Pharnabazus.[528] In spite of such inferiority, Peisander
did not shrink from the encounter. Though a young man without
military skill, he possessed a full measure of Spartan courage
and pride; moreover,—since the Spartan maritime empire was
only maintained by the assumed superiority of his fleet,—had he
confessed himself too weak to fight, his enemies would have gone
unopposed around the islands to excite revolt. Accordingly, he
sailed forth from the harbor of Knidus. But when the two fleets
were ranged opposite to each other, and the battle was about to
commence,—so manifest and alarming was the superiority of the
Athenians and Persians, that his Asiatic allies on the left division,
noway hearty in the cause, fled almost without striking a blow. Under
such discouraging circumstances, he nevertheless led his fleet into
action with the greatest valor. But his trireme was overwhelmed by
numbers, broken in various places by the beaks of the enemy’s ships,
and forced back upon the land, together with a large portion of his
fleet. Many of the crews jumped out and got to land, abandoning their
triremes to the conquerors. Peisander, too, might have escaped in
the same way; but disdaining either to survive his defeat or to quit
his ship, fell gallantly fighting aboard. The victory of Konon and
Pharnabazus was complete. More than half of the Spartan ships were
either captured or destroyed, though the neighborhood of the land
enabled a large proportion of the crews to escape to Knidus, so that
no great number of prisoners were taken.[529] Among the allies
of Sparta, the chief loss of course fell upon those who were most
attached to her cause; the disaffected or lukewarm were those who
escaped by flight at the beginning.
Such was the memorable triumph of Konon at Knidus; the reversal
of that of Lysander at Ægospotami eleven years before. Its important
effects will be recounted in the coming chapter.
CHAPTER LXXIV. FROM THE BATTLE OF KNIDUS TO THE REBUILDING OF THE LONG WALLS OF ATHENS.
Having in my last
chapter carried the series of Asiatic events down to the battle of
Knidus, in the beginning of August, B.C. 394, at
which period war was already raging on the other side of the Ægean,
in Greece Proper,—I now take up the thread of events from a period
somewhat earlier, to show how this last-mentioned war, commonly
called the Corinthian war, began.
At the accession of Agesilaus to the throne, in 398
B.C., the power of Sparta throughout all Greece from
Laconia to Thessaly, was greater than it had ever been, and greater
than any Grecian state had ever enjoyed before. The burden of the
long war against Athens she had borne in far less proportion than
her allies; its fruits she had reaped exclusively for herself. There
prevailed consequently among her allies a general discontent, which
Thebes as well as Corinth manifested by refusing to take part in
the recent expeditions; either of Pausanias against Thrasybulus and
the Athenian exiles in Peiræus,—or of Agis against the Eleians,—or
of Agesilaus against the Persians in Asia Minor. The Eleians were
completely humbled by the invasions of Agis; all the other cities
in Peloponnesus, from apprehension, from ancient habit, and from
being governed by oligarchies who leaned on Sparta for support,
were obedient to her authority,—with the single exception of Argos,
which remained, as before, neutral and quiet, though in sentiment
unfriendly. Athens was a simple unit in the catalogue of Spartan
allies, furnishing her contingent, like the rest, to be commanded by
the xenâgus,—or officer sent from Sparta for the special purpose of
commanding such foreign contingents.
In the northern regions of Greece, the advance of Spartan power is
yet more remarkable. Looking back to the year 419 B.C.
(about two years after the peace of Nikias), Sparta had been so
unable to protect her colony of Herakleia, in Trachis on the Maliac
Gulf, near the strait of Thermopylæ, that the Bœotians were obliged to
send a garrison thither, in order to prevent it from falling into
the hands of Athens. They even went so far as to dismiss the
Lacedæmonian harmost.[530] In the winter of 409-408
B.C., another disaster had happened at Herakleia, in
which the Lacedæmonian harmost was slain.[531] But about 399
B.C., we find Sparta exercising an energetic
ascendency at Herakleia, and even making that place a central
post for keeping down the people in the neighborhood of Mount
Œta and a portion of Thessaly. Herippidas, the Lacedæmonian, was
sent thither to repress some factious movements, with a force
sufficient to enable him to overawe the public assembly, to seize
the obnoxious party in the place, and to put them to death, five
hundred in number, outside of the gates.[532] Carrying his arms
farther against the Œtæans and Trachinians in the neighborhood, who
had been long at variance with the Laconian colonists at Herakleia,
he expelled them from their abodes, and forced them to migrate with
their wives and children into Thessaly.[533] Hence, the
Lacedæmonians were enabled to extend their influence into parts
of Thessaly, and to place a harmost with a garrison in Pharsalus,
resting upon Herakleia as a basis,—which thus became a position
of extraordinary importance for their dominion over the northern
regions.
With the real power of Sparta thus greatly augmented on land,
in addition to her vast empire at sea, bringing its ample influx
of tribute,—and among cities who had not merely long recognized
her as leader, but had never recognized any one else,—it required
an unusual stimulus to raise any formidable hostile combination
against her, notwithstanding a large spread of disaffection and
antipathy. The stimulus came from Persia, from whose treasures the
means had been before furnished to Sparta herself for subduing
Athens. The news that a formidable navy was fitting out in Phœnicia,
which had prompted the expedition of Agesilaus in the spring of
396 B.C., was doubtless circulated and heard with
satisfaction among the Grecian cities unfriendly to Sparta; and
the refusal of Thebes, Corinth, and Athens, to take service under
that
prince,—aggravated in the case of the Thebans by a positive offence
given to him on the occasion of his sacrifice at Aulis,—was enough to
warn Sparta of the dangerous sentiments and tendencies by which she
was surrounded near home.
It was upon these tendencies that the positive instigation
and promises of Persia were brought to bear, in the course of
the following year; and not merely promises, but pecuniary
supplies, with news of revived naval warfare threatening the
insular dominion of Sparta. Tithraustes, the new satrap, who had
put to death and succeeded Tissaphernes, had no sooner concluded
the armistice mentioned above, and prevailed upon Agesilaus to
remove his army into the satrapy of Pharnabazus, than he employed
active measures for kindling war against Sparta in Greece, in
order to create a necessity for the recall of Agesilaus out of
Asia. He sent a Rhodian named Timokrates into Greece, as envoy to
the cities most unfriendly to the Lacedæmonians, with a sum of
fifty talents;[534] directing him to employ this money in
gaining over the leading men in these cities, and to exchange
solemn oaths of alliance and aid with Persia, for common hostility
against Sparta. The island of Rhodes having just revolted from the
Spartan dominion, had admitted Konon with the Persian fleet (as I
have mentioned in the last chapter), so that probably the Rhodian
envoy was on a mission to Tithraustes on behalf of his countrymen.
He was an appropriate envoy on this occasion, as having an animated
interest in raising up new enemies to Sparta, and as being hearty
in stirring up among the Thebans and Corinthians the same spirit
which had led to the revolt of Rhodes. The effect which that revolt
produced in alarming and exasperating the Spartans, has been already noticed;
and we may fairly presume that its effect on the other side, in
encouraging their Grecian enemies, was considerable. Timokrates
visited Thebes, Corinth, and Argos, distributing his funds. He
concluded engagements on behalf of the satrap, with various leading
men in each, putting them into communication with each other;
Ismenias, Androkleidas, and others in Thebes,—Timolaus and Polyanthes
at Corinth,—Kylon and others at Argos. It appears that he did not
visit Athens; at least, Xenophon expressly says that none of his
money went there. The working of this mission,—coupled, we must
recollect, with the renewed naval warfare on the coast of Asia, and
the promise of a Persian fleet against that of Sparta,—was soon felt
in the more pronounced manifestation of anti-Laconian sentiments
in these various cities, and in the commencement of attempts
to establish alliance between them.[535]
With that Laconian bias which pervades his Hellenica, Xenophon
represents the coming war against Sparta, as if it had been brought
about mainly by these bribes from Persia to the leading men in
these various cities. I have stated on more than one occasion, that
the average public morality of Grecian individual politicians in
Sparta, Athens, and other cities, was not such as to exclude personal
corruption; that it required a morality higher than the average, when
such temptation was resisted,—and a morality considerably higher
than the average, if it were systematically resisted, and for a long
life, as by Perikles and Nikias. There would be nothing therefore
surprising, if Ismenias and the rest had received bribes under the
circumstances here mentioned. But it appears highly improbable that
the money given by Timokrates could have been a bribe; that is,
given privately, and for the separate use of these leaders. It was
furnished for the promotion of a certain public object, which could
not be accomplished without heavy disbursements; it was analogous
to that sum of thirty talents which (as Xenophon himself tells us)
Tithraustes had just given to Agesilaus, as an inducement to carry
away his army into the satrapy of Pharnabazus (not as a present
for the private purse of the Spartan king, but as a contribution
to the
wants of the army),[536] or to that which the satrap Tiribazus
gave to Antalkidas afterwards,[537] also for
public objects. Xenophon affirms, that Ismenias and the rest,
having received these presents from Timokrates, accused the
Lacedæmonians and rendered them odious,—each in his respective
city.[538] But it is certain, from his own showing,
that the hatred towards them existed in these cities, before the
arrival of Timokrates. In Argos, such hatred was of old standing;
in Corinth and Thebes, though kindled only since the close of
the war, it was not the less pronounced. Moreover, Xenophon
himself informs us, that the Athenians, though they received none
of the money,[539] were quite as ready for war as the other
cities. If we therefore admit his statement as a matter of fact, that
Timokrates gave private presents to various leading politicians,
which is by no means improbable,—we must dissent from the explanatory
use which he makes of this fact by setting it out prominently as the
cause of the war. What these leading men would find it difficult
to raise was, not hatred to Sparta, but confidence and courage to
brave the power of Sparta. And for this purpose the mission of
Timokrates would be a valuable aid, by conveying assurances of
Persian coöperation and support against Sparta. He must have been
produced publicly either before the people, the senate, or at least
the great body of the anti-Laconian party in each city. And the money
which he brought with him, though a portion of it may have gone in
private presents, would serve to this party as the best warrant for
the sincerity of the satrap.
Whatever negotiations may have been in progress between the
cities visited by Timokrates, no union had been brought about
between them when the war, kindled by an accident, broke out
as a
“Bœotian war,”[540] between Thebes and Sparta separately.
Between the Opuntian Lokrians and the Phokians, north of Bœotia,
there was a strip of disputed border land; respecting which the
Phokians, imputing wrongful encroachment to the Lokrians, invaded
their territory. The Lokrians, allied with Thebes, entreated her
protection; upon which a body of Bœotians invaded Phokis; while
the Phokians on their side threw themselves upon Lacedæmon,
invoking her aid against Thebes.[541] “The Lacedæmonians
(says Xenophon) were delighted to get a pretence for making war
against the Thebans,—having been long angry with them on several
different grounds. They thought that the present was an excellent
time for marching against them, and putting down their insolence;
since Agesilaus was in full success in Asia, and there was no
other war to embarrass them in Greece.”[542] The various grounds on which
the Lacedæmonians rested their displeasure against Thebes, begin from
a time immediately succeeding the close of the war against Athens,
and the sentiment was now both established and vehement. It was
they who now began the Bœotian war; not the Thebans, nor the bribes
brought by Timokrates.
The energetic and ambitious Lysander, who had before instigated
the expedition of Agesilaus across the Ægean, and who had long hated
the Thebans,—was among the foremost advisers of the expedition now
decreed by the ephors against Thebes,[543] as well as the
chief commander appointed to carry it into execution. He was
despatched with a small force to act on the north of Bœotia. He
was directed to start from Herakleia, the centre of Lacedæmonian
influence in those regions,—to muster the Herakleots, together
with the various dependent populations in the neighborhood of
Œta, Œtæans, Malians, Ænianes, etc.—to march towards Bœotia,
taking up the Phokians in his way,—and to attack Haliartus.
Under the walls of this town king Pausanias engaged to meet
him on a given day, with the native Lacedæmonian force and
the Peloponnesian allies. For this purpose, having obtained
favorable border sacrifices, he marched forth to Tegea, and
there employed himself in collecting the allied contingents from
Peloponnesus.[544] But the allies generally were tardy
and reluctant in the cause; while the Corinthians withheld
all concurrence and support,[545]—though neither did
they make any manifestation in favor of Thebes.
Finding themselves thus exposed to a formidable attack on two
sides, from Sparta at the height of her power, and from a Spartan
officer of known ability,—being, moreover, at the same time without
a single ally,—the Thebans resolved to entreat succor from Athens.
A Theban embassy to Athens for any purpose, and especially for this
purpose, was itself among the strongest marks of the revolution
which had taken place in Grecian politics. The antipathy between the two
cities had been so long and virulent, that the Thebans, at the
close of the war, had endeavored to induce Sparta to root out the
Athenian population. Their conduct subsequently had been favorable
and sympathizing towards Thrasybulus in his struggle against the
Thirty, and that leader had testified his gratitude by dedicating
statues in the Theban Herakleion.[546] But it was by no
means clear that Athens would feel herself called upon, either by
policy or by sentiment, to assist them in the present emergency; at a
moment when she had no Long Walls, no fortifications at Peiræus, no
ships, nor any protection against the Spartan maritime power.
It was not until Pausanias and Lysander were both actually
engaged in mustering their forces, that the Thebans sent to
address the Athenian assembly. The speech of the Theban envoy
sets forth strikingly the case against Sparta as it then stood.
Disclaiming all concurrence with that former Theban deputy, who,
without any instructions, had taken on himself to propose, in the
Spartan assembly of allies, extreme severity towards the conquered
Athenians,—he reminded the Athenians that Thebes had by unanimous
voice declined obeying the summons of the Spartans, to aid in the
march against Thrasybulus and the Peiræus; and that this was the
first cause of the anger of the Spartans against her. On that
ground, then, he appealed to the gratitude of democratical Athens
against the Lacedæmonians. But he likewise invoked against them,
with yet greater confidence, the aid of oligarchical Athens,—or of
those who at that time had stood opposed to Thrasybulus and the
Peiræus; for it was Sparta who, having first set up the oligarchy
at Athens, had afterwards refused to sustain it, and left its
partisans to the generosity of their democratical opponents, by
whom alone they were saved harmless.[547] Of course Athens
was eager, if possible (so he presumed), to regain her lost
empire; and in this enterprise he tendered the cordial aid of Thebes as
an ally. He pointed out that it was by no means an impracticable
enterprise; looking to the universal hatred which Sparta had now
drawn upon herself, not less on the part of ancient allies than of
prior enemies. The Athenians knew by experience that Thebes could be
formidable as a foe; she would now show that she could be yet more
effective as a friend, if the Athenians would interfere to rescue
her. Moreover, she was now about to fight, not for Syracusans or
Asiatics, but for her own preservation and dignity. “We hesitate not
to affirm, men of Athens (concluded the Theban speaker), that what
we are now invoking at your hands is a greater benefit to you than
it is to ourselves.”[548]
Eight years had now elapsed since the archonship of Eukleides
and the renovation of the democracy after the crushing visitation
of the Thirty. Yet we may see, from the important and well-turned
allusion of the Theban speaker to the oligarchical portion of the
assembly, that the two parties still stood in a certain measure
distinguished. Enfeebled as Athens had been left by the war, she
had never since been called upon to take any decisive and emphatic
vote on a question of foreign policy; and much now turned upon the
temper of the oligarchical minority, which might well be conceived
likely to play a party game and speculate upon Spartan countenance.
But the comprehensive amnesty decreed on the reëstablishment of the
democratical constitution,—and the wise and generous forbearance
with which it had been carried out, in spite of the most torturing
recollections,—were now found to have produced their fruits. Majority
and minority,—democrats and oligarchs,—were seen confounded in one
unanimous and hearty vote to lend assistance to Thebes, in spite
of all risk from hostility with Sparta. We cannot indeed doubt
that this vote was considerably influenced also by the revolt of
Rhodes, by the reappearance of Konon with a fleet in the Asiatic
seas, and by private communications from that commander intimating
his hope of acting triumphantly against the maritime power of
Sparta, through enlarged aid from Persia. The vote had thus a
double meaning. It proclaimed not merely the restored harmony
between democrats and oligarchs at Athens, but also their common
resolution to break the chain by which they were held as mere
satellites
and units in the regiment of Spartan allies, and to work out anew
the old traditions of Athens as a self-acting and primary power,
at least,—if not once again an imperial power. The vote proclaimed
a renovated life in Athens, and its boldness under the existing
weakness of the city, is extolled two generations afterwards by
Demosthenes.[549]
After having heard the Theban orator (we are told even
by the philo-Laconian Xenophon),[550] “very many Athenian
citizens rose and spoke in support of his prayer, and the whole
assembly with one accord voted to grant it.” Thrasybulus proposed the
resolution, and communicated it to the Theban envoys.
He told them that Athens knew well the risk which she was
incurring while Peiræus was undefended; but nevertheless she was
prepared to show her gratitude by giving more in requital than she
had received; for she was prepared to give the Thebans positive
aid, in case they were attacked—while the Thebans had done nothing
more for her than to refuse to join in an aggressive march
against her.[551]
Without such assurance of succor from Athens, it is highly
probable that the Thebans might have been afraid to face,
single-handed, Lysander and the full force of Sparta. But they now
prepared for a strenuous defence. The first approach of Lysander
with his army of Herakleots, Phokians, and others, from the north,
was truly menacing; the more so, as Orchomenus, the second city next
to Thebes in the Bœotian confederacy, broke off its allegiance and
joined him. The supremacy of Thebes over the cities composing the
Bœotian confederacy appears to have been often harsh and oppressive,
though probably not equally oppressive towards all, and certainly
not equally odious to all. To Platæa on the extreme south of
Bœotia, it had been long intolerable, and the unhappy fate of that little town
has saddened many pages of my preceding volumes; to Orchomenus, on
the extreme north, it was also unpalatable,—partly because that town
stood next in power and importance to Thebes,—partly because it had
an imposing legendary antiquity, and claimed to have been once the
ascendant city receiving tribute from Thebes. The Orchomenians now
joined Lysander, threw open to him the way into Bœotia, and conducted
him with his army, after first ravaging the fields of Lebadeia, into
the district belonging to Haliartus.[552]
Before Lysander quitted Sparta, the plan of operations concerted
between him and Pausanias, was that they should meet on a given
day in the territory of Haliartus. And in execution of this plan
Pausanias had already advanced with his Peloponnesian army as far
as Platæa in Bœotia. Whether the day fixed between them had yet
arrived, when Lysander reached Haliartus, we cannot determine
with certainty. In the imperfection of the Grecian calendar, a
mistake on this point would be very conceivable,—as had happened
between the Athenian generals Hippokrates and Demosthenes in
those measures which preceded the battle of Delium in 424
B.C.[553] But the engagement must have been taken
by both parties, subject to obstructions in the way,—since each
would have to march through a hostile country to reach the place of
meeting. The words of Xenophon, however, rather indicate that the
day fixed had not arrived; nevertheless, Lysander resolved at once
to act against Haliartus, without waiting for Pausanias. There were
as yet only a few Thebans in the town, and he, probably, had good
reasons for judging that he would better succeed by rapid measures,
before any more Thebans could arrive, than by delaying until the
other Spartan army should join him; not to mention anxiety that
the conquest should belong to himself exclusively, and confidence
arising from his previous success at Orchomenus. Accordingly, he
sent in an invitation to the Haliartians to follow the example of
the Orchomenians, to revolt from Thebes, and to stand upon their
autonomy under Lacedæmonian protection. Perhaps there may have been
a party in the town disposed to comply. But the majority, encouraged
too by the
Thebans within, refused the proposition; upon which Lysander marched
up to the walls and assaulted the town. He was here engaged, close by
the gates, in examining where he could best effect an entrance, when
a fresh division of Thebans, apprised of his proceedings, was seen
approaching from Thebes, at their fastest pace,—cavalry, as well as
hoplites. They were probably seen from the watch-towers in the city
earlier than they became visible to the assailants without; so that
the Haliartians, encouraged by the sight, threw open their gates,
and made a sudden sally. Lysander, seemingly taken by surprise, was
himself slain among the first, with his prophet by his side, by a
Haliartian hoplite named Neochôrus. His troops stood some time,
against both the Haliartians from the town, and the fresh Thebans who
now came up. But they were at length driven back with considerable
loss, and compelled to retreat to rugged and difficult ground at
some distance in their rear. Here, however, they made good their
position, repelling their assailants with the loss of more than two
hundred hoplites.[554]
The success here gained, though highly valuable as an
encouragement to the Thebans, would have been counterbalanced by the
speedy arrival of Pausanias, had not Lysander himself been among the
slain. But the death of so eminent a man was an irreparable loss to
Sparta. His army, composed of heterogeneous masses, both collected
and held together by his personal ascendency, lost confidence
and dispersed in the ensuing night.[555] When Pausanias
arrived soon afterwards, he found no second army to join with him.
Yet his own force was more than sufficient to impress terror on the
Thebans, had not Thrasybulus, faithful to the recent promise, arrived
with an imposing body of Athenian hoplites, together with cavalry
under Orthobulus[556]—and imparted fresh courage as well as
adequate strength to the Theban cause.
Pausanias had first to consider what steps he would take to
recover the bodies of the slain,—that of Lysander among them; whether
he would fight a battle and thus take his chance of becoming master
of the field,—or send the usual petition for burial-truce, which
always implied confession of inferiority. On submitting the point
to a council of officers and Spartan elders, their decision as well
as his own was against fighting; not, however, without an indignant
protest from some of the Spartan elders. He considered that the
whole original plan of operations was broken up, since not only
the great name and genius of Lysander had perished, but his whole
army had spontaneously disbanded; that the Peloponnesian allies
were generally lukewarm and reluctant, not to be counted upon for
energetic behavior in case of pressing danger; that he had little
or no cavalry,[557] while the Theban cavalry was numerous
and excellent; lastly, that the dead body of Lysander himself lay
so close to the walls of Haliartus, that even if the Lacedæmonians
were victorious, they could not carry it off without serious loss
from the armed defenders in their towers.[558] Such were the
reasons which determined Pausanias and the major part of the
council to send and solicit a truce. But the Thebans refused to
grant it except on condition that they should immediately evacuate
Bœotia. Though such a requisition was contrary to the received
practice of Greece,[559] which imposed on the victor the duty
of granting the burial-truce unconditionally, whenever it was
asked and inferiority thus publicly confessed,—nevertheless,
such was the reluctant temper of the army, that they heard not
merely with acquiescence, but with joy,[560] the proposition
of departing. The bodies were duly buried,—that of Lysander in
the territory of Panopê, immediately across the Phokian border,
but not
far from Haliartus. And no sooner were these solemnities completed,
than the Lacedæmonian army was led back to Peloponnesus; their
dejection forming a mournful contrast to the triumphant insolence
of the Thebans, who watched their march and restrained them, not
without occasional blows, from straggling out of the road into the
cultivated fields.[561]
The death of Lysander produced the most profound sorrow and
resentment at Sparta. On returning thither, Pausanias found himself
the subject of such virulent accusation, that he thought it prudent
to make his escape, and take sanctuary in the temple of Athênê Alea,
at Tegea. He was impeached, and put on trial during his absence, on
two counts; first, for having been behind the time covenanted, in
meeting Lysander at Haliartus; next for having submitted to ask a
truce from the Thebans, instead of fighting a battle for the purpose
of obtaining the bodies of the slain.
As far as there is evidence to form a judgment, it does not
appear that Pausanias was guilty upon either of the two counts.
The first is a question of fact; and it seems quite as likely that
Lysander was before his time, as that Pausanias was behind his time,
in arriving at Haliartus. Besides, Lysander, arriving there first,
would have been quite safe, had he not resolved to attack without
delay; in which the chances of war turned out against him; though
the resolution in itself may have been well conceived. Next, as to
the truce solicited for burying the dead bodies,—it does not appear
that Pausanias could with any prudence have braved the chances of
a battle. The facts of the case,—even as summed up by Xenophon,
who always exaggerates everything in favor of the Spartans,—lead
us to this conclusion. A few of the Spartan elders would doubtless
prefer perishing on the field of battle, to the humiliation of
sending in the herald to ask for a truce. But the mischief of
fighting a battle under the influence of such a point of honor,
to the exclusion of a rational estimate of consequences, will be
seen when we come to the battle of Leuktra, where Kleombrotus,
son of Pausanias was thus piqued into an imprudence (at least
this is alleged as one of the motives) to which his own life and
the dominion of Sparta became forfeit.[562] Moreover, the army of
Pausanias, comprising very few Spartans, consisted chiefly of allies who had no
heart in the cause, and who were glad to be required by the Thebans
to depart. If he had fought a battle and lost it, the detriment
to Sparta would have been most serious in every way; whereas, if
he had gained a victory, no result would have followed except the
acquisition of the bodies for burial; since the execution of the
original plan had become impracticable through the dispersion of the
army of Lysander.
Though a careful examination of the facts leads us (and seems also
to have led Xenophon[563]) to the conclusion that Pausanias was
innocent, he was nevertheless found guilty in his absence. He was
in great part borne down by the grief felt at Sparta for the loss
of Lysander, with whom he had been before in political rivalry,
and for whose death he was made responsible. Moreover, the old
accusation was now revived against him,[564]—for which he had been
tried, and barely acquitted, eight years before,—of having tolerated
the reëstablishment of the Athenian democracy at a time when he might
have put it down. Without doubt this argument told prodigiously
against him at the present juncture, when the Athenians had just
now, for the first time since the surrender of their city, renounced
their subjection to Sparta and sent an army to assist the Thebans in
their defence. So violent was the sentiment against Pausanias, that
he was condemned to death in his absence, and passed the remainder of
his life as an exile in sanctuary at Tegea. His son, Agesipolis, was
invested with the sceptre in his place.
A brief remark will not be here misplaced. On no topic have
Grecian historians been more profuse in their reproaches, than upon
the violence and injustice of democracy, at Athens and elsewhere,
in condemning unsuccessful, but innocent generals. Out of the many
cases in which this reproach is advanced, there are very few wherein it has
been made good; but even if we grant it to be valid against Athens
and her democracy, the fate of Pausanias will show us that the ephors
and senate of anti-democratical Sparta were capable of the like
unjust misjudgment. Hardly a single instance of Athenian condemnation
occurs, which we can so clearly prove to be undeserved, as this of a
Spartan king.
Turning from the banished king to Lysander,—the Spartans had
indeed valid reasons for deploring the fall of the latter. He had
procured for them their greatest and most decisive victories, and
the time was coming when they needed his services to procure them
more; for he left behind him no man of equal warlike resource,
cunning, and power of command. But if he possessed those abilities
which powerfully helped Sparta to triumph over her enemies, he at the
same time did more than any man to bring her empire into dishonor,
and to render its tenure precarious. His decemviral governments or
dekarchies, diffused through the subject cities, and each sustained
by a Lacedæmonian harmost and garrison, were aggravations of local
tyranny such as the Grecian world had never before undergone. And
though the Spartan authorities presently saw that he was abusing the
imperial name of the city for unmeasured personal aggrandizement
of his own, and partially withdrew their countenance from his
dekarchies,—yet the general character of their empire still continued
to retain the impress of partisanship and subjugation which he had
originally stamped upon it. Instead of that autonomy which Sparta had
so repeatedly promised, it became subjection every way embittered.
Such an empire was pretty sure to be short-lived; but the loss to
Sparta herself, when her empire fell away, is not the only fault
which the historian of Greece has to impute to Lysander. His far
deeper sin consists in his having thrown away an opportunity,—such
as never occurred either before or afterwards,—for organizing some
permanent, honorable, self-maintaining, Pan-hellenic combination
under the headship of Sparta. This is (as I have before remarked)
what a man like Kallikratidas would have attempted, if not with
far-sighted wisdom, at least with generous sincerity, and by an
appeal to the best veins of political sentiment in the chief
city as well as in the subordinates. It is possible that with
the best intentions even he might have failed; so strong was the
centrifugal instinct in the Grecian political mind. But what we have to
reproach in Lysander is, that he never tried; that he abused the
critical moment of cure for the purpose of infusing new poison into
the system; that he not only sacrificed the interests of Greece
to the narrow gains of Sparta, but even the interests of Sparta
to the still narrower monopoly of dominion in his own hands. That
his measures worked mischievously not merely for Greece, but for
Sparta herself, aggravating all her bad tendencies,—has been already
remarked in the preceding pages.
That Lysander, with unbounded opportunities of gain, both lived
and died poor, exhibits the honorable side of his character.
Yet his personal indifference to money seems only to have left
the greater space in his bosom for that thirst of power which
made him unscrupulous in satiating the rapacity, as well as in
upholding the oppressions, of coadjutors like the Thirty at Athens
and the decemvirs in other cities. In spite of his great success
and ability in closing the Peloponnesian war, we shall agree
with Pausanias[565] that he was more mischievous than
profitable even to Sparta,—even if we take no thought of Greece
generally. What would have been the effect produced by his projects
in regard to the regal succession, had he been able to bring them to
bear, we have no means of measuring. We are told that the discourse
composed and addressed to him by the Halicarnassian rhetor Kleon,
was found after his death among his papers by Agesilaus; who first
learnt from it, with astonishment and alarm, the point to which the
ambition of Lysander had tended, and was desirous of exposing his
real character by making the discourse public,—but was deterred
by dissuasive counsel of the ephor Lakratidas. But this story
(attested by Ephorus[566]) looks more like an anecdote of the
rhetorical schools than like a reality. Agesilaus was not the man to
set much value on sophists or their compositions; nor is it easy to
believe that he remained so long ignorant of those projects which
Lysander had once entertained but subsequently dropped. Moreover the
probability is, that Kleon himself would make the discourse public
as a sample of his own talents, even in the lifetime of Lysander;
not only without shame, but as representing the feelings of a
considerable section of readers throughout the Grecian world.
Most important were the consequences which ensued from the death
of Lysander and the retreat of Pausanias out of Bœotia. Fresh hope
and spirits were infused into all the enemies of Sparta. An alliance
was immediately concluded against her by Thebes, Athens, Corinth,
and Argos. Deputies from these four cities were appointed to meet at
Corinth, and to take active measures for inviting the coöperation of
fresh allies; so that the war which had begun as a Bœotian war, now
acquired the larger denomination of Corinthian war, under which it
lasted until the peace of Antalkidas. The alliance was immediately
strengthened by the junction of the Eubœans,—the Akarnanians,—the
Ozolian Lokrians,—Ambrakia and Leukas (both particularly attached to
Corinth),—and the Chalkidians of Thrace.[567]
We now enter upon the period when, for the first time, Thebes
begins to step out of the rank of secondary powers, and gradually
raises herself into a primary and ascendant city in Grecian
politics. Throughout the Peloponnesian war, the Thebans had shown
themselves excellent soldiers, both on horseback and on foot, as
auxiliaries to Sparta. But now the city begins to have a policy of
its own, and individual citizens of ability become conspicuous.
While waiting for Pelopidas and Epaminondas, with whom we shall
presently become acquainted, we have at the present moment Ismenias;
a wealthy Theban, a sympathizer with Thrasybulus and the Athenian
exiles eight years before, and one of the great organizers of
the present anti-Spartan movement; a man, too, honored by his
political enemies,[568] when they put him to death fourteen
years afterwards, with the title of “a great wicked man,”—the
same combination of epithets which Clarendon applies to Oliver
Cromwell.
It was Ismenias, who, at the head of a body of Bœotians and
Argeians, undertook an expedition to put down the Spartan influence
in the regions north of Bœotia. At Pharsalus in Thessaly, the
Lacedæmonians had an harmost and garrison; at Pheræ, Lykophron the
despot was their ally; while Larissa, with Medius the despot, was
their principal enemy. By the aid of the Bœotians, Medius was now
enabled to capture Pharsalus; Larissa, with Krannon and Skotusa,
was received into the Theban alliance,[569] and Ismenias obtained
also the more important advantage of expelling the Lacedæmonians from
Herakleia. Some malcontents, left after the violent interference
of the Spartan Herippidas two years before, opened the gates of
Herakleia by night to the Bœotians and Argeians. The Lacedæmonians
in the town were put to the sword, but the other Peloponnesian
colonists were permitted to retire in safety; while the old
Trachinian inhabitants, whom the Lacedæmonians had expelled to make
room for their new settlers, together with the Œtæans, whom they had
driven out of the districts in the neighborhood,—were now called
back to repossess their original homes.[570] The loss of Herakleia
was a serious blow to the Spartans in those regions,—protecting
Eubœa in its recent revolt from them, and enabling Ismenias to
draw into his alliance the neighboring Malians, Ænianes, and
Athamanes,—tribes stretching along the valley of the Spercheius
westward to the vicinity of Pindus. Assembling additional troops
from these districts (which, only a few months before, had supplied
an army to Lysander[571]), Ismenias marched against the Phokians,
among whom the Spartan Lakisthenes had been left as harmost in
command. After a severe battle, this officer with his Phokians was
defeated near the Lokrian town of Naryx; and Ismenias came back
victorious to the synod at Corinth.[572]
By such important advantages, accomplished during the winter
of 395-394 B.C., the prospects of Grecian
affairs as they stood in the ensuing spring became materially
altered. The allies assembled at Corinth, full of hope, and
resolved to levy a large combined force to act against Sparta;
who on her side seemed to be threatened with the loss of all
her extra-Peloponnesian land-empire. Accordingly, the ephors
determined to recall without delay Agesilaus with his army from
Asia, and sent Epikydidas with orders to that effect. But even
before this reinforcement could arrive, they thought it expedient to
muster their full Peloponnesian force and to act with vigor
against the allies at Corinth, who were now assembling in
considerable numbers. Aristodemus,—guardian of the youthful king
Agesipolis son of Pausanias, and himself of the Eurystheneid
race,—marched at the head of a body of six thousand Lacedæmonian
hoplites;[573] the Spartan xenâgi (or officers sent
on purpose to conduct the contingents from the outlying allies),
successively brought in three thousand hoplites from Elis, Triphylia,
Akroreia, and Lasion,—fifteen hundred from Sikyon,—three thousand
from Epidaurus, Trœzen, Hermionê, and Halieis. None were sent from
Phlias, on the plea (true or false[574]) that in that city
the moment was one of solemnity and holy truce. There were also
hoplites from Tegea, Mantineia, and the Achæan towns, but their
number is not given; so that we do not know the full muster-roll
on the Lacedæmonian side. The cavalry, six hundred in number,
were all Lacedæmonian; there were, moreover, three hundred Kretan
bowmen,—and four hundred slingers from different rural districts
of Triphylia.[575]
The allied force of the enemy was already mustered near
Corinth;
six thousand Athenian hoplites,—seven thousand Argeian,—five
thousand Bœotian, those from Orchomenus being absent,—three
thousand Corinthian,—three thousand from the different towns of
Eubœa; making twenty-four thousand in all. The total of cavalry
was fifteen hundred and fifty; composed of eight hundred Bœotian,
six hundred Athenian, one hundred from Chalkis in Eubœa, and fifty
from the Lokrians. The light troops also were numerous,—partly
Corinthian, drawn probably from the serf-population which tilled
the fields,[576]—partly Lokrians, Malians, and
Akarnanians.
The allied leaders, holding a council of war to arrange their
plans, came to a resolution that the hoplites should not be drawn
up in deeper files than sixteen men,[577] in order that there
might be no chance of their being surrounded; and that the right
wing, carrying with it command for the time, should be alternated
from day to day between the different cities. The confidence which
the events of the last few months had infused into these leaders,
now for the first time acting against their old leader Sparta, is
surprising. “There is nothing like marching to Sparta (said the
Corinthian Timolaus) and fighting the Lacedæmonians at or near
their own home. We must burn out the wasps in their nest, without
letting them come forth to sting us. The Lacedæmonian force is like
that of a river; small at its source, and becoming formidable only
by the affluents which it receives, in proportion to the length
of its course.”[578] The wisdom of this advice was remarkable;
but its boldness was yet more remarkable, when viewed in conjunction
with the established feeling of awe towards Sparta. It was adopted
by the general council of the allies; but unfortunately the time
for executing it had already passed; for the Lacedæmonians were
already in march and had crossed their own border. They took the
line of road by Tegea and Mantineia (whose troops joined the march), and
advanced as far as Sikyon, where probably all the Arcadian and Achæan
contingents were ordered to rendezvous.
The troops of the confederacy had advanced as far as Nemea when
they learnt that the Lacedæmonian army was at Sikyon; but they then
altered their plan, and confined themselves to the defensive. The
Lacedæmonians on their side crossed over the mountainous post called
Epieikia, under considerable annoyance from the enemy’s light troops,
who poured missiles upon them from the high ground. But when they
had reached the level country, on the other side, along the shore
of the Saronic Gulf, where they probably received the contingents
from Epidaurus, Trœzen, Hermionê, and Halieis,—the whole army thus
reinforced marched forward without resistance, burning and ravaging
the cultivated lands. The confederates retreated before them, and
at length took up a position close to Corinth, amidst some rough
ground with a ravine in their front.[579] The Lacedæmonians
advanced forward until they were little more than a mile distant from
this position, and there encamped.
After an interval
seemingly of a few days, the Bœotians, on the day when their turn
came to occupy the right wing and to take the lead, gave the
signal for battle.[580] The Lacedæmonians, prevented by the
wooded ground from seeing clearly, were only made aware of the
coming attack by hearing the hostile pæan. Taking order of battle
immediately, they advanced forward to meet the assailants when
within a furlong of their line. In each army, the right division
took the lead,—slanting to the right, or keeping the left shoulder
forward, according to the tendency habitual with Grecian hoplites,
through anxiety to keep the right or unshielded side from being exposed to
the enemy, and at the same time to be protected by the shield of a
right-hand neighbor.[581] The Lacedæmonians in the one army, and
the Thebans in the other, each inclined themselves, and caused
their respective armies to incline also, in a direction slanting
to the right, so that the Lacedæmonians on their side considerably
outflanked the Athenians on the opposite left. Out of the ten tribes
of Athenian hoplites, it was only the six on the extreme left who
came into conflict with the Lacedæmonians; while the remaining four
contended with the Tegeans who stood next to the Lacedæmonians on
their own line. But the six extreme Athenian tribes were completely
beaten, and severely handled, being taken in flank as well as in
front by the Lacedæmonians. On the other hand, the remaining four
Athenian tribes vanquished and drove before them the Tegeans; and
generally, along all the rest of the line, the Thebans, Argeians, and
Corinthians were victorious,—except where the troops of the Achæan
Pellênê stood opposed to those of the Bœotian Thespiæ, where the
battle was equal and the loss severe on both sides. The victorious
confederates, however, were so ardent and incautious in pursuit, as
to advance a considerable distance and return with disordered ranks;
while the Lacedæmonians, who were habitually self-restraining in
this particular, kept their order perfectly, attacking the Thebans,
Argeians, and Corinthians to great advantage when returning to
their camp. Several of the Athenian fugitives obtained shelter
within the walls of Corinth; in spite of the opposition of the
philo-Laconian Corinthians, who insisted upon shutting the gates
against them, and opening negotiations with Sparta. The Lacedæmonians
however came so near that it was at last thought impossible to keep
the gates open longer. Many of the remaining confederates were
therefore obliged to be satisfied with the protection of their
ancient camp;[582] which seems, however, to have been
situated in such defensible ground,[583] that the
Lacedæmonians did not molest them in it.
So far as the Lacedæmonians separately were concerned, the
battle of Corinth was an important victory, gained (as they
affirmed) with the loss of only eight men, and inflicting heavy
loss upon the Athenians in the battle, as well as upon the
remaining confederates in their return from pursuit. Though
the Athenian hoplites suffered thus severely, yet Thrasybulus
their commander,[584] who kept the field until the last,
with strenuous efforts to rally them, was not satisfied with
their behavior. But on the other hand, all the allies of
Sparta were worsted, and a considerable number of them slain.
According to Diodorus, the total loss on the Lacedæmonian side
was eleven hundred; on the side of the confederates twenty-eight
hundred.[585] On the whole, the victory of the
Lacedæmonians was not sufficiently decisive to lead to important
results, though it completely secured their ascendency within
Peloponnesus. We observe here, as we shall have occasion to observe
elsewhere, that the Peloponnesian allies do not fight heartily in
the cause of Sparta. They seem bound to her more by fear than by
affection.
The battle of Corinth took place about July 394
B.C., seemingly about the same time as the naval
battle near Knidus (or perhaps a little earlier), and while Agesilaus
was on his homeward march after being recalled from Asia. Had the
Lacedæmonians been able to defer the battle until Agesilaus had come
up so as to threaten Bœotia on the northern side, their campaign
would probably have been much more successful. As it is, their
defeated allies doubtless went home in disgust from the field of
Corinth, so that the confederates were now enabled to turn their
whole attention to Agesilaus.
That prince had received in Asia his summons of recall from the
ephors with profound vexation and disappointment, yet at the same
time with patriotic submission. He had augmented his army, and was
contemplating more extensive schemes of operations against the
Persian satrapies in Asia Minor. He had established such a reputation
for military force and skill, that numerous messages reached him
from different inland districts, expressing their anxiety to be
emancipated from Persian dominion; and inviting him to come to
their aid. His ascendency was also established over the Grecian
cities on the coast, whom he still kept under the government of
partisan oligarchies and Spartan harmosts,—yet seemingly with greater
practical moderation, and less license of oppression, than had marked
the conduct of these men when they could count upon so unprincipled
a chief as Lysander. He was thus just now not only at a high pitch
of actual glory and ascendency, but nourishing yet brighter hopes of
farther conquests for the future. And what filled up the measure of
his aspirations,—all the conquests were to be made at the expense,
not of Greeks, but of the Persians. He was treading in the footsteps
of Agamemnon, as Pan-hellenic leader against a Pan-hellenic enemy.
All these glorious dreams were dissipated by Epikydidas, with his
sad message, and peremptory summons, from the ephors. In the chagrin
and disappointment of Agesilaus we can sincerely sympathize; but the
panegyric which Xenophon and others pronounce upon him for his ready
obedience is altogether unreasonable.[586] There was no merit
in renouncing his projects of conquest at the bidding of the ephors;
because, if any serious misfortune had befallen Sparta at home,
none of those projects could have been executed. Nor is it out of
place to remark, that even if Agesilaus had not been recalled, the
extinction of the Lacedæmonian naval superiority by the defeat of
Knidus, would have rendered all large plans of inland conquest
impracticable. On receiving his orders of recall, he convened an
assembly both of his allies and of his army, to make known the
painful necessity of his departure; which was heard with open and
sincere manifestations of sorrow. He assured them that as soon as he had
dissipated the clouds which hung over Sparta at home, he should
come back to Asia without delay, and resume his efforts against the
Persian satraps; in the interim he left Euxenus, with a force of four
thousand men for their protection. Such was the sympathy excited
by his communication, combined with esteem for his character, that
the cities passed a general vote to furnish him with contingents
of troops for his march to Sparta. But this first burst of zeal
abated, when they came to reflect that it was a service against
Greeks; not merely unpopular in itself, but presenting a certainty
of hard fighting with little plunder. Agesilaus tried every means
to keep up their spirits, by proclaiming prizes both to the civic
soldiers and to the mercenaries, to be distributed at Sestus in the
Chersonesus, as soon as they should have crossed into Europe,—prizes
for the best equipment, and best disciplined soldiers in every
different arm.[587] By these means he prevailed upon the
bravest and most effective soldiers in his army to undertake the
march along with him; among them many of the Cyreians, with Xenophon
himself at their head.
Though Agesilaus, in leaving Greece, had prided himself on
hoisting the flag of Agamemnon, he was now destined against his
will to tread in the footsteps of the Persian Xerxes in his
march from the Thracian Chersonese through Thrace, Macedonia,
and Thessaly, to Thermopylæ and Bœotia. Never, since the time of
Xerxes, had any army undertaken this march; which now bore an
Oriental impress, from the fact that Agesilaus brought with him some
camels, taken in the battle of Sardis.[588] Overawing or
defeating the various Thracian tribes, he reached Amphipolis on
the Strymon where he was met by Derkyllidas, who had come fresh
from the battle of Corinth and informed him of the victory. Full
as his heart was of Pan-hellenic projects against Persia, he burst
into exclamations of regret on hearing of the death of so many
Greeks in battle, who could have sufficed, if united, to emancipate
Asia Minor.[589] Sending Derkyllidas forward to Asia to
make known the victory to the Grecian cities in his alliance, he
pursued his march through Macedonia and Thessaly. In the latter
country,
Larissa, Krannon, and other cities in alliance with Thebes, raised
opposition to bar his passage. But in the disunited condition of
this country, no systematic resistance could be organized against
him. Nothing more appeared than detached bodies of cavalry, whom he
beat and dispersed, with the death of Polycharmus, their leader. As
the Thessalian cavalry, however, was the best in Greece, he took
great pride in having defeated them with cavalry disciplined by
himself in Asia; backed, however, it must be observed, by skilful
and effective support from his hoplites.[590] After having passed
the Achæan mountains or the line of Mount Othrys, he marched the rest
of the way without opposition, through the strait of Thermopylæ to
the frontier of Phokis and Bœotia.
In this latter part of his march, Agesilaus was met by the
ephor Diphridas in person, who urged him to hasten his march
as much as possible, and attack the Bœotians. He was further
joined by two Lacedæmonian regiments[591] from Corinth, and
by fifty young Spartan volunteers as a body-guard, who crossed
by sea from Sikyon. He was reinforced also by the Phokians and
the Orchomenians,—in addition to the Peloponnesian troops who had
accompanied him to Asia, the Asiatic hoplites, the Cyreians, the
peltasts, and the cavalry, whom he had brought with him from the
Hellespont, and some fresh troops collected in the march. His
army was thus in imposing force when he reached the neighborhood
of Chæroneia on the Bœotian border. It was here that they were
alarmed by an eclipse of the sun, on the fourteenth of August, 394
B.C.; a fatal presage, the meaning of which was
soon interpreted for them by the arrival of a messenger bearing
news of the naval defeat of Knidus, with the death of Peisander,
brother-in-law of Agesilaus. Deeply was the latter affected by this
irreparable blow. He foresaw that, when known, it would spread dismay
and dejection among his soldiers, most of whom would remain attached
to him only so long as they believed the cause of Sparta to be ascendant
and profitable.[592] Accordingly, he resolved, being now within
a day’s march of his enemies, to hasten on a battle without making
known the bad news. Proclaiming that intelligence had been received
of a sea-fight having taken place, in which the Lacedæmonians
had been victorious, though Peisander himself was slain,—he
offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving and sent round presents of
congratulation,—which produced an encouraging effect, and made the
skirmishers especially both forward and victorious.
To his enemies, now assembled in force on the plain of Korôneia,
the real issue of the battle of Knidus was doubtless made known,
spreading hope and cheerfulness through their ranks; though we are
not informed what interpretation they put upon the solar eclipse. The
army was composed of nearly the same contingents as those who had
recently fought at Corinth, except that we hear of the Ænianes in
place of the Malians; but probably each contingent was less numerous,
since there was still a necessity for occupying and defending the
camp near Corinth. Among the Athenian hoplites, who had just been so
roughly handled in the preceding battle, and who were now drafted
off by lot to march into Bœotia, against both a general and an army
of high reputation,—there prevailed much apprehension and some
reluctance; as we learn from one of them, Mantitheus, who stood
forward to volunteer his services, and who afterwards makes just
boast of it before an Athenian dikastery.[593] The Thebans and
Bœotians were probably in full force, and more numerous than at
Corinth, since it was their own country which was to be defended.
The camp was established in the territory of Korôneia, not far from
the great
temple of Itonian Athênê, where the Pambœotia, or general Bœotian
assemblies were held, and where there also stood the trophy erected
for the great victory over Tolmides and the Athenians, about fifty
years before.[594] Between the two armies there was no great
difference of numbers, except as to the peltasts, who were more
numerous in the army of Agesilaus, though they do not seem to have
taken much part in the battle.
Having marched from Chæroneia, Agesilaus approached the plain
of Korôneia from the river Kephissus, while the Thebans met him
from the direction of Mount Helikon. He occupied the right wing
of his army, the Orchomenians being on the left, and the Cyreians
with the Asiatic allies in the centre. In the opposite line, the
Thebans were on the right, and the Argeians on the left. Both armies
approached slowly and in silence until they were separated only by
an interval of a furlong, at which moment the Thebans on the right
began the war-shout, and accelerated their march to a run,—the rest
of the line following their example. When they got within half a
furlong of the Lacedæmonians, the centre division of the latter,
under the command of Herippidas (comprising the Cyreians, with
Xenophon himself, and the Asiatic allies) started forward on their
side, and advanced at a run to meet them; seemingly, getting beyond
their own line,[595] and coming first to cross spears with the
enemy’s centre. After a sharp struggle, the division of Herippidas
was here victorious, and drove back its opponents. Agesilaus, on his
right, was yet more victorious, for the Argeians opposed to him,
fled without even crossing spears. These fugitives found safety
on the high ground of Mount Helikon. But on the other hand, the
Thebans on their own right completely beat back the Orchomenians,
and pursued them so far as to get to the baggage in the rear of the
army. Agesilaus, while his friends around were congratulating him
as conqueror, immediately wheeled round to complete his victory by
attacking the Thebans; who, on their side also faced about, and
prepared to fight their way, in close and deep order, to rejoin their
comrades on Helikon. Though Agesilaus might have let them pass, and
assailed them in the rear with greater safety and equal effect, he
preferred
the more honorable victory of a conflict face to face. Such is the
coloring which his panegyrist, Xenophon,[596] puts upon his
manœuvre. Yet we may remark that if he had let the Thebans pass,
he could not have pursued them far, seeing that their own comrades
were at hand to sustain them,—and also that having never yet fought
against the Thebans, he had probably no adequate appreciation of
their prowess.
The crash which now took place was something terrific beyond
all Grecian military experience,[597] leaving an
indelible impression upon Xenophon, who was personally engaged in
it. The hoplites on both sides came to the fiercest and closest
bodily struggle, pushing shields against each other, with all the
weight of the incumbent mass behind impelling forward the foremost
ranks,—especially in the deep order of the Thebans. The shields of
the foremost combatants were thus stove in, their spears broken,
and each man was engaged in such close embrace with his enemy, that
the dagger was the only weapon which he could use. There was no
systematic shout, such as usually marked the charge of a Grecian
army; the silence was only broken by a medley of furious exclamations
and murmurs.[598] Agesilaus himself, who was among the
front ranks, and whose size and strength were by no means on a level
with his personal courage, had his body covered with wounds from
different weapons,[599]—was trodden down,—and only escaped
by the devoted courage of those fifty Spartan volunteers who
formed his body-guard. Partly from his wounds, partly from the
irresistible courage and stronger pressure of the Thebans, the
Spartans were at length compelled to give way, so far as to afford
a free passage to the former, who were thus enabled to march onward and
rejoin their comrades; not without sustaining some loss by attacks
on their rear.[600]
Agesilaus thus remained master of the field of battle, having
gained a victory over his opponents taken collectively. But so
far as concerns the Thebans separately, he had not only gained no
victory, but had failed in his purpose of stopping their progress,
and had had the worst of the combat. His wounds having been dressed,
he was brought back on men’s shoulders to give his final orders,
and was then informed that a detachment of eighty Theban hoplites,
left behind by the rest, had taken refuge in the temple of Itonian
Athênê as suppliants. From generosity mingled with respect to the
sanctity of the spot, he commanded that they should be dismissed
unhurt, and then proceeded to give directions for the night-watch,
as it was already late. The field of battle presented a terrible
spectacle; Spartan and Theban dead lying intermingled, some yet
grasping their naked daggers, others pierced with the daggers of
their enemies; around, on the blood-stained ground, were seen
broken spears, smashed shields, swords and daggers scattered apart
from their owners.[601] He directed the Spartan and Theban dead to
be collected in separate heaps, and placed in safe custody for the
night, in the interior of his phalanx; the troops then took their
supper, and rested for the night. On the next morning, Gylis the
Polemarch was ordered to draw up the army in battle-array, to erect
a trophy, and to offer sacrifices of cheerfulness and thanksgiving,
with the pipers solemnly playing, according to Spartan fashion.
Agesilaus was anxious to make these demonstrations of victory as
ostentatious as possible, because he really doubted whether he
had gained a victory. It was very possible that the Thebans might
feel confidence enough to renew the attack, and try to recover
the field of battle, with their own dead upon it; which Agesilaus
had, for that reason, caused to be collected in a separate heap and
placed within the Lacedæmonian line.[602] He was, however, soon
relieved from doubt by a herald coming from the Thebans to solicit
the customary truce for the burial of their dead; the understood
confession of defeat. The request was immediately granted; each
party paid the last solemnities to its own dead, and the Spartan
force was then withdrawn from Bœotia. Xenophon does not state the
loss on either side, but Diodorus gives it at six hundred on the
side of the confederates, three hundred and fifty on that of the
Lacedæmonians.[603]
Disqualified as he was by his wounds for immediate action,
Agesilaus caused himself to be carried to Delphi, where the Pythian
games were at that moment going on. He here offered to Apollo the
tithe of the booty acquired during his two years’ campaigns in Asia;
a tithe equal to one hundred talents.[604] Meanwhile the
polemarch Gylis conducted the army first into Phokis, next on
a predatory excursion into the Lokrian territory, where the
nimble attack of the Lokrian light troops, amidst hilly ground,
inflicted upon his troops a severe check, and cost him his life.
After this the contingents in the army were dismissed to their
respective homes, and Agesilaus himself, when tolerably recovered,
sailed with the Peloponnesians homeward from Delphi across the
Corinthian Gulf.[605] He was received at Sparta with every
demonstration of esteem and gratitude, which was still farther
strengthened by his exemplary simplicity and exact observance of
the public discipline; an exactness not diminished either by long
absence or
enjoyment of uncontrolled ascendency. From this time forward he
was the effective leader of Spartan policy, enjoying an influence
greater than had ever fallen to the lot of any king before. His
colleague, Agesipolis, both young and of feeble character, was won
over by his judicious and conciliatory behavior, into the most
respectful deference.[606]
Three great battles had thus been fought in the space of little
more than a month (July and August)—those of Corinth, Knidus,
and Korôneia; the first and third on land, the second at sea, as
described in my last chapter. In each of the two land-battles the
Lacedæmonians had gained a victory; they remained masters of the
field, and were solicited by the enemy to grant the burial-truce.
But if we inquire what results these victories had produced,
the answer must be that both were totally barren. The position
of Sparta in Greece as against her enemies had undergone no
improvement. In the battle of Corinth, her soldiers had indeed
manifested signal superiority, and acquired much honor. But at the
field of Korôneia, the honor of the day was rather on the side
of the Thebans, who broke through the most strenuous opposition,
and carried their point of joining their allies. And the purpose
of Agesilaus (ordered by the ephor Diphridas) to invade Bœotia,
completely failed.[607] Instead of advancing, he withdrew from
Korôneia, and returned to Peloponnesus across the gulf from Delphi;
which he might have done just as well without fighting this murderous
and hardly contested battle. Even the narrative of Xenophon, deeply
colored as it is both by his sympathies and his antipathies,
indicates to us that the predominant impression carried off by every
one from the field of Korôneia was that of the tremendous force and
obstinacy of the Theban hoplites,—a foretaste of what was to come at
Leuktra!
If the two land-victories of Sparta were barren of results,
the case was far otherwise with her naval defeat at Knidus.
That defeat was pregnant with consequences following in rapid
succession, and of the most disastrous character. As with Athens at
Ægospotami,—the loss of her fleet, serious as that was, served only as the
signal for countless following losses. Pharnabazus and Konon,
with their victorious fleet, sailed from island to island, and
from one continental seaport to another, in the Ægean, to expel
the Lacedæmonian harmosts, and terminate the empire of Sparta. So
universal was the odium which it had inspired, that the task was
found easy beyond expectation. Conscious of their unpopularity,
the harmosts in almost all the towns, on both sides of the
Hellespont, deserted their posts and fled, on the mere news of the
battle of Knidus.[608] Everywhere Pharnabazus and Konon found
themselves received as liberators, and welcomed with presents of
hospitality. They pledged themselves not to introduce any foreign
force or governor, nor to fortify any separate citadel, but to
guarantee to each city its own genuine autonomy. This policy was
adopted by Pharnabazus at the urgent representation of Konon,
who warned him that if he manifested any design of reducing the
cities to subjection, he would find them all his enemies; that
each of them severally would cost him a long siege; and that a
combination would ultimately be formed against him. Such liberal
and judicious ideas, when seen to be sincerely acted upon, produced
a strong feeling of friendship and even of gratitude, so that the
Lacedæmonian maritime empire was dissolved without a blow, by the
almost spontaneous movements of the cities themselves. Though the
victorious fleet presented itself in many different places, it was
nowhere called upon to put down resistance, or to undertake a single
siege. Kos, Nisyra, Teos, Chios, Erythræ, Ephesus, Mitylênê, Samos,
all declared themselves independent, under the protection of the
new conquerors.[609] Pharnabazus presently disembarked at
Ephesus and marched by land northward to his own satrapy; leaving a
fleet of forty triremes under the command of Konon.
To this general burst of anti-Spartan feeling, Abydos, on the
Asiatic side of the Hellespont, formed the solitary exception. That
town, steady in hostility to Athens,[610] had been the great
military
station of Sparta for her northern Asiatic warfare, during the last
twenty years. It was in the satrapy of Pharnabazus, and had been
made the chief place of arms by Derkyllidas and Agesilaus, for their
warfare against that satrap as well as for the command of the strait.
Accordingly, while it was a main object with Pharnabazus to acquire
possession of Abydos,—there was nothing which the Abydenes dreaded so
much as to become subject to him. In this view they were decidedly
disposed to cling to Lacedæmonian protection; and it happened by
a fortunate accident for Sparta, that the able and experienced
Derkyllidas was harmost in the town at the moment of the battle of
Knidus. Having fought in the battle of Corinth, he had been sent
to announce the news to Agesilaus, whom he had met on his march at
Amphipolis, and who had sent him forward into Asia to communicate
the victory to the allied cities;[611] neither of them at
that moment anticipating the great maritime defeat then impending.
The presence in Abydos of such an officer, who had already acquired
a high military reputation in that region, and was at marked enmity
with Pharnabazus,—combined with the standing apprehensions of the
Abydenes,—was now the means of saving a remnant at least of maritime
ascendency to Sparta. During the general alarm which succeeded the
battle of Knidus, when the harmosts were everywhere taking flight,
and when anti-Spartan manifestations often combined with internal
revolutions to overthrow the dekarchs or their substitutes, were
spreading from city to city,—Derkyllidas assembled the Abydenes,
heartened them up against the reigning contagion, and exhorted them
to earn the gratitude of Sparta by remaining faithful to her while
others were falling off; assuring them that she would still be found
capable of giving them protection. His exhortations were listened
to with favor. Abydos remained attached to Sparta, was put in a
good state of defence, and became the only harbor of safety for the
fugitive harmosts out of the other cities, Asiatic and European.
Having secured his hold upon Abydos, Derkyllidas crossed the
strait to make sure also of the strong place of Sestos, on the
European
side, in the Thracian Chersonese.[612] In that fertile
peninsula there had been many new settlers, who had come in and
acquired land under the Lacedæmonian supremacy, especially since
the building of the cross-wall by Derkyllidas to defend the isthmus
against Thracian invasion. By means of these settlers, dependent on
Sparta for the security of their tenures,—and of the refugees from
various cities all concentrated under his protection,—Derkyllidas
maintained his position effectively both at Abydos and at Sestos;
defying the requisition of Pharnabazus that he should forthwith
evacuate them. The satrap threatened war, and actually ravaged the
lands around Abydos,—but without any result. His wrath against
the Lacedæmonians, already considerable, was so aggravated by
disappointment when he found that he could not yet expel them from
his satrapy, that he resolved to act against them with increased
energy, and even to strike a blow at them near their own home. For
this purpose he transmitted orders to Konon to prepare a commanding
naval force for the ensuing spring, and in the mean time to keep
both Abydos and Sestos under blockade.[613]
As soon as spring arrived, Pharnabazus embarked on board a
powerful fleet equipped by Konon; directing his course to Melos,
to various islands among the Cyclades, and lastly to the coast of
Peloponnesus. They here spent some time on the coast of Laconia and
Messenia, disembarking at several points to ravage the country.
They next landed on the island of Kythêra, which they captured,
granting safe retirement to the Lacedæmonian garrison, and leaving
in the island a garrison under the Athenian Nikophêmus. Quitting
then the harborless, dangerous, and ill-provided coast of Laconia,
they sailed up the Saronic gulf to the isthmus of Corinth. Here
they found the confederates,—Corinthian, Bœotian, Athenian, etc.,
carrying on war with Corinth as their central post, against the
Lacedæmonians at Sikyon. The line across the isthmus from Lechæum to Kenchreæ
(the two ports of Corinth) was now made good by a defensive system of
operations, so as to confine the Lacedæmonians within Peloponnesus;
just as Athens, prior to her great losses in 446 B.C.,
while possessing both Megara and Pegæ, had been able to maintain
the inland road midway between them, where it crosses the high and
difficult crest of Mount Geraneia, thus occupying the only three
roads by which a Lacedæmonian army could march from the isthmus
of Corinth into Attica or Bœotia.[614] Pharnabazus
communicated in the most friendly manner with the allies, assured
them of his strenuous support against Sparta, and left with
them a considerable sum of money.[615]
The appearance of a Persian satrap with a Persian fleet, as master
of the Peloponnesian sea and the Saronic Gulf, was a phenomenon
astounding to Grecian eyes. And if it was not equally offensive to
Grecian sentiment, this was in itself a melancholy proof of the
degree to which Pan-hellenic patriotism had been stifled by the
Peloponnesian war and the Spartan empire. No Persian tiara had been
seen near the Saronic Gulf since the battle of Salamis; nor could
anything short of the intense personal wrath of Pharnabazus against
the Lacedæmonians, and his desire to revenge upon them the damage
inflicted by Derkyllidas and Agesilaus, have brought him now so far
away from his own satrapy. It was this wrathful feeling of which
Konon took advantage to procure from him a still more important
boon.
Since 404 B.C., a space of eleven years, Athens
had continued without any walls around her seaport town Peiræus,
and without any Long Walls to connect her city with Peiræus. To
this state she had been condemned by the sentence of her enemies,
in the full knowledge that she could have little trade,—few ships
either armed or mercantile,—poor defence even against pirates,
and no defence at all against aggression from the mistress of the
sea. Konon now entreated Pharnabazus, who was about to go home, to
leave the fleet under his command, and to permit him to use it in
rebuilding the fortifications of Peiræus as well as the Long Walls
of Athens. While he engaged to maintain the fleet by contributions
from the islands, he assured the satrap that no blow could be inflicted
upon Sparta so destructive or so mortifying, as the renovation of
Athens and Peiræus with their complete and connected fortifications.
Sparta would thus be deprived of the most important harvest which
she had reaped from the long struggle of the Peloponnesian war.
Indignant as he now was against the Lacedæmonians, Pharnabazus
sympathized cordially with these plans, and on departing not only
left the fleet under the command of Konon, but also furnished
him with a considerable sum of money towards the expense of the
fortifications.[616]
Konon betook himself to the work energetically and without delay.
He had quitted Athens in 407 B.C., as one of the
joint admirals nominated after the disgrace of Alkibiades. He had
parted with his countrymen finally at the catastrophe of Ægospotami
in 405 B.C., preserving the miserable fraction of
eight or nine ships out of that noble fleet which otherwise would
have passed entire into the hands of Lysander. He now returned, in
393 B.C., as a second Themistokles, the deliverer of
his country, and the restorer of her lost strength and independence.
All hands were set to work; carpenters and masons being hired with
the funds furnished by Pharnabazus, to complete the fortifications
as quickly as possible. The Bœotians and other neighbors lent
their aid zealously as volunteers,[617]—the same who eleven
years before had danced to the sound of joyful music when the former
walls were demolished; so completely had the feelings of Greece
altered since that period. By such hearty coöperation the work was
finished during the course of the present summer and autumn without
any opposition; and Athens enjoyed again her fortified Peiræus and
harbor, with a pair of Long Walls, straight and parallel, joining
it securely to the city. The third, or Phalêric Wall (a single wall
stretching from Athens to Phalêrum), which had existed down to
the capture of the city by Lysander, was not restored; nor was it
indeed by any means necessary to the security either of the city
or of the port. Having thus given renewed life and security to Peiræus,
Konon commemorated his great naval victory by a golden wreath in the
acropolis, as well as by the erection of a temple in Peiræus to the
honor of the Knidian Aphroditê, who was worshipped at Knidus with
peculiar devotion by the local population.[618] He farther celebrated
the completion of the walls by a splendid sacrifice and festival
banquet. And the Athenian people not only inscribed on a pillar
a public vote gratefully recording the exploits of Konon, but
also erected a statue to his honor.[619]
The importance of this event in reference to the future history
of Athens was unspeakable. Though it did not restore to her either
her former navy, or her former empire, it reconstituted her as a
city, not only self-determining, but even partially ascendant. It
reanimated her, if not into the Athens of Perikles, at least into
that of Isokrates and Demosthenes; it imparted to her a second
fill of strength, dignity, and commercial importance, during the
half century destined to elapse before she was finally overwhelmed
by the superior military force of Macedon. Those who recollect
the extraordinary stratagem whereby Themistokles had contrived
(eighty-five years before) to accomplish the fortification of
Athens, in spite of the base but formidable jealousy of Sparta and
her Peloponnesian allies, will be aware how much the consummation
of the Themistoklean project had depended upon accident. Now, also,
Konon in his restoration was favored by unusual combinations, such
as no one could have predicted. That Pharnabazus should conceive
the idea of coming over himself to Peloponnesus with a fleet of the
largest force, was a most unexpected contingency. He was influenced
neither by attachment to Athens, nor seemingly by considerations
of policy, though the proceeding was one really conducive to the
interests of Persian power,—but simply by his own violent personal
wrath against the Lacedæmonians. And this wrath probably would
have been satisfied, if, after the battle of Knidus, he could have
cleared his own satrapy of them completely. It was his vehement
impatience, when he found himself unable to expel his old enemy,
Derkyllidas, from the important position of Abydos, which chiefly spurred him
on to take revenge on Sparta in her own waters. Nothing less than
the satrap’s personal presence would have placed at the disposal
of Konon either a sufficient naval force, or sufficient funds for
the erection of the new walls, and the defiance of all impediment
from Sparta. So strangely did events thus run, that the energy, by
which Derkyllidas preserved Abydos, brought upon Sparta, indirectly,
the greater mischief of the new Kononian walls. It would have been
better for Sparta that Pharnabazus should at once have recovered
Abydos as well as the rest of his satrapy; in which case he would
have had no wrongs remaining unavenged to incense him, and would
have kept on his own side of the Ægean; feeding Konon with a modest
squadron sufficient to keep the Lacedæmonian navy from again becoming
formidable on the Asiatic side, but leaving the walls of Peiræus (if
we may borrow an expression of Plato) “to continue asleep in the
bosom of the earth.”[620]
But the presence of Konon with his powerful fleet was not the
only condition indispensable to the accomplishment of this work.
It was requisite further, that the interposition of Sparta should
be kept off, not merely by sea, but by land, and that, too, during
all the number of months that the walls were in progress. Now the
barrier against her on land was constituted by the fact, that the
confederate force held the cross line within the isthmus from Lechæum
to Kenchreæ, with Corinth as a centre.[621] But they were unable
to sustain this line even through the ensuing year,—during which
Sparta, aided by dissensions at Corinth, broke through it, as will
appear in the next chapter. Had she been able to break through it
while the fortifications of Athens were yet incomplete, she would
have deemed no effort too great to effect an entrance into Attica and
interrupt the work, in which she might very probably have succeeded.
Here, then, was the second condition, which was realized during the
summer and autumn of 393 B.C., but which did not
continue to be realized longer. So fortunate was it for Athens,
that the two conditions were fulfilled both together during this
particular year!
CHAPTER LXXV. FROM THE REBUILDING OF THE LONG WALLS OF ATHENS TO THE PEACE OF ANTALKIDAS. — FOOTNOTES
The presence of
Pharnabazus and Konon with their commanding force in the Saronic
Gulf, and the liberality with which the former furnished pecuniary
aid to the latter for rebuilding the full fortifications of
Athens, as well as to the Corinthians for the prosecution of the
war,—seem to have given preponderance to the confederates over
Sparta for that year. The plans of Konon[622] were extensive.
He was the first to organize for the defence of Corinth, a
mercenary force which was afterwards improved and conducted with
greater efficiency by Iphikrates; and after he had finished the
fortifications of Peiræus with the Long Walls, he employed himself
in showing his force among the islands, for the purpose of laying
the foundations of renewed maritime power for Athens. We even hear
that he caused an Athenian envoy to be despatched to Dionysius
at Syracuse, with the view of detaching that despot from Sparta,
and bringing him into connection with Athens. Evagoras, despot
of Salamis in Cyprus, the steady friend of Konon, was a party
to this proposition, which he sought to strengthen by offering
to Dionysius his sister in marriage.[623] There was a basis
of sympathy between them arising from the fact that Evagoras was
at variance with the Phœnicians both in Phœnicia and Cyprus, while
Dionysius was in active hostilities with the Carthaginians (their
kinsmen and Colonists) in Sicily. Nevertheless, the proposition
met with little or no success. We find Dionysius afterwards still
continuing to act as an ally of Sparta.
Profiting by the aid received from Pharnabazus, the Corinthians
strengthened their fleet at Lechæum (their harbor in the Corinthian
Gulf) so considerably, as to become masters of the Gulf, and to occupy Rhium,
one of the two opposite capes which bound its narrow entrance. To
oppose them, the Lacedæmonians on their side were driven to greater
maritime effort. More than one naval action seems to have taken
place, in those waters where the prowess and skill of the Athenian
admiral Phormion had been so signally displayed at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian war. At length the Lacedæmonian admiral Herippidas,
who succeeded to the command of the fleet after his predecessor
Polemarchus had been slain in battle, compelled the Corinthians
to abandon Rhium, and gradually recovered his ascendency in the
Corinthian Gulf; which his successor Teleutias, brother
of Agesilaus, still farther completed.[624]
While these transactions were going on (seemingly during the
last half of 393 B.C. and the full year of 392
B.C.), so as to put an end to the temporary naval
preponderance of the Corinthians,—the latter were at the same time
bearing the brunt of a desultory, but continued, land-warfare against
the garrison of Lacedæmonians and Peloponnesians established at
Sikyon. Both Corinth and Lechæum were partly defended by the presence
of confederate troops, Bœotians, Argeians, Athenians, or mercenaries
paid by Athens. But this did not protect the Corinthians against
suffering great damage, in their lands and outlying properties, from
the incursions of the enemy.
The plain between Corinth and Sikyon,—fertile and extensive
(speaking by comparison with Peloponnesus generally), and
constituting a large part of the landed property of both cities,
was rendered uncultivable during 393 and 392 B.C.;
so that the Corinthian proprietors were obliged to withdraw
their servants and cattle to Peiræum[625] (a portion of
the Corinthian territory without the Isthmus properly so called,
north-east of the Akrokorinthus, in a line between that eminence
and the Megarian harbor of Pegæ). Here the Sikyonian assailants
could not reach them, because of the Long Walls of Corinth, which
connected that city by a continuous fortification of twelve
stadia (somewhat less than a mile and a half) with its harbor
of Lechæum. Nevertheless, the loss to the proprietors of the
deserted plain was still so great, that two successive seasons
of it were quite enough to inspire them with a strong aversion to
the war;[626] the more so, as the damage fell
exclusively upon them—their allies in Bœotia, Athens, and Argos, having
as yet suffered nothing. Constant military service for defence, with
the conversion of the city into a sort of besieged post, aggravated
their discomfort. There was another circumstance also, doubtless
not without influence. The consequences of the battle of Knidus had
been, first, to put down the maritime empire of Sparta, and thus to
diminish the fear which she inspired to the Corinthians; next, to
rebuild the fortifications, and renovate the shipping, commercial as
well as warlike, of Athens;—a revival well calculated to bring back
a portion of that anti-Athenian jealousy and apprehension which the
Corinthians had felt so strongly a few years before. Perhaps some
of the trade at Corinth may have been actually driven away by the
disturbance of the war, to the renewed fortifications and greater
security of Peiræus.
Fostered by this pressure of circumstances, the discontented
philo-Laconian or peace-party which had always existed at Corinth,
presently acquired sufficient strength, and manifested itself with
sufficient publicity to give much alarm to the government. The
Corinthian government had always been, and still was, oligarchical.
In what manner the administrators or the council were renovated, or
how long individuals continued in office, indeed, we do not know. But
of democracy, with its legal, popular assemblies, open discussions
and authoritative resolves, there was nothing.[627] Now the oligarchical
persons actually in power were vehemently anti-Laconian, consisting
of men who had partaken of the Persian funds and contracted alliance
with Persia, besides compromising themselves irrevocably (like
Timolaus) by the most bitter manifestations of hostile sentiment
towards Sparta. These men found themselves menaced by a powerful
opposition party, which had no constitutional means for making its
sentiments predominant, and for accomplishing peaceably either
a change of administrators or a change of public policy. It was
only by an appeal to arms and violence that such a consummation
could be brought about; a fact notorious to both parties,—so that
the oligarchical administrators, informed of the meetings and
conversations going on, knew well that they had to expect nothing
less than the breaking out of a conspiracy. That such anticipations
were well-founded, we gather even from the partial recital of
Xenophon; who states that Pasimêlus, the philo-Laconian leader,
was on his guard and in preparation,[628]—and counts it to
him as a virtue that shortly afterwards he opened the gates to the
Lacedæmonians.
Anticipating such conspiracy, the government resolved to prevent
it by a coup d’état. They threw themselves upon the assistance
of their allies, invited in a body of Argeians, and made their
blow the more sure by striking it on the last day of the festival
called Eukleia, when it was least expected. Their proceeding,
though dictated by precaution, was executed with the extreme of
brutal ferocity aggravated by sacrilege; in a manner very different
from the deep-laid artifices recently practised by the Spartan
ephors when they were in like manner afraid of the conspiracy of
Kinadon,—and more like the oligarchical conspirators at Korkyra
(in the third year of the Peloponnesian war) when they broke into
the assembled Senate, and massacred Peithias, with sixty others in
the senate-house.[629] While the choice performers at Corinth
were contending for the prize in the theatre, with judges formally
named to decide,—and while the market-place around was crowded
with festive spectators,—a number of armed men were introduced,
probably Argeians, with leaders designating the victims whom they
were to strike. Some of these select victims were massacred in the
market-place, others in the theatre, and one even while sitting as
a judge in the theatre. Others again fled in terror to embrace the
altars or statues in the market-place,—which sanctuary, nevertheless,
did not save their lives. Nor was such sacrilege arrested,—repugnant
as it was to the feelings of the assembled spectators and to
Grecian feelings generally,—until one hundred and twenty persons
had perished.[630] But the persons slain were chiefly
elderly men; for the younger portion of the philo-Laconian party,
suspecting some mischief, had declined attending the festival, and
kept themselves separately assembled under their leader Pasimêlus
in the gymnasium and cyprus-grove called Kranium, just without
the city-gates. We find, too, that they were not only assembled,
but actually in arms. For the moment that they heard the clamor
in the market-place, and learned from some fugitives what was
going on, they rushed up at once to the Akrokorinthus (or eminence
and acropolis overhanging the city) and got possession of the
citadel,—which they maintained with such force and courage that the
Argeians and the Corinthians, who took part with the government,
were repulsed in the attempt to dislodge them. This circumstance,
indirectly revealed in the one-sided narrative of Xenophon, lets
us into the real state of the city, and affords good ground for
believing that Pasimêlus and his friends were prepared beforehand
for an armed outbreak, but waited to execute it, until the festival
was over,—a scruple which the government, in their eagerness to
forestall the plot, disregarded,—employing the hands and weapons
of Argeians who were comparatively unimpressed by solemnities
peculiar to Corinth.[631]
Though Pasimêlus and his friends were masters of the citadel,
and had repulsed the assault of their enemies, yet the coup
d’état
had been completely successful in overawing their party in the
city, and depriving them of all means of communicating with the
Lacedæmonians at Sikyon. Feeling unable to maintain themselves, they
were besides frightened by menacing omens, when they came to offer
sacrifice, in order that they might learn whether the gods encouraged
them to fight or not. The victims were found so alarming, as to drive
them to evacuate the post and prepare for voluntary exile. Many of
them (according to Diodorus five hundred)[632] actually went
into exile; while others, and among them Pasimêlus himself, were
restrained by the entreaties of their friends and relatives, combined
with solemn assurances of peace and security from the government;
who now, probably, felt themselves victorious, and were anxious to
mitigate the antipathies which their recent violence had inspired.
These pacific assurances were faithfully kept, and no farther
mischief was done to any citizen.
But the political condition of Corinth was materially altered, by
an extreme intimacy of alliance and communion now formed with Argos;
perhaps combined with reciprocal rights of intermarriage, and of
purchase and sale. The boundary pillars or hedges which separated the
two territories, were pulled up, and the city was entitled Argos
instead of Corinth (says Xenophon); such was probably the invidious
phrase in which the opposition party described the very close
political union now formed between the two cities; upheld by a strong
Argeian force in the city and acropolis, together with some Athenian
mercenaries under Iphikrates, and some Bœotians as a garrison in
the port of Lechæum. Most probably the government remained still
Corinthian, and still oligarchical, as before. But it now rested upon
Argeian aid, and was therefore dependent chiefly upon Argos, though
partly also upon the other two allies.
To Pasimêlus and his friends such a state of things
was intolerable. Though personally they had no ill-usage
to complain of, yet the complete predominance of their political
enemies was quite sufficient to excite their most vehement
antipathies. They entered into secret correspondence with Praxitas,
the Lacedæmonian commander at Sikyon, engaging to betray to him
one of the gates in the western Long Wall between Corinth and
Lechæum. The scheme being concerted, Pasimêlus and his partisans got
themselves placed,[633] partly by contrivance and partly by
accident, on the night-watch at this gate; an imprudence, which shows
that the government not only did not maltreat them, but even admitted
them to trust. At the moment fixed, Praxitas,—presenting himself
with a Lacedæmonian mora or regiment, a Sikyonian force, and the
Corinthian exiles,—found the treacherous sentinels prepared to open
the gates. Having first sent in a trusty soldier to satisfy him that
there was no deceit,[634] he then conducted all his force within the
gates, into the mid-space between the two Long Walls. So broad was
this space, and so inadequate did his numbers appear to maintain it,
that he took the precaution of digging a cross-ditch with a palisade
to defend himself on the side towards the city; which he was enabled
to do undisturbed, since the enemy (we are not told why) did not
attack him all the next day. On the ensuing day, however, Argeians,
Corinthians, and Athenian mercenaries under Iphikrates, all came
down from the city in full force; the latter stood on the right of
the line, along the eastern wall, opposed to the Corinthian exiles
on the Lacedæmonian left; while the Lacedæmonians themselves were on
their own right, opposed to the Corinthians from the city; and the
Argeians, opposed to the Sikyonians, in the centre.
It was here that the battle began; the Argeians, bold
from superior numbers, attacked and broke the Sikyonians,
tearing up the palisade, and pursuing them down to the sea
with much slaughter;[635] upon which Pasimachus the Lacedæmonian
commander of cavalry, coming to their aid, caused his small body
of horsemen to dismount and tie their horses to trees, and then
armed them with shields taken from the Sikyonians, inscribed on the
outside with the letter Sigma (Σ). With these he approached on foot
to attack the Argeians, who, mistaking them for Sikyonians, rushed
to the charge with alacrity; upon which Pasimachus exclaimed,—“By
the two gods, Argeians, these Sigmas which you see here will
deceive you;” he then closed with them resolutely, but his number
was so inferior that he was soon overpowered and slain. Meanwhile,
the Corinthian exiles on the left had driven back Iphikrates with
his mercenaries (doubtless chiefly light troops) and pursued them
even to the city gates; while the Lacedæmonians, easily repelling
the Corinthians opposed to them, came out of their palisade, and
planted themselves with their faces towards the eastern wall, but
at a little distance from it, to intercept the Argeians on their
return. The latter were forced to run back as they could, huddling
close along the eastern wall, with their right or unshielded side
exposed, as they passed, to the spears of the Lacedæmonians. Before
they could get to the walls of Corinth, they were met and roughly
handled by the victorious Corinthian exiles. And even when they came
to the walls, those within, unwilling to throw open the gates for
fear of admitting the enemy, contented themselves with handing down
ladders, over which the defeated Argeians clambered with distress
and difficulty. Altogether, their loss in this disastrous retreat
was frightful. Their dead (says Xenophon) lay piled up like heaps
of stones or wood.[636]
This victory of Praxitas and the Lacedæmonians, though it did
not yet make them masters of Lechæum,[637] was, nevertheless,
of
considerable importance. Shortly afterwards they received
reinforcements which enabled them to turn it to still better account.
The first measure of Praxitas was to pull down a considerable breadth
of the two walls, leaving a breach which opened a free passage for
any Lacedæmonian army from Sikyon to reach and pass the isthmus. He
then marched his troops through the breach, forward on the road to
Megara, capturing the two Corinthian dependencies of Krommyon and
Sidus on the Saronic gulf, in which he placed garrisons. Returning
back by the road south of Corinth, he occupied Epieikia on the
frontier of Epidaurus, as a protection to the territory of the latter
against incursions from Corinth,—and then disbanded his army.
A desultory warfare was carried on during the ensuing winter
and spring between the opposite garrisons in Corinth and Sikyon.
It was now that the Athenian Iphikrates, in the former place,
began to distinguish himself at the head of his mercenary peltasts
whom, after their first organization by Konon, he had trained
to effective tactics under the strictest discipline, and whose
movements he conducted with consummate skill. His genius introduced
improvements both in their armor and in their clothing. He lengthened
by one half both the light javelin and the short sword, which
the Thracian peltasts habitually carried; he devised a species
of leggings, known afterwards by the name of Iphikratides; and
he thus combined, better than had ever been done before, rapid
motion,—power of acting in difficult ground and open order,—effective
attack, either by missiles or hand to hand, and dexterous retreat
in case of need.[638] As yet, he was but a young officer,
in
the beginning of his military career.[639] We must therefore
presume that these improvements were chiefly of later date,
the suggestions of his personal experience; but even now, the
successes of his light troops were remarkable. Attacking Phlius,
he entrapped the Phliasians into an ambuscade, and inflicted on
them a defeat so destructive that they were obliged to invoke the
aid of a Lacedæmonian garrison for the protection of their city.
He gained a victory near Sikyon, and carried his incursions over
all Arcadia, to the very gates of the cities; damaging the Arcadian
hoplites so severely, that they became afraid to meet him in the
field. His own peltasts, however, though full of confidence against
these Peloponnesian hoplites, still retained their awe and their
reluctance to fight against Lacedæmonians;[640] who, on their side,
despised them, but despised their own allies still more. “Our
friends fear these peltasts, as children fear hobgoblins,”—said
the Lacedæmonians, sarcastically, endeavoring to set the example
of courage by ostentatious demonstrations of their own around the
walls of Corinth.[641]
The breach made in the Long Walls of Corinth by Praxitas had
laid open the road for a Peloponnesian army to march either into
Attica or Bœotia.[642] Fortunately for the Athenians, they
had
already completed the rebuilding of their own Long Walls;
but they were so much alarmed by the new danger, that they
marched with their full force, and with masons and carpenters
accompanying,[643] to Corinth. Here, with that celerity of
work for which they were distinguished,[644] they in a few days
reëstablished completely the western wall; the more important of
the two, since it formed the barrier against the incursions of the
Lacedæmonians from Sikyon. They had then a secure position, and could
finish the eastern wall at their leisure; which they accordingly did,
and then retired, leaving it to the confederate troops in Corinth to
defend.
This advantage, however,—a very material one,—was again overthrown
by the expedition of the Lacedæmonian king, Agesilaus, during the
same summer. At the head of a full Lacedæmonian and Peloponnesian
force, he first marched into the territory of Argos, and there
spent some time in ravaging all the cultivated plain. From hence he
passed over the mountain-road, by Tenea,[645] into
the plain of Corinth, to the foot of the newly-repaired Long
Walls. Here his brother Teleutias, who had recently superseded
Herippidas as admiral in the Corinthian Gulf, came to coöperate
with him in a joint attack, by sea and land, on the new walls
and on Lechæum.[646] The presence of this naval force
rendered the Long Walls difficult to maintain, since troops could
be disembarked in the interval between them, where the Sikyonians
in the previous battle had been beaten and pursued down to the sea.
Agesilaus and Teleutias were strong enough to defeat the joint force
of the four confederated armies, and to master not only the Long
Walls, but also the port of Lechæum,[647] with its docks, and
the ships
within them; thus breaking up the naval power of Corinth in the
Krissæan Gulf. Lechæum now became a permanent post of hostility
against Corinth, occupied by a Lacedæmonian garrison, and
occasionally by the Corinthian exiles, while any second rebuilding of
the Corinthian Long Walls by the Athenians became impossible. After
this important success, Agesilaus returned to Sparta. Neither he
nor his Lacedæmonian hoplites, especially the Amyklæans, were ever
willingly absent from the festival of the Hyakinthia; nor did he now
disdain to take his station in the chorus,[648] under the orders of
the choric conductor, for the pæan in honor of Apollo.
It was thus that the Long Walls, though rebuilt by the Athenians
in the preceding year, were again permanently overthrown, and the
road for Lacedæmonian armies to march beyond the isthmus once more
laid open. So much were the Athenians and the Bœotians alarmed at
this new success, that both appear to have become desirous of peace, and to
have sent envoys to Sparta. The Thebans are said to have offered
to recognize Orchomenus (which was now occupied by a Lacedæmonian
garrison) as autonomous and disconnected from the Bœotian federation;
while the Athenian envoys seem to have been favorably received
at Sparta, and to have found the Lacedæmonians disposed to make
peace on better terms than those which had been proposed during
the late discussions with Tiribazus (hereafter to be noticed;)
recognizing the newly built Athenian walls, restoring Lemnos,
Imbros, and Skyros to Athens, and guaranteeing autonomy to each
separate city in the Grecian world. The Athenian envoys at Sparta
having provisionally accepted these terms, forty days were allowed
for reference to the people of Athens; to which place Lacedæmonian
envoys were sent as formal bearers of the propositions. The Argeians
and Corinthians, however, strenuously opposed the thoughts of
peace, urging the Athenians to continue the war; besides which, it
appears that many Athenian citizens thought that large restitution
ought to have been made of Athenian property forfeited at the end
of the late war, and that the Thracian Chersonese ought to have
been given back as well as the three islands. On these and other
grounds, the Athenian people refused to sanction the recommendation
of their envoys; though Andokides, one of those envoys, in a
discourse still extant, earnestly advised that they should accept
the peace.[649]
The war being thus
continued, Corinth, though defended by a considerable confederate
force, including Athenian hoplites under Kallias, and peltasts under
Iphikrates, became much pressed by the hostile posts at Lechæum as
well as at Krommyon and Sidus,—and by its own exiles as the most
active of all enemies. Still, however, there remained the peninsula
and the fortification of Peiræum as an undisturbed shelter for the
Corinthian servants and cattle, and a source of subsistence for
the city. Peiræum was an inland post north-east of Corinth, in the
centre of that peninsula which separates the two innermost recesses
of the Krissæan Gulf,—the bay of Lechæum on its south-west, the bay
called Alkyonis, between Kreusis and Olmiæ (now Psatho Bay), on its
north-east. Across this latter bay Corinth communicated easily,
through Peiræum and the fortified port of Œnoê, with Kreusis the port
of Thespiæ in Bœotia.[650] The Corinthian exiles now prevailed upon
Agesilaus to repeat his invasion of the territory, partly in order
that they might deprive the city of the benefits which it derived
from Peiræum,—partly in order that they might also appropriate to
themselves the honor of celebrating the Isthmian games, which were
just approaching. The Spartan king accordingly marched forth, at the
head of a force composed of Lacedæmonians and of the Peloponnesian
allies, first to Lechæum, and thence to the Isthmus, specially so
called; that is, the sacred precinct of Poseidon near Schœnus on the
Saronic Gulf, at the narrowest breadth of the Isthmus, where the
biennial Isthmian festival was celebrated.
It was the month of April, or beginning of May, and the festival
had actually begun, under the presidency of the Corinthians from
the city who were in alliance with Argos; a body of Argeians being
present as guards.[651] But on the approach of Agesilaus, they immediately
retired to the city by the road to Kenchreæ, leaving their sacrifices
half-finished. Not thinking fit to disturb their retreat, Agesilaus
proceeded first to offer sacrifice himself, and then took a position
close at hand, in the sacred ground of Poseidon, while the Corinthian
exiles went through the solemnities in due form, and distributed the
parsley wreaths to the victors. After remaining three days, Agesilaus
marched away to attack Peiræum. He had no sooner departed, than the
Corinthians from the city came forth, celebrated the festival and
distributed the wreaths a second time.
Peiræum was occupied by so numerous a guard, comprising
Iphikrates and his peltasts, that Agesilaus, instead of directly
attacking it, resorted to the stratagem of making a sudden
retrograde march directly towards Corinth. Probably, many of the
citizens were at that moment absent for the second celebration of
the festival; so that those remaining within, on hearing of the
approach of Agesilaus, apprehended a plot to betray the city to
him, and sent in haste to Peiræum to summon back Iphikrates with
his peltasts. Having learned that these troops had passed by in
the
night, Agesilaus forthwith again turned his course and marched
back to Peiræum, which he himself approached by the ordinary road,
coasting round along the bay of Lechæum, near the Therma, or warm
springs, which are still discernible;[652] while he sent a mora
or division of troops to get round the place by a mountain-road more
in the interior, ascending some woody heights commanding the town,
and crowned by a temple of Poseidon.[653] The movement was
quite effectual. The garrison and inhabitants of Peiræum, seeing
that the place had become indefensible, abandoned it the next day
with all their cattle and property, to take refuge in the Heræum,
or sacred ground of Hêrê Akræa near the western cape of the
peninsula. While Agesilaus marched thither towards the coast in
pursuit of them, the troops descending from the heights attacked
and captured Œnoê,[654]—the Corinthian town of that name situated
near the Alkyonian bay over against Kreusis in Bœotia. A large booty
here fell into their hands, which was still farther augmented by
the speedy surrender of all in the Heræum to Agesilaus, without
conditions. Called upon to determine the fate of the prisoners, among
whom were included men, women, and children,—freemen and slaves,—with
cattle and other property,—Agesilaus ordered that all those who
had taken part in the massacre at Corinth, in the market-place,
should be handed over to the vengeance of the exiles; and that
all the rest should be sold as slaves.[655] Though he did not
here inflict any harder measure than was usual in Grecian warfare,
the reader who reflects that this sentence, pronounced by one
on the whole more generous than most contemporary commanders,
condemned numbers of free Corinthian men and women to a life of
degradation, if not of misery,—will understand by contrast the
encomiums with which in my last volume I set forth the magnanimity
of Kallikratidas after the capture of Methymna; when he refused, in
spite of the importunity of his allies, to sell either the Methymnæan
or the Athenian captives,—and when he proclaimed the exalted
principle, that no free Greek should be sold into slavery by any
permission of his.[656]
As the Lacedæmonians had been before masters of Lechæum,
Krommyon, and Sidus, this last success shut up Corinth on its
other side, and cut off its communication with Bœotia. The city
not being in condition to hold out much longer, the exiles
already began to lay their plans for surprising it by aid of
friends within.[657] So triumphant was the position of
Agesilaus, that his enemies were all in alarm, and the Thebans,
as well as others, sent fresh envoys to him to solicit peace. His
antipathy towards the Thebans was so vehement, that it was a great
personal satisfaction to him to see them thus humiliated. He even
treated their envoys with marked contempt, affecting not to notice
them when they stood close by, though Pharax, the proxenus of Thebes
at Sparta, was preparing to introduce them.
Absorbed in this overweening pride and exultation over
conquered enemies, Agesilaus was sitting in a round pavilion, on
the
banks of the lake adjoining the Heræum,[658]—with his eyes fixed
on the long train of captives brought out under the guard of armed
Lacedæmonian hoplites, themselves the object of admiration to a
crowd of spectators,[659]—when news arrived, as if under the special
intervention of retributive Nemesis, which changed unexpectedly the
prospect of affairs.[660] A horseman was seen galloping up, his
horse foaming with sweat. To the many inquiries addressed, he
returned no answer, nor did he stop until he sprang from his horse
at the feet of Agesilaus; to whom, with sorrowful tone and features,
he made his communication. Immediately Agesilaus started up, seized
his spear, and desired the herald to summon his principal officers.
On their coming near, he directed them, together with the guards
around, to accompany him without a moment’s delay; leaving orders
with the general body of the troops to follow as soon as they should
have snatched some rapid refreshment. He then immediately put himself
in march; but he had not gone far when three fresh horsemen met and
informed him, that the task which he was hastening to perform had
already been accomplished. Upon this he ordered a halt and returned
to the Heræum; where on the ensuing day, to countervail the bad news,
he sold all his captives by auction.[661]
This bad news,—the arrival of which has been so graphically described by
Xenophon, himself probably among the bystanders and companions of
Agesilaus,—was nothing less than the defeat and destruction of a
Lacedæmonian mora or military division by the light troops under
Iphikrates. As it was an understood privilege of the Amyklæan
hoplites in the Lacedæmonian army always to go home, even when on
actual service, to the festival of the Hyakinthia, Agesilaus had left
all of them at Lechæum. The festival day being now at hand, they set
off to return. But the road from Lechæum to Sikyon lay immediately
under the walls of Corinth, so that their march was not safe without
an escort. Accordingly the polemarch commanding at Lechæum, leaving
that place for the time under watch by the Peloponnesian allies,
put himself at the head of the Lacedæmonian mora which formed the
habitual garrison, consisting of six hundred hoplites, and of a
mora of cavalry (number unknown)—to protect the Amyklæans until
they were out of danger from the enemy at Corinth. Having passed
by Corinth, and reached a point within about three miles of the
friendly town of Sikyon, he thought the danger over, and turned back
with his mora of hoplites to Lechæum; still, however, leaving
the officer of cavalry with orders to accompany the Amyklæans as
much farther as they might choose, and afterwards to follow him on
the return march.[662]
Though the Amyklæans (probably not very numerous) were presumed to
be in danger of attack from Corinth in their march, and though the
force in that town was known to be considerable, it never occurred
to the Lacedæmonian polemarch that there was any similar danger for
his own mora of six hundred hoplites; so contemptuous was his
estimate of the peltasts, and so strong was the apprehension which
these peltasts were known to entertain of the Lacedæmonians. But
Iphikrates, who had let the whole body march by undisturbed, when he
now saw from the walls of Corinth the six hundred hoplites returning
separately, without either cavalry or light troops, conceived the
idea,—perhaps, in the existing state of men’s minds, no one else
would have conceived it,—of attacking them with his peltasts as
they repassed near the town. Kallias, the general of the Athenian
hoplites in Corinth, warmly seconding the project, marched out his
troops, and arrayed them in battle order not far from the gates; while
Iphikrates with his peltasts began his attack upon the Lacedæmonian
mora in flanks and rear. Approaching within missile distance,
he poured upon them a shower of darts and arrows, which killed or
wounded several, especially on the unshielded side. Upon this the
polemarch ordered a halt, directed the youngest soldiers to drive off
the assailants, and confided the wounded to the care of attendants
to be carried forward to Lechæum.[663] But even the youngest
soldiers, encumbered by their heavy shields, could not reach their
nimbler enemies, who were trained to recede before them. And when,
after an unavailing pursuit, they sought to resume their places in
the ranks, the attack was renewed, so that nine or ten of them were
slain before they could get back. Again did the polemarch give orders
to march forward; again the peltasts renewed their attack, forcing
him to halt; again he ordered the younger soldiers (this time, all
those between eighteen and thirty-three years of age, whereas on the
former occasion, it had been those between eighteen and twenty-eight)
to rush out and drive them off.[664] But the result
was just the same: the pursuers accomplished nothing, and only
suffered increased loss of their bravest and most forward soldiers, when
they tried to rejoin the main body. Whenever the Lacedæmonians
attempted to make progress, these circumstances were again repeated,
to their great loss and discouragement; while the peltasts became
every moment more confident and vigorous.
Some relief was now afforded to the distressed mora by the
coming up of their cavalry, which had finished the escort of the
Amyklæans. Had this cavalry been with them at the beginning, the
result might have been different; but it was now insufficient
to repress the animated assaults of the peltasts. Moreover, the
Lacedæmonian horsemen were at no time very good, nor did they on
this occasion venture to push their pursuit to a greater range than
the younger hoplites could keep up with them. At length, after
much loss in killed and wounded, and great distress to all, the
polemarch contrived to get his detachment as far as an eminence
about a quarter of a mile from the sea and about two miles from
Lechæum. Here, while Iphikrates still continued to harass them
with his peltasts, Kallias also was marching up with his hoplites
to charge them hand to hand,—when the Lacedæmonians, enfeebled in
numbers, exhausted in strength, and too much dispirited for close
fight with a new enemy, broke and fled in all directions. Some took
the road to Lechæum, which place a few of them reached, along with
the cavalry; the rest ran towards the sea at the nearest point,
and observing that some of their friends were rowing in boats from
Lechæum along the shore to rescue them, threw themselves into
the sea, to wade or swim towards this new succor. But the active
peltasts, irresistible in the pursuit of broken hoplites, put the
last hand to the destruction of the unfortunate mora. Out of its
full muster of six hundred, a very small proportion survived to
reënter Lechæum.[665]
The horseman who first
communicated the disaster to Agesilaus, had started off express
immediately from Lechæum, even before the bodies of the slain had
been picked up for burial. The hurried movement of Agesilaus had been
dictated by the desire of reaching the field in time to contend for
the possession of the bodies, and to escape the shame of soliciting
the burial-truce. But the three horsemen who met him afterwards,
arrested his course by informing him that the bodies had already been
buried, under truce asked and obtained; which authorized Iphikrates
to erect his well-earned trophy on the spot where he had first
made the attack.[666]
Such a destruction of an entire division of Lacedæmonian hoplites,
by light troops who stood in awe of them and whom they despised,
was an incident, not indeed of great political importance, but
striking in respect of military effect and impression upon the
Grecian mind. Nothing at all like it had occurred since the memorable
capture of Sphakteria, thirty-five years before; a disaster less
considerable in one respect, that the number of hoplites beaten was
inferior by one-third,—but far more important in another respect,
that half the division had surrendered as prisoners; whereas in the
battle near Corinth, though the whole mora (except a few fugitives)
perished, it does not seem that a single prisoner was taken. Upon
the Corinthians, Bœotians, and other enemies of Sparta, the event
operated as a joyous encouragement, reviving them out of all their
previous despondency. Even by the allies of Sparta, jealous of her
superiority and bound to her by fear more than by attachment, it
was welcomed with ill-suppressed satisfaction. But upon the army of
Agesilaus (and doubtless upon the Lacedæmonians at home) it fell
like a sudden thunderbolt, causing the strongest manifestations of
sorrow and
sympathy. To these manifestations there was only one exception,—the
fathers, brothers, or sons of the slain warriors; who not only showed
no sorrow, but strutted about publicly with cheerful and triumphant
countenances, like victorious athletes.[667] We shall find
the like phenomenon at Sparta a few years subsequently, after
the far more terrible defeat at Leuktra; the relatives of the
slain were joyous and elate,—those of the survivors, downcast
and mortified;[668] a fact strikingly characteristic both
of the intense mental effect of the Spartan training, and of the
peculiar associations which it generated. We may understand how
terrible was the contempt which awaited a Spartan who survived
defeat, when we find fathers positively rejoicing that their sons had
escaped such treatment by death.
Sorely was Agesilaus requited for his supercilious insult towards
the Theban envoys. When he at last consented to see them, after the
news of the battle, their tone was completely altered. They said not
a word about peace, but merely asked permission to pass through and
communicate with their countrymen in Corinth. “I understand your
purpose (said Agesilaus, smiling),—you want to witness the triumph
of your friends, and see what it is worth. Come along with me, and
I will teach you.” Accordingly, on the next day, he caused them to
accompany him while he marched his army up to the very gates of
Corinth,—defying those within to come out and fight. The lands had
been so ravaged, that there remained little to destroy. But wherever
there were any fruit-trees yet standing, the Lacedæmonians now cut
them down. Iphikrates was too prudent to compromise his recent
advantage by hazarding a second battle; so that Agesilaus had only
the satisfaction of showing that he was master of the field, and
then retired to encamp at Lechæum; from whence he sent back the
Theban envoys by sea to Kreusis. Having then left a fresh mora or
division at Lechæum, in place of that which had been defeated, he marched
back to Sparta. But the circumstances of the march betrayed his
real feelings, thinly disguised by the recent bravado of marching
up to the gates of Corinth. He feared to expose his Lacedæmonian
troops even to the view of those allies through whose territory he
was to pass; so well was he aware that the latter (especially the
Mantineians) would manifest their satisfaction at the recent defeat.
Accordingly, he commenced his day’s march before dawn, and did
not halt for the night till after dark; at Mantineia, he not only
did not halt at all, but passed by, outside of the walls, before
day had broken.[669] There cannot be a more convincing proof
of the real dispositions of the allies towards Sparta, and of the
sentiment of compulsion which dictated their continued adherence; a
fact which we shall see abundantly illustrated as we advance in the
stream of the history.
The retirement of Agesilaus was the signal for renewed enterprise
on the part of Iphikrates; who retook Sidus and Krommyon, which had
been garrisoned by Praxitas,—as well as Peiræum and Œnoê, which had
been left under occupation by Agesilaus. Corinth was thus cleared
of enemies on its eastern and north-eastern sides. And though the
Lacedæmonians still carried on a desultory warfare from Lechæum,
yet such was the terror impressed by the late destruction of their
mora, that the Corinthian exiles at Sikyon did not venture to march
by land from that place to Lechæum, under the walls of Corinth,—but
communicated with Lechæum only by sea.[670] In truth, we hear
of no farther serious military operations undertaken by Sparta
against Corinth, before the peace of Antalkidas. And the place
became so secure, that the Corinthian leaders and their Argeian
allies were glad to dispense with the presence of Iphikrates. That
officer had gained so much glory by his recent successes, which the
Athenian orators[671] even in the next generation never ceased
to extol, that his temper, naturally haughty, became domineering;
and he tried to procure, either for Athens or for himself, the
mastery of Corinth,—putting to death some of the philo-Argeian
leaders. We know these circumstances only by brief and meagre
allusion; but they caused the Athenians to recall Iphikrates with a large
portion of his peltasts, and to send Chabrias to Corinth in
his place.[672]
It was either in the ensuing summer,—or perhaps immediately
afterwards during the same summer,—390 B.C., that
Agesilaus undertook an expedition into Akarnania; at the instance of
the Achæans, who threatened, if this were not done, to forsake the
Lacedæmonian alliance. They had acquired possession of the Ætolian
district of Kalydon, had brought the neighboring villagers into a
city residence, and garrisoned it as a dependence of the Achæan
confederacy. But the Akarnanians,—allies of Athens as well as Thebes,
and aided by an Athenian squadron at Œniadæ,—attacked them there,
probably at the invitation of a portion of the inhabitants, and
pressed them so hard, that they employed the most urgent instances
to obtain aid from Sparta. Agesilaus crossed the Gulf at Rhium with
a considerable force of Spartans and allies, and the full muster of
the Achæans. On his arrival the Akarnanians all took refuge in their
cities, sending their cattle up into the interior highlands, to
the borders of a remote lake. Agesilaus, having sent to Stratus to
require them not merely to forbear hostilities against the Achæans,
but to relinquish their alliance with Athens and Thebes, and to
become allies of Sparta,—found his demands resisted, and began to
lay waste the country. Two or three days of operations designedly
slack, were employed to lull the Akarnanians into security; after
which, by a rapid forced march, Agesilaus suddenly surprised the
remote spot in which their cattle and slaves had been deposited
for safety. He spent a day here to sell this booty; merchants,
probably, accompanying his army. But he had considerable difficulty
in his return march, from the narrow paths and high mountains
through which he had to thread his way. By a series of brave and
well-combined hill-movements,—which, probably, reminded Xenophon of
his own operations against the Karduchians in the retreat of the
Ten-Thousand,—he defeated and dispersed the Akarnanians, though not
without suffering considerably from the excellence of their light
troops. Yet he was not successful in his attack upon any one of their
cities, nor would he consent to prolong the war until seed-time,
notwithstanding earnest solicitation from the Achæans, whom he
pacified by engaging to return the next spring. He was, indeed,
in a difficult and dangerous country, had not his retreat been
facilitated by the compliance of the Ætolians; who calculated (though
vainly) on obtaining from him the recovery of Naupaktus, then held
(as well as Kalydon) by the Achæans.[673] Partial as the
success of this expedition had been, however, it inflicted
sufficient damage on the Akarnanians to accomplish its purpose. On
learning that it was about to be repeated in the ensuing spring,
they sent envoys to Sparta to solicit peace; consenting to abstain
from hostilities against the Achæans, and to enrol themselves as
members of the Lacedæmonian confederacy.[674]
It was in this same year that the Spartan authorities resolved on
an expedition against Argos, of which Agesipolis, the other king,
took the command. Having found the border sacrifices favorable, and
crossed the frontier, he sent forward his army to Phlius, where the
Peloponnesian allies were ordered to assemble; but he himself first
turned aside to Olympia, to consult the oracle of Zeus.
It had been the practice of the Argeians, seemingly on
more than one previous occasion,[675] when an invading
Lacedæmonian army was approaching their territory, to meet them by
a solemn message, intimating that it was the time of some festival
(the Karneian, or other) held sacred by both parties, and warning
them not to violate the frontier during the holy truce. This was
in point of fact nothing better than a fraud; for the notice was
sent, not at the moment when the Karneian festival (or other, as
the case might be) ought to come on according to the due course
of seasons, but at any time when it might serve the purpose of
arresting a Lacedæmonian invasion. But though the duplicity of the
Argeians was thus manifest, so strong were the pious scruples of the
Spartan king, that he could hardly make up his mind to disregard
the warning. Moreover, in the existing confusion of the calendar,
there was always room for some uncertainty as to the question, which was the
true Karneian moon; no Dorian state having any right to fix it
imperatively for the others, as the Eleians fixed the Olympic truce,
and the Corinthians the Isthmian. It was with a view to satisfy his
conscience on this subject that Agesipolis now went to Olympia, and
put the question to the oracle of Zeus,—whether he might with a safe
religious conscience refuse to accept the holy truce, if the Argeians
should now tender it. The oracle, habitually dexterous in meeting a
specific question with a general reply, informed him, that he might
with a safe conscience decline a truce demanded wrongfully and for
underhand purposes.[676] This was accepted by Agesipolis as a
satisfactory affirmative. Nevertheless, to make assurance doubly
sure, he went directly forward to Delphi, to put the same question
to Apollo. As it would have been truly embarrassing, however, if the
two holy replies had turned out such as to contradict each other, he
availed himself of the præjudicium which he had already received at
Olympia, and submitted the question to Apollo at Delphi in this form:
“Is thine opinion on the question of the holy truce, the same as that
of thy father (Zeus)?” “Most decidedly the same,” replied the god.
Such double warranty, though the appeal was so drawn up as scarcely
to leave to Apollo freedom of speech,[677] enabled Agesipolis
to return with full confidence to Phlius, where his army was already
mustered; and to march immediately into the Argeian territory by the
road of Nemea. Being met on the frontier by two heralds with wreaths
and in solemn attire, who warned him that it was a season of holy
truce, he informed them that the gods authorized his disobedience to
their summons, and marched on into the Argeian plain.
It happened that on the first evening after he had crossed the
border, the supper and the consequent libation having been just
concluded, an earthquake occurred; or, to translate the Greek phrase,
“the god (Poseidon) shook.” To all Greeks, and to Lacedæmonians
especially, this was a solemn event, and the personal companions of
Agesipolis immediately began to sing the pæan in honor of Poseidon;
the general impression among the soldiers being, that he would give
orders for quitting the territory immediately, as Agis had acted
in the invasion of Elis a few years before. Perhaps Agesipolis would have
done the same here, construing the earthquake as a warning that
he had done wrong, in neglecting the summons of the heralds,—had
he not been fortified by the recent oracles. He now replied, that
if the earthquake had occurred before he crossed the frontier, he
should have considered it as a prohibition; but as it came after his
crossing, he looked upon it as an encouragement to go forward.
So fully had the Argeians counted on the success of their warning
transmitted by the heralds, that they had made little preparation
for defence. Their dismay and confusion were very great; their
property was still outlying, not yet removed into secure places, so
that Agesipolis found much both to destroy and to appropriate. He
carried his ravages even to the gates of the city, piquing himself on
advancing a little farther than Agesilaus had gone in his invasion
two years before. He was at last driven to retreat by the terror
of a flash of lightning in his camp, which killed several persons.
And a project which he had formed, of erecting a permanent fort on
the Argeian frontier, was abandoned in consequence of unfavorable
sacrifices.[678]
Besides these transactions in and near the isthmus of
Corinth, the war between Sparta and her enemies was prosecuted
during the same years both in the islands and on the coast of
Asia Minor; though our information is so imperfect that we can
scarcely trace the thread of events. The defeat near Knidus (394
B.C.),—the triumphant maritime force of Pharnabazus
and Konon at the Isthmus of Corinth in the ensuing year (393
B.C.),—the restoration of the Athenian Long Walls
and fortified port,—and the activity of Konon with the fleet among
the islands,[679]—so alarmed the Spartans with the idea of a second
Athenian maritime empire, that they made every effort to detach the
Persian force from the side of their enemies.
The Spartan Antalkidas, a dexterous, winning and artful
man,[680] not unlike Lysander, was sent as envoy
to Tiribazus (392 B.C.); whom we now find as satrap
of Ionia in the room of Tithraustes, after having been satrap of
Armenia during the retreat of the Ten Thousand. As Tiribazus was
newly arrived in Asia Minor, he had not acquired that personal enmity
against the Spartans, which the active hostilities of Derkyllidas and
Agesilaus had inspired to Pharnabazus and other Persians. Moreover,
jealousy between neighboring satraps was an ordinary feeling,
which Antalkidas now hoped to turn to the advantage of Sparta. To
counteract his projects, envoys were also sent to Tiribazus, by the
confederate enemies of Sparta, Athens, Thebes, Corinth, and Argos;
and Konon, as the envoy of Athens, was incautiously despatched
among the number. On the part of Sparta, Antalkidas offered, first,
to abandon to the king of Persia all the Greeks on the continent
of Asia; next, as to all the other Greeks, insular as well as
continental, he required nothing more than absolute autonomy for
each separate city, great and small.[681] The Persian king
(he said) could neither desire anything more for himself, nor have
any motive for continuing the war against Sparta, when he should
once be placed in possession of all the towns on the Asiatic
coast, and when he should find both Sparta and Athens rendered
incapable of annoying him, through the autonomy and disunion of
the Hellenic world. But to neither of the two propositions of
Antalkidas would Athens, Thebes, or Argos, accede. As to the first,
they repudiated the disgrace of thus formally abandoning the
Asiatic Greeks;[682] as to the second proposition, guaranteeing autonomy
to every distinct city of Greece, they would admit it only under
special reserves, which it did not suit the purpose of Antalkidas
to grant. In truth the proposition went to break up (and was
framed with that view) both the Bœotian confederacy under the
presidency of Thebes, and the union between Argos and Corinth;
while it also deprived Athens of the chance of recovering Lemnos,
Imbros, and Skyros,[683]—islands which had been possessed and
recognized by her since the first commencement of the confederacy of
Delos; indeed the two former, even from the time of Miltiades the
conqueror of Marathon.
Here commences a new era in the policy of Sparta. That she
should abnegate all pretension to maritime empire, is noway
difficult to understand—seeing that it had already been irrevocably
overthrown by the defeat of Knidus. Nor can we wonder that she
should abandon the Greeks on the Asiatic continent to Persian
sway; since this was nothing more than she had already consented
to do in her conventions with Tissaphernes and Cyrus during the
latter years of the Peloponnesian war,[684]—and consented, let
us add, not under any of that stringent necessity which at the same
time pressed upon Athens, but simply with a view to the maximum of
victory over an enemy already enfeebled. The events which followed
the close of that war (recounted in a former chapter) had indeed
induced her to alter her determination, and again to espouse
their
cause. But the real novelty now first exhibited in her policy,
is, the full development of what had before existed in manifest
tendency,—hostility against all the partial land-confederacies of
Greece, disguised under the plausible demand of universal autonomy
for every town, great or small. How this autonomy was construed and
carried into act, we shall see hereafter; at present, we have only
to note the first proclamation of it by Antalkidas in the name of
Sparta.
On this occasion, indeed, his mission came to nothing, from
the peremptory opposition of Athens and the others. But he was
fortunate enough to gain the approbation and confidence of Tiribazus;
who saw so clearly how much both propositions tended to promote
the interests and power of Persia, that he resolved to go up in
person to court, and prevail on Artaxerxes to act in concert with
Sparta. Though not daring to support Antalkidas openly, Tiribazus
secretly gave him money to reinforce the Spartan fleet. He at the
same time rendered to Sparta the more signal service of arresting
and detaining Konon, pretending that the latter was acting
contrary to the interests of the king.[685] This arrest was a
gross act of perfidy, since Konon not only commanded respect in his
character of envoy,—but had been acting with the full confidence,
and almost under the orders, of Pharnabazus. But the removal of
an officer of so much ability,—the only man who possessed the
confidence of Pharnabazus,—was the most fatal of all impediments
to the naval renovation of Athens. It was fortunate that Konon had
had time to rebuild the Long Walls, before his means of action were
thus abruptly intercepted. Respecting his subsequent fate, there
exist contradictory stories. According to one, he was put to death
by the Persians in prison; according to another, he found means
to escape and again took refuge with Evagoras in Cyprus, in which
island he afterwards died of sickness.[686] The latter story
appears undoubtedly to be the true one. But it is certain that he
never afterwards had the means of performing any public service, and
that his career was cut short by this treacherous detention, just at
the moment when its promise was the most splendid for his country.
Tiribazus, on going up to the Persian court, teems to have been
detained there for the purpose of concerting measures against
Evagoras, prince of Salamis in Cyprus, whose revolt from Persia was
now on the point of breaking out. But the Persian court could not
yet be prevailed upon to show any countenance to the propositions
of Sparta or of Antalkidas. On the contrary, Struthas, who was sent
down to Ionia as temporary substitute for Tiribazus, full of anxiety
to avenge the ravages of Agesilaus, acted with vigorous hostility
against the Lacedæmonians, and manifested friendly dispositions
towards Athens.
Thimbron (of whom we have before heard as first taking the command
of the Cyreian army in Asia Minor, after their return from Thrace)
received orders again to act as head of the Lacedæmonian forces in
Asia against Struthas. The new commander, with an army estimated
by Diodorus at eight thousand men,[687] marched from Ephesus
into the interior, and began his devastation of the territory
dependent on Persia. But his previous command, though he was
personally amiable,[688] had been irregular and disorderly, and it
was soon observed that the same defects were now yet more prominent,
aggravated by too liberal indulgence in convivial pleasures.
Aware of his rash, contemptuous, and improvident mode of attack,
Struthas laid a snare for him by sending a detachment of cavalry
to menace the camp, just when Thimbron had concluded his morning
meal in company with the flute-player Thersander,—the latter not
merely an excellent musician, but possessed of a full measure of
Spartan courage. Starting from his tent at the news, Thimbron, with
Thersander, waited only to collect the few troops immediately at
hand, without even leaving any orders for the remainder, and hastened
to repel the assailants; who gave way easily, and seduced him into
a pursuit. Presently Struthas himself, appearing with a numerous
and well-arrayed body of cavalry, charged with vigor the disorderly
detachment of Thimbron. Both that general and Thersander, bravely
fighting, fell among the first; while the army, deprived of their
commander
as well as ill-prepared for a battle, made but an ineffective
resistance. They were broken, warmly pursued, and the greater number
slain. A few who contrived to escape the active Persian cavalry,
found shelter in the neighboring cities.[689]
This victory of Struthas, gained by the Persian cavalry, displays
a degree of vigor and ability which, fortunately for the Greeks,
was rarely seen in Persian operations. Our scanty information does
not enable us to trace its consequences. We find Diphridas sent out
soon after by the Lacedæmonians, along with the admiral Ekdikus, as
successor of Thimbron to bring together the remnant of the defeated
army, and to protect those cities which had contributed to form it.
Diphridas,—a man with all the popular qualities of his predecessor,
but a better and more careful officer,—is said to have succeeded to
some extent in this difficult mission. Being fortunate enough to take
captive the son-in-law of Struthas, with his wife, (as Xenophon had
captured Asidates,) he obtained a sufficiently large ransom to enable
him to pay his troops for some time.[690] But it is evident
that his achievements were not considerable, and that the Ionian
Greeks on the continent are now left to make good their position, as
they can, against the satrap at Sardis.
The forces of Sparta were much required at Rhodes; which
island (as has been mentioned already) had revolted from Sparta
about five years before (a few months anterior to the battle of
Knidus), dispossessed the Lysandrian oligarchy, and established a
democratical government. But since that period, an opposition-party
in the island had gradually risen up, acquired strength, and come
into correspondence with the oligarchical exiles; who on their side
warmly solicited aid from Sparta, representing that Rhodes would
otherwise become thoroughly dependent on Athens. Accordingly, the
Lacedæmonians sent eight triremes across the Ægean under the command
of Ekdikus; the first of their ships of war which had crossed since
the defeat of Knidus.[691] Though the Perso-Athenian naval force in
the Ægean had been either dismissed or paralyzed since the seizure
of Konon, yet the Rhodian government possessed a fleet of about
twenty triremes, besides considerable force of other kinds; so
that Ekdikus could not even land on the island, but was compelled to halt
at Knidus. Fortunately, Teleutias the Lacedæmonian was now in the
Corinthian Gulf with a fleet of twelve triremes, which were no longer
required there; since Agesilaus and he had captured Lechæum a few
months before, and destroyed the maritime force of the Corinthians
in those waters. He was now directed to sail with his squadron out
of the Corinthian Gulf across to Asia, to supersede Ekdikus, and
take the command of the whole fleet for operations off Rhodes. On
passing by Samos, he persuaded the inhabitants to embrace the cause
of Sparta, and to furnish him with a few ships; after which he went
onward to Knidus, where, superseding Ekdikus, he found himself
at the head of twenty-seven triremes.[692] In his way from
Knidus to Rhodes, he accidentally fell in with the Athenian
admiral Philokrates, conducting ten triremes to Cyprus to the
aid of Evagoras in his struggle against the Persians. He was
fortunate enough to carry them all as prisoners into Knidus, where
he sold the whole booty, and then proceeded with his fleet, thus
augmented to thirty-seven sail, to Rhodes. Here he established a
fortified post, enabling the oligarchical party to carry on an
active civil war. But he was defeated in a battle,—his enemies
being decidedly the stronger force in the island, and masters of
all the cities.[693]
The alliance with Evagoras of Cyprus, in his contention against
Artaxerxes, was at this moment an unfortunate and perplexing
circumstance for Athens, since she was relying upon Persian aid
against Sparta, and since Sparta was bidding against her for
it. But the alliance was one which she could not lightly throw
off. For Evagoras had not only harbored Konon with the remnant
of the Athenian fleet after the disaster of Ægospotami, but
had earned a grant of citizenship and the honor of a statue at
Athens, as a strenuous auxiliary in procuring that Persian aid
which gained the battle of Knidus, and as a personal combatant
in that battle, before the commencement of his dissension with
Artaxerxes.[694] It would have been every way advantageous
to Athens at this moment to decline assisting Evagoras, since (not
to mention the probability of offending the Persian court) she had
more than enough to employ all her maritime force nearer home and
for purposes more essential to herself. Yet in spite of these very
serious considerations of prudence, the paramount feelings of prior
obligation and gratitude, enforced by influential citizens who had
formed connections in Cyprus, determined the Athenians to identify
themselves with his gallant struggles[695] (of which I
shall speak more fully presently). So little was fickleness, or
instability, or the easy oblivion of past feelings, a part of their
real nature,—though historians have commonly denounced it as among
their prominent qualities.
The capture of their squadron under Philokrates, however, and
the consequent increase of the Lacedæmonian naval force at Rhodes,
compelled the Athenians to postpone further aid to Evagoras, and
to arm forty triremes under Thrasybulus for the Asiatic coast; no
inconsiderable effort, when we recollect that four years before
there was scarcely a single trireme in Peiræus, and not even a
wall of defence around the place. Though sent immediately for the
assistance of Rhodes, Thrasybulus judged it expedient to go first to
the Hellespont; probably from extreme want of money to pay his
men. Derkyllidas was still in occupation of Abydos, yet there
was no Lacedæmonian fleet in the strait; so that Thrasybulus was
enabled to extend the alliances of Athens both on the European
and the Asiatic side,—the latter being under the friendly satrap,
Pharnabazus. Reconciling the two Thracian princes, Seuthes and
Amadokus, whom he found at war, he brought both of them into
amicable relations with Athens, and then moved forward to Byzantium.
That city was already in alliance with Athens; but on the arrival
of Thrasybulus, the alliance was still further cemented by the
change of its government into a democracy. Having established
friendship with the opposite city of Chalkêdon, and being thus
master of the Bosphorus, he sold the tithe of the commercial
ships sailing out of the Euxine;[696] leaving doubtless
an adequate force to exact it. This was a striking evidence of
revived Athenian maritime power, which seems also to have been
now extended more or less to Samothrace, Thasus, and the coast
of Thrace.[697]
From Byzantium, Thrasybulus sailed to Mitylênê, which was already
in friendship with Athens,—though Methymna and the other cities in
the island were still maintained by a force under the Lacedæmonian
harmost, Therimachus. With the aid of the Mitylenæans, and of the
exiles from other Lesbian cities, Thrasybulus marched to the borders
of Methymna, where he was met by Therimachus; who had also brought
together his utmost force, but was now completely defeated and slain.
The Athenians thus became masters of Antissa and Eresus, where they
were enabled to levy a valuable contribution, as well as to plunder
the refractory territory of Methymna. Nevertheless, Thrasybulus, in
spite of farther help from Chios and Mitylênê, still thought himself
not in a situation to go to Rhodes with advantage. Perhaps he was not
sure of pay in advance, and the presence of unpaid troops in an exhausted island
might be a doubtful benefit. Accordingly, he sailed from Lesbos along
the western and southern coast of Asia Minor, levying contributions
at Halikarnassus[698] and other places, until he came to
Aspendus in Pamphylia; where he also obtained money and was about
to depart with it, when some misdeeds committed by his soldiers
so exasperated the inhabitants, that they attacked him by night
unprepared in his tent, and slew him.[699]
Thus perished the citizen to whom, more than to any one else,
Athens owed not only her renovated democracy, but its wise, generous,
and harmonious working, after renovation. Even the philo-Laconian
and oligarchical Xenophon bestows upon him a marked and unaffected
eulogy.[700] His devoted patriotism in commencing
and prosecuting the struggle against the Thirty, at a time when
they not only were at the height of their power, but had plausible
ground for calculating on the full auxiliary strength of Sparta,
deserves high admiration. But the feature which stands yet more
eminent in his character,—a feature infinitely rare in the Grecian
character, generally,—is, that the energy of a successful leader
was combined with complete absence both of vindictive antipathies
for the past, and of overbearing ambition for himself. Content to
live himself as a simple citizen under the restored democracy, he
taught his countrymen to forgive an oligarchical party from whom
they had suffered atrocious wrongs, and set the example himself of
acquiescing, in the loss of his own large property. The generosity
of such a proceeding ought not to count for less, because it was at
the same time dictated by the highest political prudence. We find
in an oration of Lysias against Ergokles (a citizen who served in
the Athenian fleet on this last expedition), in which the latter is
accused of gross peculation,—insinuations against Thrasybulus, of
having countenanced the delinquency, though coupled with praise of
his general character. Even the words as they now stand are so vague
as to carry little evidence; but when we reflect that the oration was
spoken after the death of Thrasybulus, they are entitled to no
weight at all.[701]
The Athenians sent Agyrrhius to succeed Thrasybulus. After
the death of the latter, we may conclude that the fleet went
to Rhodes, its original destination,—though Xenophon does not
expressly say so,—the rather, as neither Teleutias nor any
subsequent Lacedæmonian commander appears to have become master
of the island, in spite of the considerable force which they had
there assembled.[702] The Lacedæmonians, however, on their
side, being also much in want of money, Teleutias was obliged (in
the same manner as the Athenians), to move from island to island,
levying contributions as he could.[703]
When the news of the successful proceedings of Thrasybulus at
Byzantium and the Hellespont, again establishing a toll for the
profit of Athens, reached Sparta, it excited so much anxiety,
that Anaxibius, having great influence with the ephors of the
time, prevailed on them to send him out as harmost to Abydos,
in the room of Derkyllidas, who had now been in that post for
several years. Having been the officer originally employed
to procure the revolt of the place from Athens (in 411
B.C.),[704] Derkyllidas had since rendered service
not less essential in preserving it to Sparta, during the extensive
desertion which followed the battle of Knidus. But it was supposed
that he ought to have checked the aggressive plans of Thrasybulus;
moreover, Anaxibius promised, if a small force were entrusted to
him, to put down effectually the newly-revived Athenian influence.
He was supposed to know well, those regions in which he had once
already been admiral, at the moment when Xenophon and the Cyreian
army first returned; the harshness, treachery, and corruption, which
he displayed in his dealing with that gallant body of men, have been
already recounted in a former chapter.[705] With three
triremes, and funds for the pay of a thousand mercenary troops,
Anaxibius accordingly went to Abydos. He began his operations with
considerable vigor, both against Athens and Pharnabazus. While
he armed a land-force, which he employed in making incursions on
the neighboring cities in the territory of that satrap,—he at the
same time reinforced his little squadron by three triremes out of
the harbor of Abydos, so that he became strong enough to seize
the merchant vessels passing along the Hellespont to Athens or
to her allies.[706] The force which Thrasybulus had left at
Byzantium to secure the strait revenues, was thus inadequate to its
object without farther addition.
Fortunately, Iphikrates was at this moment disengaged at Athens,
having recently returned from Corinth with his body of peltasts,
for whom doubtless employment was wanted. He was accordingly sent
with twelve hundred peltasts and eight triremes, to combat Anaxibius
in the Hellespont; which now became again the scene of conflict,
as it had been in the latter years of the Peloponnesian war; the
Athenians from the European side, the Lacedæmonians from the Asiatic.
At first the warfare consisted of desultory privateering, and
money-levying excursions, on both sides.[707] But at length,
the watchful genius of Iphikrates discovered opportunity for a successful
stratagem. Anaxibius, having just drawn the town of Antandrus
into his alliance, had marched thither for the purpose of leaving
a garrison in it, with his Lacedæmonian and mercenary forces, as
well as two hundred hoplites from Abydos itself. His way lay across
the mountainous region of Ida, southward to the coast of the gulf
of Adramyttium. Accordingly, Iphikrates, foreseeing that he would
speedily return, crossed over in the night from the Chersonese, and
planted himself in ambush on the line of return march; at a point
where it traversed the desert and mountainous extremities of the
Abydene territory, near the gold mines of Kremastê. The triremes
which carried him across were ordered to sail up the strait on the
next day, in order that Anaxibius must be apprised of it, and might
suppose Iphikrates to be employed on his ordinary money-levying
excursion.
The stratagem was completely successful. Anaxibius returned on
the next day, without the least suspicion of any enemy at hand,
marching in careless order and with long-stretched files, as well
from the narrowness of the mountain path as from the circumstance
that he was in the friendly territory of Abydos. Not expecting to
fight, he had unfortunately either omitted the morning sacrifice,
or taken no pains to ascertain that the victims were favorable; so
Xenophon informs us,[708] with that constant regard to the divine
judgments and divine warnings which pervades both the Hellenica
and the Anabasis. Iphikrates having suffered the Abydenes who
were in the van to pass, suddenly sprang from his ambush, to
assault Anaxibius with the Lacedæmonians and the mercenaries,
as they descended the mountain-pass into the plain of Kremastê.
His appearance struck terror and confusion into the whole army;
unprepared in its disorderly array for stedfast resistance,—even
if the minds of the soldiers had been ever so well strung,—against
well-trained peltasts, who were sure to prevail over hoplites not
in steady rank. To Anaxibius himself, the truth stood plain at
once. Defeat was inevitable, and there remained no other resource
for him except to die like a brave man. Accordingly, desiring his
shield-bearer to hand to him his shield, he said to those around
him,—“Friends, my honor commands me to die here; but do you hasten
away, and save yourselves, before the enemy close with us.” Such
order was hardly required to determine his panic-stricken troops,
who fled with one accord towards Abydos; while Anaxibius himself
awaited firmly the approach of the enemy, and fell gallantly fighting
on the spot. No less than twelve Spartan harmosts, those who had
been expelled from their various governments by the defeat of
Knidus, and who had remained ever since under Derkyllidas at Abydos,
stood with the like courage and shared his fate. Such disdain of
life hardly surprises us in conspicuous Spartan citizens, to whom
preservation by flight was “no true preservation” (in the language
of Xenophon),[709] but simply prolongation of life under
intolerable disgrace at home. But what deserves greater remark
is, that the youth to whom Anaxibius was tenderly attached
and who was his constant companion, could not endure to leave
him, stayed fighting by his side, and perished by the same
honorable death.[710] So strong was the mutual devotion which
this relation between persons of the male sex inspired in the ancient
Greek mind. With these exceptions, no one else made any attempt to
stand. All fled, and were pursued by Iphikrates as far as the gates
of Abydos, with the slaughter of fifty out of the two hundred Abydene
hoplites, and two hundred of the remaining troops.
This well-planned and successful exploit, while it added to the
reputation of Iphikrates, rendered the Athenians again masters of the
Bosphorus and the Hellespont, ensuring both the levy of the dues and
the transit of their trading vessels. But while the Athenians were
thus carrying on naval war at Rhodes and the Hellespont, they began
to experience annoyance nearer home, from Ægina.
That island (within sight as the eyesore of Peiræus, as Perikles
was wont to call it) had been occupied fifty years before by a
population eminently hostile to Athens, afterwards conquered
and
expelled by her,—at last again captured in the new abode which they
had obtained in Laconia,—and put to death by her order. During the
Peloponnesian war, Ægina had been tenanted by Athenian citizens as
outsettlers or kleruchs; all of whom had been driven in after the
battle of Ægospotami. The island was then restored by Lysander to
the remnant of the former population,—as many of them at least as he
could find.
These new Æginetans, though doubtless animated by associations
highly unfavorable to Athens, had nevertheless remained not only
at peace, but also in reciprocal commerce, with her, until a
considerable time after the battle of Knidus and the rebuilding
of her Long Walls. And so they would have continued, of their own
accord,—since they could gain but little, and were likely to lose all
the security of their traffic, by her hostility,—had they not been
forced to commence the war by Eteonikus, the Lacedæmonian harmost
in the island;[711] one amidst many examples of the manner in
which the smaller Grecian states were dragged into war, without any
motive of their own, by the ambition of the greater,—by Sparta as
well as by Athens.[712] With the concurrence of the ephors,
Eteonikus authorized and encouraged all Æginetans to fit out
privateers for depredation on Attica; which aggression the Athenians
resented, after suffering considerable inconvenience by sending a
force of ten triremes to block up Ægina from the sea, with a body
of hoplites under Pamphilus to construct and occupy a permanent
fort in the island. This squadron, however, was soon driven off
(though Pamphilus still continued to occupy the fort) by Teleutias,
who came to Ægina on hearing of the blockade; having been engaged,
with the fleet which he commanded at Rhodes, in an expedition among
the Cyclades, for the purpose of levying contributions. He seems to
have been now at the term of his year of command, and while he was
at Ægina, his successor, Hierax, arrived from Sparta, on his way to
Rhodes, to supersede him. The fleet was, accordingly, handed over
to Hierax at Ægina, while Teleutias went directly home to Sparta.
So remarkable was his popularity among the seamen, that numbers
of them accompanied him down to the water-edge, testifying their
regret and attachment by crowning him with wreaths, or pressing
his hand. Some, who came down too late, when he was already under
weigh, cast their wreaths on the sea, uttering prayers for his health
and happiness.[713]
Hierax, while carrying back to Rhodes the remaining fleet which
Teleutias had brought from that island, left his subordinate Gorgôpas
as harmost at Ægina with twelve triremes; a force which protected
the island completely, and caused the fortified post occupied by the
Athenians under Pamphilus to be itself blocked up, insomuch that
after an interval of four months, a special decree was passed at
Athens to send a numerous squadron and fetch away the garrison. As
the Æginetan privateers, aided by the squadron of Gorgôpas, now
recommenced their annoyances against Attica, thirteen Athenian
triremes were put in equipment under Eunomus as a guard-squadron
against Ægina. But Gorgôpas and his squadron were now for the time
withdrawn, to escort Antalkidas, the new Lacedæmonian admiral sent
to Asia chiefly for the purpose of again negotiating with Tiribazus.
On returning back, after landing Antalkidas at Ephesus, Gorgôpas
fell in with Eunomus, whose pursuit, however, he escaped, landing at
Ægina just before sunset. The Athenian admiral, after watching for a
short time until he saw the Lacedæmonian seamen out of their vessels
and ashore, departed as it grew dark to Attica, carrying a light to
prevent his ships from parting company. But Gorgôpas, causing his men
to take a hasty meal, immediately reëmbarked and pursued; keeping
on the track by means of the light, and taking care not to betray
himself either by the noise of oars or by the chant of the Keleustês.
Eunomus had no suspicion of the accompanying enemy. Just after he
had touched land near cape Zostêr in Attica, when his men were in
the act of disembarking, Gorgôpas gave signal by trumpet to attack.
After a short action by moonlight, four of the Athenian squadrons
were captured, and carried off to Ægina; with the remainder, Eunomus
escaped to Peiræus.[714]
This victory, rendering both Gorgôpas and the Æginetans confident,
laid them open to a stratagem skilfully planned by the Athenian
Chabrias. That officer, who seems to have been dismissed from Corinth
as Iphikrates had been before him, was now about to conduct a force
of ten triremes and eight hundred peltasts to the aid of Evagoras;
to whom the Athenians were thus paying their debt of gratitude,
though they could ill-spare any of their forces from home. Chabrias,
passing over from Peiræus at night, landed without being perceived in
a desert place of the coast of Ægina, and planted himself in ambush
with his peltasts at some little distance inland of the Herakleion or
temple of Hêraklês, amidst hollow ground suitable for concealment. He
had before
made agreement with another squadron and a body of hoplites under
Demænetus; who arrived at daybreak and landed at Ægina at a point
called Tripyrgia, about two miles distant from the Herakleion, but
farther removed from the city. As soon as their arrival became known,
Gorgôpas hastened out of the city to repel them, with all the troops
he could collect, Æginetans as well as marines out of the ships
of war,—and eight Spartans who happened to be his companions in
the island. In their march from the city to attack the new comers,
they had to pass near the Herakleion, and therefore near the troops
in ambush; who, as soon as Gorgôpas and those about him had gone
by, rose up suddenly and attacked them in the rear. The stratagem
succeeded not less completely than that of Iphikrates at Abydos
against Anaxibius. Gorgôpas and the Spartans near him were slain,
the rest were defeated, and compelled to flee with considerable loss
back to the city.[715]
After this brilliant success, Chabrias pursued his voyage to
Cyprus, and matters appeared so secure on the side of Ægina,
that Demænetus also was sent to the Hellespont to reinforce
Iphikrates. For some time indeed, the Lacedæmonian ships at
Ægina did nothing. Eteonikus, who was sent as successor to
Gorgôpas,[716] could neither persuade nor constrain the
seamen to go aboard, since he had no funds, while their pay was
in arrears; so that Athens with her coast and her trading-vessels
remained altogether unmolested. At length the Lacedæmonians were
obliged to send again to Ægina Teleutias, the most popular and
best-beloved of all their commanders, whom the seamen welcomed with
the utmost delight. Addressing them under the influence of this
first impression, immediately after he had offered sacrifice, he
told them plainly that he had brought with him no money, but that
he had come to put them in the way of procuring it; that he should
himself touch nothing until they were amply provided, and should
require of them to bear no more hardship or fatigue than he went
through himself; that the power and prosperity of Sparta had all been
purchased by willingly braving danger, as well as toil, in the cause
of duty; that it became valiant men to seek their pay, not by cringing to any
one, but by their own swords at the cost of enemies. And he engaged
to find them the means of doing this, provided they would now again
manifest the excellent qualities which he knew them by experience
to possess.[717]
This address completely won over the seamen, who received it
with shouts of applause; desiring Teleutias to give his orders
forthwith, and promising ready obedience. “Well, (said he), now go
and get your suppers, as you were intending to do; and then come
immediately on shipboard, bringing with you provisions for one day.
Advance me thus much out of your own means, that we may, by the will
of the gods, make an opportune voyage.”[718]
In spite of the eminent popularity of Teleutias, the men would
probably have refused to go on board, had he told them beforehand
his intention of sailing with his twelve triremes straight into the
harbor of Peiræus. At first sight, the enterprise seemed insane,
for there were triremes in it more than sufficient to overwhelm
him. But he calculated on finding them all unprepared, with seamen
as well as officers in their lodgings ashore, so that he could not
only strike terror and do damage, but even realize half an hour’s
plunder before preparations could be made to resist him. Such was
the security which now reigned there, especially since the death of
Gorgôpas, that no one dreamt of an attack. The harbor was open, as
it had been forty years before, when Brasidas (in the third year
of the Peloponnesian war) attempted the like enterprise from the
port of Megara.[719] Even then, at the maximum of the Athenian
naval power, it was an enterprise possible, simply because every
one considered it to be impossible; and it only failed because the
assailants became terrified, and flinched in the execution.
A little after dark, Teleutias quitted the harbor of Ægina,
without telling any one whither he was going. Rowing leisurely, and
allowing his men alternate repose on their oars, he found himself
before morning within half a mile of Peiræus, where he waited until
day was just dawning, and then led his squadron straight into the
harbor. Everything turned out as he expected; there was not the least
idea of being attacked, nor the least preparation for defence. Not
a single trireme was manned or in fighting condition, but several
were moored without their crews, together with merchant-vessels,
loaded as well as empty. Teleutias directed the captains of his
squadron to drive against the triremes, and disable them; but by no
means to damage the beaks of their own ships by trying to disable
the merchant-ships. Even at that early hour, many Athenians were
abroad, and the arrival of the unexpected assailants struck every one
with surprise and consternation. Loud and vague cries transmitted
the news through all Peiræus, and from Peiræus up to Athens, where
it was believed that their harbor was actually taken. Every man
having run home for his arms, the whole force of the city rushed
impetuously down thither, with one accord,—hoplites as well as
horsemen. But before such succors could arrive, Teleutias had full
time to do considerable mischief. His seamen boarded the larger
merchant-ships, seizing both the men and the portable goods which
they found aboard. Some even jumped ashore on the quay (called the
Deigma), laid hands on the tradesmen, ship-masters, and pilots,
whom they saw near, and carried them away captive. Various smaller
vessels with their entire cargoes were also towed away; and even
three or four triremes. With all these Teleutias sailed safely out
of Peiræus, sending some of his squadron to escort the prizes to
Ægina, while he himself with the remainder sailed southward along
the coast. As he was seen to come out of Peiræus, his triremes
were mistaken for Athenian, and excited no alarm; so that he thus
captured several fishing-boats, and passage-boats coming with
passengers from the islands to Athens,—together with some merchantmen
carrying corn and other goods, at Sunium. All were carried safely
into Ægina.[720]
The enterprise of Teleutias, thus admirably concerted and executed
without the loss of a man, procured for him a plentiful booty,
of which, probably not the least valuable portion consisted in
the men seized as captives. When sold at Ægina, it yielded so
large a return that he was enabled to pay down at once a month’s
pay to his seamen; who became more attached to him than ever,
and kept the triremes in animated and active service under
his orders.[721] Admonished by painful experience,
indeed, the Athenians were now, doubtless, careful both in guarding
and in closing Peiræus; as they had become forty years before
after the unsuccessful attack of Brasidas. But in spite of the
utmost vigilance, they suffered an extent of damage from the
indefatigable Teleutias, and from the Æginetan privateers, quite
sufficient to make them weary of the war.[722]
We cannot doubt, indeed, that the prosecution of the war must
have been a heavy financial burthen upon the Athenians, from 395
B.C. downward to 387 B.C. How
they made good the cost, without any contributory allies, or any
foreign support, except what Konon obtained during one year from
Pharnabazus,—we are not informed. On the revival of the democracy
in 403 B.C., the poverty of the city, both public
and private, had been very great, owing to the long previous war,
ending with the loss of all Athenian property abroad. At a period
about three years afterwards, it seems that the Athenians were in
arrears, not merely for the tribute-money which they then owed to
Sparta as her subject allies, but also for debts due to the Bœotians
on account of damage done; that they were too poor to perform in full
the religious sacrifices prescribed for the year, and were obliged
to omit some even of the more ancient; that the docks as well as
the walls were in sad want of repair.[723] Even the pay to
those citizens who attended the public assemblies and sat as dikasts in
the dikasteries,—pay essential to the working of the democracy,—was
restored only by degrees; beginning first at one obolus, and not
restored to three oboli, at which it had stood before the capture,
until after an interval of some years.[724] It was at this
time too that the Theôric Board, or Paymasters for the general
expenses of public worship and sacrifice, was first established;
and when we read how much the Athenians were embarrassed for
the means of celebrating the prescribed sacrifices, there was,
probably, great necessity for the formation of some such office.
The disbursements connected with this object had been effected,
before 403 B.C., not by any special Board, but by
the Hellenotamiæ, or treasurers of the tribute collected from the
allies, who were not renewed after 403 B.C. as the
Athenian empire had ceased to exist.[725] A portion of
the money disbursed by the Theôric Board for the religious
festivals, was employed in the distribution of two oboli per
head, called the diobely, to all present citizens, and actually
received by all,—not merely by the poor, but by persons in easy
circumstances also.[726] This distribution was made at several
festivals, having originally begun at the Dionysia, for the purpose
of enabling the citizens to obtain places at the theatrical
representations in honor of Dionysus; but we do not know either the
number of the festivals, or the amount of the total sum. It was,
in principle, a natural corollary of the religious idea connected
with the festival; not simply because the comfort and recreation
of each citizen, individually taken, was promoted by his being
enabled to attend the festival,—but because the collective effect
of the ceremony, in honoring and propitiating the god, was believed
to depend in part upon a multitudinous attendance and lively
manifestations.[727] Gradually, however, this distribution
of Theôric
or festival-money came to be pushed to an abusive and mischievous
excess, which is brought before our notice forty years afterwards,
during the political career of Demosthenes. Until that time, we have
no materials for speaking of it; and what I here notice is simply the
first creation of the Theôric Board.
The means of Athens for prosecuting the war, and for paying
her troops sent as well to Bœotia as to Corinth, must have been
derived mainly from direct assessments on property, called
eisphoræ. And some such assessments we find alluded to generally as
having taken place during these years; though we know no details
either as to frequency or amount.[728] But the restitution
of the
Long Walls and of the fortifications of Peiræus by Konon, was an
assistance not less valuable to the finances of Athens than to her political
power. That excellent harbor, commodious as a mercantile centre, and
now again safe for the residence of metics and the importations of merchants,
became speedily a scene of animated commerce, as we have seen it
when surprised by Teleutias. The number of metics, or free resident
non-citizens, became also again large, as it had been before the time
of her reverses, and including a number of miscellaneous non-Hellenic
persons, from Lydia, Phrygia, and Syria.[729] Both the port-duties,
and the value of fixed property at Athens, was thus augmented so as
in part to countervail the costs of war. Nevertheless these costs,
continued from year to year, and combined with the damage done by
Æginetan privateers, were seriously felt, and contributed to dispose
the Athenians to peace.
In the Hellespont also, their prospects were not only on the
decline, but had become seriously menacing. After going from Ægina
to Ephesus in the preceding year, and sending back Gorgôpas with
the Æginetan squadron, Antalkidas had placed the remainder of his
fleet under his secretary, Nikolochus, with orders to proceed to
the Hellespont for the relief of Abydos. He himself landed, and
repaired to Tiribazus, by whom he was conducted up to the court
of Susa. Here he renewed the propositions for the pacification of
Greece,—on principles of universal autonomy, abandoning all the
Asiatic Greeks as subject absolutely to the Persian king,—which he
had tried in vain to carry through two years before. Though the
Spartans generally were odious to Artaxerxes, Antalkidas behaved with
so much dexterity[730] as to gain the royal favor personally,
while all the influence of Tiribazus was employed to second his
political views. At length they succeeded in prevailing upon the king
formally to adopt the peace, and to proclaim war against any Greeks
who should refuse to accede to it, empowering the Spartans to enforce
it everywhere as his allies and under his sanction. In order to
remove one who would have proved a great impediment to this measure, the king
was farther induced to invite the satrap Pharnabazus up to court,
and to honor him with his daughter in marriage; leaving the satrapy
of Daskylium under the temporary administration of Ariobarzanes, a
personal friend and guest of Antalkidas.[731] Thus armed against
all contingencies, Antalkidas and Tiribazus returned from Susa to
the coast of Asia Minor in the spring of 387 B.C.,
not only bearing the formal diploma ratified by the king’s seal, but
commanding ample means to carry it into effect; since, in addition to
the full forces of Persia, twenty additional triremes were on their
way from Syracuse and the Greco-Italian towns, sent by the despot
Dionysius to the aid of the Lacedæmonians.[732]
On reaching the coast, Antalkidas found Nikolochus with his fleet
of twenty-five sail blocked up in Abydos by the Athenians under
Iphikrates; who with thirty-two sail were occupying the European
side of the Hellespont. He immediately repaired to Abydos by land,
and took an early opportunity of stealing out by night with his
fleet up the strait towards the Propontis; spreading the rumor that
he was about to attack Chalkêdon, in concert with a party in the
town. But he stopped at Perkôtê, and lay hid in that harbor until he
saw the Athenian fleet (which had gone in pursuit of him upon the
false scent laid out) pass by towards Prokonnêsus. The strait being
now clear, Antalkidas sailed down it again to meet the Syracusan
and Italian ships, whom he safely joined. Such junction, with a
view to which his recent manœuvre had been devised, rendered him
more than a match for his enemies. He had further the good fortune
to capture a detached Athenian squadron of eight triremes, which
Thrasybulus (a second Athenian citizen of that name) was conducting
from Thrace to join the main Athenian fleet in the Hellespont.
Lastly, additional reinforcements also reached Antalkidas from the
zealous aid of Tiribazus and Ariobarzanes, insomuch that he found
himself at the head of no less than eighty triremes, besides a
still greater number which were under preparation in the various
ports of Ionia.[733]
Such a fleet, the greatest which had been seen in the
Hellespont
since the battle of Ægospotami, was so much superior to anything
which could be brought to meet it, and indicated so strongly the
full force of Persia operating in the interests of Sparta,—that the
Athenians began to fear a repetition of the same calamitous suffering
which they had already undergone from Lysander. A portion of such
hardship they at once began to taste. Not a single merchant-ship
reached them from the Euxine, all being seized and detained by
Antalkidas; so that their main supply of imported corn was thus
cut off. Moreover, in the present encouraging state of affairs,
the Æginetan privateers became doubly active in harassing the
coasting trade of Attica; and this combination, of actual hardship
with prospective alarm, created a paramount anxiety at Athens to
terminate the war. Without Athens, the other allies would have no
chance of success through their own forces; while the Argeians
also, hitherto the most obstinate, had become on their own account
desirous of peace, being afraid of repeated Lacedæmonian invasions
of their territory. That Sparta should press for a peace, when
the terms of it were suggested by herself, is not wonderful.
Even to her, triumphant as her position now seemed, the war was
a heavy burden.[734]
Such was the general state of feeling in the Grecian world, when
Tiribazus summoned the contending parties into his presence, probably
at Sardis, to hear the terms of the convention which had just come
down from Susa. He produced the original edict, and having first
publicly exhibited the regal seal, read aloud as follows:—
“King Artaxerxes thinks it just that the cities in Asia, and the
islands of Klazomenæ and Cyprus, shall belong to him. He thinks
it just also, to leave all the other Hellenic cities autonomous,
both small and great,—except Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros, which
are to belong to Athens, as they did originally. Should any
parties refuse to accept this peace, I will make war upon them,
along with those who are of the same mind, by land as well as
by sea, with ships and with money.”[735]
Instructions were given to all the deputies to report the
terms of this edict to their respective cities, and to meet
again at Sparta for acceptance or rejection. When the time of
meeting arrived,[736] all the cities, in spite of their
repugnance to the abandonment of the Asiatic Greeks, and partly also
to the second condition, nevertheless felt themselves overruled by
superior force, and gave a reluctant consent. On taking the oaths,
however, the Thebans tried indirectly to make good an exception in
their own case, by claiming to take the oath not only on behalf of
themselves, but on behalf of the Bœotian cities generally; a demand
which Agesilaus in the name of Sparta repudiated, as virtually
cancelling that item in the pacification whereby the small cities
were pronounced to be autonomous as well as the great. When the
Theban deputy replied that he could not relinquish his claim without
fresh instructions from home, Agesilaus desired him to go at once and
consult his countrymen. “You may tell them (said he) that if they do
not comply, they will be shut out from the treaty.”
It was with much delight that Agesilaus pronounced this peremptory
sentence, which placed Thebes in so humiliating a dilemma. Antipathy
towards the Thebans was one of his strongest sentiments, and he
exulted in the hope that they would persist in their refusal so
that he would thus be enabled to bring an overwhelming force to
crush their isolated city. So eagerly did he thirst for the expected
triumph, that immediately on the departure of the Theban deputies,
and before their answer could possibly have been obtained, he
procured the consent of the ephors, offered the border-sacrifice,
and led the Spartan force out as far as Tegea. From that city he not
only despatched messengers in all directions to hasten the arrival
of the Periœki, but also sent forth the officers called xenâgi to
the cities of the Peloponnesian allies, to muster and bring together
the respective contingents. But in spite of all injunctions to
despatch, his wishes were disappointed. Before he started from
Tegea, the Theban deputies returned with the intimation that they
were prepared to take the oath for Thebes alone, recognizing the
other Bœotian cities as autonomous. Agesilaus and the Spartans were
thus obliged to be satisfied with the minor triumph, in itself very
serious and considerable, of having degraded Thebes from her federal headship,
and isolated her from the Bœotian cities.[737]
The unmeasured and impatient miso-Theban bitterness of Agesilaus,
attested here by his friend and panegyrist, deserves especial notice;
for it will be found to explain much of the misconduct of Sparta and
her officers during the ensuing years.
There yet remained one compliance for Agesilaus to exact. The
Argeian auxiliaries were not yet withdrawn from Corinth; and the
Corinthian government might probably think that the terms of the
peace, leaving their city autonomous, permitted them to retain
or dismiss these auxiliaries at their own discretion. But it was
not so that Agesilaus construed the peace; and his construction,
right or wrong, was backed by the power of enforcement. He sent
to inform both Argeians and Corinthians, that if the auxiliaries
were not withdrawn, he would march his army forthwith into both
territories. No resistance could be offered to his peremptory
mandate. The Argeians retired from Corinth; and the vehement
philo-Argeian Corinthians,—especially those who had been concerned
in the massacre at the festival of the Eukleia,—retired at the
same time into voluntary exile, thinking themselves no longer
safe in the town. They found a home partly at Argos, partly
at Athens,[738] where they were most hospitably
received. Those Corinthians who had before been in exile, and who,
in concert with the Lacedæmonian garrison at Lechæum and Sikyon,
had been engaged in bitter hostility against their countrymen in
Corinth,—were immediately readmitted into the city. According to
Xenophon, their readmission was pronounced by the spontaneous
voice of the Corinthian citizens.[739] But we shall
be more correct in affirming, that it was procured by the same
intimidating summons from Agesilaus which had extorted the dismissal
of the Argeians.[740] The restoration of the exiles from Lechæum
on the
present occasion was no more voluntary than that of the Athenian
exiles had been eighteen years before, at the Peloponnesian
war,—or than that of the Phliasian exiles was, two or three years
afterwards.[741]
[1] See Diodor. xi, 69; xii, 64-71;
Ktesias, Persica, c. 29-45; Aristotel. Polit. v, 14, 8. This last
passage of Aristotle is not very clear. Compare Justin, x, 1.
For the chronology of these Persian kings, see a valuable Appendix in
Mr. Fynes Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, App. 18, vol. ii, p. 313-316.
[3] See the Appendix of Mr. Fynes
Clinton, mentioned in the preceding note, p. 317.
There were some Egyptian troops in the army of Artaxerxes at the
battle of Kunaxa; on the other hand, there were other Egyptians in
a state of pronounced revolt. Compare two passages of Xenophon’s
Anabasis, i, 8, 9; ii, 5, 13; Diodor. xiii, 46; and the Dissertation
of F. Ley, Fata et Conditio Ægypti sub imperio Persarum, p. 20-56
(Cologne, 1830).
This incompetence, or duplicity, on the part of the Spartan
envoys, helps to explain the facility with which Alkibiades duped
them at Athens (Thucyd. v, 45). See above, in this History, Vol. VII.
ch. lv, p. 47.
[13] Darius had had thirteen children
by Parysatis; but all except Artaxerxes and Cyrus died young. Ktesias
asserts that he heard this statement from Parysatis herself (Ktesias,
Persica, c. 49).
Compare Xen. Cyropæd. viii, 3, 10; and Lucian, Navigium seu Vota,
c. 30. vol. iii, p. 267, ed. Hemsterhuys with Du Soul’s note.
It is remarkable that, in this passage of the Hellenica, either
Xenophon, or the copyist, makes the mistake of calling Xerxes
(instead of Artaxerxes) father of Darius. Some of the editors,
without any authority from MSS., wish to alter the text from Ξέρξου
to Ἀρταξέρξου.
[20] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 7, 8, ὥστε οὐδὲν
ἤχθετο (the king) αὐτῶν πολεμοῦντων.
[21] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 9; ii, 6, 3. The
statements here contained do not agree with Diodor. xiv, 12; while
both of them differ from Isokrates (Orat. viii, De Pace, s. 121; Or.
xii, Panath. s. 111), and Plutarch, Artaxerxes, c. 6.
I follow partially the narrative of Diodorus, so far as to suppose
that the tyranny which he mentions was committed by Klearchus as
Harmost of Byzantium. We know that there was a Lacedæmonian Harmost
in that town, named as soon as the town was taken, by Lysander,
after the battle of Ægospotami (Xen. Hellen. ii, 2, 2). This was
towards the end of 405 B.C. We know farther, from the
Anabasis, that Kleander was Harmost there in 400 B.C.
Klearchus may have been Harmost there in 404 B.C.
[22] Xen. Anab. i, 1, 10; Herodot.
vii, 6; ix, 1; Plato, Menon, c. 1, p. 70; c. 11, p. 78 C.
For other samples of mutilation inflicted by Persians, not merely
on malefactors, but on prisoners by wholesale, see Quintus Curtius,
v. 5, 6. Alexander the Great was approaching near to Persepolis,
“quum miserabile agmen, inter pauca fortunæ exempla memorandum, regi
occurrit. Captivi erant Græci ad quatuor millia ferè, quos Persæ
vario suppliciorum modo affecerunt. Alios pedibus, quosdam manibus
auribusque, amputatis, inustisque barbararum literarum notis, in
longum sui ludibrium reservaverant,” etc. Compare Diodorus, xvii, 69;
and the prodigious tales of cruelty recounted in Herodot. ix, 112;
Ktesias, Persic. c. 54-59; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 14, 16, 17.
It is not unworthy of remark, that while there was nothing
in which the Persian rulers displayed greater invention than in
exaggerating bodily suffering upon a malefactor or an enemy,—at
Athens, whenever any man was put to death by public sentence, the
execution took place within the prison by administering a cup of
hemlock, without even public exposure. It was the minimum of pain, as
well as the minimum of indignity; as any one may see who reads the
account of the death of Sokrates, given by Plato at the end of the
Phædon.
It is certain, that, on the whole, the public sentiment in England
is more humane now than it was in that day at Athens. Yet an Athenian
public could not have borne the sight of a citizen publicly hanged
or beheaded in the market-place. Much less could they have borne the
sight of the prolonged tortures inflicted on Damiens at Paris in 1757
(a fair parallel to the Persian σκάφευσις described in Plutarch,
Artaxerx. c. 16), in the presence of an immense crowd of spectators,
when every window commanding a view of the Place de Grève was let at
a high price, and filled by the best company in Paris.
[33] Strabo, ix, p. 403. The story
that Sokrates carried off Xenophon, wounded and thrown from his
horse, on his shoulders, and thus saved his life,—seems too doubtful
to enter into the narrative.
Among the proofs that Xenophon was among the Horsemen or Ἱππεῖς of
Athens, we may remark, not only his own strong interest, and great
skill in horsemanship, in the cavalry service and the duties of its
commander, and in all that relates to horses, as manifested in his
published works,—but also the fact, that his son Gryllus served
afterwards among the Athenian horsemen at the combat of cavalry which
preceded the great battle of Mantineia (Diogen. Laërt. ii, 54).
Diodorus (xiv, 11) citing from Ephorus affirms that the first
revelation to Artaxerxes was made by Pharnabazus, who had learnt it
from the acuteness of the Athenian exile Alkibiades. That the latter
should have had any concern in it, appears improbable. But Diodorus
on more than one occasion, confounds Pharnabazus and Tissaphernes.
[37] The parasang was a Persian
measurement of length, but according to Strabo, not of uniform value
in all parts of Asia; in some parts, held equivalent to thirty
stadia, in others to forty, in others to sixty (Strabo, xi, p.
518; Forbiger, Handbuch der Alten Geograph. vol. i, p. 555). This
variability of meaning is no way extraordinary, when we recollect the
difference between English, Irish, and German miles, etc.
Herodotus tells us distinctly what he meant by a parasang, and
what the Persian government of his day recognized as such in their
measurement of the great road from Sardis to Susa, as well as in
their measurements of territory for purposes of tribute (Herod. v,
53; vi, 43). It was thirty Greek stadia = nearly three and a half
English miles, or nearly three geographical miles. The distance
between every two successive stations, on the road from Sardis to
Susa, (which was “all inhabited and all secure,” διὰ οἰκεομένης τε
ἅπασα καὶ ἀσφολέος), would seem to have been measured and marked in
parasangs and fractions of a parasang. It seems probable, from the
account which Herodotus gives of the march of Xerxes (vii, 26), that
this road passed from Kappadokia and across the river Halys, through
Kelænæ and Kolossæ to Sardis; and therefore that the road which Cyrus
took for his march, from Sardis at least as far as Kelænæ, must have
been so measured and marked.
Xenophon also in his summing up of the route, (ii, 2, 6; vii, 8,
26) implies the parasang as equivalent to thirty stadia, while he
gives for the most part, each day’s journey measured in parasangs.
Now even at the outset of the march, we have no reason to believe
that there was any official measurer of road-progress accompanying
the army, like Bæton, ὁ Βηματιστὴς Ἀλεξάνδρου, in Alexander’s
invasion; see Athenæus, x, p. 442, and Geier, Alexandri Magni Histor.
Scriptt. p. 357. Yet Xenophon, throughout the whole march, even as
far as Trebizond, states the day’s march of the army in parasangs;
not merely in Asia Minor, where there were roads, but through the
Arabian desert between Thapsakus and Pylæ,—through the snows of
Armenia,—and through the territory of the barbarous Chalybes. He
tells us that in the desert of Arabia they marched ninety parasangs
in thirteen days, or very nearly seven parasangs per day,—and that
too under the extreme heat of summer. He tells us, farther, that
in the deep snows of Armenia, and in the extremity of winter, they
marched fifteen parasangs in three days; and through the territory
(also covered with snow) of the pugnacious Chalybes, fifty parasangs
in seven days, or more than seven parasangs per day. Such marches, at
thirty stadia for the parasang, are impossible. And how did Xenophon
measure the distance marched over?
The most intelligent modern investigators and travellers,—Major
Rennell, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Hamilton, Colonel Chesney, Professor
Koch, etc., offer no satisfactory solution of the difficulty. Major
Rennell reckons the parasangs as equal to 2.25 geogr. miles; Mr.
Ainsworth at three geogr. miles; Mr. Hamilton (travels in Asia Minor,
c. 42, p. 200), at something less than two and a half geogr. miles;
Colonel Chesney (Euphrat. and Tigris, ch. 8, p. 207) at 2.608 geogr.
miles between Sardis and Thapsakus—at 1.98 geogr. miles, between
Thapsakus and Kunaxa,—at something less than this, without specifying
how much, during the retreat. It is evident that there is no certain
basis to proceed upon, even for the earlier portion of the route;
much more, for the retreat. The distance between Ikonium and Dana
(or Tyana), is one of the quantities on which Mr. Hamilton rests
his calculation; but we are by no means certain that Cyrus took the
direct route of march; he rather seems to have turned out of his
way, partly to plunder Lykaonia, partly to conduct the Kilikian
princess homeward. The other item, insisted upon by Mr. Hamilton,
is the distance between Kelænæ and Kolossæ, two places the site of
which seems well ascertained, and which are by the best modern maps,
fifty-two geographical miles apart. Xenophon calls the distance
twenty parasangs. Assuming the road by which he marched to have been
the same with that now travelled, it would make the parasang of
Xenophon = 2.6 geographical miles. I have before remarked that the
road between Kolossæ and Kelænæ was probably measured and numbered
according to parasangs; so that Xenophon, in giving the number of
parasangs between these two places, would be speaking upon official
authority.
Even a century and a half afterwards, the geographer Eratosthenes
found it not possible to obtain accurate measurements, in much of the
country traversed by Cyrus (Strabo, ii, p. 73.)
Colonel Chesney remarks,—“From Sardis to Cunaxa, or the mounds of
Mohammed, cannot be much under or over twelve hundred and sixty-five
geographical miles; making 2.364 geographical miles for each of the
five hundred and thirty-five parasangs given by Xenophon between
those two places.”
As a measure of distance, the parasang of Xenophon is evidently
untrustworthy. Is it admissible to consider, in the description
of this march, that the parasangs and stadia of Xenophon are
measurements rather of time than of space? From Sardis to Kelænæ,
he had a measured road and numbered parasangs of distance; it is
probable that the same mensuration and numeration continued for four
days farther, as far as Keramôn-Agora, (since I imagine that the
road from Kelænæ to the Halys and Kappadokia must have gone through
these two places,)—and possibly it may have continued even as far
as Ikonium or Dana. Hence, by these early marches, Xenophon had
the opportunity of forming to himself roughly an idea of the time
(measured by the course of the sun) which it took for the army to
march one, two, or three parasangs; and when he came to the ulterior
portions of the road, he called that length of time by the name of
one, two, or three parasangs. Five parasangs seem to have meant with
him a full day’s march; three or four, a short day; six, seven, or
eight, a long, or very long day.
We must recollect that the Greeks in the time of Xenophon had
no portable means of measuring hours, and did not habitually
divide the day into hours, or into any other recognized fraction.
The Alexandrine astronomers, near two centuries afterwards, were
the first to use ὥρη in the sense of hour (Ideler, Handbuch der
Chronologie, vol. i, p. 239.)
This may perhaps help to explain Xenophon’s meaning, when he talks
about marching five or seven parasangs amidst the deep snows of
Armenia; I do not however suppose that he had this meaning uniformly
or steadily present to his mind. Sometimes, it would seem, he must
have used the word in its usual meaning of distance.
[38] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 8, 9. About
Kelænæ, Arrian, Exp. Al. i, 29, 2; Quint. Curt. iii, 1, 6.
[39] These three marches, each of ten
parasangs, from Keramôn-Agora to Käystru-Pedion,—are the longest
recorded in the Anabasis. It is rather surprising to find them so;
for there seems no motive for Cyrus to have hurried forward. When
he reached Käystru-Pedion, he halted five days. Koch (Zug der Zehn
Tausend, Leipsic, 1850, p. 19) remarks that the three days’ march,
which seem to have dropped out of Xenophon’s calculation, comparing
the items with the total, might conveniently be let in here; so that
these thirty parasangs should have occupied six days’ march instead
of three; five parasangs per day. The whole march which Cyrus had
hitherto made from Sardis, including the road from Keramôn-Agora to
Käystru-Pedion, lay in the great road from Sardis to the river Halys,
Kappadokia, and Susa. That road (as we see by the March of Xerxes,
Herodot. vii, 26; v, 52) passed through both Kelænæ and Kolossæ;
though this is a prodigious departure from the straight line. At
Käystru-Pedion, Cyrus seems to have left this great road; taking a
different route, in a direction nearly south-east towards Ikonium.
About the point, somewhere near Synnada, where these different roads
crossed, see Mr. Ainsworth, Trav. in the Track, p. 28.
I do not share the doubts which have been raised about Xenophon’s
accuracy, in his description of the route from Sardis to Ikonium;
though the names of several of the places which he mentions are not
known to us, and their sites cannot be exactly identified. There is
a great departure from the straight line of bearing. But we at the
present day assign more weight to that circumstance than is suited to
the days of Xenophon. Straight roads, stretching systematically over
a large region of country, are not of that age; the communications
were probably all originally made, between one neighboring town and
another, without much reference to saving of distance, and with no
reference to any promotion of traffic between distant places.
It was just about this time that King Archelaus began to “cut
straight roads” in Macedonia,—which Thucydides seems to note as a
remarkable thing (ii, 100).
[40] Neither Thymbrium, nor Tyriæum, can be identified. But it seems
that both must have been situated on the line of road now followed by the
caravans from Smyrna to Konieh (Ikonium,) which line of road follows a
direction between the mountains called Emir Dagh on the north-east, and
those called Sultan Dagh on the south-west (Koch, Der Zug der Zehn
Tausend, p. 21, 22).
When the hoplite was on march, without expectation of an enemy, the
shield seems to have been carried behind him, with his blanket attached to
it (see Aristoph. Acharn. 1085, 1089-1149); it was slung by the strap round
his neck and shoulder. Sometimes indeed he had an opportunity of relieving
himself from the burden, by putting the shield in a baggage-wagon
(Xen. Anab. i, 7, 20). The officers generally, and doubtless some soldiers,
could command attendants to carry their shields for them (iv, 2, 20; Aristoph.
1, c.).
On occasion of this review, the shields were unpacked, rubbed, and brightened,
as before a battle (Xen. Hell. vii, 5, 20); then fastened round the neck
or shoulders, and held out upon the left arm, which was passed through the
rings or straps attached to its concave or interior side.
Respecting the cases or wrappers of the shields, see a curious stratagem
of the Syracusan Agathokles (Diodor. xx, 11). The Roman soldiers also
carried their shields in leathern wrappers, when on march (Plutarch, Lucull.
c. 27).
It is to be remarked that Xenophon, in enumerating the arms of the Cyreians,
does not mention breastplates; which (though sometimes worn, see
Plutarch, Dion. c. 30) were not usually worn by hoplites, who carried heavy
shields. It is quite possible that some of the Cyreian infantry may have
had breastplates as well as shields, since every soldier provided his own
arms; but Xenophon states only what was common to all.
Grecian cavalry commonly wore a heavy breastplate, but had no shield.
[44] This shorter and more direct pass crosses the Taurus by Kizil-Chesmeh,
Alan Buzuk, and Mizetli; it led directly to the Kilikian seaport-town
Soli, afterwards called Pompeiopolis. It is laid down in the Peutinger
Tables as the road from Iconium to Pompeiopolis (Ainsworth, p. 40 seq.;
Chesney, Euph. and Tigr. ii, p. 209).
[46] Xen. Anab. i, 2, 21; Diodor. xiv, 20. See Mr. Kinneir, Travels in
Asia Minor, p. 116; Col. Chesney, Euphrates and Tigris, vol. i, p. 293-354;
and Mr. Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 40 seq.;
also his other work, Travels in Asia Minor, vol. ii. ch. 30, p. 70-77; and
Koch, Der Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 26-172, for a description of this memorable
pass.
Alexander the Great, as well as Cyrus, was fortunate enough to find this
impregnable pass abandoned; as it appears, through sheer stupidity or recklessness
of the satrap who ought to have defended it, and who had not even
the same excuse for abandoning it as Syennesis had on the approach of
Cyrus (Arrian. E. A. ii. 4; Curtius, iii, 9, 10, 11).
[48] Diodorus (xiv, 20) represents Syennesis as playing a double game,
though reluctantly. He takes no notice of the proceeding of Epyaxa.
So Livy says, about the conduct of the Macedonian courtiers in regard
to the enmity between Perseus and Demetrius, the two sons of Philip II. of
Macedon: “Crescente in dies Philippi odio in Romanos, cui Perseus indulgeret,
Demetrius summâ ope adversaretur, prospicientes animo exitum
incauti a fraude fraternâ juvenis—adjuvandum, quod futurum erat, rati, fovendamque
spem potentioris, Perseo se adjungunt,” etc. (Livy, xl, 5).
[54] The breadth of the river Sarus (Scihun) is given by Xenophon at three
hundred feet; which agrees nearly with the statements of modern travellers
(Koch, Der Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 34).
Compare, for the description of this country, Kinneir’s Journey through
Asia Minor, p. 135; Col. Chesney, Euphrates and Tigris, ii, p. 211; Mr.
Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 54.
Colonel Chesney affirms that neither the Sarus nor the Pyramus is fordable.
There must have been bridges; which, in the then flourishing state
of Kilikia, is by no means improbable. He and Mr. Ainsworth, however,
differ as to the route which they suppose Cyrus to have taken between
Tarsus and Issus.
Xenophon mentions nothing about the Amanian Gates, which afterwards
appear noticed both in Arrian (ii, 6; ii, 7) and in Strabo (xiv, p. 676). The
various data of ancient history and geography about this region are by no
means easy to reconcile; see a valuable note of Mützel on Quintus Curtius,
iii, 17, 7. An inspection of the best recent maps, either Colonel Chesney’s
or Kiepert’s, clears up some of these better than any verbal description.
We see by these maps that Mount Amanus bifurcates into two branches,
one of them flanking the Gulf of Issus on its western, the other on its eastern
side. There are thus two different passes, each called Pylæ Amanides
or Amanian Gates; one having reference to the Western Amanus, the
other to the Eastern. The former was crossed by Alexander, the latter by
Darius, before the battle of Issus; and Arrian (ii, 6; ii, 7) is equally correct
in saying of both of them that they passed the Amanian Gates; though
both did not pass the same gates.
[58] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 6. To require the wives or children of generals in
service, as hostages for fidelity, appears to have been not unfrequent with
Persian kings. On the other hand, it was remarked as a piece of gross
obsequiousness in the Argeian Nikostratus, who commanded the contingent
of his countrymen serving under Artaxerxes Ochus in Egypt, that he volunteered
to bring up his son to the king as a hostage, without being demanded
(Theopompus, Frag. 135 [ed. Wichers] ap. Athenæ. vi, p. 252).
[61] See the remarks of Mr. Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten
Thousand, p. 58-61; and other citations respecting the difficult road
through the pass of Beilan, in Mützel’s valuable notes on Quintus Curtius,
iii, 20, 13, p. 101.
[62] Neither the Chalus, nor the Daradax, nor indeed the road followed by
Cyrus in crossing Syria from the sea to the Euphrates, can be satisfactorily
made out (Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 36, 37).
Respecting the situation of Thapsakus,—placed erroneously by Rennell
lower down the river at Deir, where it stands marked even in the map annexed
to Col. Chesney’s Report on the Euphrates, and by Reichard higher
up the river, near Bir—see Ritter, Erdkunde, part x, B. iii; West Asien, p.
14-17, with the elaborate discussion, p. 972-978, in the same volume; also
the work of Mr. Ainsworth above cited, p. 70. The situation of Thapsakus
is correctly placed in Colonel Chesney’s last work (Euphr. and Tigr. p.
213), and in the excellent map accompanying that work; though I dissent
from his view of the march of Cyrus between the pass of Beilan and Thapsakus.
Thapsakus appears to have been the most frequented and best-known
passage over the Euphrates, throughout the duration of the Seleukid kings,
down to 100 B.C. It was selected as a noted point, to which observations
and calculations might be conveniently referred, by Eratosthenes and other
geographers (see Strabo, ii, p. 79-87). After the time when the Roman
empire became extended to the Euphrates, the new Zeugma, higher up the
river near Bir or Bihrejik (about the 37th parallel of latitude) became more
used and better known, at least to the Roman writers.
The passage at Thapsakus was in the line of road from Palmyra to
Karrhæ in Northern Mesopotamia; also from Seleukeia (on the Tigris
below Bagdad) to the other cities founded in Northern Syria by Seleukus
Nikator and his successors, Antioch on the Orontes, Seleukeia in Pieria,
Laodikeia, Antioch ad Taurum, etc.
The ford at Thapsakus (says Mr. Ainsworth, p. 69, 70) “is celebrated to
this day as the ford of the Anezeh or Beduins. On the right bank of the
Euphrates there are the remains of a paved causeway leading to the very
banks of the river, and continued on the opposite side.”
[64] Xen. Anab. i, 4, 18. Compare (Plutarch, Alexand. 17) analogous expressions
of flattery—from the historians of Alexander, affirming that the sea near
Pamphylia providentially made way for him—from the inhabitants on the
banks of the Euphrates, when the river was passed by the Roman legions and
the Parthian prince Tiridates, in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius (Tacitus,
Annal. vi. 37); and by Lucullus still earlier (Plutarch, Lucull. c. 24).
The time when Cyrus crossed the Euphrates, must probably have been
about the end of July or beginning of August. Now the period of greatest
height, in the waters of the Euphrates near this part of its course, is from
the 21st to the 28th of May; the period when they are lowest, is about the
middle of November (see Colonel Chesney’s Report on the Euphrates, p. 5).
Rennell erroneously states that they are lowest in August and September
(Expedit, of Xenophon, p. 277). The waters would thus be at a sort of
mean height, when Cyrus passed.
Mr. Ainsworth states that there were only twenty inches of water in the
ford at Thapsakus, from October 1841 to February 1842; the steamers
Nimrod and Nitocris then struck upon it (p. 72), though the steamers Euphrates
and Tigris had passed over it without difficulty in the month of
May.
[65] Xenophon gives these nine days of march as covering fifty parasangs
(Anab. i, 4, 19). But Koch remarks that the distance is not half so great
as that from the sea to Thapsakus; which latter Xenophon gives at sixty-five
parasangs. There is here some confusion; together with the usual difficulty
in assigning any given distance as the equivalent of the parasang
(Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 38).
[66] See the remarkable testimony of Mr. Ainsworth, from personal observation,
to the accuracy of Xenophon’s description of the country, even at
the present day.
[69] I infer that the army halted here five or six days, from the story afterwards
told respecting the Ambrakiot Silanus, the prophet of the army;
who, on sacrificing, had told Cyrus that his brother would not fight for ten
days (i, 7, 16). This sacrifice must have been offered, I imagine, during
the halt—not during the distressing march which preceded. The ten days
named by Silanus, expired on the fourth day after they left Pylæ.
It is in reference to this portion of the course of the Euphrates, from the
Chaboras southward down by Anah and Hit (the ancient Is, noticed by
Herodotus, and still celebrated from its unexhausted supply of bitumen),
between latitude 35½° and 34°—that Colonel Chesney, in his Report on the
Navigation of the Euphrates (p. 2), has the following remarks:—
“The scenery above Hit, in itself very picturesque, is greatly heightened,
as one is carried along the current, by the frequent recurrence, at very short
intervals, of ancient irrigating aqueducts; these beautiful specimens of art
and durability are attributed by the Arabs to the times of the ignorant,
meaning (as is expressly understood) the Persians, when fire-worshippers,
and in possession of the world. They literally cover both banks, and prove
that the borders of the Euphrates were once thickly inhabited by a people
far advanced indeed in the application of hydraulics to domestic purposes,
of the first and greatest utility—the transport of water. The greater portion
is now more or less in ruins, but some have been repaired, and kept up
for use either to grind corn or to irrigate. The aqueducts are of stone, firmly
cemented, narrowing to about two feet or twenty inches at top, placed at
right angles to the current, and carried various distances towards the interior,
from two hundred to one thousand two hundred yards.
“But what most concerns the subject of this memoir is, the existence of
a parapet wall or stone rampart in the river, just above the several aqueducts.
In general, there is one of the former attached to each of the latter.
And almost invariably, between two mills on the opposite banks, one of
them crosses the stream from side to side, with the exception of a passage
left in the centre for boats to pass up and down. The object of these subaqueous
walls would appear to be exclusively, to raise the water sufficiently
at low seasons, to give it impetus, as well as a more abundant supply to the
wheels. And their effect at those times is, to create a fall in every part of
the width, save the opening left for commerce, through which the water
rushes with a moderately irregular surface. These dams were probably
from four to eight feet high originally; but they are now frequently a bank
of stones disturbing the evenness of the current, but always affording a sufficient
passage for large boats at low seasons.”
The marks which Colonel Chesney points out, of previous population
and industry on the banks of the Euphrates at this part of its course, are
extremely interesting and curious, when contrasted with the desolation
depicted by Xenophon; who mentions that there were no other inhabitants
than some who lived by cutting millstones from the stone quarries near, and
sending them to Babylon in exchange for grain. It is plain that the population,
of which Colonel Chesney saw the remaining tokens, either had already
long ceased, or did not begin to exist, or to construct their dams and
aqueducts, until a period later than Xenophon. They probably began
during the period of the Seleukid kings, after the year 300 B.C. For this
line of road along the Euphrates began then to acquire great importance
as the means of communication between the great city of Seleukeia (on
the Tigris, below Bagdad) and the other cities founded by Seleukus Nikator
and his successors in the North of Syria and Asia Minor—Seleukeia in
Pieria, Antioch, Laodikeia, Apameia, etc. This route coincides mainly
with the present route from Bagdad to Aleppo, crossing the Euphrates at
Thapsakus. It can hardly be doubted that the course of the Euphrates
was better protected during the two centuries of the Seleukid kings (B.C.
300-100, speaking in round numbers), than it came to be afterwards, when
that river became the boundary line between the Romans and the Parthians.
Even at the time of the Emperor Julian’s invasion, however, Ammianus
Marcellinus describes the left bank of the Euphrates, north of Babylonia,
as being in several parts well cultivated, and furnishing ample subsistence,
(Ammian. Marc. xxiv, 1). At the time of Xenophon’s Anabasis, there was
nothing to give much importance to the banks of the Euphrates north of
Babylonia.
Mr. Ainsworth describes the country on the left bank of the Euphrates,
before reaching Pylæ, as being now in the same condition as it was when
Xenophon and his comrades marched through it,—“full of hills and narrow
valleys, and presenting many difficulties to the movement of an army.
The illustrator was, by a curious accident, left by the Euphrates steamer on
this very portion of the river, and on the same side as the Perso-Greek
army, and he had to walk a day and a night across these inhospitable regions;
so that he can speak feelingly of the difficulties which the Greeks
had to encounter.” (Travels in the Track, etc. p. 81.)
[70] I incline to think that Charmandê must have been nearly opposite
Pylæ, lower down than Hit. But Major Rennell (p. 107) and Mr. Ainsworth
(p. 84) suppose Charmandê to be the same place as the modern Hit
(the Is of Herodotus). There is no other known town with which we can
identify it.
[72] The commentators agree in thinking that we are to understand by Pylæ
a sort of gate or pass, marking the spot where the desert country north of
Babylonia—with its undulations of land, and its steep banks along the
river—was exchanged for the flat and fertile alluvium constituting Babylonia
proper. Perhaps there was a town near the pass, and named after it.
Now it appears from Col. Chesney’s survey that this alteration in the
nature of the country takes place a few miles below Hit. He observes—(Euphrates
and Tigris, vol. i, p. 54)—“Three miles below Hit, the remains
of aqueducts disappear, and the windings become shorter and more frequent,
as the river flows through a tract of country almost level.” Thereabouts
it is that I am inclined to place Pylæ.
Colonel Chesney places it lower down, twenty-five miles from Hit. Professor
Koch (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 44), lower down still. Mr. Ainsworth
places it as much as seventy geographical miles lower than Hit
(Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 81); compare Ritter, Erdkunde,
West Asien, x. p. 16; xi, pp. 755-763.
[73] The description given of this scene (known to the Greeks through the
communications of Klearchus) by Xenophon, is extremely interesting
(Anab. i, 6). I omit it from regard to space.
[79] From Pylæ to the undefended trench, there intervened three entire
days of march, and one part of a day; for it occurred in the fourth day’s
march.
Xenophon calls the three entire days, twelve parasangs in all. This
argues short marches, not full marches. And it does not seem that the
space of ground traversed during any one of them can have been considerable.
For they were all undertaken with visible evidences of an enemy
immediately in front of them; which circumstance was the occasion of the
treason of Orontes, who asked Cyrus for a body of cavalry, under pretence
of attacking the light troops of the enemy in front, and then wrote a letter
to inform Artaxerxes that he was about to desert with his division. The
letter was delivered to Cyrus, who thus discovered the treason.
Marching with a known enemy not far off in front, Cyrus must have
kept his army in something like battle order, and therefore must have
moved slowly. Moreover the discovery of the treason of Orontes must
itself have been an alarming fact, well calculated to render both Cyrus and
Klearchus doubly cautious for the time. And the very trial of Orontes
appears to have been conducted under such solemnities as must have occasioned
a halt of the army.
Taking these circumstances, we can hardly suppose the Greeks to have
got over so much as thirty English miles of ground in the three entire days
of march. The fourth day they must have got over very little ground indeed;
not merely because Cyrus was in momentary expectation of the
King’s main army, and of a general battle (i, 7, 14), but because of the
great delay necessary for passing the trench. His whole army (more than
one hundred thousand men), with baggage, chariots, etc., had to pass
through the narrow gut of twenty feet wide between the trench and the Euphrates.
He can hardly have made more than five miles in this whole
day’s march, getting at night so far as to encamp two or three miles beyond
the trench. We may therefore reckon the distance marched over between
Pylæ and the trench as about thirty-two miles in all; and two or three
miles farther to the encampment of the next night. Probably Cyrus would
keep near the river, yet not following its bends with absolute precision; so
that in estimating distance, we ought to take a mean between the straight
line and the full windings of the river.
I conceive the trench to have cut the Wall of Media at a much wider
angle than appears in Col. Chesney’s map; so that the triangular space
included between the trench, the Wall, and the river, was much more extensive.
The reason, we may presume, why the trench was cut, was, to
defend that portion of the well-cultivated and watered country of Babylonia
which lay outside of the Wall of Media—which portion (as we shall see
hereafter in the marches of the Greeks after the battle) was very considerable.
[80] Xen. Anab. i, 7, 20. The account given by Xenophon of this long line
of trench, first dug by order of Artaxerxes, and then left useless and undefended,
differs from the narrative of Diodorus (xiv, 22), which seems to be
borrowed from Ephorus. Diodorus says that the king caused a long trench
to be dug, and lined with carriages and waggons as a defence for his baggage;
and that he afterwards marched forth from this entrenchment, with
his soldiers free and unincumbered, to give battle to Cyrus. This is a
statement more plausible than that of Xenophon, in this point of view, that
it makes out the king to have acted upon a rational scheme; whereas in
Xenophon he appears at first to have adopted a plan of defence, and then
to have renounced it, after immense labor and cost, without any reason, so
far as we can see. Yet I have no doubt that the account of Xenophon is
the true one. The narrow passage, and the undefended trench, were both
facts of the most obvious and impressive character to an observing soldier.
[81] Xenophon does not mention the name Kunaxa, which comes to us from
Plutarch (Artaxerx. c. 8), who states that it was five hundred stadia (about
fifty-eight miles) from Babylon; while Xenophon was informed that the
field of battle was distant from Babylon only three hundred and sixty
stadia. Now, according to Colonel Chesney (Euphrates and Tigris, vol. i,
p. 57), Hillah (Babylon) is distant ninety-one miles by the river, or sixty-one
and a half miles direct, from Felujah. Following therefore the distance
given by Plutarch (probably copied from Ktesias), we should place
Kunaxa a little lower down the river than Felujah. This seems the most
probable supposition.
Rennell and Mr. Baillie Fraser so place it (Mesopotamia and Assyria, p.
186, Edin. 1842), I think rightly; moreover the latter remarks, what most
of the commentators overlook, that the Greeks did not pass through the
Wall of Media until long after the battle. See a note a little below, near
the beginning of my next chapter, in reference to that Wall.
[82] The distance of the undefended trench from the battle-field of Kunaxa
would be about twenty-two miles. First, three miles beyond the trench, to
the first night-station; next, a full day’s march, say twelve miles; thirdly,
a half day’s march, to the time of the mid-day halt, say seven miles.
The distance from Pylæ to the trench having before been stated at thirty-two
miles, the whole distance from Pylæ to Kunaxa will be about fifty-four
miles.
Now Colonel Chesney has stated the distance from Hit to Felujah Castle
(two known points) at forty-eight miles of straight line, and seventy-seven
miles, if following the line of the river. Deduct four miles for the distance
from Hit to Pylæ, and we shall then have between Pylæ and Felujah,
a rectilinear distance of forty-four miles. The marching route of the
Greeks (as explained in the previous note, the Greeks following generally,
but not exactly, the windings of the river) will give fifty miles from Pylæ
to Felujah, and fifty-three or fifty-four from Pylæ to Kunaxa.
The last words are remarkable, as indicating that no other stimulus except
that of ambitious rivalry and fraternal antipathy, had force enough to
overthrow the self-command of Cyrus.
[91] Compare the account of the transport of rage which seized the Theban
Pelopidas, when he saw Alexander the despot of Pheræ in the opposite
army; which led to the same fatal consequences (Plutarch, Pelopidas, c.
32; Cornel. Nepos, Pelop. c. 5). See also the reflections of Xenophon on
the conduct of Teleutas before Olynthus.—Hellenic. v. 3, 7.
[92] Xen. Anab. i, 8, 22-29. The account of this battle and of the death of
Cyrus by Ktesias (as far as we can make it out from the brief abstract in
Photius—Ktesias, Fragm. c. 58, 59, ed. Bähr) does not differ materially
from Xenophon. Ktesias mentions the Karian soldier (not noticed by
Xenophon) who hurled the javelin; and adds that this soldier was afterwards
tortured and put to death by Queen Parysatis, in savage revenge for
the death of Cyrus. He also informs us that Bagapatês, the person who
by order of Artaxerxes cut off the head and hand of Cyrus, was destroyed
by her in the same way.
Diodorus (xiv, 23) dresses up a much fuller picture of the conflict between
Cyrus and his brother, which differs on many points, partly direct
and partly implied, from Xenophon.
Plutarch (Artaxerxes, c. 11, 12, 13) gives an account of the battle, and
of the death of Cyrus, which he professes to have derived from Ktesias, but
which differs still more materially from the narrative in Xenophon. Compare
also the few words of Justin, v, 11.
Diodorus (xiv, 24) says that twelve thousand men were slain of the king’s
army at Kunaxa; the greater part of them by the Greeks under Klearchus,
who did not lose a single man. He estimates the loss of Cyrus’s Asiatic
army at three thousand men. But as the Greeks did not lose a man, so
they can hardly have killed many in the pursuit; for they had scarcely any
cavalry, and no great number of peltasts,—while hoplites could not have
overtaken the flying Persians.
[93] Xen. Anab. i, 10, 3. The accomplishments and fascinations of this
Phokæan lady, and the great esteem in which she was held first by Cyrus
and afterwards by Artaxerxes, have been exaggerated into a romantic story,
in which we cannot tell what may be the proportion of truth (see Ælian,
V. H. xii, 1; Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 26, 27; Justin, x, 2). Both Plutarch
and Justin state that the subsequent enmity between Artaxerxes and his
son Darius, which led to the conspiracy of the latter against his father, and
to his destruction when the conspiracy was discovered, arose out of the
passion of Darius for her. But as that transaction certainly happened at
the close of the long life and reign of Artaxerxes, who reigned forty-six
years—and as she must have been then sixty years old, if not more—we
may fairly presume that the cause of the family tragedy must have been
something different.
Compare the description of the fate of Berenikê of Chios, and Monimê
of Miletus, wives of Mithridates king of Pontus, during the last misfortunes
of that prince (Plutarch, Lucullus, c. 18).
[94] Xen. Anab. i, 10, 17. This provision must probably have been made
during the recent halt at Pylæ.
[97] Isokrates, Orat. iv, (Panegyric.) s. 175-182; a striking passage, as describing
the way in which political institutions work themselves into the
individual character and habits.
[98] Diodorus (xiv, 23) notices the legendary pair of hostile brothers, Eteokles
and Polyneikes, as a parallel. Compare Tacitus, Annal. iv, 60. “Atrox
Drusi ingenium, super cupidinem potentiæ, et solita fratribus odia, accendebatur
invidia, quod mater Agrippina promptior Neroni erat,” etc.; and Justin,
xlii, 4.
Compare also the interesting narrative of M. Prosper Mérimée, in his
life of Don Pedro of Castile; a prince commonly known by the name of
Peter the Cruel. Don Pedro was dethroned, and slain in personal conflict,
by the hand of his bastard brother, Henri of Transtamare.
At the battle of Navarrete, in 1367, says M. Mérimée, “Don Pèdre, qui,
pendant le combat, s’était jété au plus fort de la mêlée, s’acharna long temps
à la poursuite des fuyards. On le voyait galoper dans la plaine, monté sur
un cheval noir, sa bannière armoriée de Castille devant lui, cherchant son
frère partout où l’on combattait encore, et criant, échauffé par le carnage—‘Où
est ce bâtard, qui se nomme roi de Castille?’” (Histoire de Don
Pèdre, p. 504.)
Ultimately Don Pedro, blocked up and almost starved out in the castle
of Montiel, was entrapped by simulated negotiations into the power of his
enemies. He was slain in personal conflict by the dagger of his brother
Henri, after a desperate struggle, in which he seemed likely to prevail, if
Henri had not been partially aided by a bystander.
This tragical scene (on the night of the 23d of March, 1369) is graphically
described by M. Mérimée (p. 564-566).
[101] We know from Plutarch (Artaxer. c. 13) that Ktesias distinctly asserted
himself to have been present at this interview, and I see no reason
why we should not believe him. Plutarch indeed rejects his testimony as
false, affirming that Xenophon would certainly have mentioned him, had
he been there; but such an objection seems to me insufficient. Nor is it
necessary to construe the words of Xenophon, ἦν δ᾽ αὐτῶν Φαλῖνος εἶς Ἕλλην,
(ii, 1, 7) so strictly as to negative the presence of one or two other
Greeks. Phalinus is thus specified because he was the spokesman of the
party—a military man.
[103] Xen. Anab. ii, 1, 14-22. Diodorus (xiv, 25) is somewhat copious in
his account of the interview with Phalinus. But he certainly followed
other authorities besides Xenophon, if even it be true that he had Xenophon
before him. The allusion to the past heroism of Leonidas seems rather in
the style of Ephorus.
[104] Xen. Anab. ii, 2, 7-9. Koch remarks, however, with good reason, that
it is difficult to see how they could get a wolf in Babylonia, for the sacrifice
(Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 51).
[105] Such is the sum total stated by Xenophon himself (Anab. ii, 1, 6). It
is greater, by nine days, than the sum total which we should obtain by
adding together the separate days’ march specified by Xenophon from Sardis.
But the distance from Sardis to Ephesus, as we know from Herodotus, was
three days’ journey (Herod. v, 55); and therefore the discrepancy is really
only to the amount of six, not of nine. See Krüger ad Anabas. p. 556;
Koch, Zug der Z. p. 141.
[106] Colonel Chesney (Euphrates and Tigris, c. ii, p. 208) calculates twelve
hundred and sixty-five geographical miles from Sardis to Kunaxa or the
Mounds of Mohammed.
[107] For example, we are not told how long they rested at Pylæ, or opposite
to Charmandê. I have given some grounds (in the preceding chapter) for
believing that it cannot have been less than five days. The army must
have been in the utmost need of repose, as well as of provisions.
Schneider, in his note on this passage, as well as Ritter, (Erdkunde, part.
x, 3, p. 17), Mr. Ainsworth (Travels in the Track, p. 103) and Colonel
Chesney (Euph. and Tigr. p. 219), understand the words here used by Xenophon
in a sense from which I dissent. “When it was day, the army proceeded
onward on their march, having the sun on their right hand,”—these
words they understand as meaning that the army marched northward;
whereas, in my judgment, the words intimate that the army marched eastward.
To have the sun on the right hand, does not so much refer either to the
precise point where, or to the precise instant when, the sun rises,—but to
his diurnal path through the heavens, and to the general direction of the
day’s march. This may be seen by comparing the remarkable passage in
Herodotus, iv, 42, in reference to the alleged circumnavigation of Africa,
from the Red Sea round the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Gibraltar,
by the Phœnicians under the order of Nekos. These Phœnicians said, “that
in sailing round Africa (from the Red Sea) they had the sun on their right
hand”—ὡς τὴν Λιβύην περιπλώοντες τὸν ἠέλιον ἐπὶ δεξιᾷ. Herodotus
rejects this statement as incredible. Not knowing the phenomena of
a southern latitude beyond the tropic of Capricorn, he could not imagine
that men in sailing from East to West could possibly have the sun on their
right hand; any man journeying from the Red Sea to the Straits of Gibraltar
must, in his judgment, have the sun on the left hand, as he himself had
always experienced in the north latitude of the Mediterranean or the African
coast. See Vol. III. of this History, ch. xviii, p. 282.
In addition to this reason, we may remark, that Ariæus and the Greeks,
starting from their camp on the banks of the Euphrates (the place where
they had passed the last night but one before the battle of Kunaxa) and
marching northward, could not expect to arrive, and could not really arrive,
at villages of the Babylonian territory. But they might naturally expect to
do so, if they marched eastward, towards the Tigris. Nor would they have
hit upon the enemy in a northerly march, which would in fact have been
something near to a return upon their own previous steps. They would
moreover have been stopped by the undefended Trench, which could only
be passed at the narrow opening close to the Euphrates.
[111] Xen. Anab. ii, 2, 20. This seems to have been a standing military jest,
to make the soldiers laugh at their past panic. See the references in Krüger
and Schneider’s notes.
[112] Diodorus (xvi, 24) tells us that Ariæus intended to guide them towards
Paphlagonia; a very loose indication.
[116] Ktesiæ Persica, Fragm. c. 59, ed. Bähr; compared with the remarkable
Fragment. 18, preserved by the so-called Demetrius Phalêreus: see also
Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 17.
[117] Herodot. i, 193; ii, 108; Strabo, xvii. p. 788.
[120] Xen. Anab. ii, 4, 12. Διελθόντες δὲ τρεῖς σταθμοὺς, ἀφίκοντο
πρὸς τὸ Μηδίας καλούμενον τεῖχος, καὶ παρῆλθον αὐτοῦ εἴσω. It appears
to me that these three days’ march or σταθμοὶ can hardly be computed
from the moment when they commenced their march under the conduct of
Tissaphernes. On the other hand, if we begin from the moment when the
Greeks started under conduct of Ariæus, we can plainly trace three distinct
resting places (σταθμοὺς) before they reached the Wall of Media. First, at
the villages where the confusion and alarm arose (ii, 13-21). Secondly, at
the villages of abundant supply, where they concluded the truce with Tissaphernes,
and waited twenty days for his return (ii, 3, 14; ii, 4, 9). Thirdly,
one night’s halt under the conduct of Tissaphernes, before they reached
the Wall of Media. This makes three distinct stations or halting places,
between the station (the first station after passing the undefended trench)
from whence they started to begin their retreat under the conduct of Ariæus,—and
the point where they traversed the Wall of Media.
[121] I reserve for this place the consideration of that which Xenophon states,
in two or three passages, about the Wall of Media and about different canals
in connection with the Tigris,—the result of which, as far as I can
make it out, stands in my text.
I have already stated, in the preceding chapter, that in the march of the
day next but one preceding the battle of Kunaxa, the army came to a deep
and broad trench dug for defence across their line of way, with the exception
of a narrow gut of twenty feet broad close by the Euphrates; through
which gut the whole army passed. Xenophon says, “This trench had been
carried upwards across the plain as far as the Wall of Media, where indeed,
the canals are situated, flowing from the river Tigris; four canals, one hundred
feet in breadth, and extremely deep, so that corn-bearing vessels sail
along them. They strike into the Euphrates, they are distant each from the
other by one parasang, and there are bridges over them—Παρετέτατο δ᾽ ἡ τάφρος ἄνω
διὰ τοῦ πεδίου ἐπὶ δώδεκα παράσαγγας, μέχρι τοῦ Μηδίας τείχους, ἔνθα δὴ (the books
print a full stop between τείχους and ἔνθα, which
appears to me incorrect, as the sense goes on without interruption)
εἰσιν αἱ διωρύχες, ἀπὸ τοῦ Τίγρητος ποταμοῦ ῥέουσαι· εἰσὶ δὲ τέτταρες, τὸ μὲν εὖρος
πλεθριαῖαι, βαθεῖαι δὲ ἰσχυρῶς, καὶ πλοῖα πλεῖ ἐν αὐταῖς σιταγωγά· εἰσβάλλουσι δὲ εἰς
τὸν Εὐφράτην, διαλείπουσι δ᾽ ἑκάστη παρασάγγην, γέφυραι δ᾽ ἔπεισιν. The present
tense—εἰσιν αἱ διώρυχες—seems to mark the local reference of ἔνθα to the Wall of Media,
and not to the actual march of the army.
Major Rennell (Illustrations of the Expedition of Cyrus, pp. 79-87, etc.),
Ritter, (Erdkunde, x, p. 16), Koch, (Zug der Zehn Tausend, pp. 46, 47), and
Mr. Ainsworth (Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand, p. 88) consider
Xenophon to state that the Cyreian army on this day’s march (the day but
one before the battle) passed through the Wall of Media and over the four
distinct canals reaching from the Tigris to the Euphrates. They all, indeed,
contest the accuracy of this latter statement; Rennell remarking that the
level of the Tigris, in this part of its course, is lower than that of the Euphrates;
and that it could not supply water for so many broad canals so
near to each other. Col. Chesney also conceives the army to have passed
through the Wall of Media before the battle of Kunaxa.
It seems to me, however, that they do not correctly interpret the words
of Xenophon, who does not say that Cyrus ever passed either the Wall of
Media, or these four canals before the battle of Kunaxa, but who says (as
Krüger, De Authentiâ Anabaseos, p. 12, prefixed to his edition of the Anabasis,
rightly explains him), that these four canals flowing from the Tigris
are at, or near, the Wall of Media, which the Greeks did not pass through
until long after the battle, when Tissaphernes was conducting them towards
the Tigris, two days’ march before they reached Sittakê (Anab. ii, 4, 12).
It has been supposed, during the last few years, that the direction of the
Wall of Media could be verified by actual ruins still subsisting on the spot.
Dr. Ross and Captain Lynch (see journal of the Geographical Society, vol.
ix. pp. 447-473, with Captain Lynch’s map annexed) discovered a line of
embankment which they considered to be the remnant of it. It begins on
the western bank of the Tigris, in latitude 34° 3′, and stretches towards the
Euphrates in a direction from N. N. E. to S. S. W. “It is a solitary straight
single mound, twenty-five long paces thick, with a bastion on its western
face at every fifty-five paces; and on the same side it has a deep ditch,
twenty-seven paces broad. The wall is here built of the small pebbles of
the country, imbedded in cement of lime of great tenacity; it is from thirty-five
to forty feet in height, and runs in a straight line as far as the eye can
trace it. The Bedouins tell me that it goes in the same straight line to two
mounds called Ramelah on the Euphrates, some hours above Felujah; that
it is, in places far inland, built of brick, and in some parts worn down to a
level with the desert.” (Dr. Ross, l. c. p. 446).
Upon the faith of these observations, the supposed wall (now called Sidd
Nimrud by the natives) has been laid down as the Wall of Media reaching
from the Tigris to the Euphrates, in the best recent maps, especially that of
Colonel Chesney; and accepted as such by recent inquirers.
Nevertheless, subsequent observations, recently made known by Colonel
Rawlinson to the Geographical Society, have contradicted the views of
Dr. Ross as stated above, and shown that the Wall of Media, in the line
here assigned to it, has no evidence to rest upon. Captain Jones, commander
of the steamer at Bagdad, undertook, at the request of Colonel
Rawlinson a minute examination of the locality, and ascertained that what
had been laid down as the Wall of Media was merely a line of mounds; no
wall at all, but a mere embankment, extending seven or eight miles from
the Tigris, and designed to arrest the winter torrents and drain off the rain
water of the desert into a large reservoir, which served to irrigate an extensive
valley between the rivers.
From this important communication it results, that there is as yet no
evidence now remaining for determining what was the line or position of the
Wall of Media; which had been supposed to be a datum positively established,
serving as premises from whence to deduce other positions mentioned
by Xenophon. As our knowledge now stands, there is not a single point
mentioned by Xenophon in Babylonia which can be positively verified, except
Babylon itself,—and Pylæ, which is known pretty nearly, as the spot
where Babylonia proper commences.
The description which Xenophon gives of the Wall of Media is very plain
and specific. I see no reason to doubt that he actually saw it, passed through
it, and correctly describes it in height as well as breadth. Its entire length
he of course only gives from what he was told. His statement appears to
me good evidence that there was a Wall of Media, which reached from the
Tigris to the Euphrates, or perhaps to some canal cut from the Euphrates,
though there exists no mark to show what was the precise locality and direction
of the Wall. Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiv, 2), in the expedition
of the emperor Julian, saw near Macepracta, on the left bank of the Euphrates,
the ruins of a wall, “which in ancient times had stretched to a
great distance for the defence of Assyria against foreign invasion.” It is
fair to presume that this was the Wall of Media; but the position of Macepracta
cannot be assigned.
It is important, however, to remember,—what I have already stated in
this note,—that Xenophon did not see, and did not cross either the Wall
of Media, or the two canals here mentioned, until many days after the battle
of Kunaxa.
We know from Herodotus that all the territory of Babylonia was intersected
by canals, and that there was one canal greater than the rest and
navigable, which flowed from the Euphrates to the Tigris, in a direction to
the south of east. This coincides pretty well with the direction assigned
in Colonel Chesney’s map to the Nahr-Malcha or Regium Flumen, into
which the four great canals, described by Xenophon as drawn from the Tigris
to the Euphrates, might naturally discharge themselves, and still be
said to fall into the Euphrates, of which the Nahr-Malcha was as it were a
branch. How the level of the two rivers would adjust itself, when the space
between them was covered with a network of canals great and small, and
when a vast quantity of the water of both was exhausted in fertilizing the
earth, is difficult to say.
The island wherein the Greeks stood, at their position near Sittakê, before
crossing the Tigris, would be a parallelogram formed by the Tigris, the
Nahr-Malcha, and the two parallel canals joining them. It might well be
called a large island, containing many cities and villages, with a large
population.
[122] There seems reason to believe that in ancient times the Tigris, above
Bagdad, followed a course more to the westward, and less winding, than it
does now. The situation of Opis cannot be verified. The ruins of a large
city were seen by Captain Lynch near the confluence of the river Adhem
with the Tigris, which he supposed to be Opis, in lat. 34°.
Mannert, Rennell, Mr. Ainsworth, and most modern commentators, identify
this town of Καιναὶ or Kænæ with the modern town Senn; which latter
place Mannert (Geogr. der Röm. v. p. 333) and Rennell (Illustrations
p. 129) represent to be near the Lesser Zab instead of the Greater Zab.
To me it appears that the locality assigned by Xenophon to Καιναὶ, does
not at all suit the modern town of Senn. Nor is there much real similarity
of name between the two; although our erroneous way of pronouncing the
Latin name Caenae, creates a delusive appearance of similarity. Mr. Ainsworth
shows that some modern writers have been misled in the same manner
by identifying the modern town of Sert with Tigrano-certa.
It is a perplexing circumstance in the geography of Xenophon’s work,
that he makes no mention of the Lesser Zab, which yet he must have
crossed. Herodotus notices them both, and remarks on the fact that though
distinct rivers, both bore the same name (v, 52). Perhaps in drawing up
his narrative after the expedition, Xenophon may have so far forgotten, as
to fancy that two synonymous rivers mentioned as distinct in his memoranda,
were only one.
[127] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 17-23. This last comparison is curious, and in all
probability the genuine words of the satrap—τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ τιάραν
βασιλεῖ μόνῳ ἔξεστιν ὀρθὴν ἔχειν, τὴν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ ἴσως ἂν ὑμῶν παρόντων
καὶ ἕτερος εὐπετῶς ἔχοι.
[129] Xen. Anab. ii, 6, 1. Ktesiæ Frag. Persica, c. 60, ed. Bähr; Plutarch,
Artaxerx. c. 19, 20; Diodor. xiv, 27.
[130] Tacit. Histor. i, 45. “Othoni nondum auctoritas inerat ad prohibendum
scelus; jubere jam poterat. Ita, simulatione iræ, vinciri jussum (Marium
Celsum) et majores pœnas daturum, affirmans, præsenti exitio subtraxit.”
Ktesias (Persica, c. 60; compare Plutarch and Diodorus as referred to in
the preceding note) attests the treason of Menon, which he probably derived
from the story of Menon himself. Xenophon mentions the ignominious
death of Menon, and he probably derived his information from Ktesias (see
Anabasis, ii, 6, 29).
The supposition that it was Parysatis who procured the death of Menon,
in itself highly probable, renders all the different statements consistent and
harmonious.
[131] Xenophon seems to intimate that there were various stories current,
which he does not credit, to the disparagement of Menon,—καὶ τὰ μὲν δὴ ἀφανῆ
ἔξεστι περὶ αὐτοῦ ψεύδεσθαι, etc. (Anab. ii, 6, 28).
Athenæus (xi, p. 505) erroneously states that Xenophon affirmed Menon
to be the person who caused the destruction of Klearchus by Tissaphernes.
[132] Xenophon in the Cyropædia (viii, 8, 3) gives a strange explanation of
the imprudent confidence reposed by Klearchus in the assurance of the
Persian satrap. It arose (he says) from the high reputation for good faith
which the Persians had acquired by the undeviating and scrupulous honor
of the first Cyrus (or Cyrus the Great), but which they had since ceased to
deserve, though the corruption of their character had not before publicly
manifested itself.
This is a curious perversion of history to serve the purpose of his romance.
[139] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 4-11. Ἦν δέ τις ἐν τῇ στρατιᾷ
Ξενοφῶν Ἀθηναῖος, ὃς οὔτε στρατηγὸς, etc.
Homer, Iliad, v, 9—
Ἦν δέ τις ἐν Τρώεσσι Δάρης, ἀφνεῖος, ἀμύμων,
Ἱρεὺς Ἡφαίστοιο, etc.
Compare the description of Zeus sending Oneirus to the sleeping Agamemnon,
at the beginning of the second book of the Iliad.
[140] Respecting the value of a sign from Zeus Basileus, and the necessity
of conciliating him, compare various passages in the Cyropædia, ii, 4, 19;
iii, 3, 21; vii, 5, 57.
The reader of Homer will readily recall various passages in the Iliad and
Odyssey, wherein the like mental talk is put into language and expanded,—such
as Iliad, xi, 403—and several other passages cited or referred to in
Colonel Mure’s History of the Language and Literature of Greece, ch. xiv,
vol. ii, p. 25 seq.
A vision of light shining brightly out of a friendly house, counts for a
favorable sign (Plutarch, De Genio Socratis, p. 587 C.).
“Vel imperatore, vel milite, me utemini.” (Sallust, Bellum Catilinar.
c. 20).
[143] Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 26-30. It would appear from the words of Xenophon,
that Apollonides had been one of those who had held faint-hearted
language (ὑπομαλακιζόμενοι, ii, 1, 14) in the conversation with Phalinus
shortly after the death of Cyrus. Hence Xenophon tells him, that this is
the second time of his offering such advice—Ἃ σὺ πάντα εἰδὼς, τοὺς μὲν ἀμύνασθαι
κελεύοντας φλυαρεῖν φῂς, πείθειν δὲ πάλιν κελεύεις ἰόντας;
This helps to explain the contempt and rigor with which Xenophon here
treats him. Nothing indeed could be more deplorable, under the actual
circumstances, than for a man “to show his acuteness by summing up the
perils around.” See the remarkable speech of Demosthenes at Pylos
(Thucyd. iv, 10).
Hippokrates (De Aëre, Locis, et Aquis, c. 12) compares the physical
characteristics of Asiatics and Europeans, noticing the ample, full-grown,
rounded, voluptuous, but inactive forms of the first,—as contrasted with
the more compact, muscular, and vigorous type of the second, trained for
movement, action, and endurance.
Dio Chrysostom has a curious passage, in reference to the Persian preference
for eunuchs as slaves, remarking that they admired even in males an
approach to the type of feminine beauty,—their eyes and tastes being
under the influence only of aphrodisiac ideas; whereas the Greeks, accustomed
to the constant training and naked exercises of the palæstra,
boys competing with boys and youths with youths, had their associations
of the male beauty attracted towards active power and graceful motion.
Compare Euripides, Bacchæ, 447 seq.; and the Epigram of Strato in the
Anthologia, xxxiv, vol. ii, p. 367 Brunck.
[146] A very meagre abstract is given by Diodorus, of that which passed
after the seizure of the generals (xiv, 27). He does not mention the name
of Xenophon on this occasion, nor indeed throughout all his account of the
march.
[147] Compare the hostile speech of the Corinthian envoy at Sparta, prior
to the Peloponnesian war, with the eulogistic funeral oration of Perikles,
in the second year of that war (Thucyd. i, 70, 71; ii, 39, 40).
[148] Compare the observations of Perikles, in his last speech to the Athenians
about the inefficiency of the best thoughts, if a man had not the
power of setting them forth in an impressive manner (Thucyd. ii, 60).
Καίτοι ἐμοὶ τοιούτῳ ἀνδρὶ ὀργίζεσθε, ὃς οὐδενὸς οἴομαι ἥσσων εἶναι
γνῶναί τε τὰ δέοντα καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι ταῦτα, φιλόπολίς τε καὶ
χρημάτων κρείττων· ὅ τε γὰρ γνοὺς καὶ μὴ σαφῶς διδάξας, ἐν ἵσῳ καὶ
εἰ μὴ ἐνεθυμήθη, etc.
The philosopher and the statesman at Athens here hold the same language.
It was the opinion of Sokrates—μόνους ἀξίους εἶναι τιμῆς τοὺς
εἰδότας τὰ δέοντα, καὶ ἑρμηνεῦσαι δυναμένους (Xenoph. Mem.
i, 2, 52).
A striking passage in the funeral harangue of Lysias (Orat. ii, Epitaph.
s. 19) sets forth the prevalent idea of the Athenian democracy—authoritative
law, with persuasive and instructive speech, as superseding mutual violence
(νόμος and λόγος, as the antithesis of βία). Compare a similar sentiment
in Isokrates (Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 53-56).
[149] See the speech of Perikles (Thuc. ii, 60-64). He justifies the boastful
tone of it, by the unwonted depression against which he had to contend on
the part of his hearers—Δελώσω δὲ καὶ τόδε ὅ μοι δοκεῖτε οὔτ᾽ αὐτοὶ
πώποτε ἐνθυμηθῆναι ὑπάρχον ὑμῖν μεγέθους περὶ ἐς τὴν ἀρχὴν οὔτ᾽ ἐγὼ
ἐν τοῖς πρὶν λόγοις, οὐδ᾽ ἂν νῦν ἐχρησάμην κομπωδεστέραν ἔχοντι
τὴν προσποίησιν, εἰ μὴ καταπεπληγμένους ὑμᾶς παρὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἑώρων.
This is also the proper explanation of Xenophon’s tone.
[150] In a passage of the Cyropædia (v. 5, 46), Xenophon sets forth in a
striking manner the combination of the λεκτικὸς καὶ πρακτικός—Ὥσπερ καὶ
ὅταν μάχεσθαι δέῃ, ὁ πλείστους χειρωσάμενος ἀλκιμώτατος δοξάζεται εἶναι,
οὕτω καὶ ὅταν πεῖσαι δέῃ, ὁ πλέιστους ὁμογνώμονας ἡμῖν ποιήσας οὗτος
δικαίως ἂν λεκτικώτατος καὶ πρακτικώτατος κρίνοιτο ἂν εἶναι.
Μὴ μέντοι ὡς λόγον ἡμῖν ἐπιδειξόμενοι, οἷον ἂν εἴποιτε πρὸς ἕκαστον
αὐτῶν, τοῦτο μελετᾶτε—ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τοὺς πεπεισμένους ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστου δήλους
ἐσομένους οἷς ἂν πράττωσιν, ὅυτω παρασκευάζεσθε.
In describing the duties of a Hipparch or commander of the cavalry,
Xenophon also insists upon the importance of persuasive speech, as a means
of keeping up the active obedience of the soldiers—Εἴς γε μὴν τὸ εὐπειθεῖς
εἶναι τοὺς ἀρχομένους, μέγα μὲν καὶ τὸ λόγῳ διδάσκειν, ὅσα ἀγαθὰ ἔνι ἐν
τῷ πειθαρχεῖν, etc. (Xen. Mag. Eq. i, 24).
[153] Xen. Anab. ii, 5, 1. Ainsworth. Travels and Researches in Asia Minor,
etc. vol. ii, ch. 44, p. 327; also his Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand,
p. 119-134.
Professor Koch, who speaks with personal knowledge both of Armenia
and of the region east of the Tigris, observes truly that the Great Zab is
the only point (east of the Tigris) which Xenophon assigns in such a manner
as to be capable of distinct local identification. He also observes, here
as elsewhere, that the number of parasangs specified by Xenophon is essentially
delusive as a measure of distance (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 64).
[156] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 17, 18. It is here, on the site of the ancient Nineveh,
that the recent investigations of Mr. Layard have brought to light so many
curious and valuable Assyrian remains. The legend which Xenophon
heard on the spot, respecting the way in which these cities were captured
and ruined, is of a truly Oriental character.
[159] Professor Koch (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 68) is of the same opinion.
[160] Xen. Anab. iii, 4, 35; see also Cyropædia, iii, 3, 37.
The Thracian prince Seuthes was so apprehensive of night attack, that
he and his troops kept their horses bridled all night (Xen. Anab. vii,
2, 21.)
Mr. Kinneir (Travels in Asia Minor, etc., p. 481) states that the horses
of Oriental cavalry, and even of the English cavalry in Hindostan, are still
kept tied and shackled at night, in the same way as Xenophon describes to
have been practised by the Persians.
[162] Xen. Anab. iii, 5; iv, 1, 3. Probably the place where the Greeks quitted
the Tigris to strike into the Karduchian mountains, was the neighborhood
of Jezireh ibn Omar, the ancient Bezabde. It is here that farther
march, up the eastern side of the Tigris, is rendered impracticable by the
mountains closing in. Here the modern road crosses the Tigris by a bridge,
from the eastern bank to the western (Koch, Zug der Zehn Tausend,
p. 72).
I apprehend that the words τὸν στέφανον are here to be understood after
ἀποδὺς—not the words τὰ ὅπλα, as Krüger in his note seems to imagine.
It is surely incredible, that in the actual situation of the Grecian army, the
soldiers should be ordered first to disarm, and then to resume their arms.
I conceive the matter thus:—First, the order is given, to ground arms; so
that the shield is let down and drops upon the ground, sustained by the left
hand of the soldier upon its upper rim; while the spear, also resting on the
ground, is sustained by the shield and by the same left hand. The right
hand of the soldier being thus free, he is ordered first to wreath himself
(the costume usual in offering sacrifice)—next, to take off his wreath—lastly,
to resume his arms.
Probably the operations of wreathing and unwreathing, must here have
been performed by the soldiers symbolically, or by gesture, raising the
hand to the head, as if to crown it. For it seems impossible that they
could have been provided generally with actual wreaths, on the banks of
the Kentritês, and just after their painful march through the Karduchian
mountains. Cheirisophus himself, however, had doubtless a real wreath,
which he put on and took off; so probably had the prophets and certain
select officiating persons.
The recent editors, Schneider and Krüger, on the authority of various
MSS., read here ἐπορεύθησαν—ἐπὶ τὸν Εὐφράτην ποταμόν. The old
reading was, as it stands in Hutchinson’s edition, παρὰ τὸν
Εὐφράτην ποταμόν.
This change may be right, but the geographical data are here too vague
to admit of any certainty. See my Appendix annexed to this chapter.
[182] Xen. Anab. iv, 5, 26. Κάλαμοι γόνατα οὐκ ἔχοντες.
This Armenian practice of sucking the beer through a reed, to which
the observation of modern travellers supplies analogies (see Krüger’s note),
illustrates the Fragment of Archilochus (No. 28, ed. Schneidewin, Poetæ
Græc. Minor).
ὥσπερ αὐλῷ βρύτον ἢ Θρῆιξ ἀνὴρ
ἢ Φρὺξ ἔβρυζε, etc.
The similarity of Armenian customs to those of the Thracians and
Phrygians, is not surprising.
Καὶ οὐκ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καλὸν κλέπτειν, etc. The reading καλὸν
is preferred by Schneider to ἀναγκαῖον, which has been the vulgar
reading, and is still retained by Krüger. Both are sanctioned by
authority of MSS., and either would be admissible; on the whole, I incline
to side with Schneider.
[192] Diodorus (xiv, 29) calls the mountain Χήνοιν—Chenium. He seems
to have had Xenophon before him in his brief description of this interesting
scene.
[195] Xen. Anab. iv, 8, 15-22. Most modern travellers attest the existence,
in these regions, of honey intoxicating and poisonous, such as Xenophon
describes. They point out the Azalea Pontica, as the flower from which
the bees imbibe this peculiar quality. Professor Koch, however, calls in
question the existence of any honey thus naturally unwholesome near the
Black Sea. He states (Zug der Zehn Tausend, p. 111) that after careful
inquiries he could find no trace of any such. Not contradicting Xenophon,
he thinks that the honey which the Greeks ate must have been stale or
tainted.
A curious and interesting anecdote in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander, (c.
41) attests how much these Hetæræ accompanying the soldiers (women for
the most part free), were esteemed in the Macedonian army, and by Alexander
himself among the rest. A Macedonian of Ægæ named Eurylochus,
had got himself improperly put on a list of veterans and invalids, who
were on the point of being sent back from Asia to Europe. The imposition
was detected, and on being questioned he informed Alexander that he had
practised it in order to be able to follow a free Hetæra named Telesippa,
who was about to accompany the departing division. “I sympathize with
your attachment, Eurylochus (replied Alexander); let us see whether we
cannot prevail upon Telesippa either by persuasion or by presents, since
she is of free condition, to stay behind” (Ἡμᾶς μὲν, ὦ Εὐρύλοχε, συνερῶντας
ἔχεις· ὅρα δὲ ὅπως πείθωμεν ἢ λόγοις ἢ δώροις τὴν Τελεσίππαν, ἐπειδήπερ
ἐξ ἐλευθέρας ἐστί).
[202] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 3; v, 7, 9. The maximum of the Grecian force, when
mustered at Issus after the junction of those three hundred men who deserted
from Abrokomas, was thirteen thousand nine hundred men. At the
review in Babylonia, three days before the battle of Kunaxa, there were
mustered, however, only twelve thousand nine hundred (Anab. i, 7, 10).
This statement respecting the position of most of the soldiers is more
authentic, as well as less disparaging, than that of Isokrates (Orat. iv, Panegyr.
s. 170).
In another oration, composed about fifty years after the Cyreian expedition,
Isokrates notices the large premiums which it had been formerly
necessary to give to those who brought together mercenary soldiers, over
and above the pay to the soldiers themselves (Isokrates, Orat. v. ad Philipp.
s. 112); as contrasted with the over-multiplication of unemployed mercenaries
during his own later time (Ibid. s. 142 seq.)
Ὁρῶ δ᾽ ἐγὼ πλοῖα πολλάκις παραπλέοντα, etc. This is a forcible proof
how extensive was the Grecian commerce with the town and region of Phasis,
at the eastern extremity of the Euxine.
[207] Xen. Anab. v, 3, 3. Mr. Kinneir (Travels in Asia Minor, p. 327) and
many other authors, have naturally presumed from the analogy of name
that the modern town Kerasoun (about long. 38° 40′) corresponds to the
Kerasus of Xenophon; which Arrian in his Periplus conceives to be identical
with what was afterwards called Pharnakia.
But it is remarked both by Dr. Cramer (Asia Minor, vol. i, p. 281) and
by Mr. Hamilton (Travels in Asia Minor, ch. xv, p. 250), that Kerasoun is
too far from Trebizond to admit of Xenophon having marched with the
army from the one place to the other in three days; or even in less than
ten days, in the judgment of Mr. Hamilton. Accordingly Mr. Hamilton
places the site of the Kerasus of Xenophon much nearer to Trebizond
(about long. 39° 20′, as it stands in Kiepert’s map of Asia Minor,) near a
river now called the Kerasoun Dere Sú.
[208] It was not without great difficulty that Mr. Kinneir obtained horses to
travel from Kotyôra to Kerasoun by land. The aga of the place told him
that it was madness to think of travelling by land, and ordered a felucca for
him; but was at last prevailed on to furnish horses. There seems, indeed,
to have been no regular or trodden road at all; the hills approach close to
the sea, and Mr. Kinneir “travelled the whole of the way along the shore
alternately over a sandy beach and a high wooded bank. The hills at intervals
jutting out into the sea, form capes and numerous little bays along
the coast; but the nature of the country was still the same, that is to say,
studded with fine timber, flowers, and groves of cherry trees” (Travels in
Asia Minor, p. 324).
Kerasus is the indigenous country of the cherry tree, and the origin of
its name.
Professor Koch thinks, that the number of days’ march given by Xenophon
(ten days) between Kerasus and Kotyôra, is more than consists with
the real distance, even if Kerasus be placed where Mr. Hamilton supposes.
If the number be correctly stated, he supposes that the Greeks must have
halted somewhere (Zug der Zehn Tausend. p. 115. 116).
Compare passages in his Cyropædia, i, 6, 3; De Officio Magistr. Equit.
ix, 9.
“The gods (says Euripides, in the Sokratic vein) have given us wisdom
to understand and appropriate to ourselves the ordinary comforts of life;
in obscure or unintelligible cases, we are enabled to inform ourselves by looking
at the blaze of the fire, or by consulting prophets who understand the
livers of sacrificial victims and the flight of birds. When they have thus
furnished so excellent a provision for life, who but spoilt children can be
discontented, and ask for more? Yet still human prudence, full of self-conceit,
will struggle to be more powerful, and will presume itself to be
wiser, than the gods.”
It will be observed that this constant outpouring of special revelations,
through prophets, omens, etc., was (in the view of these Sokratic thinkers)
an essential part of the divine government; indispensable to satisfy their
ideas of the benevolence of the gods; since rational and scientific prediction
was so habitually at fault and unable to fathom the phenomena of the future.
[220] Though Xenophon accounted sacrifice to be an essential preliminary to
any action of dubious result, and placed great faith in the indications which
the victims offered, as signs of the future purposes of the gods,—he nevertheless
had very little confidence in the professional prophets. He thought
them quite capable of gross deceit (See Xen. Cyrop. i, 6, 2, 3; compare Sophokles,
Antigone, 1035, 1060; and Œdip. Tyrann. 387).
The prudence of Xenophon in convoking the assembly at once is incontestable.
He could not otherwise have hindered the soldiers from getting
together, and exciting one another to action, without any formal summons.
The reader should contrast with this the scene at Athens (described in
Thucydides, ii, 22; and in Vol. VI, Ch. xlviii, p. 133 of this History) during
the first year of the Peloponnesian war, and the first invasion of Attica
by the Peloponnesians; when the invaders were at Acharnæ, within sight
of the walls of Athens, burning and destroying the country. In spite of
the most violent excitement among the Athenian people, and the strongest
impatience to go out and fight, Perikles steadily refused to call an assembly,
for fear that the people should take the resolution of going out. And
what was much more remarkable—the people even in that state of excitement
though all united within the walls, did not meet in any informal
assembly, nor come to any resolution, or to any active proceeding; which
the Cyreians would certainly have done, had they not been convened in a
regular assembly.
The contrast with the Cyreian army here illustrates the extraordinary
empire exercised by constitutional forms over the minds of the Athenian
citizens.
In the distribution of chapters as made by the editors, chapter the eighth
is made to begin at the second ἔδοξε, which seems to me not convenient for
comprehending the full sense. I think that the second ἔδοξε, as well as the
first, is connected with the words παραινοῦντος Ξενοφῶντος, and ought to
be included not only in the same chapter with them, but also in the same
sentence, without an intervening full stop.
[234] The idea that great pugilists were not good soldiers in battle, is as old
among the Greeks as the Iliad. The unrivalled pugilist of the Homeric
Grecian army, Epeius, confesses his own inferiority as a soldier (Iliad, xxiii
667).
Ἆσσον ἴτω, ὅστις δέπας οἴσεται ἀμφικύπελλον·
Ἡμίονον δ᾽ οὔ φημί τιν᾽ ἄξεμεν ἄλλον Ἀχαιῶν,
Πυγμῇ νικήσαντ᾽· ἐπεὶ εὔχομαι εἶναι ἄριστος.
Ἦ οὐχ ἅλις, ὅ,ττι μάχης ἐπιδεύομαι; οὐδ᾽ ἄρα πως ἦν
The horses sent were doubtless native Paphlagonian; the robes sent were
probably the produce of the looms of Sinôpê and Kotyôra; just as the
Thracian princes used to receive fine woven and metallic fabrics from Abdêra
and the other Grecian colonies on their coast—ὑφαντὰ καὶ λεῖα,
καὶ ἡ ἄλλη κατασκευὴ, etc. (Thucyd. ii, 96). From the like industry probably
proceeded the splendid “regia textilia” and abundance of gold and silver
vessels, captured by the Roman general Paulus Emilius along with Perseus
the last king of Macedonia (Livy, xlv, 33-35).
[252] Nearly the same cross march was made by the Athenian general Lamachus,
in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian war, after he had lost his
triremes by a sudden rise of the water at the mouth of the river Kalex, in
the territory of Herakleia (Thucyd. iv, 75).
[263] So Tacitus says about the Roman general Spurinna (governor of Placentia
for Otho against Vitellius), and his mutinous army who marched out
to fight the Vitellian generals against his strenuous remonstrance—“Fit
temeritatis alienæ comes Spurinna, primo coactus, mox velle simulans, quo
plus auctoritatis inesset consiliis, si seditio mitesceret” (Tacitus, Hist. ii,
18).
The vehement interest which Anaxibius took in this new project is marked
by the strength of Xenophon’s language; extreme celerity is enjoined three
several times.
[280] It appears that the epithet Meilichios (the Gracious) is here applied to
Zeus in the same euphemistic sense as the denomination Eumenides to the
avenging goddesses. Zeus is conceived as having actually inflicted, or being
in a disposition to inflict, evil; the sacrifice to him under this surname represents
a sentiment of fear, and is one of atonement, expiation or purification,
destined to avert his displeasure; but the surname itself is to be
interpreted proleptice, to use the word of the critics—it designates, not the
actual disposition of Zeus (or of other gods), but that disposition which
the sacrifice is intended to bring about in him.
See Pausan. i, 37, 3; ii, 20, 3. K. F. Herrmann, Gottesdienstl. Alterthümer
der Griechen, s. 58; Van Stegeren, De Græcorum Diebus Festis, p.
5 (Utrecht, 1849).
[287] Xenoph. Memorab. iv, 8, 4—as well as the opening sentence of the
work.
[288] See Xenoph. Hellen. iii, 2, 7—a passage which Morus refers, I think
with much probability, to Xenophon himself.
The very circumstantial details, which Xenophon gives (iii, 1, 11-28)
about the proceedings of Derkyllidas against Meidias in the Troad, seem
also to indicate that he was serving there in person.
[289] That the sentence of banishment on Xenophon was not passed by the
Athenians until after the battle of Korôneia, appears plainly from Anabasis,
v. 3, 7. This battle took place in August 394 B.C.
Pausanias also will be found in harmony with this statement, as to the
time of the banishment. Ἐδιώχθη δὲ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ὑπὸ Ἀθηναίων, ὡς ἐπὶ βασιλέα
τῶν Περσῶν, σφίσιν εὔνουν ὄντα, στρατείας μετασχὼν Κύρῳ πολεμιωτάτῳ
τοῦ δήμου (iv, 6, 4). Now it was not until 396 or 395 B.C.,
that the Persian king began to manifest the least symptoms of good-will
towards Athens; and not until the battle of Knidus (a little before the
battle of Korôneia in the same year), that he testified his good-will by conspicuous
and effective service. If, therefore, the motive of the Athenians
to banish Xenophon arose out of the good feeling on the part of the king
of Persia toward them, the banishment could not have taken place before
395 B.C., and is not likely to have taken place until after 394 B.C.; which
is the intimation of Xenophon himself as above.
Lastly, Diogenes Laërtius (ii, 52) states, what I believe to be the main
truth, that the sentence of banishment was passed against Xenophon by the
Athenians on the ground of his attachment to the Lacedæmonians—ἐπὶ
Λακωνισμῷ.
Krüger and others seem to think that Xenophon was banished because
he took service under Cyrus, who had been the bitter enemy of Athens. It
is true that Sokrates, when first consulted, was apprehensive beforehand that
this might bring upon him the displeasure of Athens (Xen. Anab. iii, 1, 5).
But it is to be remembered that at this time, the king of Persia was just as
much the enemy of Athens as Cyrus was; and that Cyrus in fact had made
war upon her with the forces and treasures of the king. Artaxerxes and
Cyrus being thus, at that time, both enemies of Athens, it was of little consequence
to the Athenians whether Cyrus succeeded or failed in his enterprise.
But when Artaxerxes, six years afterwards, became their friend,
their feelings towards his enemies were altered.
The passage of Pausanias as above cited, if understood as asserting the
main cause of Xenophon’s banishment, is in my judgment inaccurate.
Xenophon was banished for Laconism, or attachment to Sparta against his
country; the fact of his having served under Cyrus against Artaxerxes
counted at best only as a secondary motive.
[294] Diogen. Laërt. ii, 53, 54, 59. Pausanias (v, 6, 4) attests the reconquest
of Skillus by the Eleians, but adds (on the authority of the Eleian ἐξηγηταὶ
or show guides) that they permitted Xenophon, after a judicial examination
before the Olympic Senate, to go on living there in peace. The latter point
I apprehend to be incorrect.
The latter works of Xenophon (De Vectigalibus, De Officio Magistri
Equitum, etc.), seem plainly to imply that he had been restored to citizenship,
and had come again to take cognizance of politics at Athens.
[295] Diogen. Laërt. ut sup. Dionys. Halic. De Dinarcho, p. 664, ed. Reiska.
Dionysius mentions this oration under the title of Ἀποστασίου ἀπολογία Αἰσχύλου
πρὸς Ξενοφῶντα. And Diogenes also alludes to it—ὥς φησι Δείναρχος ἐν τῷ πρὸς
Ξενοφῶντα ἀποστασίου.
Schneider in his Epimetrum (ad calcem Anabaseos, p. 573), respecting
the exile of Xenophon, argues as if the person against whom the oration
of Deinarchus was directed, was Xenophon himself, the Cyreian commander
and author. But this, I think, is chronologically all but impossible;
for Deinarchus was not born till 361 B.C., and composed his first oration in
336 B.C.
Yet Deinarchus, in his speech against Xenophon, undoubtedly mentioned
several facts respecting the Cyreian Xenophon, which implies that the latter
was a relative of the person against whom the oration was directed. I
venture to set him down as grandson, on that evidence, combined with the
identity of name and the suitableness in point of time. He might well be
the son of Gryllus, who was slain fighting at the battle of Mantineia in
362 B.C.
Nothing is more likely than that an orator, composing an oration against
Xenophon the grandson, should touch upon the acts and character of Xenophon
the grandfather; see for analogy, the oration of Isokrates, de Bigis;
among others.
[296] Xen. Anab. i, 7, 4. Compare Plutarch, Artaxerx. c. 20; and Isokrates,
Panegyr. Or. iv, s. 168, 169 seq.
The last chapter of the Cyropædia of Xenophon (viii, 20, 21-26) expresses
strenuously the like conviction, of the military feebleness and disorganization
of the Persian empire, not defensible without Grecian aid.
[297] Isokrates, Orat. v, (Philipp.) s. 104-106. ἤδη δ᾽ ἐγκρατεῖς
δοκοῦντας εἶναι (i. e. the Greeks under Klearchus) διὰ τὴν Κύρου
προπέτειαν ἀτυχῆσαι, etc.
[298] Isokrates. Orat. v. (Philipp.) s. 141: Xen. Hellen. vi, 1, 12.
[299] See the stress laid by Alexander the Great upon the adventures of the
Ten Thousand, in his speech to encourage his soldiers before the battle of
Issus (Arrian, E. A. ii, 7, 8).
[303] These Councils of Ten, organized by Lysander, are sometimes called
Dekarchies—sometimes Dekadarchies. I use the former word by preference;
since the word Dekadarch is also employed by Xenophon in another and
very different sense—as meaning an officer who commands a dekad.
About the massacre at Thasus, see Cornelius Nepos, Lysand. c. 2; Polyæn.
i, 45, 4. Compare Plutarch, Lysand. c. 19; and see Vol. VIII, Ch.
lxv, p. 220 of this History.
[306] Diodor. xiv, 10. Compare Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 151; Xen.
Hellen. iv, 8, 1.
[307] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 13. τοῦ Λυσάνδρου τῶν ὀλίγων
τοῖς θρασυτάτοις καὶ φιλονεικοτάτοις τὰς πόλεις ἐγχειρίζοντος.
[312] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 24-32. Καὶ εἰσὶ μὲν δήπου πᾶσαι
μεταβολαὶ πολιτειῶν θανατήφοροι, etc.
[313] Isokrates Orat. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 127-132 (c. 32).
He has been speaking, at some length, and in terms of energetic denunciation,
against the enormities of the dekarchies. He concludes by saying—Φυγὰς
δὲ καὶ στάσεις καὶ νόμων συγχύσεις καὶ πολιτειῶν μεταβολὰς,
ἔτι δὲ παιδῶν ὕβρεις καὶ γυναικῶν αἰσχύνας καὶ χρημάτων ἁρπαγὰς,
τίς ἂν δύναιτο διεξελθεῖν· πλὴν τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν ἔχω καθ᾽ ἁπάντων, ὅτι
τὰ μὲν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν δεινὰ ῥᾳδίως ἄν τις ἑνὶ ψηφίσματι διέλυσε, τὰς δὲ σφαγὰς
καὶ τὰς ἀνομίας τὰς ἐπὶ τούτων γενομένας οὐδεὶς ἂν ἰάσασθαι δύναιτο.
See also, of the same author, Isokrates, Orat. v, (Philipp.) s. 110; Orat.
viii, (de Pace) s. 119-124; Or. xii, (Panath.) s. 58, 60, 106.
[314] We may infer that if Xenophon had heard anything of the sort respecting
Kritias, he would hardly have been averse to mention it; when we
read what he says (Memorab. i, 2, 29.) Compare a curious passage about
Kritias in Dion. Chrysostom. Or. xxi, p. 270.
τὸν μὲν Καλλίβιον ἐθεράπευον πάσῃ θεραπείᾳ, ὡς πάντα ἐπαινοίῃ, ἃ πράττοιεν,
etc. (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15).
The Thirty seem to have outdone Lysander himself. A young Athenian
of rank, distinguished as a victor in the pankratium, Autolykus,—having
been insulted by Kallibius, resented it, tripped him up, and threw him down.
Lysander, on being appealed to, justified Autolykus, and censured Kallibius,
telling him that he did not know how to govern freemen. The Thirty,
however, afterwards put Autolykus to death, as a means of courting Kallibius
(Plutarch, Lysand. c. 15). Pausanius mentions Eteonikus (not Kallibius)
as the person who struck Autolykus; but he ascribes the same decision to
Lysander (ix, 32, 3).
[319] Plutarch, Amator. Narration, p. 773; Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 20. In
Diodorus (xv, 54) and Pausanias, (ix, 13, 2), the damsels thus outraged
are stated to have slain themselves. Compare another story in Xenoph.
Hellen. v, 4, 56, 57.
[321] This seems to have been the impression not merely of the enemies of
Sparta, but even of the Spartan authorities themselves. Compare two
remarkable passages of Thucydides, i, 77, and i, 95. Ἄμικτα γὰρ (says the
Athenian envoy at Sparta) τά τε καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔχετε,
καὶ προσέτι εἷς ἕκαστος ἐξιὼν οὔτε τούτοις χρῆται, οὐθ᾽ οἷς ἡ ἄλλη Ἑλλὰς νομίζει.
After the recall of the regent Pausanias and of Dorkis from the Hellespont
(in 477 B.C.), the Lacedæmonians refuse to send out any successor,
φοβούμενοι μὴ σφίσιν οἱ ἐξιόντες χείρους γίγνωνται, ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ Παυσανίᾳ
ἐνεῖδον, etc. (i, 95.)
To the like purpose the second speech of the Corinthian envoys at
Sparta, c. 122-124—μὴ μέλλετε Ποτιδαιάταις τε ποιεῖσθαι
τιμωρίαν. ... καὶ τῶν ἄλλων μετελθεῖν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν, etc.
[323] Thucyd. i, 139. Compare Isokrates, Or. iv, Panegyr. c. 34, s. 140; Or.
v, (Philipp.) s. 121; Or. xiv, (Plataic.) s. 43.
See also iii, 13, 14—the speech of the envoys from the revolted Mitylênê,
to the Lacedæmonians.
The Lacedæmonian admiral Alkidas with his fleet, is announced as crossing
over the Ægean to Ionia for the purpose of “liberating Greece;” accordingly,
the Samian exiles remonstrate with him for killing his prisoners,
as in contradiction with that object (iii, 32)—ἔλεγον οὐ καλῶς
τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐλευθεροῦν αὐτὸν, εἰ ἄνδρας διέφθειρεν, etc.
[329] Feelings of the Lacedæmonians during the winter immediately succeeding
the great Syracusan catastrophe (Thuc. viii. 2)—καὶ καθελόντες ἐκείνους
(the Athenians) αὐτοὶ τῆς πάσης Ἑλλάδος ἤδη ἀσφαλῶς ἡγήσεσθαι.
[331] This is emphatically set forth in a fragment of Theopompus the historian,
preserved by Theodorus Metochita, and printed at the end of the
collection of the Fragments of Theopompus the historian, both by Wichers
and by M. Didot. Both these editors, however, insert it only as Fragmentum
Spurium, on the authority of Plutarch (Lysander, c. 13), who
quotes the same sentiment from the comic writer Theopompus. But the
passage of Theodorus Metochita presents the express words Θεόπομπος
ὁ ἱστορικός. We have, therefore, his distinct affirmation against that of Plutarch;
and the question is, which of the two we are to believe.
Now if any one will read attentively the so-called Fragmentum Spurium
as it stands at the end of the collections above referred to, he will see (I
think) that it belongs much more naturally to the historian than to the
comic writer. It is a strictly historical statement, illustrated by a telling,
though coarse, comparison. The Fragment is thus presented by Theodorus
Metochita (Fragm. Theopomp. 344, ed. Didot).
Plutarch, ascribing the statement to the comic Theopompus, affirms him
to be silly (ἔοικε ληρεῖν) in saying that the Lacedæmonian empire began by
being sweet and pleasant, and afterwards was corrupted and turned into
bitterness and oppression; whereas the fact was, that it was bitterness and
oppression from the very first.
Now if we read the above citation from Theodorus, we shall see that
Theopompus did not really put forth that assertion which Plutarch contradicts
as silly and untrue.
What Theopompus stated was, that the first Lacedæmonians, during the
war against Athens, tempted the Greeks with a most delicious draught and
programme and proclamation of freedom from the rule of Athens,—and that
they afterwards poured in the most bitter and repulsive mixtures of hard
oppression and tyranny, etc.
The sweet draught is asserted to consist—not, as Plutarch supposes, in
the first taste of the actual Lacedæmonian empire after the war, but—in
the seductive promises of freedom held out by them to the allies during the
war. Plutarch’s charge of ἔοικε ληρεῖν has thus no foundation. I have
written δελεάσαντας instead of δελεάσοντας which stands in Didot’s Fragment,
because it struck me that this correction was required to construe
the passage.
[332] Isokrates, Or. iv, (Panegr.) s. 145; Or. viii, (de Pace) s. 122; Diodor.
xiv, 10-44; xv, 23. Compare Herodot. v, 92; Thucyd. i, 18; Isokrates,
Or. iv, (Panegyr.) s. 144.
[333] Isokrates, Panathen. s. 61. Σπαρτιᾶται μὲν γὰρ ἔτη δέκα
μόλις ἐπεστάτησαν αὐτῶν, ἡμεῖς δὲ πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα συνεχῶς κατέσχομεν
τὴν ἀρχήν. I do not hold myself bound to make out the exactness of the chronology
of Isokrates. But here we may remark that his “hardly ten years” is a
term, though less than the truth by some months, if we may take the battle
of Ægospotami as the beginning, is very near the truth if we take the
surrender of Athens as the beginning, down to the battle of Knidus.
Lysander accompanied King Agesilaus (when the latter was going to his
Asiatic command in 396 B.C.). His purpose was—ὅπως τὰς
δεκαρχίας τὰς κατασταθείσας ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἐκπεπτωκυίας
δὲ διὰ τοὺς ἐφόρους, οἱ τὰς πατρίους πολιτείας παρήγγειλαν, πάλιν
καταστήσειε μετ᾽ Ἀγησιλάου.
It shows the careless construction of Xenophon’s Hellenica, or perhaps
his reluctance to set forth the discreditable points of the Lacedæmonian
rule, that this is the first mention which he makes (and that too, indirectly)
of the dekarchies, nine years after they had been first set up by Lysander.
[337] Compare the two passages of Xenophon’s Hellenica, iii, 4, 7; iii,
5, 13.
But that some of these dekarchies still continued, we know from the
subsequent passage. The Theban envoys say to the public assembly at
Athens, respecting the Spartans:—
Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ οὓς ὑμῶν ἀπέστησαν φανεροί εἰσιν ἐξηπατηκότες· ὑπό τε
γὰρ τῶν ἁρμοστῶν τυραννοῦνται, καὶ ὑπὸ δέκα ἀνδρῶν, οὓς
Λύσανδρος κατέστησεν ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει—where the decemvirs are noted as still subsisting,
in 395 B.C. See also Xen. Agesilaus, i, 37.
[343] See the remarkable speech of Phrynichus in Thucyd. viii, 48, 5, which
I have before referred to.
[344] Xen. Hellen. ii, 3, 14. Compare the analogous case of Thebes, after
the Lacedæmonians had got possession of the Kadmeia (v. 2, 34-36).
[345] Such is the justification offered by the Athenian envoy at Sparta, immediately
before the Peloponnesian war (Thucyd. i, 75, 76). And it is
borne out in the main by the narrative of Thucydides himself (i, 99).
[346] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 3. πάσης τὴς Ἑλλάδος προστάται, etc.
The facts, which Plutarch states respecting Lysander, cannot be reconciled
with the chronology which he adopts. He represents the recall of
Lysander at the instance of Pharnabazus, with all the facts which preceded
it, as having occurred prior to the reconstitution of the Athenian democracy,
which event we know to have taken place in the summer of 403 B.C.
Lysander captured Samos in the latter half of 404 B.C., after the surrender
of Athens. After the capture of Samos, he came home in triumph, in
the autumn of 404 B.C. (Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 9). He was at home, or serving
in Attica, in the beginning of 403 B.C. (Xen. Hellen. ii, 4, 30).
Now when Lysander came home at the end of 404 B.C., it was his triumphant
return; it was not a recall provoked by complaints of Pharnabazus.
Yet there can have been no other return before the restoration of the
democracy at Athens.
The recall of Lysander must have been the termination, not of this command,
but of a subsequent command. Moreover, it seems to me necessary,
in order to make room for the facts stated respecting Lysander as well as
about the dekarchies, that we should suppose him to have been again sent
out (after his quarrel with Pausanias in Attica) in 403 B.C., to command
in Asia. This is nowhere positively stated, but I find nothing to contradict
it, and I see no other way of making room for the facts stated about Lysander.
It is to be noted that Diodorus has a decided error in chronology as to
the date of the restoration of the Athenian democracy. He places it in
401 B.C. (Diod. xiv, 33), two years later than its real date, which is 403 B.C.;
thus lengthening by two years the interval between the surrender of
Athens and the reëstablishment of the democracy. Plutarch also seems to
have conceived that interval as much longer than it really was.
[361] There is no positive testimony to this; yet such is my belief, as I have
stated at the close of the last chapter. It is certain that Xenophon was
serving under Agesilaus in Asia three years after this time; the only matter
left for conjecture is, at what precise moment he went out the second
time. The marked improvement in the Cyreian soldiers, is one reason for
the statement in the text; another reason is, the great detail with which
the military operations of Derkyllidas are described, rendering it probable
that the narrative is from an eye-witness.
[362] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 8; Ephorus, ap. Athenæ. xi, p. 500.
[363] Xen. Hellen. iii, 1, 9. ἐστάθη τὴν ἀσπίδα ἔχων.
[365] See the description of the satrapy of Cyrus (Xenoph. Anab. i, 9, 19,
21, 22). In the main, this division and subdivision of the entire empire
into revenue-districts, each held by a nominee responsible for payment of
the rent or tribute, to the government or to some higher officer of the government—is
the system prevalent throughout a large portion of Asia to
the present day.
[369] Such is the emphatic language of Xenophon (Hellen. iii,
1, 14)—Μειδίας, θυγατρὸς ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς ὢν, ἀναπτερωθεὶς ὑπό τινων, ὡς
αἰσχρὸν εἴη, γυναῖκα μὲν ἄρχειν, αὐτὸν δ᾽ ἰδιώτην εἶναι, τοὺς
μὲν ἄλλους μάλα φυλαττομένης αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ ἐν τυραννίδι προσήκει,
ἐκείνῳ δὲ πιστευούσης καὶ ἀσπαζομένης, ὥσπερ ἂν γυνὴ γαμβρὸν
ἀσπάζοιτο,—εἰσελθὼν ἀποπνῖξαι αὐτὴν λέγεται.
For the illustration of this habitual insecurity in which the Grecian despot
lived, see the dialogue of Xenophon called Hieron (i, 12; ii, 8-10; vii,
10). He particularly dwells upon the multitude of family crimes which
stained the houses of the Grecian despots; murders by fathers, sons, brothers,
wives, etc. (iii, 8).
The reader will remark here how Xenophon shapes the narrative in such
a manner as to inculcate the pious duty in a general of obeying the warnings
furnished by the sacrifice,—either for action or for inaction. I have
already noticed (in my preceding chapters) how often he does this in the
Anabasis.
Such an inference is never (I believe) to be found suggested in Thucydides.
Two points are remarkable here. 1. The manner in which Mania, the
administratrix of a large district, with a prodigious treasure and a large
army in pay, is treated as belonging to Pharnabazus—as the servant or
slave of Pharnabazus. 2. The distinction here taken between public property
and private property, in reference to the laws of war and the rights
of the conqueror. Derkyllidas lays claim to that which had belonged to
Mania (or to Pharnabazus); but not to that which had belonged to Meidias.
According to the modern rules of international law, this distinction is
one allowed and respected, everywhere except at sea. But in the ancient
world, it by no means stood out so clearly or prominently; and the observance
of it here deserves notice.
Thus finishes the interesting narrative about Mania, Meidias, and Derkyllidas.
The abundance of detail, and the dramatic manner, in which
Xenophon has worked it out, impress me with a belief that he was actually
present at the scene.
Morus supposes (I think, with much probability) that ὁ τῶν Κυρείων
προεστηκὼς here means Xenophon himself.
He could not with propriety advert to the fact that he himself had not
been with the army during the year of Thimbron.
[379] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 9. ἔπεμψεν αὐτοὺς ἀπ᾽ Ἐφέσου
διὰ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων, ἡδόμενος ὅτι ἔμελλον ὄψεσθαι τὰς πόλεις ἐν
εἰρήνῃ εὐδαιμονικῶς διαγούσας. I cannot but think that we ought here
to read ἐπ᾽ Ἐφέσου, not ἀπ᾽ Ἐφέσου; or else ἀπὸ Λαμψάκου.
It was at Lampsakus that this interview and conversation between Derkyllidas
and the commissioners took place. The commissioners were to
be sent from Lampsakus to Ephesus through the Grecian cities.
The expression ἐν εἰρήνῃ εὐδαιμονικῶς διαγούσας has reference to the
foreign relations of the cities, and to their exemption from annoyance by
Persian arms,—without implying any internal freedom or good condition.
There were Lacedæmonian harmosts in most of them, and dekarchies half
broken up or modified in many; see the subsequent passages (iii, 2, 20; iii,
4, 7; iv, 8, 1)
In the Anabasis (ii, 3, 3) Xenophon mentions the like care on the part
of Klearchus, to have the best armed and most imposing soldiers around
him, when he went to his interview with Tissaphernes.
Xenophon gladly avails himself of the opportunity, to pay an indirect
compliment to the Cyreian army.
This canon seems not unnatural, for one of the greatest Pan-hellenic
temples and establishments. Yet it was not constantly observed at Olympia
(compare another example—Xen. Hellen. iv, 7, 2); nor yet at Delphi,
which was not less Pan-hellenic than Olympia (see Thucyd. i, 118). We
are therefore led to imagine that it was a canon which the Eleians invoked
only when they were prompted by some special sentiment or aversion.
[394] Diodorus (xiv, 17) mentions this demand for the arrears; which appears
very probable. It is not directly noticed by Xenophon, who however
mentions (see the passage cited in the note of page preceding) the general
assessment levied by Sparta upon all her Peloponnesian allies during the
war.
Diodorus introduces in these transactions King Pausanias, not King Agis,
as the acting person.
Pausanias states (iii, 8, 2) that the Eleians, in returning a negative answer
to the requisition of Sparta, added that they would enfranchise their Periœki,
when they saw Sparta enfranchise her own. This answer appears to
me highly improbable, under the existing circumstances of Sparta and her
relations to the other Grecian states. Allusion to the relations between
Sparta and her Periœki was a novelty, even in 371 B.C., at the congress
which preceded the battle of Leuktra.
[396] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 23, 26; Diodor. xiv, 17.
[397] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 27; Pausanias, iii, 8, 2; v, 4, 5.
The words of Xenophon are not very clear—Βουλόμενοι δὲ οἱ περὶ
Ξενίαν τὸν λεγόμενον μεδίμνῳ ἀπομετρήσασθαι τὸ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς
ἀργύριον (τὴν πόλιν) δι᾽ αὐτῶν προσχωρῆσαι Λακεδαιμονίοις,
ἐκπεσόντες ἐξ οἰκίας ξίφη ἔχοντες σφαγὰς ποιοῦσι, καὶ ἄλλους
τέ τινας κτείνουσι, καὶ ὅμοιόν τινα Θρασυδαίῳ ἀποκτείναντες,
τῷ τοῦ δήμου προστάτῃ, ᾤοντο Θρασυδαῖον ἀπεκτονέναι.... Ὁ δὲ
Θρασυδαῖος ἔτι καθεύδων ἐτύγχανεν, οὗπερ ἐμεθύσθη.
Both the words and the narrative are here very obscure. It seems as if a
sentence had dropped out, when we come suddenly upon the mention of
the drunken state of Thrasydæus, without having before been told of any
circumstance either leading to or implying this condition.
[399] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 30. There is something perplexing in Xenophon’s
description of the Triphylian townships which the Eleians surrendered.
First, he does not name Lepreum or Makistus, both of which nevertheless
had joined Agis on his invasion, and were the most important places in
Triphylia (iii, 2, 25). Next, he names Letrini, Amphidoli, and Marganeis,
as Triphylian; which yet were on the north of the Alpheius, and are
elsewhere distinguished from Triphylian. I incline to believe that the
words in his text, καὶ τὰς Τριφυλίδας πόλεις ἀφεῖναι, must be taken to mean
Lepreum and Makistus, perhaps with some other places which we do not
know; but that a καὶ after ἀφεῖναι, has fallen out of the text, and that the
cities, whose names follow, are to be taken as not Triphylian. Phrixa and
Epitalium were both south, but only just south, of the Alpheius; they were
not on the borders of Triphylia,—and it seems doubtful whether they were
properly Triphylian.
[400] Xen. Hellen. iii, 2, 30; Diodor. xiv, 34; Pausan. iii, 8, 2.
This war between Sparta and Elis reaches over three different years; it
began in the first, occupied the whole of the second, and was finished in
the third. Which years these three were (out of the seven which separate
B.C. 403-396), critics have not been unanimous.
Following the chronology of Diodorus, who places the beginning of the
war in 402 B.C., I differ from Mr. Clinton, who places it in 401 B.C. (Fasti
Hellen. ad ann.), and from Sievers (Geschichte von Griechenland bis zur
Schlacht von Mantinea, p. 382), who places it in 398 B.C.
According to Mr. Clinton’s view, the principal year of the war would
have been 400 B.C., the year of the Olympic festival. But surely, had such
been the fact, the coincidence of war in the country with the Olympic festival,
must have raised so many complications, and acted so powerfully on
the sentiments of all parties, as to be specifically mentioned. In my judgment,
the war was brought to a close in the early part of 400 B.C., before
the time of the Olympic festival arrived. Probably the Eleians were anxious,
on this very ground, to bring it to a close before the festival did arrive.
Sievers, in his discussion of the point, admits that the date assigned by
Diodorus to the Eleian war, squares both with the date which Diodorus
gives for the death of Agis, and with that which Plutarch states about the
duration of the reign of Agesilaus,—better than the chronology which he
himself (Sievers) prefers. He founds his conclusion on Xenophon, Hell.
iii, 2, 21. Τούτων δὲ πραττομένων ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ ὑπὸ Δερκυλλίδα, Λακεδαιμόνιοι
κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον πάλαι ὀργιζόμενοι τοῖς Ἠλείοις, etc.
This passage is certainly of some weight; yet I think in the present case
it is not to be pressed with rigid accuracy as to date. The whole third
Book down to these very words, has been occupied entirely with the course
of Asiatic affairs. Not a single proceeding of the Lacedæmonians in Peloponnesus,
since the amnesty at Athens, has yet been mentioned. The command
of Derkyllidas included only the last portion of the Asiatic exploits,
and Xenophon has here loosely referred to it as if it comprehended the
whole. Sievers moreover compresses the whole Eleian war into one year
and a fraction; an interval, shorter, I think, than that which is implied in
the statements of Xenophon.
Both Ephorus and Theopompus recounted the opposition to the introduction
of gold and silver into Sparta, each mentioning the name of one of
the ephors as taking the lead in it.
There was a considerable body of ancient sentiment, and that too among
high-minded and intelligent men, which regarded gold and silver as a cause
of mischief and corruption, and of which the stanza of Horace (Od. iii, 3)
is an echo:—
Contrast what Plato says in his dialogue of Alkibiades, i, c. 39, p. 122 E.
about the great quantity of gold and silver then at Sparta. The dialogue
must bear date at some period between 400-371 B.C.
[407] See the speeches of the Corinthian envoys and of King Archidamus
at Sparta (Thucyd. i, 70-84; compare also viii, 24-96).
[408] See the criticisms upon Sparta, about 395 B.C. and 372 B.C. (Xenoph.
Hellen. iii, 5, 11-15; vi, 3, 8-11).
[409] Thucyd. i, 77. Ἄμικτα γὰρ τά τε καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὐτοὺς
νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔχετε, etc. About the ξενηλασίαι of the
Spartans—see the speech of Perikles in Thucyd. i, 138.
The expression, “taking measures to hinder the Lacedæmonians from
again exercising empire,”—marks this treatise as probably composed some
time between their naval defeat at Knidus, and their land-defeat at Leuktra.
The former put an end to their maritime empire,—the latter excluded
them from all possibility of recovering it; but during the interval between
the two, such recovery was by no means impossible.
[414] The Athenian envoy at Melos says,—Λακεδαιμόνιοι γὰρ πρὸς
μὲν σφᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἐπιχώρια νόμιμα, πλεῖστα ἀρετῇ χρῶνται· πρὸς δὲ
τοὺς ἀλλους—ἐπιφανέστατα ὧν ἴσμεν τὰ μὲν ἡδέα καλὰ νομίζουσι, τὰ δὲ
ξυμφέροντα δίκαια (Thucyd. v. 105). A judgment almost exactly the
same, is pronounced by Polybius (vi, 48).
[416] Σπάρτην δαμασίμβροτον (Simonides ap. Plutarch. Agesilaum, c. 1).
[417] See an expression of Aristotle (Polit. ii, 6, 22) about the function of
admiral among the Lacedæmonians,—ἐπὶ γὰρ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, οὖσι
στρατηγοῖς ἀϊδίοις, ἡ ναυαρχία σχεδόν ἑτέρα βασιλεία καθέστηκε.
This reflection,—which Aristotle intimates that he has borrowed from
some one else, though without saying from whom,—must in all probability
have been founded upon the case of Lysander; for never after Lysander,
was there any Lacedæmonian admiral enjoying a power which could by
possibility be termed exorbitant or dangerous. We know that during the
later years of the Peloponnesian war, much censure was cast upon the Lacedæmonian
practice of annually changing the admiral (Xen. Hellen. i, 6, 4).
The Lacedæmonians seem to have been impressed with these criticisms,
for in the year 395 B.C. (the year before the battle of Knidus) they conferred
upon King Agesilaus, who was then commanding the land army in Asia
Minor, the command of the fleet also—in order to secure unity of operations.
This had never been done before (Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 28).
[418] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 24. Perhaps he may have been simply a member
of the tribe called Hylleis, who, probably, called themselves Herakleids.
Some affirmed that Lysander wished to cause the kings to be elected out
of all the Spartans, not simply out of the Herakleids. This is less probable.
[422] Aristotle (Polit. v, 1, 5) represents justly the schemes of Lysander as
going πρὸς τὸ μέρος τι κινῆσαι τῆς πολιτείας· οἷον ἀρχήν τινα καταστῆσαι ἢ ἀνελεῖν.
The Spartan kingship is here regarded as ἀρχή τις—one office
of state, among others. But Aristotle regards Lysander as having intended
to destroy the kingship—καταλῦσαι τὴν βασιλείαν—which does not appear
to have been the fact. The plan of Lysander was to retain the kingship,
but to render it elective instead of hereditary. He wished to place the
Spartan kingship substantially on the same footing, as that on which the
office of the kings or suffetes of Carthage stood; who were not hereditary,
nor confined to members of the same family or Gens, but chosen out of the
principal families or Gentes. Aristotle, while comparing the βασιλεῖς at
Sparta with those at Carthage, as being generally analogous, pronounces in
favor of the Carthaginian election as better than the Spartan hereditary
transmission. (Arist. Polit. ii, 8, 2.)
[423] Thucyd. v, 63; Xen. Hellen. iii, 5, 25; iv, 2, 1.
[424] Diodor. xiv, 13; Cicero, de Divinat. i, 43, 96; Cornel. Nepos, Lysand. c. 3.
[425] Plutarch, Lysand. c. 25, from Ephorus. Compare Herodot. vi, 66;
Thucyd. v, 12.
[427] Tacit. Histor. i, 10. “Cui expeditius fuerit tradere imperium, quam
obtinere.”
The general fact of the conspiracy of Lysander to open for himself a
way to the throne, appears to rest on very sufficient testimony,—that of
Ephorus; to whom perhaps the words φασί τινες in Aristotle may allude,
where he mentions this conspiracy as having been narrated (Polit. v, 1, 5).
But Plutarch, as well as K. O. Müller (Hist. of Dorians, iv, 9, 5) and others,
erroneously represent the intrigues with the oracle as being resorted to after
Lysander returned from accompanying Agesilaus to Asia; which is certainly
impossible, since Lysander accompanied Agesilaus out, in the spring
of 396 B.C.—did not return to Greece until the spring of 395 B.C.—and
was then employed, with an interval not greater than four or five months,
on that expedition against Bœotia wherein he was slain.
The tampering of Lysander with the oracle must undoubtedly have
taken place prior to the death of Agis,—at some time between 403 B.C.
and 399 B.C. The humiliation which he received in 396 B.C. from Agesilaus
might indeed have led him to revolve in his mind the renewal of his
former plans; but he can have had no time to do anything towards them.
Aristotle (Polit. v, 6, 2) alludes to the humiliation of Lysander by the
kings as an example of incidents tending to raise disturbance in an aristocratical
government; but this humiliation, probably, alludes to the manner
in which he was thwarted in Attica by Pausanias in 403 B.C.—which proceeding
is ascribed by Plutarch to both kings, as well as to their jealousy of
Lysander (see Plutarch, Lysand. c. 21)—not to the treatment of Lysander
by Agesilaus in 396 B.C. The mission of Lysander to the despot Dionysius
at Syracuse (Plutarch, Lysand. c. 2) must also have taken place prior
to the death of Agis in 399 B.C.; whether before or after the failure of the
stratagem at Delphi, is uncertain; perhaps after it.
[428] The age of Leotychides is approximately marked by the date of the
presence of Alkibiades at Sparta 414-413 B.C. The mere rumor, true or
false, that this young man was the son of Alkibiades, may be held sufficient
as chronological evidence to certify his age.
[429] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 2; Pausanias, iii, 8, 4; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 3.
[431] I confess I do not understand how Xenophon can say, in his Agesilaus,
i, 6, Ἀγησίλαος τοίνυν ἔτι μὲν νέος ὢν ἔτυχε τῆς βασιλείας. For he himself
says (ii, 28), and it seems well established, that Agesilaus died at the age of
above 80 (Plutarch, Agesil. c. 40); and his death must have been about 360
B.C.
[432] Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 2-5; Xenoph. Agesil. vii, 3; Plutarch, Apophth.
Laconic. p. 212 D.
[433] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 2; Xenoph. Agesil. viii, 1.
It appears that the mother of Agesilaus was a very small woman, and
that Archidamus had incurred the censure of the ephors, on that especial
ground, for marrying her.
[434] Xenoph. Agesil. xi, 7; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 2.
Congenital lameness would be regarded as a mark of divine displeasure,
and therefore a disqualification from the throne, as in the case of Battus
of Kyrênê above noticed. But the words χωλὴ βασίλεια were general
enough to cover both the cases,—superinduced as well as congenital lameness.
It is upon this that Lysander founds his inference—that the god
did not mean to allude to bodily lameness at all.
[445] Pausanias, iii, 8, 5; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 3; Plutarch, Lysand. c. 22;
Justin, vi, 2.
This is a splendid chorus of the Trachiniæ of Sophokles (822) proclaiming
their sentiments on the awful death of Hêraklês, in the tunic of Nessus,
which has just been announced as about to happen.
The meaning of the term Οἱ ὅμοιοι fluctuates in Xenophon; it sometimes,
as here, is used to signify the privileged Peers—again De Repub.
Laced. xiii, 1; and Anab. iv, 6, 14. Sometimes again it is used agreeably
to the Lykurgean theory; whereby every citizen, who rigorously discharged
his duty in the public drill, belonged to the number (De Rep. Lac. x, 7).
There was a variance between the theory and the practice.
[457] Xen. Hellen. iii, 3, 11. μηδενὸς ἥττων εἶναι τῶν ἐν Λακεδαίμονι—was
the declaration of Kinadon when seized and questioned by the ephors concerning
his purposes. Substantially it coincides with Aristotle (Polit. v, 6,
2)—ἢ ὅταν ἀνδρώδης τις ὢν μὴ μετέχῃ τῶν τιμῶν, οἷον Κινάδων ὁ τὴν ἐπ᾽ Ἀγησιλάου
συστήσας ἐπίθεσιν ἐπὶ τοὺς Σπαρτιάτας.
The expression is Homeric—ὠμὸν βεβρώθοις Πρίαμον, etc. (Iliad. iv, 35).
The Greeks did not think themselves obliged to restrain the full expression
of vindictive feeling. The poet Theognis wishes, “that he may one day
come to drink the blood of those who had ill-used him” (v. 349 Gaisf.).
The persons called Hippeis at Sparta, were not mounted; they were a
select body of three hundred youthful citizens, employed either on home
police or on foreign service.
See Herodot. viii, 124; Strabo, x, p. 481; K. O. Müller, History of the
Dorians, B. iii, ch. 12, s. 5, 6.
Polyænus (ii, 14, 1) in his account of this transaction, expressly mentions
that the Hippeis or guards who accompanied Kinadon, put him to the torture
(στρεβλώσαντες) when they seized him, in order to extort the names of
his accomplices. Even without express testimony, we might pretty confidently
have assumed this. From a man of spirit like Kinadon, they were
not likely to obtain such betrayal without torture.
I had affirmed that in the description of this transaction given by Xenophon,
it did not appear whether Kinadon was able to write or not. My
assertion was controverted by Colonel Mure (in his Reply to my Appendix),
who cited the words φέρων τὰ ὀνόματα ὧν Κινάδων ἀπέγραψε, as containing
an affirmation from Xenophon that Kinadon could write.
In my judgment, these words, taken in conjunction with what precedes,
and with the probabilities of the fact described, do not contain such an affirmation.
The guards were instructed to seize Kinadon, and after having heard from
Kinadon who his accomplices were, to write the names down and send them to the
ephors. It is to be presumed that they executed these instructions as given;
the more so, as what they were commanded to do, was at once the safest
and the most natural proceeding. For Kinadon was a man distinguished
for personal stature and courage (τὸ εἶδος καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν εὔρωστος, iii, 3, 5)
so that those who seized him would find it an indispensable precaution to
pinion his arms. Assuming even that Kinadon could write,—yet, if he
were to write, he must have his right arm free. And why should the guards
take this risk, when all which the ephors required was, that Kinadon should
pronounce the names, to be written down by others? With a man of the
qualities of Kinadon, it probably required the most intense pressure to force
him to betray his comrades, even by word of mouth; it would probably be
more difficult still, to force him to betray them by the more deliberate act
of writing.
I conceive that ἧκεν ἱππεὺς, φέρων τὰ ὀνόματα ὧν ὁ Κινάδων ἀπέγραψε is
to be construed with reference to the preceding sentence, and announces
the carrying into effect of the instructions then reported as given by the
ephors. “A guard came, bearing the names of those whom Kinadon had
given in.” It is not necessary to suppose that Kinadon had written down
these names with his own hand.
In the beginning of the Oration of Andokides (De Mysteriis), Pythonikus
gives information of a mock celebration of the mysteries, committed
by Alkibiades and others; citing as his witness the slave Andromachus;
who is accordingly produced, and states to the assembly vivâ voce what he
had seen and who were the persons present—Πρῶτος μὲν οὗτος (Andromachus)
ταῦτα εμήνυσε, καὶ ἀπέγραψε τούτους (s. 13). It is not here
meant to affirm that the slave Andromachus wrote down the names of these
persons, which he had the moment before publicly announced to the assembly.
It is by the words ἀπέγραψε τούτους that the orator describes the public
oral announcement made by Andromachus, which was formally taken
note of by a secretary, and which led to legal consequences against the
persons whose names were given in.
So again, in the old law quoted by Demosthenes (adv. Makast. p. 1068),
Ἀπογραφέτω δὲ τὸν μὴ ποιοῦντα ταῦτα ὁ βουλόμενος πρὸς τὸν ἄρχοντα; and
in Demosthenes adv. Nikostrat. p. 1247. Ἃ ἐκ τῶν νόμων τῷ ἰδιώτῃ τῷ
ἀπογράφαντι γίγνεται, τῇ πόλει ἀφίημι: compare also Lysias, De Bonis
Aristophanis, Or. xix, s. 53; it is not meant to affirm that ὁ ἀπογράφων was
required to perform his process in writing, or was necessarily able to write.
A citizen who could not write might do this, as well as one who could. He
informed against a certain person as delinquent; he informed of certain articles
of property, as belonging to the estate of one whose property had been
confiscated to the city. The information, as well as the name of the informer,
was taken down by the official person,—whether the informer
could himself write or not.
It appears to me that Kinadon, having been interrogated, told to the
guards who first seized him, the names of his accomplices,—just as he
told these names afterwards to the ephors (καὶ τοῦς ξυνειδότας ἔλεγε);
and this, whether he was, or was not, able to write; a point, which the
passage of Xenophon noway determines.
[466] Lysias, Orat. xix, (De Bonis Aristophanis) s. 38.
[467] See Ktesias, Fragmenta, Persica, c. 63, ed. Bähr; Plutarch, Artax. c. 21.
We cannot make out these circumstances with any distinctness; but the
general fact is plainly testified, and is besides very probable. Another Grecian
surgeon (besides Ktesias) is mentioned as concerned,—Polykritus of
Mendê; and a Kretan dancer named Zeno,—both established at the Persian
court.
There is no part of the narrative of Ktesias, the loss of which is so
much to be regretted as this; relating transactions, in which he was himself
concerned, and seemingly giving original letters.
[474] Herodot. i, 68; vii, 159; Pausan. iii, 16, 6.
[475] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 3, 4; iii, 5, 5; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 6; Pausan. iii, 9, 2.
[476] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 5, 6; Xen. Agesilaus, i, 10.
The term of three months is specified only in the latter passage. The
former armistice of Derkyllidas had probably not expired when Agesilaus
first arrived.
[478] Xen. Hellen. ii, 1, 7. This rule does not seem to have been adhered to
afterwards. Lysander was sent out again as commander in 403 B.C. It is
possible, indeed, that he may have been again sent out as nominal secretary
to some other person named as commander.
[480] The sarcastic remarks which Plutarch ascribes to Agesilaus, calling
Lysander “my meat-distributor” (κρεοδαίτην), are not warranted by Xenophon,
and seem not to be probable under the circumstances (Plutarch,
Lysand. c. 23; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 8).
[481] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 7-10; Plutarch, Agesilaus, c. 7-8; Plutarch, Lysand.
c. 23.
It is remarkable that in the Opusculum of Xenophon, a special Panegyric
called Agesilaus, not a word is said about this highly characteristic
proceeding between Agesilaus and Lysander at Ephesus; nor indeed is the
name of Lysander once mentioned.
Herodotus affirms that the Thracians also sold their children for exportation,—πωλεῦσι
τὰ τέχνα ἐπ᾽ ἐξαγωγῇ (Herod. v, 6): compare Philostratus,
Vit. Apollon. viii, 7-12, p. 346; and Ch. xvi, Vol. III, p. 216 of this
History.
Herodotus mentions the Chian merchant Panionius (like the “Mitylenæus
mango” in Martial,—“Sed Mitylenæi roseus mangonis ephebus” Martial,
vii, 79)—as having conducted on a large scale the trade of purchasing
boys, looking out for such as were handsome, to supply the great demand
in the East for eunuchs, who were supposed to make better and more attached
servants. Herodot. viii, 105. ὅκως γὰρ κτήσαιτο (Panionius) παῖδας εἴδεος ἐπαμμένους,
ἐκτάμνων ἀγινέων ἐπώλεε ἐς Σάρδις τε καὶ Ἔφεσον χρημάτων μεγάλων· παρὰ γὰρ τοῖσι
βαρβάροισι τιμιώτεροί εἰσι οἱ εὐνοῦχοι, πίστιος εἵνεκα τῆς πάσης, τῶν ἐνορχίων.
Boys were necessary, as the operation
was performed in childhood or youth,—παῖδες ἐκτομίαι (Herodot. vi, 6-32:
compare iii, 48). The Babylonians, in addition to their large pecuniary
tribute, had to furnish to the Persian court annually five hundred παῖδας
ἐκτομίας (Herodot. iii, 92). For some farther remarks on the preference of
the Persians both for the persons and the services of εὐνοῦχοι, see Dio
Chrysostom, Orat. xxi, p. 270; Xenoph. Cyropæd. vii, 5, 61-65. Hellanikus
(Fr. 169, ed. Didot) affirmed that the Persians had derived both the
persons so employed, and the habit of employing them, from the Babylonians.
When Mr. Hanway was travelling near the Caspian, among the Kalmucks,
little children of two or three vears of age, were often tendered to
him for sale, at two rubles per head (Hanway’s Travels, ch. xvi, pp. 65, 66).
[490] Herodot. i, 10. παρὰ γὰρ τοῖσι Λυδοῖσι, σχεδὸν δὲ
παρὰ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι βαρβάροισι, καὶ ἄνδρα ὀφθῆναι γυμνόν, ἐς
αἰσχύνην μεγάλην φέρει. Compare Thucyd. i, 6; Plato, Republic,
v, 3, p. 452, D.
Xen. Agesil. i, 28—where he has it—πίονας δὲ καὶ ἀπόνους, διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ
ἐπ᾽ ὀχημάτων εἶναι (Polyænus, ii, 1, 5; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 9).
Frontinus (i, 18) recounts a proceeding somewhat similar on the part of
Gelon, after his great victory over the Carthaginians at Himera in Sicily:—“Gelo
Syracusarum tyrannus, bello adversus Pœnos suscepto, cum multos
cepisset, infirmissimum quemque præcipue ex auxiliaribus, qui nigerrimi
erant, nudatum in conspectu suorum produxit, ut persuaderet contemnendos.”
[493] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 15; Xen. Agesil. i, 23. Compare what is related
about Scipio Africanus—Livy, xxix, 1.
[494] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 17, 18; Xen. Agesil. i, 26, 27.
[495] Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 21-24; Xen. Agesil. i, 32, 33; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 10.
Diodorus (xiv, 80) professes to describe this battle; but his description
is hardly to be reconciled with that of Xenophon, which is better authority.
Among other points of difference, Diodorus affirms that the Persians had
fifty thousand infantry; and Pausanias also states (iii, 9, 3) that the number
of Persian infantry in this battle was greater than had ever been got
together since the times of Darius and Xerxes Whereas, Xenophon expressly
states that the Persian infantry had not come up, and took no part
in the battle.
[496] Plutarch. Artaxerx. c. 23; Diodor. xiv, 80; Xen. Hellen. iii, 4, 25.
[504] Diodor. xiv, 79; Justin (vi, 2) calls this native Egyptian king Hercynion.
It seems to have been the uniform practice, for the corn-ships coming
from Egypt to Greece to halt at Rhodes (Demosthen. cont. Dionysodor
p. 1285: compare Herodot. ii, 182).
[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.
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.
[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).
[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).
[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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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.
[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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
[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).
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.
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.
[604] Xen. Hellen. iv, 3, 21; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 19. The latter says—εἰς
Δελφοὺς ἀπεκομίσθη Πυθίων ἀγομένων, etc. Manso, Dr. Arnold, and
others, contest the accuracy of Plutarch in this assertion respecting the time
of year at which the Pythian games were celebrated, upon grounds which
seem to me very insufficient.
[607] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 17. Cornelius Nepos, Agesil. c. 4. “Obsistere ei
conati sunt Athenienses et Bœoti,” etc. They succeeded in barring his way,
and compelling him to retreat.
[609] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 1-3; Diodor. xiv, 84. About Samos, xiv, 97.
Compare also the speech of Derkyllidas to the Abydenes (Xen. Hellen.
iv, 8, 4)—Ὅσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον αἱ ἄλλαι πόλεις ξὺν τῇ τύχῃ ἀπεστράφησαν ἡμῶν,
τοσούτῳ ὄντως ἡ ὑμετέρα πιστότης μείζων φανείη ἄν, etc.
[610] Ἐκ γὰρ Ἀβύδου, τῆς τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον ὑμῖν ἔχθρας—says Demosthenes
in the Athenian assembly (cont. Aristokrat. c. 39, p. 672; compare
c. 52, p. 688).
[612] Lysander, after the victory of Ægospotami and the expulsion of the
Athenians from Sestos, had assigned the town and district as a settlement
for the pilots and Keleustæ aboard his fleet. But the ephors are said to
have reversed the assignment, and restored the town to the Sestians (Plutarch,
Lysand. c. 14). Probably, however, the new settlers would remain
in part upon the lands vacated by the expelled Athenians.
Cornelius Nepos (Conon, c. 4) mentions fifty talents as a sum received
by Konon from Pharnabazus as a present, and devoted by him to this public
work. This is not improbable; but the total sum contributed by the satrap
towards the fortifications must, probably, have been much greater.
[618] Demosthen. cont. Androtion. p. 616. c. 21. Pausanias (i, 1, 3) still saw
this temple in Peiræus—very near to the sea; five hundred and fifty years
afterwards.
[619] Demosthen. cont. Leptin. c. 16. p. 477, 478; Athenæus, i, 3; Cornelius
Nepos, Conon, c. 4.
[620] Plato, Legg. vi, p. 778; καθεύδειν ἐᾷν ἐν τῇ γῇ κατακείμενα τὰ τείχη, etc.
[621] The importance of maintaining these lines, as a protection to Athens
against invasion from Sparta, is illustrated in Xen. Hellen. v, 4, 19, and
Andokides, Or. iii, De Pace, s. 26.
[626] I dissent from Mr. Fynes Clinton as well as from M. Rehdantz (Vitæ
Iphicratis, etc., c. 4, who in the main agrees with Dodwell’s Annales Xenophontei)
in their chronological arrangement of these events.
They place the battle fought by Praxitas within the Long Walls of Corinth
in 393 B.C., and the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora or division
by Iphikrates (the monthly date of which is marked by its having immediately
succeeded the Isthmian games), in 392 B.C. I place the former event
in 392 B.C.; the latter in 390 B.C., immediately after the Isthmian games
of 390 B.C.
If we study the narrative of Xenophon, we shall find, that after describing
(iv, 3) the battle of Korôneia (August 394 B.C.) with its immediate consequences,
and the return of Agesilaus home,—he goes on in the next chapter
to narrate the land-war about or near Corinth, which he carries down
without interruption (through Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, of Book iv.) to 389 B.C.
But in Chapter 8 of Book iv, he leaves the land-war, and takes up the
naval operations, from and after the battle of Knidus (Aug. 394 B.C.). He
recounts how Pharnabazus and Konon came across the Ægean with a powerful
fleet in the spring of 393 B.C., and how after various proceedings, they
brought the fleet to the Saronic Gulf and the Isthmus of Corinth, where
they must have arrived at or near midsummer 393 B.C.
Now it appears to me certain, that these proceedings of Pharnabazus with
the fleet, recounted in the eighth chapter, come, in point of date, before the
seditious movements and the coup d’état at Corinth, which are recounted
in the fourth chapter. At the time when Pharnabazus was at Corinth in
midsummer 393 B.C., the narrative of Xenophon (iv, 8, 8-10) leads us to
believe that the Corinthians were prosecuting the war zealously, and without
discontent: the money and encouragement which Pharnabazus gave them
was calculated to strengthen such ardor. It was by aid of this money that
the Corinthians fitted out their fleet under Agathinus, and acquired for a
time the maritime command of the Gulf.
The discontents against the war (recounted in chap. 4 seq.) could not
have commenced until a considerable time after the departure of Pharnabazus.
They arose out of causes which only took effect after a long continuance,—the
hardships of the land-war, the losses of property and slaves,
the jealousy towards Attica and Bœotia as being undisturbed, etc. The
Lacedæmonian and Peloponnesian aggressive force at Sikyon cannot possibly
have been established before the autumn of
394 B.C.,
and was most
probably placed there early in the spring of 393 B.C. Its effects were brought
about, not by one great blow, but by repetition of ravages and destructive
annoyance; and all the effects which it produced previous to midsummer
393 B.C. would be more than compensated by the presence, the gifts, and
the encouragement of Pharnabazus with his powerful fleet. Moreover, after
his departure, too, the Corinthians were at first successful at sea, and
acquired the command of the Gulf, which, however, they did not retain for
more than a year, if so much. Hence, it is not likely that any strong discontent
against the war began before the early part of 392 B.C.
Considering all these circumstances, I think it reasonable to believe that
the coup d’état and massacre at Corinth took place (not in 393 B.C., as Mr.
Clinton and M. Rehdantz place it, but) in 392 B.C.; and the battle within
the Long Walls rather later in the same year.
Next, the opinion of the same two authors, as well as of Dodwell,—that
the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora by Iphicrates took place in the
spring of 392 B.C.,—is also, in my view, erroneous. If this were true, it
would be necessary to pack all the events mentioned in Xenophon, iv, 4,
into the year 393 B.C.; which I hold to be impossible. If the destruction
of the mora did not occur in the spring of 393 B.C., we know that it could
not have occurred until the spring of 390 B.C.; that is, the next ensuing
Isthmian games, two years afterwards. And this last will be found to be
its true date; thus leaving full time, but not too much time, for the antecedent
occurrences.
[630] Diodorus (xiv, 86) gives this number, which seems very credible. Xenophon
(iv, 4, 4) only says πολλοί.
[631] In recounting this alternation of violence projected, violence perpetrated,
recourse on the one side to a foreign ally, treason on the other by admitting
an avowed enemy,—which formed the modus operandi of opposing
parties in the oligarchical Corinth,—I invite the reader to contrast it with
the democratical Athens.
At Athens, in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, there were precisely
the same causes at work, and precisely the same marked antithesis of
parties, as those which here disturbed Corinth. There was first, a considerable
Athenian minority who opposed the war with Sparta from the first;
next, when the war began, the proprietors of Attica saw their lands ruined,
and were compelled either to carry away, or to lose, their servants and cattle,
so that they obtained no returns. The intense discontent, the angry
complaints, the bitter conflict of parties, which these circumstances raised
among the Athenian citizens,—not to mention the aggravation of all these
symptoms by the terrible epidemic,—are marked out in Thucydides, and
have been recorded in the fifth volume of this history. Not only the positive
loss and suffering, but all other causes of exasperation, stood at a higher
pitch at Athens in the early part of the Peloponnesian war, than at Corinth
in 392 B.C.
Yet what were the effects which they produced? Did the minority resort
to a conspiracy,—or the majority to a coup d’état—or either of them to
invitation of foreign aid against the other? Nothing of the kind. The
minority had always open to them the road of pacific opposition, and the
chance of obtaining a majority in the Senate or in the public assembly,
which was practically identical with the totality of the citizens. Their opposition,
though pacific as to acts, was sufficiently animated and violent in
words and propositions, to serve as a real discharge for imprisoned angry
passion. If they could not carry the adoption of their general policy, they
had the opportunity of gaining partial victories which took off the edge of
a fierce discontent; witness the fine imposed upon Perikles (Thucyd. ii, 65)
in the year before his death, which both gratified and mollified the antipathy
against him, and brought about shortly afterwards a strong reaction in
his favor. The majority, on the other hand, knew that the predominance
of its policy depended upon its maintaining its hold on a fluctuating public
assembly, against the utmost freedom of debate and attack, within certain
forms and rules prescribed by the constitution; attachment to the
latter being the cardinal principle of political morality in both parties. It
was this system which excluded on both sides the thought of armed violence.
It produced among the democratical citizens of Athens that characteristic
insisted upon by Kleon in Thucydides,—“constant and fearless
security and absence of treacherous hostility among one another” (διὰ γὰρ τὸ
καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀδεὲς καὶ ἀνεπιβούλευτον πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐς τοὺς ξυμμάχους
τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχετε—Thuc. iii, 37), the entire absence of which stands so
prominently forward in these deplorable proceedings of the oligarchical
Corinth. Pasimêlus and his Corinthian minority had no assemblies, dikasteries,
annual Senate, or constant habit of free debate and accusation, to
appeal to; their only available weapon was armed violence, or treacherous
correspondence with a foreign enemy. On the part of the Corinthian government,
superior or more skilfully used force, or superior alliance abroad,
was the only weapon of defence, in like manner.
I shall return to this subject in a future chapter, where I enter more at
large into the character of the Athenians.
[633] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 8. καὶ κατὰ τύχην καὶ κατ᾽ ἐπιμέλειαν, etc.
[634] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 8. Nothing can show more forcibly the Laconian
bias of Xenophon, than the credit which he gives to Pasimêlus for his good
faith towards the Lacedæmonians whom he was letting in; overlooking or
approving his treacherous betrayal towards his own countrymen, in thus
opening a gate which he had been trusted to watch. τὼ δ᾽ εἰσηγαγέτην,
καὶ οὕτως ἁπλῶς ἀπεδειξάτην, ὥστε ὁ εἰσελθὼν ἐξήγγειλε, πάντα
εἶναι ἀδόλως, οἷάπερ ἐλεγέτην.
It would appear from hence that there must have been an open portion
of Lechæum, or a space apart from (but adjoining to) the wall which encircled
Lechæum, yet still within the Long Walls. Otherwise the fugitive
Sikyonians could hardly have got down to the sea.
[637] Diodorus (xiv, 87) represents that the Lacedæmonians on this
occasion surprised and held Lechæum, defeating the general body of
the confederates who came out from Corinth to retake it. But his
narrative of all these circumstances differs materially from that
of Xenophon; whom I here follow in preference, making allowance for
great partiality, and for much confusion and obscurity.
Xenophon gives us plainly to understand, that Lechæum was not
captured by the Lacedæmonians until the following year, by Agesilaus
and Teleutias.
It is to be recollected that Xenophon had particular means of knowing
what was done by Agesilaus, and therefore deserves credit on that
head,—always allowing for partiality. Diodorus does not mention
Agesilaus in connection with the proceedings at Lechæum.
[638] Diodor. xv, 44; Cornelius Nepos, Vit. Iphicrat. c. 2; Polyæn. iii, 9, 10.
Compare Rehdantz, Vitæ Iphicratis, Chabriæ, et Timothei, c. 2, 7 (Berlin,
1845)—a very useful and instructive publication.
In describing the improvements made by Iphikrates in the armature of
his peltasts, I have not exactly copied either Nepos or Diodorus, who both
appear to me confused in their statements. You would imagine, in reading
their account (and so it has been stated by Weber, Prolegg. ad Demosth.
cont. Aristokr. p. xxxv.), that there were no peltasts in Greece prior to Iphikrates;
that he was the first to transform heavy-armed hoplites into light-armed
peltasts, and to introduce from Thrace the light shield or pelta, not
only smaller in size than the round ἀσπὶς carried by the hoplite, but also
without the ἴτυς (or surrounding metallic rim of the ἀσπὶς) seemingly connected
by outside bars or spokes of metal with the exterior central knob
or projection (umbo) which the hoplite pushed before him in close combat.
The pelta, smaller and lighter than the ἀσπὶς, was seemingly square or oblong
and not round; though it had no ἴτυς, it often had thin plates of brass,
as we may see by Xenophon, Anab. v, 2, 29, so that the explanation of it
given in the Scholia ad Platon. Legg. vii, p. 813 must be taken with reserve.
But Grecian peltasts existed before the time of Iphikrates (Xen. Hellen.
i, 2, 1 and elsewhere); he did not first introduce them; he found them already
there, and improved their armature. Both Diodorus and Nepos affirm
that he lengthened the spears of the peltasts to a measure half as long again
as those of the hoplites (or twice as long, if we believe Nepos), and the
swords in proportion—“ηὔξησε μὲν τὰ δόρατα ἡμιολίῳ μεγέθει—hastæ
modum duplicavit.” Now this I apprehend to be not exact; nor is it true
(as Nepos asserts) that the Grecian hoplites carried “short spears”—“brevibus
hastis.” The spear of the Grecian hoplite was long (though not
so long as that of the heavy and compact Macedonian phalanx afterwards
became), and it appears to me incredible that Iphikrates should have given
to his light and active peltast a spear twice as long, or half as long again,
as that of the hoplite. Both Diodorus and Nepos have mistaken by making
their comparison with the arms of the hoplite, to which the changes of Iphikrates
had no reference. The peltast both before and after Iphikrates did
not carry a spear, but a javelin, which he employed as a missile, to hurl, not
to thrust; he was essentially an ἀκοντιστὴς or javelin-shooter (See Xenoph.
Hellen. iv, 5, 14; vi, 1, 9). Of course the javelin might, in case of need,
serve to thrust, but this was not its appropriate employment; e converso, the
spear might be hurled (under advantageous circumstances, from the higher
ground against an enemy below—Xen. Hellen. ii. 4, 15; v, 4, 52), but its
proper employment was, to be held and thrust forward.
What Iphikrates really did, was, to lengthen both the two offensive
weapons which the peltast carried, before his time,—the javelin, and the
sword. He made the javelin a longer and heavier weapon, requiring a
more practised hand to throw—but also competent to inflict more serious
wounds, and capable of being used with more deadly effect if the peltasts
saw an opportunity of coming to close fight on advantageous terms. Possibly
Iphikrates not only lengthened the weapon, but also improved its
point and efficacy in other ways; making it more analogous to the formidable
Roman pilum. Whether he made any alteration in the pelta itself,
we do not know.
The name Iphikratides, given to these new-fashioned leggings or boots,
proves to us that Wellington and Blucher are not the first eminent generals
who have lent an honorable denomination to boots and shoes.
Compare the sentiment of the light troops in the attack of Sphakteria,
when they were awe-struck and afraid at first to approach the Lacedæmonian
hoplites—τῇ γνώμῃ δεδουλωμένοι ὡς ἐπὶ Λακεδαιμονίους, etc. (Thucyd. iv,
34).
This is a camp-jest of the time, which we have to thank Xenophon for
preserving.
[642] Xenoph. Agesil. ii, 17. ἀναπετάσας τῆς Πελοποννήσου τὰς πύλας, etc.
Respecting the Long Walls of Corinth, as part of a line of defence
which barred ingress to, or egress from, Peloponnesus,—Colonel Leake remarks,—“The
narrative of Xenophon shows the great importance of the
Corinthian Long Walls in time of war. They completed a line of fortification
from the summit of the Acro-Corinthus to the sea, and thus intercepted
the most direct and easy communication from the Isthmus into
Peloponnesus. For the rugged mountain, which borders the southern side
of the Isthmian plain, has only two passes,—one, by the opening on the
eastern side of Acro-Corinthus, which obliged an enemy to pass under the
eastern side of Corinth, and was, moreover, defended by a particular kind
of fortification, as some remains of walls still testify,—the other, along
the shore at Cenchreiæ, which was also a fortified place in the hands of the
Corinthians. Hence the importance of the pass of Cenchreiæ, in all operations
between the Peloponnesians, and an enemy without the Isthmus.”
(Leake, Travels in Morea, vol. iii, ch. xxviii, p. 254).
Compare Plutarch, Aratus, c. 16; and the operations of Epaminondas as
described by Diodorus, xv, 68.
[643] Xen. Hellen. iv, 4, 18. ἐλθόντες πανδημεὶ μετὰ λιθολόγων καὶ τεκτόνων,
etc. The word πανδημεὶ shows how much they were alarmed.
[645] The words stand in the text of Xenophon,—εὐθὺς ἐκεῖθεν ὑπερβαλὼν κατὰ
Τεγέαν εἰς Κόρινθον. A straight march from the Argeian territory
to Corinth could not possibly carry Agesilaus by Tegea; Kœppen proposes
Τενέαν, which I accept, as geographically suitable. I am not certain,
however, that it is right; the Agesilaus of Xenophon has the words κατὰ τὰ στενά.
About the probable situation of Tenea, see Colonel Leake, Travels in
Morea, vol. iii, p. 321; also his Peloponnesiaca, p. 400.
It was rather late in the autumn of 393 B.C. that the Lacedæmonian
maritime operations in the Corinthian Gulf began, against the fleet recently
equipped by the Corinthians out of the funds lent by Pharnabazus. First,
the Lacedæmonian Polemarchus was named admiral; he was slain,—and
his secretary Pollis, who succeeded to his command, retired afterwards
wounded. Next came Herippidas to the command, who was succeeded by
Teleutias. Now if we allow to Herippidas a year of command (the ordinary
duration of a Lacedæmonian admiral’s appointment), and to the other
two something less than a year, since their time was brought to an end by
accidents,—we shall find that the appointment of Teleutias will fall in the
spring or early summer of 391 B.C., the year of this expedition of Agesilaus.
This last passage indicates decidedly that Lechæum was not taken until
this joint attack by Agesilaus and Teleutias. And the authority of Xenophon
on the point is superior, in my judgment, to that of Diodorus (xiv,
86), who represents Lechæum to have been taken in the year before, on the
occasion when the Lacedæmonians were first admitted by treachery within
the Long Walls.
The passage from Aristeides the rhetor, referred to by Wesseling, Mr.
Clinton, and others, only mentions the battle at Lechæum—not the capture
of the port. Xenophon also mentions a battle as having taken place close
to Lechæum, between the two long walls, on the occasion when Diodorus
talks of the capture of Lechæum; so that Aristeides is more in harmony
with Xenophon than with Diodorus.
A few months prior to this joint attack of Agesilaus and Teleutias, the
Athenians had come with an army, and with masons and carpenters, for the
express purpose of rebuilding the Long Walls which Praxitas had in part
broken down. This step would have been both impracticable and useless,
if the Lacedæmonians had stood then in possession of Lechæum.
There is one passage of Xenophon, indeed, which looks as if the Lacedæmonians
had been in possession of Lechæum before this expedition of the
Athenians to reëstablish the Long Walls,—Αὐτοὶ (the Lacedæmonians)
δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ Λεχαίου ὁρμώμενοι σὺν μόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς τῶν Κορινθίων φυγάσι,
κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ ἄστυ τῶν Κορινθίων ἐστρατεύοντο (iv, 4, 17). But
whoever reads attentively the sections from 15 to 19 inclusive, will see (I
think) that this affirmation may well refer to a period after, and not before,
the capture of Lechæum by Agesilaus; for it has reference to the general
contempt shown by the Lacedæmonians for the peltasts of Iphikrates, as
contrasted with the terror displayed by the Mantineians and others, of these
same peltasts. Even if this were otherwise, however, I should still say
that the passages which I have produced above from Xenophon show plainly
that he represents Lechæum to have been captured by Agesilaus and
Teleutias; and that the other words, ἐκ τοῦ Λεχαίου ὁρμώμενοι, if they
really implied anything inconsistent with this, must be regarded as an inaccuracy.
I will add that the chapter of Diodorus, xiv, 86, puts into one year events
which cannot all be supposed to have taken place in that same year.
Had Lechæum been in possession and occupation by the Lacedæmonians
in the year preceding the joint attack by Agesilaus and Teleutias, Xenophon
would surely have mentioned it in iv, 4, 14; for it was a more important
post than Sikyon, for acting against Corinth.
[649] Our knowledge of the abortive negotiations adverted to in the text, is
derived, partly from the third Oration of Andokides called de Pace,—partly
from a statement contained in the Argument of that Oration, and
purporting to be borrowed from Philochorus—Φιλόχορος μὲν οὖν λέγει καὶ ελθεῖν
τοὺς πρέσβεις ἐκ Λακεδαίμονος, καὶ ἀπράκτους ἀνελθεῖν, μὴ πείσαντος
τοῦ Ἀνδοκίδου.
Whether Philochorus had any additional grounds to rest upon, other
than this very oration itself, may appear doubtful. But at any rate, this
important fragment (which I do not see noticed among the fragments of
Philochorus in M. Didot’s collection) counts for some farther evidence as
to the reality of the peace proposed and discussed, but not concluded.
Neither Xenophon nor Diodorus make any mention of such mission to
Sparta, or discussion at Athens, as that which forms the subject of the Andokidean
oration. But on the other hand, neither of them says anything
which goes to contradict the reality of the event; nor can we in this case
found any strong negative inference on the mere silence of Xenophon, in
the case of a pacific proposition which ultimately came to nothing.
If indeed we could be certain that the oration of Andokides was genuine
it would of itself be sufficient to establish the reality of the mission to
which it relates. It would be sufficient evidence, not only without corroboration
from Xenophon, but even against any contradictory statement proceeding
from Xenophon. But unfortunately, the rhetor Dionysius pronounced
this oration to be spurious; which introduces a doubt and throws
us upon the investigation of collateral probabilities. I have myself a
decided opinion (already stated more than once), that another out of the
four orations ascribed to Andokides (I mean the fourth oration, entitled
against Alkibiades) is spurious; and I was inclined to the same suspicion
with respect to this present oration De Pace; a suspicion which I expressed
in a former volume (Vol. V, Ch. xlv, p. 334). But on studying over again
with attention this oration De Pace, I find reason to retract my suspicion,
and to believe that the oration may be genuine. It has plenty of erroneous
allegations as to matter of fact, especially in reference to times prior to the
battle of Ægospotami; but not one, so far as I can detect, which conflicts
with the situation to which the orator addresses himself,—nor which requires
us to pronounce it spurious.
Indeed, in considering this situation (which is the most important point
to be studied when we are examining the genuineness of an oration), we
find a partial coincidence in Xenophon, which goes to strengthen our affirmative
confidence. One point much insisted upon in the oration is, that
the Bœotians were anxious to make peace with Sparta, and were willing to
relinquish Orchomenus (s. 13-20). Now Xenophon also mentions, three or
four months afterwards, the Bœotians as being anxious for peace, and as
sending envoys to Agesilaus to ask on what terms it would be granted to
them (Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 6). This coincidence is of some value in reference
to the authenticity of the oration.
Assuming the oration to be genuine, its date is pretty clearly marked,
and is rightly placed by Mr. Fynes Clinton in 391 B.C. It was in the autumn
or winter of that year, four years after the commencement of the war
in Bœotia which began in 395 B.C. (s. 20). It was after the capture of
Lechæum, which took place in the summer of 391 B.C.—and before the destruction
of the Lacedæmonian mora by Iphikrates, which took place in the
spring of 390 B.C. For Andokides emphatically intimates, that at the moment
when he spoke, not one military success had yet been obtained against
the Lacedæmonians—καίτοι ποίας τινος ἂν ἐκεῖνοι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν εἰρήνης ἔτυχον,
εἰ μίαν μόνον μάχην ἡττήθησαν; (s. 19). This could never have
been said after the destruction of the Lacedæmonian mora, which made so
profound a sensation throughout Greece, and so greatly altered the temper
of the contending parties. And it seems to me one proof (among others)
that Mr. Fynes Clinton has not placed correctly the events subsequent to
the battle of Corinth, when I observe that he assigns the destruction of the
mora to the year 392 B.C., a year before the date which he rightly allots to
the Andokidean oration. I have placed (though upon other grounds) the
destruction of the mora in the spring of 390 B.C., which receives additional
confirmation from this passage of Andokides.
Both Valckenaer and Sluiter (Lect. Andocid. c. x,) consider the oration
of Andokides de Pace as genuine; Taylor and other critics hold the contrary
opinion.
[651] Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 1; Plutarch, Agesil. c. 21.
Xenophon, who writes his history in the style and language of a partisan,
says that “the Argeians celebrated the festival, Corinth having now become
Argos.” But it seems plain that the truth was as I have stated in the text,—and
that the Argeians stood by (with others of the confederates probably
also) to protect the Corinthians of the city in the exercise of their usual
privilege; just as Agesilaus, immediately afterwards, stood by to protect
the Corinthian exiles while they were doing the same thing.
The Isthmian games were trietêric, that is, celebrated in every alternate
year; in one of the spring months, about April or perhaps the beginning of
May (the Greek months being lunar, no one of them would coincide regularly
with any one of our calendar months, year after year); and in the
second and fourth Olympic years. From Thucydides, viii, 9, 10, we know
that this festival was celebrated in April 412 B.C.; that is, towards the end
of the fourth year of Olympiad 91, about two or three months before the
festival of Olympiad 92.
Dodwell (De Cyclis Diss. vi, 2, just cited), Corsini, (Diss. Agonistic. iv,
3), and Schneider in his note to this passage of Xenophon,—all state the
Isthmian games to have been celebrated in the first and third Olympic
years; which is, in my judgment, a mistake. Dodwell erroneously states
the Isthmian games mentioned in Thucydides, viii, 9, to have been celebrated
at the beginning of Olympiad 92, instead of the fourth quarter of the fourth
year of Olympiad 91; a mistake pointed out by Krüger (ad loc.) as well as
by Poppo and Dr. Arnold; although the argumentation of the latter, founded
upon the time of the Lacedæmonian festival of the Hyakinthia, is extremely
uncertain. It is a still more strange idea of Dodwell, that the Isthmian
games were celebrated at the same time as the Olympic games (Annal.
Xenoph. ad ann. 392).
[652] See Ulrichs, Reisen und Forschungen in Griechenland, chap. i, p. 3.
The modern village and port of Lutráki derives its name from these warm
springs, which are quite close to it and close to the sea, at the foot of the
mountain of Perachora or Peiræum; on the side of the bay opposite to
Lechæum, but near the point where the level ground constituting the Isthmus
(properly so-called), ends,—and where the rocky or mountainous
region, forming the westernmost portion of Geraneia (or the peninsula of
Peiræum), begins. The language of Xenophon, therefore, when he comes
to describe the back-march of Agesilaus is perfectly accurate,—ἤδη δ᾽
ἐκπεπερακότος αὐτοῦ τὰ θερμὰ ἐς τὸ πλατὺ τοῦ Λεχαίου, etc. (iv, 5, 8).
Xenophon here recounts how Agesilaus sent up ten men with fire in
pans, to enable those on the heights to make fires and warm themselves;
the night being very cold and rainy, the situation very high, and the troops
not having come out with blankets or warm covering to protect them. They
kindled large fires, and the neighboring temple of Poseidon was accidentally
burnt.
This Œnoê must not be confounded with the Athenian town of that
name, which lay on the frontiers of Attica towards Bœotia.
So also the town of Peiræum here noticed must not be confounded with
another Peiræum, which was also in the Corinthian territory, but on the
Saronic Gulf, and on the frontiers of Epidaurus (Thucyd. viii, 10).
[656] Xen. Hellen. i, 5, 14. See Vol. VIII, Ch. lxiv, p. 165 of this History.
The sale of prisoners here directed by Agesilaus belies the encomiums of
his biographers (Xen. Agesil. vii, 6; Cornel. Nep. Agesil. c. 5).
[657] Xen. Agesil. vii, 6; Cornelius Nepos, Ages. c. 5.
The story of Polyænus (iii, 9, 45) may perhaps refer to this point of time.
But it is rare that we can verify his anecdotes or those of the other Tactic
writers. M. Rehdantz strives in vain to find proper places for the sixty-three
different stratagems which Polyænus ascribes to Iphikrates.
[658] This Lake is now called Lake Vuliasmeni. Considerable ruins were
noticed by M. Dutroyat, in the recent French survey, near its western extremity;
on which side it adjoins the temple of Hêrê Akræa, or the Heræum.
See M. Boblaye, Recherches Géographiques sur les Ruines de la
Morée, p. 36; and Colonel Leake’s Peloponnesiaca, p. 399.
It is interesting to mark in Xenophon the mixture of Philo-Laconian
complacency,—of philosophical reflection,—and of that care in bringing
out the contrast of good fortune, with sudden reverse instantly following
upon it, which forms so constant a point of effect with Grecian poets and
historians.
[660] Plutarch, Agesil. c. 22. ἔπαθε δὲ πρᾶγμα νεμεσητὸν, etc.
We have here a remarkable expression of Xenophon,—“These were the
only men in the mora who were really and truly saved.” He means, I presume,
that they were the only men who were saved without the smallest
loss of honor; being carried off wounded from the field of battle, and not
having fled or deserted their posts. The others who survived, preserved
themselves by flight; and we know that the treatment of those Lacedæmonians
who ran away from the field (οἱ τρέσαντες), on their return to Sparta,
was insupportably humiliating. See Xenoph. Rep. Laced. ix, 4; Plutarch,
Agesil. c. 30. We may gather from these words of Xenophon, that a distinction
was really made at Sparta between the treatment of these wounded
men here carried off, and that of the other survivors of the beaten mora.
The ὑπασπισταὶ, or shield-bearers, were, probably, a certain number of
attendants, who habitually carried the shields of the officers (compare Xen.
Hellen. iv, 8, 39; Anab. iv, 2, 20), persons of importance, and rich hoplites.
It seems hardly to be presumed that every hoplite had an ὑπασπιστὴς, in
spite of what we read about the attendant Helots at the battle of Platæa
(Herod. ix, 10-29) and in other places.
Xenophon affirms the number of slain to have been about two hundred
and fifty—ἐν πάσαις δὲ ταῖς μάχαις καὶ τῇ φυγῇ ἀπέθανον περὶ πεντήκοντα
καὶ διακοσίους. But he had before distinctly stated that the whole mora
marching back to Lechæum under the polemarch, was six hundred in number—ὁ μὲν
πολέμαρχος σὺν τοῖς ὁπλίταις, οὖσιν ὡς ἑξακοσίοις, ἀπῄει πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ
Λέχαιον (iv, 5, 12). And it is plain, from several different expressions,
that all of them were slain, excepting a very few survivors.
I think it certain, therefore, that one or other of these two numbers is erroneous;
either the original aggregate of six hundred is above the truth,—or
the total of slain, two hundred and fifty, is below the truth. Now the
latter supposition appears to me by far the more probable of the two. The
Lacedæmonians, habitually secret and misleading in their returns of their
own numbers (see Thucyd. v, 74), probably did not choose to admit publicly
a greater total of slain than two hundred and fifty. Xenophon has inserted
this in his history, forgetting that his own details of the battle refuted the
numerical statement. The total of six hundred is more probable, than any
smaller number, for the entire mora; and it is impossible to assign any reasons
why Xenophon should overstate it.
Aristeides (Panathen. p. 168) boasts that the Athenians were masters of
the Acro-Corinthus, and might have kept the city as their own, but that
they generously refused to do so.
I have given in the text what I believe to be the meaning of the words
ὑποφέρειν τοὺς μῆνας,—upon which Schneider has a long and not very instructive
note, adopting an untenable hypothesis of Dodwell, that the Argeians
on this occasion appealed to the sanctity of the Isthmian truce;
which is not countenanced by anything in Xenophon, and which it belonged
to the Corinthians to announce, not to the Argeians. The plural τοὺς μῆνας
indicates (as Weiske and Manso understand it) that the Argeians sometimes
put forward the name of one festival, sometimes of another. We
may be pretty sure that the Karneian festival was one of them; but what
the others were, we cannot tell. It is very probable that there were several
festivals of common obligation either among all the Dorians, or between
Sparta and Argos—πατρῴους τινας σπονδὰς ἐκ παλαιοῦ καθεστώσας τοῖς Δωριεῦσι
πρὸς ἀλλήλους,—to use the language of Pausanias (iii, 5, 6).
The language of Xenophon implies that the demand made by the Argeians,
for observance of the Holy Truce, was in itself rightful, or rather, that it
would have been rightful at a different season; but that they put themselves
in the wrong by making it at an improper season and for a fraudulent political
purpose.
For some remarks on other fraudulent manœuvres of the Argeians, respecting
the season of the Karneian truce, see Vol. VII. of this History,
Ch. lvi, p. 66. The compound verb ὑποφέρειν τοὺς μῆνας seems to imply
the underhand purpose with which the Argeians preferred their demand
of the truce. What were the previous occasions on which they had preferred
a similar demand, we are not informed. Two years before, Agesilaus
had invaded and laid waste Argos; perhaps they may have tried, but without
success, to arrest his march by a similar pious fraud.
It is to this proceeding, perhaps, that Andokides alludes (Or. iii, De Pace,
s. 27), where he says that the Argeians, though strenuous in insisting that
Athens should help them to carry on the war for the possession of Corinth
against the Lacedæmonians, had nevertheless made a separate peace with
the latter, covering their own Argeian territory from invasion—αὐτοὶ δ᾽ ἰδίᾳ
εἰρήνην ποιησάμενοι τὴν χώραν οὐ παρέχουσιν ἐμπολεμεῖν. Of this obscure
passage I can give no better explanation.
A similar story about the manner of putting the question to Apollo at
Delphi, after it had already been put to Zeus at Dodona, is told about Agesilaus
on another occasion (Plutarch, Apophth. Lacon. p. 208 F.).
It rather seems, by the language of these two writers, that they look upon
the menacing signs, by which Agesipolis was induced to depart, as marks
of some displeasure of the gods against his expedition.
[679] Xen. Hellen. iv, 8, 12. Compare Isokrates, Or. vii, (Areopag.) s. 13. ἁπάσης
γὰρ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ὑπὸ τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν ὑποπεσούσης καὶ μετὰ τὴν Κόνωνος ναυμαχίαν καὶ μετὰ
τὴν Τιμοθέου στρατηγίαν, etc. This oration, however,
was composed a long while after the events (about B.C. 353—see Mr. Clinton’s
Fast. H., in that year); and Isokrates exaggerates; mistaking the
break-up of the Lacedæmonian empire for a resumption of the Athenian.
Demosthenes also (cont. Leptin. c. 16, p. 477) confounds the same two ideas,
and even the Athenian vote of thanks to Konon, perpetuated on a commemorative
column, countenanced the same impression,—ἐπειδὴ Κόνων ἠλευθέρωσε τοὺς
Ἀθηναίων συμμάχους, etc.
[682] Diodor. xiv, 110. He affirms that these cities strongly objected to this
concession, five years afterwards, when the peace of Antalkidas was actually
concluded; but that they were forced to give up their scruples and accept
the peace including the concession, because they had not force to resist
Persia and Sparta acting in hearty alliance.
Hence we may infer with certainty, that they also objected to it during
the earlier discussions, when it was first broached by Antalkidas; and that
their objections to it were in part the cause why the discussions reported in
the text broke off without result.
It is true that Athens, during her desperate struggles in the last years of
the Peloponnesian war, had consented to this concession, and even to
greater, without doing herself any good (Thucyd. viii, 56). But she was
not now placed in circumstances so imperious as to force her to be equally
yielding.
Plato, in the Menexenus (c. 17, p. 245), asserts that all the allies of Athens—Bœotians,
Corinthians, Argeians, etc., were willing to surrender the Asiatic
Greeks at the requisition of Artaxerxes; but that the Athenians alone
resolutely stood out, and were in consequence left without any allies. The
latter part of this assertion, as to the isolation of Athens from her allies, is
certainly not true; nor do I believe that the allies took essentially different
views from Athens on the point. The Menexenus, eloquent and complimentary
to Athens, must be followed cautiously as to matters of fact. Plato
goes the length of denying that the Athenians subscribed the convention of
Antalkidas. Aristeides (Panathen. p. 172) says that they were forced to
subscribe it, because all their allies abandoned them.
Diodorus (xiv, 97) agrees in this number of twenty-seven triremes, and
in the fact of aid having been obtained from Samos, which island was persuaded
to detach itself from Athens. But he recounts the circumstances
in a very different manner. He represents the oligarchical party in Rhodes
as having risen in insurrection, and become masters of the island; he does
not name Teleutias, but Eudokimus (Ekdikus?), Diphilus (Diphridas?),
and Philodikus, as commanders.
The statement of Xenophon deserves the greater credence, in my judgment.
His means of information, as well as his interest, about Teleutias
(the brother of Agesilaus) were considerable.
Although the three ancient Rhodian cities (Lindus, Ialysus, and Kameirus)
had coalesced (see Diodor. xiii, 75) a few years before into the great
city of Rhodes, afterwards so powerful and celebrated,—yet they still continued
to exist, and apparently as fortified places. For Xenophon speaks
of the democrats in Rhodes as τάς τε πόλεις ἔχοντας, etc.
Whether the Philokrates here named as Philokrates son of Ephialtes, is
the same person as the Philokrates accused in the Thirtieth oration of
Lysias—cannot be certainly made out. It is possible enough that there
might be two contemporary Athenians bearing this name, which would explain
the circumstance that Xenophon here names the father Ephialtes—a
practice occasional with him, but not common.
[694] Isokrates, Or. ix, (Evagoras) s. 67, 68, 82; Epistola Philippi ap. Demosthen.
Orat. p. 161, c. 4.
[695] Lysias, Orat. xix, (De Bonis Aristoph.) s. 27-44.
Polybius (iv, 38-47) gives instructive remarks and information about the
importance of Byzantium and its very peculiar position, in the ancient
world,—as well as about the dues charged on the merchant vessels going
into, or coming out of, the Euxine,—and the manner in which these dues
pressed upon general trade.
Ergokles is charged in this oration with gross abuse of power, oppression
towards allies and citizens of Athens, and peculation for his own profit,
during the course of the expedition of Thrasybulus; who is indirectly accused
of conniving at such misconduct. It appears that the Athenians, as
soon as they were informed that Thrasybulus had established the toll in the
Bosphorus, passed a decree that an account should be sent home of all
moneys exacted from the various cities, and that the colleagues of Thrasybulus
should come home to go through the audit (s. 5); implying (so far as
we can understand what is thus briefly noticed) that Thrasybulus himself
should not be obliged to come home, but might stay on his Hellespontine or
Asiatic command. Ergokles, however, probably one of these colleagues,
resented this decree as an insult, and advised Thrasybulus to seize Byzantium,
to retain the fleet, and to marry the daughter of the Thracian prince
Seuthes. It is also affirmed in the oration that the fleet had come home
in very bad condition (s. 2-4), and that the money, levied with so much
criminal abuse, had been either squandered or fraudulently appropriated.
We learn from another oration that Ergokles was condemned to death.
His property was confiscated, and was said to amount to thirty talents,
though he had been poor before the expedition; but nothing like that
amount was discovered after the sentence of confiscation (Lysias, Or. xxx,
cont. Philokrat. s. 3).
The meaning of the word πάλιν here is not easy to determine, since (as
Schneider remarks) not a word had been said before about the presence of
Eteonikus at Ægina. Perhaps we may explain it by supposing that Eteonikus
found the Æginetans reluctant to engage in the war, and that he did
not like to involve them in it without first going to Sparta to consult the
ephors. It was on coming back to Ægina (πάλιν) from Sparta, after having
obtained the consent of the ephors (ξυνδόξαν καὶ τοῖς ἐφόροις), that he issued
the letters of marque.
Schneider’s note explains τὸν πρόσθεν χρόνον incorrectly, in my judgment.
[712] Compare Xen. Hellen. vi, 3, 8; Thucyd. iii, 13. The old Æginetan
antipathy against Athens, when thus again instigated, continued for a considerable
time. A year or two afterwards, when the philosopher Plato was
taken to Ægina to be sold as a slave, it was death to any Athenian to land
in the island (Aristides, Or. xlvi, p. 384; p. 306 Dindorf; Diogenes Laërt.
iii, 19; Plutarch. Dion. c. 5).
This description of the scene at the departure of Teleutias (for whom,
as well as for his brother Agesilaus, Xenophon always manifests a marked
sympathy) is extremely interesting. The reflection, too, with which Xenophon
follows it up, deserves notice,—“I know well that in these incidents
I am not recounting any outlay of money, or danger incurred, or memorable
stratagem. But by Zeus, it does seem to me worth a man’s while to reflect,
by what sort of conduct Teleutias created such dispositions in his soldiers.
This is a true man’s achievement, more precious than any outlay or any
danger.”
What Xenophon here glances at in the case of Teleutias, is the scheme
worked out in detail in the romance of the Cyropædia (τὸ ἐθελοντῶν ἄρχειν—the
exercising command in such manner as to have willing and obedient
subjects)—and touched upon indirectly in various of his other compositions,—the
Hiero, the Œconomicus, and portions of the Memorabilia.
The idéal of government, as it presented itself to Xenophon, was the paternal
despotism, or something like it.
Schneider doubts whether the words προπαράσχετε δέ μοι are correct.
But they seem to me to bear a very pertinent meaning. Teleutias had no
money; yet it was necessary for his purpose that the seamen should come
furnished with one day’s provision beforehand. Accordingly he is obliged
to ask them to get provision for themselves, or to lend it, as it were, to him;
though they were already so dissatisfied from not having received their
pay.
Even ten years after this, however, when the Lacedæmonian harmost
Sphodrias marched from Thespiæ by night to surprise Peiræus, it was without
gates on the land-side—ἀπύλωτος—or at least without any such gates
as would resist an assault (Xen. Hellen. v, 4, 20).
[723] Lysias, Orat. xxx, cont. Nikomachum, s. 21-30.
I trust this Oration so far as the matter of fact, that in the preceding
year, some ancient sacrifices had been omitted from state-poverty; but the
manner in which the speaker makes this fact tell against Nikomachus, may
or may not be just.
[725] See the Inscription No. 147, in Boeckh’s Corpus Inscriptt. Græcor.—Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens, ii, 7, p. 179, 180, Eng. transl.—and
Schömann, Antiq. Jur. Publ. Græc. s. 77, p. 320.
[726] Demosthenes, Philippic. iv, p. 141, s. 43; Demosth. Orat. xliv, cont.
Leocharem, p. 1091, s. 48.
[727] It is common to represent the festivals at Athens as if they were so
many stratagems for feeding poor citizens at the public expense. But the
primitive idea and sentiment of the Grecian religious festival—the satisfaction
to the god dependent upon multitudinous spectators sympathizing
and enjoying themselves together (ἄμμιγα πάντας)—is much anterior to
the development of democracy at Athens. See the old oracles in Demosthen.
cont. Meidiam, p. 531, s. 66; Homer, Hymn. Apollin. 147; K. F. Herrmann,
Gottesdienstlich. Alterthümer der Griechen, s. 8.
[728] See such direct assessments on property alluded to in various speeches
of Lysias, Orat. xix. De Bonis Aristoph. s. 31, 45, 63; Orat. xxvii. cont. Epikratem,
s. 11; Orat. xxix. cont. Philokrat. s. 14.
Boeckh (in his Public Econ. of Athens, iv, 4, p. 493, Engl. transl., which
passage stands unaltered in the second edition of the German original recently
published, p. 642) affirms that a proposition for the assessment of a
direct property-tax of one-fortieth, or two and a half per cent., was made
about this time by a citizen named Euripides, who announced it as intended
to produce five hundred talents; that the proposition was at first enthusiastically
welcomed by the Athenians, and procured for its author unbounded
popularity; but that he was presently cried down and disgraced, because on
farther examination the measure proved unsatisfactory and empty talk.
Sievers also (Geschichte von Griech. bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia,
pp. 100, 101) adopts the same view as Boeckh, that this was a real proposition
of a property tax of two and a half per cent., made by Euripides. After
having alleged that the Athenians in these times supplied their treasury
by the most unscrupulous injustice in confiscating the property of rich citizens,—referring
as proof to passages in the orators, none of which establishes
his conclusion,—Sievers goes on to say,—“But that these violences
did not suffice, is shown by the fact that the people caught with greedy impatience
at other measures. Thus a new scheme of finance, which however
was presently discovered to be insufficient or inapplicable, excited at first
the most extravagant joy.” He adds in a note: “The scheme proceeded
from Euripides; it was a property-tax of two and a half per cent. See
Aristoph. Ecclesiaz. 823; Boeckh, Staatshaush. ii, p. 27.”
In my judgment, the assertion here made by Boeckh and Sievers rests
upon no sufficient ground. The passage of Aristophanes does not warrant
us in concluding anything at all about a proposition for a property-tax. It
is as follows:—
Τὸ δ᾽ ἔναγχος οὐχ ἅπαντες ἡμεῖς ὤμνυμεν
Τάλαντ᾽ ἔσεσθαι πεντακόσια τῇ πόλει
Τῆς τεσσαρακοστῆς, ἣν ἐπόρισ᾽ Εὐριπίδης;
Κεὐθὺς κατεχρύσου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὐριπίδην·
Ὅτε δὴ δ᾽ ἀνασκοπουμένοις ἐφαίνετο
Ὁ Διὸς Κόρινθος, καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμ᾽ οὐκ ἤρκεσεν,
Πάλιν κατεπίττου πᾶς ἀνὴρ Εὐριπίδην.
What this “new financial scheme” (so Sievers properly calls it) was, which
the poet here alludes to,—we have no means of determining. But I venture
to express my decided conviction that it cannot have been a property-tax.
The terms in which it is described forbid that supposition. It was a
scheme which seemed at first sight exceedingly promising and gainful to
the city, and procured for its author very great popularity; but which, on
farther examination, proved to be mere empty boasting (ὁ Διὸς Κόρινθος)
How can this be said about any motion for a property-tax? That any financier
should ever have gained extraordinary popularity by proposing a
property-tax, is altogether inconceivable. And a proposition to raise the
immense sum of five hundred talents (which Schömann estimates as the
probable aggregate charge of the whole peace-establishment of Athens,
Antiq. Jur. Public. Græc. s. 73, p. 313) at one blow by an assessment upon
property! It would be as much as any financier could do to bear up against
the tremendous unpopularity of such a proposition; and to induce the assembly
even to listen to him, were the necessity ever so pressing. How odious
are propositions for direct taxation, we may know without recurring to the
specific evidence respecting Athens; but if any man requires such specific
evidence, he may find it abundantly in the Philippics and Olynthiacs of Demosthenes.
On one occasion (De Symmoriis, Or. xiv. s. 33, p. 185) that
orator alludes to a proposition for raising five hundred talents by direct
property-tax as something extravagant, which the Athenians would not endure
to hear mentioned.
Moreover,—unpopularity apart,—the motion for a property-tax could
scarcely procure credit for a financier, because it is of all ideas the most
simple and obvious. Any man can suggest such a scheme. But to pass for
an acceptable financier, you must propose some measure which promises
gain to the state without such undisguised pressure upon individuals.
Lastly, there is nothing delusive in a property-tax,—nothing which looks
gainful at first sight, and then turns out on farther examination (ἀνασκοπουμένοις)
to be false or uncertain. It may, indeed, be more or less evaded;
but this can only be known after it has been assessed, and when payment is
actually called for.
Upon these grounds I maintain that the τεσσαρακοστὴ proposed by Euripides
was not a property-tax. What it was I do not pretend to say; but τεσσαρακοστὴ
may have many other meanings; it might mean a duty of two
and a half per cent. upon imports or exports, or upon the produce of the
mines of Laureion; or it might mean a cheap coinage or base money, something
in the nature of the Chian τεσσαρακοσταί (Thucyd. viii, 100). All that
the passage really teaches us is, that some financial proposition was made
by Euripides which at first seemed likely to be lucrative, but would not stand
an attentive examination. It is not even certain that Euripides promised a
receipt of five hundred talents; this sum is only given to us as a comic
exaggeration of that which foolish men at first fancied. Boeckh in more
than one place reasons (erroneously, in my judgment) as if this five hundred
talents was a real and trustworthy estimate, and equal to two and a half
per cent. upon the taxable property of the Athenians. He says (iv, 8, p. 520,
Engl. transl.) that “Euripides assumed as the basis of his proposal for levying
a property-tax, a taxable capital of twenty thousand talents,”—and
that “his proposition of one-fortieth was calculated to produce five hundred
talents.” No such conclusion can be fairly drawn from Aristophanes.
Again, Boeckh infers from another passage in the same play of the same
author, that a small direct property-tax of one five-hundredth part had been
recently imposed. After a speech from one of the old women, calling upon
a young man to follow her, he replies (v. 1006):—
Ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἀνάγκη μοὔστίν, εἰ μὴ τῶν ἐμῶν
Τὴν πεντακοσιόστην κατέθηκας τῇ πόλει.
Boeckh himself admits (iv, 8, p. 520) that this passage is very obscure, and
so I think every one will find it. Tyrwhitt was so perplexed by it that he
altered ἐμῶν into ἐτῶν. Without presuming to assign the meaning of the
passage, I merely contend that it cannot be held to justify the affirmation,
as a matter of historical fact, that a property-tax of one-five-hundredth had
been levied at Athens, shortly before the representation of Ekklesiazusæ.
I cannot refrain here from noticing another inference drawn by Sievers
from a third passage in this same play,—the Ekklesiazusæ (Geschichte
Griechenlands vom Ende des Pelop. Kriegs bis zur Schlacht von Mantineia,
p. 101.) He says,—“How melancholy is the picture of Athenian popular
life, which is presented to us by the Ekklesiazusæ and the second Plutus,
ten or twelve years after the restoration of the democracy! What an impressive
seriousness (welch ein erschütternder Ernst) is expressed in the speech
of Praxagora!” (v. 174 seqq.).
I confess that I find neither seriousness, nor genuine and trustworthy
coloring, in this speech of Praxagora. It was a comic case made out for the
purpose of showing that the women were more fit to govern Athens than
the men, and setting forth the alleged follies of the men in terms of broad
and general disparagement. The whole play is, throughout, thorough farce
and full of Aristophanic humor. And it is surely preposterous to treat what
is put into the mouth of Praxagora, the leading feminine character, as if it
were historical evidence as to the actual condition or management of Athens.
Let any one follow the speech of Praxagora into the proposition of
reform which she is made to submit, and he will then see the absurdity of
citing her discourse as if it were an harangue in Thucydides. History is
indeed strangely transformed by thus turning comic wit into serious matter
of evidence; and no history has suffered so much from the proceeding as
that of Athens.
[729] Xenoph. Hellen. v. 1, 19-24: compare vii, 1, 3, 4; Xenoph. De Vectigalibus,
chapters i, ii, iii, etc.; Xenoph. De Repub. Athen. i, 17.
In this document there is the same introduction of the first person immediately
following the third, as in the correspondence between Pausanias
and Xerxes (Thucyd. i, 128, 129).
[740] Such is in fact the version of the story in Xenophon’s Encomium upon
Agesilaus (ii, 21), where it is made a matter of honor to the latter, that he
would not consent to peace, except with a compulsory clause (ἠνάγκασε)
that the Corinthian and Theban exiles should be restored. The Corinthian
exiles had been actively coöperating with Agesilaus against Corinth. Of
Theban exiles we have heard nothing; but it is very probable that there
were several serving with Agesilaus,—and also pretty certain that he
would insist upon their restoration.
Original spelling, hyphenation and punctuation have been kept, but variant spellings were made
consistent when a predominant usage was found.
Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end of the book.
Blank pages have been skipped.
Obvious printer errors have been silently corrected, after comparison with a later edition of
this work. Greek text has also been corrected after checking with this later edition and with Perseus,
when the reference was found.
The following changes were also made, after checking with other editions: