Page:History of Greece Vol V.djvu/270

 246 inSTORY OF GREECE. completely outwitted, — they were at the same time overawed by the decisive tone of Themistokles, whom they never after- wards forgave. To arrest beforehand erection of the walls would have been practicable, though not perhaps without diffi- culty ; to deal by force with the fact accomplished, was perilous in a high degree : moreover, the inestimable services just ren- dered by Athens became again predominant in their minds, so that sentiment and prudence for the time coincided. They affected therefore to accept the communication without manifest- ing any offence, nor had they indeed put forward any pretence which required to be formally retracted. The envoys on both sides returned home, and the Athenians completed their fortifica- tions without obstruction,' — yet not without murmurs on the part of the allies, who bitterly reproached Sparta afterwards for having let slip this golden opportunity of arresting the growth of the giant.2 If the allies were apprehensive of Athens before, the mixture of audacity, invention, and deceit, whereby she had just eluded the hindrance opposed to her fortifications, was well calculated to aggravate their uneasiness. On the other hand, to the Athe- nians, the mere hint of intervention to debar them from that common right of self-defence which was exercised by every autonomous city except Sparta, must have appeared outrageous injustice, — aggravated by the fact that it was brought upon them by their peculiar sufferings in the common cause, and by the very allies who, without their devoted forwardness, would ' We are fortunate enough to possess this narrative, respecting -the re- building of the walls of Athens, as recounted by Thucydides. It is the first incident which he relates, in that general sketch of events between the Persian and Peloponnesian war, which precedes his professed history (i, 89- 92). Diodorus (xi, 39, 40), Plutarch (Themistokles, c. 19), and Cornelius .Nepos (Themist. c. 6, 7), seem all to have followed Thucydides, though Plutarch also notices a statement of Theopompus, to the effect that The- misiokk's accomplished his object by bribing the ephors. This would not be improbable in itself, — nor is it inconsistent with the narrative of Thu- cvdidcs ; but the latter either had not heard or did not believe it. dressing the Lacedaimonians), to re Tfjurov iucavTeg avrnvg the Athe- nians) TTlv TToliv uera -a ^IridiKa Kparvvai. Kal varepov ra fiaKp-i arrjaoi reixv, etc.
 * Thucyd. i, 69. Kal riJvde ifitl^ alrioi (says the Corinthian envoy ad-