Page:History of Greece Vol V.djvu/304

 280 fflSTORY OF GREECE. he was in command at Byzantium, though not proved against him at Sparta until long afterwards, — which first seems to have raised the presumption of medism against Themistokles also, when combined with the corrupt proceedings which stained his public conduct : we must recollect, also, that Themistokles had given some color to these presumptions, even by the stratagems in reference to Xerxes, which wore a double-faced aspect, capa- ble of being construed either in a Persian or in a Grecian sense. The Lacedaemonians, hostile to Themistokles since the time when he had outwitted them respecting the walls of Athens, — and fearing him also as a supposed accomplice of the suspected Pausanias, — procured the charge of medism to be preferred against him at Athens ; by secret instigations, and, as it is said, by bribes, to his political opponents.^ But no satisfactory proof could be furnished of the accusation, which Themistokles himself strenuously denied, not without emphatic appeals to his illustri- ous services. In spite of violent invectives against him from Alkmseon and Elimon, tempered, indeed, by a generous modera- ' This accusation of treason brought against Themistokles at Athens, pnor to his ostracism, and at the instigation of the LacedEemonians, — is mentioned by Diodorus (xi, 54). Thucydides and Plutarch take notice only of the second accusation, after his ostracism. But Diodorus has made his narrative confused, by supposing the first accusation prefen-ed at Athens to have come after the full detection of Pausanias and exposure of his cor- respondence ; whereas these latter events, coming after the first accusation, supplied new proofs before unknown, and thus brought on the second, after Themistokles had been ostracized. But Diodonis has preserved to us the important notice of this first accusation at Athens, followed by trial, acquit- tal, and temporary glorification of Themistokles, — and preceding his ostracism. The indictment stated by Plutarch to have been preferred against The- mistokles by Leobotas son of Alkm£eon, at the instance of the Spartans, probably relates to the first accusation at which Themistokles was acquit- ted. For when Themistokles was arraigned after the discovery of Pausa- nias, he did not choose to stay, nor was there any actual trial : it is not, therefore, likely that the name of the accuser would be preserved, — '0(5^ ypaipufievor avrbv -podoaiag AeufioTTj^ r)v 'A?,Kiiai(jvoc, u/xa ovveTzaiTiufiivuv tUv ^nap-ta-C/v (Plutarch, Themist. c. 23). Compare the second Scholion on Aristophan. Equit. 84, and Aristeidfe, Orat xlvi, "Tnep tuv Ter-upuv (vol. ii, p. 318, ed. Dindorf, p. 243, Jebb).