Page:History of Greece Vol X.djvu/178

 156 HISTORY OF GREECE. invitation of the Persian satraps, who offered him the command of the Grecian mercenaries in their service for the Egyptian war ; Aavpip davei&rai, etc. (p. 1188,1189.) That Timothcus had been handed over to the peoplo for trial that he was sailing back from Kalauria for his tried might well be asserted respecting his position in the month of June, though lr' ; trial did not actually take place until November. I think it cannot be doubted that the triremes at Kalauria would form a part of tha/ fleet which actually went to Korkyra under Iphikrates ; not waiting to go thither until after the trial of Timotheua in November, but departing as soon as Iphikrates could get ready, probably about July 373 B. c. Rehdantz argues that if Iphikrates departed with the fleet in July, he must have returned to Athens in November to the trial of Timotheus, which is contrary to Xenophon's affirmation that he remained in the Ionian sea until 371 B. c. But if we look attentively at the oration of Demosthenes, we shall see that there is no certain ground for affirming Iphikrates to have been present in Athens in November, during the actual trial of Timotheus. The phrases in p. 1187 tyeurrgnei <5' avry Ka^/Uor/Darof nal 'I<]>iKpa.T7i$ OVTU 6s dis&eaav vjiuf /car^yopowrej TOVTOV avroi TE Kal ol avvayop- evovree, airotf, etc., may be well explained, so far as Iphikrates is con- cerned, by supposing them to allude to those pronounced censures in the public assembly whereby the vote of deposition against Timotheus was obtained, and whereby the general indignation against him was first excited. I therefore see no reason for affirming that Iphikrates was actually present at the trial of Timotheus in November. But Kallistratus was really pres- ent at the trial (see c. 9. p. 1197, 1198) ; which consists well enough with the statement of Xenophon, that this orator obtained permission from Iphi- krates to leave him at Korkyra and come back to Athens (vi, 3, 3). Kallis- tratus directed his accusation mainly against Antimachus, the treasurer of Timotheus. And it appears to me that under the circumstances of the case, Iphikrates, having carried his point of superseding Timotheus in the command and gaining an important success at Korkyra might be well- pleased to be dispensed from the obligation of formally accusing him be- fore the dikastery, in opposition to Jason and Alketas, as well as to a powerful body of Athenian friends. Diodorus (xv, 47) makes a statement quite different from Xenophon. He says that Timotheus was at first deposed from his command, but after wards forgiven and re-appointed by the people (jointly with Iphikrates) in consequence of the great accession of force which he had procured in hia preliminary cruise. Accordingly the fleet, one hundred and thirty triremes iu number, was despatched to Korkyra under the joint command of Iphi- krates and Timotheus, Diodorus makes no mention of the trial of Timo theus. This account is evidently quite distinct from that of Xenophon j wh:'ch latter is on all grounds to be preferred, especially as its main point* sure in conformitv with the Demosthenic oration.