Page:History of Greece Vol X.djvu/260

 238 HISTORY OF GREECE. bar the passage of the Thebans. He contented himself with send- ing out from Corinth all his cavalry, both Athenian and Corinthian, to harass them in their march. But Epaminondas beat them back with some loss, and pursued them to the gates of Corinth. Excited by this spectacle, the Athenian main body within the town were eager to march out and engage in general battle. Their ardor was however repressed by Iphikrates ; who, refusing to go forth, suf- fered the Thebans to continue their retreat unmolested. 1 1 The account here given in the text coincides as to the matter of fact with Xenophon, as well as with Plutarch; and also (in my belief) with Pausanias (Xen. Hell, vi, 5, 51 ; Plutarch, Pelop. c. 24; Pausan. ix, 14, 3). But though I accept the facts of Xenophon, I cannot accept either his suppositions as to the purpose, or his criticisms on the conduct, of Iphi- krates. Other modern critics appear to me not to have sufficiently distin- guished Xeuophon'syocte from his suppositions. Iphikrates (says Xenophon), while attempting to guard the line of Mount Oneium, in order that the Thebans might not be able to reach Boeotia, left the excellent road adjoining to Kenchreae unguarded. Then, wish- ing to inform himself, whether the Thebans had as yet passed the Mount Oneinm, he sent out as scouts all the Athenian and all the Corinthian cav- alry. Now (observes Xenophon) a few scouts can see and report as well as a great number ; while the great number find it more difficult to get back in safety. By this foolish conduct of Iphikrates, in sending out so large a body, several horsemen were lost in the retreat ; which would not have happened if he had only sent out a few. The criticism here made by Xenophon appears unfounded. It is plain, from the facts which he himself states, that Iphikrates never intended to bar the passage of the Thebans ; and that he sent out his whole body of cavalry, not simply as scouts, but to harass the enemy on ground which he thought advantageous for the purpose. That so able a commander as Iphi- krates should have been guilty of the gross blunders with which Xenophon here reproaches him, is in a high degree improbable ; it seems to me more probable that Xenophon has misconceived his real purpose. Why indeed should Iphikrates wish to expose the whole Athenian army in a murderous conflict for the purpose of preventing the homeward march of the Thebans ? His mission was, to rescue Sparta ; but Sparta was now no longer in dan- ger ; and it was for the advantage of Athens that the Thebans should go back to Bceotia, rather than remain in Peloponnesus. That he should con- tent himself with harassing the Thebans, instead of barring their retreat directly, is a policy which we should expect from him. There is another circumstance in this retreat which has excited dftcussion among the commentators, and on which I dissent from their views. It ia connected with the statement of Pausanias. who says, 'i2f -rrpoluv rti arpu- V (Epaminondas) Kara %aiov i-yivero, KO.I dieZievat rrjr 6<Jov TU a