supremum, because of his wounds-og azeλoártos tov ungov, says Herodotus. No criticism of the trial at all appears in Herodotus: but Nepos particularly distinguishes between the nominal charge and the real underlying motive of the trial. The latter, the alia causa damnationis was the Athenian fear of tyranny after their experience of Peisistratus-nimiam1) civium suorum potentiam extimescebant. Now this is identical with the reason given by Herodotus for his trial of 493 when the zooì of Miltiades ¿dioğar Tvoάrvidos. There is no reason, it is true, why the same cause should not have acted in each case, but the two trials are not free from suspicion of being confused by one or both of our authors. Now the comparison of the two versions of the events during the period of early Persian aggression has raised many problems for historians. We are faced first of all with the great problem of the sources of the history of the times of the Persian aggression. What evidence was available to contemporary historians, and how did they make use of it? and what accounts for the difference in so many essential points between the accounts of Nepos and Herodotus? Even a cursory examination of the Herodotean narrative of the period shows that he used Alcaemonid sources for the greater part of the incidents he describes and particularly for the battle of Marathon. Whatever the other sources were that he used it is fairly certain that they were neither those of the house of the Peisistratidae nor those of the Philaidae. In particular his apologia for the action of the Alcmaeonidae at Marathon seems too obviously inspired to be spontaneous. The whole narrative of Nepos, however, always omits just those points which can be conclusively held to be due to such inspiration. And not only is there this absence of Alcmaeonid traditions but there are definite and positive traces of some other traditions. What these traditions are remains to be seen. Lastly there is without doubt a certain amount of influence from subsequent history reflected in his narrative: the later fifth century and its ideals seem to be mainly represented. But a scrutiny of the evidence alone can throw light on these somewhat intangible points. The chief points in the narrative of Herodotus which seem to be derived from Alcmaeonid traditions are the following: In his account of the battle of Marathon the incident of the raising of the shield is mentioned as a charge laid at the doors of the Alcmaeonidae only to be hastily condemned: but the impression that it leaves 1) Or omnium. 6* is markedly one of 'qui s'excuse, s'accuse'. The reference to Harmodius and Aristogeiton in the speech of Miltiades at least rules out any Peisistratid traditions. In the account of the Parian expedition we find first of all the explanation of the arάrn by which Miltiades coaxed Athens to lend him an armed force to use for his own private purposes. Then there is the definite assertion that the reason given by Miltiades for his attack on Paros was a mere pretext-a лçóópuɑ 2óуov-his real reason being a personal quarrel with the Parian Lysagoras. The demand for money and the negotiations with Timo, above all, are due to traditions of a very anti-Philaid nature: and the attribution of the wound which caused his death to the occasion of the sacrilege seems an almost unnecessary piece of spite. The definite statement that Xanthippus undertook the conduct of the impeachment coming on top of all this evidence seems to point to the common Alcmaeonid origin of all the stories-though, as has been suggested1), the story of Paros may be derived actually from Paros itself. Now not one of these 'Alcmaeonid' incidents is mentioned by Nepos, and nevertheless he gives a more coherent and convincing account without showing traces of any suppression or omission in the narrative. But he goes further and tells many things about Miltiades which not only redound to his credit but throw an entirely different light on the course of events. These can be summarised as follows. The Lemnian Expedition was the occasion for the first demonstration of what might be called the 'Cycladic policy', and Miltiades, like his son in later days, seems to have had a commission to strengthen the defences of the islands against the Persians. At Marathon the whole plan of the battle according to Nepos shows Miltiades in the light of a capable general and the battle as a tactical victory rather than a forlorn hope. The timing of the discussion of the generals and the arrival of the Plataeans before the departure from Athens, the nature of the site chosen for the camp, and the tactical use made of the natural features-particularly the trees and mountains-all point in the same direction. But the account of the Parian expedition is a still greater vindication of Miltiades. Not only are none of the 'Alemaeonid' points mentioned, but we learn that in this case too Miltiades showed throughout an eminently laudable statesmanship. He set out with a commission—an imperium to clear the seas of Persian influences: this he did by subduing many islands, amongst which was Paros: and he was within 1) Mitchell & Caspari's Grote, p. 159, note 3. an ace of subduing Paros when an accident caused in his ranks a panic such as has overtaken many of the most experienced generals. He was fined not for aлáτη but for proditio, and being unable to pay was imprisoned and died in prison of wounds honourably gained: whereas in Herodotus the scandal of Timo pursues him right to his grave. Now Cornelius Nepos is supported in many of these points by the historian Ephorus. Thus the assertion that Miltiades was imprisoned is repeated by Diodorus and Plutarch, who both drew largely from Ephorus. The account of the sudden abandonment of the siege of Paros and the forest fire which was mistaken for a Persian onslaught is given verbatim in Ephorus1), though it is located by him at Myconos, while Nepos says it was on Paros itself and does not mention that the Greeks thought that it was caused by the forces of Datis, as Ephorus does. It seems, therefore, highly probable that Nepos derived much from Ephorus. But this solution only pushes the problem further back, and we have still to ask whether Ephorus derived his information from Alcmaeonid, from Peisistratid or from Philaid traditions. This, unfortunately, is a problem which we cannot easily solve with so scant a knowledge of Ephorus at our command. But in regard to Nepos, we can definitely rule out the Alcmaeonid sources and trace most of his narrative unreservedly to his knowledge of the traditions of the Philaid house. His favourable and apparently accurate account of the events in the life of Miltiades is sufficient evidence by itself to prove this quite apart from the 'authentic' character of nearly all his narrative. An independent piece of evidence for the existence in the time of Cornelius Nepos of sources for this period of Greek history which were not solely Alcmaeonid in character is seen in the isolated fact given by Cicero 2), that Hippias died at Marathon. Herodotus does not mention it, curiously enough, although his Alcmaeonid informants would have no particular desire to screen the Peisistratidae. It is not given by Nepos, and the only other author to mention it is Justin 3), who probably derived it from Cicero. Perhaps Cicero derived it from Ephorus: but the only inference we are really justified in drawing is that in the time of Cornelius Nepos there were available certain sources for Greek History that were tinged neither by Alcmaeonid nor Peisistratid preferences 4). Whether they were Philaid sources it seems impossible to say, but there seems every probability that it was from such that Cornelius Nepos drew to a very 4) If the reading Dionysii is adopted in place of Dinonis in another passage (see Gaisford: Suidas, p. 1018, note M), Cicero appears to have known the works of Dionysius of Miletus. large extent. It is not therefore unreasonable to attribute to them this isolated fact about Hippias as well. But to identify such sources firstly with Ephorus and then with Philaid traditions is merely to make them a little less vague. To solve the difficulty it is necessary to search for a still more definite source, for Philaid traditions must have been collected in a form in which they were easy for historians like Ephorus or Nepos to draw upon. Now since the sources used by Herodotus are for the most part Alcmaeonid, they are a priori therefore of a pro-Athenian and anti-Ionian nature: and this is borne out by facts, for it is notoriously the aim of Herodotus to shew Athens as the Saviour of Greece, and to achieve this end he suppresses all suggestion of Medism at Athens or ill-treatment of Ionians. The punishment of Phrynichus for his Ionic patriotism is but one of the many anti-Ionic actions of the Alcmaeonids which escaped his censorship, and we can be sure that there were many more which did not escape. If therefore the account of Nepos brings out precisely those points. which Herodotus either passed over in haste or else suppressed altogether, it stands to reason that the sources of that account must be both lonian and anti-Alcmaeonid, and, in a sense, anti-Athenian. Now the historian who dealt with the history of the Persian Wars in precisely this spirit was Dionysius of Miletus. He wrote his ПIɛqoixà (ládi dialéxto)1) purely from the Ionian point of view. "This Ionian Logos of the Persian War was, we may conjecture, a challenge to unreserved admirers of Athens“, says Prof. Bury2). As such, it would naturally bring out in full detail such points as are brought out in the narrative of Nepos, and omitted in that of Herodotus. Herodotus, as has already been pointed out"), undoubtedly drew to a considerable extent from Dionysius of Miletus, particularly in certain points, but only in the case of the facts of less importance and less open to dispute1). This is, of course, additional evidence to prove that an Ionian history of the Persian Wars was both available and well-known. Now just as Herodotus drew on Alemaeonid sources for his history, so we can conjecture did Dionysius of Miletus draw upon Philaid sources. Herodotus, in all probability, wrote his history at Athens, where, presumably, oral Alcmaeonid information and memoirs would be available. If it is seen that Philaid traditions and memoirs were available at Miletus then the probability that Dionysius drew upon them is considerably strengthened. 1) Suidas, v. under Dionysius. 2) Greek Historians, p. 22. 4) As for instance in the case of the advice of Hecataeus, the names of Cyprian potentates, etc. Prof. Lehmann-Haupt deals most thoroughly with all these points. That this was so is for all practical purposes a mere conjecture, but it is strengthened by the facts that the Philaid stronghold of the Chersonese is within easy reach of Miletus either by sea or by way of Sigeium, and that Lemnos was equally accessible. Mr. Grundy1) asserts of Herodotus that his lack of information about Miltiades from the time of the Scythian expedition to that of the Ionian revolt was due to his lack of documentary evidence. "Had the historian made large use of private memoirs," he says, "supposing such existed, it is unlikely that he would have omitted to have recourse to the records of the Philaid family". But the assumption that if he had access to memoirs of one family he would ipso facto have had access to those of another is directly contrary to Greek historical method, and is in no way justified: moreover, it is a certainty that Herodotus had free use of Alcmaeonid memoirs and that would of itself prevent him from making much use of Philaid memoirs if his history was to be in any way coherent. Dionysius of Miletus, however, had little or no chance of using Alcmaeonid memoirs, and he certainly had no reason to do so if his history was to be written in the Ionian spirit as well as in the "Ionian dialect": whereas he had ample opportunity and full justification for using memoirs and traditions of the Philaidae, which, we may not without reason assume, were to be obtained through the medium of men like Aristagoras who were personally acquainted with Miltiades the younger. Moreover, it is safe to assume that Miltiades was not only well-known but also popular at Miletus, for it is he whom Herodotus sets up as the protagonist in the dispute with Histiaeus, the tyrant of Miletus, and being represented as the would-be liberator of the Milesians, it is hard to imagine that he and his history would be ignored by a writer of Ionian history. There is, therefore, not only a very strong a priori case for the use by Dionysius of Philaid traditions and memoirs, but also considerable evidence to show that he actually did so: and since the source of the account given by Nepos of the Persian Wars seems to echo Philaid traditions more than any others it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he drew largely from the IIɛgotzà of Dionysius, either directly or indirectly through the medium of some writer such as Ephorus. That he used a Greek historian is certain, judging by the large number of Graecisms in his vocabulary 2). There is one point, however, in which the narrative of Cornelius Nepos may well be questioned. As was mentioned above, his account of the Lemnian and Parian expeditions presupposes a very extensive policy of combined offence and defence against the Persians. In each case Miltiades was commissioned by the Athenian people to strengthen Athenian 1) The Great Persian War p. 146, note. 2) Cf. Macan: Appendix I, paragr. 14. |