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 Ionian 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 Пlɛootzà (ládi Siaként)') 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. Bury 2). 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. 3) Lehmann-Haupt in Klio, 1902, p. 334 et seq. 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 Alemaeonid 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 Ilɛgoza 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. power in the Cyclades. Now, as Messrs. Mitchell and Caspari suggest, all this seems to be too much in the vein of the later fifth century and too reminiscent firstly of the purpose and formation of the Delian league and secondly of the suppression of its revolted members: for a city or island to be opibus elata, as Nepos says of Paros, was always the prelude to its revolt from Athens. The forest fire on Paros which Ephorus and Nepos alike describe, and which was the immediate cause of the retreat of Miltiades, reminds one rather forcibly of the similar fire on the island of Sphakteria in 425, So that Nepos is not quite free from the suspicion of interpreting earlier history by later, just as the fourth century orators described Solonian Athens in terms of the Athens of their own age. But it is much more likely that the resemblances are mere coincidence, and Nepos may, after all, be giving the most valuable historical evidence. And this suggests that a revision of the traditional account of the history of this period is necessary. A 'Cycladic policy' as early as the time of the Lemnian expedition is a fact which might well have been one of the preliminaries to the Ionian revolt, and it might equally well have been a further reason for the expeditions of Mardonius and of Datis and Artaphernes. Probability is still more in favour of a renewal of the policy after Marathon as the Greeks were never that happy-go-lucky nation that Herodotus would make them out to be: there was a least a method in their madness. An establishment of a strong base on Lemnos would be the least that Athens could do either before or after the Ionian revolt. At any rate somewhere about the time 513-510 B. C. Miltiades was engaged in establishing Athenian power in the North East Aegean. Peisistratus before him had already paved the way by establishing friendly relations with the people of the district round Pangaeum 1), which, though primarily for his own advantage, would nevertheless be to the advantage of Athens when he was restored, and an Athenian outpost had been established at a still earlier date at Sigeium, and was itself in friendly communication with Proconnesus). Lemnos would be of the utmost strategic importance if any check was to be put upon Persian ambition, for it lay within reach of the two outposts of Sigeium and Pangaeum, and could thus establish communication between the two. The Thracian Chersonese would probably have been a still better base, and undoubtedly Miltiades' mission thither served the double purpose of exiling him and strengthening the outer line of Athenian defence: but it was too difficult a place for him to hold and he had to fall back on Lemnos. The coincidence in time, however, of the two visits of Miltiades to Lemnos and the Scythian 1) Αθηναίων Πολιτεία ch. XV. 2) Cf. the famous Sigeium inscription: Hicks and Hill, Greek Inscriptions, no. 8. expedition of Darius is, perhaps, the strongest reason for attributing to those visits a political purpose and identifying them with the first active results of Athenian 'Cycladic Policy'. Athens not only feared Persia, but was stirred by that fear to take precautions of a very practical nature against the growing menace. The rapidity of subsequent events and their great importance and interest tend to obscure the fact that Athens was not only strong enough but was also wise enough to act in a very definite and effective way. The attempt of the Phoenician squadron of the Persian fleet to capture Miltiades is ample proof that Persia realised the schemes of Athens. The detailed account of the strategy of Marathon is a fact which points in the same direction-namely, towards a representation of the Greeks as deliberately arranging a plan of action for the battle, just as they deliberately originated a general policy. All the battles in the Persian Wars are, if we believe Herodotus, brilliant examples of heroism. and poor ones of strategy. But it is difficult even in the case of his description of a battle such as Plataea to deny the Greeks any capacity for strategy. The account of Marathon, therefore, given by Nepos seems to act as a corrective to Herodotus. At any rate, neither can claim to be derived from superior sources, and if Herodotus has the weight of tradition behind him the narrative of Nepos at least derives considerable force from its plausibility. It is, further, of no little importance that the account of the battle given by Nepos agrees in detail with the nature of the locality. From Nepos we gather that the Greek camp was on a level wooded place at the foot of the mountains which surround the valley of Avlona. Herodotus, it is true, says that the Greeks were ¿v teμéveï Ηρακλέος and the remains of such a τέμενος are te be found on the slopes of Mt. Kotroni. But Herodotus may only have meant near the Tuevos as it is in any case not large enough for 10,000 men. The most likely site for the camp seems to be on a level platform at the foot of the Tέueros and on the opposite slopes of Aphorismos where there is now a small shepherds' hamlet, and there is every likelihood that this leyel platform was originally defended on all sides by trees such as now appear in the neighbourhood on the plain and on the slopes of Agrioliki and Aphorismos. It seems hardly likely that the camp was on the spur to the north of the modern village of Vrana, for it is altogether too small and too steep either to accommodate such a large body of men or to agree with the description given by Nepos. Unfortunately, a middle course between the two accounts cannot be arrived at, for, so far from being mutually supplementary, they are directly at variance on so many points. The site of the camp, for instance, the attack of the Greeks and the problem of the cavalry are all 90 Stanley Casson, The vita Miltiadis of Cornelius Nepos. instances in which the accounts cannot be reconciled. But on the whole Nepos seems to give the preferable version both of the two Cycladic expeditions and of Marathon, although in many points he too is untrustworthy. The comparison, therefore, of all the evidence of Nepos with that of Herodotus for the accounts of the Lemnian Expedition, the battle of Marathon and the Parian expedition show that throughout Herodotus is tempted by his prejudices and prepossessions to distort the history he relates. Alcmaeonid traditions and memoirs had got too strong a hold of his imagination to permit him to give an impartial account. Philaid traditions, which would obviously be the best to use for these particular events, he seems to have been either unable or unwilling to use. nysius of Miletus, on the other hand, seems to have had free access at Miletus to the memoirs of the family of Miltiades, and it seems to have been from his works that Nepos drew when writing his Vita Miltiadis. However partial to Miltiades such a history may have been, it must still have been more true to facts than the very partial and biassed accounts which the Alcmaeonidae would have given to Herodotus. The generalship and genius of Miltiades which his prominence in Greek history implies and the early elaboration of a Cycladic policy which the subsequent course of history seems to justify, are factors of the very highest importance in Greek history, of which, if we relied solely upon Herodotus, we should remain in complete ignorance. Athens. |