368 HISTORY OF GREECE. Herodotus does not mention this imprisonment, and the tac. appears to me improbable: he would hardly have omittal tc notice it, had it come to his knowledge. Immediate imprisor ment of a person fined by the dikastery, until his fine was paid, was not the natural and ordinary course of Athenian procedure, though there were particular cases in which such aggravation was added. Usually, a certain time was allowed for payment, 1 before absolute execution was resorted to, but the person under sentence became disfranchised and excluded from all political rights, from the very instant of his condemnation as a public debtor, until the fine was paid. Now in the instance of Milti- ades, the lamentable condition of his wounded thigh rendered 4 ; Diodorus, Fragment, lib. x. All these authors probably drew from tiic same original fountain; perhaps Ephorus (sec Marx ad Ephori Fragmenta, p. 212) ; but we have no means of determining. Respecting the alleged imprisonment of Kimon, however, they must have copied from different authorities, for their statements are all different. Diodorus states, that Kimon put himself voluntarily into prison after his father had died there, because he was not permitted on any other condition to obtain the body of his deceased father for burial. Cornelius Nepos affirms that he was impris- oned, as being legally liable to the state for the unpaid fine of his father. Lastly, Plutarch does not represent him as having been put into prison at all. Many of the Latin writers follow the statement of Diodorus : see the citations in Bos's note on the above passage of Cornelius Nepos. There can be no hesitation in adopting the account of Plutarch as the true one. Kimon neither was, nor could be, in prison, by the Attic law, for an unpaid fine of his father; but after his father's death, ho became liable for the fine, in this sense, that he remained disfranchised (ur^of) and excluded from his rights as a citizen, until the fine was paid : see Demosthen. cont. Timokrat. c. 46, p. 762, R. 1 See Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, b. iii, ch. 13, p. 390, Engl, Transl. (vol. i, p. 420, Germ.) ; Meier tind Schomann, Attisch. Prozess, p. 744. Dr. Thirl wall takes a different view of this point, with which I cannot concur (Hist. Gr. vol. iii, Append, ii, p. 488); though his general remarks on the trial of Miltiades are just and appropriate (ch. xiv, p. 273). Cornelius Nepos (Miltiades, c. 8; Kimon, c. 3) says that the misconduct connected with Paros was only a pretence with the Athenians for punishing Miltiades ; their real motive, he affirms, was envy and fear, the same feel- fags which dictated the ostracism of Kimon. How little there is to justify this fancy, may be seen even from the nature of the punishment inflicted. Fear would have prompted them to send away or put to death Miltiadts, not to fine him. The ostracism, which was dictated by fear, was a tempo rarv banishment.
