IMPRUDENCE OF KLEARCHUS. 73 aside. 1 Unfortunately for the reputation of Klearchus, no such reasonable excuse can be offered for his credulity, which brought himself as well as his colleagues to so melancholy an end, and his whole army to the brink of ruin. It appears that the general sentiment of the Grecian army, taking just measure of the char- acter of Tissaphernes, was disposed to greater circumspection in dealing with him. Upon that system Klearchus himself had hith- erto acted; and the necessity of it might have been especially present to his mind, since he had served with the Lacedemonian fleet at Miletus in 411 B. c., and had, therefore, had fuller expe- rience than other men in the army, of the satrap's real character. 2 On a sudden he now turns round, and on the faith of a few verbal declarations, puts all the military chiefs into the most defenceless posture and the most obvious peril, such as hardly the strongest grounds for confidence could have justified. Though the remark of Machiavel is justified by large experience, that from the short-sightedness of men and their obedience to present impulse, the most notorious deceiver will always find new persons to trust him, still such misjudgment on the part of an officer of age and experience is difficult to explain. 3 Polyaenus intimates that beautiful women, exhibited by the satrap at his first banquet to Klearchus alone, served as a lure to attract him with all his col- leagues to the second ; while Xenophon imputes the error to continuance of a jealous rivalry with Menpn. The latter, 4 it appears, having always been intimate with Arigeus, had been 1 Xenophon seems to intimate that there were various stories current, which he does not credit, to the disparagement of Menon, KOI rcl pev 6% afyavri efcoTi Trepl O.VTOV Tpevdea-frat., etc. (Anab. ii, 6, 28). Athenasus (xi, p. 505) erroneously states that Xenophon affirmed Menon to be the person who caused the destruction of Klearchus by Tissa- phernes.
- Xenophon in the Cyropasdia (viii, 8, 3) gives a strange explanation of
the imprudent confidence reposed by Klearchus in the assurance of tho Persian satrap. It arose (he says) from the high reputation for good faith which the Persians had acquired by the undeviating and scrupulous honor of the first Cyrus (or Cyrus the Great), but which they had since ceased to deserve, though the corruption of their character had not before publicly manifested itself. This is a curious perversion of history to serve the purpose of his ro- mance. 1 Macciavelli, Principe, c, 18, p. 65. 4 Polysen. vii, 18 VOL. IX. 4
