DEFENCE OF EPAMINONDAS. 241 invasion and devastation of Laconia, hitherto unvisited by any enemy, the confinement of the Spartans within their walls, the liberation of all Western Laconia, and the establishment of Mes- sene as a city, the constitution of a strong new Arcadian city, forming, with Tegea on one flank and Messene on the other, a line of defence on the Spartan frontier, so as to ensure the permanent depression of the great enemy of Thebes, the emancipation of Greece generally, from Spartan ascendency, now consummated. Such justification, whether delivered in reply to a substantive accuser, or (which is more probable) tendered spontaneously by Epaminondas himself, was not merely satisfactory, but trium- phant. He and the other generals were acquitted by acclama- tion ; without even going through the formality of collecting the votes. 1 And it appears that both Epaminondas and Pelopidas were immediately reappointed among the Boeotarchs of the year. 2 1 Plutarch, Pelopidas, c. 25 ; Plutarch, Apophthegm, p. 194 B. ; Pausan. ix, 14, 4 ; Cornelius Nepos, Epaminond. c. 7, 8 ; JElian, V. H. xiii, 42. Pausanias states the fact plainly and clearly ; the others, especially Ne pos and ^Elian, though agreeing in the main fact, surround it with colors exaggerated and false. They represent Epaminondas as in danger of being put to death by ungrateful and malignant fellow-citizens ; Cornelius Nepos puts into his mouth a justificatory speech of extreme insolence (compare Arist. Or. xlvi, nepl TOV Trapa^fy^arof p. 385 Jebb. ; p. 520 Dindorf.) ; which, had it been really made, would have tended more than anything else to set the public against him, and which is moreover quite foreign to the character of Epaminondas. To carry the exaggeration still farther, Plu- tarch (De Vitioso Pudore, p. 540 E.) describes Pelopidas as trembling and begging for his life. Epaminondas had committed a grave illegality, which could not be passed over without notice in his trial of accountability. But he had a good justification. It was necessary that he should put in the justification ; when put in, it passed triumphantly. What more could be required ? The facts, when fairly stated, will not serve as an illustration of the alleged in- gratitude of the people towards great men. 2 Diodorus (xv, 81) states that Pelopidas was Boeotarch without interrup- tion, annually reappointed, from the revolution of Thebes down to his de- cease. Plutarch also (Pelopid. c. 34) affirms that when Pelopidas died, he was in the thirteenth year of his appointment ; which may be understood as the same assertion in other words. Whether Epaminondas was rechosen. does not appear. Sievers denies the reappointment as well of Pelopidas as of Epaminon das. But I do not see upon what grounds ; for, in my judgment, Epami nondas appears again as commander in Peloponnesus during this same year VOL. X. 11 IGOC.
