226 HISTORY OF GREECE. The three joint admirals were thus placed not merely in oppo- sition, but in bitter conflict, among themselves. At the trial oi accountability, undergone by all of them not long afterwards ai Athens, Chares stood forward as the formal accuser of his twc colleagues, who in their turn also accused him. He was seconded in his attack by Aristophon, one of the most practised orators of the day. Both of them charged Iphikrates and Timotheus with having received bribes from the Chians and Rhodians, 1 and be- trayed their trust ; by deserting Chares at the critical moment when it had been determined beforehand to fight, and when an important success might have been gained. How the justice of the case stood, we cannot decide. The characters of Iphikrates and Timotheus raise strong presumption that they were in the right and their accuser in the wrong. Yet it must be recollected that the Athenian public, (and probably every other public, ancient or modern, Roman, English, or French), would naturally sympathize with the forward and daring admiral, who led the way into action, fearing neither the storm nor the enemy, and calling upon his colleagues to follow. Iphi- krates and Timotheus doubtless insisted upon the rashness of his proceedings, and set forth the violence of the gale. But this again would be denied by Chares, and would stand as a point where the evidence was contradictory ; captains and seamen being produced as witnesses on both sides, and the fleet being probably divided
- nto two opposing parties. The feelings of the Athenian Dikasts
might naturally be, that Iphikrates and Timotheus ought never to Jiave let their colleague go into action unassisted, even though they disapproved of the proceeding. Iphikrates defended himself partly by impeaching the behavior of Chares, partly by bitter re- tort upon his other accuser Aristophon. " Would you (he asked), betray the fleet for money ?" " No," was the reply. " Well, then, Our evidence respecting this period is so very defective, that nothing like certainty is attainable. ' Peinarchus cont. Philokl. s. 17. gnarov rakuvruv TiftfjvavTec (Ti/i6'Sov) i on xprjjiaT' avrbv ' KpiaTofyuv <f>j] irapa Xiuv ei^rj^evat Kal 'Po6iuv: corn- pare Deinarch. cont. Dcmosthcn. s. 15, where the same charge of .bribery a alluded to, though avrbf K(J>TJ is put in place of avrbv ' A^iaro^ur f<t>ij, seenj ingl) by mistake of the transcriber.
