was the bearing of this eminent man, as described by his intimate
friend, we may judge how it would incense unfriendly politicians
and even indifferent persons who knew him only from his obvious
exterior. Iphikrates, though by nature a proud man, was more
discreet and conciliatory in his demeanor, and more alive to the
mischief of political odium.[1] Moreover, he seems to have been
an effective speaker[2] in public, and his popularity among the military men in Athens was so marked, that on this very trial many of them manifested their sympathy by appearing in arms near
the Dikastery.[3] Under these circumstances, we may easily understand that Chares and Aristophon might find it convenient to
press their charge more pointedly against Timotheus than against Iphikrates; and that the Dikastery, while condemning the former,
may have been less convinced of the guilt of the latter, and better satisfied in every way to acquit him.[4]
- ↑ Demosthenes cont. Meidiam, p. 534, 535; Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 2. 39.
- ↑ Dionysius Halikarnass., Judicium de Lysiâ, p. 481; Justin, vi. 5. Aristotle in his Rhetorica borrows several illustrations on rhetorical points from the speeches of Iphikrates; but none from any speeches of Timotheus.
- ↑ Polysenus, iii. 9, 29. That this may have been done with the privity and even by the contrivance of Iphikrates, is probable enough. But it seems to me that any obvious purpose of intimidating the Dikastery would have been likely to do him more harm than good.
- ↑ Rehdantz (Vitae Iphicratis, Chabrise, et Timothei, p. 224 seqq.), while collecting and discussing instructively all the facts respecting these two commanders, places the date of this memorable trial in the year 354B.C.; three years after the events to which it relates, and two years after the peace which concluded the Social War. Mr. Clinton (Fast. Hellenici, I.C. 354) gives the same statement. I dissent from their opinion on the date and think that the trial must have occurred very soon after the abortive battle in the Hellespont that is in 357B.C. (or 356B.C.), while the Social War was still going on.Redhantz and Mr. Clinton rely on the statement of Dionysius Halikarnass. (De Dinarcho Judicium, p. 667). Speaking of an oration falsely ascribed to Deinarchus, Dionysius says, that it was spoken before the maturity of that orator—(
Greek characters) These are the last words in the MS., so that the sen-
Isokrates goes at some length into the subject from s. 137 to s. 147. The discourse was composed seemingly in 353B.C., about one year after the death of Timotheus, and four years after the trial here described.
