Page:History of Greece Vol IX.djvu/364

542 HISTORY OF GREECE. The war being thus continued, Corinth, though defended by a considerable confederate force, including Athenian hoplites under it would of itself be sufficient to establish the reality of the mission to which it relates. It would be sufficient evidence, not only without corrobo- ration from Xenophon, but even against any contradictory statement pro- ceeding from Xenophon. But unfortunately, the rhetor Dionysius pro- nounced this oration to be spurious ; which introduces a doubt and throws us upon the investigation of collateral probabilities. I have myself a decided opinion (already stated more than once), that another out of the four orations ascribed to Andokides (I mean the fourtli oration, entitled against Alkibiades) is spurious ; and I was inclined to the same suspicion with respect to this present oration De Pace ; a suspicion which I expressed in a former volume (Vol. V, Ch. xlv, p. 334). But on studying over again with attention this oration De Pace, I find reason to retract my suspicion, and to believe that the oration may be genuine. It has plenty of erroneous allegations as to matter of fact, especially in reference to times prior to the battle of JEgospotami ; but not one, so far as I can detect, which conflicts with the situation to which the orator addresses himself, nor which re- quires us to pronounce it spurious. Indeed, in considering this situation (which is the most important point to be studied when we are examining the genuineness of an oration), we find a partial coincidence in Xenophon, which goes to strengthen our af- firmative confidence. One point much insisted upon in the oration is, that the Boeotians were anxious to make peace with Sparta, and were willing to relinquish Orchomenus (s. 13-20). Now Xenophon also mentions, three or four months afterwards, the Bo2otians as being anxious for peace, and as sending envoys to Agesilaus to ask on what terms it would be granted to them (Xen. Hellen. iv, 5, 6). This coincidence is of some value in reference to the authenticity of the oration. Assuming the oration to be genuine, its date is pretty clearly marked, and is rightly placed by Mr. Fynes Clinton in 391 B. c. It was in the au- tumn or winter of that year, four years after the commencement of the war in Bceotia which began in 395 B. c. (s. 20). It was after the capture of Lechasum, which took place in the summer of 391 B. c. and before the de- struction of the Lacedaemonian mora by Iphikrates, which took place in the spring of 390 B. c. For Andokides emphatically intimates, that at the mo- ment when he spoke, not one military success had yet been obtained against the Lacedaemonians Kairoi iroiaf Tivof uv eneivoi trap 1 rjfi&v elpr/VTic erv^ov, el filav fiovov fiu^rjv i]TT7]-Qrioav (s. 19). This could never have been said after the destruction of the Lacedaemonian mora, which made so profound a sensation throughout Greece, and so greatly altered the temper of the contending parties. And it seems to me one proof (among others) that Mr. Fynes Clinton has not placed correctly the events subsequent to the battle of Corinth, when I observe that he assigns the destruction of tha mr/ra to the year 392 B. c., a year before the date which he rightly allots to