66 HISTORY OF GREECE. neutral, and one of their reasons for neutrality was, that they did not choose to join any Pan-Hellenic levy except in the capacity of chiefs ; but probably the more powerful reason was, that they shared the impression then so widely diffused throughout Greece as to the irresistible force of the apijroaching host, and chose to hold themselves prepared for the event. They kept up secret negotiations even with Persian agents, yet not compromising themselves while matters were still pending ; nor is it improbable, in their vexation against Sparta, that they would have been better pleased if the Persians had succeeded, — all which may reason- ably be termed, medizing. The absence of Hellenic fidelity in Argos was borne out by the parallel examples of Krete and Korkyra, to which places envoys from the Isthmus proceeded at the same time. The Kretans declined to take any part, on the ground of prohibitory injunctions from the oracle ;^ the Korkyrseans promised without performing, and even without any intention to perform. Their neutrality was a serious loss to the Greeks, since they could fit out a naval force of sixty triremes, second only to that of Athens. With this important contingent they engaged to join the Grecian fleet, and actually set sail from Korkyra ; but they took care not to sail round cape Malea, or to reach the scene of action. Their fleet remained on the southern or western coast of Peloponnesus, under pretence of being weatherbound, until the decisive result of the battle of Salamis was known. Their impression was that the Persian monarch would be victorious, in which case they would have made a merit of not having arrived in time ; but they were also prepared with the plausible excuse of detention from foul winds, when the result turned out otherwise, and when they were reproached by the Greeks for their absence.^ Such dupli- city is not very astonishing, when we recollect that it was the habitual policy of Korkyra to isolate herself from Hellenic con- federacies.3 of little value (De Herodoti Malignit. c. 28, p. 863), and are indeed unfair, since he represents the Argeian version of the facts as being universally Jjclieved [anavrec laaciv), which it evidently was not. ' Herodot. vii, 169.
- ^ Herodot. vii, 168.
' Thucyd. i, 32-37. It is perhaps singular that the Corinthian envoys in
