Now Aristophanes the Boeotian wrote, that Herodotus demanded money of the Thebans but received
none, and that going about to discourse and reason with
the young men, he was prohibited by the magistrates
through their clownishness and hatred of learning; of
which there is no other argument. But Herodotus bears
witness to Aristophanes, whilst he charges the Thebans
with some things falsely, with others ignorantly, and with
others as hating them and having a quarrel with them.
For he affirms that the Thessalians at first upon necessity
inclined to the Persians,1 in which he says the truth; and
prophesying of the other Grecians that they would betray
the Lacedaemonians, he added, that they would not do it
willingly, but upon necessity, one city being taken after
another. But he does not allow the Thebans the same
plea of necessity, although they sent to Tempe five hundred men under the command of Mnamias, and to Thermopylae as many as Leonidas desired, who also alone with
the Thespians stood by him, the rest leaving him after he
was surrounded. But when the barbarian, having possessed himself of the avenues, was got into their confines,
and Demaratus the Spartan, favoring in right of hospitality Attaginus, the chief of the oligarchy, had so wrought
that he became the King's friend and familiar, whilst the
other Greeks were in their ships, and none came on by
[p. 352]
land; then at last being forsaken did they accept conditions
of peace, to which they were compelled by great necessity.
For they had neither the sea and ships at hand, as had the
Athenians; nor did they dwell far off, as the Spartans, who
inhabited the most remote parts of Greece; but were not
above a day and half's journey from the Persian army, whom
they had already with the Spartans and Thespians alone
resisted at the entrance of the straits, and were defeated.
But this writer is so equitable, that having said, ‘The
Lacedaemonians, being alone and deserted by their allies,
would perhaps have made a composition with Xerxes,’
he yet abuses the Thebans, who were driven to the same
act by the same necessity. But when he could not wholly
obliterate this most great and glorious act of the Thebans,
yet went he about to deface it with a most vile imputation
and suspicion, writing thus: ‘The confederates who had
been sent returned back, obeying the commands of Leonidas; there remained only with the Lacedaemonians the
Thespians and the Thebans: of these, the Thebans stayed
against their wills, for Leonidas retained them as hostages;
but the Thespians most willingly, as they said they would
never depart from Leonidas and those that were with
him.’
2 Does he not here manifestly discover himself to
have a peculiar pique and hatred against the Thebans, by
the impulse of which he not only falsely and unjustly
calumniated the city, but did not so much as take care to
render his contradiction probable, or to conceal, at least
from a few men, his being conscious of having knowingly
contradicted himself? For having before said that Leonidas,
perceiving his confederates not to be in good heart nor prepared to undergo danger, wished them to depart, he a little
after adds that the Thebans were against their wills detained by him; whereas, if he had believed them inclined
to the Persians, he should have driven them away though
[p. 353]
they had been willing to tarry. For if he thought that
those who were not brisk would be useless, to what purpose was it to mix among his soldiers those that were suspected? Nor was the king of the Spartans and general of
all Greece so senseless as to think that four hundred armed
Thebans could be detained as hostages by his three hundred, especially the enemy being both in his front and rear.
For though at first he might have taken them along with
him as hostages; it is certainly probable that at last, having
no regard for him, they would have gone away from him,
and that Leonidas would have more feared his being encompassed by them than by the enemy. Furthermore,
would not Leonidas have been ridiculous, to have sent
away the other Greeks, as if by staying they should soon
after have died, and to have detained the Thebans, that
being himself about to die, he might keep them for the
Greeks? For if he had indeed carried them along with
him for hostages, or rather for slaves, he should not have
kept them with those that were at the point of perishing,
but have delivered them to the Greeks that went away.
There remained but one cause that might be alleged for
Leonidas's unwillingness to let them go, to wit, that they
might die with him; and this our historian himself has
taken away, writing thus of Leonidas's ambition: ‘Leonidas considering these things, and desirous that this glory
might redound to the Spartans alone, sent away his confederates rather for this than because they differed in their
opinions.’
3 For it had certainly been the height of folly
to keep his enemies against their wills, to be partakers of
that glory from which he drove away his confederates.
But it is manifest from the effects, that Leonidas suspected
not the Thebans of insincerity, but esteemed them to be
his steadfast friends. For he marched with his army into
Thebes, and at his request obtained that which was never
[p. 354]
granted to any other, to sleep within the temple of Hercules; and the next morning he related to the Thebans the
vision that had appeared to him. For he imagined that he
saw the most illustrious and greatest cities of Greece irregularly tost and floating up and down on a very stormy and
tempestuous sea; that Thebes, being carried above all
the rest, was lifted up on high to heaven, and suddenly
after disappeared. And this indeed had a resemblance of
those things which long after befell that city.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.