1146 TIMOTHEUS. he was building in the Peiraeeus. A considerable time, however, was expended in these preliminary- operations, the danger of losing Corcyra was be- coming more and more imminent, and Timotheus, being accused by Iphicrates and Callistratus, was deposed from his command, and recalled to Athens to stand his trial. This came on in the autumn of the same year, and he obtained an acquittal princi- pally through the intervention of Jason of Pherae, and Alcetas, king of Epeirus, who had come to Athens to intercede for him. In the oration against him written for ApoUodorus, son of Pasion, and ascribed to Demosthenes, there are many- statements connected with the circumstances of Timotheus at this period, which we must of course regard with suspicion ; but we learn from it cer- tainly that he was now reduced to great pecuniary- embarrassments, having probably expended his money in the public service, and was even com- pelled to borrow from Pasion wherewithal to re- ceive his distinguished guests above mentioned (Xen. Hell. vi. 2. §§11—13; Diod. xv. 47 ; Dem. c. Tim. pp. 1186—1192, &c. ; Corn. Nep. Tim.i). In the following year (b. c. 372) he entered into the service of Artaxerxes II., king of Persia, and went to command against Nectanabis I. in Egypt ; but of his operations in this quarter we have no record (Dem. c. Tim. pp. 1191, 1192, 1195). It appears to have been about B. c. 367 that he was sent by the Athenians to aid Ariobarzanes, with an injunction, however, not to abet him in any enterprise against the king, his master ; and ac- cordingly, when he found that he was in open revolt from Artaxerxes, he refused to give him any assistance. He did not, however, consider himself precluded from besieging Samos, which was occupied by a Persian garrison under Cypro- themis, and, if he had felt any scruples, the re- script of the king, so favourable to Thebes at the expense of Athens, must have removed them [Pk- LOPIDAS ; Leon, No. 6]. The attack on the island was successful, and at the end of eleven months Samos was restored to the Athenian al- liance. Timotheus then sailed northward, and took the towns of Sestus and Crithote on the Hel- lespont, acquisitions which, according to Isocrates, first directed the attention of the Athenians to the recovery of the whole Chersonesus. If we may believe Cornelius Nepos, he was placed in pos- session of these two places by Ariobarzanes, as a reward for his services to him ; but it is not easy to reconcile this statement with the account of Demosthenes, as given above, of his refusal to help the rebel satrap, (Dem. pro Rhod. Lib. pp. 192, 193 ; Isocr. Trep: 'AvtjS. §§118, &c.; Corn. Nep. Tim. 1 ; Pseudo-Arist. Oec. ii. 23 ; Polyaen. iii. 10.) These successes, coupled probably with their jealousy of Iphicrates as the son-in-law of Cotys, seem to have mainly induced the Athenians to appoint Timotheus instead of him as commander in Macedonia (b. c. 364), where the recovery of Amphipolis was the great object of their wishes. In the interval between the recall of Iphicrates and the arrival of Timotheus, the Athenian forces were commanded by Callisthenes, whose disad- vantageous treaty with Perdiccas III. of Mace- donia contributed perhaps to hamper the new general, when he came on the scene of action. Timotheus, on taking the command, endeavoured to secure the services of the adventurer Charide- TIMOTHEUS. mus, but the latter passed over to the service of Cotys, in ships with which the Athenians them- selves had furnished him ; and it was now perhaps that, despairing of any effectual assault on Am- phipolis, Timotheus turned his arms against the Olynthians, from whom, with the help of king Perdiccas, he took Potidaea and Torone ; and fol- lowed up these successes, if we may believe Iso- crates, his friend and panegyrist, with the capture of all the Chalcidian towns. It was in the same year, if we adopt the chronology of Diodorus, that he rejected an application from the nobles of Hera- cleia on the Euxine to aid them against the people ; and in the same year, too, he relieved Cyzicus from a siege in which it was hard pressed, perhaps by the Persian garrison, which the citizens had ejected, perhaps, according to a conjecture of Mit- ford, by the armament of Epaminondas, who at the time was endeavouring to make Thebes a naval power, and to contest with Athens the sovereignty of the sea. The chronology, however, of the oper- ations of Timotheus at this period is very uncer- tain ; but on the whole it appears probable, follow- ing the views of Rehdantz, in preference to those of Thirl wall, that his campaign, in the Chersonesus against Cotys was subsequent to his attempt on Amphipolis. The latter turned out an utter failure, the enemy having collected against him with num- bers so superior, that he found it necessary to burn his ships on the Strymon, and to make his retreat by land. He was more successful, however, in the war with Cotys, who was probably assisted by the Byzantians (b, c. 363?), and gathered from his territory booty to the value of 1200 talents. (Dera. Olynth. ii. p. 22, iii. p. 36 ; Schol. Aug. ad loc. ; Dem. c. Arist. pp. QQd, 670 ; Aesch. de Fals. Leg. p. 32 ; Isocr. ircpi 'Ai/tiS. §119; Deinarch, c. Dem. p. 91, c. Philocl. p. 110 ; Diod. xv. 81 ; Pseudo- Arist. Oec. I.e.; Polyaen. iii. 10; Just. xvi. 4; C. Nep. Tim. 1 ; Mitford's Greece., vol. v. p. 220 ; Thirlwall's Greece, vol. v. pp. 189, 193, 206, 217, 218; Rehdantz, pp. 132, &c.) [Charidemus ; Clearchus.J At this period Timotheus would probably be at the height of his glory and popularity, not only among the Athenians, but with many of the other Greeks, a popularity, however, not unmixed with envy, if we may believe the anecdote related by Aelian, that painters were wont to represent him as sleeping in his tent, while Fortune, standing over his head, drew cities for him into a net. (Dem. c. Lept. pp. 482, 483 ; Isocr. Ep. ad Myt. p. 426 ; Paus. i. 3 ; Ael. V. H. xiii. 43 ; Plut. Reg. et Imp. Apoph. Tim. 1.) It seems most likely also that at this time, about B. c. 360, he increased his po- litical influence by a reconciliation with Iphicrates, to whose son Menestheus he gave his daughter in marriage. [Iphicrates ; Menestheus.] To the suit instituted against him b)*- ApoUodorus, the son of Pasion, for sundry sums of money alleged to have been borrowed by him from the latter, it is not possible to assign any exact date ; but there is no period at which it can be fixed more satis- factorily than between B. c. 360 and 356. The oration, written for the plaintiff on this occasion, and ascribed to Demosthenes, is still extant. (See Rehdantz, pp. 195, 196.) In b. c. 358, when the Thebans had sent a military force over to Euboea, Timotheus, by an energetic appeal and fervid elo- quence, incited the Athenians to raise an armament for the purpose of opposing them there, and saving
