440 HISTORY OF GREECE. Nektanebus was obliged to retire into Ethiopia ; all Egypt fell, with little resistance, into the hands of the Persians ; the fortified places capitulated the temples were pillaged, with an immense booty to the victors and even the sacred archives of the tem- ples were carried off, to be afterwards resold to the priests for an additional sum of money. The wealthy territory of Egypt again became a Persian province, under the satrap Pherendates ; while Ochus returned to Babylon, with a large increase both of domin- ion and of reputation. The Greek mercenaries were dismissed to return home, with an ample harvest both of pay and plunder. 1 They constituted in fact the principal element of force on both sides ; some Greeks enabled the Persian king to subdue revolters, 2 while others lent their strength to the revolters against him. By this re-conquest of Phenicia and Egypt, Ochus relieved him- self from that contempt into which he had fallen through the fail- ure of his former expedition, 3 and even exalted the Persian empire 1 Diodor. xvi. 47-51. Ley, Fata ct Conditio, JEgypti sub Regno Persa- ram, p. 25, 26, 2 Isokrates, Or. iv. Philipp. s. 149. KCLL rovf uQiarafievovc rfjf eip^f rijt fiaaiTieuc avyKaraaTpetyofieda, etc. 3 Isokrates, Or. iv. Philipp. s. 117, 121, 160. Diodorus places the sue cessful expeditions of Ochus against Phenicia and Egypt during the three years between 351-348 B. c. (Diodor. xvi. 40-52). In my judgment, they were not executed until after the conclusion of the peace between Philip and Athens in March 346 B. c. ; they were probably brought to a close in the two summers of 346-345 B. c. The Discourse or Letter of Isokrates to Philip appeare better evidence on this point of chronology, than the asser- tion of Diodoras. The Discourse of Isokrates was published shortly after the peace of March 346 B. c., and addressed to a prince perfectly well in- formed of all the public events of his time. One of the main arguments used by Isokrates to induce Philip to attack the Persian empire, is tho weakness of Ochus in consequence of Egypt and Phenicia being still in revolt and unsubdued and the contempt into which Ochus had fallen from having tried to reconquer Egypt and having been ignominiously re- pulsed a7r^A$ej> tKeldev (Ochus) ov fiovov fiTTjjdelc dX/ld KOL Karays^acr- Oele, Kdi (J6af ovre Paaifaveiv ovre arpa-njyelv uiog dvai (s. 118). oiiru. a^bdpa jj.f[*iari/j.Evo<; nal Karairf<j>pov7;ftevof ifi dmivruv wf ovfalf n^Tors ruv flaaikevaavTuv (s. 160). The reconquest of Egypt by Ochus, with an immense army and a large number of Greeks engaged on both sides, must have been one of the most impressive events of the age. Diodorus may perhaps have confounded the
