The Fall of the Athenian Empire-(A New History of the Peloponnesian War) Donald Kagan - (1987)

208 - THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN EMPIRE
of treason, and when he was convicted, his bones were exhumed and
removed beyond the borders of Attica, his house destroyed, his property
confiscated, and the verdict and penalties inscribed on a bronze
stele. 65 An ancient commentator connects this charge with Phrynichus'
activities as general on Samos," but it probably referred to his more
recent activities on behalf of the Four Hundred, perhaps his negotiation
with the Spartans! 7 Critias was probably a member of the Four
Hundred, and in spite of his later activities as leader of the extreme
oligarchs after the war, this motion shows him to have been one of
the moderates in 41 1. 68 The strange case may have arisen as a response
to an attempt by Phrynichus' supporters to punish his assassins; 69 if
so, that would be evidence of an atmosphere in which the extremists
still felt comfortable enough to take the offensive in the law courts.
More likely, the moderates took the lead, testing the waters with an
attack on a man who had many enemies and was safely dead. The
honor of the turncoat extremist did not go undefended, for both Aristarchus
and Alexicles spoke on his behalf. 70 Obviously, both extremists
at first felt safe enough not only to stay in Athens but even to
defend their associate. The outcome of the trial, however, was probably
a sufficient sign of the new mood in Athens. We may guess that
they fled to join the enemy soon after.
The moderates were soon encouraged to move against living extremists,
some of whom were bold enough to stay in Athens to stand trial.
It is possible that Peisander remained long enough to answer the
charges brought against him but escaped before his sentence could be
imposed. 71 We can be certain, in any case, that they brought an action
65 Craterus, FGrHIII, 342 Fr. 17; Plut. Mor. 834b; Lycurgus, Against Leocrates, 113.
66
Scholiast to Aristoph. Lys. 313 = Craterus FGrH Ill, 342, Fr. 17. The scholiast
may be confusing this charge with the one made earlier by Peisander that brought
about his deposition (8.s4.2) on the grounds that he had betrayed Amorges. He may
also have been thinking of Phrynichus' communications with the Spartan admiral
As?,:ochus.
6
8.1)0.2. Those negotiations were carried on at the same time as the work on the
fort at Eetioneia, and the negotiators, no doubt, were thought to have planned treason.
68
0n Critias as a moderate member of the Four Hundred, see Busolt, GG lll:2, 1462
and n. J; and G. Adeleye, TAPA CIV (1974), 1-9. Against that view, see H. C. A very,
CP LVIII (I96J), I6j-I67.
69
That is the suggestion of Jameson, Historia XX (1971), 552·
70 Lycurgus, Against Leocrates, I 15.
7
'Jameson, Historia XX (1971), 555· Jameson has constructed an ingenious argument
that places the exchange between Sophocles and Peisander in the context of a trial in
which the poet is bringing charges against the politician on behalf of a dead man.