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

SPARTA'S RIPOSTE 83
small boat, never to be seen again. 56 Astyochus now commanded about
ninety ships against the Athenian squadron of seventy-four nearby at
Samos, 57 but like his predecessor, he remained on the defensive. The
Athenian fleet made several sorties against Miletus, but each time
Astyochus kept his ships in port and refused to rise to the bait, conceding
the Athenians command of the sea. This was the beginning of
a long period of inactivity by the navarch, during which his men came
to grumble ever more loudly and openly that this policy was leading
to the ruin of the Peloponnesian cause. After a time they came to
suspect him of corruption: "he attached himself to Tissaphernes, it
was said, for his own gain. " 58 Some scholars have believed the accusation
and explained his inertia on those grounds, 59 but the evidence
is far from compelling. 69 Thucydides himself reports the allegation but
does not endorse it.'' An adequate explanation for Astyochus' behavior
does not require theories of corruption and treason. The promises of
56
8.]8. 1. Van de Made (Phoenix XXV [197I], 44), who believes that Astyochus was
guilty of treason and already working together with Tissaphernes and Alcibiades against
Spartan interests, suggests that the conspirators may have "eliminated" him to prevent
him from reporting their activities at Sparta. Apart from other considerations, to be
discussed below, and the absence of any hint of foul play in Thucydides or any other
ancient source, there is no need to be surprised by the drowning of a man attempting
to sail across the Aegean in a small boat in November or December.
57
Andrewes (HCT V, 29) places the figure at ninety. Busolt (GG Ill:z, 1445) suggests
eighty-eight plus six more at Cnidos.
58
8.5o.3; see also 83.3·
59
Belief in the charge goes back at least to Grote (VII, 401) and has had more recent
champions, including Hatzfeld (Aicibiade, 324, 238, n. 1, 253), Delebecque (Thucydide
et Akibiade, [1965], 87), and, with a vigorous discussion, Van de Maele, Phoenix XXV
(•97•), 42-43·
60
Among those rejecting the accusation are Busolt (GG Ill:z, 1445, n. 5) and H. D.
Westlake (Individuals in Thucydides [Cambridge, 1968], J04-307).
61
Van de Made believes that in 8.50.3 Thucydides lends his own authority to the
charge against Astyochus, asserting that after the restricting words W~ EAE:yE"ro (it was
said), he "makes this accusation his own by connecting to it: 'it was also exactly because
of that---aL61rEp---that he only mildly resisted the reduction in pay' " (Phoenix XXV
[•971], 42-43). But there is no better reason to associate Thucydides' own judgment
with this latter clause than with the former. The passage reads: 1rpocrE6'T)KE 7E, w~
EAE.-ye70, E1rt L8LOL'O KEp8EcrL TwcraqJEpvEL EamOv Kat 1rept 7mlrW11 Kat 1rept 7Wv &..>...>..wv
KOLVo008m. 8L6TrEp Kat 1rEpt 11)~ j.LLOOO