A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

2. Son of Conon, was a native of the demus of Anaphlystus, and, according to a probable conjecture of Boeckh, belonged to the priestly family of the Eumolpidae (Corp. Inscr. 393 ; see Rehdantz, Vit. Iph. Chabr. Tim. p. 45). For the statement of Athenaeus (xiii. p. 577a), that his mother was a Thracian hetaera, there appear to be no good grounds. Inheriting a considerable fortune from his father, he seems in his early years to have indulged in the display of it, as we may gather from an allusion in the Plutus of Aristophanes (B. C. 388); and we may therefore well believe the assertion, that it was through his intercourse with Isocrates that his mind was directed to higher views (Lys. de Arist. Bon. p. 155; Arist. Plut. 180 ; Schol. ad loc. ; Dem. c. Aphob. i. p. 815, c. Aphob. de F. T. p. 862; Pseudo-Dem. Erot. p. 1415). In B. C. 378, Timotheus was made general with Chabrias and Callistratus, and it is possible that, while Chabrias was occupied in Boeotia, his colleagues commanded the fleet, and were engaged in bringing over Euboea and other islands to the Athenian confederacy (Xen. Hell. 5.4.34 ; Diod. 15.29, 30; Plut. de Glor. Ath. 8; Rehdanttz, p. 57). In B. C. 375, Timotheus was sent with sixty ships to cruize round the Peloponnesus, in accordance with the suggestion of the Thebans, that the Spartans might thus be prevented from invading Boeotia. On his voyage he ravaged Laconia, and then proceeded to Corcyra, which he brought over to the Athenian alliance, behaving after his success with great moderation. This conduct, together with his conciliatory disposition and manners, contributed mainly to the prosperous issue of his further negotiations, and he succeeded in gaining the alliance of the Cephallenians and Acarnanians, as well as that of Alcetas I., the king of Epirus. A Spartan fleet under Nicolochus was sent out against him, but he defeated it off Alyzia on the Acarnanian coast, and, being strengthened shortly after by a reinforcement from Corcyra, he entirely commanded the sea, though, having brought with him only thirteen talents from home, he was greatly embarrassed for want of funds (Xen. Hell. 5.4. §§ 62-66; Dem. c. Arist. p. 686; Isocr. περὶ Ἀντιδ. § 116; Diod. 15.36; Corn. Nep. Tim. 2 ; Ael. VH 3.16; Pseudo_Arist. Oecon. 2.23 ; Polyaen. 3.10). In the following year peace was concluded between Athens and Sparta, and Timotheus was recalled. On his way, however, he stopped at Zacynthus, and forcibly restored some democratic exiles who had fled to him for refuge ; hereupon the oligarchical party in the island complained to Sparta, and the failure of her applications to Athens for redress led to a renewal of the war (Xen. Hell. 6.2. §§ 2, 3; Diod. 15.45). In B. C. 373, he was appointed to the command of sixty ships destined to act against MNASIPPUS in Corcyra ; but he had no means of fully manning his squadron, and he was obliged therefore to cruise about the Aegean for the purpose of collecting men and money. It would appear to have been in the course of this cruize that he formed an intimacy with Amyntas, king of Macedonia, who made him a present of a quantity of timber for a house which

he was building in the Peiraeeus. A considerable time, however, was expended in these preliminary operations, the danger of losing Corcyra was becoming more and more imminent, and Timothens, 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 principally 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 Apollodorus, 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 certainly that he was now reduced to great pecuniary embarrassments, having probably expended his money in the public service, and was even compelled to borrow from Pasion wherewithal to receive his distinguished guests above mentioned (Xen. Hell. 6.2. §§ 11-13; Diod. 15.47; Dem. c. Tim. pp. 1186-1192, &c.; Corn. Nep. Tim. 4). In the following year (B. C. 372) he entered into the service of Artaxerxes II., king of Persia, find 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 accordingly, 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 Cyprothemis, and, if he had felt any scruples, the rescript of the king, so favourable to Thebes at the expense of Athens, must have removed them [PELOPIDAS ; LEO, No. 6]. The attack on the island was successful, and at the end of eleven months Samos was restored to the Athenian alliance. Timotheus then sailed northward, and took the towns of Sestus and Crithote on the Hellespont, 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 possession 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. περὶ Ἀντιδ. §§ 118, &c.; Corn. Nep. Tim. 1 ; Pseudo-Arist. Oec. 2.23; Polyaen. 3.10.)

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 disadvantageous treaty with Perdiccas III. of Macedonia contributed perhaps to hamper the new general, when he came on the scene of action. Timotheus, on taking the command, endeavored to secure the services of the adventurer Charidemus, but the latter passed over to the service of Cotys, in ships with which the Athenians themselves had furnished him; and it was now perhaps that, despairing of any effectual assault on Amphipolis, Timotheus turned his arms against the Olynthians, from whom, with the help of king Perdiccas, he took Potidaea and Torone; and followed up these successes, if we may believe Isocrates, 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 Heracleia 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 Mitford, 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 operations of Timothens at this period is very uncertain ; but on the whole it appears probable, following the views of Rehdantz, in preference to those of Thirlwall, 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 numbers 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. (Dem. Olynth. ii. p. 22, iii. p. 36; Schol. Aug. ad loc. ; Dem. c. Arist. pp. 669, 670; Aesch. de Fals. Leg. p. 32; Isocr. περὶ Ἀντιδ. § 119; Deinarch. c. Dem. p. 91, c. Philocl. p. 110; Diod. 15.81; Pseudo-Arist. Oec. l.c. ; Polyaen. 3.10; Just. 16.4 ; C. Nep. Tim. I; Mitford's Greece, vol. v. p. 220 ; Thirlwall's Greece, vol. v. pp. 189, 193, 206, 217, 218; Rehdantz, pp. 132, &c.) [CHARIDEMUS ; CLEARCHUS.]

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. 1.3; Ael. VH 13.43; Plut. Reg. et Imp. Apoph. Tim. l.) It seems most likely also that at this time, about B. C. 360, he increased his political influence by a reconciliation with Iphicrates, to whose son Menestheus he gave his daughter in marriage. [IPHICRATES; MENESTHEUS.] To the suit instituted against him by Apollodorus, the son of Pasion, for sundry sums of money alleged to have been borrowed by him from the latter, it is not possible to assignn any exact date; but there is no period at which it can be fixed more satisfactorily 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 eloquence, incited the Athenians to raise an armament for the purpose of opposing them there, and saving

their own interests in the island. (Diod. 16.7 ; Dem. Olynth. i. p. 11, de Chers. p. 108, c. Androt. p. 597; Aesch. c. Ctes. p. 65.) In the following year the Social War broke out; and in the second campaign of it (B. C. 356) Timotheus, Iphicrates, and Menestheus were joined with Chares as commanders of the Athenian fleet. The circumstances which followed are variously related. According to Diodorus, Chares vainly endeavoured to induce his colleagues to engage the enemy in a storm, and, on their refusal, wrote to the people, accusing them of treachery. The account of C. Nepos is that Chares, having risked a battle in spite of the weather, was defeated, and, in order to screen himself, laid the blame on the other generals for not supporting him. Any how they were recalled, and Iphicrates and Menestheus were brought to trial first, the prosecution being conducted by Aristophon the Azenian. They were acquitted; but Timotheus was nevertheless afterwards arraigned, probably in B. C. 354, and condemned to the crushing fine of 100 talents (more than 24,000l.). From Deinarchus we learn that the main charge against him was the having received bribes from the Chians and Rhodians, and the truth of this, if we follow the common reading in the passage (Dein. c. Dem. p. 92), he himself confessed. According to Isocrates, his condemnation was caused chiefly by his haughty and unbending demeanour, and by his refusal to pay court to the people and the popular orators. Be that as it may, he was unable to pay the fine, and withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died shortly after. The Athenians subsequently remitted nine-tenths of the penalty, and allowed his son Conon to expend the remainder on the repair of the walls, which the famous Conon had restored. (Isocr. Περὶ Ἀντιδ. §§ 137, &c.; Diod. 16.21; C. Nep. Tim. 3, 4 ; Deinarch. c. Philocl. p. 110; Ael. VH 3.47, 14.3; Perizon. ad loe.)

The character of Timotheus was marked by mildness and amiability, even though we should set against this the haughtiness and the somewhat presumptuous self-reliance which his brilliant successes seem to have produced in him. Like his contemporaries Chabrias and Chares, he preferred residing abroad when he could,--a preference which may be ascribed at least as much to the glaring evils of the Athenian democracy as to the luxurious propensities which have been, on no very strong grounds, imputed to him. The eloquence and learning which were united with his military talents, must be traced in a great measure to his intimate friendship with Isocrates, who frequently attended him in his campaigns, and wrote his despatches for him. As a general he possessed some of the highest qualities, and held in contempt that fiery rashness which, as in the case of Chabrias, forgets the special duties of the commander in the mere dashing gallantry of the soldier. (Ael. VH 2.10, 18; Ath. x. p. 419c., d., xii. p. 532b. ; Cic. Tusc. Quaest. 5.35, de Orat. 3.34, de Off. 1.32; Nep. Chabr. 3 ; Plut. Sull. 6, Reg. et Imp. Apoph. Tim. 2.)