4. CALLIAS II., son of No. 3, was present in his priestly dress at the battle of Marathon; and the story runs that, on the rout of the enemy, a Persian, claiming his protection, pointed out to him a treasure buried in a pit, and that he slew the man and appropriated the money. Hence the surname λακκόπλουτος (Plut. Aristeid. 5; Schol. ad Aristoph. Nub. 65; Hesych. and Suid. s. v. λακκόπλουτος), which, however, we may perhaps rather regard as having itself suggested the tale, and as having been originally, like βαθύπλουτος, expressive of the extent of the family's wealth. (Böckh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, b. iv. ch. 3.) His enemies certainly were sufficiently malignant, if not powerful; for Plutarch (Aristeid. 25), on the authority of Aeschines the Socratic, speaks of a capital prosecution instituted against him on extremely weak grounds. Aristeides, who was his cousin, was a witness on the trial, which must therefore have tatken place before B. C. 468, the probable date of Aristeides' death. In Herodotus (7.151) Callias is mentioned as ambassador from Athens to Artaxerxes; and this statement we might identify with that of Diodorus, who ascribes to the victories of Cimon, through the negotiation of Callias, B. C. 449, a peace with Persia on terms most humiliating to the latter, were it not that extreme suspicion rests on the whole account of the treaty in question. (Paus. 1.8; Diod. 12.4; Wesselling, ad loc.; Mitford's Greece, ch. xi. sec. 3, note 11; Thirlwall's Greece, vol. iii. pp. 37, 38, and the authorities there referred to; Böckh, Publ. Econ. of Athens, b. iii. ch. 12, b. iv. ch. 3.) Be this as it may, he did not escape impeachment after his return on the charge of having taken bribes, and was condemned to a fine of 50 talents, more than 12,000l., being a fourth of his whole property. (Dem. de Fals. Leg. p. 428; Lys. pro Aristoph. Bon. § 50.)