They then capitulated, being compelled to raze their fortifications, to surrender all their ships of war, to give hostages for future good conduct, and to make good by stated instalments the whole expense of the enterprise, said to have reached one thousand talents. The Byzantines, too, made their submission at the same time.[58] [53] Strabo, xiv, p. 638; Schol. Aristeidês, t. iii, p. 485, Dindorf. [54] See the interesting particulars recounted respecting Sophoklês by the Chian poet, Ion, who met and conversed with him during the course of this expedition (Athenæus, xiii, p. 603). He represents the poet as uncommonly pleasing and graceful in society, but noway distinguished for active capacity. Sophoklês was at this time in peculiar favor, from the success of his tragedy, Antigonê, the year before. See the chronology of these events discussed and elucidated in Boeckh’s preliminary Dissertation to the Antigonê, c. 6-9. [55] Diodor. xi, 27. [56] Plutarch, Periklês, c. 26. Plutarch seems to have had before him accounts respecting this Samian campaign, not only from Ephorus, Stesimbrotus, and Duris, but also from Aristotle: and the statements of the latter must have differed thus far from Thucydidês, that he affirmed Melissus the Samian general to have been victorious over Periklês himself, which is not to be reconciled with the narrative of Thucydidês. The Samian historian, Duris, living about a century after this siege, seems to have introduced many falsehoods respecting the cruelties of Athens: see Plutarch, _l. c._ [57] It appears very improbable that this Thucydidês can be the historian himself. If it be Thucydidês son of Melêsias, we must suppose him to have been restored from ostracism before the regular time,—a supposition indeed noway inadmissible in itself, but which there is nothing else to countenance. The author of the Life of Sophoklês, as well as most of the recent critics, adopt this opinion. On the other hand, it may have been a third person named Thucydidês; for the name seems to have been common, as we might guess from the two words of which it is compounded. We find a third Thucydidês mentioned viii, 92—a native of Pharsalus: and the biographer, Marcellinus seems to have read of many persons so called (Θουκύδιδαι πολλοὶ, p. xvi, ed. Arnold). The subsequent history of Thucydidês son of Melêsias, is involved in complete obscurity. We do not know the incident to which the remarkable passage in Aristophanês (Acharn. 703) alludes,—compare Vespæ, 946: nor can we confirm the statement which the Scholiast cites from Idomeneus, to the effect that Thucydidês was banished and fled to Artaxerxes: see Bergk. Reliq. Com. Att. p. 61. [58] Thucyd. i, 117; Diodor. xii, 27, 28; Isokratês, De Permutat. Or. xv, sect. 118; Cornel. Nepos, Vit. Timoth. c. 1.