Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:40:37.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athens and Euboea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Harold B. Mattingly
Harold B. Mattingly
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The remarkably well-preserved treaty with Chalcis has long formed a fixed point in Attic epigraphy, since it is confidently associated with Pericles' suppression of the Euboean revolt in 446 B.C. But is this dating and interpretation really certain? From the decree itself we learn that it was modelled on similar arrangements for Eretria, of which fragments in Ionic script survive. Now Hesychios records a decree, passed ἐπὶ Διφίλον, which regulated the seizure of hostages from the wealthiest Eretrian families. The simplest hypothesis is that both this decree and a parallel one for Chalcis preceded D 16 and 17. But this lands us in serious difficulties. If ἐπὶ Διφίλον gives the archon-date we must put the extant decrees in 442/441, which is inconveniently late for the orthodox view. The alternative is to separate Hesychios' decree from D 16 and 17, as Gomme suggested. There would then have been new trouble in Eretria three years after the settlement, which necessitated fresh recourse to hostages. Now if we once allow that Athens could take such drastic action in peacetime, what guarantee have we that the Chalcis Decree represents the settlement after armed revolt? It also might be an example of arbitrary Athenian intervention in the face of suspected disloyalty. In trying to save orthodoxy we have exposed the weakness of its basis. Another line of defence proves even more damaging. It is fair to suggest that ἐπὶ Διφίλον does not after all give the archon-date. Very few decrees before 421 are dated by the archon either in their prescript or internally. The normal dating is by the secretary of Council for a particular prytany.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 81 , November 1961 , pp. 124 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 IG i2 39+; now most conveniently studied in Athenian Tribute Lists ii D 17 (plate x). See Tod i2 no. 42 (commentary on date, etc.) and p. 261.

2 D 17, 42 f.: IG i2 17+ (ATL ii D 16). See Schweigert, E., Hesp. vi (1937), 317 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 s.v. See D 17.47 ff.;

4 Photios certainly took Diphilos as the archon (s.v. ); For the dating problem see Gomme, A. W., Commentary on Thucydides i 343 f.Google Scholar; Wilamowitz, U. von, Hermes xx 481Google Scholar: Ziebarth, E. in IG xii 9.149.Google Scholar

5 Archon-dates are found in the Treaty, Segesta (IG i 2 19+, 3Google Scholar: ); the Decree, Miletus (IG i 222Google Scholar + = D 11, 63 and 88: ); the Sigeium Decree (IG i2 32+ = SEG x 13.5: only Av … survives of the name); the Rhegium and Leon tini Treaties (IG i2 51 +, 4 and 52 +, 8 = Tod nos. 57–8). In the ATL text of the Erythrai Decree (D 10.2) has been restored in the heading after the epistates, but the editors do not provide cogent grounds for their preference; there seems no good reason for abandoning the old view that the lambda is the first letter of the proposer's name (Tod i no. 29, p. 46). Meiggs', R. arguments (JHS lxiii (1943), 34Google Scholar) were valid only against Highby, 's text (Klio, Beiheft xxxvi 7).Google Scholar

6 See Arist. 'Αθ. Πολ., 54, 3 (of the ): For some good examples see IG i2 68/9 (SEG x 81: Boeotian exiles, 424/423), IG i2 87 (SEG x 80: Halieis Treaty, 424/423), 8–9 SEG x 15, IG i2 57 (D 3–6), IG i2 144 (SEG x 108),

7 Thuc. vii 34.3: Arist. loc. cit.

8 Scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps 718 (716 D): Gomme (op. cit. iii 592) is sceptical about this expedition, but concedes that ‘some quite small affair’ may have been omitted by Thucydides. A. E. Raubitschek, however, accepting Philochoros, linked the expedition with Athens' intrigues in Boeotia and the reorganisa tion of the Euboean τεμένη, to which IG i2 376 testifies; see Hesp. xii 28 ff. His attempt to correct Philochoros' date (to 426/425) was firmly rejected by F. Jacoby, who regards the expedition of 424/423 as a certainty; see FGH iii b (Suppl.) i 504 and ii 407 (on 328 F 130).

9 IG i2 49 a and b (SEG x 49). See Schweigert, E., Hesp. vi 322 f.Google Scholar and Meritt, B. D., Hesp. x 319 f.Google Scholar The degree's purport remains quite uncertain.

10 See Schweigert, E., Hesp. vi 317Google Scholar (letter-forms). On the use of Ionic script in Athens see Weston, E., AJP lxi 345 ff.Google Scholar: Meritt, , Hesp. xiii 215.Google Scholar The Phaselis Treaty is now normally dated c. 450; see Tod i no. 32 and Hopper, R. J., JHS lxxiii 41 f.Google Scholar But Wade-Gery, H. T. would put it back to the period 469–462 (Essays in Greek History (1958), 182–6Google Scholar). For Ionic in the 420's see ATL ii D 21 (IG i2 55+; the Aphytis Decree): SEG x 75 (IG ii2 71; Kleonymos' proxeny decree, 426/425): IG i2 25 (Tod no. 73 and SEG x 85: Athena Nike Decree, 424/423. Lines 6–11 are Ionic): the Treaty with Persia in 424/423 (see ATL iii 275 ff. and Sealey, R., Hist, iii 328.Google Scholar Sealey believes against ATL that the whole was in Ionic script, not just the ‘new’ heading).

11 It was probably carried on a separate slab surmounting D 17 and another decree for Chalkis on its left; see Tod i 82.

12 See IG i2 295, 20 f. and Thuc. i 51.4 (the MSS. have by error): RE v 1663 f. (Swoboda) and Tod. no. 55. For the generals of Antiochis see Hill, G. F., Sources for Greek History 2, (edited by Meiggs, R. and Andrewes, A.), 401 f.Google Scholar In 441/440 we find Cleitophon of Thora; for 439/438 Andrewes and D. M. Lewis have plausibly suggested Leon, (JHS lxxvii 179).Google Scholar

13 Pericles 32.3. See Swoboda, H., Hermes xxviii 536 and 582 ff.Google Scholar: Adcock, F. E., CAH v 477 ff.Google Scholar: Gomme, op. cit. ii 184 ff. (all prefer 430). Drakontides could have been general at the time and thus proposed the decree. But even 430 presents diffi culties. It is hard to reconcile the decree with the movements of Hagnon, who seems to have moved a rider. Adcock made him author of a later decree, amending the procedure in Pericles' case (p. 478). But this can hardly be read out of Plutarch.

14 For Cleon as the scourge of generals and Council see Knights 353 ff. (with Thuc. iv 27, 3–5) and 363. From Wasps 288 ff. and Peace 639 ff. we learn that he inspired rigorous inquiries among the allies into collusion with Brasidas; Wasps 474 ff. shows that Athenians were also implicated.

15 Wasps 240 ff. and 836–1008 ( prosecutes the dog ): SEG x 80 (IG i2 87+: the Halieis Treaty) and Thuc. iv 118, 11 (the Truce Decree). He fought at Delium in the autumn (Plato, , Symposium, 221 AGoogle Scholar). Cleon perhaps tried to make him finally responsible for the Sicilian failure in summer 424; compare Thuc. iv 65, 2–4 with Wasps 894 ff.

16 Thuc. i 57.6: IG i2 70 (SEG x 84), 10 and 40 f.: Edmonds, J. M., Fragments of Attic Comedy i 410 f.Google Scholar with ns. Hipponikos was general in 426/425 (Thuc. 91.4).

17 See Tod i 113 (on IG i2 352+).

18 Andoc. i 15; Lys. xviii 4, 9 f. and 21. See RE v 785. For Nicias in 424/423 see Thuc. iv 53 f. (Cythera), and 119.2 (Truce); and compare v 16.1.

19 Thuc. ii 21.3 and 54; viii 1.1. See also Knights 997–1097 and Birds 959–991.

20 Peace 1084 (Prytaneion); Lampon enjoyed the same privilege (Schol. Birds 521). Eupolis saluted Hierokles in his Cities as for its date see Edmonds, op. cit. 387 ff. (March 422?).

21 Lines 64 ff. Aristophanes calls Hierokles ὁ χρηαμολόγος οὑξ 'Ώρεοῦ (Peace 1047; cf. 1125 f.). Tod (i 85) suggests ‘perhaps he was rewarded for his prophecies by the grant of an estate there’. Why should he not have been simply one of the cleruchs sent to Hestiaia in 445? The use of the pre-cleruchy name (Theopompus apud Strabo x i 445: FGH 115 F 387) in 421 presumably implies an insinuation of alien birth, as the scholiasts recognise.

22 For the date of the Bottiaian Treaty see Gomme, op. cit. iii 622 and 633. Tod (i 167) made 33 f. provide for the return of the hostages to the Bottiaians.

23 For the date of IG i2 71 see Gomme, op. cit. iii 621 f., against ATL iii 313 ff., n. 61 (c. 436; see Thuc. i 57.2). In lines 33 ff. the weight of the clause falls on the participle (conditional), as in D 17, 15.

24 See Meritt, , Hesp. x 324Google Scholar for good comments on the unusual probouleuma of IG i2 70; Wilhelm, A. (Sitzber. Akad. Wien 1939, 56 and 71)Google Scholar had argued that the probouleuma ended in line 30, the rest being added by Hermodoros in the Assembly.

25 Thuc. iii 92.4 and 93.1.

26 See Thuc. iv 91; 96.9 and 97.1; 99. Athens intervened in Boeotia on the invitation of exiles and malcontents from Orchomenos, Thebes and elsewhere (Thuc. iv 76). As late as summer 423 Thebes was dealing severely with Thespiai for ἀττικισμός (Thuc. iv 133. 1). Boeotians were possibly behind the Euboean revolt of 446 (Euboean exiles had helped free Boeotia the previous year; Thuc. i 113.2); they encouraged and supported Mytilene in 428/427 (Thuc. iii 2.3 and 5.2); they largely engineered the Euboean revolt of 411 (Thuc. viii 60.1).

27 Hesp. xii 33.

28 213 D (on ); For 446/445 see Gomme, op. cit. i 345 and ATL iii 294 f., where the editors argue that the tribute of Eretria was reduced from 6 to 3, of Chalcis from 5 to 3 talents in the final settlement. The island's total tribute and its distribution can best be studied through the table in Hill, , Sources 1422 f.Google Scholar (based on ATL).

29 For the ATL dates see Meritt, , Ath. Fin. Doc. 3–25Google Scholar; Doc. Ath. Trib. 98–100; ATL i 192 f. For my view see Hist, x (1961) pp. 166–8.

30 See ATL i 271 and 439 (Eretria and Chalcis); 218 f., 257, 261, 263 ff., 387, 415 (other cities).

31 See ATL ii A 9 (IG i2 63+), 12–22: ATL iii 71 and 75 ff. Antiphon's speeches and were presumably delivered during a Reassessment, but not necessarily in 425; see Dover, K. J., CQ xliv 54.Google Scholar

32 Under the terms of ATL ii D 7 (IG i2 66+) and 8 (IG i2 65+) demands for payment were promptly lodged with defaulters after the Dionysia (see lines 22–28 and 16–18). For the tribute-ships see Meritt, 's brilliant demonstration (Studies in Honour of D. M. Robinson ii 298 ff.)Google Scholar that IG i2 97 (formerly linked with Melos, 416) is a decree of c. 430 establishing this specialised task-force. Meritt's new text appears as SEG xii 25. He has been powerfully backed by Eberhardt, W. (Hist, viii 298 ff.)Google Scholar against Treu, M.'s attempt to restore the status quo (Hist, iii 58).Google Scholar

33 D 17, 26 f. and 16.11 f. This clause is similarly interpreted in ATL iii 294 f. (but of 446/445).

34 D 17, 52 ff.: My view of the grammar is substantially that of Hicks, and Hill, (GHI 266 f.)Google Scholar, Tod (no. 42, p. 86) and ATL ii 72. There is strong scholarly support for identifying the exempted ξένοι mainly as Athenian metics (Hicks and Hill; see also the discussion in Tod), but the ἀτελεῖς surely include non-Athenian metics. The dogmatism of ATL iii 297 seems unjustified; the editors write of this clause ‘No class of non-Athenians could be so described; these must have been the klerouchs’. For them D 17, 52–57 becomes ‘the clearest reference to Athenian klerouchs in Chalkis’. For this cleruchy, which has been doubted, see n. 57. Athenian metics were liable for military service in the fifth century (Thuc. ii 13.7 and 31.2); they are found paying εἰσφορά regularly in the fourth (RE v 2150 and xv 1447 f.).

35 IG i2 144 and 155+ (SEG x 108): Hesp. x 328 ff.: Plutarch Nicias 12.4 and Alcib. 18.2.

36 This point emerges clearly from study of all the decrees in IG i2 and SEG x which have their prescripts preserved. IG i2 144 cannot be of 424/423, since Phainippos (not Archikles) was then secretary of the Akamantid prytany (Thuc. iv 118.7).

37 See ATL ii D 7 (IG i2 65+): Meriti, , Doc. Ath. Trib. 3–42.Google Scholar

38 See Meiggs, R., CR lxiii 9–12Google Scholar for a good treatment of the evidence.

39 See Menu's, study of IG i 268Google Scholar/9+ (SEG x 81) in Hesp. xiv 105–15 (especially 113). ἀτελεία does not appear in the extant text, but this is very fragmentary. Potamodoros and Eurytion certainly received ἀτελεία; in the text as restored (IG i2 70+ = SEG x 84.12 f.) it is qualified by If this is correct it fits in neatly with Meritt's reconstruction of IG i2 144+, 24 ff. (Proxenides), where the limits are specified. The editors restore in IG i2 70, 14, which implies normal residence elsewhere; IG i2 103 (SEG x 114), 11 f. could be restored (or ) They might well have found it expedient to leave Euboea in 412/411, when discontent there was growing towards open revolt (Thuc. viii 60.1).

40 Thuc. i 114.3; Plutarch, Per. 23.4 Gelon and Hieron had set the example in Sicily (Her. vii 156: Diod. xi 49.1–2).

41 Thuc. ii 27.1 (Aegina); 70.3–4 (Poteidaia); iii 68 (Plataea); iii 36.2 and 49 (Mytilene); iv 122.6 (Scione); v 1.1 (Delos). The promise to Chalcis was conditional on loyal obedience to Athens (D 17, 14 ff.); if that failed all the guarantees lapsed.

42 See Gomme, , CR I 7 ff.Google Scholar and op. cit. i 342 f. with ns. He insists that ἔφεαις means ‘compulsory reference’ (to an Athenian court), not ‘a right of appeal’; the same point is well made by Hopper, R. J., JHS liii 37.Google Scholar Wade-Gery, however, makes ἔφεσις ‘appeal against a judgement’ (however provisional); see Essays in Greek History, 192–5.

43 (of the hostages). Tod equates this with τὸ φσέφισμα of line 76 (no. 42, P. 84).

44 Ch. 47: The defendant, a Mytilenean, was being tried at Athens for murder and we learn from ch. 60 f. that Lykinos could have prosecuted Herodes there on a capital charge. There is no evidence that Herodes was a cleruch (pace Gomme, op. cit. i 242) nor is it likely that Lykinos was an Athenian. The three men were presumably all Lesbian. Gomme apparently came round to this view; see op. cit. ii 331 n. 2 (following Roussel, P., Mél. Glotz 817 ff.Google Scholar).

45 See ‘Xen.’, Ἀθ. Πολ., i 14–16; Aristoph, . Wasps 288 ff.Google Scholar: Peace 639 f.; Birds 1454 fr.; Thuc. i 77.1; Isoc. iv 113 and xii 63 and 66. See Gomme, op. cit. i 241 ff. and Hopper, op. cit. 36 f. The decree must fall after that for Erythrai, which was allowed capital jurisdiction even in cases of treason to the Confederacy; see ATL ii D 10 (IG i2 10+), 29 ff.

46 D 8 (IG i2 65+): D 3–4 (IG i2 57), 13 ff. and 41 ff.: IG i2 76 (Tod, no. 74). The archon's name is not included in the prescript of the last decree; this recommends Ziehen's dating (423/422; see Prott/ Ziehen, Leges Graecorum sacrae e titulu collectae ii 25) against attempts to put it after the Peace of Nicias. For full bibliography see SEG x 110 and xii 34.

47 Thuc. iv 130.7. Gomme contrasts the concession with the Chalcis clause as representing a ‘greater degree of autonomy’ (op. cit. i 342 n. 2).

48 See D 7, 31–43; the law-court decides D 8 apparently made the ἐκλογεῖς liable (lines 5 ff.) if a city defaulted; by 43 ff. any offending against the decree are to be tried at Athens, again with the possibility of a purely pecuniary penalty (50 ff.). D 14 § 4 has been plausibly restored to read The context proves that they are local officials.

49 Hesp. xii 32 f. (on IG i2 376+ = SEG x 304). τεμένη are recorded at Chalcis (lines 3, 11 and 22), Eretria (9 and 14), Poseideion? (16 and 26) and Hestiaia (6).

50 See Dem. xx 115 (nothing about Aristides): Plut. Arist. 27.2. Raubitschek discusses the identity of this Alcibiades (loc. cit.), deciding for the famous bearer of the name. Alcibiades will have proposed the decree when chairman of the τακταί in 425 (‘Andocides’ iv 11). But if he ever held this office it must have been in 422/421, since only then was he old enough for membership of the Council; see RE i 1517 ff.

51 See Plut. Per. 7.8 (from an unknown comedy): Aristoph. Wasps 715 fr.: Isoc. iv 107–9, especially

52 Per. 27.4: Thuc. i 114.3.

53 vi 1. See Serta Harteliana 28 ff., and E. Ziebarth in IG xii 9, p. 149.

54 See Her. v 77 (cf. vi 100 f.) and the epigram which he quotes; two copies survive (Tod, no. 12 and 43; see p. 87). The line may have suggested Aelian's

55 ATL iii 296 (emending τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν to τὸ δὲ λοιπόν). See also Gomme, op. cit. i 344 n. 1 and Arist. Ἀθ. Πολ. 47.4

56 Only the Hestiaian τέμενος need be as early as 446/445 (SEG x 304.6). For the Poletai records of 414/413 see SEG xiii 12–22, Stele i 90 and vi 151 (Eretria); ii 178 and 312 (Lelantine Plain). Raubitschek identified Panaitios, lessee of the Hestiaian τέμενος, with one of the Hermocopidai (op. cit. 31 and n. 65). Oionios' holding in the Lelantine Plain could be part of Athena's τέμενος which Aelian locates there. For Cos and Samos see Inscriptions of Cos (Paton and Hicks) no. 148; SEG i 375 f., BCH viii 160 and IGA 8. For this point see further Gomme, op. cit. i 347 n. 2.

57 Plutarch does not say that Athenians were settled, as Gomme well noted (op. cit. i 344 f.), supporting Nesselhauf, 's view (Klio, Beiheft xxx 135 ff.)Google Scholar that the land was leased out to Chalcidian smallholders. For Lesbos see Gomme, op. cit. ii 326–32 and Meritt, , AJP lxxv 361–8.Google Scholar For Samos see Thuc. viii 21 and IG i2 mi as restored with commentary by Lewis, D. M. in BSA xlix 29 ff.Google Scholar (SEG xiv 9, 4–8). The ATL arguments for a real cleruchy at Chalcis (iii 295 ff.) are ingenious, but inconclusive; for another cleruchy at Eretria they can adduce only Thuc. viii 95.6 (an Athenian τείχισμα in their plain). There seems to be a suggestion of at least partial expulsion of Chalcidians in Thuc. vi 76.2; Her. vii 156 (on Gelon and Sicilian Megara) surely reflects the typically Athenian reasoning on which such a policy rested.

58 For doubts about Herodotus' cleruchy see Macan, R. W., Herodotus, Bk. iv–vi i 222.Google Scholar

59 See IG i Suppl. 27 a for a facsimile: Tod i 82: ATL ii pl. x. For Ionic H (line 77) compare IG i2 57, 41 and 52 (D 4; inscribed 424/423).

60 For a good statement of the orthodox position see Raubitschek, , AJP lxxi 477 ff.Google Scholar and Hesp. xii 18 n. 1. D. M. Lewis was very hesitant, in view of this dogma, in suggesting 445 as the date for the Aegina Decree with three-barred sigma (BSA xlix 22). Within such narrow limits is it confining scholarship.

61 See Meritt, , Doc. Ath. Trib. 40 f. and 59 f.Google Scholar: Raubitschek, loc. cit. (before 445): Hill, B. H. and Meritt, , Hesp. xiii 1 ff.Google Scholar (448/447).