Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:07:24.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thucydides the Son of Melesias: A Study of Periklean Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

H. T. Wade-Gery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the crisis of Perikles' career, in the middle 'forties, Thucydides of the deme Alopekê, the son of Melesias, withstood the great man for a little while, until he was swept aside. He was ostracised (the last important ostracism of which we hear) and with that Perikles begins his fifteen years' principate.

Impar congressus Achilli, Thucydides is damned by another Latin tag also: he is magni nominis umbra. Thucydides, for us and for most ancient writers, means the son of Oloros, the historian; and it has long been recognised that the second Vita prefixed to our texts of Thucydides' History contains information about the son of Melesias. The difficulty of disentangling him from his namesakes, more perhaps than the overtoweringness of his rival, has deterred historians from constating about the son of Melesias things which I think can yet be constated and should be. For indeed Kimon's political heir, who resisted Perikles on behalf of the Attic aristocracy, in the days when this aristocracy (to Athens' own irreparable damage) was being ruined, is a sufficiently important figure.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , 1932 , pp. 205 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1932

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 See Appendix Busolt, A., GG. III. 1. pp. 442 and 497 Google Scholar sq., is rather doubtful how far the reference to Melesias' son may be safely assumed. The identification of Melesias (v. infra) enables me to claim for his son with more confidence certain hitherto doubtful passages.

2 I regret extremely that Kirchner, Beiträge zur Geschichte attischer Familien in the Festschrift für d. Berl. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Gymnasium (Berlin, 1897)Google Scholar, in which he disentangles these namesakes, is inaccessible to me. Its conclusions are incorporated in the Prosopogr. Attica.

3 Méautis, , L'Aristocratie athénienne, Paris, 1927, pp. 17 sqq. Google Scholar

4 Plut. Perikles 11. 1, . Cf. 6.2. δυεῑν οὐσῶν ἐν τῆ πϲλει δυναστειῶν: and Vita Anon. Thuc. §§ 6–7 (see Appendix A).

5 There is no other indication of exact date. A fragment of the Θρᾷτται of Kratinos (quoted Plut. Perikles 13. 10) mentions τсὔστρακον but should probably not be referred to this time; since another fragment mentions Euathlos, who is still a young man in 425. Geissler, , Chronologie der altattische Komödie, pp. 21–22 Google Scholar.

6 .

7 The ostracism is the ultimate result (14. 3, τέλος δὲ) of the rivalry of which this is an (early) instance. The rivalry was a matter of years (8. 5, πλεῑστον ἀντεπολττεύσατο χρόνον).

8 Amer. Hist. Rev. 35, pp. 267 sqq. Google Scholar

9 I imagine the crisis of 446 was staged when the Spartans went to Delphi, probably in 448: we find the confederates in West Boeotia next year (Thuc. I. 113. 2). For Tolmides is aware of it, and first takes a cleruchy to Euboea (Diod. XI. 88. 3: Andok. Peace 9) and then seeks to nip the bud of revolt in West Boeotia. He succeeds in precipitating events in that one area: the rest synchronises, according to plan, with the expiry of the Five Years' Truce.

10 Pindar's view: in its extremest form in Pythian VIII, to which I come soon.

11 The system is described in Plut. Perikles 11. The Bouleutai, in 410 and thenceforth, have to swear to take their seats by lot; Philochoros fr. 119, FHG.; the Class War, Thuc. III. 82–84. The judgment of Aristotle, , Αθ. πολ. XXVIII. 5 Google Scholar, is emphatic that Thucydides himself was not a mere class leader. He stands indeed half-way between Kimon and Kritias.

12 , Plato, , Laches 179 b, c Google Scholar.

13 Solon, fr. 19 (Diehl, Anth. Lyr.), line 9.

14 And therefore born about 520: not later certainly, nor, I think, much earlier.

15 RevPhil. 1929, pp. 28 sqq. Google Scholar

16 I have omitted the difficult line 709, which deserves further attention.

17 Kirchner, , Prosop. Att. 7268 Google Scholar: van Leeuwen, , Acharnenses (Leiden, 1901), p. 121 Google Scholar: Rennie, , Acharnians (London, 1909), pp. 197 sqq. Google Scholar

18 ‘Apparet cum patrem tum filios luctae fuisse peritissimos’: van Leeuwen on Ar. Ach. 703 sqq.

19 See Appendix C. I hope to deal elsewhere in detail with the chronology of all Pindar's Aeginetan Odes (Melesias' pupils are all Aeginetans).

20 Melesias was an Athenian, sch. Nem. IV. 155a. [The suggestion in the inscriptio to O. VIII. (Drachm. pp. 236, line 2, 237, line 12), that he was Aeginetan, is evidently guesswork.]

21 Line 49: , ‘the masters all come from Athens.’ This suggests to me that Pindar was especially interested in the other Athenian, i.e. that Melesias was already his personal friend.

22 The historian inherits, on his mother's side, both Miltiades' blood (if her name be Hegesipyle) and the statesman's name (if it be the statesman who brought the name Thucydides into Miltiades' family). The historian inherits the latter on his mother's side, since the statesman cannot be father of Oloros (their demes are different).

23 Αθ. πολ. XXVIII. 2 Google Scholar: Plut., Perikles 11 Google Scholar, § 1.

24 Γαμβρός most often means son-in-law, but by no means always: e.g. Herod. I. 73. Astyages is γαμβρός of Croesus, having married his sister Aryenis. It means someone who has married into the family: Croesus could not be called γαμβρός of Astyages.

25 I.e. Melesias in his youth won the boys' wrestling and the men's pankration.

26 Puech, , Olympiques, p. 104 Google Scholar.

27 Nemean IV. 93: VI. 63. For the argot, see the editors ad loca; also Bury's Nemean Odes, Appendix A, notes 5 and 7, for some ingenious suggestions; is interesting.

28 Puech, , Olympiques, pp. 101–2Google Scholar.

29 Olympian VIII. 28–9, .

30 The most vivid contemporary document is the Eumenides of Aeschylus, played in the spring of 458. See Livingstone, , The Problem of the Eumenides, JHS. XLV. 1925, pp. 120 sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Thuc. I. 107. 4: Plut. Kimon 17. 4–9: Perikles 10. 1–5. The appearance of Kimon on the battle-field and his recall after the battle, are flourishes of fourth-century rhetoric.

32 IG. I2. 24: Welther, , AM. XLVIII. 1923, pp. 190 sqq. Google Scholar; Vom Nikepyrgos. For the Ionic lettering of the Peace (Theopomp. fr. 154, Jacoby) cf. IG. I2. 16.

33 Ionian hoplites fight at Tanagra: Perikles dares not use them in 431.

34 Wilamowitz says of Perikles: Er hat sein Volk, das ueber Rhodos und Miletos gebot, allerdings zum Herrn auch ueber Sparta und Korinth machen wollen: die Herrschaft in Hellas war sein Programm 462: er hat es trotz den Zwischenstreichen der kimonischen Politik und trotz dem schweren Frieden von 445 nicht geändert ( Arist. und Athen, II. 98 Google Scholar). It was harder after 445. The loss of the Land Empire meant beginning again: it meant also, that henceforth hoplites and farmers count little, sailors and cockneys much. This caused, if not all the harm the conservatives imagined, at least the discontent of valuable citizens. The fears of 457 (Thuc. I. 107. 4) are realised by the evacuation in 431 (Thuc. II. 14–16). For the good old days of the Land Empire, , see Aristoph., Ekkles. 303 sqq. Google Scholar: Iament over the hoplite, Plato, Laws, 706c–707b: cf. Xen., Hipparch. 7 Google Scholar (the cares little about beating the Boeotians).

35 There was also something of a famine: sch. Ar. Wasps, 718, IG. I2. 31.

36 Vide supra, p. 206.

37 , 97, and , 8–9. The detail of the passages referred to is: [Light] 21–2, 70–1, 22–3, 68, 1 sqq., 96–7, 97: [Darkness] 51–3, 6–17, 73–82, 94.

38 See Appendix D.

39 I do not know how Pindar's poems were published. It is quite possible that Thucydides was one of the house party at Aegina, or at least met members of it. The host (Aristomenes' father) was Xenarkes: a comparison of P. VIII. 70–71 with N. IV. 12 makes me suspect some play on the name, and that Xenarkes was perhaps there when Nemean IV was sung. If so, he and Melesias were fellow-guests. And Thucydides did not drop his Aeginetan friends: at least, I infer from the malicious tale in Vita Anon. Thuc. 7 (cf. Marcell., Vita 24 Google Scholar) that he spent part of his ten years of ostracism with them. (The story cannot apply to the historian, since Aegina became a cleruchy in 431, Thuc. II. 27. There is difficulty indeed about the son of Melesias, if we accept the inevitable correction ἐκτὸς for εντος in the law of 480, Αθ. πολ. 22. 8: yet laws may be broken.)—For other possible connexions of Xenarkes and the, see Xenarkes the great Akarnanian pankratiast (?) in Paus. VI. 2. § 1–2 (on which passage cf. Robert, in Hermes 35. 176)Google Scholar, and the name Meidylides current in Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries (Prosop. Att. 9731–9734).

40 Acropolis Museum Catalogue, No. 631. Pindar was in youth passionately devoted to Athens and had lived there. The Panathenaia commemorated Athena's defeat of the Giant Asterios (Aristotle fr. 637): she is armed, with raised spear, on the Panathenaic amphoras (which Pindar, liked, Nem. X. 35–6Google Scholar).

41 ‘You cannot drop the Empire now, not though loss of nerve in the crisis drive some to make a virtue of inaction. For what you have now is like a tyranny, which (so it seems) it is wrong to take but unsafe to let go. Men of the sort I mean quickly ruin a city, if anyone listens to them, or if anywhere they are their own masters: since the inactive cannot survive except by the support of the active: and the safety of submission may do for a subject city, but not for a leading Power.’

42 The way to ruin the Empire is ‘quietism and aristocratic niceness’: , according to Alkibiades in 416 (Thuc. VI. 18. 2). That whole speech is the last and desperate plea against acquiescence in the dualism, which has now become almost canonised.

43 IG. I2. 51 and 52. The treaties were renewed in 433-2, after the battle of Sybota: that is the date of the existing prescripts. The texts of the treaties are about ten years older (IG. ad loca). [This can be verified on the stone easily: 51 is in the British Museum.]

44 Each successive Athenian attempt at domination involved more destruction: though of course never anything comparable to Rome's record in Italy.

45 See, e.g., Busolt, , GG. III. 2, p. 763 Google Scholar, note 6, Beloch, , Att. Polit. 299 Google Scholar. Yet personally I am convinced that Phormion made it in the spring of 432, and that the previous seizure of Argos (Thuc. II. 68. 6) is parallel to the seizure of Anaktorion (I. 55. 1), two attempts by Korinth, on the morrow of Sybota, to secure at least the Ambrakiot Gulf. Thucydides' narrative of near-western events is not continuous after the battle of Sybota; and Phormion had time for such action before he was sent to Poteidaia. [I think the appearance of Poteidaia and Strepsa in the Quota List of 433-2 is decisive against putting the events of Thuc. I. 59–62 before the spring of 432. See Jacoby, , Thukyd. und d. Vorgesch. d. Pelop. Krieges, in Gött. Nachr. 1928 Google Scholar: Kolbe, , Ein Beitrag zur Ekrlärung d. I. Buches in Thukyd. im Lichte d. Urkunden (Stuttgart, 1930)Google Scholar: Pohlenz, in Gött. gel. Anz. 1932, pp. 21–28 Google Scholar: Keil, in PhW. 1932, 513–518 Google Scholar.

46 See Koerte in Noack, Eleusis (1927), p. 313 Google Scholar; Dinsmoor, , Archons of Athens (1932), p. 340 Google Scholar; Merritt, , Ath. Financ. Documents (1932), p. 172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 I.e. after peace with Persia, and before the Parthenon was begun. Keulen in doubting the latter gravely misconceives the programme of the Congress: e.g. p. 240, ‘ut communi sumptu et certa ratione tota Graecia artis operibus exornetur.’ Perikles said : the Persians did not burn temples all over Greece. The land they most ravaged was Attica: the temples to be rebuilt are imprimis the Akropolis temples: and then perhaps Hera in Xypete ( AJA. 1929, p. 400 Google ScholarPubMed) and a few in the still intact Land Empire (Abai, Haliartos; Paus. X. 35. 2); which in the event were left ruined (Paus. l.c.): some too in Ionia (Isokr. IV. 156): but none in Peloponnese or in any Korinthian sphere. Again, after the Peace of 445 there was no question who should police the seas: Athens, out of the tribute of her now acknowledged Empire! In fact, the two questions before the Congress were: (1) Who should pay for the Parthenon? (2) Who should pay for the Athenian fleet? Questions actual enough on the morrow of the Peace with Persia, when the indemnity had been foregone and the tribute had become questionable (cf. West, , Am. Hist. Rev. 35, pp. 267 sqq. Google Scholar; and even if West's general thesis be denied, there is the Quota List of 448-7 of about one-third the normal length; it is decisive as to the questionableness of tribute payment). In 445 these questions were settled.

48 Thouria is the Thucydidean form: his usage is probably constant, Thouria for the town (VI. 61. 7, 88. 9, VII. 33. 5, 6), Thourias for the land (VII. 35. 1), Thourioi for the people (VI. 61. 6, 104. 3). [Pappritz (see next note) curiously denies this in VII. 33: he says Thouria there means the land, and translates VII. 33. 5: ‘they met (in the district) the anti-Athenians expelled (from the town).’ I think no one will doubt that the words really mean ‘they found (on arrival at the town) that the anti-Athenians had just been expelled.’] On the coins, Thourioi (like Athenaioi, etc.) means the people. Thourioi for the town, ps.-Andok. IV. 12. The Roman form varies, but Thurii has good authority.

49 The mid-century coins of Sybaris-Thouria reveal three stages: (1) Sybaris proper, (2) an Atticised Sybaris, (3) Thouria. This enables us to disentangle the confused narratives, and constate that Athens reinforced the Sybarites probably in 446-5; quarrelled with them; and sent out a fresh colony in 444-3 (, ps.-Plutarch 835c) led by the oracle-expert Lampon, who determined the new site of Thouria. Diodoros confuses the Sybaris and Thouria missions. It is not more than a slight anachronism of language, when Aristotle (Pol. 1303a) puts the quarrel with the Sybarites (Strab. VI. 1. 13, Diod. XII. 11. 1–2) , among the Thourians. The detail is in Busolt, , GG. III. 1. pp. 518 sqq. Google Scholar, who follows Pappritz, , Thurii (Berlin, 1890 Google Scholar: this dissertation, though unmethodical and full of misprints, is still most useful).

50 The stream of discontented allies to Thouria (ps.-Andok. IV. 12) will hardly have begun by then. For the influence of Kleandridas, see Appendix E.

51 I judge from the Thourian tribe-names (Diod. XII. 11. 3): the Peloponnesians who took part come from Achaia, Arkadia, Elis. A possible share in the tribe Doris was hardly proportionate to Korinth's pretensions.

52 Mr. O'Neill will excuse me if I quote a sentence of his (p. 193) and deliberately misdate it. ‘Modern historians do not sufficiently bring out the helplessness of Corinth at this stage of her history.’ He writes this of the later 'fifties: it is true, I believe, of 440 also. War with Athens could hardly fail to be disastrous to Korinth and she knew it. After Sybota, in 433, she was just desperate: the war ruined her more surely than Athens.

53 . Plato, , Meno, 94 d Google Scholar. This agrees well with the Panhellenism of Thouria: the tribes there were named Arkas, Achais, Eleia, Boiotia, Amphiktyonis, Doris, Ias, Athenais, Eubois, Nesiotis (Diod. XII. 11. 3).

54 Strabo, VI. 1. 13, speaks (at this stage already) of ‘Athenians and other Hellenes’—i.e. Athenian allies.

55 Lampon and Xenokritos: Diod. XII. 10. 3: Photius, s.v. θουριομάνεις (see Appendix E).

56 The Anonymus intends it for the historian: but I think it certain that his ultimate source meant it for the son of Melesias. See Appendix A.

57 There was, naturally, little mutual confidence between the ‘Periklean’ founders and the ‘Thucydidean’ colonists whom they had to lead. See Diod. XII. 35. 1.

58 The treaties with Leontinoi and Rhegion may belong to that year, and mark the resumption of imperial ambition. The Quota-List for 443–2 (SEG. V. Titulus xii) more certainly reflects Perikles' new security: the five Provinces of the Empire (Ionia Hellespont, Thrace, Karia, Islands) appear for the first time; and in 443–2 and 442–1 the Hellenotamiai have an additional secretary, to cope with the new organisation.

The Chairman of the Hellenotamiai in 443–2 (as we know from the same document) was the poet Sophokles: who is thus one of Perikles' right-hand men at the critical moment. In 441–0 he was elected Strategos—on the strength of his Antigone, we are told (Antigone ὑπόθεσις), which was thus produced in the spring of 441. The Athenian people saw statesmanship in the play, and deemed its author a proper man for the highest Executive. We should not forget this in reading it: for it is, as it were, the στάσιμον following the violent ἐπεισόδιον of the 'forties. [The picture of Sophokles as a munitions profiteer, in AJPh. XLVII, 1926, pp. 358–360 Google Scholar, seems to me malicious.]

59 Nine, from ten tribes: which tribe is left out? I have given elsewhere ( ClQu. 25, 1931, p. 89 Google Scholar) my reasons for inferring from Plato, , Laws 759 Google Scholar D, the following, viz.: the whole Demos elects one Strategos from each of the ten tribes; then he of the ten elected who has fewest votes is dropped.

60 See the lists in Beloch, , GG.2 II. 2. pp. 260 sqq. Google Scholar This full list is quoted in a scholium first published complete by Wilamowitz, , De Rhesi Scholiis, p. 13 Google Scholar.

61 He has a colleague from his own tribe in 433–2 and 432–1. We have no details between 439 and 433.

62 Cf. sch. Ar. Wasps 947.

63 Carcopino, in support of his untenable thesis that the ostracisés never stayed away their full ten years, proposes to identify him with the Thucydides in Thuc. I. 117. 2 (Hist. de l'Ostrac. athen. pp. 210 sqq.). This is quite groundless.

64 Plut., Perikles 32 Google Scholar: Diod. XII. 39. 2.

65 Quoted by Diog. Laert. II. 12.

66 A considerable fragment of Satyros, dealing with Anaxagoras' influence on Euripides, has been found at Oxyrhynchos: Ox. Pap. IX. 1176 Google Scholar. The statement quoted by Diogenes Laertius was probably parenthetic to the Life of Euripides.

67 On the Date of the Trial of Anaxagoras, ClQu. 1917, 81 sqq. Google Scholar It is agreed he lived from about 500 to soon after 430: the question at issue is where, in that space, his Athenian period comes. On this the ancient statements are contradictory (the materials in Diels, Vorsokratiker). Since therefore there has been definite error somewhere, it is unsafe to argue (as Prof. Taylor does constantly) from the necessary implications of our sources. It is not safe to say what Demetrios meant by the entry in his Archontes (ClQu. p. 81). That Isokrates, XV. 235, ‘states in so many words that Anaxagoras' connexion with Perikles went back to the early years of the latter’ is untrue: what he does say applies to Damon equally, and it is notorious that Perikles was Damon's ‘pupil’ late in life, Plato, , Alkib. I. 118 c Google Scholar. No one suggests that Anaxagoras ‘died almost as soon as he reached Lampsakos’ (ClQu. p. 85), for even if he was condemned in 433, he lived there five years: and the ‘doxographers' tradition’ that Archelaos ‘succeeded Anaxagoras and was succeeded by Sokrates’ (so in effect ClQu. p. 86 top) is (a) not a safe inference from the statements (D. Laert. II. 16, Suidas Ἀρχέλαος) that he was pupil of Anaxagoras and teacher of Sokrates, and ( Clement, , Strom. I. 63 Google Scholar) that Anaxagoras was succeeded by Archelaos, Sokrates' master: (b) sufficiently accounted for if Eusebios is right ( Prep. Ev. X. 14, § 13Google Scholar) in saying that Archelaos took over the Lampsakos school, presumably in 427.

Prof. Taylor has been more decidedly answered by Derenne, M. in Les Procès d'Impiété (Liége-Paris 1930)Google Scholar. I did not know his book when I wrote this note: which I leave, since it puts the negative case as strongly as I am prepared to. The positive arguments for 433 are well marshalled by M. Derenne, pp. 34 sqq.: especially the anecdote in Plut., Per. 6 Google Scholar, §§ 2–3, which presupposes that Anaxagoras was in Athens in the middle 'forties; Plato, , Cratylus 409A Google Scholar, ; and the likelihood of a reference to Anaxagoras' trial and exile in Eurip., Medea 292–301 and 214–224 (spring of 431 B.C.)Google Scholar.

68 Plut., Perikles 32 Google Scholar, : sc. just before the beginning of the war.

69 It is pretty certain that the trial of (i.e. Perikles: sch. Ar. Knights 969) cannot be so early in her career as c. 450. Her crime was ἀσεβεία, Athen. XIII. 589E: she apparently gave her girls the names of the Muses (sch. Hermog. in Walz, , Rhet. Gr. VII. 165 Google Scholar). Some at least of this information must come from the documents of the trial.

70 II. 64. 3–4. Moreover, Thucydides, the scientist aiming at control and power, is in strong reaction against Pindar's acquiescent obscurantism which culminates in P. VIII. 73–77. Contrast, e.g., Th. I. 144. 4, V. 111. 3, VIII. 27: and see, for his intellectual affinities, Cochrane, , Thucydides and the Science of History (Oxf. Univ. Press, 1929)Google Scholar.

71 II. 65. 9–10.

72 VI. 15. 4: cf. 28. 2 and II. 65. 11.

73 I. 70, 71: especially 70. 9, .

74 Ultimately, perhaps, from Stesimbrotos (see Athen. 589D).

75 Its recurrence in both the Sybaris and Aegina stories suggests that this whole narrative (§§ 6–7) hangs together and refers en bloc to the son of Melesias.

76 He is perhaps a Kataskopos (cf. Thuc. IV. 27. 3): does not necessarily imply a private visit, even in good Greek: e.g. Derkylidas is because he likes foreign commands, Xen., Hell. IV. iii. 2 Google Scholar.

77 : otherwise unknown. Lipsius in his revision of Meier-Schoemann, Att. Process, withholds any opinion of its content: and in his Att. Recht. he leaves it unnoticed. It can hardly be bribery ( Αθ. πολ. XXVII. 5 Google Scholar). Possibly a form of ἀπάτη, ‘failure to substantiate,’ cf. Dem. XX. 100, .

78 Parthenon, , IG. I 2. 339–353 Google Scholar: Chryselephantine Statue, ib. 354–362. The latter contains no moneys received from Hellenotamiai.

79 JHS. XLIV. 1924, pp. 5 sqq. Google Scholar

80 I do not think could mean ‘spend on state purposes, i.e. the war.’ See my note in JHS. LI, 1931, pp. 84 sq. Google Scholar

81 This is against the custom of the excerptor.

82 See Wilcken, l.c. p. 403.

83 Line 15, Paus. VI. 18. 7.

84 Lines 24–26 have echoes in Pyth. I. 43–45, Ol. II. 89: compare also line 57 with Ol. II. 32–3, and line 30 with Pyth. I. 94.

85 See Pausanias' dedication, quoted Athenaeus XII. 50 (p. 536B).

86 Plut., Themistokles 20 Google Scholar. 1: for the date, Beloch, , GG 2. II. 1, p. 62, II. 2, p. 190Google Scholar: Busolt, , GG. III. 1, p. 83 Google Scholar: Lehmann-Haupt, , Klio, XVII, pp. 67–73 Google Scholar: Heichelheim, , Zeitschr. f. Num. XL (1930), pp. 17–22 Google Scholar: Johnston, , Hermathena XLVI (1931), pp. 106–111 Google Scholar. Leotychidas was deposed in consequence of this campaign (Hdt. VI. 72): this must be after the poem of Timokreon quoted Plut. Them. 21.4 was written (I think this invalidates the date given in CAH. V. 466 Google Scholar). I believe the seven years between this deposition (476) and the ‘accession of Archidamos’ (469, see Plut., Kimon. 16 Google Scholar. 4) are probably due to Archidamos' minority, and are the real cause of the famous seven years' error in Diodoros' dates for the Eurypontid Kings ( Meyer, , Forsch. II. 504 sqq.)Google Scholar.

87 My instances are from the historians. We find the word in more private senses in, e.g., Lysias VII. 1, IX. 4, ‘keeping oneself to oneself.’

88 Eurip., Suppl. 576–7Google Scholar. Contrast the ironical opening of the Herakleidai. The case is formally argued both ways in the scene between Zethos and Amphion in the Antiope: see von Arnim, Supplementum Euripideum, pp. 11–15 Google Scholar.

89 Philologus, LXXXI, 1925, pp. 129 sqq. Google Scholar

90 Aristotle regards Nikias as successor to the son of Melesias: Αθ. πολ. XXVIII. § 2–3 Google Scholar: ib. § 5.

91 Plut., Perikles 22. 3Google Scholar: Diod. XIII. 106. 10.

92 Polyainos II. 10: Strabo VI. 1. 14.

93 Plut., Lysandros 16–17 Google Scholar: Diod. XIII. 106. 8–10: Suidas Ἔφοροι.

94 Diod. XV. 54: codd. Λεανδριας.

95 This is the force of the middle, , cf. , VI. 43. 2: Gylippos ‘revived’ his dead father's citizenship exactly as Alkibiades meant to revive his dead grandfather's proxeny. The middle voice is decisive against translating ‘he revived (in Thouria) the Constitution of Kleandridas’: nor indeed was Gylippos in a position to make constitutional changes. The Thourians had had to admit him because they had under-estimated his fleet (Thuc. VI. 104. 3), but they refuse to help him (104. 2) and continue to help Nikias (VII. 57. 11, cf. 33. 6).

95a Problemata Heft 2, Berlin 1931 Google ScholarPubMed.

96 There is no chronological implication in the passage: and if there were, it would have little weight in a passage primarily ‘eidological,’ by a man with little concern for [and therefore little grasp of] the time-dimension. The ingenious dilemma on pp. 88–89, as to Diodoros XI. 88 and 85, rests on the fallacy that Diodoros required some cogent reason before assigning an event to a given year. Since he had to assign every single event he mentions to some specific year, he could not afford to be so fastidious.

97 : the text then becomes obscure, but it appears that Diodoros' source (and not his own arbitrary framework) synchronised the two cleruchies.

98 In 450–49 they pay just under fourteen talents.

99 in 441–0, 435–4, 433–2.

100 See Plut., Per. 19 Google Scholar, §1. When Lysander sent them home after Aigospotamoi, the gap was felt: Xen., Hell. III. ii. 8–10 Google Scholar.

101 Alopekonnesos pays separately in 451–0 and 450–49. Is Πακτυ - - in 451–0, the town of Paktye, or rather Pakty[es] the ruler of the Ιδυμες; in Ionia? West and Merritt seem to imply the latter in their index to SEG. V.

102 It is probable they all appeared from 447–6 onwards. The following names are extant: Limnai Elaious 447–6, Limnai Elaious Sestos 446–5, Elaious Sestos 445–4, Limnai Elaious Sestos Madytos 444–3 and 443–2. There is in each case ample room on the stone for the missing names. The aggregate for all the separate towns (including Alopekonnesos and Agora) is about two and a half talents: e.g. in 435–4.