No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
In ch. ii I argued that at its foundation the Delian League was an alliance of willing members, whose autonomy was taken for granted, the objectives of which included the protection of Greek states which were already free, and the liberation of those which were not, from the Persians. In ch. iii I placed in the 470s the capture of Eïon from the Persians; the capture of Scyros and its settlement by Athens; the war against Carystus, a medizer to be punished but also strategically close to Attica; and the coercion of Naxos when it tried to leave the League – a series of events in which Athens’ own advantage is already as prominent as opposition to Persia (Thuc. 1.98). Naxos is said to be the first allied state which was ‘enslaved contrary to what was established’, and at this point Thucydides inserts his chapter on other revolts and their suppression, Athens’ stern exaction of the allies’ contributions, and the allies’ preference for contributing money rather than ships, which added to Athens’ power (1.99). At the Eurymedon (1.100.1) and in the Hellespont (omitted by Thucydides) Athens fought against the Persians; but in the war against Thasos Athens was pursuing her own interests but involved the allies, and at the end of that Thasos not only was assessed for tribute but had to surrender her ships and her mainland possessions, and demolish her city wall (1.100.2–101). At this point Diodorus makes his remarks on the degeneration of the League (11.70.1–4).
1 A.T.L., iii. 155-7. We need not follow Ostwald, Autonomia (p. 11 n. 20, above), pp. 38-9, in supposing that Naxos lost ‘control over her internal administration’.
2 Cf. p. 9 with 11 n. 21.
3 On the origins of the First Peloponnesian War see Lewis, D. M., Classical Contributions ... M. F. McGregor (Locust Valley, N.Y., 1981), pp. 71-8Google Scholar.
4 It is true that, apart from the stories of Tanagra and Cimon’s early recall (p. 14, above), Pericles’ direct involvement is not directly attested until the Corinthian Gulf expedition of 1.111.2-3, but the doubts of Gomme, H.C.T., i. 306-7, and de Ste Croix, pp. 315-7, are excessive.
5 IG i3 260, ix. 9, with Lewis, op. cit., p. 77 n. 43, cf. note in IG. There is also a list of money raised in Sicily, probably in 415-413, which it has been suggested may have been handled by the hellenotamiai: IG i3 291, with Meritt, B. D., Hesperia 26 (1957), 198–200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, cf. note in IG.
6 The little evidence that Themistocles had been interested in the west is assembled by de Ste Croix, pp. 378-9.
7 According to Thucydides nearly the whole of forces amounting to 250 ships was lost; Diod. Sic. 11.71, 74-5, 77, has 300 ships voted but 200 (= Thuc.) sent originally, omits the reinforcements, and has the ships lost but most of the men saved; Ctesias (FGH 688 F 14.36-9 [32-6]) has only 40 ships sent originally. Ctesias, though unreliable where he can be checked, has appealed to scholars reluctant to believe in a major disaster, e.g. Westlake, H. D., CP 45 (1950), 209-16Google Scholar = Essays on the Greek Historians and Greek History (Manchester, 1969), pp. 61-73: for a defence of Thucydides see Meiggs, pp. 473-6.
8 For attempts to redate the truce see p. 14 with 19 nn. 9-10.
9 There are discussions of this period by Meiggs, , JHS 63 (1943), 21–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, G&R2 10 Supp. (1963), 36-45, HSCP 67 (1963), 1-36.
10 Cf. p. 15 with 20 nn. 16-18.
11 Cf. p. 16 with 20 nn. 23-6.
12 Cf. pp. 15-16 with 20 nn. 20-1.
13 Decree for Chalcis, Meiggs, pp. 224-6; general decree, Balcer, J. M., Historia Einzelschrift 33 (1978), 102-42Google Scholar. The stele containing the surviving text was attached to the right of another, which most probably contained the original decree by which Chalcis was received back into the League.
14 PCPS2 2 (1952-3), 43-6.
15 Cf. the fragment of the oath sworn by Eretria, IG i3 39.
16 But the allies make one appearance in the earlier restoration of A.T.L., ii, D 15.
17 Cf. also IG i3 41 (Hestiaea); 46 (Brea: perhaps 446/5 near Argilus, but both date and site disputed). Athenian settlements are discussed by Meiggs, pp. 120-3, 158-63, 260-2, 424-5. It is customary to distinguish between colonies (apoikiai), as independent poleis whose inhabitants became citizens of the colony and lost their previous citizenship, and cleruchies (klerouchiai), as outposts of Athenian citizens, and the two terms are contrasted in IG i3 237, but P. A. Brunt has suggested that for the fifth century the distinction ought to be formulated in terms of local self-government rather than of citizenship (Ancient Society and Institutions [p. 10 n. 6, above], pp. 71-82).
18 Whole books have been devoted to the question: Schrader, C., La paz de Calias: Testimonios e interpretación (Barcelona, 1976)Google Scholar; Meister, K., Die Ungeschichtlichkeit des Kalliasfriedens und deren historische Folgen (Palingenesia, 18. Wiesbaden, 1982)Google Scholar. According to Meister three quarters of those who have written on the subject believe in a treaty. For collections of the evidence see Bengtson, H., Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, ii (Munich and Berlin, 1962 Google Scholar; 21975 with addenda), 152; Fornara, 95; for a reconstruction of the treaty as known in and after the fourth century see Wade-Gery, H. T., HSCP Supp. 1 (1940), 121-56Google Scholar = Essays in Greek History (Oxford, 1958), pp. 201-32. Almost but not quite all scholars have assumed that it is a treaty after the death of Cimon whose authenticity is in question.
19 The text as transmitted refers to a treaty with king Darius; but there are no other references to an inscribed text of the Peace of Epilycus (pp. 31-2 with 35 nn. 5-7, below), and there are other errors in this text, so probably it is the Peace of Callias that Theopompus denounced.
20 Even if we do not believe that up to this point Athens had felt bound not to restore temples destroyed by the Persians: cf. p. 9 with 11 n. 22, above.
21 By Seager, R. J., Historia 18 (1969), 129-41Google Scholar; Bosworth, A. B., Historia 20 (1971), 600-16Google Scholar; contr. Meiggs, pp. 152-6, 512-5; Griffith, G. T., Historia 27 (1978), 218-9Google Scholar. Walsh, J., Chiron 11 (1981), 31–63 Google Scholar, accepts the decree but places it (and the Peace of Callias) after the battle of the Eurymedon.
22 Plutarch may be believed thus far, despite the improbabilities in his account emphasized by Andrewes, A., JHS 98 (1978), 1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Cf. pp. 16-17 with 20-1 nn. 30-2.
24 The picture is essentially that of H. Wade-Gery, T., Hesperia 14 (1945), 212-29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Dinsmoor, W. B. after Anderson, W. J. and Spiers, R. P., The Architecture of Ancient Greece (London, 3 1950), pp. 185-7Google Scholar. Mattingly has proposed to date the first decree 427-424 (Historia 10 (1961), 169-71).
26 See Meiggs, pp. 154, 496-503, who favours the views that a year’s tribute was given to Athena Nike.
27. On the foundation of Thurii see Wade-Gery, H. T., JHS 52 (1932), 217-9Google Scholar = Essays (n. 18, above), pp. 255-8; Ehrenberg, V. L., AJP 69 (1948), 149-70Google Scholar = Polis und Imperium (Zurich and Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 298-315; Andrewes, A., JHS 98 (1978), 5–8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Athens may have been involved in a colony at Naples about the same time: Str. 246.5.4.17 with Bérard, J., L’Expansion et la colonisation grecques jusqu’ aux guerres mediques (Paris, 1960), pp. 125-6Google Scholar; Timaeus, FGH 566 F 98 with Kagan, D., The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca, N.Y., 1969), pp. 385-6Google Scholar. Athenian alliances with Rhegium and Leontini, which have revised preambles giving the date 433/2 (IG i3 53-4), were probably made earlier and reaffirmed in that year.
28 Cf. pp. 12, 17-18.
29 Meiggs, pp. 183-4, 348, 357-8; Legon, R. P., Historia 21 (1972), 142-58Google Scholar; Schuller, W., Klio 63 (1981), 281-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; contr. Will, E., REA 71 (1969), 305-19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Quinn, T. J., Athens and Samos, Lesbos and Chios: 478-404 B.C. (Manchester, 1981), pp. 13–23 Google Scholar. In IG i3 48 (reedited after Bridges, A. P., JHS 100 (1980), 185-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, by Meriti, B. D., PAPS 128 (1984), 123-33Google Scholar) either ‘the demos’ or ‘the polis’ of Samos can be restored; the allies make one appearance in Samos’ oath of allegiance.
30 Potidaea may have been under pressure from Athens for some time: see Meiggs, pp. 528-9, but also de Ste Croix, p. 329.
31 The inscription is another for which some prefer a later date: e.g. Mattingly, PACA 7 (1964), 35-55.
32 The attempt by de Ste Croix, pp. 251-89, 393-400, to undermine the traditional interpretation of the exclusion decree has not succeeded. For contemporary awareness of Athens’ power to control the trade of other states see pp. 40-1, below. On the chronology see p. 18 with 21 nn. 36-8, above.
33 Bury, J. B., History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great (London, 1900), pp. 338-9Google Scholar, retained in the latest edition, revised by R. Meiggs (41975), p. 210.
34 Cf. de Ste Croix, G. E. M., Historia 3 (1954-5), 16–21 Google Scholar.