Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea

Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of BreaAuthor(s): Harold B. MattinglySource: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 1 (May, 1966), pp. 172-192Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/637539Accessed: 23/09/2009 06:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/637539?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

ATHENIAN IMPERIALISM AND THE FOUNDATION OF BREAI

THE decree establishing an Athenian colony at Brea in the north Aegaean area was firmly placed by the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists in 446 B.C.; they identified the troops mentioned in lines 26 if. with the men then serving in Euboia.2 In 1952, however, Woodhead proposed redating the decree c. 439/8 B.C. and explained lines 26 ff. by reference to the Samian revolt.3 A decade later I put forward a more radical theory, which seems to have won no adherents. I cannot really complain of this, since my arguments were inevitably far from cogent. For some Thucydides' silence alone will have been decisive.4 I would like to think that the issue has at least been clarified by now. The A. T.L. dating appears rather less plausible. Demokleides' generalship in 439/8 B.C. would fit excellently with his role as founder of Brea. This strongly supports Woodhead. It is doubtful whether Demokleides was general as early as 446 B.C., though conceivable that he returned to the board as late as 426/5 B.C.5 Woodhead may well be right in locating Brea on the inner Thermaic Gulf and, if so, this too tells against the A.T.L. dating. All our evidence suggests that real Athenian involvement in this area began in the 430's.6 The weight ofepigraphic evidence may also seem to support Woodhead, against any attempt to put I.G. i2. 45 later than c. 439/8 B.C. Its lettering is transitional, characteristic of the period when three-bar sigma and other earlier Attic forms were going out of public use. Woodhead felt unable to put it many years after 445 B.C.7 I have elsewhere

vigorously attacked the basic epigraphic dogma, but without being able to produce the cogent, objective evidence which others understandably require.8 My reason for reopening the controversy is that I have come on an inscription that should surely be put in the 420's and that shares crucial letter-forms with I.G. i2. 45.

I I owe a great deal to some stimulating discussion and correspondence with Mr. R. Meiggs and Professor W. P. Wallace. Both emphasize the importance of arguing from the letter-forms of securely dated inscriptions. I have tried to answer their challenge in this paper in my own way and they must not, of course, be blamed for the result. Professor K. J. Dover has helped considerably by his criticisms to improve the presentation of my ideas.

2 A.T.L. iii. 286 ff. For text and commentary on IG. i2. 45 see Tod, G.H.I. i, no. 44 and Hesperia xiv (I945), 86 f. (Meritt's publication of a new fragment).

3 C.Q.N.S. ii (I952), 57-62. 4 Historia xii (1963), 258-6 . 5 See my article, p. 258 with n. 8 and 260

f. Demokleides was politically active c. 430 B.C. or even later (IG. i2. 152), as Woodhead noted (p. 62); in 44I/0, 432/I, and 431/0 B.C. other men represented Aigeis as generals (see the list in Hill, Sources2, p. 401 f.).

6 Op. cit. 58 f. Woodhead was strongly supported by J. A. Alexander (A.J.Ph. lxxxiii [I962], 266-75 and 282-6), who approved his emendation es Bpeav (following Bergk) for es Bepocav in Thuc. I. 61. 4.

7 See Meritt's photographs in Hesperia xiv (I945), 87 f. It has four-bar sigma, but sloping nu and tailed rho (R). For Wood- head's comments see op. cit. 60 f.

8 Historia x (I96I), I49 f. and 168-82: J.H.S. lxxxi (I 96), 132: Historia xii (1963), 263-71. Meritt and Wade-Gery were able to counter many of my individual arguments (J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 67-74 and lxxxiii [1963], I00-I7) and the result might seem to be stalemate, if not outright victory for the orthodox view. But see Meiggs's frank re- cognition that epigraphic dating may have become too rigid (Harv. Stud. lxvii [I963], 29 f.). He reasonably urges scholars 'to col- lect the evidence and examine the statis- tics'.

ATHENIAN IMPERIALISM AND THE FOUNDATION OF BREA 173

It was cut on the base of a choregic dedication set up by Leagros, a member of the famous family from Kerameis. All that actually survives is the remnants of three words:

-- -]avrts- v[[ - -

- - -]ypos [VT - - -

--- ]aKAEs[- ---

But there can be no doubt of the correctness of Meritt's restoration:

[AKa]pLavrs [E'evlKca]

[AEa]ypos v v

['Xopeye]

[HTavr]aKcA^s[V E&StSaC7Ke]

In view of the sloping nu and tailed rho he dated the victory c. 440 B.C.' Now this dating will not withstand rigorous scrutiny. The dithyrambic poet Pantakles is known to have composed a piece for a boys' chorus at the Thar-

gelia of 420/19 B.C. It is therefore likely that he is the man whose clumsiness

Eupolis mocked c. 424/3 B.C. in his Golden Race. Certainly the dithyrambic poets Ion, Kinesias, Philoxenos, and Timotheos were favourite butts of the comic

stage. Now Eupolis' Pantakles was evidently alive and flourishing as late as

405 B.C., since Aristophanes jokingly alludes to him in Frogs, 1036 if. If we may be allowed to combine these scraps of evidence, we seem faced with a career

roughly coterminous with the Peloponnesian War.2 The evidence on Leagros points the same way. Meritt identified him with the son ofthe general Glaukon.3 This Leagros was involved c. 400 B.C. by Kallias son of Hipponikos in a sordid

intrigue concerning the orphaned daughter of Epilykos. From Andokides' narrative one would naturally assume that Leagros was at most five years older than himself and in any event junior to Kallias, who was born c. 455 B.C.4 This view is supported by the fact that the comic poet Plato attacked

Leagros in the late 390's as a moral weakling, unworthy of his great father. The tone surely does not suggest a man of over seventy, as Leagros would have then been on Meritt's reckoning.s

Thus if we want to keep the dating c. 440 B.C. we must find another earlier

Leagros. In view of Greek nomenclature it is easy to postulate an otherwise unknown brother or cousin of the general Glaukon and this may seem to settle

I See Hesperia viii (I939), 48-50 (with a plate) and S.E.G. x. 332.

2 See Antiphon rrepl rov Xopevrov, I:

J. D. Edmonds, F. Gr. Cor. i. 417 (Eupolis frg. 296) and 4o0 note a (date of play). For the date of Antiphon vi see Meritt, Athenian Calendar, p. 121 f. and Dover, C.Q. xliv (I950), 60. Pantakles is still 'clumsy' in the Frogs passage; the joke was as long-lived as those about Kleisthenes' effeminacy (from Acharn. I 7 ff. to Frogs 422-7).

3 Hesperia viii (1939), 50. 4 And. i. 117-23. See pp. 144-5o and

Appendix L ofD. M. MacDowell's edition of On the Mysteries ( 962) for the family relation- ships. Leagros was Kallias' brother-in-law and Epilykos' nephew. Andokides the other

nephew (born in the 440's: R.-E. i. 2124 f.) took the lead in claiming Epilykos' daughters with Leagros: after one died, however, Kallias had little difficulty allegedly in talk- ing Leagros over to co-operating in his schemes. For Kallias' date of birth see R.-E. x. I618 and MacDowell, op. cit., pp. IO f. (c. 450 B.C.).

5 See Edmonds, op. cit., p. 509 frg. 64 (from Laios: see note e for its date). Meritt observed that c. 440 B.C. Leagros 'must have been a relatively young man'; presumably he would put his birth c. 465 B.C. If so, it is also strange that Leagros was never made a butt of the comic poets between 425 and 405 B.C., as Kallias so often was (see Mac- Dowell, op. cit., p. I ).

the matter satisfactorily.' But is there any good evidence that Pantakles' career began so early? It is time to turn to the two remaining records of his dithyrambic victories.

We owe the first to a muddled citation in Stephanus Byzantinus (s.v. Ar7vi-r). It may be restored thus:

V-TtLOXtS EvlLKa

1poKKAjS AlrTveVS E XOp77yeL HJavraKAX7S SSacraKe

The variant reading iaT-poKAfjs should be noted in line 2.2 Either name could be correct and we must survey the known candidates. Two of the fifth-century Athenians called Patrokles can be eliminated straightaway. The epistates of I.G. i2. 82 (422/I B.C.) belonged to the tribe Aigeis, while Sokrates' half-

brother, athlothetes in 406/5 B.C., came from the deme Alopeke.3 There re- main the apXov lacL/Xevs of 403/2 B.C., whose tribe is unknown, and the man whom Aristophanes ridiculed around 390 B.C. Either of them could have been

choregos near the end of Pantakles' career.4 There are few distinguished bearers of the name Prokles. The signatory to the Peace of Nikias should

probably be identified with the Council secretary of 42 I/o B.C.; his tribe was

Erechtheis, to which the athlothetes of 406/5 B.C. also belonged.5 This leaves

only the general of 427/6 and 426/5 B.C., whose tribe is unknown. He lost his life in the ill-fated Aitolian expedition that led to the deposition of his colleague Demosthenes. Two by-elections thus became necessary this year.6 Two or three months after Demosthenes' retreat to Naupaktos the generals Aristoteles and

Hierophon sailed round the Peloponnese with a relief squadron of twenty ships and co-operated somewhat passively at sea in the Ambracian campaign.7 Since this is Thucydides' first mention of them, it is tempting to treat them as the replacements for Prokles and Demosthenes. Now Aristoteles almost cer-

tainly belonged to Antiochis. On my view then Hierophon will have replaced Demosthenes for Aiantis and Antiochis must have been Prokles' tribe.8 Some- one may object here that this involves a further unlikely assumption. Since

Hipponikos' deme was Alopeke, Antiochis would on my view have had double

I Alkibiades (son of Kleinias) had a younger brother and cousin both called Kleinias: see R.-E. xi. 616 f. (nos. 4 and 5).

2 See p. 142 and n. of Meineke's edition (1849). The relevant text runs: Artjvq, 8j7jLOS 7jS XAv7toXlsS vASr . . . .. O 8r (so7TS

AT7)V?VS. "HpOKAX1S ATr7VEVS EXOP'7YEL Kal

HavrTaKAX)s". 3 See IG. i2. 305. Io and R.-E. xviii.

2263 (no. 4). 4 R.-E. xviii. 2262 (nos. i and 3):

Aristoph. Plut. 84 and Storks frg. 431 (Ed- monds i. 694 f.). Comparison of the scholion on Plut. 84 with Isocr. I8. 5-8 suggests that the two should perhaps be conflated.

5 See Thuc. 5. I9 and 24. i: IG. i2. 82 and 84: I.G. i2. 305. 9: Andrewes and Lewis, J.H.S. lxxvii (I957), 178.

6 For Demosthenes' deposition see Lewis, J.H.S. lxxxi (I96 ), i9 ff.; he effectively disposes of Gomme's hesitations (Commen-

tary on Thucydides, ii. 408 and 417 with iii. 437 f.). Lewis postulates three by-elections, but Laches was probably neither deposed nor put on trial: see Gomme, op. cit. ii. 430 f.

7 Thuc. 3. I05. 3 and 107. 1-2. For the time-table see Adcock's account in C.A.H. v. 228 f.; he rightly regards Demosthenes as Acarnanian commander-in-chief, not an Athenian general.

8 For Aristoteles see Gomme, op. cit. ii. 417 ff. and Lewis, op. cit. I20 f.; he is surely the general ----e'X. s Oopatevs known from IG. i2. 299. 6 (S.E.G. x. 226). For Prokles' tribe Lewis (p. 121) suggested Oineis, but this rested on his assumption that Lamachos was a suffect general in 426/5 B.c. In fact Acharnians 569, 593, and I073 ff. all show that he was a taxiarch this year, as van Leuwen acutely pointed out on pp. 99 and I 04 of his edition.

I74 H. B. MATTINGLY


representation in 427/6 B.C. The objection need not prove fatal. Lewis has

already plausibly argued the case for 426/5 B.C. He believes that Hipponikos, a man of immense wealth, family distinction, and religious prestige, was then elected e' arrdvrwv like Perikles. Lewis's principle may well stand, though not, I think, his date for Hipponikos' generalship.'

The general Prokles may then be the choregos from Atene. Like Demosthenes he was probably general for the first time in 427/6 B.C. and comparatively young. His choregeia would fall in one of the immediately preceding years and its success could have helped towards his election under rather special circumstances.2 It is interesting to note that his colleague Demosthenes undertook a dithyrambic choregeia triumphantly in 422/I B.C.3 Now this hypothesis about Prokles is admittedly precarious, since new evidence might show that his tribe was not Antiochis after all. But this would not be fatal to my argument. If no Prokles belonged to Antiochis, we would have some justification for

preferring the reading of one manuscript of Stephanus. As we have seen there are two possible candidates called Patrokles. Despite the many uncertainties I would claim that there is every chance that the choregos in question per- formed his duty at some point during the Peloponnesian War.

Pantakles' third dithyrambic victory is recorded in I.G. i2. 771, which has

fairly developed Attic lettering consistent with a date in the 420's.4 The

choregos' name is unluckily lost, but we have his father's name Dorotheos and his deme Halai. In the later fifth century one known Dorotheos of some distinction claims attention. This man was secretary of Council in 408/7 B.C.

According to Meritt's plausible reconstruction of .G. i. 120 there is room for an

eight-letter patronymic or demotic after Dorotheos' name in the heading. It is

tempting to supply haAaLevs.5 What relationship should we assume between him and the choregos ? He could well have been the choregos' son, but we must not exclude the possibility that he was his younger brother or cousin. On either view this choregeia too will fall comfortably after 43I B.C. Certainly none of our evidence compels us to start Pantakles' career even as early as c. 435 B.C.

and, if our postulated older Leagros existed, he could quite easily have been

choregos in the 420's. If on the other hand we identify the choregos with Glaukon's son, we have seen that any victory of his must be dated c. 425 B.C. And this identification, of course, remains most persuasive.6

For my attempt to refute Lewis's dating see Historia xii (1963), 260 f. For election ;E' arravrov see K. J. Dover, J.H.S. lxxx (1960), 61-63 and 74 f.

2 See R.-E. xxiii. i80 no. io (H. Schaefer) for Prokles' age.

3 I.G. ii2. 2318. 4 It has four-bar sigma and a nu (N) not

unlike those in Kleonymos' Tribute Decree of 426/5 B.C. (A.T.L. ii, D 8: see vol. i, pp. 123-6 for photographs); a similar nu is found as late as the Quota List assigned to 416/5 B.C. (A.T.L. ii, List 39 with figs. I and 2).

5 See A.J.Ph. lxix (I948), 69 f. and S.E.G. x. 107. If the text of Xen. Hell. I. 4. 7 is sound (eviavro -rpetS 7jaav), we cannot identify him with the ambassador to Persia in 408 B.C. (Hell. I. 3. 13).

6 Unluckily we do not know whether Leagros provided a boys' or a men's chorus. For the former a choregos had to be over forty (Arist. A0. noA. 56. 3), but mature men sometimes undertook the latter. Demos- thenes for instance must have been well into his thirties (see nn. 23 and 24). If the choregos is Glaukon's son we must, I think, assume that his was a men's chorus or that the age-rule for boys' choruses was not always strictly observed: see on this possibility Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953), p. 76 (adducing Lysias 21. 4) and D. M. Lewis, B.S.A. 1 (I955), 20 and 24 (rigid observance in the fourth century). Pseudo-And. Ka-r' AKLttfiadov 20 f. makes Alkibiades choregos of a boys' chorus under the legal age, but this point is not supported either by Dem. 21. 145 or Plut. Alc. I6 and

H. B. MATTINGLY

Leagros' dedication then apparently proves that transitional lettering was still employed by masons in the 420's, though no doubt it had a slightly old- fashioned look. Indeed there was already good evidence for the survival of sloping nu, since this form occurs in the Chian Decree of winter 425/4 B.c.' We can now assert the same about tailed rho. It thus becomes permissible epigraphically to put another document with this form in so late a context. This is the famous 'Koroneia' epigram, which I have already associated on historical grounds with the battle of Delion.2 I should like now to develop the argument further. Let us first simply juxtapose the first lines of the poem and parts of Diodoros' account of the battle. The epigram strikes a clearly apolo- getic note:

-rAl,ovES hotov [a]yo^va paXes TreAECavres aeA7r[To]

'crvxa& SaLtLovLoS oAeaaT' EL rToAE/iok' ov KaTa 8[va]LiVe[o]y davp6ov arOevos, aAAad LS hvLdsa

hefJtOeov OeLav d(t)S SOov avrtaLC as 9fAaorev-3

Set against this Diodoros' significant phrases (13. 70. 2-3): yevofLevr7s e jS rrapara6ews larXvpa^ rs p ev rpTp3rov oL Tr3J AOsqvalcv ?7rets adyvoLoWdevoL Aa[Xirpws3

,qvayKaoaav qvyetv rovavS vcaraVLTa g 7T7rEL ... OL as O9&XfaloL, cLaoefEpovres -t rS T

cruoiarv pcuLats ... OLErs 8O,KOVatL rTV AXOvatcov LeTEo'ovTEs vyetv 37vayKaav,

erTLaveLt E ,tLaX) vLKK7jcavr7s ?EYaA7)v r7T77VEyKavro 8o0av Trpos dvapetav. Ephoros

evidently conveyed more clearly than Thucydides the Theban pride in this

victory, their boast of sheer physical superiority.4 It is this boast, I believe, that the epigram explicitly rejects. Neither Athenian morale nor Athenian pride could allow it. More than ever defeat must be ascribed to divine agency. This was the Spartans' recourse after Leuktra. Pausanias indeed passes on from reflections on Leuktra to the play of divine power at Delion (3. 6. i): F/dctara Se rrws 7ErT' 7TTaLrtLaaaLV eeXEACL teEya'AoLS rpoa0aLpeta6aL TOv q'ye'Lova o &al)cov, KaOa

K8 Kagt iOrvatwlv adrryov 'Ifr7roKpdr'v rov AppiMqpovoS 07rpar77yoV7a Ert AfA'?i. .... Is it fanciful to recognize here faint traces of the epigram, which Pausanias

knew, rather than philosophic commonplace ?s

seems dubious evidence (pace Lewis-quoted in n. i on p. 36 of Pickard-Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy [2nd edition, 1962; revised by T. B. L. Webster]).

Hesperia xiv (1945), 115 if.: S.E.G. x. 76. Meritt noted that 'the shapes of rho and nu are older than one expects to find in the mid twenties' (p. I I5: see photograph on p. 1 7), but the name Kleonymos and the mention of 7riaTreIs and Chians (see Thuc. 4. 51) rightly led him to bring the decree down. Set up at Chian expense it is in Ionic lettering. The dedication of the Athenian colonists sent to Poteidaia in 429 B.C. also has sloping nu (I.G. i2. 397).

2 For the epigram see Kyparissis and Peek, Ath. Mitt. lvii (1932), 142-6 (with photograph) and S.E.G. x. 410 (text and bibliography). For Delion see pp. 261 f. of my article in Historia xii (1963).

3 I adopt the text approved by Bowra in Problems of Greek Poetry (I953), pp. 93 ff.

(a reprint with minor changes of his article in C.Q. xxxii [1938]). Bowra read sat/iov6os as the adverb (p. 95): in this he was followed by A. Cameron (Harv. Theol. Rev. xxxiii [1940], 99 ff.), who, however, preferred daEA7ro[s] (adv.) in line i. He allowed that ceArrros tkaX*, could imply that the Athenians were taken by surprise, as indeed at Koroneia (p. 99). In this sense the adjective would be still more applicable to Delion: see p. 262 of my article with n. 25. Cameron agreed with Bowra that the correction elaoSov possibly replaced an original eaooov and that we should read E' hoSov rather than the internal accusative faoaov (pp. io5-9).

4 The narrative follows Thucydides closely (4. 96-97. i), but with much added colour; some of this (e.g. the cavalry victory) must be rejected, as Gomme noted (op. cit. iii. 568).

5 As Cameron observed (pp. o02 f. and 121), it was normal in epitaphs to attribute

I76

ATHENIAN IMPERIALISM AND THE FOUNDATION OF BREA I77

If we try to identify the oracular hero of the epigram, the probable answer again points clearly to Delion. I quote the difficult lines from Bowra's text (5ff.):

...... 7-rpo Fpov [yap hao vrepa]8e cvaopaXov aypav EX po EEs OEpEvaas [60eT`rarov h]vUpEi`poL

avV KaKoL eXarET pearrEE, fporolr7a 8be Trac r' Ao TOV

OpcadTcrOat Aoylov 7rroarv 'OEKE E'Aos.

The hero trapped the prey for Athens' enemies, as he had foretold. Bowra must be right in claiming that the words 3ovaLaxov aypav e'OpoLs OrlpeOvas paraphrase part of the oracle, but I would prefer to translate 7Trp6'pwv 'readily', 'of his own accord' rather than 'with seeming good intent'.' As Bowra himself noted, oracular shrines did occasionally make pronouncements without being consulted and this is precisely what Herodotos records of Amphiaraos, in whose territory the battle of Delion was fought.2 Explaining why no Theban could consult the hero he recalls an old oracle (8. 134): KE'Avevae acras' Od 4lL-

apaws 8tda xp.77Tr)ptO)v 7TOLevIpevOS oKoTEpa ovAovXoaL e'rOaFt rovTcov, ewvTrC 7

are I tavrt Xpaaoaa a re arvjuvadX, rov E'repov a7reXOlievovs' ol Ee carvtaxov VLV

ELAovTo ELvaL. The language was no doubt suitably embellished with metaphor and, though the Thebans understood enough to make the right choice, the oracle's promise of help in war must have remained, as so often, slightly ob- scure. After Delion, however, it would appear to have been fulfilled beyond any possible contradiction. The epigram surely makes this very point.3

We may now claim with some assurance that two public inscriptions with transitional lettering were cut in the 420's. Dare anyone assert that this style was no longer used for decrees of the people? That therefore the Brea Decree

defeat to divine intervention-this is 'a kind of topic of consolation'. But the epigram goes well beyond the norm in this. For the omens and oracles before Leuktra see Xen. Hell. 6. 4. 2-3 and 7: Diod. 15. 53. 4-54. 4: Plut. Pelop. 20. 3-22: Paus. 9. 13. 4 and 14. 3. The contemporary Theban view is bluntly expressed in the famous epigram (I.G. vii. 2462+. 7 f.: Tod ii. no. 130):

e"rSLatoi KpeLaaoves fE/L 7roAE(wTOl"

KapvraasE AeVKTpoIS VLKa?bopa Sovpt rpoTrama . . .

The Athenians subsequently managed to take a more realistic view of Delion: see Thuc. 5. I4. I.

Op. cit. 98f. Cameron's interesting thesis (op. cit. 102-2I) must be stated, if only to be refuted. He held that (a) 'our text offers not the record of an actual epiphany, but rather a post eventum interpretation of defeat' (p. 104) and (b) that there is no basis for assuming a consultation of Orion or any other hero before the battle; the Athenians went out on campaign in defiance of a current Aoymov and were punished by heaven as a warning to mankind. The agent was an unspecified local hero, not to be more nearly identified. I think that his first point may be granted and that he is right in insisting that

Aoyltov (line 8) means 'oracular utterances ... preserved and circulated' (so R. A. Neil in his Knights [1909], p. 22) and not 'a particular response' (for which Xp-ajios' is correct). He concedes that Uva,Laxov aypav . O. . rpevaas possibly reflects the language of the Aodyov (p. 13 and n. 52). For lines 5-7 he accepts H. Fraenkel's text:

XAa,ca?v 'rrpopov [rrpoaevLv,eq] e v'acrlaXov aypav

EXOpoLs Oepev'aas [ Kal rO I,Ev

h]vlzerJpot aVV KaKO6 eXOaereeaJaE . . .

In some ways this runs better than the text approved by Bowra. It still allows the view developed here; the Moytov which the hero fulfilled could have been his own.

2 The battlefield was near Oropos, the centre of Amphiaraos' cult (R.-E. i. I886 ff.).

3 It is perhaps worth noting that the parallel defeat of Leuktra was by some ascribed to a hero's epiphany (Paus. 4. 32. 4; Aristomenes). Lines I-4 of the 'Koroneia' epigram contain a definite and surely significant echo of Pindar, JVem. 9. 27 (Amphiaraos' last fight). For my dating of S.E.G. x. 4I0 see further the Appendix at the end of this paper.

N

cannot possibly be put so late? We must examine closely what this line of argument involves. By no means all Attic decrees were inscribed on the orders of Athenian officials and we should thus expect deviations from the norm. Lewis has well noted that progressive masons were well ahead of the 'normal run of the trade' in the age of transition at Athens; the latter 'produced less fashionable work for, to be practical, a good deal less money'. His comment was inspired by the poor workmanship of the Aigina Decree, for which the Eretria and Kolophon Decrees provide good parallels. All were paid for by the states concerned, who had a direct interest in keeping the cost down.' May this not be the explanation of the old-fashioned look of the Brea Decree? Its inscription was paid for by the colonists and with its careless lettering and poor alignment it has all the marks of a cheap job.z There can certainly now be no epigraphic objection to considering most seriously the historical case for dating the Brea Decree 42615 B.C.

Thucydides' narrative of summer 432 B.C. seems to place Brea a little dis- tance east of Aineia on the inner Thermaic Gulf. Kallias had apparently sailed with his army from Pydna after patching up peace with Perdikkas. He touched in at Brea, then moved on to surprise Strepsa. The attempt failed and his army now proceeded by land along the coast to Poteidaia, with the fleet in close attendance. They had been joined by 600 Macedonian cavalry under Philip and Pausanias and collected detachments of troops from allies such as Aineia and Dikaia on the way to Gigonos, which they reached on the third day's easy march from Strepsa. Here they were comfortably within half a day's march from Poteidaia.3 By then Perdikkas was again backing the rebels, but in summer 431 B.C. Athens negotiated a firm settlement and restored Therme, which had been seized as an advance base in the previous year. Philip was now a refugee with Sitalkes.4 In the winter of 430/29 B.C. Poteidaia surrendered and

See B.S.A. xlix (1954), 22 f. Lewis's 'age of transition' was, of course, 'c. 455 to c. 445 B.C.' for him.

2 See I.G. i2. 45. i8 ff. and Woodhead's comments on the script (op. cit. 60), which can be checked from the photographs that Meritt published (Hesperia xiv [I945], 87 f.).

3 For an excellent and, I think, convincing discussion of Thuc. i. 6x seeJ. A. Alexander, A.J.Ph. lxxxiii (1962), 265-87. His view, which I follow here, was partly anticipated by Gomme (op. cit. i. 214-18) and Wood- head (op. cit. 58 f.). The A.T.L. editors thought that Kallias went overland from Pydna and passed through Macedonian Beroia (iii. 315 f., 322 f.) to Strepsa, which they locate north-west of Therme (i. 550 f. with the loose map at the end, iii. 220 n. 122, and 318 n. 76). Woodhead and Gomme put Strepsa south of Therme, but Wood- head makes Kallias land at Therme first and so places Brea between Therme and Strepsa: Gomme had Kallias land somewhere near Aineia (p. 2I7). For the various placings of Strepsa see Alexander, op. cit. 269 and the facing map: both Brea and Strepsa should

perhaps be put even closer to Aineia than he allows (on the coast, eastwards). Philip's dpXj lay along both sides of the upper Axios (Thuc. 2. 0oo. 3), but he had invaded Mygdonia (i. 59. 2 :see Alexander, pp. 275 f.) and, with the Athenians holding Therme, and pinning Perdikkas down at Pydna, he could have reached the inner Thermaic Gulf without difficulty even after Kallias withdrew by sea.

4 See Thuc. I. 62. 2 and 2. 29. 5-6 with i. 6i. 2 and 2. 95. 2. The A.T.L. editors want to identify Therme with the Serme of the tribute-lists (iii. 220 n. 123 and 322 n. 91). This was vigorously denied by C. F. Edson (Cl. Phil. xlii [1947], 100-4), who placed Therme 'at, or very near Salonica' (accepted in A.T.L. iii. 220 n. 123 against A.T.L. i. 546): Gomme too came out strongly against the identification (op. cit. i. 214). Serme's tribute (500 dr.) seems too small for a town like Therme; its payment in 432/I B.C. and subsequent disappearance from the lists can be explained on the assumption that it was one of the rebel roAiacrtara which Phormio recovered in

I78 H. B. MATTINGLY


was subsequently colonized by Athens. But in the summer the Athenians suffered a disastrous defeat at Spartolos and the remnants of the expeditionary force were withdrawn. Soon afterwards Perdikkas secretly sent I,000 Mace- donians to help Knemos in Akarnania.' In the winter of 429/8 B.C. came Sitalkes' massive invasion of Macedonia, Chalkidike, and Bottike. Failing in his main objective he patched up his quarrel with Perdikkas and, since Athens failed to co-operate against the rebels by sea, he withdrew his forces from their territory after barely a week.2 Sitalkes then was of little use to Athens, though his fine promises could provide material for Aristophanes years later in the Acharnians (136-50). Better methods must be found for dealing with rebellion and unrest in the Thraceward area. Moreover Perdikkas was proving difficult again, insisting on the cession of Methone. Early in 426/5 B.C. Athens drew up defence regulations, which embodied special protection for Poteidaia and Methone, and rather later saw to the safety of Aphytis also.3 In May 425 B.C.

Simonides called out a general levy of the allies under this new system and led them against Eion, Mende's colony, which was hostile and a potential menace to Poteidaia. He captured the place by treachery, but was then driven out with considerable loss, when the Chalkidians and Bottiaians launched a counter- attack.4 This fresh blow perhaps finally convinced the Athenians that they needed a new strongpoint in this vulnerable area. Thus in the ninth prytany of 426/5 B.C., I submit, the Brea colony was voted.5 Thucydides admittedly says nothing of it, but we must remember that he omits the Methone episode com- pletely.6 Moreover he says little about other developments in this area, of which we learn from the Quota-Lists and the Assessments of 425 and 42I B.C. We must now turn to these, but will first have to deal with a troublesome dating problem.

This concerns the records which are published as Lists 25-28 in A. T.L. ii. I have already twice attacked these ascriptions and Meritt and Wade-Gery have countered some of my points.7 I now want to try a rather different ap- proach. So much detailed work has been done on these lists that we are in danger of losing sight of some important formal clues to their proper order. Book-keeping habits may reveal the truth. We must surely expect some kind of

autumn 432 B.C. (Thuc. i. 65. 2) and which presumably fell away after the defeat at Spartolos (Thuc. 2. 79). In Thucydides Therme seems Macedonian, not rebel (I. 59. 2 and 6I. 2), as adro8ovvac surely implies in 2. 29. 6.

Thuc. 2. 70. 4 and 79; 80. I. 2 Thuc. 2. 95-101 (especially ioi. i and

5-6). As early as 431 B.C. Nymphodoros of Abdera had promised to persuade Sitalkes to end rebellion in Chalkidike for Athens (Thuc. 2. 29. 6).

3 See A.T.L. ii. D 3. i8 ff. and D 4. 41 ff. and 47 ff. ( = IG. i2. 57): D 2I (I.G. ii2.

55+), 4-17: Meritt, Hesperia xiii (I944),

215-18: Mattingly, C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), I6I f. D 21 must surely be dated 426/5 (after D 4) or the next year: with Meritt's dating (c. 428 B.C.) Lepper had to assume 'another (decree) earlier than D 2I, which for some

reason was not reinscribed with A.T.L.'s D 3-6' (J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 52 n. 83. The added regulations for Methone (D 21. 5-8) were part of the general imperial decree foreseen in D 4. 41-47.

4 Thuc. 4. 7 (vAAeas . . . * rv EKEflv

vjLtda'XoUV 7rXA0os). 5 See my article in Historia xii (1963), 260

with n. 13 for this point. 6 His only reference is 4. 129. 4 (Nikias'

120 light-armed from Methone). According to D 4. 46 f. Methone fulfilled her obligations by seeing to her own defence; provision of troops in summer 423 B.C. may have been arranged in D 6 (eighth prytany, 424/3 B.C.), which must also have ordered the publication of the whole dossier on stone.

7 See Historia x (I961), i66-8 and C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), 155-6o: J.H.S. lxxxii (i962),

73 f.

system here and not caprice. For the sake of clarity I will list the salient points one by one:

I. In List 26 the two special groups of tribute-payers inherited from before the war immediately follow the Thracian panel, exactly as in Lists 21-23: in List 25 they come at the end of the whole list as an appendix.'

2. Lists 26 and 27 both have a special Hellespontine group as an appendix, not after the Hellespontine panel: in List 25 the Ionian, Thracian, and Hel-

lespontine panels are each followed by rubrics relating to cities in that panel.2 3. Lists 26 and 27 probably have the same order of tribute-districts, namely

Thrace-Islands-Hellespont-Ionia: List 25 follows a unique order, Ionia-

Thrace-Islands-Hellespont.3 4. List 27 records only three payers in its Hellespontine rubric, each making

over the major part of its considerable tribute: Lists 26 and 25 show nine and ten names respectively, all but one of whom pay rather small amounts.4

Now List 27 is certainly the list of 428/7 B.C., a year of exceptional financial

stringency. The revolt of Lesbos strained Athens' resources. Thus the system of direct payments to the Hellespontophylakes may have been suspended that year in favour of levying some forty talents for the siege from only three cities; it could well have been resumed the next year.5 From purely formal considera- tions then the order of lists would appear to be either 26-27-25 or 27-26-25. The priority of List 26 to 25 becomes clearer the closer one investigates. The rubrics referred to in point (I) have been restored in A.T.L. ii. so as to cor- respond with those of List 25 rather than with the pre-war form. This is based on precarious reasoning. In S.E.G. v. 28 West and Meritt published the surviving letters in col. ii, line 34 as - - -ON. Since it could not be the end of a final Thracian tributary's name, they regarded it as part of the rubric and were able to restore the exact heading familiar with this group of cities from Lists 21-23:

[r0AEs av'Tac Xop1ov [7raxaaltEvaL].

With this restoration the list of cities is one longer than in A.T.L. ii.6 If the editors are right in supplying [Kc&aL]o[] in line 39, it would be natural to suggest ['E-reoKapTrradOot] for line 36. But, as I have already argued elsewhere, [MIcAr][ptot] and [XESp]o[AtoL] are valid alternatives for line 39. Another Thraceward rebel would do for col. i. 36. Pleume and Aioleion were certainly

I On the descent of these rubrics from the rTo'XeA avtal and 13iw-rat rubrics of 434/3 B.C. onwards see A.T.L. iii. 81-85 and Lep- per, op. cit. 33 f.

2 In List 26 the Hellespontine names are cut on the left lateral face, in 27 on the re- verse. The pattern of List 25 is obscured by the two intrusive rubrics supplied in col. ii. 37-4I and iii. 66-68. See my arguments in C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), I60 nn. 3 and 4. In 25 the three Thracian payers of TrrapXj only admittedly follow the Thracian panel, but the two special rubrics intervene with several non-Thracian cities.

3 Parts of the last two panels only of List 27 survive, but my proposition seems to be

accepted in A.T.L. i. 96 and by Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 73. Theoretically the list could begin with Islands, Thrace.

4 Alopekonesos, the newcomer in List 25, is registered in the KaTra[8],EAora rubric in List 26 (on this see A.T.L. i. 449 f. and iii. 88). Byzantion pays just over 15 T in List 26, a little over 8 T in 25, but more than 20 T in 27.

5 For List 27 see the impressive case in A.T.L. i. 196 ff. For the varying headings of the rubrics see ibid. 449 f. and 453 f.

6 Here and later I quote columns and lines according to A.T.L. ii, not S.E.G. v, which should be consulted for comparison.

I80 H. B. M~ATTINGLY

ATHENIAN IMPERIALISM AND THE FOUNDATION OF BREA i8I

recovered and pay this year.' The A.T.L. editors, however, prefer to read - -OI in line 34, whilst admitting that the stone is too weathered hereabouts for any real certainty. They then supply word for word the rubric heading of List 25:

[ratoae s'rax^cav h]ot [racKrat cl Kp... .o]

[ypaqt,la7revovros'].

Assuming that - - -0 is the right reading in line 34, can we be sure that it is not the remnant of a last name in the Thracian panel rather than part of the rubric ? There is a choice of two nine-letter tributaries. Both 2Kafhaa^ot and ZKaqcrafot were missing in 432/I B.C., like Pleume and Aioleion, but either could have been briefly recovered like them in the interval. The rubric-heading of S.E.G. v. 25 could then be read in lines 35 f.2 One small point favours that reading against the A.T.L. version. Four other headings in this list take up only two lines and this appears to be the fixed rule in List 25.3 Examination of A. T.L. ii, List 26. col. i. 43 f. reinforces this impression. Here it was impossible to restore the heading as in List 25. After several rather unconvincing versions had been rejected, the editors settled for this as the closest approximation:

[7raFaCT& o]AE [Cav r]&i

[8tKaarFEpt]o[t E]r[a]X[UEV.4

But [ratao e 7ro]Ae[aw] remains dangerously tempting. Why indeed may we not modify S.E.G. v. 25. i. 43 f. slightly to meet a specific criticism? I would con- tinue to recommend:

[ratcr8E7 ro]AE[otv h]ot [&to6rat - 6p]o[v Jr]Tcl[ax[cavro].

Admittedly this also diverges somewhat from its presumed pattern, but in some ways it is neater, more parallel in grammar to its companion, and we can see why the old form may have been altered in 430 B.C.5

The formal and epigraphic evidence combine to show that List 26 precedes 25. Now we must see whether 26 should be put before or after 27. The A. T.L. editors have well noted that the appearance of Saros in List 27 should probably be attributed to Lysikles' tribute-collecting expedition in 428/7 B.C.6 I think that Anaphe might be added to his account. He would then have passed on his roving commission through Anaphe to Saros and Karpathos and fetched up on the Karian coast. He lost his life in a marauding raid up-country from

I See my article in C.Q.N.S. Xi (1961), 158 2[KaIaatoL]. f. For raAafot and OapflAtot see List 21. vi. 8 3 See A. T.L. ii. 26. i. I for the only excep- and I5: 22. ii. 78 and 86. For Pleume and tion in that list. Aioleion (missing in 432/I B.C.) see 26. ii. 40 4 See Meritt, Ath. Fin. Doc. I and A. T.L. and 42 with A. T.L. i. 538 f. i. 195 f.

2 For the reading - - 01 see Meritt, Ath. 5 See Nesselhauf, Klio, Beiheft xxx (I933), Fin. Doc., p. Io and A.T.L. i. 96: no photo- 71 (middle, not active, verb is required): graph of the very worn obverse face was pub- Mattingly, C. Q. N.S. xi (1961), 56 f. n. 6. lished (ibid. 93). For the Thracian panel of The old form-rTo'AEs t as o iCSTrat 4evypai/iav List 26 see A.T.L. i. 195, where the editors qpdpov E'pEv--was rather clumsy. propose 27[4tKidOo], [2raytptfat], and [H7era- 6 i. I97: Thuc. 3. 19. peOtot] for their three lacunae, rejecting

Myous.' Now in List 26 (col. iv. 9 f.) we find the entries [ ...... K]ap'rdOo and

[......] irepvwlo. We must surely supply BpvKos with the editors. Not a member of the Empire before the war, it was assessed for 500 d. in 425/4 B.C. (A 9, ii. I39). In List 27 we have 'ETeo[KapTrdOa0L], KapTrdOo A,pKrELta, Kadmot and

Kap,r7dwt in col. iii. I-5 after a lacuna in the Ionic panel. Saros appears on its own lower down between Ialysos, Knidos, and Gargara (19-22). There is thus

quite a chance that Brykos was missing from List 27, since it apparently does not send with any of its neighbours.2 In view of its geographical position, how-

ever, it may well also have been brought in by Lysikles' expedition. For some reason it failed to pay in 428/7 B.C., I submit, or paid too late for inclusion in that year's list; the record was then brought up to date by the two payments registered in List 26, which will have to be dated 427/6 B.C.

We have already seen that Lysikles visited Anaphe. May he not have tried to force neighbouring Thera into the Empire? In 431 B.C. Thera and Melos were the only two of the Cyclades outside the Athenian alliance, but early in

426/5 B.C. Thera is found saddled with a war-indemnity comparable to that of Samos. In Lists 26 and 25 it is recorded as paying a tribute of 3 T.3 I suggest that the island refused Lysikles' demands in 428/7 B.C. and that he could do no more than ravage its territory. Thera was now regarded as an open enemy. In

spring 427/6 B.C., however, it capitulated and paid tribute, hearing rumours of the large expedition intended to coerce Melos. Thus Melos was left quite isolated, when Nikias sailed forth in May.4

If List 26 then is to be dated 427/6 B.C. for these two reasons, List 28 must be dated before 27. Its probable order of districts links it closely with Lists 27 and 26 and one small consideration suggests that it would anyway be best to make it the first of the three.5 The editors restored Klazomenai's tribute in 28. 6 as

[RA]A[AF]FHI1, since it pays 6 T in List 27. This is a great rise from the

pre-war I ? T, but it prepares the way for the jump to 15 T in the Assessment of 425/4 B.C. The editors very plausibly ascribe the first rise to Athens' desperate need of money in 428/7 B.C.6 Now this unfortunately renders their whole

position precarious. If a new fragment should chance to reveal that the first

figure was really H, their dating of List 28 is impossible; a payment of only i T must presuppose the pre-war tribute. On the other hand, if the figure should prove to be FR, we can still date List 28 430/29 or 429/8 B.C., since the big rise may well have occurred at the Assessment of 430 B.C.

It would be useless to pretend that my view is free from formal objections. I have tried to answer these elsewhere, but we must remember that the lists of

I For Anaphe see List 27. ii. 3i and for the before 'ErToKaplra0OLo1. The A.T.L. map places mentioned in this section see the loose shows what a close neighbour it was to map at the end of A.T.L. i. Thucydides Saros. writes od Se AAa TE rpyvpoAoyet Kal vrptetrAcL, 3 Thuc. 2. 9. 4: A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2.

Kat -r's Kapltas 'K MvoOvroS KrA; this hardly 65+), 22 f.: List 26. iii. 23 and 25. ii. 54 suggests that he reached the Hellespont as (a probable supplement: see A.T.L. i. I93). well (A.T.L. i. 197). Paches could look after 4 Thuc. 3. 91. 1-3. Melos succeeded (at that area. Aristophanes may have had least till 416/15 B.C.) where on my view Lysikles in mind, when he made the prosecu- Thera had failed. tor complain of the dog Labes (Wasps 5 For the order of districts (only one 925 ff.): column survives in part) see A.T.L. i. 99

oa-TrS TreptrAev6aaS Tr)v Ovetav ev KVcKAW and I99. EK Trcv ro'Aewv tO'v aKtpov e3enSaoKCev. 6 i. 197. The I5 T is known only from

2 See A.T.L. i ('Register'), 250 f. It is just A.T.L. ii. 39. i. 39 (4s6/15 B.c.?), but it possible that BpVK,6o stood immediately must go back to A 9.

I82 H. B. MATTINGLY


the 42o's are seriously defective and we must not expect to be able to solve all problems.' One final argument moreover recommends putting List 25 in 426/5 B.C. We find in it the last explicit registration of ErLbopac, but even this is the overdue fine for late payment the previous year. Two Thracian cities, however, pay a concealed ernMopa, which is simply added to their normal tribute.2 There is no sign of E'Mopac in List 26, but this is no reason for wavering back to the A.T.L. order. In the more complete List 23 there is after all only one surviving occurrence of T,rLbopa. Moreover the two payments of previous year's tribute in List 26 may have included E'rLqopa for all that we know.3 Now, with my date for List 25, we may associate the disappearance of emrlopa very closely with the Tribute Decree of 426/5 B.C., which introduced tighter methods of control. As preserved the decree does not actually mention mrtqopa, but the word occurs in a contemporary measure that instituted the specially equipped tribute-collecting squadrons.4 D 8 instructs the Hellenotamiai to inform the people shortly after the Dionysia which cities had not paid tribute or not paid in full. Five men were then to be sent to the defaulters in order to extract the tribute, no doubt with a standardized fine-perhaps half the previous maximum.5

We may surely now regard 427/6 B.C. as a firm date for List 26. If this is allowed, we can hardly refuse to put the first Methone Decree in the same year. It granted Methone the privilege of paying the aparche only and List 26 shows that the concession was shared by Dikaia and Haison. Methone and Dikaia were on the fringe of Macedonian territory and exposed to Perdikkas' pressure.6 The latter may have been suffering from Bottiaian and Chalkidian hostility as well. It is worth noting that nearby Aineia had its tribute dramatically reduced at this time from the pre-war level of 3 T to I,ooo dr.7 The coastal area called Krousis-between Aineia and Poteidaia-passed temporarily out of Athenian control between 429 and 427 B.C. Its cities-with one possible exception- seem to be missing from both Lists 26 and 25. The area was probably not part of Bottike, which apparently had no sea-coast, and from 432-429 B.C. it was loyally allied with Athens, to judge from Thucydides' narrative.8 The one city

See C.Q. N.S. Xi (1961), 158-60. The changes between S.E.G. 25 and 28 and A.T.L. ii. 26 and 25 justify the degree of freedom which I there claimed. See further p. 184 n. I.

2 See A.T.L. i. 196 and 452 f. 3 Despite A.T.L. i. I96 we are free to re-

store [..... 7rmopa]r in 26. iv. 33, as in S.E.G. v. 25; but this obviously cannot be pressed. For the back-payments see iv. 10 and 45; no figures survive. In List 23 &rn#opd survives only in i. 54.

4 See A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2. 65+) and Meritt's study in his Documents of Athenian Tribute, pp. 3-42: LG. i2. 97 (Tod i, no. 76), 3 f. and Meritt's convincing reinterpretation of the decree in Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, ii (1953), 298-303 (S.E.G. xii. 26 gives his text).

5 Lines I I-I8. For the rate of eTnofopa and its basis see A.T.L. i. 452 f.

6 For this date for D 3 see my further

arguments in C.Q. N.S. Xi (1961), 160-4 and for Methone's anomalous position (5oiopov Trj MaKIeovla: Thuc. 6. 7. 3) see ibid. 154 with n. 4. For Dikaia's site see Gomme, op. cit. 2 (in or north of Bottike) and A.T.L. i. 482 f. (on the coast east of Aineia?).

7 Compare A.T.L. ii. 23, ii. 54 with 25. ii. 20. The quota of 164 dr. has been restored in 26. ii. 24 also. It is just possible that the reading here should be HHH: Aineia's drop would then come in 426/5 B.C. and might be directly associated with the Brea scheme, already doubtless being meditated. Did Aineia give up land to the colony? A.T.L. iii. 308 n. 42 links the drop at Argilos from I T in 438/7 B.C. to only I,ooo dr. in 433/2 B.C. (its next appearance) with the foundation of Amphipolis.

8 For Krousis see Her. 7. 123 and A.T.L. i. 541, 550, and 556. For the tribute-record see ibid. ('Register'), 222 f., 254 f., 310 f., 381, 410 f., and 424 f. In 432 B.C. Perdikkas

that remained loyal was, I think, Haisa, which I would identify with Haison, as Edson long ago proposed. Haison paid 1,500 dr. tribute in 435/4 B.C. and only ,000o dr. in 433/2 and 432/1 B.C. Haisa with four other 7ro'AEL Kpovalos paid a joint tribute of 3,000 dr. in 434/3 B.C. under the 18t,3rac rubric. A joint payment of 2,0ooo dr. is found in this rubric in 433/2 B.C. and, though the names are missing, it is likely that we should supply either two or four of the TrdoAcEs Kpovaclos. Haisa will have paid the balance separately in the main Thracian panel.' It was the nearest to Poteidaia of the five cities recorded in the lists, which explains both its continued loyalty in 427/6 B.C. and Athens' anxiety to retain it by timely concessions.2 The defection of Pleume, Aioleion, and one other recovered rebel before spring 425 B.C. further encouraged the Bottiaians and left the frontier area round Aineia and Dikaia more dangerously exposed than ever. Simonides' failure to deliver an effective counter-blow at Mendean Eion left Athens, I submit, little alternative. Only a new colony could secure the area.3 After Brea's foundation Aineia and Methone were properly guarded and the Bottiaians could be attacked, if desired, from both flanks. The policy soon paid off handsomely. Despite Brasidas' successes Perdikkas came to terms with Athens in summer 423 B.C., quickly repenting of his attempt to forestall vigorous reprisals by calling in Spartan help.4 Most of the smaller Bottiaian towns signed a peace treaty c. 422/I B.C. and Spartolos was adroitly isolated by the Peace of Nikias. Perhaps it soon sought neutrality, if not the Athenian alliance, since henceforth we hear only of ol XaAKL8ELs as rebels in this area.5

7reLOe XaAsKLEcteas ras OaAXd aa 'rdoesAi EKA7ro6vraS KaL KaraflaAovTas avotKLaaaOa e'

" OvvOov dl[av Tr 7roAdh ravTr7v iaXvpav vroo7aaaOal (Thuc. I. 58. 2); significantly no such advice is given to the Bottiaians. This bears against the A. T.L. view (see above and iii. 317). In summer 432 B.C. Kallias' army passed through Krousis without challenge and without devastating the land (Thuc. I. 6I); in 429 B.C. Krousis seems to have sent peltasts to the Athenian army (see Gomme's good note in ii. 213 on Thuc. 2. 79. 4). If Skapsa is Herodotos' Kdauba (A.T.L. i. 549) then one town of Krousis revolted in 432/1 B.C., but perhaps after Kallias' force had passed through and the investment of Poteidaia began. It seems to have been the nearest town to Spartolos in Krousis.

I See on this equation Edson, C.Q. xlii (1948), 92-94 and, strongly opposed to Edson, A.T.L. iii. 219 with n. I 7. The editors would place Haison in Pieria, near Pydna (i. 466 f.). This is hard to accept, since it was tributary from 451/0 B.C. (i. 222 f.). For the figure L A A AHFI[I] between two name-lines in 22. ii. 99 f. see A. T.L. i. 77 fig. 104 (photograph) and P1. xxi (facsimile drawing). Haison's quota is restored in 22. ii. 66, but was presumably the same as in 23. ii. 62. Incidentally the transference of Haison/Haisa from the '8tcra rubric into the main Thracian panel within an Assess- ment period provides a good parallel to the

anomaly concerning Besbikos, which Meritt and Wade-Gery (J.H.S. Ixxxii [1962], 74 n.) used to show that List 26 could not be put after 27, adducing also the comparable anomaly of Nisyros (Ionic in 27, Island in 26). Clearly we do not yet understand the niceties of Athenian book-keeping.

2 For its site see A.T.L. i. 540. 3 See n. 53 and for the sites of Aioleion

(east Bottike, near Olynthos) and Pleume see A.T.L. i. 465 and 539. Eion presumably lay near them in this border-area, to judge from Thucydides.

4 Thuc. 4. 79. 2 and I32. i. The Chal- kidian rebels also pressed Sparta, fearing a major Athenian offensive as early as autumn 425 B.C. Thucydides does not specify Bottiaian pressure. Were they already trying to contract out? With Gomme (op. cit. iii. 621 f.) I believe that I.G. i2. 71 + is the treaty which emerged from the negotia- tions in 423 B.C., despite A.T.L. iii. 313 n. 61 (dating it c. 436 B.C.). From lines 48 f. of the new A. T.L. text (S.E.G. x. 86) we learn that Athens had just lifted a blockade of Mace- donia-from Methone, Aineia, and Brea ?- similar to that imposed in winter 417/16 (Thuc. 5. 83. 4). See Lepper's good remarks on this policy in J.H.S. Ixxxii (1962), 50.

5 For the date of IG. i2. 9o+ see the commentary in Tod, i. no. 68; Gomme, op. cit. iii. 622: A.T.L. i. 556 and ii. 102, T 74. Four or five small Bottic towns paid tribute

I84 H. B. MATTINGLY


We must now meet two objections to this otherwise fairly plausible account of why and when Brea was founded. That Thucydides does not record its foundation in 426/5 B.C. must be accounted a strange omission, but one that can easily be paralleled.I More troublesome is the fact that Brea is never mentioned in his narrative of 425-42I B.C. On close examination, however, the objection appears less serious. Brasidas joined Perdikkas from Dion for the joint campaign against Arrhabaios. After their quarrel he combined with the Chalkidian rebels in a successful attempt on Akanthos and Stageira. Amphi- polis, Galepsos, and a few neighbouring places fell before the winter. Then it was the turn of cities on the peninsulas of Akte and Sithone. Shortly before the truce of March 423 B.C. Mende on Pallene revolted, while Skione followed the

example a few days after the truce was signed. If Brea really lay on the inner Thermaic Gulf, we can see that Thucydides had no occasion to talk of it-the more so as he mentions Poteidaia only once and Aphytis never in this context, though both must have been main Athenian bases.2

The second objection concerns manpower. Athens in winter 427 B.C. ex- perienced the second onset of plague, which lasted this time until c. November 426 B.C. The total plague losses were 4,400 from the hoplite roll, 300 cavalry, and a large, but unspecified number of thetes.3 Is a colony conceivable at such a time? Let us look at certain facts. Hagnon alone lost 1,050 hoplites from plague in summer 430 B.C. and it is likely that over two-thirds of the total casualties were incurred in the first onset. Yet perhaps as many as I,ooo colonists were sent to Poteidaia in 429/8 B.C. and 2,700 cleruchs to Lesbos in summer 427 B.C.4 Admittedly the latter seem soon to have been recalled. The return of the plague may well have forced this decision. At first perhaps the cleruchs will have been concentrated at Mytilene after handing back the land to the Lesbians, but I fancy that as soon as it was safe for them to come to Athens they were actually withdrawn. We can find no trace of them in the island later.5 In summer 425 B.c. Athens' depleted hoplite strength was further reinforced by contingents from Miletos, Andros, and Karystos.6 In these circumstances it would seem quite possible for Athens to afford to send out a colony, especially as many of the Brea settlers probably came from the ranks

in 42I/0 B.C. (A.T.L. ii. 34. iii. 8-II); two appear as signatories to the treaty, but its roll of names is very incomplete. For Spartolos see Thuc. 5. i8. 6 and Gomme's note in iii. 669 f. Only the Chalkidians are specified in connexion with Brasidas (Thuc. 4. I23. 4 and I24. I with 5. 6. 4); only they are said to have rejected the Peace (5. 21.

1-2) and fought on (5. 39. I). I See p. 179 n. 6 for Methone. For other

examples see my articles in Historia x and xii (174 f. and 259 with n. I ).

2 See Thuc. 4. 78. 6 and 83-88: I02-I6:

120-32: 139 (a night attempt at surprising Poteidaia).

3 See Thuc. 3. 87. I-3 and Gomme's notes ad loc. (ii. 388 f.): A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (1957), pp. I65 f. (against Gomme's attempt to restrict the hoplite losses to the field army).

4 Thuc. 2. 58. 3: 2. 70. 4 with Diod. 12.

46: Thuc. 3. 50. 2. 5 Jones (op. cit., pp. 174 ff.) argued that

the cleruchs were never actually sent to Lesbos, but Thucydides' drr6rreql av cannot easily be explained away as 'a term of art'. Gomme (Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, ii [I953], 334-9) thought that they were brought back to Athens c. 425/4 B.c.:

Meritt, dating the crucial decree (I.G. i2. 60) 427/6 B.C., holds that the cleruchs vacated the land for the Lesbians (on payment of rent), but remained in Lesbos concentrated near Mytilene and other cities on the estates of the oligarchs (A.J.Ph. lxxv ([ 954], 36 -8). Gomme restated his view in vol. ii of his Commentary (pp. 326-32), taking account of some of Meritt's points. Neither has quite proved his case and my view is an attempted compromise between them.

6 Thuc. 4. 42. i. Milesian hoplites were again employed in 424 B.c. (4. 54. I).

of the thetes.' Strategic needs could have won against any feeling that Athens must not voluntarily part with any citizens.

If my dating of Brea is valid, it must greatly strengthen the epigraphic argument of the first part of this paper. If it does not convince, that argument still stands on the evidence of Leagros' dedication alone. Transitional Attic lettering survived publicly into the 420's. It may even have been preferred by individuals or communities who did not mind the old-fashioned look or wanted a cheap job. My low dating of the Chalkis Decree may now seem less unreasonable than many have found it. Indeed even its sloping lambdas can be paralleled in an inscription which is quite certainly dated 4Io/9 B.C.2 Much in I.G. i2. 39 points to the Archidamian War, as I have argued elsewhere, and, though Thucydides is again silent, Philochoros recorded armed Athenian intervention in Euboia in 424/3 B.C., the precise year to which several indications lead. The

ascendancy of the XpagyLAoyoso Hierokles (lines 64 f.) surely belongs to those

years of credulity between the Plague and the Sicilian expedition.3 No single letter, I believe, can any longer be used as a criterion for rigorously

excluding inscriptions from the 430's or 420's. The firmest defenders of ortho-

doxy must admit some exception to their rule that three-bar sigma went out of

public use c. 445 B.C. Meritt and Wade-Gery now concede that the choregic dedication of Aristokrates son of Skelios must be put in the 420's or later, though I would agree that it was archaizing and will therefore leave it out of account.4 But there is another inscription (I.G. i2. 37) that is decidedly more awkward for them and with fine honesty they have not shirked its challenge. All that survives is the letters Okl<E c4I on a taenia over the reliefofa standing female personification named as MEYE-- -. There can be little doubt that this relief headed a stele carrying an Athenian decree about 'Messene' or 'the Messenians' and that part of the secretary's name is preserved in the letters on the taenia. Virtually all the sculptural experts whom Meritt and Wade-Gery have consulted want to date the relief after the Panathenaic frieze of the Parthenon, which they feel influenced the characteristic standing pose

I Jones holds (op. cit. i68f.) that the majority both of cleruchs and colonists were thetes: Gomme would seem to agree about the cleruchies (op. cit. ii. 328 f.). For the distinction between the two types of settlement see A.T.L. iii. 284. Plutarch (Per.

i. 6) implies that thetes largely benefited. Certainly thetes and zeugitai alike were ad- mitted to Brea (I.G. i2. 45. 37 ff.).Jones asserts that a colony, whilst reducing the citizen body, would have small effect on Athenian hoplite strength; a cleruchy could even be used to increase the latter, by raising thetes to zeugite census. He further argues that cleruchies were not regarded as garrisons, but that the cleruchs were liable for general military service (p. 174) and thus included on the normal hoplite roll. This seems doubtful. Andrian and Karystian hoplites were probably freed for foreign service (Thuc. 4. 42. I) by the Athenian cleruchies (for which see A.T.L. iii. 289 f. and Jones, op. cit. 170 f.): Miletos, which had no cleruchy,

represents a special case (see p. 190 n. I). In this way-by increasing use of allied hoplites -Athens tried to counter 'the fantastic waste of manpower', which Jones recognizes in the cleruchy as normally understood (p. 176).

2 See A.T.L. ii. pl. x for the lettering of D 17 (I.G. i2. 39): for I.G. i2. 09 see the photograph in A.T.L. i. 213 (D 9).

3 See my article in J.H.S. lxxxi (i96I), I24-32 (especially p. 126 on Hierokles): for Philochoros see the scholiast on Aristoph. Wasps 7I8 (Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. iii, B 328, frg. I30). Thucydides' Athenian speaker at Melos (5. 103. 2) shows a revealingly strong reaction to the pretensions of such as Hierokles: after the debacle at Syracuse this naturally became more general (8. i. I). On the special vogue of Xp-7a/loAo0yoL from 431 to 413 B.C. see the excellent study by L. Radermacher in Rhein. Mus. lxxv (1898), 504-9.

4 J.H.S. lxxxiii (I963), Ii5 (on I.G. i2.

772).

I86 H. B. MV3ATTINGLY


(dehanchement) of'Messene'; some would bring it downintothe420's.' Against this consensus Meritt and Wade-Gery can really cite only the male standing figure from the north end of the Hephaisteion east frieze.2 This seems hardly enough, especially as there is one further neglected piece of evidence that leads straight to the 420's. From Thuc. 3. go. 4 we know that Athens made an alliance in summer 426 B.C. with Sicilian Messana, whose Attic form is quite certainly Meacrrjvr. I believe that I.G. i2. 37 is a fragment from the stele that bore this

treaty and would tentatively suggest restoring the secretary as [Oav-r]oioAs?; he is already known as the secretary of I.G. i2. 75 (c. 430-425 B.C.) and played a part in the discussion about the Brea colony (I.G. i2. 45. 32 if.).3

With rather more confidence I can now pass on to the Kos fragment of the

Coinage Decree, which has caused so much disturbance with its three-bar

sigmas and early look. It should no longer prevent one dating D 14 c. 425 B.C., if the historical and numismatic factors incline that way. My case on these rests.4 Here I would stress a single formal point. Meritt and Wade-Gery rightly divined its importance, but they did not finally dispose of it and so the orthodox

dating remains precarious. I had argued that Klearchos would have adopted the current official order of tribute-districts in the passage dealing with the heralds' journeys. As this order was in fact the one first established in 425/4 B.C., I held this striking confirmation of my date for D 14. My opponents in this debate made some valid points against my basic doctrine and I frankly concede that I pushed my case too hard. But I find it hard to believe that the

naming of four districts in A 9 and D 14 was based on geographical considera- tions rather than book-keeping practice. Certainly the order of naming them could barely have been so determined, when they were enumerated one by one as here; indeed the two orators use different orders.5 Meritt and Wade-Gery take refuge in declaring that the choice was arbitrary. They cannot, of course, deny that Thoudippos' order had been used recently in a Tribute-List, but in

maintaining their date for List 25 (430/29 B.C.) they land themselves in a dilemma. They must assert that the order could and did vary within a single Assessment period and on p. 73 they draw the conclusion: 'The order changes within Period VII, and (if Thoudippos be considered as evidence for Period VIII) it changes back again in Period VIII.' Thoudippos then could have been

I ibid. I 15 ff.: Meritt, Hesperia xiii (I944), 223-9.

2 Scholarly consensus puts this frieze early (pre-Parthenon), so that I am reluctant to counter with C. H. Morgan's theory (Hes- peria xxxii [I963], I04-8) which puts it after 421 B.C.

3 For MeUaravr), MeaaujvLo see Thuc. loc. cit. and 4. 24-25. Many names ending -oKA,S could be supplied, but if I am right on Brea, Phantokles is politically active at just the required time. OL - - can be part of the demotic ('XAait$s) or of the father's name.

4 See Historia x (1961), i57 f. and 18I-8. Recently new light has come on Aigina. A stater of early land-tortoise type was over- struck by Azbaal of Kition (fl. c. 430 B.c.: see Kraay, Num. Chron. I962, 13 ff.); it is published by Noe, Amer. Num. Soc. Mus. Notes vi (I954), 90 and pl. xiv. 2). Robinson

(Num. Chron. I961, III f.) argues that the issue of 'turtles' stopped in 457 B.C. and that the 'tortoise' series runs from c. 446 to 431 B.C. Athens had to tolerate it under the 'autonomy clause' of 446/5 B.C. (Thuc. I. 67. 2). This may seem to dispose of the apparent disregard of D 14. There is no problem with the late dating. In 431 B.C.

Athens could proceed to call in and de- monetize masses of her enemy's coin and this may have led to pressure to deal radically with the whole problem of Athenian and foreign money.

5 See Mattingly, Historia x (196 ), 158- 68: Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 72 ff. I would now withdraw Perikles' Congress Decree (Plut. Per. I7) and the Decree of Kleinias (IG. i2. 66+: A.T.L. ii, D 7) from the discussion.

using the order of 426/5 B.C. This damning concession almost gives away their whole case. Now in this paper I trust that I have proved that List 25 is really the list of 426/5 B.C. Thoudippos then did use the current order, which the

taKTra altered afterwards-into that used by Klearchos. How can we evade the logical conclusion ? Is this one formal argument too weak to bear the weight which I would place on it ? It may seem a mere straw. Yet the merest straw can show which way the wind is blowing.

The decree of Klearchos and the Decree of Kleinias (A. T.L. ii, D 7) are very close in spirit and in time. We all seem able to agree on that. Then any dating which can be established for D 7 must bind D 14 also. Now epigraphically it remains hard to insist that D 7 belongs only in the 440's, since it has four-bar

sigma and not many letters really look early. Other arguments must be given more weight.2 In my earlier attack on D 7 I compared the provisions in D 8

(lines i8 if.) of 426/5 B.C. and D 7 (lines 43 if. and 58 if.) for registering the names of couriers of defaulting cities. I was content to adopt the A.T.L. restorations.3 I now see that I had got hold of a vital point. I propose therefore to re-examine the text of D 7 and ignore almost everything inside square brackets.4 Lines 43 if. follow the arrangements for prosecuting offenders

against tribute-collection or fulfilment of religious obligations. They give little clue to the sense:

7TOS s [......]

o[ ................... .E]s TTLVLaKLOV AE[AEVKO0ELV]

[ov ....................]v 7O6 opo Kac [ ... ....] [..................... Ka]t d a oy[pa4d ev ? .......]

With this we should perhaps compare lines 68 ff.:

eav s LtS Ta

[..........................] KAE'UEs hE PoAE Po [AevcratLeve ................] crayovrov 8e hot

[ ...................... A:0ev]aLoLs TO bo'pov

[............... Kara 7rv 7rlva]Ka re?S IevvaTEOS.

This follows a passage concerned with prosecution of couriers who betrayed their trust and, since eav e -ts a[- -- in line 68 could reasonably be restored as Eav Se Is- a,[AAos -- -, other culprits may be in view from this point.5 Is the

7rtva4 perhaps to be identified with the 7rtvaKLov of line 44? The A.T.L. text

assumes rather that lines 43 if. found their counterpart in 58 if., which are restored as follows:

- - ----- h]oot 86 ro6v a7ra[y] [ovov7ov AOEVa E Sr 7 7TLvKLOV dv]ayEypa'caTaL oCe

[AOV7ES E'V TEL 3 oAXL, 7E,L 3O\AV E7T]v EL8EXoaL TOt 8UJL

[Ol Kara TrV oALtv hEKaCTEV' Eav 8]E rT7L r6v rTO'Aov a

[5LfL<fETEL - - - -

Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii Meritt remarked of lines 43-77 in their (I962), 67 f.: Meiggs, Harvard Studies lxvii edition (Hesperia xiii [I944], I4) that there

(1963), 19 ff. and 28 ff. was 'little prospect of reaching anything 2 Meiggs can at most claim 'the disposi- like certainty': the restorations were 'largely

tion of the letters over the space is unlike the for the sake of example ... interpretation of style of the twenties but can be paralleled in what the meaning might have been'. the forties' (p. 22). See A.T.L. ii, pl. ii. 5 One might cite a similar passage in D

3 Historia x (1961), 152 n. 2I. 8 (lines 43-50), noting that KATo,etS in D 7. 69 4 In fairness I must note that Hill and echoes K]A)-r7opES in D 8. 48 f.

I88 H. B. MATTINGLY


Clearly this clause does refer back to a previous arrangement, which is curiously missing in the passage (lines 20-3 I) where one would expect it on the analogy of D 8. I1-25. A factual register of defaulting cities and their couriers moreover would be somewhat out of place where it must be assumed to have come in D 7, if it came at all. The context of criminal prosecutions seems inappropriate.

Was this provision then omitted from D 7 ? We must look again at the A. T.L. text of D 8. 18 if., which can surely be accepted:

------- - avay[paoo6vTov oE hot &AA]evora

[u]Lat ' cs aav&td raas [7ro'AsEs ras cAAtrd']oaas 7r6 o

[p]o Kat 7rov aTrayovr[ov ra ovo/'Luara Ka]l nOev&ac

[h?]EKCaror?e 7rpoa?GE[V 7O6 flearosg E]oro Se Kac 2a

This suggests to me a valid alternative restoration in D 7. 58 ff.:

h]oao,c e 76v ac7ra[y] [ovrov T;of 06pov E'S rev aavt8a av]ayEypdtarat or,e' [AOVTES EV TEZL oA&L, TrtL OA'V 7T]lSELXT?(aL t76L p [ol KaTa TEV TroXL heKaaOTEv' Eav 8]E TtSg - - -I

Allusive reference back to an earlier decree would be quite understandable and I have already argued that we have an example of this in D 7. 41-43, a clause relating to Thoudippos' Panathenaic ordinance of 425/4 B.C. My critics have failed to remove this disturbing possibility despite the skill of their

arguments. Now that we are faced with the probable dependence of D 7 on D 8 of 426/5 B.C., I cannot see that we can deny the perfect propriety of D 7. 41-43 as a follow-up to A 9. 55 ff. The Reassessment was bound to require a supplementary KOLVOV 07jtia for its enforcement and such a decree was rather likely to contain a penal clause protecting the religious obligation.2

IfD 7 then is really a decree of 425/4 B.C., we must allow the same dating for D 14. Neither curving upsilon nor three-bar sigma is a certain criterion for

early date. The two forms meet in the famous Miletos Decree. Against impressive counter-arguments I can only plead that the actual text must have absolute

priority as evidence, lacerated though it is, over any other form of evidence.3 Several lines converge very remarkably on 426/5 B.C. First the decree names an archon Euthynos. Did Diodoros mistakenly call the archon of 450/49 B.C.

Euthydemos? We do not know. But we do know that the archon of 426/5 B.C.

was called Euthynos.4 Secondly D I I, lines I ff. seems to arrange for Miletos

I The /Pfia in D 8. 2I is, of course, the tribune in the Council House: see A.T.L. iii. 16.

2 See Historia x (1 96), 153: Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 69-7I: Meiggs, op. cit. 23 and 29. Some imperial measure about Panathenaic obligation- perhaps affecting all allies of ultimate Ionian descent-doubtless preceded Thoudippos' brief decree, as they urge. But this need not be pushed far back. I suggest a date shortly before the Panathenaia of 430 B.C. The policy would be of a piece with the creation of the Delian Festival for the Ionians and Islanders in 426/5 B.C. (Thuc. iii. 104) and the

Eleusinian First-fruits Decree (I.G. i2. 76: see lines 14 if.) in 422/I B.C. (?); see on its date P. Guillon, Bull. Corr. Hell. lxxxvi (1962), 470 if.

3 See A.T.L. ii, pl. iv, D I (I.G. i2. 22+) for the lettering: Mattingly, Historia x (1961), 174-81 : J. Barron, J.H.S. lxxxii (I962), I-6: Meiggs, op. cit. 24 f.: Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 0oo- 2. I willingly abandon my attempts to call in Diodoros and the pseudo-Xenophon's A0. HoA.

4 See Historia x (1961), 174 and I 8 for full discussion.

to provide hoplites to serve in Greece. This may have happened on earlier occasions, but they are found there undeniably in summer 425 B.c.I In D I I. 42 we have a certain reference to Athenian E7TLptEA-rat. Meritt and Wade-Gery may be right in claiming that they were not a standing board, but one that

might be appointed from time to time as the need arose. Such need arose

specially in 426/5 B.C. and in this year one would expect to find them busily at work, dealing with offences relating to tribute-payment, as arranged in D 8.

38-52. Now in D II. 51 f. the text can be plausibly restored to show the

rLL,EAX7rTaL fulfilling just the function ascribed to them in D 8.2 In D I I. 57 f.- a passage probably concerned with Miletos-I believe that we have traces of the Milesian 4KAoyES ?c>opov appointed under the terms of D 8 early in 426/5 B.C. The phrases ErLypaTbas e T o[tev?] and 7rEp ro^v XPECarov es E7e opd[s would be most appropriate in describing their operations.3 One last point may be worth making. In lines 4 f. the A.T.L. text reads: [- -- hEAeaOaL 8] 7TETVTE

Jv[8pas rov &SEpov E'XS harr/avrov a]lvvTLKa pyaAa h[v7rEp TpLaKovra Ere] yEyovoTa[S. Now there really seems no reason for specifying the minimum age of thirty here. This was surely required for most, if not all, Athenian offices.4 But in the first Methone Decree (D 3. I6 ff.) we find the clause: 7r[peares 8]e rpEs 7rT/oraL hvrETp Trvr7EKOvra ETE yEyov[oraS ho]s HEp$KKa[v]. The same supplement can

perfectly well be made in D I I. 4 f. in view of the irregularity of its stoichedon

pattern.5 Now this care not to detach men of active age for civilian service overseas fits the time when Athens was committed to a war greater than any in her past history. By 427/6 B.C., after two onsets of the plague, the hoplite class was dangerously depleted.6

Despite all apparent difficulties I cannot see how this cumulative case can be rejected. D i, on its own evidence, must be put in 426/5 B.C. The documents on which an impressive story of the Empire has been built must be

brought down nearly a generation and we must patiently see what can be made of them in their later context. It has always seemed to many that the

Coinage Decree fitted the period of Kleon's dominance. Now other Athenian

policies and transactions must join it in the 420's and among them the foundation of Brea-that little-regarded, little-remembered colony-may perhaps claim a place of some honour.

I See on this Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxiii (I963), o10 and Meiggs, op. cit. 25: Thuc. 4. 42. i. Meiggs finds 4 obols pay too low for the Archidamian War (Thuc. iii. 7): but this was possibly pay for the v'7rnqpErrs implied in line 12, not for the hoplites.

2 See J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), I02, where they seem to accept my suggestion for 51 f. I had argued that these ertLtLEAr1Tra were first appointed by D 8 (Historia x [I96I], 177)- possibly wrongly.

3 Lines 30-56 deal with jurisdiction at Athens for civil cases arising at Miletos and offences against Athenian regulations; lines 59-64 seem concerned with disputes and conditions in Miletos itself. It seems unlikely that 56 if. refer to Etabopa at Athens- how would that affect Milesians? The

'Suda' and Harpokration (both s.v. e'KAoyEct) significantly confuse the allied EKAoyeF, with the officials who collected elaoopa at Athens, which suggests that the system of D 8 was at least modelled on the Athenian one. See Meritt, Documents on Athenian Tribute, 14 ff.

4 See Hignett, Athenian Constitution, p. 224. 5 See the epigraphical notes in A.T.L. ii.

60. 6 Thucydides' view (i. I-2) must have

been shared by many, as the war wore on. For the active-service age groups (20-49) see Gomme, op. cit. ii. 35-39 on Thuc. 2. 13. 6. 4,400 hoplites died of plague (Thuc. 3. 87. 3). Athens would have had to spare some hoplites for Brea in 426/5 B.C., but this loss was partially offset, as we have seen (pp. I85 nn. 5 and 6 and I86 n. I).

H. B. MATTINGLY Igo

ATHENIAN IMPERIALISM AND THE FOUNDATION OF BREA I91

APPENDIX

IN his recent article 'The Athenian Casualty Lists' in Hesperia xxxiii (I964) Donald W. Bradeen has shown that E.M. I2883, E.M. 13344, and I.G. i2. 942 all come from the same monument, which consisted of five stelai-each con-

taining the casualties of two tribes-ranged side by side on a base. There was

evidently room for some 850 names on the stelai, but not all the tribes may have filled their allotted columns. A conservative guess would put the total losses c. 550, but the true figure could well be near 700. Bradeen makes out a very strong case for claiming that these stelai actually stood on the base which carries the 'Koroneia' epigram. For all this see pp. 21-29 of his article with

figs. 1-2. Now Bradeen recognizes (p. 25) that it is hardly credible that even as much as 55 per cent. of the Athenian force was killed at Koroneia; Thucydides' neutral language in I. I13. 2 alone rules this out (compare 4. o1I. 4 and

passim). Accepting spring 446 B.C. as the date for Koroneia (A. T.L. iii. I74 and

178 n. 65) he therefore assumes that the stelai included the casualties in Megara and Euboia as well. But this is hard to believe. The epigram refers to one fateful battle only, in which the valiant dead had fallen. The comparable Poteidaia

epitaph (I.G. i2. 945+) must have headed a list confined to the losses in the battle of 432 B.C. (Thuc. I. 63. 3); see Tod i. I27 f., no. 59. Similarly the losses recorded on I.G. i2. 943+-whatever its correct date-seem all to have been incurred in the Hellespontine area, as its epigram demands; see Tod i. 100 if., no. 48.

Bradeen's very plausible association of stelai and base ought not to be lightly abandoned. Does it in fact work better for Delion ? On p. 27 n. 19 he discusses my view of the epigram; after allowing that the arguments for Amphiaraos are attractive, he maintains the traditional dating. 'Decisive against Mattingly's identification', he writes, 'is the fact that Thucydides (4.IOI.2) gives the Athenian losses at Delion as almost I ooo, not including the light-armed. . . .' Now were the light-armed included on these public funeral lists? Despite Bradeen's insistence (p. 25 n. I5) that all citizen losses must have been recorded, I incline strongly to the opposite view, which has many supporters (e.g. A. E. Raubitschek, Hesperia xii [I943], 48 n. I 02) and seems reasonable at least for the period down to the Peace of Nikias. Athens then had no regular, properly equipped light-armed troops and those involved in the Delion debacle were hastily raised levies from the townsfolk and the non-resident aliens (Thuc. 4. 94. i). As Gomme acutely observed, the great majority were drafted for building the Delion fortification and not for fighting at all. Because they were not strictly part of the army establishment, Thucydides could give no figure for their casualties, nor does Perikles estimate the number of btAot in his famous survey (Thuc. 2. 13. 7). Likewise after precise figures for the cavalry and hoplite losses by plague Thucydides is reduced to writing -rov 8e AAov

oXAov dvEEvpETroS dpV0po's- (3. 87. 3). For all this see Gomme, op. cit. iii. 558 and 564 f.

Bradeen, however, thinks that Thucydides' 'almost Iooo' is itself decisive against my view. I must admit that his maximum estimate of the names entered on the stelai cannot really be raised. But did only Athenian hoplites fight on the Athenian side at Delion? In describing the levee en masse Thucydides wrote (4. 90. I) o CE 'ITT7ToKpaTrns avauariasa AOfvavovs TravVy^e, avrovs Kal To)Vs eTroIKOVS Kal evwv rao p 7rap7av. . . . The latter composed the irregular

light-armed units with the townsfolk (4. 94. i); the metics were reckoned as hoplites in reserve by Perikles (2. 13. 7) and 3,oo00 of them actually joined in the Megarid invasion of autumn 431 B.c. (2. 31. 1-2). Then they seem to have taken the place of the 3,000 Athenian hoplites besieging Poteidaia, as A. H. M. Jones has plausibly suggested (Athenian Democracy, p. I64). In 424/3 B.C. 400 hoplites were serving under Demosthenes (Thuc. 4. IOI. 3) and another 1,200 under Aristeides, Demodokos, and Lamachos in the thirty tribute-collecting ships; see Thuc. 4. 75 and I.G. i2. 97+ as revised and reinterpreted by Meritt in Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, ii (I953), 298-303. Thus it would be reasonable to postulate that i,600 metic hoplites were drafted for the Delion campaign. The Boiotian hoplites were about 7,000 strong, the Athenian force was roughly equal (Thuc. 4. 93. 3 and 94. i); there may have been as many as 6,ooo Athenian-born hoplites. Now the Athenian cavalry was prevented from taking any part in the battle (see Gomme, op. cit. iii. 566 on Thuc. 4. 96. 2) and will have had little difficulty in making good their escape even from the pursuing enemy cavalry. We must then assume something like 950 casualties among the hoplites alone. Assuming the same proportion of loss we could divide this as 200 metics and 750 Athenians-the men whose names, I submit, nearly filled the monument under discussion, which Pausanias will have seen in the Kerameikos centuries later (I. 29. 13).

Bradeen's 'decisive' argument turns out practically decisivefor Delion. This not only strengthens the argument in my text about the 'Koroneia' epigram and Brea, but has other awkward consequences. The script of the lists, though also transitional, is different from that of the epigram in its forms of rho and phi (P and 4) as against R and cl>). See Hesperia xxxiii (1964), pl. 2-3. Except for four-bar sigma, however, it is almost identical with that of I.G. i2. 85I+ (Bradeen's no. 3; p. 21 and pl. 2). Some of its four-bar sigmas indeed have the top stroke slanting too vertically, as though the mason was intending a three- bar form. Bradeen suggests that the two inscriptions (his nos. 3 and 5) were cut by the same stonecutter, the latter just at the point when he was going over to the current fashion in the shape of sigma (p. 24). This observation seems valid. If we redate Bradeen's no. 5 to 424/3 B.C., it must mean that this mason at least had recently been used to inscribing three-bar sigmas together with the other early or transitional forms which he still retained for a while-curving upsilon and sloping nu. This confirms most satisfactorily the epigraphic points which I have tried to make in this article.

HAROLD B. MATTINGLY

H. B. MATTINGLY 192

tUniversity of Nottingham