¹ Notably by Gomme, A. W. (Commentary on Thucydides i 401–11)Google Scholar; Klaffenbach, G. (‘Das Jahrder Kapitulation von Ithome’ in Historia i 231–5)Google Scholar; Meritt, , Wade-Gery, and McGregor, (The Athenian Tribute Lists iii 162–73)Google Scholar; Accame, S. (in Riv. d. Fil. 30 (1952) 113–19)Google Scholar; Lewis, D. M. (‘Ithome Again’ in Historia ii 412–18)Google Scholar; Scharf, J. (‘Noch einmal Ithome’ in Historia iii 153–62)Google Scholar; Hammond, N. G. L. (‘Studies in Greek Chronology of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.’ in Historia ivGoogle Scholar; cf. especially sec. I, 371–81); and Sealey, R. (‘The Great Earthquake in Lace-daemon’ in Historia vi 368–71).Google Scholar In this paper the authors of The Athenian Tribute Lists will be referred to collectively as ATL, and reference to their discussion in volume iii will be by page only. Similarly reference to the other discussions mentioned in this note will be by author's name and page only.

² Klaffenbach and ATL accept Krüger's emendation (so also Bengston, H. in his Griechische Geschichte 183Google Scholar n. 4), but Gomme prefers and Lewis The MSS. are unanimous in reading

³ Of the writers mentioned in n. 1 above only Accame is prepared to accept the traditional view to any extent. Jacoby, F. is also sympathetic (FGr. Hist. III b Suppl. vol. ii 366–8).Google Scholar

⁴ See JHS lxx 75–6.

⁵ Thuc. i 111.3. The date is that given in ATL.

⁶ Thuc. i 115.1.

⁷ Thuc. ii 9.2; v 82.1.

⁸ This applies in reverse to the outward journey as well. Accame argues (pp. 114–15) that the Spartans would not have started their expedition at all if Naupaktos had been in Athenian hands at the time, but this is unfortunately inconclusive: the crucial factor in the strategy of the expedition was. not the control of Naupaktos but the presence or absence of Athenian ships in the Gulf. Cf. Lewis, 413.

⁹ There is no evidence to show that either island was under Athenian control at this date. Indeed, Diodorus (xi B4.7) ascribes the occupation of both places to the expedition of Tolmides in the following year, though the silence of Thucydides (i 108.5) makes this detail of Diodorus' account suspect.

¹⁰ This section was written before the publication of Hammond's article in which he reaches very similar conclusions. Cf. his p. 405, n. 3.

¹¹ In Ath. Stud. presented to W. S. Ferguson 222.

¹² ATL 167. The context of the Herodotus passage (ix 35) clearly calls for a reference not to a lengthy siege but to a pitched battle, such as we know from another reference in Herodotus (ix 64.2) took place in the early stages of the revolt. There is therefore no need to emend the text in ix 35, where the MSS. do not mention Ithome at all but an obscure place called Isthmos (cf. How and Wells, ad loc). Even if Herodotus were referring in this passage to the blockade, it is difficult to see in what other order he could have put his list of operations, since on any conceivable chronology the greater part of the blockade preceded Tanagra.

¹³ Hammond also exaggerates the value of this source: ‘against this fifth-century document there can be no appeal’ (p. 373).

¹⁴ For this point see further in section II below.

¹⁵ It seems to be generally agreed that the supposed corruption in Thucydides' text took place not later than the middle of the fourth century, i.e. within a generation of the original publication: Klaffenbach (p. 235) goes so far as to attribute it to the original editor. Lewis on the other hand argues that Ephoros got his story of a ten years' siege not from Thucydides at all, but from some other writer of the fifth century, perhaps Charon of Lampsakos. This is quite possible, as Ephoros clearly had other sources available for the history of the Pentekontaetia, but it is not susceptible of proof.

¹⁶ If on the other hand the Egyptian expedition is put at any earlier date (as it is, e.g., by Scharf, , ‘Die erste ägyptische Expedition der Athener’, in Historia iii 308–25)Google Scholar, it will be quite impossible to avoid the overlap in Thucydides' narrative.

¹⁷ Tanagra: Diod. xi 79–80; Tolmides: Diod. xi 84, schol. Aisch. ii 75.

¹⁸ Diodorus' date for Tanagra does not require separate consideration, since it stands or falls with his evidence and that of the Scholiast for the date of Tolmides' expedition. It is clear from Thucydides' narrative of these events (i 107–8) that they were not separated by any great period of time.

¹⁹ Plut. Kimon 17.8.

²⁰ Some recent discussions of the Egyptian expedition have assumed rather more extensive overlaps in Thucydides'narrative: see, e.g., Accame (pp. 117–19) and Barns, J., ‘Cimon and the First Athenian Expedition to Cyprus’ (Historia ii 163–76Google Scholar; cf. especially pp. 174–5).

²¹ He assumes overlaps in connexion with the Egyptian expedition (pp. 396–405) and dates to 457/6 the Athenian occupation of Naupaktos and the settlement there of the Messenians, which Thucydides mentions immediately after the fall of Ithome in i 103 (p. 403; cf. esp. n. 1).

²² P. 373. His scheme supposes a gap of three years between the capitulation of the Messenians and their settlement at Naupaktos, an interval of which there is no hint in Thucydides' brief account.

²³ For the details see Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii 2, 226–30.Google Scholar

²⁴ For Diodorus' chronology of the period see Kolbe, W., ‘Diodorus Wert für die Geschichte der Pentekontaetie’, in Hermes lxxii 241–69Google Scholar, and, more briefly, Gomme, 51–4.

²⁵ The point is discussed in detail by Jacoby, , FGr Hist., III b Suppl. vols. i 455–61Google Scholar; ii 365–71.

²⁶ There is a very close parallel in Thuc. viii 6.5, the only real difference being that in this passage there is no definite article: it is inserted in i 101 because the earthquake to which Thuc. there alludes was so famous (cf. also iii 89.1 and v 45.4). I am indebted to Professor A. Cameron for discussion of this point, and in particular for several references to parallel passages.

²⁷ See Forrest, W. G., ‘Themistokles and Argos’, in CQ N.S. x 221–41Google Scholar, and esp. p. 240.

²⁸ The two events go closely together, or so Thucydides at any rate thought: cf. n. 22 above.

²⁹ This consideration serves at least to cancel out the argument from Thucydides' use in connexion with the settlement of the Messenians at Naupaktos of the phrase which is often taken as a reference to the dismissal of Kimon and its effect on Spartan-Athenian relations (Gomme, 304; ATL 164). On the other hand Hammond (p. 403) sees in it a reference to Tanagra.

³⁰ It could be claimed that the Tanagra campaign was intended to assist Aigina by diverting the attention of the Athenians, but as I have pointed out else where (JHS lxx 75–6), there is no hint in Thucydides' account (i 107.2–108.2) that the Spartans had any motive other than initially the desire to help Doris and subsequently the instinct for self-preservation.

³¹ Diod. xi 88.2. Thucydides (i 111.2) does not mention the Spartans, but his silence is not conclusive.

³² Thuc. xi 27.2. An attempt has recently been made by MacDowell, D. (‘Aigina and the Delian League’, JHS lxxx 118–21)Google Scholar to show that Aigina was never a member of the Peloponnesian League, but instead was a founder-member of the Delian League. This theory, however, does not take sufficient account of:

(i) The basic improbability that after twenty years of more or less continuous hostility to Athens Aigina would then in 478/7 join an Athenian-dominated confederacy (co-operation in 480 proves nothing).

(ii) The fact that in mentioning the outbreak of hostilities with Aigina Thucydides (i 105.2) carefully avoids the word ‘revolt’, though he has previously used it of Naxos (98.4) and Thasos (100.2), and uses it again of Byzantium and by implication of Samos (115.5). Against this Diodorus' use of the word (xi 70.2) is unimpressive.

Moreover, that Aigina was indeed a member of the Peloponnesian League is suggested both by the presence of Aiginetan allies at the naval battle near the island (Thuc. i 105.2: who were these if not Peloponnesians?) and by the presence of unofficial representatives of Aigina at the congress of Spartan allies in 432 (Thuc. i 67.2).

³³ Thuc. i 1.1, 19, ii 11.1; cf. Gomme, 298–9, 360. For an exaggerated account of Spartan losses cf. Diodorus xi 63.1 (‘more than twenty thousand’): some other late accounts suggest much lighter losses, e.g. Polyaenus i 41.3.

³⁴ Thuc. i 102.4 (sc ) Cf.Gomme, ad loc.

³⁵ For an example from comparatively modern times of a battle whose contemporary fame far outstripped its basic importance cf. the action in the Napoleonic Wars which gave its name to Maida Vale.

³⁶ Forrest (op. cit., 232) dates the Argive attack on Mycenae to c. 469, the start of trouble with Tiryns to c. 466, and its final fall to 465/4. The reduction of Tiryns, however, could have been a long business, and its end could easily be dated several years later without upsetting the rest of Forrest's scheme, which is attractive if in places highly conjectural. On the other hand Andrewes, (‘Sparta and Arcadia’ in Phoenix vi 1–5)Google Scholar puts the reduction of Mycenae in 465/4, and that of Tiryns earlier, before 470.

³⁷ E.g. Walker, , in CAH v 92.Google Scholar

³⁸ The traditional picture of large-scale disaster in Egypt should perhaps be modified in the light of Wallace, 's reconstruction (TAPA lxvii 252–60Google Scholar; cf. Scharf, in Historia iii 308–25Google Scholar). But even in this version Athenian losses were at least 70 triremes together with an unknown but presumably considerable number of hoplites (Scharf, 323, reckons 1,500–1,700): this is surely serious enough.

An alternative explanation might be found in the revolts of Erythrai and Miletos with some of their dependencies which have been deduced in ATL (pp. 252–7) from the Tribute Quota Lists, though the complete absence of any reference to such revolts in Thucydides suggests that in his opinion they were not of major importance, nor perhaps as lengthy as ATL supposes.

³⁹ It is usually assumed that this squadron had sailed right round the Peloponnese on the strength of Thucydides' use of the verb ‘περιπλεῖν’ in i 107.3. I am not convinced that this is an entirely valid inference, but as the point is not material to my main thesis I do not propose to discuss it here.

⁴⁰ Tolmides' expedition presents something of a problem in that it subsequently enjoyed far greater fame than its actual achievements, as recorded by Thucydides (i 108.5), would seem to warrant. (The additional details provided by later writers are mostly quite unreliable.) Its reputation would be explained if it could be assumed that this was the first time Athenian ships had made the trip, and that previous operations in the Gulf of Corinth (i.e. the Tanagra campaign) had been carried out by a squadron based on Pegai.

⁴¹ This is a reasonable inference from Thucydides' mention of in connexion with Pericles' campaign in 454 (i 111.2).

⁴² It is just possible that Diodorus may after all be right when he adds the occupation of Naupaktos to the list of Tolmides' exploits (xi 84.7), though some of the other details in his account of the expedition are obviously wrong. If he is right, it can only be supposed that Thucydides failed to mention it in the right place because he had already referred to it in i 103. It may be added that, although the usual assumption that the occupation was carried out by the Athenian fleet is probably correct, in the first few years after Oenophyta an occupation by land is not completely impossible.

⁴³ It is also possible that in 461 (the date for the occupation of Naupaktos given by ATL and Gomme) there were considerable Athenian forces operating in the Levant: cf. Barns, op. cit.

⁴⁴ I am greatly indebted to Professor Andrewes, who read and discussed with me an earlier draft of this paper. This does not mean that he necessarily agrees with everything that is said in it, still less that he is in any way responsible for its remaining defects, which but for his advice would have been much more numerous.