¹ Decrees of Klearchos on coinage and of Kleinias on tribute collection. In this second part of our paper, as in the first (JHS lxxxii [1962] 67 ff.) we refer to the documents concerned by the numbers given to them in ATL ii 46–78, or (if not there numbered) by reference to Tod's Selection or (most often) to SEG.

² The former question we leave to numismatists. For the latter, we prefer to leave still fairly open the question of how far the appendix to list 8 records transactions incidental to fighting at Eion and at the Hellespont in 448 (some of which we believed we could trace: ATL iii 59–61), how far it records the kind of exaction which Kleinias desired (e.g. the payments from Kos: 8 i 92, 8 ii 102). Whether the defection of the Neleids in Miletos, c. 446, may have been partly provoked by D7, see Barron, in JHS lxxxii (1962) 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ He believes in the peace of 423: Historia x (1961) 161 n. 61, 175 n. 123. Here, too, in fact, he finds a document of the later twenties falsely ascribed to the mid century: but in this case the error is older than any modern views about the shape of sigma.

⁴ Historia x (1961) 159: JHS lxxxii (1962) 72 ff. On the rearrangement of tribute-periods which his doctrine requires, Mattingly, writes again in CQ, NS xi (1961) 158–60Google Scholar: but we are not persuaded.

⁵ Barron (note 2 above) proposes that the second Milesian revolt (of which ps. Xenophon speaks) was between 446 and 443 (p. 2) and was the work of those Neleids who earlier had supported Athens and the notion of kinship (p. 4: cf. p. 6). This may well provide a background of fact for what we wrote about cow and panoply, pp. 69–71.

⁶ Historia x (1961) 177.

⁷ The traces of Milesian oligarchy in D11 (lines 5–6, 67, and perhaps the word σοφρονõ[σι] in 82?) suggest that this is stage 2 rather than stage 4. Mattingly recognises the problem (n. 132 and especially n. 144), and suggests that the officers named (probably) in 5–6 are ‘hieratic’ and concerned (merely?) with reconciliation.

⁸ The archon's name in D11 is Euthynos (or Euthynous): Diodoros knows no archon of this name, but three named Euthydemos, in 450/49, 431/0, 426/5. The facts have often been assembled: e.g. Hill's Sources ² 398–9 (under the three years in question), and recently Hesp. xxvi (1957) 183.—We note that Mattingly implies that there is no reason to question Diodoros' Euthydemos in 450/49, and this blunts one of the weapons most used against our view of D13.

⁹ Plutarch (Lys. 8.1–3) and Polyaenus (i 45.1) associate the massacre, as Diodoros does, with Lysander. Mattingly's pretext for moving it from this context is that Xenophon says nothing of it, and we must not (apparently) foist on Xenophon events of which he says nothing. So we foist them on Thucydides instead?—Barron (see note 5 above) gives a more felicitous explanation of ps. Xenophon: the oligarchs are the Neleids.

¹⁰ Hisoria x (1961) 176: Knights 361 and 927 ff. For the second passage, see Wade-Gery, , EGH 234 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹ Historia, ibid.

¹² Mattingly wishes to discount this (176 n. 126), but does not explain how. It was, we imagine, a standing obligation and D11 is probably requiring acquiescence thereto.

¹³ Poteidaia, Thuc. i 61.4. At Tanagra, Thucydides (i 107.5) names the Argives first and then Pausanias saw at Olympia (v 10.4) the Spartan dedication for victory over Argives, Athenians, and Ionians (cf. ATL iii 249 n. 17). Mattingly understands these ‘Ionians’ as Euboians: but if (as we believe) the cities of Euboia, except Karystos which was not Ionian, were still furnishing ships in 458, we should not expect them to furnish infantry, cf. Thuc. ii 9.5.

¹⁴ Andrians and Karystians in the same force as the Milesians in 425, Thuc. iv 42.1: nothing suggests that these are consequent on any special recent agreement. (The Imbrians and Lemnians of iv 28.4 may be cleruchs; the peltasts and archers, ibid., are allies but not hoplites.)

¹⁵ Cf. ATL iii 142–4, and 284 n. 40.

¹⁶ Historia x (1961) 177. Note also the verb κακοτεχνӗι in D8 line 43 and D11 line 50, and compare D8, 50–2 with D11, 53.

¹⁷ Aristotle, Ἀθπ. 44.4. See also Wade-Gery, , BSA 33 (1932/1933) 121 Google Scholar, lines 42–3.

¹⁸ Ar. Ἀθπ. 43.5.

¹⁹ In the text of D11 Mattingly quite rightly questions the restoration of Κεκροπίς in line 2, where (as he says) Ἀντιοχίς and Ἐρεχθείς are equally possible. Further, the name restored as [Ὀνέτ]ορ in line 3 admits of many other restorations.

²⁰ ATL ii 68–9 (D15).

²¹ Historia x (1961) 175–6.

²² ATL iii 282–4.

²³ First published by Oliver, J. H., Hesp. ii (1933) 494–7Google Scholar (no. 12) with a photograph on p. 494. A text is given in Hill's Sources ², B29.

²⁴ Historia x (1961) 173.

²⁵ Thucydides gives the details, ii 56.1–2: 100 ships plus 50 more from Chios and Lesbos, 4000 hoplites, 300 cavalry on transports. How exceptional a scale it was, Thuc. vi 31.2.

²⁶ We have had the benefit of discussion of this part of the Argolid with Michael H. Jameson, who has explored the entire area in great detail; and Meritt has himself visited the sites of both Halieis and Hermione.

²⁷ See Meritt, and Andrewes, , BSA xlvi (1951) 200–9Google Scholar: cf. SEG xii 37.

²⁸ The profile was measured by John Travlos, who kindly forwarded a drawing of it for our study. A frontal view is shown in Oliver's photograph (above, n. 23) but we can now add that the height of the moulding is 0·015 m. and its depth 0·011 m.

²⁹ Above, note 3.

³⁰ SEG x 87: Hesp. xiv (1945) 119 ff., no. 11. Cf. Gomme, , Commentary on Thuc. vol. iii 621 f.Google Scholar, 626 f.: Mattingly, , Historia x (1961) 168, 181.Google Scholar

³¹ 424/3: JHS lxxxi (1961) 124 ff.

³² We have not thought it part of our task to reexamine D16 or D17 (neither uses the three-bar sigma): but we note that when Aristophanes produced the Clouds in 423 (or perhaps when he revised it later: JHS lxxxii (1962) 70 n. 10), Perikles' campaign of 446 was still topical (line 213): it was what had brought Euboia to her present shape.

³³ IG i² 54 = Hill's Sources ² B69. We do not now think that the decree was concerned mainly with a Springhouse: see below, p. 109.

³⁴ JHS lxviii (1948) 129.

³⁵ Besides SEG x 44 which (as Mattingly has observed, n. 73) is by the same hand, there are further the four documents in the ‘three-chisel’ hand assembled by Wade-Gery, , BSA xxxiii (1932/1933) 122 ff.Google Scholar: viz. IG i² 77; 160; 61 + 169 + 179; 185 + two further fragments (= SEG x 60). None of these admits of exact dating. Wade-Gery (ibid., 101, 134) supposed they were of early and late thirties: it is likely that they cover several years. A close descendant of the same hand is seen as late as 415 B.C., ATL ii List 39 (see figs. 1 and 2 on p. 37); another, perhaps, as late as 408/7, in IG i² 118 (phot. Kern, IG 18). This last is in the Ionic alphabet, and the letters are also smaller than in the earlier examples, and neither of these later pieces keeps exactly to the cutter's strict practice.

One error in Wade-Gery's tabulation of that practice (loc. cit., p. 122) needs correcting. Chi is made with two strokes of the 0·011 m. (not the 0·009 m.) chisel.

³⁶ Loc. cit. (see note 34).

³⁷ The tense of τελ[ӗταί] in 15 shows that revenue is spoken of, not reserve: the tense of [λαμ[βάνει in 15–16 shows that Athena's claims are recurrent (annual?).

³⁸ The phrase τά νομιζόμενα, as in Thuc. i 25.4 or Du line 4, means ‘what is recognised as the current practice’. The tense is such as to say nothing of how that practice was established: no doubt it will often have been established by public resolutions. Athena's recognised current claims on tribute money (safeguarded by this clause) will no doubt include the aparchê, but the aparchê by itself is nowhere else safeguarded in this manner, and this clause seems to us more reasonable if it safeguards something else as well, like the payments spoken of at the beginning of D1.

³⁹ Mattingly rejects our view that Athena received substantial payments of tribute money (that is, the Tamiai received them from the Hellenotamiai) in the years preceding 434: he writes (n. 75) ‘basically this all rests on their interpretation of Thuc. ii 13.3 and the mutilated Anonymus Argentinensis papyrus’. We believe indeed that the order for these payments was recorded in line 8 of the papyrus (see below, p. 108), and that Thuc. loc. cit. (if he wrote αἰεί ποτε as we believe) refers to the way these payments kept the reserve on an even keel; and we believe, further, that these payments are safeguarded in the last lines of D19 (see the previous note). But the firm foundation of our belief is of course D1. That rather difficult text demands to be read patiently, but (given that) we believe there can be no doubt what lines 3–4 mean.

⁴⁰ The episode is one of the things which culminate in Thucydides' ostracism.

⁴¹ In note 75 he suggests that it belongs to the time after Thucydides' return from ostracism, c. 433: perhaps this applies only to the single episode of ch. 14? P. 166 top, he suggests that the protests reported in Per. 12.2 were made ‘on Perikles’ final rendering of accounts'.

⁴² Besides the Parthenon, the temples named in n. 46 below.

⁴³ We believe D13 to be the last of the three, and to be dated (in the Strasbourg papyrus) to this year.

⁴⁴ We now think Kyaneai, in the reported terms, to be at the northern mouth of the Bosporos, and that therefore the demilitarised zone which Wade-Gery supposed between Kyaneai and Phaselis is non-existent. But we still hold that Asia Minor west of the Halys was barred to the King's own troops, as Isokrates states explicitly at vii 80 and xii 59 (cf. Herodotos v 52.2, and Xenophon, , Hellenica i. 4.3 Google Scholar). Isokrates' statement should not be regarded as a grotesque exaggeration of the ‘autonomy’ zone. A. Andrewes has an illuminating discussion of the terms of the Peace as they dealt with the restrictions on movements of Persian troops (of the King and his satraps) in western Asia Minor (Historia x [1961] 15–18).

⁴⁵ JHS lxxxii (1962) 72–4. Mattingly's phrase in his note 90 (op. cit., p. 168) ‘studiously avoid’ seems to us so exaggerated as to amount to a reductio ad absurdum.

⁴⁶ The Hephaisteion: the Ares temple, moved to the Agora in Roman times, perhaps from Acharnai: the temple of Poseidon at Sounion: of Nemesis at Rhamnous.

⁴⁷ We hoped we had made our position clear on this, in Hesp. xxvi (1957) 187, as well as in the translation which we have repeated above. Yet Sealey in his criticism of that article (Hermes lxxxvi (1958) 442) still assumes that we put a stop before μετ' ἐκεῖνο and construct that phrase with what follows: ‘Die Worte μετ' ἐκεῖνο γινομένων τῶν ἔργων sind sehr unklar.’

⁴⁸ Our misgivings are as stated. Hesp. xxvi (1957) 183: a certain reluctance ‘to separate these provisions from those shipbuilding provisions on which Demosthenes keeps insisting in xxii 8–20'.—But Sealey's criticism (Hermes loc. cit.: ‘in der ganzen athenischen Gesetzgebung findet sich kaum eine derartige “lex satura”’) seems to us grotesque. The total of Athenian decrees or laws, which are anywhere near complete, is very small; financial decrees frequently deal with both defence and cult (e.g. D1, though that is no doubt far from complete); and the combination of these topics is specially Periklean. See Hesp. xxvi (1957) 184 with n. 54 and p.197.

⁴⁹ Mattingly's phrase in another context: see n. 45 above.

⁵⁰ On p. 164, with n. 71, Mattingly supposes that tribute money spent on the Akropolis works would appear in the accounts as ‘received (by the epistatai) from the Hellenotamiai’. If this were so, then probably little more than the Aparchê came from tribute, and the violent language which Plutarch reports, Per. 12.2, is surprising. Of the possibility that much of what was received from the Tamiai came from tribute, Mattingly says nothing.

The Tamiai were astonishingly rich in the second half of the century, until the collapse of Athens. Apart from the building accounts this is clear from the series of documents of which Tod 50, 55, 64, 75, 81, 83 are examples. In our belief it was D13 which made them rich, and the source of this wealth was tribute.

⁵¹ The main business was some major construction for which Perikles had offered to pay, and which could go forward at once. We suggest, very tentatively, that this project was concerned with the Panathenaic approach to the Akropolis—and was thus (perhaps) involved marginally in the Propylaia project.

⁵² Thompson, H. A., Hesp. xxv (1956) 52–3.Google Scholar In his report published in AJA lx (1956) 135, Thompson suggested a connexion between this aqueduct and the ἀγωγή of IG i² 54 (= D19, line 5).

⁵³ His latest published report (Hesp. xxix [1960] 347–9) suggests a date too late for association with D19.

⁵⁴ Historia x (1961) 169–71.

⁵⁵ SEG xii 80 = Papademetriou, , Ἀρχ. Ἐφ. 1948/1949. 146–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Historia x (1961) 169.

⁵⁷ Mattingly, , Historia x (1961) 170 n. 103.Google Scholar When the Pelopoimesian War broke out Chrysis had been priestess of Hera at Argos for 48 years (Thuc. ii 2.1): she continued as priestess for eight and a half years more (Thuc. iv 133), making fifty-six and a half years in all, and even then fled in the full vigour of life to avoid punishment for carelessly setting the temple on fire.

⁵⁸ In suggesting a change Mattingly is right, in a formal sense, in saying that the epigraphical evidence for reading αγ. is not conclusive (Historia x [1961] 169 n. 95). But the evidence against reading αν is conclusive, and this is important.

⁵⁹ The sloping stroke of gamma is visible on the squeeze in Princeton. Epigraphically, of course, it could be part of alpha or delta.

⁶⁰ Ἀρχ. Ἐφ., 1948/9, p. 150. Cf. Mattingly, , Historia x (1961) 169 n. 98.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The stele was made of two pieces of Pentelic marble, one doweled above the other with a scarf-joint (cf. Hesp. x [1941] 311). It must have already been in position when the decree of 424/3 was inscribed on the reverse. The mason chose to inscribe this later decree on the lower of the two fragments of the stele, possibly in order not to loosen the joint by the hammering of the letters on the upper fragment.

⁶² It is possible, of course, that there had been irregularities in the payment, that Myrrhine had complained, and that the opening clause was her reassurance. But this can hardly have been the main business of the decree.

⁶³ Ἐλενσινιακά i (1932) 173 f. Besides, SEG x 24 Google Scholar, a convenient text is available in Hill's, Sources ² B41.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ In line 37 Meritt finds the ᾳ of παρέδοᾳ[αν] impossible: the letter has a hasta and may perhaps be ḳ. This excludes the present restoration of the second amendment.

⁶⁵ Whether gallery (Noack) or frieze (Mylonas: cf. Athenaeus 205c).

⁶⁶ Mattingly's inference (p. 171 with n. 108) is that ‘at the time actual building was … in progress only … in Athens’; and in n. 112 he has Koroibos working at Eleusis from c. 435 to c. 432. But the audit will not be concerned mainly (if indeed at all) with work actually in progress: rather, with the work of the past year or more: cf. the tense of τά ἀνελομένα, hὰ ἀνέλοται, in lines 23–8. We understand the audit as part of an immediate stocktaking, and it is to reach back over several years (lines 30–2).

⁶⁷ We thus translate ἐπεστάτον, quite literally, and without prejudice to its possible idiomatic sense, which we discuss below, p. 113.

⁶⁸ Historia x (1961) 171.

⁶⁹ As against Picard, in CRAI 1933, 10 ff.Google Scholar, and Vallois, in REA 35 (1933) 196 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who suggested the epistatai of the Polias temple and the Promachos statue; they put the inscription, accordingly, c. 450.

⁷⁰ Hutoria x (1961) 172 with n. 112.

⁷¹ Iktinos, whom Plutarch does not name in this connexion, is named as builder of the Telesterion by Vitruvius and Strabo (see next note), and plays a very important part in Noack's story. References to Noack's book are given in n. 73.

⁷² Vitruvius vii pr. 16: Strabo ix 1.12 (395). Neither Vitruvius nor Strabo speaks of an abortive project, nor suggests that there was any change of architect; but what they do say (κατεσκεύασεν Ἰκτῖνος, Strabo; pertexit, Vitruvius) is more than what e.g. Mylonas, reports (Eleusis [1961] 113)Google Scholar, ‘we learn from Vitruvius and Strabo that Iktinos … was commissioned to draw the designs of a new building’.

⁷³ Noack, , Eleusis (1927) 143–4, 198–9.Google Scholar Noack's main conclusions were briefly resumed by Robertson, D. S., Gk. and Ram. Archit. (1929) 171–4Google Scholar, who writes (p. 172) ‘on the fall of Pericles the work was apparently handed over to three new architects, mentioned by Plutarch’.

⁷⁴ Gildersleeve, B. L., Syntax of Classical Greek (1900) 96, §218.2.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Assuming that there ultimately were such. Above, p. 110. for the date of IG i² 24, and the delay in the construction of the temple.

⁷⁶ Thespieus intends they shall be annual (line 17) with an annual secretary (9–10); yet in IG i² 311 we find Philostratos as secretary certainly for two, and probably for all four, of the years 422/1–419/8. In 409/8, 408/7, 407/6, we find that they and their secretary change annually, IG i² 313, lines 1–3; 314, lines 1–2. Strabo (as in n. 72) seems to say that Perikles was epistates for Iktinos both for Parthenon and Telesterion.

⁷⁷ Cf., e.g., Dinsmoor, , Archit. of Ancient Greece (1950) 195 f.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ We know of no reason to assign these mouldings to an ‘Iktinos phase’ (supposing that Iktinos and Koroibos phases are to be distinguished). They may indicate that the building was at least well advanced before the Spartan invasions began in 431. Eleusis lay, of course, right in the invaders' path.

⁷⁹ IG i² 911 (from Brueckner, A., Ath. Milt, xl (1915) 8–12 Google Scholar): Peek, , Kerameikos iii 84–5, no. 160.Google Scholar These all have the name Thoukydides, . In Hesp. x (1941) 3 Google Scholar, fig. 2, we have the name Perikles, with old-fashioned forms of chi and theta in the patronymic: might this be from the ostrakophoria of 461?

⁸⁰ For inscriptions of fluted columns, see Raubitschek, A. E., Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (1949) 5–28.Google Scholar

⁸¹ PA i 329, under die stemma of' Επιχάρης Μικίωνος Χολλείδης (PA 5003).

⁸² Mattingly, p. 149, reasonably suggests the Archidamian War. It was surely this Aristokrates who made the dedication, and not his grandfather as E. R. Dodds has suggested in his edition (1959) of Plato's Gorgias (p. 244, note on 472 a5–b3); he follows a suggestion of D. M. Lewis, but see now Andrewes, and Lewis, , JHS lxxvii (1957) 179–80.Google Scholar Plato lets Sokrates name Perikles (‘and his whole house’), Nikias (‘and his brothers’), and Aristokrates: there seems to be some oblique (dramatically ironic?) reference to their catastrophic ends.

⁸³ Mattingly, p. 149 notes 7 and 9; Hill's Sources ², B96. We understand that J. P. Barron will shortly publish a full account of the horoi from Samos, with photographs of those extant. He informs us that there are five in the Heraion Museum and two at Vathy: two others (IGA 8, and one similar to SEG i 376) he believes to be lost. We think that conclusions about the date and occasion of diese horoi (and of similar ones in Aigina and Kos) should await his publication and discussion.

⁸⁴ The letter H (heta) is used for the aspirate in the word horos on many of the fourth-century horoi found in Attica.

⁸⁵ It is true that the copy of D14 which has the was found outside Attica, at Kos: but it is fairly certain it was inscribed in an Attic workshop.

⁸⁶ The letters Μεσσε[…] are cut on the back-ground beside the figure, with four-bar sigma.

⁸⁷ Hesperia xiii (1944) 223–9.

⁸⁸ New Chapters in Greek Art (Oxford, 1926) 235–6. He was influenced, partly, by the inscription.

⁸⁹ Studien zu den attischen Urkundenreliefs des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts (1932) 6 (no. 17) and 40–2.

⁹⁰ Röm. Mitt. xlvii (1932) 24.

⁹¹ ATL ii (1949) 75 and pl. 12. A photograph is also available in Süsserott, , Griechüche Plastik (1938), pl. 2, no. 4.Google Scholar

⁹² Kähler, Heinz, Pergamon (Berlin, 1949), pl. 4.Google Scholar

⁹³ Arnold Schober speaks of the departure from Pheidian severity to a freer and more mobile Pergamene, style (Die Kunst von Pergamon [Berlin 1951] 113–14Google Scholar).

⁹⁴ Koch, Herbert, ‘Studien zum Theseustempel in Athen’, Abh. der sächs. Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (phil.-hist. Klasse), xlvii (1955) Heft 2, pl. 34 = fig. 28.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Hesp., Suppl. v (1941) 150–60. The date of the sculpture is still debated: Morgan, C. H., Hesp. xxxi (1962) 221–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and xxxii(1963) 104–8, argues a date after the Peace of Nikias for the frieze.

⁹⁶ Ath. Mitt. lv (1930) 200. The temple of Athena at Sounion is dated in the second quarter of the fifth century ( Orlandos, A., Ἀρχ. Ἐφ., 1917 183–4Google Scholar). The Ionic capital from Kynosarges was dated by Pieter Rodeck earlier than 471 B.C. (BSA iii [1896/7] 103), but a much later date, even in the fourth century, has been suggested by Martin, R. (BCH lxviii–lxix [1944/1945] 369)Google Scholar though he groups it in his table (op. cit., 364) with the Sounion capitals. Lucy Shoe holds its moulding too early for the later date and favours still the second quarter of the century.