No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
I.G. i. 296 and the Dates Of ΟΑ ΠΟΤΕΔΕΑΤΙΚΑ
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Review Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1941
References
page 59 note 1 It should be noted that no restoration has yet been made, with the agreed 84 letters to the line, which does not involve a blunder by the stone-cutter in 1. 26. I do not myself see how this can be avoided; but it is wrong in principle to emend in order to restore.
page 59 note 2 Well brought out by Keil, W. in his review of Kolbe's book, Phil. Woch., 1932, 513–518.Google Scholar
page 59 note 1 Kubicki's chronological conclusions are vitiated by his wrong idea of the Attic calendar (which anyhow led him into self-contradiction); but his restorations of the inscription are still worth examining.
page 59 note 2 I would draw particular attention to Jacoby's article, for his method of approach and most of his criticism of the epigraphists are sound, while it is impossible to follow his conclusions for the chronology; anď this has led to a neglect of his arguments. He accepts Lipsius' conjecture in Thuc. ii. 2. 1, 
, the deceptive simplicity of which led Hude to adopt it, most uncritically in his text, and Stuart Jones to mention it alone in his apparatus; and so puts the battle in Nov.–Dec. 433. This not only ignores the evidence of the tribute-lists (for Poteidaia and the other seceding states paid tribute in the spring of 432), but is inconsistent with Thucydides' own narrative (the very basis of his argument), as Kolbe, 9–10, has well shown. We may add that it is not at all likely that Thucydides would have omitted all mention of winter conditions, affecting the attempt of the Athenians to besiege Poteidaia after the battle (64. 1–2). I doubt also whether Thucydides would have written 
, and not rather 
(cf. i. 109. 4).
page 60 note 1 Since in 57.6 
must be emended, δὐο is as easy an emendation as τεσσάρων, and in itself more probable. Cf. below, p. 63.
page 60 note 2 This seems to me quite clear, and certain if we read ἐπιπαριόντας for ἐπιπαρόνταςin 61. 1, which I think right. Kolbe adopts this reading, yet assumes an interval of two weeks or more between Aristeus' arrival and the start of Kallias' expedition.
page 61 note 1 This is seldom clearly stated—indeed Kolbe and others regard Eukrates as a colleague of Kallias' but it is obviously an indispensable step in the argument.
page 61 note 2 Meritt's re-reading of 1. 3 showed that the old restoration of the prescript in 1. 2 
, was too long. He cuts out καὶ Ποτείδαιαν and inserts τάδε, to get a name for the secretary to the boule of nine letters (a common length); and adds (p. 74), ‘the absence of any mention of Potidaea in the introductory formula confirms Kolbe's thesis (p. 23) that no loans were made for campaigning at Potidaea earlier than the third prytany of 432–1’. Clearly not: if ἐς Πολοπόννσδον appears in the prescript though no payment was made before the ninth prytany, ἐς Ποτείδαιαν should have appeared whether or not no payment was made before the third. Meiggs' suggestion to read ἐς Ποτείδαιαν, so that the accounts of the year are divided into two parts geographically (C.R. xlvii, 1933,176), is equally possible; it would leave us with a secretary's name of eleven letters, and so common a name as Ῐπολλόδωρος has as many. If ἐς Πελοπίαν must include Poteidaia, which upsets the basis of the argument.
page 61 note 1 Swoboda in R.E., art. Eukrates (2), says he cannot be Εὐ. Μελιτεύς because the latter only came to the front after Perikles' death. What an argument from an historian!
page 62 note 1 It is at least probable as well that for the first payment the names of Kallias and his colleagues were all given, as in the case of the Peloponnesian expedition of 432–1, the Kerkyra expeditions (I.G. i.2 295) and others.
page 62 note 1 Except on the assumption mentioned in the next footnote.
page 62 note 2 We cannot unfortunately say that payments direct to strategoi were made before a force left, those through the Hellenotamiai afterwards. For the first payment in II was made on the 28th day of the ninth prytany, and the next two in the same prytany, that is, only a day or two later; and this is anyhow too early for the sailing of this force (Thuc. ii. 23. 1). The reason for these rapid separate payments in II is obscure. But the view that a payment made direct is always a first payment may be correct. Nor do we know what is meant by 
in IB (second and eighth payments). The natural meaning is that someone not in command of the expedition was entrusted with the transport of money for it; and that therefore Φορμίων Παιεύς is wrongly restored in 1.13. (It is to be remembered also that Phormion's deme is uncertain; in 1899 Kolbe preferred Κυδαθμνα;ιεύς, and could make that too fit a restoration of 1. 13.) Meritt restores ταῦτα ὖγε in 11. 17 and 19 (fourth and fifth payments): what office did the subject of the verb there hold? and in 1. 25 (eighth payment), 
:who was this strategos? We do not hear of any later than Phormion. The fact that the formula with ὖγε occurs at least twice in the series proves that the first occasion cannot show when Phormion's expedition started. The only explanation consistent with the view that ταῦτα ὖγε implies a reinforcement would be that Eukrates was a colleague of Archestratos, Kallias took the δευτέρα δόσις (ninth prytany). This is too late for each of the latter two.
Something like the ταῦτα ἦγε formula is the later 
I.G. i.2 297, 1. 8 (414–413 B.C.), and 
, i.2 302, 1. 66 (Meritt, A.F.D., p. 163), eighth prytany of 415–414 B.C. These do not mean new expeditionary forces, under new strategoi.
page 63 note 1 Reading τρίτμς in 1. 12. It seems clear that it is necessary to restore here the formula 
; that is, the date is within the last third of the prytany.
page 64 note 1 I ought to mention one negative argument against my view. We have in I.G. i.2 295 the accounts for the year 433–432 (the Kerkyra expeditions only), in 296 those for 432–431. If the Macedonian-Poteidaian campaign began in the spring of 432, there must have been another stone containing military accounts of 433–432; of which nothing survives.
page 64 note 2 I.G. i.2 295 (Tod, 55; Johnson, , A.J.A. xxxiii, 1929, 398–400Google Scholar; Meritt, 69–70, with photograph) Theoretically, from the inscription only, this payment could have been made on the last day of the sixth, eighth, or ninth prytany as well. But no one supposes it; the payment to the first squadron was on the thirteenth day of the first prytany, and it would be quite inconsistent with Thucydides (i. 45. 1–46. 1, 50. 5) to postulate a half-year's interval or more between the sailing of the first and second squadrons.
page 64 note 1 Wade–Gery points out to me that εὐθύς; may here be taken closely with 
(practically as = 
); but even so Nikias did not regard waiting till spring as a delay.
page 65 note 1 I agree with Steup that πολιορκουμéνμς need not and should not refer to the later stage after Phormion's arrival; it was the defeat in the battle and the cutting-off of Aristeus and the Poteidaians from further help that caused the Corinthians anxiety.
page 65 note 1 
And we might say nearly the same of reluctant states.
Beloch insists on a much longer interval between Archestratos' and Kallias' expeditions, and a much shorter one between the battle and the second meeting at Sparta (only three weeks! and he is followed in this by Kolbe and Hubbell). One can prove a lot by assuming that the Athenians were slow and hesitating, the Peloponnesians eager and expeditious. The interval between the two Athenian expeditions is besides fixed by the fact that Kallias was already at Pydna when he heard of Aristeus' arrival at Poteidaia, thirty-nine days after the revolt. Their date too, for the battle, Sept. 7, is ἑβδόμῳ, not ἕκτῳ, μηνί before March 6.
page 65 note 2 The ‘invasion of Attica’ must be understood, if Thucydides is consistent, to be the act formally announced as such and therefore dated (ii. 19. 1; cf. 18. 1, 4), not the attack on Oinoe, as Steup supposes.
page 66 note 1 Hubbell, 229, argues from Thuc. v. 83.1, 116.1, and vi. 7. 1 that an invasion was possible in winter. It was; but it was not normal, and waiting till the spring would not be called delay. Moreover, a Spartan invasion of neighbouring Argos was a very different thing from a full Peloponnesian invasion of Attica.
page 66 note 2 There have been arguments as to the meaning that Thucydides intended to convey by 
, and various unconvincing attempts at emendation. I do not think that he can have meant anything but ‘somewhat less than a year’; and for the expression of this meaning cf. Hdt. vii. 39. 2 (cited by Steup and Forbes) 