Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:18:24.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Chronology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

Get access

Extract

It is a notorious fact that Thucydides begins his excursus on the growth of Athenian power between the Persian and the Peloponnesian War with a complaint about the chronological inadequacy of Hellanicus (1.97.2) but then proceeds to give a narrative which is itself chronologically inadequate.

For the foundation of the League one might guess a date of 478/7 from 1.94-5, and that is the date given by Ath. Pol. 23.5 (but Diod. Sic. 11.47 narrates it under 477/6). The next reasonably secure date is that of Athens’ war against Thasos (1.100.2–101): Thucydides associates with it an unsuccessful settlement on the Thracian mainland; 4.102.2–3 dates this 32 years after the failure of Aristagoras in Thrace (Her. 5.124–6), and the foundation of Amphipolis in the 29th year after this. A scholiast on Aeschines, 2. F.L. 31, mentions failures in that region in 476/5 (archon Phaedon) and 453/2 (archon Lysicrates) before the foundation of Amphipolis in 437/6 (this last date is found also in Diod. Sic. 12.32.3). By inclusive counting the 29th year before 437/6 is 465/4, the last of three successive years with archons whose names begin Lysi—, and a war dated 465/4–463/2 will fit before the reforms of Ephialtes and ostracism of Cimon in 462/1 (Ath. Pol. 25.2).

Type
Research Article
Information
New Surveys in the Classics , Volume 17: The Athenian Empire , 1985 , pp. 12 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 There are general discussions (with tables of dates) in Gomme, H.C.T., i. 389-413 (394-6), and A.T.L., iii. 158-80 (175-9, 298-300). Bayer, E. and Heideking, J., Die Chronologie des perikleischen Zeitalters (Erträge der Forschung, 36. Darmstadt, 1975 Google Scholar) is more concerned to give a history of scholarship and to survey current opinions than to propound solutions. Schreiner, J. H., SO 51 (1976), 19–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, tries with the later evidence to undermine Thucydides’ narrative.

2 Cimon’s judging of the tragedies is moved to 475/4 by G. Glotz with Cohen, R., Histoire grecque, ii (Paris, 1929), 122 Google Scholar; is seen as a response to his victory at the Eurymedon by Jacoby, F., CQ 41 (1947), 3 n. 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar = Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtschreibung (Leiden, 1956), p. 147 n. 17, A.T.L., iii. 160.

3 JHS 87 (1967), 136-8.

4 Meiggs, pp. 80-3; Milton, M. P., Historia 28 (1979), 257-75Google Scholar; Lévy, E., Athènes devant la défaite de 404 (B.E.F.A.R. 225. Paris, 1976), pp. 277-9Google Scholar.

5 The end of the careers of Themistocles and Pausanias cannot be discussed in detail here: the firmest points in Themistocles’ chronology are that Aeschylus’ Persae (472) should precede his final condemnation and that the King whom he met was Artaxerxes; and the downfall of Pausanias, which led to Themistocles’ condemnation, is better placed in the early 460s than in the 470s. See on Pausanias White, M. E., JHS 84 (1964), 140-52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and on both Rhodes, P. J., Historia 19 (1970), 387–400 Google Scholar.

6 The same date is given by Diod. Sic. 12.7, Paus. 5.23.4.

7 Doubt on this point goes back to the nineteenth century, and Gomme, H.C.T., i. 401-8, and A.T.L., iii. 162-8, are among those who have favoured emendation to yield a shorter war. Others have relied on Diodorus’ narrating the war under 469/8 (11.63-4; but end of war 456/5, 11.84.7-8), and on Philochorus’ probable date of 468/7 for the earthquake and the beginning of the war (FGH 328 F 117 = schol. Ar. Lys. 1138, with schol. 1144 [Jacoby emended to obtain 462/1 for the rejection of Athens’ help]; but 464/3 Paus. 4.24.5; fourth year of Archidamus [c. 465 intended?] P1. Cim. 16.4), to argue that Thucydides has followed chronological order as far as Athens is concerned but has not mentioned the beginning of the war in its place: Hammond, N. G. L., Historia 4 (1955), 371-81Google Scholar; Sealey, B. R. I., Historia 6 (1957), 368-71Google Scholar. For a better approach see p. 14 with nn. 13-14, below.

8 Even Gomme, H.C.T., i. 320. Contr. A.T.L., iii. 168-75, 177-8, where Tanagra and Oenophyta are dated 458 and Tolmides’ voyage 457, despite the evidence to be cited below, for the sake of this principle.

9 Bengtson, H., Griechische Geschichte (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 3.4. Munich, 1950), p. 195 Google Scholar with n. 4 = 5(1977), p. 212 with n. 2; Will, E., Le Monde grec et l’orient, i (Peuples et Civilisations, 2.1. Paris, 1972), 164 Google Scholar with n. 1. Gomme, H.C.T., i, was tempted to this view (325-6), but eventually dated the treaty 450/49 and supposed the invasion of 446 to be in breach of it (409-13).

10 This has led to remarkable results at the hands of Raubitschek, A. E., Historia 3 (1954-5), 379-80Google Scholar, AJA 2 70 (1966), 37-41.

11 A.T.L., iii. 178, cf. 299: Jacoby in his commentary on the fragment suggested ‘month’ for ‘year’.

12 E.g. Gomme, H.C.T., i. 411-2.

13 Reece, D. W., JHS 82 (1962), 111-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Deane, P., Thucydides’ Dates, 465-431 B.C. (Don Mills, Ontario, 1972)Google Scholar, ends the Messenian War in 455/4, and begins the First Peloponnesian War in 456 so that Tanagra can fall in 454, after the end of the Messenian War. (Deane’s book may be found in the Classics Faculty Library and the University Library in Cambridge, and in the library of the Hellenic and Roman Societies in London. There are reviews by McGregor, M. F., Phoenix 26 (1972), 295-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cawkwell, G. L., CR2 26 (1976), 121 Google Scholar; and some of his points are answered by Piérart, M., LEC 44 (1976), 109-23Google Scholar.)

14 Diodorus’ dates are discussed by Meiggs, pp. 452-7. The safest guiding principle is that narrative dates may happen to be right but only by accident (cf. p. 17, below, on Diodorus’ errors in the 430s); entries inserted in the narrative from a date table are not necessarily right but deserve to be considered seriously.

15 Meiggs, pp. 111, 121-6, 154-5, has Cimon recalled in 452, just before the end of his ten years of ostracism, to fit his view of other controversial matters. Cf. p. 17, below.

16 M&L 34 is best interpreted as confirming the involvement of Samos in the Egyptian war. A transfer of the treasury in Aristides’ lifetime has been favoured by Pritchett, W. K., Historia 18 (1969), 17–21 Google Scholar; in the late 460s (cf. Just. 3.6.1-) by Robertson, N. D., AJAH 5 (1980), 112-9Google Scholar.

17 Pritchett, W. K., Historia 13 (1964), 129-34Google Scholar, and subsequent articles, has argued that a list might have been inscribed on the reverse of an ornamental stone crowning the stele; but no fragments to support this have been found, and a new fragment including part of the top of the stele is said to make it very unlikely that there was any crowning stone ( Meritt, B. D., Hesperia 41 (1972), 403-4 with n. 7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tables summarizing the tribute paid by different members from year to year may be found in Hill, Meiggs, Andrewes (p. 3 with 4 n. 18, above), pp. 403-26; Meiggs, pp. 538-61.

18 Wade-Gery, H. T., BSA 33 (1932/3), 101-13Google Scholar; A.T.L., iii. 278-9.

19 In a long series of articles, beginning with Historia 10 (1961), 148-88, JHS 81 (1961), 124-32, Historia 12 (1963), 257-73 (there is a list to 1970 in de Ste Croix, p. 418). The debate has covered changes in language as well as in letter-forms. Although this has been largely a one-man campaign, Mattingly has had his supporters: his first articles were received sympathetically by J. and Robert, L. in their Bulletin épigraphique, REG 75 (1962), 142-3 nos. 96-7Google Scholar; the suggestion about older masons is due to Smart, J. D., JHS 92 (1972), 137-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Segre, M., Clara Rhodos 9 (1938), 151-78Google Scholar. On the marble see Pritchett, W. K., BCH 87 (1963), 20-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Georgiades, A. N. and Pritchett, W. K., BCH 89 (1965), 400-40Google Scholar.

21 Gardner, P., JHS 33 (1913), 147-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, E. S. G., Hesperia Supp. 8 (1949), 324-40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barron, J. P., The Silver Coins of Samos (London, 1966), pp. 47-93Google Scholar, Essays ... S. Robinson (Oxford, 1968), pp. 75-89; contr. Erxleben, E., APF 19 (1969), 91-139, 212, 20 (1970), 66-132, 21 (1971), 145-62Google Scholar. There is also a fragment of another decree about coinage, of the 420s or later: IG i3 90.

22 A gap in Aeginetan coinage between c. 457 and c. 445 was proposed by Robinson, E. S. G., NC7 1 (1961), 110-2Google Scholar; but a much shorter gap was preferred by Rago, R., RIN 65 = 5ll (1963), 7-15Google Scholar; and Holloway, R. R., ANSMN 17 (1971), 17–21 Google Scholar, is suspicious of any attempt to link Aegina’s numismatic with her political history. The date of IG i3 38 is uncertain, and Mattingly, Historia 26 (1977), 370-3, has wondered whether it refers to Aegina at all.

23 The proposal is attributed to A. E. Raubitschek in SEG x 11. Erythrae is absent from the lists of 453-450, but Buthia, one of its dependencies, paid 3 talents in 452.

24 E.g. Highby, L. I., Klio Beiheft 36 (1936), esp. 33-5Google Scholar; Accame, S., RFIC 80 = 230 (1952), 119-23Google Scholar.

25 Historia 12 (1963), 271 with n. 69; withdrawn Ancient Society and Institutions (p. 10 n. 6, above), pp. 206-7.

26 Herrmann, P., Klio 52 (1970), 163-73Google Scholar. He dates the decree 437/6 on the basis of Milet, i. 3, no. 122, 1.90: the later date follows from Cavaignac, E., REH 90 (1924), 311-4Google Scholar.

27 Mattingly’s views first argued in Historia 10 (1961), 174-81; in Historia 30 (1981), 117, he suggests a later date for Herrmann’s decree. Euthynus’ name is restored in the preamble of the Athenian decree but preserved in the substantive text, so it is theoretically possible that the restoration is wrong and the decree is of a later year but refers to Euthynus’ year ( Fornara, C. W., AJP 92 (1971), 473-5)Google Scholar.

28 Meiggs, , JHS 63 (1943), 25-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Earp, A. J., Phoenix 8 (1954), 142-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barron, J. P., JHS 82 (1962), 1–6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meiggs, pp. 562-5.

29 Gehrke, H.-J., Historia 29 (1980), 17–21 Google Scholar: the prosetairoi (religious functionaries found in a Milesian sacred law of 450/49, SIG 3 57) restored in line 7 of earlier texts of the Athenian decree were eliminated by Bradeen, D. W. and McGregor, M. F., Studies in Fifth Century Attic Epigraphy (Norman, Okla., 1973), pp. 24–70 Google Scholar; cf. IG. M. Piérart in the first part of a study of Miletus (MH 40 (1983), 1-18) shows that the new constitution was not a carbon copy of the Athenian.

30 Most recent reconstruction Wade-Gery, H. T. and Meritt, B. D., Hesperia 26 (1957), 163-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Meiggs, pp. 515-8. Fornara 94 translates three reconstructions, to indicate the range of possibilities.

31 Cf. n. 15, above. The suggestion that the commentator’s date is too early is made by Meiggs, p. 518, pointing out that 450/49 is to be treated as a literary date, not as an unchallengeable documentary date.

32 Gomme, E.g., Historia 2 (1953-4), 1-21Google Scholar, H.C.T., ii. 26-32; Sealey, B. R. I., Hermes 86 (1958), 440-6Google Scholar.

33 Meiggs, , JHS 86 (1966), 86–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walbank, M. B., Фóρoς ... B. D. Meritt (Locust Valley, N.Y., 1974), pp. 161-9Google Scholar; cf. Meriti, B. D. and Wade-Gery, H. T., JHS 82 (1962), 67–74, 83 (1963), 100-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Henry, A. S., CSCA 11 (1978), 75-108Google Scholar, argues that there is some support for later dates in linguistic changes.

34 Cf. p. 12, above.

35 A date c. 450 was suggested in A.T.L., iii. 114-7; but the later date is supported by the involvement of Lamachus and by a new fragment of Agora xvii 17 ( Clairmont, C., ZPE 36 (1979), 123-6)Google Scholar.

36 E.g. A.T.L., iii. 320-1 with n. 87: Brunt, P. A., AJP 72 (1951), 269-82Google Scholar, suggested that the decree was earlier. For another possible reason for action against Megara, in addition to the overt one given by Thucydides, see p. 27, below.

37 Connor, W. R., AJP 83 (1962), 225-46Google Scholar, REG 83 (1970), 305-8.

38 Before Pericles’ decree, Fornara, C. W., YCS 24 (1975), 213-28Google Scholar; after, de Ste Croix, pp. 246-51.

39 This last point was accepted in A.T.L., ii; Meiggs, pp. 340-3. A.T.L., i, followed West, A. B., AJA2 29 (1925), 135-51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in delaying the next assessment to 421.

40 Mattingly, , CQ2 11 (1961), 154-65CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in the course of an attempt to date the first decree for Methone (IG i3 61, 11.3-32) 427/6 rather than c. 430/29. He is answered by Meritt, and Wade-Gery, , JHS 82 (1962), 73-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meiggs, pp. 531-7.

41 Robertson, N. D., Historia 29 (1980), 282–301, citing earlier discussionsGoogle Scholar.