¹ Cf. Davies, J., Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 B.C. (Oxford, 1971), pp. xxiii–xxivGoogle Scholar.

² Aristotle, reports (Ath. Pol. 22.29–38)Google Scholar that the 100 triremes built at Themistocles' insistence cost, presumably fully equipped, 100 talents. Figures that are chronologically closer can be found in Athens' naval records, for these run from c. 377 to 322 B.C., and the speech against Hagnias is generally dated to c. 359 (Wevers, R., Isaeus: Chronology, Prosopography, and Social History [The Hague, 1969], pp. 19–20)Google Scholar. A number of entries list trierarchs who, after a court's decision that they had unjustifiably returned their ships in unfit condition, agreed ‘to return a new ship, dismantle the old, and return the ram to the shipyard’ (IG ii² 1623.6–13, 26–34, 113–23; the bronze ram, impervious to damage that might destroy the wood of a hull, was a vital and costly fitting and hence well worth removing and reusing). Other entries make clear that such trierarchs absolved their obligation of supplying a new ship by paying the sum of 5000 dr. (ii² 1629.478–83,494–9, 569–77 [half payment of 2500], 585–99 ‘one instalment of 1500, another of 3500’, 600–612 ‘two instalments of 2500’). The 5000 dr. may have been a standard rounded figure adopted for administrative convenience rather than the actual cost of replacement; cf. Gabrielsen, V., Classica et Mediaevalia 39 (1988), 66–70Google Scholar. The actual cost was no doubt considerably higher, because to the 5000 dr. we must add the value of the hull that was returned and dismantled, presumably so that the shipyard could cannibalize the timber. How much of an increase this represents we have no idea, but it very likely was considerable; cf. Kohler, W. in Athen. Mitt. 4 (1879), 81–2Google Scholar.

³ The naval records list cash payments by trierarchs for items of gear issued to them that they for some reason failed to return to the shipyard, including in many cases a complete set. The sums listed for the complete sets show a wide variation. The highest is 4863 dr., 2 ob. (IG ii² 1631.538–42). There are two instances of 4100 dr. (ii21631.444–8,462–6) and a third at least that high (ii2 1631.544–8). The commonest figure is 2169 dr. (ii² 1624.42–9, 50–56, 57–62, 63–70, 71–7, 87–92, 98–101, and cf. 93–7, where the amount listed [723 dr.] looks like an instalment payment of one-third; 1629.667–73, 674–83 [2 instalments of 1084 dr., 3 ob.]). Next common is 2299 dr. (ii² 1629.486–93, 577–84, 707–14). And there are sums that run the gamut in between: 2372 dr., 3 ob. (ii² 1631.457–62), 2642 dr., 4 ob. (1631.470–73), 2940 dr. (1631.448–52), at least 3100dr. (1631.474–8), 3216dr., 40b. (1631.466–70), 3291 dr., 4 ob. (1631.453–7). The preciseness of the figures indicates that an exact evaluation of all gear was kept. Their variation may reflect the condition of the gear: i.e. the frequent figure of 2169 dr. may reflect sets that had suffered a predetermined standard amount of use, the very high figures sets that were in mint or near mint condition.

⁴ That the 5000 dr. paid by trierarchs for a new hull (n. 3, above) did not include the cost of the ram is made clear by entries in which trierarchs, known from other entries to have paid up their 5000 dr., are listed as still owing the ram. Thus, Callias, trierarch of the trireme Strategis built by Aleximachus, who in ii² 1629.478–83 is credited with having paid in his 5000 dr., in 1629.830–3 is listed as still owing the ram; there are similar entries for Niceratus, trierarch of the Symmachia built by Hagnodemus (ii² 1629.494–9 and 834–6), and for Conon, trierarch of the Demokratia built by Chaerestratus (1629.600–612 and 839–40). The figure of 500 dr. for the bronze of a trireme's ram is based on an ingenious analysis by Murray, W. (GRBS 26 [1985], 141–50)Google Scholar of entries recording the sale of damaged rams; he estimates the amount of bronze a ram required as c. 85 talents (p. 149) and its cost as c. 61 dr. per talent (p. 150).

⁵ From the time of the Peloponnesian War onward, the pay for an experienced oarsman was at a minimum 3 obols a day (e.g. Thuc. 8.45.2), often double that (e.g. Thuc. 6.31.3, 8.29.1), and sometimes in between (e.g. in 407 B.C. it was suggested to Cyrus the Younger that he pay 1 dr. a day; he countered with 3 ob. a day but then, on Lysander's plea, raised it to 4; Xen., HG 1.5.4–7). Cf. Pritchett, W., The Greek State at War, I (Berkeley, 1971), pp. 14–24Google Scholar; Gomme, , HCT on 8.45.2Google Scholar.

⁶ From Piraeus to Eraklion is 175 n.m. The outbound voyage, for which the Aegean summer northerlies would be favourable and permit a speed of c. 5 knots (cf. Casson, L., Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World ² [Princeton, 1986], p. 288)Google Scholar, would take at least three days (triremes normally travelled only during the day, putting in to shore at night) and a day or two more, if Macartatus' destination was on the island's south coast. The return, done against the wind, would take three or four times as long (Casson, pp. 289–91). The travel alone, in other words, would consume almost two weeks.

⁷ Schömann, G., ed., Isaei Orationes XI (Greifswald, 1831), p. 476Google Scholar; Wyse, W., The Speeches of Isaeus (Cambridge, 1904), p. 712Google Scholar; Miinscher, K. in Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 37 (1920), 311Google Scholar; Fiehn, K., RE s.v. ‘Makartatos’ (1928)Google Scholar; Roussel, P., Ise'e, Discours ¹ (Paris, 1960), p. 204Google Scholar; Thompson, W., De Hagniae Hereditate (Leyden, 1976), p. 56Google Scholar. Athens was at peace with Sparta from 386–79 and 369–62 B.C., so the incident must have taken place in one of these periods. The commentators listed above prefer the earlier date (also Davies in his biographical notice of Macartatus [n. 1 above, p. 85]) except Thompson; as he cogently points out, the speaker's claim that all in his audience are his witnesses to Macartatus' modest circumstances (μοί δ μάρτυρές στε πάντες) and that they are aware of how he died, makes better sense if the matters involved are of relatively recent date rather than twenty or more years in the past.

⁸ See Effenterre, H. van, La Crete et le monde grec (Paris, 1948), p. 81, n. 3Google Scholar. Sparta certainly is found mixing into Cretan affairs a few decades later: in 343 Archidamus came to the aid of Lyctus when it had been seized by Cnossus (Diod. 16.62.4) and ten years after that Agis launched a full-scale assault upon the island (Diod. 17.48.1).

⁹ See Schömann 476; Wyse 712; Fiehn 632; Thompson 56–7 (opp. cit., n. 7). E. Forster in the Loeb edition (1927) refers (p. 387) to Macartatus' venture without qualification as ‘a privateering enterprise’.

¹⁰ Dem. 51.7–9; cf. Jordan, B., The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period, University of California Publications: Classical Studies 13 (Berkeley, 1975), pp. 79–80Google Scholar. In Dem. 51.11 a fee of 30 minas is cited; to this, of course, must be added the cost of the trierarchy, but this could be held to a minimum by the use of gear and rowers furnished by the state (cf. 51.5–6).

¹¹ Dem. 51.13; cf. Ormerod, H., Piracy in the Ancient World (Liverpool, 1924), p. 117Google Scholar. Blass, F., Die attische Beredsamkeit? iii.l (Leipzig, 1893), pp. 242–3Google Scholar, dates Dem. 51 around 359 B.C.

¹² Dem. 23.148: ξεναϒν…καί τɩνων ἂρϰων στρατɩωτν.

¹³ Thompson suggests (n. 7 above, p. 57) that Macartatus may have been subsidized by ‘Cretan friends’; whether friends or strangers paid the money, the purpose was the same: the hiring of a naval unit. The closest parallels to Macartatus' act are furnished by the pirate leaders (άρϰɩπεɩραταί) who hire out themselves and the vessels under their command to some state. E.g. Demetrius, during his siege of Rhodes, took into his service an άρϰɩπεɩρατής named Timocles with his flotilla of three aphracts, i.e. fast undecked warcraft (Diod. 20.97.5–6).

¹⁴ In 396 B.C. Demaenetus, an Athenian commander, without the knowledge of the Assembly but with the secret approval of the Boule, sailed off with a state ship to join Conon, then admiral of the Persian fleet; an uproar arose about the danger from Sparta's reaction to such a provocative move, and the Assembly met and disavowed the action (Hell. Oxy. vi.1–3 Bartoletti). Meyer, E. (Theopomps Hellenika [Halle, 1909], p. 43)Google Scholar considers Macartatus' foray analogous, that he too was a state agent carrying out a covert state action, and this view has received some approval (see Grenfell and Hunt's note to P. Oxy. 842.i 3; Roussel [n. 7, above] p. 205). But Macartatus' foray as presented by the speaker had nothing to do with the state: it was a private venture involving the use of a privately owned warship (cf. Bruce, I., An Historical Commentary on the ‘Hellenica Oxyrhynchia’ [Cambridge, 1967], p. 51Google Scholar; Davies [n. 1 above], p. 85). Meyer tries to forestall objections raised on this score by asserting that the purchase of the trireme ‘ist offenbar eine Form gewesen…: der Rat iiberlasst dem Privatmann durch einen Scheinkauf eine alte Triere’. This is sheer speculation; there is nothing whatever in Isaeus' words, nor any historical parallel, to support it.

¹⁵ IG ii² 1629.1133–62 (repeated in 1631.326–43) lists a series of items disposed of, and the funds received for them, during the archonship of Anticles (325/4 B.C.). They included: heavy cables from 25 triremes, other rope, one type of screen from 11 triremes and another type from 2 quadriremes, oars, rams (sold as scrap; see Murray [n. 4 above]), bags for sealing the oarports, braided cord, caulking tow, and several other items.

¹⁶ During the Peloponnesian War the Athenian warships, lightly built in order to carry out tactics that demanded speed and manoeuvrability, were easily distinguished from the heavier units of their opponents; see Morrison, J. and Williams, R., Greek Oared Ships (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 281–2, 313, 317–20Google Scholar. This doubtless was true of the fourth century as well.