¹ Hermes ii (1867) 16–18. Köhler was unable to read the first line and suspected that the decree concerned the Hestiaians.

² ADelt (1891) 105–8, fig. A9, cf. IG I sp 139.

³ Woodhead, A. G., Hesperia xvii (1948) 58–9Google Scholar suggested that the spacing of the letters definitely preserved in line 1 [– – –] Ἐγϵσται[–] allowed room at the beginning of the line for the restoration However, Köhler, op. cit. (note 1) and Lolling, op. cit. (note 2) had noted traces of a round letter above and slightly to the right of ]ο[ in line 2. Professors M. F. McGregor and D. Bradeen have confirmed the presence of the round letter and my own suggestion is a conservative version of their new reading proposed in Phoenix xxiv (1970) 179:

⁴ Of the penultimate letter in line 3 only the left sloping hasta of a delta or alpha seems to be legible, cf. Lolling's fig. A9, op. cit. (note 2). I have read in view of the restoration proposed below, As for the last letter in line 3 I have been unable to trace the source of Hiller's reading of a clear epsilon (IG i² 19.3). There would seem to be no trace of the letter on the stone.

⁵ Traces of a verticle hasta are all that remain of this letter, cf. Lolling's fig. A9, op. cit. (note 2).

⁶ In lines 11–16 the restorations suggested by Lolling, op. cit. (note 2) 105 would appear to be certain and for the restoration of lines 16–17 cf. A. M. Woodward apud Woodhead, op. cit. (note 3) 59.

⁷ For an alternative restoration of lines 5–7 see Scala, R. v., Die Staatsverträge des Altertums i 57aGoogle Scholar. Despite the fact that v. Scala was doubtful of his own restoration it was adopted by Hiller (IG i² 19), by Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions (= Tod) 31Google Scholar and most recently by Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M., A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (= ML) 37Google Scholar: The principal objection to v. Scala's restoration is that it leaves no room for the terms of the oath to be taken. This would be most irregular (cf. Wentker, , Sizilien und Athen 66 f.)Google Scholar and it is awkward to have to suppose, as do ML p. 81, that the terms of the oath ‘were probably recorded separately on another stele, or after the end of the decree and before the envoys' names’.

⁸ The restoration Εὔψϵ[μος] in line 15 is practically certain. The only possible, but unlikely, alternative would be Εὔψϵ[ρος], cf. IG i² 81.1, 348.65.

⁹ AM iv (1879) 30–3.

¹⁰ TAPA lxxv (1945) 10–14.

¹¹ op. cit. (note 10) 12. The difficulties of lines 2–4 in Raubitschek's restoration have been well pointed out by Woodhead, op. cit. (note 3) 60.

¹² op. cit. (note 3) 60.

¹³ For this and other objections to Woodhead's restoration cf. Manni Piraino, M. T., Kokalos vi (1960) 58–70Google Scholar with Woodhead, 's reply in SEG xxi 36Google Scholar. It must be admitted against Woodhead that the restoration in line 4 produces clumsy Greek.

¹⁴ Thuc. vii 32.1, cf. Raubitschek, op. cit. (note 10) 13–14, who seems to have failed to realise the significance of his observations for his own restoration and Ziegler, K., PW s.v. ‘Halikyai’ against Unger, Philologus xxxv (1876) 210 fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ Cf. Pritchett, W. K., AJA lix (1955) 59Google Scholar; Mattingly, H. B., Historia xii (1963) 268–9Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Cf. Pritchett, W. K., Hesperia xxxiv (1965) 132–3 n. 7Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Cf. H. B. Mattingly, op. cit. (note 15) 268–9. Meritt, B., BCH lxxxviii (1964) 413–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar showed that Pritchett's earlier arguments, op. cit. (note 15) 59, against reading were not strong and argued himself that the position of the epsilon immediately above the disputed vertical hasta or scratch in fact suggested that should be read rather than or Meritt's observations, together with Pritchett's reply, op. cit. (note 16) 132–3 n. 7, have made it impossible for purely epigraphical considerations to decide our choice between (458/7) and (418/7).

¹⁸ JHS lxxxvi (1966) 86–98, especially Table 1, p. 92.

¹⁹ ML 37.

²⁰ The date of the Athenian alliance with Megara is uncertain, but it must fall before 458/7.

²¹ I would in general support the arguments of Reece, D. W., JHS lxxxii (1962) 111–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Late summer 455 would seem to be the earliest possible date for Perikles' unsuccessful attack on Oiniadai.

²³ Accame, S. (Riv. Fil. lxiii [1935] 73)Google Scholar, arguing from, historical probability and the use of παλαιός in Thuc. iii 86.3 κατά τϵ παλαιὰν ξυμμαχίαν, wished to make Athenian alliances with Rhegion and Leontinoi, which he dated c. 460, precede alliance with Egesta. I agree with the argument from historical probability that alliance with Rhegion and/or Leontinoi should precede alliance with Egesta. Thuc. iii 86.3 κατά τϵ παλαιὰν ξυμμαχίαν is difficult, but I do not believe that it can be used to support individual, formal alliances with Rhegion and Leontinoi earlier than 433/2. See further Appendix, pp. 144–6.

²⁴ The probable date of Tolmides, ' periplous is late summer, 456Google Scholar. See above note 21.

²⁵ IG i² 929 almost certainly records casualties of the 458 campaigning season, cf. Gomme, A. W., Commentary on Thucydides i 412 n. 2Google Scholar.

²⁶ Diodoros xi 86.2 records under the archonship of Ariston (454/3) a war between the Egestaians and the Lilybaitai: As Lilybaion was not founded until 396 after the destruction of Motye, scholars have been unwilling to leave his text alone (but cf. Ziegler PW s.v. ‘Lilybaion’, Wentker, op. cit. [note 7] 59 for the possibility that the later town was named after the inhabitants of the area who had long been called Lilybaitai). Λιλυβαίταις has been emended to Ἁλικυαίοις (first by Köhler, op. cit. [note 9] 31–2) and <πρὸς Σϵλινουντίους> been inserted into the text after ἐνέστη πόλϵμος (first by Beloch, , Hermes xxviii [1893] 630)Google Scholar. But all of this is highly uncertain. It would now appear to be difficult to date the Athenian alliance with Halikyai (IG i² 20–) before c. 430 (see below note 27) and the most recent editor of the inscription from Temple G at Selinous suggests for this a date after the Athenian defeat in Sicily in 413 (Calder, W., The Inscription from Temple G at Selinus [GRBS Monograph no. 4], cf. GRBS v [1964] 113–19 and ML 38)Google Scholar. In any case, we simply do not know if whatever it was that happened in 454/3 had been brewing since the early 450s or not (contra Accame, S., Riv. Fil. lxxx [1952] 127–35Google Scholar, Wentker, op. cit. [note 7] 60).

²⁷ Cf. Raubitschek, op. cit. (note 10) n. 10. The early view that IG i² 19 + and 20— must belong to the same year, or at least to the same historical context (cf. Lolling, op. cit. [note 2] 106) has recently been revived by M. T. Manni Piraino, op. cit. (note 13). Her theory is open to the objection that no orthodox epigraphist would want to put the letter-forms of IG i² 20— as early as the 450s. Mattingly, op. cit. (note 15) 273 n. 76, concludes in much the same way from the absence of the archon's name in the prescript of IG i² 20— that the two decrees belong to the same year, 418/7.

²⁸ For Steup's summary of Classen's reasons for removing Λϵοντίνων from the text see Classen-Steup, Thuk. vi Anhang 249.

²⁹ op. cit. (note 10) 14.

³⁰ op. cit. (note 3) 60.

³¹ Cf. ML 63 and 64. Meiggs and Lewis admit that the hypothesis of renewal of treaties concluded earlier in the 440s hardly gives a satisfactory explanation of the reinscribed prescripts. See Appendix pp. 144–6 for a full treatment of the question.

³² The date of Diotimos' visit to Neapolis (scholiast on Lykophron, , Alexandra 732–3Google Scholar, cf. Tzetzes ad loc.) is quite uncertain. It would seem unwise to place too much weight on Tzetzes' words, and insist that the visit be dated to the 450s (cf. De Sanctis, , Riv. Fil. lxiii [1935] 71–2Google Scholar; M. T. Manni Piraino, op. cit. [note 13] 64–5). We know that Diotimos served as general at the battle of Sybota in 433 (Thuc. i 45.2 cf. IG i² 295 + = ML 61) and it is possible that his journey westwards be dated then (see Raubitschek, op. cit. [note 10] 10 n. 4) in complete disregard of Tzetzes' words But it is surely just as likely that the visit occurred sometime during the first or second Sicilian expedition with Tzetzes' στρατηγὸς ὤν simply a wrong guess and Σικϵλοῖς a mistake for Σικϵλιώταις. A further possibility would be that Diotimos was a colleague of Phaiax in 422 (Thuc. v 4.1).

³³ Korinthian and Spartan diplomatic activity in Sicily may well have begun very soon after the battle of Sybota in August 433 and extended through the following winter: cf. ML p. 173 for correct emphasis on the aorist participle at Thuc. ii 7.2,

Nothing obliges us to put the alliances with Rhegion and Leontinoi before spring 432. Athens' alliance with Akarnania (Thuc. ii 68.8) was likewise probably concluded in spring 432 (cf. Wade-Gery, , JHS lii [1932] 216 n. 45Google Scholar, Gomme, Commentary ii ad loc.) and was defensive rather than offensive in purpose.

³⁴ We do not know when the war referred to in Thuc. iii 86.2 broke out. It is at least possible that it was already threatening in 433 when Sparta and Korinth tightened their connection with Syracuse and the Dorian cities in Sicily. This would then have further encouraged Rhegion and Leontinoi in their appeal to Athens.

³⁵ See Appendix p. 146 for further treatment of the Athenian attitude towards Rhegion and Leontinoi in spring 432.

³⁶ Griechische Geschichte iii 1275 n. 1.

³⁷ op. cit. (note 10) 14.

³⁸ Cf. Roos, E., Opuscula Atheniensia iv (1962) 12–15Google Scholar for a detailed examination of this possibility.

³⁹ Cf. Dover, K. J., Proc. of Camb. Phil. Soc. clxxxiii N.S. 3 (1954–1955)Google Scholar 4. Roos, op. cit. (note 38) 14 gives only one example from Thucydides, i 181.4

⁴⁰ Classen-Steup, Thuk. vi Anhang 249, cf. the conclusion of Roos, op. cit. (note 38) 20.

⁴¹ Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K. J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides iv 221Google Scholar. I cannot agree with Dover's alternative suggestion that might mean not ‘the act of alliance which was made’ but ‘the fighting-on-the-same-side which occurred’. Dover can cite no good parallel for such a usage of ξυμμαχία: the more usual, precise use is found at e.g. Thuc. ii 68.7–8, cf. further Steup's arguments against Classen in Classen-Steup, Thuk. vi Anhang 249.

⁴² Commentary on Thucydides ii 344.

⁴³ The definite implication of Thuc. vi 6.2, is that the Egestaians at least did not mention any earlier alliance of their own with Athens. I shall argue below that at the time of the initial appeal referred to by these words, i.e. in 418/7, Egesta did not in fact have any alliance of its own with Athens. On the other hand, Thucydides probably intended the Egestaians to be included in (vi 6.1, cf. Dover, op. cit. [note 41] ad loc.), with and (vi 6.2) deliberately left vague. The first passage refers to the post-alliance situation of 416/5 and in the second and third Thucydides has already slipped dishonestly by the alliance into the post-alliance situation of 417–16. See further below p. 136 and Appendix p. 146 for the Tendenz implicit here.

⁴⁴ op. cit. (note 38) 22.

⁴⁵ ML p. 82.

⁴⁶ Naupaktos was first captured by the Athenians in late summer, 456 (see above note 21), first used as an Athenian naval base in winter 430/29 (Thuc. ii 69.1) and, despite a number of Spartan attempts (cf. Thuc. ii 80.1, iii 100), not recaptured from the Messenians until 401/0 (D. S. xiv 34).

⁴⁷ Pylos was held from 425 (Thuc. iv 3 ff.) with a Messenian and/or Athenian garrison (Thuc. iv 41, cf. v 35, 56) until it was recaptured by the Spartans, possibly in 409 (D. S. xiii 64.5–7).

⁴⁸ Oiniadai was finally won for Athens in 424 (Thuc. iv 77) after a number of unsuccessful earlier attempts to capture it (Thuc. i 111, cf. above note 22, and iii 7).

⁴⁹ In alliance with Athens since 433 (Thuc. i 44) and further committed to Athens after the victory of the Athenian party in the stasis of 427–25 (Thuc. iv 48), Kerkyra sent troops to fight on the Athenian side in Sicily in 413 (Thuc. vii 57.7).

⁵⁰ Cf. above note 31.

⁵¹ Thuc. iii 86, 90, 99, 103, 115, iv 2.2, 24–5, 48.6, 58–65.

⁵² The first expedition consisted of 20 ships (Thuc. iii 86.1); later, an additional 40 ships were voted (iii 115.4) and sent (iv 2.2).

⁵³ Thuc. v 4–5.

⁵⁴ For Archedemos and the evidence for his activity during the period 421–15 see Mattingly, op. cit. (note 15) 270 n. 65.

⁵⁵ Thuc. vi 75.4, 81–8. I would suggest identity of this Euphemos with the archon of 417/6 (D. S. xii 81.1, IG i² 96.3, etc.). He probably served on the boule in 420/19 (cf. Meritt, , Hesperia xxi [1952] 344 ff.Google Scholar; Mattingly, op. cit. [note 15] 268 n. 53). His later diplomatic service at Kamarina suggests that he might have been present with Phaiax in 422 (Thuc. v 4.6), worked on Phaiax' behalf in securing the Egestaian embassy an audience in 417 (see below p. 142 with note 113) and used his position as archon in 417/6 to give underhand assistance in securing the ostracism of Hyperbolos (see below p. 143). For the archon's function at the ostrakophoria see Philochoros, , FGrH 328 F 30Google Scholar; Plut, . Aristeid. 7.6Google Scholar; Andok, iv 7.

⁵⁶ The τϵ at Thuc. vi 6.2 awkwardly picked up later at vi 6.3 (see Classen's views wrongly rejected by Steup in Classen-Steup ad loc.) would seem to betray excessive compression in Thucydides at this point in working in his background material.

⁵⁷ Cf. Thuc. iii 34.1–2, 86.2–3, v. 4.2–4.

⁵⁸ But there is in Thuc. i 57–8 (cf. Gomme, Commentary i ad loc.) chronological awkwardness similar to that which may be present in vi 6.2.

⁵⁹ For Thucydides' view that the Athenians had been interested in the possibility of extending their arche to Sicily as early as winter 434/3 see below p. 144, note 126. For his insistence on the ignorance, stupidity and passion of the Athenian demos in 415 cf. vi 1.1, 6.1, 8.2, 8.4, 9–13, 15.1, 19.1, 24–6. It is interesting to note the occurrence throughout vi 1–26 ὁρμᾶσθαι (6.1, 19.1, 24.2), ἐψιέσθαι (6.1, 6.4, 11.5), ἐπιθυμία (10.1, 13.1, 24.2, 24.4, cf. 15.2, 15.4), δρέγϵσθαι (10.5, cf. 16.6) and ἔρως (13.1, 24.3).

⁶⁰ Cf. above note 3 for McGregor's attractive restoration of in line 1.

⁶¹ The article with plural ethnics is rare (cf. Lewis, D. M., BSA xlix [1954] 23Google Scholar quoting Meisterhans, GAI ³ 120 n. 12) but, as Lewis notes, there is at least one secure instance in SEG × 69.3, τ[ο]ῖς [Μυτιλϵν]αίοις.

⁶² op. cit. (note 18) 92, Table 1. But note the so-called ‘archaising’ horos stone from the agora, archaeologically dated to the 420s and yet showing a tailed rho (Meritt, , Hesperia xxxvii [1968] 291 no. 33)Google Scholar.

⁶³ The alternative suggestions of Meritt, , Hesperia viii (1939) 62–5Google Scholar and Raubitschek, , Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis 449 ff.Google Scholar, of a later date in the 490S for ML 11 have been well answered by Jeffery, L. H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece 75Google Scholar and ML p. 20.

⁶⁴ For proof that the whole inscription is subsequent to 490 see Shefton, B., BSA xlv (1950) 140–64Google Scholar, whose solution of the problem of ἀν]έθϵκϵν would appear to be the best so far suggested.

⁶⁵ ML p. 20.

⁶⁶ It is clear from e.g. ATL frag. 92 from the first stele (see the photograph in ATL i 45, fig. 58) that quota lists 9 and 10 were almost certainly not inscribed by the same mason.

⁶⁷ Cf. Plut. Per. 13.6, 14–15.

⁶⁸ The early career of Pheidias is obscure, especially as it would now seem certain that Pheidias worked at Elis after working at Athens rather than vice versa, cf. Richter, G. M. A., Hesperia xxxv (1966) 167Google Scholar n. 5 quoting Kunze, E. in Neue Deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet, 268 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ The date of Pheidias' trial is uncertain, but cf. Lendle, O., Hermes lxxxiii (1955) 284–303Google Scholar for good arguments in favour of 432/1.

⁷⁰ For the foundation of the ‘second’ Sybaris in 453/2 see D. S. xi 90.3–4. It seems clear that Diodoros xii 10–11 in his account of the foundation of the ‘third’ Sybaris in 446/5 and the subsequent foundation of Thourioi (correctly dated to 444/3 by Plut. 835d and wrongly included by Diodoros under the same year as the ‘third’ Sybaris, i.e. 446/5) has badly muddled the details of what were in fact two separate foundations. For a thorough treatment of the whole question see Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. iii 523, n. 3Google Scholar.

It is interesting that the expelled Sybarites appealed in 446/5 to the Spartans before the Athenians (D. S. xii 10.3). That the Athenians took up their appeal (D. S. xii 10.4) may be explained not by the supposition of nascent imperialistic ambitions in the West but by their need to stand by their supporters in the Peloponnese, especially in Achaia, whom they were about to sacrifice to Sparta in accordance with the terms of the Thirty Years Peace (Thuc. i 115.1): to send them off to S. Italy was to rid themselves of an embarrassment, cf. Edmonds, , The Fragments of Attic Comedy i 38Google Scholar for the possible association of Kratinos' Drapetides with the ‘flight to the West’ of 445–43, rejected by Ehrenberg, V., AJP lxix (1948) 164 n. 53Google Scholar. One can hardly hold the Athenians at home responsible for the reaction of the newcomers to their subsequent domination by the original Sybarites (D. S. xii 11.1–2).

⁷¹ For Thourioi as a truly panhellenic foundation see Wade-Gery, op. cit. (note 33) 217–18, who attributes its panhellenism to Thucydides, son of Melesias. Ehrenberg, op. cit. (note 70) 160–1 rejects the evidence for Thucydides' trial on his return from ‘New Sybaris’ (Anon. Life of Thuc. 7) and supposes a confusion with Thucydides' later trial in Aristophanes, ' Ach. 702 ffGoogle Scholar. Ehrenberg's own reasons for detecting in the establishment of Thourioi Periklean imperialism behind a façade of panhellenism seem to me to be weak. If one accepts Seager's justified scepticism about Perikles' supposed Congress Decree (Historia xviii [1969] 129–41), then little evidence remains for Periklean panhellenism. In the particular case of Thourioi, Protagoras was doubtless a friend of Perikles (Plut, . Per. 36.5Google Scholar, Plato, , Protag. 314e–15a)Google Scholar but the extent of his legislative activity at Thourioi is uncertain (Diog. Laert. ix 8.50, [sc.Πρωταγόραν], but cf. D. S. xii 11.3 for Charondas as nomothetes without mention of Protagoras); both Lampon and Xenokritos (D. S. xii 10.4) opposed Thucydides (cf. Plut, . Per. 6.2–3Google Scholar, Anon. Life of Thuc. 7) but as there seem to have been a whole host of others involved, cf. Photios, s.v. ‘Θουριομάντϵις’, we know too little of the precise role of Lampon and Xenokritos in the foundation of Thourioi; Herodotos may not have been a supporter of Perikles (cf. Strasburger, H., Historia iv [1955] 1–25Google Scholar) and, in any case, like Lysias (cf. Dover, K. J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum 42Google Scholar) need not have gone to Thourioi until sometime after its initial foundation (see Jacoby, PW Suppl. II 224–5, 242, but cf. 247); and finally Hippodamos, at least, was clearly no democrat, cf. Arist. Pol. 1267 b 22 ff.

⁷² D. S. xii 35.1–3.

⁷³ Andok, iv 12. For the date of this pamphlet see below note 124.

⁷⁴ Thuc. vii 33.5–6, 35.1, 57.11.

⁷⁵ Thuc. viii 35.1 in the winter of 412/1.

⁷⁶ The suggestion of ATL iii 313 n. 61 that IG i² 71 records Athens' first treaty with Perdikkas and is to be dated in the early 430s has little to recommend it. But it is clear from Thuc. i 57.2 that at some date before 432 a treaty of alliance and friendship was concluded between Athens and Perdikkas.

⁷⁷ Cf. A. G. Woodhead's proposed dating and interpretation of IG i² 45 (= ML 49) in CQ NS ii (1952) 57–62. A number of small places in the Thraceward area paid phoros for the first time from 435 onwards under special rubrics (cf. ATL iii 87) and at about the same time the phoros of many established payers in the area was increased, see Hill, Sources for Greek History (rev. Meiggs and Andrewes), Table 3 III nos. 6, 9, 11, 12, 17, 20, 37, 42, 44, 46, 60.

⁷⁸ It would seem clear from Plut. Per. 32.4 that Hagnon was a supporter of Perikles. For Hagnon's foundation of Amphipolis cf. Thuc. iv 102–3; Gomme, , Commentary ii 164Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Cf. Plut. Per. 20.1–2 and for the date Gomme, , Commentary i 267Google Scholar. Contra, , ATL iii 114–17Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Thuc. i 57.3.

⁸¹ Thuc. i 56.6.

⁸² Thuc. i 44.1.

⁸³ For Lakedaimonios and the first squadron of 10 ships see Thuc. i 45.1–2 and for his enmity with Perikles see Plut, . Kim. 16.1Google Scholar, Per. 29.1–2. For Drakontides in IG i² 295 + 20–1 and his identity with the Drakontides of Plut. Per. 32.3 see ML p. 168.

⁸⁴ Plut. Per. 29.1–3 probably from Stesimbrotos, cf. Plut. Kim. 16.1, and part of the latter's polemic against Perikles. The transference of the responsibility for both squadrons from Lakedaimonios and his friends to Perikles well illustrates Stesimbrotos' cleverness in distorting the truth. Cf. Gomme, , Commentary i 178Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Thuc. i 24.5, 26.3.

⁸⁶ Thuc. i 28.1 with Gomme, Commentary i ad loc. For the extent of Korinthian influence in 435 before the battle of Leukimme see Thuc. i 27.2 and Thuc. i 46.1 for the later position in 433 before the battle of Sybota.

⁸⁷ Ps. Xen. Ath. Pol. 3.10.

⁸⁸ Cf. Thuc. i 36.3, 44.2.

⁸⁹ Cf. Thuc. i 35, 36, 40, 43.

⁹⁰ Thucydides i 36.2, 44.3 emphasises the importance of this argument at the time. Against Gomme, , Commentary i 171Google Scholar one must insist that such emphasis may owe much to hindsight. As yet Athens had no alliances with Rhegion and Leontinoi (see above notes 23 and 31) and it seems clear that the first military intervention in Sicily in 427 was essentially defensive rather than offensive, see below.

⁹¹ Thuc. iii 86.1.

⁹² Thuc. iii 86.4, For the element of fear involved in the original conclusion of alliances with Rhegion and Leontinoi in spring 432 (see above note 31) and still alive in 415 (cf. Thuc. vi 11.2–3, 18.1, 34.8, 36.4, 84.1) it is worth noting Thuc. ii 7.2: it was believed in 431 that the Dorian cities in Italy and Sicily were preparing to send 500 (or possibly 200, see Gomme, Commentary ii ad loc.) ships to aid the Peloponnesians.

⁹³ For Gorgias see D. S. xii 53.2–5. The fighting in Sicily, both now (Thuc. iv 61.2–3) and later (Thuc. vi 6.2, 76.2, 77.1, 80.3, 82.2) was clearly represented as a war between Ionian and Dorian. That this was indeed a genuine element in many Athenians' conception of the fighting in Sicily and the reason for Athenian involvement there would seem to be shown by Thucydides' concern to explode the ‘myth’ at vii 57–8.

⁹⁴ On Thuc. iii 86.4 , I cannot agree with Gomme's second thoughts (Commentary ii 388) that πρόπϵιρα may ‘point only to the greater expedition of Eurymedon and Sophokles in 425–4’ (cf. Westlake, , Historia ix (1960) 391Google Scholar) and prefer his more considered opinion (Commentary ii 387) ‘apparently written after the great campaign of 415–3, as most scholars suppose’. Here, surely, as at iv 60.1 and 60.2 Thucydides is writing with hindsight.

⁹⁵ Cf. H. D. Westlake, op. cit. (note 94) 385 ff.

⁹⁶ Thuc. iii 115.

⁹⁷ Cf. Westlake, op. cit. (note 94) 394 n. 37 quoting Aristophanes, Vesp. 925.

⁹⁸ Cf. Westlake, op. cit. (note 94) 393–4.

⁹⁹ Perikles realised the importance of μϵλέτη, Thuc. i 142.6–9. But to get the sailors to practise one had to be able to pay them and later experience (cf. Thuc. viii 83.3) showed how rapidly a fleet—especially one which included many foreign mercenary sailors, cf. Thuc. i 121.3—could disintegrate when the money ran out.

¹⁰⁰ See ML p. 217 for an estimate based on IG i² 324 +, 306 of Athenian loans from their reserves during the years 433–26: by 426 such loans amounted to almost 5,000 talents.

¹⁰¹ Cf. especially Thuc. iv 55.

¹⁰² It should be noted that in Aristophanes' Equites 1300 ff. Hyperbolos is represented as asking for 100 triremes to be sent to Carthage (ϵἰς Καρχηδόνα) rather than against Carthage. Despite Thucydides' description of Alkibiades' intentions at vi 15.2 and the latter's words to the Spartans at vi 90.2 (cf. Hermokrates' mention of Carthaginian fear of an Athenian attack at vi 34.2) all we know of Athenian actions (cf. Thuc. vi 86.6, SEG × 136, Treu, M., Historia iii [1954] 41 ff.Google Scholar, Stroheker, K. F., Historia iii [1954] 163 ff.Google Scholar) suggests concern for alliance with Carthage. Cf. now K. J. Dover, op. cit. (note 41 ) 241.

¹⁰³ Thuc. iv 65.2–3.

¹⁰⁴ Thuc. iv 65.3

¹⁰⁵ I cannot agree with G. W. Bowersock's recent suggestion of c. 442 as the date of ps. Xen. Ath. Pol. (HSCP lxxxi [1966] 33–8) and would prefer c. 414 (cf. Mattingly, H. B., Historia x [1961] 179)Google Scholar. For fresh arguments in favour of the mid-420s see now Forrest, W. G., Klio lii (1970) 107–16Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Thuc. vi 15.2 on Alkibiades' reasons for wanting the command.

¹⁰⁷ Phaiax, a man of good family (cf. Plut. Alk. 13.1) and considerable wealth (cf. Eupolis, Αἷγϵς, fr. 7 [Edmonds] apud Athen. iii 106b), was named (?nicknamed, cf. D. S. xi 125.3, ) after the eponymous ancestor of the Phaiakians, legendary inhabitants of Kerkyra (cf. Thuc. i 25.4, iii 70.4). He was perhaps friendly with Dionysios Chalkous (cf. Bergk fr. 4, ), a man closely connected with Thourioi (cf. Photios, s.v. ‘Θουριομάντϵις’) and the West (cf. his son Hieron apud Plut. Nik. 5). According to Andok, iv 41 by 415 Phaiax had gone on many embassies to Italy and Sicily. He had an earlier namesake at Akragas who built the city's famous aqueducts (D. S. xi 25.3) and he was himself successful there later in 422 (Thuc. v 4.6). His nephew Erasistratos appears in [Plato] Eryxias 392b—c in the company of Kritias and strongly urges a large Athenian expedition against Sicily. His son Erasistratos was clearly of anti-democratic sympathies (cf. Plut. Ages. 15) and either his son or his nephew Erasistratos was later one of the Thirty (Xen. Hell. ii 3.2). For his own political attitude see Andok. iv 8, 16 and for his rhetorical ability see Aristoph. Eq. 1375 ff. and Plut. Alk. 13.1–3. On the whole family see now Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 521–4Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Thuc. v 4–5.

¹⁰⁹ Thuc. v 16, 43.2, 46.

¹¹⁰ Thuc. v 83.4, vi 10.

¹¹¹ Thuc. vi 12.1. For Nikias' later concern, almost pathetic preoccupation, with the financial side of the war see Thuc. vi 62, vii 83.2.

The need for caution in the expenditure of public monies was heavily emphasised, almost certainly by Nikias' group, in the period 421–15. The arguments in favour of Beloch's date of 418 for IG i² 91 and 92 (Rh. Mus. xliii [1888] 113, Griech. Gesch. ii 2² 344) seem to need restatement (see now Fornara, C. W., GRBS xi [1970] 185–96Google Scholar) against the presently canvassed alternatives of 434/3 and 422/1, see ML 58. Certainly from 418/7 onwards a vote of ἄδϵια was necessary to enable expenditure (i.e. presumably any above 10,000 dr. cf. IG i² 92 = ML 58B 12–19) from the reserves, cf. IG i² 302 = ML 77. At Athens in 416–15 heated discussion about the cost of the Sicilian expedition to the public treasury continued right up to the time of the fleet's sailing, cf. ML 78c and now K. J. Dover, op. cit. (note 41) 226. The 60 talents brought by the Egestaians (Thuc. vi 8.1) were clearly important. Of particular interest here is Thucydides' own concern with the financial arrangements and cost (vi 31 with Regenbogen, O., Kleine Schriften 207–12)Google Scholar.

¹¹² For Nikias' friendship with Laches see Plato, , Laches, passim, Thuc. v 43.2Google Scholar, and for attacks upon the latter after his return from Sicily in 426/5 see Appendix p. 146.

¹¹³ Of the three prytanies possible in IG i² 19.2— and Ἀντιοχίς, two were clearly first and second in 418/7, cf. IG i² 302 (= ML 77) 5, 11. But spring 417, historically more probable, is at any rate not excluded by the epigraphical evidence.

¹¹⁴ Cf. in general ps. Xen. Ath. Pol. 3.1 f.

¹¹⁵ For this date for the famous last ostrakophoria rather than the possible alternatives of 417 (cf. Hignett, C., A History of the Athenian Constitution 395–6) and 415Google Scholar (cf. Raubitschek, A. E., TAPA lxxix [1948] 191–210)Google Scholar see Woodhead, A. G., Hesperia xviii (1949) 78 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and McGregor, M. F., Phoenix xix (1965) 27 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁶ The original version clearly involved Alkibiades, Nikias and Hyperbolos (Plut. Nik. 11) with the first two combining against the last. After Theophrastos had rightly insisted on the part played by Phaiax in the whole affair (Plut. Nik. 11.7), the further wrong inference was made that Alkibiades had combined with Phaiax rather than with Nikias against Hyperbolos (Plut. Alk. 13.4–5). On the importance of Phaiax see further Vanderpool, E., Ostracism at Athens (Semple Lectures, 1969) 28–9Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ For Nikias' earlier interest in Melos in 426 see Thuc. iii 91.1–3 and for Alkibiades' association with the 416 expedition see Andok. iv 22.

¹¹⁸ Thuc. vi 16.2, Andok. iv 25–31, Isocr. xvi 34, Plut. Alk. 11–12. For the date see K. J. Dover, op. cit. (note 41) 246.

¹¹⁹ See above notes 92 and 93.

¹²⁰ Thuc. vi 6.3, 8.2. Thucydides does not say that Nikias was responsible for this, but it is likely, see above note 111.

¹²¹ For later contributions from Naxos, Katane, Rhegion and the Sikels see Meritt, , Hesperia xxvi (1957) 198–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is clear that hundreds of talents were forthcoming.

¹²² Cf. Thuc. vi 8.4, ML 78.

¹²³ Thuc. vi 14, 20–3.

¹²⁴ Andokides naturally did not feel that his dramatic date of spring 416 required him to ignore subsequent events, e.g. iv 22–3, 25–31. His chosen dramatic context merely gave his pamphlet an acceptable rhetorical form without thereby limiting its content. For differing recent views on Andokides iv see A. E. Raubitschek, op. cit. (note 115), Burn, A. R., CQ NS iv (1954) 138 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, K.J. Dover, op. cit. (note 41) 287.

¹²⁵ Cf. Macdowell, D., Andokides On the Mysteries 190–3Google Scholar. It is interesting that a certain Euphemos, brother of Kallias, son of Telekles—but not himself described as son of Telekles—was closely associated with Andokides (Andok, i 40), was arrested on Diokleides' information (ibid. 47) and later released (ibid. 66). It is at least possible that this Euphemos was the same man as the Euphemos of IG i² 19.15, 96.3, 302.23, D. S. xii 81.1 and Thuc. vi 75.4, 81–8 (see above note 55). Thucydides does not give his Euphemos a patronymic and this may possibly reflect the same embarrassment as in Andokides' description of his Euphemos twice as (i 40 and 47).

¹²⁶ Thuc. i 36.2, 44.3, iii 86.4, 115.4 (on the ambivalent καταλυθήσϵσθαι see Westlake, op. cit. [note 94] 392–3), iv 65.3–4, vi 1.1, 6.1. Thucydides clearly thought highly of Hermokrates (cf. Westlake, H. D., BRL xli [1958/1959] 239–68)Google Scholar and Hermokrates supports throughout the interpretatio maligna of Athenian intentions (Thuc. iv 59–64, vi 76–80).

¹²⁷ Cf. D. S. xii 54.1–3, Plut. Per. 20.3.

¹²⁸ op. cit. (note 15) 267–70.

¹²⁹ I should like to thank all those concerned with the Institute for Arts and Humanistic Studies at Pennsylvania State University for granting me a Fellowship there in autumn, 1969. Much of the preliminary work on this article was done then. I am grateful, too, for many a helpful discussion about the date of IG i² 19 + with Professors M. F. McGregor and H. B. Mattingly, who have both made many fruitful suggestions, saved me from numerous errors and are in no way responsible for any that remain.

¹³⁰ Wade-Gery's suggestion of one possible explanation of Theopompos, ' remarks on the ‘Peace of Kallias’ (Essays in Greek History 206Google Scholar) naturally extends, rather than confirms, the hypothesis of renewal by reinscription of the prescript.

¹³¹ JHS lxxxi (1961) 118 n. 8. Lewis is arguing in particular against ATL's identification (iii 276–7) of the original proposer — — —]ας (cf. IG i² 51.9) with the prescript's proposer Καλλίας (cf. IG i² 51.8–9, 52.15) and the further guess—dependent, of course, upon the hypothesis of renewal by reinscription— that this Kallias was Kallias, son of Hipponikos, negotiator of the ‘Peace of Kallias’. But prima facie there is a good case for the identity of the original proposer with the prescript's proposer and this combination of—on the hypothesis of renewal—the new with the old is odd. But perhaps it would on the same hypothesis have been even odder if the original proposer had been replaced by the new proposer of the renewal. Surely the hypothesis of renewal by reinscription of the prescripts is altogether odd.

¹³² Cf. Accame, S., Riv. Fil. lxxx (1952) 129–32Google Scholar.

¹³³ Cf. above note 131.

¹³⁴ Cf. Meritt, B. D., CQ xl (1946) 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ Cf. Accame, op. cit. (note 23) 73–5. H. B. Mattingly, op. cit. (note 15) 272 dates the reinscription of the prescripts sometime in the 420s ‘presumably to give greater chronological precision by adding the name of the archon and the first secretary of the council’, cf. ML p. 174. The large measure of uncertainty makes any probability in establishing the ‘mistake’ impossible.

¹³⁶ Cf. Meritt, op. cit. (note 34) 89, who notes further concerning the carelessness of the mason, ‘The two accusatives Ἀθϵναίος (line 17) and Λϵοντίνος (line 18) were changed to datives by the adding of iotas outside their stoichoi. This too was in correction of an error. It seems obvious that the stonecutter, when he made the mistakes, was under the impression that he was writing the sentence On remembering that the sentence had been begun though not too successfully begun even so, he had to change Ἀθϵναίος to Ἀθϵναίος and Λϵοντίνος to Λϵοντίνοις.’.

¹³⁷ But cf. Accame, op. cit. (notes 132 and 135) for the view that παλαιά ξυμμαχία refers back beyond IG i² 51 and 52 to earlier Athenian alliance c. 460, at least with Rhegion.

¹³⁸ But cf. ML p. 174. One suspects that supporters of alternative A are loath to base any central argument upon παλαιός against supporters of alternative B because they realise that such an argument supports Accame's hypothesis (op. cit. [notes 132 and 135] with references to Thuc. ii 22.3 and v 69.1) more than their own.

¹³⁹ Cf. Mattingly, op. cit. (note 15) 272 n. 73 quoting Thuc. iii 13.1 (πάλαι), iv 79.2.

¹⁴⁰ I presume that Gorgias in 427 (cf. D. S. xiii 53.2–5) dwelt upon the kinship of all Ionians and their traditional alliance against Dorians (see above note 93) as well as, of course, appealing to the alliance of 433/2.

¹⁴¹ I am grateful to Professor Mattingly for drawing my attention to this difference between the two oaths. It is surely significant, as Accame (op. cit. [note 132] 129) realised, and it is perhaps not fanciful to regard the short oath in IG i² 52 as evidence of Athenian disinterest in alliance with Leontinoi. Perhaps even Leontinoi, and not Athens, paid for the inscription of IG i² 52 (cf. D. M. Lewis, op. cit. [note 61] 23) whereas Athens, and not Rhegion, paid for the inscription of IG i² 51. This would help to explain why two different masons, one good (IG i² 51) and one bad (IG i² 52), were employed to inscribe the original texts of the two inscriptions.