¹ For other suggested solutions see Busolt, , Griechische Geschichte iii (1897) 83Google Scholar n. 1 (cf. Wilamowitz, , Aristoteles und Athen i [1893] 147 n. 42Google Scholar; Lehmann-Haupt, , Klio xvii [1921] 67 f.Google Scholar; Johnston, , Hermathena xlvi [1931] 166 f.Google Scholar; Wade-Gery, , JHS lii [1932] 224 n. 86Google Scholar; Gomme, , Commentary on Thucydides i [1945] 406Google Scholar; White, M. E., JHS lxxxiv [1964] 145)Google Scholar; Meyer, , Forschungen zur alten Geschichte ii (1899) 502 f.Google Scholar; Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte ii 2 (1916) 190 f.Google Scholar

Busolt and his followers must suppose that for some reason or other Leotychidas' years of exile were included in his reign and yet so far no convincing reason has been suggested (Pleistoanax's 18 years in exile [cf. Thuc. v 16.3] were included by Diodoros xiii 75.1 in a total reign of 50 years, but Pleistoanax returned from exile, whereas Leotychidas did not); Meyer failed to notice that Diodoros' statement of Archidamos Ill's death in 346/5 occurs in a digression (xvi 61 f.); and Beloch could give no good reason why Leotychidas' Thessalian expedition should fall in 476/5 other than that this was the year needing explanation. The solution accepted in the text is that of Prof. Andrewes and appears in White, M. E., JHS lxxxiv (1964) 145 n. 21.Google Scholar

² Diod. xi 63.1 (PAHL)/Φαίδωνος (FIKM). Φαίωνος, the reading of the better MSS and difficilior lectio, is generally preferred (cf. Diod. xii 65, Ἴσαρχος (PAHL, right), Ἴππαρχος (FIKM, wrong)). All that can be said against it is that Phaion seems to occur nowhere else as an Attic name. Phaidon does, but otherwise there is little to be said for Φαίδωνος. One can only remark that to read Φαίδωνος would make Diodoros' mistake more straightforward and would avoid the necessity—involved in reading Φαίωνος—of believing that the scholiast on Aischines ii 31 and Plutarch Theseus 36.1 (or their sources) joined Diodoros in misreading Phaion in list A as Phaidon.

Dr H. B. Mattingly has suggested to me the possibility that Φαίωνος (later corrupted to Φαίοωνος) occurred as a misreading (or mishearing) of (Ἀψε) φίωνος during the early transmission of Diodoros' MSS. If this were so, it would nullify the whole of the above argument. It would be a pity to have to abandon Andrewes's neat solution of Diodoros' mistake in the dating of Archidamos' reign. But Mattingly's suggestion remains attractive and one way of making use of it for our own argument would be to suppose that early (? 3rd cent, B.C.) in one branch of the transmission of a source for the Athenian archon list (say a MS of Hellanikos) Apsephion was corrupted to Phaion/Phaidon in the way suggested. This would account for the fact that Phaion/Phaidon has on the present hypothesis replaced Apsephion in Diodoros' chronographical source for the archon of 469/8 while it and Apsephion (from the uncorrupted tradition) stand together in Plutarch.

³ Meritt, , Wade-Gery, and McGregor, , The Athenian Tribute Lists iii (1950) 160.Google ScholarCf. Jacoby, , CQ xli (1947) 3 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁴ That Plutarch's juxtaposition of the recovery of the bones and the honour at the Dionysia does not necessarily imply chronological connexion was demonstrated by Wilamowitz, (Aristoteles i 146 n. 41Google Scholar; cf. Meyer, , Forschungen ii 62 n. 2)Google Scholar but this naturally does not show that there was not in fact such a connexion.

⁵ FGrH 70 fr. 191, 37 f.: Diod. xi 60.2: (sc. Kimon) Pausanias cannot have been at Byzantion when Kimon left for the Eion campaign.

A possible reconciliation of Justin with Ephoros on something approaching the orthodox chronology would perhaps be as follows:

478/7 Pausanias' first recall to Sparta (Thuc. i 95.3)

478/7 Foundation of the Delian League (Ath. Pol. 23.5)

477/6 Kimon and the allies leave Byzantion for Eion.

477/6 Pausanias' return to Byzantion (Thuc. i 131.1)

477/6 Kimon's capture of Eion.

476/5 The colonising expedition of Lysistratos, etc., to Eion.

472/1 Final expulsion of Pausanias from Byzantion (Thuc. i 131.1).

But can it be seriously maintained that what stood behind FGrH 70 fr. 191 and Diodoros xi 60.2 was in fact an accurate description by Ephoros of such a sequence of events? One would hardly have thought so. From Diodoros xi 44 f. it would appear that Ephoros had Pausanias out of Byzantion (and murdered already) before he went on to deal with Kimon and Eion (Diod. xi 60 f.), much like Plutarch, Kim. 6–7.Google Scholar Neither author may have had much respect for chronology, but it can hardly be argued that because prima facie they both place B after A, they therefore in fact support placing B before A.

⁶ Cf. Sandys, , Aristotle's Constitution of Athens (1912)Google Scholarad loc. Kenyon (OCT) describes it as plane incongruum.

⁷ If one accepts Plut. Kim. 9.3–6 and associates it with the final expulsion of Pausanias from Byzantion, then this will be Kimon's first generalship. For this I prefer 471/0 to Fornara's 472/1 and hope to present detailed arguments elsewhere. For a sceptical attitude towards possible earlier generalships (e.g. Plut. Aristeid. 10.10; 23.1; Kim. 6.1) see Jacoby, , CQ. xli (1947) 2, n. 4.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Jacoby, CQ xli (1947) 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Ion was ‘about fifteen years of age’ when Plutarch Kim. 9.1 described him as παντάπασι μειράκον. For a different interpretation of Kim. 4.4 see ATL iii 160 quoting Plut. Brutus 27.2.

I am grateful to Dr. J. P. Barron and those who attended the seminar Athenian Imperialism at the London Institute of Classical Studies in 1965/6 for much useful discussion of the above arguments.