¹ I should like gratefully to acknowledge the advice and assistance of Mr. G. T. Griffith in the preparation of this article.

¹ 15. 38. 1.

³ 15. 50. 4.

⁴ 15. 89. 1.

⁵ Cf. the remarks of G. T. Griffidi, ‘The so-called of 346 B.C.’, J.H.S. 1939, P. 73. It is generally accepted that Ephorus was the principal source for Greek affairs in Diod. books 11–16; cf. Volquardsen, C. A., Untersuch. über die Quellen der griech. und sizil. Gesch. bei Diod. XI bis XVI (Kiel, 1868)Google Scholar and Schwartz, P.-W., s.v. ‘Diodoros’, 38, cols. 679–82.

¹ 15–81. 3.

² Xenophon says ‘those who came with them’ (); Isocrates 6. 91, usually associated with these negotiations, specifies the Epidaurians. Apart from Athens, Sparta's allies were limited after the dis asters of 371–369 to Corinth and the smaller cities of this region; I doubt whether Achaea became formally allied to Sparta after the Theban invasion (cf. Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 43).

³ On his second expedition to Thessaly Pelopidas, after visiting Macedonia, had been arrested by Alexander of Pherae and rescued only at die second attempt (Plut. Pelop. 27–28, cf. Diod. 15. 71. 2–7). These events were in 368 (cf. Beloch, , Griechische Geschichte, 2nd ed., iii. ii. 238)Google Scholar and the final rescue was probably not before the beginning of 367, when Epaminondas was again a Boeotarch (cf. Plut. Pelop. 29. 1).

¹ The war between Elis and Arcadia must have broken out in late summer 365, the year before the Olympic festival. Xen. starts die war at 7. 4. 13 and describes it continuously until at 7. 4. 28 he observes that an Olympic year was ‘coming in’. Diod. 15. 77. 1 puts the outbreak of war under 365/4.

² Cf. Beloch (in. ii. 242) and Niese (’Beitrage zur griechischen Geschichte 370–364’, Hermes 1904, p. 106); Schol. Aesch. 3. 85 puts it in 367/6, Diodorus in 366/5.

³ Xen. covers the period between the morrow of Leuctra and the Olympic games of 364 (July 371–Aug./Sept. 364) in 182 chapters (Hell. 6. 4. 16–7. 4. 27). He takes only 116 chapters over a similar period of warfare between spring 378 (the morrow of Sphodrias' raid—Hell. 5. 4. 34) and the eve of Leuctra (Hell. 6. 4. 5).

⁴ Die griechische Staatsvertrdge von 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Leipzig, 1938).Google Scholar

⁵ La lega Ateniese del secolo IV a.C. (Rome, 1941).Google Scholar

⁶ e.g. Wilhelm, A., Ein Friedensbund der Hellenen, Oesterr. Arch. Inst. (1900), p. 157;Google ScholarMarshall, F. H., The Second Athenian Confederacy (Cambridge, 1905), p. 90;Google ScholarMeyer, E., Gesch. des Altertums, v. 447–9;Google Scholar A. Momigliano, ‘La dal 386 al 338 a.C.’, Riv. di Filol. (1934), p. 489Google Scholar and Filippo il Macedone (Florence, 1934), p. 84 n. 1;Google ScholarSanctis, G. de, ‘La Pace del 362/1’, Riv. di Filol. (1934), pp. 149–50;Google ScholarCloche, P., La politique étrangère d'Athenes de 404 à 336 a.C. (Paris, 1934), p. 121.Google Scholar

⁷ In addition to his main source (Ephorus) Diodorus would have used a chronographic source which provided a few outstanding events under each Attic year; cf. Schwartz, R.E. s.v. ‘Ephoros’, col. 10.

⁸ Accame assumes that they did.

⁹ Dem. 19. 137—cf. his misgivings after Leon's complaints in Persia—Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 37.

¹⁰ Diod. 15. 38. 1 and 50. 4.

¹ Stressing in Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 40.

² Ibid. 6. 2. 1.

³ Meyer, I.e., notes Xen.'s version, but follows Diod.; Momigliano, I.e., Riv. di Filol., follows Meyer and suggests also (Filippo, I.e.) that the King of Persia intervened to turn the peace into a de Sanctis, I.e., mentions Xen., but follows Diod.

Wilhelm, I.e., prefers Xen. to Diod. without argument; Beloch (in. i. 189) follows Xen. without citing Diod., and in iii. ii. 241 seems to take Diod. as a wrong version of Xen Hell. 7. 1. 33–40 (cf. above, p. 199); Marshall, I.e., prefers Xen., but thinks it probable that Athens joined in the peace; Cary, M. (C.A.H. vi. 96–97)Google Scholar and Laistner, M. (A History of the Greek World from 479 to 323 B.C. (Methuen, London, 1936), p. 210)Google Scholar follow Xen. without citing sources; Cloché I.e., was undecided between Xen. and Diod., but in Thèbes de Boeotie (Namur, 1952), pp. 151–5Google Scholar follows Xen. without citing Diod.; as does Bengtson, H. (Griechische Geschichte [ Munich, 1950], p. 264),Google Scholar who observes that the time was not ripe for a

Glotz-Cohen, , Histoire grecgue, iii. 166–7,Google Scholar seem to believe in a general peace without the King's intervention; they do not cite Diod. and regard Xen.'s narrative as indicating une paix générale by which the Peloponnese was neutralisé. A. Heuss in his review of the Common Peace treaties (‘Antigonos Monophthalmos und die griechische Städte’, Hermes, 1938)Google Scholar makes no mention of a peace in 366/5 (p. 166).

⁴ Hell. 7. 4. 9.

⁵ Ibid. 7. 1. 39.

⁶ Ibid. 43 end.

⁷ Execution of Timagoras: Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 38, Dem. 19. 137.

¹ This seems the most likely occasion for the erasure of lines 12–14 of Aristoteles' decree, the charter of the Athenian Confeder acy (Tod, no. 123). These lines must have contained some reference to the King's Peace. Now, for the first time since the decree was inscribed, a King's Peace had been proposed of which Athens disapproved.

² Mentioned as general in I.G. i². 108—December 366. For the date of the elections cf. Aristotle, , Ath. Pol. 44.Google Scholar

³ Nepos, Tim. 1. 3, Dem. 15. 9.

⁴ Dem. 15. 9, Isocr. 15. 111–12.

⁵ Dem. 23. 149, cf. C.A.H. vi. 105.Google Scholar

⁶ They had a substantial fleet at sea by 364; Diod. 15. 78. 4 cannot be right in placing the decision to build a fleet shortly before its sailing.

⁷ As Meyer suggested (Geschichte des Altertums, v. 453).Google Scholar

⁸ Autonomy for all the Greeks–Plut. Pelop. 30. 7, 31. 1. Xen. gives only the rulings on Messene and the Athenian fleet (7. 1. 36), but these must be details of a general scheme, for it was to be a general settlement. Triphylia, etc.—Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 38 (taken with 6. 5. 1, 7. 1. 26, 7. 4. 12). Amphipolis—Dem. 19— 137—which definitely refers the King's recognition of Amphipolis as his friend and ally to the time of Timagoras' embassy. The provision in the Peace of 371 (before Leuctra) that armies and fleets should be disbanded (Xen. Hell. 6. 3. 18) could have been a reasonable precedent for the clause about the Athenian fleet.

⁹ Hell. 7. 4. 9.

¹⁰ Ibid. 10.

¹ Cf. Ps.-Dem. 7. 18, where the use of makes it clear that a bilateral treaty (the Peace of Philocrates) is being discussed. Underhill, , Commentary on Xen. Hell. (Oxford, 1900),Google Scholar observes at this pas sage ‘i.e. on the basis of the Persian rescript that each state should be autonomous and Messene independent’.

² Cf. the quarrel between Phlius and Argos over Tricaranon (Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 11, Dem. 16.16, and see Wilhelm's restoration, art. cit., p. 162, of the opening lines of what is now Tod, no. 145 and lines 19–21 of the same inscription with Accame's comment, p. 175).

³ Grote, (History of Greece, new ed. [London, 1884], x. 52)Google Scholar in a note to his account of Xen.'s treaty discounts Diodorus' narrative on the grounds that no Persian envoy had visited Greece since Pelopidas had returned and that the peace was not universal. He, comes nearer the truth than any of his successors but Underhill (cf. note 1) when he says en passant that ‘the peace now concluded was upon the general basis of the rescript (brought back by Pelopidas)’.

⁴ Cf. Athens and Sparta between 420 and 413.

⁵ Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 1: …

⁶ Cf. Isocr. 9. 57, Plut. Pelop. 31. i, and Epaminondas' epitaph (Pausanias 9. 15. 6).

⁷ Xen. Hell. 5. 1. 33.

⁸ Ibid. 6. 3. 19.

¹ Ibid. 5. 1.

² Xen. (7. 1. 27) and Diod. (15. 70. 2) agree that the Thebans were the cause of Philiscus' failure to bring about a new Com mon Peace treaty. Whereas Diod. says that they feared for their control of Boeotia, Xen. says that they were unwilling to return Messene to Sparta. Philiscus was evidently a friend of the Spartans, for he left them a mercenary force; and to propose the return of Messene to Sparta would be no less realistic than not to satisfy Thebes over Boeotia.