^{page 221 note 2} The date depends on whether we regard the Persae of Aeschylus as a pre-ostracism defence or a post-ostracism justification of Themistokles. I have little doubt that it was the former (cf. Cary, M., C.R. xxxvi [1922], 161 ff.),Google Scholar but this can hardly be proved. In what follows I shall, for simplicity, accept 470 (which I believe to have been Diodoros' date (11. 55), cf. below, p. 241), but my argument would not be affected by an earlier dating.

^{page 221 note 3} Thuc. 1. 137. 3.

^{page 221 note 4} For a clear statement of the issues see Gomme, H.C.T. i. 397–401.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 5} Hdt. 6. 77–81.

^{page 221 note 6} Hdt. 6. 92. 2–3.

^{page 221 note 7} Hdt. 7. 148.

^{page 221 note 8} Hdt. 6. 82.

^{page 221 note 9} Sokrates of Argos, F.G.H. 310 F 6 (its earliest attested appearance, but cf. Jacoby, , Commentary, ad. loc).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 10} 6. 77. 2. Cf. Jacoby, loc. cit. (with nn. and bibliography). Recently both Crahay, R. (La Litérature oraculaire, pp. 172–5)Google Scholar and Willetts, R. F. (Hermes, lxxxvii [1959], 501–2) defend the story in whole or part but neither explains the basic contradiction.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 11} Cf. Crahay, loc. cit.

^{page 222 note 1} 6. 82.

^{page 222 note 2} 6. 79. 1.

^{page 222 note 3} Hdt. 6. 83; Ar. Pol. 1303^a6.

^{page 222 note 4} In what follows the authors of the change are described as ‘democrats’ only to distinguish them from their predecessors.

^{page 222 note 5} Plut, . Mor. 245 f.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 6} Paus. 8. 27. 1. See further below, p. 224.

^{page 222 note 7} Seymour, P. A., J.H.S. xlii (1922), 24–30;Google Scholar R. F. Willetts, loc. cit.

^{page 222 note 8} Cf. Wade-Gery, H. T., J.H.S. lii (1932), 205–27 (Essays in Greek History 239–70).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} For Pindar, below, pp. 228–9 and 232; for Aeschylus, below, pp. 236 ff. Is it an accident that Herodotus mentions Pindar only to approve (3. 38) and Aeschylus only to rebuke (2. 156) ? Cf. also Bowra, C. M., C.Q. xxxii (1938), 84–85.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} I know of no exact parallel to this use bu1 it is a possible extension from, for example, Hdt.6. 11. 1.

^{page 223 note 3} Andrewes, A., C.Q. xliv (1951), 39–45;CrossRefGoogle Scholar cf. B.C.H. lxxx (1956), 38–39.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 4} Wade-Gery, , C.A.H. iii. 565 ff.;Google Scholar cf. Wallace, W., J.H.S. lxxiv (1954), 32–35.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 5} Hdt. 6. 76. 2.

^{page 223 note 6} Newman, , Comm. on At. Pol. iv. 304 n.Google ScholarWilletts, , art. cit. 496 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 7} For this reason alone it is difficult to accept Willetts's claim that Aristotle also meant the by his perioikoi. In support of this he offers two arguments: (a) that Aristotle is thinking of a large depressed class; (b) that the word perioikos for Aristotle usually implies serfdom. The first depends on an unjustifiable equation of the perioikoi with of 1303^a2 the second on a confusion between perioikos as a general term (where its meaning may legitimately be established by a study of the author's usage) and as a specific term (where its meaning depends on the usage of the state in question). Here it may be general but, if there were Argive perioikoi in the other sense, the chances are that it is not. Cf. D. Lotze, (Berlin, 1959), pp. 8 ff. and 53–54.

^{page 224 note 1} Larsen, art. ‘Perioikoi’ in R.E. and the full and admirable discussion by Gschnitzer, F., ‘Abhängige Orte’, Zetemata xvii (1958), pp. 68–81.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} We cannot infer from Hdt. 8. 73 the existence of a general term, Orneatai, and hence a general status for Argive perioikoi. The passage mean ‘the people of Orneai and those who live around it’; cf. Larsen, loc. cit.

^{page 224 note 3} Cf. Larsen, loc. cit.

^{page 224 note 4} 8. 27. 1.

^{page 224 note 5} Loc. cit. For Tiryns and Mykenai see below, pp. 230 ff.; for Orneai, Thuc. 5. 67, 6. 7, Diod. 12. 81.

^{page 224 note 6} Mykenai: Paus. 7. 25. 5. Paus. 2. 25. 8 talks of absorption of the Tirynthians but I take it that he is repeating the confused tradition of 8. 27. 1. Some Tirynthians at least were not absorbed: Hdt. 7. 137; Ephoros, F.G.H. 70 F 56; Steph. Byz. s.v. Tipvvs; Strabo, p. 373.

^{page 224 note 7} For the independence of Tiryns and Mykenai between 494 and c. 470 cf., e.g., Hdt. 7. 202, 9. 28. 4. If this suggestion is cor rect, some of the douloi were only returning home when (Hdt. 6. 83).

^{page 225 note 1} Hdt. 6. 83.

^{page 225 note 2} Cf. Seymour, , op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 3} Hdt. loc. cit.

^{page 225 note 4} See below, pp. 230 ff.

^{page 225 note 5} It was, of course, no more than an interlude. Democracy had been re-established by the time of the Athenian alliance of the late sixties, or, rather, democrats were once again in power. It is not necessary to suppose that there was any constitutional change in either case; only that, for a time, Argos was governed, perhaps under the constitution of 494, by aristocrats; that men like Kimon in Argos expelled men like Themistokles and were later defeated by men like Ephialtes. As I see it the parallel between Athens and Argos could be close. But cf. below, p. 240.

^{page 225 note 6} Hdt. 6. 92. Herodotus' date, which I prefer, has recently been defended by Hammond, N. G. L., Historia, iv (1955), 406–11.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 7} Hdt. 6. 92.

^{page 225 note 8} Gr. G.² 564, a. 2.

^{page 225 note 9} Cf., e.g., Busolt, , loc. cit., Hdt. 7. 148–9.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 1} For the collapse of the kingship, Paus. 2. 19. 2 and Andrewes, , C.Q. xliv (1951), 39–45. For the office in the fifth century, Tod, G.H.I. i² 33. 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Hdt. 9. 5. 1; the implication is that the bouleutai, apart from Lykides, were prepared to reject Mardonios' proposals without reference to the people. But it must be admitted that the circumstances were peculiar.

^{page 226 note 3} P. Oxy. ii. 222. 6 and 31.

^{page 226 note 4} Thuc. 5. 50. 4.

^{page 226 note 5} Plut, . Them. 20.Google Scholar The story has been doubted (e.g. C.A.H. v. 36) but is credible enough.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 6} Thuc. 1. 90–92.

^{page 226 note 7} Below, p. 229.

^{page 226 note 8} B.C.H. lxxvii (1953), 395–7;Google ScholarS.E.G. xiii. 239.Google Scholar Charneux (B.C.H., loc. cit.) dates the letter forms to the sixties but the editor of S.E.G. suggests an earlier date. Dr. L. H. Jeffery confirms my own impression that a date in the seventies is more likely to be right; cf. Local Scripts, p. 162 (in the press).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 9} Cf. above, p. 225, n. 5.

^{page 226 note 10} But cf. Charneux, loc. cit.

^{page 226 note 11} p. 225.

^{page 227 note 1} Thuc. I. 136. I,

^{page 227 note 2} Thucydides does not say whether Themistokles fled from Argos or from some other part of the Peloponnese. He may, therefore, have left Argos before his condemnation.

^{page 227 note 3} For the date and purpose of this monument see Amandry, P., F.D. II, Le Portique des Athtniens, c. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 4} Paus. 10. 10. 1; cf.Daux, G., Pausanias à Delphes, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar The addition of Miliades and the substitution of Theseus, Kodros, and Phyleus for three of the tribal heroes together with the date (see Daux, loc. cit.) makes it almost certain that Kimon was responsible.

^{page 227 note 5} Plut, . Thes. 36. 1–4;Google Scholar Schol. Aristid.46, iii, p. 688. I should like to associate the fragmen tary dedication, F.D. III. iv. 190,Google Scholar with this campaign, cf. R.B.P.H. xxxiv (1956), 541–2.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 6} Paus. 10. 15. 4.

^{page 227 note 7} Paus. 10. 14. 5.

^{page 227 note 8} Paus. 10. 10.4, cf. 1. 15. 1 and Gomme, , H.C.T. i. 370 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 9} In Syll ³ 28.

^{page 227 note 10} Op. cit., p. 104. Cf. F.D. III. i. 90.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 11} Cf. DrJeffery, L. H., Local Scripts, pp. 162–4, wno does not, however, consider the expulsion as a possible occasion.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 12} There are examples of such delays, e.g. the Marathon dedication mentioned above, but they are rare.

^{page 227 note 13} The Phokian coup of the fifties (Thuc. 1. 112–15) brought Delphi over to the side of the democrats; to this period I would ascribe the real Oinoe dedication (Paus. 10. 10. 4). At the same time Sparta preferred to advertise her victory at Tanagra at Olympia (Paus. 5. 10. 4; cf. Tod, , G.H.I. i.² p).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} Cf. again Wade-Gery, , op. cit. above, p. 222, n. 8, and below, p. 234.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} As argued by Gaspar, C., Chronol. Pindarique, pp. 28–35.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 3} As argued by Wilamowitz, , Pindaros, pp. 423 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 4} Sir Maurice Bowra (to whom I am deeply grateful for advice on this and other points) writes: ‘Nemean X must come from Pindar's prime, viz. the sixties. It is plainly much more confident and solid than Pythian X at one end, and much less allusive and complex than Pythian VIII at the other. It is built very carefully in five sections, each of which comprises a triad. The first deals with Argos, the second with the victor's family, the third with the victor in his family, the fourth and fifth with the mydi. Pindar is seldom so formal as this, and the nearest parallels are Ol. VII and Ol. XIII, born from 464.’

^{page 228 note 5} See below, p. 232.

^{page 228 note 6} e.g. by Farnell, ad loc. This is surely wrong. Theaios' mother is a Tirynthian (vv. 38–41) and she may have moved to Argos as early as 500.

^{page 228 note 7} These arguments have been stated and used in several different ways but this is, I think, a fair summary of them.

^{page 228 note 8} Cf. the behaviour of the Argive aristocrats in 418 (Thuc. 5. 76. 2).

^{page 228 note 9} vv. 29–30.

^{page 228 note 10} Below, pp. 232.

^{page 229 note 1} This is not, of course, a paraphrase of Pindar's words.

^{page 229 note 2} I would accept the arguments of Wallace, W. (J.H.S. lxxiv [1954], 32–35) for the existence of this League.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} Andrewes speaks of Tegea alone, but cf. the preceding note.

^{page 229 note 4} Mainly on the strength of her attitude in 481 (Hdt. 7. 148–50). Cf. also my suggestion above (p. 222), which would align her with Kleomenes and the Arkadian League in 490.

^{page 229 note 5} Andrewes, pp. 2–3.

^{page 229 note 6} Strabo, p. 337.

^{page 229 note 7} 2. 10. 3; are both laconizers and it would seem out of power. The episode cannot be dated exactly—between c. 465 and c. 444?

^{page 229 note 8} For what it is worth, Strabo talks of the three synoecisms in the same passage, of Mantinea and Tegea in the same sentence. Perhaps we should even understand of Tegea as well as Mantinea. Andrewes discounts the stay of Leotychidas in Tegea in the late seventies as evidence for Tegeate hostility towards Sparta. Evidence it is not, but it is suggestive (Hdt. 6. 72. 2; Paus. 3. 5. 6 and 7. 10; cf. Johnston, , Hermathena, xlvi [1931], 106 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 9} G.G. iii. 120–3.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 10} Even if one accepts his date for Themistokles’ flight; cf. Andrewes, loc. cit.

^{page 229 note 11} Andrewes, pp. 3–4, from Polyainos, 1. 41. 1 and Isok, . Archidamos 99Google Scholar (cf. Wade-Gery, , C.Q. xxxviii [1944], 126Google Scholar [ = E.G.H. p. 84]). But see p. 231, n. 4 below.

^{page 229 note 12} Sparta won the battle (Hdt. 9. 35. 2) but did not capture Tegea if Simonides fr. 122 refers to this occasion (as I believe it must). Polyainos' anecdote of Kleandridas' capture of the town (2. 10. 3) must then refer to a later occasion, presumably after Dipaia, at which the Tegeates fought and were again defeated (Hdt. loc. cit). Andrewes's dating of Kleandridas' exploit (p. 4) is therefore irrelevant. It may be added that if Simonides 122 is in fact by Simonides the battle must be dated before his death in 468 (Marm. Par. F.G.H. 239 A ep. 57). It has, of course, been ascribed to other battles (Boas, , de Epig. Simon. 216 ff.)Google Scholar and other poets. But it fits this context, and, as far as I can see, what we know of Simonides'style. Cf. below, p. 235.

^{page 230 note 1} Hdt. loc. cit.

^{page 230 note 2} There is no suggestion of a chronological order either in Paus. 5. 23. 3. or 8. 27. 1.

^{page 230 note 3} e.g. by Andrewes, p. 5.

^{page 230 note 4} D.S. ii. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 5} Polemon E', pp. 62–67; Mitsos, ‘’ (1953), pp. 150–1. No photograph is avail able, but from the drawing I should judge this to be the date.

^{page 230 note 6} It would be odd outside the great international sanctuaries for a local to draw atten tion to his nationality.

^{page 230 note 7} Paus. 2. 17. 5; cf. Demetrios, , F.G.H. 304 fr. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 8} Strabo, p. 377.

^{page 230 note 9} Hdt. 6. 83. To turn Kleandros into a Spartan agent (with Seymour, art. cit.) is absurd. That he was putting into effect official Arkadian policy is a conjecture, but not an improbable one.

^{page 230 note 10} Strabo, loc. cit.

^{page 231 note 1} Paus. 7. 25. 6.

^{page 231 note 2} By the time of Tanagra Kleonai is again with Argos (Paus. 1.29.7), but by then Argos has returned to her democratic ways and democratic friends; cf. below, p. 240. About this time or earlier Korinth had trouble both with Argos and Kleonai (Plut, . Kim. 17; D.G.E.E.P. 80). This incident could be ascribed to the period of co-operation which led to the attack on Mykenai. Note that the Argives dedicate in Olympia (Elis was an ally) not in Delphi (above, p. 227).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} 11. 65.

^{page 231 note 4} Andrewes and the majority of modern historians, assume that the revolt began in 465/464 and ended c. 460. In this article I have accepted this date although I am by no means convinced that they are right (cf. N. G. L. Hammond's ingenious defence of the earlier dating, Historia, iv [1955], 371–81,Google Scholar and the works cited by him, p. 371, n. 2). It will be obvious, however, that my version of events in the northern Peloponnese could easily be adjusted to fit the earlier dating.

The even later date for Mykenai (post c. 460) proposed by Kolbe (Hermes, lxii [1937] 254–63) is verY improbable. At any rate by the time of Tanagra Kleonai is again with Argos.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 1} There is no reason to suppose that Argive aristocrats were less interested than their opponents in controlling the Argolid. Hence the continuation of the campaign against Mykenai without allied support. It could be that Sparta offered them a free hand against Mykenai in exchange for their defection. The need be no more than an excuse.

^{page 232 note 2} For the date, Wilamowitz, , Pindaros, pp. 307 ff.Google Scholar and cf., e.g., Andrewes, p. 1.

^{page 232 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 232 note 4} The change in the archonship in 487 was also, no doubt, an issue but its purpose and authorship are too unclear to allow interpretation of the kind we need.

^{page 233 note 1} Cf., e.g., Robinson, , A.J.P. ix (1939), 232 ff., and lxvi (1945), 243 ff.;Google ScholarMcGregor, M., H.S.C.P. Supp. I (1940), 71 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Hdt. 6. 131; Plut, . Per. 3. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 3} Between 510 and 490, the upper limit fixed by the birth of Agariste's father, Hippokrates, which must be c. 560 and may perhaps be more accurately dated to the year of the Alkmeonid reconciliation with Peisistratos (son of Hippokrates), i.e. to the early fifties. He might then have a marriageable daughter c. 510. The lower limit depends on the date of Perikles' birth, which must be somewhere in the nineties. I should like to place the marriage in 508—one part of Kleisthenes' attempt (through its leaders).

^{page 233 note 4} 22. 6.

^{page 233 note 5} Another possible Alkmeonid, Hippokrates son of Anaxileos, may have been the victim in 485 (484, Raubitschek, , Historia, viii [1957], 127–8):Google Scholar see Vanderpool, , Hesperia, xxii (1952), p. 8.Google Scholar At any rate a third Alkmeonid, Kallixenos, was a strongly favoured candidate in the late eighties (Vanderpool, , Hesperia, xix [1950], 376 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 6} The discovery of the ostrakon which adds the description to the name Kallixenos (Vanderpool, loc. cit.) shows that the story of the shield signal was not a later invention to discredit Perikles. Thus Alkmeonid policy in the nineties had been at least sufficiently equivocal to make the charge of Medism appear credible.

^{page 233 note 7} Hdt. 6. 136.

^{page 233 note 8} Plut, . Per. 7. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 9} For the curse, Williams, , Hermathena, Ixxviii–ix (1951–1952);Google Scholar for its application c. 460 Dover, K.J., J.H.S. lxxvii (1957), 236Google Scholar (though I do not agree that it was ever formally with drawn (cf. B.C.H. lxxx [1956], 49 ff.)).Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 10} F.G.H. 3 Teil B (Supplement) ii. 123 and 387.

^{page 234 note 1} 28. 2.

^{page 234 note 2} Hdt. 5. 73 (certainly Kleisthenes'idea).

^{page 234 note 3} The oracle is not necessarily post eventum (cf. C.R., N.S. viii [1958], 123).Google Scholar If Delphi did not feel strong enough to forbid the attack, she could at least suggest postponement, which would amount to the same thing. There is, of course, no more evidence for Alkmeonid interference on this issue than the well-known connexion of the clan with the sanctuary.

^{page 234 note 4} The name betrays his origin (Pherekydes F.G.H. 3F2). The only alternative would be to suppose that the alliance with the Philaids came much earlier than one imagines (and this would hardly be a democratic move). The earliest certain instance of collaboration is the prosecution of Them, by Leobotes (Plut, . Them. 23. 1, Mor. 605 e;Google ScholarKrateros, , F.G.H. 342 fg. 11),Google Scholar but Kimon's marriage to Isodike is probably earlier, about 480 (Hignett, , H.A.C., p. 396).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 5} For the nature of the change: Andrewes, , The Greek Tyrants, pp. 113–15.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 6} Pyth. 7.

^{page 234 note 7} Wade-Gery, , art. cit., pp. 208–11 (E.G.H. 243–7).Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 8} See above. Cf. Wade-Gery, loc. cit.

^{page 234 note 9} Aristotle, (Ath. Pol. 27. 3)Google Scholar illustrates well the aristocratic thinking of these men. When seeking popularity Perikles bribes the whole people, Kimon entertains his demesmen—he is still the local dynast, not the class politician.

^{page 235 note 1} For Aristeides, , Plut, . Mor. 790 f., Arist. 2. I.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} Thuc. 1. 90–93, etc.

^{page 235 note 3} Ath. Pol. 28. 2. c. 41 puts Aristeides firmly behind Ephialtes.

^{page 235 note 4} See below, p. 239, n. 2.

^{page 235 note 5} Below, p. 236. For Aristeides, Plut, . Arist.3. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 6} Op. cit., p. 95. One can hardly doubt that Aristeides' ostracism was the result of his opposition to Themistoklesnaval programme.

^{page 235 note 7} Aristotle, fr. 83. On Simonides' politics cf. Bowra, , G.L.P., p. 369.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 8} Plut, . Them. 1;Google Scholar cf. ibid. 5 and Cic, . de Fin. 2. 32.Google Scholar For Simonides' sympathy with the democratic alliance cf. the Tegean epigram (fr. 122) discussed above, p. 229, n. 12. The second epigram on Tegea (fr. 123) would tie him even more securely to Themistokles, for the lemma records that it was composed . Andrewes dismisses this too lightly (art. cit., p. 4). The lemma itself is improbable enough to be true. Unfortunately the poem is more vulnerable (cf. Wade-Gery, H. T., J.H.S. liii [1933], 81–82),Google Scholar but, if it is genuine, we must suppose that other Athenians shared Themistokles' views and were prepared to serve the alliance as volunteers.

For a study of what may be Simonides' most directly political poem see Bowra, , C.Q., N.s. viii (1958), 231–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Unfortunately the circumstances of its composition are too uncertain to throw any light on Simonides' views. It is worth noting, though, that his use of the word is no indication of aristocratic sympathies (cf. Bowra, , art. cit., p. 239,Google Scholar and the excellent remarks of Dover on similar value words, J.H.S. lxxvii [1957], 233).Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 9} C.A.H. iv. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 10} Plut, . Them. 5.Google Scholar It seems unlikely that chance brought poet and patron together. Choregoi were appointed, not chosen by lot, (Ath. Pol. 56),Google Scholar and could even volunteer for service (Lysias 21. 1–5). The method of assigning them a poet is unknown, but it is possible that they chose for themselves, the order of choice being settled by lot (see for example, Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., Dramatic Festivals, pp. 75–79 and 89 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} That the play was the Phosnissae is no more than a conjecture. See further below, P. 237.

^{page 236 note 2} See below, pp. 237 f.

^{page 236 note 3} See below, pp. 239 f. In a recent paper (J.H.S. lxxvii [1957], 220 ff.)Google Scholar Mr. A. Diamantopoulos has already argued that the play represents a Themistoklean view of politics. Some of what Mr. Diamantopoulos says is persuasive but his analysis as a whole is spoiled by his belief in what must now be regarded as an impossible date for the play (see below, p. 239, n. 6) and I shall not therefore examine his arguments in detail.

Briefly: he distinguishes two ‘diemes’ and four ‘topics’ in the play. These are: (1) friendship of Athens with Argos, (2) the suppliant theme, (3) the seniority of Argos over Sparta, (4) the consequences of defeat at Sepeia, (5) pre-Dorian Argos, (6) Argive democracy. Assuming that he is right, I feel that 1, 2, and 6 would be, in fact, more relevant in 463 than in 493; that 3 would be equally relevant, 4 rather less so (but not by any means out of place in a context in which the relations between the douloi and the Epigonoi were still an issue), while of 5 the relevance escapes me both in 493 and in 463.

^{page 236 note 4} There were still at the time of Tanagra men who were prepared to betray Athens in order to overthrow the new constitution; (Thuc. 1. 107).

^{page 236 note 5} vv. 353–64.

^{page 236 note 6} I.G. ii ². 2318.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 7} Professor Dover's study (J.H.S. lxxvii [1957], 239 ff.)Google Scholar should settle this question for good; Aeschylus' language on the dometic issue is (for us) neutral (so Dover but cf. Wade-Gery, H. T., E.G.H., pp. 176 and 180–97) but his attitude on other issues compels us us to interpret it as pro-democratic.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 8} Schol. Aristid. xlvi. iii, 688.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 9} Plut, . Them. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 10} Thuc. 1. 90–92.

^{page 237 note 1} D.S. II. 50.

^{page 237 note 2} Thuc. 1. 101.

^{page 237 note 3} Plut, . Thes. 36. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 4} Simonides, fr. 76 (A.L.G.²). The development of the story of the tyrannicides is a good example of an unreal puzzle set by belief in democratic Alkmeonids and an Alkmeonid Perikles (cf., e.g., Bowra, , G.L.P., p. 416,Google Scholar and Jacoby, , Atthis, pp. 158 ff.Google Scholar with nn.). The Gephyraian version was anti-Alkmeonid. Why then was it accepted by democratic Athens as early as 477 and sanctified by Perikles himself later (I.G. i.²77)Google Scholar ? If, on the other hand, we believe that the Alkmeonids were anti-democratic by 500 (above, p. 233 f.), the setting-up of the statues in 477 (by Themistokles ?) and the decree make perfect sense. As Themistokles may thus have tried to direct Athenian attention from 510 to 514, so Kimon would insist on 490 not 480; Marathon, not Salamis, was the great victory, Miltiades, not Themistokles, the hero (P. Amandry, [Festschr. Schuchhardt, 1960], pp. 1 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 237 note 5} It is not clear that he was condemned before he fled. Diodoros (11. 55) and Plut, . (Them. 23)Google Scholar talk of a future trial and Thuc. (1. 135. 2) is quite consistent with this. No doubt he was condemned at some time, and in Athens, not an international court (Krateros, , P.G.H. 342 F 11),Google Scholar but it may have been after his flight.

^{page 237 note 6} 135. 1–2.

^{page 237 note 7} D.S. 11.54.

^{page 238 note 1} Unless, of course, we believe in the earlier trial. Thuc. certainly seems to imply that the Spartans made their first moves when Them, was already in Argos, but it is possible that he has omitted the earlier unsuccessful action.

^{page 238 note 2} The case against Pausanias was murky enough (contrast Thucydides' certainty (i. 128–34) with Herodotos' doubts (8.3)). As for Them., not all the ancient sources are as outspoken as the scholiast on Aristophanes (Eguites 84), who speaks of an , but none of the others, except the muddled Plut., speaks of incriminating letters as a fact and even he regards them as justifying no more than while only a few lines above he has made Them, reject Pausanias' advances.

^{page 238 note 3} For the date, A.T.L. iii. 160.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 4} Plut, . Kimon, 13. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 5} Simonides, fr. 103 (A.L.G.²), vv. 1–4, may be by Simonides though I doubt it (cf. Gomme, , H.C.T. i. 288 f.).Google Scholar Even he might approve of the victory, though not, I suspect, of these verses.

^{page 238 note 6} Vita Aesch. with Marm. Par. ep. 50.

^{page 238 note 7} Suidas, s.v. , gives a total of ninety plays; thus about twenty-two sets of four were produced between 499 (Suidas, loc. cit.) and 458 (Vita).

^{page 238 note 8} Plut, . Kimon 8.Google Scholar

^{page 238 note 9} Plut, . Them. 24. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 1} For a discussion of the evidence and possible dates see Cary, M., C.Q. xxix (1935), 177 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Alternatively the decree could be earlier, an attempt to make the charge of medism stick while Them, was still in Argos.

^{page 239 note 2} Krateros, , F.G.H. 342 F 12. The story is unsupported and Krateros quotes no evidence, but it is as plausible as any other account of Aristeides' death and, for all we know, may be true (but see Jacoby's severe comments (Commentary, ad loc.)).Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 3} Thuc. 1. 74. 1; cf. Ar. Eq. 812 ff., Plut, . Lys. 14,Google ScholarPlato, , Meno 93 b.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 4} Rev. Phil. xlv (1921), 102–6.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 5} Cf. Schmid-Stählin, , G.L.G. i. 2, 194 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 239 note 6} So Lesky, A., Hermes, lxxxii (1954), 1–13.Google Scholar Other years after 467 remain possible but the odds are in favour of rather than . Some years ago Yorke, E. C. (C.Q. xxx [1936], 117)Google Scholar produced stylistic reasons for a date between the Persae and the Septem and it is possible that the play was written (in part, at any rate) before Themistokles fled—the lines in praise of Argos have (for me) the air of a spontaneous outburst rather than a cal culated recollection—but this is irrelevant to the main point and, of course, unarguable.

^{page 239 note 7} Not, of course, a political masquerade (cf. Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides, esp. pp. 78–81).Google Scholar–Danaos and his daughters are faced with Themistokles' problem but they do not, in any real sense, represent Themistokles. Even so one might expect to find in some lines direct comments on some aspects of Themistokles' position, even if irrelevant to the main theme. But we know too little of the situation at the time of the production or in 470/469, and of the content of the other two plays of the trilogy which might give relevance to what now seems irrelevant and therefore potentially topical, to make the search for these a profitable game.

^{page 240 note 1} Loc. cit., p. 235.

^{page 240 note 2} Cf. Jacoby, F., J.H.S. lxiv (1944), 51–53.Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 3} Thuc. 1. 102. 4 may suggest that Argos was already at war with Sparta when the Adienian alliance was concluded (cf. Gomme, ad loc).

^{page 240 note 4} To return (almost) to an old suggestion (Müller, , Eumenides, pp. 118 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 240 note 5} Above, pp. 228–9.

^{page 240 note 6} P. Oxy. 2265. 3.