^{page 1 note 1} Suda, s.v. Iων Xῖος. Unfortunately the Suda mentions the Olympiad only, and the current assumption that this means the first year is not at all certain. If it does, the production of the play, which necessitated a visit to Athens, would coincide with the return of Kimon from his ten years' exile; for there is no cogent reason for the widespread belief that Kimon returned long before the full ten years were up. I should regard the coincidence, if such it is, as purely accidental. But the great number of scholars who bind up the history of Ion's life and literary career with the fortunes of the Conservative party (cf. Appendix II) may take another view.

^{page 1 note 2} Argum, . Eurip, . Hippol. p. 2Google Scholar, 8 Schwartz.

^{page 1 note 3} The verses 832–7 may well have been added at the last moment. Aristophanes chose this place because in the preceding verses he had made fun of the διθυραμβοδάσκαλοι, of whom Ion was one. There is no mockery of Ion in the verses added when Aristophanes heard of his death. The scholiasts on 831 and 835 have confused the rather good-humoured attack on the dithyrambic poets with the obituary verses for Ion. Since Bentley it has been universally agreed that the funeral epigram on Euripides, (Anlh. Pal. 7. 43)Google Scholar which the second hand attributes to Ion, cannot belong to the Chian poet, who incidentally does not seem to have mentioned Euripides in his Epidemiai. I cannot take seriously either the several emendations of the name proposed by Bentley or the attribution of the authorship to namesakes of the Chian poet, viz. the rhapsode Ion of Ephesos (Bergk, P.L.G. ⁴ ii. 254. 8)Google Scholar or the Samian Ion (Wilamowitz, , Timotheos, 1903, p. 75, 1Google Scholar; Diehl, , Anth. Lyr? ² i, 1936, p. 85Google Scholar; cf. below, p. 8).

^{page 1 note 4} Kimon 9. 1–5.

^{page 1 note 5} See Appendix I.

^{page 1 note 6} There is a marked difference between an Ionian coming for his education to Athens and Pindar from uncivilized Thebes, who about forty years before had to study in Athens (see Wilamowitz, , Pindaros, 1922, pp. 88 ff.)Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 7} Xuthos is a good human name in Ionia as elsewhere, though I should not like to quote in support of this statement the late inscription CIG 2214 which yields for Chios a 'Eμμεσίλεως Ξοίθου. Allègre, F., De lone Chio, 1890, p. 1 fGoogle Scholar. does, and draws rather precarious conclusions about a relationship between Ion and the host of the Sophokles dinner. On the other hand, it is hardly accidental that the father of an Ion bears the nickname Xuthos. If he was given it in a joking spirit, this was certainly not done by ‘the Athenians’, as Allègre believes. A comic poet seems indicated (Diels and others). But there is no quotation. Was it a joke made by Kimon when his friend Orthomenes announced to him the birth of ‘a son and heir?’ And is the authority for the nickname Ion himself, who may have mentioned the connexion of the two families because they were the reason why he could enjoy the hospitality of Kimon in Athens? Cf. p. 4, n. 5.

^{page 1 note 8} See Appendix II.

^{page 1 note 9} In 412 B.C. the Athenians fortified the Delphinion near the town of Chios: οἱ δ⋯ Xῖοι ⋯ν πλλαῖς тρ⋯ν μάχαι7sfgr; πεληγμένοι, κα⋯ ἂλλως ⋯ν σϕίσν αὐтοῖς οὐ πίνυ εὖ διαείμενοι ⋯λλ ⋯ κα⋯ т⋯ν μεт⋯ ⋯υδέως тοῦ Iωνος ἢδη ὑπ⋯; Пεδαρίтου ⋯π' ⋯ттικισμ⋯ι тεθνεώтων, καα⋯ т⋯ς ἂλλης πόλεως καт' ⋯νάγκνν ⋯ς ⋯λίγους (Dobree ⋯λίγον MSS.) καтεχομέγνς, ὑπόπтως δδιακίμενοι ⋯λλήλοις ⋯σύχαζον (Thuk. 8. 38. 3). It is the general opinion that this Tydeus is the son of the poet. Prove it we cannot (notwithstanding Wilamowitz, , Ph.U. i, 1880, pp. 13, 14)Google Scholar; for Thukydides, a stickler for principles, disdained to addT тο⋯ ποιηтο⋯, just as in 1. 116 he did not mention the generalship of Sophokles, while Androtion adds ⋯ ποιηтής even in the official list of the ten generals of 441/440 B.C. (schol. Aristeid., p. 485, 28 Ddf.).

^{page 2 note 1} See Appendix III.

^{page 2 note 2} Plutarch, , Perikl. 5. 3Google Scholar; v. section 5.

^{page 2 note 3} For the meaning of ao(σοϕό and σοϕία see Snell, , Ph.U. xxix, 1924, pp. 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 2 note 4} The chronological and factual problems raised by these words do not matter here. Sestos was captured by the Athenians alone in the late autumn of 479 B.C., and we do not hear of a second capture. Byzantion was taken by the allies for the first time in 478 B.C. under the command of Pausanias, and there is still no agreement about the time when the Athenians wrested it from him. Personally I believe that Walker, , CAM. v, pp. 466 ff.Google Scholar, is right in stating that ‘if authority, such as it is, is in favour of so late a date as 471 B.C. probability is all against it’. The probable date is 477 or 476 B.C. The first certain strategia of Kimon belongs to 476/475 B.C. In spite of the psephism in Plutarch, Aristeid. 10.10, a prior generalship in 479/478 or 478/477 B.C. is ratherdoubtful. The Life of Aristeides, deriving as it does to a great extent from Idomeneus, is not a reliable testimony, and the report in ch. 23 about the events in 478 B.C. ‘featuring’ Kimon is an evident distortion. The same chronology is assumed in Kim. 6. 1; 6; 12. 1 (?), mixed up with another which seems to date the first independent command of Kimon in 476/475 B.C. (Kim. 7. 1). The story told by Ion's Kimon would be easier to understand if (with E. Curtius) we could replace Sestos by Eion. But there are other objections. In any case, the error (if error there is) need not be Plutarch's: Ion's memory may have played him false.

^{page 2 note 5} Kolbe, (Herm. lxxii, 1937, p. 253)Google Scholar prefers 467 B.C., B. the date of Walker and Berve, but he cannot exclude 468 (Busolt) and 466 (Wila-mowitz; Ed. Meyer). Cf. p. 3, n. 1.

^{page 2 note 6} Aristot. 'Aθπ. 23. 1 (and my commentary on Philochoros Schol. Aristoph. Lys. 1138). For the trial of Kimon see Aristot. 'Aθπ 27. 1 and Plutarch, , Kim. 14. 2 ffGoogle Scholar. If we date it in 464, not (as usual) in 463 B.C., tlie date also explains the πάλιν ⋯πἰ σтραтείαν ⋯ξέπλευσε of Plutarch, , Kim. 15. 2Google Scholar. We should like to know where Plutarch, , Kim. 14. 4Google Scholarfound the speech made by Kimon in his defence; he quotes Stesimbrotos (ib. 14. 5) for an anecdote about the intervention of Elpinike in favour of her brother.

^{page 2 note 7} So far I agree with the calculations of Nie-berding, , De Ionis Chii Vita, etc., 1836Google Scholar, and Koepke, , De Ionis Chii Vita et Fragmentis, 1836Google Scholar, who date the birth of Ion in 01. 74 (484/480 B.C.). The earlier datings, varying between 500/496 B.C. (Bernhardy), 496/495 B.C. (Allegre), 492/488 B.C. (Welcker; Webster), rest on two wrong suppositions, viz. that Themistokles was a guest at Laomedon's party, or at least still living in Athens, and that the party took place soon after the capture of Byzantion. The latter supposition is evidently wrong: the story gives a terminus post quern, not a date. As to the former, it is as evident that Themistokles was not among the guests, though it would be wrong to infer from this that he had already left Athens (whether ostracized or banished); if my date is right he had. Of course, Plutarch's ϕάναι (scil. ⋯ν Θεμισтοκλέα) does bear out the first assumption. It is an ‘infinitivus imperfecti’ (‘he used to say’) as Holzapfel, L., Untersuchungen, 1879, p. 130Google Scholar. 1 (comparing Plutarch, , Themist. 2. 3–4)Google Scholar understood it. The Eion poem is not the work of Ion (see Hesperia, xiv, 1945, p. 210, n. 193)Google Scholar; and it is purely arbitrary of Wilamowitz, (Ar. u. Ath. i, p. 145Google Scholar. 40) to contend that Ion served under Kimon in the fleet which captured Byzantion in 476 B.C. (cf. p. 2, n. 4). In fact, Ion evidently was not present at the distribution of the booty, but heard the story from Kimon himself.

^{page 3 note 1} Plutarch, Kim. 8.8: πρώτην γ⋯ρ διδασκαλίν τοû Σοφοκλέους ἒτι νέου καθέντος, ‘Αψεφίων ⋯ ἂρχων, φιλονικίας οὂσης καί παρατάξεως τ⋯ν θεατ⋯ν, κριτàς μèν οὐκ ⋯κλήρωσε το⋯ ἂλ⋯νος, ώς δè κìμων μετ⋯ τ⋯ν συστρατηγ⋯ν προελθών (παρελθών Sintenis) είς τò θέατρον ⋯ποιήσατο θ⋯ι θε⋯ι σφονδάς, οὐκ ⋯θ⋯κεν αὐτούς ⋯πελθεῖν, ⋯λλ’ ⋯ρκώσας ήνάγκασε καθίσαι καί κρῖναι δέκα ἂντας, φυλ⋯ς μι⋯ς ἒκαστον. The year is corroborated by Marm. par A 50. One likes to imagine that it was the victor at the Eurymedon whom the archon honoured in this spectacular manner. This would fix the much-discussed date of the battle to 469 B.C.(see p. 2, n.5).

^{page 3 note 2} For the term see, e.g., Vit. Sophocl. 4 παρ' Aἰσχύλωι δè т⋯ тραγωιδί7agr;ν ἒμαθε. Be. It should not be forgotten that Ion began to produce about fifteen years after his first arrival in Athens.

^{page 3 note 3} The fact that the report of Athenaios is abbreviated (cf. Appendix III) does not help; for the first sentence at least is a verbatim extract. Webster, , Herm. lxxi, 1936, p. 263Google Scholar, in his interpretation becomes progressively more confident, first stating (and apart from the words italicized by me I agree with him) ‘the words of Ion's record do not prove or even suggest that this was their only or first meeting’, and then asserting that ‘in either case the first sentence of the Sophocles story suggests, although Ion is here only desnot cribing his meeting with Sophocles in Chios, he had met Sophocles elsewhere’. I shall leave it an open question whether Webster has attained the object of his careful study, viz. to prove that ‘Ion's tragic fragments have a closer connexion with Sophocles than with either Aeschylus or Euripides’. The tragic fragments of Ion are scanty, and the resemblances in thought, metre, style, and vocabulary are not very striking. But even if they were, this would not prove an intimate personal relation of long duration between the two poets. The idea of Herzog, (Sb, Berlin, 1935, p. 773)Google Scholar that Ion was a member of the θϊασος ⋯κ т⋯ν πεπαιδευμένων by Sophokles, (Vit. Sophocl. 16)Google Scholar is not more than an idea. Nor do we know where Ion gave his opinion on the poet (not the man) Sophokles—μόνον Σοϕοκλέ тυγάνειν Ομήρου μαθηтήν. We do not even know for certain that it was his opinion which is quoted in Vit. Sophocl. 20, though the restoration of Ion's name for Ιωνικόν тινα mo of the MSS. seems probable.

^{page 3 note 4} Plutarch, , Kim. 16. 8–10Google Scholar; cf. section 2.

^{page 3 note 5} Plutarch, , De prof, in virt. 8, p. 79Google Scholar D–E. The date is probably before the outbreak of the first Peloponnesian War. As Aischylos and Ion sit side by side the narrator certainly thought of a joint visit, not of an accidental meeting; and in view of Ion's ‘tender years’ that is quite credible, if the anecdote, for which Plutarch does not quote the evidence, is true. Of course, Ion may have visited Corinth at some time or other, as he may have visited Sparta. But we know absolutely nothing about his possible travels in Greece proper: for the alleged visit to Sparta see section 2. For a visit to Corinth one usually refers to the elegies, in which Ion confessed his love for the Corinthian Chrysilla, daughter of Teleas, ἦς κα⋯ Пερικλέα т⋯ν Ολύμπιον ⋯ρ⋯ν ϕησι ⋯ηλεκίδης ⋯ν 'Hσιόδοις (Athen. 10. 48, p. 436 F). Whether or no she was a courtesan, it seems more probable that he met her in Athens. The alleged traces of a personal knowledge of Arkadia and Elis are even weaker. Nor do we know the destination of the embassy, perhaps described in the Пρεσβευтικός (Schol, . Aristoph, . Peace 835)Google Scholar. If the Συνεκδημηтικός, of which we have one very characteristic fragment in Pollux 2.88, is another title for the Пρεσβευтίκός, Ion was attached to this embassy only. The discussion whether Ion had his permanent residence in Athens or Chios is, I submit, pointless. Nothing favours the former assumption.

^{page 4 note 1} Plutarch, , Kim. 5. 3Google Scholar; 9. 1–6; Perikl. 5. 3.

^{page 4 note 2} See Appendix III.

^{page 4 note 3} Παρ⋯ Δαομ⋯δοντι, belongs to συνδειπν⋯σαι; otherwise Plutarch would have written παρ⋯ Δαομ⋯δοντα. The interpretations of Allègre, p. 6f. (‘Laomedon … lonem hospitio excepit comiter, etc.’), and of Webster, p. 263 (‘he came to Athens as a young man and met Cimon at the house of Laomedon’), are wrong if Laomedon was not an Athenian (Appendix III).

^{page 4 note 4} The story about a gift of Chian wine to the Athenian people (Athen. 1. 5, p. 3F; Aristoph, Schol.. Peace 835Google Scholar; Suda, s.v. ϊων), which proves that he was a very wealthy man, seems quite credible. For the age and nobility of his family cf. the κ⋯ρβις from Chios, written about 600 B.C. and probably earlier than the Solonian κ⋯ρεβις (Jacobsthal-Wilamowitz, , ‘Nordionische Steine’, Abh. Ak. Berlin, 1909, pp. 64 ff.)Google Scholar, where Wade-Gery has found the name of an ancestor of Ion.

^{page 4 note 5} The date of the beginning of the relationship between Kimon and the father of Ion remains uncertain. In the distorted report of Plutarch, , Arisleid. 23Google Scholar (cf. p. 2, n. 4) the commander of the Chian squadron in the fleet of Pausanias before Byzantion is Antagoras. It is quite conceivable that Kimon visited Chios, or became acquainted with Chian nobles in 479/478 B.C. (cf. Hdt. 9.106). It is equally possible that Orthomenes commanded (the). Chian ships of Kimon's fleet in 476/475 B.C. If a Chian in 480 B.C. or even earlier calls his son Ion, the name (even if it is not unusual) may indicate his political standpoint.

^{page 4 note 6} The evidence for the earlier poets is scanty and partly doubtful. The Ἀρϰαιολογ⋯α τ⋯ν Σαμ⋯ων, which the Suda has in the wrong place, s.v. Σιμμ⋯ας 'ρ⋯διοα, is usually regarded as the work of Semonides of Amorgos, who according to Suda, S.v. Σιμων⋯δης κρ⋯νεω publishe ⋯λεγε⋯αν (?)⋯ν βιβλ⋯οις β, ἰ⋯μβους (⋯λεγεῖα, ἰ⋯μβους ⋯ν βιβλ⋯οις β Bergk). The κολφ⋯νος κτ⋯σις κα⋯ ⋯ εἰς Ἐλ⋯αν ⋯ποικισμ⋯ς ἔπη δισϰ⋯λια (Diog. Laert..9. 20) never existed; the title most probably is one of the forgeries of Lobon (Hiller, , Rh. Mus. xxxiii. 1878,. 529Google Scholar; Croenert, Χ⋯ριτες, 1911, p. 139). But shortly before Ion Panyassis wrote 'ϊωνικ⋯ ⋯ν πepsiv;νταμ⋯τρωι (i.e. in the elegiac metre);ἔστι δ⋯ τ⋯ περ⋯ κ⋯δρον κα⋯ βηλ⋯α κα⋯ τ⋯ς 'ϊωνικ⋯ς ⋯ποικ⋯ας (Suda, s.v. Παν⋯ασσις). For HeUenistic times it may be sufficient to mention the series of Κτ⋯σεις written by Apollonios of Rhodos, and for the Byzantine period the Patria of Christodoros (F.Gr.Hist. 283).

^{page 5 note 1} There is little doubt that the Χ⋯ου Κτ⋯σις of Hellanikos (F.Gr.Hist. 4 F 71) was (perhaps much) later than Ion's book. Incidentally the latter is proof of the correctness of the quotation 'ελλ⋯ νικος ⋯ν τ⋯ι Περ⋯ Χ⋯ου Κτ⋯σεως. Whether or no he wrote against Ion it was a separate book, not a chapter of the Κτ⋯σεις. 'εθν⋯ν κα⋯ Π⋯λεων which probably was concerned only with ‘barbarians’. The contrary assertion, never proved but repeated again and again (recently by Wilamowitz, Sb. Berlin, 1925 = Kl. Schr. v. 2, p. 63. 1), is unfounded.

^{page 5 note 2} 7. 4. 8.

^{page 5 note 3} Orion, , Eiym. p. 94, 25Sturz; Et.M., p.569,34Google Scholar.

^{page 5 note 4} ii, 1934, pp. 514, 519. Consequently he does not even mention the Κτ⋯σις in the section about Ion's prose writings, p. 674 f.

^{page 5 note 5} ix, 1916, col. 1864,39 ff.

^{page 5 note 6} Which Blumenthal (p. 10, n. 3), p. 23, rightly calls ‘an incidental mention in another context’.

^{page 5 note 7} The evidence is collected by Woemer, in Roschers Lexikon, iii. 1, 1897–1902Google Scholar, col. 791 ff., and Keyssner, in R.E. xvii. 2, 1937, col. 2272 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 5 note 8} Geffcken, , Griech. Epigramme, 1916, no. 29Google Scholar; von Gaertringen, Hiller, Hist. Griech. Epigr. 1926, no. 48 AGoogle Scholar.

^{page 5 note 9} F. 1. 6 Diehl.

^{page 5 note 10} Strabo 14. 1. 35; Zschietzschmann, R.E. xv, col. 387, no. 1.

^{page 5 note 11} In the careless extract of Pausanias, which, moreover, is in a bad state of preservation, Melas appears twice, first as the son of Poseidon, and then among the sons of Oinopion.

^{page 5 note 12} F.Gr.Hist. 115 F 276.

^{page 6 note 1} Pausan. 7. 5. 13. Unfortunately in Parthenios' Narr. am. 20 the name of the author and the locality (it was an island) have dropped out. But there is the well-known astronomer Oinopides from the middle of the fifth century B.C.

^{page 6 note 2} Diodor. 5. 79. 1 (84. 3); Philochoros in the unfortunately incomplete extract of Plutarch, Thes. 15.

^{page 6 note 3} Zenis in Athen. 13. 77, p. 601 F κα⋯ τ⋯ν πρ⋯ς Ἀθηνα⋯ους δ' ἔϰθραν διελ⋯σατο Μ⋯νως, κα⋯περ ⋯π⋯ θαν⋯τωι παιδ⋯ς συστ⋯σαν, Θησ⋯ως ⋯ρασθε⋯ς, κα⋯ τ⋯ν θυγατ⋯ρα το⋯τωι γυναῖκα ἔδωκε Φα⋯δραν. The introduction of Phaidra is due to a compromise.

^{page 6 note 4} I must content myself here with a reference to Pherekydes, F.Gr.Hist. 3 F 155; Herodotos, 1. 147; Hellanikos, F.Gr.Hist. 4 F 48; 125; and the common source of Pausanias and Strabo (14. 1. 3), which gave as the founder a certain Egertios, probably a Codrid and a palpable invention, named from σ⋯μμικτον ⋯π⋯γεσθαι πλ⋯θος. The origin and the development of the Athenian claim cannot be dispatched in a few words. My notes in F.Gr.Hist. i, p. 451, 24 ff. and ii. D 682, 40 ff. (see also Das Marmor Parium, 1904, p. 91 f.), shirk the true problem. I am dealing with it at some length in a new commentary on Hellanikos' Atthis (1 F 11).

^{page 6 note 5} Wilamowitz, , Sb. Berlin, 1906Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. v. 1, p. 145, justly valued Ion as ‘the most important witness for the gradual coalescence of the Ionic League’.

^{page 6 note 6} This is another problem with which I cannot deal in a footnote. I simply state my opinion that the Theseid and the increase in importance of Theseus must not be dated in the reign of Peisistratos, who certainly did not think himself a new Theseus. The poem belongs to the last two decades of the sixth century, and it had its origin in the circles of the opposition against the tyrants.

^{page 6 note 7} Smith, H. R. W., ‘Der Lewismaler’, Bilder Griech. Vasen xiii, 1939, pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar; Beazley, J. D., ARV. 1942, p. 516Google Scholar.

^{page 6 note 8} ‘Theseus leaving Naxos’, Beazley, I.e., who tells me that he has no special reason apart from the general tradition that Theseus left Ariadne in Naxos.

^{page 7 note 1} Nor apparently is Beazley, I.e.

^{page 7 note 2} The mention of the island in the Φερ⋯δος Г⋯ς F.Gr.Hist. 1 F 141 does not help. None of the three explanations of the name derives directly from Hekataios. The second conforms to Ion's narrative.

^{page 7 note 3} See my paper on Pherekydes, in Mnemosyne xiii, 1947, pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 7 note 4} I shall not discuss particulars in a poem which as a whole is not difficult to understand. For the Spartan background a reference to Haupt, M., Ind. Led. Berol. 1862/3 = Opusc. ii, p. 207Google Scholar, is sufficient; with commendable caution he speaks of a ‘Lacedaemoniorum convivium’.

^{page 7 note 5} ‘Aus dem Leben des Dichters Ion’, Herm. xxix, 1894, pp. 156 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 7 note 6} Ch. 8. 5 διαμνημονε⋯εται δ⋯ τις κα⋯ Θουκυδ⋯δου το⋯ Μελεσσ⋯ου λ⋯γος εἰς ε⋯ν δειν⋯τητα το⋯ Περικλ⋯ους μετ⋯ παιδι⋯ς ε⋯ρημ⋯νος. ἦν μ⋯ν γ⋯ρ ⋯ Θουκυδ⋯δης τ⋯ν καλ⋯ν καì ⋯γαθ⋯ν ⋯νδά;νον, καì πλεῖσтον ⋯νтεπολιтεύσαтο т⋯ι Пερικλεῖ χρόνον. Ἀρχιδάμομ δ⋯ тοῦ Aακεδαιμονίων βασλέως πυνθανομένου πόтερον αὐт ς ἣ Пερικλ⋯ς παλ7agr;ίει βέλтιον, ‘ὂтαν’ εῖπε ‘⋯γ⋯ καтαβάλω παλαίων, ⋯κεῖνος ⋯νтιλέγων ὡς οὐ πέπтωκε νικ⋯ι κ7agr;ì μεтαπείθει тοὐς ⋯ρ⋯νтας.’

^{page 8 note 1} Ἀθπ. 22. 8. But Philochoros in the Lex. Cantabr. p. 354. 1 Nauck, (F.H.G. i, p. 396. 796)Google Scholarhas the exact contrary, μεтασγ⋯ναι т⋯ς πόλεω7sfgr; ἒтη 7dgr;έκα… καρπούμενον т⋯ ⋯πιβαίνονтα ⋯νтòς Гεραισтο⋯ тο⋯ Εὐβοίας ⋯κρωтηρίου, and correction of the former seems in fact to be inevitable, whether one changes ⋯νтός into ⋯νтός (Wyse) or supplies a μή before καтοικεῖν.

^{page 8 note 2} J.H.St. lii, 1932, p. 214Google Scholar. 39. For him the ‘inevitable correction’ makes a difficulty, as he infers from Vit. Anon. Thuc. 7 (Marcellin, . Vit. Thuc. 24)Google Scholar that the son of Melesias ‘spent part of his ten years of ostracism with his Aiginetan friends’, and indeed the passage (Beloch, which, Gr.G. ² ii. 2, p. 143Google Scholar. 1 rejects as ‘worthless’) cannot refer to the historian Thukydides. For our story the difficulty does not arise, if one accepts Philochoros' text of the law.

^{page 8 note 3} See p. 3, n. 5, and cf. Appendix II.

^{page 8 note 4} Cf. Appendix II.

^{page 8 note 5} Timtheos, 1903, p. 73. 1; Harm, lxii, 1927, p. 282Google Scholar. The repetition of his opinion seems to. have finally imposed on Diehl, , Anthol. Lyr. ² i, 1937, p. 84Google Scholar, who in the first edition of 1925, p. 69, had said ‘vix recte’ and in R.E. ix, 1916Google Scholar, col. 1866. 62 if. had openly rejected it. Schmid, ., Gesch. d. Griech. Lit. ii, 1934, p. 516Google Scholar. 5 rather hesitatingly agrees with Wilamowitz. The main objection against the critical principles of Wilamowitz consists in his treating a fifth-century book of elegies as if it were Theognis or Tyrtaios.

^{page 8 note 6} Bourguet, , Fouilles de Delphes, iii. 1, p. 50Google Scholar; Pomtow, , Syll. ³115Google Scholar; Geffcken, , Griech. Epigr. 97Google Scholar; Gaertringen, Hiller von, Hist. Griech. Epigr. 58Google Scholar; Tod, , Greek Hist. Inscr. 95Google Scholar; Diehl, , Anthol. Lyr. ³ i, p. 87. Cf.Google ScholarDiehl, , R.E. ix, col. 1868, no. 12Google Scholar; Fried-lander, , Studi It. di Filol. class. N.S. xv, 1938, pp. 108 ff.Google Scholar; Jacoby, , Hesperia, xiv, 1945, p. 179. 91Google Scholar.

^{page 9 note 1} Blass, , Alt. Bereds. ¹ i, p. 37Google Scholar.

^{page 9 note 2} Ch. 16. 8 πέμπουσιν οὖν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι Пερικλείδαν εἰς Ἀθή^ngr;ας δεόμενοι βοηθεῖν… (9) Ἐϕιίλтου δè κωλμονтος… Kίμωνά ϕησιν Kριтίας (F. H. G. ii, P. 70. 9) … ⋯ξελθεῖν βοηθο⋯νтα μεтà πολλ⋯ν. (Io) ⋯δ' Ἲων ⋯πομνημονύει καì тòν λόγον ὦι μάλισтα тοùς Ἀθην7agr;ίους ⋯κίνησε, παρακλ⋯ν μή тε тèρ περì νόμων πεϕιλσόϕηκεν καì καλ⋯ν καì δικαίων, παῤ οὗ λαβών Σωκράтης т⋯ι αὐξ⋯σαι εἰς <ἂκρον> (Diels; αὐтòς for els Emperius) εὑρεῖν ὑπελήϕθη and from Hippolytos, Refut. 1. 9Google Scholar(Varsokr. ¹ 60 [47] A 4).

^{page 10 note 3} Geffcken, , op. cit. ii, 1934, Anm. p. 14; Webster, , I.e., 1936, p. 263Google Scholar, ‘we know that Ion was in Chios in 441/440 when he met Sophocles, Pericles, Archelaus and Socrates’. His words are taken over verbally by Blumenthal, vonIon von Cklus, 1939, P. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 10 note 4} R.E. iii. A, 1927, col. 814. 50 ff. (my italics), What Stenzel renders is the testimony of Aristoxenos; he tries to get rid of Ion with the quibble that ‘Ion does not say anything about Sokrates being the disciple of Archelaos’.

^{page 10 note 5} Paideia, ii, 1944, p. 28. In fact, Ion did not ‘add’ anything like it. The belief that Archelaos wrote elegies for Kimon rests on the testimony of a Hellenistic biographer, who made use of the poems of Archelaos and Meianthios (Plutarch, Kim. 4. 1). The one elegy of Archelaos which quoted by Plutarch (ib. 4. 10; cf. p. 1, n. 6) was anonymous and attributed to the philosopher by Panaitios, οὐκ ⋯πò тρόπου тοῖς χρόνοις εἰκάζων, as Plutarch has it. The introduction of Sokrates to Kimon by Archelaos is in any case a complete non sequitur.

^{page 10 note 6} See p. 10, n. 2; 4.

^{page 11 note 1} Porphynos, F.Gr.Hist. 260 F 11; Vorsokr ⁵. 60 [47] A 3. Cf. Diokles in Diog. Laert. 10. 12; Diog. Laert. 2. 16+Suda, s.v. Ἀρχέλαος.

^{page 11 note 2} p. 230 B ff.

^{page 11 note 3} See, e.g., Meier, H., Sokrates, p. 165Google Scholar. As to the doubters it may be sufficient to refer to Stenzel. After having rejected the clear testimony of Ion (p. 10, n. 4) he is ‘unable to believe that there existed documentary evidence for the discipleship of Sokrates to Archelaos’, and then, following Meier, he polemizes against ‘the legend’ of Sokrates’ philosophy being ‘completely new and without a point of contact’ with earlier philosophers. For a possible point of contact with Archelaos see p. 10, n. 2.

^{page 11 note 4} For the year of Sokrates' birth see Ph. U.xvi, 1902, pp. 284 ff.; F.Gr.Hist. 244 F 34.

^{page 11 note 5} Cf. p. 8, n. 1; 2.

^{page 11 note 6} Viz. the consolatory elegy on the death of Isodike which Panaitios assigned to Archelaos (p. 10, n. 5). But 451 B.C. as the date for the marriage of Kimon to Isodike, advocated by Wade-Gery, Hesperia, xiv, 1945, p. 221. 21Google Scholar(while, e.g. Kirchner, P.A. 9688 and Swoboda, R.E. xi, col. 453, put it shortly after 480 B.C.) is doubtful in view of the evidence of the periegetes Diodorus (Plutarch, Kim. 16.1), who is an excellent witness, though Plutarch may have abbreviated a longer discussion and mixed things up. The true question for us is the date not of the marriage, but of the death of Isodike, and that is a question which we cannot answer.

^{page 11 note 7} See the description of Kimon (p. 9, n. 4) and the only quotation in Pollux 2. 88 from the Συνεκδημητικός stating that he called an unknown person a σπανοπώγων. The quotation is at the same time illuminating and tantalizing. I refer for the word to the (perhaps rather daring) explanation of E. Maass, Rh.Mus. lxxiv, 1925, pp. 443 ff., 452Google Scholar.

^{page 11 note 8} See p. 1.

^{page 12 note 1} Herm xlii, 1907, p. 10 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 12 note 2} Der Anfang des Lexikons des Photios, published by Reitzenstein, R., 1907, p. 40Google Scholar.

^{page 12 note 3} The two articles in Bekker's Antiatticista (Anecd. Gr. i, p. 97. 3 f.) are grievously cut down, but perfectly comprehensible in the light of similar passages (see Dittenberger, I.e., p. 10. 1). Ion was quoted by Aristophanes of Byzantium, who is the main source of the Antiatticists; see C.Q. xxxviii, 1944, p. 65. 7,Google Scholarand for the case in question also Schwabe, , Aelii Dionysii et Pausaniae Atticistarum Fragmenta, 1890, pp. 50 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 12 note 4} ⋯στ⋯ς Phot α⋯τ⋯ς Suda s.v. Ἀθηναίας κα⋯ Ιων δ⋯ Phot κα⋯ γ⋯ρ κα⋯ Sud Σκολίοις Kuester σχολίοις Phot Sud.

^{page 12 note 5} Themistokl. 24. 6.

^{page 12 note 6} The same opinion about Themistokles' lack of musical education is given in a somewhat different and more general form in Them. 2. 3–4 without the name of an author: it was the general opinion, and Plutarch not very aptly adduces Stesimbrotos as witness for Themistokles' philosophical studies, in which for chronobut logical reasons he is not inclined to believe. Ion is not mentioned in the survey Them. 27. 1 concerning the problem whether Themistokles met Xerxes or his son Artaxerxes; and (what is more important) his name is lacking even in ch. 32, which deals in detail with the family of Themistokles and the place of his grave.

^{page 12 note 7} Plutarch, Them. 32. 1–2. Cf. n. 6.

^{page 12 note 8} I distinctly remember Keil's curious misinterpretation of Ion's expression: ‘Ἀθηναία dicitur ex patre, ξένη propter maternam originem.’ But I have lost the reference.

^{page 13 note 1} Suppl. Madvig.

^{page 13 note 2} Cf. Plutarch De Gloria Ath. 8, p. 350 E: Μιλτιάδης μ⋯ν γ⋯ρ ἄρας (Emperius αὐτ⋯ς MSS.) ⋯ς Μαραθ⋯να τ⋯ι ὑστεραίαι τ⋯ν μ⋯χην συνάψας ἧκεν εἰς ἄστυ μετ⋯ τ⋯ς στρατιâς νενικηκώς κα⋯ Περικλ⋯ς ⋯νν⋯α μησ⋯ Σαμίους καταστρεψάμενος ⋯φρόνει τοû Ἀγαμένονος μεîζον ἔτει δεκάτωι τ⋯ν Τροίαν ⋯λήόντος, ἴνα γράψηι τ⋯ν πανηγυρικ⋯ν λόγον.

^{page 12 note 3} Cf. p. 9, n. 4. Ion's remark on Kimon's personal appearance (Kim. 5) is not a cogent reason for attributing to him the somewhat similar remark on Perikles (Perikl. 3. 3): τ⋯ μ⋯ν ἄλλα τ⋯ν ἰδέαν τοû σώματος ἄμεμπτον, προμήκη δ⋯ τ⋯ι κεφαλ⋯ι κα⋯ ⋯σ⋯μμετρον. Plutarch appends this remark to the well-known story of Herodt. 6. 131 about the dream of Perikles' mother, and follows it up by the statement about the εἰκόνες, which σχεδ⋯ν ἅπασαι κράνεοι περιέχονται, μ⋯ βουλομένων, ὡς ἔοικε, τ⋯ν τεχνιτ⋯ν ⋯ξονειδίζειν, while most of the comic poets (some of whom he quotes) made jokes about the form of Perikles' head.

^{page 13 note 4} Cf. p. 15, n. 1.

^{page 13 note 5} In the same manner he probably narrated the Lachartos story as an example of Kimon's ready wit (cf. p. 9). The Sophokles story is also told in order to illustrate the social charm of the poet, and it is quite possible that Ion concluded the Laomedon story with a similar comprehensive valuation of Kimon's nature.

^{page 13 note 6} The characterization in the first quotation is evidently unfriendly, though it is a fine piece of psychological observation, and (as far as it goes) probably perfectly true. We must compare it with the final judgement of Thukydides (2. 65.8–9) on the political leader which is equally true, but pronounced from the higher viewpoint of the historian. One would like to know whether Ion recognized the resemblance between Themistokles and Perikles. If he did, he probably did Se not remark on it, as he did not know Themistokles personally.

^{page 13 note 7} Cf. Appendix II.

^{page 13 note 8} Cf. p. 9.

^{page 13 note 9} Thuk. 1. 107. 4. There can be no doubt that there were disloyal elements in Athens. It seems to me that Gomme, A. W. (Aihen. Stud. Ferguson, 1941, pp. 238 ff.),Google Scholarwhile justly correcting some current exaggerations of the rift between δ⋯μος and χρηστοί on the whole gravely underestimates the strength of the opposition, its spirit, and the danger for Athens in these years. The position of Kimon himself we may safely infer from the story, much and unhistorically embellished though it is, that he begged to be allowed to take his part in the offensive of 457 B.C. against the Spartan army in Boeotia, and that, when he was refused, he implored his friends ⋯ςοι μ⋯λιστα τ⋯ν το⋯ λακων⋯Ζειν αἰτ⋯αν ἔσϰον, ⋯ρρωμ⋯νως ⋯γων⋯σα 7sigma;θαι πρ⋯ς τοὺς πολ⋯τας(Plutarch, Kim. 17Google Scholar. 4ff.; Perikl. 10. iff.; from Theopompos?). There is another story, anecdotal but perhaps true in the main, that in 480 B.C. ὂτε τ⋯ν δ⋯μον ⋯πι⋯ντων Μ⋯δων Θεμιστοκλ⋯ς ἔπειθε προ⋯μενον τ⋯ν πληγμ⋯νων τ⋯ν πολλ⋯ν τ⋯λμημα, πρ⋯τος Κ⋯μων ᾤϕθη δι⋯ το⋯ Κεραμεικο⋯ ϕαιδρ⋯ς ⋯νιὼν εἰς τ⋯ν ⋯ναθεῖναι τ⋯ι θε⋯ι δι⋯ ϰειρ⋯ν.κομ⋯ξων κτλ.(Plutarch, Kim. 5. 2-3). In spite of the opinion of Kritias (if PlutarchKim. 16.9 reported his words correctly, which I doubt) that in 463 B.C. Kimon put τ⋯ν τ⋯ς πατπδος αὒξηςιν ⋯ν ὑστ⋯ρρωι το⋯ Αακεδαιμον⋯ων συμϕ⋯ροντος, there can be no doubt that through his whole life Kimon (who in contrast to Thukydides son of Melesias was a soldier, not a politician) was consistent in being first and foremost an Athenian. For the date of the foundation of the Conservative party see Appendix II.

^{page 14 note 1} See Appendix IV.

^{page 14 note 2} Plutarch, , Perikl. 7. 4–6Google Scholar. The report (which seems a bit overdrawn) does not come from Ion, though its substance may be compatible with Ion's description of Perikles' character.

^{page 14 note 3} See p. 2.

^{page 14 note 4} Perikl. 28. 5–7 κατβα⋯νοντα δ' αὐτ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ το⋯ β⋯ματος αἱ μ⋯nu; ᾂλλααι γυναῖκες ⋯δεκιο⋯ντο κα⋯ στεϕ⋯νοις ⋯ν⋯δουν κα⋯ ταιν⋯αις… ⋯ δ' Ἐλμπν⋯κηπροςελθο⋯σα πλησ⋯ον ‘τα‘τα⋯τ’ (ἒϕη) θαυμαστ⋯, Περκλεις, κα⋯ ἂξια στεϕ ⋯πώλεσας πολ⋯τας, οὐ Φο⋯τιξι πολεμ⋯ν κα⋯ Μ⋯δοις, ὢσπερ οὑμ⋯ς ⋯δελϕ⋯ Κ⋯μων, ⋯λλ⋯ σ⋯μμαΞοτ κα⋯ συγγε⋯ π⋯λιν καταστρεϕ⋯μενος.' τα⋯τα τ⋯ς ‘Ελπιν⋯κης λεγο⋯σης ⋯ Πεικλ⋯ς μειδι⋯σας⋯τρ⋯μα λ⋯γπι τ⋯ το⋯ ’ΑρΞιλ⋯ς αὐτ⋯νεἰπεῖν ‘οὐκ ἄν μ⋯ροισι γρα⋯ς⋯ο⋯σ’ ἠλε⋯ϕεο’. The story does not derive from Ion, but it shows that Plutarch quite naturally assumed that Perikles in his speech (which was not preserved) had praised the husbands of the women present at the public funeral.

^{page 14 note 5} For the Eion poem see Hesperia, xiv, 1945, pp. 203 ff.; for the speech on the fallen of Drabeskos, J.H.St. lxiv, 1946 (1944), pp. 47ff.Google Scholar; for what we know from Perikles' speech Blass, , Alt. Bereds. i, p. 37Google Scholar. One learns from Pausan. 1. 29. 5 that a comparison like that assumed above is suitable for the funeral speech.

^{page 15 note 1} 1 Thuk. 8. 76. 4; Plutarch, , Perikl. 28. 8Google Scholar. In view of what I said above about the possible context from which Plutarch took the quotation from Ion it must be emphasized that it is not certain from the wording whether Ion himself took exception to the comparison drawn by Perikles, as reported to him, or as reported from him by Plutarch.

^{page 15 note 2} C.A.H. v, p. 171.