Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:52:41.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dating of Documents to the Mid-Fifth Century—I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

B. D. Meritt  and
H. T. Wade-Gery
B. D. Meritt
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
H. T. Wade-Gery
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his paper ‘The Athenian Coinage Decree’, in Historia x (1961) 148–88, Mattingly proposes to date this decree (Tod 67: ATL ii D14: the ‘Decree of Klearchos’) to 425/4. This involves two important principles, historical and epigraphic. Historically, he contends that a measure of this coercive sort is out of place in the middle of the century (it is dated in ATL to 449/8) and finds its proper context in the time of Kleon's ascendancy, in the latter part of the Archidamian War. Epigraphically, since one copy in which this decree is preserved (the only copy which uses the Attic alphabet) writes sigma always with three bars Mattingly is led to challenge the current epigraphic doctrine, namely, that in Attic inscriptions this form of sigma is not used (at least in the ‘chancery style’, for a public decree) later than 446.

The epigraphic doctrine about three-bar sigma is not self-evidently true, and it is fair and right that it should be called in question. We believe it is true in fact, and that the use of three-bar sigma in the Kos copy of D14 creates a strong presumption that Mattingly's date is too low. We deal with the documents alleged by Mattingly to run counter to this doctrine, and hope to show (in each case) that they do not. We deal with these and other documents under three heads: first, the two from which Mattingly starts, the decree of Klearchos about coinage and the decree of Kleinias about the collection of tribute; next, some other decrees concerning Athens' allies; last, those which are concerned with building projects.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 82 , November 1962 , pp. 67 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 We shall, for brevity, refer to the documents included in ATL ii by the letter and number there used: A9 [425/4] for the assessment of 425 with Thoudippos' two decrees; D7 [448/7], decree of Kleinias; D8 [426/5], decree of Kleonymos with amendments; D10 [453/.2], Erythrai; D11 [450/49], Miletos; D12 [450/49], ‘Congress Decree’; D13 [450/49], ‘Papyrus Decree’; D14 [449/8], decree of Klearchos (coinage); D15 [447/6], Kolophon; D16 [446/5] Eretria; D17 [446/5], Chalkis; D18 [439/8], Samos; D19 [437/6?], ‘Springhouse’ decree. The dates in brackets are those as given in ATL ii. Other documents which come in question are: SEG x 15, the treaty with Hermione; IG i2 24 (SEG x 30), the first Nike decree; SEG x 24, decree about epistatai for Eleusis; SEG xii 26, about the tribute-gathering squadron; SEG x 44, about some building project (Eleusinion?). We refer to these by volume and number of SEG.

2 It was not feasible to number our documents strictly by date even in ATL i, since D3–4–5–6 come all on one stone. But our enumeration ‘D7’ implied that we supposed Kleinias' decree to come after D3, which we dated 430/29.

3 Clara Rhodos ix ( 1938) 151–78.

4 Hesperia Suppl. viii (1949) 324–40.

5 In Thoudippos' decree, A9 lines 5–6, the areas which the heralds shall visit are named (probably: much is restored) in this order: Ionia-Karia, Thrace, Islands, Hellespont. In the list of names which follows (ibid., lines 61 ff.) the tribute districts come in the order: Islands, Ionia, Hellespont (with Akte), Thrace (withEuxine). Mattingly supposes (pp. 166, 168) that Thoudippos uses the order current in Period VIII, whereas in the list of names the taktai established the new order for Period IX (see below, p. 73). We take this disagreement between Thoudippos and the taktai to be one sign of many that the order was relatively indifferent.

6 Actually but this was an over sight, since the majuscule (p. 19) shows the position of lambda plainly, under the ε of

7 So Demosthenes, xxii 72:

8 Oliver, J. H., AJA xl (1936) 461 ff.Google Scholar An improved text is given by Accame, Silvio, La lega ateniese del sec. IV a. C. (1941) 230Google Scholar, from which our quotation here is taken.

9 It would be more correct to say τυθηαομένην. The gender is clear in D7, and on the Parthenon Frieze; and the fact that Athena required cows for sacrifice is noted by two scholiasts on Iliad B 550, who conclude that in this line of Homer the bulb are for Erechtheus.

10 When Aristophanes wrote Thoudippos had made his Panathenaic ordinance (winter 425/4) but it could not take effect until the Great Panathenaia in late July of 422. The play was presumably written in 424 for its performance in the spring of 423: if it was really revised for the spring of 422 (as one hypothesis says; cf. Holwerda, in Mnemosyne xi (1958) 32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar) the revision will still fall in the interval between the new ordinance and its first application. It is perhaps worth noting that, even so, this Panathenaic gorging is set in the past (ἤδη), not the future.

11 The Athenian colonists, for Thucydides (i 12.4), are ‘the Ionians and most of the Islanders’. This no doubt includes Euboia; see S trabo (x 1.8 = C 447), and cf. Hekataios, , FGrH, i F 119Google Scholar (Aiklos and Kothos).

12 Pindar, , Paean ii 28–29Google Scholar: Abdera, a colony of Teos, spoke of Athens as ‘mother of my mother’. Aristophanes, , Lysistrata 582Google Scholar, is significant for its emotional content.

13 For the question whether or not the Delian synods were replaced by some kind of ‘Panathenaic synods’, see ATL iii 138–41.

14 Hesperia Suppl. iii 9, 36.

15 Sc. than the argument as presented in his preceding pages against an early date for D7 and D14.

16 ATL iii 12.

17 We must, however, emphasise that Thoudippos (as now restored) does specify Karia, although the tribute district named from Karia had long ago disappeared. This fact is briefly noted by Mattingly (p. 159, n. 52).

18 ATL iii 31, n. 6.

19 The evidence for the existence of four districts, and not five, in Period II is set forth in detail in ATL iii 30–2. Its validity is not impaired by Mattingly's observations (p. 159 with n. 51).

20 Euboia is not included with ‘Islands’, but goes with the northern part of the mainland.

21 Clara Rhodos ix (1938) 168.

22 Hesperia xiii (1944) 8.

23 Ibid., 12.

24 Historia x (1961) 159–61.

25 Ibid., 161.

26 We quote Mattingly's words (p. 166); the italics are ours.

27 There are other obstacles to Mattingly's scheme, besides Nisyros. Besbikos in List 26 is in a rubric, in List 27 in the main panel. Aphytis by D21 is granted the privilege of paying only aparche, but in Lists 25 and 26 is not in the aparche rubric but in the main panel. The likenesses between Lists 25 and 26 (Mattingly, 167, line 9, calls them SEG v 28 and 25) are not accounted for by their being ‘consecutive’, if they are divided by an assessment. The phrase is not very likely to be used of an annual office; nor is a likely way of specifying the immediately preceding year. But we forbear to pursue further so provisional a statement.