¹ Will, E., Doriens et Ioniens (Strasbourg 1956)Google Scholar: henceforth ‘Will’.

² E.g. Tigerstedt, E. N., The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity i (Stockholm 1965) 130, 153Google Scholar. Tigerstedt's notes summarise the views of older works on pp. 43 1–3, 448: cf esp. Jardé, A., The Formation of the Greek People (London 1926) 76Google Scholar, and de Romilly, J., Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism (Oxford 1963) 82–4Google Scholar.

³ E.g. Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece (London 1976) 44Google Scholar: cf. Gomme, A. W., HCT iii (1956) 514–15, 520Google Scholar; Andrewes, A. and Dover, K. J., HCT iv (1970) 146, 220, 351, 433Google Scholar; Dover, , Greek Popular Morality (Oxford 1975) 84Google Scholar.

⁴ There are some firm sounding statements in the sources (e.g. Thuc. vii 57.1; viii 25.3; Hdt. i 143.2), but one of the aims of this article is to show how dangerous it is to take statements on this subject automatically at face value.

⁵ See n. 9.

⁶ See Hdt. i 56.2. Appeals to fellow members of one's ἔθνος are made κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενὲς: see n. 20.

⁷ E.g. Thuc. i 12.3, iii 92.

⁸ E.g. Hdt. vii 94, viii 44. Some historians believe the inclusion of Athens in the migration story is a fifth-century Athenian creation: but see n. 46.

⁹ For the development of the story of the Dorians, see Tigerstedt (n. 2) 28–36; and 322–3, n. 100, for references to other works. However complex this development may have been, for our purposes of assessing the importance of ethnic feeling in Classical times it is not the Dorians but the Ionians who cause the major problems. Classical authors generally use the term ‘Dorian’ fairly consistently to refer to an agreed set of people, who have in common their supposed ultimate descent from those who took part in the Dorian invasion (see the lists at Thuc. vii 57–8 and Hdt. viii 43). In the case of the Ionians the ethnic term is not applied consistently either to an agreed set of people nor, it seems, according to an agreed criterion. Indeed Sakellariou, M. B., La migration grecque en Ionie (Athens 1958) 249–50Google Scholar despairs of finding any real ethnic criterion for its application in our literary evidence. Authors, he says, describe people as Ionian or non-Ionian merely according to fifth-century Athenian political propaganda. If this were true and reflected an essential rootlessness of the concept in the Greek world at large, it would seem to argue against a strong feeling inspired by membership of the Ionian ἔθνος. But I do not believe Sakellariou's despair is justified: the term Ionian is used in two distinct though connected ways—first as a name for a group of people who shared common customs, cults, tribal names and dating systems (see Thuc. i 6; ii 15.4; iii 104; Hdt. i 147–8; Huxley, G. L., The Early Ionians [London 1966] ch. 2)Google Scholar: people whose kinship was believed in Classical times to have dated from before the Ionian migration to Asia Minor (see further n. 46). The second sense in which the word is used is geographical, meaning broadly ‘the Greeks of Asia Minor’. It is so used frequently by Hdt. (e.g. iv 136–42), though he is also at times careful to distinguish the Asiatics (e.g. i 141–51): cf. ML 36.3. Just as all inhabitants of the British Isles are often loosely called English after the most numerous element of the population, so no doubt the fact that the Ionians were the dominant element of the Asiatic Greeks led to the shorthand use of Ionian for the whole lot. Nevertheless, the Greeks clearly recognised the term ‘Ionian’ in abstract as an ethnic term like Dorian, and unless otherwise stated, that is how it is treated in this article. But the dual use does raise the question whether feelings about Ionians were based upon a truly ethnic rather than a geographic distinction. This point assumes a more than theoretic interest when we come to consider to what extent feelings about Asiatic Greeks also apply to Athens (see pp. 7–11 and n. 40).

¹⁰ For references to claims to common kinship see n. 20; natural enmity between the ἔθνη, n. 58; contemptuous comments by Dorians about Ionians, n. 19. The relation between these manifestations of ethnic feeling and its ultimate causes is touched upon in n. 40.

¹¹ Besides being the names of ἔθνη, the adjectives ‘Dorian’ and ‘Ionian’ describe different types of music, architecture and dress. It is not with these usages that we shall be directly concerned, but it is worth noting that the associations noted in the words' ethnic use occur to varying degrees in these areas also: they are most marked in the case of music (see Plato, Rep. 398d–399aGoogle Scholar; Arist., Pol. 1340b, 1342bGoogle Scholar). It is not certain whether the use of ‘Doric’ and ‘Ionic’ to describe different types of architecture was common in Classical times, but Robertson, M., A History of Greek Art i (Cambridge 1975) 347–8Google Scholar suggests that the gradual exclusion of the Doric order in favour of the Ionic in Attic temples may have been connected with Athens' wish to associate herself with Ionia for propaganda purposes. We do find the words ‘Dorian’ and ‘Ionian’ used to describe styles of dress (see e.g. Aesch., Pers. 183Google Scholar, Hdt. v 87): Ionian dress could be considered more sumptuous and less manly (Thuc. i 6).

¹² See HCT v (1981)Google Scholar index s.v. ‘race’, and add to the references there i 418.

¹³ Will 68.

¹⁴ Thuc. viii 25.3. For other narrative passages where Thucydides seems ready to allow for the influence of ethnic feeling, see n. 26. Dover, , HCT v 60–1Google Scholar, argues that Thucydides emphasises this incident for patriotic reasons. I am sceptical that Thucydides would express this type of patriotism, and think he was trying to bring out the truth of one of his own theories about ethnic difference: see p. 5 below.

¹⁵ This is brought out by Macleod, C. W., Quaderni di storia ii (1975) 40Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Thuc. vi 76–80.

¹⁷ Thucydides' own opinion of him is high (Thuc. vi 72.2); cf. Thucydides' comments on Brasidas, another speaker to make use of the racial argument: Thuc. iv 84 and v 9.1.

¹⁸ Thuc. vi 82.2. Will 66 thinks that the implausibility of racial arguments is further demonstrated by the fact that Euphemus does not use them. In fact, as my text makes clear, the opposite is the case. Nor is it an argument against the wide appeal of racial arguments that Hermocrates in several places (Thuc. iv 61.2; 64.3; vi 76) attacks as fraudulent the Athenian claim that they are intervening in Sicily on kinship grounds (cf. Will 66). Such attacks may reveal Hermocrates' own sophistry; but one does not labour the exposure of arguments which are not expected to convince anyone. In any case, we can hardly assert that Athenian kinship appeals were artificial because Thucydides puts the claim into a ‘tour de force’ by one of their enemies!

¹⁹ Brasidas at Thuc. v 9.1; Gylippus at vii 5.4; cf. also i 124.1.

²⁰ The Ionians at Thuc. i 95.1; Corinthians i 71.4, 124.1; Melians v 104; Egestaioi vi 6.2; men of Leontini iii 86.3; Athenians vi 44.3. These instances include cases where we have a colony appealing to its mother city κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενὲς (the Ionians and Melians). The question arises as to whether the kinship bond in this sort of case is wholly different from that between people merely of the same ἔθνος. The relationship between colony and mother city is explored in detail in Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester 1964)Google Scholar, but I do not find that Graham addresses this particular problem. One might suppose that where there had been a lack of continuity in the tradition of a link between colony and mother city (as in perhaps Ionia) feelings of ethnic kinship were likely to play a larger role in underpinning appeals to the mother city: but the men of Leontini, even when talking about the Dorian colonies in Sicily and their mother states, where the foundation traditions were well catalogued, do identify a feeling of ethnic kinship at work (Thuc. vi 6.2: ⊿ωριῆς τε ⊿ωριεῦσι κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενὲς καὶ ἅμα ἄποικοι τοῖς ἐκπὲμψσι . . . βοηθήσαντες). Nonetheless, the relationship between Athens and Ionia was probably unique, as the fifth-century tradition ascribed the origin of the whole Ionian ἔθνος to Athens: it thus becomes particularly difficult to talk of separating ethnic feelings from the feelings of a colony for its mother city. But it does seem that to justify her ἀρχή Athens saw scope for introducing a larger ‘mother city’ element into the relationship through Delian league propaganda —cf. Barron, J. P., JHS lxxxii (1962) 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 293–4, 562–5Google Scholar—which perhaps argues that when the Ionians appealed to Athens after the Persian wars, the predominant feeling was one of common Ionian unease in the face of Dorian arrogance.

²¹ Thuc. viii 25.3: see n. 14.

²² Cf. Macleod (n. 15). He is absolutely right to stress that the orator's need is not only (nor primarily?) for accurate analysis but also for success in persuasion; and that this is reflected in τὰ δέοντα by Thucydides.

²³ Below, p. 6.

²⁴ Thuc. iii 86.4, vi 6.1.

²⁵ For evidence that the Greeks did so regard the Dorian/Ionian distinction, see p. 10 f. and n. 56. But the point made here is not dependent upon the terminology of the νόμος/ϕύσις antithesis.

²⁶ Thucydides seems to me to be touching upon the same point in the mismatch between the Peloponnesians' claims to ‘natural’ superiority before the second battle against Phormio (ii 87) and the facts as presented by the narrative. Cf. i 121.4, and the contrast between the frequent statements about how easy victory in the war would be for the Peloponnesians and the reality of iv 55 (discussed below). This attitude, as the main text argues, implies Thucydides' belief in the reality of ethnic feeling. For other narrative passages with the same implication, see i 102.3 (Spartans make Athenians leave Ithome); iii 2.3 (Spartans and Boeotians helping Mytilene); iii 92 (foundation of Heracleia); v 80.2 (Perdiccas swayed by Argive links). Cf. iii 86.2–3 (men of Rhegium and also Athenians, though Thucydides seems sceptical in the latter case: cf. 86.4). At i 95.1 Thucydides does not deny that the Ionians did turn to Athens κατὰ τὸ ξυγγενές.

²⁷ Thuc. vii 57.1.

²⁸ Thucydides may have found the Sicilian campaign a paradigm case in proving the correctness and perspicacity of his views about motivation and lost no opportunity to push home the message. See the further analysis of the catalogue on p. 7.

²⁹ Crossman, R. H. S., in his introduction to Bagehot, The English Constitution (Fontana 1963) 30–1Google Scholar, analyses that writer's approach to his work in a way very similar to what follows.

³⁰ Thuc. vi 54.1; cf. i 20 ( οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἐτοῖμα μᾶλλον τρέπονται); ii 17.2.

³¹ On his playing down of the Megarian decree, cf. Gomme, , HCT i (1959) 447Google Scholar. Whatever motive we impute to the passing of the ‘Megarian decree’ referred to, we must acknowledge that it was ‘in the news’ at the outbreak of the war: cf. Thuc. i 139.1.

³² Cf. also Thuc. ii 54.2, where the reference to Δωριακὸς πόλεμος as a commonplace is illuminating.

³³ E.g. Thuc. i 87.2; viii 89.3, as well as the examples in Thucydides' treatment of the Sicilian expeditions referred to in n. 24.

³⁴ In addition to the example from Thuc. vii 57.1 quoted in my text, see Rhodes, P. J.' comments in JHS xcii (1972) 115–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Forrest, W. G., YCS xxiv (1975) 37–52Google Scholar. Cf. de Ste Croix, G. E. M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972) 12–23Google Scholar. The sophist Democritus makes a similar point to Thucydides in his claim that τὸ ξυμϕέρον, not ξυγγένεια unites men (fr. 107 DK).

³⁶ See esp. Athen. xii 524–6 for a list, and cf. the comments by Emlyn-Jones, C. J., The Ionians and Hellenism (London 1980) 1–2, 170Google Scholar.

³⁷ For the effects of climate on Asia Minor's inhabitants, see Hippoc., Aer. 12Google Scholar; cf. Hdt. i 142, where the reference is to Ionia; and Arist., Pol. 1327bGoogle Scholar. For contact with βάρβαροι, see Xenophanes, fr. B3 West.

³⁸ E.g. Rawson, E., The Spartan Tradition in European Thought (Oxford 1969) 15–16Google Scholar.

³⁹ Thuc. i 124; vi 76–80; viii 25.3.

⁴⁰ As n. 9 makes clear ‘Ionian’ is used in both an ethnic and a geographical sense. At issue here is whether the denigratory sense in which the word was used attaches to the former or latter usage. I argue that, because the fifth-century Athenians (i.e. non-Asiatics) felt a lack of confidence in themselves as Ionians, in the period we are considering a fairly well established feeling of inferiority did indeed attach to the Ionian ἔθνος. No doubt this feeling was reinforced by contempt for the Asiatic ‘Ionians'’ subjection to Persia (see e.g. Thuc. vi 82.4) or their ‘effeminate’ ways. In particular, much of Herodotus' bile seems directed at an Asiatic target (this is discussed further below). For the purposes of this article—the examination of the existence and effect of ethnic feeling in the Classical period—it is sufficient to demonstrate that the feeling was not then wholly based on geography. But in determining ethnic feeling's origin, it becomes a matter of great importance whether geographical considerations are the primary basis for the connotations of inferiority of the word ‘Ionian’. If not, and there is an ethnic basis, then the foundation stories of the Dorian and Ionian ἔθνη are indeed strikingly reflected in the later connotations of the two terms. But if it is geographical, the suspicion arises that the feeling may itself have helped create the foundation story. Although well beyond the scope of this article such implications are worth following up.

⁴¹ Judging by Thucydides' comments at viii 25.5, he saw no distinction in the attitude of Dorians facing Milesians and those facing Athens.

⁴² Certainly during the fifth century: see Meiggs (n. 20) 293–8; Podlecki, A. J., The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Michigan 1966) 17–21Google Scholar. The propaganda may go back to Solon and Peisistratus, but see Sakellariou (n. 9) 25. See further n. 46.

⁴³ Ar. Thesm. 163; Pax 932; Eccl. 918; fr. 543 Kock; Callias/Diocles fr. 5 Kock: see also Hermippus fr. 58 Kock. Cf. the Athenian attitude at Thuc. vi 82.4 and Emlyn-Jones (n. 36) 1–2 on Hippocrates.

⁴⁴ It has been suggested to me that the source for this statement is the anti-Ionian Alcmaeonidae. Whether we can accept this depends to a large extent on whether we can accept that Herodotus would make a statement such as φαίνονταί μοι οἱ πολλοί on the basis of what the Alcmaeonidae told him. Unlike what is superficially a similar case at Hdt. v 69, when Herodotus tells us that in his opinion Cleisthenes renamed the Athenian tribes in contempt of the Ionians, no one could in this case regard the Alcmaeonidae as the sole relevant and obtainable source. In this interpretation I am attaching more importance to Herodotus' form of words than for instance Fehling, D., Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot (Berlin 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but I am not convinced that we should ignore his phraseology to the extent that Fehling is.

⁴⁵ Thuc. vi 82.2.

⁴⁶ Thuc. iii 32.3; vii 82.1; cf. Hdt. v 97. We might suppose that the very existence of Athens' Ionian propaganda presupposes some pull for kinship feeling, and some pride in Ionian ancestry. But there are dangers in reading too much real feeling into the Delian league propaganda: first it was primarily directed only at Asiatic Ionians. Propaganda aimed at the people of Athens generally dwelt not upon their Ionianism, but their autochthonous status as a reason for pride in their ancestry (cf. Thuc. ii 36.1 and Plato, Menex. 237bGoogle Scholar; see also Eur., Ion 29, 589, 737Google Scholar; Arist., Vesp. 1076Google Scholar; Thuc. i 2). Athenian politicians had a clear motive for using this theme at home as it provided a story of valour to counter that of the Dorian invasion, and thus a genuine reason for self-pride amongst the people. The two themes—Athens' link with Ionia and the autochthonous nature of her people—are both emphasised in Euripides' Ion, whose hero turns out to be one of the autochthonous Athenians and founder of the Ionian ἔθνος. But the stress on Athens' Ionian nature in this material for Athenian consumption seems exceptional (see further n. 55). What Athenians wished to be reminded of was their autochthony. Whilst it is thus dangerous to read too much into the showpieces of Delian league propaganda, it is also dangerous to suppose that the whole edifice was built upon nothing. It has been suggested that there was no mother city role for Athens before the Delian league propaganda (see e.g. Jacoby, F., FGrH iiib [Leiden 1950] 323aGoogle Scholar F 11 and 23 with comm.). Even if the origin story of the Ionian ἔθνος did alter over the years, common Ionianism could be used to justify political claims apparently at least as far back as Solon (see Plut., Solon 10Google Scholar): in fact I think that story of origin from Athens was probably well established amongst all Ionians by at least the beginning of the fifth century (cf. Meiggs [n. 20] 294) and thus did help give substance to a feeling of common Ionianism along with such factors as the shared customs, etc., identified in n. 9.

⁴⁷ Phormio and the Peloponnesians: Thuc. ii 87.4 (cf. i 121.4); 89.2. Phormio perhaps concentrates on removing this prejudice to turn his men's thoughts away from the enemy's numbers. But the prejudice was there to be removed.

⁴⁸ Thuc. vi 11.5. Thucydides' language describing Spartan reaction after Pylos emphasises the complete unexpectedness, not just of the Pylos affair, but of the way the war had gone in general, and the grave effect on Spartan confidence (Thuc. iv 55).

⁴⁹ See Thuc. iv 85.2; v. 14.3; vii 28.3 (a narrative judgment by Thucydides). Brunt, P. A., Phoenix xix (1965) 264–5Google Scholar, believes that the Greeks' past experience of border warfare would have been sufficient to instil so wild a miscalculation (cf. de Ste Croix [n. 35] 207–8), but in my view the presence of these ethnic feelings in the background explains much more convincingly the universal prevalence of the mistake. After all, the Athenians never tired of reminding people how they had abandoned their city altogether during the Persian invasion without surrendering. The speech of the Corinthians at Sparta in 432 (Thuc. i 68–71) is often taken as a panegyric of Athens: the Corinthians certainly praise certain qualities in the Athenians. But there also seems to be the assumption that Sparta has only to act and a natural order of things will reassert itself. See also Ps.-Xen., Ath. Pol. ii 1Google Scholar (Athenian hoplites worse than their enemies').

⁵⁰ Pericles, Thuc. i 141.2; Archidamus, i 80–1, though de Ste Croix (n. 35) 207–8 feels that even Archidamus doesn't fully convince himself.

⁵¹ Thuc. ii 39.1.

⁵² Cf. Thuc. ii 37.3 and Eur., Her. 303–6, 329–30Google Scholar; Suppl. 184–90, 304. Also Thuc. ii 37.1 and Suppl. 349–53, 403–8. For a detailed analysis of the themes of patriotic oratory found in these plays, see Zuntz, G., The Political Plays of Euripides (Manchester 1955) 16–18, 40–1Google Scholar.

⁵³ The stories on which these two plays are based are two of the three mentioned in the mock funeral speech in Plato, Menex. 239bGoogle Scholar; cf. Hdt. ix 27. Athens' courage in standing up to powerful enemies is emphasised in both plays (e.g. Suppl. 518–20, 584–94; Her. 191–219, 236–52, 284–7). Her enemies arrogantly and mistakenly look down upon her (e.g. Suppl. 568; Her. 134–78), though the reality of their strength is acknowledged, to give Athens greater glory in defeating them (e.g. Her. 759–62). There are frequent references to Athens' military might, especially in Supplices (e.g. 163, 184–90): both plays describe the moment of Athenian victory (Suppl. 654–723; Her. 824–42).

⁵⁴ Cf. Collard, C., Euripides Supplices i (Groningen 1975) 13–14Google Scholar and Zuntz (n. 52) 89–90.

⁵⁵ Euripides' Ion, produced at a later date, deals with the supposed founder of the Ionian ἔθνος and does refer to Ionians and Dorians. It contains a few lines referring to the Athenian origin of the Ionians, apparently much in line with current Delian league propaganda (1580–8). But I do not find that the emphasis of Euripides' play quite fits the propaganda put out by contemporary politicians for an Athenian audience, which played to Athenian autochthony but excluded the Ionian connection (see n. 46). Euripides' play seems an attempt to take the legend of Ion and turn it into a genuine cause for unity of purpose and goodwill between Athenians and their subjects (no doubt both in his audience): the version of the legend at Paus. vii I is quite different and much less suitable for this purpose. Euripides' notion did not seem to catch on—possibly partly because he was arguing against feelings of shame and contempt for Ionians to which most politicians preferred to bow and pander. It has been thought (e.g. by Wilamowitz, , Euripides Herakles [Berlin 1933] 129Google Scholar) that Euripides' Hercules Furens should be seen as pointing out the insufficiency of Dorian values. If any political undercurrent is to be read into this play, however, I should say it was demonstrating the mutual dependence of Athens and Sparta (Theseus and Heracles).

⁵⁶ Thuc. i 121.4 and ii 89.2, where προσῆκον σϕίσιν seems to carry the same meaning.

⁵⁷ See e.g. Thuc. i 124.1, v 9.1, vi 77.1, vii 5.4. A geographical contrast between Peloponnesians and islanders is also sometimes drawn where appropriate, but it is the Dorian/Ionian contrast to which references occur most consistently.

⁵⁸ See Thuc. iv 60.1, 61.3, vi 82.2; and cf. the interesting parallel in Plato, Rep. 470cGoogle Scholar, where different races are also being discussed and the argument from difference to hostility is fully expressed.

⁵⁹ For instance, Pericles' rhetorical tour de force at Thuc. ii 39, which argues that the Athenians are actually braver by nature than their enemies, is not used by Phormio at Thuc. ii 89.2, where the Peloponnesians' reputation is argued to depend upon their success on land, and thus not to be valid at sea. Perhaps Pericles' argument would have seemed a little abstract and theoretical on the battlefield.

⁶⁰ Neville, J., CQ xxix (1979) 268–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, believes Herodotus' narrative gives an accurate portrayal of Ionian weakness. This seems to me inconsistent with the extreme language which is continually used. Murray, O., Early Greece (Fontana 1980) 244Google Scholar, accepts that Herodotus' narrative unjustifiably devalues Ionians, but ascribes all bias to Herodotus' sources. I do not agree: the narrative's attitude is too uniformly contemptuous to be the product of any particular source influence (see e.g. i 153.3, v 105 and refs in n. 63; cf. the comments by Emlyn-Jones [n. 36] ch. 7).

⁶¹ Which also caused vii 139.

⁶² Will 64. Cf. Jacoby, F., RE Suppl. ii (1913) 211Google Scholar.

⁶³ Especially Hdt. iv 142, where the Scythians' disparaging comments refer to tyrants of whom Herodotus says four are from Ionia, six from the Hellespont and one from Aeolis. Cf. Hdt. vi 12.2, where the men of Lesbos are counted as Ionians.

⁶⁴ See Hdt. vi 12.3 (even slavery preferable to the agony of training); iv 142 (Ionians slaves who love their master) and viii 10.2 (which captures the difference between the Ionians and mainland Greeks). The Ionians could have escaped (Hdt. i 170.2 and i 164) or combined (i 170.3). That is what Athens would have done (Hdt. vii 144.2; cf. vii 139).

⁶⁵ For Samian bias, see Mitchell, B. M., JHS xcv (1975) 75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As argued above, Herodotus might have been receptive to sources playing down Ionian achievement.

⁶⁶ Hdt. v 69. This hypothesis rests on the assumption of anti-Ionian feeling amongst the family caused by their friendship with Persia at the time of the Ionian revolt, which subsequently caused them political embarrassment, and their reaction against Peisistratus, who had been interested in encouraging Ionian unity (subject of course to Athens' leadership); cf. Hdt. i 64 and Thuc. iii 104.

⁶⁷ See e.g. vii 104.1–2.

⁶⁸ Hdt. v 72.3. Exclusion of foreigners from participating in certain rites was quite common in the Greek world (see e.g. Bömer, F., Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom iv [Wiesbaden 1963] 955 n. 2)Google Scholar, though we have fewer references to the exclusion of those of a particular race from a sanctuary: see, however, Plut., Mor. 267dGoogle Scholar and Sokolowski, F., Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969) no. 110Google Scholar. Sokolowski cites this instance as an example of a political exclusion. The exclusion may have a ‘political’ origin in the sense of springing from a non-religious antagonism, though it is unlikely that the priestess thought up the exclusion on the spur of the moment, because the form of the exclusion is relatively unusual: cf. Hdt. vi 81 where Cleomenes meets the more usual objection. But the essential point for us is that those creating the exclusion, whoever they were, thought in terms of Dorians, not of, say, Spartans or simply foreigners. The distinction was a live one.

⁶⁹ See Forrest, W. G., History of Sparta (London 1968) chs 6–7Google Scholar; Leahy, D. M., Historia iv (1955) 26–38Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Sokolowski (n. 68).

⁷¹ Hdt. v 97.2. The feeling of colony for mother city might be thought a different type from ethnic feeling alone. But see n. 20.

⁷² For Phrynichus' fine, see Hdt. vi 21.2 and Sakellariou (n. 9) 39–40: Sakellariou's arguments here strike me as very artificial. And even if we suspect political manoeuvring behind the charge against Phrynichus, cf. Forrest, W. G., CQ x (1960) 235Google Scholar, we must reckon both with the fact that Herodotus says that the theatre did burst into tears and (if we do not accept the tears story) that even a merely ostensible charge must have had some plausibility.

⁷³ Hdt. ix 106. Racial feeling may have helped cause tension throughout the Persian war, e.g. about the Isthmus wall (Hdt. vii 207; viii 40), reluctance to aid Athens (Hdt. ix 6 and 7), the worth of the largely Athenian fleet (Hdt vii 183.1; viii 11; 70; 74.1). For an incident during the Πεντηκονταετία see Thuc. i 102.3. Ephorus seems to have repeated these views: see Diod. Sic. xi 34–7, 41. But it is doubtful whether his evidence has any independent value.

⁷⁴ Pindar O. viii 30; P. i 61–5; N. iii 3; I. vii 12; fr. i 3.

⁷⁵ See Tigerstedt (n. 2) 152. Aeschylus refers to the ‘Dorian’ spear which won the battle of Plataea (Pers. 817): whether or not we take the word literally, it implies an affinity between Dorians and warlikeness. Other writers contrast the Peloponnesian spirit with the Attic or Asian (see Stesimbrotus, FGrH 107 F 4Google Scholar, Ion of Chios fr. 24 Nauck).

⁷⁶ To explore its earlier and later development falls outside the scope of this article; but I do not find it too surprising if it seems less prominent in our sources: combatants in later wars were not split on similar ethnic lines (see e.g. Xen., Hell. iv 3.15Google Scholar); as for the Archaic period, difficulties with the existence and reliability of suitable sources hamper the efforts to trace so intangible a thing back further. If we did, we might find that other ethnic differences had more impact on the generally more parochial politics of the times: see Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London 1956) ch. 5Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ I should like to express my gratitude to Professor W. G. Forrest and the late Mr C. W. Macleod for their comments on earlier versions of this article; and in particular to mark my debt to the late Mr M. W. Frederiksen, without whose support I should never have begun it.