² A variant reading Λαλαμιακόν occurs in MS F.

³ In the Argumentum to D.S. xviii πόλεμον . . . τὸν ὀνομασθέντα Λαμιακόν is found in § vi and τὸν Λαμιακὸν πόλεμον in xiv.

⁴ At x 1.6 the text of Strabo reads: κατεστράφη δὲ τά Στύρα ἐν τῷ Μαλιακῷ πολέμῳ ὑπὸ Φαίδρου τοῦ Ἀθηναίων στρατηγοῦ. A. Meineke, in his edition (Leipzig 1866), emended Μαλιακῷ to Λαμιακῷ on the basis ofa conjecture by Casaubon. A scribal error in transposing the lambda and mu is not difficult to envisage, and as all extant MSS are descended from the so-called archetype, the one original transposition would explain the constant MS reading Μαλιακῷ. Given what is known of the activities of Phaedrus, the Athenian strategos, it is highly probable that the MS reading should be so emended. On the career of Phaedrus see Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families 600–300 B.C. (Oxford 1971) 524–5 no. 13964Google Scholar.

⁵ There are two scholia to Aeschines ii 21, each providing biographical details in elaboration of a textual reference to an Athenian strategos, Leosthenes, who had gone into exile in 361 BC. The scholion common to MSS L and M confuses this Leosthenes with the one later so prominent in the Lamian War, and includes the comment ὕστερον δὲ κατελθὼν ἐστρατήγησεν ἐν τῷ δηλιακῷ καὶ ἀπέθανε τρωθείς. Both L and M read δηλιακῷ but in the margin of M another hand has written οἶμαι λαμιακῷ. Despite a conflation of two Leosthenes, this sentence does appear to refer to the Athenian general who commanded the forces at the siege of Lamia, and who died there as a result of a blow. If so, then the reading Λαμιακῷ should be preferred, with the supplement [πολέμῳ] understood. For the two scholia and the adscript see Dindorf, W., Scholia Graeca in Aeschinem et Isocratem (Oxford 1852; repr. Hildesheim 1970) 46Google Scholar.

⁶ Pompeius Trogus Prol. xiii. Although there is a variant MS reading lansacum (or lamsacum), the context makes it certain that the reading of Lamiacum preferred by J. Bongars in his edition of Justin's epitome (Paris 1581) is correct, and it is now accepted without exception. For the text and apparatus see Seel, O., Pompei Trogi Fragmenta (Leipzig 1956) 120Google Scholar.

⁷ The parallel passages are ὁ Λαμιακὸς πόλεμος ἐκινήθη (Eusebius) and Lamiacum bellum motum (St Jerome).

⁸ The Marmor Parium apart, I have examined first hand each of the inscriptions cited in this article. My thanks to Mrs D. Peppas-Delmousou and her staff at the National Epigraphical Museum at Athens for their aid and expertise.

⁹ The restoration is beyond question, as is evident both from the immediately adjacent context (lines 43–51) and from the subject matter of the whole, on which see below n. 10.

¹⁰ Part a, the first decree, from the archonship of Cephisodorus in 323/2, honours Euphron of Sicyon for bringing Sicyon into the Greek alliance (lines 8–15). Part b, from the archonship of Archippus in 318/17, comes from the year of the ‘restored democracy’ and harks back to the Hellenic (i.e. Lamian) War when the above honours were granted, recalling the reasons for the bestowal (lines 43–9). This decree reaffirms the previous honours and orders that new stelae recording them be erected (62 ff.).

¹¹ An Athenian honorary decree in favour of Nicander of Ilium and Polyzelus of Ephesus, metics who had contributed to the Athenian navy during the Lamian War. On their status and rôles at Athens see Thomsen, R., Eisphora (Copenhagen 1964) 237–42Google Scholar, and Pečírka, J., The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague 1966) 80–1Google Scholar together with his ‘A note on Aristotle's conception of citizenship and the role of foreigners in fourth century Athens’, Eirene vi (1967) 25Google Scholar.

¹² That Euetion was the Athenian naval commander in this war is known from D.S. xviii 15.9.

¹³ The restoration by U. Koehler in IG ii 271. These lines could not be restored as ον καὶ τοῦ πολέμ[ου γενομένου τοῦ Λαμια] κοῦ as this supplement would account for only 32 of the 33 stoichoi.

¹⁴ The text of IG ii² 506 is fragmentary. Only the left hand sections can be read with any confidence. The first fourteen letters of line 10 are legible; the line reads: κοῦ καὶ ἐγπλενσαν[σῶν τῶν νεῶν . It is likely that there is a further naval reference at line 12, which survives as follows: [. .] ΗPΕΙΣΚΛΕΙ . Although no full restoration of a line is yet possible, from line 10 it is clear that the general context is naval. Koehler therefore proposed that the missing first two letters of line 12 are PI and that the final letter of the previous line should be T. The problem of the remaining extant letters in line 12 was resolved by Wilhelm, A., ‘Ein neues Bruchstiick der parischen Marmorchronik’, Ath.Mitt. xxii (1897) 193Google Scholar, proposing to restore the name of Euetion's opponent Κλεῖτος. That Cleitus was the Macedonian ναύαρΧος in the Lamian War is known from D.S. xviii 15.8. With the final letter of line 11, line 12 would read: τ] [ρι]ήρεις Κλειτ[. . . .

¹⁵ IG ii² 488.6–7. Lysicrates and his genealogy are discussed by Davies (n. 4) 425.

¹⁶ In the summary of the epigraphical evidence for the name ὁ Ἑλληνικὸς πόλεμος I have not included IG ii² 546, an Athenian decree concerning the people of Dolopia. Lines 14 and 15 are restored to read as follows in IG ii²: [δύνανται ἀγαθὸν κ]αὶ νῦν καὶ ἐν [τῶι Ἑλληνικῶ ι πολέμωι τοῖς στρ]ατενομένοις. . . . Here the entire τῷ Ἑλληνικῷ πολέμῳ is a restoration and one not easily substantiated in view of the extremely fragmentary nature of the inscription and the difficulty in supplying a date for it. (The prescript is deficient, notably in the name of the archon.) In IG ii² the inscription is placed in the period 318/17–308/7, but since the publication of IG ii² in 1913 it has been shown that references to the συμπρόεδροι are not confined to the period after 319/18. Subsequently IG ii² 546 has been assigned to the year 321/20–as a possibility by W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt (1940); more positively by Meritt (1961); tentatively by S. Dow (1963). If 321/20 is to be accepted as the date for IG ii² 546, then I believe that the acceptability of ἐν τῷ Ἑλληνικῷ πολέμῳ as a supplement for lines 14–15 is greatly reduced. There is no surviving Athenian decree from the years between 322 and 318 which mentions that war—not surprising in view of the degree of control exercised over Athenian affairs in that period by the Macedonians, both by the garrison at Munichia and by the constitution imposed by Antipater.

¹⁷ Xylander's edition was printed at Heidelberg in 1561. In the Teubner, C. Sintenis' first edition was in 1839 (4 vols) and the second in 1874 (5 vols). See now Ziegler, K. (ed.), Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae ii. 1 (Leipzig 1964) 18Google Scholar, and the n. to line 24.

¹⁸ Hyperides, Epitaphios col. 5 τοῖς Ἕλλησ̣[ιν] ε̣ἰς τὴν ἐλενθερίαν and τῇ Ἑλλάδι [τὴν] ε̣λε̣[νθερ]ίαν, col. 6 ὑπὲρ τῆ[ς τῶ]ν Ἐλλήνων ἐλενθερίας and τῇ Ἑλλάδι [τὴν] ἐ̣λε̣[νθερ]ίαν, col. 9 τὴν κοινὴν ἐλ[εν]θερίαν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, col. 11 τί γέ[νοιτ᾿ ἂ τοῖς Ἕλ]λησιν ἥδι[ον ἤ έπαινος τῶν] τὴν ἐλευθερί]αν παρασκενα]σάντων ἀ[πὸ τῶν Μακεδό]νων, col. 13 εἰς τὴν κοινὴν ἐλευθε̣ρίαν̣ τῶν Ἑλλήνων. The single occasion in this speech when the word is not linked in that way is in col. 7 καὶ τὴν μὲν ἐλενθερίαν εἰς τὸ κο[ι]νὸν πᾶσιν κατέθεσαν. At the commencement of col. 13 is οἳ τὴν Ἑλλάδ̣[α] ἐλευθερώσαντες.

¹⁹ Above n. 10.

²⁰ For αὐτονομία see Epitaphios col. 9.23.

²¹ Hyp. Epit. cols 12–13.

²² D.S. xviii 9.5 has both αὐτονομία and ἐλευθερῶσαι, plus references to ἐλευθερία at xviii 9.1, 10.2 and 12.3. The ἐλευθερία catch-cry is also echoed in Plut. Phoc. 26.1 and Suda s.v. ‘Λαμία’. Justin xiii 5.5 provides the Latin counterpart with multae civiates libertatem bello vindicandam fremebant. There is also evidence from a papyrus fragment. Hibeh Pap. i (1906) 15Google Scholar ( = FGrH 105 F 6) is the second of the literary papyri from Hibeh, being part of a rhetorical composition written between 280 and 240. The editors believe that the occasion depicted is an address by Leosthenes to the Athenians on the Lamian War–an opinion supported by Mathieu, G., ‘Notes sur Athènes à la veille de la guerre lamiaque’, RPh lv (1929) 159–70Google Scholar, who also tentatively posits Anaximenes of Lampsacus as the source (160–1, 167). At line J22 (col. V) of the papyrus the text reads: ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς ἐλευθερ[ίας].

²³ For example, Schaefer, H., Der lamische oder hellenische Krieg (Diss. Giessen 1886)Google Scholar, despite his title, virtually ignores the question of the name of the war (only a brief indication at 62 n. 76). The most comprehensive tabulations of the sources for both names are: Schaefer, A., Demosthenes und seine Zeit² iii (Leipzig 1887) 372 nn. 1–2Google Scholar; Bengtson, H., Gr. Gesch.⁵ (Munich 1977) 372 n. 3Google Scholar; and Staehelin, F., RE xii (1925)Google Scholar ‘Lamischer Krieg’ 562, but in each case there are omissions and/or inaccuracies. Lepore, E., ‘Leostene e le origini della guerra Lamiaca’, PP x (1955) 161–85Google Scholar has suggested that the name ‘Hellenic War’ originated in the climate of the restored democracy of 318 (176 and n. 6), having noted that the first surviving use of the appellation is in an inscription from that year. However, on the absence of such references for the years 322–318 see above n. 16.

²⁴ FGrH 239 B 9.

²⁵ The supplement [πρὸς Ἀντίπατρον] in line 7 is supported by the proposed restoration of line 16 in Wilhelm, A., Akademieschrifien zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (1895–1951) ii (Leipzig 1974) 145Google Scholar as ακεδόνι κα[ὶ ὅτε Ἀ]ντ[ίπατρος ἐκράτησε, οὐδαμῶς.

²⁶ D.S. xviii 8.1; Justin xiii 5.8; Orosius iii 23.15.

²⁷ Paus. iv 28.3 and Arg. to D.S. xviii, pt 2 § lix.

²⁸ Dexippus, , FGrH 100 F 33Google Scholar.

²⁹ Lepore (n. 23) has demonstrated that the account of the origins of the war at D.S. xvii 111.1 ff. presents Leosthenes as the prime mover. There is no suggestion, however, that the conflict was ever termed ‘Leosthenes' War’.

³⁰ See, most recently, Hornblower, Jane, Hieronymus of Cardia (Oxford 1981) esp. ch. 2Google Scholar.

³¹ D.S. xviii 9.1–13.6; 14.4–15.9; 16.4–18.9.

³² Brown, T. S., ‘Hieronymus of Cardia’, AHR lii (1946–1947) 693 and n. 71Google Scholar.

³³ References to Cardia in the speeches of Demosthenes show clearly that it was only the support of the Macedonian monarchy which prevented Athens from asserting control over Cardia. A full list of the evidence from Demosthenes, together with that from D.S. xvi and Plut. Eumenes is given by Brown (n. 32) 690 n. 56. For Cardian animosity towards Athens and inclination towards Macedon see Hornblower (n. 30) 175.

³⁴ Hornblower (n. 30) observes that ‘the account of the Lamian War in (Diodorus) xviii reveals a distinctly Macedonian slant’ (60—reiterated at 66, 165 and more fully at 171). Nonetheless it is claimed at 176—7 that in xviii 10 there is a sympathetic analysis of the Greek problems in preparing for this war. Against this proposal see A. B. Bosworth's review of Hornblower's, work in JHS ciii (1983) 209–10Google Scholar. On Hieronymus' historical perspectives note also Rosen, K., ‘Politische Ziele in der frühen hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung’, Hermes cvii (1979) 460–77Google Scholar.

³⁵ The most likely candidate is still Cleitarchus of Alexandria, who is now widely accepted as the source, directly or indirectly, for D.S. xvii. A thorough re-examination of the evidence is in Hamilton, J. R., ‘Cleitarchus and Diodorus 17’, Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory, Fests. Schachermeyr (Berlin 1977) 126–46Google Scholar. Tarn's theory of a so-called ‘mercenaries' source’ on whom Diodorus relied heavily up to the battle of Issus (Alexander the Great ii esp. 71–5, 105–6, 128–30Google Scholar) has been laid to rest by Brunt, P. A., CQ xii (1962) 141–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the contentious subject of the date of Cleitarchus, recent works by Hamilton, J. R., ‘Cleitarchus and Aristobulus’, Historia x (1961) 448–58Google Scholar; Badian, E., ‘The date of Clitarchus’, PACA viii (1965) 5–11Google Scholar; Schachermeyr, F., Alexander in Babylon und die Reichsordnung nach seine Tode (Vienna 1970) 211–24Google Scholar have argued for c. 310. If Cleitarchus was the source for the reference at D.S. xvii 111.1 a date of c. 310 would accord well with the proposition below that the source which Diodorus used at that point could not have employed the term ὁ Λαμιακὸς πόλεμος.

³⁶ D.S. xviii 8.1.

³⁷ Plut. Pyrrh. 1.6 which is, admittedly, in the prefatory section. On the question of whether Plutarch made use of sources contemporary with the subjects of his Lives or relied upon secondary sources, see Ziegler, K., RE xxi.i (1951)Google Scholar ‘Plutarchos’ no. 2 esp. 911 ff. and the introduction to Hamilton, J. R., Plutarch, Alexander: a Commentary (Oxford 1969) xliii–xlixGoogle Scholar. The general belief, following Meyer, E., Forschungen zur alien Geschichte ii (Halle 1899) 65–71Google Scholar, is that Plutarch did use secondary sources in the main, but that for the period of the Diadochi he could have had direct access to the work of Hieronymus.

³⁸ Plut. Pyrrh. 17.7 = FGrH 154 F 11 (280 BC); 2I.1 2 = F 12 (279 BC); 27.8 = F 14 (272 BC).

³⁹ Paus. i 13.9 = FGrH 154 F 15.

⁴⁰ Above p. 153–4.

⁴¹ Plut. Phoc. 4.3–4 = FGrH 76 F 50; 17.10 = F 51.

⁴² For the early life o f Duris see Kebric, R. B., In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos, Historia Einzels. xxix (Wiesbaden 1977) 2–4Google Scholar; for the date of their arrival at Athens, id., ‘A note on Duris in Athens’, CPh lxix (1974) 286–7Google Scholar, with good arguments for between 304 and 302. That Duris had returned to Samos by c. 300 is indicated by the issue of a hemidrachma at that time, see Barron, J., The Silver Coins of Samos (London 1966) 137–8Google Scholar.

⁴³ D.S. xv 60.6.

⁴⁴ Pliny NH viii 143 = FGrH 76 F 55.

⁴⁵ Kebric (n. 42) 51–4.

⁴⁶ One extant fragment of the Macedonica indicates that the matter was discussed in Bk x, as the Suda records that in that section of Duris' work was to be found an account of an harangue by Pytheas against Demosthenes (s.v. ‘ᾧ τὸ ἱερὸν πῦρ οῦκ ἔξεστι φυσῆσαι’ = FGrH 76 F 8). Plutarch, citing Phylarchus as his source, also has a description of that public verbal clash to which the Duris fragment appears to refer (Dem. 27.3 = FGrH 81 F 75).

⁴⁷ Sweet, W. E., ‘Sources of Plutarch's Demetrius’, Cl. Weekly xliv (1951) 177–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kebric (n. 42) 55–60; Hornblower (n. 30) 68–70; de Lacy, P., ‘Biography and Tragedy in Plutarch’, AJP lxxiii (1952) 159–71Google Scholar. Lynceus of Samos, the brother of Duris, is the only source named in this biography (Plut. Demetr. 27.3). Hieronymus is attested at 39.3–7 as having been appointed by Demetrius as epimelete and harmost over the Boeotians ( = FGrH 154 T 8).

⁴⁸ Sweet (n. 47) 178.

⁴⁹ Plut. Demetr. 10.2.

⁵⁰ The expression occurs in seven separate Lives from the fifth and fourth centuries BC—Them. 6.5; Cim. 18.6; Lys. 27.3; Ages. 15.2; Pel. 17. 11; Art. 20.4; Phoc. 23.1.

⁵¹ Coll. 5–6. Events περὶ Λαμίαν are discussed further in the examination of Plb. ix 29.2 below.

⁵² How Hieronymus referred to the same event is demonstrated at D.S. xx 46.3: ὁ οὖν δῆμος ἐνς τῷ Λαμιακῷ πολέμῳ καταλυθεὶς ὑπ᾿ Ἀντιπάτρου μετ᾿ ἔτη πεντεκαίδεκα παραδόξως ἐκομίσατο τὴν τάτριον πολιτείαν.

⁵³ Droysen, J. G., ‘Zur Duris und Hieronymos’, Hermes xi (1876) 465Google Scholar; Koehler, U., ‘Über die Diadochensgeschichte Arrian's’, Sitz. d. Kön. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin (1890) 586 ff.Google Scholar; Jacoby, F., RE viii.2 (1913)Google Scholar ‘Hieronymos’ no. 10 1549 and FGrH iiD (Comm.) 544.

⁵⁴ Above nn. 44 and 45.

⁵⁵ [Lucian] Macrob. 22 = FGrH 154 T 2.

⁵⁶ For Hieronymus' life and the span of his work see Hornblower (n. 30) ch. 1.

⁵⁷ FCrH 239 B 9. It is recorded in Wilhelm, A., ‘Ein neues Bruchstück der parischen Marmorchronik’, Ath.Mitt. xxii (1897) 193Google Scholar that there is a space with an erasure between περὶ and the lambda of Λαμίαν, and that the final two letters of Λαμίαν are inscribed over an erasure. Jacoby believes the original inscription, erased in part for the correction ΛΑΜΙΑΝ, was ΣΑΛΑΜΙΝΑ (FGrH iiB 239 p. 1003 n. to line 8). For the Amorgus naval engagement see Ashton, N. G., ‘The Naumachia near Amorgos in 322 B.C.’, BSA lxxii (1977) 1–11Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ FGrH 239 A lines 2–3.

⁵⁹ Plb. ix 29.2.

⁶⁰ Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius ii (Oxford 1967) 167Google Scholar.

⁶¹ A confusion somewhat similar to that in the Polybius passage is evident at Paus. vii 6.5. There it is stated that of the people of Achaea, only the noted wrestler Chilon of Patrae was present ἐπὶ τὸν πρὸς Λαμίᾳ καλούμενον πόλεμον. However, in this case it is perfectly clear, both from the context of vii 6.5 and from an additional reference at vi 4.6–7, that Pausanias meant to refer only to the events περὶ Λαμίαν and not to the war as a whole.

⁶² Hornblower (n. 30) 172 ff.