¹ Modern discussion starts from Accame, S., La Lega Ateniense (Rome 1941Google Scholar) (hereafter Accame). In CQ xxiii (1973) 47–60Google Scholar I discussed the foundation of the Confederacy. The following abbreviations are used to refer to recent discussions relevant to this article (listed in chronological order). (1) Woodhead: Woodhead, A. G., ‘IG ii² 43 and Jason of Pherae’, AJA lxi (1957) 367–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (2) Sealey: Scaley, B. R. I., ‘IG ii² 1609 and the transformation of the second Athenian sea-league’, Phoenix xi (1957) 95–111Google Scholar. (3) Burnett–Edmondson: Burnett, A. P. and Edmondson, C. N., ‘The Chabrias Monument in the Athenian Agora’, Hesp. xxx (1961) 74–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (4) Woodhead: Woodhead, A. G., ‘Chabrias, Timotheus and the Aegean allies’, Phoenix xvi (1962) 258–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (5) Cawkwell: Cawkwell, G. L., ‘Notes on the Peace of 375/4’, Historia xii (1963) 84–95Google Scholar. (6) Coleman–Bradeen: Coleman, J. E. and Bradeen, D. W., ‘Thera on IG ii² 43’, Hesp. xxxvi (1967) 102–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (7) Davies: Davies, J. K., ‘The date of IG ii² 1609’, Historia xviii (1969) 309–33Google Scholar. (8) Cawkwell: Cawkwell, G. L., ‘The date of IG ii² 1609 again’, Historia xxii (1973) 759–61Google Scholar. (9) Griffith: Griffith, G. T., ‘Athens in the fourth century’, Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R. (Cambridge 1978) 127–44Google Scholar.

² Cf. Dem. viii 21, 24–6; Aisch. ii 71, iii 91, 100; GHI 168, 175; IG ii² 207 (but see Osborne, M. J., BSA lxvi [1971] 297–321)Google Scholar.

³ Busolt, G., Der zweite athenische Bund (Leipzig 1874) 730Google Scholar ff. did not distinguish the periods before and after the Peace of 372/1. The only passage he cited relevant to the question of whether there were allied contingents in Athenian armies and navies is [Dem.] l 14, but the fact that rowers deserted to Thasian and Maroneian ships does not prove that they were serving with the fleet. We know that the rebel allies of 357 had ships (Diod. xvi 7), but there is nothing to suggest that any were serving with Chares in 357/6 (Dem. xxiii 173).

⁴ Cf. CQ xxii (1972) 270, 271Google Scholar.

⁵ For Thasian and Maroneian ships, [Dem.] 1 14. The Maroneians needed help in conveying corn-ships (ibid. 20), which does not suggest they had many. For allied naval contingents before 371, cf. Xen. Hell. vi 2.9, Diod. xv 47, Dem. xlix 14–16, 49 and IG ii² 1607. 49, 155.

⁶ At xv 28.3 (4 names), 27.7 (1), 30.2 (70)—added together, they equal the figure given by Aisch. ii 70 (in part of a wildly exaggerated statement).

⁷ Cf. (1) Woodhcad 371 n. 15, (2) Sealey 105.

⁸ (6) Coleman–Bradeen.

⁹ Cf. IG ii² 179 fr. c lines 9–11.

¹⁰ Cf. Fabricius, E., RhM xlvi (1891) 589Google Scholar ff.

¹¹ (6) Coleman–Bradeen 104.

¹² ‘The demos of the Theraians’ was, presumably, placed on the left side before ‘the Kerkyraians’ was added to the front because there was not enough room on the front for a two-line entry.

¹³ Cf. e.g. (3) Burnett–Edmondson 83.

¹⁴ For location, cf. ATL i 482.

¹⁵ Cf. (4) Woodhead.

¹⁶ Accame 72 f. For location of Arcthousa, see Hammond, N.G.L., History of Macedonia (Oxford 1972) i 196Google Scholar. It does not occur on the Athenian tribute lists, but in the fourth century it developed some outside contacts; cf. IG iv². 1 94, where it is represented in the list of thearodokoi at Epidauros.

¹⁷ Cf. (5) Cawkwell, and Buckler, J., ‘Dating the Peace of 375/4 B.C.’, GRBS xii (1971) 353–61Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Cf. Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Berlin 1932) 23Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For discussions see Accame 91–8, and (1) Woodhead. Also Sordi, M., La Lega Tessala (Rome 1958) 172–7Google Scholar.

²⁰ (9) Griffith 310 n. 34.

²¹ Cf. (5) Cawkwell 91 n. 60.

²² Cf. my introduction to 1979 edition of the Penguin translation of the Hellenica (A History of my Times) 26.

²³ Cf. Sordi (n. 19) 170, 171. If the four Spartan divisions under Kleombrotos (Xen. Hell. vi 1.1) did inded cross to Phokis in early 375, Xenophon must simply have missed out their recall and their despatch a second time, perhaps in 372. Quite apart from the often stressed point that it is very unlikely that two thirds of the Spartan army (together with a proportionate share of the Peloponnesian League) would have been abroad for four years, there is the equally strong point that such a garrison would probably enough have had to be recalled under the terms of the Peace of 375. Also one would have expected events of a different turn when Thebes struck against Plataia and Thespiai in 373. If Xenophon omitted the recall and the second despatch, that is no more surprising than if he has misplaced the appeal. The real difficulty about accepting his placing of the despatch of Kleombrotos' army in 375 lies in the account of the battle of Tegyra (Diod. xv 37) given in Plutarch's Pelopidas 16, from which it emerges that there were two ‘divisions’ of the Spartan army on garrison duty in Orchomenos, that a replacement force came from Sparta while the original two divisions were in Lokris, that the allied contingent in the army of Kleombrotos according to Xenophon (Hell. vi 1.1) is not mentioned, nor is the name of Kleombrotos (cf. the recital of his ‘failures’ in Xen. Hell. vi 4.5). All in all, it now seems to me more likely that Xenophon has misplaced the Phokian appeal and that it was in fact made shortly before Leuktra. The Spartan reasons for not helping Polydamas effectively, as given by Xenophon (Hell. vi 1.17), do not require a larger foreign commitment than the two ‘divisions’ garrison in Orchomenos mentioned by Plutarch, and there is no good reason to suppose that the Phokian appeal and the appeal of Polydamas are so inextricably connected that one must suppose that, if Xenophon has misplaced the one, he has misplaced the other.

²⁴ Accame 180, where the evidence for Timotheos' captures will be found.

²⁵ It must be admitted that IG ii² 126, which in both GHI 151 and ATL ii 104 is supplemented in lines 8 and 16 by τὴν σύνταξιν, might be used to prove that the cities of the Chersonese were in the Confederacy. But one might also supplement τὴν πρόσοδον (cf. Dem. xxiii 110)—or, more satisfactorily, τὰ καθήκοντα (with ἅπαντα in lines 7 and 8). I am not alone in my scepticism about the presently prevailing restoration. Cf. (9) Griffith 313 n. 35.

²⁶ It is impossible to connect Nepos Tim. 4.2 with anything we know about either Jason or Timotheos, who sailed off to serve under the Great King in early 372 (Dem. xlix 25, 28, 60) not long after his trial. So one need not posit that hostile acts on Jason's part led to the erasure.

²⁷ As to the erasure of lines 11–13, we cannot conjecture when it was made since we do not know what was erased.

²⁸ In 189 B.C. there was, it would appear, no κοινόν of Kephallenians (Livy xxxviii 28), and there is no reason to suppose that there was one in the fourth century.

²⁹ This is striking proof of the great éclat of the Peace of 375.

³⁰ Decree in Accame 230.

³¹ The argument advanced in (5) Cawkwell 91–3 for the introduction of syntaxeis after the Peace of 375 lacked cogency, for it depended on the view that members contributed both money and ships, which cannot be proved. However, I adhere to the view that they were introduced after 375: it remains very unlikely that the early alliances would not have made more explicit the distinction between tribute and syntaxeis, if they had been introduced early; also the references to Timotheos' campaign of 375 suggest that he did not have money from the allies (Isok. xv 109, Xen. Hell. v 4.66, [Ar.] Econ. 1350a30).

³² For piracy in the fourth century, cf. Ziebarth, E., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Seeraubs und Seehandels im alten Griechenland (Hamburg 1929) 13–19Google Scholar (evidence quoted 102–4). Although Alexander of Pherai and Philip of Macedon did not have large fleets and so resorted to piratical raids, which Demosthenes does not neglect to remark, professional piracy went on, largely taken for granted by the orators. Cf. esp. Dem. xxiii 166, vii 2, 14– 15, xii 2, 13, lviii 56, Aisch. ii 12, 72. Clearly despite the operation of the Athenian navy, the Aegean was a dangerous place. Cf. Accame 137.

³³ [Dem.] 1 53 (cf xvii 20) suggests that there may have been another base at Tenedos.

³⁴ If ‘the people and council’ of line 20 of the decree in Accame 230 are Parian, Paros is to be added.

³⁵ Discussions prior to Accame—G. Busolt (n. 3) 689–92, and, e.g. Martin, V., La vie Internationale (Paris 1940) 253–67Google Scholar—did not have to consider the inscription first published by Oliver, J. H., AJA xl (1936) 461–4,Google Scholar and republished by Accame with fuller readings (230).

³⁶ But, as Accame 114–15 noted, there is a curious variation between ‘the decrees of the allies’ in the Athenian oath and ‘the decrees of the Athenians and the allies’ in the Kerkyraian oath. Perhaps the full formula would have been for the Athenians an ‘inutile pleonasmo’. Perhaps the stone-cutter erred.

³⁷ Accame 119.

³⁸ Accame 231–5.

³⁹ Cf. Accame 124.

⁴⁰ If lines 23 and 27 can have one letter short, so can line 34 and instead of τοὺ [ς ταξιάρχους] we could read τοὺ [ς συμμάχους] or τοὺ[ς συνέδρους]. (It seems unlikely that the aorist, rather than the familiar present ὅπλα ἐπιφέρειι was used in lines 23 and 27, pace D. M Lewis, CQ xi [1961] 64 n.1.)

⁴¹ The translation is uncertain, but for the sense ‘with the Parians’ one would expect πρὸς Παρίους as e.g. Dem. ii 1.

⁴² Cf. (8) Cawkwell, pace (9) Griffith 312 n. 34.

⁴³ However, the cleruchs sent to Methone by Accame (183) on the strength of Robinson, D. M.TAPA lxix (1938) 58Google Scholar belong to the fifth century (cf. SEG x no. 67).

⁴⁴ Isok. xv 123; Plut. Phok. 7, 11; IG ii² 207, with [Dem.] 1 53 and GHI 168; possibly GHI 156 in the light of 152.

⁴⁵ GHI 175, if rightly supplemented in line 27 f., shows that assessment was the work of the synedrion. The situation behind [Dem.] lviii 37, 38 is unclear; perhaps the Ainians made an agreement with Chares about the amount they should contribute because special circumstances prevented payment of the full amount assessed.

⁴⁶ So Kallistratos (FGrH 115 F 98) was not being merely cynical in using a new name for the thing in some degree new.

⁴⁷ In 106–12 Aischines treated of Timarchos' career in offices chosen by lot. It is not provable, but it looks as if the treatment is in chronological order, for there seems no other explanation of the order.

⁴⁸ Cf. Accame 138–42. (The inscription published by Woodhead, A. G. in Hesp. xxvi [1957] 231Google Scholar is of dubitable significance.)

⁴⁹ For the dating of the outbreak of the Social War, cf. Class, et Med. xxii (1962) 34–40Google Scholar. Precise dating of the Euboian expedition is not beyond conjecture. At the time oaths were sworn to the Karystians by the Council of 357/6, embassies to the Euboian states had only just been paid their expenses (GHI 153). So unless there was a considerable lapse of time between the expulsion of the Thebans and the re-entry of the Euboian cities into the Confederacy (which seems unlikely), the operations were over by the start of 357/6 or shortly after. For it must be noted that the naval expedition to Euboia (Aisch. iii 85) and the departure of Chares for the Hellespont during the Athenian operations (Dem. xxiii 173) which lasted less than thirty days (Aisch. loc. cit.) show that the Etesian winds had not begun. The Etesians blow fairly steadily from mid-June. So if one puts the Euboian expedition in the second to last or the last month of 358/7, one is, at the worst, probably not greatly in error.

⁵⁰ Cf. xxiii 14, ii 28; xxiii 153, 156, 158, 161; viii 36, iv 7, both of which, in the context of the war with Philip, I take to refer to Amphipolis.

⁵¹ Cf. Beloch Gr. Ges. iii².2 246–7.

⁵² Cf. CQ xxii (1972) 271–3Google Scholar.

⁵³ The Ephoran version of Diodoros is the best evidence we have, but Aeneas Tacticus 11.13, which is garbled, reflects the constitutional change. Cf. Xen. Hell. v 4.64, where the seemingly gratuitous commendation of Timotheos' conduct in western waters in 375 is, I suppose, a comment on Chares' very different conduct in 361/0.

⁵⁴ Cf. JHS lxxxiii (1963) 61–3Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Isok. viii 19–21, 46, 47,69, 124, 128. Cf. Dem. xiii 27.

⁵⁶ Cf. Dem. iii 28 with Schol., xiii 27, Aisch. ii 71.

⁵⁷ Note esp. Thuc. vi 24.3. (Hell. Oxy. 6.3 and Ar. Eccl. 195–8 are the stock passages.)

⁵⁸ ‘The cities’ is the fifth century term for the subject cities of the Empire. Cf. Gauthier, P., Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon (Geneva 1976) 40Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Cf. GHI 196 and comm.

⁶⁰ The title in Aristotle is the Symmachikos, which is the alternative title given for the speech in one manuscript.

⁶¹ Cf. Schol. Aisch. i 64, Din. iii 17 and Diod. xvi 21.4 for the connection, and [Dem.] 16 and GHI 142 for his prominence.