¹ Similarly Olympian ix is classified as an Olympian because it begins with the Olympic victory (of 468) and comes only thereafter to the Pythian victory (of 466).

² The facts in Herodotos, vii 165. No other evidence for the date: when Diodoros (xi 1. 5) says that the Carthaginians spent three years in preparation for the invasion, the three years is measured not from Terillos's expulsion (of which no word) but from an alleged agreement between Persia and Carthage to synchronize their invasions, and need be no more historical than the agreement.

³ . I can neither construe the sentence (with it two unconnected verbs) nor understand the article in ; but whatever the corruption I do not think that the sense can be in any doubt.

⁴ There are two controls. (a) Diodoros, after recording Theron's importation of new citizens, continues (xi 49. 4) , until the destruction of Himera by the Carthaginians. He records this destruction (xiii 62) under 409/8; his ‘fifty-eight’ is most likely a miscalculation for ‘sixty-eight’, and that gives 477/6 or (by inclusive reckoning) 476/5. (b) An ancient commentator supposed O. ii 95–8, in an ode for Theron's Olympic chariot-victory of 476, to allude to the revolt of his cousins Kapys and Hippokrates (sch. 173 f, g), and that revolt seems likely to have been linked with the disaffection at Himera (sch. 173g: Theron defeated them ); what matters here is not whether the commentator was right or wrong in scenting the allusion (I think it likely that he was wrong; though I believe that there is an allusion in O. ii 15–20, after a prayer for the continuance of the dynasty), but that he presumably knew it to be chronologically possible.

⁵ For the evidence (which shows some discrepancy) see Jüthner, , Die athletischen Leibesübungen der Griechen i 1. 108–9Google Scholar, n. 232.

⁶ Jeffery, , The local scripts of archaic Greece 246Google Scholar: ‘unlikely to be much, if at all, later than 450.’

⁷ Those in 2 and 4 are due to Kunze, who first published the epigram (Kretika Chronika vii [1953] 138–45Google Scholar; V. Olympia-Bericht [1956] 153–6Google Scholar); in 3 I replace his by a supplement which avoids the bad Greek of and might perhaps account for a formal ambiguity in Pausanias (see n. 8 below). At the end of 1 I expect rather than e.g. , but do not know how to provide the last five syllables: in Kunze's the epithet is at variance with the custom of these epigrams. It may be that one should consider a different approach, , with the last line e.g. ; on this I observe (a) that the which it abandons is characteristic: Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche, nos. 3, 8, 14, 17, 18, and (aorist participle) 4, 5, 9, 16; (b) that ποτε should refer to what is securely in the past at the time of the dedication (Wade-Gery, , J.H.S. liii [1933] 71–82Google Scholar), and so will have to construe only with νικῶν and not with the verb of 4; factually there is no difficulty, if Ergoteles dedicated the statue some years after his last victory, but I have no parallel for the epigram for Hieron's posthumous offering, Paus. viii 42.9; there is of course no reason why if νικῶν be taken as representing the ımperfect ὲνίκα it should not with a ποτε be antecedent to the leading verb).

[Only after my manuscript was with the printer did I become aware of the treatment of the epigram by Ebert, J., ‘Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen’, Abh. Sächs. Akad., phil.-hist. Kl. lxiii 2 (1972), 79–82Google Scholar (no. 20); . He anticipates two of my suggestions (1 ὅϲ ποτε, 3 δ[ίϲ); he neither shares nor dispels my hesitation over . If ὅϲ ποτε is in fact right, I prefer my own treatment of the rest of the clause.]

⁸ Pausanias is formally ambiguous: two each at Nemea and the Isthmos, or two at the two together? I have supposed this to derive from a similar formal ambiguity in the inscription; but I have no doubt that the ambiguity is no more than formal, and that the writer meant to indicate two victories at each venue.

⁹ Another formal ambiguity in Pindar's : certainly two at Pytho, but one at the Isthmos, or two? I suppose only one: this seems the more natural interpretation; and if there had been two I should have expected Pindar to leave us in no doubt. (The notion that could be said of a single Pythian plus a single Isthmian victory, making two in all, is perverse; and no less perverse for Wilamowitz's tacit acceptance, Pindaros 305. The words might conceivably be so used by themselves, but not when they follow Ὀλυμπίαι: one might perhaps, if a man had won once at B and once at C, say ‘you have won twice, at B and at C’; one could not, if he had also won once at A, say ‘you have won at A and twice, at B and at C’. I say this because apparently it needs to be said; but the need passes my comprehension.)

¹⁰ It appears from Drachmann that A uses alphabetic numerals and that BCDEQ, have the numbers written out in full; for ease of comparison I have converted these latter to alphabetic numerals.

¹¹ So Tycho Mommsen in 1864, reading (78 = 468) and in V ; then Bergk (1878), Mezger, Gildersleeve, Schroeder (1900).

¹² I mention here two aberrant opinions of Boeckh's, both of them popular in the nineteenth century but forgotten in the twentieth; I mention them not for their own sakes but so that I can account below for other aberrations to which they led. First, he contrived to accept both κε′ and κθ′, so that the victory of the 29th Pythiad was the second at Pytho; secondly, he dated the Pythian era four years too early and so put the 29th Pythiad (and its victory) in 474. The first aberration was killed by common sense; the second by the uncontestable evidence of the Oxyrhynchos list and Bacchylides and the .

¹³ No-one indeed seems even to have considered 466. Before 1899 this was natural enough: those who thought that the second Olympic victory was in 468 had to put the ode before 468; those who acquiesced in one or both of Boeckh's aberrations (see above, n. 12) were at least encouraged to put it as soon as possible after the Olympic victory of 472. Since 1899 inertia will have played a part: accepted opinions are tenacious of life, even after the evidence on which they were founded has perished.

¹⁴ The notion that οθ′ is the corrupt offspring (in one way or another) of κθ′ had been entertained already by Drachmann (ad loc.) in 1903 and by Schroeder in 1923 (ed. mai., appendix, p. 507).

¹⁵ I say ‘essentially’: V has also shuffled the wordorder at the beginning and has a different (and untypical) verb, in place of . One might guess that this happened at the same time as the deletion of οθ′; if so, the loss of δέ is perhaps most likely to be part of the same rewriting.

¹⁶ Samos, Hdt. iii 142. 2; Plataia, n. 39 below; Syracuse, n. 20 below. For other cults see Jessen, , R.E. v 2348–50Google Scholar.

¹⁷ P. i 47–52 .

¹⁸ Those who in the nineteenth century misdated the Pythiads (see above, n. 12) put the ode soon after the Olympiad of 472; but they supposed the defeat of Thrasydaios to have happened earlier in the same year, and so were operating with the same historical situation as those who put the ode in 470.

¹⁹ Diod. xi 68. 1–2 .

²⁰ Democracy and Zeus Eleutherios appear in Diodoros (xi 72. 2) under the year 463/2, but as antecedents of the events ascribed to that year; there can be no doubt that they belong immediately after the capitulation (for which time democracy is at least implicit in xi 68. 6, cited below, n. 30).

²¹ Diod. xi 68. 5 . By Diodoros ought to mean the Sicilian cities in general, and not merely the tyrannized or garrisoned ones (if these were meant, one would expect ); but I put no great trust in his linguistic precision.

²² Diod. xi 76. 4 .

²³ Under 459/8 only a brief mention (xi 78. 5) of the capture by the Sikel leader Douketios of the small inland city of Morgantina; thereafter no Sicilian events until 454/3 (xi 86).

²⁴ The only event for whose date we have any control is the refounding of Kamarina, and the control is pretty vague. Psaumis of Kamarina, who won with the chariot at Olympia in 452, won at an earlier Olympiad a victory with the mule-car celebrated in Olympians iv [sic: 11 ] and v, and the refounding was then still recent: iv 11–12 , v 8 , 13–14 the building of permanent houses still in rapid progress. The scholia have no date for the mule-car victory (the event was not included in the victorlists); they do in three places give the Olympiad in which Kamarina was refounded, but every time the figure is corrupt (sch. O. v 16 πέ′ = 440/36, 19a omitted, 19b μβ′ = 612/08). Another scholion (19d) affects to infer from certain premises that the mule-car victory was won at the 81st Olympiad, 456; as it stands the note is inconsequential, but it could be made at least partly consequential if one assumed the loss of a premise ‘Kamarina was refounded in the 80th Olympiad' (π′ = 460/56), and the assumption is encouraged by the fact that the note is part of the comment on 8 .

²⁵ A papyrus fragment (P. Oxy. 665 = F.Gr.Hist. 577 F. 1) provides a tantalizing scrap of evidence for this period of confusion: part of a list of the contents of some historical work (Philistos?) which described various battles between Sicilian cities and the ξένοι (or in one case between the cities themselves).

²⁶ I do not know what control Hieron may have exercised over this far western city.

²⁷ I assume here that the emissaries of the Syracusan insurgents were dealing with established governments: this is what Diodoros's language (n. 19 above) would naturally suggest. But I suppose we must reckon with the possibility that they were dealing with fellow revolutionaries, and that there was some sort of coup in these cities before help was sent.

²⁸ If we are to trust Diodoros (xi 49.4, cited above, n. 4) there was no split between the original citizens and Theron's new citizens of c. 476.

²⁹ We have of course no evidence for the way in which odes were normally commissioned. But the difficulty of written communication (if nothing else) would make personal contact desirable, and the obvious occasion for this would be at the games themselves; I should be surprised if Pindar did not make a practice of attending the Olympic and Pythian festivals with this as one of his motives for attending. Our ode is one of two commissioned after a victory at the Pythiad of 466 (the other is Olympian ix, for Epharmostos of Opous).

³⁰ The consistency continues thereafter: after relating the fall of Thrasyboulos, Diodoros goes on (xi 68. 6, still under 466/5) ; he records the beginning of Dionysios's tyranny under 406/5 (xiii 96. 4) and his death under 368/7 (xv 73. 5), and in each place gives the duration of his tyranny as 38 years. All this tallies; except that I do not know why the ϲχεδόν (I suppose ‘approximately’ rather than ‘nearly’).

³¹ under 478/7 (F.Gr.Hist. 239, A 53): Gelon by error for Hieron? But then under 472/1 (A 55), which was right in the middle of his tyranny: so much muddle here that the confirmation of 478/7 is at best very uncertain.

³² Constantly, but not consistently: Gomme, , A historical commentary on Thucydides i pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

³³ There can be no doubt that the ode was performed at Himera, and not at the festival at Delphi: it is an ode not for a Pythian victory but for Himera and Ergoteles's whole career. Nor was this little masterpiece dashed off (and taught to the singers) in a day or two, in the intervals of a congested social and religious programme.

³⁴ Most probably, I think, Diodoros: a man who is hesitating between an exact ‘ten years and eight months’ and an approximate ‘eleven years’ might easily confuse himself into writing ‘eleven years and eight months’.

³⁵ I do not think one can infer from Aristotle's language (no ‘died in the eleventh’ for Hieron) that he intended Hieron's rule to have lasted an exact ten years. In full it would have been ; for brevity and variety he omitted ‘died in the eleventh’ for Hieron and ‘after ruling for ten months’ for Thrasyboulos. If Gelon died fairly early in his eighth year the total could be well under nineteen years: say Gelon 7 years 2 months, Hieron 10 years 8 months, Thrasyboulos 10 months; total 18 years 8 months, which Aristotle could then (neglecting tke fraction) give as ‘eighteen years’.

³⁶ Griechische Geschichte, 1st ed., i (1893) 445Google Scholar, n. 2. In his second edition he abandoned the suggestion.

³⁷ It may be that the same use is behind the mistake in sch. O. vi 165: that the original note had in the sense of ‘Hieron's dynasty’, and that the Ἱέρωνοϲ of the scholion is due to someone who misunderstood this as meaning ‘Hieron’.

³⁸ I suppose the same facts to be behind the note in sch. inscr. b (BCDEQ): Ergoteles, leaving Knossos as a result of ϲτάϲιϲ, came to Himera, This is part of the same note in V that we have seen to have been arbitrarily rewritten where it deals with Ergoteles's dates (p. 28 with n. 15), and I suppose there to have been similar arbitrary rewriting here (perhaps with subsequent corruption). I take the last words to derive from a statement of the same facts as in A's (1a) , with the ‘victory’ that of 466 and the ‘peace’ that which supervened on ( Drachmann) the overthrow of the Deinomenidai. What I expect before this is a reference to the events which culminated in that overthrow; what we have is extraordinary stuff: if there was ever ϲτάϲιϲ between Gelon and Hieron (sch. P. i 87 ) it would be described here very oddly (with πρόϲ), it will not have been pan-Sicilian (Himera in particular owed no allegiance yet to Syracuse), and it was never relevant to Ergoteles if he came to Himera in 476 with Gelon two years dead. It may be that our man has muddle-headedly thrown back (with, ) to the time of Ergoteles's arrival some reference to the revolution against the Deinomenidai, and in so doing has garbled it: πρόϲ (whatever he means by it) out of sheer incomprehension of the facts, Gelon by what confusion I know not (perhaps by an over-confident expansion of ‘the Deinomenidai’).

³⁹ Plut. Arist. 20. 4, 21. 1; Str. ix 2. 31 = p. 412; Paus. ix 2. 5.

⁴⁰ Marconi, P., Himera 53Google Scholar. His date of 470–460 is based on the style of the lion-head rain-spouts; from what can be told of the structure of the temple itself he puts the beginning of the work in the first quarter of the fifth century, and his more precise suggestion of ‘around 480’ seems to be based only on guesswork (‘presumibilmente’) about the length of time likely to have been taken over the building.

⁴¹ Marconi, op. cit. 164–5 (he makes no conjecture about the deity to whom the temple was dedicated; ‘perhaps to Zeus Eleutherios’ Dunbabin, , The western Greeks 429Google Scholar). The peace terms are given by Diodoros (xi 26. 2) as follows (the subject is Gelon): . I should have guessed myself that the temples were to be at Syracuse and Akragas: one text of the treaty for each of the two allied powers.

⁴² Himera was one of the four cities who between them sent ships and troops to the Syracusan insurgents (see above, n. 19); I like to think (but have no means of proving) that she herself sent both.