Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:30:04.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theopompos and Athenian lies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Raphael Sealey
Raphael Sealey
Affiliation:
Queen Mary College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the end of book X of the Philippika Theopompos gave a digression on die Athenian demagogues. In book XXV he gave a digression on Athenian lies. This, which may have been a shorter digression, specified two lies and questioned the accepted account of the battle of Marathon; perhaps Theopompos discussed these problems alone in full and contented himself with a general reference to other lies. One lie was the oath allegedly taken by the Greeks before the battle of Plataea; today many people believe, with Theopompos, that this oath was not authentic. The other lie was the peace of Callias. Today some people believe, against Theopompos, that the peace was authentic. It is not always easy to discover their reasons. Some of them claim to produce nebulous allusions to the peace from the text of Thucydides. This search in Thucydides for references to the peace is not likely to carry conviction; it simply draws attention to the silence of Thucydides about the peace in his account of the Pentecontaetia. In fact the positive evidence for the peace is flimsy, but there is one good reason for believing in the peace; that is the fact that no major fighting is recorded between Persia and the Delian League after 450. Whether this outweighs the reasons against authenticity is a question for judgement.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 80 , November 1960 , pp. 194 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1960

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 F. Gr. Hist. II F 115 F 153–5.

2 Thus Gomme, A. W. (JHS 1 (1930) 105–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Commentary on Thucydides i 332) on Thuc. viii 56.4 (but what hindered the king from sailing round Asia Minor might be Greek ships, not a treaty), and A. Andrewes (in a forthcoming article) on Thuc. viii 58.2.

3 Historia viii (1959) 61–79.

4 Theop. F 154; Krateros in Plut. Cim. 13.5.

5 Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions 204.Google Scholar

6 Harrison, A. R. W., JHS lxxv (1955) 27–9.Google Scholar

7 Leokr. 80–1.

8 Diod. xi 29.2–3.

9 For the distinction see Historia iii (1955) 325–33. The explanation offered there of the peculiarities of the later two tribute-lists of the second assessment-period is, as far as I know, the only hypothesis which explains all the peculiarities, including the similarity of arrangement in the lowest list on the obverse of the first stele and in the first half of the list on the right lateral face. The objection raised by Woodhead, A. G. (SEG xiv (1957) 5Google Scholar) does not take sufficient account of the position occupied by the ‘southeastern group’ in List 5. Accordingly, the space at the top of the reverse of the first stele is an adequate reason for regarding 447/6 as the year for which no tribute was recorded. This in turn tells against the peace of Callias.

10 Tertull. de an. 52.