A Historical Commentary on Thucydides I

249 Pages·1945·35.711 MB·English, Greek

by  Gomme, A. W.

A
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY
ON
THUCYDIDES
BY
A. W. GOMME
LECTURERIN GREEKAND GREEK HISTORY
UNIVERSITY 0FGLASGOW
VOLUME I
Introduction and Commentary
on Book I
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
‘945
I
PREFACE
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
uis work is planned to be in three volumes. The first contains ~a
AMEN HOUSE, E.C. 4
LondonEdinburghGlasgowNewYork ~neral Introduction and Cornmentary on Bk. j;, the second is in-
TorontoMeClbaolcuurntteaCMaapdertaoswnBombay - I to cover the Archidamian war (i.e. ii. I to V. 25); the third
~ rest. It was inevitable that the commentary on the flrst book
HUMPEREY MILFORD
PUBLISIIER70TREUNIVERSST~! should be longer than that on any other; not only is the scope so
much wider, but (in consequence) much of the subject-matter is
4ealtwithbyThucydidesinasummarymanner, andneedstherefore
the more comment; for the fuiler his.narrative, the less comment is
required.
I have tried to keep aiways in mmd that this is acommentary on
~ Thucydides, not ahistory of Greece. I do not mean that I havenot
~ ailowed myseif an occasional digression; but it is Thucydides’ owx~
~ narrativethathas,orshonldhave,determinedtheshapeofthework.
~ This wffl, if I have done my work properly, explain not only the
~ relative length of the various notes, but also, in some cases, the
~ placeswheretheyarefound;anoteonAthenianfinancialdocuments,
for example, including the Kaffias decree, wiil be found in the
commentary on ii. 13, where Thucydides says most about war
~ finance, not on any of the passages in bk. i where he briefly ailudes
to it.
c~rTH.
~ I cannot of course daim to have mastered, or even to have read,
ailthebooks andarticleswhichmodemscholarshavewrittenonmy
~,
~: subject. In spite of the invaluable volumes of Bursian and Marou
~ zeau, there must be much which I have missed, though I hope the
value ofthe workhas notbeen greatlyimpaired. I hope also I have
rememberedwhenaviewwhichI support isowedtoanother. 0fthe
manyeclitorsofThucydidesIammostconsciousofmydebttoStabi,
who nearly aiways saw the problem, even if he did not solve it; of
historianstoBusoit: not onlythe ail-embracingnotes, butthesober,
if uninspiring, judgement of the narrative, makes Busolt’s history
stili the most valuable help to the student. 0f other scholars, most
of them contemporaries, I owe most to the epigraphists, Wilhelm,
Huer, Kirchner, Tod, and, above ail, the great American school; it
isdifficuittoimaginewhatthehistorian’staskwoi.ildbelikewithout
their help, particularlyforonewhohasnothimselfhadmuchoppor
tunity for studying inscriptions directly. I sometinies differ from
~ their historical conclusions, for it is the business of the historian to
use his judgement on the evidence; but they will approve the
principle, forno othergroup ofscholarshavesoweilshownthatrare
virtue, of changing their own views when new evidence or new
PRINTED IN GREATBRITAIN examin~tion of old has shown the change to be needed.
a3 V
PREFACE
Owing to the war I have seen no continental books or periodicals
later than the summer of 1939, and byno meansail American work
sincetheendofthat year—not, for example, Finley’s Thucydùies— CONTENTS
somegapsthereforewiilprobablybevisibleinthiscommentary;but
ithasbeenthoughtbettertoproceedwiththepublicationratherthan LIST 0F MAPS
.
to wait for a vain attempt at completeness. This is, practically, a
1939 book. BIBLIOGRAPHY 0F SHORT TITLES
.
The business of proof-correcting and checking of references has
INTRODUCTION
. . .
been mademore onerousthanitmighthavebeen bywar conditions;
. .
~but in this and in the making of the index I have received much I. WHAT THUCYDIDES TAKES FOR GRANTED I
-
help in clifficuit circumstances from Mr. Stavros Papastavru, to A. HIs PREDECESSORS
whom I must here express my gratitude. Some of the travel and Note on Chronology.
of the leisure necessary for the writing of the book were made B. GENERAL EcoNoMIc CONDITIONS . 2
possible by the generous grant of a Fellowship by the Leverhulme C. CONDITIONS o~WARFARE g
Trusteesand the equailygenerous grant of a year’sleaveof absence
- .
by the University of Glasgow. D. CONSTITUTIONAL PI~cTIcE 24
The maps I again owe to my wife.
II. THUCYDIDES’ SELF-IMPOSED LIMITATIONS
A.W.G.
His Silence onhis own Sources . . . 25
Nov. ‘944 28
III. SOURCES OTHER THAN THUCYDIDES
• 29
A. CONTEMPORARY HISTORIANS . 29
B. ONFICIALDOCUMENTS . • 30
C. UNOFFIcIAL DOCUMENTS
35
D. LATERWRITERS . 39
j. The Researchers
. • 4’
u. The Others
. . • 44
IV. PRINCIPLES 0FHISTORICAL CRITICISM. 84
COMMENTARY
. • 8g
ADDENDA . • 468
INDEXES . . • 469
i. General . • 469
2. Authors, andpassages discussed 475
3. Greek . . . 479
BIBLIOGRAPHY 0F SHORT TITLES
LIST 0F MAPS
i. Toillustratethe Kerkyracampaigns . .facingp. 196 Arnold = T. Arnold, Thucydides, with notes, etc. 3rd ed. Oxford, 1847.
Aih. Ass. B. D. Meritt and A. B. West, The Athenian Assessmentof
= 425 2.0.
2. OlynthosandPoteidaja . . . . facingp. ~o University ofMichigan Press, 1934.
Ath. Studies Athenian Studiespresented to W. S. Ferguson. Harvard Studies
=
3. ToillustratethePoteidaiacanapaign - .facing~‘. 222 A.T.iLn.ClasTshicealAPthheinoilaongyT,riSbuutpeplLeumise,ntbayryBV.oDlu.mMeejr,it1t,94H0.. T. Wade-Gery, and
=
4. Greece aie-ml M. F. McGregor, vol. j. Cambridge, Mass., 1939.
. . . . . . Beloch K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte. 2nd ed. Strassburg, and Berlin
=
and Leipzig, 1912—27.
Bi3hme Widmann, below.
=
Bruns I. Bruns, Das literarische Portrc~t de-r Griechen. Berlin, 1896.
=
Bursian = (a) C. Bursian, Geographie u. Griechenland. Leipzig, 1862—72. (b)
BursiansJahresbericht.
Busolt G. Busolt, Griechische Geschichte. ~ vols. Gotha, 1893—1904. (Vols. i
=
and ii, 2nd ed.)
Busolt—Swoboda G. Busoit, ‘Griechische Staatskunde’, in Mtïller’s Handbuch
=
(vol.ii, editedbyH. Swoboda). 2vols. Munich, 1920—6.
C.A.H. = Cambridge Ancient History, vols, i—vi. Cambridge, 1923—7.
Classen J. Classen, Thukydides. See Steup, below.
=
Croiset A. Croiset, Thucydide, Livres i—ii. Paris, i886.
=
Delachaux = A. Delachaux, Notes critiques sur Thucydide. Neuchâtel, 1925.
Demiaficzuk = J. Demiauiczuk, Supplemenium Comicum. Cracow, 1912.
Diels—Kranz H.Diels,DieFragmente der Vorsokratiker, 5th ed. byW.Kranz.
=
Berlin, 1934.
F. Gr. Hist.’ Jacoby (i), below.
F.H.G.’ Millier, below.
=
Forbes W. H. Forbes, Thucydides Book I, Oxford, 1895.
=
Gomme, Essays A. W. Gomme, Essays in Greek History and Lite-rature.
=
Oxford, Blackwell, 1937.
Grosskinsky = A. Grosskinsky, Das Programm des Thukydides. Berlin, 1936.
Grote = G. Grote,HistoryofGreece. 10vols. London, i888.
Grundy G. B. Grundy, Thucydides and the History of his Age. London,
=
1911.
R. and H. E. L. Hicks and G. F. Hill, A Manual ofGreekHistorical Inscrip-’
=
lions. Oxford, 1901.
Head = B. V. Head, Historia Numorum. 2nd ed. Oxford, 1911.
Hirzel = R. Hirzel, Plutarck. Leipzig, 1912.
Rude C. Rude, Thucydidis Historiae. Leipzig, 1898—1901; id., ed. Teubner.
Leipzig, 1908—13.
Jacoby (r) F. Jacoby, DieFragmente de-rgriechischenHistoriker. i—ii, Berlin,
=
1923—30; iii A. Leyden, 1940.
In the second Index I have given under the naine of each ‘lost’ historian the
reference to the edition of hisfragmenta in F.H.G. or F.Gr.Hisi., or elsewhere. The
single letter ‘F.’ is used in the enumeration of fragments in the latter, ‘fr.’ in the
former.
ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY 0F SHORT TITLES BIBLIOGRAPHY 0F SHORT TITLES
Jacogbryap(h2i)e=unFd. dJeancoPblya,n‘eUienbeerrneduieenESnatwmimckiulunnggdedrergrgierciehcishcishcehnenHiHstiostroikreior Stahail=terJa.eMt t.erStiata,hqi,uaTshuacuyxditideist elimbreindoactvoi.t JE.xMp.laSn.avLietipEz.ig,F.i88Pz—op8p.o. Ed.
fragmente’. Kiio, iX, 2909, 8o—123. Steup = J. Steup, Thukydides erklàrt von J. Classen, bearbeitet von J. S.
Judeich=W.Judeich,‘Topographiev.Athen’,inMUller’sHandbuch.Munich,i93ï. 3rdto~thed. Berlin, 5900-22.
Kalinka = E. Kalinka, Die Pseudoxenophonti~che ‘AO’qva(wv Ho)~i~eta. Leipzig Stuart Jones = Thucydidis Historiae. Oxford, 1898.
and Berlin, 59X3. Tod = M. N. Tod, A Seiection ofGreek Historical Inscriptions to the end ofthe
Kirchner, P.A. = J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. Berlin, 1901—3. F~flhCentury2.0. Oxford, 1933.
Kock = Th. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta. Leipzig, i88o-8. Uxkull = W. GrafUxkull-Gyllenband, Piutarch und diegriechische Biographie.
Kôster (i) A. Kôster, ‘Das Seekriegswesen bei den Griechen’, in MiïIler’s Stuttgart,2927.
Handbuch, iv. 5. 2 (Kromayer und Veith, ‘Heerwesen der Griechen u. Weizsâcker = A. Weizsàcker, Untersuchungen i.~ber Piutarchs biographisehe
Rômer’),2928, pp. 263—208. Technik. Berlin, 1931.
Kôster (2) = A. Kôster,Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Seewesens’. Kiio, Widmann S. Widmann, Thukydides, erkll~rt von G. Bôhme; besorgt von
Beiheft 32, 2934. S.W. ~thto6thed. Leipzig,2894.
L. and S. Liddell and Scott, Greek-EngiishLexicon. New edition, revised by Wilamowitz (i) U.y.Wilamowitz-Moellendorf,Aristoteiesund Athen. Berlin.
=
H. Stuart Jones. Oxford, 1925—40. 1893.
Leake = W. M. Leake: (i) The Topography of Athens. London, 1841. (2) Wilamowitz (2) = Id., Greek Historical Writing. Oxford, 19o8.
TraveisintheMorea. London, 2830. (~) TravelsinNorthernGreeee. London,
1835.
Leo = F. Leo, Diegriechisch-rcYmische Biographie. Leipzig, 1901.
Lipsius J. H. Lipsius, Das attisehe Recht und Rechtsverfahren. Leipzig,
=
1905—15.
Meineke = A. Meineke, Fragmenta Comicorum Graecorum. Berlin, 1839—57.
Meritt, A.F.D. B. D. Meritt, Athenian Financial Documents of the Fefth
=
Century. Univ. ofMichiganPress, 1932.
Meritt, Ath. Cal. B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Caiendar in the Fzfth Century.
=
Harvard University Press, 2928.
Meritt, D.A.T. B. D. Meritt, Documents on Athenian Tribute. Harvard
=
University Press, 5937. See also A.T.L., Ath. Ass.
Meyer (i) = E. Meyer,.Geschichtedes Altertums. Vols. iii (2nd ed.) and iv (3rd
ed.: known as iv? i). Stuttgart, 5937—9.
Meyer(2) = E. Meyer,ForschungenzuraltenGeschichte. 2vols. Halle, 1892—9.
Mi~l1er C. andTh. Mt~lIer, FragmentaHistoricorumGraecorum. 5 vols. Paris,
=
1841—85.
Nesseihauf H. Nesselhauf, ‘Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der delisch
=
attischen Symmachie’. Klio, Beiheft 30, 2933.
P.A. Kirchner, above.
=
Phiippson = A. Phiippson, Der Peloponnes. Berlin, 1891—2.
Pohlenz M. Pohlenz, ‘Thukydidesstudien’. Nachr. Ges. Wiss. zu Gôttingen,
=
1919, pp. 95—238, 2920, pp. 56—82.
Poppo = E. F. Poppo, Thucydidis iibii octo. r, vols. Leipzig, 582,—40.
Powell= ThucydidisHistoriae,recognovitH.StuartJones(2nd.ed.).Oxford,1942.
Ps.-Xen. [Xenophon], ‘AO~jvatwv Ho’wreia.
=
R.E. = Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencyclopadie. Stuttgart, 1893—.
Ros Jan Ros, S.J., Die METAB04H (Variatio) ais Stiiprinzip des Thuky
=
dides. Paderbom, 1938.
Schmid—Stôhlin W. Schmid and O. Stàhlin, Geschichte der griechischen
=
Literatur. Munich. 1920—34.
Schwartz = E. Schwartz, Das Geschichtswerk des Thuhydides. Bonn, 1919.
Shilleto = R. Shilleto, Thucydidis I et II. Cambridge, 2872—80.
xi
X
INTRODUCTION
A HISTORICAL commentary on a historian must necessarily derive
from two sources, a proper understanding of his own words, and
what we can leam from other authorities. The first needs no com
ment; the second needs a long one, and it is the purpose of this
introduction to supply it. As we are dealing with Thucydides, not
anyone else, our other authorities serve rather to supplement than
to correct him; our first need therefore is to see what gaps there
are in his narrative, our second to examine themeans offilling these
gaps. My introduction is therefore divisible into two parts, What
Thucydides does not ~eZl us and An examination of other sources of
information. Theformerincludesbothwhathedeliberatelyomitted,
in accordance with his self-imposed limitations, and what he takes
for granted—for example, the work of his predecessors in historio
graphy, normal economic conditions, and normal conditions of
land- and sea-warfare. It will readily be seen that this flrst part of
the introduction should be, like most introductions to editions of
classical authors, an appendix; for it implies that the author has
already been studied. But here this is unavoidable; for the second
part, the examination of other sources, depends for its relevance on
the first, andthroughout the commentaryan acquaintance with this
second part is assumed.
I. WHAT THUCYDIDES TAKES FOR GRANTED~
A. THE WORK 0F HIS PREDECESSORS. WITH A NOTE ON
CHRONOLOGY
Thucydides assumes in his readers a knowledge both of the epic
and of the work of his chief predecessors in prose, especially of
Herodotos and otherswho wrote about the past up to andincluding
-
thePersianwars (i. 97. whenhefeelsthatanexcursusisnecessary
2);
to explain the periodbefore that ofhis own history, hebeginswhere
Herodotos left off, paying him the tribute which was more clearly
andsplendidlypaidtoThucydideshimselfbyKratippos, Xenophon,
and Theopompos; that he thought this and not a longer excursus
necessary is evidence that he did flot wish to rewrite in essentials
the story of the Persian war.2 There is no need for anything to be
See Forbes,pp. ciiif.
“In jedem Falle hat er Herodot fortgesetzt, Hellanikos aber ersetzt
Z
unddurchdiesesErsatzsttickdieVerbindungzwischendemHerodoteischenund
dem eigenen Werkehergestelit, wie Herodot selbst durch den Exkurs in seinem
Prooimion (llepo&,w ~L€’V vvv . . . ØOIVLK€Ç ?Le’yovcYL, C. 5) die Verbindung mit den
Genealogien gesucht hat” Jacoby (2), 100. 2.
4325 B I
INTRODUCTION WHAT THUCYDIDES TAKES FOR GRANTED
M~rncLKtL, could be given in chronicle form. This valuable work
said here about these predecessors, the ~oyoyp~ç~o~’ except in one
was continued throughout the fourth century; but much of it had
branch of their work, chronology; for this was developed after
already been done before Thucydides had completed his history of
Herodotos and before Thucydides. Or at ieast, if the dates of the
the Archidamian war (wheneverthat was), above ail, the A~this, the
earliest chronologists àre uncertain, and some of them may have
Priestesses of Hera at Argos, and the Victors at the Karneia by
published before Herodotos, they did not influence him;2 he re
Heilanikos, and perhaps the Olympic Victors by Hippias. And it
mained unconcerned about dates, and this is one of the great differ
should be added that whereas the great majority of such chronicles,
ences between hirn and Thucydides. The latter takes for granted
the necessity for an accurate chronology, and can dispute about the the ‘A-rOts-, M~À’qcJLaKcL, cipot Aa~baK’qvot, were local, and their
Heilenic importance depended on the relative importance of the
best method of obtaining it (y. 20; cf. î. 97. 2).
states, others, such as the Olympic Victors and the Priestesses of
There had indeed been concern with chronologylong before Hero
Hera, were panheilenic in their range. Thucydides both criticizes
dotos at the hands of Hekataios and the genealogists; one of whose
principal tasks it had been, in bringing order out of the chaos of (y. 20) and uses this method of chronology (ii. 2. I and y. 19. I,
different local and family traditions, to fix roughly the dates, by Athenian archons and Spartan ephors; ii. 2. i and iv. 533. 2—3,
priestesses of Hera at Argos, both for a Hellenic and for a local
generations, of the heroic age; and the influence of this work is to
event); it was therefore established or beginning to be established
beseeninHerodotos, aswhenhegivesindetailtheLydiandynasties
in his day.’
(ofwhich the llrst descended from Herakies, and so must fit in with
His criticism is pointed and interesting, though, like most ofhis
the date of Herakles in Greece), and criticizes the Greek genealogies
particular criticisms, it is somewhat captions and pedantic in tone;
in the light of Egyptian records; and in Thucydides, when he gives
andit is obscure in expression and saysless than it should (he is not
the intervals between the Trojan war and the Boeotian and Dorian
giving a full account of his own method).’ He expresses clearly only
migrations (i. 12. 3). This work, however arbitrary in detail, had
one weakness of dating by priests or magistrates: that this does not
established something like a chronological canon; but more im
further specify in what part of a year an event happened; so that,
portantforhistorywasthepublicationinliteraryformoftheannals,
for the problem which he is discussing at the moment, the exact
~poi~, of various states. Officiai lists, of magistrates, priests, victors
length of the Archidamian war, it would be inaccurate to say ‘it
in the festival games, had been preserved; and their publication
helped the construction of the indispensable chronological frame
HerodotosonceusestheAthenianarchonforadate—viii.51.I,thearrivaiof
work for history—most of the magistrates were annual, as the XerxesinAttica,threemonthsaftertheHeliesponthadbeencrossed, Ka»,a’8ew
archons of Athens and the ephors of Sparta, and the festivals were a’~p~ovTor ‘AO~vaioLae. No Atthis had (so far as we know) been published when
either annuai or at flxed intervals; where the tenure of office was Herodotos wrote,and this datingisunique; heisflotusingan Aithis; so “dieses
Datum des Persereinfailes haftete im GedàchtnisnichtzwarderMenschen, aber
forlife, aswiththeSpartankingsorthepriestesses ofHeraatArgos,
derAthener. Von ihren ~o’yto~a~v~peç hat Herodot den Namen erfahren und hat
the number of years of tenure in each case was preserved. Events ihn aufgenommen in das Manuskript des ursprtingiich wohl fur Athen be
couldnowbe accurately dated, especially bythe annualmagistrates stimmten Vortrages. Er hat ihn, ais er spàterseinft~raileGriechenbestimmtes
who, in most cases, gave their names to the years (like the consuls Werkaus denvorhandenenMyo~componierte, stehen lassen, ohnezubedenken,
in Roman fasti); and a summary history of a state, an ‘A-r~31s~ or dass er den meisten semer Leser nichts bedeutete, wenn nicht der Abstand bis
aufdie Gegenwartin t~n~ ~ç 4te’angegebenwerde” (Jacoby (2), p. 117). I would
For the name see i. 21. x n.; for an account of io’rapk before Thucydides only modify this by saying that the archon’s name was preserved not in the
see Jacoby (2), and now, for four of the predecessors, Hekataios, Xanthos, memory of Athenians but in the record, even if the record had not been pub
Charon, and Hellanikos, Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (1939). Cf. too lished in book form; it was, that is to say, a true date; and I doubt whether
Gisinger, art. ‘Geographie’,R.E. Supplb. iv. a public reading in Athens ofpart of the History had anything to do with the
According toWilamowitz (2), p. 6, he consciousiyturnedbisback on them. mention of it (even Athenians did flot carry iists of archons in their heads:
Jacoby(2),“3—54,thinkstheirworkappearedtoolatetoaffectbim. Probabiiity Plat. Hipp. mai. 285a). But Herodotos perhaps inserts konlytogivegreater
seems on the whole to be against Jacoby; but I wouid flot judge Herodotos emphasis to so capital an event.
as Wilamowitz does. Rather he was unaware ofthe relevance of such chrono Ido flot think iii. 59. 4, lTpo’repoi yap L’cu~to, ~r’ ‘A~ç~u~pa’i-eor i9acr~Àev’ovrorE’V
logical research to his purposes. He was flot writing a systematic history of 2M$Lc~, arpaTeVaducvo, lir’ A~ywav ,c.r.1.,quite onailfourswithviii. 51. i (Jacoby,
Greece, but of the Persian wars only (for which he does attempt an internai ibid.). The name ofAmphikrates may well have been preserved in the memory
chronoiogy; and perhaps bis one officiai date—see below, p. 3, n. i—is a haif of Samians; for as king he probabiy led the expedition—he was a personaiity,
hearted attempt at relative chronology too), together with a description of the asKaliiadeswasnot. ~~ir’ ‘A~ç~ucpa’-rcoç flcw~~€ttowror isflotonlyadate.
great empire wbich had expanded so greatly and so rapidly as at last to attack 2 For the detaiied discussion ofthe passage see notes ad lot. Cf. Jacoby (2),
Greece: earlier GreekbistoryinHerodotosis onlyincidentaitothemain theme. 123n.; and West,C.P. XX, 1925, 219—20.
2 3
WHAT THUCYDIDES TARES FOR GRANTED
INTRODUCTION
pedition (xiii. 2. i) and probably with Kimon’s to Cyprus (xii. 3).
lasted from the archonship of Pythodoros to that of Alkaios’, or
On the other hand, lie makes one campaign and therefore only one
‘from the ephorate of Ainesias to that of Pleistolas’, or ‘from the
archonship for the Samian war (xii. 27—8), when it covered two;
48th year of the priesthood of Chrysis to the first of her successor’,
whuielie dates thebatties ofTanagra and Oinophytaintwo different
for that might mean anything from nearly eleven years (if the war
archonships (458—457 and457—456), and thereforein different consular
began early in Pythodoros and ended late in Aikaios) to littie over
years and different campaigningseasons (xi. 8o, 81); the former may
nineyears (ifitbeganlateinPythodorosandendedearlyinAlkaios).
weilberiglit (thebattiesmayhavebeenfoughtin JuneandAugust),
This may seem obvious, and a weakness that could easily be cor
the latter is wrong.’
rected in any full narrative of events; at the same time it must be
And this is not quite the end. No Greek state used a reasonable
remembered that even for the recent past, the archons’ names were
calendar; ail used the lunar year of 354 days, and had every now
often ail that a historian had for dating: so that if for &cinoL Tplrqi and again to intercalate months of 30 days to bring back the officiai
~TE(~ ~T0?iWpKOV’jÂEV0I~ (i. lOI. 3) the only authority were the three into rough harmony with the soiar year; and though a neariy
archons at Athens—LysitheOS, Archedemides, and Tiepolemos—it
accurate cycle of nineteen years (= 235 lunations) was then known
remained quite uncertain whether the siege lasted fourteen or
to astronomers, it was not officiaily adopted and the intercalation
thirty-four months.
was not systematic and was made at clifferent times in the severai
Thucydides implies another weakness: Tiiv JKauraxo~ ~ states; so that not only might one archon-year at Athens differ
TWV ~ &1T~l TL(Lf)S TLV~ E’S~ T& iTpoy€yEv’IflLE’VŒ cx7)~LaLvo’vTwv. These magi from the next by as much as days, and no archon took office
30
strates and priests were local, unknown and of littie significance
on the same day of the solar year as lis predecessor, but an
outside their own states; and he is writing, of course, for the whole
‘equated’ year of archon and ephor might also differ by the same
Greek world. (Later, the Athenian archons were adopted as one
amount.2
means of dating ail Greek history; but a long time was to elapse
It wiil thus readily be seen why Thucydides rejected such a
before that happened.) Even where, as with the Priestesses ofHera,
calendar for lis chronology. In the narrative of a war, with its
their years were used for panhellenic dating and Heilanikos had
‘naturai’ campaigning seasons, he needed a ‘naturai’, that is, the
recently 50 published the record, the names of the priestesses had soiar year; and this is in effect what lie uses. ~Aj.co~ ~ &pxo~2E’vqJ
littiemeaningfor the rest of Greece. Only thekings of Spartamight
and ul-rov give neariy the same dates for every year,
TOv~ &sç~i~ovToç
have had a panheilenic significance. Attempts could be, and had
and for most parts of Greece, andwere aiways the same for miitary
alreadybeen made by Heilanikos, to equate the dates ofmagistrates
purposes; the ‘first ofAnthesterion’ and ‘the tenth day ofthe eighth
of different states (cf. Thuc. ii. r); but this, necessary as it was
2. month of X.’s archonship’, besides being local to Athens (for the
for a chronicle, would be absurdly clumsy in a narrative history,
names of the months, and even, sometimes, the dates within the
and even so was insufficient; for magistrates in different states did.
not take office at the same time—their years did not coincide, and months ofofficestiitorun,andtheinvasion ofAttica,the truebeginningofthe
Peloponnesian war, was 8o days later, therefore the war did begin in the next
confusion might resuit. This cari easily be seen from two examples
archonship, that of Euthydemos; for he narrates the attack on Plataia, as the
in Diodoros, who uses an equation not only of Athenian archons, firsteventofthewar (xii.41. 2),aisoinEuthydemos’ year.
who took office some time after midsummer, and Olympiads, which A smalier anomaly, but equally interesting because it is officiai, arising from
were also reckoned from about the same time—the date of the this equating of dissimilar years, is to be seen in Attic financiai documents
festival—but of Roman consuls, who took office in March, that is, O,{eritt, C.P. XXV, 1930, 241).
Seei. xo8, 112. 2—4, 115. 2nn. It wiil be observed that we cannot systemati
about the beginning of the campaigning season:’ he equates the
cally correct Diodoros from his own dates: we cannotsay,for exampie,thatan
consuls of 43’ B.C. with Euthydemos, archon from July [5, 431, to event which took place in the flrst haifofasoiar yearwiilalways beplaced by
July ~, ~o, and with Oiyrnpiad 87. 2, and therefore begins the himinthefollowingarchonship. Onthesystemwhichheadoptsfortheyear431,
Peloponnesian war in this archonship (xii. 38. r), though it actuaily he ought to have piaced both Tanagra and Oinophyta in the same archonship,
began, and everybody knew it began, in that of Pythodoros some tha2tTohfe4r5e7—w4a5s6.evSeenemfuorrtehecornbfeulsoiown,papt.A5th2—en3,s4i1n1T—h1u2c;yBdeidioecsh’,o~wn2.d2a1y2,.forthere
rnonths before? He does the same thing with the Syracusan ex were two officiai years, bouleutic and civil (see Meritt, Athen. Caiendar, and in
Hesp. y, 1936, 376—80); the former, with its ten prytanies, was practicaily
The ephors’ year at Sparta began in August/September, according to
equivaient to the solar year; but the archon held office by the oid lunar year.
Beloch,ii. 2. 270if. (acceptedbyLenschau,R.E.viA, 1937,2357). Themonths themselveshad got outoftime with themoon too, and people were
Z Diodorosdidflot,withthepresenttextofThuc. ii. 2. iand 19. ibeforehim, grumbling (Arist. Fac. 406—25, Nub. 625—26; Meritt, pp. 103—5).
argue that,sincetheattackonPlataiatookplacewhen Pythodoroshad buttwo
5
4
INTRODUCTION WHAT THUCYDIDES TAKES FOR GRANTED
Besides ail this, his method enabled him to adopt the simple
month, differed from state to state’), did not mean the same day
device of numbering the years of the war instead of naming them,
in every solar year, and so not in every mffitary year, and for both
and naming them in a ciumsy way by several eponymoi of different
reasons Thucydides dlid not use them. We may regret that he did
states. Numbering years was a device haif adopted by the Romans
not give this extra information as weli as his own indications of
season, for from inscriptions we have occasionally the officiai dating (A.U.C. togetherwith the consularnames), but, byoneofthecuriosi
ties of history, it long eluded the Greeks.
of a campaign, and we could equate the two; but we shouid not be
surprised. F.Gr.Hisi.~T~) isfollowingApollodoros, as Diels, R.M. xxxi, 1876, 47—54, and
Since we know that Hellanikos’ Atthis was based on archon-years Jacoby, Apollodors Chronik, ~~—5 and R.E. art. ‘Hellanikos’, believe, then one
and inciuded the Peioponnesianwar (F. Gr. Hist. ~ F. 171, 172), and who is by far our best authority said he was born in 496 and so died in 422 (for
hewassupposed tohavelived84years);andsuchdatesareingeneral supported
that it, or part of it, was already published when Thucydides wrote
by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, a respectable authority on authors’ dates, who
j. 97. 2 (see beiow, p. 362, n. 2), it is reasonable enough to suppose says he was a predecessor both of Thucydides and of Herodotos (F. Gr. Hist.
that at least the part that inciuded the Archidamian war was also ~T5, II—12). See aiso Rûhi, R.M. lxi. 2906, 473—6, who shows the nature ofthe
published when Thucydides wrote his criticism of the method in ‘combinaiSon’better. ThisevidenceisrejectedbecauseofF.272—2,whereevents
V. 20; whether anyone else had done the same we do not know.’ odaft4e0s7—fo4r06thaee5trhelacetendtu;raynadnJdatchoebyreiandsiinsetsssoonftlhaetearbwsernitceersoftoremliaabkieeubpiogcroamphbiicnaal
The form of such a chronicle by Heilanikos (who &Ee9’EL rà €‘1T~ ~of tions (e.g. Thucydides 40 years old at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
~eîva—F. 171) wouid have been somewhat as foilows (taking events a pureiy conventional figure for hisfloruit combined with the contemporary
mentioned by Thucydides, in his ‘sixth’ and ‘seventh’ year of the event which he related). This argument, however, does not help him. I agree
war): that there may weil have been no evidence (and that the 84 years of bis life
is probably a fiction); but if Apoliodoros, and before him Eratosthenes, and
In the archonship of Euthynos Demosthenes attacked the Dionysios had no independent evidence, but oniy what couid be got from
H
Aitolians and was defeated by them. With the Akarnanians he Hellanikos’ own writings, they wouid at once have conciuded from his Aithis
defeated the Amprakiotai and Peloponnesians at Olpai. Agis at that he was an exact contemporary of Thucydides—he too would have been
the head of the Peloponnesians invaded Attica. Athens sent an 40or30in43x;i.e. thefewerthefactsthemorelikeiyare theytohavemadehim
livefrom471toC.400(or387). ThatiswhatthechronoiogistsdidforThucydides:
expedition to Siciiy, and on its way Demosthenes occupied Pyios,
he was either 30 (because he was able to begin writing bis history) or 40 (the
and, defeating the Spartan fleet, cut off a force in Sphakteria. conventionalfloruit) in 431, so he was over 5o or over 6o when he died (see
Marceliinus)—because he says himself that he survived the end of the war.
In the archonship of Stratokies Sphakteria was captured by
It looks as though there was some good reason for thinking that Hellanikos’
Demosthenes and Kieon. Nikias invaded Corinth. The Athenian Atthis ended in 412 and that the later years were inciuded in a second edition
fleet arrived in Sidily. Nikias seized Kythera. publishedafterhisdeath (asinEphoros’ history, where bookxxxiscalledeither
bis or, more accurately, Demophiios’). Cf. Lehmann-Haupt, Klio, vi, 2906,
Such a method, even if every event is correctly dated by the archon
227—39.
and given in its proper order, not only lacks the proper accuracy— The question is an important one for Thucydides, for it affects the date at
for it was essentiai for the understanding of strategy to know at whichhewrote~. 97. 2,asweliasthat ofinfluencesat workonhim.
what season of the year a campaign was undertaken—but it could I Itmustberememberedthatanydatedeventwullserveforayeari,whether
uncertain, fictitious, or false: as the Fail of Troy, or the Foundation ofRome,
lead to confusion, for exampie, by combining in one year two differ or the Birth ofChrist. Thenearest the Greeks ofthe classicalperiod got to this
ent campaigns of Nikias, and by splitting up between two years was the clumsy four-year Olympiad; and that naturaily was not adopted by
a single campaign, that of Pylos. Thucydides, for the narrative of them for a generai chronology. After Alexander many new eras were begun
a war, must take the chronoiogicai method ‘naturai’ to it, from with a new year i; the Marmor Parium (beiow, p. 44) attempts a kind of
‘B.c.’ method, numbering, but numbering backwards from 264—263 B.c.; and
spring to spring of the ‘naturai’, that is, the soiar year.’
even so no one thought of combining this with the forward reckoning of a
See Plutarch, Arist. 29. 8—9. new era.
z A iist ofarchons, presumabiy officiai, was set up in the Agora C. 430—420, if Inthe sameway,forthechronoiogersitwasmoreimportant thatthearchon
thefragmentaryinscription,Hesp.viii, 2939,nO.22,was,asMerittthinks,partof iist (or Oiympic victor oranyotherlist) shouid befixed than thatit should also
such a list: and it is difficuit to see what else it could be. The six names in it betrue. If(letusassume),therewasareliabietraditionthatDrakon’slegisiation
belong to the twenties ofthe 6th century. was28yearsbeforeSolon’s,thenthestatementthatitwas J~’ 7p)(ovroç‘Apio’rai~.
I have above accepted, in deference to Jacoby (who is followed in this by uov was sufficient, provided that everybody meant by it the same thing, even
Pearson,pp. 253—5,whereagoodrésuméoftheevidencewillbefound), theview if Aristaichmos was not in fact the 28th archon before Soion; for it is oniy
that Hellanikos continued his Alihis to 407—406B.C., probabiy to the end ofthe intended to mean ‘28 years before Soion’, or ‘232 years before Marathon’; it
war; but I do flot feel certain about it. If Pamphila (as quoted by Gehlius: makesastatementaboutDrakon, flotaboutAristaichmos. Oniyifthetradition
7
6
1~
INTRODUCTION WHAT THUCYDIDES TAKES FOR GRANTED
This does not mean that Thucydides did not appreciate the value B. GENERALEcoNoMIc CONDITIONS
of the fixed tables of eponymous archons for the chronology of Thucyclides was well aware of th~ importance of the economic
earlier events.’ He must depend on it for his own dating of such factor in history. In his sketch of the early development of the
events as the first affiance between Athens and Plataia, the over Greek states in his opening chapters he lays more stress on it than
throw of the tyrants, the war with Thasos, and the Thirty Years’ on anything else, both in general (e.g. 2. 2—4, 7. ~) and for particular
Peace.’ When he wishes to date the opening of the Peloponnesian states, as Athens 5) and Corinth (x~. 5), and particular events, as
(2.
war and the close of its first part in relationship to the past and so the Trojan war (xx). But he does flot give a general survey of
also to the future (ii. 2. i and V. 39. x), to place the war, that is, in economic conditions in Greece in the last third of the fifth century,
the whole chronological scheme, he naturaily adopts the system because it would be familiar to his readers (it is a littie absurd to
which was then coming into use; for it was the only one known. complain, as we do by implication, that he did not foresee his
He was bound to do this, unless he was to use a new scheme of his modem readers, that he did flot foresee the course which European
own—a scheme adapted to past history as weil as to the war itself, history was to take after the conquests of Alexander and the
that is, unless the task he set himself as a historian was to be quite Romans as one resuit of which he was to become a ‘classical writer’
different from what it was. In dating the beginning of the war to in the modem sense); he does not describe the importance of the
Pythodoros, Ainesias, and the 48th year of Chrysis, he knew he independent smail-farmerclassinnearlyeveryGreekstate,especiaily
was placing it so many years after Salamis, so many after Solon, so in Athens, most of the Peloponnese, and Boeotia; of the large
many (perhaps) after the fail of Troy, and also so many before land-owners in Thessaly; of the presence of an indigenous serf-class
future events which men will desire to record.3 in Lakonia, Argos, and Thessaly, and its absence in Athens; of the
commercial and industrial development in Corinth, Athens, and
gave the archon’s name but flot the number of years intervening between
Syracuse, and the consequent great increase in the non-indigenous
Drakon and Solon, is it ofimportance for Drakon’s date whether Aristaichinos
is in his right place. On the other hand, the general history of ~th-century slave population and in the number of foreign free men, nor the
Athens is affected by the answer to this problem; for ifthe archon-list is not apparently peculiar conditions in a few states such as Chios and
historical, can we trust any account of events in that age? See n. on Kylon, Kerkyra with their large numbers of slaves—not serfs—working
1. 326. 12; A. R. Bum,J.H.S. lv, ‘935, pp. 343—4. on the land. He understood such things, and frequently mentions
The most convenient comparison of a dated and an undated narrative is
I economic factors which directly affected the conduct of the war
that between Herodotos’ account of the Peisistratidai (i. 59—64, y. 55—65) with
thatofAristotie(‘AO~r. 34—39: seeJ.H.S.xlvi, 3926, 173—8); for thelatterisbased (and which are so closely bound up with strategy that they wiil be
closely on the former, both in general outline and in detail. This dating of best deait with in the next section). But he gives no survey of the
Herodotos’ narrative was not of course the work of Aristotie himself; it had whole such aswe shouldhavewelcomed. Howmuch we shouldhave
been done longbefore, first presumablyby Hellanikos.
‘ See Beloch, ii. 2. 199—202, 213—14, who sees that for past events Thucydides welcomed it can be seen by one instance. Many modem scholars
uses archon-years (against Busolt, iii. 199). See below, nu. oni.55. 2, 325.2,and have thought that the economic factor was an important, or the
~~ 3S9o2—J3a.coby (2), p. 113n., though there is no need to cail this use of the pnoritn—cihpeal,sucpapuosseedofa tphoelitPicealolpcoaunsnee.siaTnhewmaordietsmeslf;mTahyubceydriidgehst adnidd
eponymoi in ~ 2. r a ‘concession’ to a system Thucydides disapproved, unless Thucydides wrong, though it is quite a mistake to suppose that he
we mean that he had thought of, though flot worked out, a better one for past
misunderstood the matter because he knew nothing of economic
history; nor do I understand why Jacobysaysii. 2. iisunique, becausey. ig. I
is from an official document—did flot Thucydides himself use the document? factors in history;’ but howmuch more intelligently we should have
StiillesscanwesaywithWilamowitz that the dating by eponymoiis in confra been able to cliscussthe question, ifThucydides hadhimselfsupplied
dictiontohispractice elsewhere. Itis supplementary to it,forit has a different us with the data. We have flot, however, any right to daim that
(andaverynecessary)purpose.
he ought to have done: the general conditions of Greek economy
Thucydides twiceuses Olympic dates, when the scene was at Olympia and in
a festivalyear:iii. 8,y. 49. i. Butnote that (i) he does notgive the number of were simple and known to his readers.’
the Olympiad, and (2) he givesnot the victor in the stadion—the later practice 1 Asanotherexampleofbis awareness,in addition to thosementioned above,
t(hcef.,feir.sgt.,cDasioeda.txliei.as4t9.wIeahnadve77r.aithfoerrtahedesasmcreipytievaerste)—rmbuotfthaefpamanokursatiOaslytm. p[inc compare i. ioo. 2, the cause ofthe war between Thasos and Athens, in a region
where he himselfhad interests.
festivalthanadate. SeeBurn,J.H.S.1v,3935,p. i~. ‘ The best modem works are: Bâckh, Die Staatshaushaltung der Aihener
(x886: stiil indispensable); Ed. Meyer, Ki. Schriften (1910), 79 if.; Fran
cotte, L’industrie dans la Grèce ancienne (3900—x); Guiraud, La Main-d’oeuvre
8 9