The Athenian Tribute Lists

289 Pages·1953·18.952 MB·English

by  Benjamin Dean Meritt, Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, Malcolm Francis McGregor

THE ATHENIAN TRIBUTE LISTS
THE
ATHENIAN TRIBUTE LISTS
BY
DEAN MERITT
BENJAMIN
Institute for Advanced Study
H. T. WADE-GERY
New College, Oxford
MALCOLM FRANCIS McGREGOR
University of Cincinnati
VOLUME IV
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
1953
*2>F
ffjj Copyright 1953
^f-f By the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
^
y //I Published 1953
All Rights Reserved
Grants toward the publication of this volume have been made
by the Institute for Advanced Study and by the Charles Phelps
Taft Memorial Fund of the University of Cincinnati.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BY J. H. FURST COMPANY, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface vii
Addenda et Corrigenda ix
General Index 1
Greek Index 135
Bibliography
235
PREFACE
This fourth and final volume of The Athenian Tribute Lists brings to com
pletion a work first contemplated some thirty years ago. From the beginning it has
been a genuine collaboration. The story of the early labours is told in the Foreword
of Volume I. Here we merely restate our awareness of the debt we owe to Allen
Brown West; though he did not live to participate in the specific preparation of these
volumes, his influence has remained constantly strong.
We ourselves have long been convinced that the indices to The Athenian Tribute
Lists must be detailed and thorough; accordingly we have not hurried in the con
struction of them. Our fundamental purpose has been to facilitate the use of Volumes
I-III. For the Greek index we have selected what we regard as the significant terms
from the texts, especially from the Decrees and the Assessment of 425/4 (A9), and
have quoted, where feasible, sufficient of the context to make acitation comprehensible.
The detailed bibliographies in Volume I gave to the reader the opportunity of
following the history of the individual fragments and of each List or Decree as a
whole. A decade elapsed before the publication of Volume II, a decade of fruitful
activity which it was our responsibility to report. The second volume does not replace
the first; it serves as a supplement to it, and ithas kept the reader abreast of the
information available to us. To have attempted a mere selection of bibliography —
an arbitrary process here at best—would have been contrary to our announced inten
tion of gathering the widely scattered evidence and opinion. These two volumes, with
their bibliographies, are meant primarily for the scholar. They embody our knowledge
of the ancient evidence and of modern study through 1949. We have regarded this
bibliographical record as anecessary part of our own research. The working scholar,
we assume, will be of the same mind.
The Bibliography in this volume has been constructed in broader terms. In
general, our criteria have been two: (1) Does the item concern the fundamental
texts? (2) Does itconcern the Athenian Empire? We have not adhered too strictly
to these criteria. We have included works that deal briefly or incidentally with our
subject, especially ifsuch references are to crucial texts or to problems to which we
have devoted special attention. On the other hand, we have excluded the geographical
studies to which reference isso often made in the Gazetteer of Volume I. The arrange
ment ischronological; the reader may thus, ifhe chooses, examine for himself the
gradual reconstruction of the evidence and the steady gain in our knowledge of fifth-
century Hellas down to the present time.
We do not carry this story of scientific progress much beyond the publication of
III,
Volume although our labours will have their best reward in the discussions which
we provoke. These will no doubt sometimes be adversely critical, at least at first, but
viii PREFACE
not exclusively so. For example, D. M. Lewis, in a dissertation accepted by Princeton
University in 1952 (see the Bibliography), has gathered evidence for his belief that
Alexandrian scholars learned much of their ancient history from Ephoros rather than
" "
from Thucydides and at times corrected the latter from the text of the former. He
explains in this way certain corruptions in Thucydides and, in particular, supports
the version which we prefer of Thucydides, II, 13, 3. We ourselves feel reasonably
confident of what Thucydides wrote, but our attempt to show how a false reading
arose was tentative, and much further study is needed before the views current in
Athens in the middle of the fourth century can be systematically explained.
In the course of our work we have received many helpful suggestions from
reviewers and other critics ; to them we acknowledge our debt. The burdens involved
in the compilation of Volume IV have been lightened in Princeton by the conscientious
devotion of Mrs. Dorothy Dauncey and Mrs. Nancy Reynolds, in Cincinnati by the
extraordinary patience and courtesy of Miss Jane Bertenshaw and Mrs. Mildred
Smith. We are indebted to Miss Alison Frantz for the remarkably good photograph
of the much abraded stone illustrated in the frontispiece. Our admiration and respect
for the skill and co-operation of the J. H. Furst Company could scarcely be increased;
they have certainly not been diminished by the quality of workmanship displayed in
the manufacture of so difficult a volume as this.
We have had occasion before this to be grateful for generous help from the
Institute for Advanced Study and the Charles Phelps Taft Memorial Fund of the
University of Cincinnati. We are once more in their debt, this time especially for
their grants towards the cost of publication of this fourth volume.
Benjamin D. Meritt
H. T. Wade-Gery
Malcolm F. McGregor
January 1, 1953
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
1. On I 331 the revolt of Miletos should be dated in 413/2 rather than in 414/3.
2. On I 429 for Tvpv[ecro-i<;] read Tvfiv[ecrcri<s].
3. On I 522 (line 3) for Xerxes read Artaxerxes. See III 111-113.
4. On I 533 with note 1 for Phyxai read Phyxa.
5. On I 541 s. v. Tlop8oo-e\.Tjvr] reference may be made to a discussion by Georgios
"
Earinos, Ilpoo-Siopicr/xo? 1-77? tfecrecus apxaUov tlvcjv iroXecov rfjs Mvarias," in
Movaelov ko.1 BiftkiodiqKr) ttj? EuayycXi/aJs SxoX'Jjs, Period II, Vol. I (Smyrna,
1875-1876), pp. 105-146, especially pp. 141-146. His account includes notes on
other islands also of the Hekatonnesoi.
6. On I 579 (T69 § 15) read i}irj(f>io-[ia o KXeapx[°? eimv].
7. On I 580 (T76) and II 103 (T76) we now believe that the reference to Melos is
incorrect. See Meritt's discussion of /. G., V, 97 in Studies Presented to David
II
M. Robinson, (1953), pp. 298-303.
II
8. On 21 (List 15 line 5) read h[e\]\evoTap,ia.
9. On II 33 read in line 2 of List 33: [Se 'Afcvcuois 'AXkcuos SfcJa/i/SowSes eVt re[s
rptres ko! rpia™] (cf. R. Meiggs, CI. Rev., LXIV [1950], p. 64). Also, from
Col. I, line 18, of List 33, delete [Neo-wm/cos] (cf. Pritchett, CI. Phil, XLVII
[1952], p. 262).
10. On II 40 (A9 line 13) Bequignon and Will have suggested the restoration [ho
icrayoyevs ho Xajxop Ka[l h]o 7roXe/iap [x°s avajcpwavrov ras Soca?].1 We accept
this in principle, but believe the asyndeton with what precedes inadmissible. Our
preference is to read [iaayoyiov 8e ho ka]x°Y xa[l h]o Tro\4fiap[xo^ ava.Kpiva.vrov
Tas Sucas]. The new text necessitates deletion of reference to the duties of the
archon in adjudications concerning the tribute (III 71, 75, 77).
II
11. On 45 we assigned frag. 26 of Krateros to the assessment of 410 B. C. rather
than to that of 454 B. C. because of the greater probability (as we believe) that
Deire, named by Krateros, was under Athenian control at the later date (cf.
Ill
217 with note 103). The matter is in doubt.
II
12. On 49 the ionicism in [x]pwaTLO~ai should be noted in D4 line 52.
II
13. On 52 (D8 line 21) we wish to suggest as possible the reading Trp6o-0t[v rov
hepoov] instead of irp6o-dt\y to ySe/xaTos-]. The phrase may well be understood,
we believe without ambiguity, to refer to the eponymous heroes. The railing
before their statues for the posting of notices has been described by Eugene
"■Rev. Arch., 1950, I, pp. 6, 11.
X ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
Vanderpool in Hesperia, XVIII (1949), pp. 129-132. Its epigraphical designa
tion in the preserved inscriptions is vpocrdev tS>viirwvvfiwv, vel sim., but, inasmuch
as our text is dated very soon after the architectural monument came into
existence, it is possible that this stereotyped formula had not as yet been adopted
III
as the conventional term of reference. The anxiety which we expressed in
16 lest whitened tablets might not have withstood the severities of weather out-
of-doors is lessened by the fact that such a tablet, inscribed, dating from the
sixth century B. C, has been found in good condition in a cave at Pitsa west
of Korinth (Orlandos in A. J. A., XXXIX [1935], p. 5 and E. P. Blegen, ibid.,
p. 134) as well as by the fact that a measure of protection was provided by the
coping of the architectural monument in the Athenian Agora.
14. On II 60 (Dll line 85) read v\aKe<s instead of ^vXokcs.
II
15. On 67 (D14 § 2) read eiara[yeT<o] instead of eo-a[yera>].
II
16. On 70 an article by Wade-Gery was announced for publication in Essays in
Honor of Max Rodin. So far as we can learn there is now no plan for the
publication of such a volume.
II
17. On 73 (D18 lines 46-48) read:
jSoXe epx« 'A^[ev]
[euoi9 hit 7rpor]o5 eyoa/i/xarevc 'Pa
vacat vacat
[fivoa-t.o<s \
18. On II 75 Marcus N. Tod suggested in J.H.S., LXIX (1949), p. 104, that
&lio(ra.v rather than opAa-ai should be restored in D21 line 19 because of the
indicative [w]p.ocrav in line 9 in the same inscription. This would mean reading
'Avraioi in place of 'Avraio<s in D21 line 19 as subject of the verb. This second
change was recommended by David M. Lewis from his study of the photograph,
and confirmed in Athens by Eugene Vanderpool and W. K. Pritchett. We cor
rect the text, therefore, to read [T]6V8e tov 5p[kov a>p.oo-av] 'A(f>vraioi [rots cu
IlamSauzr].
II
19. On 75 (D21 lines 11-12) for ro[i? rwv 6pKur6evr](ov read to[I? o-faripois
avr]&v. See also D22 line 23 for a comparable use of the indirect reflexive.
II " " "
20. On 89 after T5 read in Egypt and Pallene instead of in Egypt."
II
21. On 102 (T72 line 16) read [ . .]vXos [eypap/toYeve to].
22. On II 102 (T72b line 2) read [iypa^dreve 'Ava\v<rri]o Cf. I 186, 56C7f.. I 186, 567.
III
23. On xix for Ivan von Miiller read Iwan von Miiller.
III
24. On 15 (line 10) read 6<riv for oo-iv.
III
25. On 72 (line 11) delete Nike.
26. On III 145 add Aphytis 2eto the list of cities with boards of Athenian archons.
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA xi
III
27. On 153 (note 17) it must be noted that Eretria had a democratic constitution
early in the fifth century (cf. William Wallace, Hesperia, V [1936], pp. 273-
278).
III
28. On 154 (line 2) read 432 instead of 431.
III
29. On 184 (§2 line 3) for discussd read discussed.
III
30. On 206 (line 7) the capture of Byzantion must be dated in 478, not 479.
III "
31. On 257 the statement that the paying of past tribute obligations was not,
"
so far as we know, demanded by Athens of towns that had revolted should
be modified. Quota to the goddess was generally not recorded, but this is not
"
evidence of when or whether the tribute was collected. Perhaps the debts on
Ill
the panels" included such arrears (cf. 15-16, 135-136, 336).
III
32. On 303 (line 15) read 447 instead of 477.
III " " "
33. On 306 (line 15) for comprised read composed."
III
34. On 307 (line 5) read 441/0 instead of 441.
III
35. On 308 (last line but one) for Apyikioi read 'Apyiktoi.
III
36. On 315 concerning the site of Beroia and the manoeuvres of Kallias addi
"
tional reference should be made to S. Pelekides, Tvpo> anb to IIoTciScaTtKa,"
'ErreTTjpts rrjs i\ocro(£i/CTjs SxoXtjs tov JIaveirurrqfuov &€trcrakov'ua]<;, VI (1950),
pp. 1-47, whose conclusions we do not follow.
37. On III 321 (fourth line of note 89) read "is almost blank" instead of "is
blank."
38. A summary should be given here of conclusions reached about the dates of the
prytanies named in A9, for the connection between the assessment of 425/4 and
the return of Kleon from Pylos has not been reported so far in the earlier volumes
of this series except by reference to preliminary publication.2 Oineis (line 34)
held the second prytany, during the last days of which Thoudippos expected to
have his probouleuma considered by the Demos. Evidently he expected that Kleon
— " "
would be back in time from Pylos this being the return of the expedition
spoken of in line 34. Kleon was back in time, but did not allow the Demos to
proceed with the business so quickly as Thoudippos had meant. The story of
his late arrival in the Ekklesia, and his adjournment of it when he arrived, was
told by Theopompos (frag. 92 Jacoby [no. 115] ; cf. Plutarch, Nicias, 7, 7 and
Moralia, 799D). He excused himself on the plea that he had "guests" to
entertain (Spartan prisoners ?). The result was that the decree of A9 was
actually passed in the third prytany, which we now know as Leontis (line 3).
2Meritt and West, Ath. Ass., pp. 52-57; Wade-Gery and Meritt, A. J.P., LVII (1936), pp.
377-394; Wade-Gery, A. J.P., LIX (1938), pp. 129-131; Meritt. Hesperia, XIV (1945), pp.
118-119.
xii ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
39. An inscription of the fourth century (I.G., II2, 7189), found in the Peiraieus,
has the name %(o4>ia<s. We therefore transcribe the name of the secretary of
the hellenotamiai in List 12 not as [X]oia<i but as [2,]a>ia<i, and note that
corrections should be made in the roster of hellenotamiai on I 567 and in the
I
index on 602.
III
40. On 150 (line 5) read dekarchy in place of dekarchies.
III
41. On 344 the figure for the number of talents borrowed in 423/2 (second line,
next to last column) should be 253 rather than 257. Consequently, the figure
for the balance on hand in the summer of 422 should be 448 rather than 444.
These errors in the table were kindly called to our attention by A. G. Woodhead.
42. On I 136 and II 16 (10 III 25-25) the quota of Kapcs 2>vTvfiirqs apxct should be
printed as P, that of KaXuSvtoi as HP.
43. On I 475 the parentheses should be removed from the name A. Papadopoulos
Kerameus.