Athenian Imperialism and the Foundation of Brea

Author(s): Harold B. Mattingly

Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 16, No. 1 (May, 1966), pp. 172-192
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/637539
Accessed: 23/09/2009 06:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

ATHENIAN
IMPERIALISM
AND THE
FOUNDATION
OF BREAI
THEdecree establishingan Athenian colony at Brea in the north Aegaean area
was firmly placed by the editors of TheAthenianTributeLists in 446 B.C.; they
identified the troops mentioned in lines 26 if. with the men then serving in
Euboia.2 In 1952, however, Woodhead proposed redating the decree c. 439/8
B.C.and explained lines 26 ff. by referenceto the Samian revolt.3A decade later
I put forward a more radical theory, which seems to have won no adherents.
I cannot really complain of this, since my argumentswere inevitably far from
cogent. For some Thucydides' silence alone will have been decisive.4 I would
like to think that the issue has at least been clarified by now. The A. T.L. dating
appears rather less plausible. Demokleides' generalship in 439/8 B.C.would fit
excellently with his role as founder of Brea. This strongly supportsWoodhead.
It is doubtful whether Demokleides was general as early as 446 B.C., though

conceivable that he returned to the board as late as 426/5 B.C.5Woodhead may

well be right in locating Brea on the inner Thermaic Gulf and, if so, this too
tells against the A.T.L. dating. All our evidence suggests that real Athenian
involvement in this area began in the 430's.6The weight ofepigraphic evidence
may also seem to support Woodhead, against any attempt to put I.G. i2. 45
later than c. 439/8 B.C. Its lettering is transitional, characteristic of the period

when three-bar sigma and other earlier Attic forms were going out of public
use. Woodhead felt unable to put it many years after 445 B.C.7 I have elsewhere

vigorously attacked the basic epigraphic dogma, but without being able to
produce the cogent, objective evidence which others understandablyrequire.8
My reason for reopening the controversyis that I have come on an inscription
that should surely be put in the 420's and that shares crucial letter-formswith
I.G.

i2.

45.

I owe a great deal to some stimulating

discussion and correspondence with Mr. R.
Meiggs and Professor W. P. Wallace. Both
emphasize the importance of arguing from
the letter-forms of securelydatedinscriptions.
I have tried to answer their challenge in this
paper in my own way and they must not, of
course, be blamed for the result. Professor
K. J. Dover has helped considerably by his
criticisms to improve the presentation of my
ideas.
2 A.T.L. iii. 286 ff. For text and commentary on IG. i2. 45 see Tod, G.H.I. i,
no. 44 and Hesperiaxiv (I945), 86 f. (Meritt's
publication of a new fragment).
3 C.Q.N.S. ii (I952), 57-62.
4 Historia xii (1963), 258-6 .
5 See my article, p. 258 with n. 8 and 260
f. Demokleides was politically active c. 430
B.C.or even later (IG. i2. 152), as Woodhead
noted (p. 62); in 44I/0, 432/I, and 431/0
B.C.other men represented Aigeis as generals
(see the list in Hill, Sources2,p. 401 f.).
I

6
Op. cit. 58 f. Woodhead was strongly
supported by J. A. Alexander (A.J.Ph.
lxxxiii [I962], 266-75 and 282-6), who approved his emendation es Bpeav (following
Bergk) for es Bepocavin Thuc. I. 61. 4.
7 See Meritt's photographs in Hesperiaxiv
(I945), 87 f. It has four-bar sigma, but
sloping nu and tailed rho (R). For Woodhead's comments see op. cit. 60 f.
8 Historia x (I96I), I49 f. and 168-82:
J.H.S. lxxxi (I 96), 132: Historiaxii (1963),
263-71. Meritt and Wade-Gery were able to
counter many of my individual arguments
(J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 67-74 and lxxxiii
[1963], I00-I7) and the result might seem
to be stalemate, if not outright victory for the
orthodox view. But see Meiggs's frank recognition that epigraphic dating may have
become too rigid (Harv. Stud. lxvii [I963],
29 f.). He reasonably urges scholars 'to collect the evidence and examine the statistics'.

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND

THE

FOUNDATION

OF BREA

173

It was cut on the base of a choregic dedication set up by Leagros, a member

of the famous family from Kerameis. All that actually survivesis the remnants
of three words:
-- -]avrts- - -]ypos [VT

---

v[[ - - - -

]aKAEs[- ---

But there can be no doubt of the correctness of Meritt's restoration:

[AKa]pLavrs [E'evlKca]
vv
[AEa]ypos
['Xopeye]
[HTavr]aKcA^s[V
E&StSaC7Ke]

In view of the sloping nu and tailed rho he dated the victory c. 440 B.C.' Now
this dating will not withstand rigorous scrutiny. The dithyrambic poet
Pantakles is known to have composed a piece for a boys' chorus at the Thargelia of 420/19 B.C. It is therefore likely that he is the man whose clumsiness
Eupolis mocked c. 424/3 B.C. in his GoldenRace. Certainly the dithyrambic poets
Ion, Kinesias, Philoxenos, and Timotheos were favourite butts of the comic
stage. Now Eupolis' Pantakles was evidently alive and flourishing as late as
405 B.C., since Aristophanes jokingly alludes to him in Frogs, 1036 if. If we may
be allowed to combine these scraps of evidence, we seem faced with a career
roughly coterminous with the Peloponnesian War.2 The evidence on Leagros
points the same way. Meritt identified him with the son ofthe general Glaukon.3
This Leagros was involved c. 400 B.C. by Kallias son of Hipponikos in a sordid
intrigue concerning the orphaned daughter of Epilykos. From Andokides'
narrative one would naturally assume that Leagros was at most five years
older than himself and in any event junior to Kallias, who was born c. 455
B.C.4 This view is supported by the fact that the comic poet Plato attacked
Leagros in the late 390's as a moral weakling, unworthy of his great father. The
tone surely does not suggest a man of over seventy, as Leagros would have then
been on Meritt's reckoning.s
Thus if we want to keep the dating c. 440 B.C. we must find another earlier
Leagros. In view of Greek nomenclature it is easy to postulate an otherwise
unknown brother or cousin of the general Glaukon and this may seem to settle
I See Hesperia viii (I939), 48-50 (with
a plate) and S.E.G. x. 332.
2 See Antiphon rrepl rov Xopevrov, I:
J. D. Edmonds, F. Gr. Cor. i. 417 (Eupolis
frg. 296) and 4o0 note a (date of play). For
the date of Antiphon vi see Meritt, Athenian
Calendar, p. 121 f. and Dover, C.Q. xliv
(I950), 60. Pantakles is still 'clumsy' in the
Frogs passage; the joke was as long-lived as
those about Kleisthenes' effeminacy (from
Acharn. I 7 ff. to Frogs 422-7).
3
Hesperiaviii (1939), 50.
4 And. i. 117-23. See pp. 144-5o and
Appendix L ofD. M. MacDowell's edition of
On theMysteries( 962) for the family relationships. Leagros was Kallias' brother-in-law
and Epilykos' nephew. Andokides the other

nephew (born in the 440's: R.-E. i. 2124 f.)

took the lead in claiming Epilykos' daughters
with Leagros: after one died, however,
Kallias had little difficulty allegedly in talking Leagros over to co-operating in his
schemes. For Kallias' date of birth see R.-E.
x. I618 and MacDowell, op. cit., pp. IO f.
(c. 450

B.C.).

5 See Edmonds, op. cit., p. 509 frg. 64

(from Laios: see note e for its date). Meritt
observed that c. 440 B.C. Leagros 'must have
been a relatively young man'; presumably
he would put his birth c. 465 B.C. If so, it is
also strange that Leagros was never made
a butt of the comic poets between 425 and
405 B.C., as Kallias so often was (see MacDowell, op. cit., p. I ).

H. B. MATTINGLY

I74

the matter satisfactorily.'But is there any good evidence that Pantakles'career

began so early? It is time to turn to the two remaining records of his dithyrambic victories.
We owe the first to a muddled citation in Stephanus Byzantinus (s.v.
Ar7vi-r).It may be restored thus:
V-TtLOXtS
EvlLKa

1poKKAjSAlrTveVS EXOp77yeL
HJavraKAX7S SSacraKe

The variant reading iaT-poKAfjsshould be noted in line 2.2 Either name could
be correct and we must survey the known candidates. Two of the fifth-century
Athenians called Patrokles can be eliminated straightaway. The epistates of
I.G. i2. 82 (422/I B.C.) belonged to the tribe Aigeis, while Sokrates' halfbrother, athlothetes in 406/5 B.C., came from the deme Alopeke.3 There remain the apXov lacL/Xevs of 403/2 B.C., whose tribe is unknown, and the man
whom Aristophanes ridiculed around 390 B.C. Either of them could have been
choregos near the end of Pantakles' career.4 There are few distinguished
bearers of the name Prokles. The signatory to the Peace of Nikias should
probably be identified with the Council secretary of 42 I/o B.C.; his tribe was
Erechtheis, to which the athlothetes of 406/5 B.C. also belonged.5 This leaves
only the general of 427/6 and 426/5 B.C., whose tribe is unknown. He lost his
life in the ill-fated Aitolian expedition that led to the deposition of his colleague
Demosthenes. Two by-elections thus became necessary this year.6 Two or three
months after Demosthenes' retreat to Naupaktos the generals Aristoteles and
Hierophon sailed round the Peloponnese with a relief squadron of twenty
ships and co-operated somewhat passively at sea in the Ambracian campaign.7
Since this is Thucydides' first mention of them, it is tempting to treat them as
the replacements for Prokles and Demosthenes. Now Aristoteles almost certainly belonged to Antiochis. On my view then Hierophon will have replaced
Demosthenes for Aiantis and Antiochis must have been Prokles' tribe.8 Someone may object here that this involves a further unlikely assumption. Since
Hipponikos' deme was Alopeke, Antiochis would on my view have had double
I Alkibiades (son of Kleinias) had a
younger brother and cousin both called
Kleinias: see R.-E. xi. 616 f. (nos. 4 and 5).
2 See p. 142 and n. of Meineke's edition
(1849). The relevant text runs: Artjvq,
O 8r (so7TS
vASr . ...
8j7jLOS 7jS XAv7toXlsS
AT7)V?VS. "HpOKAX1S ATr7VEVS EXOP'7YEL Kal
HavrTaKAX)s".

3 See IG.

i2. 305.

Io and R.-E.

xviii.

2263 (no. 4).

4 R.-E. xviii. 2262 (nos. i and 3):
Aristoph. Plut. 84 and Storks frg. 431 (Edmonds i. 694 f.). Comparison of the scholion
on Plut. 84 with Isocr. I8. 5-8 suggests that
the two should perhaps be conflated.
5 See Thuc. 5. I9 and 24. i: IG. i2. 82
and 84: I.G. i2. 305. 9: Andrewes and Lewis,
J.H.S. lxxvii (I957), 178.
6 For Demosthenes' deposition see Lewis,
J.H.S. lxxxi (I96 ), i9 ff.; he effectively
disposes of Gomme's hesitations (Commen-

tary on Thucydides,ii. 408 and 417 with iii.

437 f.). Lewis postulates three by-elections,
but Laches was probably neither deposed nor
put on trial: see Gomme, op. cit. ii. 430 f.
7 Thuc.
3. I05. 3 and 107. 1-2. For the
time-table see Adcock's account in C.A.H.
v. 228 f.; he rightly regards Demosthenes as
Acarnanian commander-in-chief, not an
Athenian general.
8 For Aristoteles see Gomme, op. cit. ii.
417 ff. and Lewis, op. cit. I20 f.; he is surely
the general ----e'X. s Oopatevs known from
IG. i2. 299. 6 (S.E.G. x. 226). For Prokles'
tribe Lewis (p. 121) suggested Oineis, but
this rested on his assumption that Lamachos
was a suffect general in 426/5 B.c. In fact
Acharnians569, 593, and I073 ff. all show
that he was a taxiarch this year, as van
Leuwen acutely pointed out on pp. 99 and
I 04 of his edition.

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND THE FOUNDATION

OF BREA 175

representation in 427/6 B.C. The objection need not prove fatal. Lewis has
already plausibly argued the case for 426/5 B.C. He believes that Hipponikos,
a man of immense wealth, family distinction, and religious prestige, was then
elected e' arrdvrwvlike Perikles. Lewis's principle may well stand, though not,
I think, his date for Hipponikos' generalship.'
The general Prokles may then be the choregos from Atene. Like Demosthenes
he was probably general for the first time in 427/6 B.C. and comparatively
young. His choregeia would fall in one of the immediately preceding years and
its success could have helped towards his election under rather special circumstances.2 It is interesting to note that his colleague Demosthenes undertook
a dithyrambic choregeia triumphantly in 422/I B.C.3 Now this hypothesis
about Prokles is admittedly precarious, since new evidence might show that
his tribe was not Antiochis after all. But this would not be fatal to my argument. If no Prokles belonged to Antiochis, we would have some justification for
preferring the reading of one manuscript of Stephanus. As we have seen there
are two possible candidates called Patrokles. Despite the many uncertainties
I would claim that there is every chance that the choregos in question performed his duty at some point during the Peloponnesian War.
Pantakles' third dithyrambic victory is recorded in I.G. i2. 771, which has
fairly developed Attic lettering consistent with a date in the 420's.4 The
choregos' name is unluckily lost, but we have his father's name Dorotheos and
his deme Halai. In the later fifth century one known Dorotheos of some distinction claims attention. This man was secretary of Council in 408/7 B.C.
According to Meritt's plausible reconstruction of .G. i. 120 there is room for an
eight-letter patronymic or demotic after Dorotheos' name in the heading. It is
tempting to supply haAaLevs.5What relationship should we assume between
him and the choregos ? He could well have been the choregos' son, but we must
not exclude the possibility that he was his younger brother or cousin. On either
view this choregeia too will fall comfortably after 43I B.C. Certainly none of
our evidence compels us to start Pantakles' career even as early as c. 435 B.C.
and, if our postulated older Leagros existed, he could quite easily have been
choregos in the 420's. If on the other hand we identify the choregos with
Glaukon's son, we have seen that any victory of his must be dated c. 425 B.C.
And this identification, of course, remains most persuasive.6
For my attempt to refute Lewis's dating
see Historia xii (1963), 260 f. For election ;E'
arravrovsee K. J. Dover, J.H.S. lxxx (1960),
61-63 and 74 f.
2 See R.-E. xxiii. i80 no. io (H. Schaefer)
for Prokles' age.
3 I.G. ii2. 2318.
4 It has four-bar
sigma and a nu (N) not
unlike those in Kleonymos' Tribute Decree
of 426/5 B.C. (A.T.L. ii, D 8: see vol. i, pp.
123-6 for photographs); a similar nu is
found as late as the Quota List assigned to
416/5 B.C. (A.T.L. ii, List 39 with figs. I
and 2).
5 See A.J.Ph. lxix (I948), 69 f. and S.E.G.
x. 107. If the text of Xen. Hell. I. 4. 7 is
sound (eviavro -rpetS 7jaav), we cannot
identify him with the ambassador to Persia
in 408 B.C. (Hell. I. 3. 13).

6
Unluckily we do not know whether
Leagros provided a boys' or a men's chorus.
For the former a choregos had to be over
forty (Arist. A0. noA. 56. 3), but mature
men sometimes undertook the latter. Demosthenes for instance must have been well into
his thirties (see nn. 23 and 24). If the choregos is Glaukon's son we must, I think,
assume that his was a men's chorus or that
the age-rule for boys' choruses was not always strictly observed: see on this possibility
Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals of
Athens(1953), p. 76 (adducing Lysias 21. 4)
and D. M. Lewis, B.S.A. 1 (I955), 20 and 24
(rigid observance in the fourth century).
Pseudo-And. Ka-r' AKLttfiadov
20 f. makes
Alkibiades choregos of a boys' chorus under
the legal age, but this point is not supported
either by Dem. 21. 145 or Plut. Alc. I6 and

I76

H. B. MATTINGLY

Leagros' dedication then apparently proves that transitional lettering was

still employed by masons in the 420's, though no doubt it had a slightly oldfashioned look. Indeed there was already good evidence for the survival of
sloping nu, since this form occurs in the Chian Decree of winter 425/4 B.c.'
We can now assert the same about tailed rho. It thus becomes permissible
epigraphically to put another document with this form in so late a context.
This is the famous 'Koroneia' epigram, which I have already associated on
historical grounds with the battle of Delion.2 I should like now to develop the
argument further. Let us first simplyjuxtapose the first lines of the poem and
parts of Diodoros' account of the battle. The epigram strikes a clearly apologetic note:
-rAl,ovES hotov [a]yo^va paXes TreAECavres aeA7r[To]
'crvxa&SaLtLovLoS oAeaaT' ELrToAE/iok'
ov KaTa 8[va]LiVe[o]y davp6ov arOevos,aAAad LS hvLdsa
as
hefJtOeov OeLav d(t)S SOovavrtaLC
9fAaorev-3

Set against this Diodoros' significant phrases (13. 70. 2-3): yevofLevr7s e jS
rs
Aa[Xirpws3
pev rpTp3rov oLTr3J AOsqvalcv ?7rets adyvoLoWdevoL
rrapara6ews larXvpa^
T
rS
rovavS vcaraVLTa g 7T7rEL ... OL as O9&XfaloL, cLaoefEpovres-t
,qvayKaoaav qvyetv
OLErs
8O,KOVatL
cruoiarv
rTV AXOvatcov LeTEo'ovTEs vyetv 37vayKaav,
pcuLats ...
erTLaveLtE

8o0av Trposdvapetav. Ephoros

,tLaX)vLKK7jcavr7s ?EYaA7)v r7T77VEyKavro

evidently conveyed more clearly than Thucydides the Theban pride in this
victory, their boast of sheer physical superiority.4 It is this boast, I believe, that
the epigram explicitly rejects. Neither Athenian morale nor Athenian pride
could allow it. More than ever defeat must be ascribed to divine agency. This
was the Spartans' recourse after Leuktra. Pausanias indeed passes on from
reflections on Leuktra to the play of divine power at Delion (3. 6. i): F/dctara
Se rrws 7ErT'7TTaLrtLaaaLV
teEya'AoLS
eeXEACL
rpoa0aLpeta6aL TOv q'ye'Lova o &al)cov, KaOa
K8 Kagt iOrvatwlvadrryov 'Ifr7roKpdr'v rov AppiMqpovoS 07rpar77yoV7a Ert AfA'?i. ....

Is it fanciful to recognize here faint traces of the epigram, which Pausanias

knew, rather than philosophic commonplace ?s
seems dubious evidence (paceLewis-quoted
in n. i on p. 36 of Pickard-Cambridge,
Dithyramb,Tragedyand Comedy[2nd edition,
1962; revised by T. B. L. Webster]).
Hesperiaxiv (1945), 115 if.: S.E.G. x. 76.
Meritt noted that 'the shapes of rho and nu
are older than one expects to find in the mid
twenties' (p. I I5: see photograph on p. 1 7),
but the name Kleonymos and the mention
of 7riaTreIs
and Chians (see Thuc. 4. 51)
rightly led him to bring the decree down. Set
up at Chian expense it is in Ionic lettering.
The dedication of the Athenian colonists
sent to Poteidaia in 429 B.C. also has sloping
nu (I.G. i2. 397).
2 For the
epigram see Kyparissis and
Peek, Ath. Mitt. lvii (1932), 142-6 (with
photograph) and S.E.G. x. 410 (text and
bibliography). For Delion see pp. 261 f. of my
article in Historiaxii (1963).
3 I adopt the text approved by Bowra in
Problems of Greek Poetry (I953), pp. 93 ff.

(a reprint with minor changes of his article in

C.Q. xxxii [1938]). Bowra read sat/iov6os as
the adverb (p. 95): in this he was followed by
A. Cameron (Harv. Theol. Rev. xxxiii [1940],
99 ff.), who, however, preferred daEA7ro[s]
(adv.) in line i. He allowed that ceArrros
tkaX*,could imply that the Athenians were
taken by surprise, as indeed at Koroneia
(p. 99). In this sense the adjective would be
still more applicable to Delion: see p. 262 of
my article with n. 25. Cameron agreed with
Bowra that the correction elaoSov possibly
replaced an original eaooov and that we
should read E' hoSovrather than the internal
accusative faoaov (pp. io5-9).
4 The narrative follows
Thucydides closely
(4. 96-97. i), but with much added colour;
some of this (e.g. the cavalry victory) must
be rejected, as Gomme noted (op. cit. iii.
568).
5 As Cameron observed (pp. o02 f. and
121), it was normal in epitaphs to attribute

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND

THE

FOUNDATION

OF BREA

I77

If we try to identify the oracular hero of the epigram, the probable answer
again points clearly to Delion. I quote the difficult lines from Bowra's text
(5ff.):
......

7-rpoFpov [yap hao vrepa]8e

cvaopaXov aypav
po EEs
OEpEvaas [60eT`rarovh]vUpEi`poL
avV KaKoLeXarETpearrEE,
fporolr7a 8be Trac r' AoTOV
OpcadTcrOat
Aoylov 7rroarv 'OEKE E'Aos.
EX

The hero trapped the prey for Athens' enemies, as he had foretold. Bowra
must be right in claiming that the words 3ovaLaxovaypav e'OpoLs OrlpeOvas
paraphrasepart of the oracle, but I would preferto translate7Trp6'pwv
'readily',

'of his own accord' rather than 'with seeming good intent'.' As Bowra himself
noted, oracular shrines did occasionally make pronouncementswithout being
consulted and this is precisely what Herodotos records of Amphiaraos, in
whose territory the battle of Delion was fought.2 Explaining why no Theban
could consult the hero he recalls an old oracle (8. 134):

KE'Avevaeacras' Od4lL8tda xp.77Tr)ptO)v 7TOLevIpevOSoKoTEpa

ovAovXoaLe'rOaFt rovTcov, ewvTrC 7
are Itavrt Xpaaoaa
a rearvjuvadX,
rov E'repova7reXOlievovs' ol Ee carvtaxov VLV
was no doubt suitably embellished with metaphor
ELAovTo ELvaL. The language
and, though the Thebans understood enough to make the right choice, the
oracle's promise of help in war must have remained, as so often, slightly obscure. After Delion, however, it would appear to have been fulfilled beyond
The epigram surely makes this very point.3
any possible contradiction.
We may now claim with some assurance that two public inscriptions with
transitional lettering were cut in the 420's. Dare anyone assert that this style
was no longer used for decrees of the people? That therefore the Brea Decree
apaws

defeat to divine intervention-this is 'a kind

of topic of consolation'. But the epigram
goes well beyond the norm in this. For the
omens and oracles before Leuktra see Xen.
Hell. 6. 4. 2-3 and 7: Diod. 15. 53. 4-54. 4:
Plut. Pelop. 20. 3-22: Paus. 9. 13. 4 and 14. 3.
The contemporary Theban view is bluntly
expressed in the famous epigram (I.G. vii.
2462+.

Aoyltov (line 8) means 'oracular utterances

... preservedandcirculated'(so R. A. Neil in his
Knights [1909], p. 22) and not 'a particular
response' (for which Xp-ajios'is correct). He
concedes that Uva,Laxov
aypav .O.. rpevaas
possibly reflects the language of the Aodyov
(p. 13 and n. 52). For lines 5-7 he accepts
H. Fraenkel's text:

7 f.: Tod ii. no. 130):

e"rSLatoi

KpeLaaoves

XAa,ca?v
'rrpopov [rrpoaevLv,eq] e v'acrlaXov
aypav
[ Kal rO
I,Ev
EXOpoLs Oepev'aas
h]vlzerJpot

fE/L

7roAE(wTOl"
KapvraasE AeVKTpoIS VLKa?bopa Sovpt rpoTrama . . .

The Athenians subsequently managed to take

a more realistic view of Delion: see Thuc.
5. I4. I.
Op. cit. 98f. Cameron's interesting
thesis (op. cit. 102-2I) must be stated, if
only to be refuted. He held that (a) 'our text
offers not the record of an actual epiphany,
but rather a post eventuminterpretation of
defeat' (p. 104) and (b) that there is no basis
for assuming a consultation of Orion or any
other hero before the battle; the Athenians
went out on campaign in defiance of a curand were punished by heaven as
rent Aoymov
a warning to mankind. The agent was an
unspecified local hero, not to be more nearly
identified. I think that his first point may be
granted and that he is right in insisting that

aVV KaKO6 eXOaereeaJaE . . .

In some ways this runs better than the text

approved by Bowra. It still allows the view
developed here; the Moytovwhich the hero
fulfilled could have been his own.
2 The battlefield was near Oropos, the
centre of Amphiaraos' cult (R.-E. i. I886 ff.).
3 It is perhaps worth noting that the
parallel defeat of Leuktra was by some
ascribed to a hero's epiphany (Paus. 4. 32. 4;
Aristomenes). Lines I-4 of the 'Koroneia'
epigram contain a definite and surely significant echo of Pindar, JVem.9. 27 (Amphiaraos'
last fight). For my dating of S.E.G. x. 4I0 see
further the Appendix at the end of this
paper.
N

I78

H. B. MATTINGLY

cannot possibly be put so late? We must examine closely what this line of
argument involves. By no means all Attic decrees were inscribed on the orders
of Athenian officials and we should thus expect deviations from the norm.
Lewis has well noted that progressivemasons were well ahead of the 'normal
run of the trade' in the age of transition at Athens; the latter 'produced less
fashionable work for, to be practical, a good deal less money'. His comment
was inspired by the poor workmanship of the Aigina Decree, for which the
Eretria and Kolophon Decrees provide good parallels. All were paid for by the
states concerned, who had a direct interest in keeping the cost down.' May this
not be the explanation of the old-fashioned look of the Brea Decree? Its
inscription was paid for by the colonists and with its carelesslettering and poor
alignment it has all the marks of a cheap job.z There can certainly now be no
epigraphic objection to consideringmost seriouslythe historical case for dating
the Brea Decree 42615 B.C.
Thucydides' narrative of summer 432 B.C. seems to place Brea a little distance east of Aineia on the inner Thermaic Gulf. Kallias had apparently sailed
with his army from Pydna after patching up peace with Perdikkas.He touched
in at Brea, then moved on to surpriseStrepsa. The attempt failed and his army
now proceeded by land along the coast to Poteidaia, with the fleet in close
attendance. They had been joined by 600 Macedonian cavalry under Philip
and Pausanias and collected detachments of troops from allies such as Aineia
and Dikaia on the way to Gigonos, which they reached on the third day's easy
march from Strepsa. Here they were comfortably within half a day's march
from Poteidaia.3By then Perdikkaswas again backing the rebels, but in summer 431 B.C.Athens negotiated a firm settlement and restoredTherme, which
had been seized as an advance base in the previous year. Philip was now
a refugee with Sitalkes.4 In the winter of 430/29 B.C. Poteidaia surrendered and
See B.S.A. xlix (1954), 22 f. Lewis's 'age
of transition' was, of course, 'c. 455 to c. 445
B.C.' for him.
2 See I.G. i2. 45. i8 ff. and Woodhead's
comments on the script (op. cit. 60), which
can be checked from the photographs that
Meritt published (Hesperiaxiv [I945], 87 f.).
3 For an excellent and, I think, convincing
discussion of Thuc. i. 6x seeJ. A. Alexander,
A.J.Ph. lxxxiii (1962), 265-87. His view,
which I follow here, was partly anticipated
by Gomme (op. cit. i. 214-18) and Woodhead (op. cit. 58 f.). The A.T.L. editors
thought that Kallias went overland from
Pydna and passed through Macedonian
Beroia (iii. 315 f., 322 f.) to Strepsa, which
they locate north-west of Therme (i. 550 f.
with the loose map at the end, iii. 220 n.
122, and 318 n. 76). Woodhead and Gomme
put Strepsa south of Therme, but Woodhead makes Kallias land at Therme first and
so places Brea between Therme and Strepsa:
Gomme had Kallias land somewhere near
Aineia (p. 2I7). For the various placings of
Strepsa see Alexander, op. cit. 269 and the
facing map: both Brea and Strepsa should

perhaps be put even closer to Aineia than he

allows (on the coast, eastwards). Philip's
dpXj lay along both sides of the upper Axios
(Thuc. 2. 0oo. 3), but he had invaded
Mygdonia (i. 59. 2 :see Alexander, pp. 275 f.)
and, with the Athenians holding Therme,
and pinning Perdikkas down at Pydna, he
could have reached the inner Thermaic Gulf
without difficulty even after Kallias withdrew by sea.
4 See Thuc. I. 62. 2 and 2. 29. 5-6 with
i. 6i. 2 and 2. 95. 2. The A.T.L. editors
want to identify Therme with the Serme of
the tribute-lists (iii. 220 n. 123 and 322 n.
91). This was vigorously denied by C. F.
Edson (Cl. Phil. xlii [1947], 100-4), who
placed Therme 'at, or very near Salonica'
(accepted in A.T.L. iii. 220 n. 123 against
A.T.L. i. 546): Gomme too came out
strongly against the identification (op. cit. i.
214). Serme's tribute (500 dr.) seems too
small for a town like Therme; its payment in
432/I B.C. and subsequent disappearance
from the lists can be explained on the assumption that it was one of the rebel
roAiacrtara which Phormio recovered in

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND THE FOUNDATION

OF BREA 179

was subsequently colonized by Athens. But in the summer the Athenians

suffereda disastrousdefeat at Spartolos and the remnants of the expeditionary
force were withdrawn. Soon afterwards Perdikkas secretly sent I,000 Macedonians to help Knemos in Akarnania.' In the winter of 429/8 B.C. came
Sitalkes' massive invasion of Macedonia, Chalkidike, and Bottike. Failing in
his main objective he patched up his quarrel with Perdikkasand, since Athens
failed to co-operate against the rebels by sea, he withdrew his forcesfrom their
territory after barely a week.2 Sitalkes then was of little use to Athens, though
his fine promises could provide material for Aristophanes years later in the
Acharnians(136-50). Better methods must be found for dealing with rebellion
and unrest in the Thraceward area. Moreover Perdikkaswas proving difficult
again, insisting on the cession of Methone. Early in 426/5 B.C. Athens drew up
defence regulations, which embodied special protection for Poteidaia and
Methone, and rather later saw to the safety of Aphytis also.3 In May 425 B.C.
Simonides called out a general levy of the allies under this new system and led
them against Eion, Mende's colony, which was hostile and a potential menace
to Poteidaia. He captured the place by treachery, but was then driven out
with considerableloss, when the Chalkidiansand Bottiaianslaunched a counterattack.4 This fresh blow perhaps finally convinced the Athenians that they
needed a new strongpointin this vulnerable area. Thus in the ninth prytany of
426/5 B.C.,I submit, the Brea colony was voted.5 Thucydides admittedly says
nothing of it, but we must remember that he omits the Methone episode completely.6Moreover he says little about other developmentsin this area, of which
we learn from the Quota-Lists and the Assessments of 425 and 42I B.C. We

must now turn to these, but will first have to deal with a troublesome dating
problem.
This concerns the records which are published as Lists 25-28 in A. T.L. ii.
I have already twice attacked these ascriptions and Meritt and Wade-Gery
have countered some of my points.7 I now want to try a rather different approach. So much detailed work has been done on these lists that we are in
danger of losing sight of some important formal clues to their proper order.
Book-keepinghabits may reveal the truth. We must surely expect some kind of
autumn 432 B.C. (Thuc. i. 65. 2) and which
presumably fell away after the defeat at
Spartolos (Thuc. 2. 79). In Thucydides
Therme seems Macedonian, not rebel (I. 59.
2 and 6I. 2), as adro8ovvacsurely implies in
2. 29. 6.
Thuc. 2. 70. 4 and 79; 80. I.
2 Thuc. 2.
95-101 (especially ioi. i and
5-6). As early as 431 B.C. Nymphodoros of
Abdera had promised to persuade Sitalkes
to end rebellion in Chalkidike for Athens
(Thuc. 2. 29. 6).
3 See A.T.L. ii. D 3. i8 ff. and D 4. 41 ff.
and 47 ff. ( = IG. i2. 57): D 2I (I.G. ii2.
55+), 4-17: Meritt, Hesperia xiii (I944),
C.Q. N.S. xi (1961),
Mattingly,
215-18:

I6I f. D 21 must surely be dated 426/5 (after

D 4) or the next year: with Meritt's dating
(c. 428 B.C.) Lepper had to assume 'another
(decree) earlier than D 2I, which for some

reason was not reinscribed with A.T.L.'s D

3-6' (J.H.S. lxxxii [1962], 52 n. 83. The
added regulations for Methone (D 21. 5-8)
were part of the general imperial decree
foreseen in D 4. 41-47.
4 Thuc. 4. 7 (vAAeas
. .* rv EKEflv
.
7rXA0os).
vjLtda'XoUV
5 See
my article in Historiaxii (1963), 260
with n. 13 for this point.
6 His
only reference is 4. 129. 4 (Nikias'
120 light-armed from Methone). According
to D 4. 46 f. Methone fulfilled her obligations by seeing to her own defence; provision
of troops in summer 423 B.C. may have been
arranged in D 6 (eighth prytany, 424/3
B.C.), which must also have ordered the
publication of the whole dossier on stone.
7 See Historia x
(I961), i66-8 and C.Q.

N.S. xi (1961),

73 f.

155-6o:

J.H.S.

lxxxii (i962),

I80

H. B. M~ATTINGLY

system here and not caprice. For the sake of clarity I will list the salient points
one by one:
I. In List 26 the two special groups of tribute-payers inherited from before
the war immediately follow the Thracian panel, exactly as in Lists 21-23: in
List 25 they come at the end of the whole list as an appendix.'
2. Lists 26 and 27 both have a special Hellespontine group as an appendix,
not after the Hellespontine panel: in List 25 the Ionian, Thracian, and Hel-

lespontine panels are eachfollowed by rubrics relating to cities in that panel.2

3. Lists 26 and 27 probably have the same order of tribute-districts, namely
List 25 follows a unique order, IoniaThrace-Islands-Hellespont-Ionia:

Thrace-Islands-Hellespont.3
4. List 27 records only three payers in its Hellespontine rubric, each making
over the major part of its considerable tribute: Lists 26 and 25 show nine and

ten names respectively, all but one of whom pay rather small amounts.4

Now List 27 is certainly the list of 428/7 B.C., a year of exceptional financial

stringency. The revolt of Lesbos strained Athens' resources.Thus the system of

direct payments to the Hellespontophylakes may have been suspended that
year in favour of levying some forty talents for the siege from only three cities;
it could well have been resumed the next year.5From purely formal considerations then the order of lists would appear to be either 26-27-25 or 27-26-25.
The priority of List 26 to 25 becomes clearer the closer one investigates. The

rubrics referred to in point (I) have been restored in A.T.L. ii. so as to correspond with those of List 25 rather than with the pre-war form. This is based
on precarious reasoning. In S.E.G. v. 28 West and Meritt published the surviving letters in col. ii, line 34 as - - -ON. Since it could not be the end of a final
Thracian tributary's name, they regarded it as part of the rubric and were
able to restore the exact heading familiar with this group of cities from Lists
21-23:

[r0AEsav'TacXop1ov
[7raxaaltEvaL].

With this restoration the list of cities is one longer than in A.T.L. ii.6 If the
in line 39, it would be natural to sugeditors are right in supplying [Kc&aL]o[]
gest ['E-reoKapTrradOot]for line 36. But, as I have already argued elsewhere,
[MIcAr][ptot] and [XESp]o[AtoL]are valid alternatives for line 39. Another
Thraceward rebel would do for col. i. 36. Pleume and Aioleion were certainly
I

On the descent of these rubrics from the

rTo'XeAavtal and 13iw-rat rubrics of 434/3

B.C. onwards see A.T.L. iii. 81-85 and Lepper, op. cit. 33 f.
2 In List 26 the Hellespontine names are
cut on the left lateral face, in 27 on the reverse. The pattern of List 25 is obscured by
the two intrusive rubrics supplied in col. ii.
37-4I and iii. 66-68. See my arguments in
C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), I60 nn. 3 and 4. In 25
the three Thracian payers of TrrapXjonly
admittedly follow the Thracian panel, but
the two special rubrics intervene with
several non-Thracian cities.
3 Parts of the last two
panels only of List
27 survive, but my proposition seems to be

accepted in A.T.L. i. 96 and by Meritt and

Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 73.
Theoretically the list could begin with
Islands, Thrace.
4 Alopekonesos, the newcomer in List 25, is
rubric in List
registered in the KaTra[8],EAora
26 (on this see A.T.L. i. 449 f. and iii. 88).
Byzantion pays just over 15 T in List 26,
a little over 8 T in 25, but more than 20 T
in 27.
5 For List 27 see the impressive case in
A.T.L. i. 196 ff. For the varying headings of
the rubrics see ibid. 449 f. and 453 f.
6 Here and later I quote columns and
lines according to A.T.L. ii, not S.E.G. v,
which should be consulted for comparison.

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND THE FOUNDATION

OF BREA

i8I

recovered and pay this year.' The A.T.L. editors, however, prefer to read
- -OI in line 34, whilst admitting that the stone is too weathered hereabouts
for any real certainty. They then supply word for word the rubric heading of
List 25:
[ratoae s'rax^cav h]ot
[racKrat cl

Kp...

.o]

[ypaqt,la7revovros'].

Assuming that - - -0 is the right reading in line 34, can we be sure that it is
not the remnant of a last name in the Thracian panel rather than part of the
rubric? There is a choice of two nine-letter tributaries. Both 2Kafhaa^otand
ZKaqcrafot were missing in 432/I B.C., like Pleume and Aioleion, but either

could have been briefly recoveredlike them in the interval. The rubric-heading
of S.E.G. v. 25 could then be read in lines 35 f.2 One small point favours that

reading against the A.T.L. version. Four other headings in this list take up
only two lines and this appears to be the fixed rule in List 25.3 Examination of
A. T.L. ii, List 26. col. i. 43 f. reinforcesthis impression.Here it was impossible
to restore the heading as in List 25. After several rather unconvincing versions
had been rejected, the editors settled for this as the closest approximation:
o]AE [Cav r]&i
[7raFaCT&
[8tKaarFEpt]o[t

E]r[a]X[UEV.4

But [ratao e 7ro]Ae[aw]remains dangerously tempting. Why indeed may we not

modify S.E.G. v. 25. i. 43 f. slightly to meet a specific criticism? I would continue to recommend:
[ratcr8E7ro]AE[otv h]ot
[&to6rat

6p]o[v Jr]Tcl[ax[cavro].

Admittedly this also diverges somewhat from its presumed pattern, but in
some ways it is neater, more parallel in grammar to its companion, and we can
see why the old form may have been altered in 430 B.C.5

The formal and epigraphic evidence combine to show that List 26 precedes
25. Now we must see whether 26 should be put before or after 27. The A. T.L.
editors have well noted that the appearance of Saros in List 27 should probably
be attributed to Lysikles' tribute-collecting expedition in 428/7 B.C.6 I think
that Anaphe might be added to his account. He would then have passed on
his roving commission through Anaphe to Saros and Karpathos and fetched
up on the Karian coast. He lost his life in a marauding raid up-country from
I See
my article in C.Q.N.S. Xi (1961), 158
f. For raAafot and OapflAtot see List 21. vi. 8
and I5: 22. ii. 78 and 86. For Pleume and
Aioleion (missing in 432/I B.C.) see 26. ii. 40
and 42 with A. T.L. i. 538 f.
2 For the
reading - - 01 see Meritt, Ath.
Fin. Doc., p. Io and A.T.L. i. 96: no photograph of the very worn obverse face was published (ibid. 93). For the Thracian panel of
List 26 see A.T.L. i. 195, where the editors
and [H7erapropose 27[4tKidOo],[2raytptfat],
peOtot] for their three lacunae, rejecting

2[KaIaatoL].

3 See A. T.L. ii. 26. i. I for the only exception in that list.
4 See Meritt, Ath. Fin. Doc. I and A. T.L.
i. 195 f.
5 See Nesselhauf, Klio, Beiheft xxx (I933),
71 (middle, not active, verb is required):
Mattingly, C.Q. N.S. xi (1961), 56 f. n. 6.
The old form-rTo'AEst as o iCSTrat4evypai/iav
qpdpov E'pEv--was rather clumsy.
6 i.
I97:

Thuc. 3. 19.

H. B. MATTINGLY

I82

K]ap'rdOoand
Myous.' Now in List 26 (col. iv. 9 f.) we find the entries [ ......
irepvwlo. We must surely supply BpvKoswith the editors. Not a mem[......]
ber of the Empire before the war, it was assessed for 500 d. in 425/4 B.C. (A 9,
ii. I39). In List 27 we have 'ETeo[KapTrdOa0L],
KapTrdOoA,pKrELta, Kadmotand
in
a
lacuna
Ionic
in
col.
iii.
the
after
I-5
panel. Saros appears on its
Kap,r7dwt
own lower down between Ialysos, Knidos, and Gargara (19-22). There is thus
quite a chance that Brykos was missing from List 27, since it apparently does
not send with any of its neighbours.2 In view of its geographical position, however, it may well also have been brought in by Lysikles' expedition. For some
reason it failed to pay in 428/7 B.C., I submit, or paid too late for inclusion in
that year's list; the record was then brought up to date by the two payments
registered in List 26, which will have to be dated 427/6 B.C.
We have already seen that Lysikles visited Anaphe. May he not have tried
to force neighbouring Thera into the Empire? In 431 B.C. Thera and Melos
were the only two of the Cyclades outside the Athenian alliance, but early in
426/5 B.C. Thera is found saddled with a war-indemnity comparable to that of
Samos. In Lists 26 and 25 it is recorded as paying a tribute of 3 T.3 I suggest
that the island refused Lysikles' demands in 428/7 B.C. and that he could do no
more than ravage its territory. Thera was now regarded as an open enemy. In
spring 427/6 B.C., however, it capitulated and paid tribute, hearing rumours of
the large expedition intended to coerce Melos. Thus Melos was left quite
isolated, when Nikias sailed forth in May.4
If List 26 then is to be dated 427/6 B.C. for these two reasons, List 28 must be
dated before 27. Its probable order of districts links it closely with Lists 27 and
26 and one small consideration suggests that it would anyway be best to make
it the first of the three.5 The editors restored Klazomenai's tribute in 28. 6 as
[RA]A[AF]FHI1, since it pays 6 T in List 27. This is a great rise from the
pre-war I? T, but it prepares the way for the jump to 15 T in the Assessment
of 425/4 B.C. The editors very plausibly ascribe the first rise to Athens' desperate
need of money in 428/7 B.C.6 Now this unfortunately renders their whole
position precarious. If a new fragment should chance to reveal that the first
figure was really H, their dating of List 28 is impossible; a payment of only
i T must presuppose the pre-war tribute. On the other hand, if the figure
shouldprove to be FR,we can still date List 28 430/29 or 429/8 B.C., since the big
rise may well have occurred at the Assessment of 430 B.C.
It would be useless to pretend that my view is free from formal objections.
I have tried to answer these elsewhere, but we must remember that the lists of
The A.T.L. map
I ForAnaphesee List27. ii. 3i and for the
before 'ErToKaplra0OLo1.
placesmentionedin this sectionsee the loose shows what a close neighbour it was to
map at the end of A.T.L. i. Thucydides Saros.
this hardly
suggests that he reached the Hellespont as
well (A.T.L. i. 197). Paches could look after
that area. Aristophanes may have had
Lysikles in mind, when he made the prosecutor complain of the dog Labes (Wasps

3 Thuc. 2. 9. 4: A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2.

65+), 22 f.: List 26. iii. 23 and 25. ii. 54
(a probable supplement: see A.T.L. i. I93).
Melos succeeded (at
4 Thuc. 3. 91. 1-3.
least till 416/15 B.C.) where on my view
Thera had failed.
5 For the order of districts (only one

925 ff.):

column

writes odSe AAa TE rpyvpoAoyet

Kal

vrptetrAcL,

Kat -r's Kapltas 'K MvoOvroS KrA;

oa-TrS
EK Trcv

TreptrAev6aaS

Tr)v Ovetav

ro'Aewv tO'v aKtpov

ev KVcKAW

e3enSaoKCev.

2 See A.T.L. i ('Register'), 250 f. It is just

possible that BpVK,6o stood immediately

survives

in part) see A.T.L.

i. 99

and

I99.
6 i. 197.

The

only from
B.c.?), but it

I5 T is known

A.T.L. ii. 39. i. 39 (4s6/15

must go back to A 9.

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND THE FOUNDATION

OF BREA

183

the 42o's are seriously defective and we must not expect to be able to solve all
problems.' One final argument moreover recommends putting List 25 in
426/5 B.C. We find in it the last explicit registration of ErLbopac,but even this is

the overdue fine for late payment the previous year. Two Thracian cities,
however, pay a concealed ernMopa, which is simply added to their normal
tribute.2 There is no sign of E'Mopac in List 26, but this is no reason for wavering

back to the A.T.L. order. In the more complete List 23 there is after all only
one surviving occurrence of T,rLbopa.
Moreover the two payments of previous
year's tribute in List 26 may have included E'rLqopafor all that we know.3
Now, with my date for List 25, we may associate the disappearanceof emrlopa
very closely with the Tribute Decree of 426/5 B.C., which introduced tighter
methods of control. As preservedthe decree does not actually mention mrtqopa,
but the word occurs in a contemporary measure that instituted the specially
equipped tribute-collecting squadrons.4D 8 instructs the Hellenotamiai to
inform the people shortly after the Dionysia which cities had not paid tribute
or not paid in full. Five men were then to be sent to the defaultersin order to
extract the tribute, no doubt with a standardized fine-perhaps half the previous maximum.5
We may surely now regard 427/6 B.C.as a firm date for List 26. If this is
allowed, we can hardly refuseto put the firstMethone Decree in the same year.
It granted Methone the privilege of paying the aparche only and List 26 shows
that the concession was shared by Dikaia and Haison. Methone and Dikaia
were on the fringe of Macedonian territoryand exposed to Perdikkas'pressure.6
The latter may have been sufferingfrom Bottiaian and Chalkidian hostility as
well. It is worth noting that nearby Aineia had its tribute dramaticallyreduced
at this time from the pre-war level of 3 T to I,ooo dr.7The coastal area called
Krousis-between Aineia and Poteidaia-passed temporarilyout of Athenian
control between 429 and 427

B.C.

Its cities-with

one possible exception-

seem to be missing from both Lists 26 and 25. The area was probably not part
of Bottike, which apparently had no sea-coast, and from 432-429 B.C. it was

loyally allied with Athens, to judge from Thucydides' narrative.8The one city
See C.Q. N.S. Xi (1961), 158-60. The
changes between S.E.G. 25 and 28 and
A.T.L. ii. 26 and 25 justify the degree of
freedom which I there claimed. See further
p. 184 n. I.
2 See A.T.L. i. 196 and 452 f.
3
Despite A.T.L. i. I96 we are free to restore [.....
7rmopa]r in 26. iv. 33, as in
S.E.G. v. 25; but this obviously cannot be
pressed. For the back-payments see iv. 10
and 45; no figures survive. In List 23
&rn#opd survives only in i. 54.
4 See A.T.L. ii. D 8 (I.G. i2.
65+) and
Meritt's study in his Documentsof Athenian
Tribute,pp. 3-42: LG. i2. 97 (Tod i, no. 76),
3 f. and Meritt's convincing reinterpretation
of the decree in Studiespresentedto D. M.
Robinson,ii (1953), 298-303 (S.E.G. xii. 26
gives his text).
5 Lines I I-I8. For the rate of
and
eTnofopa
its basis see A.T.L. i. 452 f.
6 For this date for D 3 see my further

arguments in C.Q. N.S. Xi (1961), 160-4 and

for Methone's anomalous position (5oiopov
Trj MaKIeovla: Thuc. 6. 7. 3) see ibid. 154
with n. 4. For Dikaia's site see Gomme, op.
cit. 2 (in or north of Bottike) and A.T.L.
i. 482 f. (on the coast east of Aineia?).
7
Compare A.T.L. ii. 23, ii. 54 with 25. ii.
20. The quota of 164 dr. has been restored in
26. ii. 24 also. It is just possible that the
reading here should be HHH: Aineia's
drop would then come in 426/5 B.C. and
might be directly associated with the Brea
scheme, already doubtless being meditated.
Did Aineia give up land to the colony?
A.T.L. iii. 308 n. 42 links the drop at
Argilos from I T in 438/7 B.C. to only I,ooo
dr. in 433/2 B.C. (its next appearance) with
the foundation of Amphipolis.
8 For Krousis see Her. 7. 123 and A.T.L.
i. 541, 550, and 556. For the tribute-record
see ibid. ('Register'), 222 f., 254 f., 310 f.,
381, 410 f., and 424 f. In 432 B.C. Perdikkas

I84

H. B. MATTINGLY

that remained loyal was, I think, Haisa, which I would identify with Haison,
as Edson long ago proposed. Haison paid 1,500 dr. tribute in 435/4 B.C. and
only ,000o dr. in 433/2 and 432/1 B.C. Haisa with four other 7ro'AEL Kpovalos
paid a joint tribute of 3,000 dr. in 434/3 B.C. under the 18t,3racrubric. A joint
payment of 2,0ooodr. is found in this rubric in 433/2 B.C. and, though the names
are missing, it is likely that we should supply either two or four of the TrdoAcEs
Kpovaclos. Haisa will have paid the balance separately in the main Thracian

panel.' It was the nearest to Poteidaia of the five cities recorded in the lists,
which explains both its continued loyalty in 427/6 B.C. and Athens' anxiety to
retain it by timely concessions.2The defection of Pleume, Aioleion, and one
other recovered rebel before spring 425

B.C.

further encouraged the Bottiaians

and left the frontier area round Aineia and Dikaia more dangerously exposed
than ever. Simonides' failure to deliver an effective counter-blow at Mendean
Eion left Athens, I submit, little alternative. Only a new colony could secure
the area.3After Brea'sfoundation Aineia and Methone were properly guarded
and the Bottiaians could be attacked, if desired, from both flanks. The policy
soon paid off handsomely. Despite Brasidas'successesPerdikkascame to terms
with Athens in summer 423 B.C., quickly repenting of his attempt to forestall
vigorous reprisals by calling in Spartan help.4 Most of the smaller Bottiaian
towns signed a peace treaty c. 422/I

B.C. and Spartolos was adroitly isolated by

the Peace of Nikias. Perhapsit soon sought neutrality, if not the Athenian alliance, since henceforth we hear only of ol XaAKL8ELs as rebels in this area.5
aa
7reLOe XaAsKLEcteas ras
OaAXd
'rdoesAi
e'
avotKLaaaOa
EKA7ro6vraS KaL KaraflaAovTas
"OvvOov
dl[av Tr 7roAdh ravTr7v iaXvpav
vroo7aaaOal (Thuc.

I. 58. 2); significantly

no

such advice is given to the Bottiaians. This

bears against the A. T.L. view (see above and
iii. 317). In summer 432 B.C. Kallias' army
passed through Krousis without challenge
and without devastating the land (Thuc. I.
6I); in 429 B.C. Krousis seems to have sent
peltasts to the Athenian army (see Gomme's
good note in ii. 213 on Thuc. 2. 79. 4). If
Skapsa is Herodotos' Kdauba(A.T.L. i. 549)
then one town of Krousis revolted in 432/1
B.C., but perhaps after Kallias' force had
passed through and the investment of
Poteidaia began. It seems to have been the
nearest town to Spartolos in Krousis.
I See on this equation Edson, C.Q. xlii
(1948), 92-94 and, strongly opposed to
Edson, A.T.L. iii. 219 with n. I 7. The
editors would place Haison in Pieria, near
Pydna (i. 466 f.). This is hard to accept,
since it was tributary from 451/0 B.C. (i.
A A AHFI[I] between
222 f.). For the figure L
two name-lines in 22. ii. 99 f. see A. T.L. i. 77
fig. 104 (photograph) and P1. xxi (facsimile
drawing). Haison's quota is restored in 22.
ii. 66, but was presumably the same as in
23. ii. 62. Incidentally the transference of
Haison/Haisa from the '8tcra rubric into
the main Thracian panel within an Assessment period provides a good parallel to the

anomaly concerning Besbikos, which Meritt

and Wade-Gery (J.H.S. Ixxxii [1962], 74 n.)
used to show that List 26 could not be put
after 27, adducing also the comparable
anomaly of Nisyros (Ionic in 27, Island in
26). Clearly we do not yet understand the
niceties of Athenian book-keeping.
2 For its site see A.T.L. i.
540.
3 See n. 53 and for the sites of Aioleion
(east Bottike, near Olynthos) and Pleume
see A.T.L. i. 465 and 539. Eion presumably
lay near them in this border-area, to judge
from Thucydides.
4 Thuc. 4. 79. 2 and I32. i. The Chalkidian rebels also pressed Sparta, fearing
a major Athenian offensive as early as
autumn 425 B.C. Thucydides does not
specify Bottiaian pressure. Were they already trying to contract out? With Gomme
(op. cit. iii. 621 f.) I believe that I.G. i2. 71 +
is the treaty which emerged from the negotiations in 423 B.C., despite A.T.L. iii. 313 n. 61
(dating it c. 436 B.C.). From lines 48 f. of the
new A. T.L. text (S.E.G. x. 86) we learn that
Athens had just lifted a blockade of Macedonia-from Methone, Aineia, and Brea ?similar to that imposed in winter 417/16
(Thuc. 5. 83. 4). See Lepper's good remarks
on this policy in J.H.S. Ixxxii (1962), 50.
5 For the date of IG. i2. 9o+ see the commentary in Tod, i. no. 68; Gomme, op. cit.
iii. 622: A.T.L. i. 556 and ii. 102, T 74.
Four or five small Bottic towns paid tribute

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND THE FOUNDATION

OF BREA

185

We must now meet two objections to this otherwise fairly plausible account
of why and when Brea was founded. That Thucydides does not record its
foundation in 426/5 B.C.must be accounted a strange omission, but one that
can easily be paralleled.I More troublesome is the fact that Brea is never
mentioned in his narrative of 425-42I

B.C. On close examination, however,

the objection appears less serious. Brasidasjoined Perdikkasfrom Dion for the
joint campaign against Arrhabaios.After their quarrel he combined with the
Chalkidian rebels in a successfulattempt on Akanthos and Stageira. Amphipolis, Galepsos, and a few neighbouring places fell before the winter. Then it
was the turn of cities on the peninsulasof Akte and Sithone. Shortly before the
truce of March 423

B.C.

Mende on Pallene revolted, while Skione followed the

example a few days after the truce was signed. If Brea really lay on the inner
Thermaic Gulf, we can see that Thucydides had no occasion to talk of it-the
more so as he mentions Poteidaia only once and Aphytis never in this context,
though both must have been main Athenian bases.2
The second objection concerns manpower. Athens in winter 427 B.C. experienced the second onset of plague, which lasted this time until c. November
426 B.C. The total plague losses were 4,400 from the hoplite roll, 300 cavalry,

and a large, but unspecifiednumber of thetes.3Is a colony conceivable at such

a time? Let us look at certain facts. Hagnon alone lost 1,050 hoplites from
plague in summer 430 B.C. and it is likely that over two-thirds of the total
casualties were incurred in the first onset. Yet perhaps as many as I,ooo
colonists were sent to Poteidaia in 429/8 B.C. and 2,700 cleruchs to Lesbos in

summer 427 B.C.4Admittedly the latter seem soon to have been recalled. The
return of the plague may well have forced this decision. At first perhaps the
cleruchs will have been concentrated at Mytilene after handing back the land

to the Lesbians, but I fancy that as soon as it was safe for them to come to
Athens they were actually withdrawn. We can find no trace of them in the
island later.5In summer425 B.c. Athens' depleted hoplite strengthwas further
reinforced by contingents from Miletos, Andros, and Karystos.6 In these
circumstances it would seem quite possible for Athens to afford to send out
a colony, especially as many of the Brea settlers probably came from the ranks
in 42I/0

B.C. (A.T.L. ii. 34. iii. 8-II);

two
appear as signatories to the treaty, but its
roll of names is very incomplete. For
Spartolos see Thuc. 5. i8. 6 and Gomme's
note in iii. 669 f. Only the Chalkidians are
specified in connexion with Brasidas (Thuc.
4. I23. 4 and I24. I with 5. 6. 4); only they
are said to have rejected the Peace (5. 21.
1-2) and fought on (5. 39. I).
I See p. 179 n. 6 for Methone. For other
examples see my articles in Historiax and xii
(174 f. and 259 with n. I ).
2 See Thuc.
4. 78. 6 and 83-88: I02-I6:
120-32:
139 (a night attempt at surprising
Poteidaia).
3 See Thuc.
3. 87. I-3 and Gomme's
notes ad loc. (ii. 388 f.): A. H. M. Jones,
AthenianDemocracy(1957), pp. I65 f. (against
Gomme's attempt to restrict the hoplite
losses to the field army).
4 Thuc. 2. 58. 3: 2. 70. 4 with Diod. 12.

46: Thuc. 3. 50. 2.

5 Jones (op. cit., pp. 174 ff.) argued that
the cleruchs were never actually sent to
Lesbos, but Thucydides' drr6rreqlav cannot
easily be explained away as 'a term of art'.
Gomme (Studiespresentedto D. M. Robinson,ii
[I953], 334-9) thought that they were
brought back to Athens c. 425/4 B.c.:
Meritt, dating the crucial decree (I.G. i2. 60)
427/6 B.C., holds that the cleruchs vacated
the land for the Lesbians (on payment of
rent), but remained in Lesbos concentrated
near Mytilene and other cities on the estates
of the oligarchs (A.J.Ph. lxxv ([ 954], 36 -8).
Gomme restated his view in vol. ii of his
Commentary
(pp. 326-32), taking account of
some of Meritt's points. Neither has quite
proved his case and my view is an attempted
compromise between them.
6 Thuc. 4. 42. i. Milesian hoplites were
again employed in 424 B.c. (4. 54. I).

I86

H. B. MV3ATTINGLY

of the thetes.' Strategic needs could have won against any feeling that Athens
must not voluntarily part with any citizens.
If my dating of Brea is valid, it must greatly strengthenthe epigraphic argument of the first part of this paper. If it does not convince, that argument still
stands on the evidence of Leagros' dedication alone. Transitional Attic lettering
survived publicly into the 420's. It may even have been preferred by individuals
or communities who did not mind the old-fashioned look or wanted a cheap
job. My low dating of the Chalkis Decree may now seem less unreasonable
than many have found it. Indeed even its sloping lambdas can be paralleled in
an inscription which is quite certainly dated 4Io/9 B.C.2 Much in I.G. i2. 39
points to the Archidamian War, as I have argued elsewhere, and, though
Thucydides is again silent, Philochoros recorded armed Athenian intervention
in Euboia in 424/3 B.C., the precise year to which several indications lead. The
ascendancy of the XpagyLAoyoso Hierokles (lines 64 f.) surely belongs to those
years of credulity between the Plague and the Sicilian expedition.3
No single letter, I believe, can any longer be used as a criterion for rigorously
excluding inscriptions from the 430's or 420's. The firmest defenders of orthodoxy must admit some exception to their rule that three-bar sigma went out of
public use c. 445 B.C. Meritt and Wade-Gery now concede that the choregic
dedication of Aristokrates son of Skelios must be put in the 420's or later,
though I would agree that it was archaizing and will therefore leave it out of
account.4 But there is another inscription (I.G. i2. 37) that is decidedly more
awkward for them and with fine honesty they have not shirked its challenge.
All that survives is the letters Okl<E c4I on a taenia over the reliefofa standing
female personification named as MEYE-- -. There can be little doubt that
this relief headed a stele carrying an Athenian decree about 'Messene' or 'the
Messenians' and that part of the secretary's name is preserved in the letters on
the taenia. Virtually all the sculptural experts whom Meritt and Wade-Gery
have consulted want to date the relief after the Panathenaic frieze of
the Parthenon, which they feel influenced the characteristic standing pose
I Jones holds (op. cit. i68f.)
that the
majority both of cleruchs and colonists
were thetes: Gomme would seem to agree
about the cleruchies (op. cit. ii. 328 f.). For
the distinction between the two types of
settlement see A.T.L. iii. 284. Plutarch (Per.
i. 6) implies that thetes largely benefited.
Certainly thetes and zeugitai alike were admitted to Brea (I.G. i2. 45. 37 ff.).Jones asserts
that a colony, whilst reducing the citizen
body, would have small effect on Athenian
hoplite strength; a cleruchy could even be
used to increase the latter, by raising thetes
to zeugite census. He further argues that
cleruchies were not regarded as garrisons,
but that the cleruchs were liable for general
military service (p. 174) and thus included
on the normal hoplite roll. This seems doubtful. Andrian and Karystian hoplites were
probably freed for foreign service (Thuc. 4.
42. I) by the Athenian cleruchies (for which
see A.T.L. iii. 289 f. and Jones, op. cit.
170 f.): Miletos, which had no cleruchy,

represents a special case (see p. 190 n. I). In

this way-by increasing use of allied hoplites
-Athens tried to counter 'the fantastic waste
of manpower', which Jones recognizes in the
cleruchy as normally understood (p. 176).
2 See A.T.L. ii.
pl. x for the lettering of D
17 (I.G. i2. 39): for I.G. i2. 09 see the
photograph in A.T.L. i. 213 (D 9).
3 See
my article in J.H.S. lxxxi (i96I),
I24-32 (especially p. 126 on Hierokles): for
Philochoros see the scholiast on Aristoph.
Wasps7I8 (Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. iii, B 328, frg.
I30). Thucydides' Athenian speaker at
Melos (5. 103. 2) shows a revealingly strong
reaction to the pretensions of such as
Hierokles: after the debacle at Syracuse this
naturally became more general (8. i. I). On
the special vogue of Xp-7a/loAo0yoL
from 431 to
413 B.C. see the excellent study by L.
Radermacher in Rhein. Mus. lxxv (1898),
504-9.
4 J.H.S.

772).

lxxxiii

(I963),

Ii5

(on I.G. i2.

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND

THE

FOUNDATION

OF BREA

187

of'Messene'; some would bring it downintothe420's.' Against this

(dehanchement)
consensus Meritt and Wade-Gery can really cite only the male standing figure
from the north end of the Hephaisteion east frieze.2 This seems hardly enough,
especially as there is one further neglected piece of evidence that leads straight
to the 420's. From Thuc. 3. go. 4 we know that Athens made an alliance in
summer 426 B.C. with Sicilian Messana, whose Attic form is quite certainly
Meacrrjvr.I believe that I.G. i2. 37 is a fragment from the stele that bore this
treaty and would tentatively suggest restoring the secretary as [Oav-r]oioAs?;he
is already known as the secretary of I.G. i2. 75 (c. 430-425 B.C.) and played
a part in the discussion about the Brea colony (I.G. i2. 45. 32 if.).3
With rather more confidence I can now pass on to the Kos fragment of the
Coinage Decree, which has caused so much disturbance with its three-bar
sigmas and early look. It should no longer prevent one dating D 14 c. 425 B.C.,
if the historical and numismatic factors incline that way. My case on these
rests.4 Here I would stress a single formal point. Meritt and Wade-Gery rightly
divined its importance, but they did not finally dispose of it and so the orthodox
dating remains precarious. I had argued that Klearchos would have adopted
the current official order of tribute-districts in the passage dealing with the
heralds' journeys. As this order was in fact the one first established in 425/4
B.C., I held this striking confirmation of my date for D 14. My opponents in this
debate made some valid points against my basic doctrine and I frankly concede that I pushed my case too hard. But I find it hard to believe that the
naming of four districts in A 9 and D 14 was based on geographical considerations rather than book-keeping practice. Certainly the orderof naming them
could barely have been so determined, when they were enumerated one by one
as here; indeed the two orators use different orders.5 Meritt and Wade-Gery
take refuge in declaring that the choice was arbitrary. They cannot, of course,
deny that Thoudippos' order had been used recently in a Tribute-List, but in
maintaining their date for List 25 (430/29 B.C.) they land themselves in
a dilemma. They must assert that the order could and did vary within a single
Assessment period and on p. 73 they draw the conclusion: 'The order changes
within Period VII, and (if Thoudippos be considered as evidence for Period
VIII) it changes back again in Period VIII.' Thoudippos then couldhave been
I ibid. I 15 ff.: Meritt,
Hesperiaxiii (I944),
223-9.
2 Scholarly consensusputs this frieze early
(pre-Parthenon), so that I am reluctant to
counter with C. H. Morgan's theory (Hesperia xxxii [I963], I04-8) which puts it after
421

B.C.

3 For MeUaravr),MeaaujvLo see Thuc. loc.

cit. and 4.

24-25.

Many names ending

-oKA,S could be supplied, but if I am right on

Brea, Phantokles is politically active at just

the required time. OL- - can be part of the
demotic ('XAait$s) or of the father's name.
4 See Historia x (1961), i57 f. and 18I-8.
Recently new light has come on Aigina.
A stater of early land-tortoise type was overstruck by Azbaal of Kition (fl. c. 430 B.c.:
see Kraay, Num. Chron. I962, 13 ff.); it is
published by Noe, Amer. Num. Soc. Mus.
Notes vi (I954), 90 and pl. xiv. 2). Robinson

(Num. Chron. I961, III f.) argues that the

issue of 'turtles' stopped in 457 B.C. and that
the 'tortoise' series runs from c. 446 to 431
B.C. Athens had to tolerate it under the
'autonomy clause' of 446/5 B.C. (Thuc. I.
67. 2). This may seem to dispose of the
apparent disregard of D 14. There is no
problem with the late dating. In 431 B.C.
Athens could proceed to call in and demonetize masses of her enemy's coin and
this may have led to pressure to deal radically
with the whole problem of Athenian and
foreign money.
5 See Mattingly, Historia x (196 ), 15868: Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii
(1962), 72 ff. I would now withdraw Perikles'
Congress Decree (Plut. Per. I7) and the
Decree of Kleinias (IG. i2. 66+: A.T.L. ii,
D 7) from the discussion.

I88

H. B. MATTINGLY

using the order of 426/5 B.C. This damning concession almost gives away their
whole case. Now in this paper I trust that I have proved that List 25 is really
the list of 426/5 B.C. Thoudippos then did use the current order, which the
taKTra altered afterwards-into
that used by Klearchos. How can we evade
the logical conclusion ? Is this one formal argument too weak to bear the weight
which I would place on it ? It may seem a mere straw. Yet the merest straw
can show which way the wind is blowing.
The decree of Klearchos and the Decree of Kleinias (A. T.L. ii, D 7) are very
close in spirit and in time. We all seem able to agree on that. Then any dating
which can be established for D 7 must bind D 14 also. Now epigraphically it
remains hard to insist that D 7 belongs only in the 440's, since it has four-bar
sigma and not many letters really look early. Other arguments must be given
more weight.2 In my earlier attack on D 7 I compared the provisions in D 8
(lines i8 if.) of 426/5 B.C. and D 7 (lines 43 if. and 58 if.) for registering
the names of couriers of defaulting cities. I was content to adopt the A.T.L.
restorations.3 I now see that I had got hold of a vital point. I propose therefore
to re-examine the text of D 7 and ignore almost everything inside square
brackets.4 Lines 43 if. follow the arrangements for prosecuting offenders
against tribute-collection or fulfilment of religious obligations. They give little
clue to the sense:
7TOS

o[ ...................

[......]

TTLVLaKLOV

.E]s

7O6 opo

[ov ....................]v

AE[AEVKO0ELV]

Kac [ ...

....]

d oy[pa4dev? .......]
Ka]t a

[.....................

With this we should perhaps compare lines 68 ff.:

eav s

[..........................]
[AevcratLeve................]
[ ......................
[...............

Ta
LtS

hE PoAEPo
crayovrov 8e hot
KAE'UEs

A:0ev]aLoLsTO bo'pov
Kara 7rv 7rlva]Ka re?SIevvaTEOS.

This follows a passage concerned with prosecution of couriers who betrayed

their trust and, since eav e -ts a[- -- in line 68 could reasonably be restored as
Eav Se Is- a,[AAos -- -, other culprits may be in view from this point.5 Is the
7rtva4 perhaps

to be identified

with the 7rtvaKLov of line 44? The A.T.L.

text

assumes rather that lines 43 if. found their counterpart in 58 if., which are
restored as follows:
- - -----

h]oot

86 ro6va7ra[y]

oCe
[ovov7ovAOEVa E Sr7 7TLvKLOV dv]ayEypa'caTaL
3
TOt
8UJL
TEL
3O\AV
E7T]v
EL8EXoaL
7E,L
E'V
oAXL,
[AOV7ES
[Ol

r6v rTO'Aova
Kara TrV oALtvhEKaCTEV' Eav 8]E rT7L

[5LfL<fETEL

- - - -

Meritt and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii

67 f.: Meiggs, Harvard Studies lxvii
(1963), 19 ff. and 28 ff.
2
Meiggs can at most claim 'the disposition of the letters over the space is unlike the
style of the twenties but can be paralleled in
the forties' (p. 22). See A.T.L. ii, pl. ii.
3 Historia x (1961), 152 n. 2I.
4 In fairness I must note that Hill and
(I962),

Meritt remarked of lines 43-77 in their

edition (Hesperiaxiii [I944], I4) that there
was 'little prospect of reaching anything
like certainty': the restorations were 'largely
for the sake of example ... interpretation of
what the meaning might have been'.
5 One might cite a similar passage in D
8 (lines 43-50),
noting that KATo,etS in D 7. 69
echoes K]A)-r7opES in D 8. 48 f.

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND

THE

FOUNDATION

OF BREA

189

Clearly this clause does referback to a previousarrangement,which is curiously

missing in the passage (lines 20-3 I) where one would expect it on the analogy
of D 8. I1-25. A factual registerof defaulting cities and their couriersmoreover
would be somewhat out of place where it must be assumedto have come in D 7,
if it came at all. The context of criminal prosecutionsseems inappropriate.
Was this provisionthen omitted from D 7 ? We must look again at the A. T.L.
text of D 8. 18 if., which can surely be accepted:
-------

avay[paoo6vTov oE hot &AA]evora

ras cAAtrd']oaas7r6
cs aav&td raas [7ro'AsEs

o
[u]Lat
[p]o Kat 7rov aTrayovr[ov ra ovo/'LuaraKa]l nOev&ac
E]oro Se Kac 2a
[h?]EKCaror?e 7rpoa?GE[V 7O6flearosg
'

This suggests to me a valid alternative restoration in D 7. 58 ff.:

h]oao,c e 76v ac7ra[y]
[ovrov T;of 06povE'S rev aavt8a av]ayEypdtarat
or,e'
EV TEZL oA&L,TrtL OA'V 7T]lSELXT?(aL
[AOVTES
t76L p
[ol

KaTa

TEV

TroXL heKaaOTEv' Eav 8]E TtSg - - -I

Allusive reference back to an earlier decree would be quite understandable

and I have already argued that we have an example of this in D 7. 41-43,
a clause relating to Thoudippos' Panathenaic ordinance of 425/4 B.C. My
critics have failed to remove this disturbing possibility despite the skill of their
arguments. Now that we are faced with the probable dependence of D 7 on
D 8 of 426/5 B.C., I cannot see that we can deny the perfect propriety of D 7.
41-43 as a follow-up to A 9. 55 ff. The Reassessment was bound to require
a supplementary KOLVOV 07jtia
for its enforcement and such a decree was
rather likely to contain a penal clause protecting the religious obligation.2
IfD 7 then is really a decree of 425/4 B.C., we must allow the same dating for
D 14. Neither curving upsilon nor three-bar sigma is a certain criterion for
early date. The two forms meet in the famous Miletos Decree. Against impressive counter-arguments I can only plead that the actual text must have absolute
priority as evidence, lacerated though it is, over any other form of evidence.3
Several lines converge very remarkably on 426/5 B.C. First the decree names
an archon Euthynos. Did Diodoros mistakenly call the archon of 450/49 B.C.
Euthydemos? We do not know. But we do know that the archon of 426/5 B.C.
was called Euthynos.4 Secondly D I I, lines I ff. seems to arrange for Miletos
I The /Pfia in D 8. 2I is, of course, the
tribune in the Council House: see A.T.L.
iii. 16.
2 See Historia x (196), 153: Meritt and
Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxii (1962), 69-7I:
Meiggs, op. cit. 23 and 29. Some imperial
measure about Panathenaic obligationperhaps affecting all allies of ultimate Ionian
descent-doubtless
preceded Thoudippos'
brief decree, as they urge. But this need not
be pushed far back. I suggest a date shortly
before the Panathenaia of 430 B.C.The policy
would be of a piece with the creation of the
Delian Festival for the Ionians and Islanders
in 426/5 B.C. (Thuc. iii. 104) and the

Eleusinian First-fruits Decree (I.G. i2. 76: see

lines 14 if.) in 422/I B.C. (?); see on its date
P. Guillon, Bull. Corr. Hell. lxxxvi (1962),
470 if.
3 See A.T.L. ii,
pl. iv, D I (I.G. i2. 22+)
for the lettering: Mattingly, Historia x
(1961), 174-81 : J. Barron, J.H.S. lxxxii
I-6: Meiggs, op. cit. 24 f.: Meritt
(I962),
and Wade-Gery, J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963), 0oo2. I willingly abandon my attempts to call in
Diodoros and the pseudo-Xenophon's A0.
HoA.
4 See Historia x
(1961), 174 and I8 for
full discussion.

Igo

H. B. MATTINGLY

to provide hoplites to serve in Greece. This may have happened on earlier

occasions, but they are found there undeniably in summer 425 B.c.I In D I I. 42
we have a certain reference to Athenian E7TLptEA-rat.Meritt and Wade-Gery
may be right in claiming that they were not a standing board, but one that
might be appointed from time to time as the need arose. Such need arose
specially in 426/5 B.C. and in this year one would expect to find them busily
at work, dealing with offences relating to tribute-payment, as arranged in D 8.
38-52. Now in D II. 51 f. the text can be plausibly restored to show the
fulfilling just the function ascribed to them in D 8.2 In D I I. 57 f.rLL,EAX7rTaL
a passage probably concerned with Miletos-I believe that we have traces of
the Milesian 4KAoyES ?c>opov
appointed under the terms of D 8 early in 426/5
e To[tev?] and 7rEp ro^vXPECarov esE7e opd[s
B.C. The phrases ErLypaTbas
would be most appropriate in describing their operations.3 One last point may
be worth making. In lines 4 f. the A.T.L. text reads: [- -- hEAeaOaL
8] 7TETVTE
pyaAah[v7rEpTpLaKovraEre] yEyovoTa[S.
Jv[8pas rov &SEpov
E'XSharr/avrova]lvvTLKa
Now there really seems no reason for specifying the minimum age of thirty
here. This was surely required for most, if not all, Athenian offices.4 But in the
first Methone Decree (D 3. I6 ff.) we find the clause: 7r[peares8]e rpEs7rT/oraL
hvrETp Trvr7EKOvraETE yEyov[oraS

ho]s HEp$KKa[v]. The same supplement

can

perfectly well be made in D I I. 4 f. in view of the irregularity of its stoichedon

pattern.5 Now this care not to detach men of active age for civilian service
overseas fits the time when Athens was committed to a war greater than any
in her past history. By 427/6 B.C., after two onsets of the plague, the hoplite
class was dangerously depleted.6
Despite all apparent difficulties I cannot see how this cumulative case can
be rejected. D i, on its own evidence, must be put in 426/5 B.C. The documents on which an impressive story of the Empire has been built must be
brought down nearly a generation and we must patiently see what can be
made of them in their later context. It has always seemed to many that the
Coinage Decree fitted the period of Kleon's dominance. Now other Athenian
policies and transactions must join it in the 420's and among them the foundation of Brea-that
little-regarded, little-remembered colony-may
perhaps
claim a place of some honour.
I See on this Meritt and Wade-Gery,
J.H.S. lxxxiii (I963), o10 and Meiggs, op.
cit. 25: Thuc. 4. 42. i. Meiggs finds 4 obols
pay too low for the Archidamian War
(Thuc. iii. 7): but this was possibly pay for
the v'7rnqpErrs
implied in line 12, not for the
hoplites.
2 See J.H.S. lxxxiii (1963),
I02, where
they seem to accept my suggestion for 51 f.
were first
I had argued that these ertLtLEAr1Tra
appointed by D 8 (Historiax [I96I], 177)possibly wrongly.
3 Lines 30-56 deal with jurisdiction at
Athens for civil cases arising at Miletos and
offences against Athenian regulations; lines
59-64 seem concerned with disputes and
conditions in Miletos itself. It seems unlikely that 56 if. refer to Etabopa at Athenshow would that affect Milesians? The

'Suda' and Harpokration (both s.v. e'KAoyEct)

significantly confuse the allied EKAoyeF,with
the officials who collected elaoopa at Athens,
which suggests that the system of D 8 was at
least modelled on the Athenian one. See
Meritt, Documentson AthenianTribute, 14 ff.
4 See
Hignett, AthenianConstitution,p. 224.
5 See the epigraphical notes in A.T.L. ii.
60.
6 Thucydides' view (i. I-2) must have
been shared by many, as the war wore on.
For the active-service age groups (20-49)
see Gomme, op. cit. ii. 35-39 on Thuc.
2. 13. 6. 4,400 hoplites died of plague (Thuc.
3. 87. 3). Athens would have had to spare
some hoplites for Brea in 426/5 B.C., but this
loss was partially offset, as we have seen
(pp. I85 nn. 5 and 6 and I86 n. I).

ATHENIAN

IMPERIALISM

AND THE FOUNDATION

OF BREA

I91

APPENDIX
IN his recent article 'The Athenian Casualty Lists' in Hesperiaxxxiii (I964)
Donald W. Bradeen has shown that E.M. I2883, E.M. 13344, and I.G. i2. 942
all come from the same monument, which consisted of five stelai-each containing the casualties of two tribes-ranged side by side on a base. There was
evidently room for some 850 names on the stelai, but not all the tribes may have
filled their allotted columns. A conservative guess would put the total losses
c. 550, but the true figure could well be near 700. Bradeen makes out a very
strong case for claiming that these stelai actually stood on the base which
carries the 'Koroneia' epigram. For all this see pp. 21-29 of his article with
figs. 1-2. Now Bradeen recognizes (p. 25) that it is hardly credible that even as
much as 55 per cent. of the Athenian force was killed at Koroneia; Thucydides'
neutral language in I. I13. 2 alone rules this out (compare 4. o1I. 4 and
passim). Accepting spring 446 B.C. as the date for Koroneia (A. T.L. iii. I74 and
178 n. 65) he therefore assumes that the stelai included the casualties in Megara
and Euboia as well. But this is hard to believe. The epigram refers to onefateful
battle only, in which the valiant dead had fallen. The comparable Poteidaia
epitaph (I.G. i2. 945+) must have headed a list confined to the losses in the
battle of 432 B.C. (Thuc. I. 63. 3); see Tod i. I27 f., no. 59. Similarly the losses
its correct date-seem all to have been
recorded on I.G. i2. 943+-whatever
incurred in the Hellespontine area, as its epigram demands; see Tod i. 100 if.,

no. 48.
Bradeen's very plausible association of stelai and base ought not to be lightly
abandoned. Does it in fact work better for Delion ? On p. 27 n. 19 he discusses
my view of the epigram; after allowing that the arguments for Amphiaraos are
attractive, he maintains the traditional dating. 'Decisive against Mattingly's
identification', he writes, 'is the fact that Thucydides (4.IOI.2) gives the
Athenian losses at Delion as almost I ooo, not including the light-armed. . . .'
Now were the light-armed included on these public funeral lists? Despite
Bradeen's insistence (p. 25 n. I5) that all citizen losses must have been recorded, I incline strongly to the opposite view, which has many supporters (e.g.
A. E. Raubitschek, Hesperiaxii [I943], 48 n. I02) and seems reasonable at least
for the period down to the Peace of Nikias. Athens then had no regular,
properly equipped light-armed troops and those involved in the Delion
debacle were hastily raised levies from the townsfolk and the non-resident
aliens (Thuc. 4. 94. i). As Gomme acutely observed, the great majority were
drafted for building the Delion fortification and not for fighting at all. Because
they were not strictly part of the army establishment, Thucydides could give
no figure for their casualties, nor does Perikles estimate the number of btAotin
his famous survey (Thuc. 2. 13. 7). Likewise after precise figures for the cavalry
and hoplite losses by plague Thucydides is reduced to writing -rov 8e AAov
oXAov dvEEvpETroS
dpV0po's(3. 87. 3). For all this see Gomme, op. cit. iii. 558
and 564 f.
Bradeen, however, thinks that Thucydides' 'almost Iooo' is itself decisive
against my view. I must admit that his maximum estimate of the names entered
on the stelai cannot really be raised. But did only Athenian hoplites fight on
the Athenian side at Delion? In describing the levee en masse Thucydides
wrote (4. 90. I) o CE'ITT7ToKpaTrns
avauariasaAOfvavovs TravVy^e,avrovs Kal
p
. . . The latter composed the irregular
rao 7rap7av.
To)Vs eTroIKOVSKal evwv

H. B. MATTINGLY

192

light-armed units with the townsfolk (4. 94. i); the metics were reckoned as
hoplites in reserve by Perikles (2. 13. 7) and 3,oo00of them actually joined in
the Megarid invasion of autumn 431 B.c. (2. 31. 1-2). Then they seem to have

taken the place of the 3,000 Athenian hoplites besieging Poteidaia, as A. H. M.

p. I64). In 424/3 B.C.400
Jones has plausibly suggested (AthenianDemocracy,
under
Demosthenes
were
4.
serving
hoplites
(Thuc. IOI. 3) and another 1,200
under Aristeides, Demodokos, and Lamachos in the thirty tribute-collecting
ships; see Thuc. 4. 75 and I.G. i2. 97+ as revised and reinterpreted by Meritt
in Studiespresentedto D. M. Robinson,ii (I953), 298-303. Thus it would be
reasonable to postulate that i,600 metic hoplites were drafted for the Delion
campaign. The Boiotian hoplites were about 7,000 strong, the Athenian force
was roughly equal (Thuc. 4. 93. 3 and 94. i); there may have been as many as
6,ooo Athenian-born hoplites. Now the Athenian cavalry was prevented from
taking any part in the battle (see Gomme, op. cit. iii. 566 on Thuc. 4. 96. 2) and
will have had little difficulty in making good their escape even from the
pursuing enemy cavalry. We must then assume something like 950 casualties
among the hoplites alone. Assuming the same proportion of loss we could
divide this as 200 metics and 750 Athenians-the men whose names, I submit,
nearly filled the monument under discussion,which Pausaniaswill have seen in
the Kerameikos centuries later (I. 29. 13).

Bradeen's 'decisive' argument turns out practically decisivefor Delion. This

not only strengthens the argument in my text about the 'Koroneia' epigram
and Brea, but has other awkward consequences.The script of the lists, though
also transitional, is different from that of the epigram in its forms of rho and
phi (P and as against R and cl>).See Hesperiaxxxiii (1964), pl. 2-3. Except for
four-bar sigma, however, it is almost identical with that of I.G. i2. 85I+
(Bradeen'sno. 3; p. 21 and pl. 2). Some of its four-barsigmas indeed have the
top stroke slanting too vertically, as though the mason was intending a threebar form. Bradeen suggeststhat the two inscriptions(his nos. 3 and 5) were cut
by the same stonecutter, the latter just at the point when he was going over to
the current fashion in the shape of sigma (p. 24). This observationseems valid.

4)

If we redate Bradeen's no. 5 to 424/3 B.C., it must mean that this mason at

least had recently been used to inscribing three-bar sigmas together with the
other early or transitional forms which he still retained for a while-curving
upsilon and sloping nu. This confirmsmost satisfactorilythe epigraphic points
which I have tried to make in this article.
of Nottingham
tUniversity

HAROLD B. MATTINGLY