The Methone Decrees
Identifieur interne : 000105 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000104; suivant : 000106The Methone Decrees
Auteurs : Harold. B. MattinglySource :
- The Classical Quarterly [ 0009-8388 ] ; 1961-12.
Abstract
The series of decrees concerning Methone throws welcome light on Athenian foreign policy and the imperialism of Pericles' successors. Here is historical evidence of the highest quality. Are we using it as fully and accurately as we should? This paper is written in the belief that we are being hampered by unsound presuppositions. Chronologically the second decree is our main fixed point. It was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 B.C. The third and fourth decrees followed in the next two archon-years. They can be ignored in this discussion, since one is hopelessly mutilated and the other is missing from the stone as it stands now. The real problem rises over the first decree. What is its date? It used commonly to be put in 428/7 B.C. until West argued powerfully for January/February 429/8 B.C. His view won considerable support, but the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists have since succeeded in establishing the summer of 430 B.C. as the orthodox dating. Now those who accept this should recognize that it creates an awkwardly long gap between the first and second decrees. By the first decree Methone was permitted to pay the quota alone, instead of its full tribute, and was promised separate, favourable treatment of its arrears in return for continued loyalty.
Url:
DOI: 10.1017/S0009838800015482
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>The Methone Decrees</title><author><name sortKey="Mattingly, Harold B" sort="Mattingly, Harold B" uniqKey="Mattingly H" first="Harold. B." last="Mattingly">Harold. B. Mattingly</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Nottingham</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE</idno><date when="1961" year="1961">1961</date><idno type="doi">10.1017/S0009838800015482</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000105</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000105</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">The Methone Decrees</title><author><name sortKey="Mattingly, Harold B" sort="Mattingly, Harold B" uniqKey="Mattingly H" first="Harold. B." last="Mattingly">Harold. B. Mattingly</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Nottingham</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">The Classical Quarterly</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">The Class. Q.</title><idno type="ISSN">0009-8388</idno><idno type="eISSN">1471-6844</idno><imprint><publisher>Cambridge University Press</publisher><pubPlace>Cambridge, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1961-12">1961-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3-4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="154">154</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="165">165</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0009-8388</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0009-8388</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">The series of decrees concerning Methone throws welcome light on Athenian foreign policy and the imperialism of Pericles' successors. Here is historical evidence of the highest quality. Are we using it as fully and accurately as we should? This paper is written in the belief that we are being hampered by unsound presuppositions. Chronologically the second decree is our main fixed point. It was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 B.C. The third and fourth decrees followed in the next two archon-years. They can be ignored in this discussion, since one is hopelessly mutilated and the other is missing from the stone as it stands now. The real problem rises over the first decree. What is its date? It used commonly to be put in 428/7 B.C. until West argued powerfully for January/February 429/8 B.C. His view won considerable support, but the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists have since succeeded in establishing the summer of 430 B.C. as the orthodox dating. Now those who accept this should recognize that it creates an awkwardly long gap between the first and second decrees. By the first decree Methone was permitted to pay the quota alone, instead of its full tribute, and was promised separate, favourable treatment of its arrears in return for continued loyalty.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>cambridge</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Harold. B. Mattingly</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Nottingham</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>01548</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/6GQ-97XRTCF5-P</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The series of decrees concerning Methone throws welcome light on Athenian foreign policy and the imperialism of Pericles' successors. Here is historical evidence of the highest quality. Are we using it as fully and accurately as we should? This paper is written in the belief that we are being hampered by unsound presuppositions. Chronologically the second decree is our main fixed point. It was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 B.C. The third and fourth decrees followed in the next two archon-years. They can be ignored in this discussion, since one is hopelessly mutilated and the other is missing from the stone as it stands now. The real problem rises over the first decree. What is its date? It used commonly to be put in 428/7 B.C. until West argued powerfully for January/February 429/8 B.C. His view won considerable support, but the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists have since succeeded in establishing the summer of 430 B.C. as the orthodox dating. Now those who accept this should recognize that it creates an awkwardly long gap between the first and second decrees. By the first decree Methone was permitted to pay the quota alone, instead of its full tribute, and was promised separate, favourable treatment of its arrears in return for continued loyalty.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.568</score><pdfWordCount>7530</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>38951</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>12</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>433.44 x 663.84 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>214</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1279</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The Methone Decrees</title><pii><json:string>S0009838800015482</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>The Classical Quarterly</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0009-8388</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1471-6844</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CAQ</json:string></publisherId><volume>11</volume><issue>3-4</issue><pages><first>154</first><last>165</last><total>12</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/6GQ-97XRTCF5-P</json:string></ark><publicationDate>1961</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1961</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1017/S0009838800015482</json:string></doi><id>83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">The Methone Decrees</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Cambridge University Press</publisher><pubPlace>Cambridge, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence><p>Copyright © The Classical Association 1961</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-G3RCRD03-V">cambridge</p></availability><date>1961</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">The Methone Decrees</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Harold. B.</forename><surname>Mattingly</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Nottingham</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/6GQ-97XRTCF5-P</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1017/S0009838800015482</idno><idno type="PII">S0009838800015482</idno><idno type="article-id">01548</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">The Classical Quarterly</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">The Class. Q.</title><idno type="pISSN">0009-8388</idno><idno type="eISSN">1471-6844</idno><idno type="publisher-id">CAQ</idno><imprint><publisher>Cambridge University Press</publisher><pubPlace>Cambridge, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1961-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">11</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3-4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="154">154</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="165">165</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1961</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract style="text-abstract"><p>The series of decrees concerning Methone throws welcome light on Athenian foreign policy and the imperialism of Pericles' successors. Here is historical evidence of the highest quality. Are we using it as fully and accurately as we should? This paper is written in the belief that we are being hampered by unsound presuppositions. Chronologically the second decree is our main fixed point. It was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 B.C. The third and fourth decrees followed in the next two archon-years. They can be ignored in this discussion, since one is hopelessly mutilated and the other is missing from the stone as it stands now. The real problem rises over the first decree. What is its date? It used commonly to be put in 428/7 B.C. until West argued powerfully for January/February 429/8 B.C. His view won considerable support, but the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists have since succeeded in establishing the summer of 430 B.C. as the orthodox dating. Now those who accept this should recognize that it creates an awkwardly long gap between the first and second decrees. By the first decree Methone was permitted to pay the quota alone, instead of its full tribute, and was promised separate, favourable treatment of its arrears in return for continued loyalty.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1961-12">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus cambridge not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.2 20060430//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article dtd-version="2.2" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">CAQ</journal-id><journal-title>The Classical Quarterly</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title>The Class. Q.</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0009-8388</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1471-6844</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Cambridge, UK</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/S0009838800015482</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pii">S0009838800015482</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">01548</article-id><title-group><article-title>The Methone Decrees<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn01"><sup>1</sup></xref></article-title><alt-title alt-title-type="left-running">H. B. MATTINGLY</alt-title><alt-title alt-title-type="right-running">THE METHONE DECREES</alt-title><fn-group><fn id="fn01" symbol="1"><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>I should like to thank Mr. R. Meiggs for his most helpful advice and criticism.</p></fn></fn-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib><name><surname>Mattingly</surname><given-names>Harold. B.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><institution>University of Nottingham</institution></aff><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>12</month><year>1961</year></pub-date><volume>11</volume><issue>3-4</issue><fpage seq="5">154</fpage><lpage>165</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright © The Classical Association 1961</copyright-statement><copyright-year>1961</copyright-year><copyright-holder>The Classical Association</copyright-holder></permissions><abstract abstract-type="text-abstract"><p>The series of decrees concerning Methone throws welcome light on Athenian foreign policy and the imperialism of Pericles' successors. Here is historical evidence of the highest quality. Are we using it as fully and accurately as we should? This paper is written in the belief that we are being hampered by unsound presuppositions. Chronologically the second decree is our main fixed point. It was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 B.C. The third and fourth decrees followed in the next two archon-years. They can be ignored in this discussion, since one is hopelessly mutilated and the other is missing from the stone as it stands now. The real problem rises over the first decree. What is its date? It used commonly to be put in 428/7 B.C. until West argued powerfully for January/February 429/8 B.C. His view won considerable support, but the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists have since succeeded in establishing the summer of 430 B.C. as the orthodox dating. Now those who accept this should recognize that it creates an awkwardly long gap between the first and second decrees. By the first decree Methone was permitted to pay the quota alone, instead of its full tribute, and was promised separate, favourable treatment of its arrears in return for continued loyalty.</p></abstract><counts><page-count count="12"></page-count></counts><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta><meta-name>pdf</meta-name><meta-value>S0009838800015482a.pdf</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>series</meta-name><meta-value>1</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta><meta-name>seriesText</meta-name><meta-value>New Series</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><fn-group><fn id="fn02" symbol="page 154 note 2"><label><sup>page 154 note 2</sup></label><p>For the text of the decrees see <citation id="ref001" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Tod</surname></name>, <source>GHI</source> <volume>i</volume>, no. 61</citation> (<italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 57 +) and <citation id="ref002" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>ii</volume>, <fpage>D3</fpage>–<lpage>6</lpage>.</citation> The dates of D4–6 are convincingly demonstrated in <citation id="ref003" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>133</fpage> f. The missing D6 must be presumed from the fact that die whole dossier was inscribed by Phainippos, secretary for die eighth prytany in 424/3 B.C.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn03" symbol="page 154 note 3"><label><sup>page 154 note 3</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref004" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Kirchhoff</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>, <italic>Abh. Berl. Akad.</italic> <year>1861</year>, pp. <fpage>555</fpage>–<lpage>606</lpage>:</citation> U. Köhler, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref004">ibid</xref>, 1869, ii, p. 138: <citation id="ref005" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Hicks</surname></name> and <name><surname>Hill</surname></name>, <italic>GHI</italic><sup>2</sup> no. 60, p. <fpage>103</fpage>:</citation> <citation id="ref006" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>West</surname><given-names>A. B.</given-names></name>, <source>AJA</source> <volume>xxix</volume> (<year>1925</year>), <fpage>440</fpage> ff.:</citation> <citation id="ref007" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Tod</surname></name>, <source>GHI</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>131</fpage>:</citation> <citation id="ref008" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>134</fpage>:</citation> <citation id="ref009" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Gomme</surname><given-names>A. W.</given-names></name>, <source>Commentary on Thucydides</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>214</fpage>.</citation> As late as the 1930's some scholars still clung to 428/7 B.C.; see <citation id="ref010" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Lenk</surname></name> in <source>P.-W.</source> <volume>xv</volume>. 1386</citation> and <citation id="ref011" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Geyer</surname></name> in <source>P.-W.</source> <volume>xix</volume> <fpage>597</fpage> f.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn04" symbol="page 154 note 4"><label><sup>page 154 note 4</sup></label><p>For Perdikkas' intentions see <citation id="ref012" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Geyer</surname></name>, loc. cit.</citation> and <citation id="ref013" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>136</fpage>.</citation> For the Macedonian claim on Methone, Pydna, and Therme see <citation id="ref014" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Kahrstedt</surname><given-names>U.</given-names></name>, <source>Hermes</source> <volume>lxxxi</volume> (<year>1953</year>), <fpage>85</fpage>–<lpage>92</lpage> and <fpage>96</fpage> ff.</citation> Despite P. A. Brunt's challenging paper (<citation id="ref015" citation-type="journal"><source>AJP</source> <volume>lxxii</volume> [<year>1951</year>], <fpage>269</fpage>–82</citation>) the traditional dating and interpretation of die Megarian Decrees still seems valid to me. Pericles intended to coerce Megara into seceding from die Peloponnesian League once again. Tod gives an excellent fuller summary of die contents of D3 and 4.</p></fn><fn id="fn05" symbol="page 155 note 1"><label><sup>page 155 note 1</sup></label><p>Athens must promptly defend loyal friends in the Thraceward region. The <italic>ATL</italic> editors rather evade the issue in writing (n. 6 on p. 135) ‘The question in fact dragged several years' and on p. 136 ‘The two decrees of which we have substantial remains, D3 and 4, belong to this period; the covert hostility of Perdikkas is evident, and causes constant trouble to Methone. The envoys sent to compose the trouble in 430 (D3) evidently achieved little and there are two more embassies to Makedonia in 426 (D4). …’</p></fn><fn id="fn06" symbol="page 155 note 2"><label><sup>page 155 note 2</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref016" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>West</surname></name>, <source>AJA</source> <volume>xxix</volume> (<year>1925</year>), <fpage>443</fpage></citation> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref016">ibid.</xref> 434 ff. (with Meritt): <citation id="ref017" citation-type="journal"><source>SEG</source> <volume>v</volume>. <fpage>25</fpage> and <fpage>28</fpage></citation> (new texts of <italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 216 ( + 217 and 231) and 218): <citation id="ref018" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic> (<year>1932</year>), pp. <fpage>3</fpage>–<lpage>25</lpage></citation> (his new view after the shifts recorded on pp. 6 f.): <citation id="ref019" citation-type="other"><italic>Doc. Ath. Trib.</italic> (<year>1937</year>), pp. <fpage>98</fpage>–<lpage>100</lpage> (the clinching arguments).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn07" symbol="page 155 note 3"><label><sup>page 155 note 3</sup></label><p>Meritt conclusively demonstrated the close links between the lists (<citation id="ref020" citation-type="other"><italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>7</fpage> ff.),</citation> but Nesselhauf continued to claim that <italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 216 was the earlier (<citation id="ref021" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Klio</surname></name>, <source>Beiheft</source> <volume>xxx</volume> [<year>1933</year>], <fpage>69</fpage> n. a and 140 f.).</citation> Meritt's reply (<citation id="ref022" citation-type="journal"><source>AJP</source> <volume>lv</volume> [<year>1934</year>], <fpage>285</fpage> f.</citation>) depends for its validity on the lists being firmly anchored in the two years at issue. In the year of <citation id="ref023" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>216</fpage></citation> (see <citation id="ref024" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> 26. <volume>iv</volume>. <fpage>44</fpage> f.</citation>) Hairaia paid tribute both for the current and the previous year; restoring<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline1"></inline-graphic>in 218 Meritt deduced that Hairaia defaulted in 431, paid for diat year in 430 (no current payment can be restored before or after the entry), and brought the record up to date in 429/8 B.C. (see <citation id="ref025" citation-type="journal"><source>Doc. Ath. Trib.</source>, p. <fpage>100</fpage></citation> and <citation id="ref026" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>192</fpage></citation>). Restoring<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline2"></inline-graphic>, however, we can again put <citation id="ref027" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>216</fpage> before <fpage>218</fpage>;</citation> they do not appear in what little remains of the Ionic list in 216. Moreover, even if they did, the 218 payment might be of partial arrears.</p></fn><fn id="fn08" symbol="page 155 note 4"><label><sup>page 155 note 4</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref028" citation-type="other"><italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>17</fpage>–<lpage>20</lpage></citation> and <citation id="ref029" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>196</fpage> f.</citation> (date of <citation id="ref030" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>214</fpage>/15).</citation> Only the last two columns are preserved (Hellespont-Ionia). The Ionic-Carian names of <citation id="ref031" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>222</fpage></citation> tell the same story; the stone evidendy has its right margin preserved (see <citation id="ref032" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. 99, <fpage>196</fpage> and <fpage>199</fpage>: 427/6 or 426/5 B.C.?).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn09" symbol="page 156 note 1"><label><sup>page 156 note 1</sup></label><p><citation id="ref033" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>196</fpage>.</citation> Compare p. 199 (of <citation id="ref034" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>222</fpage>).</citation> ‘The position of the Ionic panel associates the inscription with the period 428/7–426/5 B.C.’, and, for the general prin ciple, <citation id="ref035" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>68</fpage>, where it is used to show that there <italic>were</italic> reassessments in 443/2 and 438/7 B.C.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn10" symbol="page 156 note 2"><label><sup>page 156 note 2</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref036" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>ii</volume>. <fpage>A9</fpage></citation> (<citation id="ref037" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 63 + ), <fpage>4</fpage> ff.</citation> The order of the first two districts (both restored) cannot be reversed, with Ionia/Caria follow ing Thrace. See <citation id="ref038" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <source>AJP</source> <volume>lviii</volume> (<year>1937</year>). <fpage>153</fpage> f.</citation> for a vigorous defence of his spacing in the vital fifth line against Nesselhauf'i criticism (<citation id="ref039" citation-type="journal"><source>Gnomon</source> <volume>xii</volume> [<year>1936</year>], <fpage>298</fpage>).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn11" symbol="page 156 note 3"><label><sup>page 156 note 3</sup></label><p>For the problem raised by D7 (Kleinias' Decree), D14 (Coinage Decree), and Pericles' Congress Decree see <citation id="ref040" citation-type="journal"><source>Hist</source>, <volume>x</volume> (<year>1961</year>), <fpage>158</fpage> ff.</citation> All are normally put in the early 440's, when the <italic>ATL</italic> editors discern behind the Quota Lists the basic order Ionia/Caria, Thrace, Hellespont, and Islands (iii. 30 ff.), which none of these decrees shows. On the <italic>ATL</italic> view the list of 430/29 B.C. displays an order unknown before and abandoned in 429/8 B.C.</p></fn><fn id="fn12" symbol="page 156 note 4"><label><sup>page 156 note 4</sup></label><p>In 420/5 B.C. the uniqueness of <citation id="ref041" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>210</fpage></citation> is fully explained; the reassessment of 425 B.C. established the new order Islands-Ionia-Hellespont-Thrace, which seems to have been maintained henceforth. In <citation id="ref042" citation-type="other"><italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, p. <fpage>14</fpage>,</citation> Meritt wrote: ‘The provision of the decree, therefore, for regular assessments at the time of the Greater Panathenaia is not only a safeguard for the future, but also a rebuke to the politicians of the previous year (426/5) for failing to carry out the reassessment at the proper time.’ But, as he had just remarked, ‘<citation id="ref043" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>63</fpage></citation> itself represents an extraordinary assessment’. We might then fairly regard A9, 26–33 as a guarantee to the allies against any repetition of the irregularity, the more necessary if there had been a normal assessment only a year before. For 428/7 B.C. see <citation id="ref044" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, op. cit., pp. <fpage>3</fpage>–<lpage>25</lpage>,</citation> and <citation id="ref045" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Nesselhauf</surname></name>, <source>Klio</source>, Beiheft <volume>xxx</volume> (<year>1933</year>), <fpage>70</fpage> ff. and 140.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn13" symbol="page 156 note 5"><label><sup>page 156 note 5</sup></label><p><citation id="ref046" citation-type="other"><italic>Doc. Ath. Trib.</italic>, pp. <fpage>98</fpage>–<lpage>100</lpage>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn14" symbol="page 156 note 6"><label><sup>page 156 note 6</sup></label><p>In <citation id="ref047" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>, <fpage>218</fpage></citation> the rubrics run<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline3"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline4"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline5"></inline-graphic>(<citation id="ref048" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> 25. <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>54</fpage> f.</citation>) and<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline6"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline7"></inline-graphic>(60 f.). The first <italic>can</italic> be restored in <citation id="ref049" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>216</fpage></citation> (<citation id="ref050" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> 26. <volume>ii</volume>. <fpage>34</fpage> ff.</citation>), where only ot survives; but ON is clearly quite as likely a reading (see <citation id="ref051" citation-type="other"><italic>Atk. Fin. Doc.</italic>, p. <fpage>10</fpage></citation> and <citation id="ref052" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>96</fpage></citation>). The <italic>ATL</italic> restorations of the second rubric (26, ii. 43 f.)—<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline8"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline9"></inline-graphic>— is still disturbingly unlike its counterpart, though preferable to earlier versions (see <citation id="ref053" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>196</fpage></citation> and <citation id="ref054" citation-type="journal"><source>Ath. Fin. Doc.</source>, p. <fpage>11</fpage></citation>). For the correspondence between old and new rubrics see <citation id="ref055" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>80</fpage>–<lpage>88</lpage> (with a table on p. 88).</citation> For Nesselhauf's view see <citation id="ref056" citation-type="other">op. cit. pp. <fpage>71</fpage> and <fpage>141</fpage>.</citation> West and Meritt themselves restored forms of the old rubrics in 1931 (<citation id="ref057" citation-type="journal"><source>SEC</source> <volume>v</volume>, <fpage>25</fpage>).</citation> With one alteration (middle for active; see Nesselhauf, p. 71) they remain plausible; epigraphically<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline10"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline11"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline12"></inline-graphic>appear sound. The double breach in the stoichedon order is permissible in a heading; see <citation id="ref058" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>West</surname></name> and <name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <source>AJA</source> <volume>xxix</volume> (<year>1925</year>), <fpage>435</fpage> on<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline13"></inline-graphic>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn15" symbol="page 157 note 1"><label><sup>page 157 note 1</sup></label><p>The <italic>ATL</italic> editors have convincingly defended (i. 205) their restoration<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline14"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline15"></inline-graphic>(‘last preceding’) against Nesselhauf (<citation id="ref059" citation-type="journal"><source>Gnomon</source> <volume>xii</volume> [<year>1936</year>], <fpage>29</fpage>)</citation>. For the <italic>ATL</italic> interpretation of<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline15"></inline-graphic>see iii. 78 ff.; ‘archon-ship’ is the likeliest meaning in view of A9, 55f.<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline16"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline17"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline18"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline19"></inline-graphic></p></fn><fn id="fn16" symbol="page 157 note 2"><label><sup>page 157 note 2</sup></label><p>For the status of these cities (privilege or imposition?) see the divergent views of <citation id="ref060" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Nesselhauf</surname></name> (<source>Klio</source>, Beiheft <volume>xxx</volume> [<year>1933</year>], <fpage>59</fpage> ff. and <fpage>73</fpage></citation>) and <citation id="ref061" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>80</fpage>–<lpage>88</lpage></citation> (in contrast to <citation id="ref062" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>456</fpage></citation> the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline20"></inline-graphic>group are now considered relatively favoured). I find it hard to accept the claim in <citation id="ref063" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume> p. <fpage>83</fpage> f.</citation> that the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline21"></inline-graphic>rubric means essentially the same as the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline22"></inline-graphic>rubric, replacing it in 430 B.C. The<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline23"></inline-graphic>would be those of 434/3 B.C., whose assessment was simply taken over by their successors, since it carried a guaran tee. Gomme (<citation id="ref064" citation-type="journal"><source>CR</source> <volume>liv</volume> [<year>1940</year>], <fpage>68</fpage> f.)</citation> followed Nesselhauf in insisting diat the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline24"></inline-graphic>were the board who ‘officially adopted the assessment originally proposed by the states themselves’. With ‘negotiated’ instead of ‘proposed’ (the point made in <citation id="ref065" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>85</fpage></citation>) this may well stand. After this action of the Assessors who were responsible for the list behind <citation id="ref066" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>218</fpage></citation> (firmly tied down to the first year of a period; see <citation id="ref067" citation-type="other"><italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>6</fpage> and <fpage>9</fpage></citation>) these cities could henceforth be listed geographically as any others; hence <citation id="ref068" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>216</fpage></citation> cannot follow 218. This is essen tially Nesselhauf's view, but he dates <citation id="ref069" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>218</fpage> to 428/7 B.C. (an irregular assessment).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn17" symbol="page 157 note 3"><label><sup>page 157 note 3</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref070" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <italic>Atk. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>17</fpage>–<lpage>20</lpage>,</citation> and <citation id="ref071" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>196</fpage> ff.</citation> Notion was perhaps specially assessed by the people after its re covery and paid late for 428/7 B.C. (its normal tribute was 2000 D!).</p></fn><fn id="fn18" symbol="page 158 note 1"><label><sup>page 158 note 1</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref072" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>98</fpage> and <fpage>198</fpage>.</citation> For Lesbos see <citation id="ref073" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Gomme</surname></name>, <source>Commentary on Thwydides</source>, <volume>ii</volume>. <fpage>278</fpage> f.</citation> and the good comments in <citation id="ref074" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>197</fpage>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn19" symbol="page 158 note 2"><label><sup>page 158 note 2</sup></label><p><citation id="ref075" citation-type="other"><italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>17</fpage> f.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn20" symbol="page 158 note 3"><label><sup>page 158 note 3</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref076" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Nesselhauf</surname></name>, op. cit., p. <fpage>141</fpage>,</citation> and rhuc. 3. 50. 3; 4. 52. 2–3 with 75. 1–2. For Rhoiteion see the acute argument in <citation id="ref077" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>88</fpage>.</citation> Like Samos the rebel cities of Lesbos itself were never assessed tribute; see Thuc. 3. 50. 2.</p></fn><fn id="fn21" symbol="page 158 note 4"><label><sup>page 158 note 4</sup></label><p>For Besbikos see <citation id="ref078" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>81</fpage> f. n. 30</citation> and the table on p. 87. Its restoration in the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline25"></inline-graphic>rubric of <citation id="ref079" citation-type="other"><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. <fpage>218</fpage></citation> (<citation id="ref080" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL.</source> 25. <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>65</fpage>) is most probable.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn22" symbol="page 158 note 5"><label><sup>page 158 note 5</sup></label><p>So much can be deduced from the; pigraphical notes in <citation id="ref081" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>96</fpage>. The obverse face of List 26 is so weathered that no photo graph was published.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn23" symbol="page 159 note 1"><label><sup>page 159 note 1</sup></label><p>See the table in <citation id="ref082" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>87</fpage>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn24" symbol="page 159 note 2"><label><sup>page 159 note 2</sup></label><p>For Pleume, Aioleion, Chedrolos, and Miltoros see the table in <italic>ATL</italic> and <citation id="ref083" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>23</fpage> f.</citation> (the first two). For their location see <citation id="ref084" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. 465, 520, 538 f., and 561.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn25" symbol="page 159 note 3"><label><sup>page 159 note 3</sup></label><p>On Nisyros see <citation id="ref085" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>197</fpage> and <fpage>526</fpage>.</citation> By curious oversight the editors declare (p. 197) ‘In 27, II, 30, <italic>as in all later occurrences</italic>, Nisyros is Ionic once more’ (my italics). But Nisyros does not appear again in the record after Lists 26 and 27; see <citation id="ref086" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume> <fpage>357</fpage> (Register).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn26" symbol="page 159 note 4"><label><sup>page 159 note 4</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref087" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Kolbe</surname></name>, <italic>Sitzb. Akad. Berlin 1930</italic>, p. <fpage>339</fpage>:</citation> <citation id="ref088" citation-type="other"><name><surname>West</surname></name> and <name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <italic>Athenian Assessment…</italic>, pp. <fpage>69f</fpage>.:</citation> <citation id="ref089" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>228</fpage> f. (Register;<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline25"></inline-graphic>(Kar.)).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn27" symbol="page 159 note 5"><label><sup>page 159 note 5</sup></label><p>For<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline26"></inline-graphic>see <citation id="ref090" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>240</fpage> and <fpage>472</fpage> f.</citation> For Astypalaia see <citation id="ref091" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>241</fpage> (last certainly recorded in List 27).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn28" symbol="page 160 note 1"><label><sup>page 160 note 1</sup></label><p>Thera was hostile in 431 B.C. (Thuc. 9. 4), but subject by 426 B.C. (<italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 65 = D8, 22 f.) and tributary to the tune of 3 talents (<italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 216 = <italic>ATL</italic> 26. iii. 23). For Lysikles see Thuc. 3. 19. 2; he may also have brought in Saros (first found in <italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 214/15 = <italic>ATL</italic> 27. iii. 21). My theory about the Island district can best be judged by reference to the loose map at the end of <italic>ATL</italic> i.</p></fn><fn id="fn29" symbol="page 160 note 2"><label><sup>page 160 note 2</sup></label><p>The Island panel is confined to col. ii. lines 7–28 in List 26. The preserved list must be compared with the full panel of List 14 (441/40 B.C.); there are two new payers (Anaphe and the Diakrioi of Euboea). Aegina fell out in 431 B.C., Myrina and Imbros appear in a special rubric (i. 18 f.) with partial payments. Perhaps they fell short this year; but see n. 4.</p></fn><fn id="fn30" symbol="page 160 note 3"><label><sup>page 160 note 3</sup></label><p>The editors now allow enough room in List 25, col. iii for the three new Hellespontine names found in <italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 214/15 (with 225); see <citation id="ref092" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>91</fpage></citation> (frag. 3), 194 and 197 and contrast <citation id="ref093" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, p. <fpage>7</fpage>.</citation> The Chersonesitai and Limnaioi may have been listed with their <italic>whole</italic> tribute in the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline27"></inline-graphic>rubric of 25 (contrast 26); but this rubric may not have recurred. If we omit it the lacuna in the Hellespontine panel could be lengthened by as much as three lines. See next note. No name in List 25 takes more than one line (<citation id="ref094" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>, <fpage>81</fpage> f. n. 30); in 26 at least two preserved Hellespontine names fill two.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn31" symbol="page 160 note 4"><label><sup>page 160 note 4</sup></label><p>As preserved the panel in List 25 misses nine pre-war payers and one new payer known from <italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 216 and A9 (the Diakrioi of Euboea); Myrina and Imbros have been restored in a special panel. The editors give eleven more lines and admit a possible one or two more. I assume full payments by Myrina and Imbros this year; in 26 room <italic>could</italic> be found for complementary payments at the foot of col. ii. The<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline28"></inline-graphic>rubric, however, may be wrongly restored in 25; in this list <italic>general</italic> rubrics appear at the end, after the panels (here Thracian) only rubrics concerning cities in the preceding district. Frags. 4–5 could then be moved up to shorten the gap after frags. 1–2, making ample room for Myrina, Imbros, and the three proposed new-comers in the Island panel; Sestos could be fitted in the Hellespontine panel (see n. 3). Such shifts in the disposition of the fragments of List 2 5 are clearly possible: see the epigraphic notes in ATL i. 91 ff. and especially figs. 125–6.</p></fn><fn id="fn32" symbol="page 160 note 5"><label><sup>page 160 note 5</sup></label><p><italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 222 (<italic>ATL</italic> 28) would have to be dated either 430/29 or 429/8 B.C. As a consequence the rise in Klazomenai's tribute should probably be assigned to 430, not 428 B.C.; see <citation id="ref095" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>197</fpage> and <fpage>199</fpage> (for 428 B.C.).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn33" symbol="page 161 note 1"><label><sup>page 161 note 1</sup></label><p>iii. 136 and n. 11. See also <citation id="ref096" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Nesselhauf</surname></name>, op. cit., p. <fpage>83</fpage>,</citation> n. 1. West had argued (<citation id="ref097" citation-type="other">op. cit., p. <fpage>442</fpage>) that ‘before the capture of the city there were no soldiers in Potideia’.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn34" symbol="page 161 note 2"><label><sup>page 161 note 2</sup></label><p>Thuc. 2. 79. 7, 4. 7, 6. 7. 3.</p></fn><fn id="fn35" symbol="page 161 note 3"><label><sup>page 161 note 3</sup></label><p>See p. 159, n. 2. This assumes my dating of <italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup> 216.</p></fn><fn id="fn36" symbol="page 161 note 4"><label><sup>page 161 note 4</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref098" citation-type="journal"><source>Hesp.</source> <volume>xiii</volume> (<year>1944</year>), <fpage>211</fpage>–29 (<italic>IG</italic> ii<sup>2</sup>. 55+): SEG x. 67. Meritt reclaimed the decree from the fourth century, enlarging and improving its text.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn37" symbol="page 161 note 5"><label><sup>page 161 note 5</sup></label><p>Compare D21, 4–8 with D4, 34–41 and see D3, 18 ff.:<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline29"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline30"></inline-graphic>In this context is<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline31"></inline-graphic>means ‘into the interior’ (Macedonia), not ‘into Methonean territory’; see <citation id="ref099" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Lenk</surname></name> in <source>P.-W.</source> <volume>xv</volume>. 1386</citation> and <citation id="ref100" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>135</fpage></citation> against <citation id="ref101" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, op. cit., p. <fpage>216</fpage>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn38" symbol="page 161 note 6"><label><sup>page 161 note 6</sup></label><p>See D21, 8 ff. and 19 ff. (with the improved reading of <citation id="ref102" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iv</volume>. x. <fpage>18</fpage>):</citation> <citation id="ref103" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, op. cit., p. <fpage>215</fpage>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn39" symbol="page 161 note 7"><label><sup>page 161 note 7</sup></label><p>D21, 5–8;<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline32"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline33"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline34"></inline-graphic>I adopt Meritt's plausible restorations in lines 5 and 8 (see <citation id="ref104" citation-type="other">op. cit. pp. <fpage>216</fpage> and <fpage>218</fpage>)</citation>, but prefer his variant<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline35"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline36"></inline-graphic>to the published<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline37"></inline-graphic></p></fn><fn id="fn40" symbol="page 162 note 1"><label><sup>page 162 note 1</sup></label><p>D8 (<italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 64 +), 21 ff. (quoted on p. 163, n. 6).</p></fn><fn id="fn41" symbol="page 162 note 2"><label><sup>page 162 note 2</sup></label><p>Meritt argued similarly in the context of 428 B.C. (<citation id="ref105" citation-type="other">op. cit., p. <fpage>217</fpage>)</citation>, comparing lines 14 ff. of the Brea Decree (<italic>IG</italic> i<sup>2</sup>. 45 +: Tod no. 44):<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline38"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline39"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline40"></inline-graphic><citation id="ref106" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Woodhead</surname><given-names>A. G.</given-names></name> (<source>CQ</source> <volume>xlvi</volume> [<year>1952</year>], <fpage>57</fpage>–<lpage>62</lpage>)</citation> made out a strong case for reducing the date of this decree (to <italic>c</italic>. 438 B.C.) and locating Brea in north-west Chalcidice, between Therme and Strepsa. Should the decree be brought down in fact into the Peloponnesian War, as is suggested by two minor prosopographical points noted by Woodhead (p. 62)?</p></fn><fn id="fn42" symbol="page 162 note 3"><label><sup>page 162 note 3</sup></label><p>The verbs<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline41"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline42"></inline-graphic>(see p. 161, n. 7) in D21 (6 f.) show that Aphytis had to contribute towards the cost of the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline43"></inline-graphic>; this must hold for Methone. See <citation id="ref107" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, op. cit. cit., p. <fpage>217</fpage>. The strange postscript of D21 (17 f.) may have regulated Aphytis' payments. The clear parallel with the postscript of D3 (29 ff.) led Meritt to argue that Aphytis also was granted the privilege of paying the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline43"></inline-graphic>only; the one likely restoration is<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline44"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline45"></inline-graphic>the quota on a tribute of 5 talents (pp. 220 ff.). Now if my dates for IG i2. 216 and 218 are valid, this view is virtually barred, since in the lists Aphytis is registered as paying her whole pre-war tribute of 3 talents (<italic>ATL</italic> 25. ii. 10 and 26. ii. 11); D21 could only be dated 425/4 B.C. or later.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn43" symbol="page 162 note 4"><label><sup>page 162 note 4</sup></label><p>Thuc. 4.7:…<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline46"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline47"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline48"></inline-graphic>By 424 B.C. Perdikkas feared<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline49"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline50"></inline-graphic>apart from Methone, he secretly helped Knemos (Thuc. 4. 79. 2 with 2. 80. 7).</p></fn><fn id="fn44" symbol="page 162 note 5"><label><sup>page 162 note 5</sup></label><p><citation id="ref108" citation-type="other"><italic>Abh. Berl. Akad.</italic> <year>1861</year>, pp. <fpage>589</fpage> ff.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn45" symbol="page 162 note 6"><label><sup>page 162 note 6</sup></label><p><citation id="ref109" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>136</fpage></citation> (noted already by <citation id="ref110" citation-type="other"><name><surname>West</surname></name>, op. cit., p. <fpage>443</fpage>).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn46" symbol="page 162 note 7"><label><sup>page 162 note 7</sup></label><p><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref110">Ibid.</xref>, pp. 134 f. They appositely quote<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline51"></inline-graphic>from the Kallias Decree (D2, 27 f.), where the financial quadriennium is obviously meant.</p></fn><fn id="fn47" symbol="page 163 note 1"><label><sup>page 163 note 1</sup></label><p>Kirchhoff first fixed on the <citation id="ref111" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Panathenaia</surname></name> (op. cit., pp. <fpage>591</fpage> f.)</citation>. West's view (<citation id="ref112" citation-type="other">op. cit., p. <fpage>441</fpage>)</citation> was originally accepted by <citation id="ref113" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name> (<italic>Ath. Fin. Doc.</italic>, pp. <fpage>22</fpage> f.)</citation>. Three months, West thought, would be enough for all the negotiations envisaged in D3 (till the Dionysia; line 24 f.). The <italic>ATL</italic> counter argument (for a period of about eight months) is inconclusive (p. 134 n. 6). Why should the ambassadors not travel in the winter, despite being over fifty?</p></fn><fn id="fn48" symbol="page 163 note 2"><label><sup>page 163 note 2</sup></label><p><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline52"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline53"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline54"></inline-graphic>Notion well illustrates the first possibility (seep. 157, n. 3).</p></fn><fn id="fn49" symbol="page 163 note 3"><label><sup>page 163 note 3</sup></label><p>Thuc. 2.29.6. See on this <citation id="ref114" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>323</fpage> ff.</citation> West put Methone's accession in 432/1 (<citation id="ref115" citation-type="other">op. cit., pp. <fpage>443</fpage> f.</citation>), the ATL date is 434 B.C. (iii. 136 and 319). My view would eliminate die postulated assessment in 428/7 B.C. The new names and quotas in IG i2. 214/15 (+225) could go back to the assessment of 430 B.C., though Lysikles and Paches <italic>may</italic> have added new tributaries, as generals did in the 430's (see <citation id="ref116" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>82</fpage> and <fpage>84</fpage> on die Thracian<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline55"></inline-graphic>and p. 160, nn. 1, 3, 5, above).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn50" symbol="page 163 note 4"><label><sup>page 163 note 4</sup></label><p>For<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline56"></inline-graphic>see <citation id="ref117" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>15</fpage> f.</citation> For<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline57"></inline-graphic>see <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref117">ibid.</xref>, p. 137.</p></fn><fn id="fn51" symbol="page 163 note 5"><label><sup>page 163 note 5</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref118" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>i</volume>. <fpage>213</fpage> and iii. 133 (witii n. 2). Significandy we find in D8, 18 ff.<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline58"></inline-graphic></citation></p></fn><fn id="fn52" symbol="page 163 note 6"><label><sup>page 163 note 6</sup></label><p>For die purpose and scope of D8 see Meritt's invaluable study in <citation id="ref119" citation-type="other"><italic>Doc. Ath. Trib.</italic>, pp. <fpage>3</fpage>–<lpage>42</lpage>.</citation> For Samos, etc., see D8, 21–25;<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline59"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline60"></inline-graphic>Samos had, of course, been paying war-indemnity since 439 B.C.; Thera's case was similar, as Meritt saw. He already linked the other payments with the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline61"></inline-graphic>of D3, 14; see <citation id="ref120" citation-type="other">op. cit., pp. <fpage>35</fpage>–<lpage>38</lpage></citation> and compare <citation id="ref121" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>334</fpage> ff.</citation> The supplement<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline62"></inline-graphic>is strongly supported by Thuc. 1. 100. 3 (Thasos) and 117. 3 (Samos).</p></fn><fn id="fn53" symbol="page 164 note 1"><label><sup>page 164 note 1</sup></label><p>Despite <citation id="ref122" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Swoboda's</surname></name> doubts (<source>P.-W.</source> <volume>v</volume>. <fpage>1046</fpage> ff.).</citation> Diodoros (12. 39. 2), unlike Plutarch (<italic>Per.</italic> 32. 1), gives no name.</p></fn><fn id="fn54" symbol="page 164 note 2"><label><sup>page 164 note 2</sup></label><p>See <citation id="ref123" citation-type="journal"><source>CAH</source> <volume>v</volume>. <fpage>477</fpage> ff.</citation> Gomme inclined tc follow him (<citation id="ref124" citation-type="journal"><source>op. cit.</source> <volume>ii</volume>. <fpage>184</fpage> ff.).</citation> <citation id="ref125" citation-type="other"><name><surname>Jones</surname><given-names>A. H. M.</given-names></name> (<italic>Athenian Democracy</italic>, p. <fpage>113</fpage>)</citation> has suggested that D3 was not drafted in Council, but proposed by an ordinary citizen in the Assembly. He makes rather too much<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline63"></inline-graphic>(D3, 5 ff.): a Councilloi could surely recommend that the people ‘forthwith' decide by vote a contentious matter, if the Assembly meeting were close at hand—possibly on the same day. For D3 as a probouleuma see <citation id="ref126" citation-type="journal"><name><surname>Meritt</surname></name>, <source>Hesp.</source> <volume>xiii</volume> (<year>1944</year>), <fpage>220</fpage>.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn55" symbol="page 164 note 3"><label><sup>page 164 note 3</sup></label><p>2. 59. 1–2 and 65. 2–4 suggest a limited direct attack on Pericles himself. There is not a word about slanders, though, as Gomme points out <citation id="ref127" citation-type="journal">(<source>op. cit.</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>660</fpage> f.),</citation> Thucydides freely reports those issued against Kleon and Alcibiades. For Gomme Thucydides' silence is deliberate (<citation id="ref128" citation-type="journal"><source>op: cit.</source> <volume>ii</volume>. <fpage>184</fpage>).</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn56" symbol="page 164 note 4"><label><sup>page 164 note 4</sup></label><p>For the plague's effects see Thuc. 2. 48. 4 and 53 (in some it bred<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline64"></inline-graphic>); for the<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline65"></inline-graphic>see 2. 17. 1–2 and 21. 3 with 54. The plague's second onset came precisely in winter 427/6 B.C. (3. 87. 1–2). Diagoras of Melos may have been prosecuted then (see <italic>Clouds</italic> 830 and <citation id="ref129" citation-type="journal"><source>P.-W.</source> <volume>v</volume>. <fpage>310</fpage> f.</citation>), under the bill of Diopeithes impeaching<inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline66"></inline-graphic><inline-graphic mime-subtype="gif" xlink:href="S0009838800015482_inline67"></inline-graphic>For its wording compare <italic>Clouds</italic> 225–30 and 243–53.</p></fn><fn id="fn57" symbol="page 164 note 5"><label><sup>page 164 note 5</sup></label><p>D4, 47–51. Pleistias' embassy (the first ' mentioned) would be that appointed by D3, 16 ff.</p></fn><fn id="fn58" symbol="page 164 note 6"><label><sup>page 164 note 6</sup></label><p>D4, 34–47 (quoted in part on p. 162).</p></fn><fn id="fn59" symbol="page 165 note 1"><label><sup>page 165 note 1</sup></label><p>For Perdikkas and the pretenders in the period from <italic>c</italic>. 432 to 423 B.C. see <citation id="ref130" citation-type="journal"><source>P.-W.</source> <volume>xix</volume>. <fpage>594</fpage>–8</citation> (Geyer). Methone challenged Perdikkas' right to move troops through its territory (D3, 22 f.); in <citation id="ref131" citation-type="journal"><source>ATL</source> <volume>iii</volume>. <fpage>329</fpage> and n. 81 this is acutely linked with the operations against the pretender Derdas. The notorious embassy of Philocrates (Dem. 19. 150–81) was away no more than three months in all.</citation></p></fn><fn id="fn60" symbol="page 165 note 2"><label><sup>page 165 note 2</sup></label><p>The embassy to Persia in the <italic>Achamians</italic> (it left Athens in 437/6 B.C.!) was held up there for eight months until the king's return with his army and then feasted royally (<citation id="ref132" citation-type="other"><italic>Ach.</italic> <fpage>65</fpage> ff. and <fpage>80</fpage>–<lpage>89</lpage>). That sent to Thrace was snowbound and spent the winter in drinking bouts with Sitalkes (136–50).</citation></p></fn></fn-group></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>The Methone Decrees</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative"><title>H. B. MATTINGLY</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>The Methone Decrees1</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Harold. B.</namePart><namePart type="family">Mattingly</namePart><affiliation>University of Nottingham</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Cambridge University Press</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Cambridge, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1961-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1961</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract type="text-abstract">The series of decrees concerning Methone throws welcome light on Athenian foreign policy and the imperialism of Pericles' successors. Here is historical evidence of the highest quality. Are we using it as fully and accurately as we should? This paper is written in the belief that we are being hampered by unsound presuppositions. Chronologically the second decree is our main fixed point. It was passed in the first prytany of 426/5 B.C. The third and fourth decrees followed in the next two archon-years. They can be ignored in this discussion, since one is hopelessly mutilated and the other is missing from the stone as it stands now. The real problem rises over the first decree. What is its date? It used commonly to be put in 428/7 B.C. until West argued powerfully for January/February 429/8 B.C. His view won considerable support, but the editors of The Athenian Tribute Lists have since succeeded in establishing the summer of 430 B.C. as the orthodox dating. Now those who accept this should recognize that it creates an awkwardly long gap between the first and second decrees. By the first decree Methone was permitted to pay the quota alone, instead of its full tribute, and was promised separate, favourable treatment of its arrears in return for continued loyalty.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>The Classical Quarterly</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>The Class. Q.</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0009-8388</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1471-6844</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CAQ</identifier><part><date>1961</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>11</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3-4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>154</start><end>165</end><total>12</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/6GQ-97XRTCF5-P</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1017/S0009838800015482</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0009838800015482</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">01548</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © The Classical Association 1961</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-G3RCRD03-V">cambridge</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Copyright © The Classical Association 1961</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><annexes><json:item><extension>gif</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>image/gif</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE/annexes/gif</uri></json:item></annexes><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Terre/explor/NissirosV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000105 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000105 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Terre
|area= NissirosV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:83901B5CE1AD0237E0F7EA090FC45D088D044AFE
|texte= The Methone Decrees
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |