sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chalcis, Lelantine War

A Thucydidean Scholium on the '' Author(s): S. D. Lambert Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 102 (1982), pp. 216-220 Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/631143 . Accessed: 21/02/2014 09:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.251.254.13 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:33:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 216 NOTES recto-is to end with 'IndicesGraeci et Latini Accuratis- On the other hand, this decision, whenever it was simi et Locupletissimi'!It is true that Bentley's MS notes made before 1698, does not seem to be connected with in the complete copy cover all the texts contained in another one; namely, to let Olearius take over the job Morel's edition, but from the incomplete one we now and use Bentley's collations. The young Olearius-'iste know that the actual work on the huge project never egregius juvenis'-is not mentioned in the correspon- exceeded the first two books of Vita Apollonii ... dence until June 1698, when he is about to set out for There is also, as far as I have been able to find out, London and is introducedto the great man by Graevius: nothing in Bentley's published correspondence to 'Cognosces juvenem integerrimae vitae, et nostrarum support Monk's statement that the editions of Philos- artium cupidissimum . . .'.16 There is no mention of tratus and Manilius were in 1694 'in a state of readiness Philostratushere; possibly Olearius'visit to London was for the printer'. In 1690, Bentley first mentions 'an the very occasion when the idea to let him take over was Edition of Philostratus,which I shall set out this next formed. Eleven yearslater Olearius'edition appeared,in year',9 in 1692 Graevius expresses his delight that Leipzig, with Fritsch. Bentley is now fully engaged in the work on the new Anyway, the German printers are not the ones to edition,1' and in December 1694, as we have seen, blame for the fact that Bentley gave up and the learned Graeviusjust asks about its progress. world had to wait another 150 years for a decent edition For the same period there is also some-unfortu- of Philostratus. nately rather confusing-information to be had from TOMASHAGG other sources. With referenceto Bentley's Philostratus, Universityof Bergen, Fabriciusstates in his BibliothecaGraeca: 'Hujus primum cit. folium Lipsiaeexcusum vidi Anno 1691'.11 He must be 16 Op. (n. 5) 175 f mistaken. The statement cannot be reconciled with the evidence of the and the referencehe in this letters, gives A Thucydidean Scholium on the 'Lelantine War' connection, to Tentzel's MonatlicheUnterredungen 1691, p. 521, is also wrong: it refers to the announcement of The purpose of this note is to bring to light a piece of Muhlius' edition (above n. 7). When, some lines further evidence on the 'Lelantine War' which has hitherto down, he really wants to refer to Muhlius, his reference been neglected, and briefly to review the Thucydidean (1693, 882 f.) is to Bentley! And at this place Tentzel and some of the other evidence in the light of it. The only says that Bentley's edition, printed in Leipzig, will neglected evidence is a scholium on Thuc. i 15: be welcome when it appears.12Thus, Fabriciuscannot be adduced as a for Monk's ydap VVELaT7KEaav rpos 7~a LEyLUaas support timetable, and o0 dTOAELS Tentzel's Monatliche OV' aV aio TO 77S L7~ KOLVaS Unterredungenunfortunately do not rr•lCKOOL, mention Philostratus arpaTELa g~S W9 Bentley's again. gErOLOvVro, Kar aAAqrAovs /tldAAov The project thus seems to have been abandoned EKaaUTOLOL dcTU-YELTOVEV f roAWEovv. SEE'9 simply becauseit had not advanced very far at all rov arrAatrrorT yEvOLEVov XaAKLSOWV/,'AWU-ra KaL when, r7TAE•LovV in the later part of the 169os, other well-known 'EpErpLWVKaL ad AAO Eg v//iaxLav activities 8SLEUTq7. "EAArqVLKv increasinglyabsorbed Bentley's time.13 It thus EKaTEp•WV sharedthe fate of other similar There many enterprises. The gloss is on the word seems to have been a definite decision at some time SE'Ua-7: between December 1694, and the of 1698. o01 beginning SLEa•carOr0,avExoprlaEV, 0o avvELadxrlaEv ydp Graevius, who constantly tries to push Bentley on, AE'YELO"N 7EPlt 0, &AAdLvoL XaAKLEE98Od0VOL0 continues in letters of FebruaryandJune 1698 to ask for 'EpETPLE•ULVEwiAdxov-ro. ABMc2f. the editions of Hesychius and Manilius, but Philostratus he mentions no more.14 Already in his letter of 6th I. Thucydidesi 15.3 February, 1697, when quoting Spanheim's laudatory reference to Bentley's projected Philostratus (in his In his introductory chapters' gives a Julian of 1696), Graevius abstainsfrom any remark of brief survey of earlier Greek history, the purpose of his own on this (delicate?)topic-he just wants to elicit which is to show that rd 7rpo aduoi-v (i.e. Greek history from Bentley his comments on a certain locus in before the ) were lEydAa ... o03 Imagines,which he also receives in Bentley's reply of o07 Kara iTOV 7ToA 07Ev 4 7dacAAa,2 to explain 26th March.15 why this was the case4tOUS•g and thus to support his view that the Peloponnesian war was dc'LoAoyirarov rcwv 9 cit. 11.The earlieredition of letters,Richardi Op. (n. 5) Bentley's 7TpOYEYEV7/L/EVWV. Bentleiiet doctorumvirorum mutuae epistolaepartim (Leipzig1825) 127, In our passage he is saying that land-wars in reads'which I shallsend out thisnext year',which may havemisled general Monk. were not on a large scale as there were no combinations 10 of resourceseither on the basisof or Op. cit. (n. 5) 46. inequality d'To7%T but rather 11 Vol. iv. 2 (Hamburg1711) 53. The whole passageis reprinted, I'rus; wars tended to be purely local affairs withoutcorrections, in the 3rdedn, vol. v (Hamburg1796) 555 f. between neighbouring 7TrrAEL9.Does the next sentence, 12 November 1693, 882: 'Dannenheroist kein Zweiffel, der tdALa-ra8% ... S~L~i7q, illustrate or modify this? The Philostratus,so ietzo in Leipzigmit seinerneuen Lateinischen Version orthodox and, I think, clearly correct view is that it und Annotationibusin Druck werde der kommet, bey gelehrtenWelt modifies: 'The best exception is that long-ago war angenehmund willkommenseyn.' between and in which the rest of the 13 cit. Cf. op. (n. 5) 18 (Feb.1691?), 164 (15 Feb.1698), 194 (20 Aug. Greek world was divided in alliance with either side.' 1702: 'sciasme toto hoc bienniovix unumet alterumdiem vacavisse in means humanioribusliteris'). (a) &ibardvaL Thucydides always 'divide', 14 Op. cit. (n. 5) 158, 175. 1i 1-23. 1s Op.cit. (n. 5) 138-43. 2i 1.3.

Journalof HellenicStudies cii (1982) 216-220

This content downloaded from 131.251.254.13 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:33:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NOTES 217 'take sides', 'be at variance', 'in contrariaspartes abire', confirmed, I think, by the way he supposedly refers to (B6tant)3 and so must mean here 'dividedin alliance'. the war elsewhere.10 (b) It would be peculiarand obscure for Thucydides to be giving a particularlygood example of where the 2. The Scholium rest of did not become involved. Ladta-ra The would, in fact, be redundant because no example of Thucydidean scholia are generally ignored by all those interested non-involvement could be any better than any other. except in the text of Thucydides per se." In its tradition this comment There are, however, difficulties with this interpre- is indistinguishable tation. from the bulk of the scholia: it is found in three of the seven of and in (i) Despite(b) above,tLawAtara at the beginningof the prime manuscripts Thucydides later sentence does initially lead one to expect that an hands in two others; not in any way unusual. especiallygood illustrationof whatThucydides has just First we must try to establish exactly what the been saying is going to be given.4 This expectation scholiast is saying: let us consider the clausesin reverse appearsto be being confirmedby the mention of order. Chalcisand Eretria, which, it mightbe supposed,are as aAdAtLvoL XaAKL&(s9K-A: the meaningof this is good examplesas any to illustratewhat Thucydides has self-evidentand clearlyshows that the scholiastthinks sentenceis an illustrationrather than a just saidabout darvyELrovEg.5 It is only whenwe reach Thucydides' the end of the sentence,which, as we have seen,must modification of his hypothesis. This must be an mean 'divided in alliancewith either side', that it interpretationof Thucydides,not a deliberatecontra- diction.12 becomesclear that 8Edoes point a strongantithesis in this case and that tLaA-ra 8E must mean 'the best ov yap AEy'tLOrtL 4tLEpi0Uq: the scholiastis clearly not exception'rather than 'the best illustration'.6 takingSt`a'-7- in its usualclassical sense but ratherto mean a fromthe conflict' (ii) vLqLaxlacould be takenloosely as 'alliance',not 'tookup positionapart (much necessarilyinvolving actual 'fighting together'. as if it were 5w7arT).This may have been a more (iii)Thucydides does not use the verb or naturalmeaning in laterGreek: can use it in 6v/LLaXEa0aL the sense after andthis is even v but the rather inactive phrase, 'part fighting'13 developedat 6vLLaXELa Isoc.v 38, whereit means'reconciled'; whence it is buta t&i-ravat •s vtLqLaXlav. short Thucydides has always been known for his frequent step (along the same path as that taken by of and in this he is below) to 'being at peace'. The correct obscurity expression7 passage being &vaXwp6o of particularlyterse, to the extent, indeed, that it some- interpretation Thucydidesdepends on an under- times reads like notes. This sentence, brief and obscure, standingof his use of 8itardcvaL,an understanding which gives us little indication what he thought the nature of the scholiastseems to lack.14 the war was. Furthermoreit does not seem that he or his o0 rv: '(he means) did not fight in vv~tLXror does not readerscan have thought it was much of an exception to alliance' '(he mean) fought in alliance'?The former is more with the latter his generalrule that rd arpo a'do-jvwere o or likely: the scholiastwould thatit hadany serious claim to challengethe Peloponne- •EydAAa be consciously correcting (or rather, reversing) the (to orthodox of whereas sianwar in tLEyEOos.One is, indeed,led to suspectthat us) interpretation Thucydides, what he seems to be here thiswas a good instanceof whereaaco ts pLvEEpE-v SEdl actually doing (see below) is conflating the two Xpdvov rA-00os d8vara v.8 Ignorance and/or uncer- opposite interpretations. • the scholiast's tainty may thus be an additional reason for the brevity dvEX(JPqaEv: perhaps (cf. above) and obscurity of the reference.9 This impression is thought process led him from S'a-r-q via 8taxwop•w (cf Suda ii 105o Adler, glossing &LUa-rara by S&a- Cf3 i 8.3; iv 61.1; vi 79-3. XWopE-rat) to &vaxwoplw / dvaXowp6. This may seem 4Just as it had a few lines above, i 1S.-: Em'Lorv yap 7d( a little far-fetched, but we are with a KatL OL L•Es dealing scholiast, V7UjOVOKaTEuTPOV7•T, IaALuJT ooI i ELXO v. and a scholiast faced with at that. Whether it turnsout, of apKc,to illustrateX•OVan Thucydides SAs course,they are good examples or not this is the case the sense seems to be exceptionto what he has saidabout required just &arvydrovEs. which is a in 6 If he hadsaid rrAiAv nTL, or somethingsimilar, it wouldhave been 'stood aloof', possible enough meaning later Greek. clearerthat he was pointinga contrast. 15 7 D.H. de Thuc. Cf. xxiv(ff.). 1i1.3. 0oCf. section3 below. It is 1 9 not clear that rYv 7TrdAe1ovhere (or in Hdt.) indicates And even then they are not consideredworthy of much anythingmore than that it is a warthe mention of whichshould ring a attention:cf. Gomme,HCTi 43. bell in the mindsof educatedreaders. Why it will do so we canonly 12 It shouldbe pointedout that there is no second&rt inserted guess:perhaps they will be awareof it frompoets or (lesslikely) early between and dvoL:this does makeyhefinal clause read like a prose-works;perhaps it wasmerely general knowledge that there was statementof,AAl fact rather than purely an interpretation ofT. Of courseit a warbetween the two If cities. we thinkit likelythat there was a series may readlike a statementof factmerely because it was thoughtthat of squabblesbetween the two cities,if not a protractedwar, this might this was the factof which T. was informingus. be supposedto have left an impressionon the popularhistorical 13 i 76; viii 16, 18. awarenessmuch as England'straditional enmity, or Scotland's 14 Cf sectionI(a) above. traditional 15 friendship,with Francehas done; our phrases'The Old Mr W. S. Barrettkindly providedthe following examples: 'TheHundred Years War'. There is cf. even a Alliance', slightpossibility Polyb. xxi 26.7 (of Scipio's mother) ... Trv rrp6-ro Xpdvov that,even at this it havebeen known stage, mightonly aboutbecause dvaKEXCwpt7Kvla a7rg •K TWYrr Polyb. xxviii 3 it was controversial.At rate if there was a shared 7o4WIOvE'68YOv; any corpusof (two Roman legati in Greece) ... alpa Se, Std 7Jv hAdywY andthis is indicated the definitearticle - knowledge/tradition, by here, 7rapev4iatvov4 etSdr7E70ro g iv 7rv TroAMWv7rapa 7r thereis no reason it shouldbe a uniformone. In it seemsto Koai why short, E8ov avaxwpoivras, jauav7r3c Kat%rTO7 77rpo7rr70ov7aT me that in both Thuc. and Hdt. could such a of TvY carry variety (lTpoomr'TrTov7ra codd.). Kati8'AotL rdiawvijav 8VaapEa7roVLEV0L that on the matter, it be o implications speculation though might r70o dvaOpoow X jroE0L57 KavS dvr7trrp'rTovctv-. In is boundto rrov instructive, ultimately be fruitless. thesetwo casesit clearlymeans 'stand aloof'. Alsocf Aristid.xlix 39p.

This content downloaded from 131.251.254.13 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:33:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 218 NOTES

SLEonado0rq:this is very hardto reconcile with the rest 3. The otherevidence21 of the seems contradicted gloss and, indeed, wholly by Herodotus ov EL The best we could do (i) ydp AEy "•0L Epl'u0q. Two of Herodotus are taken to would be to take as 'were scattered in passages usually be SLtEUradoqr to the Chalcis-Eretria war: lack of agreement', 'torn apart', in the referring disorganised i 18: SE OLoLov sense that they were not involved with one another (a) v'roSEL 7q "o aV-raTroS~oLdv-rESTOLULE•LLacopEov-XtLOLUL either in conflict or alliance,'6 as opposed to KaL yap pd7~pOV ot MLzAhULOL rotv into Needless to4LEplapOrl this 'EpvOpalovslTodA/Lov The Chians 'neatly divided', 'split parties'. say, rrpS" Milesians rUVV8t(VELKaV.in return for is but it have been the it was help the against previous unsatisfactory, might way Milesian the understood by the scholiast following an earlier com- help against Erythraeans.22 v 99: oL OLUL mentator (who was in its (b) yap 687 7TpOrEPOV presumablyusing S~LEondo'aq L -rov MLtA?'cLOL7TOAE Lov normal sense). Anyway it is likely that the scholiast is 7wpo aUV- 'EpE-rpLEv•3OTr Kal XaAKLUSE3ULXaAKLS8a• r here conflating our orthodox interpretation with its 8cLjVELKaV, dvrt'a'EpE-rpE'w 1TE•CtLLOL Eretrians Mile- opposite.17 Garblingof this sort by scholiastsis not at all KatLMLAiwLov flo30'jOov. help unusual. sians in return for previous help againstthe Chalcidians. There are difficultieshowever: Apart from S(LEaTowq, then, I take the scholiast to as in that (1) If we place the war in about 700, or even down into interpret Thucydides saying: 'Particularly the seventh the Eretrian is for long-ago war between Chalcis and Eretriathe rest of the century, help given Greek world stood aloof as far as alliance with either services 200 years earlier. But even that Herodotus is to 'The side was concerned."'8 (2) granted referring lack of the that Chalcis-Eretriawar' here23 (and the definite articleat v Thucydides' lucidity, possibility does indicate that he has some sort of however have been obscure to a late Greek and that 99 idea, e8Lor'q may of a there is no indication that he the scholiast might well have been a man of not very vague, war24) or suffice to connected these two passagesin his mind; and if, indeed, great knowledge intelligence may explain he knew much about the war at all he did not considerit our gloss: it may merely be a misunderstanding.Thus we would be of to the an important, and certainly not a Panhellenic, event. rightly wary giving any weight Herodotus' of the war, at rate, cannot gloss by itselfas an historicalopinion. If, however, he is conception any two he is not himself be the result of misinterpretationof Thucydides i 15.3! conflating interpretations respon- Rather it is much the same as has been seen sible for them. There will have been two, or Thucydides' originally to be and unsubstantial. more, sources or groups of sources, one of which will above-vague have interpretedsEarvq by 8SEadTaOuqor words to that effect. The of the view is (ii) Thucydides propounder opposite quite Furtherindication of this in Thucydides can be found likely, primafacie,to have taken Thucydides' sentence as in other to be relevant. His informa- an illustrationfor reasons as we have need passagesthought which, seen, tion about Ameinocles' to ,25 which is used not be far to and it It help seek, explained accordingly. as evidence for, but which does not a Corin- remains that this view of the require, possible, however, thian-Samian alliance, comes two before Chalcis-Eretriawar was one held serious scholarsin only chapters by his aside on the 7orE but no and that the with TrrAaL 7yEVOLEVOV7dAEtLOV antiquity 'original commentator','9 connection is made between the two incidents;26nor is this of the war in to it to view mind, sought apply made at vi 4, which is used as evidence for That seriousscholars have held such any Thucydides.20 may Chalcidian hostility to Megarians (in Leontini). Final a view and that this view may not merely have stemmed confirmation of uncer- from a of I to show Thucydides' ignorance and/or misunderstanding Thucydides hope we must, I think, call it one of the is in the next section. tainty (for two), iior- here at i 15.3 which means, as LSJputs it, 'at some unknown point in time'.27 422.17 Keil (i 498 Dindorf): the speaker, because of a previous oracle, 21 is careful to avoid eating beef. Now, after an earthquake, 06 OeS 1 donot propose to indulge in a thoroughreview of theevidence KEAEVEl JIOL ... . cjaL OUV 87/LOUa 7c AdALL 7C uw77pL here.Cf especiallyW. G. G. Forrest,Historia vi (1957)16o ft; and dvaXwpov7ro0 Sd iLov Ka 67ro07r7Ev0V70ro, Kai 8E8LO70r 7reV generally J. N. Coldstream, Greek GeometricPottery (London 1968) 7rpordpavEKELV7rV Trrppp'cLV, EyEVETOKrA; and Aristid. li 59 P. 465.6 368 ff. andGeometric Greece (London 1977); A. R. Burn,The Lyric Age Keil (i 549 D). of Greece (London 1960) 92-3. Contrast Gardner, CR xxxiv (1920) 16 P1l.Leg. 876c may be closer to this: 'pull in different directions' 9o-1. (LSJ). 22 Thispassage tends only tentatively to be assertedas relevant. 17 If we thought the scholiast was the traditional 23 One -rv doesindicate in Thuc.and Hdt. is that' giving interpre- thing 7r'dA•pov tation we would have to take JdvEXwP77laEvas 'retreated from one therewas one war. With this should be compared modern theories of another', i.e. into two (or even, perhaps, many) different camps; this multiplewars: e.g. Dondorff,De RebusChalcidensium (Berlin 1855). 24 force of the word would be very peculiar and the interpretation would But cf.n. 9. 25 breakdown anyway at o ydp Ad'yELKrA. i 13.3. 26 18 i in is 6vtppax'avused respectively as it is earlierin the See L. H. Jeffery, (London 1976) 159 n. 2 for sentence: cf. LSJ s.v. IV 2. possible re-dating of Ameinocles to the mid-seventh century. 19 I amasked to stressthat, on thewhole, there is little evidence of 27 rTcAaL does,it seems to me, indicate vagueness, uncertainty ror• muchhistorical interest on the part of commentatorsonThuc. This is or something of the sort. wormieither merely emphasises arrAaLthus a generalisation,however, from which it is quiteunwise to jump to suggesting the mists of antiquity, or it invests whatever 7radAaLis conclusions.This comment isquite likely to have come from the same describing with a sort of legendary quality, equally misty (cf. 'once sourceas a precedingscholium (in ABGc2), which does give us a piece upon a time'). Cf. Plat. Critias loa. Ar. Plut. 1002 is no exception: of historicalinformation not in Thuc.,namely that the warwas Jaav M& . Thevigour of theMilesians has rrdAaLtror' AKL•LOLMja•o0 foughtfor the Lelantine plain: OrrdA'Aov XaAKLSoEWV KaL longsince degenerated into pleasure and luxury: it is farback in the L 'EpErpL4E• roA'lovv of 7ro rp6 &AAAov~ rnpt roi AArlavri'ov irrES'ov. mistsof a legendarypast that they were 'AKLIOL. There is herein 20 Cf. n. 12. Thuc.too, I think,a suggestionof eitherthe great amount of time

This content downloaded from 131.251.254.13 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:33:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions NOTES 219

If, then, Herodotus and Thucydides had much of an We might note the following: idea of the 'war' it was perhapsa little confused and, at (1) 76oe-761a is the only mention or evidence in our any rate, by no means the same as modern reconstruc- sources of actual armed conflict involving the supposed tions of alliancesbased on their texts. allies (Thessalyin this case);peculiar, one might think, if there was actually active evpqtaXla. (iii) (2) '' here may have been Aristotle of Chalcis, x -To p v Strabo I.12 (448): oUv rr7TAovW"toAod'ovv the local historian,rather than the philosopher.29In any &AA-AaLsndaAELsat aara&, At-qAcvrov EpL' case it is interesting that he provides a variant for this SLEvEXOELcOLO TS OV.TWTEAEWgS ateavro,i , WUTO ETWE story, although he still apparentlythought Cleomachus rToAEuwp Kala avOaSELYav8pYv EKaara, died in victorious battle with the Eretrians.Furthermore OUVVEEVTO,E O' aavrT7aovvTaLrv dycwva.87tAoi d.AAa8t in his version the Chalcidiansfrom Thrace are involved. Ka%rotAro uv i- "Ap2apvvOG'rvIA-TLS, #Opa?ovau a /L7% Who else, one wonders, if anyone, did he think were T7lAEflPAoMs. involved? Xp,0aaLThe war here is envisaged as a gentlemanly affair (3) If in (a) we accept the reading of the majority of with its compact There is no MSS, O-Lq, then we should conclude that /' Xp,7aOacrT-qAXEAoEL.28 probably indication that Strabo thought it was a Panhellenic Leschesis 'ssource here. If so, this isjust the sort event. Neither, presumably, did his source(s), who, his of unreliable source that might also be behind Thuc. i mention of the arT4A-indicates, were probably local 15.3. If, however, we think it unlikely that Lesches guides. Surely they, if anyone, would have been anxious wrote a poem about the Chalcis-Eretriawar, there are to point out to Strabo that their local cities were once so two further alternatives: important that all the rest of Greece fought on one side (a) Plutarch is portraying Perianderas having learnt or the other. It is quite likely, in other words, that about the contest from Lesches; i.e. Lesches is, for Strabo's source/guide did not think this war was Plutarch, Periander's contemporary, who might per- Panhellenic and I doubt that he reached this conclusion haps be expected to know about earlierpoetical contests from misreadThuc. i So we surmise to of them at Periander's having 15-3! might (and sing court?). that a (or the) local Euboean tradition did not believe (b) We accept the reading Wgs4aac in which case the war was Panhellenic. Leschesis, not unreasonably,being portrayed as taking part in the contest with and .30 (iv) Plutarch In either of these two cases Plutarch'ssource is to be There are two relevant passagesin Plutarch: sought elsewhere (one of the perhaps?);but, (a) Mor. 153f-154a (Sept.Sap.Conv. Io): (Periander is whichever of the three alternatives we choose, this speaking) aKOlOjWEVydp O"7LKaL 7Tp0 7Ta 'AObL- anecdote and the one about Cleomachus are mythical in 8d&iavro9TaaS d ES XaAK'dSar7jV TOdE aOCdV o tone (cf. Thucydides' 7rraAaLrroTr) and likely to have SOKLL7T70aTOL j v been the of such as have Tro&L-aLaUVAOov" v8'"'AtS 6 tLSadia subject poetry may provided &v-p ToAqELKo9, KWaL% ToAA rrpayyparaTnapaaXwv Thucydides with his 'knowledge' of the war. At any EVT 7Tpt rate it is not or in 'Ep4pLE•3LV raL• A-qAdvrovtd1XaLg rE7TEav. immediately explicitly apparent ErrEL8t 7%r TaapEKEUvaa'/LEvaTOL^S 7TOLqTaLg E7Tr Plutarch that the Chalcis-Eretriawar was a Panhellenic XaAEnrjVKaL S&KoAov OLELiL7v VKpL'ULVSLa T7o event. EO'/LLAAOV, E 8'eaSoa '-YWv&yWvLUI-diV, tOJpov KaL% 'HaLoSov, rToAA-)varTopl'av pET' alsoOs 7roLKpLVOvaL (v) Aristotle TO arasV KaL 7TapELXEv,` T7rrp09 Aristotle at Pol. iv I289b36 mentions the war: SLOd7TE ",,7pd7roVtjnwLe ... ,pwTrELS9, EMTL-v 7TOALEULVwv OaaLgS EavV TOLL7t7"TOLS trpo46faA' 'yV,,S AExgO apxa Xpovwv O,oObau QhJnwB rjtidvauLgs Jv, rapd roTroLS aav*ZXpwvro /noqLMor. Cleomachus comes with ALyapXla, (b) 760e-76ia (Am. 17): SE 7rpO70Trovs 7oA4love LtT7TOLSrTp09 rovgsaarv- his from . , .. .riKovpos XaAKL8UE1aLyE7rovas, OLOV'EpEirpLES Ka" XaAKLSESt. Tro codd.) 7roAE'ov Aristotle have been aware that horses were used A-qAaV7LKOr(EOe~aaALKoO 7rps may 'EpETrpLEcidatKd 0V7ros ... He dies in the battle in the war becausehe knew about the Cleomachus story fighting gloriously for the sake of his lover who is (the alternativeversion of which he mayhave readin the watching .. S% work of his But here too it sounds like a 'ApLarordEArqltr8 v tv KAEd•6axov namesake). a&AAwgdTroOaved ^V qL, KpaTruaaV7raTWdv 'EpErpLEdw local war: Aristotle is talking about wars between T-3'qX11 arotto' "Tv ' dr,AyWOda "Eo rdv ' 7 6XWq Tpo t770 WEpIVO bLA7)GEVaTQ V ,TO much as Thucydides is at i 15.3, but, 9OpaKS yvEvOaL, unlikea•rvyEdrovE1 he cites the Chalcis-Eretria war as XaAKrLtS'wv 7TE1•OEvTa 70roL9 Thucydides, XaAKLtSEvaUVErTLKovpov- OGEv 7 apd an illustration. Had Aristotle misread E;flota EtaaEaL merely Thucy- 70ro XaAhKtL8UL. .. dides then? Those of us who have a high opinion of Aristotle or do not wish to accuse him of the same since the war or its rather mythical character.It is precisely the phrase Thuc. would use if his source(s) were poets, local traditions or his own mistake as made by a Thucydidean scholiast will think general knowledge and when he is not particularlyconfident in any or this unlikely. It is more likely that another, perhaps all of them; cf. d 11ro-re, with Gomme's note, ii 13.3 (HCT ii 26). Aristotle of Chalcis, was his source whose 28 here31 (in Forrest's scepticism about this on the basis of the paucity of 29 inscriptions at this early period, Strabo's supposed lack of epigraphic Even if he was not he is quite likely to have been the skill and the intrinsic unlikeliness of such a compact is reasonable but philosopher's source: cf.Jacoby on A. ofChalcis, FGrH 423, 'und dann not necessarily to be shared. fr. 3 (West) is probably k6nnte dieser A. eine der Quellen seines grossen Namensvetters ftir irrelevant per se to the inscription; both of them clearly reflect a die Politieen euboeischer Stidte gewesen sein'. particular reputation that the Euboeans had and it seems sensible to 30 If this concurrence is found implausible it can be avoided by that did so of one another. This does not suppose they independently deleting "'OIipov KaiL Ha6dSov (Wilamowitz), or deleting A'noXr affect the that this point, however, was, for S., a chivalrous and, it and reading rpoflaA' d J s aoa (David). local affair. seems, 3' Cf. n. 29. C.lv,

This content downloaded from 131.251.254.13 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:33:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 220 NOTES ability to interpret Thucydides we may have less sions we do wish to draw about the events themselves, confidence). given these uncertaintiesin the evidence, they should be tentative and LAMBERT highly qualified.38 . D. It is not clear, then, that Herodotus, Strabo, Plutarch, S. D. lLAMBERT Aristotle or their respective sources thought that the Keble College, Oxford Chalcis-Eretriawar was a Panhellenicevent; indeed one scholiastinterprets it. Somemay be attractedby thissolution; it seems may get the opposite impression. Nor does it seem that to me, however,that the evidenceis insufficient. misreading of Thucydides is at the root of the matter. 38 My thanksare due to ProfessorW. G. G. Forrestand Messrs Apart from those who believe in Thessalian involve- W. S. Barrettand P. S. Derowfor their advice in generaland for their ment, it is not clear that they would disagree with the careful,percipient and usefulcriticism of earlierdrafts of this paper. remark of the scholiast, rpvo' XacAKLs8ESLdVOLg 'Ep4ETPLElaULV 4tLdXOVVO. A Louvre Fragment Reconsidered: 4. Conclusion Perseus becomes Erichthonios' We should remember that there are two distinct but PLATESIX-Xa (especiallyin this case) connected questions:(i) what the ancients thought about the war;32 (ii) what we think A fragmentaryred-figure cup, formerly in the about it. collectionof HenriSeyrig, has been connected with the (i) The tradition in general is vague and uncertain.In of Danae and Perseusever since Beazleyfirst the 250 years or so between the events and our earliest notedit in 1954.2 Althougha numberoficonographical evidence, that of Herodotus, it is not unlikely that it was discussionsof this myth have appearedsince, the vase kept alive through poetry, possibly that of Lesches. In hasnever been published and, therefore, its iconography the fifth century we have brief and uninformative never discussed.3 the are in the referencesin Herodotus and it is not even Today, fragments Thucydides; Louvre, inv. no. 980.0820.4 Thanks to the kindnessofF. clear that they are referring to the same events.33 Villardand A. I am ableto themhere Neither of them to have these events Pasquier, publish appears thought for the first time (PLATE IXa-b). In the fourth and with important. century beyond, Of the vase, only two joining fragments, of the and interest in local part developing scholarship history, handle zone (6 cm x cm), are preserved. On the there was of for When 4"5 plenty scope controversy: inside remainblack glaze and partof the meander-saltire did the war take How wars were exactly place?34 many square pattern which surrounded the tondo; on the there? Who won?35 Who was involved? On this last outside the lower two-thirds of a section of the scene some or all the authors we have question briefly which decorated one side of the cup. The vase dates to considered have stood in a traditionwhich may thought 450-40 BC. Beazley did not attributethe vase, nor can I. the war was a local event. At some the crucial stage At first glance the scene on the outside appears to sentence in came to be in Thucydides misinterpreted depict a woman and child standingin a chest-like object, favour of this localisedview. The of when this question hence the interpretation of the scene as Danae and took is but obscure. misinterpretation place important Perseus. It had been foretold by an oracle that Perseus, For if it was it be to discredit this early may thought the offspring of Zeus and Danae, would kill his view. on the other it occurred late if it If, hand, (i.e. grandfather,Akrisios, king of Argos. Danae, an view ratherthan Although supported alreadyexisting initiating who had been impregnated by Zeus in the form of then the view be considered more credible. one), may golden rain, was able to hide the existence of the If there was such a view and it was credible we youth (ii) for a few years after his birth, Akrisios heard should at least take it into account when eventually considering the child's cries and discovered him. Attempting to what actually happened, although we may not wish to himself, Akrisios had a chest built and set the our firmest evidence on the protect reject matter, Thucydides' two adriftin it. Eventuallythe chest landed on Seriphos, short sentence, correctly interpreted. All the evidence and Danae and Perseus were discovered and saved can be reconciled with the view that it was not an by Diktys, brother of King Polydektes.5 importantevent, that it was not central to the history of II would like to thank Prof. Clairmont for an the period.36 Apart from Thucydides there is little, if Christoph reading evidence which could not be reconciled with the earlier draft of this article and Judith Binder for a stimulating any, for view that it was not Panhellenic.3 Whatever conclu- discussion of this vase. I am also indebted to the following curators permission to publish vases in the collections under their care: M. 32 Or wars. Schmidt (Basel), C. Vermeule (Boston), and F. Villard (Paris). 2 Attic Vase in the Museum 33 Cf section 3 on chronological difficulties in Hdt. J. D. Beazley and L. D. Caskey, Paintings 34 Also the Euboean chronicler Archemachus involves the mythi- of Fine Arts, Bostonii (Oxford 1954) 12. cal Curetes in a Lelantine war (FGrH 424 F 9). 3 For the iconography of Danae and Perseus on vases, see 35 Chalcis wins in Plutarch but archaeological evidence indicates Beazley-Caskey (n. 2) 11-12; K. Schauenburg, Perseusin derKunst des Eretriandominance in the seventh and sixth centuries:Pyrrhic victory Altertums(Bonn 1960) 7-12; J. Henle, GreekMyths: A Vase Painter's perhaps? See Boardman BSA lii (1957) 1 fI. Notebook(Bloomington/London 1973) 87-88, 210-12; andJ. Oakley, 36 The , for instance, might make just as valid 'Danae and Perseus on Seriphos', AJA lxxxvi (1982) 1II-1 5 (see i11, a claim to importance. Professor Forrest suggests that the conflict n. 3 for the earlier bibliography). between Assyria and Phrygia over division of power in Asia Minor at 4 I would like to thank Prof. Dietrich von Bothmer for informing about this time, particularly with reference to the Black Sea ports, me of the current location of this vase and D. Knoepfler, Mme Nicolet ought also to be considered in connection with the war. and H. Cahn for answering inquiries concerning it. 37 This might suggest the simple and drastic solution of consider- s For the literary sources of this myth, see M. Werre-de-Haas, ing Thuc. i 15.3 as an interpolation made in the context of controversy 'Dictyulci (Leiden 1961) 5-io; J. M. Woodward, Perseus:A about the war and by someone who meant the sentence the way the Study in GreekArt and Legend(Cambridge 1937) 3-23;J. L. Catterall,

Jounralof HellenicStudies cii (1982) 220-222

This content downloaded from 131.251.254.13 on Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:33:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions