HESPERIA 75 (2006) THE ARISTOTELES Pages 379-395 DECREE AND THE EXPANSION OF THE SECOND ATHENIAN LEAGUE
ABSTRACT
The left lateral face of the Aristoteles Decree stele {IG IP 43), the most impor numerous tant epigraphic source for the Second Athenian League, presents problems of interpretation. The author attempts here to establish the order in were on which members of the League listed that face and to link them with a campaigns described in the literary sources, offering possible restoration for the name inscribed in line 111 and later erased. A contemporary inscription from Athens points to the Parians, who were also listed on the front of the stone. the erasure was intended to correct a mistake of Thus, repetition.
our The stele of the Aristoteles Decree (Fig. 1) is principal epigraphic evi dence for the Second Athenian League, and since its discovery and initial more a on publication than 150 years ago it has shed great deal of light the affairs of Athens and Greece during the first half of the 4th century b.c.1 It has also raised many questions, both epigraphic and historical, especially names with regard to the specific of members and their dates of entry into the League. Both the stone and the organization whose existence it records over have received intense scholarly scrutiny the years.2 In this article I on names focus the of member city-states, leagues, and individuals that appear on the left lateral face of the stone (lines 97-134), both to establish the order in which the names were inscribed and to attempt to link the campaigns of Athenian generals recorded in the literature with the ap names on a to pearance of the stele. My findings support possible solution
1.1 would like to thank on Jeremy for their valuable suggestions, especially based Cargill 1981 (see Cargill 1996 for his assistance and the Mclnerney concerning the Paros inscription. for differences and for several typo in this errors in none encouragement preparing article; 2. IG IP 43. The reconstructed stele graphical Mitchel's text, for the time to of is for Stephen Tracy taking stands in the entry hall of the Epi which crucial my purposes). examine the stele of the Aristoteles graphicalMuseum (EM 10397). The I retain the consecutive numbering of Decree and to share his with most recent of opinions publications the decree Cargill, however (as do Rhodes and Glen Bowersock and Christian me; include Rhodes and Osborne 2003 (no. Osborne), rather than designating sides me access to as Habicht for granting pho 22), Mitchel 1984, Horsley 1982, and A and B Mitchel does. Full-length and the Muse see a treatments tographs, Epigraphical Cargill 1981; Cargill 1996 for of the Second Athenian um in Athens for to use text on permission them; fuller listing.The which I rely League include Cargill 1981, Accame and the referees anonymous Hesperia for this article is that ofMitchel 1984, 1941,Marshall 1905, and Busolt 1874.
? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 380 CHRISTOPHER A. BARON
W;
?OPUS lo i .
pepiM-kHJjg
mi? ft; :%p?
im-*--. . ?Tu-f..,:.
^1i?V
Figure 1.The stele of the Aristoteles = Decree (IG IP 43 EM 10397). Lines 97-134 appear on the left lateral face. Courtesy Epigraphical Museum, Athens THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 381
one name of the key problems presented by the stone: the inscribed?and later erased?in line 111. The entries on the left lateral face of the stele present numerous problems of reconstruction and interpretation. The 30 entries that survive or most here in part in full likely reflect the original number. The highest as entry, in line 97 (continuing to line 98), appears at the same level the on first line of the main body of the decree the front of the stone (line 7). Twenty-eight entries follow in 32 successive lines with relatively regular a m to text on spacing. Then, after space of 0.26 (equal about 16 lines of occurs over the front of the stone), there the lowest entry, stretching four lines, the first of which is at the same level as line 79 on the front?that is, the line containing the entry for the Chians, the first of all the member names inscribed on the stone.
The major questions concerning the left lateral face of the stele include were the following: the order in which the entries inscribed; whether all the entries were inscribed at the same time and, if not, what groups of can simultaneously inscribed entries be detected, and when those groups were name a or was inscribed; and what of city, league, individual originally inscribed in line 111 and later erased. Most scholars agree that there were at least three different hands on involved in inscribing the entries the left face: the highest (comprising lines 97-98) and the lowest (comprising lines 131-134) differ from each other and from the rest of the entries. These two entries are also crucial for determining the order inwhich the entire face was inscribed, so Iwill discuss to those first before turning the bulk of the names (lines 99-130).
LINES 131-134: THE DEMOS OF THE ZAKYNTHIANS IN/ON THE NELLOS
Upon the conclusion of the Peace of 375/4 b.c., the Athenians sent envoys to Corcyra to recall the general Timotheos. On his way back to Athens an on he intervened in episode of factional strife the island of Zakynthos, a installing group of exiled democrats at a fortified site on the island (or per s a haps the mainland nearby). Timotheos actions ultimately led to renewal as of hostilities, the Zakynthians in the city complained to Sparta, who sent a fleet to assist them.3 on The Zakynthians appear the stele of the Aristoteles Decree as "the demos of (the) Zakynthians in/on the Nellos."4 This entry, which of all on was a those the stone most clearly inscribed at separate time, is also the most as enigmatic. Commentators often describe the hand "sloppy."5Other or unique distinctive attributes of the entry include the reference to "the on demos" (repeated the surviving parts of the stone only in lines 97-98), to a the reference particular locale (an otherwise unknown one at that),
3. Xen. Hell. Diod. Sic. For see 6.2.2-3; detailed examinations, Sealey (with further references). 15.45.2-4. The on bibliography this 1957, pp. 99-104; Cawkwell 1963; 4. Lines 131-134: Zaio)v[8]?cov | episode, part of the tangled chain of Mitchel 1981;Tuplin 1984; Stylianou ? ?fjuo? I? ?v tan Nr|X,?,|coi. events of the is years 375-371, large. 1998, pp. 346-357; and Fauber 1999 5.E.g.,Cargilll981,p.44. 382 CHRISTOPHER A. BARON
on and its placement the stone (see below).6 For my present purpose, am we can I concerned mostly with what conclude about when this entry was inscribed relative to the others on the left side. Silvio Accame as was sumed from its position at the bottom of the left face that it the latest a ante entry, and that it therefore provided terminus quern for the entire autumn list, which he placed in 375.7 This conclusion is easily refuted, however, for two reasons: (1) we cannot be certain that this was the latest on we not assume entry (chronologically) the stone, and (2) should that the was entry made immediately after (or at any time after) the intervention of Timotheos at Zakynthos. on First, regarding the relative order of the entries the left lateral face, out A. Geoffrey Woodhead pointed in 1957 that the Zakynthian entry occurs on a level with that of the Chians, the first entry on the front of the was stele.8 Therefore, it is possible, if not likely, that the Zakynthian demos on thefirst entry the left side rather than the last. Raphael Sealey conjectures see names on that the mason "did not higher up the left face and append on on his entry to them; the contrary, he saw names only the front and on inscribed his entry their level to associate itwith them."9 Jack Cargill no was has commented that there is certain epigraphic evidence that this the case; but it remains difficult to explain why this entry would have been ones placed at that level after the inscribing of the above it.10The distinctive nature of the entry cannot be used to explain the separation, since other entries that are different in some way appear in the list of names on the or left side: "[the d]emos of (the) [- -]raians" (lines 97-98); cities leagues with the preposition "from" appended (lines 101-102,128-129); genitive one or more on plural ethnics followed by cities the corresponding island (lines 107-108,119-122); and the names of individuals (lines 109-110). Thus, the most likely explanation for the placement of the Zakynthian entry remains that suggested byWoodhead and supported by Cawkwell was on and Sealey: it the first to be inscribed the left side. As far as the absolute date of the entry is concerned, there is no need to as it occurred Timotheos's return from On assume, Accame did, that upon 6. Cargill 1981, pp. 44, 64-66. were the identification of the see the Ionian Sea in 375/4. It is possible that the Zakynthians already Nellos, on summer Mitchel 1981. members of the League when he set out his voyage in early 375, 7. Accame 86. Fauber and an additional reason for his that was to 1941, p. perhaps campaign year support resur (1999, pp. 495-496) has recently the democratic faction in their efforts to return to their native In city.11 rected this argument, but he fails to this scenario would make more sense of what we know of Timotheoss a reason fact, offer for the peculiar location to restore of the actions. If part of his original mission had been the Zakynthian entry. n. to on 8.Woodhead 1957, p. 371, 15. exiles, he may have felt compelled achieve something this front before same was a The point made by Sealey returning to Athens, despite the fact that peace had just been concluded. (1957, p. 105), who credits Cawkwell But rather than and to the would constitute an stop lay siege city?which for the observation; Cawkwell himself and obvious violation of the terms of the installed open peace?he simply later put the argument in print (1963, on an not on the exiles somewhere the island, hoping that such action would p. 88). Woodhead, the other hand, cause a renewed outbreak of hostilities but would still allow him to claim remained reluctant to draw any firm conclusion from his observation (1962, some measure of success inAthens. When the Zakynthians ruling the city at pp. 265-266). appealed to Sparta, however,Timotheoss halfhearted attempt keeping 9. Sealey 1993, p. 62. the was the as a full breach of it. In sum, we peace interpreted by Spartans 10. Cargill 1981, p. 44. not s at as should take the notices of Timotheos actions Zakynthos reliable 11. Cawkwell 1963, p. 88; Sealey indicators of an absolute date for this entry. 1993, p. 62;Mitchel 1981, pp. 75-76. THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 383
LINES 97-98: THE DEMOS OF THE [- -]RAIANS
If the Zakynthian entry represents the first to have been inscribed on the we are left lateral face, led to conclude that the highest entry, "[the d]emos was of (the) [- -]raians" (lines 97-98), the second.12 But to which city does this entry refer? The history of scholarly attempts to reconstruct this entry a is fascinating topic in itself. The first publication of the Aristoteles Decree, can by Eustratiades in 1852, printed ['Epu9]paicov.13 Of course, this be ruled on out historical grounds, since Erythrai, inAsia Minor, would have been a considered possession of the King by the terms of the King's Peace. But a more harmful mistake went unnoticed; the drawing published with the actu inscription placed the break of the stone farther to the right than it was room ally is, giving the impression that there for about five missing letters. This may have led the next editor of the inscription, Rangab?, to propose [KepKujpocicov for the entry, since this seemed to match both the literary accounts of Timotheos's campaign of 375 in the northwest and an the independent epigraphic evidence of Athenian-Corcyrean alliance at this time (IG II2 96 and 97).14 Scholars universally accepted Rangab?'s proposal until 1967, when John Coleman and Donald Bradeen measured the stone and proved that room or it had for "the restoration of only two, possibly three, letters."15 own was Their proposal [?njpaicov, which is certainly feasible epigraphi most to as cally, and which scholars have recognized be historically possible a well.16 Since then, Fordyce Mitchel has made detailed argument in favor of [Oe]pocicov, the Thessalian city ruled by Jason during the 370s, while a on Germana Scuccimarra has argued for [IT?pJpa?cov, city Lesbos known a to have been member of the League.17 For my present purpose, it is not necessary to come to a conclusion about this entry, since the name inscribed here does not affect my proposed restoration for line 111.
LINES 99-130: ONE HAND OR SEVERAL?
In their 1967 article, Coleman and Bradeen also mention in passing that a lines 97-98 appear to have been inscribed by different hand from the one us responsible for those immediately below.18 This leads to the final batch of on entries the stone, those found in lines 99-130 (Fig. 2), and the question on of how many hands inscribed them, and when. Scholarly opinion this
the stone, and 12. Lines 97-98: [- -]pa?cov I [? 1996, p. 45 and n. 38. therefore, despite his assertion to ?]%o?. 17.Mitchel 1984; Scuccimarra the contrary (p. 66), does indeed do "violence to the 13. See esp. Coleman and Bradeen 1987-1988. See Cargill 1996, pp. 45 epi evidence." See Mitchel 1984, 1967; Cargill 1981, pp. 40-41; Mitchel 47, for discussion of each suggestion. graphic 1984. scenario 49, n. 29; (1996, Cargill's proposed (1981, p. CargilTs response n. that his is one of 14. Coleman and Bradeen 1967, pp. 41, 64-66), that lines 97-98 were p. 47, 45), many "inferences" that could be made, adds p. 102, pi. 30. inscribed last (i.e., after all those 15. Coleman and Bradeen seems 1967, below), extremely unlikely epi nothing. 18. Coleman and Bradeen p. 103. graphically; it completely ignores the 1967, 16. 40 104. See, e.g., Cargill 1981, pp. alignment of the top entry with the p. on 41; Horsley 1982, p. 142; Cargill main body of the decree the front of CHRISTOPHER A. BARON
Figure 2. Lines 97-130 of the Aristo teles Decree. Courtesy Epigraphical Museum, Athens issue over the past century has been divided between one hand and several hands at work. Those who see evidence for more than one stonecutter have 19. One hand at work (cf. n. 24, below): Accame 1941, 86; generally argued for various groups of entries inscribed at different times; p. Cargill Cawkwell 42. those who see no such evidence believe that all the names between lines 1981, p. 41; 1981, p. Several hands: Woodhead 1957, 99 and 130 were cut at the same time the same hand.19 by pp. 371-372; Tod, GHI123; Coleman The issue is difficult to in because the of what resolve, part question and Bradeen 1967, p. 104;Horsley criteria should be used to determine the hand(s) at work on the left side 1982, p. 142;Mitchel 1984, pp. 40, 51. THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 385
never of the stone has been fully addressed. Ernst Fabricius, the first to or discuss the number of hands involved, despite noting "sharper" "thicker" at not a lettering certain points, did believe that these variations signified mason at on different work.20 Woodhead focused the spacing of the letters to two one erasure distinguish groups of entries, above the at line 111 and a saw another below.21 Coleman and Bradeen addressed only break they as after line 98, describing the letters in the first entry "slightly smaller, more more deeply cut and widely spaced" than those immediately below.22 on Mitchel argued for four groups of entries based the observations made by Fabricius, without any further detailed evidence.23 The focus on the issue of how many hands were involved in inscrib ing the entries has diverted attention from the larger question of the time frame involved. As I stated above, those positing various hands at work on have argued for groups of entries appearing the stone at different times; conversely, those who consider all the entries to have been inscribed by the same hand have assumed that all the entries were therefore listed on stone at same the the time.24 This would, of course, offer the simplest on not out a scenario; the other hand, it is of the realm of possibility that mason names on single inscribed all the the left side of the stele (except so at the last), but did different times. In fact, the lettering of these entries a may provide clue that this was indeed the case. a Stephen Tracy found in recent examination of the stone that the on lettering in all the entries the left side (minus the last) is consistent
on a una mano 20. Near the end of his article 22. Coleman and Bradeen 1967, stessa che non compare Second 104. mai furono the Athenian League, Fabricius p. nella facciata principale; states 23. stesso (1891, p. 598) that all the entries Mitchel 1984, pp. 40,51. dunque registrad di seguito dallo on the left side the other than Mitchel to have misread issue of stone, appears lapicida." Cargill, taking with the were the same since he cites the as the last, inscribed by Fabricius, however, groups proposed by Woodhead, own hand at the same time: if we did not German scholar in support of his serted in his 1981 book that "all the names have the Zakynthian entry, he writes, argument for different hands inscribing [in lines 99-130] appear to have "so Niemand auf den Gedanken various of entries at different cut same w?rde groups been by the hand, and it is Vezeichniss times. He for to kommen, dass das [sie] writes, example (p. 49, reasonable infer from this that they nicht zu einer und derselben Zeit von n. since he is one of those were cut at the same time" 29), "Accame, all (p. 41; to einem und demselben Steinmetzen who (contrary the observations of cf. pp. 61, 64). He backtracks somewhat on note names eingehauen w?re." He goes to Fabricius) claims that all the from this view in his 1996 article, that the letters to become the on Face B appear (save Zakynthian demos) where he accepts that Mitchel (sup at line 99 and were cut at the same time the same see sharper ("sch?rfer") by posedly following Fabricius, but at weakens his own n. correct out thicker ("dicker") line 106. But he hand,' argument.... above, 22) is in pointing does not attribute these to a Likewise account suffers from some in changes Cargill's difference the cutting of the not acute different mason, for he continues, "Ein his following Fabricius' and letters beginning at line 106; but he zweiter Arbeiter ... hat dann schliess accurate observations in on to distinguishing goes (p. 48) maintain that the ... in lich die vier letzten Zeilen 35-38 the groups of lettering lines B 3-34 differences are not so great as to In in of their a mason or hinzugef?gt." other words, Fabri spite superficial similarity." necessitate different any saw two masons at states cius only work: Mitchel also (p. 51) that Fabri passage of time. See also Cawkwell one for a cius "was able to out subtle but states lines 97-130, and second for pick (1981, p. 42), who that "all the lines 131-134. in next differences in the 'hands' names Finally, the important above the Zakynthian entry he restates his conclusion which inscribed Face where later were cut same paragraph, B, by the stone-cutter," that all the entries on the left side of scholars have been content to 'All and on to say: goes conclude (p. 43) that the stone the last were inscribed at the same time.'" Cf. n. 20. "it is more except above, somewhat likely that the at same same the time, in the second half of 24. See, e.g., Accame 1941, p. 86: hand cut this group of names 375 b.c. "I nomi incisi nella facciata laterale ri at much the same time than in two all'infuori dell'ultimo 21.Woodhead 1957, pp. 371-372. salgono tutti, ..., different years." 386 CHRISTOPHER A. BARON
one man. enough to represent the work of In his opinion, the variations in the size and depth of the lettering claimed by Coleman and Bradeen (at not line 99) and by Mitchel (at lines 99 and 106) do appear significant a new mason. enough to necessitate positing Tracy points out, however, that we are not forced to conclude that all the entries were therefore inscribed at same a the time. In fact, he indicates possible break at line 111: "The erased line does seem to my eye to mark a break. The lines below it are are quite uniform in spacing and thickness and I suspect likely to have been inscribed all at one time. The lines above are less uniform."25 This echoes
the observations made almost 50 years ago byWoodhead, who argued that erasure a the spacing of the letters after the (lines 112-130) shows tendency to as to as to a begin far the left possible "and preserve quasi-stoichedon arrangement of the letters."26 The names above the erasure, on the other to ... hand, appeared Woodhead "more generously spaced in order to give a names them better proportion in relation to the longer of the group."27 we From the various arguments put forward by scholars over the years, a consensus on on must acknowledge that the number of hands at work the left side of the stone may never be reached. Given the observations of two eminent epigraphers regarding the lettering, however, the possibility a remains open of passage in time between the inscribing of different groups on of entries the left lateral face, especially between those above line 111 and those below. If this is the case, can we reconstruct the circumstances of the inscribing of these groups by matching them with the accounts of Athenian campaigns found in the literary sources? I should remind the on reader that hereafter Iwill be reconstructing groups the basis of histori cal, not epigraphic, evidence.28
The Thraceward Group (Lines 99-105)
on s Based Diodoros narrative (15.36.4), it is possible to assign the entry of the members listed in lines 99-105?Abderites, Thasians, Chalki dians from Thrace, Ainians, Samothracians, and Dikaiopolitans?into the as area League the result of the efforts of Chabrias in this in 375 b.c.29 not This is to deny the possibility of voluntary accessions to the League; sense but even such accessions could have been encouraged by the of either or an security fear inspired by the presence of Athenian fleet. The only city in the group specifically mentioned by Diodoros is Abdera, where, a as he relates, Chabrias appeared at crucial moment in the Abderites' struggle withThracian barbarians. Thasos has traditionally been restored in on a line 100 based reference in [Dem.] 12.17 (the letter from Philip to the Athenians), where it ismentioned along with Maroneia (found on the a were stele at line 87) in context that implies that both members of the
these lines out further elaboration 25. S. V. Tracy (pers. comm.). (notably epsilon, kappa, nu, (pp. 47-48). variations in a 26.Woodhead 1957, p. 371. and phi), and the spacing 28. SeeWoodhead 1962 for simi no I can see.... treatment 27.Woodhead 1957, p. 372. See indicate pattern There lar and for previous literature. is no reason to the Cargill 1981, p. 41, for criticism of epigraphic divide 29.Marshall 1905, pp. 60-69; s same letter names into two maintains see Woodhead groups: "The groups." He Horsley 1982, p. 142; but Cawkwell are his in 1996 with for doubts. forms employed throughout all objections his article, 1981, pp. 42-43, THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 387
League.30 Lines 101-102 probably refer to the Chalkidian League rather on than the city of Chalkis.31 Ainos lay the Thracian coast northeast of was Samothrace, and Dikaiopolis probably situated on the coast between Abdera andMaroneia.32 Thus we have a group of six members who, either or voluntarily through the persuasion of Chabrias, entered the League in the summer of 375 b.c.
The Northwest Group (Lines 106-110)
Immediately after narrating Chabrias's exploits, Diodoros relates that over Timotheos "having sailed to Kephallenia brought to his side the cities there and likewise persuaded those in Akarnania to incline toward Athens."33 He then goes on to state that Timotheos also made friends of Alketas, king of the Molossians, and "won over the lands of the cities of won a those regions,"34 after which he naval battle against the Spartans near same Leukas. Xenophon, apparently narrating the campaign of 375, no or makes mention of Kephallenia, Akarnania, Molossia; instead, he states that Timotheos "having sailed around [the P?loponn?se] straightaway put a Corcyra under his control,"35 treating the island, however, in moderate and humane way. We then hear of Timotheos's naval victory and his plac a at ing of trophy Alyzeia (5.4.64-66). The issues surrounding these two narratives, their relationship to the names on the stele of the Aristoteles Decree, and subsequent events in the area are (especially concerning Corcyra) varied and complex. It is sufficient to can here show that the four entries comprising lines 106-110 clearly be linked to this campaign of Timotheos in 375. In addition to the historians' we an accounts, have the record of Athenian decree of August/September 375 offering the Corcyreans, the Akarnanians, and the Kephallenians to admission the League.36 The problem, of course, is that not all of names on these appear the stele. Cargill proposed that the absence of the can never Corcyreans be explained by the fact that they became members same true of the League; the would then hold for the cities of Kephallenia one on other than Pronnoi, which is the only to appear at this point the stele.37 Another possibility is that these names were inscribed on parts of are now the front of the stele that missing. While Corcyra could conceiv ably have been listed there, however, it is highly improbable that the three cities of Kephallenia other than Pronnoi (entries that would take up four on lines) all appeared the front of the stele, since space must be reserved for several Aegean islands and cities known to have been members of the
on 30. Cargill 1981, p. 42. Mitchel's brief comments the sub 34. Diod. Sic. 15.36.5: KaO?tan) x?? n. 31. Cargill 1981, p. 42; Accame ject (1984, p. 46, 19). Xcopa? x?? xcov rcepi xo?? xorcou? ?icei 87. as well as the 32. s.v. 1941, p. This, pres Harp. AiKai?rcoAic (Dindorf vo\)? Tc?^ecov ?^i?ioTtovnoajievo?. ence of the Akarnanians in line lines a 106, p. 97, 14-16), citing lost speech 35. Xen. Hell. 5.4.64: ? ji?vxoi Tiuo raises the question of how the member of Lysias. 0eo? TceputA-euaac K?picopav u?v euO?? of such federal koina in the 33. ... ship League Diod. Sic. 15.36.5: TiuoOeo? \)(p' ?ocoxco ?TCoiTiaaxo. was reconciled with the "free and nhevcaq ei? xr\v Ke^>aXXr\viav, xa? 36. IG IP 96. autonomous clause" of the Aristoteles x' ?v ai)xr\ Tt?Xeic TipoGriy?yeTO Kai x?? 37. Cargill 1981, pp. 68-82. For but the issue is kocx?c erceiaev reactions to see Decree, unfortunately xf|v AKapvav?av ojllo?cd? his theory, Tuplin outside the scope of this article. See ?rcoK^?vai rcpo? AOrrvaioix;. 1984, pp. 544-566; Fauber 1998. 388 CHRISTOPHER A. BARON
League.38 In any case, the entries that do appear in lines 106-110?the on Akarnanians, Pronnoi Kephallenia, Alketas and his heir Neoptol summer emos?clearly entered the League in late 375 B.c.
The Aegean Group (Lines 112-130)
crux erasure Before dealing with the epigraphic of the left lateral face, the at line 111,1 will continue the process of matching entries with campaigns on by examining the remaining group that face. At first glance, the group one. does not seem to be a very cohesive It consists of Cycladic islands? Andros (112),Tenos (113),Mykonos (115), three cities of Keos (119-122), Amorgos (124), Siphnos (126), and Sikinos (127); cities from the island a of Lesbos in the eastern Aegean?Antissa (116) and Eresos (117); city on Euboia?Hestiaia (114); cities from the Chersonese and Propontis on coast? region?Elaious (123) and Selymbria (125); cities theThracian a Dion (128-129) and Neapolis (130); and mystery city, that of the Astrai are on ousians (118).39 Furthermore, these entries not arranged the stone in any geographic order; in fact, it is difficult to find any organizing prin some to ciple. This has led scholars lump all these entries in with those of 375 b.c., that is, those in lines 99-110, attributing their adherence to the League to the Athenian naval victory at Naxos in September 376, Chabrias sThracian campaign of 375, and voluntary accessions.40 Those who recognize the possibility of these entries being added later than 375 so or a to usually do with reservations, concession the possibility of the earlier date.41 However, I believe it is possible to match this entire group a as with the record of specific campaign: that of Timotheos in 373, recorded by Diodoros (15.47.2-3).42 The narrative of the campaign found inDiodoros relates that the Athe to to nians had sent Timotheos out bring aid Corcyra, but before proceeding there, he sailed toward Thrace (?rciOponcn?) and brought many cities into was too the alliance, along with 30 triremes. At this point, however, he late so was to fulfill the terms of the alliance with Corcyra, his command taken account away.43 Xenophoris (Hell. 6.2.12-13) is roughly the same, with to some differences in detail and tone. According him, Timotheos cruised the islands (eni vfjacov) in order to man his fleet, but the Athenians felt he to was wasting the best time of the year in which campaign and therefore took away his command, putting Iphikrates in his place.44
on to claim that he was 38.Tuplinl984,p.549,n.43. Tod, GHI123. reinstated, not true. 39. See Brun 1998 for a pro 42. See alsoWoodhead 1957, but this is of the Astraiou Marshall 44. Xen. Hell. 6.2.12-13: ? ?'o? posed identification p. 370; 1962, p. 259; 1905, sians. All these cities are listed in the pp. 60-69. ?i)vaji?vo? or?x?Oev x?? va?? nAripcoaai, of their ethnic. 43. Diod. Sie. 15.47.2-3: ?? ?7ri ekeiOev form plural ofixo? vr|ocov nXevoaq ?7t?ip?xo oil) 40. See, e.g., Accame 1941, pp. 99 Tipo xfj? OT>uuaxia? xauxn? nXzvoaq a\)U7i?ir|po\)v, (parutaw f|yo\)|i?vo? 104; Cargill 1981, pp. 41-42,61-64; e7ri Opaicn?, Kai koXXolc, tcoXei? e7ci E?va? ?re? oDyKEKpoxriji?va? voru? dicfl Cawkwell 1981, p. 45; Sealey 1993,
a We have confirmation of the general outlines of the story from later as prosecution against Timotheos by Apollodoros, preserved [Dem.] 49. was on The speech, probably delivered in 362, shows that Timotheos put trial in late 373 by Iphikrates and Kallistratos for "not sailing around the was was P?loponn?se."45 He acquitted, but his standing damaged badly cause enough to him to leave Athens and join forces with Persia. Apol some lodoros also provides detailed information regarding the chronology was to on of events for that year: Timotheos "ready sail his second expedi was tion"46 inApril/May 373, but in need of money and therefore obtained a s was loan from Apollodoros father, Pasi?n. At the time when Timotheos recalled to Athens for trial, the fleet was at Kalaureia, off the northeastern was coast of the P?loponn?se. The trial itself held in (or shortly after) November/December 373.47 can summer We therefore be fairly certain that during the and early autumn of 373, Timotheos took the Athenian fleet somewhere in the an Aegean, apparently preparing for expedition to Corcyra by gathering new men, and perhaps also money and allies. Most recent studies of this episode have concluded that, whatever his original mission, Timotheos in summer on the early of 373 must not have felt that the situation Corcyra was urgent; but when the Spartan general Mnasippos attacked Corcyra later in the year, it appeared to the Athenians (or at least two of their lead summer ing politicians) that Timotheos had wasted the and left their ally open to attack.48 One result of this conclusion is that Diodoros is correct, on and Xenophon incorrect, the relative chronology of events: Xenophons narrative jumps from the Peace of 375/4 straight toMnasippos's invasion of Corcyra in 373, thereby omitting almost two years'worth of activity that can we Diodoros preserves.49 But also believe Diodoros on the destina tion of Timotheos's voyage and his recruitment of new allies? This is an important question, because the addition of cities from the northern coast as of the Aegean (such Dion and Neapolis) in 373 rather than 375 would to we be difficult explain if discount Diodoross phrase ?nx ?paicri? and his statement new allies. concerning on sees P. J. Stylianou, in his commentary book 15 of the Bibliotheca, as a Diodoros's reference to Thrace "grotesque muddle" and attributes it to an "a confused rendering of Ephoran passage on Timotheus' successes in a Thrace in the late 360s."50While Stylianou does not explicitly state why so voyage to Thrace is unlikely, it appears that he considers the reference part of an overly laudatory attitude toward Timotheos evident in several 4th-century sources, presumably due to the influence of Isokrates.51 But
45. [Dem.] 49.9: ?i? x? \?\ Tcepi 48. See, e.g., Cawkwell 1963, p. 87; 49. Fauber 1999, pp. 490-494. kXeVGOII nE^OTCOWTlOOV. Woodhead 1962, pp. 260-262; Sealey 50. Stylianou 1998, p. 372. 46. 49.6: ektc^e?v 66. [Dem.] u?Mcov 1993, p. Alternatively, Fauber 51. Stylianou 1998, pp. 119,317. EK7iXo\)v sees x?v ?cxepov Tiuo?eoc o?xoo?. (1999, p. 498) the original purpose For praise of Timotheos, see, e.g., The first expedition was most likely of the fleet as "the administration of Xen. Hell. 5.4.64, Isoc. 15.107, Diod. that of cf. most case 375; 49.8, where Apollodoros internal League affairs" and believes Sic. 15.36.6; the obvious refers to Timotheos's second term as that Timotheos set out into comes the Aegean of exaggerated praise from general. before the request for aid from Corcyra Aeschines (2.70), who credits Timo 47. Fleet at Kalaureia: [Dem.] was received. Such a reconstruction, if theos with bringing 75 cities into the 49.13. Trial date: 49.22. to [Dem.] See correct, would lend further support League. Tuplin 1984, pp. 538-539. the addition of new members in 373. 39o CHRISTOPHER A. BARON
summer more if Timotheos did indeed spend the entire and sailing the no reason a Aegean?as it appears he did?then there is to rule out voyage toward Thrace.52 Stylianous wholesale rejection of Diodoros's account a case errors appears to be of hypercriticism. Diodoros makes egregious at as errors times; but, Woodhead observes, these "do not constitute grounds as for sweeping aside the whole of Diodorus' narrative untenable whenever it happens to be inconvenient."53 We should not dismiss Diodoross state ments out of hand simply because they conflict with those of Xenophon, case. especially in this Xenophons phrase eni vt|oc?v is less specific than no Diodoross ?ni ?paierie;; it iswell known that Xenophon had interest in recording the expansion of the Second Athenian League, and he has errors proven to be susceptible to in other respects.54 It remains possible, then, that the members listed in lines 112-130 of the stele of the Aristoteles Decree, cities from all around the Aegean, to entered the League subsequent the voyage of Timotheos in 373. The gap of two years between these entries and the entries above line 111 does not create any historical problems. The Athenians probably would have a war welcomed respite from the effort after the Peace of 375/4; in fact, were a they still having trouble funding campaign in 373.55
LINE 111: THE ERASURE
We are now left with three possibilities for the date of the original entry was same as in line 111: (1) it inscribed at the time the Northwest Group immediately above it, that is, in late summer/early autumn 375 b.c.; was on own some (2) it inscribed its at point between early autumn 375 summer or was and 373; (3) it inscribed with the Aegean Group directly summer or some below it, that is, in 373 at point thereafter.56 The second an on own some option, entry inscribed its at point between late 375 and summer seems to or 373, impossible prove disprove, and any restoration falling into this category would remain pure speculation. as as As for the first option (the entry being made in 375), long the entry was believed to be |['I(xoco])v, this appeared to be the most likely name scenario: the tyrant's would have been added simultaneously with on those of the only other individuals listed the stele, and the timing would have fit the reference to an alliance between Jason and Athens that Fabri saw to cius thought he in Polydamass speech the Spartans in Xenophon measurements (Hell 6.1).57 But sinceWoodhead reported his of the letters on the left side of the stone in 1957, more and more scholars have come at rasura to the conclusion that the remaining partial stroke the end of the
52. Cawkwell 1963, pp. 85-87; the other hand, refers both to the estab Marshall 1905, pp. 68-69. lishment of the League (15.28.2-4) and to on 53.Woodhead 1962, p. 260. the legislation recorded the stele 54. comes The closest Xenophon of the Aristoteles Decree (15.29.8). even to the acknowledging League's 55. Woodhead 1962, pp. 264-265. existence is at Hell. 5.4.34, where, 56. Similarly, Fabricius 1891, after the he narrating Sphodrias affair, pp. 591-592; Woodhead 1957, p. 370, states that the Athenians "built to simply without reference specific dates. to ships and gave assistance the Boio 57. Fabricius 1891, pp. 593-595; see tians on with all eagerness." Diodoros, Mitchel 1984, p. 47. THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 391
more to to an to a is likely belong iota than nu.58 An entry ending in iota a would probably signal the plural ethnikon of city.59 But in their accounts of Timotheoss campaign of 375 in the northwest, neither Diodoros nor rasura Xenophon mentions another city that would fit here: the is not long or even one enough for jKepicupa?oJi, [KepKupa]i, and of the cities of Kephallenia other than Pronnoi is unlikely, since itwould almost certainly seems un have been included under the genitive Kecpa??fyvcov. Thus, it was likely that the entry in line 111 inscribed along with the Northwest Group above it.60 Finally, the likelihood of the third option?an entry inscribed with the or a reason Aegean Group in after 373?to large extent hinges upon the erasure. an or a for the We would be dealing with Aegean island with city on on coast or Euboia, the of Thrace, in the Hellespont region. But why would such an entry be erased? Fabricius's argument for restoring [['I?acojv supposed that the entry was erased when Jason was assassinated in 371, "in order to maintain the accuracy of the register." Later scholars who accepted Fabricius's restora reasons erasure. tion offered various for the Marshall supposed defection, a Accame expulsion, others "gentleman's agreement" when it became not clear that Jason would respect the "freedom and autonomy" clause of the Aristoteles Decree (line 9).61 But one argument against an erasure for defection or some similar breach of the alliance is that the Thebans?the most infamous defectors from the League?remained prominently placed at the top of the list on the front of the stele (line 79) even after 371. Fur thermore, if Jasons name is removed from the debate, a less sinister reason erasure more an error on for the becomes plausible: the part of the stone a error cutter.62 As Mitchel points out, however, spelling most likely would as correct are have been treated it is in line 130, where the letters simply over ones. a inscribed the incorrect This leaves the repetition of League on member already inscribed the stele "a distinct possibility."63 was In his 1984 article, Mitchel proposed that the entry that mistak was enly inscribed at line 111 and then erased [Oepoc?ofli, which becomes one possible only if accepts his proposal of [Oe]paicov in line 97 above. As us Cargill points out, however, this scenario requires to believe that the source as Pheraians, "mentioned nowhere in any members of the [League] ... were on listed the League stele not once, but twice."64 The restoration no more that I propose has epigraphic evidence to support it thanMitchel's, a but it does have the benefit of positing the repetition of name already attested on the stone; in addition, it fits in with historical circumstances can that be reconstructed from other epigraphic evidence.
the mason could have realized a mistake is now 58.Woodhead 1957, p. 372. See League, which thought unlikely. a name. n. also Cargill 1981, pp. 43-44; Mitchel part of the way through 61. See Mitchel 1984, p. 48, 25, 1984, pp. 48-49; Horsley 1982, p. 142; 60. PaceMitchel (1984, p. 51), and Cargill 1996, pp. 48-49. am are on Cargill 1996, pp. 48-51.1 glad to whose arguments based Fabri 62.Woodhead 1957, p. 372, n. 18; see cius The latter that Rhodes and Osborne (2003; 1891, p. 592. argued Cargill 1981, p. 44;Mitchel 1984, the revised edition of Tod, GHIH) that line 111 could not belong to the pp. 48-50; Jehne 1991, pp. 125,132; c. text "Island below because none print [[[ 6]] in the of the inscrip Group" Cargill 1996, p. 49. see them was to tion; their comments, p. 105. among strong enough 63.Mitchel 1984, p. 48. 59. Cargill (1981, p. 44) points out, secede between 375 and 371. But 64. Cargill 1996, p. 49.1 do not is not this assumes that the erasure resulted however, that the visible stroke follow Cargill, however, in saying that the end of the from secession or from the necessarily original entry; expulsion Mitchel's proposal "strains credulity." 392 christopher a. baron
THE PARIANS
a on In 1936 James Oliver published fragmentary inscription found the southern slope of the Acropolis that contains the end of an Athenian de cree a and the beginning of decree of the council (synedrion) of the allies concern a of the Second Athenian League, both of which foreign state.65 The latter decree preserves a date, stated in the form of the archon year and the month and day of the Athenian calendar (lines 14-15); with the name can restoration of the archon's (Asteios), the day be fixed as the last day of Skirophorion (approximately July 12), 372 B.c.66 The poor condi tion of the stone did not allow Oliver to venture any conclusions about the or on substance circumstances of the decrees. Subsequent work the stone, more first by Adolf Wilhelm and Accame in the late 1930s, then recently byMartin Dreher and Charles Crowther, has revealed valuable information concerning this inscription.67 In 1939Wilhelm proposed that the foreign state involved in the decrees was name Paros, restoring the in lines 9 and 13-14.68 In the meantime, stone a Accame had cleaned the and, year afterWilhelms article, published as an on his findings appendix to his book the League. Much of his new text or s partially completely confirmed Wilhelm restorations, including the appearance of the Parians in line 9.691 print here the end of the Athenian as decree, lines 7-14, they appear in Rhodes and Osborne (no. 29); this same as text is essentially the that restored byWilhelm:70
?vayp(i\|/ai ?? x? \|rr|(pioucc Kai xoc? hxak Xaycc? a? ?i|/r|(p[?]oavxo o? a?|i|ia%oi xo? Kai ?v [?] riapio[i]? axfjoai cxr\Xr\v aKpo(7i) 10 6Xe[i- ei]? ?[e xnv ajvaypacpTiv xfj? oxr|?,r|? ?o[?vai x?v xapiav x]? ?r|uo A? ?paxjna?. Ka?i[oai 8? Kai ?]7t[i c;]?via e[i?] xo 7tpuxa [ve?ov] d? ai5pi[ov] xo?? 7t[p8a]?eic xcov (II) v [a]picov.
65. Oliver 1936. The stone remains Documents Newsletter 2 (Spring 1996), editors) on the basis of the final letter at at nec in the Epigraphical Museum Athens p. 5 (available online http://www. in line 9, where the correction is (EM 12821). See Dreher 1995, pi. 1, csad.ox.ac.uk/CSAD/Newsletters/ essary to make any sense of the text: for a of the which is His full text photograph stone, Newsletter2/Newsletter2.pdf). aKpo<7?>|?^e[i].Crowther's (printed will an to see n. in very poor condition. results be published in article by Rhodes and Osborne; above, 67) 66. For inHows 17 now Accame 1941, p. 231. the appear (pers. comm.). includes the Parians in line 17, restoration of the archon's see in name, 68.Wilhelm 1940, p. 9. that is, the synedrion decree itself. Oliver 1936, p. 463; Accame's subse 69. Accame 1941, p. 230. Dreher 70. Rhodes and Osborne 2003. The restoration. have also text n. quent reading confirmed the and Crowther confirmed the is Crowther's (see 67, above). in and 67.Wilhelm 1940, pp. 3-12; reading, and fact Rhodes Os Note that the phi in line 8 ismissing Accame 1941, pp. 229-244; Dreher borne now print napio[i]? in Une 9 from Rhodes and Osborne's text; cf. 1995, pp. 109-154. Rhodes and Os without any of the dots of previous Dreher 1995, p. 110. The only major no. text borne (2003, 29) incorporate the editors (e.g.,Dreher 1995, p. 110). The difference from Wilhelm's is that of who restoration in 13-14 on readings Crowther, reexamined lines depends he tentatively restored n[ocpioi? Kai stone a in at the and squeeze the 1990s. the gamma the end of line 13 being Xioi?, ?]axf|Xr|v in line 9; Accame's A of his results in to a as on stone to be summary appeared corrected pi, proposed byWil work the showed this helm the Center for the Study of Ancient (and accepted by all subsequent impossible. THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 393
This passage is followed by the decree of the synedrion, which remains highly fragmentary but seems to have involved some sort of reconciliation as between disputing parties. As far the relationship between the decrees is concerned, the generally accepted interpretation, put forward byWilhelm men and Accame, is that the decree of the synedrion is in fact the diallagai tioned in the Athenian decree above (lines 7-8), and that the Athenian on same decree orders the recording of these the stele.71 What remains unclear, however, is the identity of the parties being an on reconciled. Wilhelm ruled out internal dispute Paros and raised the a possibility that the decrees might record reconciliation between Athens and Paros after the latter had seceded from the League.72 Accame expanded on case a this suggestion, arguing the for Parian revolt from the League at greater length. He posited that Spartan activity in the Ionian Sea combined with the perceived weakness of Athens and the League?including factors s such as financial difficulties, Timotheos inability to sail to the northwest in 373, and Thebes' destruction of Plataia?could have emboldened a pro on Spartan faction Paros.73 Dreher, however, has interpreted the decrees as an on a pertaining to the arbitration of internal dispute Paros and thus reconciliation between factions on Paros, rather than between Paros and not terms Athens. The diallagai, then, would represent the of reconciliation between Athens and Paros, but rather the "arbitration rulings" (Schlichtungs to on as a regelungen) given the factions Paros by the League, acting third correct as party.74 This may indeed be the interpretation of diallagai. But, a Sealey has pointed out, such dispute on the island could have led to its secession from the League.75 This would be especially likely if the dispute were between and anti-Athenian pro- parties. Furthermore, the very publication of the League's decree requires extant explanation. This inscription represents the only document of the synedrion of the Second Athenian League. Dreher argues that this lack on of evidence results from the League's not publishing its decrees stone, was rather than from accidents of preservation.76 If it not normal policy 71.Wilhelm Accame to on were 1940, p. 12; inscribe decrees of the synedrion stone, it is possible that there 1941, pp. 233-234. one special circumstances behind the publication of the concerning Paros, 72. Wilhelm 1940, pp. 6-9,12. a situation that called for the prominent display at Athens of the dispute's 73. Accame 1941, pp. 236-240. See resolution and the roles played by the Athenians and the League in that Cargill 1981, pp. 163-164. A secession from the for of the reasons 74. Dreher 1995, pp. 118-131. process. League, any postulated by no. would seem to such an occasion. Rhodes and Osborne (2003, 29) Accame, provide follow Drehers in their interpretation In any case, one would expect that if the Parians had in fact defected commentary. from the League, their readmission would require decrees from both the 75. Sealey 1993, p. 63. Overall he Athenian assembly and the synedrion; and such decrees, in their usual form, believes the secession hypothesis "is no means would call for the Parians to be inscribed on the stele of the Aristoteles possible but by necessary." Decree.77 Of the Parians were listed on the stele?in 76. Dreher 1995, p. 114. course, already fact, 77. As called for in the Aristoteles on in the largest letters of what survives the front face (line 89). But the Decree (lines 69-72). See, e.g., IG II2 a name at chances of mistaken reinscribing of their would be increased if, 42 GHI126 (Methymna);Tod, (Cor same were was the time that they readmitted, the League also admitting cyra et al.), lines 13-15. a of new members. In a of decrees such as this situation a large group flurry 78. Such scenario is envisioned by would have the fact that one of the names was on the Mitchel (1984, p. 58), but with regard produced, already on a to the Pheraians. stele could easily have gone unnoticed.78 If the Parians were included 394 christopher a. baron
on list given to the mason with instructions to "inscribe these names the see stone," it is unlikely that he would check first to whether any of the names were name already there. Nor would the of the Parians necessarily on catch his eye, since he would be working the left face of the stone rather than on the front.
If the reconstruction given above of Timotheos's campaign in the b.c. Aegean in 373 is accepted, the entries in lines 112-130 would provide a new such large group of admissions. It is possible that heading the list of these "new" members of the League would be the Parians, and they would be inscribed on the first available line: line 111, on the left lateral face, to a just below Neoptolemos, the last entry have been made in 375. Thus possible restoration for this line would read [[n?pioji. One problem remains, however, and that is the date of the inscribing new of this group. The decrees of the Athenian assembly and the synedrion concerning Paros date to July 372, while Timotheos had returned toAthens or are for trial at least by November 373, shortly thereafter. There two pos a or sible solutions. The first is to posit delay in the admission, at least the new inscribing, of the members brought into the League by Timotheos in not 373. This possibility is all that unlikely, considering that after his trial to and departure from Athens, there may very well have been opposition a recognizing his achievements, including the recruitment of large group of allies. In addition, the nature of the entries on the left side of the stele a may reflect "saving up" of names, which could have resulted from such a delay. As Cargill points out, "the inference that date o? joining equals numerous date of listing is unjustified."79 The obvious existence of hands on were as the front of the stele indicates that these members listed they joined; but the apparent uniformity of the lettering in the entries for the on Aegean Group the left side of the stele (lines 112-130) would indicate the opposite.80 The lack of any geographic order within the Aegean Group also supports this argument. 79. 42. The second for the date of the which can Cargill 1981, p. possible explanation decrees, for 80. Cargill 1981, p. 42. Note that in fact be combined with the first, is that were the Parians they passed after Cargill, the "sameness of hand" includes not had been readmitted to the League; that is, the diallagai represent the all the names between lines 99 and 130. a on a official reconciliation but rather subsequent resolution the matter. In Accame (1941, p. 103) posited similar cause this scenario, the disturbance on Paros would have occurred sometime in for the delay in the inscribing of the Zakynthian entry (lines 131-134), the second half of 373 and been resolved by the time that Timotheos's ad concerns the Athenians ditions to the were to be inscribed on the after his i.e., among League stele?perhaps over Timotheos's actions. or name Although in around November. At that time, the Parians' would is not if one acquittal this explanation necessary have been inscribed with those of the The decrees (in error) Aegean Group. accepts Woodhead's and Cawkwell's a that the were of the assembly and the synedrion from July 372, then, would represent suggestion Zakynthians on on we a the first entry the left side of the final resolution of the problems Paros; could envision wrapping up n. remains on was at stele (see 8, above), the fact of business the final day of the year. Perhaps it the time of these that Accame the possibility decrees that someone noticed the mistake that had been made: the recognized a time the recruit finally of lapse of between were Parians, the one city to attempt to leave the League up to that point, ment of a new member and the inscrib name. now listed twice on the stele of the Aristoteles Decree. ing of its THE ARISTOTELES DECREE 395
REFERENCES
La del Accame, S. 1941. lega ateniese Marshall, F. H. 1905. The Second Athe sec?lo nian IVA.c., Rome. Confederacy, Cambridge. Brun, P. 1998. "Les Astraiousioi du Mitchel, F. 1981. "The Nellos (IG II2 d?cret d'Aristoteles (IG IP 43)," 43 B35-38)," Chiron 11, pp. 73 ZPE 121, pp. 103-108. 77. Busolt, G. 1874. Der zweite athenische -. 1984. "The Rasura of IG 112 Bund, Leipzig. 43: Jason, the Pheraian Demos, and AncW Cargill, J. 1981. The SecondAthenian the Athenian League," 9, or Free Alliance? 39-58. League: Empire pp. 1936. Berkeley. Oliver, J. H. "Inscriptions from -. 1996. "The Decree of Aristo Athens," AJA 40, pp. 461-463. R. eds. teles: Some Epigraphical Details," Rhodes, P. J., and Osborne, 39-51. Greek Historical ^f^27, pp. 2003. Inscriptions: Cawkwell, G. L. 1963. "Notes on the 404-323 b.c., Oxford. Peace of 375/4," Historia 12, pp. 84 Scuccimarra, G. 1987-1988. "Note 95. in margine al Decreto di Aristo -. 1981. "Notes on the Failure of tele (IG2, II, 43 linee 97-98)," the Second Athenian Confederacy," RivStorAnt 17-18, pp. 39-53. JHS 101, pp. 40-55. Sealey, R. 1957. "IG IP.1609 and the Coleman, J., and D. Bradeen. 1967. Transformation of the Second on "Thera IG IF 43,"Hesperia 36, Athenian Sea League," Phoenix 11, pp. 102-104. pp. 95-111. -. Dreher, M. 1995. Hegemon und 1993. Demosthenes and His zum Time: A in Symmachoi: Untersuchungen Study Defeat, New York. 1998. A Historical Com Zweiten Athenischer Seebund, Berlin. Stylianou, P. J. on Fabricius, E. 1891. "Zur Geschichte mentary Diodorus Siculus, Book 15, des zweiten Athenischen Bunden," Oxford.
RhM4G, pp. 589-598. Tuplin, C. 1984. "Timotheos and a Fauber, C 1998. "Was Kerkyra Kerkyra: Problems in Greek His Member of the Second Athenian tory, 375-373 B.c.," Athenaeum 72, 110-116. League?" CQ 48, pp. pp. 537-568. -. 1999. "Deconstructing 375 Wilhelm, A. 1940. "Vier Beschl?sse 371 b.c.: Towards an Unified Chro der Athener," AbhBerl22 (1939), zur nology," Athenaeum 87, pp. 481-506. pp. 3-29 [= Akademieschriften R. 1982. "The Second Horsley, G. H. griechischen Inschriftenkunde 3, inHelle Athenian Confederacy," Leipzig (1974), pp. 15-41]. nika: on Greek Politics and Essays Woodhead, A. G. 1957. "IG II2 43 and ?d. G. H. R. of History, Horsley, Jason Pherae," AJA 61, North Ryde, N.S.W., pp. 131-150. pp. 367-373. -. Jehne, M. 1991. "Iasons Symmachie 1962. "Chabrias, Timotheus, mit und das 375-373 Athen Mitgliederver and the Aegean Allies, b.c.," zeichnis des 2. Athenischen See Phoenix 16, pp. 258-266. bunds," ZPE 89, pp. 121-134.
A. Baron Christopher University of Notre Dame
department of classics
304 o'shaughnessy hall notre indiana dame, 46556