Chronology for Athens and Aegina and Related Events 1

APPENDIX 12

CHRONOLOGY FOR ATHENS AND AEGINA AND RELATED EVENTS

1 It is difficult to work out an entirely satisfactory chronology for the disputes and fighting between Athens and Aegina, either looked at in isolation or taking into account other events. There are five modern studies: Andrewes (1936–7), Hammond (1955), Jeffery (1962), Podlecki (1976), and Figueira (1988).1 The sources recalled the events, but not their chronology, and Herodotus’ text can be no stronger than his sources. In any case, as pointed out in Appx 10 para 5, neither he nor they had a numbering system to date events, and chronology was not important in what tradition recalled.

2 Athens and Aegina were neighbours: the Piraeus and Phaleron are only 30 km from Aegina city; other parts of Attica, e.g. Vouglia- meni, are only 20 km from the coast of Aegina, and each coast is

1 Earlier discussions include Macan II Appx VIII and Munro in CAH IV 254–65. This Appendix largely follows Figueira, though on one point, he should not be fol- lowed. At 62, he relies on Plut Agis 11.4–5, that every 8 years the ephors watched the sky for a shooting star as a sign that both kings’ rule was terminated pending an oracle from Delphi or Olympia. Apart from (i) our inability to date that case (Leonidas II) more accurately than winter 243 or spring or autumn 242, and (ii) the alleged law almost certainly being an invention of Lysander as part of his attack on Agis (Flower (2002) 196–8), it would be an astonishing coincidence if (a) Cleomenes needed to remove Demaratos in the very year that the procedure operated (the odds are 88% against), and (b) the ephors chanced to see a shooting star. Moreover, there is no hint in §§65–6 that Cleomenes’ kingship was also suspended. On the contrary, the narrative is clear that the procedure was by some form of legal pro- ceedings on the ground of paternity, and Delphi was consulted because the Spartan assembly was divided, not because the ephors had seen a shooting star. The same is true if one follows Richer (1998) 155–7, 171–98, that the ephors had taken over the duty of watching the skies from the kings for the general purposes of Sparta’s calendar, e.g. the new moons, and this included a special watch every 8 years when the lunar and solar months coincide; and that Lysander could use this to bolster his accusation. Further, Richer places it in summer 242, whether they were watching for a shooting star or, as he suggests, the heliacal rising of Sirius (184–5, 186–92), which excludes an 8-year cycle for 491 or 490; he accepts that it was not the procedure for Cleomenes and Demaratos (177–8). See n. 12 for the other four. chronology for athens and aegina and related events 547 visible to the other.2 Their mutual antipathy was a by-word;3 per- haps emotional in origin, since Aegina was Dorian, and its natural ties were with the Peloponnese, particularly Argos ( Jeffery (1976) 135, 150–2). Herodotus 5.82–89 relates an old history of violence concerning Epidauros.4 More recently, each city came to perceive the other as a trade rival (Lateiner (1982a) 138–9; Figueira (1981a) 4–7). Further, the political changes in Athens since 510 would be uncongenial to the ruling oligarchy in Aegina, as the story of Nico- dromos (§§88–91) shows; cf on NikÒdromow, §88. In c506, Cleomenes got the Boeotians and Chalcidians to attack Attica at the same time as his invasion in support of Isagoras; but he had to withdraw, and the Athenians defeated the latter (5.74–7; see on épagag≈n, §64 and on §100.1). Thebes then sought Aeginetan support. The Aeginetans were shrewd enough to avoid a full-scale war; they initially offered notional help.5 But when the Thebans were again defeated, and asked for more tangible help, the Aeginetans responded with a pÒlemow ékÆruktow (“without formal declaration”),6 probably in c505: 5.81, 89–90. They raided the coast of Attica; Herodotus stresses that they were causing damage (¶suran, §s¤nonto, 5.81.3; §dh¤oun, 5.89.2; see Jackson (1969) for the latter word). It is a mistake to think of pÒlemow only in terms of modern wars; the word could include violence closer to what we would think of as fighting between football hooligans; here with theft and criminal damage. On the other hand, the raids would have had at least the tacit approval of the polis, especially as

2 E.g. the photograph of Aegina from Athens, Müller (1987) 738. 3 Called ¶xyrh palaiã, 5.81.2; cf 5.89.1; Thuc 4.57.5; Dunbabin (1936–7). It continued into the fifth century: see on §kyÊsasyai, §91.1; Pericles is said to have called for the elimination of Aegina as the lÆmh, eyesore, of the Piraeus (Arist Rhet 1411a16 = Plut Per 8.7). 4 Probably from oligarchic Aeginetan sources: Figueira (1985) 55, 71. For the events see on prÒteron, §92.1. 5 Specifically, sending statues or other representations of the sons of Aiacos to Thebes (5.79–80); with his other son Telemon they reappear in 480, 8.64, 83–4. For Aiacos, son of the nymph Aegina, see on AfiakoË, §35.1. 6 The formalities of declaring war are not usually stated, though Adcock and Mosley (1975) 202 say that the Greeks usually did it. However Thuc 1.26.5 and 1.29.1 describe the use of heralds to invite the other side to surrender as a pre- liminary to fighting, and the absence of that formality is the natural meaning of ékÆruktow. The expression came to have other meanings: a guerrilla war at Xen Hell 6.4.21 (the Phocaeans against Jason, 371), and from the fourth century, usually with êspondow, a relentess war, i.e. not ended by heralds: Aesch Fals Leg 37, Dem 18.262. See also Myres (1943).