The Early History of the Delian League
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The Early History of the Delian League Evelyn Abbott The Classical Review / Volume 3 / Issue 09 / November 1889, pp 387 - 390 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00195885, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00195885 How to cite this article: Evelyn Abbott (1889). The Early History of the Delian League. The Classical Review, 3, pp 387-390 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00195885 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 139.80.123.36 on 14 Mar 2015 The Classical Review NOVEMBER 1889. THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE DELIAN LEAGUE. THE latest German writers on Greek whom Diodorus followed, Ephorus of Cyme, History, with some exceptions, seem to and the statement is ' in direct contradiction' accept, either in the whole or in part, the to Herodotus. account of the growth of the Delian league There is no 'direct contradiction,' for given by Kirchhoff in Hermes vol. xi. p. 1 fE. Herodotus is absolutely silent about the As I find myself quite unable to follow Aeolians of the mainland. Kirchhoff himself them, I venture to review the conclusions admits that the possessions of Lesbos on the at which Kirchhoff arrives. mainland would probably follow the lead of They are mainly these : Lesbos; and if so, why should the other 1. That the Aeolians and Ionians of the cities hold back ? There is no certain proof mainland of Asia Minor did not join the that the Aeolians of the coast did not come Delian league till after the battle of Eury- into the alliance at this time, no good reason medon (465 B.C.). why they should not, and a slight presump- 2. That the Hellespontian allies mentioned tion that they did. by Thucydides (i. 89) were not really members b. The case of the Ionians of the main- of the Hellenic alliance. land is different. Kirchhoff grounds his 3. That the cities of the Delian league opinion on the fact that in his flight from were distributed into districts from the Greece Themistocles could land at Ephesus. first. This in his judgment would have been im- 4. That the first <f>6pos could not havepossible if Ephesus had been an allied town amounted to 460 talents, as Thucydides at the time. He has no positive proof stronger than this against the admission of 5. That after his first recall to Sparta the Ionian cities of the coast into the alliance Pausanias became ruler of Byzantium; that before Eurymedon. Sestos was reconquered by the Persians; In answer we may observe : (1) that the and that both cities were finally won for the proof only touches one city, and that the Greeks by Cimon. most Asiatic of Greek cities, the port at Let us examine the evidence on which which the great inland route from Susa these conclusions rest. struck the sea; (2) that the allies were busy 1. a. As to the Aeolians. It is of course at Naxos when Themistocles landed. On stated by Herodotus (ix. 106) that the the other hand it is quite clear from the Lesbians were received into the alliance language of Herodotus and Thucydides that immediately after the battle of Mycale. ' Ionia' really did come into the alliance at Diodorus goes further and asserts that the the time: OVTU> 8r] TO Sevrepov 'IUIVLTJ airo Hepcriuiv ' Aeolians,' meaning no doubt the cities of aireo-Tr) says the first, and in the second we the mainland, were admitted at that time read, 01 Se 'A6rjv<uoi KCU ol air 'Iwvias icai (xi. 37, TOVIS fikv *Io)vas (cai TOVS AIOACIS (rvfx.- IMXOVS broirjfTavTo). This, says Kirchhoff, fi wo/ietVavres %7J<TTOV eirokiopKow. is only the' local-patriotismus' of the author, Kirchhoff endeavours to avoid this contra- NO. XXVIII. VOL. III. c c 388 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. diction by assuming that ' Ionia ' here means inscriptions after 442) with Ionia, not in the no more than the islands of the coast—in island district. This arrangement, says which sense he speaks of an ' Ionian dis- Kirchhoff, can only be explained by the trict.' But this is not the common meaning supposition that Nisyrus came over very early, of ' Ionia' and Ionians'; and the account at the same time as Samos, Chios etc., which, which Herodotus gives of the proceedings as he assumes, at the first formed the Ionian after Mycale makes the assumption very district. But such an argument requires improbable. As is well known the ques- that Euboea, Naxos, and Delos, which were tion was then raised whether the Greeks members of the Hellenic confederacy before should undertake to protect the Ionians the Athenians formed a separate confederacy in their colonies, or transfer them to at all, should be classed with Samos and the ports of the Medizing cities in the Chios. As a matter of fact they are not, peninsula of Greece. The Spartans wished but they formed part of the island district, to transfer them, but the Athenians under- and therefore, so far as chronology goes, Nisy- took their defence and carried the day. rus could have been placed in either group. Are we to suppose that in this discussion it Again, Lemnos and Imbros are put among is only the islanders who are meant; only the islands, not in the Hellespontian district, those who were cut off from Asia by sea, at because, says Kirchhoff, the island district a time when Xerxes had hardly a ship in the was formed before the Hellespontian. This Aegean ? The cities most in need of pro- view of course assumes that the Hellespontians tection were Miletus and other cities of the were not allies from the first. Yet, as we coast which were exposed to the vengeance have seen, the Hellespontians were received of the King. immediately after Mycale, and it is difficult 2. Thucydides very plainly tells us (I. c.) to conceive, impossible to prove, that Lemnos that the Athenians were aided in besieging and Imbros were received earlier. The Sestos by the allies from the Hellespont. Hellespontians were certainly allies before Kirchhoff asserts that these could not be the Athenians formed a separate league. We members of the Hellenic alliance because, may also observe that Delos and Samos came after the departure of the Peloponnesians, into the alliance within a month of each other: the Athenians had no power to receive them. both are Ionian islands, yet each is in a For this assertion he has no authority. different district. The classification into The language of Thucydides (inro/xeiWvTcs) districts then seems to have nothing to do implies (rather than not) that the Helles- with the date of the accession of the cities pontians were allies before the departure of included in them. As a matter of fact we the Spartans; and, if this were not the case, do not find these districts established till the Athenians, when they had carried the 442 B.C. What principles prevailed in the day about the admission of the Ionians, were classification we are unable to say. probably in a position to admit new members, 4. Thucydides tells us that the first tribute or thought that they were. (The synod at was 460talents,and laterwriters associate this the Isthmus had ceased to act; the idea assessment with the name of Aristides who, that their consent was necessary to the en- as we also learn from Thucydides, did fix a rolment of allies is preposterous.) Besides scale of tribute. (Thucydides does not pre- in the account of Herodotus, at any rate, cisely say that Aristides fixed the tribute at Leotychidas sails as far north as the Hel- 460 talents, but that Aristides fixed a scale lespont, though he takes no part in the siege of tribute, and that the first tribute was of Sestos. assessed at 460 talents; later writers say 3. The attempt to prove that the Delian definitely that the tribute was fixed by league was divided into districts from the Aristides at 460 talents, and this on the face first has been dealt with by Beloch in of it is what Thucydides means, though Rheinisches Museum, xliii. p. 104 ff. Kirchhoff denies it, and attempts to show Kirchhoff is in reality reduced to this posi- that the text of Thucydides is faulty.) tion : he assumes that an Ionian, an island, Kirehhoff asserts that such a sum is far in ex- and a Hellespontian district were formed at cess of any tribute paid before Eurymedon ; a very early time in the League, not even if we allow that all the cities which simultaneously but in rapid succession; and paid in the Peloponnesian war (i.e. in the that the Ionian district, though distinct from island, Hellespontian, Ionian, exclusive of the island district, was entirely composed of the cities in the mainland, and Thraeian islands. For proof he relies on these facts : districts) paid from the first, and take the the little island of Nisyrus near Rhodes, which highest payments recorded in the inscriptions has nothing to do with Ionia, is classed (in between 454 and 425 B.C., we do not get such a THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 389 sum. The largest amount which can have he remained for some years and meanwhile been collected from the states included in even Sestos fell back into Persian hands. Kirchhoff's list before Eurymedon is 354 Then Cimon succeeded in reconquering both. talents ; later accessions brought it up to 512 This account is at variance with Thucydides, talents, as assessed.