LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

13, 35.

      74. See in particular Amit 1971, followed by R. J. Buck 1979: 154.

      75. Larsen 1960b: 11; cf. Larsen 1968: 32–33 contra Dull 1977.

      76. Hell.Oxy. 16.3 (Bartoletti).

      77. Pro-Peloponnesian stance before the war: Th. 1.27.2. Boiotian oligarchy: Hell.Oxy. 16.2 (Bartoletti).

      78. Th. 2.2.1. The exact date of the Theban attack is controversial: see Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover 1945–81: 2.3; Smart 1986; Hornblower 1991–2008: I.237–38; Green 2006: 234–35 n. 195; Iversen 2007: 393–94, 410–11. On the participation of Plataia in the koinon in the years immediately after 446, see below, p. 336.

      79. Th. 2.2.2–3.

      80. Th. 2.2.4. Ta patria should perhaps not be taken literally. The appeal to tradition is in certain ways efficacious, but it would be overly simplistic to interpret it as a direct reference to an ancestral Boiotian confederacy along the lines known clearly only for the early fourth century. That there was a Boiotian tradition of interpolis cooperation is beyond doubt; it is certainly to this, and more normatively to the nascent confederation, that the Thebans refer here.

      81. Th. 2.5.1–7.

      82. Th. 2.6.1–7.1.

      83. Th. 2.71.1–74.1 for negotiations and Plataia’s rejection of neutrality; 74.2–78.4 for a remarkably detailed account of the stunningly laborious and ineffectual siege. Boiotian involvement: Th. 2.78.2.

      84. Th. 3.52.1–3; cf. 3.20–24 for the breakout of 212 defenders in the winter of 428/7.

      85. Th. 3.57.2. A remarkable phrase. “Efface” translates exaleiphein, which is used of whitewashing, wholesale obliteration. Its primary context is in the whitewashing of the written word, and so the obliteration of a record and a memory (Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover 1945–81: II.343). The same word is used to express fear of the obliteration of a city from the landscape by the Kytenians in the late third century: Bousquet 1988b, line 102; cf. Mackil 2004: 502–3.

      86. As Hornblower 1991–2008: I.454 observes, some of this speech also reflects Thucydides’ attempt to square contemporary events with his own vision of the Greeks’ distant past, as presented in the Archaeology.

      87. The Theban claim to have founded Plataia, as mētropolis to apoikia, is striking and not supported elsewhere. See Graham 1983: 40.

      88. Th. 2.2.4; cf. 3.66.1.

      89. Th. 3.65.2–3.

      90. On this aspect of the conflict see Gehrke 1985: 132.

      91. Th. 3.68.2–3.

      92. Th. 3.91.3–5.

      93. Hell.Oxy. 16.3, 17.3 (Bartoletti). The date of the synoikism of the communities of the Parasopia into Thebes is controversial. It has been dated after the attack on Plataia in 519 (Grenfell and Hunt 1908: 225–27) or, more frequently, after the fall of Plataia in 427 (E. M. Walker 1913: 135–38; Cloché 1952: 72; Roesch 1965b: 40; Bruce 1967: 105, 161). The synoikism is sometimes explained as a measure to improve regional security at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 (Demand 1990: 82–85) or in its early years (Moggi 1976: 197–204; Hansen 2004: 441, 452). But these scholars also accept that between 479 and 431 the towns of the Parasopia were part of the territory of Plataia, and it is difficult to see how the Thebans could have synoikized these poleis before they had defeated Plataia itself. P. Salmon (1956: 58 and 1978: 82–83) dates the change to 447/6, supposing that it was a reward (from whom?) for the Thebans’ leadership role in the expulsion of the Athenians; but that in itself was disproved by Larsen 1960b. The date of the synoikism of these communities is important insofar as it is wrapped up with the question of whether Plataia was a member of the koinon between 446 and sometime shortly before 432, which itself bears on the nature of the early formal institutions of the koinon. See below, pp. 336–37.

      Cf. Siewert 1977.

      94. Th. 4.76.2; Gomme, Andrewes, and Dover 1945–81 and Hornblower 1991–2008 (ad loc.) for variant manuscript readings that would make Ptoiodoros an exile of Thespiai.

      95. Th. 4.76.4. Delion is probably located at modern Dilesi, on the Boiotian coast opposite Euboia: Pritchett 1965–92: II.24–36 and III.295–97; P. W. Wallace 1979: 27–29; Fossey 1988: 62–66.

      96. Th. 4.89.1–2.

      97. Th. 4.90.1–91.1.

      98. Pagondas the son of Aiolidas (Th. 4.91) may be the same Pagondas who in Pind. fr. 94b (Maehler) appears as the father of Agasikles, who served as daphnēphoros (laurel bearer) for Apollo Ismenios in Thebes (Hornblower 2004: 159; Kurke 2007: 65 with n. 3, following Lehnus 1984: 83–85). Cf. Hornblower 1991–2008: II.289.

      99. Th. 4.96–101.

      100. Thespian stelai: IG VII.1888a–i. Tumulus: Schilardi 1977; Pritchett 1974–91: IV.132–33; Low 2003: 104–9. Tanagran stelai: IG VII.585. Cf. Keramopoullos 1920.

      101. Th. 4.133.1.

      102. For severe Thespian losses at Delion see Th. 4.96.3.

      103. See below, p. 372.

      104. The Boiotians’ refusal to join the treaty (Th. 5.17.2) was grounded in their refusal to return the Attic border fort at Panakton and to return prisoners (Th. 5.18.7).

      105. Negotiations: Th. 5.36–38. Separate treaty: Th. 5.39.3.

      106. See Th. 5.57.2; 7.19.3; 8.3.2, 106.3. Xen. Hell. 1.3.15; Diod. Sic. 13.98.4, 99.5–6; Paus. 10.9.9.

      107. Th. 6.95.2.

      108. Th. 7.19.1–2, 27.8; Diod. Sic. 13.9.2.

      109. Xen. Hell. 3.5.5; Plut. Lys. 27.4.

      110. Xen. Hell. 2.2.19, cf. 3.5.8; Isocr. 14.31; Andoc. 3.21; Plut. Lys. 15.3.

      111. Plut. Lys. 27.6. Cf. Plut. Pelop. 6.5; Diod. Sic. 14.6.3.

      112. Debate over the precise date at which Ismenias and his supporters gained ascendancy (e.g., Busolt 1908: 276–77; Cloché 1918; Morrison 1942: 76–77; E. Meyer and Stier 1953–58: V.213–14; Kagan 1961: 330–32; Perlman 1964: 65; Funke 1980: 47–48; Lendon 1989) is not important for our purposes.

      113. Oropos had been independent since 412/1: Th. 8.60.1; Lys. 31.9; Gehrke 1985: 125. For its history to 323 see Hornblower 1991–2008: I.279; Hansen 2004: 448–49 (no. 215).

      114. Diod. Sic. 14.17.1–3. Cf. Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 12.

      115. Numerous arguments were once advanced for the existence of an Achaian koinon, or something like it, in the archaic and early classical periods (e.g., Anderson 1954: 80; Larsen 1968: 83; Freitag 1996: 125), but they have been effectively disproved by Morgan and Hall 1996: 193–96, 201–14; Morgan and Hall 2000; cf. Moggi 2002.

      116. As Morgan and Hall 1996: 168 point out (and cf. Morgan and Hall 2004: 473), Herodotos is writing here about “the protohistoric period prior to the Return of the Herakleidai,” and so it may be misleading to conclude (with Sakellariou 1991: 14) that the development of poleis in Achaia must post-date Herodotos. However, the verb of the very last sentence of the passage is emphatically in the present tense, making it difficult to accept Morgan and Hall’s argument that the passage is a simple reflection of Herodotos’s vision of protohistoric Achaia.

      117. Hdt. 8.73.1.

      118. Str. 8.7.4–5. One other such list survives, viz. the description of the Achaian coast by Ps.-Skylax 42, on which see Flensted-Jensen and Hansen 1996.

      119. Str. 8.3.2 describes the communities of the Peloponnese mentioned by Homer as “systems of demes, each comprised of multiple [demes], from which later the well-known poleis were synoikized” and provides Aigion, Patrai, and Dyme as Achaian examples. Systēma is used by Strabo elsewhere (14.2.25) to describe the Chrysaoric koinon in Karia.

      120. Koerner 1974: 467–69 dated the synoikism of the Achaian poleis between the “period of colonization” and the mid-fifth century. His argument has to be abandoned in the face of archaeological evidence

Скачать книгу