The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and The Date of His Trial

The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and the Date of His Trial. Part II.
The Plot
against Pericles and His Associates
Author(s): J. Mansfeld
Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 33, Fasc. 1/2 (1980), pp. 17-95
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4430931 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 04:26
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 support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mnemosyne,
THE
OF
CHRONOLOGY
PERIOD
AND
THE
Vol. XXXIII,
ATHENIAN
ANAXAGORAS'
DATE
OF
Fase. 1-2
HIS
TRIAL
BY
J.
MANSFELD
Part
The Plot against
Pericles
II
and his Associates
*)
Summary of Part II
Several influential literary sources connect the attack upon Anaxagoras
with attacks upon Phidias, Aspasia and Pericles [relative chronology] and
associate these attacks as a whole with the origins of the Peloponnesian war
Since the attack upon Phidias pace Philochorus as
[absolute chronology].
supported by the evidence of the digging at Olympia has to be dated to
438/7, this absolute chronology cannot be right. The relative chronology,
however, can be defended, which entails that the attack upon Anaxagoras
I shall discuss such data
by Diopeithes should be dated to 438/7.?First,
about Anaxagoras'
trial as are provided by the biographical tradition,
especially Diogenes Laertius, who summarizes a good part of it. Next, I
shall discuss the evidence concerned with the attacks upon Pericles and his
associates as provided by the historiographical
tradition, viz. Diodorus
Siculus and Plutarch, both deriving from Ephorus. Philochorus' evidence as
to the chronology of Phidias' career will be discussed in connection with
the problem of the absolute vs. the relative chronology as a whole. An
argument directed against the modern hypothesis that Phidias' statue of
Athena was dedicated during the Great Panathenaea of 438/7 follows. In
the course of this argument, it will be necessary to have a closer look at the
and religious aspects of the installation of such a
technical, administrative
statue. The Dracontides/Hagnon
decree, aimed at Pericles, can be proved
to have been associated with the attacks upon Phidias. This, again, combined
with considerations
derived from the legal responsibilities
of the commissioners in charge of the statue, permits us to date the decree to 438/7.
The relative chronology of Ephorus and Plutarch will be defended by an
argument purporting to show that the attacks upon Pericles and his associates are inextricably bound up with one another, which allows us to
date the Diopeithes decree, too, to 438/7. Next, I shall argue that the trial
of Anaxagoras is a historical fact, and that it should probably be dated to
437/6. Finally, the tradition about Anaxagoras' sojourn at Lampsacus will
be studied, and a chronology of his career as a whole will be proposed.
*) For Part I, The Length and Dating of the Athenian Period, and a summary of the whole paper, see this journal IV 32 (1979), pp. 39 ff. References
to nn. 1-89 are to those of Part I.

l8
ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

With
the
accusation
of asebeia
against
Anaxagoras
['impiety';
of veneration
for the gods, or rather, in Anaxagoras*
in the modern
sense of the word], we cross the
'blasphemy*
lack or absence
case,
from history.
of
Not,
boundary-line
separating
historiography
information?with
the excourse, in the sense that the pertinent
of the archaeological
and epigraphical
evidence?is
other
ception
than historiographical,
but in that Anaxagoras*
trial belongs
to
in the popular
sense of the word90).
In the first part of
history
of Apollodorus
this paper, only the chronographical
and
system
similar data had to be taken into account.
the
Now, however,
big
in which
as to whether,
question
way, and when,
Anaxagoras*
career
fits in with
the
evidence
can
no
Periclean
Athens
crit?rium
of historical
of chronographical
This different
longer
the
concerning
be avoided.
to a large
probability
consistency.
entails?to
political
history
degree
of
the
Consequently,
replaces
that
a complaint
by C. 0.
in 1827 91)?that
M?ller in a paper published
what is to follow is
the umpteenth
discussion
of issues that are by now well-worn.
approach
cite
and having
However,
having once again sifted the ancient evidence
I yet cannot help feeling that
almost perished in a sea of literature,
there are
there are a few things that remain to be said, whereas
can never be said too often. Unfortunately,
which, perhaps,
to be brief. A rather comstate of affairs makes it impossible
will
detour
be
before
we can hope to reach our
necessary
plicated
viz.
the
of
to
trial. The evaluation
a date
goal,
putting
Anaxagoras'
others
this
of the information
concerning
the
attacks
against
Pericles
and his
go) Braudel's "agitation de surface" (La M?diterran?e, Paris ?966, 16).

91) De Phidiae vita comm. prior (Comm. Gott., Cl. h.-ph. VI, G?ttingen
1827), [121 ff.], 121. The most recent discussion I have seen, L. Prandi,
/ processi contro Fidia Aspasia Anassagora e Vopposizione a Pericle, Aevum
1977, ioff., is far from satisfactory (see below, ?. i66 in fine, n. 175). An
but welcome bibliography is to be found in G. Wirth (ed.),
unsystematic
Perikles und seine Zeit (WdF 172, Darmstadt 1979), 535 ff.; R. Klein, in
a paper first published in this collection, Die innerpolitische Gegnerschaft
gegen Perikles, [494 ff.], 508 f., is sceptical about the possibility of dating
the attacks. The contributions in the Kleine Pauly on the dramatis personae
are wildly divergent. For other recent literature see below, n. 175. Wehrli's
comments on Sotion fr. 3 (see next n., in fine) add nothing new; neither
does H. Knell, Perikleische Baukunst (Darmstadt 1979), a useful compilation.

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

associates
is a most
intricate
affair,
out
as they
are
Diogenes
Laertius
IC
data which, inasmuch

involving
of disciplines,
a plurality
can,
parcelled
among
unavoidably,
only be pursued ultra crepidam.
In order to point a way through this maze of data I have inserted
of helping
which have the additional
short sub-titles,
advantage
if he so wishes; for instance,
the reader to skip part of the argument,
statue of Athena.
the part about Phidias'
Laertius
(II 12-14) does not put a date to Anaxagoras'
Diogenes
from the bioa series of choice
trial;
instead,
giving
excerpts
he
us
that
there were
and
Successions
informs
literature,
graphical
in his Successions
Sotion
several
accounts92):
(fr. 3 Wehrli),
of
Philosophers,
Lives, that
said
that
Pericles'
Cleon
accused
rival
Anaxagoras;
in his
Satyrus,
of
[son
Melesias]
Thucydides
political
to Sotion,
with having
was charged
Anaxagoras
According
that the sun was a fiery rock [which amounts
stated
to an acof 'impiety'
the
cusation
; note that Diog. Laert. fails to mention
did.
said that the charge

was not only
decree].
Satyrus
but
also
that
treason
Sotion
said
'impiety',
(medism).
Anaxagoras
was defended
to a fine of five talents
by Pericles, sentenced
[rather
Diopeithes
92) The reputation of the biographers, so called, a rather mixed bag, is

not peculiarly good; cf. e.g. Burnet, EGrPh, 37 f., Kirk-Raven,
Pr?s., 4,
and above, n. 17. In the present case, all of them cannot, of course, be right
in all details, since some of these conflict and others (the death as told by
the Alexandrian lettr? Hermippus) are too stereotypically
sensational. The
sorry remains of their works should not, however, tempt us into judging
them in toto\ cf. the salutary warning of M. Fuhrmann, Der PhilosophenBios, in: Geschichte, Ereignis und Er Z?hlung, ed. R. Koselleck - W. D. Stempel
(M?nchen 1973), 446 ff. The new Life of Pindar, cited above, ?. 9, is a
surprisingly sober work, the discovery of which has to some extent r?volutionarized our view of the biographical tradition; see also I. Gallo, Frammenti biografici di papiri, I, La biografia politica (Roma 1975; more volumes
announced). Cf. further Steidle, o.e. (below, n. 107), esp. 166 ff.; Mejer, o.e.
the purely
[above, n. 3], 53, 90 ff., who however perhaps overemphasizes
is only in exceptional
cases
biographical aspect of the biographies.?It
(see below, n. 320, on Satyrus) that a negative verdict is really feasible.
The authors of the Successions, esp. Sotion, are, moreover, in a separate
class: see Wehrli, Sch. d. Arist., Suppl. II, Sotion (Basel-Stuttgart
1978),
9, 13.

20
a large sum], and exiled

to death in his absence
said that
93). Satyrus
the
technical
(ap??ta;
he was
term
condemned
would
have
that he left Athens

before the
e????? ?f?e??), which entails
The anecdote
which
trial, an in itself not unusual
occurrence94).
viz. that Anaxagoras
was simultaneously
follows in Diog. Laert.,
informed
about his conviction
and about the death of his sons,
been
may
implies
latter's
also
in view of the fact that this, too,

Satyrus
which
is a peculiarity
of the
the trial in contumaciam
an
from
Next
omit
Demetrius'
[I
excerpt
account9d).
derive
from
93) p??te ta???t??? ????????a?, ?a? f??ade????a?. The last word is generally
translated as if Anaxagoras* exile, pace Sotion, was not voluntary. However,
U. Kahrstedt, Stud. z. off enti. Recht Athens, I (Berlin-Stuttgart
1934, Aalen
81968), 91 ff., has argued that (at Athens) exile was a judicial penalty in
cases of homicide and attempted coup d'?tat only, and that Plat. Ap. 37 c
should not be taken seriously. But he has missed Crit. 52 c (the Laws are
addressing Socrates) : ?t? t????? ?? a?t? t? d??? ???? s?? f???? t???sas?a? e?
???????, ?a? dpe? ??? a???s?? t?? p??e?? ep??e??e??, t?te ????s?? p???sa?. This
proves that, at Athens, banishment was also a judicial penalty in cases of
as??e?a, even if it could be 'voluntary* in the sense that the accused could
ask for it; it gives us, moreover, precisely the sort of parallel we need for
Anaxagoras. Comparable evidence: (1) an inscription from Delos [377/6],
Ditt. Syll. Ia 153, 134 f. = IG II/III2 1635, aB 134 f. (see M. Guarducci,
Epigrafia greca, II, Roma 1970, 252) : both exile and a fine for as??e?a;
(2) the diagramma of Philip III ap. D.S. XVIII 56, 4 [319/8] proclaiming,
among other things, an amnesty for exiles from the cities of Greece [hence
also from Athens] p??? e? t??e? ?f' a??at? ? as??e?a ?at? ????? pefe??as?.
P. Usteri, ?chtung und Verbannung im griechischen Recht (Diss. Z?rich,
Berlin 1903), 65 f., 85 f., 153, is still useful; cf. also E. Balogh, Political
1943), 22 ff. and notes. Some
Refugees in Ancient Greece (Johannesburg
in Attic Inscriptions
(Diss.
general material in H. Pope, Non-Athenians
Columbia N.Y. 1935), 71 f.
Being a resident (??t?????), Anaxagoras could, for as??e?a, be judged by
an Athenian dicastery just as a citizen would. "Der ausschliessliche Gerichtsstand vor dem Polemarchos f?r Klagen gegen ??t????? galt . . . nicht f?r
?ffentliche Klagen. Hier war der Gerichtsstand f?r ??t????? und B?rger der
gleiche" (E. Berneker, RE IX A 2 (1967), ?e??a? ??af?, [i44x **?]? ?458)?
Cf. also P. Gauthier, Symbola. Les ?trangers et la justice dans les cit?s grecques (Nancy 1971), 136 ff. See further below, p. 80 f.
94) Cf. Kahrstedt, loe. cit. (above, n. 93).?Mejer, o.e., 40-2, argues that
D.L. had first-hand knowledge of Sotion, Satyrus and their respective
Epitomai by Heraclides Lembus. Gallo, Fr. biogr. 31-2, is more cautious;
cf. also Wehrli, Seh. d. Ar., Suppl. II, 15 f.
95) Cf. below, p. 83 f.?The same anecdote is in Galen (Plac. Hipp. Plat.
IV 7, Vorsokr. 59 A 33), after Posidonius (fr. 165, 33 f. Edelstein-Kidd),
who gives a simpler version: no double message, i.e. no reference to the

21
On Old Age 9e)] Diog. Laert. refers to Hermippus

was
who in his Lives had said that Anaxagoras
his
execution?which
tence,
not
with
must
(fr. 30 Wehrli) 97),

in prison awaiting
version
as to the sen-
agrees with Satyrus*

also from Satyrus*
but differs
Sotion's,
that
have made him attend his trial?and
in that
Pericles'
Hermippus
him
with the dicasts]
caused
intervention
[presumably
personal
he committed
the suicide
to be set free, whereupon
Hermippus
of his biographies.
to the subjects
liked to attribute
Hieronymus
to be mentioned
the last authority
of Rhodes,
by Diog. Laert.,
that
said in book II of his Scattered Memoranda
(fr. 41 Wehrli)
the court
in a movingly
Pericles
him before
piteous
produced
It
and that it was pity which caused him to be released.
condition,
from
the
is noteworthy
that Diog.
Laertius
as
follows
himself,
Herfrom his own pen which he appends,
flat epigram
preferred
mippus*
version98).
trial, and only one son dead. A plurality of sons is apparently confirmed
by the extract from Demetr. ap. D.L., loe. cit. (cf. above, ?. 14), unless
D.L. adapted the Demetr.-fr. in conformity with what precedes. Exaggeration would suit Satyrus very well; personally, I would prefer one son for
the original version as applied to Anaxagoras [according to D.L., loe. cit.,
this is a 'Wanderanekdote'].
Pericles lost two sons in quick succession
during the plague; according to Plut., Per. 36-7, he broke down when the
second one died; according to ps. Plut., Cons, ad Apoll. 118 E = Protagoras,
Vorsokr. 80 ? 9 (a fragment I find it difficult to accept as genuine), he
stoically endured both deaths, just as Anaxagoras ap. D.L.
96) Cf. above, n. 14.
97) Sch. d. Arist., Suppl. I, Herrn, d. Kallimacheer (Basel-Stuttgart
1973).
98) I add some remaining information likely to be of biographical provenance. Suda s.v. '??a?a???a?, I p. 178, 1 ff. Adler = Vorsokr. 59 A 3, II p. 8,
7 f. apparently blends several versions, viz. (a) that he was exiled and that
Pericles defended him, that he went to Lampsacus where he died by his
own hand; (b) that he committed suicide at the age of 70 [this should not
be construed as supporting a trial c. 430, numbers, in the Suda, being notobecause the Athenians had thrown him into prison
riously untrustworthy]
for saying unheard-of things about God.?Josephus,
Ap. II 265 = Vorsokr.
59 A 19, II p. 11, 10 f., says that, by a small majority of votes, the Athenians
Rhet. II
condemned him to death for this theory about the sun.?Philod.,
p. 180 fr. VII Sudhaus = Vorsokr. 59 A 20, II p. 11, 18 f., apparently speaks
of an exhibition before the dicasts and mentions Cleon (some of the restaurations are dubious).?At
Lucian, Tim. 10 [not in Vorsokr.', adduced by
Zeller, o.e., 1204 n. 2, by J. Geffcken, Die '?s??e?a des Anaxagoras, Herrn.
1907? [127 ff.], 129, and again by Degani, o.e. (above, n. 55), 198 n. 19],
Zeus says that he threw his lightning-bolt at Anaxagoras, who however was
protected by the mighty hand of Pericles. Although Lucian, loe. cit., play-

22
does not connect

Laert.
the accusation
of Anaxagoras
Diog.
with attacks upon other persons; other sources, the most important
of which are Diodorus
Siculus and Plutarch
??), do.
The Historical
Tradition:
In his account
Diodorus
Siculus
?Ephorus
of the causes
"when
(XII
38 ff.,
431/0
100)) explicitly
of the Peloponnesian
war, Diodorus
was archon
at Athens",
i.e.
Euthydemus
follows
Ephorus
(cf. FGrH 70 F 196), who
fully alludes to Aristoph. Clouds 398-402 (spoken by Socrates 1), it does not,
Geffcken thought?that
of course, follow?as
hinted at
Aristophanes
Anaxagoras. There is, however, some possibility that Lucian used Ephorus,
who in his turn may have remembered Aristophanes
(cf. below, n. 104,
n. 139 and p. 35).
A special case is D.L. IX 57 (= Vorsokr. 64 A 1, II p. 51, 40-52, 2; Demetr.
fr. 91 Wehrli) : "Diogenes of Apollonia . . . lived in the time of Anaxagoras.
Demetrius of Phalerum states in his Defence of Socrates that this man,
because of great envy, barely escaped from great danger at Athens" (t??t??
. . . d?a ???a? f????? ?????? ???d??e?sa? ?????s??).
Though Diels-Kranz,
ad. loe., say: "nat?rlich Anaxagoras, ... an den Diogenes [Laertius] das
Zitat anflickt", the text is not in their chapter on Anaxagoras. Wehrli,
ad loe., objects (for ?dt?? cf. above, n. 50); one wonders why, since he attributes the message about Anaxagoras* ?atad??? (D.L. II 12, above n. 14,
n. 95) to Demetrius (fr. 82). See also Derenne, o.e., 42 n. 1, who thinks that
what Demetrius said pertains to Diog. Apoll. Personally, I am convinced
that D.L. indeed meant Diog. Apoll., but that he made a mistake; for a
comparable one see again above, n. 50. I note that Mejer, o.e., 25 n. 49, has
drawn the same inference. If Anaxagoras is to be understood as the person
in fact referred to by Demetrius (and he cannot, as Wehrli acknowledges,
have failed to refer to him in a Defence of Socrates), the great f????? must
have been directed mainly at Pericles; cf. below, p. 28 and n. 119. I do
not know when the Def. of Socr. was written ; if at a somewhat later date in
Demetrius' career, he may have been impressed by the asebeia charges
against Aristotle in 323 B.C. (Derenne, o.e., 185 f.) and Theophrastus
c. 319 B.C. (Derenne, ib., 199 f.).
FGrH 104, c. i6,
99) Parallel to Ephorus /Plutarch is 'Aristodemus',
who mentions Phidias and quotes both Peace and Ach. (Aspasia). Douris,
FGrH 76 F 65, mentioned Aspasia, as did Theophrastus in Bk. IV of his
s.v. ?spas?a).
Politica
(both are?too
briefly?cited
by Harpocration
Similar accounts are in the Suda, e.g. s.v. '?spas?a, I p. 387, 19 ff. Adler
and s.v. Fe?d?a?, IV p. 716, 13 ff. Adler. None of these has (preserved) a
mention of Anaxagoras.
100) Wrong by one year: should have been Pythodorus. Cf. Schwartz,
RE V (1905) s.v. 'Diodorus (38)', 665 ff. = Gr. Geschichtsschr., 38 ff. ; Gomme,
HCTh I, 42; Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 452 ff.; and esp. R. Drews, Ephorus and
History Written ?at? ?????, AJPh 1963, [244 ff.], 250 n. 18.?Ephorus
treated the pentakontaetia in Bk. XI of the Histories', F 196 must be from
the beginning of Bk. XIII.

ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II
argued
Pericles
that
leader
of
the
started
Athens
was
war
because
under
fire101).
of Athena
of the statue
(?ates?e?a?e)
colossal
gold and ivory ??a??a in the Parthenon],
of having
of his assistants
some
appropriated
political
creator
23
his
as
position
the
Phidias102),
[i.e. of the new
was accused
by
a "considerable
to Athena
belonging
In
the
of the
meeting
????ta Fe?d?a?).
(p???? t?? ?e??? ?????t??
which convened
108) to discuss the charge against Phidias,
Assembly
to have
Phidias
the People
the enemies
of Pericles
persuaded
'
of
himself
"accused'
Pericles
whereas
arrested,
"stealing
they
104)
(?at???????
?e??s???a?). Next, the philosopher
temple property"
amount
of the
Pericles'
Anaxagoras,
gods"
against
successfully
charges
opposing
decree and
Megarian
tricate himself
specious
moneys",
teacher,
i.e.
of those
was "accused
of impiety
against
the
The charge
e?? t??? ?e??? ?s???f??t???).
(?? ?se????ta
Diodorus
is
not
further
perhaps
Anaxagoras
specified;
information.
sufficient
that the label 'philosopher'
conveyed
thought
Both
these
That
sacred
from
The latter,
Pericles.
however,
implicated
of the
for a repeal
the Spartan
request
to exthus creating
a casus belli, managed
the trap.
came to play
the Megarians
actually
against
which
in the diplomatic
immediately
wrangling
a decree
role
???) ? omit D.S. XII 38 (provenance from Ephorus not beyond doubt,
Jacoby, FGrH II C (comm.) (Berlin 1926, Leiden "1963), 92 f.).
102) The section on Phidias is Nr. 631 in J. Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden K?nste bei den Griechen (Leipzig 1868,
repr. Hildesheim 1959). For ?e??s???a see below, p. 71.
103) So Ephorus/Diod. ; this suggests an e????s?a s?????t??, on which
see M. H. Hansen, How Often Did the Ecclesia Meet}, GRBS 1977? [43 ff?]?
esp. 69. See however below, p. 79.
104) ?. t?? s?f?st??, a remarkable survival; the term may have been
used by Ephorus. Diog. Apoll. (Vorsokr. 64 A 4, II p. 52, 22) called all
too, is so designated by Aeschines, fr.
physicists sophists. Anaxagoras,
XVI Krauss = fr. 34 Dittmar (Athen. 220 ?, Vorsokr. 59 A 22, II p. 12,
24 f.) and Lucian, Tim. 10, not in Vorsokr. (for a possible influence of Ephorus
on Lucian see above, n. 98, middle), as is Aristotle at Mar. Par., FGrH 239
? 11, although ib. A 66 Socrates is 6 f???s?f??. Cf. also v. Fritz, RE XXXIII.
* (1957). 912 f.; Guthrie, HGrPh III (Cambridge 1968), 28 f.; C. J. Classen,
in: Sophistik (WdF 187, Darmstadt 1976), 1 ff. (unnecessary doubts as to
Anaxagoras ib., 5 n. 22).

24
the
preceded
who however
outbreak
have
of his thesis, Ephorus

the famous
lines from Aristophanes'
40) quotes
in 421], viz. 603 ff., where Hermes
is made to
Pericles'
with
the
decree,
manipulations
Megarian
of hostilities
is clear
is wholly silent about personal

determined
Pericles* attitude.
In support
from
Thucydides
105),
which would
motives
ap. D.S.
(XII
Peace
[produced
affirm
that
which
set the whole
by
Overbeck
he
so to speak
his fears that
would
of Hellas
share
Nr. 627]. It should

is conspicuously
abridgement,
in
be added
ablaze, were motivated

"Phidias'
misfortune"
[cf.
that Ephorus,
in Diodorus'
silent
about
what
to
happened
it
is
the
after
meeting
Assembly;
only
from the Peace which to a certain extent fills in the gap.
quotation
Diodorus /Ephorus
is equally
silent
about
what
to
happened
but
the
term
accused
Anaxagoras,
?s???f??t???
("they
falsely
Phidias
the
him")
implies
accused
before
sequel
of the
that,
pace
a dicastery.
he
Ephorus,
Confirmation
was, however
unjustly,
is to be found in the
of the same
blackmail,
the same
fa?t???ta).
inasmuch
Phidias,
fateful
but
verb
What Pericles fears is not

chapter of Diodorus.
a real trial; Diodorus,
in this context,
again has
t??
.
.
.
.
.
.
?at?
(e?d??
d????
t?? e?????? . . . s???-
on Plutarch?is
not mentioned;
below,
Aspasia?see
as the only quotation
from Aristophanes
in D.S. refers to
in this omission
there is consistency
(see further below,
P. 35).
The Historical
Tradition
Our second
of the
main
Peloponnesian
: Plutarch
source,
War
in his account
of the causes
Plutarch,
in the Life of Pericles
(29 ff.), at first
I05) I 139-140. The actual number of Megarian decrees is irrelevant to

our purpose, as is the exact date at which they (it) were passed. From the
vast literature I mention only P. A. Brunt, The Meg. Decree, AJPh. 1951,
269 ff. ; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Pelop. War (London 1972),
esp. 262 ff. ; W. Schuller, Die Herrschaft d. Athener im ?. Att. Seebund (Berlin
t974)> 77 ff?: R Sealy, The Causes of the Pelop. War, Ci. Ph. 1975, [89 ff.],
103 f.; Ch. Fornara, Plutarch and the Meg. Decree, Yale Cl. St. 1975, 213 ff.;
T. E. Wick, A Note on Thuc. I 23, 6, Ant. Cl. 1975, 176 ff.; A. French,
The Meg. Decree, Hist. 1976, 245 ff. ; T. E. Wick, ? hue. and the Meg. Decree,
Ant. Cl. 1977, 71 ff.

25
rather closely loe) (Corcyra,

Potidaea,
Megarian
Thucydides
where he lists the
Compare
decree(s)).
esp. c. 31, the beginning,
of explanation
that
and clearly
various
sorts
had been given
of
which
hold
the
is
that
"some
first,
Thucydides:
people"
prefers
that Pericles'
refusal to budge was sound policy.
Others, however,
follows
The majority
the motive.
invoke
what
Plutarch
prestige
The
"the worst cause of all" (? . . . ?e???st? . . . a?t?a pas??).
of
Overbeck
of
c.
Nr.
the
whole
c.
and
31 [cf.
630]
32 expound
sequel
view of this majority,
the blameworthy
not
which is, presumably,
omitted
it is (a) a majority
view 107) and (b)
because
by Plutarch
make
calls
because
it permits
Plutarch
a further
of Pericles'
evaluation
would
cf. Dem.
listing?as
11?p???e??
say,
the same as the version
????. It is substantially
not only adds the case
D.S.;
however,
Plutarch,
also invaluable
information
with such
concerned
passed
in connection
goras,
and
with
Pericles108).
the accusations
These
may
against
been
have
character
illustrating
of Ephorus
of Aspasia,
by
his
ap.
but
decrees
as were
Phidias,
Anaxa-
excerpted
from
io6) On Plutarch's appreciation of Thucydides see D. A. Russell, Plutarch

(London 1972), 58, and his own statement Nie. 1 with the comments of
A. Wardman, Plutarch's Lives (London 1974), x55 f?? and of G. Marasco,
Plut., Vita di Nieta (Roma 1976), 8 f. The suggestion made by L. Canfora,
Tucidide continuato (Padova 1970), 11, that Thuc. "no influenzo" the
"storiografia del iv. secolo" and that "ancora nella narrazione di Diodoro
e Plutarcho, che riflettono la storiografia del quarto secolo, appaiono preminenti i ?pretesti?" is indefensible. Plutarch's reference to the first explanation of the war is to Thucydides. For instances of Ephorus* d?pendance
on Thucydides see below, n. 121, n. 299 and text thereto, and Meiggs, Ath.
below, n. 330),
Emp., 445 ff., 451. The author of the Mx. (Plato??cf.
probably to be dated shortly after 386 B.C., knew Xenophon's edition of
Thuc. (see Mx. 236 b, on the pe???e???ata of Pericles' epitaphios used by
Canfora omits to refer to the Mx.;
Aspasia: think of the Paralipomenal).
for this work as Plato's answer to Thucydides see I. v. L?wenclau, Der plat.
Menexenos (Stuttgart 1961), Ch. H. Kahn, Plato's Funeral Oration, Cl. Ph. 1963,
220 ff., O.Luschnat,
'Thukydides', RE Suppl. XII (1970), [1085 ff.], 1280 f.
107) Cf. W. Steidle, Sueton u. d. ant. Biographie (M?nchen 1951), 164 f.
?. 3? At Num. 3, Plut, says that he prefers an account which is both credible
fnot, as here, unlikely] and has p?e?st??? ???t??a?; on the latter point see
Wardman, o.e., 162.
108) Per. 31-2 exhibits, in nuce, the same structure as the greater part
of the Nie. (for which cf. Marasco, o.e., 8 ff.) : one source is followed throughthe
out, to which are added details taken from rariora. Consequently,
programmatic introduction to the Nie. (cited in the text) is also valid for
Per. 31-2.

26
Cr?teras'
Collection
Decrees
Peripatetic
and/or
comparable
etc.109) ; the wording leaves no doubt as to their authenticity,
has comno doubt110),
for literary
reasons
Plutarch,
although
he
strove
hard to
That
them
an
to
unfortunate
degree.
pressed
of character
for his depiction
as underpinnings
collect such evidence
of
works,
is anyhow
clear from a programmatic
?: ". . . I have tried to collect
Nietas,
statement
also
such
in the
Life of
things as are to
and
dedications
ancient
in connection
with
discoveredm)
decrees'" (p?????a???as?????f?s?as??e??????apa?a????pepe??a?a?
uses this extra
s??a?a?e?? 112)). At Per. 31 f., Plutarch
be
order
to emphasize
the positive
aspects
of Pericles'
material
behaviour:
in
his
et de lo?is
S???GOG??
log) P. Krech, De Crateri ??F?S???O?
aliquot Plutarchi ex ea petitis (Diss. Berlin, Greifswald 1888), 85 f., still
useful for the language of the decrees, and E. Meinhardt, Perikles bet
Plutarch (Diss. Frankfurt/M.
1957), 59 f., argue in favour of Craterus.
Against this too narrow view see F. Frost, Some Documents in Plutarch's
Lives, Cl. Med. 1961, 182 ff., Pericles, Thucydides Son of Melesias, and Ath.
Politics before the War, Hist. 1964, [385 ff., repr. in: P.u.s.Z.,
271 ff.],
393, and Pericles and Dracontides, JHS 1964, [69 ff.], 71. [Jacoby, FGrH
III b (text), 94-5, argues that Craterus may have been a pupil of Aristotle
and compares his work with several similar books by Aristotle and other
the fact that, as Frost points out, Plutarch is now
Peripatetics].?However,
and then not wholly accurate does not prove that his sources were not good,
but merely that he made excerpts; that he did so carefully and seriously
follows from Nie. 1 (cited in the text) ; cf. also below, n. in and text thereto.
Plutarch may have remembered some things beyond his
Furthermore,
excerpts; cf. Gomme, HCTh I, 54 f., 78 f., and C. Theander, Plut. u. d.
Geschichte (?rsber. Lund 1949-50, Lund 1950), [1 ff.], 43 f.; a case in point
is Per. 24 in fine, where Plutarch concludes a digression on Aspasia and
Thargelia, with references to Plato's Mx. and Aeschines' Asp. and quotations
from Cratinus and Eupolis, with the comment : ta?ta ??? ?pe????ta t? ?????
?at? t?? ??af?? etc. For information about memory training and trained
memories in antiquity see F. A. Yates, The Art of Memory (London 1968,
repr. Middlesex 1978), ch. 1-2.
no) Cf. E. Norden, Ant. Kunstprosa (Darmstadt 7i974), 88 f.; F. Jacoby,
Atthis (London 1949), 204 and n. 24; G. Klaffenbach, Bern. z. griech. Ur~
kundenwesen (SBBerl. Kl. Spr. i960 Nr. 6, Berlin i960), 35. It should be
added that the earlier inscriptions are, as a rule, less detailed than the
later; although public inscriptions are, in general, only an abstract from
the text which they preserve, the earlier texts in the archives will, presumably, also have been less detailed than the later ones (on archives, see
below, n. 298).
in) For a critical discussion of epigraphical evidence not based upon
autopsy but upon secondary literature see Arist. 1.
112) Cf. Theander, o.e., 22 f., 78-82.

27
Phidias
was, in part,
he
also able to
and
was
so,
wholly
a
The moral is obvious.
to Anaxagoras.
Pericles,
Plutarch
did
stuck to his associates.
Consequently,
his
successful,
be of assistance
in
intervention
defence
the
account
throw
favour
of
of Aspasia
which
a favourable
is the
light
"worst
upon
of all"
Pericles'
with
character
true
philos 113),
embellish
even
such
episodes
as
114).
came
that the attack

when the
report presupposes
and that it had been set up in situ.
been finished,
in a
An indictment
Phidias 11d) was lodged
against
(????s??)
who was
a member
of his team116),
spectacular
way by Menon,
Plutarch's
statue
had
persuaded
the Agora,
in
to seat himself
as a suppliant
enemies
by Pericles'
i.e. in the great and holy centre of civic life [similarly,
seated themselves
assistants
ap. D.S. says that Phidias'
Ephorus
as suppliants
gods", which was situ(twelve)117)

On his request, he was granted adeia (indemnity),
he would
by turning witness for the prosecution,
"at the altar of the
in the Agora].
which means that,
not be prosecuted
ated
as an accomplice.
A formal
accusation
against
113) See W. R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-Cent. Athens (Princeton N.J. 1971), 36 ff. Cf. also B. Bucher-Isler, Norm u. Individualit?t i. d.
Biogr. Plutarchs (Diss. Z?rich, Bonn-Stuttgart
1972), who maps out Plut.'s
in the Lives and mentions, in passing and without
ethical vocabulary
reference to the Per., the virtue of "Treue halten im Ungl?ck", which, she
and "Unbestechlichargues, is to be linked up with "Unbeeinflussbarkeit"
keit". The latter actually was one of Pericles' well-known virtues (cf. Per.
15 and 16, and below, n. 297). For Pericles qua philos cf. also Per. 10, polemics
against Idomeneus, and 39.
114) Cf. Per. 1-2 and the sequel to the statement from the Nie. cited in
the text.
115) Note that, at Per. 2, Phidias is cited among the examples illustrating
the maxim that excellence of works of art does not entail similar qualities
in the artist. The sentiment itself is a locus communis (although not shared
by Dion Chrysost., 01. or.), but rather apposite in the context of the Per.
116) ?????? t??a t?? Fe?d??? s??e????: Per. 12 [= Overbeck Nr. 624]
gives an extensive list of artisans said to be under Phidias' orders, among
them ???s?? ?a?a?t??e? ?a? ???fa?t??.
117) Meineke's and Sauppe's addition seems necessary (cf. however The
Athenian Agora, III, R. E. Wycherly, Liter, and epigr. testimonia (Princeton
N.J. 1957), 119, Nr. 363 n. 2). On Agora and Altar see now, most conveniently, W. Zschietzschmann, RE Suppl. XIII (1973) s.v. 'Athenai', 68, 71;
on the Altar, Wycherly, 119 ff., who argues (122 Nr. 378) that it is perhaps
identical with the altar of Eleos, for which see ib., 67 ff.; cf. also his The
Stones of Athens (Princeton N.J. 1978), 64 f.

28
Phidias

followed
Plutarch,
unlike
during
a meeting
does not
of the
Assembly
yet at this point
(???pa?), however,
says Plutarch
since
on Pericles'
Phidias,
proven,
Ephorus,
[note
that
identify
in the
the
Peculation
next
charge].
was not
had
sentence,
advice,
laid the gold plate (???s???) around the statue in such a way that
it could be all removed
and weighed
[this entails that, according
to Plutarch,
the charge of embezzlement,
which is not specified
in Ephorus,
to the gold], and this is what Pericles
now
pertained
invited
the accusers to do. But the Assembly
did not cause Phidias
to be set free, because,
apart from the fame of "the works'*, the
fact?so
he had portrayed
Plutarch?that
both Pericles and himself
as participants
in the Amazonomachy
on the shield
represented
of the statue 118) had caused great envy ue). Since Philochorus?see
of embezzling
below, p. 42?speaks
only of Phidias'
being suspected
in referring to the gold,
that Plutarch,
ivory, it has been thought
is mistaken
of the
120), It is of course true that the removability
to
has
whatever
do
such
with
gold plate
precaution
nothing
any
but is, rather, a consequence
of the technique
used by Phidias 121) ;
the gold, moreover,
was a sort of permanent
However,
'deposit'.
the unspecified
viz. that Phidias
charge as reported
by Ephorus,
118) Since the battle between Greeks and Amazons was depicted in
successive 'cinematographic' stages from first assault to final defeat, it must
have been an early example of the so-called 'cyclical method' of representation; cf. ?. Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex (Princeton N.J.
1947, 8i97o), 17 f., who claims this as a Hellenistic invention. Cf. further
below, n. 123, on the frieze.
119) f?????; cf. above, ?. 98 infine.
120) From the De vit. aer. al., 828 ? = Overbeck Nr. 656, however, it
appears that Plut, was perfectly familiar with Thuc. II 13, 5 (= Overbeck
Nr. 655?cf. below, n. 121?), which he closely paraphrases. In the Per., he
presumably substitutes the other motive in as far as it affords a better
chance to depict Pericles as a philos (cf. above, ?. 113 and text thereto).
of the plate gold see Thuc. II 13, 5 (= Over121) For the removability
beck Nr. 655), echoed by Ephorus ap. D.S. XII 40 (= Overbeck Nr. 657),
with the comments of R. Scholl, Der Prozess des Phidias (SBBayAk., philos.philol. Cl. 1888) [1 ff.], 9-10, and Gomme, HCTh II, ad loe. (Oxford 1956,
4i9?9). On the gold and the ivory in the accounts of the overseers see G.
Donnay, Les comptes de VAthene chryselephantine du Parthenon, BCH 1967,
50 ff., and La date du proc?s de Phidias, Ant. Cl. 1968, [19 ff.], 23-4. Against
the assumption that Phidias was accused of stealing gold see esp. Frost,
Hist. 1964, 395.?S.
Eddy, The Gold of the Athena Parthenos, AJA 1977,
107 ff., now suggests that most of the gold was melted down coin.


"a considerable
had embezzled
amount
2?
of the sacred
moneys",
may
gold plate and the ivory which
for the statue
out of sacred funds. Of these,
had been purchased
: its price and weight have
the gold was by far the most expensive
recorded in the abridged
been meticulously
version of the accounts
as pertaining
be read
to both
of the
the
as published
on stone (and in part
while of the ivory
This
only the price is given122).
preserved),
to weigh the gold a pertinent
makes Pericles'
invitation
rejoinder,
to accept
feasible
even if one refuses
Plutarch's
story about his
of the
overseers
statue
advice to Phidias;
we may be certain
that such gold as
previous
but not used for the statue could
was bought by the commissioners
be weighed
as well. This left the accusers
only a point about the
not
in
as
meticulous
a manner ;
which
be
could
checked
really
ivory,
Plutarch
does
know
about
other
reason
not
mention
the
ivory,
either
because
he did
not
he thought
it insignificant,
or for some
it, or because
he gives for the
12?). The psychological
explanation
refusal
of the Assembly
to acquit
on the spot, although
Phidias
not beyond
it suggests
is
in
as
far
as
a hidden
suspicion,
pertinent
motive,
timates
perhaps
closely
Plutarch,
himself.
in that it subtly
inIt is effective
exploited.
politically
that Phidias
and Pericles,
or
since they fought
together
even shoulder
to shoulder
on the shield,
were also very
to his description,
associated
off the shield.
According
to be expected,
must have seen these portraits
his
is also found in other sources
Although
story?which
Nos. 668, 672: self-portrait]?impresses
one as a
[cf. Overbeck
of
that the
some
believe
typical
sample
guide-lore,
archaeologists
portraits?the
as is only
concerned
can still
figures
of
the
shield
in
the
British
copy
Strangford
on the shield
at
Athens
of the Lenormant
(top)?were
indeed
be
discerned
Museum
on
the
and
statuette
in the
(bottom)
National
Museum
there123).
What
Plutarch,
in any
122) On the gold and the ivory see further below, p. 47. D. M. Macdowell, The Law of Athens (London 1978), 149, affirms that probably both
these precious materials figured in the charge. Cf. also n. 116.
123) For Plutarch's dependence on learned guides see Theander, o.e.,
17 f., and Frost, Cl. Med. 1961, 185-6.?W. Gauer, Die griech. Bildnisse d. kl.
Zeit als pol. u. pers. Denkmaler, Jb. d. arch. Inst. 1968, [118 ff.], 138-9,
argues that Phidias gave Pericles' traits to Theseus and his own to Daedalus ;
cf. also B. Schweitzer, Zur Kunst d. Antike, Ausgew. Sehr., II (T?bingen

30
of the portraits
case, does not suggest is that the insertion
figured
in any formal
accusation
from his
124). What
may be inferred
account
is that
the
its constitutional
excercising
Assembly,
1963)* 162 f., who argues that the pairing of the bald old man and the socalled Pericles is "das mythisch -geschichtliche Prototyp seines eigenen Verh?ltnisses zu Perikles" (ib., 166) and that the old man's resemblance to the
artist was not "beabsichtigt". G. ?. ?. Richter, The Portraits of the Greeks, I
(London 1965), 103 f., 150 f., accepts the portraits, or at least that of Phidias.
M. Guarducci, Ep. gr., Ill (Roma 1975), 417, accepts the portraits and
believes that the self-portrait on the shield is an alternative to the forbidden
artists' inscription. It is noteworthy that Polygnotus was said to have put
Laodice's portrait in a painting in the Poikile, Plut. Cim. 6, 4 ? Overbeck
Nr. 1044; Jacoby, who also refers to Plin. N.H. XXXV 57 = Overbeck
Nr. 1099 (where Phidias' relative Panaenus is said to have painted iconicos
duces in the Marathon picture?which
cannot be right: cf. Jex-Blake and
Sellers, ad loe.) speaks, FGrH III b (text), 103, and (notes) 71, n. 97 a, of
"alte periegetenweisheit
schon des 5. jhdts". H. Philipp, Tektonon Daidala
(Berlin 1968), 113, gives some good early examples of artists' self-portraits,
but calls the shield portraits "fragw?rdig"?why,
I do not know. For the
question as to whether or not there were portraits on the shield it is important to adduce the fact that the frieze of the Parthenon, executed while
Phidias was still at Athens and in charge, is remarkable at its date for two
reasons. It is about an event which is not (only) mythical, but (also) contemporary; cf. J. J. Pollitt, Art and Experience in Class. Greece (Cambridge
1972), 87 f. And it realistically depicts this event, the Panathenaeic procession, in a cinematographic
way, viz. by presenting us with a series of successive episodes; for unprejudiced stylistic judgements see Pollitt, o.e., 88,
and H. W. Parke, Festivals of the Athenians (London 1977), 38. The doubts
expressed by R. Ross Holloway, Art Bull. 1966, 223 ff., viz. that the 'episodic' representation
is inconsistent
with the practice of classical Greek
art, are invalid, the shield providing us with the required parallel (above,
n. 118; G. M. Hanfmann, Narration in Greek Art, AJA 1957? [71 ft?]? 7? *?.
does not go far enough). Cf. also Guarducci, Ep. gr., II, 359 n. 4. I have
much profited from A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon (Leipzig 1871), 205 ff.,
210 ff., not having been able to lay hands on F. Brommer, Der Parthenonfries (Mainz 1977). See now also Knell, o.e., 33 ff. The contemporary reference
would render identifications of persons?however
mistaken?also
possible in
the case of the frieze. See further below, n. 179, portrait of Pantarces on
throne of Zeus at Olympia.?For
reproductions of the copies of the shield
mentioned in the text see e.g. N. Leipen, Athena Parthenos. A Reconstruction
(Roy. Ont. Museum 1971), figs. 23, 26-27, and, ib., fig. 83, for several
proposed reconstructions of the shield battle.
124) Schachermeyer, Religionspol., 69, G. M. A. Richter, The Sculpture
and Sculptors of the Greeks (New Haven and London 4i97o), 169 n. 26,
Schwarze, o.e. [above, n. 32], 141 f., Klein, o.e., 528 n. 49, and others (cf.
also Kahrstedt, I, 83) incorrectly say that Plutarch suggests a second charge
or even a second trial because of the portraits. Leipen, o.e., 11, says they

31
for whatever
reason, to declare the accusation
125), refused,
Phidias
null
and
remitted
the case to a dicastery
void
and
against
to
was
after the matter
which, presumably,
pronounce
judgement
had been further investigated.
rights
next tells us that Phidias

died in prison 12e), of an
Pericles'
because
enemies
had him
or, "as some
say",
in
to
the
man's
order
blacken
name.
This
great
poisoned
explains
proceedings
why he does not speak about further criminal
against
He does, however,
tell us that a decree was passed, proposed
Phidias.
Plutarch
illness
Menon exemption
from taxes and
Glycon,
granting
of
to
board
for
his
generals
provide
ordering
personal
safety.
Some
believe
that Phidias
scholars
this to entail
was actually
by
a certain
the
a contradiction
here in Plutarch's
127). There is, indeed,
: Phidias'
death in prison before his guilt had been proved
to be incompatible
with the Glycon decree. We shall see,
appears
that
Plutarch
was
did not die
however,
wrong in as far as Phidias
in an Athenian
the informer
prison, and that the decree rewarding
convicted
account
does
not
victed128).
Plutarch
necessarily
begins
entail
that
c. 32 by telling
Phidias
us that
faced
trial
"about
and
this
was
time"
con-
(pe??
were "the final touch which led to an accusation of embezzlement";

MacDowell, Law 149, thinks an impiety charge "possible". For the correct
see E. B. Harrison, The Composition of the Amazonomachy
interpretation
on the Shield of Athena Parthenos, Hesp. 1966, [107 ff.], 108-9, an?L V. M.
und Parthenosschild
Strocka, Pir?usreliefs
(Bochum 1967), 134-5, where
further literature is cited.
125) It could either itself function as a court or remit a case to a dicastery ;
cf. J. H. Lipsius, Das att. Recht u. Rechtsverf, I (Leipzig 1905), 184, and
R. J. Bonner - G. Smith, The Administration
of Justice from Homer to
Aristotle, I (Chicago 1930, N.Y. 2i968), 300. Aristoph., Wasps 590 f. (quoted
Lipsius, loe. cit.), sarcastically says that Council and Assembly turn over
such cases as they think too difficult.
also by Davison, o.e.
126) Rejected by all who accept Philochorus;
[above, n. 8], 43. On preventive custody see Kahrstedt, o.e., 150 ff.
127) E.g. Frost, Hist. 1964, 395; Donnay, 1968, 23.
128) Below, p. 47. Schwarze, o.e., 142 ?. 22, and others have doubted
the at??e?a voted for Menon. Cf. however IG Ia 39, 52 f. with the comments
of J. M. Balcer, The Athenian Regulations for Chalkis (Wiesbaden 1978),
65 ff.; Pope, o.e., 43 f., esp. on IG I1 106, IIa 141. See also Theophrastus
ap. Harpocration s.v. ?s?t????. For decrees or laws to this effect see Dem.
XX 131.

32
d? t??t??
cerning
by the
t?? ??????, i.e. about the same time as the events

conPhidias 129) Aspasia,
too, was put on trial. She was accused
comic poet Hermippus

130), viz. of impiety
as a procuress
for Pericles,
thus corrupting
a decree which
ians131). Also, Diopeithes
proposed
acted
"those
things
who do not recognize

the divine
should be impeached"
on high
or teach
and
that
stipulated
theories
about the
(e?sa?????es?a?
pe?? t??
?? ???????ta? ? ??????
aimed to throw suspicion
this
accepted
Assembly
of having
Athen-
female
t??? ta ?e?a
which was
d?d?s???ta?),
?eta?s???
The
Pericles
through
Anaxagoras.
a decree
was passed,
proposal.
Finally,
that "Pericles'
of the moneys
accounts
upon
by Dracontides,
proposed
should be deposited
by him with the Prytanes"
(dp?? o? ????? t??
?p?
and that he
?e???????? e?? t??? ???t??e?? ?p?te?e?e?),
?????t??
should
be tried according
with
to a solemn
procedure
religious
129) Krech, o.e., 90; Frost, Hist. 1964, 396-7. Philochorus, FGrH 328
F 50, p. 113, 22, uses the expression to date certain events in 349/8 as being
subsequent to others in the same year (F 49) ; similarly at F 67 (p. 118, 26).
130) Many have doubted that Aspasia's trial is a historical fact, e.g.
Donnay, 1968, 29; E. Will, Le monde grec et l'Orient, I (Paris 1972), 272 n. 1.
Some, e.g. Gomme, HCTh, II, 187, suspect that the accusation occurred on
the stage; A. Rosenberg, Perikles u. d. Parteien in Athen, N. Jbb. kl. Ait.
1915, [205 ff.], 218 f., beats them all by supposing the trial to be a fiction
by Aeschines and Hermippus to be a character in the Aspasia. Schwarze,
o.e., no f., argues that the trial really occurred, but that the second half
of the charge cited by Plutarch derives from a comedy (cf. however next n.).
B. Ehlers, Eine vorplat. Deutung d. sokr. Eros. Der Dial. Aspasia d. Sokratikers
Aischines (M?nchen 1966), 68 f., 74 f., defends a historical trial.?Stage
trials are, of course, familiar from Greek drama. However, if my assumpto be argued, see below, p. 79 f.?that Aspasia was tried in 438/7
tion?yet
is correct, she cannot have been accused on stage. Such attacks had been
forbidden by a decree of 440/39, repealed in 437/6 (Schol. Aristoph. Ach. 67,
1150 a, quoted Suda II, p. 451, 17 f., I, p. 238, 5 f. and IV, p. 841, 22-842, 5
Adler). This decree, by the way, would give Hermippus a professional
motive (for that, maybe, of Diopeithes, see below, n. 147). Though it is
perhaps idle to speculate, a trial of Aspasia may help to explain the repeal :
Pericles may have realized that such attacks are safer when made on stage.
131) The second half of the charge specifies the first : admission to temples
was forbidden to adulterous women (Derenne, o.e., 9) and to bauds (J.
Rudhardt, La d?finition du d?lit d'impi?t? d'apr?s la l?gislation attique, MH
i960, [87 f f.], 89). For the addition of such specifications cf. Rudhardt,
ib., 90. The fact that comic poets leveled the same accusation against
Phidias (Plut. Per. 13) does not entail that Aspasia had not been its real
victim.


"the
connotations:
with
were
dicasts
ballots
taken
to pronounce
the Altar"
their
33
verdict
on the
from
also a
Acropolis
132). However,
Pericles'
friend
was
rider proposed
which
by
133) Hagnon
passed,
and ensured that the proceed"took this away from the proposal"
of Pericles' financial
administration
should
ings in the investigation
a purely
and regular
secular
character134),
minimum
should
than
the
be
larger
jury
prescribed
The charge was to be specified
as either
(1500)135).
be
of
and the taking

funds
of bribes
or neglect
and
that
for such
the
cases
embezzlement
in the administration
of public
186).
in public and begging

Pericles
the dicasts
obtained
By weeping
a verdict of not guilty for Aspasia ; for the pathetic
details Plutarch
out of town, providing
refers to Aeschines
137). He sent Anaxagoras
him with an escort. But "since, because
of Phidias,
he had clashed
with
the
(t? d???)
Assembly
he
caused
the
d??ast?????)
138),
and
was
afraid
of the
war, which had been

and smouldering,
to burst into flames 139), expecting
to dispel the charges against himself",
etc.
court
(t?
threatening
in this way
132) H. Swoboda, ?ber den Prozess des Perikles, Herrn. 1893, [535 ff?]?
558 f., gives parallels for this procedure and concludes that it was "die
Form der feierlichen
gebr?uchliche
allgemein
Abstimmung";
similarly
already A. Boeck, Staatshaush., I (Berlin 2i85i), 274-5: "feierlichste Entis not certain whether this
See however below, p. 49.?It
scheidung".
Dracontides is also the one in IG I2 39 (446/5).
*33) Cf. Swoboda, o.e., 583-4; Frost, JHS 1964, 72; Donnay, 1968, 34.
134) Cf. Swoboda, o.e., 588, and below, n. 289, n. 290.
o.e., 246, suggest that "an old law required a jury of
135) Bonner-Smith,
1,000 for impeachment cases". Swoboda, o.e., 583, shrewdly suggests (possibly arguing against Wilamowitz, Arist. u. Athen, II (Berlin 1893, repr.
1966), 246 n. 48) that a larger body of dicasts would be more favourable
to the suspect.
136) e?te (a) ???p?? ?a? d???? e?t' (b) ?d?????. See further below, p. 72 f.
and n. 290.
137) Fr. XI Krauss = 25 Dittmar. Ehlers, o.e., 74 f., adds further evidence for this section of the Asp. from the Syriac translation of a ps.Plutarchean tract. A story similar to that in Aeschines, though perhaps
more virulent, is at Athen. 589 E = Antisthenes fr. 35 Decleva Caizzi.
138) This agrees with the interpretation of s???fa?t???ta in D.S. (above,
p. 24). On the meaning of 'sycophant' cf. Balcer, o.e., 126 f. and n. 20.
139) Hence Plut, does not take the "worst cause of all" seriously (see
further below, p. 35 f.); the words should not be pressed as a reminiscence
of Peace 608-10. If there is an Aristophanic echo here, it must derive from

34
Absolute
and Relative
Chronology
in Diodorus,
and Ephorus
Plutarch,
Plutarch's
account
is perfectly
Apart from some minor points,
after
the
of the
The relative
installation
consistent.
chronology,
the accusation
by Menon,
(i) the indictment
against
and his death in prison; (2) "at about
before the Assembly,
and (3) the decree
the same time", the accusation
against Aspasia,
with Hagnon's
of Diopeithes;
(4) then the decree of Dracontides
her
and
trial
of
the
rider;
acquittal;
subsequent
(5)
Aspasia
(6)
statue,
Phidias
is:
fear of the dicastery;

town;
leaving
(7) Pericles'
Anaxagoras'
more
of
the war. Though
compressed,
Ephorus'
(8) the beginning
as are mentioned
in the same
account
ap. D.S. lists such events
I have to
(I assign to the items the same numbers
in
the
sections
accusations
Plutarch):
(1)
corresponding
Pericles;
Phidias;
against
(4) the accusation
against
(6) the accusation
against Anaxagoras
uo); (7) Pericles' fear of the dicastery;
relative
order
the
of the war.
(8) the beginning
this chronology
The main point at issue is whether
and in a relative sense. I know that
both in an absolute
is correct,
in rejecting
not breaking
I am
absolute
and Plutarch's
Ephorus'
chronology
as comnew ground.
On the other hand, a defence of the relative
of the absolute
as far
bined with a rejection
has
not,
chronology
as I am aware, been attempted
A survey
of the chief points
nology
relative
is indispensable
in
of events.
dating
view
before.
concerned
of
the
with
the
argument
absolute
regarding
chrothe
Per. 32 together with D.S. XII 39, 2

quote Plutarch,
II
A
17,
pe?? t??t??
59
p. 10, 36 ff. and gloss Plutarch's
t?? ?????? with "[Anfang
des pelop. Kriegs]";
so also Lanza. This
is both correct
and false. In the immediate
context,
pe?? t??t??
t?? ?????? refers to the Phidias
affair only, and the attacks
upon
and
are
with
that
Phidias
Aspasia
Anaxagoras
synchronized
upon
Diels-Kranz
at Vorsokr.
Ephorus, whose adaptation changes colour in Plutarch's hands.

phor is a common one; cf. R. Str?mberg, Greek Proverbs (Got.
ser. A Bd. 4.8, G?teborg 1954), ?4, and P. W. v.d. Horst, The
Phocylides (Diss. Utrecht, Leiden 1978), 210.
140) I believe that ?s???f??t??? refers to a trial rather than
peithes decree (above, p. 24 , and n. 138).

The metaHand. 7 F.
Sentences of
to the Dio-
35
which shows that the advocates

of
only. It is the larger context
'
of all" put this series of events
'worst reason
the
immediately
is also that of
date of Plutarch
before the war. Since this absolute
the latter,
as is generally
Ephorus,
that
sources 141). It will be recalled
from the Peace. In another
comedy,
agreed,
is one
of Plutarch's
a few lines
quoted
before
the
Peace, viz.
staged
in
had
the blame
the Acharnians
laid
425], Aristophanes
[produced
in
not
with
the
with Aspasia
earlier
Phidias,
who,
{Ach. 515-39),
at all142). Plut., Per. 30, the end, quotes
play, is not mentioned
Ach. 524-7 and informs us that "the Megarians"
unknown)
(identity
invoked
war.
We
these
have
lines
Ephorus
for the
as proof that they were not responsible
not
that Ephorus
D.S.
refer
does
to
ap.
not quote from the Ach. either. The fact that,
noticed
and does
Aspasia
in Plutarch,
the quotation
from the Ach. precedes
the exposition
of the "worst reason of all" is perhaps in favour of the assumption
that Ephorus
did not mention
too, must
Aspasia 143). Aristophanes,
Plutarch's
the
be counted
sources;
perhaps
preceding
among
trial is mentioned
from the Ach. explains
why Aspasia's
quotation
in c. 32, where, however,

is cited for the details 144). On
Aeschines
was abridged
the other hand, the possibility
out of
that Aspasia
be
account
excluded
and
Diodorus
cannot
should,
Ephorus'
by
I think, be preferred.
the account
Plutarch,
by qualifying
Anyhow
that he
and Aristophanes
the way he does, shows
Ephorus
to
not
it.
At
Mai.
Hdt
he
E-856
855
A145)
prefers
severely
accept
of
141) For Plut.'s perfect familiarity with the whole of Ephorus' Histories
see Ph. A. Stadtler, Plutarch's Historical Methods (Cambridge Mass. 1965),
128.
142) See Schwarze, o.e., 135 f. (Ach.), 139 ff. (Peace).
143) However, since a quotation from the Ach. is in 'Aristodemus' (above,
n. 99), who follows Ephorus to a degree, E. Meyer, Forsch, ?. alt. Gesch., II
Note that
(Halle 1899), 332, plausibly suspects D.S. of compression.
Plutarch's strictures at Malign. Hdt. 855 F f. refer to both Aspasia and
Phidias.
144) Above, n. 130, n. 137.
145) See Steidle (loe. cit., above, ?. 107); Frost, JHS 1964, 69 n. 1;
Wardman, o.e., 191, who puts this point in a wider setting but has failed to
notice how Plut, uses the 'false interpretation* at Per. 31 f.; and already
M?ller, o.e., 148, and D. Wyttenbach, Bibl. critica, vol. Ill, p. Ill (Amsterdam 1805), 82-3. Wyttenbach's
discussion of the ancient explanations
of
the causes of the war still repays a reading.?Also
note Plutarch's condemnation of the comic poets and Stesimbrotus at Per. 12, in fine.

36
condemns
such historians
as use explanations
of comic poets
fabrications
to the
referring
with Pericles'
motives
both
of
chronology
Aristophanes'
oldest witness
Its
for starting
the war. Here, the stories about
are singled out for special mention.
been forwarded
in favour of the absolute
and Aspasia
have
arguments
Phidias
Several
of this sort, explicitly

and others concerned
Ephorus/Plutarch.
should
testimony
Some
scholars
have
said
that
be
he is the
because
accepted
decree.
146). Others have argued from the Diopeithes
some
as
the
identified
diviner
familiar
from
the
by
proposer,
to be the same person
147), is also believed
stage of Aristophanes
as the Diopeithes
mentioned
by Xen., H.G. Ill 3, 3 as consultant
in 397, although
at Sparta in divinatory
matters
there is no proof
of identity
148). It is argued
that
someone
active
in the beginning
146) So still, e.g., surprisingly, Schiering [A. Mallwitz - W. Schiering,

Die Werkstatt des Pheidias in Olympia, Ol. Forsch. V (Berlin 1964), 272
n. 1].?It
does not even
should, moreover, be noted that Aristophanes
imply that Phidias' bad luck is to be dated to immediately before the war.
At Birds 1040 f. [produced 414] he parodies a decree of c. 449, at Wasps
353 [produced 422] he alludes to the siege of Naxus (c. 470).
147) The evidence is assembled by Schachermeyer, Religionspol., 61 f.;
cf. also Derenne, o.e., 19 f. and M. P. Nilsson, Gesch. d. grieeh. Re?., I (M?nchen
ai9?7), 782, 786, 794. Nilsson, 767-8, suggests that a diviner would have
professional reasons for harassing a natural philosopher and astronomer
(for those, maybe, of Hermippus, see above, n. 130). On 'Himmelserscheinungen' cf. also H. Popp, Die Einwirkungen von Vorzeichen, Opfern und
Festen auf die Kriegf?hrung d. Griechen im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. (Diss. Erlangen
1957), 18 f. It is, however, likely that Anaxagoras' explanation of things
fallen from heaven was also felt to conflict with the belief (for which cf.
Meerwaldt ad Eur. Iph. T. 1015) about the origins of xoana (of which the
old statue of Athena was one): "Meteore empfingen im Altertum oft g?ttliche Verehrung", W. Speyer, B?cherfunde i. d. Glaubenswerbung d. Antike
(G?ttingen 1970), 30-1, with full references ib., ?. 28, ?. 29.?If the scholia
on Aristoph. are right, Diopeithes (if he was a diviner) was one with political
ambitions and connections: schol. Birds 988 ?. 6 ??t??, Knights 1085 ?? d?
?a? ?????? eta????; cf. G. M. Calhoun, Athenian Clubs in Politics and Litigation
(Austin Texas, 1913), 19 n. 3, and esp. Jacoby, Atth. 257 f. n. 119: Diopeithes was both a politician and a seer. W. R. Connor, Two Notes on Diop.
the Seer, Cl. Ph. 1963, 115 ff., argues against this assumption on insufficient
grounds. For Nicias' retinue of soothsayers and their fateful infuence upon
his decisions see Thuc. VII 50, 4, and Dover ad loe., HCTh IV (Oxford 1970),
428-9; note that the disaster of 413 (treated at some length by Popp, o.e.,
20 ff.) motivates Plutarch to dwell upon Anaxagoras' wisdom, Nie. 23 =
Vorsokr. 59 A 18: a posthumous rehabilitation vis-a-vis his old enemy?
148) Gomme, rev. Derenne, Cl. R. 1932, 68 and n. ? (where the printer
has dated Diopeithes' stay at Sparta to 367).

37
in politics
have been active
4th cent, cannot
long before
not c. 450 B.C.149)).
war (viz. certainly
this
Occasionally,
of who actually
consideration
is linked up with the further question
of the
the
accused
was
have
immediately
it is said,
passed
been,
but
a dicastery.
If the Diopeithes
the war, the prosecutor
before
the old and enfeebled
Thucydides
before
Anaxagoras
must
have
been
Cleon.
Points
such
as the
decree
cannot
son
of
above
Melesias,
were forcefully
not be overargued by e.g. Zeller 150) ; it should
that
Zeller was first and foremost
concerned
looked,
however,
with making
of
the case against
the early chronology
[c. 530-460]
as
others
as
he
and
as
strong
Anaxagoras
proposed
by Unger
could.
the
By
the trial of Anaxagoras

as close as possible
to
bringing
of the war, Zeller refuted
Unger es. (he had, forother arguments).
a late date
defended
Wade-Gery
beginning
also
tunately,
for the
trial
he supposed
return from
without
that
giving
the latter
as prosecutor;
up the old Thucydides
"made himself felt" after his supposed
in 433, which,
if true, would
of course
banishment
the case for the absolute
of Ephorus/
strengthen
chronology
Plutarch
that Thucydides
and Cleon together
m). Derenne believed
accused
the
before
Others
Anaxagoras
just
argue that
war152).
the trials
silence
about
is to be
Thucydides*
(the historian's)
hence that the trials
explained
by his bias in favour of Pericles,
should be accepted
and left where Ephorus/Plutarch
put them 163).
The case against
the absolute
is very
however,
chronology,
unthat
Pericles
wielded
strong.
Thucydides'
testimony
virtually
149) For this argument against the early chronology of Taylor (above,
n. 32) see e.g. Derenne, o.e., 35. Taylor's date of departure for Anaxagoras
would entail an updating of the Diopeithes decree ; this decree, however, is
notably absent from his paper.
150) O.e., 1191 ff.
151) Thucydides the Son of Melesias, [1932], repr. in: Stud. Gr. Hist.
(Oxford 1958), [239 ff.]. 258.
152) O.e., 50. For Davison's opinion cf. above, n. 53.
*53) So J. Vogt, Das Bild des Per. bei Thuk., [1956] repr. in: Orbis, Ausgew. Sehr. (Freiburg etc. i960), [47 ff.], 60. K. v. Fritz, Griech. Geschichtsschr., I (Berlin 1967), 527 f., seems to believe that the trials actually played
a part or that it is in any case significant that this is what Ephorus and
Aristophanes thought, and criticizes Thuc. for leaving them out; he is not
clear, however, about the chronological problems involved.

38
opposed
explained
than the
for
before
the war154)
can hardly
be
immediately
as
or
rather
as
more
biased
being biased,
away
being
account
of Ephorus
c.s. Furthermore,
to press Plutarch
power
since one of the things

is hopeless,
the
chronology
of
human
was
not
character
or
interested
in,
biographer
absolute
great
rather
suspicious
about,
is meticulous
in
in chronological
accuracy
this connection
is his dis-
matters165).
Especially
revealing
not wholly
about Euseparaging?and
perhaps
unjustified?sneer
bius' predecessors
at Sol. 27: "I refuse to give up [sc. the tradition
of Solon's
visit with Croesus]
on account
of certain Chronological
.
Canons
.
t?s?
.
which
innumerable
authors
?a??s??),
(?????????
have
been revising
being able to settle
up to this day without
their disputes"
with the idealization
is more concerned
15e). Plutarch
of character
than with the empiricism
of the chronicle ; as a matter
of fact, the Lives are full of chronological
and incompressions
the Per. itself providing
elseaccuracies,
illuminating
examples
where
the
Plutarch
157). In the present case, moreover,
merely repeats
of others with a serious
caveat as to their
causal
inferences
which of course entails that

reliability,
his absolute
cannot surpass
chronology
i.e. Ephorus
and Aristophanes
sources,
W. Vischer,
in an apparently
forgotten
the
confidence
that
c.s.
paper
invested
to be conceded
As long
ago
158), already
in
to his
as 1840,
pointed
154) I 139, 4 and 127, 3.

Plutarchs ?ber seine
155) See the useful collection of "Ausserungen
Biographien" in A. Bauer, Plut. Themistoki. f. quellenkrit. ?bungen (Leipzig
1884, repr. w. add. by F. J. Frost, Chicago 1967), 1 ff. Cf. further K. Ziegler,
RE XXI (1951) s.v. 'Plutarch (2)', 903 f., 909 f. ('Nachtr?ge' in the 2nd
pr. of the 'Sonderdruck', Stuttgart 1964, 325 f.); Gomme, HCTh, I, who
gives a sympathetic and unbiased account of Plutarch's aims and methods,
but is not blind to his chronological deficiencies (58, 67-9, 72), and above
all Steidle, o.e., whose splendid and undeservedly neglected analysis of the
Per. is at pp. 152-66.
156) Cf. also Them. 27, and R. Flaceli?re, REA 1953, 11-2. Sol. 27 is
not cited by Cl. Pr?aux, Monde hellen., I (Paris 1978), 94, who however is
good on Plutarch's indifference to chronology.
157) Cf. H. Sauppe, Die Quellen Plut. f. d. Leben d. Per. [1867], in: Ausgew. Sehr. (Berlin 1896), [481 ff.], 485; Gomme, HCTh, l, 67; R. Sealy,
Essay s in Gr. Politics (?. Y. 1967), 59; ?. ?. Breebaart, Plut, and the Development of Per., Mnem. 1971, [260 ff.], 264.
158) Ueber die Benutzung d. alten Kom?die als gesch. Quelle, repr. in:
Kl. Sehr., I (Leipzig 1877), 459 ff. This anticipates most of de Ste. Croix'

ANAXAGORAS
ATHENIAN PERIOD, II
that
out, among other things,
as if he were a sober historian
39
should never be used

Aristophanes
and that we may only?and
very
as is contained
in his plays if it is
such evidence
cautiously?use
confirmed
or if it is the startingevidence,
by other, independent
of
a
point, not the climax,
joke 1d9), or, again, if it is just a piece
of innocuous
It is, indeed,
information.
rather
to
embarrassing
not only Ephorus
but also many modern
scholars
are
or unwilling
to distinguish
and
from
mattergibes
lampoons
of-fact
a gibe or satire,
to be
reports and descriptions.
Naturally,
what it is, must have some connection
with reality leo) : from the
realize
that
unable
passage
in the Peace
we may
evidence?that
conclude?since
Phidias
by independent
that Pericles
that the Megarian
existed,
Pericles
did about the decree
something
with
the
outbreak
of a war
to
decree
was
existed,
somehow
We
happened.
connection
special
on the stage
is corroborated
and had
which
that the
however,
accept,
events revealed
the
character
by
in fact; if we do, where

ogy, here as elsewhere,
this
existed
bad
and
connected
are not
between
has
luck,
that
entitled
these
foundation
any
is the joke? Aristophanes'
implied chronolis of an impromptu
character
(ot d? p???ta?
p??????? a?t?s?ed?????s??
e?? t??? ???????, Schol. Peace 99?)? ^ ^as
been pointed
out innumerable
times 1?1), moreover,
that Aristophanes actually
gives away that he is making things up : the other
characters
on stage in so many words declare that they hear about
Phidias'
for the first time in their whole life {Peace
responsibility
excellent points, o.e., 232 ff., 385 ff. See also K. J. Dover, Aristophanic
Comedy (London 1972), esp. 84 f. (Ach.) and 133 with ?. 2 (Peace).
159) O.e., 459: "ich . . . weise in dieser Hinsicht nur auf Diodor von
Sicilien und Plutarch, welche ?fters Stellen der Komiker so als Zeugnisse
anf?hren, als w?ren die Dichter Historiker gewesen; und auch neuere
Schriftsteller
scheinen die Scherze des Aristophanes
gar zu w?rtlich genommen zu haben". Cf. also Gomme, HCTh, I, 69-70.
160) Vischer, o.e., 477.
Comm. gramm. IV [1889], repr. Kl. Sehr., IV
161) E.g. Wilamowitz,
(Berlin 1962), 677; E. Meyer, o.e., 301; Schwarze, o.e., 153; de Ste. Croix,
o.e., 236. V. Frey, Die Stellung d. att. Trag. u. Kom. z. Demokratie (Diss.
Z?rich, Aarau 1946), believes that Aristoph. only means (c.q. his joke is)
that the people were successfully fooled by Pericles, but this is still compatible with Aristophanic invention. For a similar on-stage comment for
the benefit of the audience cf. Eur. Troad. 899, Menelaus' reaction to
Hecuba's philosophical prayer (884 f.).

40
in the^cA.
(cf. above, p. 35) not a word is breathed
here the joke is on Aspasia 1?2).
Since Ephorus
the Peace, it is clear that he accepted
quoted
as a statement
of fact. It is not fair, howAristophanes'
lampoon
6i5 ff.)? Lastly,
about Phidias:
that what he found in Aristophanes

was his one
ever, to assume
in favour
of his explanation
and only argument1?3)
of the war.
I shall say something
about
his further
reasons
below,
p. 74 f.
Philochorus
on Phidias*
Career
of Aristophanes
should
be contestimony
of Philochorus,
FGrH 328 F 121 [= Overbeck
to the first scholium
to Peace
629 and 647], to be restricted
contains
verbatim
which
of which
the second
quotations
First,
fronted
Nos.
however,
with that
the
605,
scholium
offers only a troubled

paraphrase
164).
he came to Peace 605, the scholiast
(or perhaps
author
of an ancient
learned
excerpted
commentary)
When
the
things
up in his Philochorus
[similar
references
in connection
rather
looked
with
162) Prandi, o.e., 12 and n. y, argues that the gibes in Ach. and Peace
are supplementary
rather than contradictory,
but she has overlooked the
fact that the parody of Herodotus' prooemium in the Ach. is tantamount
to an explanation of the war.
163) Wilamowitz, loe. cit. (above, ?. i6i), thought it was. Cf. also Jacoby,
FGrH II C, 93: "er hat Arist. f?r den besseren zeugen gehalten"; G. L.
Barber, The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge 1935), 106 f f., esp. 111-2;
Gomme, HCTh, I, 70, who says that Ephorus merely repeats Aristophanes;
and Schwarze, o.e., 144, who gives generous references. Contrast, however,
Jacoby himself as at FGrH III b (suppl.), Vol. I, 489-90, and see further
below, n. 300 and text thereto.
164) See in general Jacoby's fundamental discussion, FGrH III b (suppl.),
vol. I, 484-96, vol. II, 391-401 (both Leiden, 1954), and H. Bloch, rev.
Jacoby, Gnom. 1959, [487 ff.], 495 f., who states that the archaeological
evidence confirms Jacoby's preferences. Cf. also Donnay, 1968, 20 ff.?I
shall not adduce the second scholium (FGrH III ? (text), p. 135, 2-7 Jac),
which is a mere paraphrase of the first, repeats the already corrupt first
archon-name (cf. Scholl, o.e., 22), interprets the f???de? ('plaques of ivory')
as 'scales' and hence improves to "the gold of the serpents", and in general
tries to make such things explicit as are difficult or ambiguous in the first
schol. (cf. below, n. 167).?For the correct translation of f???de? see Michaelis,
Parth., 33: "Elfenbein in d?nnen Platten", and A. W. Byvanck, in: Symb.
. . . Van Oven (Leiden 1946), 85; also Donnay, 1968, 20 f. n. 4. Wrong
translation still in e.g. J. J. Pollitt, The Art of Greece 1400 - 31 B.C., Sources
and Documents (Englewood Cl. N.J. 1965), 67.


conundrums:
Schol.
F
1146 = Philoch.
chronological
Plut.
Schol.
affair
Phidias
and the Megarian

under different
Atthidographer
tations
from the Atthis
as containing
was mentioned
(hence
Peace
124]
4I
F
990 = Philoch.
and discovered
that
complaint
had been
treated
He
123,
the
by the
us two
years165).
gives
the first scholium
should
quobe treated
two different
from
fragments
"when
Theodorus
1??) was
Phidias
Philochorus):
the
archon",
(438/7),
them
"when
directed
against
the decree
against
protest
was
archon"
the scholiast
Pythodorus
(432/1).
Consequently,
?
and "others",
concluded,
doubt,
viz., without
Aristophanes
? could not be
of 7 years?
Ephorus
right : there was a difference
the scholiast,
of course,
reckons
the Phidias
inclusively?between
Megarian
affair
and
anno
438/7,
the
troubles
said 167) that
about
"the
decree.
Megarian
golden statue of Athena
the
Philochorus,
was erected
165) Cf. Jacoby ad loe., FGrH III b (suppl.), vol. I, 485, who is also
pertinent about the distinction, in the first fragment, between the first and
the 'it is said'-section.
in the first schol. (for
166) Palmerius' correction of the archon-names
Pythodorus cf. FGrH 328 F 123) have been generally accepted (o.e.?above,
n. 4, the beginning?,
746). Recent exceptions are M. H. Hansen, Eisangelia
(Odense 1975), 72 n. 5 (see also below, n. 289), and R. Klein, o.e., 526 n. 14.
In the second schol., the archon-name
should not be corrected (above,
n. 164), although Palmerius did correct it and was followed by Jacoby and
many others. O. Lendle, Philochoros ?ber den Prozess des Phidias, Herrn.
*955? [284 ff.]? 3?3? is right in rejecting the emendation in the second schol.,
though for the wrong reasons: in a rather involuted argument, he tries to
vindicate also part of the second schol. as well as that to Peace 606 for
Philochorus?the
text of the Atthis used by the scholiast would have contained interpolations.
Lendle's arguments were accepted by C. W. M?ller
in an otherwise remarkable paper, Protagoras und die G?tter, Hermes 1967,
[140 ff.; repr. Soph., WdF 187, 312 ff.], 156 f. = 335 f. Prandi is attracted
by Lendle's argument to the extent of preferring the second schol. to the
first (o.e., 16 f.). For refutations of Lendle's arguments see Bloch., o.e.,
497, Donnay, 1968, 20 f. n. 4, Schwarze, o.e., 140 ?. 15.
167) F???????? ep? (Te)?d???? ?????t?? ta?t? f?s?? "?a? t? ??a??a t?
???s??? t?? '?????? ?st??? e??t?? ?e?? t?? ???a?, ???? ???s??? sta???? ta???t??
?d, ?e???????? ?p?stat???t??, Fe?d??? d? p???sa?t??. ?a? Fe?d?a? ? p???sa?,
d??a? pa?a?????es?a? t?? e??fa?ta t?? e?? t?? f???da?, e?????? ?a? f???? e??
???? ?????a??sa? t? ??a??a t?? ???? t?? ?? '????p?a ???eta?, t??t? d? ??e?-|- inf. means 'suspected of*: cf.
?as??e??? ?p??a?e?? ?p? ??e???".????a?
Thuc. II 21, ?, where the suspicion of having accepted bribes (see below,
n. 297) is said to have caused king Pleistoanax'
voluntary exile (f???).
'?????? may mean, of course, 'was judged' or 'was convicted'
(cf. FGrH
328 F 60 Te???? . . . ase?e?a? ????e?sa ?p??a?e?), but also 'was accused.

42
in the
a weight
of gold plate of 44 talents,
Phidias having made it. And Phidias,
was suspected
of having
with
cheated
great
having
temple,
being commissioner,
had made it, and who
Pericles
who
the
accounts
of the
and
convicted];
accepted
having
the
ivory
he went
contract
completed
for
used
for the
into
exile
the
it, to have
was accused
[or:
placques,
at Elis, and is said to have
statue
been
slain
of
Zeus
by the
at
and,
Olympia,
Eleans" le8). It is
brought to court': cf. LSJ s.v. ????? III 2, and D.L. II 12 ?p? ???????
a?t?? (Anaxag.) ase?e?a? ??????a? (unless one prefers to translate: "prosecuted
by Cleon, he was convicted of impiety"). In itself, f???? may mean both
'being banished' or 'going into voluntary exile' (for the latter cf. above,
n. 93, Kahrstedt; C. W. M?ller, o.e., 156 and n. 4 = 335 and n. 71, is good
about the ambiguity, but he accepts the second schol., too). In the present
case, f???? e?? ???? must mean "fleeing, going into voluntary exile at
Elis", since people were only banished from Athens c.q. the territory of the
Confederacy, not relegated to a definite locality. Hence, of course, the
paraphrazing second schol., which has ?ata???s?e?? ???????? f??? [note
that FGrH 328 F 127 = schol. Arist. Wasps 240, f??? ????????a?, is not
verbatim either], has to insert ?e???e???
d ? e?? ????. This translation of
f???? should take away such doubts as are expressed by e.g. MacDowell,
Law, 149. Presumably, Philochorus implies that Phidias only accepted a
job elsewhere because he had to leave Athens, where there was of course
still enough work to be done. On the mobility of skilled workers generally
see A. M. Burford, The Economics of Greek Temple-Building, Pr. Camb. Ph.
Soc. 1965, [21 ff.], 31 f.
168) The story about Phidias' death at Elis would be irrelevant to our
purpose if e.g. Gomme, HCTh, II, 186-7, na(l not thrown doubt upon
Philochorus' credibility and preferred Plutarch's version as being "much
the most sensible and coherent". This, of course, was before the excavation
of the workshop at Olympia (for Fitts, who wrote after this excavation,
see below, n. 175). Part of the difficulty, I believe, stems from the fact
that ?p??a?e?? ?p? ??e??? is interpreted in the sense that Phidias was
"publicly executed" (so Jacoby, ad toe., p. 491 ; cf. also C. W. M?ller, o.e.,
*57 = 335) at Elis for offences similar to those he was accused of at Athens.
The statement that Phidias was publicly executed by the Eleans for this
reason is not, however, in the authentic Philochorus of the first schol.,
but only in the worthless paraphrase of the second. The lack of explicitness
of Philochorus himself as to the cause of death at Eus contrasts with his
about what happened at Athens in 438/7. Scholl, o.e., 35 f.,
explicitness
suggested that ?p? ??e??? has to go: although already read by the author
of the second schol., it would be a gloss (a reminiscence of a rhetoric stockexample: cf. Sen. Contr. VIII 2; Spengel, Rhet., I, p. 455, 13 f. See Overbeck
ad Nr. 744). He also adduced Pausanias' information (VI 14, 5 = Overbeck
Nr. 744) that Phidias' descendants later held the honorary office of 'Cleaners'
at Olympia. Against Scholl see e.g. Wilamowitz, Comm. gramm. IV, 15,
and Jacoby, ad loe., vol. II, 383 n. 42, who however is not followed by


that this first
noteworthy
one fact
(the completion
and two ?e???e?a:
Phidias)
fragment,
pace
of the Athena
"it is said"
consists
Philochorus,
and the accusation
43
of
of
(a) that he made the Zeus

Philochorus'
by the Eleans.
at Olympia,
and (b) that he was killed
date for the completion
of the Athena
is corroborated?if
we do
not object to a routine inaccuracy
in the chronicle
le9) by Jerome,
Bloch, o.e., 496. Against Scholl it is also arguable that the rhetorical commonplace must have some origin. It should be recognized that Philochorus'
bios of Phidias fittingly ends with a reference to the great man's death,
but is not specific as to its cause. This ?e???e??? is similar to one inserted by
Thuc. Ill 96, ? ?? t? ???? t?? ?e?e??? tf ?e?f, ?? f ?s??d?? ? p???t??
?p? t?? ta?t?
?p??a?e??.
???eta?
Thucydides is not explicit about
Hesiod's death either; later versions (e.g. Cert. 215 ff.) inform us that he
was slain by the brothers of a seduced girl, and Thucydides already refers
to the oracle given in full in those later sources. For a parallel in Philochorus,
see FGrH 328 F 3 ?????????? . . . ?p??a?e?? ?p? "??e??, ??a???e??? t?? ????punder which
p?? t?? a?t?? ???at??a. For all we know, the circumstances
Phidias was killed may have been similar to those in the other traditions
just quoted. His execution and the gruesome details told by the rhetors
belong to the realm of fancy, and the troubles with the statue of Athena at
Athens have been projected upon the story of Phidias' violent death at
Elis.
Dion Chrysostomus, Discourse pronounced at Olympia (XII 49, 50)?cf.
below, n. 170?, listing the items of which the Eleans would have fittingly
demanded an account from Phidias, is silent about the execution.
The case for Philoch.' reliability has serious underpinnings in the language used in F121, which reveals that he used of ficai Athenian documents;
cf. already C. O. M?ller, o.e., 140; further A. Tresp, Die Fragm. d. griech. KultXV. 1, Giessen 1914), 24, and Jacoby, FGrH III b
schriftsteller (RGW
(suppl.) vol. I, 227 f., 250, 318 ad F 31: "it should never be forgotten that
Ph. collected ep??????ata ?tt???",
324 ad F 37. [But Atth., 205 ff.?cf. esp.
Atthides are unfavourably compared, as to the
383 n. 24, on Philoch.?the
use of documents, with Aristotle and his followers; this, perhaps, is a less
mature judgement of Jacoby]. The expressions t? ??a??a t? ???s???, ?p?stat???t?? [cf. FGrH 328 F 37? on ^e building of the Lyceum: F??. d? ??
a?t? ?e??s?a?]?or at least ?p?st?ta??,
t? $ ?e??????? f?s?? ?p?stat???t??
and t?? ???? t?? ???a? can be paralleled from the stones. [D.S. XII 39, 1
says that Pericles ?a?esta????? ?? ep??e??t??; for the later term ep??e??t??
see Wilhelm, SB Wien 1921, 63 ff. = Opuscula, VIII. I. 1, Akad. Sehr. ?.
griech. Inschr. (Leipzig 1974), 354 ff.]. The technical term ???s???, 'plate
gold', often occurs in the accounts of the statue. The verb p??e?? is familiar
from artists' inscriptions; cf. below, n. 218 and text thereto, n. 277. Also
f???de? (above, n. 164) is technical. So is ?????a??sa? in the ???eta?-section.
For the technical ?st??? see below, p. 65 f.
169) Cf. above, Pt. I, App. I (this journal 1979, 27 ff.), and Jacoby,
FGrH III b (suppl.), vol. II, 393 n. 13. See also below, p. 52.

44
who
at
01.
Minervam
viz.
the
moneys
labour
85.2
fecit.
(438/9),
Also the
accounts?esp.
used to pay
force
are related
the
Phidias'
eburneam
113 (g) has Fidias
evidence
(cf. above,
p. 28),
the final summation?of
the
p.
epigraphical
IG I2 354,
for the materials
are believed
to agree
that
to be conceded
is, of course,
Philochorus
is an excursus
that
Helm
are to be dated
excursus
further
and
with
the
for the
Philochorus*
further
bios
wages
of the
date170).
of Phidias
It
in
which
m) and that not all the events
to 438/7.
It should be noted, however,
about
pertains
only to the ?e???e?a
proper
career at Elis?which
Attic
lies, after all, outside
the
of
the
statue
at
Athens
is
history?and
completion
securely
dated to 438?7. The suspicion
and the accusation
[or: conviction]
are not spoken of in the ???eta?-section;
apart from this, they only
make sense in connection
with the completion
of the Athena
and
that
the
then
construction
about the total of moneys

arising question
spent in its
and installation
A
later
date
for
the
accusation,
172).
is excluded
would have to
by the fact that the overseers
moreover,
be discharged
(c.q. penalized)
old but tenacious
argument
taken place in 432/1 and that
to Athens
for this
purpose
ultimo
that
of 437/6.
The
beginning
trial may itself have
was stupid enough to return
the
Phidias'
Phidias
173) actually
is a case
of a conclusion
170) Cf. Meiggs-Lewis, Sel. Gr. Hist. Inscr. (Oxford 1969), ad Nr. 54 B,
p. 148-9; Donnay, 1967, 71 f.; Guarducci, Epigr. gr., II, 193 f.; below,
n. 276. The date of the final account not only depends on Philochorus, but
is also related to the relative dates of the others.?There
is (as yet?) no
comparable epigraphic evidence from Olympia. But Dion Chrysost., loe. cit.
(above, ?. 168), enumerates, without giving figures, both the expenses for
the materials for the Zeus statue (in some detail) and the costs of wages and
maintenance of the artisans. This reads as if it were a literary paraphrase
of an inscription
[passage not in Overbeck and not, to my knowledge,
fr. 196 Pfeiffer (cf.
adduced in this context].?Callimachus,
previously
VU 29-30), promised to tell, among other things, ds? ? dapa?? of the Zeus;
at line 47, it is now only possible to read that he said it was beyond calculation.
171) So e.g. A. Frickenhaus, Phidias und Kolotes, Jb. d. arch. Inst. 1913,
[341 ff.], 344; Byvanck, o.e., 87. Philochorus* bios of Protagoras (FGrH
328 F 217, ap. D.L. IX 55) is a sort of parallel; I would not, however,
follow C. W. M?ller, o.e., 156 f. = 334 f., as to the interpretation of Philochorus* bias.
172) See below, p. 67 f.
173) Cf. e.g. Kirchner, Prosop. II 347, Nr. 14149; Gomme, HCTh, II, 186.

45
Once upon a time, the conpremiss.

in the scholium
words of the first extract
cluding
("he was killed
with the first words of the second
were connected
by the Eleans")
i.e. they
were not
was archon"),
extract
Pythodorus
("when
surviving
the
of its
demise
anno 438/7,
of Philochorus,
but
fragment
the
To
anno 432/1.
words "by the
to the second,
tidy things up,
or to be silently
with "by
had to be eliminated
Eleans"
replaced
or rather
. . . However,
this incorrect
the Athenians"
punctuation
attributed
to the
first
was refuted
as
between
by Sauppe
fragments
of
Zeus
It
construction
the
and
the
as
is
long ago
1869 174).
only
in the short
Phidias'
death,
subsequent
biographical
reported
which have to be dated after 438/7,
the
not, however,
excursus,
him.
accusation
against
brought
lack
of distinction
was only able to report ?e???e?a about

apparently
Elean
As we all know?although
career.
there are still
the first
to draw the proper conclusions175)?,
who hesitate
Philochorus
Phidias'
scholars
of these
Phidias'
?e???e?a
workshop
has
now
been
at Olympia176).
vindicated
The
of
by the excavation
material
remains,
among
174) &er Tod des Phidias, in: Ausgew. Sehr., [526 ff.], 529.
175) Guarducci, Ep. gr., III, 418 n. 3, suspends judgement. R. L. Fitts,
The Attack upon the Associates of Pericles (Diss. Ohio St. Un. 1971, abstract
in Diss. Abstr. 1972, 6399 A; I have seen the microfilm) again dates the
trials after the surmised return from exile of Thucydides son of Melesias
in 434/3, and still suspects Philochorus of bias. But he has missed the crucial
papers of Frost and Donnay. G. Marasco, i" processi d'empiet? nella democrazia Atenese, At. Rom. 1976, [113 ff.], has missed Donnay's papers and
only refers to one of Frost's (Hist. 1964); at p. 116 f. and n. 18, n. 19, she
accepts the absolute chronology of Ephorus and Plutarch at its face-value,
dates the trials
hence as being absolutely
fool-proof, and consequently
"intorno al 433/2". L. Prandi, o.e. (above, ?. 91), has read most of the
more recent literature, accepts that Phidias was in Olympia in the mid430s after the completion of the Athena, but still dates the attacks "in un
anno relativamente
prossimo al 431" (ib., 26). What is new in her paper
is an attempt to link up the attacks with the Spartan move against Pericles
pace Thuc. 1126, 2 and 127, 1 (add II 13, 1) [but Plut., Per. 33, distinguishes
this event from the Dracontides decree, and switches to Thuc. as a source],
and an effort to read an allusion to the attack against Phidias and Pericles
into Thuc. II 13, 2-9.
176) For reports see E. Kunze, Olympia, in: Neue deutsche Ausgr. im
Mittelmeer gebiet und im vord. Orient (Berlin 1959), [263 ff.], 277 ff., and
o.e. For the chronological conclusions to be drawn for
Mallwitz-Schiering,
Phidias' career see Bloch, o.e., 498 f., Frost, Hist. 1964, 395, Donnay 1968,

46
which
bottom
of a small libation-vessel
famous
"I
inscribed
"
have
to
be
dated
to
the
or
after
mid~430s
17V),
178),
the completion
of the Athena.
Hence the digging corroborates
the
am
the
Phidias'
and both confirm

what is given by Philochorus
anno
?e???e???,
To this evidence
we should
now again
add Pausanias'
438/7.
which imply that
reports about things seen and heard at Olympia,
Phidias was believed
to have worked there after 01. 86.1 (436/5)179).
Hence
Philochorus*
has been vindicated

testimony
by the archaeEduard
would have given so
Meyer and Jacoby
of the scholiast,
viz. that
180), and the conclusion
evidence
ological
much to possess
considerations
chronological
whatever
preclude
any connection
and the beginning
of the Peloponnesian
of Ephorus
and
war, is impeccable
181). The absolute
chronology
Plutarch
cannot be right, since a crucial item in their list of interbetween
the Phidias
connected
dated
events
affair
leading
to Pericles'
fateful
decision
has to be up-
by 6 years.
24 f.?The building on the Acropolis excavated in the i88os which is Nr. 140
in J. S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405?4 (Groningen
identified as Phidias' workshop by e.g. B. Ashmole,
1970), 243, is tentatively
Architect and Sculptor in Class. Greece (London 1972), 98 (see also below, p. 68).
177) Schiering, o.e., 151, 170, 174 ff. SEG XVII, 206.
178) Kunze, o.e., 291; Schiering, o.e., 140, 248, 276. Cf. also G. M. A.
Richter's chronological comments on the coin with the Zeus' head from
the age of Hadrian now at Berlin, The Pheid. Zeus at Olymp., Hesp. 1966,
[166 ff.], 169; and Sculpt. & Sculpt., 172-3 (with fig. 648). Beautiful reproductions in J. Liegle, Der Zeus des Pheid. (Berlin 1952), figs. XVII-XIX.
See also L. Lacroix, Les r?prod. de statues sur les monn. grecques (Li?ge 1949),
265, who refers to the first publication of the Berlin acquisition by Liegle
in 1940 (non vidi).
179) Elean ?e???e?a (Philochorus similarly refers to ?e???e?a; cf. above,
p. 43, and n. 168). Paus. V 11, 3 = Overbeck Nr. 696; VI 4, 5 = Overbeck
Nr. 757. Cf. already C. O. M?ller, o.e., 141 f., Scholl, o.e., 37; see also
Schiering, o.e., 273. The youth Pantarces, Phidias' beloved, was a victor
in the Olympic Games (for youths) of 436/5 and is reported to have been
portrayed as anadoumenos on Zeus' throne (for other such portraits see
above, n. 123). It is also told that Zeus' finger bore the graffito "Pantarces
beautiful"
(e.g. Clem. Protr. 53 = Overbeck Nr. 740). See Guarducci,
Ill,
Ep. gr.,
423-4.
180) E. Meyer, o.e., 301 n. 3: "hier k?nnen nur arch?ologische Gr?nde
entscheiden";
Jacoby, FGrH III b (suppl.), vol. I, 490-1. Both, however,
thought of the history of art rather than of digging.
181) Cf. D. Kagan, The Outbreak of the Pelop. War (Ithaca N.Y. 1969),
197, whose treatment of the trials (193 ff.) is up to date. Will, o.e., 309 f.,
mainly follows Kagan.

47
We may now try to piece together

a picture of the way in which
"had bad luck".
to Plutarch,
he remained
in
According
after
in
the
indictment
the
I see
preventive
custody
Assembly.
no reason to doubt this; presumably,
the gold had to be weighed
Phidias
and
the
p. 31).
to check
before a court could convene

ivory checked
(cf. above,
We have already
noticed
that it must have been less easy
the ivory than the gold 182). I would like to add that the
of the workshop
excavation
at Olympia
yielded only one tiny piece
of gold lost in the debris, whereas
a considerable
of waste
amount
to
has
come
not
was
ivory
light183).
Apparently,
everything
hoarded?even
trouble about the ivory had

after, pace Philochorus,
arisen at Athens!
It really must have been impossible
to give a
account of the ivory used for the Athena.
This explains
satisfactory
left Athens
as an exile?either
after a conviction
or
why Phidias
before a verdict had been pronounced.
In the latter case, if he was
in preventive
he must have broken jail, which, after all,
custody,
cannot
have been too difficult
at Athens:
think
e.g. of Crito's
to
offer
Socrates.
This,
again,
decree
the
rewarding
moderately
be interpreted
as an admission
sufficiently
informer:
explains
Phidias'
the
flight
Glycon
could
of guilt m).
have known
about
Plutarch
Phidias'
exile and
may either not
his stay at Elis or have rejected
this tradition
as a mere ?e???e???.
He can hardly have consulted
since he would without
Philochorus,
doubt have quoted
his opinion
the
"worst reason of all".
against
the
in
about
Phidias'
death
an
Athenian
Possibly,
story
prison was
already
in Ephorus.
The DracontidesjHagnon
Other
the
Decree.
which
arguments
absolute
chronology
Epistatai
have
are
been
less
used
to weaken
fortunate186).
Both
the
case
Frost
for
and
i82) Above, p. 29 (and n. 116). Cf. Donnay, 1968, 24.

183) Kunze, o.e., 289-90.
184) Cf. Andoc. On the Myst. I 3, the defendant speaking to the dicasts:
"when men refuse to stay to face trial, thus declaring their own guilt, you
of course judge them in the same way as they judge themselves".
185) E.g. Schwarze, o.e., 146, suggests that the attacks upon Aspasia
and Anaxagoras have been "willk?rlich ... in den bei Aristophanes
gegebenen [sic; cf. above, n. 146] chronologischen
Zusammenhang
eingearbeitet"; similarly Rosenberg, o.e., 212-3.

48
have argued
that the trial of Anaxagoras
Donnay
(if there was
cannot
be
to
have
occurred
before the
one)
proved
immediately
war [which is correct],
and is in fact dated from before 450 to
that
430 by various modern experts 18e). It has also been doubted
trial is a historical
reality 187). I shall return to Anaxagoras
Aspasia's
in a moment,
and first say something
about
the Dracontides
of
which
it
has
decree with Hagnon's
also been argued
amendment,
that its date is against
the absolute
WilamoBeloch,
chronology.
others are certain that it belongs to
conviction
of Pericles
we know of
+
only
it turned
was fined
and?as
out,
temporarilydeposed 189). Some of the scholars who argue for c. 430 as date for
the Diopeithes
decree 190) presumably
do so because
they wish to
witz,
Swoboda
430 188), when

he
occurred;
and numerous
the
trial
link it up with the Dracontides/Hagnon

c.s., but this by the way.
From Thucydides*
account of Pericles'
it is clear
routine
tonia
that
monthly
191) because
things
began
epicheirotonia,
the People
in the
which
were
decree
as dated
deposition
Assembly
turned
(not
by Beloch
in 430, however,
on occasion
of a
into
an
surprisingly)
apocheiromuch
very
186) Hist. 1964, 393, 396; Ant. Class. 1968, 29.

187) See above, n. 130.
188) K. J. Beloch, Die attische Politik seit Perikles (Leipzig 1884), 25,
330 ff., whose chief argument, viz. that bound up with Pericles' unshaken
before the war, although correct (cf. above, p. 37 f.
position immediately
and n. 154), does not necessarily entail a postdating; Wilamowitz, Ar. u.
Ath., II, 245 ff.; Swoboda, o.e., passim and esp. 537-40; E. Meyer, o.e.,
329; Lipsius, o.e., 136; Rosenberg, o.e., 213-4; Kahrstedt, o.e., II (StuttgartBerlin 1936, Aalen 2i9?9), 174 and ?. ?, but contrast what he says elsewhere
(cited below, n. 191); Heideking, in: E. Bayer - J. Heideking, Die Chronologie d. perikl. Zeitalters (Darmstadt
1975), 171 ("mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit"); Hansen, Eisang., 71 f.
189) Thuc. II 65, 3; cf. D.S. XII 45, 4 f. and Plut. Per. 35. For Plato
Gorg. 515 e f. see below, p. 72 f. ; Plato adds that Pericles nearly lost his life.
Since he was impeached during a meeting of angry and frightened people,
this is not to be wondered at; he was lucky to get off with a fine and loss
of office.
190) Above, n. 52, n. 53.
191) Cf. Kahrstedt, o.e., II 105-6 (but he speaks of a different procedure
ib., 174 and n. 1; cf. above, n. 188). See also MacDowell, Law 169.?Plutarch
clearly distinguishes the Dracontides decree (c. 31) and the deposition in
430 (c 35)?

49
with the way the war was going 192) (which sentiment,
no doubt,
was further stimulated
of the epidemy).
by the effects
This entails
was deposed
and
that, in 430, Pericles
qua general
of the way he had conducted
the war. For this
fined because
dissatisfied
no special
decree
apocheirotonia
was necessary
193).
procedure
the Dracontides
decree
However,
prescribing
very
particular
in its unamended
form obviously
is a very special thing. In view of its religious
it is
connotations,
to
with
the
Phidias
without
doubt
be
connected
affair194).
any
"on the polis*
The dicasts,
were to convene
pace Dracontides,
from "the" Altar (?p?
and were to take their ballots
(??t?p??e?)
is significant;
it is the
The use of polis for Acropolis
?????).
in
often
also
the
term used in the official documents
(and
literature)
of the 5th cent.195).
The polis as a whole was the sacred territory
of the goddess
who for just this reason is called Polias,
Athena,
on the polis'1 19e). Here, not in town
"she who dwells
(?? ?ste?,
t??
as the
expression
is), the trial will be held. "The" Altar on the
can
altar to the
the one and only great "open-air
be
polis
only
of the Acropolis"
Athena
cult, pre197), the altar of the official
half of the sacred
situated
in the eastern
somewhere
sumably
precinct,
front
of
to
the
the
north
so-called
the eastern
facing
old
of
D?rpfeld-temple,
cult-temple
of
both
and
Dracontides'
polis
specification
doubt that the charge upon which
possible
of the
Parthenon
In my opinion,
the Altar shows beyond
Pericles was to stand trial was not connected
Athena.
as general?as
those
and
the
who
date
the
with
Dracontides
his civil
decree
function
to 430
of
192) So Frost, JHS 1964, 71 f.; Donnay, 1968, 33.

193) As was pertinently pointed out by Swoboda long ago, o.e., 564. For
decrees as pertaining to individual, or special, cases cf. F. Quass, Nomos und
Psephisma (M?nchen 1971), 3o11?
194) So Frost, JHS 1964, 72, Hist. 1964, 393; Donnay, 1968, 33 (neither
of whom, however, is very specific). For a combination of sacred and profane
elements in an impeachment see e.g. Thuc. VI 61, 1.
195) Cf. LSJ s.v. I 1, Gomme ad Thuc. II 15, 6; also the passages quoted
below, p. 58, 62. Add Paus. I 26, 6 '????a? ??a??a . , . ?? t? ??? ????p??e?,
t?te d? ????a???e?? p????.
196) C. J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias (Manchester
1955)* ?.
197) Herington, o.e., 28. See also B. Bergquist, The Archaic Greek T?menos
(Lund 1967), 23, and ib., 128 on the topographical relation between culttemple and altar generally.

50
have to assume?,
in
but was linked up with a function
necessity
for the property
of the goddess.
In some
which he was responsible
the goddess
can be called a partisense of the word 'participate',
cipant in such a trial as intended
by Dracontides.
of the Dracontides
This reading
decree fits what is known
of
the responsibilities
of the Council, both as to its control of expenses
(among
which
those
of
treasurers
the
works.
of Athena)
Council
and
as to its
is immediately
counts.
Thus,
public
affair on two
the Phidias/Pericles
Nr. 58 A;
first Callias decree (IG I2 91, 14 f., Meiggs-Lewis
that
the
instituted
of
treasurers
the other
stipulates
newly
supervision
with
involved
The
of the
434/3)
of those of Athena,
after the pattern
gods, who are to function
are to receive
the moneys
and other treasures
(which have to be
and weighed)
counted
from various other officials, on the Acropolis,
and in the presence
of the Council
(e?a?t??? te? ???[e]? e ? p??e ?).
each
Ath. 47 > ?> tells us that the treasurers
of Athena
Aristotle,
the
from
their
receive
statue
etc.
and
the
year
predecessors
moneys
of the Council (ta ????ata
in the presence
e?a?t??? t?? ??????) 198) ;
this also occurred
presumably,
is where the statue
etc. were
and weighed.
Dracontides'
decree
on the
and
which
Acropolis,
where the valuables
after
all
could
be
counted
check
Pericles'
accounts
ordered
before
the
Prytanes,
the
remitting
i.e.
to
Council,
to a dicastery.
the
case
Ath. 46, 2, tells us that (in the 4th cent.)

the Council
Aristotle,
in connection
turned
over those it found guilty
of malpractice
with public works to a dicastery
199). The
d??ast???f)
(pa?ad?d?s?
dating
of
the
accounts
of
the
commissioners
of
works
on
the
in the 5th cent,

after the bouleutic
calendar
Acropolis
(some
the archon as well) is also relevant
mentioning
200) ; Rhodes suggests
of the accounts
that this is to be explained
in terms of the auditing
of officials each prytany
201).
198) Ath. 47, ? and IG Ia 91, 18 f. are compared by P. J. Rhodes, The
Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972), 91 f.
199) Rhodes, o.e., 124.
200) Rhodes, o.e., 227.
o.e., II (Chicago 1936,
201) O.e., 125. Cf., in general, Bonner-Smith,
repr. NY 1968), 242, on monthly auditings by the Council without automatic subsequent routine trial as in the case of yearly audits; Kahrstedt,
o.e., 180 and n. 4; Andokides. On the Myst., ed. MacDowell (Oxford 1962),
107-8; Guarducci, o.e., II, 201.


This
circumstantial
evidence
sufficiently
explains,
Dracontides
of view,
the proceedings
point
procedural
to his proposal
is precisely
mind. What is peculiar
the dicastery
is to convene
on the Acropolis,
etc.
to the meetings
is analogous,
at least to some extent,
of
at the yearly pa??d?s??
the treasures.
The accusation
of Phidias pace Ephorus /Diodorus
he had stolen
"sacred
moneys",
one would
51
from
had
in
the
point that
This, however,
of the Council
had been
that
is precisely
the official term
Phidias being only the contractor
which
expect 202). Naturally,

of the board
of commissioners
the supervision
under
working
rather its individual
members?were
(?p?st?ta? 203)), this board?or
as
officials
Pericles
to have been
responsible
appears
204).
legally
member
of
several
such
boards
for
considerable
number
a
of
it is only natural
that any accusation
Hence
years205).
against
Phidias
would conspicuously
Pericles
implicate
qua contractor
qua
more or less permanent
Also this element
ties in
commissioner.
It should be added
with the legal side of the situation.
perfectly
that Pericles'
had
been
hotly disputed
building
by the
programme
before
opposition
(see below, p. 63).
444/3
202) The treasurers are called, after the fullest formula, ta??a? t?? ?e???
?????t?? t?? '????a?a?, the treasures ?e?? ????ata. Cf. also Herington,
o.e., 8 f.
203) For the term ep?st?t?? cf. above, n. 168, in fine. On such boards
see G. Huch, Die Organ, d. off. Arbeit im griech. Alt. (Diss. Strasbourg 1903),
11 f.; Lipsius, o.e., II. 2 (Leipzig 1908), 762; Busolt-Swoboda,
Griech.
Staatskunde, II (M?nchen 3i926), 627, 1051 ff.; W. S. Ferguson, The Treasurers of Athena (Cambridge Mass. 1932), 16 n. 1; Kahrstedt, o.e., II, 68,
75 f.; R. L. Scranton, Gr. Archit. Inscr. as Documents, Harv. L. Bull, i960,
[159 ff.], 178 f.; Guarducci, o.e., II, 192 f.; Boersma, o.e., 5 f., 73; Wycherley,
Stones, 113. The most complete survey still appears to be E. Kuhnert,
De cura statuarum apud Graecos (Berlin 1883), 3 ff. [I have not seen A.
Wittenburg, Griech. Baukommissionen d. 5. u. 4. Jhs., Diss. M?nchen 1978.]
204) Kahrstedt, o.e., II, 169 (with reference to Philoch. F 121): "Wenn
Pheidias angeklagt wird, ... ist das eben eine freie Klage, kein ????? ?ber
das Rohmaterial der Statue im Rechtssinn, die formelle Verantwortung liegt
bei dem ep?st?t?? . . ., Perikles".
o.e., II, 896 and n. 8, 1068 and n. 2; Guarducci,
205) Busolt-Swoboda,
o.e., II, 192. For arguments as to the re-elegibility of the commissioners see
H. Francotte, L'industrie dans la Gr?ce ancienne, II (Bruxelles 1901), 63 f.;
Jacoby, FGrH III b (suppl.), vol. I, 493 (Per. "may have been" their "chairman") and vol. II, 399 n. 48; Donnay, 1967, 76 f. (Per., pace Philoch., is
the commissioner).
Boersma, o.e., 73, believes that perhaps Pericles was
commissioner of the statue only, but cf. Philoch. F 37 (n. 168).

52
The Installation
of the Athena
I shall
have
ature, is often
in
German,
statue.
Phidias*
Parthenos
to say something
about what, in the learned literor consecration
referred to as the dedication
[both,
or?more
of
'Weihung']
neutrally?inauguration
FGrH 328 F 121, has t? ??a??a

t?
?e??
t??
C.
t??
O.
?st??? e??
???s??? t?? ??????
???a? (anno 438/7)?
that ?st???
M?ller, as long ago as 1827, was the first to suggest
and to infer that this dedication
must have
refers to a dedication
Philochorus,
of 438/7 2oe). He believed

during the Great Panathenaea
the entry in Jerome anno 439/8
above,
(quoted
p. 43) proves
the statue had been completed
that
year 207). It is, however,
by
occurred
that
that
certain that Jerome

virtually
with routine
inaccuracy208).
was
festival.
am
an
afraid,
notions
about
suitable
There
conditions
that
the festival
during
only if the statue
only if the statue was
possible
in as far
Great
or about
threaten
as different
only
it?are
if the
to
Panathenaea
from
associated
in the way
the
the
social
occasions
at every turn.
have to be satisfied
eminently
if a ded-
is to be thought
of. A consecration
was a cult statue.
A dedication
is
a votive
both
statue?and
be
date
that
during
is not,
assumption?which
rather hard. Anachronistic
one?is
plausible
are various
etc.
is possible
possible
housed
even
inaugurations
for such ceremonies
Philochorus'
evidence
or inaugurated,
or consecrated,
dedicated,
To find arguments
for this
statue
ication
reflects
(Eusebius)
There is no direct
An inauguration
offering.
and consecration
is
dedication
the great
perhaps
with the athletic
Pericles'
Odeum
temple
games
is connected
which
of the
with
(Phid. vit. 140), but without arguments.

2?6) "sine ulla dubitatione"
Accepted by e.g. W. B. Dinsmoor, Attic Building Accounts, I, AJA 1913,
[53 ff.], 70; ?. D. Meritt, Ath. Fin. Documents (Cambridge Mass. 1932), 33.
Herington, o.e., 1, speaks of the "inauguration at the Great Panathenaea of
438"; Guarducci, o.e., II, 193 n. 3, speaks of "inaugurazione", but refers to
Phil. F 121 for the date. Michaelis, o.e., 9, thought of the temple: "an den
... d. J. 438 wurde er er?ffnet".
grossen Panathen?en
207) Cf. above, ?. 169 and text thereto. M?ller apparently did not know
about the commissioners' accounts and believed that Phidias had worked
like mad in 439/8.
208) See this journal, 1979, 27 ff. Donnay (1968, 34) assumes that
Eusebius confirms the dedication of the statue in 438/7; he was more
cautious 1967, 54.


the
musical
the
fact
athenaea
seem
53
a link may perhaps

be sought
in
Further,
treasurers
of Athena
were in office from Pan-
contests.
that
the
to Panathenaea
209) and that Great Panathenaeic

years
in
some
Pericles'
part
played
building
programme.
that considerations
wish to suggest
such as these have
to have
I do not
invariably
dedication
granted.
i. Cult
been
used
or whatever
statue}?Such
as
More often
arguments.
has just
during the festival
evidence
as we
have
about
than
been
the
not,
taken
cults
the
for
of
on the Acropolis
the old statue
exclusively
points towards
in the old temple
of Athena,
and later, perhaps,
in the
preserved
'
Erechtheum
to have "fallen from heaven*
21?) ; this was believed
Athena
209) Kahrstedt, o.e., II, 91 f., with references, and Rhodes, o.e., 236-7.
From the lis inter doctores about what was their first day in office I infer
that this is not known. Schwanz, RE, s.v. ?a??a?, 2ii2, has the year of
office end Hecat. 20th. Ferguson, o.e., 14, 145 n. 1, says that Hecat. 28th
was the regular time of entering office; so also W. K. Pritchett, The Choiseul
Marble (Berkeley and L. A. 1970), 98 f. and The Hellenot. and Ath. Finance,
Hist. 1977, 295 ff? Guarducci, o.e., II, 229, holds that they "entravano in
carica un anno, dalla fine delle feste Panaten?e (28 Hecat.) alla vigilia di
quel giorno nelle feste successive". I do not believe that the computation
of interest by the logistai (pace IG Ia 324 ? 324 a -f 306 = Meiggs-Lewis
Nr. 72), on which see Guarducci, o.e., II, 202, is pertinent to this question.
On the other hand, J. Tr?heux, Et. s. les invent, attiques (Paris 1965), 7 n. 2,
12, infers that "les tr?soriers sortants restaient en exercice au moins jusqu'au
28 inclus" and insists, ib., 13 f., that their accounts were audited after the
28th. I assume that the pa??d?s?? (in the presence of the Council, above,
of
p. 50) did not occur during the festival, and that the specifications
IG I8, 91 (first Callias decree) imply that the treasurers of Athena and those
of the other gods were not audited simultaneously
with the other state
officials. Guarducci, o.e., II, 358 f., gives a maximum of 2 days for the
yearly and a minimum of 4 for the great festival; see also J. D. Mikalson,
The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Ath. Year (Princeton 1975), 33-4.
210) For the preservation of the old statue see e.g. Plut. fr. 158 Sandbach. The procession carrying the peplos was concerned with the old statue
(E. Pfuhl, De Ath. pompis sacris, Diss. Berlin 1900, 6 f.), the yearly rites
of cleansing and consecration at the Plynteria, too (G. Hock, Griech. Weihebr?uche, Diss. M?nster 1905, 83 f.). The sacrifices on Hecat. 28th were
also offered to the old statue. See, in general, Herington, o.e., 28 f., 37, and
Athena in Ath. Litt, and Cult (Suppl. Greece & Rome X, Oxford 1963),
61 ff., and further Boersma, o.e., 68, and Will, o.e., 554 f. G. Zinserling,
? eus-Tempel zu Olympia und Parthenon zu Athen ? Kulttempel ? (AAHung.
1965, 41 ff.), 63 ff., 75, answers the question phrased in his title in the
negative. H. Busing, Vermut. ?b. d. Akropolis in Athen, Marb. Winckel-

54
(cf. e.g. Paus. I 26, 6). There was no altar inside the Parthenon.
Nor was the one outside related to it 2n). Greek rites of consecration
term for which appears
to have been ?d??s?? 212) )
(the technical
which
were of an inconspicuous
kind,
explains,
by the way, why we
about them. The normal rite of consecration
have little information
of the regular
just the first performing
to
wait
for
did
not
want
this
(?p?? t?? ??
people
Arist.
Peace
sacrifice
Schol.
923)?a
??ad??e?? pa?? t?? ???stas??,
kind
that
such
of a simple and frugal
213). This, again, presupposes
of a cult
statue
sacrifice,
or?if
was
either
a part in some ritual or other, for which, in the

played
there is no evidence
whatsoof the chryselephantine
Athena,
in
of ??a??a
both
the
commissioners'
ever. For the meaning
(used
a statue
case
accounts
and
by
Philochorus)
see
below,
p. 58;
it
does
not
of
mannspr. 1969 (Marburg 1970), [1 ff.], 13 f., argues that the old temple of
Athena was the visual focus of the Acropolis as reorganized by Pericles'
building projects. Wilamowitz, Glaube, II, 103 f., compares the two statues
and strikingly describes the religious impact of Phidias' masterpiece on the
beholder; however, Burkert, Gr. Rei., 225, points out that for the Athena
no such experiences are on record [it should be added that the one on record
for the Zeus pertains to a Roman general]. On the other hand, Burkert,
o.e., 152 f., does not reject a "Weihung" of the statue, and he also speaks
of the "438 geweihtem Parthenon". Parke, Fest. 33, 39, argues that the
Phidias statue functioned in the cult because the peplos was enormous, but
he has to admit that the earliest evidence for the large peplos is of the 4th
cent, and that the one on the frieze is small. Meiggs, Ath. Emp. 289, still
speaks of a cult statue; so also Zschietzschmann, RE Suppl. XIII, 105, and
Wycherley, Stones, 126; Knell, o.e., 19 ff. speaks of 'Kultbild', ib., 22 of
'Standbild' and 'Weihgeschenk'. For a sober judgement see R. A. Tomlinson,
Greek Sanctuaries (London 1976), 86.
211) Above, n. 197 and text thereto.
212) See below, p. 65 f. Dion Chrysost. XII 6 (= Overbeck Nr. 677),
speaking of the owl, says t?? ?e Fe?d??? t????? pa?? '????a???? et??e?, ???
?pa???sa?t?? a?t?? s???a??d??sa?
t? ?e?, s??d????? tf d???. From this
it does not follow that the Athena was a cult-statue : the owl's?if there was
one?was not either, and the verb here means 'to dedicate'. That an owl by
Phidias stood in the Parthenon is now universally rejected. Perhaps it
somewhere figured among the ornaments of the statue ; cf. Zschietzschmann,
o.e., 107. The head of Phidias' Athena and the owl are on the famous coins
issued from c. 200 to the time of Sulla (M. Thompson, The New Style Silver
Coinage of Athens, NY 1961); there is one coin [89/8 B.C., Nr. 1271 in
Thompson and fig. XXIV 2 in Lacroix] figuring a colossal owl and a tiny
but complete Parthenos on one and the same side.
213) Hock, o.e., 49, 59 f.; J. Rudhardt, Notions fond, de la pens. rei. et
des actes constit. du culte dans la Gr. ant. (Diss. Gen?ve 1958), 219, 230.

55
lack of a votive inscription

[The apparent
e
of
should
not,
course, be used as argumentum
(see below, p. 56)
silentio in favour of the thesis of a cult statue].
have
or this
several
scholars
2. Votive
reason,
offeringi??
itself
a cult statue.
denote
a magnificent
public votive
offering,
with
its
shrine
by her
together
splendid
goddess
presented
evidence
be
to
The
and
confident
may
thought
people 214).
grateful
The statue is listed in some of the remains
favour this assumption.
that
argued
the
Athena
was
to the
of valuable
of the inventories
of Athena
confirms
drawn
that
this
votive
her
up by
was the
offerings
treasurers215).
rule: the statue
and other
possessions
Ath. 47, 1,
Aristotle,
was among the items
at the pa??d?s?? 21?). Pericles,

pace Thuc. II 13, 4, was
to argue that the People might have the golden integuin a position
down if need arose, just as it could
of the goddess
melted
ments
in the temples217).
other offerings
borrow from Athena
Plutarch,
transferred
Per.
13,
goddess
tells
and
us that
the golden
wrought
on the slab as its maker"
"Phidias
is inscribed
. . . t?? ?e?? t? ???s??? ?d?? ?a? t??t??

e?????et?
e??a?
inscription
????apta? 218)). The artists'
st???
statue
of the
(? d? Fe?d?a?
d????????? ?v t?
meant
may
be
214) The first scholar, to my knowledge, to contend that the Athena is

an anathema was F. B?tticher in the 1850s; for a summary and expansion
of his thesis see the series of papers Ueber agonale Festtempel und Thesauren,
Phil. 1861, 358 ff., 577 ff.; ib. 1862, iff., 385 ff.; ib. 1863, iff. A critical
but sympathetic
discussion of his views is in Michaelis, o.e., 27 f. (cf. also
below, ?. 233-235). See further Herington, Ath. Parth., 35 ff., 49; Boersma,
o.e., 68; Will, o.e., 556 f., who all accept that the statue is a votive offering.
215) B?tticher 1861, 579 ff.; Ferguson, o.e., 120 n., 123; Guarducci, o.e.,
II, 230.
216) Cf. M. A. Levi, ad Arist., loe. cit. (Comm. stor. resp. Ath., II, MilanoVarese 1968, 366). B?tticher,
1861, 580, already adduced the quotation
from the Ath. at Sud. s.v. 59 ta???a (cf. also 58), IV, p. 499, 26 f. Adler.
217) Cf. also Thuc. VI 46, 3 (Segesta), and see B?tticher, 1861, 583 f.,
599; 1862, 46-7; 1863, ? f.; Michaelis, o.e., 27-8. For the "minting of temple
properties" see Ferguson, o.e., 85 ff. For all of Demosthenes' special pleading
against Androtion, this was considered to be just a loan; see e.g. Hock,
o.e., 89. T. Linders, The Treasurers of the Other Gods at Athens (Meisenheim/
G?. 1975), 7 ff-, correctly argues that the 'loans' proposed by Pericles do
not imply that sacred properties were (or had been) secularized.
218) For the simplex cf. e.g. Thuc. VI 55, ? ? st??? . . . ?? ? . . . ????apta?.
Plutarch paraphrases
(cf. above, p. 17); d????????? cannot have been on
the slab, and e?????et?, though possible, will hardly have been there either.
Note that Paus. V 10, 2 (= Overbeck Nr. 692 and 618) paraphrases Fe?d?a?

56
as belonging
votive
conspicuous
interpreted
ing
Demosthenes
the
public
(XXII
buildings
to the class
of those
normally
accompany-
offerings,
especially
statuary219).
Finally,
76) and Plutarch
(Per. 12 and 14) call all
on the Acropolis
a?a???ata
(see also below,
p. 59).
it is rather odd that no trace survives?not
even in
However,
? of
Pausanias
votive
whatsoever
any
inscription
accompanying
the splendid
it cannot
be upheld
that the
gift 22?). Furthermore,
statue qua votive offering was given to the goddess in 438/7 in the
sense
in that year, for the moneys

property
for
its
construction
pay
gone
belonged to
already
Her
the
of
accounts
the
treasurers,
commissioners,
(a)
pace
boards with the necessary
the successive
funds,
(b) The
that
which
it became
Athena:
provided
her
to
had
in mutilated
so called, preserved,
Decree,
outline,
Papyrus
by the
Anon.
and proposed
when
Argentinensis,
by Pericles
Euthynus
was archon
for the donation
of
(450/49),
apparently
provided
of money from the chest of the Confederacy
the Anon, cites the decree to explain
a reference
thenes
(XXII
13) to the great works on the Acropolis,
great
Since
sums
indeed
be a connection
between
at least
to Athena.
in Demosthere
must
of these
and
part
moneys
the building
which
were
executed
projects
subsequently
221). Now,
one of the commissioners'
accounts
(IG I2 354 again) refers to what
must be a donation
in money
made by a person
whose
name,
line 8, is restored
as ????a[?s????],
whereas
the donation
itself is
indicated
by
???]?e?e?
222). From
this
it
follows,
first,
that
the
... ?' [se. the Zeus] ?p???se with F. . . . t?? ???as??e??? t? ??a??a e??a?.
In ?. ?. Raubitschek, Dedic. from the Ath. Acrop. (Cambridge Mass. 1949),
there are only two examples of a form of e??????a? in artists' inscriptions,
Nr. 133 and Nr. 244; for the incomparably more often found ?p???se + name
see ib., Index s.v. p????, and cf. G. Klaffenbach, Gr. Epigraphik (G?ttingen
1957), 65, and Guarducci, o.e., Ill, 398. See also below, n. 277.
219) See Guarducci, o.e., Ill, 397 ff.
220) There is no trace of one accompanying the Zeus either.
of Wade-Gery and Meritt
221) This holds even if the interpretation
(below, p. 62) is not accepted in toto.
222) Cf. Donnay, 1967, 74. For contributions
by private persons to
Parthenon and Propylaea see Boersma, o.e., 7, 9. Note that the apa??? of
the tribute given by the allied cities (or from their tribute by the hellenotamiai; cf. Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 237) to the goddess constitutes a dedication
in money.

57
not all purveyed,

by the state, and secondly
ultimately,
donation
as ordered by the Papyrus
Decree should
a votive
be considered
too.
offering,
funds
that
were
the
first
if the statue is to be considered

a votive
Accordingly,
offering,
the idea of an anathema
can only be c.q. have been applied
in a
loose or qualified
sense: it was dedicated
the
because
money
(given)
for it had been
dedication
It
should
dedicated
of the
be
statue
added
(given) previously.
after its completion
that the dedication
in its being given to the divinity

into place in the temple
or in the sacred
an accompanying
this records
inscription,
consisted
This
makes
an unlikely
of a votive
a formal
event.
offering
it was put
domain 223). If there is
the actual
i.e.
giving,
concerned:
of property
the transfer,
here both in a prosaic sense and
(property
in that of objects expressive
of and conferring
prestige)
224). In the
case of the Athena,
I believe
such a transfer had already occurred.
that
this also explains
why we have
the remains
of several
beautiful
223) H. D. Rouse, Greek Vot. Offerings (Cambridge 1902), 323; Rudhardt,

Not., 214; cf. ib., 218 (on ??at????a?) : "d?poser quelque objet comm?moratif
dans un temple ou sur un territoire ?e???, un tel acte constituant ? lui seul
une sorte de cons?cration*' [not, of course, in the sense in which cult objects
are consecrated];
Burkert, o.e., 120, 154 f.
224) I am, of course, aware that there are motives behind such gifts and
that these are often expressed in the votive inscription; see e.g. M. L. Lazzarini, Le formule delle dediche votive nella Grecia archaica (MemAttLinc. S.
Vili, XIX. 1, Roma 1976), 98 f., 109 f., Guarducci, o.e., II, 124 f., and van
Straten's interesting paper Gaven voor de goden, Lampas 1979, 50 ff. Anath?mata were often called d??a (van Straten, o.e., 89 n. 4, and e.g. Plat.
Leg. XII, 955 e - 956 b with the transi, of Cic. Leg. II 45), and d??a ?e??
were expected as a quid pro quo. On the other hand, the more splendid the
gift, the more prestige for both donor and recipient; it is perhaps not unjustified to compare the exchange of gifts in the Homeric poems as interpreted by Finley. Lazzarini, o.e., 102-3, points out that in archaic times
the use of the word d???? is rare, but gives long lists of what are in fact
gifts ib., 87 ff.
Pericles' sally in the Assembly which, pace Plutarch, smashed the opposition, illustrates the pecuniary aspect, Per. 14 ?? t????? ???? ???' ????
?a? t?? a?a????t?? ?d?a? ??a?t?? p???s??a? t?? ?p???af??.
dedapa??s??
Note that this does not imply that a votive inscription in the normal sense
was to be set up by the Athenians if they financed the goddess and so the
buildings, but either (1) that, instead of records about the treasurers and
we would have documents
about Pericles' donation,
Callaeschrus,
or,
rather, (2) that a normal inscription would have been set up by Pericles
instead of these accounts.

58
how the moneys had been spent over the years, and
recording
in the proper sense of the word. M. Guarnot a votive inscription
was added to
ducci's hypothesis
that Phidias'
artists'
inscription
slabs
one
of these
accounts
is indeed
the
most
plausible
that
has been
225).
proposed
The meaning
It appears to be the rule

of ??a??a is not decisive.
it
Votive
means
that, by the mid~5th cent.,
offering' and especially
As a rule, the latter seems to
'statue* rather than 'cult statue'.
there appears to be an early
a later meaning,
although
?
to statues
22
in
Vorsokr.
Heraclitus,
5, where praying
example
cf. also e.g. Hdt. I 31, 4.
to conversing
with temples;
is compared
have
been
As a rule, however,
the god to whom it
??a??a denotes
something
to be venerated
is given is to rejoice in 22e) rather than something
IG I2 373, 1 f.
But
of
accounts
the
man.
one
the
of
Erechtheum,
by
t? ?ed t? ?? p??e? ?? hoi
of the [?]p?st?ta?
(se. for 409/8)
speaks
is meant227).
of Athena
t? ???a??? ??a??a;
here the cult statue
what is known about the significatum
involved
deterConsequently,
225) O.e., Ill, 417. Wilamowitz, Kl. Sehr., IV (Berlin 1962), 307, believed
that "der Name stand in dem Volksbeschluss,
der die Ausgaben f?r das
kostbare Werk sozusagen in Etat stellte", but he has missed the point that
Plutarch refers to the artists' inscription of a finished statue.
226) For the meaning of ??a??a see Hesych. as quoted by LSJ s.v., and
Wilamowitz ad Eur. Her. 49; Meerwaldt ad Eur. Iph. T. 1015 (a reference
I owe to S. Breemer) ; W. B. Dinsmoor, Hesp. 1940, 101 ; Chr. I. Karousos,
?G????
?????????S
(1941), tr. & repr. in: G. Pfohl (ed.), Die Inschr.
d. Griechen (Darmstadt 1972), [85 ff.], 94-5; O. Walter, Anz. Altwiss. 1950,
149-501 Will, o.e., 539 n. 2; Lazzarini, o.e., 95 f.; and esp. Philipp, o.e.,
103 ff. Xenocrates, fr. 98 Heinze, cites what he calls a law of Triptolemus
preserved at Eleusis: Te??? ?a?p??? ?????e??. In the 6th cent., Chares gave
a beautiful statue of himself to Apollo at Miletus: ?a??? e??? . . . ??a??a
td ?p???????; cf. e.g. Guarducci, o.e., II, 133 and Lazzarini, o.e., 96. Guarducci argues that the meaning of ??a??a is "statua di culto"?"oggetto
sacro, oggetto votivo" (o.e., II, 24; cf. I, Roma 1967, 127, 323 f.), but calls
Phidias' Athena a "statua" only (o.e., II, 193); Lazzarini, o.e., 97, argues
The
that the meaning "immagine divina" is a 5th. cent, development.
discussion of Plat. Tim. 37 c, the cosmos as t?? a ?d??? ?e?? ?e????? ??a??a,
by F. M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology (London 1937, d*966), 99 f.?a passage
outdated ;
apparently not much known to archaeologists and epigraphists?is
his translation "a shrine . . . for the everlasting gods" should be altered to
"a beautiful creation to be enjoyed by the everlasting gods".
227) Presumably, it acquired this designation only after Phidias' Athena
had been installed.


mines,
in each
specific
case,
what
has to be the
59
translation
of the
??a??a.
significans
out that Demosthenes
It has already been pointed
of Pericles
call all the great buildings
a?a???ata:
but also the Propylaea228).
Parthenon,
Although
and Plutarch
not
only the
do not
they
be included.
this must probably

the statue,
mention
specifically
must
be
indeed
taken here cum grano salis : they
'Votive
offerings'
in the sense that the moneys
used to
were given to the goddess
erect
them
had
each
of them
'dedicated'
been
was
in the sense that

not, I presume,
all over again after completion.
The
were even never finished \ Demosthenes
(XXII
given,
dedicated
but
Propylaea
in order
76) speaks of the great buildings
of
the way previous
citizens
generations
to emphasize
and praise
The
their
spent
money.
of the treasurers,
and
Pericles
Ath.
inventories
as
Arist.,
47, 1,
of as
that the statue was thought
ap. Thuc. II 13, 4 only confirm
of the goddess 229), not, however,
that it
being a piece of property
was
Thuc,
in the usual sense of the word. Note that

offering
the
cit.y actually
distinguishes
(chryselephantine)
from the votive offerings.
the best translation
Accordingly,
a votive
loc.
'goddess*
of ??a??a as used by Philochorus
is the drab one of 'statue'.
and in the commissioners'
accounts
Games??It
has occasionally
been argued
3. Panathenaeic
(the
last to do so, to my knowledge,
230)) that a special
being Herington
relation obtained
between
the statue and the Panathenaeic
Games.
XXII
228) Demosth.
(Androt.) 76; Plut. Per. 12 (? t?? a?a????t??
?atas?e??) and 14 (quoted above, n. 224). For other dedications of buildings
see Lazzarini, o.e., 106. The Propylaea were not a purely "secular building"
(so Meiggs-Lewis, o.e., 166, on Demosth. XXII 13); it is arguable that its
function was more religious than that of the Parthenon, since it was the
entrance to the sacred precinct which saw the procession pass. Busing, o.e.,
17 f., argues that they were built with "Hinwendung . . . auf den religi?sen
Mittelpunkt des Burgberges", sc. the old temple of Athena. Boersma, o.e.,
70, who has missed Busing's paper, suggests that the Propylaea were "intended to form the entrance to the Parthenon".
229) Ferguson, o.e., 156-7, points out that the moneys spent on building
were not considered to be loans, because the buildings etc. remained the
property of the goddess.?The
peplos, it is true, was dedicated on Hecat.
28th, but it was brought to the sacred precinct and actually given on that
day, and had not been paid for by the treasurers of the goddess.
230) Ath. Parth., 38 ff.

60
who argued that the Parthenon

idea derives from B?tticher,
but an "Agonaltempel",
is not a cult-temple
serving,
among other
of the Games 2S1).
for the ceremonial
things, to house the apparatus
their prizes in front of the
The victors
would have been given
This
who so to speak made the Nice held in her palm crown

Parthenos,
in favour of this sugthem 232). Since there is no direct evidence
the
central
B?tticher
that
argued
gestion,
part of the frieze is not
for
with the peplos,
but depicts
concerned
homely
preparations
a feat of iconographie
which
this crowning
ingenuity
ceremony;
some
who however?with
Michaelis233),
He
did
so
B?tticher's
thesis234).
general
modifications?accepted
the
about
he was impressed235)
because
Olympic
by a passage
was
rightly
Games
rejected
by
to a ceremony
as referring
parallel
by B?tticher
viz. Plin. NH XVI 12 ilia
he had devised
for Athens,
summa
[se. corona] quae sub ipso love datur. It should
adduced
to the
one
Graecorum
in Pliny, of Phidias'
be noted, however,
that there is no mention,
in front
does not refer to a ceremony
Zeus, and that he obviously
of the
of the towering
statue but rather to the god's overlordship
in
the
that
Nice
out
Games 236). E. Petersen
237) already
pointed
Athena's
palm,
B?tticher's
is turned the wrong

the victors,
was
revived
by Liegle, who
Olympia
the crown on the
it by interpreting
if she is to crown
idea about
way.
tried to support
desperately
head of the Zeus as a victorious
Liegle
evidence
were
cited
worth
by Herington,
239) ; instead,
repeating
Michaelis
one238).
think
not
did
evidently
athlete's
who
he suggested
that
and
their
Phidias'
231) ?86?, 388 f., 405 ff.; 1862, 385 ff. Michaelis, o.e., 205 f., says that a
similar suggestion had been made by J. D. Weber in 1822. For comparable
(and equally unconvincing)
attempts to relate the temple of Athena Nice
to the Games see Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 498.
232) 1861, 408; 1862, 404.
233) 1862, 27 ff. Michaelis, o.e., 30, 206 ff.
234) O.e., 27 f.
235) O.e., 29 and n. 96 (the note is more reserved).
236) Cf. J. Andr? in the Bud?-ed., ad he., who, however, explains: "le
The inscription in L.
temple de Zeus dominait les divers emplacements".
Moretti, I ser. agonistiche greche (Roma 1953), Nr. 64, 3 f. does not prove
that crowns were given in front of the great statue either.
237) Die Kunst des Phidias (Berlin 1873), 37.
238) O.e., 284 f.
239) Ath. Parth., 42 n. 1.


was
statue
the
of the
successor
statue
from
Panathenaeic
of Athena
the
on the
pictured
cent,
onwards,
of the Parthenon
240).
mid-6th
There
prize amphorae
have stood in a predecessor
is no evidence,
that the Parthenon
however,
cessor
in the
would
which
6l
had a predethe Amphorae

statue stood on the
later abandoned
this idea 242).
241). Herington
Acropolis
other arguments
for connecting
Are there perhaps
statue
and
6th
with
temple
Panathenaeic
the
with
in a special
The
way?
is about the Great Panbelieved,
was conthis, as we have noticed,
the
old
statue.
The
represented
by
ceremonies
as is generally
etc. But
procession
frieze,
temple's
athenaeic
cerned
or that
cent.,
as
goddess
of decoration
is only part of a vast ensemble
frieze, moreover,
(in
the meaning
of
part paralleled
by that on and about the statue),
transcends
the festival.
The symbolic
which
rather
(or perhaps
of the statue is bound up with the symbolism
243)) meaning
Parthenon
as a whole244).
and statue
Together,
temple
how the Athenians
demonstrate
as Athena's
saw themselves:
'figura'
of the
favourite
of
champions
barbarism.
This,
against
will be familiar.
4. Bureaucratic
between
festival
We
again,
reasons}?The
and
statue
and
had
last
is of
peace
political
possibility
a somewhat
in
the
implications
struggle
which
of a special
link
different
nature.
the treasurers
of Athena,
who financed
its
her moneys,
were in office from one festival
to
another 245). It should be added that the Panathenaeic
pentaeteris
was in some way involved
in that the four boards
(a? t?tta?e?
until the end of
???a?) shared some sort of common
responsibility
have
seen
civilization
construction
such
that
from
a period.
Ferguson,
however,
argues
that
this
responsibility,
240) Ib., 38 ff.

241) Cf. Raubitschek, Ded. A er., 359 ff.
242) Suppl. X Gr. & R., 62 n. o.
243) I borrow this term from P. Dronke, M ed. Latin and the Rise of the
Europ. Love-Lyric, I (Oxford 1965), 5 and n. 1, who, developing a suggestion
of Auerbach's, explains: "I use the term 'figura* to suggest the equal and
simultaneous reality of the figure and what is figured by it".
244) Cf. e.g. Michaelis, o.e., 32 f.; Herington, Ath. Parth., 52 ff.; Zinserling, o.e., 76 ff.; Boersma, o.e., 68; Will, o.e., 558.
245) Above, n. 209.

62
the nature
We have
of which
remains
also noticed
in the Pericles
decree
unclear, was of minor importance

24e).
a substantial
fund was voted
building
of 450/49 247) ; this was a Great Panathenaeic
and
that
Meritt
that the 5000 talents

argued
a lump sum, to which 3000 talents
were to be added in yearly
of 200 over a period of
instalments
The
bit
about
the
is conjectural
15 years.
3000 talents, however,
248).
further
held that
there
was a building
They
actually
project
year. Wade-Gery
in the
mentioned
15 years,
covering
of the Parthenon
decree
and that
were
have
were
the fact that
only
even
not
add, the Propylaea
circumstances
down
slowing
the pedimental
finished
by
finished
by then]
433/2
[and,
is due
sculptures
one should
to external
the programme249).
They argue that
the 5000 talents voted in 450/49 were to be transferred
at the time
of the Great Panathenaea
of that year, and supplement
the papyrus
'
to suit this argument:
??e?e??e?? t?? ????a?]
e?? [ta ?a?a???a?a
ta ?? d???s?(??)
This exempli
t??a?[ta
....].
?p??e??e?a
gratia
restoration
e.g.
e?? [t??
is far from
others being
compelling,
'
p???? ??e?e??e?? t?? ????a? p??ta]
feasible,
equally
?.t.?. 250). If the
246) O.e., 97?

247) Above, p. 20.
248) Ath. Resources in 44g and 431 B.C., Hesp. 1957, l63 ff. [repr. in:
P.U.S.Z., 178 ff.]; see esp. 184 f. = 198 f. See also ATL III, 281 f., 327 f.,
and Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 515 ff. The 3000 talents are mentioned in the first
Callias decree and interpolated by Wade-Gery and Meritt in the Pericles
decree. They add that Isocr. De pace 126 supports the total of 8000 talents,
but Isocr., loe. cit., says that Pericles e?? . . . t?? ????p???? ????e??e? ??ta??s????a t??a?ta ????? t?? ?e???! The 8000 talents are also mentioned in
D.S. XII 38 (cf. above, n. 101), who elsewhere, just as Isocrates, gives
other figures. Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 518, correctly remarks that the archon
cannot have been mentioned in the decree; note that Anon. 4-5 (as restored)
has "c. 30 years after the Median wars", i.e. after the epochal year 480/79,
which indeed, if ????sta is acceptable, gives 450/49.
249) For the programme see also Boersma, o.e., 66 f., who refers to Th. L.
Shear, Stud, in the Early Projects of the Periklean Building Program (Diss.
microf. Princeton N.J. 1966; non vidi)', and Busing, o.e. Wade-Gery and
Meritt (185 n. 61) give the Samian war as cause of the delay in 434/3, but
this should have held up work on the Parthenon and the Parthenos?and
perhaps even did!
250) This supplement
agrees with the length of line in the An. Arg.
(Wade-Gery and Meritt, o.e., 165-6 = 180 f.). For e?? t?? p???? cf. e.g. An.
-Arg. 9 pace Wade-Gery and Meritt [. . . ?a? ???a t??s?e???a ??af?]?e?? e??
t?? p???? (which, as Meiggs, A th. Emp., 517, says, is 5th. cent, decree terminology), and IG I2 91, 3 f.


supplement
unproved
certain
whether
the
63
. . .] is kept, it still is not

of 450/49
are meant,
as
or the Little Panathenaea
of 449/8.
e?? [ta ?a?a???a?a

Great Panathenaea
and Meritt believe,

Wade-Gery
If the former,
the Pericles
decree must
of Euthynus*
the first month
archonship
have
been passed
within
251), and the last instalment must have been paid in 435/4,
not a year of Great PanIf the latter,
athenaea.
the
last
would
although
payment
(434/3)
of
that
fall in a Great Panathenaeic
the
sum
would
not.
year,
lump
Apart from this, the whole idea of a detailed

building
project
(as
from a budget
distinct
as voted)
decided
is difupon in advance
ficult.
It is virtually
certain
that the main parts of the project
in some brains in a rough way)
(which itself may have existed
were voted
in
the
usual
the
Otherwise,
separately
manner252).
virulent
of Thucydides
son of Melesias and his followers
opposition
Pericles
against
before
as recorded
pace Plut.),
whatever
the ulterior
was focused
I do
and
pediments!)
but
believe
year,
programme,
Festival
itself.
plan
for
the
the
Parthenos
that
(the
motives
on the expensive
wish to belittle
not
ostracism
year of Thucydides'
becomes
For,
12-14,
unintelligible.
of the opposition,
their attack itself
444/3
Per.
building
the fact
were
it would
of which
stages
There are simply
of Athena
temple
projects 253).
that Parthenon
ready
be unwise
were
too
Nice
in a Great
to insist
associated
the
(minus
Panathenaeic
on a building
the Great
with
[even if the
many exceptions
is excluded
from the great
251) For the beginning of the archon year see Pritchett, Chois. M., 64 ff.,
93 ff252) This is suggested by PI. Prot. 319 b and Plut. Per. 12 ?e???a? ?atas?e?as??t??
?p????a? ?a? p???t????? ?p???se?? ????? d?at??,??? e???t??
????a?e (se. Pericles) f???? e?? t?? d????. The second Callias decree (IG I2
92) provides for certain works on the Acropolis. The procedures will have
been like that followed for the Athena Nice temple (believed not to belong
to Pericles' programme) ; see Boersma, o.e., 4 ff., 84 f., Meiggs-Lewis, o.e.,
163 f., Rhodes, o.e., 122, Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 497. Cf. also Wycherley, Stones,
106, 113 f.
253) See H. D. Meyer, Thuk. Melesiou u. d. olig. Opposition gegen Per.,
Hist. 1967, 141 ff.; Will, o.e., 269 f.; Schuller, o.e., 122 f., 171; Wycherley,
Stones, 113. ?. Andrewes, The Opposition to Per., JHS 1978, 1 ff., argues
that the debate reported by Plutarch does not echo the original controversy
and is probably spurious, but he seems to have missed Meyer's paper.

64
was begun in 447/6. The Propylaea

254)]. The Parthenon
programme
in 437/6 (Philoch.,
FGrH 328 F 36 ep? ?????????? ?????t?? ????d??e??
The pedimental
were ready in 433/2.
Neither
???a?t?).
sculptures
of these years is a Great Panathenaeic
were
year. The Propylaea
in 433/2,
left unfinished
had been
and it is a mere guess that

Great Panathenaeic
for the
programmed
their completion
year
434/3
(let
alone
430/29).
The term of office
of the fund-purveying
and the
treasurers
of the pentaeteris
for the four boards do
unexplained
importance
not entail that the various
stages of the works financed
by them
should coincide with this term of office c.q. with such a period.
I conclude
that
administrative
reasons?
howevermuch
these
themselves
festival
great
do not
make
Panathenaea
was
link
ready
with
during
in terms
are to be explained
for the semi-amphictyony
the
programme
It should
the
link
a cogent
in a Great
the
between
one.
Panathenaeic
festival
festival
the
In other
and
itself,
is not arguable
25e).
be added
of the
of the
?
255)
Confederacy
works and the Great
importance
of the
public
words, the fact that the statue
year does not imply a special
or whatever
its inauguration
with
reference
to the
building
the statue,
in order to be dedicated
or
must be (c.q. have been) put inside the great temple.
inaugurated,
itself
must have
that the temple
This, again,
implies
building
The
Parthenon
itself
was
a gift to
been completed
previously.
Athena
in the sense
that
defined
above,
p. 20.
It is generally
accepted
254) Above, ?. 252.

255) See A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (Manchester 1964), 62 f., 154 f.; Meiggs-Lewis,
o.e., ad Nrs. 39, 44, 69; Raubitschek, Inschr. als Hilfsmittel d.Geschichtsschr., Riv. St. Ant. 1971, 182 ff.;
Will, o.e., 182 f.; Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 235 f., 292 ff.; Schuller, o.e., 107, 112 ff.;
S. Perlman, Panhellenism, the Polis, and Imperialism, Hist. 1976, [1 ff.],
it
13.?The link with the Great Panathenaea should not be exaggerated:
was the time of assessment, not of payment (which occurred at the Dionysia),
and there were assessments in years in which Great Panathenaea were not
held; cf. Will, o.e., 182 n. 2, Meiggs, o.e., 240. Brea, apart from sending cow
and panoply at the Panathenaea, also sent a phallus at the Dionysia.
256) According to Demosth. IV 35-6, the programme of the Panathenaea
had been laid out in the minutest detail. If this is also valid for the 5th
incidental happenings.
cent., it is unlikely that it could accommodate


that
it, too,
a dedication
65
in favour of
in 438/7 2d7). The arguments
also hold for the
of the statue during the festival
was finished
etc.
can hardly have been inaugurated

simulBoth, however,
temple.
or
if
have
the
to
can
last
be
i.e.
the
been,
ready,
taneously,
they
in
If
was
finished
the
determined
the
date.
the
statue,
temple
before the festival,
the statue
first month of Theodorus
archonship,
can
only
the
have
itself
been
put
in after
was
the
after
and
festival,
the festival.
a fortiori
so, if
This technical
ready only
temple
had better be dealt with separately.
however,
matter,
to Philoch.
F 121,
must
return
5. The technical
aspect.?We
t? ???s??? t?? '??????
t? ??a??a
e?? t?? ???? t?? ???a?,
?st???
thesis
as to the
which, after all, is the basis of C. O. M?ller's
258), and give

during the Great Panathenaea
to
the
is
not a term
crucial
word
This
?st???.
special
for this, the noun is
of a cult statue;
the consecration
denoting
which, to be sure, are also used of
?d??s??, the verb (?f)?d????a?,
the dedication
of votive
The verb (??)?st???
is not
offerings259).
dedication
of the statue
attention
normally
used for dedications

it
although,
again,
?st??? is occasionally
is
true
used
either:
that
of votive
here ??at????? is standard

are exceptions
and
2eo),
that
cases
as I
there
offerings
2el) (such
o.e.,
257) E.g. Busing, o.e., ?? ?. 4; Boersma, o.e., 177; Zschietzschmann,
103; Wycherley, Stones, 114: "the temple must have been complete in all
essentials, with inner colonnade and roof, when in 438/7 B.C. the statue
was finally completed and dedicated".
258) Above, p. 52.
259) See LSJ s.v. ?d??? IV; B?tticher, 1861, 578 ff.; Rouse, o.e., 323 f.;
Hock, o.e., 4 f., 107 f.; Rudhardt, Not., 213 f.; Burkert, o.e., 149. Numerous
instances of the meaning 'to dedicate* in Hdt. ; cf. also above, n. 212, and
esp. Lazzarini, o.e., 73.
260) Numerous instances in Raubitschek, Ded. Acr., Index s.v. See also
Guarducci, o.e., II, 122, 124; III, 8, 90; E. Calderini, Epigrafia (Torino
1974), 168; and esp. Lazzarini, o.e., 70 f., 171.
261) See Rouse, o.e., 323 n. 15 (late examples). One unrestored example
in Raubitschek
(Nr. 148 = Lazzarini Nr. 679, t?d' ??a??a stese). Further
e.g. P. Friedl?nder - ?. ?. Hoffleit, Epigrammata (Berkeley and L.A. 1948),
Nr. 144 = Lazzarini Nr. 803 [IG XII, 5, 215, from Paros, probably c. 500
??? ?ap?d??;
B.C.] t?d' ??a??a . . . st?sa? . . . pa??e??? ??t???d?/se????
the inscription dated to c. 450 B.C. published Hesp. 1940, 97 f. = Lazzarini
Nr. 715 ??a??a t?de / ?st?se? (probably a marble pillar with two gold
crowns); Demosth. XII 21. "I verbi ?st??a? ... si riferiscono di preferenza?
dedica di statue" (Guarper il concetto 'collocare' ch'essi esprimono?alla
ducci, o.e., Ili, 8 n. 4). Lazzarini, o.e., 72, argues that ?st??a? in dedications

66
have
nature,
offerings of a monumental
.
.
.
t??
sta???t??
[above
a?a????t??
p. 2o]
in point).
The normal meaning
of ?st??? in contexts
seen refer to votive
thenes'
case
t??
Demosbeing a
such as
and in literary
the one now at issue (both in inscriptions
sources)
is 'to set up', 'to erect', 'to build' (cf. LSJ s.v. I A 5). ??at?????,
used in this sense, though
on the other hand, is only exceptionally
in later times it occurs more often 282). It surely is sound procedure,
in cases
of doubt,
to make
from what
inferences
is the rule, and not
from
exceptions.
I shall cite a few
It is standard
representative
in decrees concerned
instances
with
of this
use of ?st???.
of a st??? 2?3) ;
It is used of tropaia2**),
the erection
VI 55, ? ? st??? ... ? sta?e?sa.

border
monuments267),
sepulchral
walls2?d),
stones2??),
city
I ???, a?t??
For the latter, cf. e.g. Dinarch.
statues268).
honorary
XXIII
Demosth.
?? ????$ ?a????? sta???ta,
196, ?? ?a????? ?stasa?,
cf. also Thuc.
Arist.
Rhet.
1414 a 33 f?, Plat.
Phaedr.
236 b 269).
is almost exclusively found in Ionic inscriptions, and that almost all instances are concerned with statues, which is appropriate since the verb
means "collocare in piedi*' [see, however, below, n. 264-7].
262) This is not recognized by P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford
1972), I, 578, II, 823 n. 195. One early example in G. Pfohl, Greek Poems on
Stones (Leiden 1967), Nr. 142 ?pp?d? ?? ??????? ??\????da? ????[a] ?a???t?
(Thessaly, c. 450-425? provincial). G. Gerlach, Griech. Ehreninschr. (Halle/S.
1908), 44, 46 n. i, 47, argues that for ??at????a? the concrete sense of "Aufstellen" is later than that of "Weihen", and that this explains why (??)?st??a?
instead of ??at????a? is found in later inscriptions only, but he has missed the
earlier examples of both exceptions. Guarducci, o.e., II, 122, suggests that
??at????a? in early honorary inscriptions is to be explained in terms of the
honour's being part, in early times, of a dedication (cf. also ib., Ill, 93).
263) E.g. IG I2 56, 21 ff., and Guarducci, o.e., II, 35-6.
264) Thuc. II 92, 4 and LSJ s.v. t??pa???; Pfohl Nr. 118, 4, Nr. 144, 3.
265) Thuc. I 69, ? ta ?a??? st?sa? te???; Philoch. FGrH 328 F 146 (p.
141, 9 f.) 6 ????? ?a? ta [?a??? t]e??? t??? ????a???? ???st?se[? . . .].
266) F. Sokolowski, Lois sacr?es des cit?s grecques (Paris 1962), Nr. 19,
18 ???? st?sa? (Athenian stel? of 363/2).
267) E.g. Pfohl Nr. 20 = Friedl. Nr. 60, Pf. 22 = Fr. 162, Pf. 25 = Fr.
62, Pf. 27 = Fr. 31, Pf. 137 = Fr. 137, Pf. 139 = Fr. 32. W. Peek, Gr.
Versinschriften, I (Berlin 1955), type ????a (s??a) t?d* est?se? (?st?sa) ?
de??a t? de???, pp. 40 ff?
268) Numerous instances in Wycherley, Agora (nos. 692, 693, 695, 696,
697, 706, 707, 709, 720). Cf. Guarducci, o.e., II, 24: "la formula st?sa?
a?t?? e????a", and ib., 122, 126.
269) Ib., 235 d-e, ??a??se?? is used, but this is because the archon oath
is quoted.

67
of the
own usage confirms
this impression.
Speaking
of an altar of Dionysus,
he says ?d??sas?a? (FGrH 328
cf. als F 31 (not verb.), ?f?d??t?,
99,22-3,
verbatim)]
Philochorus'
consecration
F 5 b, p.
Hermes
Agoraeus.
Two
58,
verb.).
(F
he says
of a dedication,
??????e
Speaking
to
cases of ??at????a? may be either thought
'to set
later, less strict use by which it means
to the
correspond
or
to
dedications:
up',
22, Hermes
(not verb.);
Tricephalus
F 40 (verb.), Hermes near the Gate, ??a???te?, and ??????a? in the
in F 121 is exceptional;
?st???
quoted
epigram.
Consequently,
is F 146, ???st?s[e,
himself
about
the best parallel in Philochorus
the Long Walls. I submit
the suggestion
that the
offering
in the
normal
that
Philochorus,
by using ?st???, avoids
or a votive
Athena
was a cult statue,
sense of the word, and that what he em-
It is noteworthy
that it was a large construction.
is primarily
about
and
financial,
technical,
juridical
not
about
matters.
administrative,
religious,
in the large inscription
Further
confirmation
is to be found
phasizes
that F
is rather
121
the receipts and expenditures

concerned
preserving
of Athena
statues
as recorded
and Hephaestus
with Alcamenes'
by the board of
for
IG I2 370-371
the
Hephaesteum",
"epistatai
I2
the
IG
not
dwells
fr.
Ill,
410s) 27?).
371,
only
upon the
(from
and precautions
measures
taken in transporting
and setting up the
but also speaks of the "wages for him [no doubt,
a small
statues,
of the two
statues
who paid his own crew] who brings in the two statues
sets them up in the temple,
t? [??]???ate
??s??? ?sa?a???[t?]
?? t? ? ?ed?. The individual
mentioned
is important,
?a? st?sa?t?
and setting
about comprise
since transport
the whole
up together
contractor
and
final
operation.
but
dedication,
Here,
must
st?sa?t?
refer to
cannot
the
refer
installation
to a consecration
in
the
or
technical
270) To my knowledge, the technical and administrative

aspects of the
setting up of statues are nowadays a somewhat neglected subject. I have
found something in Klaffenbach, Gr. Ep., 63 (???stas??), 77; the best survey
still appears to be Kuhnert's short monograph (above, n. 203). For later
times see A. Wilhelm, Neue Beitr., VI, 63 ff. = Opuse. VIII. I. 1, 354 ff.
IG Ia 371 (= CIA I 319 in Kuhnert) is characterized in the following terms
by Ch. Picard, CRAI 1938, 398 [a reference I owe to Professor Pleket]:
"je ne connais nul autre texte antique qui nous fasse assister de fa?on si
vivante ? toute une op?ration de mise en place, pour un groupe de statues
de ma?tre".

68
The parallel
with the evidence
recorded
at
by Philochorus
F 121 is as close, both in time and as to the contents,
as one could
have wished.
sense.
The
which
'two
were
brought
carried,
the ladders
were
of
us with other information

provides
It speaks of the frames in which the statues
in and those upon which the stones for the pedestal
and also of the scaffolding
put round the statues and
statues'
document
is of interest.
deciphered
the wages
The recently
up to the scaffolding-platform271).
lateral part of the expenditures
section 272) deals with
"for the helpers who set up the scaffolding
and removed
the completion
of the operation,
and for "the man [withwho made the frames on which the
out doubt, another contractor]
were
The commissioners
of the two
statues
brought
in"273).
it" after
who had all of this published

on stone, consequently
statues,
for the installation
of the statues,
for and were responsible
have stood
matters
cannot
With the Athena
Parthenos
wise. It was far larger than Alcamenes'
statues,
and
must have been both more complicated
now
know
at Olympia
the
it was transported
that
shop, whence
Phidias must
have
Zeus
was
(in parts,
hence
paid
too.
other-
its installation
more
We
expensive.
in a special workof course) to the temple.
built
had a similar
workshop
of the Athena
274). We also
final destination
at Athens
at its
up
of engineering
doubt, Phidias
27d). Without
of the parts of the statue after it
the transport
in the workshop,
the setting
had been dismantled
up of the scafthe
of
the
into
the
foundations,
driving
folding,
pole
supporting
interior
of the
of the wooden
of the pedestal,
the construction
know
that
the
was a complicated
himself supervised
statue,
setting
feat
and of the column
beneath
the hand
holding
the
Nice,
the
271) R. P. Austin, A Note on Temple Equipment, JHS 1931, 287 ff.

272) W. E. Thompson, The Inscriptions in the Hephaisteion, Hesp. 1969,
[114 ff.], 127 f.
273) Some bills may have come in and been paid some time after the
work had been finished; cf. Pritchett, Chois. M., 106.
274) See above, n. 176.
275) See Mallwitz, o.e., 94 f., on the construction of the Zeus, and P. G.
Stevens, Remarks on the Colossal Chryselephantine Statue of Athena, Hesp.
t955> 24? ff?> an(i H?w Me Parthenos was Made, ib., 1957, 350 ff. ''?berf?hrung des Agalma in einer feierlichen Pompe" (cf. Hock, o.e., 63) is of
course out of the question.


laying
of
on
the
of shield,
position
have been finished
gold and ivory

integuments,
snake and Nice, etc. Some
69
the
putting
into
details
may even
of the comonly in situ. The final account
missioners
records
also this final operation
and what
apparently
it cost 27e). That it happened
and cost money is in any case beyond
It is also beyond
doubt.
doubt
that the commissioners
of the
as those of Alcamenes'
statues
c. 25 years later?
this is what Philochorus*
words
responsible.
Actually,
"the
statue
.
.
.
in
was
erected
the
Pericles
convey:
great temple,
Phidias
it" (aor.).
commissioner,
being
having
constructed277)
The durative
covers both the construction
and the
?p?stat???t??
Athena?just
were legally
up, and it is primarily
setting
The Chronology
of Events
As we have
connected
the
completion
of the
?st???.
in 438/7
was
seen, the Parthenon
labour
force transferred
and
438/7,
were begun
with
finished,
to the
as a building,
in
which
Propylaea,
the next
that the
year 278). The latter already suggests
Parthenon
is
to
be
dated
to the
building
hardly
of 438/7. Since the costly statue can only have been
very beginning
in a finished
installed
least
have
taken
to be the earliest
then,
As
the
to
Great
the
and since this installation

must at
building,
of 438/7
time, the early autumn
appears
date for the completion
of the work. By
possible
some
Panathenaea
relative
date
were
of the
over
for some
indictment
time.
against
Phidias279),
276) The terms ?pe??a[s?a] and ?at???[e?a] in IG I* 354 are interpreted

by Donnay, 1967, 80 f., as pertaining to the execution of an accessory (e.g.
the pedestal) and of the wooden frame (?at???e?a tr. 'foundation', cf. LSJ
s.v. ?ata????? II 7) respectively. Presumably, however, ?pe??as?a pertains
to the finishing of the statue (cf. PI. Rep. 504 d), and perhaps ?at???e?a
refers to the whole of the permanent supporting construction. I agree with
Donnay that the sums recorded also include wages.
Gnom. 1955, 31* argues that ?p???se refers
277) E. Homann-Wedeking,
to the "Inhaber einer grossen Werkstatt".
278) Above, p. 64.
279) Donnay, 1968, 34?who is, as far as I am aware, the only scholar
to have formulated precise questions on this point?argues
that the imprisonment of Phidias and the accusation of Pericles can be dated absolutely :
they would have occurred in the first prytany of 438/7, or, ultimo, the first
of 437/6, viz. within the auditing period following the year of office of the
commissioners for 439/8 or 438/7 respectively.
This would entail that the

JO
we again have to follow the lead of Philochorus,

after the statue had been
says that it occurred
who unmistakably
This
installed280).
of Philochorus!),
by Plutarch
281) (who is independent
and implied
by what the abridged
Ephorus
ap. Diodorus
reports.
The board of commissioners,
were still in
among whom Pericles,
office when the statue was on view for the first time. If their year
is confirmed
of
office
was
with
coterminous
the
Panathenaeic
is less
treasurers
year of
that it was
282)?which,
perhaps,
likely than
would have started on a new term
year?they
a fortiori so, if it was indeed the archon year.
archon
Consequently,
is that
evidence
and rather
events
later
below,
Trial
Pericles*
Pericles'
the
and
the assumption
best suits the available
which
in the first half of 438/7?
the statue was installed
than sooner in that first half?,
and that the other
mentioned
(see further
of office,
the
by Philochorus,
and
Ephorus
Plutarch
followed
pp. 76-80).
and Ephorus*
Credibility
Dracontides,
accuser,
decree was necessary
did
not
ask
for a routine
audit;
for such a routine affair 283). What
no special
trial to be
he asked for, as we have noticed, was a sanctimonious
sacred
of
the
who
in
the
had
goddess
precinct
possibly
organized
been
of the
hardly
robbed
284). Note
that
his decree
moneys"
(????? t?? ?????t??),
but 'sacred
denote
anything
''accounts
speaks of Pericles'
in
this context,
can
which,
moneys'
[?e???
????.,
words,
commissioner's year of office is the archon year; although this is perhaps

to be preferred, doubts remain (cf. Kahrstedt, o.e., II, 91 : activities dated
by prytanies, but so are those of the treasurers of Athena). If I have argued
correctly, the first prytany of 438/7 is to be excluded.
280) He mentions the events anno 438/7 in chronological order. Will,
o.e., 271, states that the attacks began "au lendemain de l'inauguration de
la statue".
281) See above, p. 27.
282) See ?. 279.
283) So already, again, Swoboda, o.e., 539, who is surely right in inferring
an eisangelia (ib., 564). On this
that the Dracontides decree constitutes
procedure see e.g. Kahrstedt, o.e., II, noff.
("unabh?ngig von der allFor the routine yearly auditing of the t??
gemeinen Epicheirotonie").
d???s??? ????? ?p?st?ta? see Aesch. C. Ctes. 13-16.
284) Cf. above, p. 49 f., on polis and altar and considerations of a more
practical kind.

7I
against Phidias]
285).
figured in the indictment
pace Ephorus,
in
out
that
Pericles
are
and
pointing
Jacoby
probably
right
Lipsius
has it)
of 'temple robbery'
was not accused
(?e??s???a, as Ephorus
which,
in
the
It
sense286).
the denotation
technical
time
Ephorus'
is
noteworthy,
of the term
that by
however,
had
considerably
suitable
use of it is perfectly
Ephorus'
the
of sacred
and
moreover,
that,
moneys',
in
case
related
between
what
were
offences
any
legal difference
with these moneys)
would have
(after all, things had been bought
to a body of dicasts morally
been minimal
obliged to be religiously
hence
widened287),
for denoting
that
'theft
outraged.
in his function
in judgement
over Pericles
as commisSitting
had been used,
sioner of the statue for which the sacred moneys
the dicasts
and doing so in the setting
described
would
above,
find
it difficult
amendment,
turned
the
This explains
the suspect288).
Hagnon's
the sting from the Dracontides
decree and
into a more or less routine
affair, whereas
to absolve
which
took
auditing
was to be given
Pericles
circumstances289).
judgement
legally
responsible
for
under
by a dicastery
operating
was to be judged
as a secular
sacred
property,
which
is,
after
normal
all,
official
what
285) The terms 'moneys1 and 'sacred moneys* are, when the context so
permits, not infrequently used promiscue in contemporary documents (e.g.
the Callias decrees). See also H. W. Pleket, Mnem. 1978, 222.
286) Lipsius, Att. Recht, II. ?, 362, 399 f., 442 f.; Jacoby, FGrH III b
(suppl.), vol. II, 399 n. 49. Against them it could be argued that the wording
of the law cited by Xen., H.G. I 7, 22, ??? t?? . . . ta ?e?? ???pt? perhaps
allows for some latitude. MacDowell, Law, 149, and C. W. M?ller, o.e.,
156 = 335, mistakenly say that a charge of ?e??s???a was brought against
Phidias; M?ller, however, (ib. n. 3 = n. 70), admits that "damit . . . nur
etwas ?ber die Tradition des 4. Jh. . . . ausgemacht (ist)". A collection of
passages concerned with the early history of the word is to be found in
E. Schlesinger, Die griech. Asylie (Diss. Giessen 1936), 30 f.
287) Lys. XXX 21; Is. VIII 39. Dem. XXII 89, accusing Androtion of
votive offerings, with characteristic
embezzling part of the melted-down
exaggeration says that he is ?e??s???a ?a? as??e?a ?a? ???p? . . . ??????. Cf.
also Donnay, 1968, 32 n. 61.
288) Frost, JHS 1964, 72.
who is not prepared to decide which version
289) Even Wilamowitz,
(Dracontides* or Hagnon's) is the more favourable to Pericles, admits that
the amendment "war in der Ordnung, hielt sich an den normalen gesch?ftsgang" (Ar. u. Ath., II, 246 n. 48).?Hansen,
Eisang., 71 f., follows Swoboda,
but does not attempt to explain the Hagnon amendment.

72
he
was.
three
We
know
from
Aristotle
in Hagnon's
the
stipulated
by
for all magistrates
office. By Aristotle's
time,
leaving
the penalties
were financial
there
only; in the 5th cent., however,
the
was, in this case as in certain others, no limit to the penalties
or
a
were
to
entitled
Assembly
dicastery
impose 291).
the
points
290) that in the 4th cent,

rider had to be checked,
logistai,
The
intent
of Hagnon's
rider
either (a) that the

is, accordingly,
at
the
end of a term of office, is this
performed
to be performed
earlier, or (b) that the whole
auditing,
normally
time, exceptionally,
is to be no more
investigation
end
of the
of office.
The
than
first
the
routine
at the
auditing
is certainly
to be
with an impeachment,
alternative
year
not only because
we are dealing
preferred,
but also because officials
who still had to pass through procedures
of e????a were not available
for re-election
to what(c.q. election)
ever
was continually
re-elected
as
Pericles,
however,
office292).
from
to
443
general
430.
Some scholars,
in spite of Swoboda's
warning 293), have argued
that such a trial of Pericles as prescribed
amendment
by Hagnon's
never took place 294). The prytanes,
for instance,
may upon inhave
decided
not
to
remit
the
to
a dicastery.
case
vestigation
Another
is
that
turned
it
over
to
the
court with
possibility
they
a favourable
If a trial really occurred,

recommendation.
Pericles
in any case have been either acquitted
or convicted
of neglect
because
he was re-elected?which
was
(?d?????) only, not merely
must
also
Plato
in case of a conviction
possible
informs
us that Pericles
was
(??de??a?
a?s????
d???? ?ate??f?sa?t?
but also because

?d??????,
never ignominiously
convicted
a?t?? '????a????not:
never
290) Ath. 54, 2; for the alternatives at issue cf. above, n. 136. MacDowell,
Law, 170-1, surmizes that they constituted "the financial part of the insc. of the euthyna. Since in Pericles' case only the ????? t??
vestigation",
?????t?? are concerned, this suggestion is presumably right. Consequently,
adikiou does not pertain to kinds of misconduct in officials other than
financial.
291) E.g. Kahrstedt, o.e., II, 176.
o.e., II, 1069.
292) Busolt-Swoboda,
293) O.e., 538. Swoboda permits himself some remarks on a "geordnetes
Staatswesen".
294) Frost, JHS 1964, 72; Donnay, 1968, 33 n. 63 (either no suit or an
acquittal).

73
before
since a final
tried!)
430 (Gorg. 515 e-516 a) 295). Lastly,
was published
on stone (IG I2 354), Pericles'
summation
accounts
or damages
must have been found satisfactory
must have been
the acceptance
sanctions
of the
paid, since this final summation
in spite of the fact that Phidias
either was convicted
I think I have shown,
his guilt by fleeing;
however,
of the missing
that the matter
ivory can hardly have been considered
was tried and acimportant
p. 47). If Pericles
(above,
books.?This
or admitted
?d????? only) during his last year of office

(or convicted
quitted
of the statue,
as commissioner
no further pecuniary
was
auditing
the
of
at
end
his
Athenian
since
law
the
term,
possible
recognized
of ne bis in idem. We are, on the whole, badly informed
principle
about
the
have
this
results
numbered
lack
guilt
been
were
of accounting
and trials, which must
procedures
in the tens and tens of thousands.
The reason for
of information
to be that proofs of debt or of

appears
as soon as a debt had been paid or an offence
destroyed
compensated
To my
for 29e) (or if an amnesty

had been pronounced).
rare information
that survives
to
pertains
or occurrences.
of another
The memory
the
knowledge,
convictions
spectacular
routine
earlier
only
and subsequent
auditing
in his career (446/5)?this
survived
because
the
trial
justification
acquittal
in his function
of
Pericles
as generalin
and gained
thrilling
of
devastation
the
Spartan
time,
occasion
was
in consequence
of the
perspective
Attic countryside
in the Peloponnesian
issue was large; and first and foremost
and witty
and
for spending
the
war; because
Pericles'
because
it became
proverbial
sum
at
laconic
297).
295) Cf. above, ?. 189.

296) See the first Callias decree, IG I1 91, 9 f. and Linders, o.e., 40 ff.,
who pertinently comments that bills, accounts, leukomata, etc. are to be
destroyed by way of quittance; cf. also ps. Demosth. XXV 69-70 on the
destruction of written contracts of private debts. See also IG IIa 1, 25 f.,
with the interpretation
of A. L. Boegehold, The Establishment of a Central
Archive at Athens, AJA 1972, [23 ff.], 24 f., as to the erasion of the names
of trierarchs. For comparable evidence in a political context (amnesty)
cf. Andoc. I 79 with Boegehold's comments, o.e., 25 f. Add IG Ia 116, 38 ff. =
Meiggs-Lewis, 87, erasion of names of hostages.
297) The money had been used for bribing leading Spartans (cf. Thuc.
II 21, 1 and above, n. 167). More details in Plut. Per. 23: "Pericles, in his
wrote that
accounting for his generalship [tf t?? st?at???a? ?p?????s?f]
he had spent 10 talents for necessary expenses [?????????? e?? t? d???],

74
We must
Phidias
assume
that
who knew of the charges against

Ephorus,
as being connected
with one another,
knew no
such as had been prescribed
the
by
Hagnon amend-
and Pericles
trial of Pericles
ment.
Whether
dusty
archive
or not
or other
he could
is beyond
have
my
looked
things
competence
up in some
to decide 298) ;
and the People [6 d????, "the Court"] accepted this without protest or
without further probing of the cryptic utterance".
For ?p?????s?f
cf.
Photius s.v. e????a?: ol ap?????s??? t?? ?????t??; Plutarch refers to the
written ????? to be submitted to the logistai. M. H. Hansen, Demos, Ecclesia
and Dicasterion, GRBS 1976, 127 ff., argues that d????, as a rule, = Ecclesia, but admits some exceptions, ib., 132; the validity of his conclusion
is moreover impaired inasmuch as he restricts his investigation to the 4th
cent, orators.?Thuc,
II 65, 8 (cf. Plut., Per. 15 and 16), states that Pericles'
financial probity had always been beyond suspicion.?The
apophthegm is
ridiculed by Aristophanes, Clouds 859, where the majority of scholia (note
that Ephorus is quoted, FGrH 70 F 193) refer to the affair of 446/5, although
one schol. (= Overbeck Nr. 628), "implausibly"
(so Dover, ad loe.), has it
refer to the moneys used for the statue and adds some fantastic details;
perhaps this, in a dark way, reflects Thuc. II 13, 3 ?? te ta ???p??a?a . . .
?pa??????. [Suda, s.v. d???, II p. 24, 3 f? Adler, and Tzetzes ad loe., Comm.
in Nubes ed. D. Holwerda (Groningen etc. i960), 576-7, manage to combine
the two versions]. The funny thing about Pericles' mot is that he uses official
cf. the document at Ath. 30, 4 (dp?? . . . e?? t? d??? ??a??sterminology:
??ta?) and the epigraphical parallels cited by Wilhelm, SBWien 1924,
69-70 = Opuse. VIII. I. 1, 360-1. Cp. also Hdt. I 32, 3, on computing the
sum total of days of a human life with the addition of an extra month each
second year, ??a d? a? ??a? s???a???s? pa?a?????e?a? ?? t? d???.
298) I presume that he could not. Arist. Pol. 1321 b 34 f. ?te?a d' a???
p??? ?? ??a???fes?a? de? t? te s?????a?a ?a? t?? ???se?? t?? d??ast?????
need not refer to either the 5th cent. (cf. E. Weiss, Griech. Privatrecht, I,
Leipzig 1923, 400 f.) or to Athens, the Ath. being silent on this point. It is,
of course, true that Plutarch, Arist. 26 = FGrH 342 F 12, tells us that
Craterus, when speaking about Aristides' presumed conviction after having
been accused of taking bribes, does not add either the d??? (verdict) or the
(se. the one containing the impeachment),
??f?s?a
although it was his
wont to do so in other cases. This evidence cannot be used for inferences
about dicasteries, however, since in the case of Aristides both the impeachment and the verdict would have been within the competence of the Assembly. [Craterus only collected decrees. Jacoby, FGrH III b (text), 96,
thinks that his book also contained "viele Urteile der Gerichte in politischen
Prozessen", but does not quote one fragment in support. FGrH 342 F 5
(ps. Plut. X or. 833 D - 834 B) indeed contains, as its second item, the
condemnation
of Antiphon by a dicastery, but this is because a decree
ordered the verdict to be inscribed on the st?l? containing the damnatio
memoriae.] The state archive in the Old Bouleuterion or Metroon in the
beginning contained only copies of official state documents (for evidence

75
have, he of course should have. What he actually

did,
and
I
a
foolish
was
however,
else,
think,
not,
something
wholly
and McGregor have shown that Ephorus
thing. Meritt, Wade-Gery
of Schwartz's,
a good
follows
ap. D.S.
Thucydides
(in terms
in his reporting
of the political
rather closely
discussion
'Quelle')
if he could
of the request
for a repeal of the Megarian
decree 2").
in Thucydides,
the Megarian
decree, though
not, of course,
the cause of war, is an important
from cold
factor in the change
at Athens
Even
to
hot
stand
its repeal
war, Pericles'
against
even according
to Thucydides.
Ephorus
for Pericles;
admiration
that
Thucydides'
in
being decisive
did not subscribe
extremis
to
motives
those
custom,
which
could
have
influenced
given by Thucydides
after all, to look
at events
of view.
point
Pericles
himself
Hence
his
Pericles'
is not
he
objectionable,
and statesmen
reference
to
the
searched
other
attitude
and
it was
from
for
than
his
a moral
accusation
against
did not merely
against
but also made inferences
follow, or rather argue from, Aristophanes,
from the lack of evidence
a trial of Pericles
in terms
concerning
and
his
associates.
He
of the Dracontides/Hagnon
and concluded
that Pericles
decree,
was not tried because he started the war. What we have in Ephorus
since the last decade of the 5th cent., see Boegehold, o.e., Wycherley, A gor.,
150 ff., Arist. Ath. 54, 3, and also above, n. 296 and text thereto. For earlier
archives of officials see Jacoby, Atthis, 383-4 n. 27). Athen. IX 407 b-c
(from Chamaeleon, late 4th. cent. B.C.) = Wycherley Nr. 470 is not about
the verdict of a dicastery, but about the preliminary public notice of an
indictment (see now the interesting comments of Balcer, Reg. Chalk., 122 f.).
Favorinus, fr. 51 Mensching ap. D.L. II 40 (= Wycherley Nr. 478), says
that the indictment of Socrates in his day was still preserved in the Metroon,
but is silent about the verdict. For Greek archives generally see E. Posner,
Archives in the Ancient World (Cambridge Mass. 1972), 91 ff., bibliogr.,
246 ff.?It is only fair to assume that Ephorus consulted the archives collected in the Metroon for the documents in the cases of Pericles (Draconand Anaxagoras (Diopeithes) ; for his use of documents cf.
tides/Hagnon)
also FGrH 70 F 122, F 199, where verse epigrams (which were not, I assume,
to be found in archives) are quoted. Otherwise, Ephorus is generally believed
to have worked mainly from books; see Jacoby, FGrH II C, 30, and G.
Schepens, Historiographieal Problems in Ephorus, in : Historiogr. ant. (Leuven
t977)> [95 ff?]? io5? IIQ f? and ib., 103 on the epigrams.
299) ATL III, 121 f. Cf. also Jacoby, FGrH II C (comm.), 93, and, on
Ephorus' use of Thucydides generally, ib., 31, and above, n. 106. See further
Luschnat, RE Suppl. XII, 1272. For Schwartz see next n.

76
is not
pure Aristophanes,
and a trial avoided.
levelled
but
to the case of Anaxagoras,

or any other comic
by Aristophanes
he knew about
know).
Presumably,
referring
This shows that

follow-up.
His reasoning
was defective
a later
reasoning
too much
poet (if it had been, we would

the Diopeithes
decree and its
was not a complete
fool 30?).
Ephorus
and his final
conclusions
(which entail
can be refuted
on chronological
attacks)
but what he offers us is a specimen
of historical
grounds,
all the same. It is true that he let himself be influenced
for all the
date
and other
information
about charges
his case by also
strengthened
which had not been mentioned
precise
Ephorus
but that is a
by (his interpretation
of) Aristophanes,
of decipitur,
not of decipit (Sen. N.Qu. VII 16, 2 = FGrH 70
F 212: Ephorus
vero non est religiosissimae
semper fidei:
saepe
above
if
holds a fortiori
decipitur,
saepe decipit).?The
argument
case
there
was
no trial
The Connexion
It follows
at all (above,
p. 72).
between the Attacks

that
the relative
is a much
more
far as the
Phidias
concerned.
of Pericles
Does
of Ephorus
and Plutarch
chronology
their
than
absolute
at least in as
date,
thing
affair and the Dracontides
decree are
/Hagnon
solid
this
that
that
of Phidias
Plutarch's
and that
notable
also
the
decree and
Diopeithes
the prosecution
of Aspasia
has it, to be dated
have, as Plutarch
to "about
this time"?
It will be recalled
that Plutarch
puts the
of Aspasia
accusation
decree in between the
and the Diopeithes
accusation
entail
of Pericles.
insouciance
it is arguable
Naturally,
in matters
does
chronological
3??) Ephorus' reputation used to be not good, and his interpretation

of the causes of the Peloponnesian war loomed large in it. Schwartz, RE VI
(1909) s.v. 'Ephoros (1)' 10 f. = Gr. Geschichtsschr., 16 f., says that we
should not generalize and is prepared to give him some credit when he
uses good "Quellen". A. Momigliano, Stud, in Historiography (London 1966),
frivolous about causes of
118, still says that Ephorus is "unashamedly
war"; similarly Schwartz, o.e., 14 = 23. Jacoby, FGrH II C, 93, says that
F 196 is perhaps "f?r die wertung des historikers E. . . . das wichtigste"
and infers that it constitutes
"ein voller beweis f?r sein politisches und
historisches Unverst?ndnis".
Cf. also above, ?. 163. For a rehabilitation
(in
which F 196 plays no part) see Schepens, o.e., where also full references to
other up to date views are to be found.


not
warrant
the
soundness
A similar
of his relative
chronology
77
as a whole.
be brought
argument
may perhaps
against
Ephorus
301).
this objection
is perfectly
In the present
legitimate802).
it is, I think, not valid. Both Ephorus
and Plutarch
case, however,
state
that
the
whole
series
of
moves
Pericles
explicitly
against
In itself,
and
his
associates
was masterminded
In
enemies.
by Pericles'
of
terms
Athenian
this is wholly plausible.
We
5th-cent.
politics,
have to think of a political
club (hetaireia)
or rather of a temporary
alliance
between
several
such
These
enemies
made
clubs303).
use of the religious
clever
The
informer
susceptibilities
Phidias were
(s) against
chain of events
by seating
in the Agora.
Phidias
was
of the Athenian
people804).
to start the whole
persuaded
themselves
as suppliants
at the altar
accused
of embezzling
sacred moneys,
of stealing,
that is, not from the state or from private
persons,
but from the goddess.
who is more explicit
than the
Plutarch,
decree
compressed
Ephorus
ap. D.S., says that the Dracontides
was moved
and passed
had accepted
the
only after the People
slanderous
accusation
of
and the equally

slanderous
Aspasia
was
accused
of
and now
Diopeithes
Aspasia
impiety,
could
be
on
the
same
too,
Anaxagoras,
impeached
charge, blasphemy
been subsumed
under
in the new decree.
The
having
impiety
decree.
nature of the charges brought

religious
against Aspasia and Anaxagoras shows that they must be linked up with those against Phidias
and Pericles,
which were likewise
of a religious
in
nature.
Calhoun,
his justly famous study of the political
clubs and their schemings,
already
goras
spoke of the attacks

against
as being just another
instance
and AnaxaPhidias,
Aspasia
of an attack
a promagainst
3oi) Cf. P. Burke, Unters, ?. ant. Universalgeschichtsschr.

(Diss. Erlangen
1974), 102 f., but contrast Drews, o.e., loe. cit. (above, ?. ioo), and see in
general Meiggs, Ath. Emp., 452 f. A distinction should anyhow be made
between the chronological grid used and the place given?either
correctly
or incorrectly?to
specific events within such a grid.
302) For Plutarch cf. above, p. 38 and nn. 155-157.
303) Cf. Calhoun, o.e., 6, 12 (and 18), 30, and passim.
304) Cf. above, n. 104. Many instances could be given (see e.g. de Ste.
Croix, o.e., 254 f., and Dover, HCTh, IV, 284-5). See also M. I. Finley,
Aspects of Ant. (London 1968), 64 f., and E. R. Dodds, Greeks and Irrat.
(Boston 8i973), 189 f., 201?this
apart from their in my view untenable
dating of the Diopeithes decree.

78
inent
his associates805).
What Calhoun omitted
politician
through
to emphasize
is that these attacks
not only because
hang together
at
were
aimed
but
also
of
their unique and
because
Pericles,
they
viz.
The use of this devious
method
religious,
colouring.
special,
with Pericles'
in mind;
pre-war
position
of
it
of
no
were,
ways
undermining
avail806).
apparently,
to notice that Pericles'
It is, moreover,
important
building
policy
and that the opposition
is a main ingredient,
of 438/7 resumes
a
should
be
understood
other
line of attack
which
had been
his following
before 444/3.
was already a religious element
and
son of Melesias
by Thucydides
As E. Will has pointed
out, there
in Thucydides'
Another
arguments.
used
to the question
of the date and the authenticity
important
of the trials is that we are told that Pericles defended
both Aspasia
factor
before the dicastery.

Both were metics; apparently,
and Anaxagoras
not always in the 4th) had to be
metics in the 5th cent, (though
in court by their prostates ; the difference
between
5th
represented
and 4th cent, practice
is in favour of accepting
the information
as
lends further
to the series of
coherence
This,
pertinent.
again,
or before a
attacks:
Pericles
had to speak before the Assembly
in
as
all
of
was
either
since
he
involved
them,
dicastery
epistates
or prostates
307).
Consequently,
(and Ephorus')
I see
relative
no
objection
chronology
against
or against
accepting
assuming
Plutarch's
that
a trial
305) O.e., 103 f. and 104 ?. ?; cf. also Frost, Hist. 1964, 397 (a view
that conflicts with his doubts as expressed elsewhere; see above, n. 186).
The political aspect of the attack upon Anaxagoras has not escaped W.
Jaeger, Paid., I (Berlin 4i959), 427-8, B. Snell, Entd. d. Geistes (Hamburg
The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley etc. ai973),
4i975), 32, and H. Lloyd-Jones,
133; cf. also R. Klein, o.e., 529 n. 50.
306) These are the only 'religious' and impiety trials connected with
Pericles. Damon, for instance, was ostracized; A. E. Raubitschek, Damon,
Cl. Med. 1955, 76 ff., argues that this happened in the late 430s, when he
thinks also Pericles' other associates were attacked. Since his dates for
Damon's ostracism and career depend on material from Plato, this must
remain doubtful; cf. below, n. 346 and text thereto.
307) E. Will, o.e., 270, who notes that in 438/7 the opposition became
"plus d?tourn?e". For the duties of a prostates in the 5th cent, see Lipsius,
o.e., I, 368 ff., Ill, 791 ; H. Schaefer, RE Suppl. IX (1962), s.v. p??st?t??,
[1287 ff.], 1297 f., E. Berneker, RE IX A 2, 1457-8, and P. Gauthier, o.e.,
126 ff. ? Per. was not Aspasia's ??????.


of Pericles
monious
qua commissioner
Dracontides
decree
enemies.
It was
the
climax
of the
79
in terms
statue
of the
was the ultimate

of a series
objective
of interconnected
sancti-
of Pericles'
A
moves.
in a trial such as prescribed
the
decree
would,
by
presumhave precluded
re-election
Pericles'
as general.
The attacks
conviction
ably,
against
sidiary
without
and Anaxagoras
Aspasia
end. The move
against
Phidias,
to this
were
subonly means
was not wholly
was to follow. More
Phidias
and paved the way for what

success,
built
was
the accusation
of Aspasia
and
suspicion
up 308) through
the
decree.
Attacks
of
associates
his
through
Diopeithes
against
were not immediately
to Pericles
himself.
If, however,
dangerous
such
attacks
citizen
and
implicated
if he was
aspects
become
and
after
lethal.
his own reputation

to be tried
bound
a religiously
coloured
have seen that this
We
as a religiously-minded
in a case with religious
matters
could
procedure,
clever
strategy
misfired
because
of Hagnon's
amendment.
Hence I do not think that it would
be a sensible
thing to argue
that Aspasia was accused or Anaxagoras
threatened
after Hagnon's
rider had been passed. To be sure, Ephorus
that
ap. D.S. suggests
the accusation
of Phidias
and that of Pericles occurred
in the same
of the Assembly.
What is true in this suggestion?
special meeting
which
that the two

is, I think, due to compression
by Diodorus?is
are connected.
accusations
Plutarch's
on
the
other hand,
scenario,
is not only much more detailed,
but also much more impressive,
and he follows a not-compressed
It cannot,
of course, be
Ephorus.
denied
that
Pericles'
enemies
could
have
had the Dracontides
decree put to the vote before they had Aspasia prosecuted
and the
decree passed.
But if the order of events
was
Diopeithes
actually
as reported
the
of
Pericles'
rivals
by Plutarch,
strategy
political
not only becomes
far more effective,
but also far better explicable
as to its constituent
parts. The moves through
Hermippus
against
and through
make much
Aspasia
Diopeithes
against
Anaxagoras
more sense if they occurred
the
Dracontides
decree
had
before
been proposed
than if they did after this proposal
had been neutralized
rider. The series of events
as a whole could,
by Hagnon's
3o8) Cf. Calhoun,
lie").
o.e., 56 ff.
("creating
sentiment"),
104 ("campaign

8o
been
accommodated
have
easily
by the Assembly's
few
for
a
309).
prytanies
agenda
see above,
For the date of the attack
Phidias,
p. 70.
against
have been tried)
if
Pericles
was
tried
should
Now,
eventually
(or
in the
must have been accused
in 438/7,
Aspasia
by a dicastery
moreover,
before
himself
was tried,
Pericles
(if he was)
year?either
ante quern
The
terminus
I
more
or
after.
believe,
is,
[which
likely],
for the offices
trial of Pericles would be the election
for a possible
same
which
of 437/6,
in which
sixth,
were
the
to
omens
be held
were
in the
first
prytany,
(Arist. Ath.
auspicious
is sound,
the Diopeithes
after
the
44, 4). If
should
decree
argument
foregoing
of
from the late autumn
to 438/7. The prytanies
be
dated
anyhow
the
constitute
would
of
that
same
to
the
winter
late
year
438/7
the
of Aspasia,
date for the prosecution
most probable
approximate
the
Pericles
and the attack
decree,
through
against
Diopeithes
my
Dracontides
that
him
decree.
should arise even for those who hold

no problems
to have
in 397. If one is prepared
was
still
active
Diopeithes
decree
of
the
in 433 or 430, an updating
attack
Anaxagoras
In this
case,
in terms of
of 8 years should
prove acceptable
by a maximum
that
the
There
is
human
assumption
nothing
against
physiology.
himself
Pericles
an
in
was
start
one;
early
politics
Diopeithes'
d?but in the late 460s, when he was in his late
made his political
twenties.
The Trial
of Anaxagoras
trial ? It will be recalled that Plutarch,

Anaxagoras'
a trial but only tells us that Pericles
in the Per.t does not mention
viz. De superst. 169 F
of
town.
sent him out
however,
Elsewhere,
he explicitly
d????
speaks of a trial (??a?a???a?
(not in Vorsokr.),
What
about
?p? t? ????? e?pe?? t?? ?????), whereas at Nie. 23

ase?e?a?
was in prison (e??A
18) he tells us that Anaxagoras
(Vorsokr. 59
his life. At
in
succeeded
Pericles
that
and
saving
barely
????ta)
while
A
tells
us
that
he
F
De exil. 607
Anaxagoras,
38)
(Vorsokr. 59
?f??e?
309) Even if, in the 5th cent., procedure was less refined than in the 4th
(Arist. Ath. 43, 4-6); cf. A. H. M. Jones, Ath. Democracy (Oxford 1957),
108-9, and Hansen, GRBS 1977, *43 *?

81
squared the circle (I am not concerned

(?? t? des??t????),
of arguing
Instead
latter, but with the former).
(a) that
in the Per. contradicts
those in the other works cited
account
in prison
with the
the
(b) that the information

works, should be accepted,
no contradiction
involved.
of the Per.,
and
does
not
does
not
addicted
Plutarch
a trial
mention
and not that
of the other
I would
prefer to argue that there is

It is true that, in the Per.t Plutarch
of Anaxagoras;
on the other hand, he
I am not
there was no trial either.
Although
say
to too close reading, a closer look, in this case, is defensible.
was tried and that Pericles,
first tells us that Aspasia
that
to get her acquitted.

The sentence
about
her, managed
which follows immediately,
tells us that he sent him
I believe
that we should set off this sentence
against
defending
Anaxagoras,
out of town.
the
passage
Anaxagoras
his acquittal.
about
was
and read it as follows:

Aspasia
not successful
in that he was not
Plutarch's
actual
words
are:
"worried
his
defence
able
about
of
to secure
Anaxa-
goras, he sent him out of town and gave him an escort" (??a?a???a?
in which the
S? f????e?? e??pe??e
?a? p???pe??e?
?? t?? p??e??),
an
him
words ?a? p???pe??e?
are
escort")
("and gave
daggered
by
the editors.
This is odd, since they have excellent
manuscript
to the passage
as
indispensable
support310).
They are, moreover,
a whole.
this
would
That
If Pericles
have
he gave
out of town before trial,

Anaxagoras
from justice.
a fugitive
and
aiding
abetting
an escort out of town after his conviction
is
had
sent
been
him
of Anaxagoras'
because
explained
by his being worried
hard to conceive
that a fugitive
age. It is, furthermore,
from Athenian
in
town
be
allowed
a
would
to
settle
justice
belonging
perfectly
advanced
to the
We know, however,
that Anaxagoras
Confederacy.
enjoyed
a couple of undisturbed
at
(see below,
years
p. 86).
Lampsacus
if we assume
that it was Pericles
This, again, is best explained
who sent him there and who continued
to protect
him, without,
of course, risking a conflict
with the law.
3 io) According to the app. crit. in the Bud?-ed. : Vat. gr. 138 (XlthXllth
cent.), Paris, gr. 1671 (A.D. 1295), Marc. gr. 385 (XVth cent.).
Note that ??p??pe?? alone usually has an unfavourable sense, viz. that of
getting rid of a ??s?? etc. (cf. Pfuhl, o.e., 1-2, LSJ s.v. e?p??p? I 4). which
would be rather unsuitable here, whereas p??p??pe?? has a favourable
sense. At Plat. Tht. 142 c, 143 b it is used of accompanying a very ill person;
hence it is also suitable in connection with an old one.

82

That
was actually
tried has been doubted
Anaxagoras
by e.g.
Our
Jacoby 311).
reports are, indeed, to some extent contradictory,
and Plutarch's
silence in the Per.?strenghtened
by the daggering
of ?a? p???pe??e??can
be exploited.
This argumentum
ex silentio
is not, however,
cogent in view of what Plutarch
the contradictions
of our other sources
whereas
elsewhere,
to the
pertain
modus quo of the trial rather than to the fact itself. Plato, Ap. 26 d
(Vorsokr. 59 A 35), has Socrates
say to his accusers:
"you think it
is Anaxagoras
whom you are accusing",
a sally which would make
little
with the purpose
of Plato's
sense?in
connection
Ap.?if
had
Anaxagoras
not,
like
Socrates,
D.S. does
been
says
accused
before
a di-
not use the words 'trial' or

Ephorus
ap.
makes
it sufficiently
clear that Anaxagoras
was acat
Plutarch's
most
Nie.
statement,
23 (above,
cused313).
explicit
as to the
with Hermippus,
and Josephus
Satyrus
p. 80), agrees
life was in danger c.q. that he was condemned
fact that Anaxagoras'
castery312).
but
'court',
to death.
The
Suda,
Philodemus
and
Hieronymus
of Rhodes
all
or im-
a trial.
(either
custody
preventive
imply
Imprisonment
after a conviction,
or both) is mentioned
by Plutarch,
prisonment
Nie. 23 and De exil. 607 F, and by Hermippus
314). D.L. II 19
to
p. 421, 5 f.) tells us that according
(cf. Vorsokr. II, 'Nachtrag',
became
Archelaus'
Socrates
some authors
pupil after Anaxagoras'
conviction
(?atad????).
Demetr.
fr. 91 Wehrli
315)?if,
as I see
no
311) See esp. Diagoras ? ??e??, AABerL, Kl. Spr. 1959 Nr. 3, 21 and ?.
159? where he argues from the discrepancies in the sources and states that
Plutarch's "he sent him out of town" (Per. 32) is decisive; cf. however
above, n. 310. He also argues, ib. n. 160 and text thereto, that the Diopeithes decree is to be dated "shortly before . . . the war, as Plutarch has
it". This confidence in the absolute chronology of Plutarch's 'worst' account
strangely conflicts with his preference for that of Philochorus F 121 (cf.
above, ?. 164), not, however, with his date for Anaxagoras' last year at
to be sure, with some diffidence (cf. this journal, 1979,
Athens?suggested,
ii f. and n. 52). Also Wehrli, Sch. d. Arist., Suppl. I, 64, opts for the 'edited'
version of Plutarch's short sentence at Per. 32. ? The details of the verdict
are historically accurate: cf. above, n. 93.
312) Jacoby, Diag. n. 159, strangely denies this. The main question is
whether Plato should be trusted at all (cf. below, p. 95 and n. 346). In
view of the elaborate character of his comparison between and opposition
of Socrates and Anaxagoras in the Ap. I would say, in this case, yes.
313) Above, p. 24.
314) See above, p. 19 and n. 98 for sources other than Plut.
315) Above, n. 98.

83
it is indeed
about
doubt,
Anaxagoras?is
in relation
with a trial
life
more pertinent
(Anaxagoras'
in danger)
than with the Diopeithes
decree only.
actually
valid
to
reason
Satyrus
a trial
their
Sotion, whatever
well as of a conviction.
and
as
further
much
being
Both
speak of
whose
discrepancies,
Actually,
Satyrus?on
say something
shortly?is
unique in being
about a trial in contumaciam;
this does not of necessity
outspoken
if he
entail that he is wrong, but it surely would be more amazing
I shall
trustworthiness
was, exceptionally,
The detail that
right.
Sotion (fr. 3 Wehrli) mentioned
Cleon as accuser,
whereas
mentioned
son of Melesias,
should be
Thucydides
Satyrus
to Plutarch's
Per. 35, that different
authors
statement,
compared
in
different
as
accused
Pericles
430 81?).
having
proposed
persons
It
be ruled out that both Satyrus

therefore,
Both?i.e.
not only Satyrus,
who
guessed317).
have been familiar with the idea that the attack
and
cannot,
only
may
agoras was
and Sotion
thought
however,
part
this
of a sequence
may conceivably
would
suit the
that
of political
chosen
have
moves
Cleon
of
chronology
in suggesting
Sotion
is explicitupon Anax-
Pericles,
against
he
because
just
Ephorus.
It
is not,
son of
likely
Satyrus,
Thucydides
in the manner
reasoned
of Wade-Gery318).
His choice
Melesias,
to be explained
in another
In
his
has, I believe,
Life of
way.
P. Oxyrh. 1176 fr. 39 X 15 ff. he spoke of Euripides'
Euripides,
of impiety
Cleon" 31?). He also
being accused
by "the demagogue
in
what way Euripides
discussed
was influenced
by Anaxagoras,
ib. fr. 37 I, III,
fr. 38 I. This implies the assumption

of a teacherwill
used Cleon for Euripides,
relationship.
Having
Satyrus
to
a
and
rival
of
assigned
Anaxagoras
prosecutor
political
Pericles
II
to
t?
D.L.
12) belonging
(a?t?p???te???????
?e????e?,
the generation
that of Cleon, viz. Thucydides
son of
preceding
Melesias.
of Euripides
Since, on the other hand, an accusation
by
pupil
have
316) Idomeneus (FGrH 338 F 9) said it was Cleon, Theophrastus that

it was Simmias, Heracleides Ponticus (Fr. 47 Wehrli) that it was Lacratides.
317) So e.g. Rosenberg, o.e., 210; Connor, o.e., 96 n. 1.
318) Above, n. 151 and text thereto.
319) According to Arist. Rhet. 1416 a 29 f., Euripides was so accused by
a certain Hygiaenon.

84
is
Cleon
a pure
must
Thucydides
for Satyrus is that,
he at
Thucydides,
that of Anaxagoras
of Satyrus320),
by
fancy
The best that can be said
be equally
fanciful.
he had no serious reasons for choosing
although
Acleast tried to make his fancies consistent.
in
both Sotion and Satyrus
will have to be discounted
cordingly,
is
of Anaxagoras'
as far as the identity
concerned,
prosecutor
in my view, Sotion's
was, after all, a
suggestion?he
although,
not a middle-brow
lettr? like Satyrus 321)?is a not
sort of scholar,
for
one.
It certainly
is not impossible
to adapt an argument
which I have
to have
if
can
be
Cleon
believed
Diopeithes:
chronological
used about
already
accused Anaxagoras
unlikely
reasons;
in 433 or 43?> it should also be acceptable

8 years before. The fact that Sotion and
that
he did so at most
differ as to the
Satyrus
entails that the latter was not
no more
of Anaxagoras
prosecutor
Per. 35, is, as we have
than the fact that Plut.,
accused
for three different
sources
of listing
three different
capable
for the
didates
latter
was
The Chronology
Phalerum
of accuser
and
of Pericles
convicted
of Anaxagoras'
in 430
Life
part
inferred
from
the
for the
Diopeithes
in the winter of that year.
somewhere
probably
made
before the one Demetrius
and Apollodorus
I am
cannot
the
of this
year
of considerations
independent
absolute
date
most acceptable
Athenian
that
entails
in 430.
of
paper, I have argued that Demetrius
made 437/6
of Athens
and Apollodorus
Anaxagoras'
of the second
at Athens.
The outcome
part, which is
In the first
last
role
not accused
seen,
can-
period.
to defend
the proposition
prepared
a case
be accidental.
Accordingly,
that
can
first, is that the

decree is 438/7,
This is one year
the
this
be
last
of the
coincidence
made
for
the
320) M. Delcourt, Biographies anciennes d'Eur., Ant. Cl. 1933, [271 ff.],
279. For disparaging judgements on Satyrus see A. Lesky, Gesch. gr. Lit.
8i97i), 305, 397; S. West, Gnom. 1966, 547 and Satyrus,
(Bern-M?nchen
Peripatetic or Alexandrian?, GRBS 1974, [279 ff.]( 282, 284, 285 ("manifest
indifference to historical fact"). For Satyrus qua lettr? see Steidle, o.e., 167
and A. Dihle, Stud. z. griech. Biogr. (G?ttingen 1956), 105.
321) Wehrli, Sch. d. Arist., Suppl. II, 16 f., has an excellent comparison
of Sotion and Satyrus.

85
in the
was tried before a dicastery
that Anaxagoras
assumption
in
the
the
in
which
one
the
archon
year following
year 437/6,
he
decree
was
and
that
left
Athens
an
as
exile
passed,
Diopeithes
he
because
was
sentenced
thereto.
the
Indeed,
prosecution,
taken quite
the
and the trial itself may have

some
custody
preventive
of 437/6 are a most likely date.
time, so that the early prytanies
and Apollodorus'
In any case, Demetrius'
date for Anaxagoras'
of their date for
from
Athens
one
think
(whatever
departure
may
his arrival)
can hardly be a mere chronographers'
to assume that
at all unreasonable
Demetrius
whim.
had
It is not
Anaxagoras
that he dated
in 437/6 because
of his trial for impiety,
and
to
and the subsequent
he had
because
departure
437/6
if no record
of the trial was preserved
Even
serious
reasons.
leave
the
trial
in dicasteries'
the Anaxagoras
affair had been a cause
archives,
which
information
of some
sort or other must
c?l?bre, about
The Record of Archons
have been available.
was a serious
documentary
is anyhow
study
by
significant
a pupil of Aristotle
and Theophrastus;
that
must
Demetrius
have
rejected
of Ephorus.
chronology
with
is not inconsistent
a trial of Anaxagoras
Finally,
the policy of Pericles'
opponents
it
the
in 437/6
as out-
of Anaxagoras
p. 79 f.; the prosecution
(to be
from
the
still
would
constitute
distinguished
Diopeithes
decree)
a threat to Pericles'
even after re-election
for
as general
position
lined
above,
437/6. The least

and Apollodorus
can be upheld is, in any case, that Demetrius

the trial and departure
of Anaxagoras
computed
of 438/7 as their starting-point.
events
that
by taking the
last year at Athens
If, on this reckoning,
437/6 was Anaxagoras'
and 436/5 his first full year at Lampsacus,
of the
the beginning
last phase of his career would coincide
with the 64th year of his
life,
which,
year
pace
as we have
acknowledged
822), is an important
we
have
found Apollodorus'
Apollodorus:
may
for his computation
of the year of Anaxagoras'
departure
Since Apollodorus
has Anaxagoras
him 9 years
at Lampsacus
(again
322) Pt. I, this journal

Apollodorus' synchronism
die
at
reckoning
72,
this
epochal
point of
birth.
would
inclusively).
give
Our
1979, 43 and n. 14. This lends further flavour to

of old Anaxagoras and young Democritus, ib.

86
anaxagoras'
sources
are
indeed
Athenian
unanimous
that
period,
he
his last years

at
spent
and died there. According
to an early source, Alcidamas
Lampsacus
ap. Arist., Rhet. 1398 b 15 f. (Vorsokr.
59 A 27, II p. 12,29 t.),
the citizens
of Lampsacus
buried
him although
he was not a
and
him
"honour"
"to
this
D.L.
citizen,
day".
14-15 gives the
same account
in more detail,
the splendid
verse epigram
adding
which
he
says
remarkable
story
what
Anaxagoras
them
by asking
which he would
Praec.
Plut.,
was
of his
inscribed
upon
when
the
that,
favour he would
to give the
die (Vorsokr.
ger.
death
his
tomb
the
323) and telling
of Lampsacus
asked
to receive324),
he replied
archons
like
children
reip. 820
which was
a holiday
"in the month"
in
69 A 1, II p. 7, 19 f.). More accurately,
D (not in Vorsokr.),
says it was the
to
be
celebrated
in this
way. The
so-called
doubt,
??e?a
the state, in the late 5th cent., was not yet
ep?????? 32d) ; although
for the schools
in the sense of organizing
them etc.,
responsible
the idea that a day off was officially
is
feasible.?An
given
wholly
day
allusion,
no
is
to
the
institution
of the
anecdote
to a question
in natural philosophy
interesting
pertaining
in D.L. II 10 (Vorsokr. 59 A 1, II p. 6,14 f.) also connects
Anaxof Lampsacus
Metrodorus
is said to have
agoras with Lampsacus.
been his pupil at D.L. II11 (Vorsokr. 59 A 1, II p. 6, 21 f. = 61 A 2,
II p. 49, 12 f.), whereas Archelaus
taken over the school of Anaxagoras
is said, by Eusebius
82e), to have
at Lampsacus.
The information
323) A study of similar epigrams of about the same date has convinced
me that there are no arguments against its authenticity ; I shall reserve the
for another occasion.
demonstration
is historically correct; cf.
324) The expression a????t?? t?? p??e??
Balcer, Imperial Magistrates in the Ath. Emp., Hist. 1976, [257 ff.], 273 ff.,
The formula of the archons' request : ??????t?? t? ????eta? a?t? ?e??s?a?
looks historical, too. Cf. Guarducci, o.e., II, 33 and n. 2, who notes that,
"almeno in Atene", a person to be honoured could be requested to express
his desires (e??a? S? a?t?? ?a? pa?? t?? d???? e???s?a? a?a???, dt? ?? d???ta?,
a formula of which variants exist).
It should be noted that Alcidamas, loe. cit., also spoke of honours given
to other famous writers and thinkers (Arist. Rhet. 1398 b 10 f. = Art.
ser., ed. Radermacher, XXII. 14).
325) On these texts, and the institution, see E. Ziebarth, Aus dem griech.
Schulwesen (Leipzig-Berlin
ai9io), 24, 160. J. Barnes, The Presocrat. Philosophers, vol. 2 (London 1979), 4, says that the story in D.L. is apocryphal,
but he does not mention Alcidamas and Plutarch.
326) See Pt. I, n. 50.


about
Metrodorus
and
87
may be said to be not beyond

the
Successions -literature
suspicion,
327) ; the
detail about Lampsacus,
reflects an independent
tradition.
however,
Metrodorus
was made Anaxagoras*
Surely,
'pupil', if for no other
since
Archelaus
it derives
from
there was a connection

between
reason, then because
Anaxagoras
A similar observation
and Lampsacus.
can be made about Eusebius'
the Athenian
surprising
suggestion
concerning
Archelaus.?Finally,
an anecdote
Cicero, Tuse. I 104 (Vorsokr.
59 A 34a), preserves
about Anaxagoras1
last words, pronounced
at Lampsacus.
This tradition
far more intelligible
if Anaxagoras
is, of course,
came to Lampsacus
some years before 433 (let alone 430). A later
arrival
would
have
or?if
impression
about
his
thing
earlier
archons
430s
of
before,
was able
him
given him less time

what the Successions
Nachwuchs
with
Pericles'
Lampsacus
or in the early
such
his
explains
better
than
of the
war
a favourable
holds?to
the
blessings
somewhat
of this
citizens
affirm
828). Furthermore,
stage,
as a metic
to settle
the
to create
would.
do some-
arrival
attitude
his
in
coming
Apparently,
burial given
at Lampsacus.
The
Alcidamas
and
city pace
the
of the
just
he
to
Laert.
by
Diog.
be compared
to the honour
bestowed
upon Zeno of Citium
of Athens
by the citizens
(D.L. VII 11 = SVF I, 8). The Ionian
attitude
the practising
towards
of philosophy
was more advanced
than the Athenian.
may
the reports
about
the last phase
of his
Consequently,
much
better
with
the earlier date for the Diopeithes
tally
and
for the
trial
as defended
career
decree
above.
The chronology
of Anaxagoras
I would be prepared
to defend as
both
consistent
with
the
more
reliable
ancient
evidence
and
being
with
historical
or
in
case
as
the
best
compatible
probability,
any
we are likely
to get,
accordingly
499/8
born
480/79
20 years
327) For which

Mensching (see his
328) Zeller, o.e.,
late 430s, thought
lich".
looks
as follows:
at Clazomenae
old
(Xerxes'
crossing)
cf. not only von Kienle, but also Mejer, o.e., 62 ff.
fr. 29) attributes D.L. II 11 to Favorinus.
1205 n. 1, who had him arrive at Lampsacus in the very
a school "bei seinem hohen Alter . . . unwahrschein-

88
anaxagoras'
Athenian
468/7
meteorite
456/5
comes
period,
ii
at Aigospotamoi
to Athens
(year of Callias)
at Athens
456/5-437/6
for Lampsacus
436/5-428/7
decree of Diopeithes
trial; leaves Athens
at Lampsacus
428/7
dies at Lampsacus,
age 72
438/7
437/6
This chronology
also explains
somewhat
better
(but only somethe explanation
what,
being only marginally
pertinent)
why we
and
have no imaginary
Socrates
conversation
between
Anaxagoras
was only 33. On the other
Socrates
by Plato. In 437/6,
composed
hand,
I have
Taylor
and
never
others
been
able
on behalf
to take
this
question,
elaborated
of the
by
seri-
very
'early' chronology,
in Plato, is not found discussing
with any of the
nor
of Apollonia,
either : neither with Diogenes
physicists
younger
with his co-citizen
some sources (among which
Archelaus,
although
some remarkably
pupil 829). As
early ones) make him the latter's
ously.
Socrates,
a matter
of fact,
the
Platonic
Socrates
never
meets
Pericles
or
as Phidias,
and he is
fascinating
but
lessons
to have had, not a discussion
from,
with,
only reported
at a 'dramatic'
time when both had long been dead330).
Aspasia,
such
members
of Pericles'
circle
329) It has already been noted that some called Socrates a pupil of
Anaxagoras (Pt. I, this journal 1979, 52, 64, and above, p. 84). Others say
he is a pupil of Archelaus: not only D.L. II 15 (Vorsokr. 60 A 1), Sud., s.v.
'?????a??, I p. 372, 14 f. Adler (Vorsokr. 60 A 2), Sextus, M. IX 360 (Vorsokr.
60 A 7), all of which may ultimately derive from Successions, but also
Theophr. Phys. op. fr. 3 Diels ap. Simpl., In Phys. p. 27, 23 f. Diels (Vorsokr.
60 A 5). See also F. Heinimann, Nomos und Physis (Darmstadt ,i965),
in f. Ion of Chius, a contemporary witness, says that Socrates as a ????
went to Samos together with Archelaus (FGrH 392 F 9, Vorsokr. 60 A 3) ;
perhaps he only tells us that both went with the Athenian expedition of
stimulated the
441, and perhaps the expression ???? ??ta . . . s?? ???e??f
pupil-teacher idea (cf. Pt. I, n. 9). Aristoxenus, fr. 52 a and b Wehrli (cf.
Vorsokr. 60 A 3 and II p. 421, 5 f.), who says that Socrates was also Archeas Porphyry, Hist, philos, fr. 12 Nauck
laus' lover, may be discounted?just
(Vorsokr. 60 A 3) ; both, however, exaggerate something.
330) Cf. above, n. 106 in fine, on the Mx. For the dramatic setting see
Wilamowitz,
Platon, II (Berlin 2i92o), 138 f., and L?wenclau, o.e., 33 f.
Nowadays, the Mx. is generally accepted as authentic; cf. Guthrie, HGrPh,
IV, 312 f. It is indeed hard to imagine by whom else than Plato this short


What
89
is
earlier dialogues
of Plato's
Socrates
is more, the mature
not in natural
in ethical
By the
philosophy.
questions,
in cosmology
interested
had become
Plato himself
seriously
interested
time
theories
were not so much outdated
as,
Anaxagoras'
physics,
own predilections.
with Plato's
rather, still very much at variance
a divine
In the Timaeus,
the Demiurge,
Intellect,
accomplishes
Socrates'
Intellect
as
such
works
(pace
Anaxagoras'
precisely
and
autobiography,
App. II) had
3723
KB
in the
so-called,
failed to accomplish.
Bilthoven,
Phaedo,
Obrechtlaan
of Publication
8 ff. ; see
below,
57
APPENDIX
The Date
97
II
of Anaxagoras*
Treatise
of Anaxagoras'
treatise
must remain a
The date of publication
matter of speculation.
Phaed.
Socrates,
(Vorsokr.
59 A 47), tells us as an old
96aff.
man that as a young man (????, used, as we have seen, of men up
and
in natural philosophy
to 30) 831) he was very much interested
to hear someHe chanced
made a thorough
study of the subject.
treatise
and got the idea that in it Intelone reading Anaxagoras'
lect (????)
was demonstrated
to be the reason why of all things.
This really fascinated
him, so he read the book himself
(?a??? t??
...
and
was
???????
??e?????s???,
9^b),
disapenormously
This anecdote
that at the time of Socrates'
suggests
pointed882).
work can have been written (cf. Kahn, o.e., and H. J. Newiger, Gnom.
1964, 252). Some doubt lingers, however, as to whether Aristotle's two
references to the Mx. in the form "Socrates says" are valid as an argument
for authenticity;
see C. W. M?ller, Die Kurzdialoge d. App. Plat. (M?nchen
1975), 18 ?. 2, who explains a like reference at De nob. fr. 92 Rose as being
do not know that Socrates'?in
to Aeschines' Callias.?I
Plato?exceptional
meeting with Aspasia has ever been used as an argument against authenticity.
331) Pt. I, p. 43 and n. 16; cf. also n. 329, Ion of Chius.
332) This fascinating little story tallies with what we should understand
by 'publication' in antiquity, pace Dover, Lysias and the Corp. Lys. (Berkeley
1968), 152 f., who even lists the "reading aloud" of "arguments" as an
act of publication, and further refers to Galen, De propr. libr., in: Ser. min.
II, p. 92 M?ller (cf. also De ord. libr., ib., p. 80 f., and on Galen also B. A. van
Groningen, ??d?s??, Mnem. 1963, [1 ff.], 2 f.). For Cicero and Atticus?and
sound general observations?see
R. Feger, RE Suppl. VII (1956), 517 f.

go
accidental
encounter
with Anaxagoras*
work this was not much
and even something
of a novelty.
A novelty,
because
known,
to acquaint
interested
Socrates, pace Plato, loc. cit., was sufficiently
himself
with the literature?at
least he knew all the
thoroughly
theories!?but
did not yet know
book.
important
Anaxagoras*
Socrates
was a ???? (30) in 439/8.
Some confirmation
for this
date of Plato's
is forthcoming
from Crat. 409 a-b333),
implicit
where Anaxagoras*
views about the moon are referred to as something he "said recently*'
[my italics; d e?e???? ?e?st? ??e?e?. Note
that ???e?? is generally
to refer
used, by both Plato and Aristotle,
to the written word 334).]
in a much
debated
at Met. 984 auf.
statement
Aristotle,
{Vorsokr. 59 A 43, II p. 17, 12 f.), says that "Anaxagoras,
though
earlier in age335)
than he'* [sc. Empedocles]
was "later
in his
works** [t??? d? ?????? ?ste???,
The
se, again, than Empedocles].
words quoted
in Greek are, admittedly,
"Inferior
ambiguous338).
There is an earlier parallel: Plato's fictitious report, true to life, of how
Zeno's book became 'public', Parm. 128 d-e: ?p? ???? d?t?? ???? ????f?,
?a? t?? a?t? ???e?e ??af??, ?ste ??d? ????e?sas?a? ??e???et? e?t' ????st???
e?? t? f?? ["if I should publish it"] e?te ??. Cf. also Arr. Epict. Diatr.,
Letter to Gellius, which tells a similar story (see Souilh? in the Bud?-ed.,
I, p. XI).
333) Partly quoted Vorsokr. 59 A 76, II p. 24, 20 f. Date of composition
and dramatic date of the Crat. are alike uncertain; cf. Guthrie, HGrPh, V
(Cambridge 1978), 1-2. ?e?st? here must mean "comparatively recently",
since Socrates suggests that the theory involved appears to be "rather old"
does not seem to have been generally acknowledged that
(pa?a??te???).?It
Plato's remark is similar in scope to the critique of Democritus ap. Favor.
[fr. 44 Mensching] ap. D.L. IX 34-5 (Vorsokr. 68 A 1, II p. 81, 17 f. =
68 ? 5, ib. p. 134, 8 f. ; Diels'-Kranz'
suggestion that the quotation of
Democritus by Favorinus is in part verbatim is unjustified) : ?? ??? e??sa?
a?t?? a? d??a? at te pe?? ????? ?a? se?????, ???a ???a?a?, t?? d? ?f???s?a?.
334) What F. Dirlmeier, Merkw. Zitate i. d. Eud. Eth. d. Arist., SBHeid.,
ph.-h. Kl. 1962.2, 14 ff., observes about Aristotle (cf. esp. ib., 15, "auch
seine Vorg?nger sind noch im Gespr?ch") is often also valid for Plato. A
random sampling: Soph. 242 d-e and 237 a; Tht. 180 d-e; Crat. 402 a; Hipp,
mai. 289 b.
335) The exact meaning of ?????a is not easy to determine: "manhood" ?
"time" ? Fortunately,
this does not interfere with the general purport of
the passage.
336) Admitted by Zeller, o.e., 1261 n. 2. See esp. D. O'Brien, The Relation
of Anaxag. and Emp., JHS 1968, [93 ff.], 97 ff., who claims that ?ste???
means "inferior" [from which, however, it would not yet follow that Empedocles* work is later than Anaxagoras'; see below, n. 341] and that Anaxagoras wrote before Empedocles and influenced him. O'Brien tries to account
for this influence on the basis of external evidence, admitting that internal

g?
in his works"
is not, I believe,
the most likely translation,
since
the oppositio membrorum would become a rather odd one. A second
viz. taking
''later''
in the sense that his
possible
interpretation,
works brought
one step closer to its consummation
philosophy
337),
is also difficult,
as O'Brien
has ably demonstrated338),
because,
Aristotle's
to lie more
often
with
preference
perhaps
appears
than
with
and
the
continuation
of
Empedocles
Anaxagoras,
Aristotle's
with Anaxagoras*
ambiguous
phrase, loc. cit., is concerned
introduction
of indefinitely
in which
many
principles,
respect
Aristotle
rates him lower than Empedocles.
This leaves
certainly
us with the third possibility,
which is really the most obvious
one,
viz. to take ?ste??? in a temporal
sense339),
just as p??te??? has
in the preceding
part of the sentence.
[There are, in Met. A, at
least two partial parallels:
(i) 991 a 17 f. ????? . . ., d? '??a?a???a?
?a? ????? t??e? ??e???; (2) 987 a
??d???? d' ?ste???
??? p??t??
32 f. e? ???? te ??? s?????? ?e???e??? (se. Plato) p??t??
??at???
?a? ta?? ??a??e?te?a??
d??a??, . . ., ta?ta
??t??
??? ?a? ?ste???
Note that ?ste??? also means 'next' (LSJ s.u. II), which
?p??a?e?].
resemblances work both ways in this case (unfortunately,
he has neglected
such evidence as is in Apollodorus). His witness is Alcidamas ap. D.L. VIII
56 (Vorsokr. 31 A 1, I p. 278, 12): t?? d? (se. Emp.) ??a?a????? d?a???sa?
?a? ???a?????, which he claims has to be accepted, even if D.L. has substituted d?a???sa? for another term and even if Alcidamas means the Pythagorean tradition rather than Pythagoras himself. But he fails to quote the
sentence of Alcidamas which follows in D.L., loe. cit., from which it is clear
that Alcidamas' inference was based on internal criteria. Furthermore, if
d?a???sa? . . . ???a????? is suspect, so, conversely, is '??a?a????? d?a???sa?.
337) Cf. Protr. fr. 8 Ross (Cic, Tuse. Ill 69) and Dirlmeier's comments,
o.e., 40 ff., esp. 42; see also J. Barnes, Arist.* Theory of Demonstr. [1969], in:
Articles on Arist., I, ed. Barnes and others (London 1975), 85 n. 88. This
evidence is not discussed by O'Brien. His overview of Aristotle's treatment
of Anaxagoras and Empedocles is somewhat flawed inasmuch as he does
not insist that Anaxagoras is not credited with the discovery of the Moving
Cause as such, but with that of Intellect qua moving cause (Aristotle has
little faith in Hermotimus' claim), Met. A 984 b 15 f. = Vorsokr. 59 A 58.
Actually, Aristotle intimates (ib. 984 b 31 ff.) that the question of priority
is influenced by the sense at issue in as far as 'moving cause' can be taken in
several senses. Both Anaxagoras and Empedocles are favourably compared
to their predecessors, the first for having introduced Intellect as moving
cause, the second for having introduced duality in the moving cause.
338) O.e., 100 ff.
339) For references to the literature see O'Brien, 97 n. 18, and now also
Barnes, o.e., vol. 2, 4. Cp. also Aristotle's definitions of p??te?a and ?ste?a
at Met. ? 11 and Cat. 13.?Theophr. Phys. op. fr. 3 Diels, quoted by O'Brien,
o.e., 106, as a rhetorical reminiscence of Aristotle's ambiguous short phrase,
is not ambiguous.

92
would make the interval

small rather than large.
by association
In Phys. p. 25, 19 f.
Theophr.,
Phys. op. fr. 3 Diels (ap. Simpl.,
was born "not much
Diels, Vorsokr. 31 A 7), says that Empedocles
later"
This relative
dating is
(?? p??? ?at?p??) than Anaxagoras.
A perfectly
natural interpretation
also upheld by Apollodorus340).
of Aristotle's
that, in Met. A, he often makes
remark, loc. cit.,?note
constatements
dependence,
chronological
suggesting
priority,
or even development
two instances
(I have quoted
temporaneity
be that Anaxagoras'
work matured,
above) in a cavalier way?would
at a later date in his career than one
and became public property,
in view of his date of birth, so that he came
would have expected
who was his junior by
later than Empedocles,
forward somewhat
with the above interseveral years 341). This would be compatible
of the Phaedo passage.
For instance,
if Aristotle
believed
pretation
in
the
context
of Met. A,
that
works?actually,
Empedocles'
Aristotle
been
poem?had
chiefly of the physical
may be thinking
between,
say, 450 and 445, and that of Anaxagoras
published
would become
c. 440, the short phrase at Met. A 984 auf.
fully
would
also explain why
This
relative
vicinity
intelligible.
temporal
context
in the same
discusses
Aristotle,
(but also elsewhere),
and why he sets off both of
and Anaxagoras
together
Empedocles
Met. A
their predecessors"
them
"against
(pa?? t??? p??te???,
984 b 17, 985 a 29). As far as their works are concerned,
they are
to the
in the sense of belonging
near contemporaries,
not, however,
It should not be forgotten
same generation.
that, as I have already
is one of Apollodorus'
sources for the latter's
out, Aristotle
pointed
Arist.
VIII
date of Empedocles
52, FGrH 244 F 32 a-fb,
(D.L.
34?) For his dates for Anaxagoras see above, Part I ; for those of Empedocles see FGrH 244 F 32 a-(-b (cf. also Pt. I, p. 59), where Arist. fr. 71
Rose is one of Apollodorus* authorities. Cf. also Jacoby, FGrH II D (comm.),
728.
341) O'Brien, o.e., 103, admits that Aristotle's order at Met. A 983 b
6 ff. is on the whole meant to be chronological ; hence, he argues, his remark
ib. 984 a ii would have to be understood as a sort of apology, intelligible
only if Anaxagoras, mentioned after Empedocles, not only lived but also
wrote before Empedocles (o.e., 104). However, Met. A 984 a 2-16, which in
part summarizes the foregoing, is an excursus on what elements were proposed
then all
by whom: water, air, fire?in order of 'historical appearance'?and
four, Empedocles adding earth to the other three. This implies that with
Empedocles the theory of the elements comes close to its telos (Aristotle
himself accepted the four and added aether). This, again, explains Aristotle's
next remark on Anaxagoras: the foregoing summation roughly corresponds
to the historical order since Anaxagoras, though older than Empedocles,
wrote later?this apart from the fact that he does not belong in the preceding
telos -list anyway since he made the elements indefinitely many.

93
fr. 71 Rose). It should be added that Apollodorus*

dates for Anaxif Met. A 984 a 11 f. is
too, agree with those of Aristotle
agoras,
as above.
It would
even
become
interpreted
intelligible
why
did not attempt
to link up the date of publication
of
Apollodorus
treatise
with a significant
Anaxagoras'
epochal
year of his life.
there is a report in Plutarch,
Nie. 23, already
cited in
Finally,
another
? propos
the famous
lunar
contexts42),
given
eclipse
to the Athenian
disastrous
force in Sicily (Vorsokr.
expeditionary
soldiers
and Nicias
himself
believed
the
59 A 18). The Athenian
of divine disfavour.
Plutarch
that
eclipse to be a portent
explains
the theories
of Anaxagoras,
who, as he says, was the first to give
"the most clear and original
of all that had been
explanation
in writing
were not
given" 343) of such occurrences
(e?? ??af??),
known.
himself
not
was
an "ancient"
generally
Anaxagoras
and his theories
were the well-preserved
of a
secret
(pa?a???),
small
coterie.
Plutarch
links up this secrecy
with
the popular
in those times
aroused
at Athens
and
feeling
by such theories,
cites the trials of Protagoras
and Anaxagoras.
There is some inas the secret cannot have been guarded
here, inasmuch
consistency
too closely, if Anaxagoras
was indeed impeached.
In other respects,
Plutarch's
account
however,
agrees with the above reading of the
Phaedo passage : Anaxagoras*
book was not generally known (Plut.) ;
it became
known
to Socrates
when
he was a ????
accidentally
Both
these
accounts?if
in this way?agree
(Plat.).
interpreted
with the most plausible
of Met. A 984 a n f., viz.
interpretation
that which would imply that Anaxagoras*
works became
effective
at a rather late date in his career, that his date of 'actualization*
was somewhat
later than normal.
these
testimonies
can be read as conveying
the
Accordingly,
that
information
about
the theories
of Anaxagoras
suggestion
c. 440, or even that the book was 'published'
began to circulate
342) Above, ?. 147.
te p??t?? ?a? ?a??a?e?tat?? . . . ????? e??
343) ? ?a? p??t?? saf?stat??
??af?? ?ata???e???. O'Brien, o.e., 106 ff., argues that, since Plutarch himself (and others) also attribute a correct interpretation of eclipses to Empedocles, his point at Nie. 23 must be that Anaxagoras has priority. Similarly
CL Pr?aux, La lune dans la pens?e grecque (Bruxelles 1973), 166-78. However,
already Democritus and Plato (above, n. 333) suggested that Anaxagoras'
theories about sun and moon were not original. Both O'Brien and Mme.
Pr?aux admit that the evidence about Empedocles is less explicit. I would
also say that Empedocles' theory of sun, moon and eclipses is far more
and far more difficult than Anaxagoras'
complicated
(think e.g. of the
'reflexion' sun), and that the clarity of Anaxagoras' theory is precisely
what is underscored by Plut., loe. cit. (for superi, -j- p??t?? in Plutarch cf.
Per. 31, above, p. 25, sup. + pas??).

94
or became available
(in a rather limited number of copies, to be sure)
about this time. If the decree of Diopeithes
those who
attacking
theorized
about the things on high is to be dated to 438/7,
as I
it is, there would be a fairly recent occasion
believe
for its being
an occasion
which had attracted
at least a measure
of
proposed,
as
the
indictment
in
Phidias
the
public
attention?just
against
same year occurred
on occasion
of a recent event.
I also suspect
that the expression
in the decree referring to people ''teaching
. . .
theories''
.
.
.
to
of
a
(??????
d?d?s???ta?)
pertains
something
rather public nature,
and that Anaxagoras
was not so much indicted
for a private
as for something
"Gesinnungsdelikt"344)
which would
more material,
and more public.
be, so to speak,
and 'such things as are found
?????, after all, also means 'books'
in books'. Perhaps a slender case could be made for the assumption
that Diopeithes
referred
to such teaching
as occurs when things
to be learned
are available
in writing,
and hence can be got at
to be sure) by anybody
(on principle,
345).
344) Dodds, o.e., 201 ?. 63, is of course right in pointing out that a society
which allowed the prosecution of Anaxagoras did not permit "absolute
freedom of thought".
345) ?????? pe?? t?? ?eta?s???: cf. Plin. NH II 149 (Vorsokr. II p. 9,
17) on Anaxagoras* caelestium litter arum scientia, and Plat. Ap. 26 d
e??a? ?ste ??? e?d??a?
(Vorsokr. 59 A 35) otti a?t??? ape????? ??a???t??
?t? ta ??a?a????? ?????a t?? ??a???e???? ???e? t??t?? t?? ?????; ?a? d?
?a??? ???? ta?ta pa?* ???? ?a??????s??
?t?. For learning from c.q. corruption
by books see also Tht. 179 d - 180 e, for corruption by book or teacher,
Axistophanes fr. 490 Kock. Cf. also Guthrie, HGrPh, III, 30, 42-3, on prosewriting by "the sophistai or teachers'' as the medium for the didactic
function in the second half of the 5th cent.; among his instances is "Anaxthis, of
agoras, whose book we know to have been on general sale"?but
course, was not when Socrates was a ????, but when he was on trial in his
old age (Plat. Ap. 26 d-e). Pfeiffer, H. Cl. Seh., I, 17 f., 28 f., shows that the
sophistic contribution to the growing spread of books was a major one and
probably decisive, but he forgets that Anaxagoras, too, was called a 'sophist*
(above, n. 104). [The suggested interpretation of ?????? . . . d?d?s???ta? does
not conflict with the interpretation
of D.L. II 7, ???at? . . . f???s?fe??
?????s?? ep? ?a????? (456/5)? for which see Pt. I, this journal 1979, 52 f.
Such 'teaching' as Anaxagoras may have begun in 456/5 need not imply a
book, or instruction from a book; cf. also ib., 52 n. 46, 20, where I argue
that f???s?fe?? = 'to practise philosophy'.
At p. 52 f., I have perhaps
somewhat overemphasized the 'teaching' aspect of f???s?fe??, in the context
of an argument against Diels.]
A curious consequence of this reading of the charge of "teaching theories
about the things on high" is that its connotation becomes similar to that
of the second half of the charge against Socrates in 399 ("corrupting the
young") as interpreted by Finley, o.e., 66 f.

95
for one
These inferences
are not, however,
Socrates,
necessary.
to
in
his
old
on
similar
those
levelled
was
charges
judged
age,
thing,
for things
which he had done quite openly
against
Anaxagoras,
for most of his life and never written about (although,
admittedly,
and did not propose
to stop).
Plato's
he was still doing them
information
about Socrates'
interests
as a ???? may be distorted,
with the history
of philosophy,
but
since Plato is not concerned
with philosophy
itself. He does not, moreover,
bother about strict
in chronological
and is indeed in some sense
details346),
accuracy
of the novelistic
a forerunner
of the word
bio'biographical'
of Aristotle's
The interpretation
tradition,
so-called347).
graphical
and the precise
statement
remains
uncertain,
ambiguous
perhaps
information
is not crystal clear.
purport of Plutarch's
346) On Plato's anachronisms see e.g. Dodds, Plat. Gorg. (Oxford 1959),
17-8, and Guthrie, HGrPh, IV, 199 n. 4, 215 and n. 2, 313 and 320, where
further references are to be found. Note, however, that at HGrPh, II, if.,
he accepts the setting of the ? arm. as historically plausible and that there
is no hint of the anachronism involved here at HGrPh, V, 34 f. Against
exceptional confidence in the dramatic introduction to the ? arm. see already
Jacoby, Ph. Unt. XVI, 234!.; also my Offenb. d. Parm. (Assen 1964), 207.
347) Cf. Momigliano, Gr. Biogr., 46.
SUPPLEMENTARY
NOTE TO PT. I
Meursius* inevitable conjecture ??d????st?? in Diog. Laert. II 7 (see

Mnem. IV 32, 1979, 40 n. 4) is also corroborated by Hipp. Ref. I 8, 13,
p. 14, 27-15, ? Wendland = Vorsokr. Fr. 59 A 42, II p. 17, 8 f. ??t???se.
?t??? p??t?? t?? ??d????st?? ??d??? ????p??d??, ?a?*
Anaxagoras????ase?
?v ?a???? ?a? ???t??a ?????s? ?e?e??s?a? (for the synchronism see Mnem. IV
the number-word has been preserved correctly;
32, 46 f.). In Hippolytus,
there is another mistake here, ???ase? for ?te?e?t?se? (cf. Mnem. IV 32, 68;
Diels'-Kranz' assumption of a lacuna is unnecessary; cf. also Diels, Chron.
Unters., 28). I only noticed this important fact when reading, for a wholly
different purpose, the philosophical sections of the Refutatio. Jacoby does
not give Hippolytus* note among the fragments of Apollodorus, and his
references to and partial quotations of it in his commentary on FGrH 244
F 31 and F 37 do not exploit this text to support the correction in Diog.
Laert.


The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and The Date of His Trial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and The Date of His Trial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Chronology of Anaxagoras' Athenian Period and the Date of His Trial. Part II.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

The Plot against

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

go) Braudel's "agitation de surface" (La M?diterran?e, Paris ?966, 16).

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

data which, inasmuch

said that the charge

92) The reputation of the biographers, so called, a rather mixed bag, is

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

a large sum], and exiled

that he left Athens

in view of the fact that this, too,

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

On Old Age 9e)] Diog. Laert. refers to Hermippus

(fr. 30 Wehrli) 97),

agrees with Satyrus*

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

does not connect

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

of his thesis, Ephorus

is wholly silent about personal

set the whole

Nr. 627]. It should

ablaze, were motivated

What Pericles fears is not

I05) I 139-140. The actual number of Megarian decrees is irrelevant to

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

rather closely loe) (Corcyra,

io6) On Plutarch's appreciation of Thucydides see D. A. Russell, Plutarch

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

that the attack

gods", which was situ(twelve)117)

"at the altar of the

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

next tells us that Phidias

were "the final touch which led to an accusation of embezzlement";

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

t?? ??????, i.e. about the same time as the events

comic poet Hermippus

who do not recognize

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.42 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 04:26:54 AM

ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II