¹ Klio Beiheft, 30 (1933) 47 n. 3Google Scholar.

² Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. iii. 1 542 n. 4Google Scholar; Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. ii ². 2 215 fGoogle Scholar.

³ ATL iii 307 f.

⁴ GdA iv (1901 edn) 64.

⁵ Meiggs, , Athenian Empire 188 fGoogle Scholar.

⁶ A History of the Greek City-States (1976) 310.

⁷ Meiggs 190; Gomme, HCT 390Google Scholar.

⁸ Busolt and Meyer are exceptions, both placing it in spring 440.

⁹ The date, in any case, is only a terminus. We do not know how much in advance of the Dionysia the tribute was brought to Athens.

¹⁰ To see this, it must be quoted within its surrounding context (115.5–116.1):

¹¹ Thuc. i 116.3:

¹² FGrH 324 F 38.

¹³ Apparently just after the arrival of the new generals of 440/39.

¹⁴ Thucydides' use of the same verb, πολιορκεῖν, in 116.2 and 117.3 suggests conscious mutual relation.

¹⁵ The first printing of ML has a misprint here; the figure is given as 853 T.

¹⁶ I am grateful to D. M. Lewis and Ronald Stroud for knowledge of the fact that the numbers in lines 5 and 19 are written in rasura, the bands of erasure running the full width of the stone. The treasurers evidently made an error in their computation of the first sum. That it was their error and not a mason's follows from its having affected the total given (and recomputed) in iine 19. The mistake was perhaps uncovered and rectified by the logistae. It suggests, of course, that the sum written on line 5 was an aggregate figure. To infer more than this from the erasures would I think be guesswork. We cannot even say whether the number originally written in line 5 was smaller or larger than what replaced it. One might argue, perhaps, that the need for erasure suggests that all the returns were not yet in when the stone was carved—so that the first item on the stone was actually the last in the chronological series (i.e. the subjugation of Byzantium). Such an explanation would not be cogent. We are not entitled to suppose that documents of this kind were given over to a mason in medias res. An error in the records therefore permits no conclusions about the time of its commission.

¹⁷ The principle is well known; see, for example, besides IG i² 324 +, 306, IG i² 92, lines 27 f. (ML no. 58 B).

¹⁸ Pp. 42–7, revised in AJP lv (1934) 365 f. Prior to Meritt's study it was held that the amount in line 5 was spent by the treasurers of 441/0, the next two amounts having been spent in 440/39. The possibility that two payments were made in the conciliar year 440/39 is also noted by Meiggs and Lewis.

¹⁹ The one restoration, in lines 14 f.—ἀνάλομα δεύτ] | ερον—which might appear to give a certain cogency to the current interpretation is by| no means safe. Quite possibly the word underlying is whether or, not we dare restore cf. IG i² 91, ML no. 58 A, lines 14 f.:

²⁰ AFD 40–2.

²¹ Some emendation of the texts of Isocrates and Diodorus is required, but it seems simple enough and has been generally approved. Interest in the sum expended was no doubt incited by Thucydides' reference to the demand for reparations (i 117.3).

²² IG i² 296 (AFD 8–83), the record of 432/1, deserves attention in this context. For though this inscription records expenditures made in two different theatres— Macedonia-Potidaea and the Peloponnese—it is important to note that both these regions are kept separate in the record. The first section (after the heading, which we do not possess in its entirety) is devoted exclusively to payments made in the northern theatre, and it culminates with a total of all the expenditures made there. Then comes a vacant line and, after that, a listing of Peloponnesian costs. Potidaea, it is true, is grouped with Macedonia in this inscription as part of the same category yielding a common total. But that is not analogous to what is alleged of our inscription. If Byzantium is dragged into it then the three expenditures (as aggregates) were all of them partially Byzantine and partially Samian. There is no warrant for selecting one of them and assigning it to alleged Byzantine expenses as if the campaign were regarded as separate.

²³ AFD 46.

²⁴ ML 151. Meiggs, is considerably more skeptical in Athenian Empire 192Google Scholar.

²⁵ The alternative (441/0, 440/39, 439/8) can be excluded not only because Demostratos (not Phyromachos) was apparently secretary of the treasurers of Athena in 440/39 but because of the impossibly large sum (908 T.+) which then must have been spent after the siege in 439/8.

²⁶ See Dover at Thucydides vi 31.3, Meiggs, , Athenian Empire 259Google Scholar.

²⁷ Sixty had been dispatched immediately (116.1), another forty followed ‘later’ (116.2); then came the sixty of 117.2.

²⁸ This calculation is not as arbitrary as it may perhaps appear: the range of possibility is limited absolutely by our knowledge of two key elements of the equation. Consider that if all 100 vessels had been present ab initio, the 308 T. paid in mid-July (subtracting 60 for the force arriving in mid-June) would have carried them for about three months, so that the Athenian response could have come no sooner than mid-April. From this point backwards the proportions are fixed. Thucydides' ὔστερον, for example, cannot mean ‘after fifteen days’ because, in that case, assuming that the offensive began on the 1st of April, 30 T. would have been spent in the first fifteen days and 300 in the next three months—22 T. too many. A date in March, i.e. a forty-five day hiatus, can similarly be excluded because if the campaign began on the 1st of March, 90 T. would have been spent by the 15th of April, with another 300 to follow for the next three months. What is required, therefore, is a month's hiatus, the first squadron having been sent to Samos around the 1st of April, the reinforcement of forty vessels arriving around the 1st of May (60 T. + 100 T. + 100 T. + 50 T. = 310 T.).

²⁹ See above p. 9.

³⁰ Obviously, everything is plus or minus. On the one hand, the Athenians must have suffered some losses, which suggests that these events took somewhat longer, pay being distributed among fewer people. On the other, since I accept the literary figure of 1200 T. as the cost of reparations, I assume that 76 T. + were paid out in the aftermath of the war, when the new Samian democracy was established (for the date of which see below p. 17). In that case, a lesser amount would have been paid to the soldiery and the war will have been proportionately shorter.

³¹ CP xxvi (1931) 309–13. Wade-Gery used different letters from those now employed to designate the fragments (his a=d, d=c, c=b).

³² I am not clear whether Wade-Gery conceived the ‘signatories’ to be those who took an oath inscribed in the stele or some others who were ‘guarantors’ of the legitimacy of the treaty in some other sense. For the purposes of this argument it does not greatly matter (though I do not believe that the second alternative is a real one).

³³ I do not reproduce the very fragmentary text of a (see Plate la) since it does not affect this discussion.

³⁴ Now read οὐδé with Henry, Alan, JHS xcvii (1977) 156Google Scholar.

³⁵ According to Meritt, , AFD 52Google Scholar f.: ‘There is nothing surprising in this delay. The alliance between Perdikkas and Athens, which had its inception in the agreement between Perdikkas and the Athenian generals in the field in the autumn of 423 (Thuc. iv 132), was not consummated by formal alliance until the spring of 422. … Another instance of long deliberation before the ratification of a treaty is found in the negotiations between Argos and Athens, which extended from the summer of 417 to the spring of 416.’ These exceptional cases involving sovereign equals jealous of their rights suggest the contrary of what Meritt supposed, for the establishment of a government by Athens in a conquered state implies a situation in which the Athenians had a free hand to do as they wished. As such, it is also to be differentiated from the process leading to the establishment of the first Samian democracy (above pp. 12–13), when the Athenians attempted a peaceful transition and enjoyed none of the privileges of conquest.

³⁶ CP xxvi (1931) 312.

³⁷ Wade-Gery, supposed the ‘distinctive dressing of the back surfaces…conclusive’ (312 n. 1)Google Scholar but they are apparently not original and they differ in width (ML 152). Professor Norman Herz has examined the geological structure of the stones and has graciously permitted me to quote his conclusion that the geological structures allow a join for all four pieces. On the other hand (he noted), since the angle of foliation and the lineation (oriented topbottom and perpendicular to the lettering) appear to be common orientations, no firm conclusion is possible.

³⁸ Meritt, , AFD 49Google Scholar; cf. Wade-Gery 313 n. 1.

³⁹ The college, for example, did not act as a body in 421 (Thuc. v 19.2) and, for the fourth century, documents such as Tod nos. 103, 153, merely show that the generals, boule and knights (no. 103.10 f.) or the generals, boule and taxiarchs (no. 153.6 f.) were required to swear an oath of alliance. They were not signatories of the type envisaged by Wade-Gery.

⁴⁰ A similar formula occurs in the (probably) late sixth-century decree IG i² 1 (ML no. 14) where, as in d, it appears as a postscript: (line 12). Reference in a decree to the boule alone recurs in 411: see [Plut.] Vit. X Orat. 833 d and ML 249 (on IG ii² 12+).

⁴¹ Even so, the list is very hypothetical. No tribe names are preserved in d, Kallistratos' name needs to be misspelled, and a scant four letters are allowed for the name of one of the generals.

⁴² is too abbreviated to have stood alone. We need and if be dispensed with, which seems inadmissible, cannot be. Cf. e.g. ML no. 37 b (IG i² 20, line 1).

⁴³ JHS xcvii (1977) 156. I am grateful to Professor Henry for his readiness to provide me with a copy of his paper before its publication.

⁴⁴ ZPE xv (1974) 251.

⁴⁵

⁴⁶ Wankel pointed out, op. cit. 249–54, that καλόν is not attested in oath-formulae of the fifth century, and he may well be right to prefer δίκαιον as the correlative of ἀγαθόν when, as in the Kolophon decree (ATL ii D15 line 43) and here, a brace of such words was used.

⁴⁷ Cf. IG i² 10, lines 21 f. (ML no. 40), quoted below p. 18.

⁴⁸ CP xxvi (1931) 312.

⁴⁹ See Plate I, reproduced from squeezes that were very kindly provided me by Mr John McK. Camp, II.

⁵⁰ P. 312, quoting Homer Thompson.

⁵¹ See Plate I.

⁵² I am indebted to Lewis, David for this information. The fragments were published in Hesp. xiv (1945) 94–7Google Scholar, EM 5197 and Ag. I 658 (now EM 13370).

⁵³ Unfortunately, I can find nothing in the (meagre) text of these fragments that ties them into the Samian decree.

⁵⁴ ML 153.

⁵⁵ I return to a line of 44 letters; see however n. 46.

⁵⁶ See Rhodes, , Athenian Boule 194 fGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁷ I owe a debt of gratitude to D. M. Lewis for his stringent criticism of this paper and for his generosity in providing me with relevant information. He is, of course, in no way responsible for the views expressed, nor should his agreement be inferred.