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 Plotagainst Pericles and His AssociatesAuthor(s): J. MansfeldSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 33, Fasc. 1/2 (1980), pp. 17-95Published by: BRILLStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXIII, Fase. 1-2

THE CHRONOLOGY OF ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD AND THE DATE OF HIS TRIAL

BY

J. MANSFELD

Part II

The Plot against Pericles 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 [absolute chronology]. Since the attack upon Phidias pace Philochorus as 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 by Diopeithes should be dated to 438/7.?First, I shall discuss such data 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 technical, administrative and religious aspects of the installation of such a 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 against Anaxagoras of asebeia ['impiety'; lack or absence of veneration for the gods, or rather, in Anaxagoras* case, 'blasphemy* in the modern sense of the word], we cross the boundary-line separating historiography from history. Not, of

course, in the sense that the pertinent information?with the ex-

ception of the archaeological and epigraphical evidence?is other than historiographical, but in that Anaxagoras* trial belongs to

history in the popular sense of the word90). In the first part of this paper, only the chronographical system of Apollodorus and similar data had to be taken into account. Now, however, the big question as to whether, in which way, and when, Anaxagoras* career fits in with the evidence concerning the political history of Periclean Athens can no longer be avoided. Consequently, the crit?rium of historical probability to a large degree replaces that of chronographical consistency.

This different approach entails?to cite a complaint by C. 0. M?ller in a paper published in 1827 91)?that what is to follow is the umpteenth discussion of issues that are by now well-worn.

However, having once again sifted the ancient evidence and having almost perished in a sea of literature, I yet cannot help feeling that there are a few things that remain to be said, whereas there are others which, perhaps, can never be said too often. Unfortunately, this state of affairs makes it impossible to be brief. A rather com-

plicated detour will be necessary before we can hope to reach our

goal, viz. the putting of a date to Anaxagoras' trial. The evaluation 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 unsystematic but welcome bibliography is to be found in G. Wirth (ed.), 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 IC

associates is a most intricate affair, involving data which, inasmuch as they are parcelled out among a plurality of disciplines, can,

unavoidably, only be pursued ultra crepidam. In order to point a way through this maze of data I have inserted

short sub-titles, which have the additional advantage of helping the reader to skip part of the argument, if he so wishes; for instance, the part about Phidias' statue of Athena.

Diogenes Laertius

Diogenes Laertius (II 12-14) does not put a date to Anaxagoras' trial; instead, giving a series of choice excerpts from the bio-

graphical and Successions literature, he informs us that there were several accounts92): Sotion (fr. 3 Wehrli), in his Successions of Philosophers, said that Cleon accused Anaxagoras; Satyrus, in his

Lives, that Pericles' political rival Thucydides [son of Melesias] did. According to Sotion, Anaxagoras was charged with having stated that the sun was a fiery rock [which amounts to an accusation of 'impiety' ; note that Diog. Laert. fails to mention the

Diopeithes decree]. Satyrus said that the charge was not only 'impiety', but also treason (medism). Sotion said that Anaxagoras was defended by Pericles, sentenced to a fine of five talents [rather

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 Philosophen- Bios, 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?volu- tionarized our view of the biographical tradition; see also I. Gallo, Fram- menti 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. [above, n. 3], 53, 90 ff., who however perhaps overemphasizes the purely biographical aspect of the biographies.?It is only in exceptional cases (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 ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

a large sum], and exiled 93). Satyrus said that he was condemned to death in his absence (ap??ta; the technical term would have been e????? ?f?e??), which entails that he left Athens before the trial, an in itself not unusual occurrence94). The anecdote which follows in Diog. Laert., viz. that Anaxagoras was simultaneously informed about his conviction and about the death of his sons,

may also derive from Satyrus in view of the fact that this, too,

implies the trial in contumaciam which is a peculiarity of the latter's account9d). Next [I omit an excerpt from Demetrius'

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 Refugees in Ancient Greece (Johannesburg 1943), 22 ff. and notes. Some general material in H. Pope, Non-Athenians in Attic Inscriptions (Diss. 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 Gerichts- stand 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 grec- ques (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


ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II 21

On Old Age 9e)] Diog. Laert. refers to Hermippus (fr. 30 Wehrli) 97), who in his Lives had said that Anaxagoras was in prison awaiting his execution?which agrees with Satyrus* version as to the sen-

tence, not with Sotion's, but differs also from Satyrus* in that

Hermippus must have made him attend his trial?and that Pericles'

personal intervention [presumably with the dicasts] caused him to be set free, whereupon he committed the suicide Hermippus liked to attribute to the subjects of his biographies. Hieronymus of Rhodes, the last authority to be mentioned by Diog. Laert., said in book II of his Scattered Memoranda (fr. 41 Wehrli) that Pericles produced him before the court in a movingly piteous condition, and that it was pity which caused him to be released. It is noteworthy that Diog. Laertius himself, as follows from the flat epigram from his own pen which he appends, preferred Her-

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. Exagger- ation 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 proven-

ance. 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 noto- riously untrustworthy] because the Athenians had thrown him into prison 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 condemned him to death for this theory about the sun.?Philod., Rhet. II 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 restau- rations 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-



Diog. Laert. does not connect the accusation of Anaxagoras with attacks upon other persons; other sources, the most important of which are Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch ??), do.

The Historical Tradition: Diodorus Siculus ?Ephorus In his account of the causes of the Peloponnesian war, Diodorus

(XII 38 ff., "when Euthydemus was archon at Athens", i.e. 431/0 100)) explicitly follows Ephorus (cf. FGrH 70 F 196), who

fully alludes to Aristoph. Clouds 398-402 (spoken by Socrates 1), it does not, of course, follow?as Geffcken thought?that Aristophanes hinted at 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 attri- butes 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.).

99) Parallel to Ephorus /Plutarch is 'Aristodemus', FGrH 104, c. i6, 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 Politica (both are?too briefly?cited by Harpocration s.v. ?spas?a). 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 23

argued that Pericles started the war because his position as

political leader of Athens was under fire101). Phidias102), the creator (?ates?e?a?e) of the statue of Athena [i.e. of the new colossal gold and ivory ??a??a in the Parthenon], was accused by some of his assistants of having appropriated a "considerable amount of the sacred moneys", i.e. of those belonging to Athena

(p???? t?? ?e??? ?????t?? ????ta Fe?d?a?). In the meeting of the Assembly which convened 108) to discuss the charge against Phidias, the enemies of Pericles persuaded the People to have Phidias

arrested, whereas they "accused' ' Pericles himself of "stealing

temple property" (?at??????? ?e??s???a?). Next, the philosopher 104) Anaxagoras, Pericles' teacher, was "accused of impiety against the

gods" (?? ?se????ta e?? t??? ?e??? ?s???f??t???). The charge against Anaxagoras is not further specified; perhaps Diodorus

thought that the label 'philosopher' conveyed sufficient information. Both these charges implicated Pericles. The latter, however,

successfully opposing the Spartan request for a repeal of the

Megarian decree and thus creating a casus belli, managed to ex- tricate himself from the trap.

That a decree against the Megarians actually came to play a

specious role in the diplomatic wrangling which immediately

???) ? 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 Schrift- quellen 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 physicists sophists. Anaxagoras, too, is so designated by Aeschines, fr. 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 ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

preceded the outbreak of hostilities is clear from Thucydides 105), who however is wholly silent about personal motives which would have determined Pericles* attitude. In support of his thesis, Ephorus ap. D.S. (XII 40) quotes the famous lines from Aristophanes' Peace [produced in 421], viz. 603 ff., where Hermes is made to affirm that Pericles' manipulations with the Megarian decree, which so to speak set the whole of Hellas ablaze, were motivated

by his fears that he would share in "Phidias' misfortune" [cf. Overbeck Nr. 627]. It should be added that Ephorus, in Diodorus' abridgement, is conspicuously silent about what happened to Phidias after the fateful meeting of the Assembly; it is only the

quotation from the Peace which to a certain extent fills in the gap. Diodorus /Ephorus is equally silent about what happened to

Anaxagoras, but the term ?s???f??t??? ("they falsely accused him") implies that, pace Ephorus, he was, however unjustly, accused before a dicastery. Confirmation is to be found in the

sequel of the same chapter of Diodorus. What Pericles fears is not blackmail, but a real trial; Diodorus, in this context, again has the same verb (e?d?? t?? d???? . . . ?at? . . . t?? e?????? . . . s???- fa?t???ta). Aspasia?see below, on Plutarch?is not mentioned; inasmuch as the only quotation from Aristophanes in D.S. refers to Phidias, there is consistency in this omission (see further below, P. 35).

The Historical Tradition : Plutarch

Our second main source, Plutarch, in his account of the causes of the Peloponnesian War 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.



follows Thucydides rather closely loe) (Corcyra, Potidaea, Megarian decree(s)). Compare esp. c. 31, the beginning, where he lists the various sorts of explanation that had been given and clearly prefers the first, which is that of Thucydides: "some people" hold that Pericles' refusal to budge was sound policy. Others, however, make prestige the motive. The majority invoke what Plutarch calls "the worst cause of all" (? . . . ?e???st? . . . a?t?a pas??). The sequel of c. 31 [cf. Overbeck Nr. 630] and the whole of c. 32 expound the blameworthy view of this majority, which is, presumably, not omitted by Plutarch because it is (a) a majority view 107) and (b) because it permits a further evaluation of Pericles' character by listing?as Plutarch would say, cf. Dem. 11?p???e?? illustrating his

????. It is substantially the same as the version of Ephorus ap. D.S.; Plutarch, however, not only adds the case of Aspasia, but also invaluable information concerned with such decrees as were

passed in connection with the accusations against Phidias, Anaxa-

goras, and Pericles108). These may have been 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 pre- minenti 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. Emp., 445 ff., 451. The author of the Mx. (Plato??cf. below, n. 330), 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 Aspasia: think of the Paralipomenal). Canfora omits to refer to the Mx.; 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 through- out, to which are added details taken from rariora. Consequently, the programmatic introduction to the Nie. (cited in the text) is also valid for Per. 31-2.


26 ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

Cr?teras' Collection of Decrees and/or comparable Peripatetic works, etc.109) ; the wording leaves no doubt as to their authenticity, although Plutarch, for literary reasons no doubt110), has compressed them to an unfortunate degree. That he strove hard to collect such evidence as underpinnings for his depiction of character is anyhow clear from a programmatic statement in the Life of Nietas, ?: ". . . I have tried to collect also such things as are to be discoveredm) in connection with ancient dedications and decrees'" (p?????a???as?????f?s?as??e??????apa?a????pepe??a?a? s??a?a?e?? 112)). At Per. 31 f., Plutarch uses this extra material in order to emphasize the positive aspects of Pericles' behaviour: his

log) P. Krech, De Crateri ??F?S???O? S???GOG?? et de lo?is 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 Peripatetics].?However, the fact that, as Frost points out, Plutarch is now 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. Furthermore, Plutarch may have remembered some things beyond his 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.



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

Plutarch's report presupposes that the attack came when the statue had been finished, and that it had been set up in situ.

An indictment (????s??) against Phidias 11d) was lodged in a spectacular way by Menon, a member of his team116), who was persuaded by Pericles' enemies to seat himself as a suppliant in the Agora, i.e. in the great and holy centre of civic life [similarly, Ephorus ap. D.S. says that Phidias' assistants seated themselves as suppliants "at the altar of the (twelve)117) gods", which was situ- ated in the Agora]. On his request, he was granted adeia (indemnity), which means that, by turning witness for the prosecution, he would not be prosecuted as an accomplice. A formal accusation against

113) See W. R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-Cent. Athens (Prince- ton 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 ethical vocabulary in the Lives and mentions, in passing and without reference to the Per., the virtue of "Treue halten im Ungl?ck", which, she argues, is to be linked up with "Unbeeinflussbarkeit" and "Unbestechlich- 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 conve- niently, 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.



Phidias followed during a meeting of the Assembly [note that Plutarch, unlike Ephorus, does not yet at this point identify the

charge]. Peculation (???pa?), however, says Plutarch in the next sentence, was not proven, since Phidias, on Pericles' advice, had 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, pertained to the gold], and this is what Pericles now 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 Plutarch?that he had portrayed both Pericles and himself as participants in the Amazonomachy represented on the shield of the statue 118) had caused great envy ue). Since Philochorus?see below, p. 42?speaks only of Phidias' being suspected of embezzling ivory, it has been thought that Plutarch, in referring to the gold, is mistaken 120), It is of course true that the removability of the gold plate has nothing whatever to do with any such precaution but is, rather, a consequence of the technique used by Phidias 121) ; the gold, moreover, was a sort of permanent 'deposit'. However, the unspecified charge as reported by Ephorus, viz. that Phidias

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).

121) For the removability of the plate gold see Thuc. II 13, 5 (= Over- 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.


ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II 2?

had embezzled "a considerable amount of the sacred moneys", may be read as pertaining to both the gold plate and the ivory which had been purchased for the statue out of sacred funds. Of these, the gold was by far the most expensive : its price and weight have been meticulously recorded in the abridged version of the accounts of the overseers of the statue as published on stone (and in part preserved), while of the ivory only the price is given122). This makes Pericles' invitation to weigh the gold a pertinent rejoinder, feasible even if one refuses to accept Plutarch's story about his

previous advice to Phidias; we may be certain that such gold as was bought by the commissioners but not used for the statue could be weighed as well. This left the accusers only a point about the

ivory, which could not really be checked in as meticulous a manner ; Plutarch does not mention the ivory, either because he did not know about it, or because he thought it insignificant, or for some other reason 12?). The psychological explanation he gives for the refusal of the Assembly to acquit Phidias on the spot, although not beyond suspicion, is pertinent in as far as it suggests a hidden

motive, politically exploited. It is effective in that it subtly in- timates that Phidias and Pericles, since they fought together or

perhaps even shoulder to shoulder on the shield, were also very closely associated off the shield. According to his description, Plutarch, as is only to be expected, must have seen these portraits himself. Although his story?which is also found in other sources

[cf. Overbeck Nos. 668, 672: self-portrait]?impresses one as a typical sample of guide-lore, some archaeologists believe that the

portraits?the figures concerned can still be discerned on the

Strangford copy of the shield in the British Museum (bottom) and on the shield of the Lenormant statuette in the National Museum at Athens (top)?were indeed there123). What Plutarch, in any

122) On the gold and the ivory see further below, p. 47. D. M. Macdo- well, 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



case, does not suggest is that the insertion of the portraits figured in any formal accusation 124). What may be inferred from his account is that the Assembly, excercising its constitutional

1963)* 162 f., who argues that the pairing of the bald old man and the so- called Pericles is "das mythisch -geschichtliche Prototyp seines eigenen Ver- h?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 proces- sion, 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 'epi- sodic' 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 Parthenon- fries (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



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

Plutarch next tells us that Phidias died in prison 12e), of an illness or, "as some say", because Pericles' enemies had him

poisoned in order to blacken the great man's name. This explains why he does not speak about further criminal proceedings against Phidias. He does, however, tell us that a decree was passed, proposed by a certain Glycon, granting Menon exemption from taxes and

ordering the board of generals to provide for his personal safety. Some scholars believe this to entail that Phidias was actually convicted 127). There is, indeed, a contradiction here in Plutarch's account : Phidias' death in prison before his guilt had been proved appears to be incompatible with the Glycon decree. We shall see, however, that Plutarch was wrong in as far as Phidias did not die in an Athenian prison, and that the decree rewarding the informer does not necessarily entail that Phidias faced trial and was con-

victed128). Plutarch begins c. 32 by telling us that "about this time" (pe??

were "the final touch which led to an accusation of embezzlement"; Mac- Dowell, Law 149, thinks an impiety charge "possible". For the correct interpretation see E. B. Harrison, The Composition of the Amazonomachy on the Shield of Athena Parthenos, Hesp. 1966, [107 ff.], 108-9, an?L V. M. Strocka, Pir?usreliefs und Parthenosschild (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.

126) Rejected by all who accept Philochorus; also by Davison, o.e. [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 ANAXAGORAS' ATHENIAN PERIOD, II

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

cerning Phidias 129) Aspasia, too, was put on trial. She was accused by the comic poet Hermippus 130), viz. of impiety and of having acted as a procuress for Pericles, thus corrupting female Athen-

ians131). Also, Diopeithes proposed a decree which stipulated that "those who do not recognize the divine or teach theories about the

things on high should be impeached" (e?sa?????es?a? t??? ta ?e?a ?? ???????ta? ? ?????? pe?? t?? ?eta?s??? d?d?s???ta?), which was aimed to throw suspicion upon Pericles through Anaxagoras. The

Assembly accepted this proposal. Finally, a decree was passed, proposed by Dracontides, that "Pericles' accounts of the moneys should be deposited by him with the Prytanes" (dp?? o? ????? t?? ?????t?? ?p? ?e???????? e?? t??? ???t??e?? ?p?te?e?e?), and that he should be tried according to a solemn procedure with 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 assumption?yet to be argued, see below, p. 79 f.?that Aspasia was tried in 438/7 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.


ANAXAGORAS* ATHENIAN PERIOD, II 33

connotations: "the dicasts were to pronounce their verdict on the

Acropolis with ballots taken from the Altar" 132). However, also a rider proposed by Pericles' friend 133) Hagnon was passed, which "took this away from the proposal" and ensured that the proceedings in the investigation of Pericles' financial administration should be of a purely secular and regular character134), and that the jury should be larger than the minimum prescribed for such cases (1500)135). The charge was to be specified as either embezzlement and the taking of bribes or neglect in the administration of public funds 186).

By weeping in public and begging the dicasts Pericles obtained a verdict of not guilty for Aspasia ; for the pathetic details Plutarch refers to Aeschines 137). He sent Anaxagoras out of town, providing him with an escort. But "since, because of Phidias, he had clashed with the Assembly (t? d???) and was afraid of the court (t? d??ast?????) 138), he caused the war, which had been threatening and smouldering, to burst into flames 139), expecting in this way to dispel the charges against himself", etc.

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 allgemein gebr?uchliche Form der feierlichen Abstimmung"; similarly already A. Boeck, Staatshaush., I (Berlin 2i85i), 274-5: "feierlichste Ent- scheidung". See however below, p. 49.?It is not certain whether this 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. 135) Bonner-Smith, o.e., 246, suggest that "an old law required a jury of

1,000 for impeachment cases". Swoboda, o.e., 583, shrewdly suggests (pos- sibly 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



Absolute and Relative Chronology in Diodorus, Plutarch, and Ephorus

Apart from some minor points, Plutarch's account is perfectly consistent. The relative chronology, after the installation of the

statue, is: (i) the indictment by Menon, the accusation against Phidias before the Assembly, and his death in prison; (2) "at about the same time", the accusation against Aspasia, and (3) the decree of Diopeithes; (4) then the decree of Dracontides with Hagnon's rider; (5) the trial of Aspasia and her subsequent acquittal; (6) Anaxagoras' leaving town; (7) Pericles' fear of the dicastery; (8) the beginning of the war. Though more compressed, Ephorus' account ap. D.S. lists such events as are mentioned in the same relative order (I assign to the items the same numbers I have to the corresponding sections in Plutarch): (1) the accusations against Phidias; (4) the accusation against Pericles; (6) the accusation against Anaxagoras uo); (7) Pericles' fear of the dicastery; (8) the beginning of the war.

The main point at issue is whether this chronology is correct, both in an absolute and in a relative sense. I know that in rejecting Ephorus' and Plutarch's absolute chronology I am not breaking new ground. On the other hand, a defence of the relative as combined with a rejection of the absolute chronology has not, as far as I am aware, been attempted before.

A survey of the chief points concerned with the absolute chro-

nology is indispensable in view of the argument regarding the relative dating of events.

Diels-Kranz quote Plutarch, Per. 32 together with D.S. XII 39, 2 at Vorsokr. 59 A 17, II p. 10, 36 ff. and gloss Plutarch's pe?? t??t?? 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 Aspasia and Anaxagoras are synchronized with that upon Phidias

Ephorus, whose adaptation changes colour in Plutarch's hands. The meta- phor is a common one; cf. R. Str?mberg, Greek Proverbs (Got. Hand. 7 F. ser. A Bd. 4.8, G?teborg 1954), ?4, and P. W. v.d. Horst, The Sentences of Phocylides (Diss. Utrecht, Leiden 1978), 210.

140) I believe that ?s???f??t??? refers to a trial rather than to the Dio- peithes decree (above, p. 24 , and n. 138).



only. It is the larger context which shows that the advocates of the ' 'worst reason of all" put this series of events immediately before the war. Since this absolute date of Plutarch is also that of

Ephorus, the latter, as is generally agreed, is one of Plutarch's sources 141). It will be recalled that Ephorus quoted a few lines from the Peace. In another comedy, staged before the Peace, viz. the Acharnians [produced in 425], Aristophanes had laid the blame with Aspasia {Ach. 515-39), not with Phidias, who, in the earlier play, is not mentioned at all142). Plut., Per. 30, the end, quotes Ach. 524-7 and informs us that "the Megarians" (identity unknown) invoked these lines as proof that they were not responsible for the war. We have noticed that Ephorus ap. D.S. does not refer to

Aspasia and does not quote from the Ach. either. The fact that, 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 Aspasia 143). Aristophanes, too, must be counted among Plutarch's sources; perhaps the preceding quotation from the Ach. explains why Aspasia's trial is mentioned in c. 32, where, however, Aeschines is cited for the details 144). On the other hand, the possibility that Aspasia was abridged out of

Ephorus' account by Diodorus cannot be excluded and should, I think, be preferred. Anyhow Plutarch, by qualifying the account of Ephorus and Aristophanes the way he does, shows that he

prefers not to accept it. At Mai. Hdt 855 E-856 A145) he severely 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 (Halle 1899), 332, plausibly suspects D.S. of compression. Note that 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 (Amster- dam 1805), 82-3. Wyttenbach's discussion of the ancient explanations of the causes of the war still repays a reading.?Also note Plutarch's condem- nation of the comic poets and Stesimbrotus at Per. 12, in fine.



condemns such historians as use explanations of this sort, explicitly referring to the fabrications of comic poets and others concerned with Pericles' motives for starting the war. Here, the stories about both Phidias and Aspasia are singled out for special mention.

Several arguments have been forwarded in favour of the absolute

chronology of Ephorus/Plutarch. Some scholars have said that

Aristophanes' testimony should be accepted because he is the oldest witness 146). Others have argued from the Diopeithes decree. Its proposer, identified by some as the diviner familiar from the

stage of Aristophanes 147), is also believed to be the same person as the Diopeithes mentioned by Xen., H.G. Ill 3, 3 as consultant at Sparta in divinatory matters in 397, although 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 should, moreover, be noted that Aristophanes does not even 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 'Himmelser- scheinungen' 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?tt- liche 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: Dio- peithes 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).



of the 4th cent, cannot have been active in politics long before the war (viz. certainly not c. 450 B.C.149)). Occasionally, this consideration is linked up with the further question of who actually accused Anaxagoras before a dicastery. If the Diopeithes decree was passed immediately before the war, the prosecutor cannot have been, it is said, the old and enfeebled Thucydides son of

Melesias, but must have been Cleon. Points such as the above were forcefully argued by e.g. Zeller 150) ; it should not be overlooked, however, that Zeller was first and foremost concerned with making the case against the early chronology [c. 530-460] of Anaxagoras as proposed by Unger and others as strong as he could. By bringing the trial of Anaxagoras as close as possible to the beginning of the war, Zeller refuted Unger es. (he had, for- tunately, also other arguments). Wade-Gery defended a late date for the trial without giving up the old Thucydides as prosecutor; he supposed that the latter "made himself felt" after his supposed return from banishment in 433, which, if true, would of course

strengthen the case for the absolute chronology of Ephorus/ Plutarch m). Derenne believed that Thucydides and Cleon together accused Anaxagoras just before the war152). Others argue that Thucydides* (the historian's) silence about the trials is to be explained by his bias in favour of Pericles, hence that the trials should be accepted and left where Ephorus/Plutarch put them 163).

The case against the absolute chronology, however, is very strong. Thucydides' testimony that Pericles wielded virtually un-

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, Aus-

gew. Sehr. (Freiburg etc. i960), [47 ff.], 60. K. v. Fritz, Griech. Geschichts- schr., 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.



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

great biographer of human character was not interested in, or rather suspicious about, is meticulous accuracy in chronological matters165). Especially revealing in this connection is his dis- paraging?and perhaps not wholly unjustified?sneer about Euse- 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? . . . ?a??s??), which innumerable authors have been revising up to this day without being able to settle their disputes" 15e). Plutarch is more concerned with the idealization of character than with the empiricism of the chronicle ; as a matter of fact, the Lives are full of chronological compressions and in-

accuracies, the Per. itself providing illuminating examples elsewhere 157). In the present case, moreover, Plutarch merely repeats the causal inferences of others with a serious caveat as to their

reliability, which of course entails that the confidence invested in his absolute chronology cannot surpass that to be conceded to his

sources, i.e. Ephorus and Aristophanes c.s. As long ago as 1840, W. Vischer, in an apparently forgotten paper 158), already pointed

154) I 139, 4 and 127, 3. 155) See the useful collection of "Ausserungen Plutarchs ?ber seine

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: Aus- gew. Sehr. (Berlin 1896), [481 ff.], 485; Gomme, HCTh, l, 67; R. Sealy, Essay s in Gr. Politics (?. Y. 1967), 59; ?. ?. Breebaart, Plut, and the Develop- ment 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'



out, among other things, that Aristophanes should never be used as if he were a sober historian and that we may only?and very cautiously?use such evidence as is contained in his plays if it is confirmed by other, independent evidence, or if it is the starting- point, not the climax, of a joke 1d9), or, again, if it is just a piece of innocuous information. It is, indeed, rather embarrassing to realize that not only Ephorus but also many modern scholars are unable or unwilling to distinguish gibes and lampoons from matter- of-fact reports and descriptions. Naturally, a gibe or satire, to be what it is, must have some connection with reality leo) : from the passage in the Peace we may conclude?since this is corroborated

by independent evidence?that Phidias existed and had bad luck, that Pericles existed, that the Megarian decree existed, and that

something Pericles did about the decree was somehow connected with the outbreak of a war which happened. We are not entitled to accept, however, that the special connection between these events revealed by the character on the stage has any foundation in fact; if we do, where is the joke? Aristophanes' implied chronology, here as elsewhere, is 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 Aristo- phanes actually gives away that he is making things up : the other characters on stage in so many words declare that they hear about Phidias' responsibility for the first time in their whole life {Peace

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 ge- nommen zu haben". Cf. also Gomme, HCTh, I, 69-70.

160) Vischer, o.e., 477. 161) E.g. Wilamowitz, Comm. gramm. IV [1889], repr. Kl. Sehr., IV

(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 com- patible 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.).



6i5 ff.)? Lastly, in the^cA. (cf. above, p. 35) not a word is breathed about Phidias: here the joke is on Aspasia 1?2).

Since Ephorus quoted the Peace, it is clear that he accepted Aristophanes' lampoon as a statement of fact. It is not fair, however, to assume that what he found in Aristophanes was his one and only argument1?3) in favour of his explanation of the war. I shall say something about his further reasons below, p. 74 f.

Philochorus on Phidias* Career

First, however, the testimony of Aristophanes should be con- fronted with that of Philochorus, FGrH 328 F 121 [= Overbeck Nos. 629 and 647], to be restricted to the first scholium to Peace 605, which contains verbatim quotations of which the second scholium offers only a troubled paraphrase 164).

When he came to Peace 605, the scholiast (or perhaps rather the excerpted learned author of an ancient commentary) looked things up in his Philochorus [similar references in connection 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.


ANAXAGORAS ATHENIAN PERIOD, II 4I

chronological conundrums: Schol. Peace 990 = Philoch. F 123, Schol. Plut. 1146 = Philoch. F 124] and discovered that the Phidias affair and the Megarian complaint had been treated by the

Atthidographer under different years165). He gives us two quotations from the Atthis (hence the first scholium should be treated as containing two different fragments from Philochorus): Phidias was mentioned "when Theodorus 1??) was archon", (438/7), the Megarian protest against the decree directed against them "when

Pythodorus was archon" (432/1). Consequently, the scholiast concluded, Aristophanes ? and "others", viz., without doubt, Ephorus ? could not be right : there was a difference of 7 years? the scholiast, of course, reckons inclusively?between the Phidias affair and the troubles about the Megarian decree. Philochorus, anno 438/7, said 167) that "the golden statue of Athena 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.

166) Palmerius' correction of the archon-names in the first schol. (for 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?- ?as??e??? ?p??a?e?? ?p? ??e???".????a? -|- inf. means 'suspected of*: cf. 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.



in the great temple, having a weight of gold plate of 44 talents, Pericles being commissioner, Phidias having made it. And Phidias, who had made it, and who was suspected of having cheated with the accounts of the ivory used for the placques, was accused [or: convicted]; and he went into exile at Elis, and is said to have accepted the contract for the statue of Zeus at Olympia, and, having completed it, to have been slain by the 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 explicitness about what happened at Athens in 438/7. Scholl, o.e., 35 f., 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 stock- example: 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



noteworthy that this first fragment, pace Philochorus, consists of one fact (the completion of the Athena and the accusation of Phidias) and two ?e???e?a: "it is said" (a) that he made the Zeus at Olympia, and (b) that he was killed by the Eleans. Philochorus' 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 com- monplace 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?? ???eta? ?p? t?? ta?t? ?p??a?e??. 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?? ????p- p?? t?? a?t?? ???at??a. For all we know, the circumstances under which 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. Kult- schriftsteller (RGW XV. 1, Giessen 1914), 24, and Jacoby, FGrH III b (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. 383 n. 24, on Philoch.?the Atthides are unfavourably compared, as to 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? ?? t? $ ?e??????? f?s?? ?p?stat???t?? a?t? ?e??s?a?]?or at least ?p?st?ta??, 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.



who at 01. 85.2 (438/9), Helm p. 113 (g) has Fidias eburneam Minervam fecit. Also the epigraphical evidence (cf. above, p. 28), viz. the accounts?esp. IG I2 354, the final summation?of the

moneys used to pay for the materials and for the wages of the labour force are believed to agree with Philochorus* date170). It is, of course, to be conceded that the further bios of Phidias in Philochorus is an excursus m) and that not all the events which are related are to be dated to 438/7. It should be noted, however, that the excursus proper pertains only to the ?e???e?a about Phidias' further career at Elis?which lies, after all, outside Attic

history?and that the completion of the statue at Athens is 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 the then arising question about the total of moneys spent in its construction and installation 172). A later date for the accusation, moreover, is excluded by the fact that the overseers would have to be discharged (c.q. penalized) ultimo the beginning of 437/6. The old but tenacious argument that Phidias' trial may itself have taken place in 432/1 and that Phidias was stupid enough to return to Athens for this purpose 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, previously adduced in this context].?Callimachus, fr. 196 Pfeiffer (cf. 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 calcula- tion.

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 Philo- chorus* bias.

172) See below, p. 67 f. 173) Cf. e.g. Kirchner, Prosop. II 347, Nr. 14149; Gomme, HCTh, II, 186.



surviving the demise of its premiss. Once upon a time, the con-

cluding words of the first extract in the scholium ("he was killed by the Eleans") were connected with the first words of the second extract ("when Pythodorus was archon"), i.e. they were not attributed to the first fragment of Philochorus, anno 438/7, but to the second, anno 432/1. To tidy things up, the words "by the Eleans" had to be eliminated or to be silently replaced with "by the Athenians" . . . However, this incorrect punctuation or rather lack of distinction between fragments was refuted by Sauppe as

long ago as 1869 174). It is only the construction of the Zeus and Phidias' subsequent death, reported in the short biographical excursus, which have to be dated after 438/7, not, however, the accusation brought against him.

Philochorus apparently was only able to report ?e???e?a about Phidias' Elean career. As we all know?although there are still scholars who hesitate to draw the proper conclusions175)?, the first of these ?e???e?a has now been vindicated by the excavation of Phidias' workshop at Olympia176). The 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 demo- crazia 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, hence as being absolutely fool-proof, and consequently dates the trials "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 mid- 430s 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 Mallwitz-Schiering, o.e. For the chronological conclusions to be drawn for Phidias' career see Bloch, o.e., 498 f., Frost, Hist. 1964, 395, Donnay 1968,



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

?e???e???, and both confirm what is given by Philochorus anno

438/7. To this evidence we should now again add Pausanias'

reports about things seen and heard at Olympia, which imply that Phidias was believed to ha