Figueira, Thomas. 2023. Introduction. In “The Athenian Empire Anew: Acting Hegemonically, Reacting Locally in the Athenian Arkhē,” ed. Aaron Hershkowitz and Michael McGlin, special issue, Classics@ 23. .

This collection derives from a conference panel organized by the Working Group on Athenian Hegemony. I founded this initiative as an effort to reinvigorate work on Attic classical expansionism, “imperialism,” and hegemonism. [1] We are a group of scholars who are attempting to investigate Athenian alliances, foreign policy, “imperialism,” and interstate outreach in an independent spirit, having renounced any preemptive allegiance to past interpretative schools. Our group has tried to encourage dialogue between senior scholars, each of whom may be striving to create their own new paradigm, to bring into contact with each other mid-career scholars (previously working on these issues in isolation), and to attract into the investigation of classical power politics early-career scholars (some of whom have worked with me in various guises). All of us have often been faced with a daunting scholarly history and previous intemperate contestation that has surrounded many aspects of what was erroneously called the “Athenian Empire.” Our inaugural meeting, which was organized and chaired by Sean R. Jensen and myself, took place in July 2010 at the University of Edinburgh, and was devoted to “Athenian Hegemonic Techniques.” [2] The papers given at this panel became a collection called Athenian Hegemonic Finances. Funding Athenian Domination in the 5th and 4th Centuries BC (2019). [3] For another discussion that explores some of the ideas lying behind the Working Group, see also S. R. Jensen’s “Introduction” to Hegemonic Finances (pp. ix–xx).

Thereafter, Aaron Herskowitz and Michael McGlin have ably undertaken leadership roles. They have described themselves to me as motivated by the lack of programming about Attic hegemony in other venues like the Society for Classical Studies. They started by co-organizing the sessions that included the papers of this collection among other presentations. These contributions derive from a panel “Local Effects of the Athenian Arkhē” in July 2017 in Montreal. [4] Our next meeting was delayed a year by the pandemic but was held in Coimbra in June 2021. [5] Hershkowitz, McGlin, and I again co-organized. Our papers then were devoted to “Classical Athenian Statesmanship and the Specter of Demagogy.” Our call for papers for the Montreal panel adumbrates some of the themes that are covered in the selection of papers that appear in the present collection:

The goal of this panel is to build upon this work [the earlier meeting and prospective publication of the first meeting and panel] and continue to flesh out our understanding of life in the poleis of the Athenian arkhē in its specific manifestations. How did the increased availability of resources collected from the allies affect Athenian constitution and society? What actions could, and did, Athenians or allies as individuals and groups take to steer alliance policy, especially outside of simple appeal to the ekklēsia? Did Athenian propaganda, often conducted on a religious plane, have lasting effects on local cult practice? What internal changes are detectable in the poleis opposed to the arkhē, as they adjusted to the new political and economic landscape of the Mediterranean? How did life in arkhē manifest in an individual or popular experience? We hope that by moving away from simplistic moral evaluations of Athenian ‘imperialism’ we shall be able to enrich our understanding of the fifth century and the monumental changes in Greek civilization that it witnessed. We are endeavouring to contribute to the trend that seeks nuanced explanations for inquiries into individual diplomatic and strategic contexts. Accordingly, we are seeking to advance beyond commonplaces or nostrums about ‘imperialism’, ‘dividing to conquer’, and allied subjection. [6]

This is naturally a very wide ambit to which it would take quite a few meetings and collections to mark even a start, but it is, nevertheless, worth noting in order to explain the spirit in which our Working Group has been operating.

In the first place, it is unsurprising that the acme of Athenian democracy, while it has consistently inspired awe for literary and its artistic accomplishments, has found tougher critics for its foreign policies in settings where modern democracy has found so few friends. [7] Sparta often proved the more acceptable model to the temperament of “republicans.” [8] Thus, perhaps we must conclude that any analysis at all with the potential for pro-democratic discourse in ancient history is rather a fragile and recent phenomenon. We may invoke, but then must set aside, at least partially, British liberals like George Grote (the first edition of his history was 1846–1856) [9] and Edward Bulwer Lytton (and their American admirers). [10] The more recent nineteenth- and twentieth-century discovery of documentary evidence in the form of inscriptions placed a line of division between these authors and modern analysis. Despite our lives in democratic and supposedly meritocratic societies, even public universities in America have tended ever more toward elitism over the period of my professional career, so that oligarchy may resonate quietly, but suggestively, in the scholarly submind. [11]
In that light, let me now turn to setting the papers that follow in the broadest scholarly framework. [12] I make no apologies for the personal tone of some of my remarks, since I believe that lived experience of this research may well be revealing to younger scholars. At the beginning of the [Second] Peloponnesian War in 431 BCE, “Athens and her allies” constituted the largest power bloc ever assembled by a polis. Twice in his opening chapters (1.1, 1.18), Thucydides emphasizes that the conflict between Athens and Sparta encompassed the entire Greek world. It is neither surprising nor incongruous, then, that much of the scholarship devoted to the Athenian arkhē focuses on interstate relations, both within the two great alliances and between them: one thinks again of The Athenian Tribute Lists [13] and Jacqueline de Romilly’s Thucydide et l’impérialisme athénien (Paris 1948). Next, after a short generation’s life, there appeared Russell Meiggs’ Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) and Wolfgang Schuller’s Die Herrschaft der Athener im Ersten Attischen Seebund (Berlin 1974), [14] as well as G. E. M. de Ste. Croix 1972 (about all of which there will be more below).
In general, our methodology differs (1) by integrating administrative history and the influences wielded by procedural efficiencies and habits of management; (2) by refocusing attention on economic factors that were evolving autonomously from policy decisions; (3) by emphasizing that so large a structure as the Delian League and Athenian network of alliances cannot have been dominated by a unanimity of treatment or by simple rules of thumb; (4) by recognizing the universality of conceptual systems of self-understanding (which sometimes qualify as ideology in their closure, systematic articulation, and claims to exclusive explanatory power [15] ); and (5) by a persistent emphasis on reading closely classical texts, both in a fully contextualized mode and with continual interrogation of the genealogy of transmission of material by sources.
We should always be striving to move beyond earlier paradigms, which, even if some might protest their description as outmoded, do still inhibit us from exploiting the lessons of the foreign affairs of over two generations of human experience. Thus, it is appropriate to cast our gaze backwards to these earlier constructs. The ATL outlook on what might be denominated “power politics” attributed a reductive instrumentalism to Athenian policy. H. T. Wade-Gery’s study of 1940 (reprinted in 1958) on the Peace of Kallias laid an important part of the foundation for the ATL reconstruction of fifth-century Athenian foreign policy, which I have judged misguided, [16] as did the views of A. B. West noted below. Nonetheless, the overall style of analysis of Athenian hegemonism in the ATL perhaps also reflected North American suspicions toward the nineteenth-century “great game” of European colonial powers, that was accompanied by manipulations of national sentiment by competing states. There may well have been naivety here as well, in which national character or, perhaps better, modern cultural self-understanding, was under-appreciated as a genuine driver of policy choices. Furthermore, the documentary interpretations of the ATL brought into high relief the evolution of our appreciation of epigraphical investigation as opening pathways to historical interpretations. As to the contributions of Wade-Gery, one may suspect that a social ambience of disdain for the populism of Attic dēmokratia may have rendered this legitimately acute British historian [17] rather more susceptible to following the lead of the hyperactive spirit of Benjamin Dean Meritt (himself building on West) in distilling insights out of inscriptions. Wade-Gery stood in the tradition of British historians of Classical Athenian history who were both politically left of center and thoroughly elitist in social association. [18]
The subsequent discussion was marked by the personal vicissitudes of the early careers and later history of the ATL authors. A. B. West was undoubtedly brilliant, one of the first American Rhodes Scholars (1886–1936). [19] Potentially he had years of active scholarship before him when killed in an automobile accident in 1936. He had already given initial shape to the epigraphy of the ATL, and through it to our understanding of fifth-century Athenian foreign policy. [20] Given the weight of that previous scholarship, one would doubt whether he could have led a paradigm change against his earlier stands. [21] Meritt’s long career (1899–1989) [22] had many years of active contestation ahead after the publication of ATL, in which he defended his scholarship on Athenian imperialism vigorously. [23] So too did Malcolm MacGregor, a student of West and younger man than Meritt by a decade, who continued to engage in scholarly debate over the fifth-century Athenian arkhē, although scarcely with the vigor and originality of Meritt. [24]
In advancing my assessment, I shall have to add some disclaimers, because now I must confront the topic of the intensity of struggles among epigraphists. I was not involved greatly in scholarly controversy with the surviving principal actors on the ATL side, Meritt, [25] and McGregor. [26] My work on Aigina was not aligned with ATL canons. However, my picture of Athens and Aigina with different political, ideological, and socioeconomic structures disequilibrating and re-equilibrating under the influence of stressors and dynamic agents was not easily decoded for its impact on debates over the arkhē. My monographs of 1991 and 1993 appeared too late to have an impact on the main early disputants. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the vehemence of these epigraphical conflicts repressed later serious study of the arkhē in North America, and this internecine denigration did permanent damage to the research, study, and teaching of epigraphy in the United States. [27] The looming figure of Meritt was doubtless a factor, magnified by the auctoritas and patronage of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (IAS), by his importance at the American School of Classical Studies (with influence at the Agora Excavations and with publishing in Hesperia); and finally by his international honors. I cannot offer here even a thumbnail sketch, but I shall proffer four vignettes.
The graduate school at Penn was soliciting applications for a conference designed by graduate students. I suggested to Jameson a conference on fifth-century Attic imperialism. [28] He rejected this as a bad idea: it could never be organized without offending some of the scholarly adversaries, and it would devolve into rows over letter-forms, especially the three-barred sigma. Rather than enhancing my profile professionally, senior figures would become hostile to me. Staying aloof from these arguments was good advice then, even better in retrospective.
A second observation I offer not for its truth but for its illustration of sentiments and positions held contemporaneously about the conflict over Attic epigraphy. There came into my hands briefly in the 1980s a letter written by two principals to these controversies (they were eminent scholars, not elsewhere named in this piece). This document was an indictment of Meritt from its author, who sought confirmation of various statements previously shared with its recipient. I have no knowledge of the factuality of these accusations. Yet, on the basis of over forty years of experience of university disciplinary proceedings at Rutgers, [29] I shall observe that the author claimed infliction of tortious harms on colleagues and the commission of actions probably subject to academic discipline.
This indicium of the acrimony of these scholarly disagreements can be paralleled in another exchange. The chief opponent of Meritt on the Athenian calendar and on the hypothetical missing tribute list was William Kendrick Pritchett of the University of California at Berkeley (1909–2007), who answered Meritt’s work of 1961 on issues calendric with his work of 1963. It was countered by McGregor 1966, which not only contains a sustained discussion of the issues, but remarks on Pritchett’s work (p. 213): “It is an extraordinary performance: savage in its attacks on Meritt, of little value as a contribution to epigraphic and calendric scholarship, dangerous in much of its doctrine, it will delight the sadistic, convince the gullible, and deceive the innocent. Because many who use the products of epigraphic research are innocent so far as its methods and intricacies are concerned and because a new generation is producing young historians and epigraphists, this book merits a somewhat lengthy judgement and a firm sentence.” [30] Must we admit this response as just as toxic and rather chilling toward those thinking of joining the debate?
During my Fulbright year at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in 1976–1977, I had the great good fortune to have as the visiting professors two very eminent epigraphists and historians, Antony E. Raubitschek (1912–1999) [31] and W. K. Pritchett himself. [32] Both men taught me to my great advantage, and to different extents became supporters of my work. [33] Just before starting the seminars, someone warned of an inevitable outburst. Early on, Raubitschek prudently asked us not to discuss academic interchanges in his seminar outside our number. Pritchett soldiered on without comment until one day, almost without a trigger, he burst into a short squall of denunciation of Raubitschek. It was almost too painful for a listener to endure this self-subversive animus. Recall that these were two senior scholars who stood at the pinnacle of classical studies, with so many accomplishments, including professorships at leading institutions. Raubitschek had been an opponent of the Nazis in his native Vienna before the Anschluss; Pritchett had served with distinction in World War II (participating in the Nuremberg trials). Although Pritchett came off the worse, I must insist that this interplay shows how Greek epigraphy in America was to a real extent profoundly perturbed.
Nonetheless, the synthesis of the Athenian Tribute Lists was the ruling interpretation of the second half of the twentieth century. Meritt’s tendency to lead with epigraphical restoration affected the contribution of the ATL and has deserved interpretative correction. Yet, on a macroscopic scale we now hesitate in the midst of any expectation that epigraphical discoveries will likely answer just those questions that we most want to have addressed—I think here of the discoveries regarding Athenian monetary policy—rather than pose even further, previously unimagined, questions. And, on a focused level of restoration or emendation, we shrink from efforts to make lost text that has been adjusted through supplementation clarify the specific enigmas for which we have sought answers in the parts of inscriptions that have survived. The received views were shaped by midcentury struggles against Nazi, Fascist, and Soviet expansionism against a backdrop of growing unease about the European and American colonial systems. Subsequent modulation occurred under the influence of later twentieth-century anti-communism and anti-anti-communism. This scholarship took on additional deformation when its interpretative keys became subordinated to the single issue of the chronology of use of forms of the letter sigma (through the flawed scholarship of H. B. Mattingly and the often unhelpful responses of his detractors). The ongoing challenge is to move beyond these contextual constraints and free our analysis from the assumption that “vindication” of Mattingly provided the keys to a kingdom of understanding.
The study of Athenian hegemonism was affected by these disputes even among ancient historians. I speak of the 1970s and 1980s, which were marked by the tailing off of the “baby-boom” years, and with that came the economic decline of the professoriate in the Humanities and Social Sciences (which has never truly been reversed). The two leading separate graduate programs in ancient history were Pennsylvania [34] and Berkeley, [35] which show among their Greek historians a tendency to concentrate on other fields than the phoros system and instruments of hegemony. In part, this was owed to the turning of focus toward social history, including work in demographics, economic structure, servile systems, cultural history, women’s history, and gender and sexuality. Naturally, these were positive reorientations, but notably sidestepping what was called Athenian “imperialism.” Even the exception is corroborative. Donald Kagan, whose historical studies on the Peloponnesian War have been so influential, [36] was another great mentor of this period, initially at Cornell and then at Yale. [37] The concentration of his supervision illuminated diplomacy; the causes of war and peace, with their basis in factionalism; the constitutional and ideological aspects of struggles for hegemony; and military history. Kagan’s histories of the Peloponnesian War have naturally been an influential treatment for American scholars of various degrees of engagement with its period. However, they are perhaps surprisingly somewhat tangential even regarding many of the issues affecting the pre-war hegemony.
The German academic influence in graduate education in the Classics, which had been so influential in the nineteenth century, weakened under the effects of the world wars. Therefore, the “Greats” (Litterae Humaniores) curriculum of Oxford assumed and continued to have a disproportionate impact on American supervision of research. [38] On the graduate as well as the undergraduate level, the subjects of Oxford tutorial papers, as reflected in later examination questions, possessed a surprisingly enduring sway over the subjects of papers, exam questions in the United States, and topics for student inquiry. This doubtless magnified the lasting authority of ATL over the study of classical Athens here. That is because the findings of ATL were elaborated by influential Oxford scholars such as Antony Andrewes, [39] David M. Lewis, [40] and Russell Meiggs, [41] and with a next cohort, [42] for example, of Peter J. Rhodes [43] and John Kenyon Davies. [44] Was this scholarship marked both by socialist/social democratic inclinations (as noted above) [45] and simultaneously a touch of suspicion for any heightened demotic/populist participation, whose center of gravity seemed so non-elite? All of these scholars were too learned, too incisive in their analyses to conform to any interpretative straitjacket, so that in their hands there was always valuable extension, amendment, and supplementation of interpretative vectors. The lived humanistic spirit of all these men in my experience (although my familiarity varied in intensity with the degree of my interaction) made them proof against destructive ideological deflection in their scholarly dialogue, although their essentially Labourite affiliations or context did touch their scholarship. Let me reiterate that a straitjacket for analysis was not the issue, but an ideological ambiance that prevailed in the absence of a countervailing philosophy from the right in opposition. [46]
Geoffrey de Ste. Croix was another influential figure, who belongs with my earlier generation above (being born in 1910) of interpreters of Attic hegemonic affairs. He was avowedly Marxist, which drove a stronger sympathy in favor of Athenian policy, as in his most important work, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972), [47] which creatively diverged from the ATL (cf. 3.303–325). The emergence of a general discontent within and without the Athenian alliance over the tenor of Athenian leadership had received ample airing in the ATL, especially in the mouths of the Spartans and Corinthians (and other adherents of their cause). Yet, amid the ATL efforts to account for this development, its approach had necessarily deviated markedly from a direct reading of Thucydides. And its problematic features had found for the most part no happy footing in his text. In Origins, Croix disestablished the Megarian Decree as an alternative foundation for a causation of the Peloponnesian War, an interpretation that worked at counter-point to the Thucydidean narrative, albeit with a significant degree of over-compensation in his argument. The reception of this work is most interesting for the state of studies in its time on Athenian hegemonism: people trod very carefully and perhaps with self-censorship. Origins received eighteen reviews (quite a respectable number), of which fourteen notably were in English. [48] His mainly favorable British reviewers were not the principal authorities on Athenian “imperial” policy. [49] An exception was Smart, writing in America, who raised the chronological/letter-form controversies, strongly on the side of Mattingly, and was mainly negative. [50] Writing in the Times Literary Supplement, the most visible venue in the Britosphere, George Forrest produced a meaty and salient appraisal, and it is noteworthy that he reviewed Croix’ work and Meiggs’ Empire along with it. [51] Forrest started amusingly with a lament for the plight of a fifth-century Greek historian going about his daily routine in Oxfordshire, who has the 1,000 pages of these books dropped on him. He urged accepting both books’ arguments wholeheartedly with Meiggs preferred earlier in the fifth century and Croix later. In the main, American scholars were markedly negative. [52] Two long reviews by outsiders to these debates raised many significant points: Willem den Boer alone introduced the issue of Croix’ Marxism, and the dense analysis of Detlef Lotze might profitably be read against the background of a divided Germany. [53] Croix had earlier started a major debate by arguing for the devotion of the dēmoi of the allied to Attic hegemony (Croix 1954/55). This approach was a notable corrective gambit, although I doubt whether it is across a scale of popularity that one should look to gauge the underlying phenomenon. This article sparked strong reactions from D. W. Bradeen (1960), and T. J. Quinn (1964). [54] This topic deserves reconsideration in working toward more sophisticated ideas on public feeling and foreign policy. [55]
Toward the last years of the proceeding century, I might sum up the state of analytic overviews of fifth-century Attic hegemony with the remark of T. W. Gallant that closed a thoughtful and supportive review of Figueira 1991: “a … volume that scholars of ancient Greek colonization and the Athenian empire—but few others—will turn to profitably” (Gallant 1992:1495). At one time, the vast majority of ancient Greek historians had been in some real sense scholars of the Athenian “empire.” I would also note the self-restraint of Ernst Badian, who would certainly qualify not only as one of the most prominent of ancient historians of the late twentieth century but as a notably original thinker. His collection of pieces (1993) was modest in its polemical claims, [56] although there is certainly real divergence here from ATL orthodoxy. I knew from Ernst at this time that he was quite shy of paradigmatic claims for this work. [57]
Yet, shifts in our general understanding did march forward in diverse areas: on finance (Schmitz 1988; Blamire 2001); the Attic alliance and the Peloponnesians in the Kimonian era (Steinbecher 1985), awards of proxeny and privileges (Reiter 1991), adjudication (Koch 1991), autonomy (Smarcyzk 1986), the cleruchies (Salomon 1997), and religious practices for both Athens and her dependent allies alike (Smarcyzk 1990). This development was promoted by impetus provided by doctoral candidates searching for dissertation topics (and in Germany topics for Habilitatschriften).
As to identifying the point of inflection at which the present era of studies on the Athenian arkhē began, opinions diverge. Some would point to the publication of the results of the experiment to examine the Egesta inscription by laser illumination. This seemed to establish a breach of the date for the desuetude of the three-barred sigma, dating the treaty to 418/7, although this redating has still been questioned or simply rejected. [58] I have written at length on this question and Mattingly’s overall view of the arkhē so that I limit myself here. [59] This experiment may have proved that Mattingly happened to be right, not that he was right in observation. If such an application of high technology were necessary, he and the other examiners of the stone could hardly have reached their results through autopsy. It is odd that an inscription that had already been widely believed late, and one that hardly constituted crucial evidence for Attic foreign policy, has been accorded such gravity. Athenian interests in West Greece had been well established as quite early. Mattingly’s general approach depended in large part on noting similarities of formula and phrasing. This method has questionable force in demonstration, where so little has survived, where individual styles of the drafters of legislation clearly differed, where the formulaic character and repetition of enactments on the same matter were factors, and where the postulated differentia cannot be corroborated from literary prose. Although admirers of Mattingly sometimes condemn his critics as “philological,” his scholarship has been lacking historiographically: not only does he require Thucydides as an obtuse, lacunose, and ultimately perverse historian, but also that the Attic local history (the Atthidography so visible in Plutarch’s biographies) would have to be significantly questioned or discarded. [60]
This is not the proper venue to adjudicate the successes of efforts to exploit the redating of the Egesta Decree, and the accordance of greater latitude in dating by letter forms. It has had a liberating effect not only in chronology, but also in practical research, in part quite justifiably. However, some recent work has rather cavalierly treated the weakening of the three-barred sigma “rule” as a “get out of jail free card” in order to read less systematically in earlier literature. The state of these inquiries can be gauged from two collections. One is Ma, Papazarkadas, and Parker 2009. I find here much traditional scholarship, mainly expert but without showing any significant impact of the breaching of the three-barred sigma taboo or Mattingly’s scholarship. [61] Even Ma himself depends on Achaemenid and Hellenistic history to note an Athenian application of a “surrender-and-grant” strategy (pp. 125–148). Not only am I reluctant to find here an explanation of late fifth-century grants of autonomy, but the specific application to Karpathos—despite interesting commentary—seems strained, merely a rephrasing of the discredited “divide and conquer” interpretation of the arkhē. The short and enlightening piece of Kroll on coinage (pp. 223–230) belongs truly to the new realm of discourse that I shall sketch below.
The second collection is Mattingly’s Festschrift (drawing on a conference of 2010 at the British School in Athens), which appeared (Matthaiou and Pitt 2014) at a significant remove from the new findings on the Egesta decree. It does indeed provide indications of the impact of the epigraphical “discoveries” of 1990s. The celebrants number nineteen (being joined by Mattingly himself). Two of the contributors addressed literary historigraphical subjects. [62] Others dealt with various topics in Greek history without impact on redating and Attic imperialism. [63] A majority of epigraphical discussions, however sound and valuable, do not cover inscriptions affected by Mattingly’s views on letter forms, chronology, and imperialism. [64] Bjorn Paarmann does indirectly support a date of 426/5 for IG I3 21 (espoused by Mattingly and others), regulations for Miletos with a three-barred sigma, by arguing that the first tribute-list contains evidence for Milesian phoros payment. [65] More assertive is a contribution of Akiko Moroo reviving a later dating (abandoned by Mattingly himself) of the Erythrai decrees (IG I3 14–16) , in the second half of the 430s. [66] However, another offering here on IG I3 14 does not dispute the 450s dating of “most scholars.” [67] A more substantial piece is Papazarkadas 2014, making a case for dating the Sigeion decree (IG I3 17) to the end of the fifth century amid the Ionian War. So little late fifth-century context on Sigeion renders several reconstructions feasible. Yet even in so fragmentary a document an objection could be raised against dating during the Ionian War. This redating is not consequential for understanding Attic hegemonism. [68]
Put it down to vanity (if only in part) when I find a turning point in a series of works that delved wholeheartedly into the various mechanisms that lay at the core of the arkhē in the nature, protocols, and policies of movements of material goods. I class here my monograph on monetary affairs of 1998, and the works of two important interlocutors, Loren Samons and Lisa Kallet. Samons tackled the evolution of Attic treasuries in a necessarily far-ranging work (2000), which culminated a series of tightly focused studies, and his research then widened into an appraisal of Periklean policies. [69] Lisa Kallet has offered monographs tracing Athenian finances during the Peloponnesian War, while weighing in thoughtfully on the antecedent fiscal issues of hegemony. [70] Naturally, I have considerable disagreements with my colleagues. Their research, however, does confront for the Athenian arkhē the central question, in Lenin’s formulation, of “who, whom?” Imperialism is systemized exploitation, which in societies near subsistence must be fundamentally material, however closely we must also watch transfers of symbolic goods. [71]
Now let me briefly describe the contributions contained below. Our first set of papers address ideological issues, as broadly construed. David Teegarden in Chapter One opens new ground on Athens as a champion of democracy with his discussion whether the Athenians promoted anti-tyrannical fervor as a means to suppress pro-Persian activism. The focus is on the Attic tyrannicides, Harmodios and Aristogeition, whose statues appear on an electrum stater from Kyzikos, and what this might mean for allied knowledge of and sympathy for the tyrannicides. He then turns to the Erythrai Decree, where the formulation ‘tyrants’ (as opposed to references to a ‘tyrant’ in antityrannical legislation) is significant. He also notes the promotion of the tyrannicides at the Panathenaia and City Dionysia for its possible impact on the allies. Finally, a small group of vases celebrating the tyrannicides is explored on this issue. While minimizing readings of this evidence are possible, Teegarden inclines toward deliberate Athenian policy, which, for one thing, advanced anti-tyrannism and democracy.
In Chapter Two, Hilary J. C. Lehmann, “Lessons from Home: Remembering the Arkhē in Fourth Century Oratory,” offers a retrospective view of the Athenian arkhē from fourth-century Athenian rhetoric. She focuses on the dueling speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines on the “false” embassy to Philip II of Macedon, and their pair of speeches disputing the propriety of the crowning of Demosthenes. Aeschines pits a more intimate concept of ‘home’—oikos, centered on familial experience—against Demosthenes’ invocation of the glorious fifth-century arkhē as a common patrimony. The former’s risk-averse policy is more open to conceding hegemonic mistakes; while, for the latter, the glories of ancestral, storied accomplishments beg for emulation.
Chapter Three is “My Fair Lady: Exploring Social Change through Athenian Vase-Painting in the Fifth Century BCE.” Here, in a well-illustrated essay, Danielle Smotherman Bennet uses the evolution in vase-painting of subject matter over the course of the fifth century to explore effects of the arkhē on the role of women in Attic society. She argues that the influx of foreigners to Athens during the early portion of the polis’ dominance, and the consequent tightening of citizenship requirements by Perikles, led to the focalization of women as an important, indeed, a defining, portion of the Athenian dēmos. Smotherman Bennett shows that the depiction of women on vases, including on vases clearly meant for consumption by women, increased markedly during the fifth century, as did depictions specifically of women carrying out duties for the family and the polis, such as wool-working, playing music, marrying, and child-rearing. These images of domestication in their very increase may manifest sociopolitical pressures on Athenian women for marriage and childbirth; thus, their newfound and elevated economic profile may accompany the responsibility of living up to the messaging of these depictions. Was the binary Attic woman / Athenian male citizen (thinking of the tradition on origins of gender roles passed down to us by Varro) yielding space to a new binary Athenian woman/subject (hypēkoos) person?
Four of our papers consider the basic metabolism of Attic hegemony in that they deal with financing of military activities and the assets that could be deployed for applying power. In Chapter Four Brian Rutishauser conducts a case study on the special relationship between Athens and one of its allies, Corcyra. He argues that Corcyra holds an unusual status as a sort of half-ally, not entirely a member of the arkhē in the sense either of paying tribute or of being inextricably linked to Athens, but whose resources played a role in Attic military establishment from the eve of the war. Even in an environment of limited evidence, important conclusions emerge about the state of the Corcyrean military establishment. Rutishauser presents Corcyra’s complicated relationship with Athens as an important reminder that the relationships in the arkhē were always bilateral and necessarily fluid and urges the importance of considering what various poleis received, or perceived themselves as receiving, from participation in this interstate arrangement.
In “Loans from Attic Temples to the State” (Chapter Five), Michael McGlin hones in on Athenian finances during the Archidamian War in order to provide an analysis of the epigraphical evidence (presented here systematically) for loans from the Treasury of the Other Gods, which he juxtaposes with loans from the cult of Athena Polias. He then turns to the cult of Artemis Agrotera to explain the particular role of this specific treasury, with its monetary dedications from spoils taken from enemies. Its loans illustrate a cycle in which past military success subvened current military activity against the Peloponnesians, and such loans were in expectation of still further future dedications. The ebb and flow of temple reserves acted symbolically as a signifier of military potential to which other flows of resources had to react, such as the tribute assessments levied upon Athenian allies.
In Chapter Six, “Kleon and Tribute: Re-Examining the Import of Financial Expertise in Athenian Statesmanship,” Aaron Hershkowitz discusses the “financial expertise” theory, which claims that Kleon and similar “demagogues” were qualified for leadership by the dēmos for their financial expertise that served the management of the Athenian cycle of revenue and expenditure. Hershkowitz shows that previously posited connections between Kleon and such financial measures as initiation of the eisphora tax and the engineering of the Kleonymos and Thoudippos decrees are unsupported by the evidence. As emerges from a close reading of Aristophanes, Hershkowitz’s portrait of Kleon is not that of a financial wizard, but that of a corrupt warmonger, gifted in opportunistically exploiting one or another aspect of public opinion. Thus, the allies of Athens faced a twofold challenge in maneuvering around self-interested or venal political actors and in divining and responding to general attitudes of the Athenians about their and allied finances.
In “The Membership of the Delian League” (Chapter Seven), I try to restore the investigation of the array of likely allies to center stage, after it had been considered nearly irrelevant for understanding the phoros system of the Delian League. A reconstruction of the roster of Athenian allies not only aids in an explanation of early Delian League finances (as well as the growth of the alliance), but also assists our understanding of the aggregative and fissioning forces that affected the configuration of allied spheres of influence during the fifth-century hegemony. The finding that phoros fell in the early alliance has wide ramifications, not only in context, but for the later alliance.


Allison, J. W., ed. 1990. Conflict, Antithesis, and the Ancient Historian. Columbus.
Andrewes, A. 1959. “Thucydides and the Causes of War.” Classical Quarterly 9:223–239.
———. 1960. “The Melian Dialogue and Perikles’ Last Speech.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 6:1–10.
———. 1972. “Modern Work on the History of Athens, 478–403 B.C.” Didaskalos 4.1:155–164.
———. 1973. “Modern Work on the History of Athens, 478–403 B.C.” Didaskalos 4.2:155–165.
———. 1978. “The Opposition to Perikles.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 98:1–8.
———. 1985. “Diodorus and Ephorus. One source of Misunderstanding.” In The Craft of The Ancient Historian: Essays In Honor of Chester G. Starr, ed. J. W. Eadie and J. Ober, 189–97. Lanham, MD.
Andrewes, A., A. W. Gomme, and K. J. Dover. 1970. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. 4, Book V.25–VII. Oxford.
———. 1981. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. Vol. 5, Book VIII. Oxford.
ATL = Meritt, B. D., H. T. Wade-Gery, A. B. West, and M. F. McGregor. 1939–1953. The Athenian Tribute Lists. 4 vols. Princeton.
Badian, E. 1993. From Plataea to Potidaea. Baltimore.
Barron, J. P. 1962. “Milesian Politics and Athenian propaganda, c. 460–440 B.C.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 82:1–6.
———. 1964. “Religious Propaganda of the Delian League.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 84:35–48.
———. 1966. The Silver Coins of Samos. London.
———. 1968. “The Fifth-Century Diskoboloi of Kos.” In Essays in Greek Coinage Presented to Stanley Robinson, ed. C. M. Kraay and G. K. Jenkins, 75–89. Oxford.
———. 1983. “The Fifth-Century Horoi of Aigina.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 103:1–12.
———. 1986. “Chios in the Athenian Empire.” In Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios 1984, ed. J. Boardman and C. E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson, 89–103. Oxford.
———. 1989. “The Silver Coins of Samos Come of Age.” In Kraay-Mørkholm Essays: Numismatic Studies in Memory of C. M. Kraay and O. Mørkholm, ed. G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark, 9–22. Louvain-La-Neuve.
Beister, H., ed. 1989. Boiotika: Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer, Institut für Alte Geschichte, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München, 13.–17. Juni 1986. Munich.
Benton, J. 1990. Naomi Mitchison: A Biography. London.
Bibliotheca Orientalis. 1973. Unattributed review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. 30:153.
Blamire, A. 2001. “Athenian Finance, 454–404 B.C.” Hesperia 70:99–126.
Boegehold, A. L., et al. 1984. Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday. Durham, NC.
Boer, W. den. 1974. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Mnemosyne 27:430–438.
Bradeen, D. W. 1960. “The Popularity of the Athenian Empire.” Historia 9:257–269.
Bradeen, D. W., and M. F. MacGregor. 1973. Studies in Fifth-Century Attic Epigraphy. Norman.
Bulwer-Lytton, E. 2004. Athens: Its Rise and Fall; Bicentenary edition. Ed. O. Murray. New York.
Calder. J. 1997. The Nine Lives of Naomi Mitchison. London.
Carusi, C. 2021. Review of Figueira and Jensen 2019. Classical Philology 116:293–298.
Cawkwell, G. 1975. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Classical Review 25:258–261.
Chambers, M. 1992–1993. “Photographic Enhancement and a Greek Inscription.” Classical Journal 88:25–31.
———. 1993. “The Archon’s Name in the Athens-Egesta Alliance (IG I3 11).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 98:171–174.
———. 1994. “Reading Illegible Greek Inscriptions: Athens and Egesta.” Thetis: Mannheimer Beitrage zur Klassische Archäologie und Geshichte Griechenlands und Zyperns 1:50–52.
Chambers, M. H., R. Gallucci, and P. Spanos. 1990. “Athens’ Alliance with Egesta in the Year of Antiphon.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 83:38–57 = I. Worthington, ed. 1990. Acta of the University of New England International Seminar on Greek and Latin Epigraphy, 38–63. Bonn.
Connor, W. R. 1973. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Phoenix 28:399–403.
Constantakopoulou, C. 2020. Review of Figueira and Jensen 2019. Classical Review 70:426–429.
DCS = Database of Classical Scholars, Department of Classics, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, New Brunswick =
Davies, J. K. 1997. “Sparta e l’area peloponnesiaca: Atene e il dominio del mare.” In I Greci. 2.2 (Definizione), ed. S. Settis, 109–161. Turin.
———. 2007. “The legacy of Xerxes: The growth of Athenian Naval Power.” In Atene e l’Occidente: I grandi temi; Tripodes 5, ed. E. Greco and M. Lombardo, 71–91. Athens.
———. 2014. “Death and Demography: Meditations on a Monument.” In Matthaiou and Pitt 2014:285–297.
———. 2016. “Theopompos on Athenian Policies and Politicians.” In ‘The Eyesore of Aigina’: Anti-Athenian Attitudes in Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman History, ed. A. Powell and K. Meidani, 95–112. Swansea.
Eddy, S. K. 1976. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Classical Philology 71:377–381.
Ehrenberg, V. 1975. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Journal of Hellenic Studies 95:242.
Figueira, T. J. 1984. “The Ten Archontes of 579/8 at Athens.” Hesperia 53:447–473.
———. 1991. Athens and Aigina in the Age of Imperial Colonization. Baltimore.
———. 1993[a]. “Thoukydides, Melesias, and the Aiginetans.” In Excursions in Epichoric History, 197–230. Savage, MD.
———. 1993[b]. “The Strange Death of Draco on Aegina.” In Rosen and Farrell 1993:287–304.
———. 1998. The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire. Philadelphia.
———. 2001. Rev. H. B. Mattingly, The Athenian Empire Restored, Bryn Mawr Classical Review
———. 2003. Review of Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and its Aftermath, by L. Kallet. Classical World 96:456–58.
———. 2010. “Gynecocracy: How Women Policed Masculine Behavior in Archaic and Classical Sparta.” In Sparta: The Body Politic, ed. S. Hodkinson and A. Powell, 265–296. Swansea.
———. 2016[a]. “Defense and Deterrence in the Context of the Foundation of the Delian League.” In Pólis/Cosmópolis: Identidades Globais & Locais, ed. C. Soares, M. do Céu Fialho, and T. J. Figueira, 17–41. Coimbra.
———. 2016[b]. “Politeia and Lakônika in Spartan Historiography.” In Myth, Text, and History at Sparta, 7–104. Piscataway, NJ.
———. 2016[c]. “Aigina: Island as Paradigm.” In The Eyesore of Aigina: Anti-Athenian Attitudes In Greek, Hellenistic and Roman History, ed. A. Powell and K. Meidani. Swansea. 19–50.
———. 2019. “The Aristeidian Tribute and the Peace of Nikias.” In Athenian Hegemonic Finances, ed. T. Figueira and S. R. Jensen, 167–231. Swansea.
———. 2022. “Salamis as Inflection Point: Militarization, Politicization, and Democratization.” In Democracy and Salamis 2500 Years After the Battle That Saved Greece and the Western World, ed. N. Kyriazis, E. M. L. Oikonomou, and A. Platias, 75–96. Berlin.
———. Forthcoming[a]. “Intellectual Devolution: Classicists facing Ideological Challenge.” In Critique, théorie littéraire et idéologie, ed. D. M. Figueira and J. Bessière. Paris.
———. Forthcoming[b]. Financing Survival: Athenian Monetary Resources in the Archidamian War. Coimbra.
———. Forthcoming[c]. “Thucydides 2.8.4–5 and the Nature of Ideological Sympathy in Fifth-Century Interstate Politics.” In Misinformation, Disinformation, and Propaganda in Greek Historiography, ed. T. J. Figueira and R. V. Munson.
Figueira, T. J., and S. R. Jenson, eds. 2019. Athenian Hegemonic Finances: Funding Athenian Domination in the 5th and 4th Centuries BC. Swansea.
Fornara, C. W. 1977. “IG I2, 39.52–57 and the ‘Popularity’ of the Athenian Empire.” California Studies in Classical Antiquity 10:39–55.
Forrest, W. G. 1973. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Times Literary Supplement 72:541–542.
Gallant, T. W. 1992. Review of Athens and Aigina in the Age of Imperial Colonization, by T. J. Figueira. American Historical Review 97:1494–1495.
Hamilton, C. D., and P. Krentz. 1997. Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War, & History in Ancient Greece, in Honor of Donald Kagan. Claremont.
Hammond, N. G. L. 1973. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. English Historical Review 88:870.
Henry, A. 1992. “Through a Laser Beam Darkly: Space Age Technology and the Egesta Decree (IG I3 11).” Zeitschrift für Papyologie und Epigraphik 91:137–46.
———. 1993. “Athens and Egesta (IG I3 11).” Ancient History Bulletin 7:49–53.
———. 1995. “Pour encourager les autres: Athens and Egesta encore.” Classical Quarterly 45:237–40.
Hershkowitz, A. 2018. Rise of the Demagogues: Political Leadership in Imperial Athens after the Reforms of Ephialtes. PhD Diss., Rutgers University.
Jensen, S. R. 2010. Rethinking Athenian Imperialism: Sub-Hegemony in the Delian League. PhD Diss., Rutgers University.
———. 2011. “Euboian Sub-Hegemonies in the Delian League.” In Euboea and Athens: Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Malcolm B. Wallace, ed. T. J. Figueira, D. Keller, J. H. Oakley, and J. S. Traill, Occasional Papers of the Canadian Institute in Greece, 261–274. Athens.
———. 2012. “Tribute and Syntely At Erythrai.” Classical World 105:479–496.
———. 2019. “Synteleia and Apotaxis on the Athenian Tribute Lists.” In Figueira and Jensen 2019:55–77.
Kagan, D. 1969. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Ithaca.
———. 1974. The Archidamian War. Ithaca.
———. 1975. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. American Journal of Philology 96:90–93.
———. 1981. The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition. Ithaca.
———. 1987. The Fall of the Athenian Empire. Ithaca.
———. 2003. The Peloponnesian War. New York.
Kallet, L. 1989[a]. “The Kallias Decree, Thucydides, and the Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War.” Classical Quarterly 89:94–113.
———. 1989[b]. “Did tribute fund the Parthenon?” Classical Antiquity 89:252–266.
———. 1993. Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1–5.24. Berkeley.
———. 1994. “Money Talks: Rhetor, Demos, and the Resources of the Athenian empire.” In Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts Presented to David Lewis, ed. R. Osborne and S. Hornblower, 227–251. Oxford.
———. 1999. “The Diseased Body Politic, Athenian Public Finance, and the Massacre at Mykalessos (Thucydides 7.27–29).” American Journal of Philology 120:223–244.
———. 2001. Money and the Corrosion of Power in Thucydides: The Sicilian Expedition and its Aftermath. Berkeley.
———. 2003. “‘Demos tyrannos’: Wealth, Power, and Economic Patronage.” In Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and its Discontents in Ancient Greece, ed. K. A. Morgan, 117–153. Austin.
———. 2004. “Epigraphic Geography: the Tribute Quota Fragments Assigned to 421/0–415/4 B.C.” Hesperia 73:465–496.
———. 2009[a]. “The Athenian economy.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, ed. L. J. Samons. Cambridge. 70–95.
———. 2009[b]. “Democracy, Empire and Epigraphy in the Twentieth Century.” In Ma, Papazarkadas, and Parker 2009:43–66.
———. 2013. “The origins of the Athenian economic ἀρχή.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 133:43–60.
Kierstad, J. 2014. “Grote’s Athens, The Character of Democracy.” In Brill’s Companion to George Grote and the Classical Tradition, ed. K. N. Demetriou, 161–210. Leiden.
Koch, C. 1991. Volksbeschlüsse in Seebundangelegenheiten: Das Verfahrensrecht Athens im Ersten attischen Seebund. Frankfurt am Main.
Kroll, J. 2020. Review of Figueira and Jensen 2019. Sehepunkte 20 Nr. 7/8.
Legon, R. P. 1968. “Megara and Mytilene.” Phoenix 22:200–225.
Lewis, D. M. 1952. Towards a historian’s text of Thucydides. PhD Diss., Princeton University.
———. 1974. “Entrenchment-clauses in Attic Decrees.” In Φόρος. Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt, ed. D. W. Bradeen and M. F. McGregor, 81–89. Locust Valley, NY.
———. 1976. “The Treaties with Leontini and Rhegion (Meiggs-Lewis 63–64).” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 22:223–225.
———. 1992. “The Thirty Years Peace.” In Lewis, Boardman, Davies, and Ostwald 1992:121–146.
———. 1993. Review of Acta of the University of New England International Seminar on Greek and Latin Epigraphy, ed. by I. Worthington. Classical Review 43:460–461.
———. 1994. “The Athenian Tribute-Quota Lists, 453–450 BC.” Annual of the British School at Athens 89:285–301.
Lewis D. M., J. Boardman, J. K. Davies, and M. Ostwald, eds. 1992. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 5, The Fifth Century B.C. 2nd ed. Cambridge.
Liddel, P. 2008. “William Young and the Spirit of Athens.” In Reinventing History: The Enlightenment Origins of Ancient History, ed. J. Moore, I. Macgregor Morris, and A. J. Bayliss, 57–85. London.
———. 2009. “European Colonialist Perspectives on Athenian Power: Before and After the Epigraphic Explosion.” In Ma, Papazarkadas, and Parker 2009:1–42.
Lotze, D. 1976. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Gnomon 48:43–49.
Ma, J. T., N. Papazarkadas, and R. C. T. Parker, eds. 2009. Interpreting the Athenian Empire. London.
MacGregor, M. F. 1966. “Method and Manners in Greek Epigraphy.” Phoenix 20:210–227.
———. 1967. “Athenian Policy at Home and Abroad.” In Semple Lectures, 2nd ed, 53–84. Cincinnati.
———. 1987. The Athenians and Their Empire. Vancouver.
MacGregor Morris, I. 2004. “The Paradigm of Democracy. Sparta in Enlightenment Thought.” In Spartan Society, ed. T. J. Figueira, 339–362. Swansea.
Malouchou, G. E. 2014. “A Second Facsimile of the Erythrai Decre (IG I3 14).” In Matthaiou and Pitt 2014:73–95.
Matthaiou, A. P., and R. J. Pitt, eds. 2014. ΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΣ. Studies in Honor of Harold B. Mattingly. Athens.
Meiggs, R. 1943. “The Growth of Athenian Imperialism.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 63:2–34.
———. 1949. “A Note on Athenian Imperialism.” Classical Review 13:9–12.
———. 1950. Review of ATL vol. 2. Classical Review 64: 63–65.
———. 1953. Review of ATL vol. 3. Classical Review 66:97–100.
———. 1963[a]. “The Crisis of Athenian Imperialism.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 67:1–36.
———. 1963[b]. “The Political Implications of the Parthenon,” Parthenos and Parthenon = Greece & Rome Supp. 10:36–45.
———. 1966. “The Dating of Fifth-century Attic Inscriptions.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 86:86–98.
———. 1972. The Athenian Empire. Oxford.
Meiggs, R. and D. Lewis. 1988. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions. 2nd ed. Oxford.
Meritt, B. D. 1961. The Athenian Year. Berkeley.
Mitchison, N. 1925. Cloud-Cuckoo Land. London.
———. 1927. Black Sparta. London.
———. 1931. The Corn King and the Spring Queen. London.
———. 1979. You May Well Ask: A Memoir 1920–1940. London.
Mørch, S. 1970. “Popularité ou impopularité d’ Athènes chez Thucydide.” Classica et Mediaevalia 31:49–71.
Moroo, A. 2014. “The Erythrai Decree Reconsidered: IG I3 14, 15, & 16.” In Matthaiou and Pitt 2014:97–119.
Murray, O. 1973. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Greece & Rome 20:204–205.
Oliva, P. 1974. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Eirene 12:143–145.
Osborne, R., and P. J. Rhodes. 2017. Greek Historical Inscriptions, 478–404 BC. Oxford.
Ostwald, M. 1969. Nomos and the Beginnings of Athenian Democracy. Oxford.
———. 1986. From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law. Berkeley.
———. 2009. Language and History in Ancient Greek Culture. Philadephia.
Paarmann, B. 2014. “The Revolt of Miletos in 454 B.C. and the Milesians in IG I3 259.III.29.” In Matthaiou and Pitt 2014:121–140.
Papazarkadas, N. 2009. “Epigraphy and the Athenian Empire: Reshuffling the Chronological Cards.” In Ma, Papazarkadas, and Parker 2009:67–88.
———. 2014. “Athens, Sigeion and the Politics of Approbation during the Ionian War.” In Matthaiou and Pitt 2014:215–240.
Pritchett, W. K. 1963. Ancient Athenian Calendars on Stone. Berkeley.
Quinn, T. J. 1964. “Thucydides and the Unpopularity of the Athenian Empire.” Historia 13: 257–266.
Rawson, E. 1969. The Spartan Tradition in European Thought. Oxford.
Reiter, H. A. 1991. Athen und die Poleis des Delisch-Attischen Seebundes: Die Proxenoi und Euergetai des attischen Demos in den Poleis des Delisch-Attischen Seebundes im Licht der attischen Proxenie-und Euergesiebeschlüsse des 5. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Regensburg.
Rhodes, P. J. 1985. The Athenian Empire: Greece & Rome. New Surveys in the Classics 17. Oxford.
———. 1992. “The Delian league to 449 B.C.” In Lewis, Boardman, Davies, and Ostwald 1992:34–61.
———. 2007. “Democracy and Empire.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, ed. L. J. Samons, 24–45. Cambridge.
———. 2008. “After the Three-Bar « sigma » controversy: the History of Athenian Imperialism Reassessed.” Classical Quarterly 58:500–506.
———. 2014. “What Remains of Periclean Imperialism.” In Matthaiou and Pitt, 39–49.
Roberts, J. T. 1994. Athens on Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought. Princeton.
Robertson, N. D. 1980. “The true nature of the ‘Delian League’: 478–61 BC.” American Journal of Ancient History 5:64–96.
Roobaert, A. 1973. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Antiquité 42:344–346.
Rosen, R., and J. Farrell, eds. 1993. Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald. Ann Arbor.
Salomon, N. 1997. Le cleruchie di Atene. Carrateri e funzione. Pisa.
Samons, L. J. 1993. “Athenian finance and the Treasury of Athena.” Historia 42:129–138.
———. 1996. “The ‘Kallias decrees’ (IG I3 52) and the Inventories of Athena’s Treasure in the Parthenon.” Classical Quarterly 46:91–102.
———. 1997. “A Note on the Parthenon Inventories and the date of IG I3 52B.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 118:179–182.
———. 1998. Review of Figueira 1998. Ancient History Bulletin 12:141–142.
———. 2000. Empire of the Owl: Athenian Imperial Finance. Historia Einzelschriften 142. Stuttgart.
———. 2004. What’s Wrong with Democracy? From Athenian Practice to American Worship. Berkeley.
———. 2007. “Conclusion: Pericles and Athens.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, ed. L. J. Samons, 282–307. Cambridge.
———. 2016. Pericles and the Conquest of History: A Political Biography. Cambridge.
———. 2019. “Periklean Imperialism and Imperial Finance in Context.” In Athenian Hegemonic Finances, ed. T. J. Figueira and S. R. Jensen, 1–21. Swansea.
Schmitz, W. 1988. Wirtschaftliche Prosperität, soziale Integration und die Seebundpolitik Athens. Munich.
Schuller, W. 1974. Die Herrschaft der Athener im ersten Attischen Seebund. Berlin.
———. 2002 “Folgen einer Umdatierung des Egesta-Dekrets (IG I3 11).” In Widerstand – Anpassung – Integration: die griechische Staatenwelt und Rom : Festschrift für Jürgen Deininger zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. N. von Ehrhardt und L. Günther, 41–47. Stuttgart.
Sealey, R. 1955. “The Peace of Callias Once More.” Historia 3:325–333.
———. 1956. “The Entry of Pericles into History.” Hermes 84:234–247.
———. 1958. “Athens and the Archidamian War.” Proceeding of the African Classical Association 1:61–87.
———. 1970. “Notes on Tribute-Quota-Lists 5, 6, and 7 of the Athenian Empire.” Phoenix 24:13–28.
———. 1975. “The Causes of the Peloponnesian War.” Classical Philology 70: 89–109.
———. 1991. “An Athenian Decree about the Megarians.” In Georgica: Greek Studies in Honour of George Cawkwell. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 58, ed. M. A. Flower and M. Toher, 152–158. London.
Smart, J. D. 1974. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Classical World 68:179–180.
Smarzyck, B. 1986. Bündnerautonomie und athenische Seebundspolitik im Dekeleischen Krieg. Frankfurt am Main.
———.1990. Untersuchungen zur Religionspolitik und politischen Propaganda Athens im Delisch-Attischen Seebund. Munich.
Starr, C. G. 1973. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. American Historical Review 78:662–663.
Steinbrecher, M. 1985. Der delisch-attische Seebund und die athenisch-spartanischen Beziehungen in der kimonischen Ära (ca. 478/7–462/1). Wiesbaden.
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de. 1954/1955. “The Character of the Athenian Empire.” Historia 3:1–41.
———. 1972. The Origins of the Peloponnesian War. Ithaca.
———. 2004. Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays, ed. D. Harvey and R. Parker, 371–420. Oxford.
Turasiewicz, R. 1974. Review of The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, by G. E. M. de Ste. Croix. Eos 62:345–350.
Wade-Gery, H. T. 1931. “Eupatridai, Archons, and Areopagus.” Classical Quarterly 25:1–11= Wade-Gery 1958:86–115.
———. 1932. “Thucydides the Son of Melesias.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 52:205–227 = Wade-Gery 1958:239–270.
———. 1940. “The Peace of Kallias.” In Athenian Studies Presented to W. S. Ferguson. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Supplement 1:121–156 = Wade-Gery 1958:201–232.
———. 1958. Essays in Greek History. Oxford.
West, A. B. 1924. “Pericles’ Political Heirs.” Classical Philology 19:124–126, 201–228.
———. 1925. “Aristidean Tribute in the Assessment of 421 BC.” American Journal of Archaeology 29:135–51.
———. 1937. “I. Thucydides V,18,5. Where was Skolos (Stolos)?. II. Thucydides V,18,6. Sane or Gale?” American Journal of Philology 58:157–73.
West, A. B., and B. D. Meritt. 1925. “Cleon’s Amphipolitan Campaign and the Assessment List of 421.” American Journal of Archaeology 29:59–69.


[ back ] 1. My relevant publications are listed in n. 1 of my contribution to this volume.
[ back ] 2. At the Sixth International Celtic Conference in Classics, University of Edinburgh, July 2010.
[ back ] 3. This was one of the last publications of the Classical Press of Wales under the general editorship of Anton Powell before his sudden death and was touched by his benevolent editing hand. For reviews, see Kroll 2020, Constantakopoulou 2020, and Carusi 2021.
[ back ] 4. At the Tenth Celtic Conference in Classics, McGill University and Université de Montréal. I would like to thank the other participants in our panel in Montreal: William Bubelis, Associate Professor of Classics & Curator of the Wulfing Coin Collection, Washington University in St. Louis; Stephane Däne (then, Faculty, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen); Eric Driscoll, now Lecturer on Classics, Harvard University; and Adam Kasarda, formerly of Rutgers University.
[ back ] 5. At the International Conference in Classics and Ancient History, Centro de Estudos Clássicos e Humanísticos da Universidade de Coimbra, June 22–25.
[ back ] 6. I offer in comparison and contrast the announcement for a conference to be held at Oxford University in June 2023, whose initiators are Leah Lazar and Eric Driscoll: “The goal of the conference is to bring together established and emerging scholars whose work is advancing new historical understandings of the fifth-century BCE Athenian empire. In contrast to scholarship in the 20th century, which tended to be Athenocentric if not openly pro-Athenian, more recently historians of the empire have often sought to clarify the fragmented but exploitative mechanics of imperialism in its various guises. Picking up where the Interpreting the Athenian Empire volume (Ma, Papazarkadas, and Parker [edd.], 2009) left off, we seek to provide a forum for the exchange of recent thinking on the Athenian empire, and thereby to advance towards new syntheses of its history. More specifically, we hope to address two broad questions that point the way toward a less Athenocentric vision of the empire: 1) How did the allies respond to Athenian imperialism, whether to challenge, welcome, or otherwise react to it? 2) How did the institutional and/or conceptual structures of Athenian imperialism impact, draw on, or otherwise intersect with other structures in the “long fifth century” (ca. 508–387) and afterward? These questions will move the scholarly conversation forward in three respects: by broadening the kinds of evidence at issue; by focusing attention on locally specific, diachronic dynamics of coercion and consent; and by placing Athenian imperialism within a broader historical context that allows us to see how it drew on and reshaped late Archaic civic culture, while also preparing the way for the new politics of the late Classical and even Hellenistic worlds. We invite submissions that address one or both of the above questions by discussing issues such as (but by no means limited to) the quality and quantity of allied agency vis-à-vis Athens; how overlooked evidence (archaeological, literary, numismatic or documentary) can open up new avenues for thinking about the fifth-century Aegean, such as environmental history; the reconfiguration of governmental structures or functions in subject cities; the active adaptation of earlier models for international domination or imperialism; network theory, the new institutionalism, big data or other recent approaches. As we hope to assemble a thematically, methodologically, and conceptually diverse conference, these ideas are offered only exempli gratia. Given the need for disciplinary self-reflection and refashioning in the current political moment, we hope that all the contributions will help to reshape the study of this canonical topic in ancient history for the future.”
[ back ] 7. For detailed treatment, see Roberts 1994:156–255. For the twentieth-century appraisals, see Kallet 2009[b].
[ back ] 8. See e.g. MacGregor-Morris 2004 for a nice example showing how Sparta served as a paradigm for modern democracy (especially in eighteenth-century thought). For an interesting pro-Athenian figure, William Young, see Liddel 2008; and for the “colonialist” soundings, his 2009. In general, note the “bible” of Spartan reception studies, Rawson 1969:220–367.
[ back ] 9. See e.g. Kierstad 2014.
[ back ] 10. See Bulwer Lytton 2004. For Bulwer Lytton’s support for Athenian democracy, see 21–27. Observe my own interest as O. Murray noted on p. xvi (noting the American editions).
[ back ] 11. See Figueira forthcoming[a].
[ back ] 12. Since we have provided abstracts for each paper, we can forgo the exercise of direct summary of each chapter in our collection, although I close with some descriptive remarks.
[ back ] 13. ATL 1939–1953.
[ back ] 14. These two significant volumes (despite their difference in scale) deserve to be read in juxtaposition, especially for the former’s encapsulation of ATL/Oxford scholarship and the latter’s somewhat more skeptical approach.
[ back ] 15. The less complex social structure of Sparta more readily reveals the conceptual structure: Figueira 2010:265–266.
[ back ] 16. In my view, questionable major elements included (1) the misconstruing of Athenian authority in the early alliance, a confusion that was linked to misunderstanding the nature of tribute in the early Delian League (cf. Figueira 2016[a], 2022; and below in this volume); (2) a failure to see the cooperative hegemonism inherent in this arkhē with its subtended sub-hegemonies (cf. Robertson 1980; Jensen 2010, 2011, 2012, 2019); (3) the inaccurate retrospection from the successes over the Persians to an interpretation of what general, prudent expectations were regarding the prospects of the new alliance in 478 (cf. Figueira 2016[a], 2022); (4) the related wrong-headed idea of a mid-century crisis of the “empire,” reflected in a possibly missing tribute list, that constituted a shift from alliance to arkhē (cf. Figueira 1998:457–463; also 1993[a]:201–205), to which a Peace of Kallias was tied; (5) a miscomprehension of Periclean policy in the 440s and 430s, in its strategy of accumulation of Athenian demographic, economic, and (thereby) military power, as crass imperialism and mere provocation (cf. Figueira 1993[a]:216–221; Forthcoming[b]); (6) a false interpretation of the evolution of political leadership (Hershkowitz 2018, and below in this volume).
[ back ] 17. We ought not underestimate the critical rigor and analytic fertility of H. T. Wade-Gery. In 1967, when I was thinking about Thucydides and Athenian imperialism for the first time, Gerald Quinn lent me his copy of Wade-Gery 1958 as a sort of ancient historian’s primer. These essays then served me as a standard for a how a scholar proceeds from his fragmentary evidentiary array to a historical reconstruction (and I eventually tackled some of the same problems for myself: Figueira 1984 responding to Wade-Gery 1931; Figueira 1993[a] to Wade-Gery 1932).
[ back ] 18. The pervasive character of this left-leaning Weltanschauung may best be illustrated by Wade-Gery’s intimate relationship with Naomi Mitchison, for which see Mitchison 1979:65–66, 164; Benton 1990:49–50, 55–57, 61, 73, 86, 94, 162 (an authorized biography). These lovers were introduced by Hugh Gaitskill (n. 45 below), and Wade-Gery’s more imaginative and provocative speculation on archaic and classical Greece informed and helped shape Mitchison’s Cloud-Cuckoo Land (1925); her influential collection of short stories, Black Sparta (1927), for which he is a dedicant; and her famous novel, The Corn King and the Spring Queen (1931), dealing with the Sparta of Kleomenes III. This work was marked both by the international ideological context and by fervent socialist partisanship (as well as by proto-feminism), as Mitchison noted in her preface to the 1990 edition (1990:ix–x). See Benton 1990:63–69; Calder 1997:75–76, 78–83, 102–103. See also Figueira 2016[b]:42–43 for my appraisal of the impact on scholarship about Hellenistic Sparta of the treatment of the Stoic philosopher Sphairos as a character in The Corn King and the Spring Queen.
[ back ] 20. The importance of his interpretations has been significantly lost to contemporary scholarly memory. It might well deserve an MA-level appraisal focusing on the persistent influence of this nearly forgotten savant.
[ back ] 21. E.g. West 1924, 1925, 1937; West and Meritt 1925 (for all of which see Figueira 2019:177–183).
[ back ] 22. For biography, DCS (W. H. Willis):
[ back ] 23. There are ninety items credited to him in L’année philologique (LA) after its notice of ATL. Although classification is difficult, after subtracting ca. fifty articles mainly on different topics and ca. thirteen epigraphical reports, mainly in Hesperia, there were ca. twenty-six pieces contesting issues that involved the main arguments of ATL. His last pieces of scholarship appeared in 1988 and 1988/89.
[ back ] 24. E.g. McGregor 1967, 1987; Bradeen & McGregor 1973. He had about fifteen other pieces (in LA), mostly rather short, some co-authored. See DCS (J. A. S. Evans):
[ back ] 25. I came to the University of Pennsylvania in 1973–1974. Meritt had left the Institute for Advanced Study in 1969, relocating to the University of Texas at Austin. We met briefly when he came to visit my mentor Michael H. Jameson, who had him chat with me briefly. He was very supportive in our short conversation, and quite generous in his remarks afterward to Jameson. There were disputes over material that left the IAS for Austin. And a decision was made to appoint Christian Habicht to Meritt’s chair at the IAS (as a sort of caesura), who began his long tenure there in 1973. At Jameson’s request, Sarah George (with some help from me) brought Habicht to speak at Penn in 1975, a very early American visit for him.
[ back ] 26. I met Malcolm McGregor in 1978–1979, when he gave a lecture to the Central Pennsylvania Classics Consortium at Franklin & Marshall College (I was teaching at Dickinson College). My vigorous questioning of him seemed unimpeded by the lack of engagement of other faculty; this was a cordial dialogue, but rather at cross-purposes paradigmatically. Allan Evans remarked diplomatically of McGregor in DCS: “McGregor was a campus personality who left a strong impression upon students and colleagues alike. Retirement was not of his choice.” That posture was also apparent at meetings of the American Philological Association, and especially in its caucus of ancient historians, where I took issue on several points (e.g. implementing dues).
[ back ] 27. An important exception was Sterling Dow at Harvard, who produced a considerable number of students who wrote theses about Attic cult calendars and other religious documents. I was exposed to this work by my undergraduate supervisor, G. M. Quinn, whose dissertation under Dow was “The Sacrificial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis,” Harvard, 1972. Other students were H. Hansen; R. F. Healey SJ; J. D. Mikalson; L. Threatte; S. V. Tracy; W. H. Willis. Note also the roster of contributors in Boegehold 1984.
[ back ] 28. I took Jameson’s seminar entitled “the Athenian empire” (Greek 605/History 621), which not only gave me my dissertation topic on Aigina (offering one subject for my seminar report and another for my seminar paper), but also suggested a rejected thesis topic on classical Athenian colonization (another lifelong interest), a decision based on the erroneous idea that the former would be more easily contained in scope. I note the distinguished scholars C. B. Patterson and D. Engels as vigorous co-seminarians.
[ back ] 29. As an activist and officer at Rutgers in chapters of American Association of University Professors, American Federation of Teachers, and New Jersey Education Association (an affiliate of the NEA).
[ back ] 30. Yet there is valuable discussion here as well and McGregor deploys conciliatory material from the reviews of Meritt 1961 by David M. Lewis and Paul A. Clement (McGregor 1966:212, 227), although leveraging against Pritchett.
[ back ] 31. DCS (D. Lateiner): Don Lateiner lists ca. 89 publications (through 1985) while LA cites 167 hits.
[ back ] 32. DCS (R. S. Stroud): LA has 120 hits, while Ronald Stroud lists ca. 77 publications.
[ back ] 33. Raubitschek and I became friendly in the spring of 1977 at the ASCSA, and he mentored me during my year teaching at Stanford in 1977–1978. Afterward he read and commented on my scholarship, and shared some of his research notes with me late in his life (from projects that he thought were then unrealizable for him). He wrote letters of reference for me in job searches and even intervened with friends on my behalf at institutions. He allowed his name to be offered as a referee in personnel procedures at Rutgers. Pritchett often answered my dispatches of early offprints with notes, some with commentary, and vetted several pieces. This was impressive generosity considering that the young PhDs from Penn and Cal-Berkeley were major competitors of each other in those days.
[ back ] 34. The other senior Greek Historian at Penn was Martin Ostwald, whose interests and that of many of his students lay in constitutional history and historiography. He was closely aligned with the Oxford Greek historians, especially D. M. Lewis and R. Meiggs, who substituted for him at Swarthmore (at which Ostwald split his appointment). Martin was an editor of the Cambridge Ancient History, vols. 4–6. His two major monographs were Ostwald 1969 and 1986, and a selection of his papers (for which I made the initial choices) strikes the same note (Ostwald 2009). For the work he mentored, note Rosen & Farrell 1993, including Figueira 1993[b].
[ back ] 35. Raphael Sealey was the Greek historian at Berkeley, for whose relevant publications (e.g.) note Sealey 1955, 1956, 1958, 1970, 1975, 1991. Yet Sealey, as British trained (UC, London BA and Oxford MA), did not shape the context of discourse in America, except for his significant training of Berkely ancient historians.
[ back ] 36. See Kagan 1974; 1981; 1987; 2003, the last being a one-volume retreatment intended for a wide audience.
[ back ] 37. Among his students, I note A. H. Bernstein, B. Strauss, P. Krentz, J. E. Lendon, and P. Rahe, as well as a respected teacher and mentor of mine at Chicago, Charles D. Hamilton (later at San Diego). Again the “cast” for his festschrift is informative: Hamilton & Krentz 1997. Charles Fornara played a similar role: he had notably fewer students, but did address the mechanism of hegemony.
[ back ] 38. Greek History at Oxford was still in its full-fledged grandeur with the concentration of so many true experts, as well as the inevitable parochialism therefrom, when I visited in winter-spring 1975–1976.
[ back ] 39. See e.g. Andrewes 1959; 1960; 1972; 1973; 1985; Andrewes, Gomme, and Dover 1970; 1981.
[ back ] 40. See e.g. Lewis 1974; 1976; 1994; Meiggs-Lewis 1988. His Princeton dissertation was under Raubitschek and Meritt (Lewis 1952).
[ back ] 41. I add e.g. 1943; 1949; 1950; 1953; 1963[a], 1963[b]; 1966; Meiggs-Lewis 1988.
[ back ] 42. I shall stop here in my generalizing, because the next cohort of scholars, who were born after the Second World War in the later 1940s, is my own, a situation that makes summarization risk invidiousness and a mood of retrospection that seems unjustly premature.
[ back ] 43. See e.g. Rhodes 1992; 2007; 2008; also Osborne & Rhodes 2017.
[ back ] 44. See e.g. Davies 1997; 2007; 2014; 2016.
[ back ] 45. The center-left consensus of the 1950s into the early/mid-1970s is sometimes called Butskellism after the center-right R. A. (Rab) Butler, the prominent Tory statesman, who held a succession of high state offices, and Hugh Gaitskell, the Labour leader 1955–1963.
[ back ] 46. The proof of this supposition of ambient effects is perhaps John Barron, who certainly qualified as a committed Tory, as I can certify from personal interaction. However, his significant work on the arkhē (1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1983, 1986, 1989) did not break particularly with earlier paradigms on ideological/political grounds.
[ back ] 47. I met de Ste. Croix in several settings in Oxford in 1976, and we held vigorous discussions with each other, when he realized that I was writing my doctoral thesis on Aigina (I remember David Lewis encouraging me after one of these). His unpublished study on this subject had not yet been shared with me. Croix’ study was eventually published in a posthumous collection of 2004, and I answered in Figueira 2016[c]. Nonetheless, earlier when William Fortenbaugh (Croix had been his tutor at Oxford) and I were trying to rebuild the Rutgers Classics department in the late 1980s, we attempted vainly to entice Croix to New Jersey for a two-week seminar.
[ back ] 48. Pavel Oliva (1974) writing in English in Czechoslovakia gave a close review of Croix’ arguments; he highlighted Spartan issues, for which he was most qualified to comment. There is a brief competent and anonymous treatment in Bibliotheca Orientalis (1973). Let me note also that the sole review in French of A. Roobaert (1973) was general and positive. I have not read the review in Polish of R. Turasiewicz (1974).
[ back ] 49. Cawkwell 1975; Ehrenberg 1975; Murray 1973. Hammond 1973 quite inclined toward the negative.
[ back ] 50. Smart 1974.
[ back ] 51. Forrest 1973.
[ back ] 52. Kagan 1975 was highly critical, while Eddy 1976 was only slightly less so. Starr 1973 seemed to allude vaguely to the wider interpretative issues, saving his scorn for the scale of the appendices. Connor 1973 was insightful and favorable.
[ back ] 53. Boer 1974; Lotze 1976.
[ back ] 54. See also Mørch 1970; Fornara 1977. And the subject was touched on tangentially in Legon 1968.
[ back ] 55. I approach this problem from another angle in Figueira forthcoming[c].
[ back ] 56. The underlying articles/contributions Journal of Hellenic Studies 1987; Echoes du Monde Classique 1989, Beister 1989; Allison 1990; and Classical Quarterly 1990.
[ back ] 57. We had discussed these pieces at various points, including a long conversation at Princeton over his lecture that became “The Peace of Callias” (Journal of Hellenic Studies 1987, 107 and then 1993:1–72; 187–201). Of the whole collection, he noted that he did not expect to change my mind (during interaction during my stay in Cambridge to do research for Figueira 1993).
[ back ] 58. Chambers, Gallucci, and Spanos 1990; Chambers 1992–1993; 1993, 1994. Cf. (e.g.) Henry 1992, 1993, 1995; Lewis 1993. See also Rhodes 2008. For a more recent discussion Osborne-Rhodes 2017, #166, pp. 394–397.
[ back ] 59. Figueira 1998:431–448, 463–465; 2001. Despite Mattingly’s deficient socialization toward younger colleagues, I was willing (in Figueira 2001) to see him take a deserved bow for his adherence to his insights, but I also noted: “His was an insistent and indefatigable voice, not quite crying out in the wilderness, but not quite prophetic either.” For a more sympathetic treatment, see Papazarkadas 2009.
[ back ] 60. To my publications, noted above, add Schuller 2002. Badian understood the problem and criticized Thucydides directly in “Thucydides and the Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: a Historian’s Brief” (in Badian 1993:125–162, 223–236). In a similar vein, R. W. Wallace has spoken at two conferences: “Mind, Might, Money: The Secular Triad in Classical Athens, Symposium Laureoticum,” Institute for Philosophical Research (Patras), Sounion (Attica), July 2006; “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Propaganda in Greek Historiography,” Eleventh Celtic Conference in Classics, Coimbra, 2019.
[ back ] 61. K. Raaflaub on the Persian techniques of dominance adopted by Athens (pp. 89–124); R. Brock on Athenian promotion of democracy (pp.149–166); P. Thonemann on Lykia and Amorges (pp. 167–194). The weakest of these pieces is A. Moreno (pp. 211–221) on Attic “cleruchies.” See n. 8 for Liddel on “colonialism” and Attic hegemony.
[ back ] 62. A. L. Boegehold, M. Chambers.
[ back ] 63. K. Clinton on the status of the Athenians on Lemnos; J. K. Davies, on the light a list of the casualties of the Attic cavalry (SEG 48.83) shines on Peloponnesian War demography; G. Davis on fractional coinage in Wappenmünzen and the early Owls; A. C. Scafuro on the process of euthunai in the fifth century.
[ back ] 64. G. Kavvadias and A. P. Matthaiou on a new inscription regarding the prytaneis and the prytaneion; G. Marginesu and A. A. Themos on Samian War expenses (IG I3 363 + 454); A. Makres on the Hesphaestia (IG I3 82); A. P. Matthaiou on an important new edition of the Attic treaty with Samos (IG I3 48); M. Sakurai on IG I3 139 and the cults of Bendis; D. Sourlas on a graffito about a probable hetaira; S. V. Tracy on the Attic Stelai (IG I3 421–430).
[ back ] 65. Paarmann 2014. Figueira 1998:448 discussed the probability of a later date for IG I3 21.
[ back ] 66. Moroo:2014:97–119.
[ back ] 67. See Malouchou 2014, which presents the information from a second facsimile of IG I3 14 to supplement an earlier facsimile that had been the only record of this lost inscription.
[ back ] 68. Ironically the older setting at mid-century had more explanatory force (which does not make it correct), as it put the decree amid Athenian dispositions of the status of allied states that had received archaic Attic settlers.
[ back ] 69. Focused studies: 1993, 1996, 1998. Syntheses: 2004, 2007, 2016. Our own first volume was graced by Jay Samons 2019. See Samons 1998 reviewing Figueira 1998.
[ back ] 70. For war finances, see 1993; 2001 (for which see Figueira 2003), with antecedent studies 1989[a], 1999, 2004; pre-war finances: 1989[b]; 1994; 2003; 2009[a]; 2013. Her 2009[b] is a succinct overview of her appraisal of Athenian imperialism.
[ back ] 71. It is for this reason that I find so much of the impressionistic treatments of Attic hegemonism (leading up to Rhodes 2014) so insufficient.