Embed Size (px)


  • 40 Peter Karavites

    stndige fiIW(?iEV, nachtrglich zurckgenommen auf den Bereichdes Planens - obwohl es hier vor allem um die Tat geht -, umseine Wirkung gebracht.

    Demnach ist auch das berlieferte ev VEOLOl anzuerkennen.Da dieser Begriff aber dem vorhandenen Zusammenhang wider-strebt und nicht eliminiert werden kann64), weil er von niJ& nichtabzutrennen ist, kann man den Komplex nur als textfremden Zu-satz betrachten.

    Dazu stimmen folgende Beobachtungen. In den benachbar-ten Auftritten 193 f. und 263 ff. lehnen sich die Hiketiden jeweilsan Reden ihres Frsprechers an. Beide Male flehen sie um Mitleidin ihrer Sache, auf Adrast und sein persnliches Schicksal gehensie nicht ein, brigens spter auch Aithra nicht. Dazwischen wirktdas kleinlich differenzierende, die Schuld auf anonyme VEOl ab-wlzende Argumentieren fr Adrast unpassend. Und es kommt,nachdem Theseus bereits entschieden hat, zu spt und funktioniertnicht, wie die beiden anderen Passagen, dramatisch steigernd.

    Ein Anhaltspunkt fr die nach 250 f. verschlagenen Gedan-ken knnte sich !.n der vorhergehenden Rede in 232 geboten ha-ben. Die sptere Uberlieferung hat wie in anderen Fllen die Notizzusammen mit dem haltlosen Vs. 252 hinter der Rede eingereihtund so erhalten. Vielleicht erklren sich einige der oben angefhr-ten Unstimmigkeiten durch das Bestreben, die Verse hinter 249notdrftig einzugliedern.

    Gieen Ulrich Hbner


    Differences with Miletus over Priene led Samos into troublewith Athens twice in the span of the decade 450-4401). The firsttime the settlement imposed by Athens had been mild; the second

    64) Eine Binneninterpolation zwischen iJIW(JiE und avyyvWJ.lT/v kommtnicht in Frage, da der Chor nach lngerer Rhesis konventionell mindestens zweiVerse spricht.

    1) Thuc. 1.115; Diod. 12.27; Aelian, VH 2.9; FGH 104 F 16; FGH 324 F 33;FGH 76 F 65; Arist. Schal. Clouds 283; Schal. Peace 697; Harpocr. Lexicon inDecem Oratores Atticos, ed. Dindorf (Oxford, 1853); Isocr. Antid. 3; IG1 2 22; 50.All the dates belong to the B. C. period. For a discussion of the Samian chronolo-gy see C. W. Fornara, ]HS 99 (1979) 7-18; See also M-L No. 55.

  • Enduring Problems of the Samian Revolt 41

    time (440/39) the punishment was harsher. Our principal sourcesregarding the second settlement are Thuc. 1.117.3, Diod. 12.28.3,and Plut. Per. 28.1, all of whom mentioned four major conditionswhich differ in details. Perhaps the most striking piece of informa-tion is Diodorus' reference to the punishment of the guilty (,,0}"

  • 42 Peter Karavites

    ment of the Athenian insurgents was harsh but in accordance withthe interpretation of Athenian legal practices.

    The second capitulation was the result of Miltiades' attackupon the island of Lemnos in 494/3. The Lemnians were asked tosurrender on the premise that this surrender was in concert withthe pronouncement of the Delphic Orade. But the people of My-rina, employing what seemed to them a reasonable technicality,refused to comply with Miltiades' request, and Miltiades procee-ded to besiege the city and at the end forced her to submit. Miltia-des expelled the Lemnians from their island and made the islandan Athenian possession. It was not unusual for a city in antiquityto surrender to the mercy of a superior power, and such is the casehere. Customarily, surrender was impelled by the hope that mer-cy would be extended to the capitulating party (Thuc. 3.46.2;3.59.3), or that only the guilty would be punished (Thuc. 3.36.4;3.50.1; 4.130.6-7). Miltiades' action, harsh though it might havebeen, had (on the surface at least) the backing of the DelphicOrade, and with the "superior" authority behind them theGreeks did not hesitate to resort to stringent measures4).

    The next capitulation had an unorthodox outcome. Gelon ofSyracuse had laid siege to Megara sometimes before 480. TheMegaraeans surrendered to hirn on terms which are not stated. Itseems that the wealthy Megaraeans expected to be punished fortheir opposition to Gelon, but unexpectedly Gelon chose to makethem citizens of Syracuse. The fate of the demos, which had nopart in the rebellion against Gelon, proved pitiable. Gelon sold thedemos inta slavery outside of Sicily. The reason behind his actionwas his belief that the demos was an ungrateful rabble, hard to livewith. Had Gelon's decision been dictated by traditional Greekpractices the guilty could have been punished while the othersshould have gone freeS).

    1raVtaJl6~ a form of crucifixion used commonly for treason. In this case, theconvicted was strapped to a wide wooden plank by means of five iron bandsencircling the ankles, wrists, and neck. The plank was then set upright for severaldays and the victim eventually succumbed to the heat or cold, flies, strangulation.The bodies were usually rejected for burial, remained t'lTatpa, thus raising the deepreligious fear of their kin (Hell. 1.70.20; Plat. Gorg. 576D-E; Sophocles, Antigone;Hdt. 7.133; Eur. Electra 1271; Plat. Rep. 4.439E; Aesch. Prom. Bound 58-59;Arist. Thesm. 930-946; 1001-1110; Hippeis 1037-1049; Plut. 476 & Schal; Dem.8.61; 9.61; 19.137; Aeschin, 2.181; Lysias 13.56; 65--68; Ath. Pol. 45.1; Arist. Rhet.2.5 (1382b); 2.6 (1385a).

    4) Hdt. 6.140; Macan, Hdt. 1.395; E. Meyer, GdA 4.1.278 & Forschungen1.16; Beloch. G.G.1.351.

    5) Hdt. 7.156; Thuc. 3.36.4.

  • Enduring Problems of the Samian Revolt 43

    The scenario in the next capitulation is as follows. Immedia-tely after Plataea Pausanias refused to punish the sons of the philo-Persian Attaginos, judging them innocent of their father's crime.On the other hand, he led those whom the Thebans handed overas guilty for Thebes' medism to Corinth, and after a trial he hadthem killed6).

    Though all four of the above treaties are formally capitula-tions, they differ in nature. The first treaty has a dual character inthat it contains an inter-city as well as intra-city settlement. Itsintra-city character does not quite fit the usual pattern of capitula-tion treaties since the losers were considered traitors and weretried under the law of treason. In the second treaty, a purportedpronouncement of Apollo was used to justify the harsh punish-ment imposed upon the Lemnians. The third capitulation is enti-rely atypical of Greek capitulations, where, as a rule, only theguilty were punished, if any punishment was meted out. In thiscase Greek conventions were made to stand on their head. Onlythe fourth capitulation is typical of Greek practices. The limitedreprisals are all the more commendable since the Greeks had vow-ed to punish all the Greek cities guilty of medism (Hdt. 7.132).


    There are eight extant capitulation treaties for the periodbetween the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars: six between Athensand her allies, one between Sparta and her helots, and anotherbetween Sparta and Phocis. Here they will be treated in theirchronological order. The first capitulation took place betweenAthens and Carystos. No details are stated, but since the ancientauthors did not mention reprisals it would be safe to state that noreprisals were applied, although the added fact that the Carystianshad .fought on the side of the Persians could have been used tojustify such reprisals7).

    The second case is that of Naxos. The Naxians surrendered

    6) Hdt. 9.87-88; Maean, Hdt. 2.773. The Greeks refused to fulfill theirearlier pledge to destroy the Greek eities that had medized, Hdt. 7.132; 145; 172;Lye. Against Leocr. 81; Diod. 11.33.4; Cie. Rep. 3.15; Isoer. Plat. 30; Meyer, GdA4.1.391.

    7) Thue. 1.98.3; Hdt. 6.99.2; 8.66.2; 112.2; 121; 9.105; Gomme, HCT1.281-82.

  • 44 Peter Karavites

    to the Athenians after three years of siege8). Their dogged resist-ance must have taxed Athenian patience. Thucydides stated thatthe punishment consisted in the subversion of the N axians' free-dom (Jr{!wrT/ ... avrT/ Jr6AL~ avf..Lf.J.aXl~ Jra{!a ro xa{}EarT/xo~fDovAwfJ.,,). But if in the case of Naxos subversion of an ally'sfreedom was a "novelty", in the future it was going to become astandard policy of Athens that would gradually convert the allian-ce ioto an empire.

    About the next settlement we have a little more information.Our two major sources on the capitulation of Thasos generallyagree on the details of the settlement. Thucydides mentioned therazing of the wall (rxo~ xa{}EA6vrE~), the delivery of ships (xalvav~ Jra{!aD6vn:~), the payment of money (x{!1]f..Lani rE oaa eDeLaJroDOvvaL avrixa ra;af..LEVOL xal ro AOLJrOV qJe{!ELv), by whichThucydides most probably meant (1) the arrears of three or fouryears, and (2) the payment of future tribute, although it is not byany means certain that the cost of the Thasian campaign is notincluded in the money to be paid. Yet a comparison betweenThucydides' text here (x{!1]f..Lara rE ... oaa eDeL aJroDOVVaL) andhis text on the Samian settlement (xal x{!1]f..Lara ra avaAw{}evrara;af..LEVOL 1.117.3) makes it unlikely that indemnity was imposedupon Thasos. Beyond the above stipulations, the Thasians had toabandon their continental possessions.

    Plutarch did not mention the razing of the wall but he didrefer to the capture of thirty ships which might be the ships refer-red to by Thucydides. The absence of the article in this locution ofThucydides (a more exact writer than either Diodorus or Plu-tarch) may indicate that the Thasians were not compelled tosurrender all their ships, or tear down all of their wall, brick bybrick9). Of course, it may be that the use of the article is simply amatter of style not of numbers and that ancient writers were ofteninconsistent and arbitrary in its use, but the consistent absence ofthe article in this and the following capitulations leads me to su-spect that it is a matter of numbers and not simply a matter ofstyle. Although it is impossible to ascertain if among the s