« السابقةمتابعة »
ON THE DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PEIRAIC
THERE has been some difficulty in assigning an exact date to the commencement of the Peiraic fortifications; arising chiefly from the name of Themistocles being found as that of Archon Eponymus, in Ol. 71, 1 (493-2 B. c.). But this was three years before the battle of Marathon, when Themistocles was too young to have been archon, as appears from Plutarch'. Themistocles, indeed, had only recently arrived at distinction as a statesman at the time of the second Persian invasion ?; whence it seems evident, not only that the great Themistocles, son of Neocles, was not the archon of 493 B. C.; but that his archonship occurred in one of the latter years of that interval of ten years between the battles of Marathon and Salamis, during which the measure of fortifying the Peiræeus was first entertained. Mr. F. Clinton, therefore", seems to have rightly followed the scholiast of Thucydides, in placing the archonship of
Themistocles, son of Neocles, in the year 481 B. c. In the preceding year the archon seems to have been Cebris. The
1 Themist. 3, 31.
3 F. Hell. I. p. xv. xvi. 28. Mueller de Munimentis Athenarum, p. 7, n. 15.
To which lines undoubtedly the names of the nine archons were appended.
'Αγοραίος Ερμής" ούτως ελέγετο όντως, και αφίδρυτο Κεβρίδος άρξαντος, ως μαρτυρεί Φιλόχορος έν τρίτη ('Ατθίδος). Ηesych. et Phavor. in v. Φιλόχορος εν πέμπτη 'Ατθίδος φησίν, ώς οι εννέα άρχοντες ταϊς φυλαϊς ανέθεσαν Ερμήν παρά τον πυλώνα τον 'Αττικόν (lege 'Αστικόν). Harpocr. in Ερμής και προς τη πυλίδι. Vide et Suid. et Phot. Lex. in v.
It is easy to conceive, that, although the walls of Peiræeus may have been begun towards the end of the archonship of Cebris, and that the nine archons of that year may have been anxious to secure the honor of having been in office on such a memorable occasion by means of an inscribed dedication in the Agora ; the commencement of the walls may have been more commonly attributed in subsequent times to the archonship of the illustrious author of the undertaking. That the walls were merely commenced when the archonship of Cebris had expired, may be inferred from a comparison of the ap&apevou a Pūrou of the distich with the apčavtos of Philochorus. There is some reason to believe, from Andocides de Pace cum Lac. p. 23, 24, Reiske, that the fortification of Peiræeus was not completed until long afterwards, about 449 B.C. ; whence it is termed a llepikdelov špyov by Appian, in relating its destruction by Sylla (de B. Mithrid. 30).
Pages 418, 424.
ON AN INSCRIPTION RELATING TO THE LONG WALLS.
The subjoined inscription, discovered a few years since in a church at Athens, was published at Gettingen in 1836 by Professor K. 0. Mueller, in a work entitled “De Munimentis Athenarum " (4to, 79 pp.), which contained a detailed explanation of the inscription, preceded by an historical commentary on the fortifications of Athens. The whole being treated with the accustomed learning, judgment, and research of the author, little remains to be added upon the present occasion.
It happens, unfortunately, that the beginning of the inscription is deficient: we are deprived therefore of the name of the archon, with which all similar Athenian documents commenced. Mr. Mueller, however, by the happy restoration of a few letters, has left little or no doubt that Habron, son of Lycurgus, son of Lycophron, was at that time treasurer of the administration (ταμίας της διοικήGEWS, more commonly ó mà tñs diolchoews). As history has preserved the fact of a great repair of the Athenian walls at the period of the battle of Chæroneia, being about the same time that Lycurgus and Habron flourished, we are led immediately to the presumption that the inscription relates to that repair; for it is not likely that a second could have been required within the lifetime of Habron; at least, such a repair as the inscription shows to have been undertaken, extending over all the defences of the Asty, Long Walls, and maritime city'. During the fifty-four years which had elapsed since their restoration by Conon, we know only of an expenditure of ten talents upon the repair of the walls. Cornelius Nepos states that the Athenians, repenting of their treatment of Timotheus, which had forced him into exile at Chalcis, remitted after his death nine-tenths of his fine, on condition that his son Conon should expend ten talents on a part of the same walls which had been restored by his grandfather?
In the year 339 B. c. the Athenians took down the pillar which recorded their state of amity with the king of Macedonia ; and soon afterwards, among other preparations for war, caused each tribe to elect a superintendent (TELXorolòs) and treasurer (Tauíac) for the repair of their walls. Upon this occasion, Demosthenes was chosen for the former office, by his tribe, the Pandionis. After the defeat at Chæroneia, in the month of August 1. c. 338, the same care was renewed. Demosthenes was chief director of the operation, and, in addition to the ten talents which he received from the public treasury for his tribe, expended three talents of his own. It is evident, that this operation, which was defrayed by means of a direct issue of money from the treasury to the superintending officers, was of a different kind from that to which the inscription refers ; this document being the register of a contract entered into for the
| The mode even of repairing the foundations is prescribed.
? Hoc judicio damnatur Timotheus, lisque ejus æstimatur centum talentis. Ille odio ingratæ civitatis coactus Chalcidem se contulit. Hujus post mortem quum populus judicii sui pæniteret, mulctæ novem partes detraxit, et decem talenta Cononem, filium ejus, ad muri quandam partem reficiendam jussit dare. In quo fortunæ varietas, &c. Cornel. Nep. Timoth. 3, 4.
3 Demosth. Olynth. 3, p. 36, Reiske. De Contrib. p. 175. Adv. Aristocr. p. 689. De Cor. p. 243. 266. 325. Æschin. cont. Ctesiph. p. 57 (420). Vit. X. Orat. in Demosth. Lycurg. cont. Leocrat. p. 153 (172). Dionys. Ep. 1. in Am. 11. et Philochor. ibid. Clinton, F. Hell. I. p. 146, 363. Mueller de Mur. Ath. p. 25.