Athens: Its Rise and Fall, Complete

[ Arist. Metaph., i., 3.

245 (return (#x19_x_19_i18))

[ Diog. Laert., viii., 28.

246 (return (#x19_x_19_i20))

[ Plut. in vit. Them. The Sophists were not, therefore, as is commonly asserted, the first who brought philosophy to bear upon politics.

247 (return (#x19_x_19_i20))

[ See, for evidence of the great gifts and real philosophy of Anaxagoras, Brucker de Sect. Ion., xix.

248 (return (#x19_x_19_i20))

[ Arist. Eth. Eu., i., 5.

249 (return (#x19_x_19_i20))

[ Archelaus began to teach during the interval between the first and second visit of Anaxagoras. See Fast. Hell., vol. ii., B. C. 450.

250 (return (#x19_x_19_i21))

[ See the evidence of this in the Clouds of Aristophanes.

251 (return (#x19_x_19_i28))

[ Plut. in vit. Per.

252 (return (#x19_x_19_i29))

[ See Thucyd., lib. v., c. 18, in which the articles of peace state that the temple and fane of Delphi should be independent, and that the citizens should settle their own taxes, receive their own revenues, and manage their own affairs as a sovereign nation (autoteleis kai autodikois [Footnote consult on these words Arnold’s Thucydides, vol. ii., p. 256, note 4:), according to the ancient laws of their country.

253 (return (#x19_x_19_i29))

[ Mueller’s Dorians, vol. ii., p. 422. Athen., iv.

254 (return (#x19_x_19_i30))

[ A short change of administration, perhaps, accompanied the defeat of Pericles in the debate on the Boeotian expedition. He was evidently in power, since he had managed the public funds during the opposition of Thucydides; but when beaten, as we should say, “on the Boeotian question,” the victorious party probably came into office.

255 (return (#x19_x_19_i31))

[ An ambush, according to Diodorus, lib. xii.

256 (return (#x19_x_19_i32))

[ Twenty talents, according to the scholiast of Aristophanes. Suidas states the amount variously at fifteen and fifty.

257 (return (#x19_x_19_i32))

[ Who fled into Macedonia.—Theopomp. ap. Strab. The number of Athenian colonists was one thousand, according to Diodorus—two thousand, according to Theopompus.

258 (return (#x19_x_19_i32))

[ Aristoph. Nub., 213.

259 (return (#x19_x_19_i33))

[ Thucyd., i., 111.

260 (return (#x19_x_19_i33))

[ ibid., i., 115.

261 (return (#x19_x_19_i33))

[ As is evident, among other proofs, from the story before narrated, of his passing his accounts to the Athenians with the item of ten talents employed as secret service money.

262 (return (#x19_x_19_i34))

[ The Propylaea alone (not then built) cost two thousand and twelve talents (Harpocrat. in propylaia tauta), and some temples cost a thousand talents each. [Footnote Plut. in vit. Per.: If the speech of Pericles referred to such works as these, the offer to transfer the account to his own charge was indeed but a figure of eloquence. But, possibly, the accusation to which this offer was intended as a reply was applicable only to some individual edifice or some of the minor works, the cost of which his fortune might have defrayed. We can scarcely indeed suppose, that if the affected generosity were but a bombastic flourish, it could have excited any feeling but laughter among an audience so acute.

263 (return (#x20_x_20_i3))

[ The testimony of Thucydides (lib. ii., c. 5) alone suffices to destroy all the ridiculous imputations against the honesty of Pericles which arose from the malice of contemporaries, and are yet perpetuated only by such writers as cannot weigh authorities. Thucydides does not only call him incorrupt, but “clearly or notoriously honest.” [Footnote Chraematon te diaphanos adorotatos.: Plutarch and Isocrates serve to corroborate this testimony.

264 (return (#x20_x_20_i4))

[ Plut. in vit. Per.

265 (return (#x20_x_20_i4))

[ Thucyd., lib. ii., c. 65.

266 (return (#x20_x_20_i5))

[ “The model of this regulation, by which Athens obtained the most extensive influence, and an almost absolute dominion over the allies, was possibly found in other Grecian states which had subject confederates, such as Thebes, Elis, and Argos. But on account of the remoteness of many countries, it is impossible that every trifle could have been brought before the court at Athens; we must therefore suppose that each subject state had an inferior jurisdiction of its own, and that the supreme jurisdiction alone belonged to Athens. Can it, indeed, be supposed that persons would have travelled from Rhodes or Byzantium, for the sake of a lawsuit of fifty or a hundred drachmas? In private suits a sum of money was probably fixed, above which the inferior court of the allies had no jurisdiction, while cases relating to higher sums were referred to Athens. There can be no doubt that public and penal causes were to a great extent decided in Athens, and the few definite statements which are extant refer to lawsuits of this nature.”—Boeckh, Pol. Econ. of Athens, vol. ii., p. 142, 143, translation.

267 (return (#x20_x_20_i6))

[ In calculating the amount of the treasure when transferred to Athens, Boeckh (Pol. Econ. of Athens, vol. i., p. 193, translation) is greatly misled by an error of dates. He assumes that the fund had only existed ten years when brought to Athens: whereas it had existed about seventeen, viz., from B. C. 477 to B. C. 461, or rather B. C. 460. And this would give about the amount affirmed by Diodorus, xii., p. 38 (viz., nearly 8000 talents), though he afterward raises it to 10,000. But a large portion of it must have been consumed in war before the transfer. Still Boeckh rates the total of the sum transferred far too low, when he says it cannot have exceeded 1800 talents. It more probably doubled that sum.

268 (return (#x20_x_20_i6))

[ Such as Euboea, see p. 212.

269 (return (#x20_x_20_i6))