Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T10:13:34.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leagros Kalos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

E. D. Francis  and
Michael Vickers
E. D. Francis
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Austin
Michael Vickers
Affiliation:
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1920 Ernst Langlotz proposed a scheme for dating Greek vases in terms of absolute and not merely relative chronology. His monograph was entitled Zur Zeitbestimmung der strengrotfigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik and was dedicated to his teacher Franz Studniczka. Studniczka's own essay, ‘Zur Zeitbestimmung der Vasenmalerei mit roten Figuren’ had itself represented a landmark in the chronological study of Greek vase painting. As Langlotz's title suggests, he thought it possible to derive a dating system for Greek vases based on stylistic comparisons between the medium of Greek vase-painting and that of sculpture. The Siphnian Treasury, the Marathon Tumulus, and the Persian sack of Athens, however, provided the only supposedly fixed points in Langlotz's framework. He therefore sought other evidence which would link vase-painting to the known facts of Greek history and decided to develop Studniczka's investigation of the extent to which the subjects of kalos-inscriptions possessed an independent historical identity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 27 , 1981 , pp. 97 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. JDAI 2 (1887) 159–68Google Scholar.

2. Cf. Dinsmoor, W. B., ‘The Athenian Treasury as dated by its ornament,’ AJA 50(1946) 86–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the cautious remarks of Ridgway, B. S., The Archaic style in Greek sculpture (1977) 7–8Google Scholar.

3. See, however, our review of Ridgway (n. 2) forthcoming in the Burlington Magazine, and our forthcoming ‘Signa priscae artis Eretna and Siphnos’ and This Other Herakles.

4. Zeitbestimmung, 48-54.

5. Müller, K. O., ‘De origine pictorum vasorum, quae per hos annos in Etruriae agris, quos olim Volcientes tenuere, effosa sunt’, GGA 1831, 1332Google Scholar See also p. 101 below, J. K. Davies distinguishes Leagros kalos and Plato's Leagros as Leagros (I) and (II), respectively (Athenian propertied families(1971) 91Google Scholar).

6. Epist. graec., ed. Hercher, , 747–50Google Scholar.

7. Katterfeld, E., Die griechischen Metopenbilder (1911) 74Google Scholar, though not without reservation, n. 16.

8. Zeitbestimmung 117.

9. Beazley, J. D., Attic black-figure vase-painters (1956) 669Google Scholar; idem, Attic red-figure vase-painters ed. 2 (1963) 1591–4; idem, Paralipomena (1971) 507.

10. Zeitbestimmung, 54, cf. p. 4.

11. Meritt, B. D., ‘Greek inscriptions’, Hesperia 5 (1936) 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Cook, R. M., Greek Painted Pottery ed. 2 (1972) 324Google Scholar.

13. Löwy, E., ‘Zur Datierung attischer Inschriften’, SAVW 216/4 (1937)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Der Beginn der rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei’, ibid. 217/2 (1938).

14. E.g. by Kleine, J., Untersuchungen zur Chronologie der attischen Kunst von Peisistratos bis Themistokles (MDAI[I] Beiheft 8, 1973) 78–93Google Scholar.

15. Cf. Robinson, D. M. and Fluck, F. J., A study of the Greek love-names (1937) 132–4Google Scholar, Richter, G. M. A., Attic red figure vases: a survey (1958) 43–5Google Scholar; Boardman, J., Athenian red figure vases: the archaic period, a handbook (1975) 213Google Scholar.

16. See the works mentioned in n. 3 and our forthcoming ‘Oenoe, or, a tomb with a view’, CQ 32 (1982)Google Scholar and ‘New wine from Old Smyrna Corinthian pottery and the Greeks', eastern neighbours’, to appear in JHS 103 (1983)Google Scholar. Cf. the observation of Ivins, William M. Jr., Art and geometry (1946)46CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Classical art is a field of learning in which circularity of reasoning, explicit as well as implicit, is recognised as a legitimate procedure’ We are grateful to Mr Calvin Tomkins for this reference.

17. A question raised by Harrison, E. B., Archaic and archaistic sculpture (Agora 12, 1965) 8Google Scholar.

18. Cook (n. 12) 324, cf. the table in Boardman, J., Athenian black figure vases a handbook (1974)202Google Scholar with those in Walbank, M. B.,‘Criteria for the dating of fifth century Attic inscriptions’in Bradeen, D. W. and McGregor, M. F. (eds ), ΦΟΡΟΣ Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt (1974) 165–Google Scholar.

19. Richter, G. M. A., Kouroi ed. 3 (1970) 28–9Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., 28; cf. our forthcoming ‘Green goddess: gifts to Lindos from Amasis of Egypt’, AJA 86 (1982) and ‘New wine’ (n. 16).

21. E.g. Ridgway (n. 2) 297; Boardman, J., The Greeks overseas; their early colonies and trade (1980) 121Google Scholar.

22. Sayce, A. H. (ed ), Herodotus i-iii (1883)Google Scholar; idem, Reminiscences (1923) 224.

23. ‘New wine’ (n. 16).

24. Francis, E. D., ‘Greeks and Persians the art of hazard and triumph’, in Schmandt-Besserat, D. (ed.), Ancient Persia the art of an empire (1980) 61–2Google Scholar et passim.

25. Cook (n. 12) 256.

26. Shear, T. L., ‘The campaign of 1934’, Hesperia 4 (1935) 355–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27. Meritt (n. 11) 357.

28. Beazley, ARV, 177.3.

29. For illustrations see eg CVA Robinson Collection 2, pl. 5 (whence Plate I), Raubitschek, A. E., ‘Leagros’, Hesperia 8 (1939) 162CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Ibid., 163.

31. Ibid..

32. Guarducci, M., ‘Note di epigrafia attica arcaica 4, Leagros’, ASAA 3–5 (1941–1943) 128–33Google Scholar, who regards the comparison between the Leagros base and the Kiss Painter's cup tondo as merely adventitious.

33. Davies, , APF 90–2Google Scholar, No 3027.

34. Zeitbestimmung, 4.

35. Dover, K. J., Greek homosexuality (1978) 119Google Scholar.

36. Willemsen, F.,‘Die Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos 1966’, AD 23/B (1968) 24–32Google Scholar, and note Badian's, E. comments in ‘Archons and Strategoī, Antichthon 5 (1971) 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 31.

37. Meritt, B. D., ‘Greek inscriptions (14-27)’, Hesperia 8 (1939) 48–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, No. 15; idem, ‘The choregic dedication of Leagros’, GRBS 8 (1967) 45-52.

38. Davies, , APF, 91Google Scholar.

39. Cf. Jacoby, ad Androtion, FGH 324Google Scholar F 38.

40. Thompson, W. E., ‘Leagros’, Athenaeum n.s. 49 (1971) 328–35Google Scholar; cf. idem, ‘Tot Atheniensibus idem nomen erat’, in Tribute Meritt (n. 18) 144-9.

41. Löwy, E., ‘Von Euphronios, Exekias und Anderen’, AE 1937, 563Google Scholar.

42. Lewis, D. M., ‘The Kerameikos ostraka’, ZPE 14 (1974) 1–4Google Scholar.

43. Ibid. 3.

44. On the reported Hipparkhos ostracon, and those of Boutahon and Hippokrates Anaxileo, see ibid., 3-4.

45. Ibid. On the possibility that an extensively supplemented Agora ostracon (P 6208) from the 480s records another Cimon, son of Isagoras, see Bicknell, P. J., Studies in Athenian politics and genealogy (=Historia Einzelschristen 19, 1972) 88Google Scholar.

46. Knigge, U.,‘Neue Scherben von Gefässen des Kleophrades-Malers’, MDAI(A) 85 (1970) 1–5Google Scholar, pl. 1; Greifenhagen, A., ‘Neue Fragmente des Kleophradesmalers’, SHAW 1972/1974, 23Google Scholar.

47. Lewis (n. 42) 3.

48. Mattingly, H. B., ‘Facts and artefacts: the researcher and his tools’, University of Leeds Review 14 (1971) 285–6Google Scholar.

49. Cf. Pindar on Megakles, Pyth. 7.18–21, dated to 486, the year of his ostracism Compare also (at least for Leagros' dedication) the widespread reaction to the inscription praising Pausanias on the Serpent Column at Delphi (Hdt. 9.81; Thuc. 1.132.2).

50. Meritt 1939 (n. 37) 48-50; SEG 10 322Google Scholar = IG I 3958Google Scholar.

51. Cf. Meritt 1967 (n. 37) 47.

52. Davies, APF, 91Google Scholar.

53. Meritt 1967 (n. 37) 48.

54. Fr. 64 Kock.

55. Hdt. 9.75; Paus. 1. 29. 5.

56. This Other Herakles (n. 3).

57. Cf. Thuc. 1.98.4; Fornara, C. W., The Athenian board of generals from 501 to 404 (=Historia Einzelschriften 16, 1971) 43Google Scholar.

58. Davies, J. K., Democracy and classical Greece (1978) 58Google Scholar On the prosperity of Thasos, see Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (1972) 570–2Google Scholar.

59. Cf. Ath. Pol. 15 2Google Scholar, Berve, H., Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (1967) 50Google Scholar.

60. Cf. Meiggs (n. 58) 83.

61. For the topography, see Jones, N., ‘The topography and strategy of the Battle of Amphipolis’, CSCA 10 (1977) 78Google Scholar; Pritchett, W. K., Studies in ancient Greek topography (1965) 33Google Scholar.

62. Hagnon's ‘Amphipolis’ of 437 expresses the same topographical fact, but suppresses the ‘unlucky’ connotations of the earlier name of the colony (cf Schol. ad Aeschin. 2. 31 with its catalogue of nine at Ennea Hodoi).

63. Hdt. 7. 24, 114.

64. Walker, E. M. in CAH 5 (1927) 57Google Scholar.

65. Ibid. 58; cf. , Thuc. 1. 100. 3, also 4. 102. 2.

66. , Thuc. 1. 100. 3, also 4. 102. 2; cf. Meritt, B. D., Wade-Gery, H. T. and McGregor, M. F., The Athenian Tribute Lists 3 (1950) 258Google Scholar, and Meiggs (n. 58) 84.

67. Cf. , Thuc. 1. 100. 2.

68. , ibid.

69. , Thuc. 1. 75. 3.

70. Davies (n. 58) 58.

71. , Thuc. 1. 75. 3.

72. Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 1 (1945) 36Google Scholar.

73. Cf. Meiggs (n. 58) 275-7.

74. Plut. Cim. 14. 2; cf. Connor, W. R., ‘Theopompos’ treatment of Cimon’, GRBS 4 (1963) 109Google Scholar.

75. Dem. 19. 273.

76. Wade-Gery, H. T., ‘The Peace of Kallias’, HSPh Suppl. vol. 1 (Athenian studies presented to W.S. Ferguson, 1940) 152Google Scholar, n. 2.

77. Cf. Walsh's, J. A. important article forthcoming in Chiron 11 (1981)Google Scholar.

78. Ath. Pol. 26. 1.

79. Walker (n. 64) 70.

80. Hdt. 9. 75.

81. Pace Frost, F. J., Plutarch's Themistocles, a historical commentary (1980) 188Google Scholar, the most recent scholar to misquote the testimony of Herodotus in this manner.

82. Kleine (n. 14) 80; is construed with not with .

83. Hdt. 9. 75.

84. Cf. Powell, J. E., Lexicon to Herodotus (1938) s.v. I, 1Google Scholar.

85. Kleine (n. 14) 80.

86. Thuc. 1. 100. 2-101; 3, 4. 102. 2; cf. Meritt, , Wade-Gery, and McGregor, , ATL 3Google Scholar (n. 66) Ch. 2, ‘The losses at Drabeskos’, 106–10; Bradeen, D. W., ‘The Athenian casualty list of 464 B.C.’, Hesperia 36 (1967) 327CrossRefGoogle Scholar (but, on the commemorative stele [IG I 2928Google Scholar], see Meiggs [n. 58] 416).

87. Thuc. 4. 104. 4-106. 4, cf. 5. 26. 5.

88. At 1. 101. 3.

89. Thuc. 1. 51. 4.

90. Thuc. 1. 100. 3.

91. Thuc. 4. 102. 2; cf. Paus. 1. 29. 4. 92.

92. Casson, S., Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (1926) 21Google Scholar.

93. Diod. 16. 8. 6.

94. App., BCiv 4. 106Google Scholar.

95. Macan, R. W., Herodotus, the seventh, eighth and ninth books (1908) 754Google Scholar; cf. Jacoby, F., ‘Patrios nomos: state burial in Athens and the public cemetery in the Kerameikos’, JHS 64 (1944) 46, n. 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96. Gomme (n. 72) 297.

97. Walker (n. 64) 58, n. 1.

98. Cf. Hdt. 7. 112; Casson (n. 92) 77-8.

99. Thuc. 1. 100. 3.

100. Cf. , ibid..

101. Thuc. 5. 6. 4-5.

102. Pace Walker (n. 64) 58.

103. Gomme (n. 72) 297.

104. Paus. 1. 29. 5.

105. Thuc. 1. 100. 3.

106. Kleine (n. 14) 80.

107. Walker (n. 64) 58; cf. Meritt, Wade-Gery and McGregor (n. 66) 109-10.

108. Cf. Gomme (n. 72) 47-8 on Ath. Pol. 26. 1.

109. Cf. Hitzig, H. and Blümner, H., Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio 1/1 (1896) 320Google Scholar ad Paus. 1.29.4. On this burial, see Jacoby (n. 95) passim, but also Gomme, 's criticisms, HCT 2, 94–101Google Scholar.

110. Kleine (n. 14) 80-1, following Hitzig-Blümner ad loc. Jacoby ([n. 95] 53-5, 40-1, n. 12) plausibly suggests that Pausanias' description of the Ceramicus was based on a ‘learned source’, rather than on autopsy, and is followed by Meritt, Wade-Gery and McGregor (n. 66) 109-10.

111. . Pace Davies, , APF, 91.Google Scholar.

112. Clinton, H. F., Fasti Hellenici 2 (1824) 263.Google Scholar.

113. Cf. Davies, , APF 30, No. 828 (VI)Google Scholar.

114. Cf. Thompson 1974 (n. 40) 144-9, especially 149.

115. Cf. Kleine (n. 14) 81.

116. Ibid, 89.

117. On which, see Fornara (n. 57).

118. Plut. Arist. 23. 1; Cim. 6. 1; cf. Fornara (n. 57) 42-3.

119. Plut. Alc. 15. 1; cf. Thuc. 5. 52. 2 and 55. 4, with Fornara (n. 57)62.

120. , Thuc. 5. 43. 2.

121. On which see Connor (n. 74) 112-3.

122. Hdt. 9 74-5.

123. Cf. Fragm. Vat. de eligendis magistratibus p. 21 Aly.

124. Davies, , APF, 91Google Scholar.

125. Fornara (n. 57) 48-51.

126. Kleine (n. 14) 89.

127. Davies, , APF, 91Google Scholar.

128. E.g. Beazley, ARV 1582.23, 26.

129. Davies, , APF, 91Google Scholar; cf. Zeitbestimmung, 109, and Studniczka (n. 1) 162-3.

130. London E 298 = Beazley, ARV 1581.20; Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., The dramatic festivals of Athens, revised by Gould, J. and Lewis, D. M. (1968) fig. 31Google Scholar.

131. Davies, , APF, 91Google Scholar.

132. Ibid.

133. Panofka, T., Die griechischen Eigennamen mit KALOS in Zusammenhang mit dem Bilderschmuck auf bemalten Gefässen (1850)Google Scholar.

134. Davies, , APF, 91Google Scholar.

135. Ibid., 90.

136. Dover (n. 35) 120.

137. Ibid., 121.

138. Davies, , APF, 300Google Scholar.

139. 1879.175 (V.310) = Beazley, ARV 163.8.

140. Boardman (n. 15) 18; cf. Richter (n. 15) 44.

141. Wade-Gery, H. T., ‘Miltiades’, JHS 71 (1951)220CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

142. Vickers, M.Greek Vases (1978) No 36Google Scholar.

143. Davies, , APF, 301Google Scholar.

144. Ibid., 300.

145. Ibid., 301.

146. Hdt. 6 38.

147. Zeitbestimmung, 61.

148. Ibid..

149. Davies, , APF, 308Google Scholar.

150. Ibid., 301.

151. Ibid..

152. Hdt. 6 136.

153. Hdt. 5. 69; Ath. Pol. 20; Bicknell (n. 45) 84-5.

154. Ibid., but note Hdt. 5. 74. 1, with Ostwald, M., Nomos and the beginning of the Athenian democracy (1969) 144–5Google Scholar.

155. Hammond, N. G. L., ‘The Philaids and the Chersonnese’, CQ 6 (1956) 127–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lewis, D. M., ‘Cleisthenes and Athens’, Historia 12 (1963) 25–6Google Scholar; Kinzl, K., Miltiades-Forschungen (1968) 23–4Google Scholar; Davies, , APF, 296Google Scholar; Bicknell (n. 45) 84-88.

156. Marshall, P. K. (ed ), Cornelii Nepotis Vitae (1977) 6Google Scholar.

157. Cf. Hammond (n. 155) 127, Bicknell (n. 45)84 In any case, our suggestion that early red-figure cup-painters celebrated Stesagoras (III), and not Stesagoras (II), remains unaffected by Bicknell's multiplication of Kimoneian Isagorai or his conclusion that an otherwise unknown younger brother of Stesagoras (II) and Miltiades (IV) defended the latter at his trial in 489.

158. Richter (n. 15) 43.

159. Ibid., 16.

160. Zeitbestimmung, 5.

161. von Gerkan, A., Kalabaktepe, Athenatempel und Umgebung (Milet 1/8, 1925) 12–3Google Scholar.

162. Löwy 1938 (n. 13) 88; cf. 86; for the relative lack of interest in small finds on the part of German archaeologists at the turn of the century, see Bittel, K., ‘The German perspective and the German Archaeological Institute’, AJA 84 (1980) 271–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially 274-5.

163. Raubitschek (n. 29) 161. It seems to us unlikely that Leagros would have chosen any of the Twelve Gods themselves for his dedication even as a Hermes propylaios might perhaps appear an attractive candidate were it not for the fact that the base suggests, if not necessarily a kouros, at least an anthropomorphic figure inappropriate at this period to the characteristic representation of Hermes in such a rôle (cf. Chittenden, J., Hesperia 16 [1947] 89–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wycherley, R. E., The stones of Athens [1978] 131)Google Scholar.

164. Raubitschek (n. 29) 161; but see Guarducci (n. 32) 130-1 and n. 7.

165. Cf. Pind., Nem. 5. 1–3Google Scholar; Bowra, C. M., Pindar (1964) 189Google Scholar; Lycurg., . Leoc. 51Google Scholar.

166. Raubitschek (n. 29) 164.

167. Lycurg, . Leoc. 51Google Scholar.

168. Raubitschek (n. 29) 164.

169. Cf. Davies, , APF, 327.Google Scholar.

170. Cf. Raubitschek (n. 29) 157-8; Crosby, M., ‘The Altar of the Twelve Gods in Athens’, Commemorative studies in honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia, Suppl. 8, 1949) 82Google Scholar, n. 1.

171. Cf. Raubitschek (n. 29) 158.

172. Cf. Meritt (n. 11) 359.

173. Agora Inv. I 1597Google Scholar, SEG 10. 314 = IG I 3951Google Scholar.

174. Thompson, H. A. and Wycherley, R. E., The agora of Athens (Agora 14, 1972) 132.Google Scholar.

175. Meritt (n. 11) 355-6; cf. Thompson and Wycherley (n. 174) 150, pl. 79.

176. Athens, N.M. Inv. 7263, = Bather, A. G., ‘The bronze fragments of the Acropolis i’ JHS 12 (1892–1893) 126, No. 11, pl. 6.Google Scholar.

177. Athens, N.M. Inv. 7313, = Bather (n. 176) No. 12. We are grateful to Dr Peter Calligas for giving us information concerning these bowls.

178. Raubitschek, A. E., Dedications from the Athenian acropolis (1949) No. 112.Google Scholar.

179. Ibid., No. 369.

180. IG I 3745Google Scholar.

181. IG I 3929Google Scholar; cf. Daux, G., ‘Notes d'epigraphie attique’ in Tribute Meritt (n. 18) 40–2Google Scholar.

182. Bather (n. 176) 126.

183. Cf. Brunnsåker, S., The Tyrant-slayers of Kritios and Nesiotes ed. 2 (1971) 43Google Scholar.

184. Shear, T. L. Jr, ‘The Athenian Agora: excavations of 1971’, Hesperia 42 (1973) 174Google Scholar.

185. Daux (n. 181) 42.

186. Thompson and Wycherley (n. 174) 132.

187. Crosby (n. 170) 92, 94.

188. Ibid., 94.

189. Ibid., 95.

190. Ibid., 98.

191. Kleine (n. 14) 90; cf. Wycherley (n. 163) 64.

192. Hdt. 2. 7; cf. IG II 22640Google Scholar.

193. Cf. Wycherley (n. 163) 64, 204-5.

194. . Pace Crosby (n. 170) 79; cf. Thompson and Wycherley (n. 174) 132.

195. Cf. Thuc. 6. 54.

196. Thompson and Wycherley (n. 174) 132.

197. Shear (n. 26) 356-7, figs 13 and 14 (on which our Fig. 2 is based). Kleine‘s report ’dass die tatsächliche Basis nur aus einem rechteckigen Block besteht’ (Kleine [n. 14] 92) is only correct to the extent that the lower step was unfaced and almost certainly buried.

198. Raubitschek (n. 29) 161; for laurel, see e.g. Myson's Apolline wreaths, Beazley, ARV 238Google Scholar. 1 and 239. 16.

199. Raubitschek (n. 29) 163. Raubitschek, however, envisages a victory ‘perhaps in the Panathenaia’(p. 161).

200. For a later period see e.g. IGR 4. 1761Google Scholar.

201. Miller, S. G., ‘The pentathlon for boys at Nemea’, CSCA 8 (1975) 199–201Google Scholar.

202. Philostr., Gymn. 3Google Scholar.

203. Davies, , APF 29Google Scholar.

204. Moretti, L., ‘Olympionikai, i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici’, MAL 8/8. 2 (1957) 87–89Google Scholar.

205. Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks (1962) 222Google Scholar.

206. Cf. Moretti (n. 204) 82-7, who favours 484 on the strength of Hal., Dion.Ant. Rom. 8. 77Google Scholar.

207. E.g. Berve (n. 59) 142-7.

208. Cf. Hdt. 3. 137.

209. Hdt. 8. 47; Paus. 10. 9. 2. It is conceivable that Phayllos himself may have thus drawn some good athletes away from the competition so that Astylos (if he had not already transferred his allegiance before the Games of 484) decided to cast his lot with a city not mobilising for Salamis and with a patron willing to sponsor him before he became too long in the tooth to win. Elis would at any rate have been glad to have a ‘big-name’ competitor since her revenue and prestige depended in no small measure on the successful conduct of the Games.

210. The presence of a Cean youth is perhaps significant. Ceos contributed to the Greek fleet at Salamis (the islanders are included in the list on the Serpent Column); those beneath military age seem to have been free to compete at Olympia.

211. Moretti (n. 204) 74-5, 76, 85, 87, 104, gives the relevant facts There were in fact two Olympic victors named Theopompus, and they were the son and grandson respectively of Damaratus of Heraea who was victor twice in the hoplitodrome event in 520 and 516. Theopompus (II) won the wrestling twice and his victories have to be after 444 when the information from P. Oxy. 222 ceases Theopompus (I) cannot have been a victor after 480, again on account of P. Oxy. 222, and Moretti consequently placed him as late in the period before 480 as he could. On the evidence Moretti presents, Theopompus (I) could have won his victories at many Olympiads between 504 and 480 so that there is no reason to suppose that our hypothesis regarding Leagros' victory in 480 is contradicted by Theopompus' prior claim.

212. Miller (n. 201), and see below, p. 121.

213. Pind. Ol. 10. 43–9.

214. Hdt. 2. 7.

215. For such close attention to the significant orientation of epinician monuments in the fifth century, compare our interpretation of the Stoa Poikile as belvedere ‘Oenoe’ (n. 16).

216. On the proximity of potters' and sculptors' workshops in the Ceramicus, see Thompson and Wycherley(n 174) 185-91. The aryballos and sponge bag in the background and the pick beside the base do not require us to suppose that the statue is being viewed in a gymnasium, but may simply serve to define the athletic character of the monument.

217. Cf. Davies, , APF, 90, and p. 100Google Scholar above (Raubitschek's suggestion ‘that the small hole near the left front corner on the top of the base once received the end of the javelin held by the athlete in his right hand’ [Raubitschek (n. 29) 162-3] is, as Crosby has shown [Crosby (n. 170) 94, n. 29], unsupported by any archaeological evidence A potentially significant contradiction between statue and cup is thus eliminated).

218. Pace Kleine (n. 14) 92: ‘eine Deutung, die zunächst ebenso überrascht wie überzeugt’, cf. Guarducci's objections (n. 32) 132-3.

219. So Robinson (n. 29) 13.

220. Beazley, J. D., Campana fragments in Florence (1933) 20Google Scholar, No 56.

221. This symposium may include the image of a slightly older Leagros (again wearing an olive wreath) in the free field at the centre of B (in fact, the front of the cup), with his companion of the tondo again to his left At least some passage of time might be expected to have elapsed between the actual victory and the execution of the commemorative monument, cf. Amandry, P., ‘A propos de Polyclète statues d‘olympioniques et carrières de sculpteurs’, in Schauenburg, K. (ed ) Charites Langlotz (1957) 63–87Google Scholar.

222. , Plut. Cim. 4. 3.

223. IG I 12609Google Scholar (= IG I 3784Google Scholar); cf. Harrison, E. B., ‘The victory of Kalhmachos’, GRBS 12 (1971) 5–24Google Scholar, eadem, ‘The south frieze of the Nike temple and the Marathon painting in the Painted Stoa’, AJA 76 (1972) 373–4Google Scholar.

224. Plut. Cim. 13. 3.

225. E.g. Pind. Ol. 6.85–90; Finley, J. H. Jr, ‘Pindar and the Persian invasion’, HSPh 63 (1958) 131Google Scholar, n. 12.

226. Pind. Nem. 7. 7–8.

227. Cf. Miller (n. 201).

228. Pind. Nem. 7. 70–3; on this point and the significance of the javelin event in determining the outcome of the pentathlon, see Lee, H. M., ‘The TEPMA and the javelin in Pindar, Nemean vii, 70-3, and Greek athletics’, JHS 96 (1976) 70–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note also Pindar's image of Achilles as youthful acontist at Nem. 3. 45.

229. Cf. Ibycus', Ode to Polycrates 282a. 46–8 PageGoogle Scholar; Simonides' lyric for the dead at Thermopylae, 531. 1-3 Page; Pind, . Isthm. 4. 23 and 42, etc.Google Scholar.

230. Cf. Raubitschek (n. 29) 164: ‘the celebration of his youth on the vase paintings … will now be understood as a result of his activity as an athlete’.

231. Wycherley (n. 163) 33, citing Hdt. 2.7.1, IG II 22640Google Scholar.

232. Bowra (n. 165) 408. This date is, however, far from secure. Pindar might, for example, have composed the dithyramb prior to 480. In any case its date is not diagnostic for the Leagros base; we are merely noting that, if Leagros' dedication was in situ by the time of Pindar's composition, then it would naturally have been included within the reference of .

233. Wycherley (n. 163) 74. But cf. p. 115 and n. 183 above.

234. Cf. ibid., 205; Pickard-Cambridge (n. 130) 62.

235. Davies, , APF, No. 8792, 325Google Scholar and Table I.

236. Vitr. 7 praef. 15.

237. Davies, , APF, 327Google Scholar.

238. Wycherley (n. 163) 162, whatever the condition of the Olympieionby by the time of Clisthenes' archonship (cf. Wycherley, R. E., ‘The Olympieion at Athens’, GRBS 5 [1964] esp. 162–5Google Scholar).

239. Cf. Guthrie, W. K. C., The Greeks and their gods (1950) 111Google Scholar.

240. Gauer, W., Weihgeschenken aus den Perserkriegen (MDAI[I] Beiheft 2, 1968) 59Google Scholar, n. 225.

241. Davies, , APF, 90Google Scholar.

242. Richter (n. 15) 175, n. 33; Kleine (n. 14) 82-89.

243. Niessing, W., De Themistoclis epistulis (1929) 15–18Google Scholar; Nylander, C., ‘ΑΣΣΥΡΙΑ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΑ remarks on the twenty-first “Letter of Themistocles”’, OAth 8 (1968) 132–3Google Scholar.

244. Podlecki, A. J., The life of Themistocles: a critical survey of the literary and archaeological evidence (1975) 130Google Scholar.

245. Ibid., 133.

246. Nylander (n. 243) 123-4, 132, n. 53. The argument of Schmitt, R., ‘Die achaemenidische Satrapie tayaiy drayahyā’, Historia 21 (1972) 522–27Google Scholar, about the satrapy title in Letter 16 (755. 36 Hercher) is, however, not well-taken since the terminus technicus was already evident in Herodotus (e.g. at 7. 135, etc.; also Xenophon's , Hell. 4.8. 1-2, cf. Lewis, D. M., Sparta and Persia (1977) 83–4Google Scholar, and n. 10).

247. Cf. Hdt. 8.21; Davies, , APF, 1, No. 20Google Scholar; cf. Themist, Ps.–. Epist. 4Google Scholar = Hercher 744.33, where a Lysikles is mentioned as Habronikhos' son.

248. Epist. 4, passim; cf. Thuc. 1. 91. 3; Frost, F. J., Plutarch's Themistocles, a historical commentary (1980) 173–4Google Scholar. For the writer‘s evident use of Thucydides, compare Themistocles' voyage to Ephesus by way of Naxos and Thuc. 1. 137; Podlecki (n. 244) 132; cf. Frost, 206-8, 211.

249. Davies, , APF, 471Google Scholar, No. 12250.

250. IG II 23123Google Scholar = Raubitschek, DAA, No. 174.

251. Cf. von Christ, W., Schmid, W. and Stählin, O., Geschichte dergriechische Literatur 11.1 (1920)483Google Scholar; Niessing (n. 243) 4.

252. Cf. Lenardon, R. J., ‘Charon, Thucydides, and “Themistocles”’, Phoenix 15(1961) 28–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kleine (n. 14) 87-8.

253. Niessing (n. 243) 4.

254. Frost (n. 248) 37.

255. Cf. Kleine (n. 14) 82.

256. Ibid., 89. Nevertheless, scholars who regard the comparison of the Leagros base and the Kiss Painter's cup tondo as adventitious must resort to this testimony alone if they wish to maintain the view that acclamations of Leagros as ‘give landmarks for the vases of about 510-505’.

257. Cf. Rumpf, A., ‘Zu den Tyrannenmördern’, in Homann-Wedeking, E. and Segall, B. (eds.), Festschrift E. von Mercklin (1964) 141Google Scholar.

258. Cf. This Other Heracles (n. 3) and ‘New wine’ (n. 16).