Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver MiningAuthor(s): Barry S. StraussSource: Hermes, Vol. 112, No. 4 (4th Qtr., 1984), pp. 418-427Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476395Accessed: 27/11/2010 23:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

418 BARRY S. STRAUSS

Froschen (1382) in Erinnerung ruft, hatte ihm der sogenannte grol3e Monolog vorgelegen, hatte schwerlich eine Gelegenheit ausgelassen, gerade dieses >>Prachtstucko (BETHE) paratragodisch aufs Korn zu nehmen. Sechs Jahre nach der Auffuhrung der Medea parodiert er in den Acharnern nicht diesen Monolog79, sondern die in Original und Parodie dramatisch allein interessan- te und passende Selbstanrede vor dem Aufbruch zur Tat80.

GieB3en ULRICH HUBNER

79 DIHLE 20, 46 andert F. LEOS, Der Monolog im Drama, Abh. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen 1908, 36 richtige Beobachtung ab.

80 Vgl. die Metapher des Startes in Med. 1245 und Ach. 483. In Ach. 488 ist T6xVOTov nicht von Med. 1051 inspiriert. Vgl. 816, 859. Was nutzt es festzustellen, dal3 an irgendeiner Stelle der Acharner oouXgac 'Plan' heif3t, wie im Monolog der Medea (DIHLE 46)?

PHILIP II OF MACEDON, ATHENS, AND SILVER MINING*

Philip II of Macedon understood not only that money can be the sinews of war but also of diplomacy - the extension of warfare by other means (to reverse CLAUSEWITZ). He bought Greek politicians, he struck at the Athenian economy by attacking Athenian ships, and once in a gesture of conciliation he offered to help Athens put down piracy'. Given his economic acumen, it is tempting to follow what several scholars have argued, that Philip also attacked Athens' lucrative silver industry by the competition of his own mines.

By opening up new gold and silver mines - they are said to have yielded him more than 1000 talents a year - Philip is said to have brought down the price of silver. By expanding Macedonian coinage and spreading it through the Greek world, he cut into the market for Athenian coins. The entrepreneurs

* The author wishes to thank FREDERICK AHL and ALVIN BERNSTEIN for many valuable suggestions.

I Bribery: Diod. 16.8.6 Attacks on Athenian Ships: Dem. 4.34; 8.25; 18.73; 87; FGrH, 328 F 162. Cf. E. ZIEBARTH, Beitrage zur Geschichte des Seeraubs und Seehandels im alten Griechenland, Hamburg 1929, 16- 19. Conciliation: Dem. 7.15, 12.2. For appreciations of Philip's economic acumen, see A. B. WEST, The Early Diplomacy of Philip 11 of Macedon Illustrated By His Coins, Numismatic Chronicle 5th ser. 3 (1923), 169-210; A. MOMIGLIANO,

Filippo 11 Macedone, Florence 1934, 49- 55; J. R. ELLIS, Philip II and Macedonian Imperialism, London 1976, 68-70; G. CAWKWELL, Philip of Macedon, London 1978, 138; N. G. L. HAMMOND and G. T. GRIFFITH, A History of Macedonia, vol. 2: 550- 336 B. C., Oxford 1979, 662.

Philip 11 of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining 419

of Laurium felt the pinch and as a result, they were for the most part strong opponents of Philip in the years before Chaeronea.

E. ARDAILLON put forward the first of these arguments long ago. More recently, SIEGFRIED LAUFFER has advanced the second, and won the support, with reservations, of J. K. DAVIES2.

LAUFFER attempts to buttress his position with the evidence of the mining- lease lists found in the Athenian agora. These fourth-century inscriptions show that many wealthy and influential Athenians invested in the mines at the time of the Macedonian challenge. Indeed, in the 340s >>smart money< in Athens seems to have found investments in the silver mines ever more attractive - just as Xenophon had urged in the 350s (Poroi 4,1 - 32). Hence mining investors might have formed a strong political bloc - an anti- Macedonian bloc, as LAUFFER concludes after a prosopographical study3.

Are these arguments right? The question is worth asking not only for what an answer might show about the struggle between Philip and Athens, but also about the character of the ancient economy. Such modern economic concepts as money market or currency competition cannot be applied to the ancient economy4. In the absence of modern institutions, how could Philip have waged war on Athens' silver industry? He would either have had to (1) mine such huge quantities of silver as to bring down its price throughout the Aegean or (2) have his coins circulate widely enough to provide an alternative to Athens'. This paper will examine whether he did either. It will also consider the evidence for believing that the miners of Laurium formed an anti-Macedo- nian bloc.

To begin with, there is the evidence of the mining-lease or poletai lists. These lists record the names of some 350 mining investors from about 370

2 E. ARDAILLON, Les Mines de Laurion dans l'Antiquite, Paris 1897, 159- 160; S. LAUFFER, Prosopographische Bemerkungen zu den attischen Grubenpachtlisten, Historia 6 (1957), 291 -292. For DAvIES' view, see J. K. DAVIES, Athenian Propertied Families, 600-300 B. C., Oxford 1971, 385, 525; he expresses reservations about LAUFFER'S thesis on 279, 398 (hereafter referred to as APF). On the silver mines in the fourth century B. C. see M. CROSBY, The Leases of the Laurion Mines, Hesperia 19 (1950), 190; R. J. HOPPER, The Attic Silver Mines in the Fourth Century B. C. BSA 48 (1953), 250; E. WILL, C. MOSSE and P. GOUKOWSKY, Le monde grec et l'orient, vol. 2: Le IVe siecle et 1'epoque hellenistique, Paris 1975, 111, 113.

3 The inscriptions, records of the Athenian officials known as poletai, have been published by CROSBY, Greek Inscriptions, Hesperia 10 (1941), 14- 30; Eadem, Leases; Eadem, More Fragments of Mining Leases from the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 26 (1957), 1 -23. For a full discussion of the evidence, see also HOPPER, Attic Silver Mines; ldem, The Laureion Mines: A Reconsideration of the Evidence; BSA 63 (1968), 293 - 295; LAUFFER, Prosopographische Bemerkungen; J. K. CUNNINGHAM, The Silver of Laurion, Greece and Rome 142 (1967), 145 - 156; J. F. HEALEY, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, London 1978, passim.

4 See M. I. FINLEY, The Ancient Economy, Berkeley 1973, 17 - 34, 166 - 169.

420 BARRY S. STRAUSS

B. C. to the end of the century, and other sources add 20 other names from the period5. Despite much scholarly attention, most of those on the lists remain mere names, and the lists themselves are quite fragmentary6. Nevertheless, those names that can be identified bespeak wealth and political influence: they make a catalogue of trierarchs and choregoi and their relatives; of liturgists and magistrates; of bouletai and orators; of generals and scions of noble families 7.

Where these men, on the whole, opposed to Philip? LAUFFER'S prosopo- graphical study finds that seven investors were active opponents of Macedon; only one advocated cooperation, but he did not invest in the mines, as far as is known, until 320, when Philip was long dead. Eight names make only a small base for LAUFFER'S conclusion, yet not even all of these will bear scrutiny, as DAVIES has shown8.

Of the seven anti-Macedonian mining entrepreneurs identified by LAUF- FER, four fit the description well. The famous Hypereides, son of Glaucippus of Collytus, was second only to Demosthenes in his opposition to Macedon9. The general and orator Polyeuctus of Sphettus joined Demosthenes in 343 in an expedition to rouse the Peloponnesus against Philip. In 335, Polyeuctus seemed dangerous enough for Alexander to demand his arrest '?.

The Anti-Macedonian credentials of another demesman of Sphettus, Phae- drus, son of Callias, are also in order. In 341 he was one of the guarantors of ships sent to Chalcis in its revolt against Macedon. Eighteen years later during

S HOPPER (Attic Silver Mines, 212-213) has counted 28 men associated with the mines on mine-makers, hypothecary inscriptions, or in literature. I have counted 343 mining investors in CROSBY'S indices to the poletai lists, including many fragmentary names. By ))mining investors<, I mean not only the actual registrants and lessees (for the terminology, see CROSBY, Leases, 200 - 202) but also owners of refineries, smelting furnaces, or land.

6 See HOPPER Attic Silver Mines, 212-213. 7 As examples, consider the following Laurium investors: the trierarch Diphilus of Pitthus

(DAVIES, APF, 534), the choregos Antisthenes of Cytherrus (ibid., 38), the general Mantias of Thoricus (CROSBY, Leases, no. 2, lines II - 12; Dem. 40.52; Diod. 16.2 - 3), the bouleutes Callias of Lamptrae (DAVIES, APF 178), the orator Diophantus of Sphettus (CROSBY, More, no. 2., lines 11 - 13; RE 5 (1905), col. 1050), the Delian amphictyon Epicrates of Pallene (CROSBY, Leases, no. 1, lines 70-71; IG 112, 1622, line 435) and the arbitrator for the clan of the Salaminioi, Cephisodotus of Aethalidae (CROSBY, ibid., no. 1, lines 56-57, 73-76; W. S. FERGUSON,

Hesperia 7 (1938), no. 1, line 8). For other examples and discussion, see CROSBY, Leases, 204-205; HOPPER, Attic Silver

Mines, 240, n. 317; 241 -246; LAUFFER, Prosopographische Bemerkungen, 291 -292; CASSON,

Athenian Upper Class, 42, n. 35. 8 LAUFFER, ibid; on DAVIES, see infra, 14, 23. 9 For a full discussion of Hypereides' career, with citations of the ancient evidence, see RE 9

(1916), cols. 281 -285; DAVIES, APF, 517-520. 10 For a full discussion of Polyeuctus, see RE 42 (1916), cols. 1614-1616.

Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining 421

the Lamian War he led an expedition against the Macedonian ally Styra in Euboea 1t.

A fourth man, Diotimus, son of Diopeithes of Euonymon, was also a guarantor of the Chalcis ships. Athens crowned him for his voluntary dona- tion of shields after Chaeronea. In 335 Alexander demanded his arrest too12

A fifth case is less clear: Nausicles of Oea, general and diplomat. In 330 he was a friend of Demosthenes and enemy of Aeschines. In 346, on the other hand, he served on Athens' first embassy to Philip and proposed Aeschines as his colleague. He was still Aeschines' friend in 34313.

Moreover, that Nausicles of Oea even invested in the Laurium mines is less than certain. That someone named Nausicles did so in the 340s and 330s is clear. But Nausicles was a common name in classical Athens, and he might not be our man 14. Likewise, Hypereides the mining investor was not necessari- ly Hypereides the politician15.

Polyeuctus, Diotimus, and Phaedrus are more clearly identified as mining investors 16. In addition, one other anti-Macedonian, one LAUFFER did not mention, is perhaps to be added to the list: the general Diopeithes of Sunium,

11 See RE 38 (1938), col. 1553; DAVIES, APF, 525. 12 See RE 5 (1905), col. 1148; DAVIES, APF, 163 - 164. 13 I have followed DAVIES, APF, 396. Contra, CAWKELL, CQ 56 (1962), 140, n. 1, who

explains Nausicles' switch by positing two Nausicleis. 14 A speech of the 330's records that one Nausicles was accused of operating a mine that he

had not registered with the state (Hyp. 4.34). LAUFFER (291) assumes the man in question is Nausicles of Oea, and makes the same conclusion about two names in the poletai lists: Nauolaxk4. AA registrant of a mine in 341/340 (CROSBY, Leases, no. 18, line 13) and 1--]X?ouq 'O 01,9EV, landowner in the mining district (ibid. no. 19, line 21). I find five other Nausicleis in fourth century Athens: J. KIRCHNER, Prosopographia Attica2 rev. by S. LAUFFER, Berlin 1966, nos. 10547, 10549, 10550, 10553 - 10554. DAVIES, APF 398, also doubts LAUFFER'S

identif'ication. 15 The mining investor 'YtcEpsi&,ql[; has no demotic or patronymic (IG 112, 1582, line 180).

Unlike Nausicles, Hypereides was not a common name in Athens. The only other Hypereides I find is on a fifth century funerary monument: D. W. BRADEEN, The Athenian Agora, 17: Inscriptions, The Funerary Monuments, Princeton 1974, no. 22, line 115. Nevertheless, the mining investor cannot simply be assumed to be the famous Hypereides. The two could have been collateral relatives. Cf. W. E. THOMPSON, Tot Atheniensibus Idem Nomen Erat ..., in Phoros, Tribute to BENJAMIN DEAN MERITT, ed. by D. W. BRADEEN and M. F. McGREGOR, Locust Valley, N. Y. 1974, 144.

16 On the strength of a relatively non-controversial textual restoration, Polyeuctus has been identified as a lessee. See CROSBY, Leases, no. 9, line 16:

[6vVT# F x 1IpB]U to;; 1(p1]TtoS ..................H.I.o o

Likewise, Phaedrus, in IG 112, 1582, lines 180-181 and CROSBY, Leases, 235, 251:

[CLotiptov [cr)v: ...... ....... (pal

rtl6po4 Kakkiou [E(PTTTI: d7tEYP6@taTO ETacXXOl

422 BARRY S. STRAUSS

who directed operations against Philip in the Chersonese in 341. Though not attested as a mining investor himself, Diopeithes may have been the nephew of one Diophanes, son of Diopeithes of Sunium, landowner in the Laurium district in 367/66 and a member of the council in the third quarter of the fourth century'7.

Weighed against this possible addition, however, is the certain subtraction of two other mining investors whom LAUFFER considered anti-Macedonian. The first is Niceratus, son of Nicias of Cydantidae, and great-grandson of Thucydides' Nicias. Niceratus' patriotism seems clear, but not his attitude toward Philip.

In 348, Niceratus was a strong supporter of Athens' expedition to put down the revolt of Euboea. To LAUFFER, this was clear evidence of Niceratus' hostility to Macedon, but that conclusion makes questionable history'8. For, in 348, just when Athens faced a challenge in Euboea, it confronted another one at Olynthus, which was under attack by Philip. Niceratus, unlike Demosthenes, preferred to deal with the challenge closer to home. His support of the Euboean campaign, therefore, is no proof of concern about the Macedonian threat. Nor is the rather neutral record of his later careerl9

The record of a second supposed anti-Macedonian, Meidias, son of Cephisodorus of Anagyrus, is even more damaging to LAUFFER'S thesis. If anything, he seemed ready to cooperate with Macedon. His personal enmity to Demosthenes, who devoted a speech to attacking him, is well known. In 340, he served with Aeschines on the embassy to Delphi which furnished Philip an excuse for intervening in a Greek dispute20. Ten years later, in 330, Aeschines mourned his death in these terms:

you remember Meidias of Anagyrus - I wish for many reasons he were still living21.

Phaedrus' father, Callias, leased two mines in 367 and owned land nearby (CROSBY, ibid., no. 1, lines 42, 48, 65).

As for Diotimus, he appears frequently in the mining lists from the 350's on as a lessee and owner of land and refineries. See DAVIES, APF, 525.

17 Diopeithes' generalship: Dem. 8 passim; 9.15; Philochorus, FGrH, 328 F 158. Diophanes: CROSBY, Leases, no. 1, lines 59-60; IG 112, 1752, line 23. Relationship: DAVIES, APF, 168.

18 LAUFFER, Prosopographische Bemerkungen, 291. 19 On the lack of evidence to tie Philip to the Euboean revolt, I follow P. BRUNT, Euboea in

the Time of Philip II, CQ 19 (1969), 249-250. Niceratus was an important man in the early 320's: he held several legal and religious posts

then. See DAVIES, APF, 406. These offices do not reveal his attitude toward Macedon. 20 Meidias was a voluntary trierarch for Athens' intervention in Euboea in 348. See Dem.

21.160f. Demosthenes' twenty-first speech (Against Meidias) tells the story of the two men's quarrel. Embassy: Aesch. 3.115.

21 Ibid.

Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining 423

There is also the evidence of Meidias' son and namesake who, sometime later in the fourth century, proposed an honor for Phocion, enemy of Hypereides, friend of Macedon22. Like son, like father?

Finally, there is Callimedon >>the crab<<, son of Callicrates, a mining investor who cooperated with Macedon, but whom LAUFFER discounts as an exception because his investment is not attested until 320. References in comedy, however, may show that Callimedon played a part in Athenian politics in the 340s. One suspects that he had mining interests then too, for his ancestors had. Moreover, given his family's traditional ties to Macedon, Callimedon was probably no anti-Macedonian in the 340s. Hence, his case should furnish another exception to LAUFFER'S thesiS23.

Of the seven anti-Macedonian mining entrepreneurs whom LAUFFER names (Hypereides, Polyeuctus, Phaedrus, Diotimus, Nausicles, Niceratus, and Meidias), only three were certainly both mining investors and opponents of Macedon (Polyeuctus, Phaedrus, and Diotimus). Two others may not have invested in the mines at all (Hypereides and Nausicles). Two were not clearly anti-Macedonian (Niceratus and Meidias); one of them, in fact, may have been an advocate of cooperation with Philip (Meidias). One additional anti- Macedonian might have come from a mining family (Diopeithes), and one pro-Macedonian investor might have been active in the 340s (Callimedon): in neither case is the evidence conclusive.

In short, sticking to certain cases, the score is three anti-Macedonian min- ing entrepreneurs (Polyeuctus, Phaedrus, Diotimus) to one pro-Macedonian (Meidias): a small foundation on which to build a theory. If Laurium's in- vestors were strong opponents of Philip, the mining-lease lists do not show it.

There is, then, no positive evidence of hostility between Athenian miners and Philip. Still, even without positive evidence for these trends, perhaps such hostility ought to be assumed anyway. Philip, after all, mined gold and silver and minted coins on a very large scale. His conquests added several mines to the already mineral-rich Macedonian domain24. From them, he is said to have

22 Ps.-Plut. Mor. 850b. See J. TRAILL, Hesperia 35 (1966), 235. 23 On Callimedon's mining investments see Plut. Phoc. 27; IG 112, 1587, line 12 and CROSBY,

Leases, 280-281; LAUFFER, Prosopographische Bemerkungen, 292. References in comedy: PA 8032; RE 10 (1919), cols. 1647f. The name of his son - Agyrrhius - suggests that Callimedon was related to the politician and businessman Agyrrhius, prominent c. 400 B. C. If so, Callimedon would also have been related to Agyrrhius' nephew, the mid-century Athenian politician Callistratus of Aphidna. When exiled in the 360's, Callistratus went to Macedonia, where he supervised the mining of gold (Scylax 68). Had he learned about mining at Laurium? DAVIES, APF, 279, questions LAUFFER'S thesis.

24 Philip acquired the mines of Damastium in 358 (Strabo 326 C). In 357, he took over Amphipolis, and the next year, Crenides (soon renamed Philippi): conquests which enabled him to control the gold mines of Mt. Pangaeum, which eventually yielded over 1000 talents a year

424 BARRY S. STRAUSS

gained wealth to the value of at least 1000 talents of silver a year25. His gold and silver coins have been found in 118 hoards26. With such activity, could Philip have avoided driving down the price of silver or cutting into the market for Athens' silver, and thus harming the entrepreneurs of Laurium?

In reality, a close look at the evidence shows that Philip's mining is unlikely to have affected Athens' at all. Let us take first the argument that by flooding the market with silver, Philip so drove down its price as to make further mining of the metal unprofitable27. Now, it is not known how much silver Philip produced, nor how much silver he would have had to produce to drive down the general price of the metal. Impressionistic as the evidence is, however, it is enough to make one doubt whether Philip produced enough silver to cause such a decline.

Between 358 and 356, Philip took control of the mines of Damastium, Amphipolis, and Philippi, and in 346, he added the silver mines of Thrace28. Yet, from the evidence of the mining-lease inscriptions, Laurium appears to have enjoyed a boom in the decade 350- 34029. In fact, of the years whose record is extant, the Attic year 342/341 was Laurium's busiest30.

According to a recent study of Philip's coinage, the king considerably increased the amount of silver coins he produced in the latter part of his reign, beginning in the very year 34231. It may be doubted, however, whether the increase was enough to accomplish in four years - from 342 to the battle of

(Theophrast. 4.108.1; Diod. 16.8.6; see next note). In 346, Philip got silver mines in Thrace (Theopomp. F. 160, Justin 8.3.12). For the earlier mineral wealth of Macedon, which Philip also exploited, see Hdt. 5.17; CAWKWELL, Philip, 47.

25 According to Diod., Philip's miners extracted 1000 talents a year from the gold mines of Mt. Pangaeum (16.8.6). Diod. does not specify whether he means 1000 talents of gold or gold worth 1000 talents of silver. Since ancient Greek writers usually spoke in terms of silver, even when referring to gold (as Diod. himself does elsewhere, 16.56.6; cf. Hdt. 6.46), the latter alternative - gold worth 1000 silver talents - is probably to be prefered.

A. R. BELLINGER (Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great, New York 1963, 35, n. 3) has suggested that Diodorus' figure of 1000 talents refers to Philip's silver supply as well as his gold, since Philip got much of his silver from the Pangaeum area. An attractive suggestion - it would set a limit to Philip's annual silver coinage - it cannot, however, be proven.

26 G. LE RIDER, Monnayage d'Argent et d'Or de Philippe II, Paris 1978, 253-319; cf. M. THOMPSON, 0. MORKHOLM and C. KRAAY, eds., An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, New York 1973, passim (hereafter, IGCH). Many of the coins bearing Philip's name were only issued after his death. In LE RIDER'S opinion, a majority of the extant gold coins and a great part of the extant silver coins of Philip are posthumous issues. See LE RIDER, Monnayage de Philippe, 434.

27 ARDAILLON, Mines de Laurion, 159. 28 See n. 24. 29 CROSBY, Leases, 190; HOPPER, Attic Silver Mines, 250. 30 CROSBY, ibid., 199-202, 245. 31 LE RIDER, Monnayage de Philippe, 392.

Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining 425

Chaeronea in 338 - what Philip had not accomplished in the previous fifteen: rendering silver mining at Laurium unprofitable.

What of the argument that with his new gold and silver coins, Philip made inroads into the >>Attic coinage region?, as LAUFFER puts it32? To consider the argument properly, it is necessary first to define that region. It was probably not the area where Philip's coins were most likely to circulate: Macedonia, Thessaly, and Thrace. Long before Philip, these districts had adopted the Aeginetic weight standard for coins, thus inhibiting the use of Athenian coins for local transactions33. The coin hoards show how rarely >>owls<< were used by most of the people of these areas34.

The center for Athens' silver export was not in Greece proper either35. Rather, in the fourth century B. C., it seems to have been in the western Persian empire: southern Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and above all, Egypt36. There, foreign coins were imported for daily use, to fill the gap in silver money left by the Persian authorities. Athenian coinage seems to

32 Prosopographische Bemerkungen, 291. 33 Of the 14 hoards containing Philip's gold or silver and which seem to date from his

lifetime, 11 come from Macedonia, Thessaly, or Thrace (IGCH nos. 81, 384- 387, 727 - 730; LE RIDER, Monnayage de Philippe, 290, no. 5; 292, no. 6. The others are IGCH nos. 60, 63, 65).

On the weight standards of coins in Thessaly, Macedonia, the Chalcidice and Thrace, see C. M. KRAAY, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London 1976, 115, 138, 144, 150- 151, 155- 157, 159- 160, 330.

34 The evidence is here limited to the period 400- 300: after 330, Alexander's conquests,

coinage, and his use of the Attic weight standard for silver may have changed circulation patterns. Only hoards dated by IGCH before 330 or, more generally, as >fourth century B. C.<<, have been included, therefore.

Of 41 such hoards from Macedonia and the north, 2 contain Athenian owls. Athenian: IGCH nos. 362, 423. Non-Athenian: IGCH nos. 360-391, 415 -422. In a hoard found near Salonica and dated to the late fourth century, Athenian coins were found side by side with Philip's. See IGCH no. 433.

Of Thrace's 32 hoards from 400 to 330, none have Athenian coins: IGCH nos. 710-733, 802- 809. Of the additional 106 Thracian hoards from 330 to 300, 2 have Athenian coins: IGCH nos. 760, 829. Non-Athenian: IGCH nos. 734-801, 810-848.

Of 9 hoards from 400- 330 in Thessaly, only 1 contains Athenian silver, IGCH no. 52. The others are IGCH nos. 45, 49, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 71, 97.

35 In European Greece, including Crete and the Cyclades, but excluding Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, and Attica - the last no index of the foreign circulation of Athenian coins -

23 hoards from 400 - 330 have been found. Of these, 4 contain Athenian owls: IGCH nos. 42, 59,

65, 66. The others are IGCH nos. 43, 44, 46 - 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 60, 63, 64, 100 - 106. Cf. E. ScHO-

NERT-GEISS, Die Geldzirkulation Attikas im 4. Jahrhundert v. u. Z., in E. C. WELSKOPF, ed., Hellenische Poleis: Krise-Wandlung-Wirkung, Berlin 1974, 545; S. ISAGER and M. H. HANSEN,

Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B. C., trans. J. H. ROSENMEIER, Odense 1975, 45 -49.

36 Following ISAGER's and HANSEN'S calculations, one finds 14 hoards with Athenian coins from 400 to 330 in central and southern Asia Minor, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, of a total of 44 contemporary hoards in those regions. Athenian: IGCH nos. 1243 - 1244, 1254- 1256, 1259,

426 BARRY S. STRAUSS: Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining

have been particularly popular, because of its reputation for purity and reliability. In the East, Athenian ))owls? were in high enough demand to win that sincerest form of flattery, imitation37.

It is unlikely that Philip's coins supplanted Athens' in these areas in the mere twenty-odd years of the king's reign. Philip had little direct influence on the East, and few of his coins have turned up in hoards deposited there in his lifetime38. Indeed, when Alexander took over Philip's throne, he dropped the so-called Thracian weight standard. In the north Aegean, the Thracian standard was widespread and convenient; it could not match the popularity of the Attic standard, however, in the East conquered by Alexander39.

A conclusion emerges: Philip did not do damage to the prosperity of Laurium, either by decreasing the value of silver or by cutting into the Athenian market for silver. Nor is there reason to think that Laurium's mining investors were hostile to Philip as a group.

On the contrary, investors like Meidias might have supported Philip to balance another perceived threat to the mines: Thebes. By the 340s Athens and Thebes had been enemies for a generation; unlike Athens and Macedon, the two shared that most dangerous of all common possessions in the Greek world: a border. To Meidias and others perhaps the greatest threat to Laurium was the nearby Theban army, which (in league with Sparta) had closed the mines during the Decelean War (Thuc. 7.27). Ironically, therefore, fear for the safety of the mines might have made some Athenians pro- Macedonian.

One final argument: in a dozen surviving orations, Demosthenes used every argument he could muster to urge his countrymen against Philip. He never mentioned a threat to Athens' silver industry, however. It is possible, of course, despite this silence, that many or even most Athenian mining investors

1487- 1491, 1503- 1505. Non-Athenian: IGCH nos. 1245- 1249, 1257- 1258, 1260- 1268, 1485 -1486, 1492 - 1502, 1506.

In Egypt, 10 out of 15 hoards of the same period contain Athenian coins: IGCH nos. 1649 -1652, 1656, 1659- 1663. The others are IGCH nos. 1653 -1655, 1657- 1658.

In the Persian Empire east of the Euphrates, 4 out of 6 hoards of the same period contain Athenian coins: IGCH nos. 1747, 1790, 1820, 1830. The others are IGCH nos. 1748, 1791.

Cf. ISAGER and HANSEN, Athenian Society, 46, 216; F. HEICHELHEIM, An Ancient Economic History, vol. 2, Leiden 1958, 17.

37 Ibid; KRAAY, Greek Coins, 73 -74; SCHONERT-GEISS, Geldzirkulation Attikas, 545. 38 Philip's coins have been found in a hoard from an unidentified part of Asia Minor, and

tentatively dated to c. 315: IGCH no. 1441. In Lebanon, his coins are found in two fourth-

century hoards, one (IGCH no. 1058) apparently from 324/323, the other (IGCH no. 1518) from about 300. In Egypt, his coins are found in three hoards, none earlier than about 330 (IGCH nos.

1656, 1672 - 1673). 39 BELLINGER, Coinage of Alexander, 29 -30.

NETrA ZAGAGI: Self-Recognition in Theocritus' Seventh Idyll 427

perceived Philip as a threat to their investment. Since he was not a threat, however, that perception is unlikely.

The wily Philip attacked Athens on many fronts, but silver mining was not one of them. If the King of Macedon abjured this approach, so should scholars. The thesis of competition between Macedon and Laurium should be rejected.

Cornell University BARRY S. STRAUSS

SELF-RECOGNITION IN THEOCRITUS' SEVENTH IDYLL

The encounter between Lycidas and Simichidas in Theocritus' 'Thalysia' has been the subject of much learned discussion 1. Ninteenth-century commen- tators, influenced by REITZENSTEIN's theory of the bucolic masquerade2, busied themselves with the detection of a concrete event behind this encounter - such as Theocritus' journey to Cos3 - and with attempts to identify actual personalities behind the guises of Lycidas and Simichidas. Since the identi- fication of the latter with Theocritus was readily suggested by the Scholia on vv. 21, 404. most of the efforts were directed towards the identification of the former 5.

I The literature on Idyll VII has now become too voluminous to be quoted in full. For brief bibliographical surveys see A. S. F. Gow, Theocritus (Cambridge 1952), Vol. II, pp. 127- 131; J.-H. KUHN, Die Thalysien Theokrits, HERMES, 86 (1958), pp. 64ff.; F. LASSERRE, Aux origines de l'Anthologie: II. Les Thalysies de Theocrite, Rh. M., 102 (1959), pp. 308ff.; A. CAMERON,

The Form of the Thalysia in: Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto Rostagni (Torino 1963), pp. 291 ff.; Ch. SEGAL, Theocritus' Seventh Idyll and Lycidas, WS., N. F. 8 (1974), pp. 20ff.

2 R. REITZENSTEIN, Epigramm und Skolion (GieBen 1893), pp. 193ff., esp. p. 226. REIT-

ZENSTEIN'S theory is firmly rejected by Gow, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 130; idem, Cl. Qu., 34 (1940), p. 47; idem, The Greek Bucolic Poets (Cambridge 1953), p. 29.

3 See e.g. Ph. E. LEGRAND, Etude sur Th6ocrite (Paris, 1898; repr. 1968), p. 42: >>les critiques ... ils sont A peu pres unanimes a y voir le recit d'une joyeuse journee de jeunesse<. Cf. p. 411: >>le recit d'une bonne journbe de Theocrite a Cos<<.

4 The Scholiast's evidence has won wide acceptance among Theocritean scholars, but see Gow, op. cit., Vol. 11, pp. 128f.; CAMERON, art. cit., p. 303; G. GIANGRANDE, Theocrite, Simichidas, et les 'Thalysies', Ant. Class., 37 (1968), p. 528 n. 87; F. WILLIAMS, A Theophany in Theocritus, Cl. Qu., n. s. 21 (1971), p. 137 n. 4, p. 143 n. 2; G. WEINGARTH, Zu Theokrits 7. Idyll (Diss. Freiburg, 1967), pp. 50ff. WEINGARTH'S view is criticised by U. OTr, Theokrits 'Thalysien' und ihre literarischen Vorbilder, Rh. M., 115 (1972), pp. 134ff.

s See in general KOHN, art. cit., pp. 64 - 67.