Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining Author(s): Barry S. Strauss Source: Hermes, Vol. 112, No.

4 (4th Qtr., 1984), pp. 418-427 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476395 Accessed: 27/11/2010 23:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 at http://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 printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of 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, hatteihm der sogenannte grol3e Monolog vorgelegen, hatte schwerlich eine Gelegenheit ausgelassen, gerade dieses >>Prachtstucko (BETHE) paratragodisch aufs Korn zu nehmen. Sechs Jahre nach der Auffuhrungder Medeaparodierter in den Acharnern nicht diesen Monolog79, sonderndie in Originalund Parodiedramatisch alleininteressante und passendeSelbstanrede dem Aufbruchzur Tat80. vor
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, dal3an irgendeiner Stelle der Acharner oouXgac 'Plan' heif3t, wie im Monolog der Medea (DIHLE 46)?

PHILIP II OF MACEDON, ATHENS, AND SILVER MINING* not Philip II of Macedonunderstood only that moneycan be the sinewsof war but also of diplomacy - the extensionof warfareby other means (to
He reverse CLAUSEWITZ). 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 11Macedone, 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 Lauriumfelt the pinch and as a result, they were for the most part strong opponentsof Philip in the yearsbefore Chaeronea.
E. ARDAILLON forward the first of these arguments long ago. More put LAUFFER advanced the second, and won the support, recently, SIEGFRIED has with reservations, of J. K. DAVIES2.

LAUFFER attemptsto buttresshis positionwith the evidenceof the mininglease lists found in the Athenian agora. These fourth-centuryinscriptions show that manywealthyand influentialAtheniansinvestedin the minesat the time of the Macedonianchallenge. Indeed, in the 340s >>smart money< in Athens seems to have found investments in the silver mines ever more attractive- just as Xenophonhad urgedin the 350s (Poroi 4,1 - 32). Hence mining investors might have formed a strong political bloc - an antiMacedonianbloc, as LAUFFER concludesafter a prosopographical study3. Are these arguments right?The questionis worthaskingnot only for what an answermightshow about the strugglebetweenPhilipand Athens,but also about the character the ancienteconomy. Suchmoderneconomicconcepts of as money marketor currencycompetitioncannot be applied to the ancient
economy4.

In the absence of modern institutions, how could Philip have

waged war on Athens' silverindustry?He would eitherhave had to (1) mine suchhugequantities silveras to bringdownits pricethroughout Aegean of the or (2) have his coins circulatewidely enough to provide an alternativeto Athens'. This paperwill examinewhetherhe did either. It will also consider the evidencefor believingthat the minersof Laurium formedan anti-Macedonian bloc. To begin with, there is the evidenceof the mining-leaseor poletai lists. These lists recordthe names of some 350 mining investorsfrom 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'Sthesis on 279, 398 (hereafter referred to as APF). On the silver mines in the fourth century B. C. see M. CROSBY, Leases of The 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 othersourcesadd20 othernamesfromthe period5.Despitemuch scholarlyattention,most of those on the lists remain mere names, and the lists themselvesare quite fragmentary6. Nevertheless, those namesthat can be identifiedbespeakwealthandpoliticalinfluence:they make a catalogueof trierarchs and choregoiand their relatives;of liturgists and magistrates;of bouletai and orators; of generalsand scions of noble
families 7.

Wherethese men, on the whole, opposedto Philip? LAUFFER'S prosopographicalstudy finds that seveninvestorswereactiveopponentsof Macedon; only one advocatedcooperation,but he did not investin the mines,as far as is known, until 320, whenPhilip was long dead. Eightnamesmakeonly a small base for LAUFFER'S conclusion,yet not even all of thesewill bearscrutiny,as
DAVIES has shown8.

Of the seven anti-Macedonian miningentrepreneurs identifiedby LAUFfour fit the description well. The famousHypereides, of Glaucippus son of Collytus,was secondonly to Demosthenes his oppositionto Macedon9. in in The generaland oratorPolyeuctusof Sphettusjoined Demosthenes 343 in an expeditionto rouse the Peloponnesusagainst Philip. In 335, Polyeuctus seemeddangerousenough for Alexanderto demandhis arrest'?. TheAnti-Macedonian credentials anotherdemesman Sphettus,Phaeof of drus, son of Callias,are also in order. In 341 he was one of the guarantors of shipssent to Chalcisin its revoltagainstMacedon.Eighteenyearslaterduring
FER,

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 LamianWar he led an expeditionagainstthe Macedonianally Styra in Euboea1t. A fourth man, Diotimus, son of Diopeithes of Euonymon, was also a guarantorof the Chalcisships. Athens crownedhim for his voluntarydonation of shieldsafter Chaeronea.In 335 Alexanderdemandedhis arresttoo12 A fifth case is less clear:Nausiclesof Oea, generaland diplomat.In 330he was a friend of Demosthenesand enemy of Aeschines.In 346, on the other hand, he servedon Athens'firstembassyto Philipand proposedAeschinesas his colleague.He was still Aeschines'friendin 34313. Moreover,that Nausiclesof Oea even investedin the Laurium minesis less than certain. That someone named Nausiclesdid so in the 340s and 330s is clear. But Nausicleswas a common name in classicalAthens, and he might not be our man14. Likewise,Hypereides mininginvestorwas not necessarithe ly Hypereidesthe politician15. Polyeuctus,Diotimus, and Phaedrusare more clearlyidentifiedas mining investors In addition, one other anti-Macedonian, 16. one LAUFFER did not mention,is perhapsto be addedto the list: the generalDiopeithesof Sunium,

See RE 38 (1938), col. 1553; DAVIES, APF, 525. 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:
11 12

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

o
CROSBY, (pal

Likewise, Phaedrus, in IG 112, 1582, lines 180-181 and

[CLotiptov [cr)v: ...... .......

Leases, 235, 251:

rtl6po4 Kakkiou [E(PTTTI:d7tEYP6@taTO

ETacXXOl

422

BARRYS. STRAUSS

in who directedoperationsagainstPhilip in the Chersonese 341. Thoughnot attestedas a mininginvestorhimself,Diopeithesmayhavebeenthe nephewof one Diophanes, son of Diopeithes of Sunium, landownerin the Laurium districtin 367/66 and a memberof the council in the third quarterof the fourth century'7. Weighedagainstthis possibleaddition,however,is the certainsubtraction consideredanti-Macedonian. of two other mininginvestorswhom LAUFFER of The first is Niceratus,son of Nicias of Cydantidae,and great-grandson Thucydides'Nicias. Niceratus'patriotismseems clear, but not his attitude toward Philip. In 348, Niceratuswas a strong supporterof Athens' expeditionto put this down the revoltof Euboea.To LAUFFER, wasclearevidenceof Niceratus' history'8.For, hostilityto Macedon,but that conclusionmakesquestionable in 348, just when Athens faced a challengein Euboea, it confrontedanother one at Olynthus, which was under attack by Philip. Niceratus, unlike closerto home. His support to Demosthenes,preferred deal withthe challenge of the Euboean campaign, therefore, is no proof of concern about the Macedonianthreat. Nor is the ratherneutralrecordof his latercareerl9 The record of a second supposed anti-Macedonian,Meidias, son of thesis. If Cephisodorusof Anagyrus,is even more damagingto LAUFFER'S His personalenmity anything,he seemedreadyto cooperatewith Macedon.
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 Ten in Philip an excusefor intervening a Greekdispute20. yearslater, 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 evidenceof Meidias'son and namesakewho, sometime later in the fourth century, proposed an honor for Phocion, enemy of Hypereides,friendof Macedon22. Like son, like father? Finally, there is Callimedon >>the son crab<<, of Callicrates, a mining investorwho cooperatedwith Macedon,but whom LAUFFER discountsas an exception because his investment is not attested until 320. Referencesin comedy, however, may show that Callimedon played a part in Athenian politicsin the 340s. One suspectsthat he had miningintereststhen too, for his ancestors had. Moreover, given his family's traditionalties to Macedon, in Callimedonwas probablyno anti-Macedonian the 340s. Hence, his case
should furnish another exception to LAUFFER'S thesiS23.

Of the seven anti-Macedonianmining entrepreneurswhom LAUFFER names (Hypereides,Polyeuctus, Phaedrus, Diotimus, Nausicles, Niceratus, and Meidias),only threewerecertainlyboth mininginvestorsand opponents of Macedon(Polyeuctus,Phaedrus,and Diotimus).Two othersmay not have investedin the mines at all (Hypereides and Nausicles).Two werenot clearly anti-Macedonian (Niceratusand Meidias);one of them, in fact, may have been an advocateof cooperationwith Philip (Meidias).One additionalantiMacedonianmight have come from a mining family (Diopeithes), and one pro-Macedonian investormighthave been activein the 340s (Callimedon):in neithercase is the evidenceconclusive. In short, stickingto certaincases, the score is threeanti-Macedonian mining entrepreneurs (Polyeuctus,Phaedrus,Diotimus)to one pro-Macedonian (Meidias):a small foundationon which to build a theory. If Laurium'sinvestorswerestrongopponentsof Philip, the mining-lease do not show it. lists Thereis, then, no positive evidenceof hostilitybetweenAthenianminers and Philip. Still, even withoutpositiveevidencefor thesetrends,perhapssuch hostilityought to be assumedanyway.Philip, after all, minedgold and silver and mintedcoins on a very large scale. His conquestsadded severalmines to the alreadymineral-rich Macedonian domain24. Fromthem, he is said to have
Ps.-Plut. Mor. 850b. See J. TRAILL, Hesperia 35 (1966), 235. 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
23 22

424

BARRY S. STRAUSS

gainedwealthto the value of at least 1000 talentsof silvera year25. gold His and silver coins have been found in 118 hoards26. With such activity,could Philip have avoideddrivingdownthe priceof silveror cuttinginto the market for Athens' silver, and thus harmingthe entrepreneurs Laurium? of In reality, a close look at the evidence shows that Philip's mining is unlikelyto have affectedAthens'at all. Let us take first the argument that by flooding the marketwith silver, Philip so drove down its price as to make furtherminingof the metal unprofitable27. Now, it is not knownhow much silverPhilipproduced,nor how muchsilverhe wouldhave had to produceto as drive down the generalpriceof the metal. Impressionistic the evidenceis, however, it is enough to make one doubt whetherPhilip producedenough silverto cause such a decline. Between358 and 356, Philip took control of the mines of Damastium, Amphipolis,and Philippi, and in 346, he addedthe silverminesof Thrace28. Yet, from the evidenceof the mining-lease inscriptions,Lauriumappearsto have enjoyed a boom in the decade350- 34029. In fact, of the years whose recordis extant, the Attic year 342/341 was Laurium's busiest30. Accordingto a recent study of Philip's coinage, the king considerably increased amountof silvercoins he producedin the latterpartof his reign, the beginningin the very year 34231. It may be doubted, however, whetherthe increasewas enoughto accomplishin four years - from 342 to the battleof

(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 Philip, 47. exploited, see Hdt. 5.17; CAWKWELL, 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. and C. KRAAY, eds., An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, New M. THOMPSON,0. MORKHOLM York 1973, passim (hereafter, IGCH). Many of the coins bearing Philip's name were only issued after his death. In LE RIDER'Sopinion, 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 30 CROSBY, ibid., 199-202, 245.

Silver Mines, 250.

31 LE RIDER, Monnayage de Philippe, 392.

Philip II of Macedon, Athens, and Silver Mining

425

in in Chaeronea 338 - whatPhiliphad not accomplished the previousfifteen: renderingsilvermining at Lauriumunprofitable. that with his new gold and silvercoins, Philipmade Whatof the argument puts it32? To consider coinage region?, as LAUFFER inroadsinto the >>Attic 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 standardfor coins, thus inhibitingthe use of The coin hoards show how rarely Athenian coins for local transactions33.
were >>owls<< used by most of the people of these
areas34.

The center for Athens' silver export was not in Greece propereither35. Rather, in the fourth century B. C., it seems to have been in the western Persian empire: southernAsia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia,and There,foreigncoins wereimportedfor dailyuse, to fill the aboveall, Egypt36. gap in silvermoneyleft by the Persianauthorities.Atheniancoinageseemsto
Prosopographische Bemerkungen, 291. 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. have been Only hoards dated by IGCH before 330 or, more generally, as >fourth century B. C.<<, 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. ScHONERT-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,
33 32

426

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

have been particularlypopular, because of its reputation for purity and reliability.In the East, Athenian))owls?werein high enoughdemandto win that sincerestform of flattery,imitation37. It is unlikelythat Philip's coins supplantedAthens' in these areas in the meretwenty-oddyearsof the king'sreign. Philiphad littledirectinfluenceon the East, and few of his coins have turnedup in hoardsdepositedtherein his Indeed,whenAlexandertook over Philip'sthrone,he droppedthe lifetime38. so-called Thracian weight standard. In the north Aegean, the Thracian of and was standard widespread convenient;it could not matchthe popularity the Attic standard,however,in the East conqueredby Alexander39. A conclusion emerges: Philip did not do damage to the prosperityof Laurium, either by decreasingthe value of silver or by cutting into the Athenian market for silver. Nor is there reason to think that Laurium's mininginvestorswere hostile to Philip as a group. On the contrary,investorslike Meidiasmight have supportedPhilip to balance another perceivedthreat to the mines: Thebes. By the 340s Athens and Thebeshad been enemiesfor a generation;unlikeAthens and Macedon, the two sharedthat most dangerousof all common possessionsin the Greek world: a border. To Meidias and others perhaps the greatest threat to Lauriumwas the nearby Theban army, which (in league with Sparta)had closedthe minesduringthe DeceleanWar(Thuc. 7.27). Ironically,therefore, fear for the safety of the mines might have made some Athenians proMacedonian. One final argument:in a dozen survivingorations, Demosthenesused every argumenthe could musterto urge his countrymenagainst Philip. He nevermentioneda threatto Athens' silverindustry,however.It is possible,of course,despitethis silence,that manyor evenmost Athenianmininginvestors

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. An Cf. ISAGERand HANSEN, Athenian Society, 46, 216; F. HEICHELHEIM, 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 fourthcentury 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

perceivedPhilip as a threat to their investment.Since he was not a threat, however,that perceptionis unlikely. The wily PhilipattackedAthenson manyfronts, but silverminingwas not one of them. If the King of Macedon abjured this approach, so should scholars.The thesisof competitionbetweenMacedonand Laurium shouldbe rejected. CornellUniversity
BARRY STRAUSS S.

SELF-RECOGNITION

IN THEOCRITUS'

SEVENTH IDYLL

The encounterbetweenLycidasand Simichidasin Theocritus''Thalysia' has beenthe subjectof muchlearneddiscussion Ninteenth-century 1. commentators, 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

personalitiesbehind the guises of Lycidasand Simichidas.Since the identification 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. REITZENSTEIN'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.