Funke 1991: 330.
118. Xen. Hell. 7.4.1; Diod. Sic. 15.76.1; Isocr. 5.53; Σ Aeschin. 3.85. Cf. Buckler 1980b: 194–95, 250–51.
119. Xen. Hell. 7.4.2–4; Plut. Mor. 193c–d; Nep. Epam. 6.1–3.
120. So Buckler 1980b: 160–64 (most of which is overly speculative), 257–59, following Hammond 1967: 503, 665.
121. It is narrated only by Diod. Sic. 15.78.4–79.2 in the context of the year 364, an account that does not allow for the logical lapse of time between initial vote and readiness of the fleet for expeditions.
122. Xen. Hell. 7.4.6–11. Only Diod. Sic. 15.76.3 mentions Athenian involvement, and the issue has been a source of major controversy, which is tangential to my main purpose. Cawkwell 1961 (followed by Hornblower 2002: 230) and Jehne 1994: 86–88 argue that it was a common peace involving both Persia and Athens; contra Ryder 1965: 83, 137–39.
123. Diod. Sic. 15.79.3–6 for the main narrative; cf. Dem. 20.109; Paus. 9.15.3 (who absolves Epameinondas of any responsibility). Buckler 1980b: 182–84 suggests that the Orchomenian cavalry may have been motivated to join the conspiracy out of opposition to the move toward ever more democratic government in Thebes and in those cities outside Boiotia where the Thebans had some sway.
124. Diod. Sic. 15.80; Plut. Pel. 31–35; Nep. Pel. 5. For detailed discussion of the battle see Buckler 1980b: 175–82.
125. Aeschin. 2.105.
126. Kraay 1976: 113.
127. Diod. Sic. 15.79.1.
128. Byzantine proxenos at Boiotia: T9. Separation from Athenian alliance by 362: Dem. 1.6. The relationship in the 350s is deduced from RO 57 ll. 9–13, a record of contributions to the Boiotians for the Third Sacred War in the period 354–352, in which the Byzantine contributions are made by the Byzantine synedroi; the significance of this word has been a matter of some debate, hinging on the question of how the Boiotians organized their allies. See below n. 146. Dem. 9.34 attests an alliance of Byzantion and Thebes.
129. Fossey 1994: 39 suggests that SEG 28.465 may provide evidence for Theban relations with Rhodes in this period, but the document (reused in antiquity) is so fragmentary that it offers no certainty, and the name “Rhodes” itself is restored. Cf. Buckler 1998: 197–98.
130. Diod. Sic. 15.81.6; Nep. Timoth. 1.3.
131. RO 39. In this connection it is interesting to note the hints of a koinonlike structure uniting the four poleis of Keos at this time: Tod 141; SEG 14.530 (Staatsverträge 232); IG XII.5.609 with Brun 1989. Two Athenian decrees reflect a desire to break up this structure: IG II2 404 (SEG 39.73) and 1128 (Tod 162; RO 40). See also Reger and Risser 1991, focused primarily on the Hellenistic koinon of the Keans.
132. Triphylian state: Nielsen 1997.
133. Xen. Hell. 7.4.38–40. Other allies from central Greece and the Peloponnese joined later: Xen. Hell. 7.5.4; Diod. Sic. 15.84.4.
134. Xen. Hell. 7.5.26–27.
135. Death of Epameinondas: Xen. Hell. 7.5.24–25; Diod. Sic. 15.87.5–6. Mantineia was the terminus for at least five different ancient historical accounts of the period: Diod. Sic. 15.89.3, 95.4. For its importance as both end and beginning in Xenophon see Dillery 1995: 17–40.
136. RO 41 = IG II2 112; Diod. Sic. 15.89.1–2; Plut. Ages. 35.3–4; Polyb. 4.33.8–9. Cf. Xen. Hell. 7.5.18.
137. Commitment to Megalopolis: Diod. Sic. 15.94.1–3.
138. Euboian cities in Second Athenian Confederacy: RO 22 ll. 80–84. Euboians in Theban alliance after Leuktra: Xen. Hell. 6.5.23.
139. Diod. Sic. 16.7.2; Aeschin. 3.85; Dem. 8.74–75; 21.174. The resulting alliance between Athens and Karystos (RO 48) alludes (lines 15–17) to the dispatch of embassies from Karystos to the other Euboian cities (viz. Eretria, Chalkis, and Histiaia) presumably in an attempt to persuade them too to make a formal alliance with Athens. There is a problem with the chronology of this conflict. Detailed discussion can be found in Cawkwell 1962 and the commentary to RO 48, which latter I follow. Whether the Euboian War occurred in 358/7 or 357/6 matters little for my purposes, but the Julian year 357 is more likely.
140. Diod. Sic. 16.23.2–3, 29.2–3. We rely almost exclusively, by necessity, on Diodoros’s account of the Third Sacred War, for which reason there has been much discussion of his sources. (See Markle 1994.) The date of the initial indictment of the Spartans has been debated: 371, directly after Leuktra (Harris 1995: 80; Lefèvre 2002: 455 n. 55), or 366 or 361 (Sordi 1957: 49–52) or 356 (Buckler 1985: 242–43 and 1989: 15). Diodoros, however, makes it clear that the charge was renewed in 356 when the fine had remained unpaid for many years. The matter cannot be settled with certainty, but the date is most likely sometime in the 360s (Hornblower 2007: 43–46).
141. Diod. Sic. 16.23.3.
142. Diod. Sic. 16.23.4–24.5, 30.1.
143. Diod. Sic. 16. 24.4, 25.1–3, 27.5, 28.3.
144. Diod. Sic. 16.28.4–31.5. The delay is to be explained by the Thessalians’ reticence to act against Athens (a Phokian ally) until the outcome of the Social War (in 355) was clear.
145. Diod. Sic. 16.29.132 and FDelph III.5.19, a list of Delphic naopoioi that reflects fairly broad support for the Phokian position. Rebel amphiktyony: Ellis in CAH VI2: 741.
146. Greek contributions: RO 57. The Byzantines, who had supported the Theban naval initiative and now maintained the alliance out of hostility to Athens at the end of the Social War, made their contribution via synedroi (ll. 11, 24), implying a synedrion of which they were members (Lewis 1990b). It is doubtful that the Boiotians had created a formal deliberative body with representation from its allies, for if such an entity had existed we would expect that all contributions would have been made by the synedroi of each allied state, whereas the inscription indicates that only the Byzantines had them. See Buckler 1980b: 222–33 and 2000b; Jehne 1999: 328–44. Persian contribution: Diod. Sic. 16.40.1–2 with Buckler 1989: 100.
147. Phokian attacks on western Boiotia: Diod. Sic. 16.33.4, 56.2, 58.1; Dem. 3.27, 19.141 and 148; Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 167. Opposition to the Boiotian koinon within Koroneia, exploited by the Phokian general Onomarchos: Ephoros FGrHist 70 F 94, Σ Arist. Nic. Eth. 3.8.9. Cf. Buckler 1989: 72, 82, 101–4; and Kallet-Marx 1989.
148. Diod. Sic. 16.58.2–3.
149. Diod. Sic. 16.59.2; Dem. 19.139, 318–25; Aeschin. 2.133.
150. The settlement had broad ramifications for the Athenians that are beyond my present concerns; for detailed discussion see Harris 1995: 82–106.
151. Phokian surrender: Diod. Sic. 16.59.3–4; Dem. 19.62, 123, 278. Western Boiotian poleis: Dem. 19.141. Punishment of the Phokians, inflicted by the amphiktyony, with Macedonian support: Diod. Sic. 16.60.1–4; cf. Dem. 19.60–61, 123. For the limited nature of the Macedonian destruction see Typaldou-Fakiris 2004: 326. This is not the place to enter into the debate about Philip’s intentions toward Thebes and Athens, which now sought peace with Philip after their war over Amphipolis. See Buckler 1989: 121–24 with references.
152. Dem. 5.10, 19.112.
153. Theopomp. FGrHist 115 F 292; Dem. 18.87–94; Plut. Phok. 14. Cf. Diod. Sic. 16.77. On Athenian
