Theorika in Fifth-Century Athens David Kawalko Roselli T HE INTRODUCTION of the Theoric Fund is correctly dated to the middle of the fourth century.1 Rhodes has argued that the institution of the Theoric Fund was created by Diophantus and Eubulus “probably soon after 355,” and Ruschenbusch, elaborating Beloch’s brief discussion in 1922, also argued for a fourth-century date.2 However, as I will argue here, a reconsideration of the evidence of Plutarch and Philochorus in light of Athenian public finance suggests that 1 For discussion of the theorikon see A. H. M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (Oxford 1957) 33–35; J. J. Buchanan, Theorika. A Study of Monetary Distribu- tions to the Athenian Citizenry (Locust Valley 1962); N. Valmin, “Diobelia und Theorikon,” OpAth 6 (1963) 171–206; M. H. Hansen, “The Theoric Fund and the Graphe Paranomon against Apollodorus,” GRBS 17 (1974) 235–246; E. Ruschenbusch, “Die Einführung des Theorikon,” ZPE 36 (1979) 303–308; A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens2 (Oxford 1988) 265– 268; P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia2 (Oxford 1993) 514–516; M. Faraguna, Atene nell’età di Alessandro (Rome 1994) 187– 189; E. M. Harris, “Demosthenes and the Theoric Fund,” in R. W. Wallace and E. M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History (Norman/London 1994) 57–76 (repr. E. M. Harris, Democracy and the Rule of Law in Classical Athens [Cambridge 2006] 121–139); E. Csapo and W. Slater, The Context of Ancient Drama (Ann Arbor 1995) 287–289; A. Sommerstein, “The Theatre Audience, the Demos, and the Suppliants of Aeschylus,” in C. Pelling (ed.), Greek Tragedy and the Historian (Oxford 1997) 63–79, at 66–71; P. Wilson, “Leading the Tragic Khoros: Tragic Prestige in the Democratic City,” in Pelling, 81–108, at 97–100; G. Lentini, “Una nota sulla glossa theo- rika di Arpocrazione,” AnnPisa SER. IV 5 (2000) 247–250; E. Csapo, “The Men Who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai, and Arkhitektones,” in P. Wilson (ed.), Greek Theatre and Festivals (Oxford 2007) 87–115. 2 Rhodes, Commentary 514; Ruschenbusch, ZPE 36 (1979) 307–308; Beloch, Gr.Gesch. III.1 (1922) 343. Cf. Beloch, Die attische Politik seit Perikles (Leipzig 1884) 178, and Gr.Gesch. II.1 (1914) 157, for his earlier attribution of the theorikon to Pericles. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 49 (2009) 5–30 © 2009 GRBS 6 THEORIKA IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS distributions of public funds approved by the demos for at- tendance at festivals (θεωρικά) existed as ad hoc payments in the fifth century, but these were not part of the Theoric Fund that came into existence later in the fourth century. While Old Comedy does not explicitly refer to τὸ θεωρικόν or θεωρικά, its references to the economics of the theater (e.g. entrance costs, theater-leasing) can nonetheless contribute to our understand- ing of the distributions of state funds for attending festivals in the fifth century and help to sort out some of the confusing and contradictory information on other distributions of state funds (e.g. διωβελία) preserved in ancient sources. 1. Plutarch’s Pericles and Fifth-Century Athenian Finance There is explicit evidence attributing theorika to Pericles. Plu- tarch’s Pericles (9.1) contests Thucydides’ “aristocratic” presen- tation of Pericles by noting that others claim that “the demos was led on by him into cleruchies, theorika, and distributions of public pay” (ὑπ’ ἐκείνου φασὶ τὸν δῆμον ἐπὶ κληρουχίας καὶ θεωρικὰ καὶ μισθῶν διανομὰς προαχθῆναι). As a result the demos became extravagant and wanton. Plutarch (9.2–3) goes on to describe how in his competition with Cimon for the favor of the demos Pericles “turned to the distribution of state funds” (τρέπεται πρὸς τὴν τῶν δημοσίων διανομήν); soon thereafter he “bribed the multitude wholesale with theorika, pay for service in jury courts, other payments, and choregic performances” (θε- ωρικοῖς καὶ δικαστικοῖς λήμμασιν ἄλλαις τε μισθοφοραῖς καὶ χορηγίαις συνδεκάσας τὸ πλῆθος). Plutarch is most clear on the attribution of the theorika to Pericles. However, the numerous accounts of Pericles’ distribu- tions of state funds (e.g. Ath.Pol. 27.4, Pl. Grg. 515E) have led some to suggest that the attribution of theorika to Pericles is the result of confusion with the dikastikon.3 Plutarch is not, however, 3 See Buchanan, Theorika 29–34; Rhodes, Commentary 514; Ruschenbusch, ZPE 36 (1979) 308. L. Kallet, “Accounting for Culture in Fifth-Century Athens,” in D. Boedeker and K. Raaflaub (eds.), Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge [Mass.] 1998) 44–58, 357–364, at 358 n.26, states that “Evidence connecting the theorikon with Perikles … is not sound”; cf. Faraguna, Atene 189. For discussion of Plutarch’s text see P. A. Stadter, A Commentary on Plutarch’s Pericles (Chapel Hill 1989) 110–118. DAVID KAWALKO ROSELLI 7 the only source to associate Pericles with theorika: the scholiast to Aeschines (3.24) and Ulpian (on Dem. 1.1) likewise attribute theorika to Pericles. The common source for this attribution may have been Philochorus or Theopompus.4 Although some schol- ars have accepted this testimony and wrongly attributed a Theoric Fund to Pericles, in the face of these late sources Rhodes emphasizes the apparent fact that there is “no con- temporary evidence to support a fifth-century date.”5 However, the question of the introduction of theorika necessitates a con- sideration of more than the explicit references in our sources. A brief reassessment of public expenditure and the economic practices of the theater can, I argue below, provide contem- poraneous confirmation of fifth-century theorika: Plutarch’s evi- dence appears to be supported by fifth-century sources. A key distinction needs to be made between theoric distribu- tions and the Theoric Fund. This Fund is commonly attributed to Eubulus, but the evidence only states that Eubulus (and Diophantus) made distributions from it (schol. Aeschin. 3.24, Harp. s.vv. θεωρικά, Εὔβουλος), or that he was closely asso- ciated with its substantial growth (Aeschin. 3.25). The fourth- century Theoric Fund was permanent and received a regular allotment in the merismos; it also received any surplus revenue that previously was allotted to the Military Fund ([Dem.] 59.4– 4 See Csapo, in Wilson, Greek Theatre 103, for references. 5 Rhodes, Commentary 514, cf. 492. S. Goldhill, “The Audience of Athen- ian Tragedy,” in P. Easterling (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Greek Tragedy (Cambridge 1997) 54–68, at 66–67, states that “There was a fund called the Theoric Fund, established by the city probably under Pericles, which made payments to the citizens to enable them to attend the theatre”; N. Croally, “Tragedy’s Teaching,” in J. Gregory (ed.), A Companion to Greek Tragedy (Mal- den 2005) 55–70, at 63: “The evidence concerning the Theoric Fund is not good … but it seems likely that all citizens received some form of subsidy during the fifth century.” See further Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals 266–267; N. Spineto, Dionysos a teatro: il contesto festivo del dramma greco (Rome 2005) 272. Rhodes, Commentary 514, favors a date in the “350’s and 340’s” for the creation of the theorikon and suggests that “the references to Pericles will be a careless extension of the fact that he instituted the first state payments to civilians”; see also W. T. Loomis, Wages, Welfare Costs and Inflation in Classical Athens (Ann Arbor 1998) 225–226. Faraguna, Atene 189, considers the discrepancy among the sources as “insanabile.” 8 THEORIKA IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS 5). The theorikon may have first been managed by one official but later appears to have been managed by a board (οἱ ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικόν: Ath.Pol. 43.1, 47.2; Aeschin. 3.25).6 The passage from Aeschines further suggests that those controlling the Theoric Fund—because of the citizens’ trust in Eubulus— controlled other financial officers and oversaw a wide array of state projects. According to these sources Eubulus appears to have enlarged the scope of the Theoric Fund and the authority of its manager(s); he also channeled surplus funds into the fund and made distributions from it.7 A permanently funded Theoric Fund was not possible in the fifth century, for there was no annual allotment in the merismos in Athenian public finance at that time. All payments of state funds were made from a central state fund until ca. 411, and expenditures were individually authorized by the Assembly.8 Herodotus’ discussion about the use of the funds from the silver mines in Laurium in 483/2 suggests that surplus money was held in the “public funds” (7.144.1 ἐν τῷ κοινῷ; cf. Ath.Pol. 22, Plut. Them. 4). If not for the intervention of Themistocles, whose motion prevailed at a timely moment (γνώμη ἐς καιρὸν ἠρίστευσε) and who thus convinced (ἀνέγνωσε) the Athenians to use the money to build ships, they would have distributed these surplus public funds to each citizen at a rate of ten drachmas each.9 Herodotus’ language indicates that a public debate was envisioned as taking place concerning the fate of 6 For discussion of οἱ ἐπὶ τὸ θεωρικόν see P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford 1972) 235–240; Rhodes, Commentary 514–516. 7 For discussion of Eubulus see Buchanan, Theorika 53–60; G. Cawkwell, “Eubulus,” JHS 83 (1963) 47–67; E. M. Harris, Aeschines and Athenian Politics (Oxford 1995) 38–42. 8 Rhodes, Athenian Boule 99, 102–103. See M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes (Oxford 1991) 262–263, for references to allotment amounts in the merismos. 9 The so-called Papyrus Decree with its fragmentary commentary on Dem. 22 may contain a reference to the “public treasury” (τὸ δημόσιον) from which payments were made (perhaps) on the basis of Pericles’ motion, but there are too many uncertainties in the text; see A. Blamire, “Athenian Finance, 454–404 B.C.,” Hesperia 70 (2001) 99–126, at 100; L. J. Samons II, Empire of the Owl. Athenian Imperial Finance (Stuttgart 2000) 139. DAVID KAWALKO ROSELLI 9 the newly generated surplus from the silver mines. Later in the fifth century funds for the military expeditions to Samos (IG I3 363 [M./L. 55]) and Corcyra (IG I3 364 [M./L. 61]) were contingent upon their approval in the Assembly (cf. IG I3 52.A.3–4). Public finance was organized quite differently later in the Classical period. In the fourth century the various ἀρχαί were allotted funds in the merismos (e.g. IG II2 29 [Rhodes/Osborne, GHI 19]), and additional expenses beyond the amount allotted in the merismos required a law passed by the nomothetai (IG II2 222.41–52).10 The stratiotic fund also received an allocation;11 while the ταμίας τῶν στρατιωτικῶν was free to make payments for expeditions directly (e.g. IG II2 207.b.11, 1492.118–124; cf. Ath.Pol. 48.2), the accounts of the ἀρχαί would have been examined by logistai ([Dem.] 49.12, Aeschin. 3.13–15, Ath.Pol. 48.1–3).12 In the fifth century state payments were made on an ad hoc basis and paid out by kolakretai, known as the “stewards of public funds” (schol. Ar. Av. 1541 τὸν κωλακρέτην· τὸν ταμίαν τῶν πολιτικῶν χρημάτων). These treasury officials (i.e. “pay- masters”), who were appointed to serve for only one prytany (e.g. IG I3 36.8–10), were in charge of Athens’ domestic ex- penses (in contrast with the city’s imperial funds controlled by the hellenotamiai) and made payments voted by the ekklesia.13 The kolakretai were responsible for dispensing a wide range of state funds: dikasts’ pay (Ar. Av. 1542, Vesp. 695, 724; schol. Ar. Av. 1541; Hesych. and Suda s.v. κωλακρέται), theoroi (schol. Ar. Av. 1541 = Androt. FGrHist 324 F 36), fees for heralds and stone- cutters (IG I3 71.50–51, 25–26 [M./L. 69]), the salary for the priestess of Athena Nike (IG I3 36.4–11 [M./L. 71]), and 10 Hansen, Athenian Democracy 263. 11 Rhodes, Athenian Boule 105. 12 Logistai: Rhodes, Athenian Boule 111. Hansen, Athenian Democracy 157– 158, notes that in the fourth century the “surviving number of decrees regulating state finances is surprisingly small” on account of the merismos settling the budget for ἀρχαί. 13 On the hellenotamiai see Rhodes, Athenian Boule 102; Samons, Empire 70– 82, 240–245. 10 THEORIKA IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS payment for a statue of Athena Promachos (IG I3 435).14 Ac- cording to Androtion (F 36) the kolakretai are to “make expendi- tures for any other matter that is necessary” (καὶ εἰς ἄλλο ὅ τι ἂν δέῃ ἀναλῶσαι).15 Although the existence of a fifth-century Theoric Fund is not possible given the structure of Athenian public finance, ad hoc payments approved by the Assembly when deemed necessary appear to have been routine. Whereas Pericles could thus not have created a “Theoric Fund,” the language of Plutarch’s text nonetheless suggests a different arrangement for distributions of public funds. According to Plutarch “the demos was led on” by Pericles to cleruchies, theorika, and public pay for civic service; he “bribed the multitude wholesale with theorika, pay for service in jury courts, other payments, and choregic performances” (9.1–3). Plutarch describes Pericles as having the support of the demos to distribute public funds (much like Themistocles’ suc- cessful intervention with the Athenians in 483/2), and it is pre- cisely this arrangement that we find in fifth-century Athenian finance.16 In addition to payment for the courts, the payment of state funds for bouleutai, overseas officials, and various magistracies is further attested in the fifth century.17 Plutarch’s description of the distribution of public funds to attend festivals (theorika) is consistent with contemporary evidence for the dikastikon and other payments passed by the ekklesia in the fifth century. 14 For additional domestic financial payments made by the kolakretai see ATL III 360–362; Blamire, Hesperia 70 (2001) 106–107; J. Oehler, “Κωλα- κρέται,” RE 11 (1921) 1068; Rhodes, Athenian Boule 102 n.5; Samons, Empire 57 n.141. For a brief overview of the sources of income paid out by the kolakretai see Blamire 106. 15 See P. Harding, Androtion and the Atthis (Oxford 1994) 134–138, for discussion of this fragment (his translation). 16 Plutarch’s reference to choregic performances likely alludes to Pericles’ own expenditures on choral performances. We know that he served as choregos for the production that included Aeschylus’ Persians in 472 (IG II2 2318.10); for similar usage for choregic performances see also Plut. Nic. 3. For discussion of the choregia and its political significance see P. Wilson, The Athenian Institution of the Khoregia (Cambridge 2000). 17 E.g. Ath.Pol. 24.3, Old Oligarch 1.3, Thuc. 8.69.4; see further Loomis, Wages 9–22, for evidence of state pay for public officials. DAVID KAWALKO ROSELLI 11 2. Philochorus and Theorikon An excerpt from Philochorus (FGrHist 328 F 33) preserved by Harpocration (s.v. θεωρικά) provides tantalizing information concerning the history of the theorikon, but its significance for fifth-century distributions of public funds has been neglected: θεωρικὰ ἦν τινὰ ἐν κοινῷ χρήματα ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς πόλεως προσό - δων συναγόμενα. ταῦτα δὲ πρότερον μὲν εἰς τὰς τοῦ πολέμου χρείας ἐφυλάττετο καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο στρατιωτικά, ὕστερον δὲ κατετί- θετο εἴς τε τὰς δημοσίας κατασκευὰς καὶ διανομὰς τῶν πολιτῶν, ὧν πρῶτος ἤρξατο Ἀγύρριος ὁ δημαγωγός. Φιλόχορος δὲ ἐν τῇ γ´ τῆς Ἀτθίδος φησὶ “τὸ δὲ θεωρικὸν ἦν τὸ πρῶτον νομισθὲν δραχμὴ τῆς θέας, ὅθεν καὶ τοὔνομα ἔλαβε καὶ τὰ ἐξῆς.” Φιλῖνος δὲ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Σοφοκλέους καὶ Εὐριπίδου εἴκονας περὶ Εὐβού- λου λέγων φησὶ “ἐκλήθη δὲ θεωρικὸν ὅτι τῶν Διονυσίων ὑπο- γύων ὄντων διένειμεν εἰς θυσίαν, ἵνα πάντες ἑορτάζωσι καὶ τῆς θεωρίας μηδεὶς τῶν πολιτῶν ἀπολείπηται δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῶν ἰδίων. ἄλλοτε μέντοι ἄλλως ὡρίσθη τὸ διδόμενον εἴς τε τὰς θέας καὶ εἰς τὰς θυσίας καὶ ἑορτάς, ὡς ἔστι δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ α´ Φιλιπ- πικῶν Δημοσθένους.” Theorika were public funds collected from the revenue of the city. Earlier these funds were kept for the needs of war and called stratiotika, but later they were made available for public works and distributions, which Agyrrhius the demagogue was the first to start. Philochorus says in the third book of Atthis that theorika were first considered the drachma for the spectacle [or seat], from which it took its name and so on. In his speech Against the Statues of Sophocles and Euripides, Philinus says of Eubulus that it was called theorikon because when the Dionysia was approaching, Eubulus distributed it for the sacrifice, so that all could take part in the celebrations and none of the citizens would be deprived of the spectacles on account of poverty. Elsewhere however it is otherwise defined as what is given out for spectacles [or seats] and sacrifices and public holidays, as is clear from Demosthenes’ First Philippic.18 The excerpt from Philochorus contributes some crucial evi- dence that can further corroborate Plutarch’s discussion of theorika. Philinus’ testimony is also notable for its description of Eubulus’ motive for distributing the funds, but it falls notably 18 Translation (slightly modified) from Csapo/Slater, Context 293–294. 12 THEORIKA IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS short of attributing the fund(s) to him. Harpocration’s entry appears to preserve the detail that Agyrrhius was the originator of the theorikon, but this is un- likely.19 References to an increase in the amount of the theorikon (Hesych. Δ 2351, Suda Δ 1491) to one drachma during the archonship of a certain Diophantus have further complicated matters. For there was a Diophantus, who was archon in 395/4, and another Diophantus (Σφήττιος), who was an asso- ciate of Eubulus in the middle of the fourth century.20 While mention of Agyrrhius in this passage could be the result of a confusion with his introduction of Assembly pay (Ath.Pol. 41.3), or may reflect a contemporaneous increase in the amount of the theorika, the language of Harpocration’s passage is note- worthy.21 He writes that theorika were first (πρότερον μὲν) used for military expenses and called stratiotika and were later used for public works and distributions, which Agyrrhius the demagogue first started (ὕστερον δὲ). Whereas Ruschenbusch claims that this reference to Agyrrhius is incorrect on account of the mention of the public building program commonly associated with Eubulus (and not with Agyrrhius), the relative pronoun (ὧν) need only refer to distributions (διανομάς): the sentence may only invoke Agyrrhius in the context of the 19 For Agyrrhius as the originator of the theorikon see Buchanan, Theorika 29–34, 48–60; Lentini, AnnPisa (2000) 247–250; Valmin, OpAth 6 (1963) 171–206. R. S. Stroud, The Athenian Grain-Tax Law of 374/3 (Hesperia Suppl. 29 [1998]) 20–21, connects the institution of the theorikon with Agyrrhius in 395/4 and suggests its transformation under Eubulus; see also P. Harding, The Story of Athens (London/New York 2008) 112, for the connection be- tween Agyrrhius and the increase in the amount of the subvention. 20 See Rhodes, Commentary 514, for brief discussion (with reference to PA 4417 and 4438). Pickard-Cambridge, Dramatic Festivals 267, suggests that the amount of one drachma was for three days of tragedies; Buchanan, Theorika 50–51, canvasses other views. 21 Beloch, Gr.Gesch. III.1 343, distinguishes Agyrrhius’ role in increasing Assembly pay from this misattribution. A. Boeckh, The Public Economy of Athens2 (London 1842) 220, suggests that the passage refers to Agyrrhius’ increase in the amount of the theorikon. See Loomis, Wages 20–22; Rhodes, Commentary 514, for additional references. This part of Harpocration’s entry may in fact derive from Philochorus: Jacoby, ad FGrHist 328 F 33, I p.319. DAVID KAWALKO ROSELLI 13 distribution of state funds.22 Before discussing the evidence from Philochorus in some detail, it is worth remarking the hints about the structure of his discussion. As Jacoby argued, “we have lost the full account of Ph., which presumably was not quite brief. πρῶτον and πρό- τεροv (if θεωρικά – Ἀγύρριος ὁ δημαγωγός belongs to the ex- cerpt from Ph.) shows that he gave a history of this item of the budget which, judging from the drafting of the whole sentence, was probably given at the time of Demosthenes, i.e. in the sixth book.”23 The language of the passage and the use of πρῶτον suggest some kind of summary of the institution or “at least” calls attention to the history of the fund.24 Philochorus’ account of the theorikon most likely provided a history of the “drachma for the spectacle [or seat].”25 It is thus plausible that Philochorus’ account of the theorikon in the Atthis described the early history of these fifth-century distributions. According to Harpocration, Philochorus in the third book of his Atthis explains that the θεωρικόν was first considered the drachma for the θέα (i.e., the spectacle or a seat on the ikria, 22 Ruschenbusch, ZPE 36 (1979) 308; cf. Faraguna, Atene 189. The ten- dency in the sources to connect demagogues with state pay (either initiating new funds or increasing the amounts of old funds) may have contributed to the association of Agyrrhius with the popular distribution of state funds. Suda s.v. θεωρικά omits reference to Agyrrhius. 23 Jacoby, ad FGrHist 328 F 33, I p.319. 24 Jacoby, ad FGrHist 328, I p.247, and ad F 33, II n.7; see also Harding, Story 112. See Jacoby I pp.245–247 on Philochorus’ digressions, the exist- ence of which “occasionally leads to doubts in regard to the correct placing of a quotation which has come down to us without the number of a book” (247). One might add that such doubts can lead to reassignment of a frag- ment even when the number of a book is given. 25 Harpocration’s testimony that the funds (θεωρικά) were earlier used for war and called στρατιωτικά and later used for public buildings and distri- butions likely reflects fourth-century debate concerning the Theoric Fund (cf. FGrHist 328 F 56a referring to events in 339/8). For discussion of the Theoric Fund see Harris, Democracy 121–139 (with additional bibliography), who argues that Libanius’ information about the use of the Theoric Fund in Demosthenes is incorrect and that Demosthenes in the First Olynthiac is at- tacking the misuse of the Stratiotic Fund; cf. Hansen, GRBS 17 (1974) 235– 246. 14 THEORIKA IN FIFTH-CENTURY ATHENS the wooden benches in the theatron: schol. Ar. Thesm. 395), from which it got its name.26 Whereas Philochorus’ first two books deal with the reign of Cecrops and the early rulers of Athens, fragments clearly marked as belonging to the third book in- clude discussion of the early (pre-Solonian) Areopagus (F 20a, 20b). The stone before which Athenian officials made their oaths is also explicitly located in the third book (F 21); the introduction of this practice is attributed to Solon (Ath.Pol. 7.1). Another fragment without a book number refers to Solon’s seisachtheia (F 114).27 A reference (F 32a, 32b) to Aethaea, a city in Laconia, most likely alludes to events surrounding the up- rising of the Helots and the perioikoi in 464.28 Firmly attested for Philochorus’ third book, fragment 35a with its discussion of orgeones has been plausibly connected with Pericles’ citizenship law of 451/0.29 The third book appears to have ended its ac- count in the middle of the fifth century, for a fragment assigned to the fourth book (F 34a, b) refers to events during the Second Sacred War in 448/7. Another fragment (F 36) from the fourth book refers to Philochorus’ extensive discussion of the construc- tion of the Propylaia during the archonship of Euthymenes (437/6).30 While the end of the third book cannot be dated with precision, a terminus at some point between the time of the reforms of the Areopagus Council in 462/1 and the late 450s is plausible. 26 For θέα as both spectacle and seat (both senses are apt in this case, as I will discuss below) see Csapo, in Wilson, Greek Theatre 90. 27 For recent discussion of these fragments see Harding, Story 34, 89–90, and passim. See Jacoby, ad FGrHist 328, I pp.251–255, for discussion of the dating of the individual books of Atthis. 28 Jacoby, ad FGrHist 328 F 33, I p.318. Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἴθαια, who pre- serves F 32a, connects the mention of Aethaea with a passage in Thucydides (1.101.2) that refers to the revolt of the Helots and the perioikoi. 29 C. Theodoridis, “Eine unbeachtete Buchangabe zum Bruchstück des Philochoros über die attischen Orgeonen,” ZPE 138 (2002) 40–42, for the attribution of F 35a to the third book of Atthis. See Harding, Story 185; Rhodes, Commentary 68–69, for discussion of this fragment and its relation to Pericles. 30 For discussion and additional references see Harding, Story 119; Jacoby, ad FGrHist 328, I pp.251–252, 323–324.