(Page 39)
In the fourth century the same opinion was held not only by Isocrates (De Pace 30, Paneg. 72, Panath. 67), who might have been prejudiced in favor of Athens, but also by the Spartans, who, according to Xenophon (Hell. 6. 5. 34), admitted that the Athenians had been chosen for naval leadership by the allies with the approval of the Spartans. Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 23. 2) has seemed to some scholars to argue against Spartan approval by saying that the Athenians took over the hegemony ἀκόντων τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων, and they have tried to emend the text to remove the difficulty. Gomme (Hist. Comm., I, 272) is probably right in arguing against emendation and interpreting the phrase, “Sparta being unwilling to keep the leadership.” It is clear in any case that the official Spartan position was one of at least tacit approval. If Aristotle’s text is sound and to be interpreted in the more obvious way, then Aristode may be taking the opinion of the recently defeated war party to be the true attitude of the Spartans.
Meyer (Historia, XII [1963], 405 ff.) has seized upon the statement of Herodotus πρόφασιν τὴν Παυσανίεω ὕβριν προïσχόμενοι. [οί ’Aθηναῖοι] ἀπείλοντο τὴν ἡγεμονίην τοὠς Λακεδαιμονίονς (8. 3), as the cornerstone of his theory that the formation of the Delian League was the culmination of an Athenian plan dating back at least to 481. His arguments are not convincing, but there is no reason to deny that by 478 the Athenians were more than willing to assume the leadership. Herodotus emphasizes their willingness, while Thucydides lays great stress on the initiative of the allies. Both may be right. As Sealey says: “This difference of judgment and other such oddities doubtless reflect contemporary controversies.” He goes on to say that “the student who tries to reconstruct fifth-century history from fifth-century sources is in the position of a foreigner who visits a country and listens to citizens talking politics; at best a tenth of what he hears will be true.” This last statement seems to me altogether too pessimistic. Thucydides and Herodotus were not merely two citizens discussing politics; they were learned men who had taken some pains to discover the facts. Their interpretations are not to be too readily discarded.