(Page 162)
One possible instance suggested by Wade-Gery and not treated above is the alliance negotiated with Acarnania by Phormio (Thuc. 2. 68. 8). Thucydides reports it in connection with the events of the summer of 430, but he merely indicates that the alliance of Phormio was concluded at some time in the past, without being specific. Busolt (CG, III: 2, 736, n. 6) suggested that the date could not have been before the Samian War, or Corinth would not have been friendly to Athens in 440. It could not have been after the beginning of the Corinthian dispute with Corcyra, or Thucydides would have mentioned it in connection with that affair, and so Busolt places the alliance about 437. He is followed by Adcock (CAH, V, 474–475), Glotz and Cohen (HG, II, 614) and Cloché (AC, XIV [1945], 116). But these limits are far from firmly established and, in fact, they will not withstand examination. The early terminus is not valid if we imagine that the expedition of Phormio occurred during the First Peloponnesian War. By 440 the policy of Athens had changed, and Corinth knew it. There is thus no reason to deny the possibility of a date in the 450’s. This is precisely the position taken by Gomme (Hist. Comm., II, 416), who places the expedition “perhaps in the early 50’s, at least as early as the Athenian campaign at Delphi in c. 448.” Beloch held much the same view, saying that the treaty was concluded, “wohl schon vor dem dreissigjahrigen Frieden” (GG, II: 1, 299, n. 2). The later terminus is based on an argumentum esilentio, and no argument is less persuasive when we are dealing with Thucydides, whose omissions are enigmatic to say the least. Wade-Gery (Essays, 253–254) places the expedition after 433, although it would be in accord with his theory of Athenian pressure on the west to have it earlier. He believes that “the Akamanian Treaty is subsequent to the battle of Sybota,” more specifically in the spring of 432 (pp. 253–254). In a posthumous article (JHS, LXXII [1952], 62ff.), R. L. Beaumont supports the view of Wade-Gery with what seem to me decisive arguments which place the expedition after 433. See also ATL, III, 320 and n. 84.
Another instance of Athenian activity in the west is inferred from a fragment of Timaeus reported by the scholiast to Lycophron, Alexandra, 732 (FGrH, IIIB, 556, no. 98). When this is combined with a comment of Tzetzes to line 733 and a remark by Strabo (5. 4. 247), it is clear at least that at some time the Athenian general Diotimus was called to assist the Neapolitans with a fleet, although we have no reason to believe what is sometimes alleged, that the Athenians strengthened Naples with colonists. (The allegation is made by Beloch, GG2, II: 1, 202; cf. FGrH, IIIB, Kommentar 581.) The problem is to decide when and under what circumstances the event took place. The most common opinion since the time of Nissen (Historische Zeitschrift, N.F., XXVII [1889], 400ff.) places it at the time of the generalship of Diotimus in 433/2. This date has been accepted by W. Judeich (PW, V [1905], s.v. “Diotimus 1,” 1147) A. E. Raubitschek, (TAPA, LXXV [1944], 10, n. 4), and Bengtson (GG, 205, n. 1). Busolt (GG, III: 1, 538, n. 5) believes that it happened before the war in the 430’s. Eduard Meyer (Forschungen, II, 321–322), arguing against some of the wilder aspects of Nissen’s theories, was led also to question his date for the expedition of Diotimus to Naples. He thought it possible that the event might have happened in an earlier strategia of Diotimus, although we have no record of it and Meyer offers no argument in its behalf. Meyer also suggests the possibility that the expedition was a response to a Sabellian invasion of Campania during which Capua and Cymae were also attacked. Diodorus, to be sure, dates the attack on Capua to 438, but Livy puts it in 423. De Sanctis (Riv. di. Fil., N.S., XIII [1935], 71ff. and Pericle, 118) believes that the expedition of Diotimus and the Alliance of Athens with Naples took place in the 450’s in close connection with the alliances with Rhegium and Leontini. My opinion is that we may be certain only of an expedition to help Naples and nothing else. I am inclined to accept the majority opinion and place it in 433/2, in the only known generalship of Diotimus, but this is not certain. What is important here is to note that there is absolutely no reason to believe that it took place between the wars.