UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Spartan philachaianism Pettit, Robert George William 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1973_A8 P48.pdf [ 2.76MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0101373.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101373-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101373-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101373-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101373-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101373-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101373-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SPARTAN PHILACHAIANISM by ROBERT GEORGE WILLIAM PETTIT B.A., University of Victoria, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of CLASSICS We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1973 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p urposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f Classics The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ApVn 26. 1973 ABSTRACT During the f i r s t quarter of the sixth century Sparta was at war with Tegea. Shortly after 575 Sparta was badly defeated at the Battle of the Fetters. As a result of this defeat Sparta gave up conquest and sought instead to build up a league. To help her win over the non-Dorian states, she adopted philachaianism, a claim that she had Achaian connexions to her Dorian descent. The widely held belief that philachaianism was instituted by the ephor Chilon as part of a constitutional struggle is incorrect. A fragment of papyrus in the John Rylands collection at Manchester reveals that in 555 Sparta deposed the last Orthagorid tyrant of Sikyon, Aischines. This was done because the Orthagorids, through their anti-Dorianism, were potential rivals for the leadership of the non-Dorians and Sparta was beginning to have close relations with Sikyon's enemy, Korinth. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Abbreviations iv Acknowledgement v Foreword v i The Adoption of Philachaianism 1 The Date and Purpose of Philachaianism 17 The Deposition of Aischines of Sikyon 32 Appendix 48 Bibliography 49 iv TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Classical Quarterly Journal of Hellenic Studies Transactions and Proceedings of the American B•J•R» L* C.C;. «J *_H • S • T.A.P.A. Philological Association V ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I should like to express my thanks to Dr. M. F. McGregor and Dr. P. Harding for the help and encouragement they have given me during the writing of this thesis. v i FOREWORD During the f i r s t half of the sixth century Sparta began a policy of forming alliances with other states. An important part of this policy was philachaianism, a public declaration that Sparta was descended from Achaian as well as Dorian stock. This claim was intended to make Sparta appear less hostile to the non-Dorian states in the Peloponnese. In this thesis I shall discuss the reasons for the adoption of philachaianism, showing how Sparta's disastrous defeat by Tegea brought about a serious c r i s i s that threatened Sparta's future power and safety. In the course of the discussion I shall indicate what role philachaianism was intended to play, estimate the approximate date when i t was adopted, and show that philachaianism was not adopted, as is commonly held, as part of a struggle for power between the kings and the ephors. I shall conclude by discussing the evidence for dating the Spartan deposition of Aischines, tyrant of Sikyon, to 555, and by explaining how this action was connected with Sparta's foreign policy. 1 CHAPTER ONE THE ADOPTION OF PHILACHAIANISM After 600 Sparta was ready to expand her power into the north and central Peloponnese. At home the Lykourgan reforms had establish-ed a stable society by removing the worst social abuses and pro-viding a form of government that satisfied the people. In the west her power was supreme. She had crushed the recent Messenian resistance, at least temporarily, and reduced the population to the status of Helots. This pacification of Messenia was import-ant, since the Spartan military system required that the Spartan citizen be free from the necessity of working the land and so be available for full-time military training and campaigning. During the last stages of the Messenian wars Sparta had expanded her territory to the southwestern coast of the Peloponnese by conquering Pylos.^ Her position, however, was by no means secure. To the north-east lay Argos, an old and dangerous enemy that had in f l i c t e d a 2 crushing defeat upon Sparta at the Battle of Hysiai in 669. Her territory ran down the eastern coast of the Peloponnese to Cape 1 W. G. Forrest, A History of Sparta (London, 1968), p. 58. In this and the following paragraph I am adopting the account of Forrest. 2 Pausanias, II, 24, 7; Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Antiquitates  Romanae, III, 1. 2 Malea, including the island of Kythera, threatening Sparta's eastern flank. Due north lay Arkadia, and beyond that Achaia. Both regions were non-Dorian and bore racial animosity towards 3 Sparta. In addition Arkadia had long been a supporter of the Messenians, providing them with aid during the wars with Sparta, 4 and afterwards receiving refugees as citizens. During the f i r s t half of the sixth century Sparta was concerned with removing these threats to her northeastern frontier. The city of Tegea was Sparta's particular foe, with whom she had waged long and generally unsuccessful wars."* The conquest of Tegea was important, not only because i t was a centre of anti-Spartan feeling, but also for strategic reasons. Possession of Tegea would put Sparta in a favourable position to strike east and cut off Argos from her territory down the east coast.^ About 3 D. H. Leahy, "The Bones of Tisamenos," Historia, IV (1955), p. 30. At one time Argos and Arkadia had been a l l i e d , but the alliance was dissolved after a popular uprising occurred in Argos, probably in protest at returning to Arkadia land taken from Sparta after the Battle of Hysiai, and the Argive king fled to Tegea (Dio-doros, VII, 13, 2; Forrest, op_. c i t . , p. 73). 4 Strabo, VIII, 4, 10; Polybios, IV, 33. 5 Pausanias, III, 7, 3; VIII, 5, 9; 48, 4-5; 53, 9-10. 6 A. J. Toynbee, Some Problems of Greek History (Oxford, 1969) , p. 183. 3 570, i n the reigns of Leon and Agasikles, Sparta made a f i n a l 7 effort to defeat Tegea. She appealed to Delphoi and received the following reply: TT O \ U L i v ' f l p h<*& pokX^v-*) (pcL^j O L < T v 8 p e s L ^ 0 ~ l - V o f r ' A l f o K w X v i r o v r c v , i ^ w §£.' T O L O \ / T L p e y ^ t p u ) § L U V U J 7 O L I t y i ^ v TTO o~ C L K p o T o v opy^trd, <r 0<*u K A L K < A \ O V T T e S t o v ( T V O L V w S u p t T p ^ V ^ i r ^ ' - , The Spartans interpreted the oracle as favourable and were so confident that they marched into battle carrying the bonds with which to secure their foes. Their confidence was unwarranted. In the ensuing conflict they were decisively defeated, and the army capitulated. The prisoners, chained i n their own leg-irons, worked the Tegean f i e l d s . The fetters were later displayed at 9 Tegea in the Temple of Athena Alea. 7 The Spartan king l i s t s are calculated largely by generation. In the long run the chronology i s reasonably accurate but the dates for the individual kings are not exact. For a discussion of this problem see K. A. Chrimes, Ancient Sparta (Manchester, 1 9 4 9 ) , pp. 333-340. The dates given for the kings i n this study w i l l be those suggested by Forrest (op_. c i t . , p. 2 1 ) . 8 Herodotos, I, 66 , 2 . 9 Herodotos, I, 66 , 4 ; Pausanias, VIII, 47 , 2 . The Spartans did not give up the struggle, but despite their repeated attempts they failed to gain the upper hand. Finally they decided to ask Delphoi and messengers were again sent to enquire what should be done to end the series of defeats. The priestess replied that i t was necessary to bring home the bones of Orestes, the son of Agamemnon. When the Spartans were unable to locate the tomb they sent a second embassy, which received this answer: £fl-TL 7L<, 'fl pK<*£ Jcy X f U p u j ev\ ^ ijj p u)} L v O ^ v t p o t - TTV£LOV0-<~ 8\TUJ K p ^ T e p ^ c ; VTT'ekv*'yIt*\c K<AL T V T J ^ ^VTCT^JTIOSJ K<A\ T r^p Je7TY T7^poiTt hreuTotu. T o v ir\/ I t o p i o - ( T c A p L v o ^ T c e T f c T o K p p 0 6 ^ 5 'c/rc^i. This oracle was no clearer than the f i r s t , and the Spartans were no better off than before until Lichas, one of the <A$ 0 £ P N/<9 L 11 J came across the tomb by accident. In the course of a truce this man was v i s i t i n g Tegea. On entering a smithy he watched with great interest while the smith forged iron. The smith said that i f Lichas marvelled at the process he should see something 10 Herodotos, I, 67. 11 The CX^I<K6O Cp s / o L were the five senior members of the royal bodyguard who retired each year. In the year following retirement they served as special agents of the state (Herodotos, I, 67). 5 else, even more astounding. While digging a well i n the courtyard, the smith went on, he had found a coffin seven cubits long, and, wondering i f there really had been men of such a size, he had opened i t . Inside he found the bones of a giant, which he later reburied. Lichas f e l t that this was the explanation of the oracle. He reasoned that, as the discovery of iron led to men's injury, the forged iron would be the anguish la i d on anguish, while the bellows were the winds and the anvil and hammer the shock and counter-shock. He concluded that the bones found by the smith must be those of Orestes. He revealed his discovery to the Spartans. A false banishment to make him popular i n Tegea was arranged. He returned to Tegea, where after much d i f f i c u l t y he persuaded the smith to lease him the courtyard. He dug up the bones and took them back to Sparta. There followed another period of fighting, 12 during which the Spartans gained the upper hand. There has been some question whether the battle fought during the reigns of Leon and Agasikles was the Battle of the Fetters. Herodotos does not say definitely that the battle he describes was fought under Leon and Agasikles, although he im-13 plies that i t was. Pausanias says that the battle took place i n the reign of the Spartan king Charillos, who ruled ca 775-750, and adds further details concerning the role played by the 12 Herodotos, I, 68; Pausanias, III, 5-6. 13 Herodotes, I, 65. 6 Tegean queen Choera and the Tegean women. • Chrimes accepts the ver s i o n of Pausanias, but does so i n the course of an argument f o r an e a r l y date f o r the Lykourgan reforms, and does not explain her choice. J Theopompos assigns a Spartan defeat t o the l i f e t i m e of the Kretan seer Epimenides. He does not mention the f e t t e r s or the o r a c l e , but uses the word LX^V 0 "*] B~ <* v t o describe the 16 17 defeat. Leahy points out that as the capture of an army 14 Pausanias, I I I , 7, 3; V I I I , 5, 9; 47, 2; 48, 4-5. For the date of C h a r i l l o s see supra, p. 3, note 7. 15 Chrimes, op_. c i t . , pp. 331-333. 16 Herodotos (IX, 26) records a dispute between the Tegeans and the Athenians over p o s i t i o n i n the l i n e of b a t t l e at P l a t a i a . To support t h e i r case the Tegeans recounted t h e i r long service t o the Peloponnesians. This speech does not mention the Spartans by name, and implies f r i e n d s h i p t o the Achaians as w e l l as to the Dorians. The passage does not provide any clue t o the duration of the Spartan-Tegean f r i e n d s h i p that began a f t e r the Battle of the F e t t e r s . 17 Diogenes L a e r t i o s , I, 115. Theopompos al s o says that the b a t t l e took place TTpo5 O p^opE-VUJ. Leahy suggests that the Spartan army had advanced i n t o the southwestern part of Arkadia, which was the centre of the pro-Messenian movement. The Tegeans drew north i n t o Orchomenan t e r r i t o r y t o l u r e the Spartans i n t o a t r a p ("The Spartan Defeat at Orchomenosy" Phoenix, XII [3-958], pp. 158-165). 7 •was a r a r e occurrence i t i s l i k e l y t h a t Theopompos was r e f e r r i n g 18 t o the B a t t l e of the F e t t e r s . Although Epimenides i s a r a t h e r u n c e r t a i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l guide, s i n c e the f a c t s of h i s l i f e are confused w i t h myth and there i s some di s p u t e over h i s period of a c t i v i t y , nothing suggests t h a t he l i v e d i n the e i g h t h century. 19 His age i s reported t o have been 154, 157 or 229 years. Suidas records t h a t he was born i n the t h i r t i e t h Olympiad (660-657) and 20 was an o l d man when he came t o Athens. A r i s t o t l e r e p o r t s t h a t 21 he p u r i f i e d Athens a f t e r the K y l o n i a n massacre ca 600. P l a t o says he came t o Athens ca 500, but t h i s statement was probably due t o confusion w i t h a l i t e r a r y Epimenides.^2 The B a t t l e of the F e t t e r s took place s h o r t l y a f t e r 5 7 5 . ^ Epimenides would have been n i n e t y or more at t h a t time, which i s i n keeping w i t h the t r a d i t i o n of h i s great age. There i s no evidence t o connect him w i t h the e i g h t h century. Huxley p o i n t s out t h a t the Spartans' excessive confidence 18 Leahy, op_. c i t . , p. 153. 19 Diogenes L a e r t i o s , I, 109. 20 Suidas, s . v . £ TT L p iv L e)>.5. 21 A r i s t o t l e , C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens, 1. 22 P l a t o , Laws I (642d); J . E. Sandys, A r i s t o t l e ' s  C o n s t i t u t i o n of Athens (London, 1912), p. 3 . 23 See i n f r a , pp.8, 17-18. 8 before the b a t t l e i n d i c a t e s an event l a t e i n the Tegean s t r u g g l e , 24 which the evidence of Herodotos shows ended i n the s i x t h century. This again supports a s i x t h - c e n t u r y date. The above f a c t s i n d i c a t e that the B a t t l e of the F e t t e r s took place i n the s i x t h century, and, according to the chronology i n d i c a t e d , sometime between 575 and 560 when Leon and Ag a s i k l e s were both r u l i n g . A Spartan v i c t o r y f i n a l l y ended the h o s t i l i t i e s . ' Two clauses of the t r e a t y have s u r v i v e d . U n f o r t u n a t e l y s t h e y are b r i e f , and one of them i s surrounded by much controversy, so that i t i s not p o s s i b l e to l e a r n the nature of the t r e a t y or the s t a t e of Spartan-Tegean r e l a t i o n s . P l u t a r c h records: M £ ff" |T'V) V COV^ CKB<A\IA.V 24 Herodotos, I , 65; G. L. Huxley, E a r l y Sparta (London, 1962), p. 66. 25 P l u t a r c h , Quaest. Graec. 5 (Mo r a l i a 277c); the abridged v e r s i o n i s i n Quaest. Rom. 52 (Mo r a l i a 292b). The clause r e q u i r i n g the exp u l s i o n of the Messenians would 9 be a n a t u r a l demand on S p a r t a ' s p a r t . The r e m o v a l o f t h e M e s s e n i a n s would put an end t o a t l e a s t one s o u r c e o f a n t i -S p a r t a n f e e l i n g and h e l p t o p r e s e r v e t h e peace. The second p h r a s e , K<AL p ^ 1 ^ "ft p °) TTo\/<; 7T0LLc\/ p r e s e n t s some d i f f i c u l t i e s . The u s u a l t r a n s l a t i o n o f ^ p >j <rTo'5 as "good", a euphemism f o r dead, has been r e j e c t e d on t h e grounds o f l i n g u i s t i c s and common s e n s e . E h r e n b e r g h o l d s t h a t h e r e i s t h e v e r b a l a d j e c t i v e o f y^poCo'QcKL^ w h i c h means " . . . t h e o u t l a w e d . . . t h e men t o be used ( i n t h i s c a s e i l l u s e d ) . " He has b a s e d h i s argument m a i n l y on t h e f a c t t h a t cKj/^ p ^ F I 0^ i n a 26 K r e t a n i n s c r i p t i o n means " n o t t o be u s e d " i n p u b l i c b u s i n e s s . The supplement t o L i d d e l l and S c o t t g i v e s t e n t a t i v e agreement t o „27 s f this view, saying that " X P " * ) " " " ' ^ " m a v be good as a euphemism for dead, but probably outlawed, liable to be k i l l e d by any man. This is a subtle shift in meaning, from outright execution to the state of outlawry. Jacoby argues that i t would be absurd to think that the Spartans would be at a l l concerned about protecting r- I the lives of Messenians. He feels that "XP0]^" ' °S has the 28 connotation of citizenship rather than outlawry. Both of these 26 V. Ehrenberg, "An Early Source of Polis-Constitution", £.Q., XXXVII (1943), pp. 14-18. 27 H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek English Lexicon, revised by H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (Oxford, 1966), p. 2110. 28 F. Jacoby, "XPH2T0Y5 ffo/EW/ C.Q. , XXXVIII (1944), pp. 15-16. 10 t r a n s l a t i o n s assume t h a t the Messenians are the object of both v e r b s , and f a i l t o d i s c u s s the statement of A r i s t o t l e t h a t i t was the Spartan sympathizers r a t h e r than the Messenians who were i n danger of punishment. Ehrenberg merely ignores i t , w h i l e Jacoby c o n t r a d i c t s h i m s e l f , saying f i r s t t h a t he does not t h i n k t h a t a reference t o Spartan sympathizers belongs i n the t r e a t y , yet l a t e r a d m i t t i n g t o the presence of Spartan po adherents i n Tegea. 7 The statement of A r i s t o t l e i s important. P l u t a r c h ' s use of the q u o t a t i o n suggests t h a t A r i s t o t l e had d i s -cussed the Tegean t r e a t y and t o him i t had f o r b i d d e n death t o the Spartan sympathizers. There i s no ambiguity i n h i s language. Since t here i s no i n d i c a t i o n whether or not P l u t a r c h was c i t i n g the whole of the sentence i n the t r e a t y (and i t must be r e -membered t h a t he was concerned w i t h e x p l a i n i n g the word }< p -"j 0" l 0$^ not w i t h the Spartan-Tegean t r e a t y ) , i t i s dangerous t o b u i l d too strong a case on what i s preserved, and e s p e c i a l l y t o use i t 30 t o r e f u t e A r i s t o t l e . Jacoby fs argument i s f u r t h e r weakened by 29 " I s h a l l not s p e c i f y here why t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y seems very improbable t o me" (p. 14); "...a r e a l help t o t h e i r adherents i n Tegea" (p. 15). 30 Quaest. Graec. 5 asks T L V £ $ O L Tf cKpJ °F\ p K <K IT c KcK L /\<AK£.S<ALpOVLOL$ ^p^crToL'^ Quaest. Rom. 52 asks A tV I I T'J K * X o v r j u e V p P ^ V L t T ^ i M < A V £ ] K V V o k D A T O V I T U K<Al K c ^ T t V X O V T ( A L p 'vj 8 CV(A X p y T o v (ATT 0 p-^Jv <AL TuJV O L K O ^ V W V * 11 his translation of 'Xp'*) G^o$ as pertaining to citizenship. The clause would thus read that:the Messenians were to be expelled and i t would be i l l e g a l to make them citizens. This is contra-dictory, for the specification that the Messenians were not to be made citizens suggests that they were i n fact to be allowed to remain i n Tegea with some inferior status, yet the f i r s t clause called for their expulsion. His only explanation for this i s inadequate: "It i s useless to speculate whether Sparta thought that observance of the negative clause would admit of an easier and more complete control than that of the positive one."-^1 Neither author has explained why Aristotle's comment should be ignored. Jacoby's translation i s not logical and, while Ehrenberg's presents no d i f f i c u l t y i n the meaning of the clause, he has fa i l e d to show why the usual meaning of "put to death"cannot be used. In view of these facts, I hold that the treaty called for the expulsion of Messenian 'refugees and the protection of a pro-Spartan group in Tegea from death. The scanty remains of the treaty do not reveal whether i t was dictated by Sparta or negotiated on the basis of a mutual desire to stop fighting. Herodotos does not describe the nature of the Spartans' f i n a l victory, but his language suggests a series of small victories rather than a major decisive blow 31 Jacoby, op_. c i t . , p. 15. 12 32 of the magnitude of the Battle of the Fetters. As w i l l be shown in the next chapter, i t is possible that this change in fortunes was due to the adoption of philachaianism. The Spartan seizure of the bones of Orestes was the f i r s t public manifestation of the philachaian policy that was pursued during the middle of the sixth century. Sparta was a Dorian state and claimed descent from the Dorian leaders, the Herakleidai. She would thus evoke racial as well as p o l i t i c a l h o s t i l i t y from the non-Dorian states of Arkadia and Achaia. The adoption of philachaianism was an attempt by Sparta to claim a connexion with the House of Atreus, the original Achaian rulers of the Peloponnese, and place less emphasis on her Dorian origin. Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, had been the last great Achaian ruler. The seizure of his bones and their transferral to Sparta were a public statement by the Spartans that they claimed descent from him, and that they 33 acknowledged the greatness of his family. Their action also indicates their readiness to preserve and defend his remains. There is some evidence that Sparta used literary means to emphasize her Achaian association. The poet Stesichoros, who 32 Herodotos, I, 68, 6: K<*L 3\7To T o v T o v T o v Tvpovo-u^ O ' K W 5 UCipiocM'o SAX^XwVj TJOXXUJ K ^ T - v l T c p T L p o L 33 G. Dickins, "The Growth of Spartan Policy," J.H.S., XXXII (1912), p. 12. appears to have had Spartan connexions, wrote an Oresteia that 34 was presented at Sparta in the f i r s t half of the sixth century. In this work the Argive connexion of the principal figures was in one instance replaced by a Spartan association, and in another de-emphasized. In the f i r s t piace, Stesichoros says that the home of Agamem-35 non was in Sparta, not in Mykenai as Homer does. Secondly, Stesichoros uses the patronymic TT X C C 0~ 6 L V L & t o describe 36 Agamemnon or Menelaos or Orestes. Hesiod explains that Agamemnon was the son of Atreus , but took the patronymic TT X C LO" B CV <*5 37 38 when his father died young. Atreus was buried at Mykenai. Stesichoros freed Agamemnon from too close an Argive connexion 34 C. M. Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford, 1961), pp. 107-115. 35 Homer, Ili a d , II, 569-577. For the version of Stesichoros see the scholiast on Euripides' Orestes, 46, cited i n Bowra, 36 Bowra, op. c i t . , p. 114. 37 Hesiod, Carmina, ed. A. Rzach (Stuttgart, 1958), f r . 98. 38 Pausanias, II, 16, 6. 14 T O by using an a l t e r n a t i v e patronymic. ' A passage i n Pausanias describes what may have been a f u r t h e r example of philachaianism. He s t a t e s : 7L<T<Ap<LVO-\/" T O V V L K p O V 3/^\<AtL0V £ V E\LK^| Q<\^jr c W 7 I d V j C / <—• / / O L \ L \ # O L < ; cr ^ L C T L V °ckv eLTT o v T o e "X p-*j c r p L O v K o p L j o - v r o ~ c T l X 1 T T ^ p T ^ V j K « u _ S e i T T v * /Ukc W p o v t o v c ; ILTTL 7 k J e t S t T L o k K ^ X o v p t v ^ Tisamenos was the son of Orestes. T r a d i t i o n held that when the Dorians invaded he l e d h i s people north t o what was l a t e r c a l l e d Achaia and drove out the Ionian inhabitants. Tisamenos himself f e l l i n the assault on the c a p i t a l , Helike, and the conquest was completed by h i s s o n s . ^ The body of Tisamenos was a valuable f i n d i n the Spartans' quest f o r Achaian trophies since there was no awkward connexion with Argos t o explain or conceal. Leahy argues that the bones H-0 39 Bowra holds the same view, but on the purely hypothetical grounds that Stesichoros used a non-Homeric version that made Pleisthenes the f a t h e r of Agamemnon (op_. c i t . , pp. 114-115). 40 Pausanias, VII, 1, 8. 41 Strabo, 383-384, 365C; Polybios, I I , 41. 42 The p o s s i b i l i t y that the tomb seen by Pausanias was that of another Tisamenos i s remote. The only other known Tisamenos was an E l e i a n seer who was a c t i v e i n the f i f t h century (Herodotos, 15 were used in an attempt to win over Helike i n the same manner as those of Orestes were used at Tegea. He cites no evidence, but bases his hypothesis on the similarity i n the method of acquisition of the bodies and the fact that as Helike was the leading city of Achaia i t would have been the logical area to in begin the conquest of that region. Leahy explains the absence of proof by saying that Sparta's overtures to Helike were a f a i l -ure and no alliance was made. He holds that Sparta suppressed a l l reports of the matter, and that Helike was too remote from the events of the Greek world to make the a f f a i r known.^ The suggestion of Leahy's discussed i n the preceding para-graph i s accepted by Huxley and Parke and Wormell, but i t i s questionable whether such unqualified acceptance is warranted.2'-' The basis of philachaianism was the Spartans' public pride i n their Achaian heritage. It was not i n keeping with the policy to make an appeal for an alliance that was not declared publicly. This appeal would.;have to be made with much publicity. It i s LX, 33-35; Pausanias, III, 11-12). See also P. Poralla, Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier (Breslau, 1913), p. 119, and Leahy, op_. c i t . (supra, p. 2, note 3) , p. .28. 43 Leahy, op_. c i t . (supra, p. 2, note 3) , pp. 32-33. 44 Leahy, op_. c i t . (supra, p. 2, note 3) , pp. 37-38. 45 Huxley, op. ext., pp. 32-33; H. W. Parke and D. E. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle I (Oxford, 1956), p. 96. too much to believe that diplomacy of such a nature was attempted i n such secrecy that the Spartans were able to erase a l l record- of •it. A second weakness of Leahy's argument i s his assertion that the policy of philachaianism was successful with Tegea, and that the Spartans were anxious to repeat what appeared to be winning t a c t i c s . ^ Philachaianism w i l l be analysed in detail i n the following chapter, and i t suffices to say here that there i s no definite proof that philachaianism was responsible for the victory over Tegea. The Spartans had no reason to believe that they had discovered an i n f a l l i b l e diplomatic weapon. I believe, because of the facts just mentioned, that Leahy's view i s unacceptable, and that the acquisition of the body of Tisamenos was not part of a diplomatic approach to Helike. The reason for the adoption of philachaianism and i t s date w i l l be discussed i n the next chapter. 46 Leahy, op. c i t . (supra, p. 2, note 3), p. 31. CHAPTER TWO THE DATE AND PURPOSE OF PHILACHAIANISM The adoption of philachaianism presents three problems. These are i t s date, i t s purpose and the reason for i t s adoption. The date of the beginning of philachaianism i s the f i r s t of these problems. Herodotos does not say i n whose reign the Spartans were told by Delphoi to find the body of Orestes, nor when the series of Spartan victories began that terminated the war with Tegea, but he does indicate that i t was over when the Lydian messengers arrived ca 550. 1 In 555 Sparta deposed the tyrant of Sikyon, and, as i t i s not l i k e l y that she would have under-taken this action unless the Tegean war had been concluded, 555 2 i s the terminus ante quern. I have demonstrated above that the Battle of the Fetters, which preceded the adoption of philachaian-ism, took place i n the reign of Leon and Agasikles.^ These two kings ruled together between 575 and 560.^ The terminus post  quern i s thus 575. Herodotos records a series of events after the Battle of the Fetters: the period of truce, the missions to Delphoi, 1 Herodotos, I, 65-68; Eusebios, Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum  Quae Supersunt, II, edited by A. Schoene (reprint, Zurich, 1967), pp. 96-97. 2 See infra, pp. 32-44. 3 See supra, pp. 5-8. 4 Forrest, op_. c i t . , p. 21. and the period of renewed fighting that took place before the final peace, but does not indicate how much time elapsed."* The probabil-it y that Sparta restored Elis to the presidency of the Olympic games in 568 suggests that she was making sufficient progress against 6 Tegea to undertake other actions, or had even ended the war. In view of the above facts, I feel that a likely date for the adoption of philachaianism is ca 570. The next matter to consider is the purpose of philachaianism. Herodotos' account indicates that the acquisition of the body of Orestes was a definite turning point in the war against Tegea. Sparta had suffered a series of defeats at the hands of Tegea that culminated in the Battle of the Fetters, but after the seizure of Orestes' bones the course of events was reversed, and Sparta became steadily victorious.^ The succession, f i r s t of defeats, and then of victories, was unbroken, and suggests that there was more involved than the mere fortunes of battle. The reason for the turn of events is not immediately apparent. There is no record of a military reform i n the f i r s t half of the sixth century that would account for the improvement in Sparta's performance, and Forrest goes as far as the say that the Spartan society i t s e l f 5 Herodotos, I, 67-68. 6 M. F. McGregor, "Kleisthenes of Sikyon and the Panhellenic Festivals," T.A.P.A., LXXI (1941), p. 272. 7 Herodotos, I, 68. 19 was r e l a t i v e l y u n m i l i t a r i s t i c u n t i l the middle of the s i x t h 8 century. In the absence of m i l i t a r y reform to e x p l a i n Sparta's sudden run of v i c t o r i e s , i t i s necessary to examine the s i t u a t i o n at the end of the war and consider whether p h i l a c h a i a n i s m could have been a f a c t o r i n Tegea's defeat. The peace-treaty i n d i c a t e s that there was a group of Spartan 9 sympathizers i n Tegea who were i n danger of l o s i n g t h e i r l i v e s . The f a c t that t h i s group was i n such danger at the time of defeat i m p l i e s that they were he l d r e s p o n s i b l e by the m a j o r i t y of the c i t i z e n s f o r Tegea's conquest by Sparta. I n t e r n a l s t r i f e was a common problem i n Greek c i t y s t a t e s . I suggest that there was a f a c t i o n i n Tegea that f e l t that t h e i r cause would best be f u r t h e r e d by peace or even a l l i a n c e w i t h Sparta.. With the Spartans' 8 F o r r e s t , op_. c i t . , p. 72. The word m i l i t a r i s t i c i s a p p l i e d only to the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , and not to the f o r e i g n p o l i c y . A country can venerate the s o l d i e r and war without a c t u a l l y f i g h t i n g . Germany from 1870 to 1890 i s a case i n p o i n t . During these years German s o c i e t y was geared f o r war, yet Bismarck's whole f o r e i g n p o l i c y was based on keeping peace i n Europe. 9 See supra, pp. 8-11. 10 See, f o r i n s t a n c e , the t u r m o i l caused i n Athens by P e i s i s t r a t o s during the s i x t h century. new claim to philachaianism, the position of this group would have changed. Instead of being a party seeking peace to advance their own p o l i t i c a l ends, they assumed the respectable stature of ad-vocates of association with a ra c i a l l y kindred state, and attracted a large enough following to divide the c i t y and weaken i t s war effort. There i s no evidence available to l i f t the above suggestion out of the realm of conjecture, beyond the fact that i t provides a reasonable explanation for Sparta's sudden change of fortune. If i t i s rejected, then philachaianism does not appear to have affected the war at a l l . If i t i s accepted, philachaianism served as propaganda to encourage p o l i t i c a l disputes i n Tegea, and to be effective relied on the existence of a party inside Tegea that was strong enough to hinder the Tegean army and was wil l i n g to side with Sparta. This heavy dependence on a certain set of favourable circum-stances i s hardly l i k e l y to have made philachaianism more than a diplomatic means to be employed occasionally, yet i t appears to have been a continuing policy. There i s an expression of belief i n i t long after the Tegean alliance. In 511 Kleomenes was i n Athens supervising the expulsion of the Peisistratids. He attempted to enter the shrine of Athena on the Akropolis. When the priestess tried to block his entrance, protesting that i t was sacrilege for a Dorian to enter the sanctuary, the king brushed her aside saying: 111 ^ / V y ^ l j J O V A ^ p c C V " 5 The long existence of philachaianism can be explained by an examination of another aspect of Spartan foreign p o l i c y . By the l a s t quarter of the s i x t h century Sparta had abandoned her o l d p o l i c y of conquering other states and reducing them to i n f e r i o r status, and had created a league of states of which she was the leader. In ca 508 when Kleomenes wished to restore Isagoras to Athens he did not employ only Spartan troops. Herodotos records: «,. . c v v t X c - y c IK TT<AV^S T T e X o T T o v v y o v (rTpcATov.. The a l l i e s , following the example of Korinth and the second Spartan king, Demaratos, l e f t when they discovered the true purpose of the expedition. This r e f u s a l to f i g h t makes i t c l e a r that the league members were free states, not the vassals of Sparta. This was emphasized again l a t e r when Kleomenes wanted to restore Hippias as tyrant i n Athens: jj L i<ATT e j J ^ ^ p L V O L Korinth again led the opposition, and when the Korinthian ambassador 13 Sokles, had f i n i s h e d , the others agreed and refused to act. Thus by about 505 Sparta led a league of stat e s . The fact that 11 Herodotos, V, 72. 12 Herodotos, V, 74. For the date see A r i s t o t l e , Constitution  of Athens, 20; Parian Marble, ep. 46. 13 Herodotos, V, 91-93. 22 t h e y assembled a t S p a r t a ' s b i d d i n g , and had e a r l i e r f u r n i s h e d t r o o p s a t t h e command o f Kleomenes, i n d i c a t e s t h a t S p a r t a was the acknowledged l e a d e r , b u t t h e i r d o u b l e r e f u s a l t o f i g h t a g a i n s t A t hens i s e v i d e n c e o f t h e i r c o n t i n u e d independence. S p a r t a c o n t r o l l e d h e r a l l i e s by agreement, n o t f o r c e . Thus, d u r i n g t h e s i x t h c e n t u r y , S p a r t a was s e e k i n g t o make a l l i a n c e s w i t h o t h e r s t a t e s . A t t h e same t i m e she was p r a c t i s i n g p h i l a c h a i a n i s m . There appears t o be a c l o s e c o n n e x i o n between t h e two p o l i c i e s . A l t h o u g h t h e e x a c t d a t e when t h e p o l i c y o f a l l i a n c e s was u n d e r t a k e n i s n o t known, t h e s h a t t e r i n g d e f e a t o f t h e B a t t l e o f t h e F e t t e r s was a l o g i c a l t i m e f o r S p a r t a t o re-examine h e r whole f o r e i g n p o l i c y . S e c o n d l y , t h e r e i s much s i m i l a r i t y between t h e two p o l i c i e s . W h i l e S p a r t a was s e e k i n g f r i e n d s i n Greec e as a w h o l e , p h i l a c h a i a n i s m was a p p e a l i n g f o r f r i e n d s h i p t o one s p e c i a l group: t h e n o n - D o r i a n s . I s u g g e s t t h a t p h i l a c h a i a n i s m was a p a r t o f S p a r t a ' s o v e r a l l f o r e i g n p o l i c y , and was i n t e n d e d t o make a l a s t i n g peace w i t h Tegea a f t e r t h e war. Any e f f e c t i t had on Tegea w h i l e h o s t i l i t i e s were s t i l l i n p r o g r e s s was an added bonus. I t r e m a i n s t o d i s c u s s t h e q u e s t i o n why S p a r t a a d o p t e d p h i l a c h a i a n i s m . D i c k i n s c o n n e c t s t h e abandonment of c o n q u e s t w i t h p h i l a c h a i a n i s m and b e l i e v e s t h a t i t was adopted by t h e ephors as p a r t o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u g g l e t o r e d u c e t h e power o f t h e k i n g s . He goes so f a r as t o c l a i m 14 i t was t h e work o f the ephor C h i l o n . 14 D i c k i n s , op. c i t . , p. 23. H u x l e y (op. c i t . , p. 67) and F o r r e s t (op. c i t . , p. 7 6 ) . agr e e w i t h D i c k i n s . Dickins argues that s u c c e s s f u l campaigns g r e a t l y increased the prestige of the kings. The Spartan system of d i v i d i n g the con-quered land i n t o K\^po L would further add t o the r o y a l power, since a time would come when there would not be enough Spart-i a t e s t o hold the new t e r r i t o r i e s . In t h i s case, Dickins s t a t e s , e i t h e r the holdings of each i n d i v i d u a l would be enlarged, or else foreigners would be admitted to some form of c i t i z e n s h i p . In ei t h e r case the new land-holders would owe t h e i r land to the kings and would thus provide a r o y a l i s t f a c t i o n . ^ Dickins assumes that the Spartans not only abandoned t h e i r plans f o r conquest, but al s o modified t h e i r v i s i o n of Sparta's future, seeing her as a r e l a t i v e l y small Peloponnesian s t a t e . Dickins bases the preceding statement on the remark of Chilon concerning the i s l a n d of Kythera: LL.B e °L 7 C 7 O V L Lj ^ N/ C V 0 y 1 V») K dSi I J3 xr 6 L 0" 6 ^ Dickins i n t e r p r e t s t h i s remark as meaning that Chilon saw the danger that the i s l a n d would pose t o a state that lacked a strong m i l i t a r y system. He goes on t o say that, i n order t o prevent the population from be-coming discontented at the lack of expansion, Chilon introduced . or strengthened t h e d ^ / w ^ s t r e s s i n g m i l i t a r i s m and taking pains t o exclude foreigners who might introduce dangerously l i b e r a l ideas. In connexion with t h i s , Sparta embarked on an a n t i — -15 Dickins, p_p_. c i t . , pp. 23-25. 16 Diogenes L a e r t i o s , I, 72-73; Herodotos, VII, 235. tyrant policy, since the tyrants generally favoured Panhellen-17 ism. There are several objections to this theory. F i r s t , Dickins ignores the impact of the Battle of the Fetters on the domestic situation. Secondly, he misinterprets the remark about Kythera. The statement was a recognition of a weak point i n Sparta's de-fences. It could equally well mean that Sparta was planning a policy of outright aggression and that Chilon regretted the 18 presence of such a danger in the rear. Thirdly, Dickins i s inconsistent. He has lai d great stress on the ephors' fear of the kings gaining popular support through campaigns, yet he suggests not only that the ephors under Chilon strengthened the army, but also that they sent the kings out on expeditions against the tyrants. The increased importance of the army would have tended to emphasize the importance of the kings, who were the 19 supreme military commanders. The successful depositions of tyrants i n the future, even i f unaccompanied by the seizure of territory, would have enhanced the kings' reputations. There i s also insufficient evidence concerning the l i f e of 17 Dickins, op. c i t . . pp. 23-25. 18 The occupation of the island by Nikias i n 425 indicates the wisdom of this remark (Thucydides, IV, 53; A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, III [Oxford, 19563, p. 507). 19 For the kings' military authority see infra, pp. 35-36. Chilon to indicate that he initiated the changes that Dickins 20 attributes to him. His birthdate is not recorded. His earliest known action was his advice to the father of Peisistratos, 21 Hippokrates, to avoid siring a son. As this was some time before Peisistratos' birth, i t suggests that Chilon was influential before 22 590. There is some evidence that describes his p o l i t i c a l career. 23 He was ephor in 555. There exists a tradition that he advanced 20 The only statement about his age is that he was a in the fifty-second Olympiad (572-569). Diogenes Laertios, I, 72. 21 Diogenes Laertios, I, 69; Herodotos, I, 59. 22 Huxley, op_. c i t . , p. 69. 23 y c y o v e S\ °tftopos K ^ T ^ T ^ V TTCUT-]KotT Jy C k T ^ v O X v p T i t^&ck - T T V p ^ t X ^ o t (p^cL K<ATCA 7 ^ v L ' K T ^ V , K<M. TTp^T^v °<L(p o p o v \ / c v e V # ° < < _ -C7T L E v f l v S ^ p o v j LOS (fi^lTL Z u><rc,K p ^ T ^ (Diogenes Laertios, I, 68). The text used is that of Jacoby (Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 2B, 244, f r . c). The report of Sosikrates is preferable because he drew on the chron-ologer Apollodoros (Huxley, op_. c i t . , p. 69). For a discussion of the the date of the archonship of Euthydemos, 555, see T. J. Cadoux, "The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides," J.H.J5. , LXVIII (1948), pp. 72, 76, 108-109. the power of the ephors: K<* I IT p (2) To 5 LLG~ ^U~<t-~0 C 0 o ' p o v 5 7 O L $ P ^ C T L X L V ^ T L JTc^pc^y C ^ y V if V ^ L This i s not absolute proof, as Diogenes h i m s e l f says t h a t Satyros s t a t e s t h a t Lykourgos increased the ephors* powers. Pamphilos 25 p o i n t s out t h a t C h i l o n was the f i r s t ephor, which i s i n c o r r e c t . -The e x i s t e n c e of the t r a d i t i o n , even though t h e d e t a i l s are i n -c o r r e c t , suggests t h a t C h i l o n was connected w i t h the advancement of the ephors' powers. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t C h i l o n was a l i v e and i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the a c t i o n of the ephors i n attempting t o compel Anaxandridas t o abandon h i s f i r s t w i f e on the grounds of i n f e r t i l i t y and t o take another w i f e . The k i n g objected so s t r o n g l y t h a t the ephors modified t h e i r demand t o bigamy, t o which Anaxandridas 26 agreed. The second w i f e was the great-grand-daughter of 24 Diogenes L a e r t i o s , I , 68. 25 Diogenes L a e r t i o s , I , 68. See supra, note 23, on the t e x t used. The o r i g i n s of the ephorate are clouded, but i t i s c e r -t a i n t h a t i t was created l o n g before the s i x t h century. See H. M i c h e l l , Sparta (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 119-125, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the beginnings of the ephorate. Eusebios places the f i r s t ephor i n Olympiad 5.4 (757, Hieronymos) or 6.1 (756, V e r s i o Armenia), op. c i t . , p. 80. 26 This event occurred no l a t e r than the 540s. Kleomenes, the product of the union, came t o the throne ca 519 (Herodotos, VI, 108; Thucydides, I I I , 68). I f he was i n h i s twenties at Chilon. When we see that another great-grand-daughter was married to the Eurypontid king Demaratos, i t begins to look as i f Chilon were trying to ensure the >close connexion of his family with both the royal houses, perhaps to advance the power of the ephors. The only evidence to connect Chilon with philachaianism i s weak. After Anaxandridas' second wife had given birth to Kleomenes the king returned to his f i r s t wife, who then gave birth to three sons. The eldest was called Dorieus, a name that Huxley interprets as a rejection of philachaianism by the king.2'* Anaxandridas deeply resented the interference'in his private l i f e , especially when the pregnancy of the f i r s t wife negated the reasons for the action. Forrest interprets the choice of name as an insult to the ephors who were sponsoring p h i l -achaianism.^^ The above paragraphs have shown that there i s no strong evidence to connect Chilon with philachaianism, or to indicate that he wanted to reduce the kings' authority and isolate Sparta, the.time, and there i s no evidence to indicate that he came to the throne exceptionally young, he would have been born before 540. 27 See Appendix, p. 48. 28 Herodotos, VI, 65. 29 Huxley, op_. c i t . , p. 71. 30 Forrest, op. c i t . , p. 83. 28 as Dickins suggests. There i s , on the other hand, evidence that i s quite con-trary to Dickins views. Chilon died at Pisa from overexcite-31 ment when his son won a boxing victory i n the Olympic games. This i s not an attitude l i k e l y to be found i n one who wanted 32 to withdraw Sparta from the affairs of the Greek world. There are, moreover, indications that the kings were connected with philachaianism. The technical aspects of the policy were carried out by royal servants. The bones of Orestes were d i s -covered by one of the^^Oo Lpya^ or royal pensioners. Delphoi had suggested the acquisition of the bones, and i t was the royal prerogative to appoint the messengers to Delphoi, the JTxr d l~0 i~e^ It i s not l i k e l y that, i f the ephors were trying to reduce royal power, they would have worked through royal o f f i c i a l s . The discussion i n the preceding paragraphs indicates that 31 Diogenes Laertios, I, 72. The date is not known. There i s no preserved record of a Spartan victory i n boxing i n the appropriate years. See L. Moretti, Olympionikai, I Vincitori  Negli Antichi Agoni (Rome, 1957), pp. 71-80. 32 His daughter was a Pythagorean, but we do not know his views on this aspect of foreign culture within his family. See Iamblikos of Chalkis, Life of Pythagoras. translated by T. Tay-lor (London, 1818), p. 192. 33 Herodotos, I, 67; VI, 57. there is insufficient evidence to attribute the adoption of philachaianism to the ephors or tne kings. It is therefore necessary to reject Dickins' idea that philachaianism was intro-duced as part of a constitutional struggle between the kings and the ephors. The question why Sparta adopted philachaianism remains. To answer this i t is necessary to consider the p o l i t i c a l situation after the Battle of the Fetters. Before the battle Sparta had been waging an unsuccessful war. Finally she gathered herself for a supreme effort, and, believing she had the support of Delphoi launched what was, she hoped, the last campaign. With the over-whelming defeat and capitulation of the army her hopes were dashed. The disaster revealed that her military prowess was limited and that conquest of the Peloponnese was very doubtful. As a result she abandoned conquest and sought instead to win the friendship of other states. The settlement with Tegea, however, remained a problem. Sparta s t i l l had to obtain a military victory, since suing for peace after the Battle of the Fetters was admitting Tegean superior ity, but, once victory was achieved, Sparta had to obtain the friendship of Tegea and ensure that the peace was based on a more substantial foundation than the conquered's fear of the conqueror. Complete victory would only wound Tegean pride, and leave the frontier held by a defeated enemy that might seek revenge in the 34 future. Tegea, moreover, had considerable potential for 34 For the strategic position of Tegea see supra, p. 2. causing trouble. In the f i r s t place, Tegea had previously-supported Messenia, going so f a r as t o provide refuge f o r Mess-enian e x i l e s , and was thus i n a good p o s i t i o n t o i n c i t e a Mess— 35 enian u p r i s i n g . Secondly there was the threat of Argos. Tegea and Argos had once been f r i e n d s , and there was the danger that the two states would s e t t l e t h e i r old quarrels and unite against 36 Sparta. It was t o prevent j u s t such an a l l i a n c e that Sparta 37 fought the Battle of Mantineia more than a century l a t e r . E i t h e r of the two s i t u a t i o n s just outlined would have placed Sparta i n great danger, which would have been increased i f Tegea had a l l i e d h e r s e l f with Argos against Sparta and s t i r r e d up Messenia at the same time, f o r c i n g Sparta t o f i g h t a major war while the helot sys-tem that supported the m i l i t a r y structure was i n chaos. Philachaianism solved the dilemma. By adopting p h i l a c h a i a n -ism Sparta could appear as a h i t h e r t o unrecognized f r i e n d and persuade Tegea t o form an a l l i a n c e . This a l l i a n c e , founded on r a c i a l a f f i n i t y , not the d i c t a t e s of the conqueror, had the necessary degree of s o l i d a r i t y . In view of the above discussion, I suggest that Sparta's new f o r e i g n p o l i c y was not the cre a t i o n of any one group w i t h i n 35 Strabo, VIII, 4, 10; Polybios, IV, 33. 36 Diodoros, VII, 13, 2; supra, p. 2, note 3. 37 Thucydides, V, 64. the state, but rather the response of Sparta's rulers to national c r i s i s . 32 CHAPTER THREE THE DEPOSITION OF AISCHINES OF SIKYON When the Tegean war had been s e t t l e d , Sparta e x p e l l e d A i s c h i n e s , the l a s t Orthagorid t y r a n t of Sikyon. The evidence i s i n a fragment of papyrus, No. 18 i n the John Rylands c o l l e c t i o n a t Manchester."1" The fragment measures 8.8 X 10.2 cm. The upper p o r t i o n s of two columns remain, of which the l e f t - h a n d one i s so badly m u t i l a t e d t h a t i t i s meaningless. The top f o u r l i n e s of the right-hand column r e f e r t o a c r o s s i n g t o a mainland and the foundation of a colony on a coast. With the 1 The t e x t was f i r s t published by A. S. Hunt (Catalogue of Greek P a p y r i i n the John Rylands L i b r a r y . I /Manchester, 1 9 1 l ] ) . His t e x t , w i t h one exception i n l i n e 13, i s reproduced by F. B i l a b e l (Die K l e i n e r e n H i s t o r i k e r f r a g m e n t e auf Papyrus [Bonn, 1923]). D. H. Leahy ("Chilon and A i s c h i n e s . " B u l l e t i n of the John Rylands L i b r a r y [ h e r e a f t e r B.J.R.L T), XXXVIII [l956], pp. 406-435, and " C h i l o n and A i s c h i n e s Again," Phoenix. X I I I /l959], pp. 31 - 3 7 ).discusses the t e x t c r i t i c a l l y and analyses i t s r e -l a t i o n s h i p t o the d o w n f a l l of the Orthagorid tyranny at Sikyon. N. G. L. Hammond ("The Family of Orthagoras," e.g., VI [l956], pp. 45-53) and M. E. White ("The Dates of the Orthagorids," Phoenix, X I I f l958], pp.2-14) a l s o d i s c u s s the t e x t and i t s i n -t e r p r e t a t i o n . Hunt's photograph i s e x c e l l e n t , White's i s ex-c e p t i o n a l l y bad. 33 information at our disposal i t is impossible to assign these lines to a definite event. It is generally agreed that the fragment is 2 part of an epitome, but of what i t is hazardous to say. The pap-yrus is confidently assigned by Hunt to the middle of the second 3 century B. G. on the basis of the hand. This dating has gone unchallenged by other scholars. The text of Column 2 as given by Hunt is as follows: 12 C . . J - • T ' A ' i J . L . ^ T c A S Lck C 15 L IT v j T T C J P L L ^ S C K T c c r r _ c v X c X ^ v Se ° A C A K C J V Lfropiv HCKL (T TJ>CK 7 [p\ \j ^  0""*$ ^ v ^ ^ v S p L S n L S 7 c 20 T [y p<x J v v L S ^ 5 K c ^ T e X v i T ^ C v J C V I - L K V L U V ^ L ] p L V A L & r x D i y ^ y x TT n LO^Y b e C f l c ^ v ^ ^ r c v J JlLLtr L ^ T £ p ^ 2 Hunt comments: "...Of the character of this work i t is hazardous to say much more than that i t was historical; and even that statement needs to be made with some circumspection" (op. city, p. 30). 3 Hunt, op_. c i t . , p. 29. 34 The rho i n the f i n a l word i n line 17 i s elevated, apparently having been inserted as a correction. It i s very badly smudged, but Hunt comments: "The overwritten rho i s small and i t s t a i l faint, but to suppose that i t i s no letter but merely a blot i s not a very satisfactory hypothesis; moreover, i f the rho be rejected, apparently the only word practically possible i s (TT<A U"£i<*Jff-<A$ > "the vestige following (T 7 i s inconsistent with sigma, but well suits the cross bar of a tau."^ Leahy adds that the downward stroke of the rho has cut across the grain of the papyrus. If i t had been only a blot the ink would have spread along the grain.^ An examination of the plate accompanying Hunt's text verifies t h i s . The ink on the lower por-tion of the ve r t i c a l stroke is extremely faded, but i s s t i l l v i s i b l e . It is similar to the other rhos, i n that a l l have very flattened circular strokes. In line 17 the f i r s t epsilon of L^opLVtr*5 i s unclear, there being no sign of the horizontal stroke. There i s l i t t l e trace of the phi. In line 21 the second letter i s almost entirely missing. Hunt says that i t could be either alpha or epsilon.^ E. G. 4 Hunt, op. c i t . , p. 31. 5 Leahy, B.J.R.L., p. 416. 6 Hunt, op_. c i t . , p. 3.1. Turner, i n a private letter to White, agreed with Hunt, but added 7 "I would prefer alpha." White does not discuss the point further. Hammond and Leahy do not consider the matter on palaeographic grounds. A l l that remains of the letter i s a v e r t i c a l stroke with a hint of curvature. It i s at the bottom of the left-hand edge of the letter-space. It could be the t i p of an alpha or an epsilon, but i t could also be a portion of a sigma. It i s impossible to make a definite statement. In line 22 only the ft ^ of the f i r s t word remain, the next two letters are missing and the f i n a l four are nearly i l l e g i b l e . Hunt feels that fl L<r"X<-v^ 5 ±s the logical name to associate with Sikyon, and whatever letters, or traces of letters, remain do not argue against this restoration. The last textual point to be considered i s the restoration of T c i n line 18. Hunt has restored i t without comment. Turner supports this since he detects crowding of the preceding letters h p L o ? The restoration raises a serious constitutional problem. With-out 7 £. the translation i s : "When Chilon was ephor and Anaxandridas led the army..."; with the T c : "When Chilon was ephor and general, along with Anaxandridas...i" 7 White, op_. c i t . , p. 4. 8 Hunt, op.* c i t . , p. 31. 9 White, op_. c i t . , p. 4. 36 There is no evidence that the ephor ever held tne generalship. The king, although limited by law in his c i v i l jurisdiction, was supreme while campaigning: ... \ \ \ J *o TcAV C^eXO^} Y ^ V %Lop(*(/ ^ y e p L J V tirXu T w v ~{ ?°S " o v T f o A C pOV.'° There was no place in the military structure for the ephor: CKcAtf-T-h. 8 c TCov T T O X L T L K C O V pop COV t x t t or i n the chain of command: ^cA (_A LLV$ "7°^ °^ y O V J £>5 V T T J L K C L V O V ir<iv7* 3 ^ 7 t - 7 < A c J K < * L 7 O L $ p \ v TToX cp<^pXo LS < ^ 7 0 £ (/p^^cTcAL T o S L O V J O L £c YCH^ XoX c ^ S / C , L 5-» ' ^Two ephors did accomp-any the kings on campaigns, but served only as supervisors of actions with p o l i t i c a l overtones. Even this practice probably did not be-13 gin until after 480. There is no known instance of the ephors 14 assuming military command. Leahy defends restoring YL for several reasons. He holds that the verb-ending in line 21 is LV and requires a singular 10 Aristotle, P o l i t i c s , 1285a. 11 Xenophon, Res. Lac., 11, 4. 12 Thucydides, V, 66. 13 J. R. Grant, "Leonidas1 Last Stand," Phoenix, XV (1961), p. 26. 14 Leahy, B.J.R.L., p. 429. 37 subject. He goes on to argue that, i f the IC were not included, the result would be a chiasmus that emphasizes the roles played by the two men, Chilon instituting the policy and Anaxandridas putting i t into effect. He states that this device is forced and foreign to the type of account presented. Finally he feels that without the f t the line would be too short, and the T<^ 5 of line 19 would logically be expected in line 18.^ ""' He dismisses the constitutional d i f f i c u l t i e s raised by suggesting that the author did not understand the Spartan p o l i t i c a l system.^ White has accepted the reading of Tc in view of the crowding of c c 17 OpL o , but does not discuss the problem. Hammond feels that, in view of the constitutional d i f f i c u l t i e s ^ 18 raised, the restoration of '£ must be rejected. We are thus faced with the fact that the restored letters create an impossible situation. Since the letters involved are not in the manuscript at a l l there must be very good reasons pre-sented for restoring them and a satisfactory explanation of the problem they raise. These have not been given. 1. The crowding of 6pcS in line 18: Turner has noted crowd-ing at the end of line 21. This line is short, with only f i f -15 Leahy, B.J.R.L., pp. 417-418. 16 Leahy, B.J.R.L., p. 430. 17 White, op_. c i t . , p. 6. 18 Hammond, op_. c i t . , p. 49. 19 White, 0 £ . c i t . , p. 4. t e e n l e t t e r s , and i t has a blank space at the end. C l e a r l y the crowding has no s i g n i f i c a n c e here. This example ca s t s doubt on the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the crowding i n l i n e 18. 2. The l i n e without T c i s too short w i t h only f i f t e e n l e t t e r s . L i n es 14 and 21 a l s o have f i f t e e n l e t t e r s , and l i n e 16 has t h i r t e e n . 3. The ending 0~£v i n l i n e 21 r e q u i r e s a s i n g u l a r s u b j e c t . The l e t t e r i n question cannot be read w i t h c e r t a i n t y . I t i s unwise t o b u i l d an argument on the t r a c e t h a t remains. 4. The c h i a s t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n : Leahy r e j e c t s i t f o r l i n e s 17 and 18 s i n c e " . . . i t seems f o r e i g n t o the type of account under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , " but accepts i t i n l i n e s 21-23 on the grounds t h a t " . . . i t seems the s o r t of t h i n g which might e a s i l y occur 20 i n summarizing a l i s t of persons and p l a c e s . " There i s no con-c r e t e evidence f o r e i t h e r of these a s s e r t i o n s . I n a fragment as b r i e f as t h i s i t i s impossible t o base arguments on s t y l i s t i c p o i n t s . 5. The author's l a c k of knowledge about the Spartan c o n s t i t u t i o n : t h i s i s a guess without any f a c t s t o support i t . White, who i n -cludes TLjdoes not d i s c u s s the p o i n t . The arguments put forward t o j u s t i f y the r e s t o r a t i o n of are open t o serious doubt, and do not give a reasonable explan-a t i o n f o r the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t y . I t i s thus unwise t o i n s e r t T £ . 20 Leahy, B.J.R.L., p. 417. 39 Apart from the t e x t u a l matters, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the fragment i s d i f f i c u l t . Sparta's a c t i o n against many t y r a n t s i s w e l l a t t e s t e d : E Ti LL T v p c A v v t vOtLtr oi JT\cZcr7oL K<*t T C X e v 7<AU?C J7> T c o v c v l d u \ c ^ v T / 0 AM IT C hckLj-Jov LWV K^TeX \r&^cr<*v. * K X e. ccrfl evo v_$ £ft £ck v uovo^l1 K J L L T O L T T o X i v tots To'Tc "Xpo'voL$ o v T c ^{.XoTcpov ov/Twi ov7c purol'-J-p*vvov to"pev cf>5 T^v A<^ K £. £<*tpov L U V x/ C V O p C V^V' IT o Coy y*p £ V £ . K ^ pcv £,^e|3<^Xov eft Kop tvOov K « u 3 f l ^ p p < ^ K L < A 5 £/r Se TidZh^s th S e i c f t v £ > v o $ n t i r ^ v y i f t © < A V O V S e I vpp< ^ ) ( o v eK S i J ^ ^ C w v f l v > L V Cft M c X ^ T o v S 3°fl pccToycv^, T ^ v 8 J t v © C T 7 < A X O L $ 5xrvcAcrTccVv C T T ^ v t r ^ V j Ifl p L ^ T O ^ S ^ K < A C ^ y i ' X c A o v K<*7<A-X v C d k v T c ^ ^ /\ c u> 7 v "X c 5 o I T p (.A eu>s j TTcpc S v e v ^ ' X X O L ^ <A K p L [3 e V 7cp o v 21 Thucydides, I , 18. 22 Scholium on A i s c h i n e s , I I , 80, c i t e d i n Leahy, B.J.R.L., p. 408. ' . _ ~ %3 V^-7 p<^ U The Kypselid tyranny f e l l no later than 582, long before the 24 ephorate of Chilon. The exact date of the downfall of Lygdamis is not certain, but some evidence connects i t with the Spartan 25 attack on Samos in ca 525. The Peisistratids were driven out of 26 Athens in 511. Aristogenes was probably expelled from Miletos after the Persian War, and i t is likely that Symmachos and Aulis were 27 driven out at the same time. Aischines is the only tyrant l e f t undated. 23 Plutarch, De Malignitate Herodoti, 21 (Moralia, 859 D). 24 Diogenes Laertios, I, 95, 98; Suidas, s..v. TTk pL<^v& p 05 * Aristotle, P o l i t i c s , 1315b; Eusebios, op_. c i t . , pp. 93-94. 25 Diodoros, I, 68; Herodotos, III, 44-47. G. B. Ferngren, A History of Samos to the Persian War (Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1967), pp^ 103-104. 26 Aristotle, Constitution of Athens, 19; Parian Marble, ep. 45. 27 Leahy, "Chilon and Aischines Again^"(supra, p. 32, note 1), p. 36. 28 It has been suggested that Plutarch's l i s t is in chronological order (White, op_. c i t . , p. 13, and Leahy, "Chilon and Aischines Again," p. 37). This view is questionable in view of the variant orders of the scholiast to Aischines and the Rylands Papyrus (see A. J. Earp, The Tyranny of the Orthagorids [Thesis, University of Cincinnati, I950] , p. 12) . 41 The problem of the papyrus hinges on the meaning of the punctuation in line 21. The line i s marked by a paragraphus at the beginning and a blank after the f i r s t three letters: White considers that this indicates the end of one sentence and the start of another. She also feels that the (J - b t_ construction in lines 21 and 22 indicates a new topic. Aischines i s thus closely linked to Hippias. A logical subject for a sen-tence dealing with the expulsion of Hippias would be Kleomenes. If then Aischines was expelled by Kleomenes, his downfall occurred after ca 520 when Kleomenes1 reign began.^ This raises the problem of what tyrants the Spartans did expel i n 555. Plutarch mentions other l i s t s : TT C p X S v 1 V °<K\\ 0 K p <--p L C r T C p O V \j e 7 p <K IT J o\ L J ° Whether they contained more names or f u l l e r accounts i s not known. Placing the expulsion of Aischines after 520 requires the supposition that there was another tyrant i n power in 555. Who he was or where he ruled can only be guessed. Leahy argues that a particle i s needed to indicate a change in subject. He states that i n a fragment too brief to determine 29 White, op_. c i t . , p. 8. For the date of Kleomenes' accession see Herodotos, VI, 108; Thucydides, III, 68. 30 Plutarch, De Malignitate Herodoti, 21 (Moralia, 859 D). For the f u l l quotation see supra, p. 39. the author's usage too much weight cannot be placed on the punctuation. Lines 21 and 22 are thus the objects of ft<*.' C W IT<A v This does not, he maintains, put Hippias' expulsion i n 555. He states that we need not expect s t r i c t chronological accuracy i n an epitome. The fragment would continue, he thinks, with other names, forming a stock catalogue of expelled tyrants. As i t i s an epitome, che f i r s t name, Aischines, who was expelled i n 31 Chiion's time, i s confused with the others who were not. Hammond follows Leahy i n ignoring the punctuation, but he avoids the discrepancy of the dates of Aischines and Hippias by suggesting that the Hippias mentioned i s not the son of P e i s i s -tratos of Athens, but a hi t h e r t o unknown tyrant of Megara. The presence of the Spartan army i n Megara i n the 550s was, he f e e l s , i n f l u e n t i a l i n causing the second e x i l e of the Athenian P e i s i s -32 tr a t o s . There i s no record of any such action on the part of Sparta at the time, nor i s there any known tyrant of Megara i n the middle of the s i x t h century. Theagenes had ruled as tyrant before 600, and had been overthrown long before the middle of the 31 Rees has suggested to Leahy that the l i s t was added as an afterthought by the scribe who forgot to erase the paragraphus. The gap, according to Leahy, but without p a r a l l e l , has the strength of an English colon. Leahy, B.J.R.L., p. 423; "Chilon and Aischines Again," pp. 34-35. 32 Hammond, op_. c i t . , p. 51. sixth century. Hammond's theory is completely without evidence and must be rejected. Leahy's arguments tend to be conjectural, but do have some points i n their favour. The lack of a particle i s strange, especially when one is used to introduce the section beginning with line 1 6 . The suggestion that line 21 begins the standard l i s t of tyrants i s not impossible. Plutarch has shown that such l i s t s were i n use. This proposal, moreover, does not necessitate the creation of unknown tyrants. 33 The only known tyrant of Megara was Theagenes, who ruled before 600 (Thucydides, I, 126, 3; Eusebios, in J. Karst, Eusebios' Werke, V, cited in T. J. Cadoux, o_p_. c i t . , p. 76). He was expelled, and the ci t y enjoyed a period of moderate government that ended when demagogues took over. The rich were exiled and their lands confiscated (Plutarch, Quaest. Graec., 1 8 [Moralia. 295 D-i]). Finally law and order broke down complete l y . A drunken mob assaulted pilgrims going to Delphoi and was not punished by the government (Plutarch, Quaest. Graec., 95 jjloralia,.304 E - F ] ) . The period of chaos ended when the exiled nobles returned and seized power by force (Theognis, 847-850, Aristotle, P o l i t i c s , 1300a). Although the exact state of affairs i n 555 is not known, i t i s certain that Theagenes was no longer ruling. Theognis, who was writing i n the middle of the sixth century, describes the events that occurred after the tyrant's ex-pulsion (Eusebios, op_. c i t . , p. 96). Apart from the Rylands papyrus, the evidence for the end of Orthagorid power i s inconclusive. It i s possible to make a case for either ca 560 or ca 510. Of the two, the earlier involves less contradiction amongst the sources and i s the more l i k e l y . This tends to confirm Leahy's interpretation. To sum up: The later date requires the supposition of the existence of unknown tyrants, while the earlier is based on the more reasonable hypothesis of a stock l i s t of tyrants. Of the two choices the. latter presents less d i f f i c u l t y , and also agrees with the probable interpretation of external evidence. In view of these considerations i t is better to accept Leahy's view, but, because of the brevity of the fragment and the problems that re-main, tentatively. The deposition of Aischines i s very d i f f i c u l t to explain, since there are reasons why Sparta should have been friendly with the Sikyonian tyranny. Kleisthenes had fought a war with Argos.35 He also launched a vigorous campaign within Sikyon, aimed both at removing a l l traces of Argive culture and at asserting the superiority of the non-Dorian elements of the population. The reading of the Homeric poems, which emphasized Argos, was banned. The body of the Argive hero Adrastos was expelled. The Dorian 34 Earp, op_. c i t . , p. 20. 35 Herodotos, V, 67. 45 tribes were renamed TcA I < A L J U v I cA <-. j cu> ^ < L ")(£> c p I U . Both states thus shared a hatred for Argos. The anti-Dorian attitude of the Orthagorids was apparently i n keeping with the philachaianism of Sparta. It i s thus curious that Sparta deposed the Orthagorid ruler of Sikyon. Some attempts have been made to f i t the action into a general anti-tyrant policy of Sparta. Dickins holds that the Spartans were hostile to the tyrants because they tended to rely on popular support and were champions of Panhellenism at a time when Sparta was isolating herself from Greek a f f a i r s . - ^ It has been shown above that Chilon, who was responsible for overthrow-38 ing Aischines, was not a supporter of this policy. Forrest has suggested that some of the tyrants overthrown by Sparta, notably Polycrates, Lygdamis, Peisistratos and the Kypselids, shared a common association with Argos, but this charge cannot be brought against Aischines.^ A f i n a l view is that the tyrants were deposed by Sparta because they were pro-Persian.^ Again, 36 Herodotos, V, 68. It i s possible that these were nicknames (W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotos, II Oxford, I 9 6 I , p. 35). Andrewes accepts the names as evidence of non-Dorian superiority (The Greek Tyrants New York, 1963 , p. 59). 37 Dickins, op_. c i t . , p. 25. 38 See supra, pp. 24-29. 39 Forrest, op_. ext., pp. 81-82. 40 Huxley, op_. c i t . , pp. 74-75. 46 there is no evidence to connect Aischines with this. It seems that the explanation for the Spartan action against Aischines is not to be found in any general anti-tyrant policy. The answer lies in Sikyon's potential ab i l i t y to harm Sparta. In the f i r s t place, Sikyon had acquired a navy in the course of the 41 Sacred War fought at the beginning of the sixth century. Sparta's weakness in the area of maritime defence and Chilon's concern for 42 this matter have been mentioned above. Secondly, there was the threat of the Orthagorids' anti-Dorianism. Philachaianism had been adopted partly as part of Sparta's plan to achieve leadership of Greece through her control of a league, but mainly to provide a lasting settlement with Tegea after the war, and to secure the northern frontier. Philachaianism was directed at the non-Dorian states, and i t was in this aspect of the policy that Sikyon presented a challenge. The Orthagorids had adopted a stand that was violently anti-Dorian, while Sparta had merely claimed an Achaian connexion with her own Dorian descent. Should Sikyon and Sparta ever have fallen into dispute over the leadership of the non-Dorians, Sikyon would have had a far stronger claim. The Orthagorids thus had the power to threaten both Sparta's friendship with Tegea, on which the security of the northern fron-41 Schol. Pindar, preface to Nem. 9, cited in P. N. Ure, The Origin of Tyranny (New York, 1962), p. 260. 42 See supra, pp. 23-24. tier depended, and her maritime defences. It may be argued that Sikyon was too far away and that the Orthagorids had not shown any sign of interest i n southern Greece. There are, however, indications that Sparta was showing interest in central Greece. If Plutarch is correct in his statement that Sparta expelled the Kypselids, then Sparta was associated with 43 Korinth as early as ca 582. Certainly Sparta and Korinth were friendly at the time of the attack on Samos in the 520s, and by 44 the time of Kleomenes Korinth was a member of Sparta's league. Furthermore, relations between Korinth and Sikyon appear to have 45 deteriorated during the sixth century. Thus, Sparta was not only showing interest in central Greece, but also she was aligning her-self with a state on bad terms with Sikyon. I suggest that Sparta foresaw both the possible consequences of her association with Korinth and the danger that the Orthagorids could pose. By expelling Aischines, the last Orthagorid, Sparta removed the proponent of a policy that could have given Sikyon an advantage in any future dispute. 43 Plutarch, De Malignitate Herodoti, 21 (Moralia, 859 D). 44 Herodotos, III, 48; supra, pp. 21-22. 45 Herodotos, VI, 126; see also McGregor, op_. c i t . , pp. 271-272. APPENDIX THE FAMILY OF CHILON 48 Damagetas Chilon (Ephor) 1 Chilonis Demarmenos-Chilon Demaratos=Perkalos Prinetadas-Daughter=Anaxandridas1 Kleomenes 1 Suidas, s..v. 2 Iamblikos, Life of Pythagoras, p. 269. 3 Herodotos, V, 41; VI, 65. 4 Herodotos, VI, 65. 5 Herodotos, VI, 65. 6 Herodotos, VI, 65. 7 Herodotos, V, 41. 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ancient Authors Aristotle, Atheniensium Respublica, ed. F. G. Kenyon. Oxford, 1958. Aristotle, Constitution of Athens and Related Texts, trans, with Introduction and Notes by K. von Fritz and E. Kapp. New York, 1950. Aristotle, Fragmenta, ed. V. Rose. Stuttgart, 1967. Aristotle, P o l i t i c s , trans. H. Rackham. London, 1959. Diodoros Siculos, Diodori Bibliotheca Historica, ed. F. Vogel. 6 vols, reprint, Stuttgart, 1964. Diogenes Laertios, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, trans. R. D. Hicks. 2 vols. London, 1959. Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Antiquitates Romanae, trans. E. Cary. 7 vols. London, 1961. Eusebios, Eusebi Chronicorum Canonum Quae Supersunt, ed. A. Schoene. 2 vols, reprint, Zurich, 1967. Herodotos, Historiae, ed. C. Hude. 2 vols. Oxford, 1966. Hesiod, Carmina, ed. A. Rzach. Stuttgart, 1958. Iamblikos of Chalkis, Life of Pythagoras, trans. T. Taylor. London, 1818. Pausanias, Descriptio Graeciae, ed. F. Spiro. 5 vols. Stuttgart, 1959. Pausanias, Description of Greece, trans, with a Commentary by J. G. Frazer. 6 vols. New York, 1965. Philostratos, Gymnastikos, in Opera, ed. C. L. Kayser. Leipzig, 1871. Pindar, Odes, trans. J. Sandys. London, 1961. Plato, Laws, in Platonis Opera V, ed. J. R. Burnett. 5 vols. Oxford, 1955. Plutarch, Moralia, trans. F. C. Babbitt. 15 vols. London, 1962. Polybios, The Histories, trans. W. R. Paton. 6 vols. London, 1960. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, trans. H. L. Jones. 8 vols. London, 1961. 50 Suidas, Suidae Lexicon, in Lexicographi Graeci I, ed. A. Adler. 5 vols. Stuttgart, 1971. Theognis, Elegiac Poems, in Elegy and Iambus I, ed. and trans. J. M. Edmonds. 2 vols. London, 1954. Thucydides, Historiae, ed. H. S. Jones, revised J. E. Powell. 2 vols. Oxford, 1958. Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians, in Scriptora Minora, trans. E. C. Marchant. London, 1962. Modern Authors Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants• New York, 1963. Bengston, H., Griechische Geschichte. Munich, 1960. Bickerman, E. J., Chronology of the Ancient World. London, 1968. Bilabel, F., Die Kleineren Historikerfragmente auf Papyrus. Bonn, 1923. Boer, W. D., Laconian Studies. Amsterdam, 1954. Bowra, C. M., Greek Lyric Poetry, 2nd ed. revised. Oxford, 1961. Brinkmann, A., "Die Olympische Chronik," Rheinisches Museum fur  Philologie, LXX (1915), pp. 622-637. Burn, A. R., The Lyric Age of Greece. London, 1960. Cadoux, T. J., "The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides," Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXVIII (1948),. pp. 70-123. Chrimes, K. M. T., Ancient Sparta. Manchester, 1949. Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles, 2nd ed. Oxford, 1959. Devereux, G., "La Psychanalyse Appliquee \ L'Histoire de Sparte," Annales Economies, Societes, Civilisations, XX (1965), pp. 18-44. Dickins, G., "The Growth of Spartan Policy," Journal of Hellenic  Studies, XXXII (1912), pp. 1-42. Earp, A. J., The Tyranny of the Orthagorids. Thesis, University of Cincinnati, 1950. Ehrenberg, V., "An Early Source of Polis Constitution," Classical  Quarterly, XXXVII (1943), pp. 14-18. 51 Ferngren, :G. B., A History of Samos to the Persian War. Thesis, University of British Columbia, 1966. Forrest, W. G., A History of Sparta. London, 1968. Gardiner, E. N., Athletics of the Ancient World. Oxford, 1965. Gomme, A. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Oxford, 1945-1946. Grant, J. R., "Leonidas' Last Stand," Phoenix, XV (1961), pp. 14-28. Halliday, W. R., The Greek Questions of Plutarch. Oxford, 1928. Hammond, N. G. L., "The Family of Orthagoras," Classical Quarterly, VI (1956), pp. 45-53. Highbarger, E. L., The History and Civilization of Ancient Megara. Baltimore, 1927. How, W. W., and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotos. 2 vols. Oxford, 1928. Hunt, A. S., Catalogue of Greek Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester I. 2 vols. Manchester, 1911. Huxley, G. L., Early Sparta. London, 1962. Huxley, G. L., The Early Ionians. London, 1966. Jacoby, F., Das Marmor Parium. Berlin, 1904. Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. 3 vols with supplements. Berlin, 1923-1930, Leiden, 1940. Jacoby, P., "XPHITorZ Tl°\EiN Classical Quarterly, XXXVIII (1944), pp. 15-16. Jones, A. H. M., Sparta. Oxford, 1967. Larsen, J. A. 0., "Sparta and the Ionian Revolt: a Study of Spartan Foreign Policy and the Genesis of the Peloponnesian League," Classical Philology, XXVII (1932), pp. 136-150. Leahy, D. M., "Chilon and Aischines," Bulletin of the John Rylands  Library, XXXVIII (1955-1956), pp. 406-435. Leahy, D. M., "Chilon and Aischines Again," Phoenix, XIII (1959), pp. 31-37. 52 Leahy, D. M., "The Bones of Tisamenos," Historia, IV (1955), pp. 26-38. Leahy, D. M., "The Spartan Defeat at Orchomenos," Phoenix, XII (1958), pp. 141-165. Liddell, H. G., and R. Scott, A Greek English Lexicon, 9th ed., revised and augmented by H. S. Jones assisted by R. McKenzie. Oxford, 1966. McGregor, M. F., "Kleisthenes of Sikyon and the Panhellenic Festivals," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, LXXII (1941), pp. 266-287. Michell, H., Sparta. Cambridge, 1952. Moretti, L., Olympionikai, I Vincitori Negli Antichi Agoni Olimpici. Rome, 1957. Parke, H. W., and D. E. W. Wormell, The Delphic Oracle. 2 vols. Oxford, 1956. Parke, H. W., "Polykrates and Delos," Classical Quarterly, XL (1946), pp. 105-108. Poralla, P., Prosopographie der Lakedaimonier. Breslau, 1913. Powell, J. E., A Lexicon to Herodotos. Hildesheim, 1966. Sandys, J. E., Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. London, 1893. Skalet, C., Ancient Sikyon, with a Prosopographia Sikyona. Baltimore, 1928. Stubbs, H. W., "Spartan Austerity: A Possible Explanation," Classical Quarterly, XLIV (1950), PP» 33-37. Tigerstedt, E. N., The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity. 2 vols. Stockholm, 1965. Toynbee, A. J., Some Problems of Greek History. Oxford, 1969. Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri. Oxford, 1968. Ure, P. N., The Origin of Tyranny. New York, 1962. White, M. ,;E., "The Dates of the Orthagorids," Phoenix. XII (1958), pp. 2-14. Williams, T., "Theognis and His Poems," Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXIII (1903), pp. 1-23. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items