Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:36:01.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Was Megalopolis Founded?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Simon Hornblower
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pausanias' date (371) for the foundation/synoikism of the federal Arkadian capital, Megalopolis, is preferable to Diodorus' (368). But the process was spread over several years, beginning soon after the Battle of Leuktra. Diodorus' source here was not Ephorus but the ‘chronographic source’ from which Diodorus derived other material about city-foundations, synoikisms etc. The ‘battle’, after which Diodorus says the city was founded, may in the chronographer have been Leuktra itself rather than the ‘Tearless Battle’ of 368. There are no good military or political objections to the suggested dating, which avoids the need to postulate two Arcadian federalists called Proxenos, both active and prominent at much the same time.

Type
Articles
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 85 , November 1990 , pp. 71 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Niese, B., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte Arkadiens’, 2, ‘Wann ward Megalopolis gegründet?’, Hermes 34 (1899) 520ff. at 527ffGoogle Scholar. (Niese's interest was perhaps partly stimulated by the then recent excavations at Megalopolis of the British School, see his 535 on the ‘Ausgrabungen der Engländer’).

More recent bibliography is very fully given by Leschhorn, W., Gründer der Stadt, Palingenesia 20(1984) 167ff.Google Scholar; in my article I have, in view of the existence of Leschhorn, made no pretence at completeness of reference. To Leschhorn add Cawkwell, G.L. in the Penguin Xenophon Hellenica History of My Times (Harmondsworth, 1979) 364n.Google Scholar; Sealey, R., History of the Greek City-States (Berkeley and London, 1976) 435.Google Scholar Both Cawkwell and Sealey opt for 368 and Diodorus. Other modern works not cited by or known to Leschhorn (e.g. the unpublished Oxford dissertation of P. Stylianou, below n.7) are cited below as they become appropriate.

Dušanić is the main modern proponent of the 371 dating; see below n.16.

2 Tarn, W.W., Antigonos Gonatas (Oxford, 1913) 66.Google Scholar

3 Niese (above n.1) 531.

4 Braunert, H. and Petersen, T., ‘Megalopolis: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit’, Chiron 2 (1972) 57ff. at 61ff.Google Scholar

5 Beloch, K.J., Griechische Geschichte ii 1 (Strassburg, 1897) 261Google Scholar; id.Griechische Geschichte iii2 1. (Berlin and Leipzig) 186.

6 Since the editio princeps of Grenfell, and Hunt, , Oxyrhynchus Papyri v (London, 1908) 122Google Scholar it has been assumed that the Oxyrhynchus Historian went no further than the mid 390's or at latest 386, the King's Peace; see for instance Bruce, I., Historical Commentary on the ‘Hellenica Oxyrhynchia’ (Cambridge, 1967) 4.Google Scholar The usual argument is that otherwise, i.e. if the work ended much later than 386, it would have been very long indeed. But since the very existence of that substantial portion which we do have was not suspected by anybody until it was actually discovered, this argument is not compelling. Why should a post-386 narrative not have sunk with as little trace as was (until the nineteenth century AD) left by the pre-386 narrative? In fact Grenfell and Hunt do allow the possibility that the history went on ‘some twenty or thirty years later’: than 395 (which could take us to the date of the founding of Megalopolis) but decide in the end that in view of the ‘elaborate scale’ of what we have, this is ‘not at all likely’. But the point is worth bearing in mind when we think of the ultimate sources of Diodoros' fourth-century narrative down to the 360's, that is, the sources used by Diodorus' source Ephorus. If Ephorus went on using the Oxyrhynchus Historian, the standing of Diodorus xv goes up still further.

7 Schwartz, Ed., ‘Diodorus’, R–E V cols. 663ff.Google Scholar = Griechische Geschichtschreiber (Leipzig, 1959) 35ff., from which I cite; for the Chronographic source see 38ff. and for ‘Einzelne Ereignisse’ 42f. It is relevant to my present purposes that Schwartz 39 says explicitly that he may have tended towards excessive caution over what he included in the Chronographic category. A. Andrewes' forthcoming book on the Ephoran material in Diodorus will however include what is certain to be the authoritative discussion of the chronographer.

On the present passage I have also consulted the valuable 1981 Oxford D.Phil thesis by P. Stylianou, supervised by Andrewes and Cawkwell, a commentary on Diodorus Book xv. Stylianou (418) has the conventional ascription of Diod. xv 72.4 (founding of Megalopolis) to Ephorus, and accepts (389) the 368 dating. In his introduction he has a section on the Chronographic source but explicitly declines to discuss city foundations.

8 On this Spartokid error see also Martin, T., ‘Diodorus on Philip II and Thessaly’, CP 76 (1981) 188ff. at 197Google Scholar; his 196ff. is generally useful on the Chronographic source.

9 Schwartz 40; see also the important pages of Ed. Meyer, , Forschungen zur alten Geschichte ii (Halle, 1899) 504ff.Google Scholar

10 Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford, 1982) 39ff.Google Scholar

11 Schwartz 44. For Andrewes see above, n. 7.

12 Dušanić, S., ‘When Megalepolis Was Founded’ [sic], Ziva Antika 19 (1969) 263ff.Google Scholar; English summary at 281ff. Unfortunately however the suggestion about Leuctra and the Tearless Battle appears in a section of the article (pp. 267–8) which does not feature in the English summary, and I am grateful to Messrs M. Giedroyc and D. Howells for help with the Serbian.

13 For this as an explanation of certain types of error in Diodorus see Andrewes, A., ‘Diodorus and Ephoros: One Source of Misunderstanding’, in The Craft of the Ancient Historian, edd. Eadie, J.W. and Ober, J.W. (New York, 1985) 189ff.Google Scholar

14 ‘Archidamos' Feldzug hatte gezeigt, wo die schwache Stelle Arkadiens lag’, Beloch (above, n.5) iii2 1.186.

15 Roy, J., ‘Arcadia and Boeotia in Peloponnesian Affairs’, Historia 20 (1971) 569ff. at 591.Google Scholar

16 See above, n.12. He distinguishes four stages in the founding, the first in 371 (the appointment of oikists), the last in 368 (Theban help after the Tearless Battle). See however Roy, J., ‘Postscript on the Arcadian League’, Historia 23 (1974) 505ff.Google Scholar

17 Pausanias, PenguinGuide to Greece ii (Harmondsworth, 1971) 438 n. 193.Google Scholar He reckons the three year period from 370, a few months after Leuctra, i.e. he accepts Pausanias' date but only as a starting point.

See also Hornblower, S., The Greek World 479–323 BC (London, 1983) 225Google Scholar for the view that Megalopolis was built over a several year period starting soon after Leuctra.

18 See Roy 1971 (above, n.15) 572.

19 With Fraser, P.M., Gnomon 26 (1954) 252f.Google Scholar

20 Larsen, J., Greek Federal States (Oxford, 1968) 186 n.1.Google Scholar

21 Paus, ix 15.6.

22 Braunert and Petersen (above, n.4) 65.

23 Larsen (above, n.20) 185, adducing Thuc. v 33, on which see Andrewes in Andrewes, Gomme and Dover, , Historical Commentary of Thucydides vol iv (Oxford, 1970).Google Scholar