The Common Peace of 366/5 B.C.1

G. L. Cawkwell

doi:10.1017/S0009838800008405

The Common Peace of 366/5 B.C.1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

G. L. Cawkwell

Show author details

G. L. Cawkwell: Affiliation:
University College, Oxford

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Under 336/5 Diodorus records: Of such a Common Peace prompted by Persia Xenophon gives no hint. After recording the failure of the Theban attempt to summon a Congress at Thebes to swear a peace on the basis of the terms negotiated by Pelopidas at Susa, he goes on to record negotiations where by certain allies of Sparta made peace with Thebes, but his account contains no mention of either Persia or Athens. To his narrative the Archidamus of Isocrates seems to fit. The imagined scene of the speech is the last meeting of the Peloponnesian League; Corinth, Phlius, and Epidaurus are seeking Sparta's permission for them to make peace with Thebes, the very situation that Xenophon speaks of, and, at first sight, it seems that only those cities are involved. There is thus a serious conflict in the evidence, and for over half a century scholars have been unable to agree as to which account to choose. Most have declared in favour of Diodorus, primarily on the ground that his source (or sources) is more trustworthy than Xenophon, but some remain sceptical and the subject has recently been re-examined by Ryder, who has concluded that, where Xenophon is so full and precise, there is no justification for preferring the brief notice of Diodorus. A resolution of this question would be of great assistance to understanding the 360's, and it is the purpose of this article to advance considerations in support of Diodorus.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 1-2 , May 1961 , pp. 80 - 86

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800008405 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1961

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

^{page 80 note 2} 15. 76. 3.

^{page 80 note 3} Hell. 7. 1. 39 f.

^{page 80 note 4} 7. 4. 6 f.

^{page 80 note 5} 7. 4. 18.

^{page 80 note 6} C.Q. N.s. vii (1957), 199 f. which gives previous literature in notes 4, 5, and 6 on p. 201.

^{page 80 note 7} Dem. 9. 16.

^{page 80 note 8} Hampl, , Die griechischen Staatsverträge, p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 9} Aesch. 2. 32.

^{page 80 note 10} Accame, , La Lega, pp. 155 f.Google Scholar

^{page 80 note 11} Dem. 7. 29 and 19. 253.

^{page 81 note 1} Op. cit., p. 156.

^{page 81 note 2} The Peace at Athens after Leuctra is not impossible for those who, unlike Accame, hold that Sparta was represented there, but 369 is still preferable. Athens was wholly free in 370 to set about the recovery of Amphipolis, but she did nothing. A further reason for not putting the decree in 375/4 is to be found in Isocrates' reference in the Plataicus (44) to the Athenian renunciation of claims to foreign possessions: Isocrates' remark would be very curious if two years previously Athens had resumed her claim to Amphipolis. Some may doubt whether it is right to argue that because Athens did not act until 368 the decree of recognition cannot have been much earlier: the Peace of Nicias recognized her right and, if Athens with all her power in the fifth century shrank from the task, delay in the fourth century is only to be expected. However, Athens had renounced her claim in 377 in order to win goodwill for the Confederacy, and it seems unlikely that she would have been willing to endanger that goodwill by seeking the decree from a Peace Congress, unless she really intended to act on it.

^{page 81 note 3} Op. cit., p. 165.

^{page 81 note 4} Isoc. 15. 112.

^{page 81 note 5} This difference between Amphipolis and the Chersonese is perhaps reflected in the manner in which the commanders in the north Aegean are described. Iphicrates is spoken of as (Aesch. 2. 27) but Timotheus is sent (Dem. 23. 149). If the Great King was represented in 362, it is possible that the Persian recognition was accorded then retrospectively. But it is probable that he was not represented. Cf. Accame, , La Lega, pp. 171 f.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 6} 9. 16.

^{page 81 note 7} Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 81 note 8} Dem. 19. 137.

^{page 81 note 9} Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 1} Dem., loc. cit.

^{page 82 note 2} §§ i and 7.

^{page 82 note 3} §§ 8 and 47.

^{page 82 note 4} §§ 11 f. and 91.

^{page 82 note 5} § 34.

^{page 82 note 6} §§ 45. 56. Cf. Mathieu, G., Les idées politiques d'Isocrate, pp. 106 f.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 7} Hell. 7. 4. 7–11.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 8} §§ 26f.

^{page 82 note 9} As Ryder, , op. cit., pp. 203Google Scholar f., points out, the clause in Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 10 asserts the autonomy principle in a many-sided treaty. Such a clause was central to the Common Peaces.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 10} § 91.

^{page 82 note 11} Hell. 7. 4. II.Google Scholar PubMed

^{page 82 note 12} § 62.

^{page 83 note 1} §§ 58ff.

^{page 83 note 2} Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 3} § 63.

^{page 83 note 4} Cf. the services of Agesilaus to Ariobarzanes (Xen. Ages. 2. 26).Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 5} Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 38, Dem. 19. 31, 137, 191.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 6} Plut, . Artax. 22; Pelop. 30; Athenaeus 2, p. 48 D; 6, p. 251 C; Suidas, s.v. Timagoras.Google Scholar

^{page 83 note 7} According to Suidas, some accounts said that he promised

^{page 84 note 1} Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 2} That Diodorus 15.76 places the seizure of Oropus under 366/5 is of no importance. The real archon date is provided by the scholion on Aesch. 3. 85, viz. 367/6, and, since there is no room for it in 367, it must belong in the first half of 366. Indeed Dem. 21. 64 might point to the trial being over by the Dionysia. Some (Schäfer, i². no, m, Meyer, G.d.A. v. 453, Sealey, , Historia, v [1956]Google Scholar, 195, n. 134) postpone the trials until 365 on the strength of the anecdote in Diogenes Laertius 3. 23–24 which shows that Plato was in Athens during the trial. But the chronology of Plato's visit to Sicily is quite uncertain, and it is possible that he went in 367 (Dionysius II having succeeded very early in that year, cf. Stroheker, , Dionysios I, 1958, p. 237, n. 83) and was back in Athens early in 366, or else that he went to Sicily in 366, but not until the trial was over.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 3} Aesch. 3. 139.

^{page 84 note 4} The Arcadian embassy of Callistratus— Nepos, , Epam. 6Google Scholar, Plut, . Mor. 193Google Scholar C and 810 F (= no. 15 of the Apophthegmata of Epaminondas), Theopompus, Comicus, fr. 30 (Kock i, p. 740)—belongs in 362 (cf. Schafer, i². 127). Nepos§ words are ‘idem (i.e. Epam.) cum in conventum venisset Arcadum, petens ut societatem cum Thebanis et Argivis facerent, contraque Callistratus, Atheniensium legatus, qui eloquentia omnes eo praestabat tempore, postularet ut potius amicitiam sequerentur Atticorum …’; this suits the situation in 362, whereas in 366 the debate amongst the Arcadians must have been the reverse, i.e. whether ‘amicitiam sequi Thebanorum’ or ‘cum Atheniensibus societatem facere’. Also it appears from Xen. Hell. 7. 4Google Scholar. 2 f. that in 366 Lycomedes persuaded the Arcadians to seek alliance and it was in Athens that opposition had to be overcome. Meyer, , G.d.A. v. 449 and 453, argued for 366 because he claimed first that Epaminondas could not have been an ambassador to Arcadia in 362, and secondly that in Plutarch the apophthegmata of Epaminondas ‘im wesentlichen die chronologische Folge inne halten’. But since Epaminondas was both ambassador and Boeotarch in 371, why should he not have been in 362 ? As to the order of apophthegmata, no. 19 concerns Chabrias in the Peloponnese (i.e. before 366), and no. 23 concerns 370 and 369: therefore no inference can be drawn from the position of no. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 5} Cf. Beloch, , G.G. iii 2. 247. The position of Chabrias is perhaps different from that of Callistratus, for he was general in 363/2 (Tod 142, line 18). However, the replacement of Timotheus may have involved other changes, and, since it is just possible that the of Chabrias to which Tod 142 refers were made early in 362, Chabrias may not have returned to office until mid 363/2.Google Scholar

^{page 84 note 6} But it was not in itself an insuperable obstacle to peace. It had been handed over to Thebes by Themison (Xen. Hell. 7. 4. 1), and its position could be left undecided until arbitration. Indeed, support for the peace may have been sought by representing that the peace would make it more likely that the promised arbitration would take place.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 1} Xen. Hell. 7. 1. 37, and Dem. 19. 137.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} Sealey, , Historia v. 196. One might compare Pammenes in Asia in the late 350's (Diod. 16. 34) shortly before the king sent 300 talents to Thebes for the Sacred War (Diod. 16. 40).Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 3} Dem. 15. 9.

^{page 85 note 4} Timotheus 1. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 5} Nepos, , loc. cit; Xen. Ages. 2. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 6} Nepos, , loc. cit. Isocrates 15. 112Google Scholar says He may have had to seize them after Ariobarzanes relinquished the Persian claim. In Xen. Ages. 2. 26 Agesilaus raised the Thracian siege of Sestos, perhaps a reference to the status of the Chersonese before the Common Peace.Google Scholar PubMed

^{page 85 note 7} The only indication of date for the Common Peace is Diodorus' statement (15. 76. 3) that it ended the Spartan-Boeotian War which ‘lasted more than five years beginning with the campaign of Leuctra’. Leuctra was fought on 5 Hekatombaion 371/0 (Beloch, , G.G. iii. 2. 236)Google Scholar. So the Peace must fall somewhere within 366/5, where Diodorus puts it. The chronology of the Samian campaign is unclear. The exiles returned in 322 (Diod. 18. 18. 9), forty-three years after their expulsion, i.e. in 365, but when the ten-month siege (Isoc. 15. iii) began is not known. Despite Beloch, (op. cit., p. 246) [Ar.] Econ. 1350^b and Polyaenus 3. 10. 5 and 9 hardly help.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 8} Cf. §§ 8, 47, 75, 86.

^{page 85 note 9} La Lega, p. 171.

^{page 85 note 10} The account of Xenophon (Hell. 7. 4. 10) supports this view.Google Scholar

Article contents

The Common Peace of 366/5 B.C.1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests