Our evidence for events in Argos after her crushing defeat by Kleomenes at Sepeia (circ. 494 B.C.) is so scrappy, incoherent, and to a large extent so late, that accurate reconstruction is well-nigh impossible. But a fresh attempt may at least throw into relief certain points which deserve more consideration than they seem to have received.

If we except the passage in Aristotle, Pol. 1303A (the exact significance of which is disputed), our sole authority for the so-called Servile Interregnum is Herodotos, Bk. 6, 83. It is necessary to quote the passage in full.

Ἅργος δὲ ἀνδρῶν ἐχηρώθη οὕτω ὥστε οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτῶν ἕσχον πάντα τὰ πρήγματα ἄρχοντές τε καὶ διέποντες, ἐς ὅ ἐπήβησαν οἱ τῶν ἀπολομένων παῖδες. ἔπειτέ σφεας οὑτοι ἀνακτώμενοι ὀπίσω ἐς ἑωυτοὺς τὸ Ἂργος ἐξέβαλον• ἐξωθεύμενοι δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι μάχῃ ἔσχον Τίρυνθα. τέως μὲν δή σφι ἦν ἄρθμια ἐς ἀλλήλους, ἔπειτα δὲ ἐς τούς δούλους ῆλθε ἀνὴρ μάντις Κλέανδρος, γένος ἐὼν Φιγαλεὺς ἀπ᾿ Ἀρκαδίης• οὕτος τοὺς δούλους ἀνέγνωσε ἐπιθέσθαι τοῖσι δεσπότῃσι. ἐκ τούτου δὲ πόλεμός σφι ἦν ἐπὶ χρόνον συχνόν, ἐς ὄ δὴ μόγις οἱ ᾿Αργεῖοι ἐπεκράτησαν

Dr. Macan infers from this chapter ‘the admission of the “slaves” to the franchise.’ The wording of the first sentence in the extract may seem to support this inference, but Dr. Macan himself considers the chapter to involve both ‘exaggeration and misconception,’ and we may later see some considerations that tell against his inference. For myself I can find in Herodotos' account no convincing evidence of the actual and formal enfranchisement of the slaves. On the contrary, they are throughout described as δοῦλοι, and the last episode in the narrative is an attack from Tiryns of these slaves against their masters. Another remarkable point is that until the outbreak of hostilities at the finish, we hear nothing of any actual conflict between the slaves and their Argive owners.