Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-26T05:15:13.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Points as to the Chronology of the Reign of Cleomenes I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. Wells
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The two dates which I wish briefly to discuss are those of the Argive Expedition and of the Atheno-Plataean alliance: they are of cardinal importance for the history of Greek politics in an important but very obscure period. The two questions may be considered as independent, and it is possible to adopt the earlier date for one event, and not for the other (as E. Meyer does), but in my judgment the two events are connected, and the date assigned to the one carries with it the date of the other.

First then as to the date of the attack on Argos and the battle of Sepeia. Before the time of Grote this was always placed circ. 520 B.C. on the strength of the passage of Pausanias (iii. 4), ‘when Cleomenes came to the throne, he at once invaded the Argolid’; his accession is usually placed about 520, and as this date is generally accepted, it is needless to give the reasons for it here. The date of Pausanias is in itself worth very little. It is true that he has information as to the Argive campaign which is not in Herodotus, and which may be derived from some local chronicler; but this information is given in an earlier book (ii. 20), while in iii. 4 he is mainly following Herodotus. It may be noticed, however, that he certainly is supplementing Herodotus from some other source (e.g. the name of the grove of Eleusis, ‘Orgas’), and it is not unnatural to suppose that he had reason for giving a date for the expedition of Cleomenes, which differs from that which at first sight seems to be given by Herodotus; Wernicke writes ‘perverse eum (Cleomenem) initio regni sui id fecisse (Pausanias) dicit,’ but it may well have come from some chronological table (such as the Parian Chronicle).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 25 , November 1905 , pp. 193 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1905

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 Pausanias also puts the number of the slain at 5000 (Hdt. vii. 148 gives 6000), and his account of the treatment of Aegina differs materially from that in Hdt. vi. 50 sq. These, however, may he merely mistakes, due to Pausanias writing from memory.

2 De Pausaniae studiis Herodoti, p. 13: this is a very unconvincing piece of Quellenkritik.

3 This theory is C. Niebuhr's. For the arguments for it, I can only refer to Mr. Bury's pages: to me it seems not worth discussing; so far from ‘such divination’ serving ‘to illustrate and accentuate a problem,’ it only obscures it.

4 Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, , Histoire de la Divination, iii. pp. 129–130Google Scholar.

5 The weakness of Argos in the fifth century has been inferred from the independence of Mycenae and Tiryns: that the two towns were independent, is shown by the fact that they took part in the Persian war on the patriotic side. It does not necessarily follow, however, that we must assume the later date (circ. 495) for the defeat of Sepeia. If this took place about 520, the first generation (520–490) would be occupied with the recovery of Argos; then follows this period of ‘reconciliation’ in which Argos, though herself strong enough to reassert her authority completely over her Perioikid states, dares not do so till an opportunity occurs when the Lacedaemonians cannot interfere. It is during this period that Mycenae and Tiryns seek to assert their independence by joining the Greeks against the common foe to compare small things with great, their policy would be the same as that of Cavour joining the Allied Powers in the Crimean War, in order to bring Sardinia to the front.

6 This date is accepted without question by Professor Waldstein in his great book on the Argive Heraeum; Pausanias attributes to Ageladas works commemorating a Tarentine victory of about 468 (x. 10. 3), and a Messenian victory not earlier than 460 (iv. 33. 3); others (e.g. Busolt, ii. 2. 561) ante-date his ‘floruit’ to 520–480, i.e. make it precede the defeat of Argos by Cleomenes. This earlier date is suggested by the dates of the three Olympic victories commemorated by Ageladas (which fall between 520 and 507); but these may have been put up some time after the event. The whole question is discussed by Frazer (Pausanias, iii. 438–9), who inclines to decide for the earlier date on the ground of a recently discovered inscription; his argument does not seem very convincing.

7 Their policy is an exact anticipation of their policy towards their Athenian allies at the time of the revolt of Thasos 50 years later.