Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T12:52:33.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isocrates, IG ii2 43, Greek Propaganda and Imperialism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Charles D. Hamilton
Charles D. Hamilton*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the late winter of 378–7, the Athenian assembly passed a decree on the motion of Aristoteles which formalized the results of much earlier diplomatic activity and invited those states concerned with their freedom and autonomy to join Athens and her allies in a novel and permanent alliance. This Decree is often called the ‘Charter of the Second Athenian Confederacy,’ and it is rightly regarded as ‘the Queen of Fourth Century Inscriptions’ for the crucial information which it provides on one of the most important political and diplomatic developments of that epoch, a development that soon led to a resurgence of Athenian imperialism. The detailed provisions of the Decree are of inestimable value, particularly as the only extant contemporary history of this period, the Hellenica of Xenophon, contains not so much as a passing reference to the Decree itself or to most of the significant steps which led up to it. This glaring omission in Xenophon's account has attracted both the curious attention and often the unfavorable criticism of virtually every modern scholar who has investigated fourth century Greek history. The only other major extant account of the establishment of the confederacy, that of Diodorus, provides some details, but it contains inaccuracies, especially errors of chronology. The modern historian therefore must seek to recover the origins and background of the confederacy from a variety of sources which are often incomplete and sometimes biased. A century of scholarship has elucidated many problematical aspects of this Decree, but several questions connected with it still demand discussion. It is my purpose in this article to examine some of these questions with reference to Greek diplomacy, propaganda, and imperialism in the early fourth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 36 , 1980 , pp. 83 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

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 The date, February or March 377, is known from the formula which begins the Decree, stating that it was passed in the seventh prytany of the archonship of Nausinikos. See Tod, M. N., Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1950) II 63 and the copy of his text, reproduced at the end of this paper, Il. 1, 4–5. An early version of this paper was read on December 28, 1976, at the American Philological Association in New York City at a meeting of the Friends of Ancient History. Note also Jack Cargill, The Second Athenian League (Berkeley |forthcoming]). I am grateful to Professor Cargill for reading this article and for much helpful advice, which I have considered carefully but not always followed (we differ, e.g., on the question of Athenian imperialism after 377).Google Scholar

2 See Marshall, F. H., The Second Athenian Confederacy (Cambridge 1905); Accame, S., La Lega ateniese del secolo IV a.C. (Rome 1941); Burnett, A. P., ‘Thebes and the Expansion of the Second Athenian Confederacy,’ Historia 11 (1962) 1–17; and Cawkwell, G. L., ‘The Foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy,’ Classical Quarterly 23 (1973) 47–60 for important discussion of this Decree.Google Scholar

3 For recent comment, see MacDonald, A., ‘A Note on the Raid of Sphodrias,’ Historia 21 (1972) 39: ‘… whereas if Xenophon were our only source for this period, we should have to invent the Confederacy.’ See also Cawkwell (n. 2) 47 ‘It is notorious that Xenophon omitted all notice of the foundation of the Second Athenian Confederacy, and alluded to Athens’ alliances in the 370's so sparingly that if the Hellenica was the only evidence for the period it would hardly be possible to infer the existence of the Confederacy.’ I hope to suggest an explanation for Xenophon's silence in a forthcoming study of the Spartan king, Agesilaus.Google Scholar

4 For a good introduction to the Hellenica and its limitations, G. E. E's Commentary (Oxford 1900) is still worth consulting. Diodorus has received recent discussion by MacDonald, and Cawkwell, (n. 2) and Rice, D., ‘Xenophon, Diodorus and the Year 379/378 B.C.,’ Yale Classical Studies 24 (1975) 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See especially Isocrates, Panegyricus, and infra pp. 95 ff. Isocrates’ remarks, of course, are much more likely to reflect private aims than public policy. Athens’ official posture toward Persia was in formal accordance with the provisions of the King's Peace, as the alliance with Chios shows (Tod, GHI, II 50–52).Google Scholar

6 Cloche, P., La Politique étrangère d'Athènes (Paris 1934), is the best treatment of the general question, and it remains valuable, but it is not quite satisfactory on this point. See Chapters 3 and 4 particularly. The recent treatment of Sinclair, R. K., ‘The King's Peace and the Employment of Military and Naval Forces 387–378,’ Chiron 8 (1978) 29–54, provides a detailed discussion of the period from the military perspective.Google Scholar

7 See text, 7–15 for the anti-Spartan clause; 15–24 for guarantees of freedom and autonomy; and 25–46 for detailed provisions concerning the subject of Athenian property-holding in allied states.Google Scholar

8 For recent treatment see Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972).Google Scholar

9 Thuc. 1.23.6; cf. Kagan, D., The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca–London 1969) and de Ste Croix, G. E. M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London–Ithaca 1972).Google Scholar

10 See Meiggs, , Chapters 21 and 22 for discussion.Google Scholar

11 Xen., Hellenica 2.2.19–23; cf. Plut., Lysander 14–15. See Hamilton, C. D., Sparta's Bitter Victories (Ithaca 1979) 45–54 for recent discussion of this topic.Google Scholar

12 Thuc. 8.18, 37; cf. 8.58; cf. also 1.69.1–2 and 4.85 on the ‘liberation of the Hellenes’; for criticism, see Isoc. 4.122.Google Scholar

13 See Hamilton, , 41–42.Google Scholar

14 See Cary, M., CAH 6.28–29; D. Lotze, Lysander und der peloponnesische Krieg (Berlin 1964) 62–71 for discussion.Google Scholar

15 See particularly Parke, H. W., ‘The Development of the Second Spartan Empire,’ JHS 50 (1930) 37–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 On Lysander see, in addition to Lotze, Smith, R. E., ‘Lysander and the Spartan Empire,’ CP 43 (1948) 145–56 and Hamilton, C. D., ‘Spartan Politics and Policy, 405–401 b.c.,’ AJP 91 (1970) 294–314.Google Scholar

17 See especially Hamilton for discussion.Google Scholar

18 On this topic see Bruce, I. A. F., ‘Internal Politics and the Outbreak of the Corinthian War,’ Emerita 28 (1960) 75–86; Kagan, D., ‘The Economic Origins of the Corinthian War,’ Parola del Passato 80 (1961) 321–41; and Perlman, S., ‘The Causes and Outbreak of the Corinthian War,’ CQ n.s. 14 (1964) 64–81 and Lehmann, G. A., ‘Spartas Arche und die Vorphase des korinthischen Krieges,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 28 (1978) 109–26, and 30 (1978) 73–93.Google Scholar

19 Xen., Hellenica 3.3.1; 3.5.17–25.Google Scholar

20 See Smith, R. E., ‘The Opposition to Agesilaus’ Foreign Policy,’ Hisloria 2 (1953–54) 274-88 and Rice, D., ‘Agesilaus, Agesipolis, and Spartan Politics, 386-379 B.C.,’ Hisloria 24 (1975) 164–182.Google Scholar

21 Hellenica Oxyrhynchia 18 (13).Google Scholar

22 Xen., Hellenica 4.8.6-10.Google Scholar

23 Xen., Hellenica 4.8.12-17; cf. Ryder, T. T. B., Koine Eirene: General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1965), Chapter 2 for recent discussion.Google Scholar

24 For discussion of Conon's contributions to Athens, see Barbieri, G., Conone (Rome 1955).Google Scholar

25 See Seager, R., ‘Thrasybu}us, Conon and Athenian Imperialism, 396-386 B.C.,’ JHS 87 (1967) 95–115 and Perlman, S., ‘Athenian Democracy and the Revival of Imperialistic Expansion at the Beginning of the Fourth Century B.C.,’ CP 63 (1968) 257-67.Google Scholar

26 Xen., Hellenica 4.8.24; cf. Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichle (Berlin-Leipzig 1912-27) III2 I 89.Google Scholar

27 See the discussions of Griffith, G. T., ‘The Union of Corinth and Argos,’ Hisioria 1 (1950) 236-56; Kagan, D., ‘Corinthian Politics and the Revolution of 392 B.C.,’ Hisioria 11 (1962) 447-57; and Hamilton, C. D., ‘The Politics of Revolution in Corinth, 395-86 B.C.,’ Hisioria 21 (1972) 21–37.Google Scholar

28 Xen., Hellenica 5.1.6, cf. 25.Google Scholar

29 Xen., Hellenica 5.1.29–30; 32–34.Google Scholar

30 Xen., Hellenica 5.1.31; cf. Wilcken, U., ‘Zur Entstehung und Zweck des Königsfriedens,’ Abh. Akad. Berlin (1941 no. 15); Martin, V., ‘Le traitement de l'histoire diplomatique dans la tradition littéraire du ive siècle avant J.C.,’ Museum Helveticum 1 (1944) 13–30; Levi, M., ‘Le fonti per la Pace di Antalcida,’ Acme 8 (1955) 105–11; Aucello, E., ‘La genesi della Pace di Antalcida,’ Helikon 5 (1965) 340–80. The term Common Peace is not properly attested before 362/1 (Tod, GHI, no. 145). The King's Peace of 386 is conventionally treated as the earliest example of Common Peace, however, as Ryder, Ch. 2, does.Google Scholar

31 See especially Ryder, Chapter 2 and works in n. 30.Google Scholar

32 See Sinclair, (n. 5).Google Scholar

33 Xen., Hellenica 5.2.1.ff; cf. Rice (n. 20).Google Scholar

34 Xen., Hellenica 5.2.8ff; cf. Rice (n. 20).Google Scholar

35 Xen,. Hellenica 5.2.11ff.Google Scholar

36 Xen., Hellenica 5.2.25–36; see Bruce, , ‘Internal Politics,’ Emerita 28 (1960) 75–86 for discussion of the trial of Ismenias, and see Hack, H., ‘Thebes and the Spartan Hegemony, 386–382 b.c.,’ AJP 99 (1978) 210–27.Google Scholar

37 On the general subject of history, rhetoric and propaganda, see Pearson, L., ‘Historical Allusions in the Attic Orators,’ CP 36 (1941) 209ff. and Perlman, S., ‘The Historical Example: Its Use and Importance as Political Propaganda in the Attic Orators,’ Scripta Hierosolymytana 7 (1961) 150ff. I discuss the subject in ‘Greek Rhetoric, and History: The Case of Isocrates,’ Arktouros (Berlin–New York 1979) 290–328.Google Scholar

38 Tod, GHI 118; see the recent and very useful Greek Historical Documents; The Fourth Century B.C. (Toronto 1973) edd. Wickersham, J. and Verbrugghe, G. p. 34 for a fresh translation.Google Scholar

39 Cf. Tod, GHI 121, 122, and 124 for other treaties in this period.Google Scholar

40 Xen., Hellenica 3.5.7ff., especially at 10 and 14.Google Scholar

41 For example, although the harmosts were still in control of many cities, it is clearly erroneous for the Thebans to represent the decarchies of Lysander as currently ruling; see Seager (n. 25).Google Scholar

42 On the question of speeches in historians, see Gomme's comment, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford 1956) I 140–41, and for this speech in Xenophon, see Seager (n. 25).Google Scholar

43 Lysias, , Epitaphios. For full discussion, see Waltz, J., Der lysianische Epitaphios , Philologus Supplementband 29.4 (1936).Google Scholar

44 Lysias, 55–57: ὤν ἒνεϰα δεἵ; μόνονς ϰαὶ πϱοστάτας τν ‘Eλλήνων ϰαι ἠγημόνας τν πόλεων γίγνεσθαι.Google Scholar

45 Xen., Hellenica 4.8.14–15.Google Scholar

46 Andocides, De Pace 14; see Albini, U., Andocide: De Pace (Florence 1964), for discussion and commentary.Google Scholar

47 Andocides, De Pace 15.Google Scholar

48 Xen., Hellenica 2.2.1–2.Google Scholar

49 Plut., Lysander 14.4.Google Scholar

50 Xen., Hellenica 4.8.25–30.Google Scholar

51 Lysias 33; cf. Isocrates, Panegyricus. Google Scholar

52 Isocrates’ Panegyric was ostensibly composed for the Olympic festival of 380, but it is generally agreed that copies were circulated in the form of pamphlets to influence public opinion.Google Scholar

53 Isoc. 4.106.Google Scholar

54 Isoc. 4.107.Google Scholar

55 Isoc. 4.114.Google Scholar

56 Isoc. 4.117.Google Scholar

57 Isoc. 4.123; 122.Google Scholar

58 Isoc. 4.126.Google Scholar

59 Isoc. 4.128.Google Scholar

60 See the remarks of Cloché, 47–50.Google Scholar

61 Xen., Hellenica 5.2.15; cf. Tod, GHI II 54.Google Scholar

62 For discussion see Parke, H. W., Greek Mercenary Soldiers (Oxford 1933) 59; cf. Diod. 15.29.Google Scholar

63 Xen., Agesilaus 1.8; cf. Plut., Agesilaus 6.4–6.Google Scholar

64 Plut., Agesilaus 23.2.Google Scholar

65 See 17–18 of the Decree.Google Scholar

66 Diod. 15.29.3.Google Scholar

67 Diod. 15.29.4; cf. Parke, 105.Google Scholar

68 Sinclair (n. 6) 51–52 has presented evidence to suggest that there may have been some increase in Athenian ship-building in the year or two before 378.Google Scholar

69 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.1–12; Plut., Pelopidas 6–13; Diod. 15.25–7.Google Scholar

70 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.9; cf. Diod. 15.25.4ff. who appears to have confused the sequence of events here. See Rice, (n. 4).Google Scholar

71 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.11; cf. 19.Google Scholar

72 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.20–21; Diod. 15.29.5–7; Plut., Pelop. 14. See MacDonald, (n. 3).Google Scholar

73 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.22–23.Google Scholar

74 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.25–26; Plut., Agesilaus 24.3.Google Scholar

75 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.25–33; cf. Diod. 15.29.6.Google Scholar

76 See 9–12 of the Decree.Google Scholar

77 See 15–19.Google Scholar

78 See Marshall, 20–21, for an early statement of this view. It has recently been restated by Johanson, S. F. in ‘The Unpopularity of Athens: A Different Approach,’ read at the A.P.A. meeting on Dec. 28, 1973, and by Wickersham and Verbrugghe 38: ‘The central portion of the Decree protects the alies from the most unpopular features of the fifth century empire of Athens. Athens promises not to impose garrisons, tribute or governments on the allies, nor to own land in allied territory.’Google Scholar

79 See, in addition to Marshall, the articles of Burnett and Cawkwell cited supra, n. 2.Google Scholar

80 Cf. Cawkwell 55, 57–60.Google Scholar

81 Diod. 15.28; 29.5–6.Google Scholar

82 Xen., Hellenica 5.4.21–23.Google Scholar

83 Diod. 15.28.1–2; 4.Google Scholar

84 Diod. 15.28.3; 29.5–8.Google Scholar

85 See Meiggs, R. (n. 8) 212–15 for discussion of the titles of Athenian imperial officials in the fifth century.Google Scholar

86 On the use of ϕόϱος for the tribute collected by Sparta, see Lotze, 63–64; cf. esp. Isoc. 12.67–69; 4.132; Arist., Ath. Pol 39.2; Diod. 14.10.2; Polybius 6.49.8.Google Scholar

87 Pseudo-Xenophon, , ‘Old-Oligarch’ 1.16; cf. 25–46 of Decree.Google Scholar

88 Diod. 15.23.4.Google Scholar

89 Cf. Diod. 15.29.8.Google Scholar