Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:15:32.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Union of Corinth and Argos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Christopher Tuplin
Christopher Tuplin
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Granted the acceptability of the argument in section B the only clear contradiction in the evidence about the union of Corinth and Argos is that between Xenophon and Diodorus. What I have said about the latter may seem arbitrary and wilful. But I suggest that it is no less arbitrary and wilful to regard Xenophon's account of the matter as utterly wrong or, worse still, almost utterly wrong but with tinges of truth, and that we are quite entitled to give Xenophon, not Diodorus, the benefit of the doubt. I should also have thought that, a priori, unification is quite as likely to have occurred against the background of the violent political disturbances of c. March 392 as against that of the destruction of the Spartan mora and Iphicrates' successes elsewhere in 390.33

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , May 1982 , pp. 75 - 83
Copyright
copyright © The Classical Association 1982

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 Historia 1 (1950), 236–56, esp. pp. 242–50.

2 e.g. Ryder, T. T. B., Koine Eirene (Oxford, 1965), p. 26;Google Scholar Hammond, N. G. L., History of Greece1 (Oxford, 1967), p. 460;Google Scholar Sealey, R., History of the Greek City-States c. 700–338 B.C. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, 1976). p. 397;Google Scholar Hamilton, C. D., Sparta's Bitter Victories (Cornell, 1979), pp. 268Google Scholar ff. R. J. Seager, JHS 87 (1967), 104 n. 87, Croix, G. E. M. de Ste, Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London, 1972), p. 161Google Scholar n. 189 imply acceptance. Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), pp. 130 ff., hesitates a bit about the date, but eventually accepts a two-part process, though he explains the first part not in terms of isopoliteia but as analogous to the fifth-century arrangements between Argos, Tylissos and Knossos (Meiggs-Lewis no. 42). For dissenters, see n. 4.Google Scholar

3 Date based on the reference to the Eukleia (Xen. Hell. 4. 4. 2), which is generally thought to have fallen in c. March (Beloch, Griechische Geschichte 32 (Berlin Leipzig, 1922), ii. 219; Jessen, RE, vi. 996 f.; Judeich, Philol. 81 (1926), 144 n. 4). All references to Xenophon are to Hellenica

4 Xenophon's context for the unification was commonly accepted in the older books: e.g. Grote, G., History of Greece (London, 1872), p. 499;Google Scholar Meyer, E., Geschichte des Altertums 5 (Stuttgart Berlin, 1921), §863; Beloch, op. cit (n. 3), i. 79; ii. 219;Google Scholar Cary, M., CAH (Cambridge, 1927), vi. 48;Google Scholar Glotz, G., Cohen, R., Histoire Grecque (Paris, 1936) iii. 88;Google Scholar Bury, J. B., History of Greece 3 (London, 1951), p. 546.Google Scholar (P. Treves, RFIC n.s. 15 (1937), 125, speaks of a partial synoecism of Corinth and Argos in spring 392; this however is not an anticipation of Griffith - Treves has no second, less partial stage - but merely a way of expressing his view of the nature of the union. I am not sure I understand his remarks about Andoc. iii. 27.) Since 1950 Xenophon's context for unification has been accepted by D. Kagan, Hist. 11 (1962), 453 f. (with no mention of Griffith's article, although the same author knows of it in Par. di Pass. 16 (1961), 337 n. 38); Bengtson, H., Griechische Geschichte (Munich, 1960), p. 260 (with no argument and a bare ref. to Griffith's article);Google Scholar Accame, S., Ricerche intorno alia guerra corinzia (Naples, 1951), pp. 107 f. (with only brief counter-arguments and leaving Andocides iii out of account);Google Scholar Gioia, N. di, Contributi dell'Istituto di Storia Antica (Milan, 1974), ii. 36 f. S. Perlman, CQ n.s. 14 (1964), 69 n. 5, also appears to doubt Griffith's reconstruction but merely refers to Accame's arguments.Google Scholar

5 At best he is describing a process of change actually going on at the time; but even that reading is not entirely satisfactory. The removal of all boundary stones might be a process occupying some (though hardly much) time; but the naming of Corinth ‘Argos’ is not-you either do it or you do not. That is, unless Xen. is synchronizing the oligarchs' observations with the precise moment of the assembly-meeting at which the Corinthians decided on union and the alteration of name, he is describing a completed process.

6 ὡc + pres. (or past) part, can express, not a true state of affairs, but a clearly explicable pretence by the main verb agent (cf. 1. 7. 8, 2. 1. 5, 4. 3. 14, 5. 3, 5. 1. 25, 4. 3, 6. 2. 27,4. 31. 35, 7. 5. 20). But in the present case there is no manifest reason why the Argives should decide to pretend that Corinth is Argos if that is not the case (‘in order to celebrate the Isthmia’ does not answer the question). It is more natural to take ὡc…ὂVTOC to cast no doubt on the proposition that ‘Corinth is Argos’ or at least on the Argives‘ belief in that proposition (I count 37 relevant examples in Hell.); and in the latter case the non-Argive opinion need only be that the enforced union did not ‘count’ (not that e.g. isopoliteia did not make Corinth Argos).

7 I see nothing much in favour of Accame's view (op. cit. (n. 4) 106) that the Isthmia of Diod. loc. cit. is the one of 392 (and I do not know how he reconciles it with his view that the capture of Lechaeum occurred in c. August 392, i.e. after the Isthmia).

8 I note that Griffith, 243 n. 28, admits that 4. 8. 15 ‘if other evidence were lacking, might well suggest that the Argives had already got possession of Corinth at this date'.

9 It is hardly surprising that this should be so; after all, his prejudices on the matter of the union would be akin to those of the Corinthian oligarchs - and one might wonder how easy even an impartial outside observer would have found it to start thinking of e.g. Timolaus as ‘T. the Argive’ instead of'T. the Corinthian‘.

10 As Griffith does (243).

11 If Xenophon had wished to say that the expulsion followed closely on unification, one might have expected ⋯πoίηcαv rather than ⋯πεπoίηντο.

12 αὐτ⋯⋯φ'αὑτ⋯csimply connotes independence of outside interference (cf. Thuc. 6. 40; Xen. An. 2. 4. 10; Pl. Prt. 326d. Also Thuc. 2. 63).

13 Thus Cawkwell, G. L. in Warner, R. (tr.), Xenophon: A History of My Times (Harmondsworth, 1979) 208 n., 209 n.Google Scholar

14 For fear of invasion of Attica, cf. Xen. 4. 4. 18 (392/1).

15 The formal parallel with ⋯πoλ⋯cωμεν (which does refer to a hypothetical future event) is largely a rhetorical trick - though, since an Athenian victory would be a decisive future event, confirming an existing status quo certainly but by virtue of that confirmation making a decisive new contribution to that status quo, it is not mere rhetoric.

16 παραcτήcεcθcαι is Reiske's emendation of the codices' ⋯ποcτήcεcθcαι. Some word expressing active Argive ingratitude to her allies is clearly what is wanted.

17 Aesch. Ag. (αρουιcθείc ϐ' άπέϐειξξ ἦθc τό ποκέωυ); Arist. Resp. 475b5 (ϐιό καί έυ τέφρą αρουιcθ⋯υαι àυἰcταται.); idem, Mem. 451 a30 (υό ϐέ μυηоΧέεύει κα' θι ούύ ύπ⋯ρ⋯ει πρ⋯υ αρουιcθ⋯υαι). For the pres. pass, of Χρουίςειυ cf. Aesch. Sept. 54; Arist. Rh.Al. 1424b7; Eth. Nic. 1167all; HA 574bll; Pr. 907b22, 927a31; Col. 794b26, 795a12, 797b5, 798a9. Χρουίςεcθαι never occurs in Attic orators (outside And. 3. 27) or comedians, Xenophon, Thucydides, Herodotus, Euripides, Sophocles, lyric poetry or presocratic philosophy, and Χρουίςειυ only in Hdt. 3. 61. 1, Thuc. 8. 16, Eur. Med. 624, HF 619, 930, IT 1219, fr. 453 Nauck2, and a number of times in Aristotle.

18 I am sure that Andocides is not referring to the Corinthians, in whose separate views actions he shows no interest (cf. B1 (i)). Griffith, p. 243 n. 28, thinks the phrase a disparaging reference to the Corinthian democracy. But although Andocides could afford to be disparaging about Argive possession of Corinth (even though that possession favoured the maintenance of democracy) he would hardly have wished, before an Athenian audience worried about its own democracy (cf. §§1–12), to disparage an independent Corinthian democracy as an interloper.

19 Eur. Ale. 1091; Anaxil. fr. 22 Kock (line 29).

20 Xen. An. 6. 1. 16; Dem. Ep. 3. 41; Pl. Pol. 262d; Resp. 376d; Leg. 803e; Soph. 243c.

21 Aeschin. 2. 151; Dem. 15. 19; 23. 15; PI. Leg. 625a; Resp. 486c; Cra. 438e; Xen. Resp. Lac. 1. 3; Ar. Ran. 556.

22 Dem. 21. 9.

23 Pl. Prot. 275a.

24 In Isoc. 4. 59(EύΡυcθεύc θέ βι⋯cαcθι πΡοcϐοкήcαc) it is easy to make the emendation βι⋯cαcθι (Morus; accepted in the Budeé Isocrates). Cf. n. 27.

25 Andocide: De Pace (Florence, 1964).Google Scholar

26 For γοὑυ in ‘part proof’, cf. Denniston, J. D., Greek Particles 2 (Oxford, 1954), pp. 451 f.Google Scholar

27 If βι⋯cαcθι were retained in Isoc. 4. 59 (cf. n. 24) the sense could be that Eurystheus was so confident (wrongly as it turned out) that he considered that by merely marching out he had already coerced Athens.

28 At first sight this is what Griffith believes (245–6). Yet he also thinks that the Argive seizure of Corinth is explained by Iphicrates' abortive attempt to do the same (p. 245 n. 33). Can he have it both ways? Cf. n. 32.

29 ‘The Athenian people’ (Sherman, Loeb Diodorus). But may the demos not be the democratic government of Argos-Corinth?

30 The possibility is considered, somewhat hesitantly, in Tomlinson, op. cit. (n. 2), pp. 132–3.

31 (i) The execution of Niceratus and the metics in 14. 5. 5 f. belongs before Theramenes' death (Xen. 2. 3. 39, 2. 3. 21); Diod. may have misinterpreted a back reference, (ii) The Spartan decree about Athenian exiles (14. 6. 1 f.) may well belong before Theramenes‘ death; at least, prominent men like Thrasybulus had already fled by then (Xen. 2. 3. 42, 44) and they were the object of the decree. The whole of 14. 5. 5–6. 2 may therefore be misplaced, (iii) The explanation of 15. 19. 2 f. may be that Diod. has mixed up a flashback to relations between Olynthus and Amyntas earlier on (cf. 14. 92. 3) and an account of Olynthian aggression in the 380s (Xen. 5.2.12 f.). (iv) The contradiction between 15. 20. 3 and Xen. 5. 2. 24. f. on when Eudamidas marched out may be due to Diod.'s misunderstanding of a note to the effect that Eud. had already set out. (v) Most of 15. 38–40 belongs in 372/1, 371/0; Diod. must have been confused by a forward reference, (vi) The mobilization of helots and arrival of external allies at Sparta in 370/69 (15.65. 6 f.) did not occur after the Theban withdrawal (cf. Xen. 6. 5. 28 f., 7. 2. 2). (vii) On some views (e.g. Meyer, op. cit. (n. 4) §895), 15. 31. 1–2 (sub anno 377/6, actually 379/8) relates to a method of organization already extant in 382 (cf. Xen. 5. 2. 21).

31 Griffith is himself constrained to believe that Diodorus is in some degree confused, since for him Iphicrates‘ attempted seizure preceded the union (Diod. has the reverse) (cf. n. 28 for the problems this causes). The real truth may be this: first Argos and Corinth unified; next, encouraged by military successes and sensible (as Andocides thought the Athenians ought to be) of the dangers for Athens of the union, Iphicrates attempted unsuccessfully to seize Corinth, killing some of the argolizontes (?perhaps ‘people playing at being Argives’ rather than ‘supporters of Argos’) in the process; thirdly the Argives installed a permanent garrison in Corinth (notice that the complaints in Xen. 4. 4. 6 do not include reference to a garrison, though there were Argives in the city from time to time, whereas a garrison is mentioned in 387/6: Xen. 5.1. 34).

33 Thanks are due to Robin Seager for reading a first draft of this paper.