Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:43:37.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agesilaus of Sparta and the Origins of the Ruler Cult1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Michael A. Flower
Michael A. Flower
Affiliation:
Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Plutarch, in his Apophthegmata Laconica (Ages. 25 = mor. 210d), records that the Thasians made an offer of divine honours to king Agesilaus, and that Agesilaus ostentatiously refused them. In the past, most scholars who have had occasion to comment on this anecdote have not doubted the veracity either of the report or of the language in which it is expressed. The situation, however, has now reversed itself. The current communis opinio is the contention of Chr. Habicht that the story is an invention of the Hellenistic or early imperial period and was intended to be a criticism of contemporary practices. The purpose of this note is threefold: to demonstrate that the anecdote derives from Theopompus' Hellenica, that it has a basis in historical fact, and that the incident thus narrated had far-reaching social and political consequences.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 123 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1988

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

2 Both the authorship and the ultimate source of these Laconian Apophthegms are much debated. For a convenient discussion, see Tigerstedt, E. N., The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity ii (Stockholm, 1974), pp. 24ff., 82, 233 and 512 n. 813Google Scholar. For the purposes of this paper it makes little difference whether they were actually collected by Plutarch himself from primary sources, or whether he only excerpted them from an earlier and larger collection of Laconica. I here assume, for the sake of convenience, that Plutarch himself put together the collection from his first-hand knowledge of such authors as Xenophon, Ephorus, and Theopompus. If, however, someone earlier than Plutarch formed the collection, then the following arguments pertain to that ‘someone’ exactly as they would to Plutarch.

3 In particular, note the following: Kornemann, E., Klio 1 (1902), 55Google Scholar; Bevan, E., ‘Deification,’ in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics iv, ed. by Hastings, J. (New York, 1912), p. 525Google Scholar; Pfister, F., RE ‘Kultus’ (1921), col. 2127Google Scholar; Kaerst, J., Geschichte des Hellenismus i (Leipzig, 1927), p. 480 n. 2Google Scholar; Farnell, L. R., Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford, 1921), p. 368Google Scholar; Hiller, v. Gartringen, RE ‘Thasos’ (1934), col. 1318Google Scholar; Charlesworth, M. P., Harv. Theol. Rev. 28 (1935), 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Sanctis, G., RivFC 68 (1940), 9Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der Griechischen Religion ii 2 (Munich, 1961), p. 141Google Scholar; and Balsdon, J. P. V. D., Historia 1 (1950), 383Google Scholar.

4 Gottmenschentum und griechische Stadte2 (Munich, 1970), pp. 179–84Google Scholar. The authenticity of the anecdote was first doubted by Taeger, F., ‘Isocrates und die Anfänge des hellenistischen Herrscherkultes’, Hermes 72 (1937), 358 n. 4Google Scholar.

6 This has been demonstrated convincingly by Badian, E., ‘The deification of Alexander the Great’, in Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson, ed. by Dell, H. J., Inst.for Balkan Stud, clviii (Thessaloniki, 1981), pp. 27–71Google Scholar.

6 For bibliography, see Badian, art. cit. Balsdon, J. P. V. D., ‘The “Divinity” of Alexander’, Historia 1 (1950), 363–88Google Scholar, provides a basic discussion of deification in general besides that of Alexander.

7 Badian, art. cit., recently has argued that Lysander was not actually deified during his own lifetime. His view is discussed below.

8 Strictly speaking, Theopompus was not a contemporary of Agesilaus. Ancient sources give two dates for Theopompus' birth: the Suda 408–404 and Photius 378/7 (FGrHist 115, T 1 and 2 respectively). Although modern opinion favours 378/7, it is not as secure as is generally assumed (see Fox, R. Lane, ‘Theopompus of Chios and the Greek World: 411–322 b.c.’, in Chios: a Conference at the Homereion in Chios, 1984, ed. by Boardman, J. and Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C. E. [Oxford, 1986], pp. 105–20, esp. 107–8)Google Scholar. The last scholar to accept the Suda's date was Wichers, R. H. E., Theopompi Chii Fragmenta (Leiden, 1829), p. 7Google Scholar. On Theopompus' reliability see below.

9 All references to historical fragments are to Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden, 1923–1958)Google Scholar, abbreviated as FGrHist.

10 Meyer, E., Theopomps Hellenika (Halle, 1909), pp. 193–7Google Scholar, correctly points out that this incident did not take place on Thasos itself, but while Agesilaus was marching through Thasian-held territory on the Thracian coast. See also Jacoby, FGrHist II b Komm. p. 357. The date and context are fixed by the position of F 22 in Book 11 of Theopompus' Hellenica, which recounted events of the years 395–4.

11 Note, for instance, the judgements of Croix, G. E. M. de Ste., ‘The Alleged Secret Pact between Athens and Philip II concerning Amphipolis and Pydna’, CQ 13 (1963), 114Google Scholar, and of Connor, W. R., Theopompus and Fifth-Century Athens (Washington D.C., 1968), p. 152 n. 30Google Scholar.

12 At least part of the Hellenica had been published by 343/2 b.c. See Momigliano, A., ‘La storia di Eforo e le Elleniche di Teopompo’, RivFC 13 (1935), 188Google Scholar.

13 FGrHist 115 Frr. 251–4.

14 The most recent discussion of Theopompus is by Lane Fox, art. cit., who rightly criticises his penchant for exaggeration and slander. But concerning his accuracy in the reporting of facts, I accept the judgement of Hammond, N. G. L. and Griffith, G. T., A History of Macedonia ii (Oxford, 1979), p. 239 n. 4Google Scholar: ‘De Ste. Croix writes that “any unsupported statement of this very unreliable historian should be examined with special vigilance”. If a statement of T. contains any judgement, I would concur, for clearly he was a writer of vast prejudices, and in this sense is unreliable. But to think of him as a habitual liar when narrating seems certainly wrong.’

15 For this trend in fourth-century historiography, see Fornara, C. W., The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 97–8 and 107ffGoogle Scholar.

16 For Agesilaus' piety, see especially Xen. Ages. 1.27, 3.2ff. and 11.1 ff. Note also 1.34, where Xenophon echoes Agesilaus' disapproval of the Persian practice of proskynesis. For a recent discussion, see Cartledge, P., Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta (London, 1987), pp. 97–8, 417–18Google Scholar.

17 For a discussion of Xenophon's omissions, see Cawkwell's, introduction to the Penguin edition of Xenophon, A History of my Times (Harmondsworth, 1979), pp. 33–8Google Scholar. Quotation is from p. 33.

18 Habicht, , op. cit., pp. 171–9Google Scholar.

19 Xenophon, at Agesilaus 2.11, reports that Agesilaus ordered that no statues of himself be erected, though many wished to make him a present of one.

20 See Tigerstedt, , op. cit., p. 17Google Scholar.

21 Plut. Lys. 18.4–6 (= FGrHist 76 F 71; also note F 26).

22 For Theagenes, see Pausanias 6.11.2–9; Pouilloux, J., Recherches sur I'histoire et les cultes de Thasos i (Paris, 1954), pp . 62ff.Google Scholar; and the useful corrective on the latter by Fraser, P., AJA 61 (1957), 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Note also Fraser, , Ptolemaic Alexandria i (Oxford, 1972), p. 213Google Scholar.

23 Picard, C., Les Murailles (I): Les Portes sculptées à images divins, Études Thasiennes, viii (Paris, 1962), pp. 171ff.Google Scholar; Pouilloux, , op. cit., p. 224 n. 21Google Scholar; Picard, C., ‘Sur les dédicaces monumentales apposées en Grèce aux entablements de façades d'édifices sacres ou civils’, in Χαριστριον εἰς Άναστἄσιον K. Ὂρλανδον, Τμος Α' (Athens, 1965), p. 100Google Scholar.

24 Pouilloux, , op. cit., p. 224 n. 22Google Scholar; Picard, , ‘Dédicaces’, p. 98Google Scholar.

25 See Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford, 1982), pp. 274–93Google Scholar.

26 For Kypselos, see Plut. mor. 400e; for Brasidas, Plut. Lys. 1.1 and mor. 401d.

27 Picard, , ‘Dédicaces’, p. 95Google Scholar and Cartledge, , op. cit., p. 85Google Scholar.

28 Op. cit., p. 284. Hornblower also points out that a certain Akeratos of Thasos had a tomb so large that it was used as a lighthouse (IG xii.8,683).

29 Strictly speaking, the presbeia appears only in Ages. 25. Ages. 24 only mentions ‘Thasians’ and so could refer to private individuals as opposed to the Thasian state. But FGrHist 115 F 22 (the original of Ages. 24) specifies ‘the Thasians’, and thus implies an official delegation.

30 See Andrewes, A., ‘Two Notes on Lysander’, Phoenix 25 (1971), 206–26, and especially 217–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 The story is related by Polyaenus 1.45,4 and Nepos, Lys. 2.2. In Plut. Lys. 19.3, Miletus is most probably a mistake for Thasos (Andrewes, art. cit., 217 n. 20).

32 Contra Cartledge, op. cit., p. 90, Nepos, Lys. 3.1 does not specifically state that there had been a decarchy on Thasos, although the passage may be taken to imply its existence.

33 The decarchies were abolished at some point between the end of 403 and Lysander's plan to restore them in 396 (mentioned by Xen. at Hell. 3.4.2). The most convincing study is still that of A. Andrewes, art. cit., who argues that they were abolished either during the latter part of 403 or early in 402.

34 Xen. Hell. 3.4.7–10.

35 For the date of Thrasyboulos' expedition to Thrace and the Hellespont, see Cawkwell, G. L., CQ 26 (1976), 270–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seager, R., JHS 87 (1967), 110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Merkelbach, R., ZPE 5 (1970), 32Google Scholar, who argue for 391/90, 390/89, and 389/8 respectively. The inscription should be dated soon after the expedition; see Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens (Brussels, 1982), v.ii., pp. 50–7Google Scholar.

36 See IG ii2.24, and discussions by G.T.Griffith, ‘Athens in the Fourth Century’, in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. by Garnsey, P. D. A. and Whittaker, C. R. (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 129 and 132Google Scholar; Hornblower, , op. cit., pp. 185–6Google Scholar; and Cartledge, , op. cit., p. 295Google Scholar.

37 Griffith, , op. cit., p. 132Google Scholar, who calls the archon ‘juridically indefensible’. It is possible, however, that Sthorys was appointed both archon and seer at the request of the Thasians themselves. But this depends on a restoration of IG ii2.24 (b) lines 14f. proposed by Wilhelm, A., Attische Urkunden v (Sber. Wien. ccxx, 1942, v), 107Google Scholar, which is by no means certain.

38 Discussed by Osborne, , op. cit., pp. 51–3Google Scholar, who convincingly argues for 385. Note also Cartledge, op. cit., pp. 296 and 371.

39 FGrHist 115 F 103 (7): καἰ ὡς Ἀθηναων πλις ταῖς πρς βασιλα συνθκαις πειρτο μμνειν Λακεδαιμνιοι δ ὐπρογκα φρονοντεσ παρβαινον τἄς συνθκας.

40 Argued by Pouilloux, J. and Salviat, F., CRAI (04–06, 1983), 376–403Google Scholar.

41 Suggested by Cartledge, P., LCM 9.7 (07, 1984), 98–102Google Scholar; and accepted by Herman, G., Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 20–1Google Scholar.

42 ‘Sparta and Samos: a Special Relationship?’, CQ 32 (1982), 243–65, and esp. 264–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Badian, , art. cit., pp. 33–44Google Scholar.

44 Plut. Lys. 18.4–6 (= FGrHist 76 F 71; also note F 26): πρὡτῳ μν γρ ὠς ἰστορεῖ Δοριε Έλλνων ἄκενῳ βωμοὐς α πλεις ὡς θɛῴ κα θυσας ἓἰς πρτον δ παινες ᾕσθησαν ὣν νς ρχν πομνημοεσι τοινδε…Σμιοι δ τ παρ' αὐτιῖς 'Hραῖα Λυσνδρεια καλεῖν Ψηφσαντο.

45 Badian's theory of a posthumou s deification has been rejected by Cartledge, P., Agesilaos, p. 83Google Scholar, but he does not offer a refutation of his arguments. Cartledge does point out, however, that Badian fails to mention the Navarchs' Monumen t an d other lifetime dedications (made either by Lysander or his friends) which commemorated his victory over Athens. The Navarchs' Monument, which Lysander set up at Delphi, featured a statue group in which Poseidon crowned the victorious Lysander. This dedication might be interpreted as an act of self-heroization on the part of Lysander, an d thus was a precursor to his deification by the Samians. For a discussion of these various dedications an d their significance see Cartledge, , op. cit., pp. 82–6Google Scholar; Bommelaer, J.-F., Lysander de Sparte: Histoire et traditions (Paris, 1981), pp. 7–23Google Scholar; and Zinserling, G., ‘Persönlichkeit un d Politik Lysanders im Lichte der Kunst’, WZJena 14 (1965), 35–43Google Scholar.

46 Published by Homann-Wedeking, E., Arch. Am. 80 (1965), 440Google Scholar.

47 There is no warrant, however, for thinking that all of the Samians were expelled in 365. See FGrHist 328, Philochorus F 154, with Jacoby's commentary, and IG ii2 1437, 20. Most recently, see Shipley, G., A History of Samos, 800–188 BC (Oxford, 1987), pp. 138–43Google Scholar.

48 Habicht, , op. cit., pp. 243–4Google Scholar.

49 See Xen. Hell. 3.4.7–10; Plut. Lys. 23 and Ages. 7–8.

50 Xen. loc. cit.

51 Xen. Hell. 2.3.6–7.

52 Diod. 14.13.4–5; and Plut. Lys. 24–6 and 30.

53 FGrHist 115 Frr. 20 and 333.

54 FGrHist 115 F 321 (= Plutarch, , Ages. 10.9–10)Google Scholar: κα μγιστος μν ἦν μολουμνως κα τν ττε ζώντων πιøατατος, ὡς εὴρηκ που κα θεπομπος, αυτῷ γε μν ⋯νωδδου δι' ρετν øρονεῖν μεῖζον ⋯ δι τν γεμοναν.

55 A particularly striking example is the otherwise unattested statement of Andocides (De Pace 30) that Syracuse made an offer of alliance with Athen s on the eve of the Sicilian expedition of 416 B.C. These negotiations are ignored by Thucydides. Did he think the Syracusan initiative to be insignificant because nothing came of it? But if Andocides is telling the truth, surely his testimony improves our understanding of Athenian motives for sending the expedition. Nonetheless, I do not know of a single work of scholarship in which Andocides' report is taken seriously, if it is mentioned at all. Although Andocides makes a number of factual mistakes in the speech, I find it difficult to believe that he could be wrong about so recent and so important an incident.

56 See note 3 above.