Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:06:44.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Exile of Themistokles and Democracy in the Peloponnese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. L. O'Neil
J. L. O'Neil
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The period after the repulse of Xerxes' invasion is one of the more obscure in Greek history, and this is particularly true of the eclipse of Themistokles and the history of the Peloponnese in the seventies and sixties. On the period of Themistokles' ostracism before the flight which led him to Persia Thucydides says only that he was ostracized and lived at Argos while also travelling to the rest of the Peloponnese. Other writers add a few details to Thucydides' account on other aspects of the ostracism, but tell us even less on the sojourn in Argos. Diodoros and Plutarch merely tell us that he lived there in exile while Nepos informs us that Themistokles' virtuous and dignified life in Argos aroused resentment.

Now Themistokles did not remain inactive in exile. The Spartans had some good reason to wish to remove him from Argos. The activities which aroused the Spartans' distrust are probably referred to by Thucydides' remark that Themistokles journeyed to the rest of the Peloponnese. It is usually concluded that Themistokles was involved in the creation of an anti-Spartan coalition and that a major part of this policy may have been the establishment of democratic governments in and the synoecism of the cities of Elis and Mantineia.

But we lack any clear evidence on Themistokles' actions in this period and the hypothesis rests principally on deductions from two brief passages. The first is from Herodotos and records that in 479 b.c. the Mantineian and Eleian contingents arrived too late to take part in the battle of Plataia and on their return both cities banished their commanders.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , December 1981 , pp. 335 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1981

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 Thucydides 1. 135. 3.

2 Diodorus Siculus 11. 55. 3. Plutarch, , Themistokles 23. 1Google Scholar.

3 Nepos 2. 8. 1.

4 Fougères, G., Mantinée et l' Arcadie orientale (Paris, 1898), pp. 376 f.Google Scholar; Andrewes, A., ‘Sparta and Arcadia in the Fifth Century’, Phoenix 6 (1952), 2Google Scholar; Forrest, W. G., ‘Themistocles and Argos’, CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 226Google Scholar; Podlecki, A. J., The Life of Themistocles (Montreal, 1975). p. 37Google Scholar.

5 Lenardon, R. J., The Saga of Themistocles (London, 1978), p. 118Google Scholar. Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), pp. 104 ff.Google Scholar, agrees that Themistokles was involved in some anti-Spartan activity but doubts whether we can determine what it was.

6 Herodotos 9. 77.

7 Andrewes, , Phoenix 6 (1952), 2Google Scholar.

8 Strabo 8. 3. 2.

9 Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 226 and 229 n. 8Google Scholar, mentions the synoecism of Tegea as perhaps contemporary with that of Mantineia, while A. Andrewes, op. cit., p. 3 n. 11 says ‘there seems to be no evidence for dating the συνοικισµóς of Tegea’. The other synoecisms are not discussed.

10 Callmer, C., Studien zur Geschichle Arkadiens bis zur Gründung des Arkadischen Bundes (Lund, 1943), p. 104Google Scholar.

11 How, & Wells, , ad Herodotum 9. 35. 2Google Scholar would place the synoecism of Mantineia later than that of Elis.

12 Xenophon, , Hellenica 5. 2. 7Google Scholar.

13 Ibid. 6. 5. 3–5.

14 Strabo 8. 3. 2.

15 A. Andrewes, op. cit., pp. 2 f.: ‘we may reasonably associate democracy with συνοικισμóς’.

16 Thucydides 5. 29. 1.

17 Ailian, , Variae Historiae 2. 22 fGoogle Scholar.

18 ibid. 23.

19 Diodorus Siculus 13. 6. 7: dated to the archonshìp of Chabrias (415/14).

20 Aves 1073; Ranae 320. Cf. Wellman, E., art. Diagoras (2), RE 5 (1905), coll. 310 fGoogle Scholar.

21 Woodbury, L., ‘The Date and Atheism of Diagoras of Melos’, Phoenix 19 (1965), 192Google Scholar.

22 Scholia ad Ar. Aves 1073 (= FGrHist 326 F3).

23 L. Woodbury, op. cit., p. 181.

24 Amit, M., Great and Small Poleis (Bruxelles, 1973), p. 136Google Scholar; Wörrle, M., Untersuchungen zur Verfassungsgeschichte von Argos (Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1964), p. 121Google Scholar; cf. Gomme, A. W. et al. Commentary on Thucydides, iv (Oxford, 1970), p. 59Google Scholar.

25 Aristotle, , Politics 1318b 23–7Google Scholar.

26 The word αἱρετοί implies that the electors themselves were elected, as is the case in the American presidential electoral college. Newman, W. L., Commentary (Oxford, 1887)Google Scholar, ad loc. also suggests that the electors may have been selected on a system of rotation (cf. 1298a 15, where the words κατ⋯ μ⋯ρος are to be found but αἱρετóς is not). In IG v. 2 (ad. No. 323, p. 65) a series of ceramic plaques in five shapes (perhaps representing the five tribes of Mantineia) each of which has a name inscribed on it, is associated with the αἱρετο⋯ κατ⋯ μ⋯ρος – which would imply sortition. The first hypothesis seems to fit Aristotle's words best.

27 Meiggs & Lewis, GHI number 40.

28 Xenophon, , Hellenica 6. 5. 4 fGoogle Scholar.

29 Ailian, 's remark (VH 2. 22)Google Scholar that Nikodoros' laws were observed for a longer time than Solon's implies continuity between the two constitutions at Mantineia while Aristotle's words ὥσπερ ⋯ν Μαντινíᾳ ποτ' ἦν seem evidence for some significant changes.

30 Thucydides 5. 47. 9.

31 Andrewes, A., Phoenix 6 (1952), 3Google Scholar.

32 Herodotos 9. 35. 2, cf. Pausanias 8. 8. 6.

33 As A. Andrewes thinks, op. cit., pp. 2 f. But cf. How & Wells ad loc.

34 Herodotos 6. 72.2. ‘Evidence it is not, but it is suggestive’. Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 229 n. 8Google Scholar.

35 op. cit., p. 226.

36 The wording of W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 230, ‘by 465/464 both Argos and Mantineia have deserted the alliance of 470’ may imply that Mantineia, like Argos, took part in the battle of Tegea. But the wording of Herodotos 9. 35. 2, saying that all the Arkadians but the Mantineians were present at Dipaia does not mean that even they were present at Tegea. For that battle Herodotos mentions no Arkadians except the Tegeates themselves.

37 Kraay, C. M., Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976), p. 97Google Scholar.

38 Ibid. p. 98.

39 Herodotos 9. 35. 2, cf. Pausanias 8. 8. 6.

40 Xenophon, , Hellenica 5. 2. 3Google Scholar; cf. Amit, M., Great and Small Poleis (1973), p. 132Google Scholar.

41 Fougères, , Mantinée, p. 375Google Scholar.

42 Callmer, op. cit., p. 71.

43 Amit, op. cit., p. 126. Polybios 2. 56. 6.

44 Diodorus Siculus 11. 54. 1.

45 For the coverage of Diodoros' ‘chronographic’ source see Schwarz, E., art. Diodoros (38), RE 5 (1905), coll. 665–9Google Scholar.

46 Xenophon, , Hellenica 3. 2. 27Google Scholar; cf. Andrewes, A., Phoenix 6 (1952), 2 n. 7Google Scholar.

47 A. Andrewes, op. cit., p. 2; Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 226Google Scholar.

48 A. Andrewes calls them ‘undatable’; op. cit., p. 2 (cf. n. 8). There still remain problems in the precise dating of archaic inscriptions; cf. Jeffery, L. H., Local Scripts (Oxford, 1961), pp. vii and 217 ffGoogle Scholar. Epigraphists' dates may not be certain but they should not be dismissed on even less secure grounds.

49 ML 17 (no. 6 in Local Scripts, p. 220).

50 DGE 412 (no. 5 in Local Scripts).

51 L. H. Jeffery, op. cit., p. 219.

52 There is a similar problem on the date of Elis' first coins, which may also belong to this period. Cf. Head, B. V., HN 2, pp. 419 f.Google Scholar; L. H. Jeffery, op. cit., p. 220, nos. 7a, b.

53 Thucydides 2. 14–17.

54 Meiggs, & Lewis, , GHI, p. 33Google Scholar state without discussion ‘Neither Elis nor Heraia was a city at this date’, while Swoboda (art. Elis, , RE 5 (1905), col. 2393Google Scholar) concludes that Elis became a democracy and underwent a tribal reform the year before the synoecism. Cf. Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A. and Dover, K. J., Commentary on Thucydides, iv (Oxford, 1970), 60Google Scholar who say it ‘is unexpected but not impossible’.

55 DGE 409. 6 f.

56 Either the council of 500 had been replaced by a smaller body or only a part of the council was swearing the oaths (though sixty seems more likely to be a segment of a council of 600). In the latter case the importance of the full council would seem very much less than at Athens.

57 Thucydides 5. 47. 9.

58 M. Wörrle, op. cit., p. 121 points out that Forrest overlooks the fact that Themistokles came to Argos after his ostracism. But even though he may not have been able to choose an ideal place of exile, he would presumably pick the one most favourable for his plans.

59 Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 227Google Scholar.

60 Forrest himself observes ‘none of this evidence is conclusive’ but claims that his reconstruction and the chronological scheme based on it have the merit of plausibility (p. 221).

61 W. G. Forrest, op. cit., pp. 238, 248.

62 Herodotos' use of the words ⋯ξ⋯βαλον, ⋯ξωθε⋯μενοι indicates that the new Argive government employed force. Cf. M. Wörrle, op. cit., p. 112.

63 Herodotos 6. 83. 2.

64 Ibidem.

65 W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 225 n. 5, does suggest that there may have been a period of aristocratic government before 470. (This would require two interludes of aristocratic government in fifth-century Argos.) He rejects the view on p. 226.

66 Strabo 8. 6. 19; cf. W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 230.

67 W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 224.

68 Herodotos 7. 148. 3.

69 Untersuchungen (Erlangen, 1964), pp. 116 ffGoogle Scholar.

70 Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), p. 190Google Scholar. Cf. Wörrle, op. cit., p. 113.

71 Diodorus Siculus 11. 65. 4.

72 The synchronism is usually preferred; cf. W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 231, though he suggests the attack on Mykenai may have commenced before the earthquake. Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), p. 105Google Scholar suggests that the synchronism rests on a deduction by Ephoros and is unreliable.

73 op. cit., p. 230. But Andrewes, A., Phoenix 6 (1952), 5Google Scholar places the fall of Tiryns first.

74 Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 225Google Scholar says it ‘can hardly be later than the mid-sixties’. However, How, & Wells, , ad Herodotum 7. 137. 2Google Scholar, place it in the early fifties.

75 W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 240.

76 Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972). p. 86Google Scholar.

77 Thucydides 1. 102. 4.

78 Aristotle, , Politics 1302b 18Google Scholar.

79 Thucydides 5. 47. 9. But even if the order is significant, the resemblance need not be due to influence.

80 Diodorus Siculus 11. 87.

81 M. Wörrle, op. cit., pp. 122 f.

82 Plutarch, de Mul. Virt. 245C–F (= FGrHist 310F 6). This view is accepted by Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 222 ffGoogle Scholar. and Larsen, J. A. O., art. Περίοικοι, RE 19 (1937), coll. 823 fGoogle Scholar. R. A. Tomlinson, op. cit., p. 98. favours a compromise in which ‘perioikoi’ included both the inhabitants of the neighbouring cities and the unfree peasants of Argos itself. He considers both groups were non-Dorian.

83 Syll 3 31 lines 16, 19; cf. Pausanias, 5.23. 3. Argos was pro-Persian at the time (cf. Herodotos 9. 12) so the policy of Mykenai and Tiryns was diametrically opposed to that of Argos. W. G. Forrest's ‘partial synoecism’ (op. cit., p. 224) seems insufficient to allow for such divergence – complete independence of the smaller cities is the only explanation.

84 If it was Sokrates of Argos whom Plutarch quoted when correcting Herodotos. Sokrates is the only other authority named in the passage, but that is two sentences earlier. Plutarch may have been making his own interpretation of Aristotle; cf. Lotze, D., ‘Zur Verfassung von Argos nach der Schlacht bei Sepeia’, Chiron 1 (1971), 103Google Scholar.

85 Kiechle, F., ‘Argos und Tiryns nach der Schlacht bei Sepeia’. Philologus 104 (1960), 181Google Scholar calls him hellenistic as does R. A. Tomlinson, op. cit., p. 221. Jacoby, F., FGrHist 111B 15Google Scholar merely says ‘vor Demetrios Magnes’.

86 Politics 1303a 6.

87 Willetts, R. F., ‘The Servile Interregnum at Argos’, Hermes 87 (1959), 496Google Scholar; Lotze, D., Μεταξὺ 'Ελευθ⋯ρων κα⋯ Δο⋯λων (Berlin, 1959), pp. 8 f.Google Scholar; Newman, W. L., Commentary ad 1303a 6Google Scholar. Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 223 n. 7Google Scholar argues that Aristotle should not be taken here to be using the word in his usual way but in a specific Argive sense. But can we use Pausanias and Plutarch – or even Sokrates of Argos if Plutarch is quoting him – to establish the existence of an Argive usage earlier than Aristotle?

88 Politics 1303a 1 ff. cf. R. F. Willetts, op. cit., p. 496. W. G. Forrest, op. cit., p. 223 n. 7 calls this ‘an unjustifiable equation’ but Aristotle clearly quotes the Argive case as an example of the consequences of a relative increase of the poor. M. Wörrle, op. cit., p. 105, suggests that a hoplite constitution may have been established, but it is hard to see how hoplites could have been called ‘slaves’ or ‘serfs’.

89 Sokrates, , FGrHist 310F 6. 5Google Scholar. Cf. Lotze, D., Chiron 1 (1970), 100 ffGoogle Scholar.

90 Onomastikon 3. 83.

91 s.v. Χίος.

92 Thucydides 5. 82. 6; cf. R. F. Willetts, op. cit., p. 497.

93 Lotze, D., Μεταξὺ 'Ελευθ⋯ρων κα⋯ Δο⋯λων (Berlin, 1959), p. 54Google Scholar saw the perioikoi and the gymnetes as separate groups, but in Chiron 1 (1971), 102 fGoogle Scholar. argues for their identity. The presence of a fourth tribe, the Hyrnathioi, at Argos from the mid-fifth century shows that some non-Dorians were absorbed into the Argive citizen body. Unfortunately it is not certain whether the citizens of Mykenai and Tiryns were Dorians. Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), pp. 74 fGoogle Scholar. concludes they were not, Kelly, T., A History of Argos to 500 B.C. (Minneapolis, 1976), pp. 65 fGoogle Scholar. implies they were. Strabo, 8. 6. 10 says Mykenai was part of the original Dorian conquest of the Argolid. If the smaller cities were Dorian then the new element in the Argive citizen body, being non-Dorian, cannot have been perioikoi in the Spartan sense.

94 Herodotos 7. 148.

95 This is not decisive evidence. Herodotos himself knew that the losses at Sepeia were not the major reason for Argive non-involvement in the Persian War; cf. Wells, J., Studies in Herodotus, p. 76Google Scholar. But would the Argives have advanced a pretext that was obviously without foundation?

96 Herodotos 6. 83. 1–2. And if they took Tiryns by force they were not previously living there.

97 Willetts, R. F., Hermes 87 (1959), 499Google Scholar.

98 Diodorus Siculus 11. 65. 2. Cf. Pausanias 2. 16. 5, where there is no mention of Tiryns.

99 This is not a precise measure of time. ‘The change may have occurred at any time at which the aristocratic leaders could say “we have avenged our fathers”, in other words, at any time between 490 and 430’ – Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 225Google Scholar. But a period of about twenty years not only fits Herodotos' words but allows us to conclude that the democracy fell once the special circumstances which led to its establishment no longer existed.

100 Tomlinson, R. A., Argos and the Argolid (London, 1972), p. 93Google Scholar and n. 9 (on p. 268). On J. Wells' date of c. 520 b.c. (Studies in Herodotus, pp. 79–81) it would be even more likely that the first Argive democracy had fallen before 470.

101 cf. Willetts, R. F., Hermes 87 (1959), 505Google Scholar. Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 221 f.Google Scholar, also thinks this may have been Kleomenes' motive for not attempting to capture Argos, but that the new government may have been well disposed to Kleomenes himself, rather than to Sparta.

102 Herodotos 7. 137. 2. Aneristos' father Sperthias was one of the two Spartans sent to Persia to expiate the ‘curse of Talthybios’ after the Persian Wars. Aneristos himself was one of the ambassadors betrayed to the Athenians and executed early in the Peloponnesian War (loc. cit. cf. Th. 2. 67). Aneristos' age makes it more likely that the Tirynthian exiles concerned were the second set. The incident is also recorded by Steph. Byz. s.v. 'Αλιεῖς and Strabo 8.6. 11 (where the text is defective) but they add no further detail.

103 Willetts, R. F., Hermes 87 (1959), 500Google Scholar. He relies strongly on Aneristos' seizure of Halieis to show good relations between the ‘slaves’ and Sparta.

104 e.g. Plutarch, , Aristeides 2. 1Google Scholar; Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 235Google Scholar.

105 Frost, F. J., ‘Themistokles' Place in Athenian Polities’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 1 (1968), 109Google Scholar. But one should not assume that the tradition that Themistokles was a democrat was wholly without foundation.

106 op. cit., p. 238.

107 Themistokles' successes had depended on his ability to win the support of the average Athenian voter (which required a democratic approach) and on Greek hostility to the barbarian which initially required Spartan assistance for success). Until the insult at the siege of Ithome an anti-Spartan policy would lack popular support at Athens and it would appeal to a narrower brand of patriotism.

108 Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. 10 (1960), 227Google Scholar attributes it to the fall of the Argive democracy. But why did the Argive democracy fall so easily if Themistokles and his friends were successfully organizing a democratic coalition across the Peloponnese?

109 As Fougères saw (op. cit., p. 377) when he suggested that Mantineia was only effectively synoecized after 464 – when it enjoyed the approval of Sparta.