Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:32:06.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ΧΡΗΣΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΙΕΙΝ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Thomas Braun
Thomas Braun
Affiliation:
Merton College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Plutarch, Aet. Graec. 5 = Moralia 292b: ‘Tνες οἱ παρ’ Ἀρκσι καì Λακεδαιμονíοις χρηστο;᾽ Λακεδαιμνιοι Τεγεταις διαλλαγντες ποισαντο συνθκας κα στλην π᾽ Ἀλϕειῳ κοινν νστησαν, ν ᾑ μετ των ἄλλων γγραπται Μεσσηνους κβαλειν κ της χώρας κα μ ξειναι χρηστοὺς ποιειν. ξηγομενος οὐν Ἀριστοτλης τουτ ϕησι δνασθαι τ μ ποκτιννναι βοηθεας χριν τοις λακωνζουσι των Tεγεατων.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , May 1994 , pp. 40 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1994

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 Jacoby, F., ‘XPHΣTOΥΣ ΠOIEIN' (Aristotle fr. 592 R.)’, CQ 38 (1944), 15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. My thanks are due to Simon Hornblower for encouragement and valuable advice in 1986, when this article was first drafted, and latterly both to him and to George Cawkwell, who has independently arrived at a fifth-century date for the treaty in an article in CQ 43 (1993). I am also grateful to the CQ's anonymous referee for several bibliographic additions.

2 E.g. by Kiechle, F., Messenische Studien (1959), pp. 16–18Google Scholar, Huxley, G. L., Early Sparta (London, 1962), p. 137 n. 477Google Scholar, Forrest, W. G., A History of Sparta 950–192 B.c.2 (London, 1980), p. 79Google Scholar, Cartledge, P., Sparta and Lakonia, A Regional History 1300–362 B.c. (London, 1979), p. 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 δ᾽ ἔϜαδε πλι· πε κα κοσμσει, δκα Ϝετον τν Ϝτν μ κσμεν· αἰ δ κοσμησε, [π]ε δικακσε, Ϝτν πηλεν διπλει κϜτν ἄκρηστον ἠμεν, ς δοι, κτι κοσμησε μηδν ἤμην. Meiggs, and Lewis, , Greek Historical Inscriptions 2 (1988), 2Google Scholar. They translate:‘… The city has thus I decided: when a man has been kosmos, the same man shall not be kosmos again for ten years. If he does act as kosmos, whatever judgments he gives, he shall owe double, and he shall lose his rights to office, as long as he lives, and whatever he does as kosmos shall be nothing…’

4 In Tegea itself, which has yielded a meagre harvest of inscriptions, note IG v 210: Δειε χαιρε χρηστ κα ἄλυπε.

5 Robert, L., Études anatoliennes (1937), pp. 369–70Google Scholar, cites an epitaph from Thasos of a slave who had been ‘useful’ to his employers: Mνης, [χρ]ηστς [τοις δ]εσπταις ἤμην. Note also five epitaphs, each of a ‘useful’ nurse, ττθη χρηστή, from Athens (IG ii2 12242, 12387, 12563, 12815, 12816), and one from Chalcis (IG xii(9) 1165), where seven other χρηστς()/χρηστ epitaphs have servile names (IG xii(9) 1158–64).

6 So Gutscher, H., Die attischen Grabschriften i (Programm Leoben, 1889), p. 24Google Scholar, because before the Roman period χρηστς or χρηστ is never found with the Athenian demotic. But the omission of the demotic does not necessarily prove that the dead person had no right to it.

7 Characters 13.4.

8 E.g. on the Boeotian relief of a rider, Koerte, G.MDAI(A) 3 (1878), 366Google Scholar, Nr. 109 πε Φιλσσῳ ἥρωει· χρηστ. Fraser, P. M. and Rönne, T., Boeotian and West Greek Tombstones (1957), p. 100 n. 62Google Scholar, reject Ziebarth's, E. classification as servile of χρηστς epitaphs in Eretria, IG xii(9) 862–89.Google Scholar

9 Many examples are from Hellenistic Thessaly: IG ix passim.

10 Rohde, E., Psyche9&10 (Tübingen, 1925), pp. 346–7Google Scholar, English translation of Psyche 10 by Hollis, K. B. (London, 1925), p. 527Google Scholar with notes 29–32. Rohde is followed by Halliday, W. R., The Greek Questions of Plutarch (Oxford, 1928), pp. 50–1Google Scholar, who gives the best discussion of these passages.

11 Cf. also χρησμς· τιμωρα.

12 Georg, Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde i (Munich, 1920), pp. 224–5, ii (Munich, 1926), p. 945.Google Scholar

13 Demosthenes 59 (Against Neaera) 104–6, Isocrates 12 (Panathenaicus) 94, 14 (Plataicus) 51–2, Lysias 23 (Against Pancleon) 2. cf. Aristophanes, Frogs 693–4 with Schol. ad loc. (= Hellanicus, FGrHist 4 F 171 = 323a F 25). Texts in Osborne, M. J., Naturalization in Athens i (1981), p. 28 = DlGoogle Scholar, commentary in ii (1982), 11–16 (= Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, Jaargang 43 (1981) Nr. 98, 44 (1982) Nr. 101). Admittedly, the speech attributed by Thucydides to the Plataeans implies that they received the right of citizenship earlier, in 519 (3.55.3 κα πολιτεας μετλαβεν); but this will have applied only to such Plataeans as chose to settle in Athens, Gomme ad loc, HCT ii–iii. 340, Amit, M., Great and Small Poleis (Brussels, 1973), p. 78Google Scholar. The Athenians' grant of ἰσοπολιτεα to the Plataeans after the second sack of 373 (Diodorus 15.46.6) may not have brought them full citizen rights the second time round, Amit, op. cit., pp. 114–16.

14 Thuc. 3.68.5.

15 Hdt. 6.108.

16 Tod ii 204, line 35.

17 Thuc. 3.68.1, and Gomme ad loc., HCT ii–iii. 355–66.

18 Xen. Hell. 1.2.10. The Athenian extension of citizenship to Samos in 405 (Meiggs and Lewis GHI 2 94) is not quite parallel, since the Samians were to continue as Athenian citizens on their own island. Szántó, E., Untersuchungen über das attische Bürgerrecht (Vienna, 1881), pp. 30–1Google Scholar drew attention to an Athenian grant of citizenship to a community whose name is missing: IG ii2 643, 7–9: [στλην ν ᾑ οἱ πρ]τ[ε]ρον τν πολιτεαν λα[βντες των. …]ων ναγεγραμμνοι [εἰσν]. But this is an inscription of the third century B.c.

19 Rose, V., Aristotelis Fragmenta (Teubner, 1867), fr. 592.Google Scholar

20 E.g. Meyer, Ed., Geschichte des Altertums2 ed. Stier, H. (Stuttgart, 1937), pp. 708–9Google Scholar, Kahrstedt, U., Griechisches Staatsrecht i, Sparta und seine Symmachie (Göttingen, 1922), p. 109Google Scholar, Paul, Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia (London, 1979), p. 138Google Scholar. But Hiller von Gaertringen, IG v(2), p. 3, in 1913 went for a date in the 460s, and Hans, Schäfer, Staatsform und Politik, Untersuchungen zur griechischen Geschichte des 6. und 5ten Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1932), p. 230Google Scholar, dated the treaty to the middle of the fifth century B.c.

21 Admittedly, Aristagoras, according to Herodotus 5.49.8, told King Cleomenes of Sparta in 500 that the Spartans should invade Asia rather than fight πρς τε Μεσσηνους ντας ἰσοπαλας κα Ἀρκδας τε κα Ἀργεους, ‘against the equally matched Messenians, and the Arcadians and Argives’. Does that mean that some Messenians had remained independent after the Second Messenian War? Jean, Ducat, les Hilotes, BCH Suppl. xx (1990), 144Google Scholar, suggests that they had been only partially ‘helotized’. But Herodotus was writing after the Messenians had proved their fighting quality in the revolt of 465, in the ensuing long resistance in besieged Ithome, and from the base of Naupactus where the survivors from the siege were settled by the Athenians (see below, note 33) and battled against the Acarnanians (Paus. 4.24.6–26.2, 5.26.1).

22 Paus. 4.17.2–3.

23 P. Oxy. 3316 = Tyrtaeus 23a West2, lines 15 and 19.

24 Paus. 3.7.6. True, Polybius 4.33.5 claims that Arcadians after the Second Messenian War made Messenian exiles μοεστους κα πολτας; but it would be unwise to stress the word πολτας The claim need not derive from Callisthenes, as does the inscription quoted immediately above (4.33.3 = Callisthenes, FGrHist 124 F 23), and may be no more than what an Arcadian patriot in Hellenistic times thought ought to have happened.

25 Fr. 536 R. ap. Plutarch, Lycurgus 6.

26 Hdt. 9.37.

27 Hdt. 6.74.

28 Plato, Laws 3.692de, Strabo 8.4.10, p. 362, Paus. 4.23.5–10, cf. Meiggs, and Lewis, , GHI2, 22 (= Paus. 5.24.3)Google Scholar, Jeffery, L. H., JHS 69 (1949), 26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, G. H. Huxley, op. cit., pp. 87–94.

29 For the chronology see Wade-Gery, H. T., CQ 38 (1944), 126 and n. 3Google Scholar, followed by Andrewes, A. in his authoritative discussion, ‘Sparta and Arcadia in the early fifth century’, Phoenix 6 (1952), 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Andrewes would put the Battle of Tegea, the Messenian Revolt and the Battle of Dipaea all in 465, in that order. Forrest, W. G., CQ 54 (1960), 229Google Scholar, thinks the Battle of Tegea may have been before 465, but otherwise agrees.

30 Diodorus 11.65.4: δι τοὺς ἰδους πολμους κα τν των σεισμων γενομνην αὐτοις συμϕορν

31 Xen. Hell. 5.2.3.

32 Strabo 8.6.19, p. 337, cf. Diodorus 11.65.5.

33 Isocrates 6 (Archidamus) 99.

34 Hdt. 9.28.

35 Thuc. 1.102–3, Diodorus 11.64.4, Gomme, , HCT i.401–8Google Scholar, McNeal, R. A., ‘Historical Methods and Thucydides i 103.1’, Historia 19 (1970), 306–25Google Scholar, Simon, Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1991), pp. 158–60.Google Scholar

36 Safe-conduct and settlement at Naupactus in the 450s, Thuc. 1.103.3, Diodorus 11.84.7–8, Paus. 4.24.7. Expulsion after 404, Diodorus 14.34.3.

37 κατ ϕιλαν στασιζουσιν Κορινθοις βοηθ⋯ν, Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrHist 90 F 35.

38 Andrewes, A., CQ 43 (1949), 77 n. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Thuc. 1.126.

40 Solon fr. 4. 14–22 West2.

41 Polyaenus 2.10.3.

42 Thuc. 5.29.1.

43 Xen. Hell. 3.2.21–31, Paus. 3.8.1–2. Elis had been democratic at an early stage, as is evident from three of the bronze tablets found at Olympia: (1) part of a law mentioning procedure for its alteration ‘with the entire Council of Five Hundred and the full damos’, σὺν βωλαι [π]εντακοτων Ϝλανως κα δμοι πληθοντι, Inschriften von Olympia 7 = SGDI 1156 = DGE 412 = Buck, , Greek Dialects (revised edition, Chicago, 1955), 64Google Scholar; dated by Miss Jeffery, L. H. (Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, p. 220 n. 5)Google Scholar to (?)ca. 500; (2) a law which has the words ‘without the Council and the full damos’, ]τας ἄνευς βολν κα ζαμον πλαθοντα, I.v.Ol. 3 = SGDI 1157 = DGE 410, dated by MissJeffery, (LSAG, p. 220, 9)Google Scholar to (?)ca. 475; (3) a rhetra (Ϝρτρα) ordering the Hellanodikai and the board of damiourgoi (ζαμιοργα) to exact certain fines on pain of paying double themselves, I.v.Ol. 2 = SGDI 1152 = DGE 409 = Buck 61, dated by Miss Jeffery (LSAG, p. 220 n. 15) to ca. 475–450. By contrast, at some point, surely when allied to Sparta (as she was in 431, Thuc. 2.9.3), Elis was ruled by a hereditary Council of Ninety modelled on the Spartan Gerousia — a régime so exclusive that it was toppled, Ar. Pol. 5.1306a12–19. Democracy is again in evidence for 420, when in consequence of Elis' quarrel with Sparta the Elean damiourgoi, other magistrates and the Six Hundred swore an oath administered by the damiourgoi and the Guardians of the Laws, θεμοϕλακες, to an alliance with the democracies of Athens, Argos and Mantinea, Thuc. 5.47.9. Cf. O'Neil, J. L., CQ 31 (1981), 339–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Thuc. 1.19.

45 Thuc. 1.144.2:…ὅταν κκεῑνοι ταις αὑτων ποδωσι πλεσι μ σϕσι τοις Λακεδαιμονοις πιτηδεως αὐτονομεισθαι, λλ αὐτοις κστοις ὡς βολονται. (αὐτοις κστοις, not αὐταις κσταις, because, I take it, the speaker is thinking of the citizens rather than the cities.)

46 Cf. Posidonius, quoted by Athenaeus 6.233f, on Spartan deposits with Arcadian neighbours.

47 IG v(2) 159 = Buck 70.

48 Hdt. 6.72.2, Paus. 3.5.6, 3.7.10.

49 Xen. Hell. 3.5.7, 25, Paus. 3.5.6, Plutarch, Lysander 30.