Aspects of Greek History 750-323BC

A Source-Based Approach

Terry Buckley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781135281830
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia antigua

Aspects of Greek History 750- 323 BC: A Source-Based Approach offers an indispensable introduction to the central period of Greek History for all students of classics, from pre-university to undergraduate level. Chapter by chapter, the relevant historical periods from the age of colonization to Alexander the Great are reconstructed. Emphasis is laid on the interpretation of the available sources, and the book sets out to give a clear treatment of all the major problems within a chronological framework.

This new edition brings the book up-to-date with the latest scholarship and includes a more detailed study of Sparta, Delian League, and the Athenian Empire, expands the range of sources examined, and offers an extended discussion of the growth of Athenian Imperialism towards Samos, Mytilene and Melos.

It includes:

• 
  
  

• a critical discussion of the lives, works, usefulness and reliability of the main literary sources: Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Aristotle

• 
  
  

• numerous quotations and references from these and other sources, including inscriptional and archaeological evidence, accompanied by a critical analysis of their worth

• 
  
  

• maps, a glossary of Greek terms, and a full chapter-based bibliography.

Aspects of Greek History is an invaluable aid to note-taking, essay preparation and examination revision.

1
THE MAIN LITERARY SOURCES

The works of six literary sources (Aristotle, Diodorus Siculus, Herodotus, Plutarch, Thucydides and Xenophon) have provided the main evidence for the narrative of this book. The lives and careers of these six sources have been given (as far as it is possible to gather such information) in order to make students aware of the chronological gap – sometimes very considerable – that can exist between the occurrence of events and their recording in writing, a gap which often provides time and opportunity for the continual adaptation and ‘improvement’ of the original description of events and individuals’ motives in accordance with the prejudices and interests of the writers. In addition, the source’s family background is given, because this will often reflect the social and political circles, in which he usually mixed and gathered information, and which consequently were bound to exercise some influence on his interpretation of events, especially when there were two conflicting versions arising from opposite ends of the political spectrum. Most of this chapter, by the very nature and title of this book, has been concentrated on their weaknesses as historical sources, using the stringent criteria of modern historical scholarship. This is not to deny the authors’ very fine literary qualities, but current Ancient History examination syllabuses demand not only a knowledge of the sources but also a critical awareness of their limitations and defects. With regard to the other sources used in this book, there will be brief comments on them as they make their appearance in the text.

Aristotle

Life and career

Aristotle was born in 384 at Stagirus (or Stagira), situated in Chalcidice, but moved to Athens in 367 in order to become a pupil of Plato at his Academy. When Plato died in 348/7, Aristotle was not appointed to succeed him and decided to leave Athens, spending time in Mysia in north-west Asia Minor and later at Mytilene on the island of Lesbos. In 343/2 he accepted the invitation of Philip of Macedon to become Alexander the Great’s tutor. In 335, Aristotle returned to Athens, where he founded his own philosophical school, known as the Lyceum after the sacred grove of Apollo in which it was situated; but upon the death of Alexander in 323, he was forced to leave Athens, due to the threat of prosecution, which arose from the very strong anti-Macedonian feeling that existed in Athens at that time. He retired to nearby Chalcis on the island of Euboea, and died in 322.

Athenaion Politeia

Modern scholarship is divided in its opinion about the authorship of the Athenaion Politeia (Constitution of the Athenians), which will be referred to as the Ath. Pol. in this and subsequent chapters. One group of scholars (e.g. Rhodes, the principal modern commentator) believes that the Ath. Pol. was composed by one of Aristotle’s students, and does so on a number of grounds. In the first place, there are stylistic differences between this and Aristotle’s other extant genuine works. Second, the differences in historical information, when this work is compared to Aristotle’s Politics, strongly suggest the two works were not written by the same hand: for example, Ath. Pol. 8 states that Solon changed the method of election of the top public officials by removing the Areopagus’ right of appointment and replacing it with the use of lot from an elected short list; whereas the Politics states that Solon made no change to the people’s right to elect these officials (2.1273b–1274a). Third, the Ath. Pol. contains some information that is so drastically wrong that a writer of Aristotle’s stature could not (it is argued) have been responsible for it: for example, Cimon is described as a young man, just beginning his public career, when Ephialtes passed his reforms in 462/1 (26.1), whereas in reality he was in his fifties and had been the dominant Athenian politician throughout the 470s and 460s. Finally, this work was only one of 158 such Constitutions, and it is very unlikely that Aristotle would have had the time to write all of them, in addition to his many other works. Therefore it is probably the work of one of Aristotle’s students, but was attributed to him, because it was the traditional custom to assign all the works produced in his school under his direction to Aristotle himself.

Opponents of this view (e.g. Moore) believe that Aristotle did compose the Ath. Pol., rejecting the arguments above. Stylistic differences can be explained by the fact that this sole surviving Constitution is a different genre from Aristotle’s other works. There are also many marked similarities in historical information between the Ath. Pol. and the Politics, and in particular both works share similar political views – a distaste for extreme democracy and an approval of moderate oligarchy. In addition, Aristotle may have acquired more information and consequently changed his mind between the composition of the Politics (probably c.336) and the Ath. Pol. (c.332–322). It also does not follow that Aristotle the historian can maintain the same standards of quality as Aristotle the philosopher and natural scientist (which he primarily was). Finally, Aristotle would have received help from his students in the composition of the Ath. Pol. (and the other Constitutions), which would explain some of the differences and make the view that he was the author of so many works more convincing.

As there is no possibility of resolving this issue, the Ath. Pol. will be attributed to Aristotle throughout this textbook for reasons of convenience. The Ath. Pol. is divided into two main sections: the first (1–41) is a historical review of the development of the Athenian constitution, from the earliest times to Aristotle’s own day, and is subdivided into eleven parts to represent the eleven major changes in the history of the constitution, which are summarized in chapter 41; the second (42–69) is a detailed account of the workings of the democratic constitution in Aristotle’s day.

There is considerable scholarly dispute with regard to the sources that Aristotle used to compose the historical part of the Ath. Pol., ranging from those who believe that Aristotle relied principally upon one source, i.e. Androtion, one of the fourth-century Atthidographers, who wrote an ‘Atthis’ (history of Athens), to those who believe in a multitude of sources or, at least, more than one source. Those who hold the latter view suggest that Aristotle made use of some or all of the following sources: Herodotus, especially his account of the tyranny of the Peisistratids (14–15, 19) and of the years 510–508, i.e. the expulsion of the tyrants to Cleisthenes’ legislation (20.1–3); Thucydides, with regard to the murder in 514 of Hipparchus, brother of Hippias the tyrant (17–18), and the oligarchic revolution in 411 (29–33); the Atthidographers, especially Androtion, whom he mentions by name in his chapter on ostracism (22); the pamphleteer Stesimbrotus, who wrote in the late fifth century about Athenian politicians, and the historian Theopompos, whose Philippica (a history centred on the exploits of Philip of Macedon) included two digressions on Athens – both were hostile to Athenian democracy, and their influence can possibly be detected in the anti-democratic tone in parts of the Ath. Pol.; the politically partisan writings of the late fifth and early fourth centuries, such as published law-court speeches (e.g. of Andocides and Lysias) and political pamphlets (e.g. the so-called ‘Old Oligarch’, a critique of Athenian democracy, written some time in the Peloponnesian War and attributed to Xenophon); official documents, preserved in the state archives, such as the 401/0 formal reconciliation between the democrats in Athens and the oligarchs in Eleusis (39); and finally poems, especially those of Solon (5, 12). However, there is general agreement about the sources for the second part of the book, which deals with the Athenian constitution in Aristotle’s day: the state archives, and Aristotle’s and/or his students’ attendance at all the relevant functions and ceremonies that took place in the fourth-century democracy.

One of the main weaknesses of the historical section of the Ath. Pol. is the apparent failure of the writer to conduct his own thorough research. He relied mainly on those writers who had already written a detailed account of the events that were relevant to his work, and used any evidence that they had quoted without feeling the need to do further research. A good illustration of this is Aristotle’s account of Solon (5–12), which has many similarities with Plutarch’s Life of Solon, including the quoting of his poems, and this strongly suggests that both writers were using an earlier common source. When Aristotle found a clash in his sources, he usually reacted in one of two ways. In some instances, he states his preference for one version, but arrives at this verdict, not by a careful and systematic study of the available evidence, but by what seemed more reasonable. For example, there is his belief that Solon could not have behaved dishonourably – making a huge profit from his own insider knowledge of his planned ‘Seisachtheia’ (‘Shaking-off of Burdens’) – because he behaved so honourably in the rest of his reforms (6.2–4).

His alternative methodology was to combine the conflicting sources, which often results in confusion. His attempt to combine Herodotus’ account of Peisistratus’ three periods of tyranny with a chronology, probably supplied by an Atthidographer, results in Peisistratus’ third period of rule – his longest and most successful (547/6–528/7) – lasting less than a year (15.2–3). In a similar fashion, much of his account of the assassination of Hipparchus in 514 is based on Thucydides. However, having begun chapter 18 with a description of Hipparchus’ character and thus apparently preparing the reader for Thucydides’ narrative about his rejection by and insult to Harmodius, Aristotle switches to another source, resulting in the immediate disappearance of Hipparchus from the story and his replacement by Thessalos, another of Peisistratus’ sons (18.2). Such problems could have been avoided if Aristotle had bothered to research his material more thoroughly, and then made an informed choice between the contradictory sources.

The other aspect of the Ath. Pol. that needs careful attention is the political bias that runs through the historical section, namely the writer’s support and preference for moderate oligarchy, and his dislike of radical democracy. In this context, he can praise Solon because he does not believe that Solon passed his reforms in order to produce the later radical democracy (9.2); and also the regime of the Five Thousand which, replacing the narrowly oligarchic rule of The Four Hundred in 411, vested political power in those of ‘hoplite’ status and above (33.2). In fact, this second example provides another feature of Aristotle’s approach to his sources: his readiness to repeat an opinion, which he found in his sources, that coincides with his own political views – in this instance, the opinion of Thucydides (8.97). By contrast, like most fourth-century philosophers and intellectuals, he is scathingly and unfairly critical of the so-called ‘demagogues’ and their achievements throughout the rest of the Peloponnesian War after Pericles’ death in 429 (28.1–4).

Even with these reservations, the Ath. Pol. is an excellent source, both in its own right and for preserving other sources that otherwise would be lost to the modern historian. Its publication in 1890 has supplied new factual information on Cleisthenes’ reforms in 508/7 (21) and on Athenian internal politics from Cleisthenes to the eve of the Persian War (22). In addition, it has provided an alternative account and viewpoint of important fifth-century constitutional changes: a favourable and sympathetic treatment of Ephialtes’ reforms (25.1–2); and the oligarchic version of the events of 411 revolution (29–33). Moreover, he gives the modern historian an insight into how a fourth-century historian set about resolving historical problems and disagreements in the sources. But most important of all is his detailed record of the day-to-day working of Europe’s first and most famous democracy – a unique literary work.

Diodorus Siculus

Life and career

Very little is known about Diodorus, but he is believed to have been born c.90 BC in Agyrium in Sicily (hence ‘Diodorus Siculus’, Diodorus the Sicilian). He was writing in the turbulent, last years of the Roman Republic (c.60–30 BC), and died at some time in the Principate of Augustus (27 BC – AD14).

Bibliotheke

Diodorus’ work was oddly titled Bibliotheke or ‘Library of World History’, which consisted of 40 books from earliest times to Caesar’s Gallic War (54 BC). Although a number of his books exist only in fragmentary form, Books 11–17 have survived in their entirety, and cover the years 480–323. Book 11 gives an account of the Persian War (480–479), Themistocles’ career in the 470s until his death, the early years of the Delian League and the First Peloponnesian War (462/1–446/5) to 451. Book 12 narrates the end of the First Peloponnesian War, the causes of the Peloponnesian War of 431 to the Athenian preparations for the Sicilian Expedition (416). Book 13 covers the Sicilian campaign (415–403), the oligarchic revolution in Athens (411), the Ionian War, culminating in the defeat of Athens (413–404). Book 14 is mainly concerned with events in Sicily, but does include the rule and overthrow of the 30 Tyrants in Athens (404–403), the military campaigns of the Spartan king, Agesilaos, in Asia Minor (396–394), the Corinthian War (395–387), and ends with the Peace of Antalcidas (also known as the King’sPeace– 387/6). Book 15 deals with the Spartan ‘hegemony’ (386–379), the recovery of Thebes and its defeat of the Spartans at the battle of Leuctra (379–371), and the Theban ‘hegemony’ of the 360s. Books 16 and 17 are devoted to the careers of Philip of Macedon and Alexander from their accessions to their deaths (359–336 and 336–323, respectively).

The unusual title of Diodorus’ work and his inclusion among the list of compilers by Pliny the Elder (Natural History, the Preface 24ff.) give us an insight into the nature of his literary work. Using the histories of earlier writers, he wrote ‘epitomes’ or ‘summaries’ of their works, although he was different from the usual writers of epitomes in that he did not merely condense the original work. Instead he often selected specific events or episodes, and then either paraphrased them or included verbatim sections from the original. This method of composition has been deduced by comparing Diodorus’ text with other surviving fragments of earlier historians (Hornblower, Hieronymus of Cardia, ch. 2). For example, Diodorus’ account (12.60–62) of the campaigns of Cimon, from the capture of Eion to his crushing victory over the Persians at Eurymedon (470s–c.469), is very close to the description and order of events in a series of fragments (FGrH 70 F191), which are most probably the history of Ephorus, a Greek writer of the fourth century, much admired and used by Diodorus. Such comparisons or checks with other surviving fragments, especially as they occur in widely differing parts of the Bibliotheke, confirm that Diodorus’ method of composition and treatment of his sources consisted in following very closely one main source at a time, but to supplement it with additional material.

As a result, Diodorus’ worth as a historian is usually (but not always, as he is capable of being inefficient, careless and confusing in his own right) dependent on the quality of his chosen original source for a specific period. It is generally agreed that Diodorus, in Books 11–15 (480–360), mainly follows the history of Ephorus. Ephorus of Cyme (c.405–330) composed a History of Greece in 30 Books from the so-called Dorian Invasion in the Dark Age to 341. He was allegedly a pupil of Isocrates, the well-known rhetorician, and consequently his historical writing was greatly influenced by rhetoric. The result of this was twofold: first, a stirring and stimulating presentation of historical events became more important than their factual accuracy; second, history became a medium for moralizing, highlighting the noble and ignoble behaviour of famous men as a lesson for future generations.

It is a feature of Diodorus’ handling of his sources that he adopts their approach to historiography and repeats their moral judgements, which can lead to superficial and biased reporting. There is doubt concerning Diodorus’ source for Book 16, but his generally favourable picture of Philip of Macedon suggests that he may have used Theopompos, another alleged student of Isocrates, who wrote the Philippica, a universal history in 58 books, centred on the exploits of Philip of Macedon from 359–336. Diodorus appears to have based Book 17, his account of the career of Alexander, on the Greek Cleitarchus, the source for the ‘vulgate’ tradition (see beginning of Chapter 27).

Diodorus has a number of failings, especially in his dating. It is not known what system of dating Ephorus used, but his arrangement of historical events ‘kata genos’ (by subject), i.e. as self-contained mini-topics, covering a number of years (see FGrH 70 F191 above as an example), strongly suggests that it was not based on the annalistic (yearly) dating system of Thucydides. But Diodorus, while keeping to Ephorus’ subject-matter approach, has attempted to superimpose such a dating system, giving the relevant Athenian archon and Roman consuls for each year, as well as the number of the O...

Table of contents

• ASPECTS OF CLASSICAL CIVILISATION
• CONTENTS
• MAPS
• PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
• ABBREVIATIONS
• 1 THE MAIN LITERARY SOURCES
• 2 THE CAUSES OF COLONIZATION IN ARCHAIC GREECE
• 3 THE AGE OF GREEK TYRANNY: C.650–510
• 4 THE ‘LYCURGAN’ REFORMS AND THERISEOFSPARTAINTHE SEVENTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES
• 5 THE REFORMS OF SOLON
• 6 THE TYRANNY OF THE PEISISTRATIDS AT ATHENS
• 7 THE REFORMS OF CLEISTHENES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
• 8 ATHENIAN POLITICS FROM CLEISTHENES TO THE OUTBREAK OF THE PERSIAN WAR
• 9 THE PERSIAN WAR: GREEK STRATEGY AND THE LEADERSHIP OF SPARTA IN 480–479
• 10 THE DELIAN LEAGUE AND ATHENIAN EMPIRE
• 11 ATHENIAN POLITICS, 478– 462/1
• 12 SPARTAN FOREIGN POLICY AND PROBLEMS IN THE PELOPONNESE, 478– 446/5
• 13 THE DEMOCRATIC REFORMS OF EPHIALTES AND PERICLES, 462/1–451/0
• 14 THE INSTITUTIONS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY
• 15 ATHENIAN FOREIGN POLICY IN THE FIRST PELOPONNESIAN WAR, 462/1– 446/5
• 16 THE ATHENIAN EMPIRE: MEANS OF CONTROL, BENEFITS AND POPULARITY
• 17 THECAUSESOFTHE PELOPONNESIAN WAR
• 18 PERICLES AND THE NATURE OF ATHENIAN POLITICS
• 19 ATHENIAN AND SPARTAN STRATEGY IN THE ARCHIDAMIAN WAR, 431– 421
• 20 SPARTA, THE PELOPONNESE AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE DECELEAN WAR, 421– 413
• 21 ATHENS AND THE WEST, 458– 413
• 22 PERSIAN INTERVENTION IN THE IONIAN WAR, 413– 404
• 23 THE RISE AND FALL OF THE OLIGARCHIC MOVEMENT IN ATHENS, 411– 410
• 24 SPARTAN FOREIGN POLICY, 404– 387/6
• 25 THE ‘ HEGEMONY’ OF THEBES, 371– 362
• 26 THE RISE OF MACEDON (359– 336): DIPLOMACY AND WARFARE UNDER PHILIP II
• 27 ALEXANDER’ S GENERALSHIP AT THE BATTLES OF THE RIVER GRANICUS (334), ISSUS (333) AND GAUGAMELA (331)
• GLOSSARY
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• WEBSITES
• INDEX