Dating the Peace of 375/4 B.C. Buckler, John Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1971; 12, 3; ProQuest pg. 353 Dating the Peace of 375/4 B.C. John Buckler THE PEACE OF 375/4 B.C. stands as a minor monument to the complexities of fourth-century chronology. A. Momigliano, l G. L. Cawkwell,2 and R. Sealey,3 among others, have attempted to date precisely the conclusion of the peace treaty; and the most likely, indeed the only reasonable, candidates suggested so far have been autumn 375 and spring 374.4 I do not believe that the peace can be fixed beyond all doubt to either date, because the evidence for the date is a blend of the exact and the relative; and the degree of rela­ tivity condemns it to uncertainty. Nevertheless each of these writers has failed to devote full attention to one aspect of the question-the Theban operations in Phokis. Xenophon at Hellenica 6.2.1 states that while the Spartans and Thebans were confronting each other in Phokis, the peace was concluded. If the Theban invasion of phokis can be dated with a fair degree of certainty and thus be set securely within the chronological framework, it would put us· one step closer to ascertaining the date of the peace treaty itself. The peace treaty must be put after the cruise of Timotheos, which Xenophon (Hell. 5.4.63) clearly places in 375 B.C.: aTE OE Elc TaC ei]f3ac 1 "Un momento di storia greca: la pace del 375 a. C. e il Plataico di Isocrate," Athenaeum N.S. 14 (1936) 3-35 [hereafter, MOMIGLIANO]. 2 "Notes on the Peace of 375/4," Historia 12 (1963) 84-95 [hereafter, CAWKWELL]. 3 "IG II2. 1609 and the Transformation of the Second Athenian Sea-League," Phoenix 11 (1957) 95-111 [hereafter, SEALEY]. 4 Scholars favoring autumn 375 B.C. include: K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte (Berlin and Leipzig 1922) III1 156 and III2 234 [hereafter, BELOCH, GG]; Momigliano 3 n.1, 27; S. Accame, La lega ateniese del secolo IV A. C. (Rome 1941) 143-51 [hereafter, ACCAME, La lega]; Cawkwell 88-91; T. T. B. Ryder, Koine Eirene (London and New York 1965) 58; spring 374 B.C.: Georg Busolt, "Der zweite athenische Bund," NJbb suppl. 7 (Leipzig 1874) 771; W. Judeich, "Athen und Theben vom Konigsfrieden bis zur Schlacht bei Leuktra," RhM N.F. 76 (1927) 181; Sealey 102; summer 374 B.C.: Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums V (Stuttgart and Berlin 1902) 397 [hereafter, MEYER, GdA]; F. H. Marshall, The Second Athenian Confederacy (Cambridge 1905) 65; A. G. Roos, "The Peace of Sparta of 374 B.C.," Mnemosyne 4.2 (194q) 266 n.1; P. Cloche, Thebes de Beotie (Namur 1952) 126; S. Lauffer, "Die Diodordublette XV 38= 50 tiber die Friedensschltisse zu Sparta 374 und 371 v.Chr.," Historia 8 (1959) 321. 353 354 DATING THE PEACE OF 375/4 B.C. aUK €f.L{3€{3A'Y}KOTWV TWV TToA€f.LLWV OUT' €V cJ> KA€0f.L{3POTOC .ryy€ T~V GTpanaV ET€' OUT' €V cp TLf.LoB€oc TT€ptETTA€VCL Timotheos fought the naval battle in the waters between Leukas and Alyzeia on the Attic feast of Skira, which took place on 12 Skirophorion.5 After this point there are no definite dates connected with Timotheos' activities in the Ionian Sea. He undoubtedly spent the rest of the summer ready to baffle any Spartan attempt to regain the area, while at the same time he strengthened Athenian influence there. The fruits of his efforts were not long in coming. By early autumn 375 B.C. Kerkyra, Akarnania and Kephallenia concluded formal alliances with Athens.6 While Timotheos was thus engaged, the Spartan navy posed no serious threat to his efforts. Although the Spartan fleet was still a serious naval entity after the Battle of Alyzeia, it did not again challenge the supremacy of Timotheos' squadron.7 Instead the Lakedaimonian triereis were probably called back to the Corinthian Gulf sometime that summer. The Spartans had voted to send their field-army under Kleombrotos to protect phokis from Theban in­ vasion, and the Spartan warships presumably escorted the transports that were to ferry the army to phokis.8 After this event no further Spartan naval activity is mentioned.9 Timotheos was still in the Ionian Sea during the time that Kleombrotos was active in phokis.10 The sources do not say whether he passed the winter months in the west or returned to the Peiraieus. Yet in all probability he returned to Athens instead of wintering in the 5 Polyainos, Strat. 3.10.4. 6 IG 112 96 = Tod, GHI no.126. On the dating of this inscription, see Accame, La lega 46, 86-87, who puts the prytany named in the inscription in August-September 375 B.C., and H. Bengtson, Die Staatsvertriige des Altertums (Munich and Berlin 1962) II no.262. See also IG IP 43 lines 97-110 and IG 112 97. Even though IG IP 43 lines 97-111 are the source of much trouble, the names above the erasure in line 111 are generally dated to 375 B.C. by Ditten­ berger, SIG3 147 n.35, and also by A. G. Woodhead, "IG Ira 43 and Jason ofPherae," AJA 61 (1957) 370-72. For recent bibliography see Bengtson, Die Staatsvertriige II no.2S7. 7 Xen. Hell. 5.4.66, although K. Klee, RE 6A (1937) 1326, doubts that Nikolokhos again offered battle to Timotheos' fleet. 8 Xen. Hell. 6.1.1; even though Xenophon does not specifically state that Nikolokhos' warships escorted this convoy, it is unthinkable that the Spartans would have ferried their main field-army without an escort, especially with Timotheos still in the Ionian Sea. \I The next time that a Spartan fleet was called into action, it first had to be collected again: Xen. Hell. 6.2.3. 10 Otherwise Xen. Hell. 6.1.17 makes no sense when he speaks of morai stationed near Sparta to be employed against Athenian triereis. JOHN BUCKLER 355 Ionian Sea.H By autumn 375 he had built up Athenian prestige in the west and had added several new members to the Athenian Con­ federacy. He could not continue his naval activity into the winter months, due to the inability of the Greek triereis to operate safely in rough seas. Clearly there was nothing else to be done there. Neverthe­ less, K. Klee12 maintains that Timotheos remained in the west throughout the winter in order to be active on behalf of the Athenian Confederacy and to be prepared to meet a renewed Spartan threat the next spring. In the first place Timotheos had been active for the Confederacy, and had in fact completed this end of his mission with considerable success. Klee's second point is much stronger. Admit­ tedly the Athenians, if they recalled Timotheos' ships, would be forced to reassemble the fleet the next spring, but the same would hold true for the Spartans. Any state threatened by the Spartan fleet would be expected to hold out until the Athenian relief-force arrived. This course of action is exactly the one taken by the Athenians when Mnasippos later blockaded Kerkyra.13 If Timotheos had little to gain by remaining in the Ionian Sea, he stood to lose much. Ever since the Battle of Alyzeia he had been hampered by lack of money.14 He had originally been dispatched from Athens at the head of 60 triereis; and after the battle he manned ten more in Kerkyra.15 Thus he did not lack ships, but he did need money badly in order to pay his crews their overdue wages.16 Even though he had the necessary provisions to stay the winter, his want of money caused a great deal of grumbling among his ships' crews, who were on the point of mutinyP In these circumstances to keep a fleet in the west throughout the winter would have been a super­ human feat. Had the ships' crews been kept there for the winter, it would have been necessary to pay them during that time. If, on the other hand, they returned to Athens, they could be disbanded. 11 For Timotheos' operations, see Beloch, GG IIIl 154 and III2 234-35. Cawkwell 89 also argues that Timotheos returned to Athens. Some of those who take the opposite view are Marshall, op.cit. (supra n.4) 65; Klee, op.cit. (supra n.7) 1326; and Sealey 102. 12 loc.cit. (supra n.7). 13 Xen. Hell. 6.2.4-26; Diod. 15.46.1-3. Cawkwe1l86 states that "Timotheos went out long before Corcyra was directly attacked," but even so Timotheos sailed originally because the Kerkyrians claimed that they were threatened. 14 Xen. Hell. 5.4.66; [Arist.] Oec. 1350a30. 15 Xen. Hell. 5.4.63-66; Beloch, GG IIIl 154. 16 Xen. Hell. 5.4.66; [Arist.] Oec. 1350a30. 17 [Arist.] Oec. 1350a30. 356 DATING THE PEACE OF 375/4 B.c. The added expense of paying for an inactive fleet was not the sort of luxury that Athens could afford at that moment. Despite Athens' brilliant naval victories, especially Chabrias' victory at Naxos and Timotheos' at Alyzeia, Athenian finances were in a depleted state.18 The Athenians were suffering from extraordinary taxes and from raiding expeditions staged from Aigina.19 Furthermore, Thebes was not contributing to the treasury.20 Matters were not much better in 373 when Iphikrates resorted to extreme measures to gather money and ships for the relief of Kerkyra.21 After his operations around Kerkyra, Iphikrates supposedly financed his operations by selling his captives into slavery.22 At any rate, Athens in this period could hardly support a fleet that did not defray at least part of its own operating expenses. Thus, a fleet laid up for the winter in the Ionian Sea was simply too great a financial burden for the Athenian treasury. Therefore, in all likelihood, Timotheos sailed home in autumn 375. Here Xenophon ends Book V of the Hellenica. Xenophon begins Book VI by tying preceding events together, this . h I I 0 • \ l' 'AB ~ \ A 1:" \ A tlme rat er oose y: t JLEV ovv 7Jvawt Kat aKEoaLJLOVWt 7TEpt TaVTa - • I:' \ CI R A , \ './, \, A B ' " , , 1Jaav. at UE 1'Y7Jt'awL E7TH KaTECTpE'I'aVTO Tac €V Tn OLwnq. 7TOI\ELC. ECTpa- TEVOV Ka, EtC T~V WK€ac. Thus it is quite possible that by early August 375 B.C. the Thebans were back in Boiotia, guarding the approaches from Phokis in case of an invasion by Kleombrotos. Placing the Theban invasion ofphokis in summer 375 would tightly compress the events of that summer, but not impossibly so. Here Polyainos' date for the Battle of Alyzeia becomes even more signifi­ cant than before. The battle was fought on 12 Skirophorion 375/4 B.C.; and, as Xenophon says,27 while the Athenians and Lakedaimonians were thus engaged, the Thebans invaded Phokis. True, Xenophon speaks in very general terms, yet he has just been describing the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Alyzeia in the preceding book. Furthermore he has not yet gone on to narrate subsequent events. His opening words in Book VI sum up what has already happened before he continues with his narrative.28 Therefore, Polyainos' date, if accepted, helps to determine that the Thebans did invade Phokis in 375 B.C., undoubtedly after the Battle of Tegyra and almost certainly as a strategic follow-up to it. If, on the other hand, the Theban operations against phokis are put in 374 B.C., as Sealey suggests,29 another problem is raised, especially 27 Hell. 6.1.1; see also Diod. 15.36.6-37.1. 28 Malcolm MacLaren Jr, "On the Composition of Xenophon's Hellenica," AJP 55 (1934) 131 and n.42, discusses this type of sentence in the Hellenica, and gives an extensive list of them, among which is 6.1.1. He comments: "With these sentences Xenophon sums up and rounds off one subject, and pauses momentarily before proceeding with the next topic. These sentences are usually very short, they generally contain a demonstrative word .. and they are very frequently introduced by p.~ a~." This type of sentence, incidentally, is very similar to the one used by Diod. 15.37.1: ·AJLa at TOVTOLC 7TparrOJL'VOLC e7Jf1a"i.ot JLtv £crrpaT£vuav £7T' 'OPxop.£vov. See also Cawkwell 89, who mentions that peace in 374 would stretch Xenophon's account "uncomfortably." 29 Sealey 103; Meyer, GdA V 397, dates the first dispatch of Kleombrotos to Phokis in 374 and the second (V 409) in 371.). WoIrer, in). Kromayer, Antike Schlachtfelder IV (Berlin 1931) 290, assumes that Kleombrotos was first sent to Phokis in 375/4 and remained there until JOHN BUCKLER 359 if the conclusion of the peace is placed in spring or summer 374. Momigliano, and more recently Cawkwell, have shown that the peace was still in effect until 373.30 Therefore, the Theban attack on Phokis would have come either during or after the peace negotiations. The former would have been in spirit a breach of the peace, and the latter an outright transgression of the articles of the peace. Despite lack of Theban enthusiasm for the peace, it is highly unlikely that the Thebans would have taken a step that would disrupt the negotiations, especially since the Athenians had threatened to exclude them from the peace unless they supported Athenian efforts for a settlement.31 A Theban attack after the treaty had been signed would have been not only a breach of the peace agreement but also an act of war. Nowhere do the sources accuse the Thebans of any such violation of the peace, and certainly Isokrates in the Plataikos would have painted Theban perfidy of this sort in the worst colors, especially since this speech is clearly a propaganda attack on the Thebans and their efforts towards the unification of Boiotia. Thus, placing the Theban threat to Phokis in 374 conjures up more problems than it lays to rest. The last significant piece of evidence for the date of the peace treaty adds its own perplexities to an already perplexing question. Isokrates and Cornelius Nepos32 mention that the peace treaty was so advanta­ geous to Athens that a festival to Eirene was established and cele­ brated with sacrifices every year. The scholiast to Aristophanes' Peace 1019 states: cpad yap Tfj TWV CVVOLKEclwv EOpTfj Bvclav TEAEtcBaL Elp~vT/' , ~'f3 ' ,t - Q tE f3 - ' ''' , <;:, TOV OE Wf-LOV f-LYJ aLf-LaTovcuaL, KaTOf-L aLWVOC f-LYJVOC EKTT/ E1TL OEKa, which would place the festival in late summer or early autumn.33 Although M.P. Nilsson34 places the establishment of the cult after the Peace of 371 B.C., Ludwig Deubner35 proves that it was founded to celebrate the Peace of 375 B.C. The question here is why the festival of Eirene should be joined with the celebration of the Synoikia. Eirene the Battle of Leuktra. Beloch, GG IIP 160-61 and lIP 236-38, argues that he was sent once to phokis (in 371); against this view is M. Cary, "Notes on the aptuT£la of Thebes," ]HS 42 (1922) 184-85. 30 Momigliano 27-32; Cawkwell 84-88; Ryder, op.cit. (supra n.4) 61. 31Isoc. 14.37; Ryder, op.cit. (supra n.4) 59. 32 Isoc. 4.109-10; Nep. Timoth. 2.2-3. 33 Momigliano 17; A. Mommsen, Heortologie (Leipzig 1864) 96-104 and Taf. n; but see also E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (Ithaca 1968) 36-38, who points out the difficulties in assigning Julian dates to Attic months. 34 RE 4A (1932) 1435. 35 Attische Peste (Berlin 1932) 37-38, followed by Momigliano 16-17. 360 DATING THE PEACE OF 375/4 B.C. and Athena may not have been the direct antithesis to one another, but they were not exactly boon-companions either. F. Jacoby36 suggests that the festival was inserted in Hekatombaion, which contained the greatest festivals to Athena, because the Athenians were so happy over the peace; yet he does not sound convinced of this him­ self. Cawkwe1l37 proposes that the festival was celebrated on 16 Hekatombaion because that was the day on which peace was made, which would explain the unlikely pairing of the festivals. This sug­ gestion is eminently sensible and probably correct. Taking an opposite view, Sealey38 feels that peace could not have been made so early as August 375. Yet Cawkwell points out that Timotheos had won the Battle of Alyzeia the month before; and, as suggested above, the Thebans could have concluded their abortive Phokian campaign by this time. True enough, these events are tightly packed together, but nonetheless an acceptable sequence of events can be established: (1) the Battle of Tegyra in spring, (2) the Battle of Alyzeia in June, (3) the Theban invasion of Phokis while the Athenians and Spartans were still embroiled off Akarnania, and finally (4) the conclusion of peace just after the Thebans had returned from Phokis. Therefore, peace was concluded in late summer 375 B.C. Peace in the autumn of 375, moreover, has two attractive features. First, after the signing of the peace, the Athenians sent messengers to Timotheos with orders to return to Athens.39 Consequently Timotheos would be relieved of the problem of keeping a fleet manned by unruly sailors in the Ionian Sea over the winter. Next, peace in 375 B.C. would explain why the Spartans did not move south into Boiotia from Phokis, as the Thebans evidently expected them to do. With the Phokians acting as guides (as they were to do for Kleombrotos before the Battle of Leuktra), the Spartans could easily have followed up their early advantage. Yet the Spartans did nothing. Xenophon leaves his readers with the Spartans still assembling in Phokis, and the Thebans guard­ ing the approaches from Phokis to Boiotia. Cessation of hostilities in 375 B.C. would explain why the Spartans did not invade Boiotia, regardless of how inviting the opportunity may have been. In conclusion, I would date the peace to the late summer or early 36 FGrHist llib Supp. 1.420-21 and llib Supp. 11.522-25. 37 Cawkwell 90 n.56. 38 Sealey 102. 39 Xen. Hell. 6.2.2; E. von Stern, Geschichte der spartanischen und thebanischen Hegemonie (Dorpat 1884) 101; Meyer, GdA V 397. JOHN BUCKLER 361 autumn of 375 B.C., rather than to spring 374 B.C. This dating is, how­ ever, open to dispute because the very nature of the evidence will not permit a dogmatic position. Nevertheless, the sequence of events here suggested is reasonable and agrees well with all available chrono­ logical information, especially that contained in Xenophon's account. In sunnner 375 B.C. the Thebans invaded phokis while the Spartans and Athenians still faced each other in the Ionian Sea. During the Theban invasion, negotiations took place among the major bellig­ erents which resulted in a general peace. By autumn 375 hostilities had ceased, and Greece saw a brief season of peace.40 HARVARD UNIVERSITY May, 1971 40 I thank Professor James H. Oliver for generous advice. The defects of this essay are, of course, chargeable to me alone.