Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:17:14.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tò πλẽθος in a Treaty Concerning the Affairs of Argos, Knossos and Tylissos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

William P. Merrill
William P. Merrill
Affiliation:
Brown University Providence, Rhode Island
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two inscriptions, one (A) found at Tylissos on Crete, the other (B) found at Argos, both dated about 450, concern relations between Argos and the Cretan towns of Knossos and its smaller neighbour, Tylissos. The close relationship between the treaties of fragment A and fragment B – and therefore the interconnection among Argos, Knossos, and Tylissos – seems generally recognized by scholars. The articles of the agreement lay down a diverse and complex set of arrangements among the three parties, but as a whole, the treaty has been interpreted in two ways: (1) the three πóλεις have entered into some sort of federal union; (2) only Argos and Knossos are signatories to the treaty, while Tylissos is a dependency of Argos. The former interpretation has gained wider acceptance than the latter, and if it is correct, just such a federal union would represent a remarkable advance in the development of Greek political institutions. In this paper we shall press a philological point based upon the information we have both from the treaty and from contemporary sources, and in so doing, we shall attempt to show that a federal union is unlikely. We shall then offer our own interpretation of the regulations governing the insular cities with regard to the formation of alliances and the declaration of friends and enemies.

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , May 1991 , pp. 16 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

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 Sources for text and commentary on these inscriptions include Vollgraff, W., BCH (1910), 331–54 (B)Google Scholar; (1913), 279–309 (B); Chatzidakis, J., ʼAρχ. ʼEϕ. (1914), 94ff. (A)Google Scholar; SIG i3 56 (B); E. Schwyzer, DGE 83 (B) and 84 (A); Buck, C. D., Gr. Dial. 80 (1928), pp. 285f. (B)Google Scholar; Solmsen, F. and Fränkel, E., Inscr. Gr. 27 (1930), pp. 47–9, (B)Google Scholar; Tod, M. N., GHI (1933) 33, pp. 59–63, (B)Google Scholar; Guarducci, M., Inscr. Cret. (1935), i, viii, 4, p. 56Google Scholar; i, xxx, p. 306; Kirsten, E., Kreta im V u. IV Jahrh. (1936), pp. 16f., pp. 27–8Google Scholar; RE vii.A.2 (1948), s.v. Tylissos, pp. 1723–6; Kahrstedt, U., Klio 34 (1942), 72–91, (A and B)Google Scholar; Amandry, P. and Caskey, J. L., Hesperia (1952), 21, 217–18, (B)Google Scholar; Schick, C., Riv. di Fil. NS 33 (1955), 371–2 (B)Google Scholar; Gschniter, F., Abhängige Orte (1958), pp. 44–8 (A and B)Google Scholar; Bengtson, H., Staats. Alt. ii.147 (A) and 148 (B) (1962), pp. 51–7Google Scholar; Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother City (1964), pp. 154–60, 235–4 (A and B)Google Scholar; Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D., GHI 42 (1969), pp. 99–105 (A and B)Google Scholar; Piccirilli, L., Gli arbitrati interstatali Greci I, 18–19 (1973), 82–96 (A and B)Google Scholar; Rigsby, K., TAPA (1976), 106, 326–8, (B)Google Scholar; Bravo, B., ASNP (1980), 10, 706, 725, 822, (B)Google Scholar; SEG 30 (1980), 354 (A and B)Google Scholar; Fornara, C. W., Archaic to Pel. War 89 (1983), pp. 88–90Google Scholar; and finally the exhaustive commentary by Willem, Vollgraff on A, B and four small fragments ‘Le Décret d'Argos relatif à un pacte entre Knossos et Tylissos’, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandsche Academie van Wetenschapen, afd Letterkunde, NS 51.2 (1948), pp. 1–105Google Scholar, to which references are made in this essay as Vollgraff, ‘Décret’.

2 So Vollgraff, , ‘Décret’, p. 13Google Scholar, who argues for a date near the end of the Argivo–Athenian Alliance of 464, but before the Argivo-Spartan Thirty Years' Peace was signed in 451. Also, Chatzidakis, Schwyzer, Buck, Tod, Guarducci, Kahrstedt, Gschnitzer, Bengtson, Graham, Meiggs–Lewis, Piccirilli and Fornara. Vollgraff cites three exceptions to the 450 dating (p. 14): Wilamowitz, (Platon i (1919), p. 669 n.1)Google Scholar: first half of fifth century; Kirsten (RE, 1726); second half of fifth century; von Gärtringen (SIG 356): after 450: Cum et Cretes quinto saeculo communes Graecorum res parum curarent, et Argivi, postquam a. 450 pacem cum Lacedaemoniis sanxerunt, usque ad Niciae pacem neque Spartanis neque Atheniensibus faverent, facile fieri potuit, ut inter hos neutrorum partes secutos arctiores necessitates, quae iam coloniarum deductarum fama nitebantur, illis potissimum annis (450–421) restituerentur. Jeffery, , LSAG, p. 165Google Scholar, notes the occurrence of later letter forms in A, which casts some doubt on a date fixed securely in the 450s: ‘[the Tylissos stone] shows a curious mixture of earlier and later forms: β1, γ1 or 4, θ1, ν4–5, υ3, ϕ3. ψ3. ν5 is not normal even in Attic before the quarter of the fifth century. This would not quite suit Vollgraff's thesis… It is perhaps easier to imagine Argos active in Crete during her alliance with Athens than after her peace with Sparta; but in that case the Argive mason who cut the copy for Tylis[s]os was in the forefront of fashion with his ν5’.

3 See, e.g. Jeffery, , LSAG, p. 165Google Scholar: ‘Vollgraff has put forward the attractive hypothesis that the fragments … are in fact a part of the same decree’; Meiggs–Lewis, , GHI, p. 102Google Scholar: ‘it seems highly probable that the two texts belong together’.

4 Vollgraff argues in favour of a federation (τò πγθος = ‘federal assembly’, ‘Décret’ pp. 20–6) and in favour of Argos as the mother city of Crete (‘Décret’, pp. 37f., pp. 91–104); Kahrstedt (pp. 90–1) proposes a bilateral agreement between Argos and Knossos, a view supported by Gschnitzer, who maintains also that Tylissos ‘ist argivisches Territorium’ (p. 46). This would seem unlikely, however, given the fact that the treaty's provisions appear to assure the rights of Tylissos against her stronger neighbour; the purpose of such assurances must surely be to maintain the independent status of Tylissos. Graham (pp. 156–7; 234–9) has a thorough discussion of both points of view in which he disposes of the theory advanced by Kahrstedt. The existence of a federation is needed to support Graham's argument for a metropolis–colony connection between Argos and the island cities.

5 Of those scholars listed in note 1, their translations of τò πλθος or interpretations of the passage in which it occurs are as follows. Chatzidakis: Στίχ. 8. τὠι πλέθει ένταθα αυνώνυμον τς τοῖς πολλοῖς ἤ τοῖς πλείοισι, τι πλειοψηϕίαι… (p. 97). Kahrstedt: τ πλίθος is a ‘Volksversammlung’ (p. 88), but the voting takes place city by city in chronological succession (p. 90). Bengtson translates both occurrences of τ πγêθος by ‘Bundesversammlung’ (p. 52). Kirsten finds a political arrangement among the three cities, but he is noncommital as to the nature of the arrangement: ‘Tylissos ist sekundär in eine Abmachung zwischen Argos und Knossos eintritt…’ (RE, p. 1723). Graham, : ‘the assembly’ (p. 237)Google Scholar; ‘Vollgraff has shown that the word πγθος must here mean the assembly of the allies to which delegates are sent…’ (p. 240). Meiggs and Lewis: ‘federal assembly’ (p. 103), ‘the text seems to imply a federal structure in which Argos, Knossos, Tylissos … are linked…’ (p. 104). Fornara, : ‘the (common?) assembly’ (p. 88)Google Scholar, ‘or, “the majority” (p. 89 n.).

6 Support for the meaning ‘the People’ is given by Gschnitzer in his discussion of Kahrstedt, but he does not develop the idea further: ‘[Kahrstedt] meint, es hätten der Reihe nach die Volksversammlungen (das πλθος) von Knossos, Tylissos, Argos zu entscheiden, wobei derjenigen, die als dritte abstimme, praktisch die Entscheidung zufiele. Aber diese Deutung wird dem Wortlaut offenbar nicht gerecht: es ist deutlich von einem πλθος die Rede, und die Deutung der τρίτα αἶσα im Sinn der Zeitfolge hat etwas Gezwungenes; zumal dann die Parallele zu den Bestimmungen über die Aufteilung der Beute wegfällt’ (p. 48 n.).

7 Cf. P. V. M. Benecke, CAH viii. 291.

8 The key passage is: έκκληαίας δ μετέχουσι πάντες κυρία δ' ούδενς έστιν λλ' ἢσυνεπιψηφίσασθαɩ τ δόξαντα τοῖς γέρουσι κα τοῖς κόαμοις, Polit. Il.vii. 4 (1272a) where Volgraff would have έκκλησία = πλθος.

9 See, e.g. Sealey, R., History (1976), p. 410Google Scholar; Culhan, P., ‘Delian League, Bi-cameral or Unicameral?’, AJAH 3 (1978), 27–31Google Scholar; M, M., CAH vi(iii). 73.Google Scholar

10 πλθος is indeed a common word in the Greek language. Herodotus uses πλθος or an oblique form 93 times, Thucydides 130 times, Thucydides 130 times. It is demonstrable in each instance that the word has one of its three accustomed meanings. (1) ‘many, large number’: Thuc. 2.89.1 Phormion addresses the frightened Athenian troops: όρν ύμς, ὦ ἄνδρες στρατιται, πεφοβημένους τ πλθος τν έναντίων ξυνεκάλεσα… (2) ‘majority’: Thuc. 1.125.1 Vote of the Peloponnesian League for war: οί δ Λακεδαιμόνιοι έπειδή άφ' πάντων ἤκουσαν γνώμην, ψφον τοῖς ξυμμάχοις ἂπασιν σοι παπσαν έπειδς, κα μείξονι κα έγάααονι πόλει κα τ πγθος έψηφίσαντο πολεμεῖν. (3) ‘the People, the Plebs, popular assembly’: Thuc. 4.21.3 Kleon's persuasiveness: μάλιτα νγε Κλέων ό Κλεαινέτου, άνρ δημαγωγς κατ' έκεῖνον ν κα τι πλήθει πιθανώτατος'

11 So Welwei, K.-W., ‘“Demos” und “Plethos” in athenischen Volksbeschlüssen um 450 v. Chr.’, Historia 35 (1986), 181Google Scholar: ‘Entsprechend kann τ πλθος in Erythrai nicht nur die breite Masse sein. Gemeint ist vielmehr auch hier die Bürgerschaft von Erythrai in ihrer Gesamtheit, die übrigens in diesem Dekret (2.20) auch als Demos bezeichnet wird’. Welwei cites W, W., Die Herrschaft der Athener im Ersten Seebund (Berlin–New York, 1974), p. 89Google Scholar, who takes πλêθος here as ‘die Masse des Volkes im Gegensatz zum Adel’.

12 In fact Chatzidakis, who takes τ πλêθος to mean ‘the majority’, considers the intervention of Argos to be ‘superfluous’ ( άνάμιχις το Αργουsfgr; το περιττ, p. 96) in a situation wherein each of the three cities has one third of the vote.

13 The only instance in B is έ πί κόσμος (41–2).

14 Similar passages with the phrase λαχὡν άπ ληίδος αῖσαν occur in Od. 5.40 and 13.138.

15 Odysseus employs the same words in a reference to his return when speaking to the servant Melantho at 19.84.

16 Of course this does not explain the occurrence of λαχὡν άπ ληίδος in B 6. Perhaps this discrepancy in terminology may be used as evidence that A and B, while contemporary, are not parts of the same decree.

17 Note that while both cities vote, Knossos and Tylissos will not always be in concord in such designations. For this reason, the treaty specifies an arbitrator – Argos – to resolve the issue.

18 An analogous, but non-Greek situation (where a popular assembly is empowered to break a tie resulting from the disagreement of two other bodies) may be found in Aristotle's discussion of the Carthaginian constitution (Politics 1273a23). Here, matters are submitted to the People in the event of a disagreement between the King and the Council of Elders: το μν γρ τ μν προσάγειν τ δ μ προσάγειν πρς τν οί βασιλεῖς κύριοι μετ τν γερόντων ἂν όμογγνωμονσι πάντες, εέ δ μ, κα τούτων ό δμος.

19 ἵνα μ φωραθσιν ύπ τν Λακεδαιμονίων οί συνθέlεμνι τοῖς' Αργείοις explains the scholiast.

20 A modern equivalent to both the Thucydidean and the Tylissian phrases might be, ‘neither of the two cities may make a new treaty unless Congress agrees, and the Americans shall cast one-third of the vote’.

21 The author wishes to thank Professors A. L. Boegehold and C. W. Fornara for their advice and encouragement.