DOCSLIB.ORG

Spartans a New History Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spartans a New History Pdf Spartans a new history pdf Continue For those who study or teach the ancient world but are not a disciple of ancient Sparta, Nigel Kennell has written a paper to bridge the gap between Sparta's general concept and what experts believe. He argues that this is appropriate, given the fact that while the myth of Sparta is slowly collapsing (graphic novels and films like 300 might suggest otherwise), the new picture is far more fragmentary and complex than we might imagine. Kennenell's book tries to emphasize advances in our knowledge, reconcile, where possible, contradictory explanations, and often recognize that the state of our knowledge excludes consistent and convincing conclusions. The book begins with a brief discussion of the geography/topography of the region; the brevity of this section is perhaps the clearest indicator of the lack of systematic archaeology in the region. The more well-known and subject of most of the chapter are the twelve main sources of written or epigraphic evidence that Cannell examines (and evaluates) in chronological order. While all literary sources have contributed to the Spartan myth, Cannell acknowledges that Plutarch is probably the main culprit. The second chapter, the Sons of Hercules, tries to reconcile conflicts in the myths of Spartan origin with the evidence presented by archaeology. Cannell argues that, while the Spartans themselves may have reconciled Heraclid's return to Dorian's invasion, archaeological records and linguistic evidence are milit against a consistent explanation. Kennell is more confident in the archaeological records of the eighth century, during which, he said, Laconia was and remained sparsely populated, almost exclusively in the settlements of the Eurotas Valley in Sparta and Aiklae. Myths/accounts of Ahaean, Minyan, Lemen, Parthenian migrations from Laconia, he said, may reflect the gradual development of Spartan power and xenelasia, later associated with the Spartans. It may also be a period of the earliest foundations of the Perioek communities, according to Kennell, a kind of internal colonization. But very much remains speculative and Kennell admits that it's not until the seventh century that we can really see Sparta, which is not legendary. Chapter 3 refers to the conquest of Messiah and its causes; Eunomia Tirtei and The Great Retra, both difficult texts for which he makes a commentary, suggest that attempts to cope with the unequal distribution of land may be the most convincing explanation for the annexation of Messenia. From this point of view Tyrtaeus becomes a spartan salt, but Kennell argues that the retra also demonstrate that land reform has come with a price for damos. However, the resolution of the conflict between the nobility and the people served as an impetus for both the growth of the population of Laconia and for the League. When Cleomeen succeeded in taking the throne of Aguiad, Sparta absorbed Laconia and was clearly the hegemon of the Peloponnese. In subsequent chapters (4, 7, 8 and 9) Kennell tells the story of Sparta through the reigns of the Spartan kings. His approach offers three significant advantages. First of all, we better appreciate the role of the king in both the formation and execution of Spartan foreign policy. Second, it provides a narrative that Sparta has as a focal point. Athens loses its usual place in the center of the Greek world, and Sparta becomes an agent, not a defendant in historical events. Especially for the reign of influential personalities such as Cleomene I or Agesilaus II, Kennell offers a picture of a policy deliberately chosen and consistently pursued, even if they do not yield the desired results. Finally, the emphasis on Sparta also allows for a continuous narrative of internal affairs and shows, among other things, that the so-called Constitution of Sparta Lykurgan has constantly evolved throughout its history. In fact the Lykurgan system, as reported by Plutarch, probably better represents the system of Cleomen III and third century, rather than any archaic invention. These narrative chapters are by far the most accessible of the book and offer an excellent correction of traditional stories, especially the fifth and fourth centuries. Kennell interrupts his chronological narrative twice to address specific issues or problems. The first excursus consists of two chapters that explore helots and perioeci (Chapter 5) and the government of Sparta (Chapter 6). There are a number of questions or questions about the establishment of helotage: origin, status, use of property, and disposal. Kennell believes that the helots were in individual ownership, but that there were restrictions on their location; he insists that the helots were not the chatter of slaves. In order to explain why this much larger population remains subordinate to their superior Spartiate masters, Kennell points to the possibilities for moving from agriculture to domestic work (owner) or for military service (state). The neodamodays mentioned by the Thucydids probably represents helots already chimed as a reward for service as a light armed force and now, as citizens, fighting in the ranks of the phalanx. Perioechi, by contrast, were free-born in small (400-600) dependent communities that are very similar to internal colonies scattered throughout Laconia and Messenia. Our sources, Cannell notes, suggest that they were ethnically and socially homogeneous with the Spartans; thus they fought side by side with them in the phalanx. Their role in the economy is equally ambiguous; The Spartans were engaged in production, and we know that the Periochis were raised on behalf of themselves and the kings with whom they had special ties. six, Sparta Office, reviews of Sparta's offices, listing the duties, powers and prerogatives of kings, ephora, gerusia, and assemblies. As in the rest of the book, kings take pride of place. Kennell claims that they were not, strictly speaking, homoioi: they identified themselves as achaeans, not Dorians, and they were not involved in agoge. Priests, commanders and judges, they were expected to be political as well as reign. They supported themselves with war trophies, royal estates and tributes paid by the Perrioechi, but their influence in the state depended on their charisma as much as their pedigree and tenure. The annual office was an afrorate weakness, although Kennell's listing of his duties clearly shows why they can challenge the weak king. Ironically, he suggests that the office may well have been the creation of kings, a voluntary restriction of royal power under the pressure of reform. The Ephras were responsible for foreign policy and internal affairs, mobilized troops during the war, had judicial powers and served as a drilling function for the assembly, whose meetings they controlled and whose decisions they carried out. Herusia, a central element of the reforms in Likurgan, has also been a pro-Brexit body, and Cannell explains the legislative process to show how the ephores and geronts shaped the legislative process. Cannell concludes his constitutional review with remarks on the assembly, which, while certainly more limited than the Athenian, did exercise final power in matters of peace and war. Kennell's last interruption of the chronological, royal narrative takes place in the chapter on Isil. After burying the King, Kennell focuses on three sources and three battles (Herodotus and Plata, Thucydides and Mantina, as well as Xenophon and Laketra) to study the size, structure, training, weapons and culture of the Spartan army. He believes that between 479 and 425 years of age a major reform was carried out, as a result of which units with a large staff of officers were carefully structured. The most interesting are his comments on weapons and armor; the hop was not as metal-clad as we might believe. Instead, the very formation of the phalanx itself seems to be the best guarantee of the safety and survival of individual soldiers. The latter chapter examines the post-monarchical (or diarchic) Sparta under the leadership of the Ahay League and then Rome. While Filippoemen banned the lycourt system, it was restored under the Romans after Pidna. As the civil wars of the first century in Rome spread to the Balkans, the whole of Greece was prepared. Fortunately for Sparta, the Dynamo sided with Octavian, and his support was rewarded with citizenship for himself and benefits for the city. His subsequent fall and fall of the Nero dynasty removes Sparta notoriety to Hadrian's time, when agoge, or rather nostalgic and vainly cruel re-creation of it, was renewed. Alaric's capture of the city in 396 brings this short chapter and history to an end. The book concludes with an eight-page bibliography and a detailed sixteen-page index. Although there is a map of the city of Sparta, the maps of Laconia and the Peloponnese will be a useful addition to the future edition. In addition, since monarchs are a thread of narrative, a royal list, including relevant regents, would be useful. I found twelve black and white photos poorly reproduced and not particularly useful. There is a lot about Sparta that we don't know; consistency is too often achieved by ignoring the contradictions between our sources or between written and material evidence. In this respect, we have also embraced this myth. Cannell effectively demonstrates that the center will not hold, but readers will have to settle for a picture that can be very confusing (for the Bronze and Early Iron Age) or fragmentary (even for the best proven periods and institutions). He taught us to be more inquisitive, distrustful and circumspect in looking at the history and institutions of this most unusual and fascinating city. For those of us who are not an expert in Sparta, this is useful and informative, but sometimes demanding, read.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato's Dialogues
    Philosophy and the Foreigner in Plato’s Dialogues By Rebecca LeMoine A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) at the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON 2014 Date of final oral examination: 06/20/2014 The dissertation is approved by the following members of the Final Oral Committee: Richard Avramenko, Associate Professor, Political Science Alex Dressler, Assistant Professor, Classics Daniel Kapust, Associate Professor, Political Science Helen Kinsella, Associate Professor, Political Science John Zumbrunnen, Professor, Political Science i ABSTRACT The place of foreigners in Plato’s thought remains understudied despite the prevalence of foreign characters, myths, and practices throughout his dialogues. Attending to this gap in the scholarly literature, this dissertation challenges conventional depictions of Plato as hostile to diversity by showing that Plato makes a compelling case for why we should engage with foreigners: the epistemological benefits of cross-cultural engagement. Through exegetical readings of the Republic, Laws, Phaedrus, and Menexenus, I argue that Plato finds cross-cultural dialogue epistemologically beneficial owing to its ability to provoke us to philosophize together, an activity at once conducive to the quest for wisdom and generative of friendship. Put simply, conversations with foreigners perform the same role as the Socratic gadfly of stinging us into consciousness. This finding has major implications for the field of political theory and, specifically, for the role of the new subfield commonly referred to as comparative political theory. By demonstrating the centrality of cross-cultural dialogue to Plato’s conception of political theory, this dissertation suggests that comparative political theory is not a deviation from the tradition of Western political theory, but a restoration of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Female Property Ownership and Status in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta
    Female Property Ownership and Status in Classical and Hellenistic Sparta Stephen Hodkinson University of Manchester 1. Introduction The image of the liberated Spartiate woman, exempt from (at least some of) the social and behavioral controls which circumscribed the lives of her counterparts in other Greek poleis, has excited or horrified the imagination of commentators both ancient and modern.1 This image of liberation has sometimes carried with it the idea that women in Sparta exercised an unaccustomed influence over both domestic and political affairs.2 The source of that influence is ascribed by certain ancient writers, such as Euripides (Andromache 147-53, 211) and Aristotle (Politics 1269b12-1270a34), to female control over significant amounts of property. The male-centered perspectives of ancient writers, along with the well-known phenomenon of the “Spartan mirage” (the compound of distorted reality and sheer imaginative fiction regarding the character of Spartan society which is reflected in our overwhelmingly non-Spartan sources) mean that we must treat ancient images of women with caution. Nevertheless, ancient perceptions of their position as significant holders of property have been affirmed in recent modern studies.3 The issue at the heart of my paper is to what extent female property-holding really did translate into enhanced status and influence. In Sections 2-4 of this paper I shall approach this question from three main angles. What was the status of female possession of property, and what power did women have directly to manage and make use of their property? What impact did actual or potential ownership of property by Spartiate women have upon their status and influence? And what role did female property-ownership and status, as a collective phenomenon, play within the crisis of Spartiate society? First, however, in view of the inter-disciplinary audience of this volume, it is necessary to a give a brief outline of the historical context of my discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    9781405129992_6_ind.qxd 16/06/2009 12:11 Page 203 Index Acanthus, 130 Aetolian League, 162, 163, 166, Acarnanians, 137 178, 179 Achaea/Achaean(s), 31–2, 79, 123, Agamemnon, 51 160, 177 Agasicles (king of Sparta), 95 Achaean League: Agis IV and, agathoergoi, 174 166; as ally of Rome, 178–9; Age grades: see names of individual Cleomenes III and, 175; invasion grades of Laconia by, 177; Nabis and, Agesilaus (ephor), 166 178; as protector of perioecic Agesilaus II (king of Sparta), cities, 179; Sparta’s membership 135–47; at battle of Mantinea in, 15, 111, 179, 181–2 (362 B.C.E.), 146; campaign of, in Achaean War, 182 Asia Minor, 132–3, 136; capture acropolis, 130, 187–8, 192, 193, of Phlius by, 138; citizen training 194; see also Athena Chalcioecus, system and, 135; conspiracies sanctuary of after battle of Leuctra and, 144–5, Acrotatus (king of Sparta), 163, 158; conspiracy of Cinadon 164 and, 135–6; death of, 147; Acrotatus, 161 Epaminondas and, 142–3; Actium, battle of, 184 execution of women by, 168; Aegaleus, Mount, 65 foreign policy of, 132, 139–40, Aegiae (Laconian), 91 146–7; gift of, 101; helots and, Aegimius, 22 84; in Boeotia, 141; in Thessaly, Aegina (island)/Aeginetans: Delian 136; influence of, at Sparta, 142; League and,COPYRIGHTED 117; Lysander and, lameness MATERIAL of, 135; lance of, 189; 127, 129; pro-Persian party on, Life of, by Plutarch, 17; Lysander 59, 60; refugees from, 89 and, 12, 132–3; as mercenary, Aegospotami, battle of, 128, 130 146, 147; Phoebidas affair and, Aeimnestos, 69 102, 139; Spartan politics and, Aeolians,
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict in the Peloponnese
    CONFLICT IN THE PELOPONNESE Social, Military and Intellectual Proceedings of the 2nd CSPS PG and Early Career Conference, University of Nottingham 22-24 March 2013 edited by Vasiliki BROUMA Kendell HEYDON CSPS Online Publications 4 2018 Published by the Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies (CSPS), School of Humanities, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. © Centre for Spartan and Peloponnesian Studies and individual authors ISBN 978-0-9576620-2-5 This work is ‘Open Access’, published under a creative commons license which means that you are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to the authors, that you do not use this work for any commercial gain in any form and that you in no way alter, transform or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarship without express permission of the authors and the publisher of this volume. Furthermore, for any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/csps TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. i THE FAMILY AS THE INTERNAL ENEMY OF THE SPARTAN STATE ........................................ 1-23 Maciej Daszuta COMMEMORATING THE WAR DEAD IN ANCIENT SPARTA THE GYMNOPAIDIAI AND THE BATTLE OF HYSIAI .............................................................. 24-39 Elena Franchi PHILOTIMIA AND PHILONIKIA AT SPARTA ......................................................................... 40-69 Michele Lucchesi SLAVERY AS A POLITICAL PROBLEM DURING THE PELOPONESSIAN WARS ..................... 70-85 Bernat Montoya Rubio TYRTAEUS: THE SPARTAN POET FROM ATHENS SHIFTING IDENTITIES AS RHETORICAL STRATEGY IN LYCURGUS’ AGAINST LEOCRATES ................................................................................ 86-102 Eveline van Hilten-Rutten THE INFLUENCE OF THE KARNEIA ON WARFARE ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PAUSANIAS and the EPHORATE' Pausanias, the Victor at the Battle Of
    PAUSANIAS AND THE EPHORATE’ Pausanias, the victor at the battle of Plataea in 479 B.C., is given by Arist. Pol. 1307Ἀ as an example of the way factions can arise in an aristocracy: ἔτι ἐὰν τις μεγας ἠ καὶ δυναμενος ἔτι μεΐζων εΐναι, ἵνα μονάρχῃ (ίὖσπερ ἕν Αακεδαιμονι δοκεῖ Παυσανίας ὁ στρατηγῇσας κατὰ τὸν Μηδικὸν πόλεμον καὶ ἐν Καρχηδόνι ’Ἄννων). As we all know, Pausanias received the command in 479 because at the time the Eurypontid king, Leotychidas, was at sea where he fought the Persians in the battle at Mykale. Since the Agiad king, Pleistarchus, was still a minor, Pausanias, his cousin, was regent in his name.1 2 Pausanias’ aspirations to one-man rule in Sparta are recorded in Thucydides as well as in the passage quoted above. Thucydides does not say explicitly that Pausanias wanted to establish a dictatorship or monarchy in Sparta but his second account of the Regent (I, 128-135) certainly implies it. Any Spartan who contemplated an emancipation of the Helots (ibid. 132) would have come into conflict with the Ephors (who were mainly responsible for the subjugation of the Helots) and would have had to establish at least a temporary dictatorship in Sparta.3 Herodotus (5.32) and Thucydides (1.128) accused Pausanias of attempting to rule Greece; hence, Arist. Pol. 1307Ἀ is not surprising. It only supports this tradition.4 1 I wish to acknowledge here the help and encouragement of Profs. M.H. Chambers, Ε. Badian and Ζ. Yaavetz. The conclusions and errors are, however, my own. 2 Sources quoted by Ρ.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterintelligence
    ch5.qxd 10/18/1999 2:14 PM Page 190 Chapter 5 Counterintelligence As the shield is a practical response to the spear, so counterintelligence is to intelligence. Just as it is in the interest of a state to enhance its ability to in›uence events through the use of intelligence, it is in its interest to deny a similar ability to its opponents. The measures taken to accomplish this end fall within the nebulous boundaries of the discipline now known as counterintelligence.1 Was such a shield employed by the ancients? In general, yes— although, as with intelligence, this response must be quali‹ed in degree according to state, circumstance, and era. Assessments are, however, somewhat complicated by the use of stereotypes and propaganda by the ancients. Members of democratic states (i.e., the Athenians, who have left us a lion’s share of evidence) tended then—and still tend—to wish to conceive of their societies as open and free and of subjects of other forms of government as liable to scrutiny and censorship. In his funeral oration, Pericles declared that the Athenians “hold our city open to all and never withhold, by the use of expulsion decrees, any fact or sight that might be exposed to the sight and pro‹t of an enemy. For on the whole we trust in our own courage and readiness to the task, rather than in contrivance and deception.”2 Demosthenes similarly characterized the Athenians: “You think that freedom of speech, in every other case, ought to be shared by everyone in the polis, to such an extent that you grant it even to foreigners and slaves, and one might see many servants among us able to say whatever they wish with more freedom than citizens in some other 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking to the Deaf: Herodotus, His Audience, and the Spartans at the Beginning of the Peloponnesian War
    Histos () – SPEAKING TO THE DEAF: HERODOTUS, HIS AUDIENCE, AND THE SPARTANS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR Editors’ Note: The following is a revised and updated version of an article, ‘Parlare ai Sordi: Ero- doto, il suo pubblico, e gli Spartani all’inizio della guerra peloponnesiaca’, that originally ap- peared in A. Casanova and P. Desideri, edd., Evento, Racconto, Scrittura nell’Antichità Classica (Flor- ence ) –. Abstract : This paper argues that Herodotus hoped that his account of his investigations, among other purposes, would warn his contemporary audience of listeners and readers of the dangers of imperialist ambitions not only in Athens, but also in Sparta. Through key episodes and personalities (Tegea, Cleomenes, Leonidas, the Isthmus wall), Herodo- tus portrays the Spartans as paradoxically both imperialist and isolationist. He implies that Greeks should not trust Sparta as a champion of Greek freedom from Athenian tyr- anny, but many did not heed the warning. Herodotus and His Audience Herodotus treated the great actions of the Greeks and the Persians of the period from about BC to about , posing the question, ‘why they fought the war’, that is, the great war of –. We know that he had re- counted orally the fruit of his investigations into these events before begin- ning his immense written work, the Histories . His stories were based on oral tradition, or more precisely, on various oral traditions which he collected, evaluated, and transformed while writing his book. The hostility existing between Athens and Sparta at the time was of major significance in his pres- entation of his investigations. In this paper I will focus particularly on He- rodotus’ depiction of Sparta and the Spartans, and how this depiction was received—or rather not received— by his audience.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cincinnati
    U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: May 15, 2009 I, Kristine M. Trego , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctorate of Philosophy in Classics It is entitled: Plutarch's Story of Agesilaos; A Narratological Commentary Student Signature: Kristine M. Trego This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Holt Parker Peter van Minnen Kathryn Gutzwiller Approval of the electronic document: I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee. Committee Chair signature: Holt Parker Plutarch’s Story of Agesilaos; A Narratological Commentary A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences 2009 by Kristine M. Trego B.A., University of South Florida, 2001 M.A. University of Cincinnati, 2004 Committee Chair: Holt N. Parker Committee Members: Peter van Minnen Kathryn J. Gutzwiller Abstract This analysis will look at the narration and structure of Plutarch’s Agesilaos. The project will offer insight into the methods by which the narrator constructs and presents the story of the life of a well-known historical figure and how his narrative techniques effects his reliability as a historical source. There is an abundance of exceptional recent studies on Plutarch’s interaction with and place within the historical tradition, his literary and philosophical influences, the role of morals in his Lives, and his use of source material, however there has been little scholarly focus—but much interest—in the examination of how Plutarch constructs his narratives to tell the stories they do.
    [Show full text]
  • Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2013-12-13 Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon Heydon, Kendell Heydon, K. (2013). Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/25553 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1197 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Depictions of Spartan Masculinity in Thucydides and Xenophon by Kendell Heydon A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF GREEK AND ROMAN STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA DECEMBER, 2013 © Kendell Heydon 2013 Abstract Because we have no Classical Spartan writing we are reliant on the views of outsiders to try to reconstruct their social mores. Using traditional philology combined with social constructionist theory I examine how Thucydides and Xenophon depict Spartan masculinity. I have found that these authors differ in their descriptions of the Spartan masculine subject, reflecting primarily the purposes for which they wrote. Despite this, both authors describe inter-Spartan relations and relations between Spartiates and “others”, both within the Spartan system and those external to it, so as to suggest that the employment of officially propagated images of Spartan masculinity played a significant role in Spartan dealings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Athenian Empire
    Week 8: The Athenian Empire Lecture 13, The Delian League, Key Words Aeschylus’ Persians Plataea Mycale Second Ionian Revolt Samos Chios Lesbos Leotychidas Xanthippus Sestos Panhellenism Medizers Corinth Common Oaths Common Freedom Asia Minor Themistocles Pausanias Dorcis Hegemony by Invitation Aristides Uliades of Samos Byzantium Hybris Delos Ionia Hellespont Caria Thrace NATO UN Phoros Hellenotamias Synod Local Autonomy 1 Lecture 14, From League to Empire, Key Words Eion Strymon Scyros Dolopians Cleruchy Carystus Naxos Eurymedon Caria Lycia Thasos Ennea Hodoi Indemnity Diodorus Thucydides Athenian Imperial Democracy Tribute Lists Garrisons 2 Chronological Table for the Pentekontaetia 479-431 481/0 Hellenic League, a standard offensive and defensive alliance (symmachia), formed with 31 members under Spartan leadership. 480/79 Persian War; battles under Spartan leadership: Thermopylae (King Leonidas), Artemesium and Salamis (Eurybiades), Plataea (Pausanias), and Mycale (King Leotychides). 479 Thank-offerings dedicated at Delphi for victory over Persia including serpent column listing 31 cities faithful to “the Hellenes”. Samos, Chios, and Lesbos, and other islanders enrolled in the Hellenic League. Sparta, alarmed by the growth of Athenian power and daring, send envoys to urge the Athenians not to rebuild their walls, but Themistocles rejects the idea and tricks the envoys; Athenians rebuild walls using old statues as ‘fill’, while Themistocles is on diplomatic mission to Sparta. Following the departure of Leotychides and the Peloponnesian contingents, Xanthippus and the Athenians cross over to Sestos on the European side of the Hellespont, lay siege to the town, and capture the Persian fortress. Themistocles persuades the Athenians to complete fortifications at Piraeus, begun in 492; while Cimon promotes cooperation with Sparta, Themistocles hostile to the hegemon of the Peloponnesian and Hellenic leagues; attempts to rouse anti-Spartan feelings.
    [Show full text]
  • BRUCE LAFORSE, Praising Agesilaus: the Limits of Panhellenic
    Praising Agesilaus: the Limits of Panhellenic Rhetoric Bruce Laforse Shortly after the death of the Spartan king Agesilaus c. 360, Xenophon wrote an encomium of his old friend and patron. As one of the two kings in the unique Spartan dual kingship, Agesilaus had played a crucial role from 400 to 360 BC, a period which saw Sparta both rise to the pinnacle of power and then collapse. The Agesilaus is one of the earliest surviving examples of a prose work written in praise of an historical figure.1 In such an encomium the object was not to present a strictly accurate portrait of the subject; rather it was to praise his character, glorify his achievements and, on the other hand, to anticipate or defend against any potential detractors.2 Omission, exaggeration and bending of the truth were not only allowed but, indeed, expected. Its purpose, therefore, was far different from that of a modern biography; nor, despite the idealization of the subject’s character, did it attempt primarily to uplift and instruct, as did Plutarch’s later moralizing biographies, by presenting positive and negative models to emulate or avoid.3 It was designed to praise, to put the best possible face on the subject’s life, career, background and character.4 It is not, then, strictly speaking, a work of history, and thus scholars must exercise caution when using it as an historical source.5 Supplying conclusive proof that Xenophon himself regarded the purpose of the Agesilaus as fundamentally different from history is the fact that he wrote a much fuller and (comparatively) more balanced account of Agesilaus’ career in the Hellenica, his history of the years 411 to 362.6 The two works date to the same period, and share, with very minor alterations, a number of passages.
    [Show full text]
  • Exile in America: Political Expulsion and the Limits of Liberal Government
    EXILE IN AMERICA: POLITICAL EXPULSION AND THE LIMITS OF LIBERAL GOVERNMENT A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Briana L. McGinnis, B.A. Washington, DC April 22, 2015 Copyright 2015 by Briana McGinnis All Rights Reserved ii EXILE IN AMERICA: POLITICAL EXPULSION AND THE LIMITS OF LIBERAL GOVERNMENT Briana L. McGinnis, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Richard Boyd, PhD. ABSTRACT “Exile,” as a concept, remains largely neglected by political theory. Of the few pieces addressing it, most approach exile as a phenomenon peculiar to ancient cultures, or as a tool of the illiberal, even authoritarian, regime. But a survey of American history indicates that although communities may not openly ostracize, outlaw, or exile, they have not suppressed the desire to purge their membership rolls. Rather, they have become more adept at disguising it, draping illiberal exile practices in the language of law, consent, and contract. Perhaps it is the complexity of defining, and consequently recognizing, exile in the twenty-first century that leads us to regard it as a fringe occurrence. Nonetheless, exile is alive and well in the present day. This project has three aims. First, to offer a working conception of "exile" that clears away rhetorical confusion and returns the idea to the realm of the political. I explore exile as a political phenomenon, wherein the coercive power of government is used to expel members from their home communities for purposes of membership control.
    [Show full text]