boiotarchoi.pdf

5
PLUTARCH ON THE THEBAN UPRISING OF 379 B. C. AND THE BOIOTARCHOI  OF THE BOEOTIAN CONFEDERACY UNDER THE PRINC IP A TE 1 The liberation of Thebes and Cadmea from the Spartan oppression is at first glance well illus- trated in Classical sources. We have accounts in  Hell enica  by Xenophon (5.4.2–13), in Histori- cal Library by Diodorus (15.25–27.1), in Latin Life of Pe lopid as by Nepos (2.1–4.1) as well as two similar versions by Plutarch: a more sober one in  Life of Pe lopid as (7–13) and a blatantly dramatized one in On the Sign of Socrates  (576c–578f, 586c–588b, 594d–598f). The two most systemati c description s of events that led to the end of Sparta’s and her puppets’ rule over Thebes in 379 B. C., one by Xenophon in  Hellenica  and one by Plutarch in Pelopidas , diverge about the details of the conspiracy. 2  They do not agree even when a question of the actual number of plotters is posed. Xenophon has seven conspirators (  Hell.  5.4.2), whereas Plutarch mentions twelve (Pelop.  8.3 and 13.7). Modern historians dealing with the Theban uprising against Sparta usually think that both accounts of the anti-Spartan conspiracy are unreliable. However, the preference is given to Plutarch’s narrative and Xenophon’s version is more readily dismissed since too many good stories included. Wine, men disguised as women and sexual lust are the main factors leading to the end of pro-Spartan  polema rchoi . 3  It is also visible at first glance that the numbers of conspirators in Xenophon and Plutarch are purely conventional. The numbers “seven” and “twelve” are favourite ones in epochs that do not rely on the decimal system (but also of those that accept the decimal counting), and recur in similar, usually positive, contexts. In the analyses of the Theban uprising it was, therefore, noticed that the “seven” is the number of the Persian conspirators who rose up against Gaumata, 4  but it seems to be overlooked that the “seven” is also the number of Theban gates as well as that of Thebes’ mythical invaders. To my knowledge no commentator on the story as told by Xenophon pointed out that the number of plotters involved in  Helle nica  corresponds well with the number of boiotarchoi of the Boeotian Confederacy re-founded after Thebes’ liberation from Sparta. Admittedly, Xenophon does not provide any details of the very first year of the restored Confederacy, and Plutarch, Pelopidas  13.1 gives the names of three boiotarchoi onl y . Y et i n th e Life of   Agesi laus  14.2 the same Plutarch names Gorgidas as boiotarch, apparently of the same year. The list of first boiotarchoi elected after the Theban uprising in the  Life o f Pelo pidas  13.1 is not therefore a full record, and the earliest full lists are two proxeny decrees of the Confederacy enacted in 360s. B. C. (  IG VII 2407 and 2408). 5  We do not know how and from whom the boiotarchoi of the fourth-century Confederacy were appointed. It cannot be excluded that the boiotarchoi were elected from all the Boeotians during the autumn meetings at Thebes, and t hat the execu- 1 It is kind duty to acknowledge that the present study was possible thanks to a generous grant from the Foundation for Polish Science (Programme “Kwerenda 2009”). I would like to express my gratitude to Dr Robin Crellin, who corrected my English and saved me from many flaws. 2 A catalogue of divergences is set up by C. Tuplin, The Failings of Empire: A Reading of Xenophon  Helleni ca 2.3 .11–7.5.27 , Stuttgart 1993, 147. 3 V . Gra y, The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica , London 1989, 65 (“the Herodotean brand of sto- rytelling”); J. Dillery ,  Xenoph on and the Histor y of His Times, London 1995, 229 (“a story-teller formula”); Tuplin,  The Failings of Empire (as in n. 2) 147 focuses a conscious abuse of historical traditions by Xenophon (“he turns the story into one of ‘how Phillidas liberated Thebes’”). 4 Gray, Xenopho n’ s Hell enica  (as in n. 3) 66. 5 On the organization and prerogatives of the board of boiotarchoi , see: J. Buckler, The Theban  Hegemo ny, 371–362 BC, Cambridge (Mass.) 1980, 24–31 (he believes that the original number of

Transcript of boiotarchoi.pdf

Page 1: boiotarchoi.pdf

8/12/2019 boiotarchoi.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boiotarchoipdf 1/4

Page 2: boiotarchoi.pdf

8/12/2019 boiotarchoi.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boiotarchoipdf 2/4

JACEK R ZEPKA116

tive power of the Confederacy was entirely or nearly entirely in Theban hands (although therewere again districts serving mainly military needs). 6 If so, Xenophon’s fable-like account of theconspiracy and uprising might mirror something we could call the charter myth of the restoredBoeotian Confederacy.

If we agree that “seven” is an ideal number of conspirators, heroes, wonders etc., and if werealize that the number of Theban liberators, the actual founding fathers of the most successfulof Boeotian Confederacies, was well established and well known in Antiquity, we have to askwhy Plutarch did try to change this tradition, which undoubtedly worked ad maiorem gloriam Boeotarum.

As stated, “twelve” may also be a conventional number in Greece and elsewhere in theAncient world. Twelve were the Olympian gods, twelve were the labours of Heracles, and itis not necessary to go further into this enumeration of religious topics. More importantly, it isthe number of original Amphictyonic ethnemeeting at Delphi and Anthela, it is also a standardnumber of cities or regions in various Greek ethne (e. g. twelve parts of Archaic and ClassicalAchaea in Hdt. 1.145,3; Str. 8.7.4–5 or twelve cities there in Plb. 2.41.7) as well in non-Greektribal federations (e. g. Etruria in D.S. 14.113.2). The same pattern recurs also in the ethne thatnever formed federal states (e. g. twelve cities of Aeolis in Paus. 7.5.1; twelve cities in Ioniain Hdt. 1.145.1; Ael., VH8.5.16 or in Str. 8.7.1 and 14.1.4). Sometimes, too, Greek cities weredivided into twelve phylaior regions (e. g. Elis in Paus. 5.9.5), or were composed of twelve parts(thus Attica was synoikized by Kekrops into twelve poleis, and then these twelve cities wereunited into one city of Athens by Theseus – Philochorus, FGrHist 328 F 94 = Str. 9.1.20). It wasalso postulated by philosophers to divide a city into twelve parts (e. g. Pl., Leg.745b6–e5). WithPlato’s project it is perhaps the best moment to stop this enumeration, since the full catalogue

would be many times longer, yet in no way more useful. There is an obvious relation betweena number of parts in several composite bodies, institutions or communities and the uranic cal-endar. The partition of a community into twelve parts must originally root in a rotation cycle,in which each division undertook e. g. administration of a sanctuary for a period of one month.This system worked much better in loose organizations or religious associations (e. g. amphic-tyonies of Delphi, Ionia and Aeolis) than in true federal states, in which the military needs werethe main concern, and most Greek confederacies of the late Classical and Hellenistic periodssearched for a more ef cient way of government. The most common response to the problemwas a concentration of power in the hands of one man ( strategia of the Aetolian or Achaean

leagues), but in a transitory period some experiments were undertaken. The boiotarchia andseven boiotarchoi of the fourth-century Confederacy may be just such an experiment.

We can safely say that in the Hellenistic Boeotian Confederacy which expanded to theEast, an eighth additional seat was given to the “new Boeotians” from East Locris and, perhaps,of Euboea. 7 In the Roman times, after a short period of non-existence following the sack of

6 H. Beck, Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Stutttgart 1997, 102–104; T. Corsten, Vom Stamm zum Bund.

Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, Würzburg 1999, 34–38.7 The eight boiotarchoi coming from Thebes, Opus, Akraiphia, Oropos, Thespiae, Tanagra, Orchomenosand Thisbe are attested in an Oropian proxeny decree from c. 287–245 B. C. (Petrakos, Epigr. touOropou 21, also published in SEG15, 282 or ISE63). We cannot be certain how many boiotarchoi were named in a Boeotian federal proxeny decree found in Sidon ( SEG32,1482 from ca. 200–175B. C.). The rst editor of the text, Paul Roesch, conjectured that there were seven boiotarchs (onename is visible on the stone), since there was enough space for the names of six other of cials ( Étudesbéotiennes[as in n. 5], 77). Yet, the restoration of proxenos’ privileges by Roesch does not includeisoteleia, which was often granted by the Boeotians to their proxenoi (cf. C. Marek, Die Proxenie,Frankfurt/Main 1984, 28). A typical set of privileges may be found in another Boeotian decree for

a Sidonian, IG VII 4260 (also Petrakos, Epigr. tou Oropou37): kh; ei\men aujtoi' / ga'~ kh' oijkiva~e[ppasin kh; ijsotevlian / kh; ajsfavliav kh; ajsoulivan kh; polevmw kh; ijravna~ / ejwvsa~ kh; kata; ga'n kh;

Page 3: boiotarchoi.pdf

8/12/2019 boiotarchoi.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boiotarchoipdf 3/4

Plutarch on the Theban Uprising of 379 B. C. 117

Corinth and the subjugation of Greece by Lucius Mummius, the Boeotian Confederacy wasagain restored 8 (without Haliartus, which was given to the Athenians in 160s) 9 mainly as a cultleague. Under the Empire the Boeotian Confederacy expanded signi cantly, though certainlynot without some approval from Rome, and we have attestations of boiotarchoi coming fromplaces outside of proper Boeotia.

Thus, an insigni cant Phocian village of Amphikaia was the hometown of M. Ulpius Dama-sippus, who was a Boiotarch, a Phokarch, an Amphictyon and Panhellene, as attested by twoPhocian inscriptions ( IG IX 1, 218 and G. Soteriades, AiJ ejn Cairwneiva/ kai; kata; th;n Fwkivdaajnaskafaiv, Praktikav 1909 [1910] 123–130, 130) in the latter half of the second century A.D.This means that the nearby Phocians, though retaining the federal structure of their own, 10 wereaf liated to the Boeotian Confederacy. The same must be said of Opuntian Locris, which was

– as we have already seen – a part of the Confederacy in the third century B. C.We have a document which leaves no doubt in this respect – it is a letter from Emperor

Hadrian to Naryka in Eastern Locris ( SEG51, 641). 11 The Emperor assigns to the Narykeiansthe status of polis, and enumerates reasons for his decision. One of his motives was that theNarykeians – among other federal af liations – belonged to the Boeotian Confederacy andprovided a boiotarch (ll. 9–12: oJpovte kai; / eij~ to; koino;n tw'n∆Amfiktuovnwn suntelei'/ te kai; eij~ to; koino;n tw'n Boiwtw'n, kai; Boiw/tavrchn parevcete, kai; Panevllhna aijrei'sqe ktl .).

Megara, too, was a member of the Boeotian Confederacy in the second century A.D. This isclear due from a ne honorary inscription for C. Curtius Proclus, a local notable, who reachedhigh honours under Hadrian ( IG VII 106). Interestingly, he was vested with almost the sameof ces which were held by M. Ulpius Damasippus (but not the phokarchia)and which wereso important for the political status of Naryka. The decree of the Megarians states that Caius

Curtius Proclus “was a boiotarchosfrom the fatherland twice” ( kai; boi/wtarchvsanta: ajpo; th'~ / patrivdo~ to;;: b∆

). This could hint at some rivalry for the post between citizens of poleis of one voting district, but it is more likely that the Megarians were solely responsible for theirseat in the board of boiotarchoi.

The boiotarchoi from Megaris, Phocis and Locris must not have been included in thetraditional number of seven of cials, and there was certainly some pressure from native Boeo-tian notables for the of ce once held by Pelopidas and Epaminondas. Since the HellenisticBoeotian Confederacy widened the board of boiotarchoi, it would be a natural solution for thepost-Hellenistic league, being far larger than any of her predecessors, to widen this committee

once again. As we can deduce from examples of M. Ulpius Damasippus and C. Curtius Proclus,second-century A.D. boiotarchoiwere quite busy men, and it is unlikely that they spent a year in

ka;t qavlattan, / kh; ta\lla pavnta kaqavmer kh; toi'~ a[lloi~ / proxevnoi~ kh; eujergevth~. Therefore,if also isoteleia was restorable in SEG32,1482, there would be enough space for eight names ofboiotarchoi.

8 See: P. Roesch, Thespies et la Confédération béotienne, Paris 1965, 71–73.

9 J. Fossey, “The Cities of the Kopais in the Roman Period”, ANRW

2.2 (1979) 549–591 on 562–566.10 Pausanias often underscores in his Phokikathe importance of the Phocian federal assemblies forlocal communities in his times, see: Paus. 10.4.1, 10.33.2, 10.37.2 (cf. also my study “Hadrian andPausanias’ De nition of Greek Polis” , in: M. Dzielska, E. D ą browa, M. Salamon [eds.], Księ ga pamią tkowa z okazji stulecia urodzin Profesora Józefa Wolskiego, forthcoming).

11 The SEGedition was – let us say so – unof cial. The of cial editions were later, see: D. Knoep er,A. Pasquier, “Un don des Amis du Louvre au Département des Antiquités grecques, étrusques et ro-maines: la lettre d’Hadrien aux gens de Naryka (Locride)”, CRAI2006, 1281–1313 and D. Knoep er,“L’inscription de Naryka (Locride) au Musée du Louvre: la dernière lettre publique de l’empereurHadrien? (première partie)”, REG 119 (2007) 1–34. Cf. also C.P. Jones, “A Letter of Hadrian to

Naryka (Eastern Locris)”, JRA19 (2006) 151–162 as well as my article mentioned in the previousnote.

Page 4: boiotarchoi.pdf

8/12/2019 boiotarchoi.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boiotarchoipdf 4/4

JACEK R ZEPKA118

Boeotia, far from Megara or Amphikaia. Instead, a principle of rotation was introduced. Sincethe tasks of the Greek regional leagues under the Principate were mainly cult and religion,the most obvious pattern to follow was one of old tribal associations or amphictionies, whichconsisted of twelve parts. However, such a change always required a good explanation, andespecially in the case of the legendary boiotarchia. I would suggest that in the Life of PelopidasPlutarch repeated a story that was the of cial rst-century A.D. Boeotian version of the 379uprising, coined to convince people that there were twelve principal conspirators in Thebesin 379 and that hence the number of twelve boiotarchoi in rst century Boeotia was the onlyproper one. It need not be added here that for a man of Plutarch’s knowledge and erudition todisseminate this version (being so much in discord with all earlier accounts) had to be a specialact of Boeotian patriotism.

Uniwersytet Warszawski Jacek Rzepka