No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Orchomenus and Clitor
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Professor Andrewes has recently been kind enough to refer in his commentary on Thucydides to a suggestion of mine. This present note seeks to expand the idea, and to relate it to north Arcadian politics of the early fourth century B.C.
Tradition gave some prominence in the archaic period to Orchomenus in eastern Arcadia; and genealogy supported this prominence, since, apart from a belief that Areas himself was a son of the eponym Orchomenus, there was a continuing belief that this Orchomenus founded not only Orchomenus itself but also Methydrium.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1972
References
page 78 note 1 Gomme, A.W., Andrewes, A., and Dover, K.J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, iv. 485.Google Scholar
page 78 note 2 See J. Hejnic, Pausanias the Perieget and the Archaic History of Arcadia, 70–1.
page 78 note 3 Duris fr. 9 Jacoby, cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Thalpusa; Paus. 8. 3. 3, 36. 1; see Meyer, E., RE. xviii. 896.Google Scholar
page 78 note 4 Hejnic, op. cit. 91, dates the decline of Orchomenus' power c. 500, but Leahy, D.M., Phoenix, xii (1958), 162–3Google Scholar, after the second Messenian War, which seems more likely.
page 78 note 5 368 is here assumed as the date of the foundation, but a difference of a year or two would not affect the present argument.
page 78 note 6 Paus. 8. 27. 3; Schwyzer, 664.
page 78 note 7 Daux, G., REG lxii (1949), 4–12, 11. 5–8.Google Scholar Cf. the use of the ethnic ‘Methydrian’ in Xen. Anab. 4. 1. 27, etc., referring to the same period.
page 78 note 8 For the topography of Methydrium see E. Meyer, Peloponnesische Wanderungen, 31–3; for Teuthis see RE VA. I 158, for Thisoa see RE viA. 292.
page 78 note 9 SEG xiv. 455, on which see Bousquet, BCH lxxvi (1954), 432–3.Google Scholar
page 78 note 10 See RE VIA. 292–3.
page 78 note 11 Cf. the existence in Hellenistic times of the more northerly Thisoa as an independent polis, attested by its inscriptions IG v. 2. 510 and 511.
page 79 note 1 Schwyzer, 665; cf. Theopompus fr. 61 Jacoby. On the interpretation of the inscription see Gschnitzer, F., AAHG xviii (1965), 73–4.Google Scholar Orchomenus also at an unknown date attached to itself the once independent Amilus (Paus. 8. 13. 5), and Elymia perhaps underwent the same process (cf. Xen. Hell. 6. 5. 13–14).
page 79 note 2 See RE xi. 661–4.
page 79 note 3 Plb. 4. 70. 2, on which see E. Meyer, op. cit. 73.
page 79 note 4 Paus. 5. 23. 7; Richter, G.M.A., AJA xliii (1939), 200.Google Scholar Cf. also the spear-butt of the early fifth century, Richter, ibid. 194– 201; Jeffery, L.H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 210.Google Scholar
page 79 note 5 Paus. 8. 27. 2. It is notable that Clitorian damiorgoi appear on the federal Arcadian decree IG v. 2. 1, from which most states of north Arcadia are missing, but it is dangerous to draw conclusions from the list of damiorgoi. The decree apparently belongs the years 370–61 (Gaertringen, F. Hiller von, MDAI(A), xxxvi [1911], 349–60)Google Scholar, in which case it is difficult to see why so many states are missing, since Xenophon says that all Arcadians took part in the invasion of Laconia in 370/69 (Xen. Ages. 2. 24). The simplest solution is to suppose that for some reason, possibly constitutional, not all members of the Arcadian League had damiorgoi when the decree was passed.
page 79 note 6 Xen. Hell. 6. 5. 1–11; D. S. 15. 59, 62 (sadly confused). I hope to analyse the origins of the League at more length else-where.
page 79 note 7 Thuc. 5. 61. 3–5; Xen. Hell. 6. 5. 10–11.
page 79 note 8 Cf. the war between Mantinea and Tegea in 423 caused by Mantinea's expandecree sion westwards in the preceding years (Thuc. 4. 134).
page 79 note 9 Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 36–7.
- 2
- Cited by