Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T00:28:12.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tithe of Apollo and the Harmost at Decelea, 413 to 404 B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

H. W. Parke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Xenophon (Hellenica, III, v, 5) records some reasons why the Spartans in 395 B.C. were particularly hostile to Thebes. First among these causes (apparently mentioned in chronological order) stands the Theban claim to the tithe of Apollo at Decelea: πάλαι ὀργιʒόμενοι αὐτοĩς (the Thebans) τῆς τε ἀντιλήψεως τῆς τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος δεκάτης ἐν Δεκελείᾳ, κτλ. This allusion to Decelea does not seem to have been understood by the editors. For instance, Breitenbach wished to get rid of it by the emendation ἐκ τῆς λείας. Underhill in support of the MSS. quoted Justin, V, x, 12: Thebani Corinthiique legatos ad Lacedaemonios mittunt qui ex manubiis portionem praedae communis belli periculique peterent, etc.: and Plutarch, Lysander, XXVII: τῆς τε ἀντιλήψεως τῆς τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος δεκάτης ἐν Δεκελείᾳ, κτλ. for references to the claims made by Thebes to a share of the booty of the Peloponnesian war. Now, both these passages are apposite, and probably refer to the same occasion which Xenophon means; but they do not mention Decelea. So Underhill preferred to abandon the reference to it as inexplicable.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , 1932 , pp. 42 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1932

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 I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Prof. Walter Otto Of Munich for his kind and helpful criticisms of this essay.

2 The well-known dedication of the Spartans at Delphi is represented by ancient authorities and Ditt., Syll. I,3115Google Scholar, as a commemoration by Lysander of his victory at Ægospotami. No allusion seems to connect it at all with Decelea.

3 Xen., Hell. II, ii, 8Google Scholar.

4 ‘Is not this the man who deserted to Decelea, and thence sets out, making incursions and robbing and ravaging you (the Athenians)? … he deposits accurately the tithes of these (spoils) with the harmost there (at Decelea), but now he … defrauds your own Athena of the tithes from your enemies.’

5 E.g. Oehler in Pauly-Wissowa, ἁρμοσταί; Busolt, Gr. Staatskunde; Kahrstedt, Gr. Staatsrecht, I, Sparta.

6 The scholiast realised this difficulty and remarked: δεἴ νοῆσαι τοῦτον πάνυ γεραίτατονevidently an assumption from the context. He also raised a second difficulty; that Glaucetes would have had to remain an exile, if he had deserted to Decelea. The scholiast evidently was thinking of the decree quoted by Lycurgus, (in Leocratem, 120 seq.)Google Scholar. But surely Glaucetes would have returned with the other exiles in 404 (Xen., Hell. II, ii, 23Google Scholar), and would have been protected by the general amnesty of 403? The scholiast evaded this second difficulty by a second assumption: that Glaucetes must have been kidnapped to Decelea.

7 Schaefer, (Demosthenes, 1885, vol. I, p. 304 and note 1, p. 305)Google Scholar seems to accept the truth of Demosthenes' charges against Glaucetes, but does not mention the harmost.

8 Demosthenes, though he omits to mention Apollo as the recipient of the tithe, evidently was aware that the harmost was only a trustee. Cf. his use of καττατιθείς.

9 Wayte, W., In Androtionem et in Timocratem (Cambridge, 1882)Google Scholar, annot. ad loc. Alternatively, he identifies this harmost with ‘the harmost of the Peiraeus after the surrender of Athens.’ Does he mean Callibius, the harmost of Athens itself?

10 Agesilaus (Xen., Hell. III, iv, 2 seq.Google Scholar), ἡγεμών; contrast Thibron, (id. III, i, 4)Google Scholar and Euxenus, (id. IV, ii, 5)Google Scholar, ἁρμοσταί. Agesipolis, (id. V, iii, 8)Google Scholar, ἡγεμών; contrast Teleutias, (id. V, ii, 37Google Scholar) and Polybiadas, (id. V, iii, 20Google Scholar), ἁρμοσταί.

11 So dated by Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. III,2 1, p. 17Google Scholar. Meyer, , Gesch. d. Altert. V, § 762Google Scholar, places the campaign a year later.

12 Xen., Hell. III, ii, 29Google Scholar: φρουροὺς καταλιπὼν ἐν Ἐπιταλίῳ … καὶ τοὺς ἐξ Ἤλιδος φυγάδας, … καὶ τὸυ ἐπίοντα χειμῶνα ὑπὸ τοῦ Λυσίππου καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν ἐφέρετο καὶ ἤγετο ἡ τῶν Ἠλείων χχν χώρα. Cf. Pausanias, III, viii, 5, who gives the name as Λυσίοτρατον Σπαρτιάτην without any official title. Diodorus, XIV, xvii, 12, may allude to the same occupation.

13 For another contemporary example of dedicating a tithe of spoils to a deity, cf. [Lysias], ὑπὲρ Πολυστράτου, 24—an Athenian, escaped from the Sicilian disaster, raids Syracusan territory, and dedicates a tithe to the goddess of Catane.

14 Thuc. VIII, iii, cf. v, δύναμιν γἀρ ἔχων εὐθὐς ἑκασταχόσε δεινὸς παρῆν He had fortified Decelea in the early summer of 413, Thuc. VII, xix, and directed the raids throughout Attica from thence, Ibid. xxvii, 4. In the summer of 411 he received an embassy from the Four Hundred there, and after sending for additional troops from the Peloponnese made an approach against Athens itself, Ibid. VIII, lxxi. Late in 410 he made a similar attempt on the city, Xen., Hell. I, i, 33Google Scholar. In Diodorus, XIII, lxxii, 3, this attack is misdated and contains features borrowed from the previous one (cf. Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. III, p. 1528Google Scholar; contrast Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. II, i, p. 418Google Scholar). In the spring of 405 Lysander visited Agis at Decelea (Plut. Lys. IX). According to Xen., Hell. II, ii, 7 seq. and iii, 3Google Scholar, Agis remained in Decelea also, until after the capitulation of Athens: Pausanias commanded the field force, cf. Busolt, , Griech. Gesch. III, 1627, note 2Google Scholar. Diod. XIII, cvii, 2, Plut., Lys. XIVGoogle Scholar, make both kings command together, contrary to Spartan νόμος so also Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. II, i, 436Google Scholar.

15 Thuc. V, lxvi, 3.

16 Cf. JHS. 1, p. 42.

17 Cf. JHS. 1, p. 76.

18 The composition of the force can be deduced from Thuc. VII, xxvii, 3 seq. There is no indication of a garrison of Spartans apart from the pretty anecdote in Aelian, , V.H. II, 5Google Scholarἀκούοντες οἰ ἔφοροι Λακεδαιμονίων τοὺς Δεκέλειαν καταλαβόντας περιπάτῳ χρῆσθαι δειλινῷ ἐπέστειλαν αὑτοῖς ῾ μὴ περιπατεἴτε ώς τρυφώντων αὐτῶν μᾶλλου ἤ τὸ σῶμα ἐκπονούτων Cf. Agesilaus in Asia Minor and Egypt or Agesipolis in Chalcidice with only 30 Spartiates as their staff.