The Supposed Common Peace of 366/5 B. C.

Author(s): T. T. B. Ryder
Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3/4 (Jul. - Oct., 1957), pp. 199-205
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Classical Association
Stable URL: [Link]
Accessed: 21-02-2016 17:48 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at [Link]
info/about/policies/[Link]
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Classical Association and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Classical Quarterly.

[Link]

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SUPPOSED

COMMON
366/5 B.C.x

PEACE OF

Book I5, chapter 76, Diodorus Siculus says that during the Attic year
AT
366/5, at the same time as the Thebans won possession of the Attic border
district of Oropus, the King of Persia sent ambassadors and persuaded the
Greeks to put an end to their wars and to conclude Common Peace (KOLwi
E'p'Ir7) ; this peace, he adds, was more than five years after the battle of Leuctra.

Diodorus' wording is the same as that with which he describedthe conclusion

of Common Peace treaties in 375/4,2 in 371 before Leuctra3 and in 362/I,4 and

there can be no doubt that he intended to say that a new Common Peace
treaty was at this time concluded by the Greeks. As Ephorus was his chief
source for Greek affairs in this book where these referencesto Common Peace
treaties occur, we should be disposed to believe him.s
Common Peace

(KOwVI Etp7r7)

treaties were multilateral agreements which,

though they were usually concluded to put an end to a particularwar, were not
limited to the two sides involved in the war-the principalsand their alliesbut were open to all Greeks of the mainland and the Aegean on the basis of a
general principle, the freedom and autonomy of all cities large and small, and
which were accepted by at least a substantialmajority of the important cities.
A Common Peace treaty, then, theoretically produced peace throughout
Greece: an ordinary bilateral treaty a settlement limited to two defined groups
of cities. A city that adhered to a Common Peace treaty swore to respect the
freedom and autonomy of all Greek cities: a city that entered into an ordinary
bilateral agreement was bound by obligations towards only such cities as were
included in it. The conclusion of Common Peace must have affected the policies
of the leading States; and so the question whether there was or was not a
Common Peace at a particular time is of considerableimportance as much for
our evaluation of the policies of individual cities as for our estimation of the
Common Peace idea itself.
There are, however, two considerable difficultiesabout Diodorus' account:
first, not insurmountable but certainly suspicious, the absence of any details
other than the inspiring role of the Persian ambassadors; second and much
more troublesome, its context in the events of the middle sixties.
Xenophon provides more information for these years. First, at Hellenica,
Book 7. I. 33-40,

he tells how embassies from Sparta and then from Thebes,

Arcadia, Elis, Argos, and Athens went up to the King of Persia to seek his
support; Pelopidas, the Theban, won the favour of the King and obtained his
support for a general settlement in Greece which would benefit the Thebans
and their allies. At this decision the Athenians were dismayed and the Arcadians indignant, and, when the Thebans convened representativesof the cities
to ratify the settlement, the Arcadians led the opposition and the congress
broke up. Then the Thebans tried to persuade the cities one by one to accept
: I
should like gratefully to acknowledge
the advice and assistance of Mr. G. T.
Griffith in the preparation of this article.
15. 38. I.
*
3
50.4.
I5. 89. I.
I5" the remarks of G. T. Griffith, 'The
s Cf.

so-called

KOtV7 dpV7f

Of 346 B.c.',

[Link].

I939,

P. 73. It is generally

accepted

that

Ephorus was the principal source for Greek

affairs in Diod. books I1-16; cf. C. A. Volquardsen, [Link] Quellendergriech.
und sizil. Gesch. bei Diod. XI bis XVI (Kiel,
I868) and Schwartz, P.-W., s.v. 'Diodoros',
38, cols. 679-82.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

T. T. B. RYDER

200

the terms, but the Corinthians and others refused their overtures and the
Theban plan was finally wrecked. In his life of Pelopidas, chapter 30, Plutarch
gives a similar account of the Greek embassies to Persia with some different
though not conflicting details, but says nothing of the conferenceat Thebes and
its consequences. Diodorus has nothing of all this, except a retrospective
reference in his appreciation of Pelopidas to his mission to Persia, recording
only his success and his provision for the autonomy of the Messenians.x
Xenophon next describesa Theban invasion of Achaea and its consequences,
and then an account of faction in Sicyon leads him into digressionsabout that
city and about Phlius, before (at 7. 4. I) he comes to the capture of Oropus. He
tells how the Athenians asked their allies for help, but without success; Lycomedes, the Arcadian, took note of the disappointment of the Athenians and
persuaded his people to open negotiations with them; after some hesitation,
because the Arcadians were the enemies of the Spartans who were already
their allies, the Athenians agreed to make an alliance. The Athenians then
tried to seize Corinth, but their plan miscarried; the Corinthians now found
themselves in conflict with both Thebes and Athens and tried for a time to
sustain themselves with a mercenary army; eventually they approached the
Thebans in search of peace and, finding them favourable, asked and obtained
leave to find out whether any of their allies wished to join in. They sent
ambassadorsto the Spartans to obtain either their participationor their permission to make a separate peace; the Spartans replied that they could not surrender their claim to Messene, but that the Corinthians and their other allies
could make peace if they wished. The Corinthians then sent another embassy
to Thebes, which refused an alliance but concluded peace on condition that
all should possess their own territory; they were joined in the peace by the
Phliasians and some of the other allies of Sparta in NE. Peloponnese2and by
the Argives, allies of Thebes (Hellenica7. 4. 2-I I). None of these events appears
in Diodorus, who goes straight on from the capture of Oropus and the Common
Peace to the outbreak of war between Elis and Arcadia (I5. 77. I), which,
apart from a brief account of the arrival 'at about the same time' of succours
for the Spartansfrom Sicily, is the next event mentioned by Xenophon (7. 4I2). Plutarch, of course, is not concerned with anything which does not come
within the scope of his biography of Pelopidas.
Now there are two possible ways to a solution of the problem of making
these two versions of events compatible. Either Diodorus is talking about
something which Xenophon completely ignores; or his story is a different
version of the events which Xenophon describes in 7. I. 33-40 and 7. 4. I-I I.

If time has to be found for both series of events described by Xenophon and
for Diodorus' treaty, the chronology becomes uncomfortably tight. Hellenica
7. I. 33-40 cannot have started earlier than the first months of 367s and
2

I5. 8i. 3.

Xenophon says 'those who came with

them' (rotE JAOo0L /ErT a;Tvj);
Isocrates
6.

9I, usually associated with these negotiations,

specifies the Epidaurians. Apart from Athens,
Sparta's allies were limited after the disasters of 371-369 to Corinth and the smaller
cities of this region; I doubt whether Achaea
became formally allied to Sparta after the
Theban invasion (cf. Xen. Hell. 7. I. 43).

3 On his second expedition to Thessaly

Pelopidas, after visiting Macedonia, had
been arrested by Alexander of Pherae and
rescued only at the second attempt (Plut.
Pelop. 27-28,

cf. Diod.

15. 71I. 2-7).

These

events were in 368 (cf. Beloch, Griechische

Geschichte, 2nd ed., In. ii. 238) and the final
rescue was probably not before the beginning
of 367, when Epaminondas was again a
Boeotarch (cf. Plut. Pelop. 29. I).

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

SUPPOSED

COMMON

PEACE

OF 366/5 B.C.

20o

Hellenica7. 4 I-I I cannot have ended later than the summerof365.' Moreover,
the generally accepted date for the capture of Oropus (midsummer 366)z
means that the second part becomes even more tightly packed, if a Common
Peace treaty has to be concluded and then broken in the weeks after that date.
Apart from this difficulty this is for Xenophon a very detailed section of his
work;3 so that, though he passed over the refounding of Messene and the
formation of Megalopolis in silence, it does not seem possible that he could
have made no mention of a general peace-treaty.
Similarly Xenophon may suppresssome facts, but he does not invent on a
large scale. So we must accept his account of the congressat Thebes and of the
failure of the Thebans to have Pelopidas' settlement ratified, though Plutarch
and Diodorus have nothing of them.
In fact those scholars who have discussed this problem in any detail-Hampl4 and Accames--have both found that Diodorus' Common Peace and
Xenophon's treaty between Corinth and Thebes (Hellenica7. 4. 6-I1i) are
different accounts of the same events; and others have thought likewise.6 Diodorus' statement that the Common Peace was at the same time as the capture
of Oropus need not be taken too seriously. He probably found the two events
in his sources under the same Attic year and loosely reckoned them to be
simultaneous;' they are in fact the only events in mainland Greece which
he does record for this Attic year. Diodorus' chronological indications, then,
are misleading, if not inaccurate. Moreover, his only other detail of the Peace,
that it was concluded through the officesof Persianambassadorssent to Greece,
is distinctly suspect. It is not even known whether any Persian ambassadors
came over to Thebes with Pelopidas to the unsuccessfulcongress of 367 ;8 and
there is no hint at all of subsequent diplomatic activity from Persia; rather the
King seems to have accepted the indirect rebuff which he had received at
Thebes and to have tried to placate the Athenians by recognizing their claim
to Amphipolis, which he had rejected at the gathering of embassiesin Persia.9
In this reference to Persian ambassadorsDiodorus' account recalls those which
he gives of the Peaces of375/4 and 371I(beforeLeuctra),'owhere he has already
SThe war between Elis and Arcadia must
have broken out in late summer 365, the
year before the Olympic festival. Xen. starts
the war at 7. 4. 13 and describes it continuously until at 7. 4. 28 he observes that an
Olympic year was 'coming in'. Diod. 15. 77.
I puts the outbreak of war under 365/4.
" Cf. Beloch (Iii. ii. 242) and Niese
('Beitriige zur griechischen Geschichte 370p. Io6); Schol. Aesch. 3.
364', Hermes
x904,
85 puts it in 367/6, Diodorus in 366/5.
3 Xen. covers the period between the
morrow of Leuctra and the Olympic games
of 364 (July 371-Aug./Sept. 364) in I82
chapters (Hell. 6. 4- 16-7. 4- 27). He takes
only 116 chapters over a similar period of
warfare between spring 378 (the morrow of
Sphodrias' raid-Hell. 5. 4- 34) and the eve
of Leuctra (Hell. 6. 4- 5).
SDie griechischeStaatsvertrdgevon 4. Jahrhundertsv. Chr. (Leipzig, 1938).
s La lega Ateniesedel secoloIV a.C. (Rome,

1941).
6 e.g. A. Wilhelm, Efin Friedensbundder
Hellenen, [Link]. Inst. (1900oo), p. I57;
F. H. Marshall, The Second Athenian Confederacy(Cambridge, 1905), p. 90; E. Meyer,
[Link],v. 447-9; A. Momigliano,
'La KOWV
dal 386 al 338 a.c.', Riv. di
4l
dpI7)
Filol. (1934), p. 489 and Filippo il Macedone
(Florence, 1934), p. 84 n. I; G. de Sanctis,
'La Pace del 362/I', Riv. di Filol. (I934), PP.
P. Cloch6, La politique 6trangire
149-50;
d'Athenesde 404 d 336 a.C. (Paris, 1934),
p. 121.
7 In addition to his main source (Ephorus)
Diodorus would have used a chronographic
source which provided a few outstanding
events under each Attic year; cf. Schwartz,
R.E. s.v. 'Ephoros', col. I0o.
8 Accame assumes that they did.
9 Dem. I 9. 137--cf. his misgivings after
Leon's complaints in Persia-Xen.
Hell.
7. I. 3710 Diod. 15- 38. I and 50. 4.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

T. T. B. RYDER

202

introduced or been misled into introducing a doublet; and it may be that

peace-negotiations in Persia followed, in time, by a Peace in Greece led him
into over-simplification.
Accame excludes the possibility of Persian intervention, but retains the
Common Peace. He suggests that the Greeks rejected Pelopidas' terms because
they were linked with the King of Persia1and later accepted them when the
Thebans renewed their efforts on their own account, and that Xenophon
obscures the general nature of the agreement (as admittedly he does in his
account of the Peace of
None the less this solution amounts to a rejec375/4).2narrative in favour of Diodorus' inaccurate
tion of Xenophon's detailed
generalities; but Hampl's equally direct rejection of Diodorus' Common Peace
in favour of Xenophon is no more satisfactory, for, as I said, we have good
reason for respecting Diodorus when in this book he uses the expression
KOLVj7V
EtPtprrjv

c'VV1Oo'TaU.3

On closer examination it seems fairly certain that Xenophon was right when
he limits his Peace to Thebes and Corinth and their allies in NE. Peloponnese.
The Spartans, he says, were definitely not included.4 Though the Arcadians
were still nominally allies of the Thebans at the time of the congressat Thebes
in 367,s they were already resentful of Theban leadership and on this occasion
refused Pelopidas' terms and led the opposition to them. Since then the
Thebans had interfered in Achaea and had made things worse for the Arcadians,6 who had in turn become allies of Athens. It is thus unlikely that the
Arcadians would have accepted in 366/5 the settlement that they had helped
to wreck two years before without the certainty of Athenian backing, or that
they would have accepted any terms dictated by the Thebans, unless they had
been particularlyhard pressed; and their vigour in the war with Elis the next
year indicates that they were not. Also it seems scarcely possible that the
Athenians could have subscribed to a general peace-treaty in 366/5, especially
one sponsored by the Thebans, whom they regarded as breakersof the Peace
sponsored by themselves in 37!, and certainly not on Pelopidas' terms, which
ruled that Amphipolis should be autonomous and that the Athenian fleet
should be laid up. Though the first reaction of the Athenians to Pelopidas'
success in Persia was one of dismay,7 the failure of the Thebans to enforce the
Stressing wrpSflacdJLain Xen. Hell. 7.
1.c., was undecided between Xen. and Diod.,
2 Ibid. 6. 2. I.
but in Thebesde Boeotie (Namur, 1952), PP.
I. 40.
3 Meyer, I.c., notes Xen.'s version, but
151-5 follows Xen. without citing Diod.; as
follows Diod.; Momigliano, l.c., Riv. di does H. Bengtson (Griechische Geschichte
Filol., follows Meyer and suggests also
[Munich, g95o],p. 264), who observes that
the time was not ripe for a KOLI dp-rvY.
(Filippo, l.c.) that the King of Persia interEpqv7;q;
vened to turn the peace into a KOLV
Glotz-Cohen, Histoire grecque,iii. I66-7,
de Sanctis, 1.c., mentions Xen., but follows
seem to believe in a general peace without
Diod.
the King's intervention; they do not cite
Wilhelm, L.c., prefers Xen. to Diod. withDiod. and regard Xen.'s narrative as indiout argument; Beloch (m. i. 189) follows
cating unepaix gindraleby which the PeloponXen. without citing Diod., and in [Link]. 241r nese was neutralisd.A. Heuss in his review of
seems to take Diod. as a wrong version of
the Common Peace treaties ('Antigonos
Xen Hell. 7. I. 33-40 (cf. above, p. 199);
Monophthalmos und die griechische Stiidte',
Marshall, L.c., prefers Xen., but thinks it
Hermes, 1938) makes no mention of a peace
in 366/5 (p. I66).
probable that Athens joined in the peace;
4 Hell. 7. 4. 9.
M. Cary (C.A.H. vi. 96-97) and M. Laistner
s Ibid. 7. I. 39.
6 Ibid. 43 end.
(A History of the Greek Worldfrom 479 to
' Execution of
323 B.C. (Methuen, London, I936), p. 21o)
Timagoras: Xen. Hell. 7.
follow Xen. without citing sources; Cloch6,
I. 38, Dem. 19. 137.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE SUPPOSED

COMMON PEACE OF 366/5 B.C.

203

settlement and the readiness of the King to give way, for instance over Amphipolis, led them within a few months to take liberties with the interests of the
King such as they had not dared to take for twenty years.' Timotheus was
elected general in January 366 for the first time since his disgrace in 3732 and
his campaign on behalf of Ariobarzanes against the King came before the
capture of Oropus in midsummer 366.3 The siege of Samos, held by a Persian
prottg6, lasted for ten months over the winter of 366/54 and the Athenian
campaign of strength in the Aegean continued until the Theban fleet put to
sea in 364, when Timotheus was attacking Amphipolis.s These operations are
best interpreted as Athenian efforts to strengthen their position in the Aegean
against the naval offensive that the Thebans began to prepare probably in
366;6 at any rate the chronology shows that they were not taken in hand after
the time when the Athenians are supposed to have become free of war on land
through a general peace,7 and it is at least doubtful whether they could have
legitimately taken such operations in hand, if they had just been party to a
general treaty. There is, then, certainly no indication that Athens or Arcadia
was involved in any treaty in 366/5 with Thebes, and strong grounds for supposing that they were not. A Peace which did not include Sparta, Arcadia,
or Athens (or, therefore, Athens' allies) was surely not a general settlement.
But in spite of this conclusion it remains possible that Accame was right
when he suggested that Pelopidas' termswere now accepted by the Corinthians
and their friends, that is, so far as they were applicable. Pelopidas had evidently
proposed a Common Peace treaty which included rulings in the controversial
cases-Triphylia, etc., to be ceded by the Arcadians to Elis, and Messene and
Amphipolis to be autonomous-and which specified that the Athenian fleet
should be laid up.8 In Xenophon's treaty of 366/5 the Spartans would again
have had to recognize the autonomy of Messene, if they had wished to be included.9 Otherwise all that Xenophon says about the terms is that it was
agreed that each should possess their own territory (E95'
EXEWr7v
" ELav7v
and the territorial provisions of Pelopidas' settlement
,presuppose a

KCoUTOvs)'0
similar
clause there as the concomitant of the autonomy principle. The use or
EKCO'TOVS

instead of

xKai-povs

(each of two) suggests that this clause was in fact

This seems the most likely occasion for

the erasure of lines 12-14 of Aristoteles' decree, the charter of the Athenian Confederacy (Tod, no. 123). These lines must have
contained some reference to the King's
Peace. Now, for the first time since the
decree was inscribed, a King's Peace had
been proposed of which Athens disapproved.
2 Mentioned as general in I.G. i2. io8December 366. For the date of the elections
cf. Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 44.
3 Nepos,

Tim. I. 3, Dem.

4 Dem.

15.

9, Isocr.

s Dem.

23.

149,

15.

15. 9.
I

-12.

cf. C.A.H. vi. Io5.

6 They had a substantial fleet at sea by

364; Diod. I5. 78. 4 cannot be right in
placing the decision to build a fleet shortly
before its sailing.
7 As Meyer suggested (Geschichtedes Alter-

tums,v. 453).
8 Autonomy for all the Greeks-Plut.
Pelop. 30. 7, 31. I. Xen. gives only the rulings
on Messene and the Athenian fleet (7. I. 36),
but these must be details of a general scheme,
for it was to be a general settlement. Triphylia, etc.-Xen. Hell. 7. I. 38 (taken with
6. 5. I, 7. I. 26, 7. 4. I2). Amphipolis-Dem.
19. 137-which definitely refers the King's
recognition of Amphipolis as his friend and
ally to the time of Timagoras' embassy. The
provision in the Peace of 371 (before
Leuctra) that armies and fleets should be
disbanded (Xen. Hell. 6. 3. I8) could have
been a reasonable precedent for the clause
about the Athenian fleet.
P Hell. 7. 4. 9.
'o Ibid. xo.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

T. T. B. RYDER

204

drawn froma many-sided treaty' (if Xenophon recordsit accurately),and it may

well have been the case that the signatories reaffirmedthe autonomyprinciple,
though it would have made no difference to their position. Xenophon notes
only the territorialclause because it was important to the states concerned.2
If, then, the Thebans offered to the Corinthians and their friendsthe same
terms as they had rejected in 367 as the basis of the Common Peace settlement
then proposed by Pelopidas,3it begins to be possible to see how Diodorus might
have been misled into thinking that there was in fact a Common Peace treaty-especially since in the summer of 365 there was probably very little fighting in
Greece. The Eleans and the Arcadians had both been allies of Thebes and,
though she had taken sides in their dispute in 367, they had not yet come to
open war; nor had the Arcadians and the Thebans. Now the area of peace in
NE. Peloponnesedivided them, as it divided also the Thebans and the Spartans.
The war between Arcadia on one side and Sparta and Achaea on the other
was languishing through weariness and through the peculiar Athenian device
of allying themelves with both sides. Finally, Athens and Thebes may never
have been formally at war. It was quite possible for the troops of two Greek
cities to clash in the territory of a third party without involving them in direct
hostilities; and there is nothing known of any fighting over the borderbetween
Attica and Boeotia. Oropus was seized in the first place by the tyrant of
Eretria and then handed over to the Thebans, who apparently might have
submitted the dispute to arbitration.5As I have said, both cities were busy at
sea or in preparation for naval warfare, and such activities could easily have
been passed over by Diodorus' sources. Though war broke out between Elis
and Arcadia in the late summer of 365, nothing else occurred that we know of
before the summer of 364.
It is possible, though not very likely, that Diodorus was following not
Ephorus, but a pro-Theban source who some years after the events invented
a Common Peace here; more probable that the Thebans themselvesproclaimed
at the time that this was a Common Peace treaty, even if most of their enemies
had boycotted it. The Thebans certainly claimed later, if not at the time, that
their invasions of the Peloponnese had been undertaken in the cause of freedom.6 The Spartans had invoked the autonomy principle of Common Peace
in the King's Peace of 387/6 to break up Thebes' control of Boeotia,7and had
tried to do so again in 371." After their defeat at Leuctra and the failure of the
SCf. Ps.-Dem. 7. I8, where the use of
makes it clear that a bilateral
treaty (the Peace of Philocrates) is being
discussed. Underhill, Commentaryon Xen.
Hell. (Oxford, I900oo), observes at this passage 'i.e. on the basis of the Persian rescript
that each state should be autonomous and
Messene independent'.
2 Cf. the quarrel between Phlius and Argos
over Tricaranon (Xen. Hell. 7. 4. II, Dem.
16. 16, and see Wilhelm's restoration, art. cit.,
p. I62, of the opening lines of what is now
Tod, no. I45 and lines Ig-21 of the same
inscription with Accame's comment, p. 175).
3 Grote (Historyof Greece,new ed. [London,
1884], x. 52) in a note to his account of
Xen.'s treaty discounts Diodorus' narrative
Kar7~povS

on the groundsthat no Persianenvoy had

visited Greecesince Pelopidashad returned
and that the peace was not [Link]
comes nearer the truth than any of his successorsbut Underhill (cf. note I) when he
says en passantthat 'the peace now concluded was upon the general basis of the
rescript (brought back by Pelopidas)'.
*
413.

Cf. Athens and Sparta between 420 and

s Xen. Hell. 7. 4. i: ...

8ifalot rrapa,IXpt K7KTr.

6 Cf. Isocr.
Plut. Pelop. 31. I, and
9- 57,
Epaminondas'
epitaph (Pausanias 9. I5. 6).
7 Xen. Hell. 5. i.
' Ibid. 6.
33.
3. I9.
KaatLECStEVOL

7V

'QpwrtOv

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

SUPPOSED

COMMON

PEACE

OF 366/5 B.C.

205

Athenians to limit Theban power to Central Greece with the new Common
Peace treaty of 371 (after Leuctra),' the Thebans could insist on a more
favourable reading of the autonomy clause. This Philiscus was prepared to
allow in 368,2 and so it was possiblefor the Thebans in their turn to try to work
Common Peace for their own advantage. They failed to do so in 367 and only
partially redeemed their failure with the treaty of 366/5. The Athenians for
their part did not have to submit to the humilitation of agreeing to a Common
Peace sponsored by the city which they had tried to repress in the months after

Leuctra.
In conclusion, the Peace of 366/5 was probably made on the terms of Common Peace where applicable, but it was accepted only by two limited groups
of cities and cannot thereforebe placed along with the Common Peace treaties.
The University,Hull
SIbid. 5. I.
Xen. (7. I. 27) and Diod. (I5. 70. 2)
agree that the Thebans were the cause of
Philiscus' failure to bring about a new Common Peace treaty. Whereas Diod. says that
they feared for their control of Boeotia, Xen.
2

T. T. B. RYDER
says that they were unwilling to return Messene to Sparta. Philiscus was evidently a
friend of the Spartans, for he left them a
mercenary force; and to propose the return
of Messene to Sparta would be no less realistic than not to satisfy Thebes over Boeotia.

This content downloaded from [Link] on Sun, 21 Feb 2016 [Link] UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions