Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 134

XTbe 'dniretsltp of Chicago

FROM 369 T O 146 B.C.


I9 4 I



Private Edition, Distributed by


[p r i n t e d IN U.S.A.]

While the problems of the early Messenlan wars with

Sparta, known through the narrative of Pausanias, have been the
object of much study, the history of the Messenian state after
its refoundlng by Epaminondas in 369 B.C. has been comparatively
neglected. The following study attempts to give a continuous nar­
rative of the political history of Messenla from the refounding
until 146/45 B.C. when the Achaean League, into which Messenla had
been incorporated, was dissolved and Greece thoroughly reorganized
by Rome. Messenla did not, of course, play any large part in
Creek history during this period, but the means by which a small
state, created artificially at one stroke and with no political
experience behind it, was enabled to survive throughout these d i s ­
turbed years are of some historical interest.
Since the district of Messenia is comparatively unfamiliar
a chapter on the topography of the region is included. In it a
description of the general physical characteristics of the dis­
trict Is given, an attempt made to discuss its natural routes of
communication with the evidence of tnelr use In antiquity, and
the identification of the more Important sites which figure in
the history considered. Thus the treatment is by no means exhaus­
tive, as the problems of Homeric and prehistoric topography and
of the early Mesaenian-Spartan Wars are left untouched as well as
the identification of many small sites, the names of which appear
only once or twice in the sources. The map adds nothing to Mes­
senlan cartography, but is merely designed to clarify the topo­
graphical discussion. Naturally the debt to M. N. Valmin's r e ­
cent work on Messenlan topography Is great. I was, however, en a ­
bled to cover most of the territory of Messenla personally by sev­
eral visits made during the course of a sojourn of three years In
My thanks are due to the University of Chicago for the
award of a Fellowship which enabled mo to work in Qreece, and to
Dr. J. A. 0. Larsen for his advice in the preparation of the mate­
rial for this study.



P R E F A C E ...................................................... 11


I. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF M E S S E N L A ................ 1








BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................... 125

MAP OF MESSENIA................................................ 128



In this topographical account Messenla will be used as a

geographical term to denote the district bounded by the Taygetus
range on the east, the Phlgalean mountains on the north, the
Ionian Sea on the west, and the Gulf of Messenla on the south.
Such seems to have been the regular use of the name Messenla in
antiquity, but the term Messene shows some variation In its usage.
For our Immediate purposes Messene will be used to refer to the
city on the west slopes of Mt. Ithorae and to the political organ­
ization of which that city was the center.
The district of Messenla,^ which occupies the southwestern
section of the Peloponnesus, Is sharply marked off by natural
boundaries. On the east It is separated from Laconia by the range
of the Taygetus mountains which terminates at the north in M t .
Helleritza. On the north the Phlgalean mountains and the gorge
of the Neda River divide Messenla frcm Arcadia and Trlphylia. Be -
tween Mt. Tetrazi, the easternmost peak of the Phlgalean range,

A fairly complete list of works dealing with Messenlan

geography and topography is given by W. Reincke, Real -Encyclop&dle
der classlschen Altertuir.swlssenschaft, eds. Pauly-WIssowa-Kroil
rStuttgart, 1894 — ), XV , 1232 Thereafter cited P.-W.). The most
Important are: E. Curtius, Peloponnesos, II (Gotha, 1852), 121-
200; C. Burslan, Geographic von Grlechenland, II (Leipzig, 1872),
155-79; A. Phlllppson, Per Feloponnes ffeerfln, 1892), pp. 199-252,
340-81; in particular, M. N. Valmln, Etudes topographlques sur la
Messenla anclenne (Lund, 1930). To these should oe added Valmin's
articles In the Kungl. humanistlska Vetenskapssamfundet 1 Lund,
j^rsberltttelse (Bulletin de la soclete royale des lettres de Lund)
subsequent To the publication of the Studes; Valmln, The Swedish
Messenla Expedition (Lund, 1938); Valmln, ’’Ein messenlsches Kastell
und die arkadlsche Grenzfrage," Skrlfter utglvna av svenska Instl-
tutet 1 R o m , V (1939), 59-76. His study on prehistoric Messenla
(^Messapisches In Messenlan," Ibid., Series altera, I [1939], 491-
99) also has some discussion of place names and sites.
The system of nomenclature adopted Is a compromise. For
the less familiar sites and geographical points the modern Greek
names are used, followed by the ancient name In parentheses If an
identification has been made. In the case of the better-known
sites only the ancient names are employed.

and Mt. aellenitza lie the passes through which Messenla commu­
nicates with Arcadia. The western and southern limits of the dis­
trict are determined by the Ionian Sea and the Gulf of Messenla.
In the southeastern section the narrow strip of cultivable land be­
tween Taygetus and the sea Is cut by the gorges of the Nedon River
emptying at Kalamata (Fharae), by the Sandava River (Choerlus),
and by the Mllia River (little Pamlsus) to the north of Koutlpharl
(Thalamae). At different periods the two latter served as bound­
aries depending on how effectively Messene supported its claims
to this disputed territory.^
In the western part of Messenla Is a coastal range consist­
ing of parallel chains of peaks stretching from M t . Psychro by
Kyparissla (Cyparlssla) on the north almost to the base of the
peninsula which projects from the southwestern corner of Messenla.
At that point the mountains sink to a broad saddle beyond which
M t . Lykodimo (lit. Mathia) rises steeply. In the peninsula Itself
there is a saddle south of Mt. Lykodimo, but at the tip of the
peninsula (Acritas) a tangled mass of mountains, the highest peak
of which is Mt. Tzarnaoura. Off the tip of the peninsula lies
the large island of Venetlko (Theganusa) on which some ancient
remains Identified as a salt works are preserved. To the west
of Venetlko are the three Islands of Schlza, Saplenza, and Hagia
Marina (Oenussae). Schlza and Saplenza, at least, appear to have
been Inhabited in antiquity.^ Along the west coast are well-
watered and fertile terraces and a coastal plain of varying width
which communicates with the interior at the north by a passage
between M t . Psychro and the Phlgalean mountains and at the south
by the saddle to the north of Mt. Lykodimo.
The districts on which the traditional reputation of Mes-
senla for fertility and richness rests are the two plains between
Taygetus and the western coastal range. The plains are divided
Into an upper and lower section by a line of low hills which e x ­
tends from Ithome to the foothills of Taygetus. Both the upper
and lower plains are very level and the ground easy to work. The

The Ager Denthallatis, which *» b the subject of the long
dispute reviewed by Tacitus (Annals, ed. H. Furneaux [2d ed . ;
Oxford, 1896-97], lv. 43), lay In this district. For a discussion
of Its location, see Infra. Appendix I.

4 Valmin, Etudes, p. 160. 5 Ibld., pp. 161-62.


scantiness of ancient remains In the plains Is probably to be a s ­

cribed to the desire to utilize as muc h of the land as possible
for cultivation.
Pra m the upper plain access to the west coast is made
through the va l l e y of Soulima, so called from the m o d e r n village
at its head. The Soulima valley is oriented from north to south
and geographically is as closely linked to the districts of Phi -
galea and Triphylla as to Messenla. At the southeastern en d of
the valley is a narrow pass from the upper plain made by the hills
extending north from Ithome and south from the Phlgalean mountains.
At the west end of the Soulima valley over the low watershed near
Kopanaki lies the coastal plain of Kyparissia.
The upper and lower plain and the Soulima val l e y are well
supplied with water by the drainage from the coastal range, the
Phlgalean mountains and Taygetus. The various streams which flow
across the plains all form part of one river system, the Pamlsus.
In the upper plain two main streams unite their courses near Meli-
gala, one called the Vasillko which flows from the northwest out
of the Soulima valley, the other across the upper plain from the
gorges on the northeast. It is Joined by a n Important tributary
Just above its Junction with the Vasillko stream. The tributary
drains the northwest arm of the upper plain. The united course
of the streams, called the Mavrozoumenos, flows past the foot of
Ithome and is Joined by a great volume of water coming from near
Hagios Floros, the source of the Pamlsus proper. Aro u n d Hagios
Floros and in the lower reaches of the stream the land near it is
very marshy and unfit for cultivation without proper drainage.
The city of Messene was situated on the western slopes of
Mt. Ithome, a position of great natural strength, the summit of
which is enclosed by the fortification wall. A glance at the map
shows the strategic importance of Ithome for the most valuable
districts of Messenla, the upper and lower plains. It rises a b ­
ruptly on their western edge opposite the low hills which divide

The site of Ithome and Messene is described b y Sir J. 3.
Frazer, Pausanlas'a Description of Oreeee (London, 1898), III,
429-41. Frazer wrongly Identifies the bouleuterion as a theater.
Some excavation has been done b y the Greek Archaeological Society,
the results of which are partially published in the Praktlka of
the Hellenlke Archalologlke H e t a l r l a , 1895, p. 27 (Arsinoe and
b o u l e u t e r i o n ) ; I b i d . , 1909, pp. 201-5 (stadium, bouleuterion, and
agora); ibid., 1925, pp. 55-66 (bouleuterion).
them. From Its top may be seen the entrances of the passes from
east, west, and north into the upper plain, and from the east
into the lower plain. Only to the southwest Is the view blocked
by the ridge of Psorlari. On the ridge, however, are the ruins
of a Greek tower which probably served as a signal tower for
Ithome as well as controlling the route leading to Messene from
the southwest.
The central and commanding position of Messene made It
the nodal point of the whole country. From the city, roads ran
northward linking the sites of the upper plain and leading to A r ­
cadia and to the west coast. Toward the south went the routes to
the lower plain, thence across Taygetus to Sparta, and to Pylus
on the west coast. In a mountainous country such as Greece it is
usually not too difficult to decide upon the routes which were
used in antiquity, for frequently only one or two passes are avail­
able. In some places traces of ancient roads are preserved, either
in the form of bridges, or of rock cuttings and wheel marks. From
these actual traces, as well as the indications given by the lit­
erary sources--particularly Pausanias--and considerations of the
needs of communication, an attempt will be made to trace the main
routes and locate the sites which they linked. In addition, h o w ­
ever, one must supply a network of mountain paths and villages
which served the needs of the shepherds and farmers who lived in
the small mountain valleys.

Northern Messenla

The mountain barriers of Taygetus on the east, and the

Phlgalean mountains on the north are traversable with ease only

Valmin (Etudes, pp. 68-69) describes the rower and a '<ill
on the summit of Psorlari, and suggests that the two belong t o ­
gether In the same scheme of fortification. This may be so, but
the tower Is not linked with the wall in any manner, and they are,
as he observes, of entirely different types of construction. The
tower is built of carefully dressed blocks and the wall of small
field stones. The wall Is very much like that on Tzoukaleika
which Valmln finally concluded was modern (ibid., pp. 71-73, but
for his final conclusion after Investigation see '’Rapport preliml-
naire de l ’expedition en Messenie 1933," Bull. Lund, 1933-34,
p. 12). It seems probable that the tower on Psorlari formed part
of the fortification scheme of Messene after the refounding (infra,
p. 40) but the wall Is of a different period, probably modern.
The maps reproduced in the article of Hiller von Gaer-
tringen and H. Lattermann, "Hira und Andania,” Progra mm zura Wlnckel-
In the area between M t . Hellenitza and M t . Tetrazi. There,
three routes lead from the upper Messenlan plain to the plain of
Megalopolis. The southernmost is the Derveni pass which Is the
easiest and Is at present utilized by the highway, which enters
the plain of Megalopolis from the southwest. The second route,
separated from the Derveni pass by a high ridge, is that taken by
the railway. It follows the northern edge of the upper plain to
the gorge of Isari, named from the village at its head. After
running part way up the gorge, the railway turns east and enters
the plain of Megalopolis not far from the highway. The third
route is really an alternative of the second. Instead of turning
east from the Isari gorge to enter the plain of Megalopolis from
its southern end It Is possible to continue up the gorge to the
village of Astala near Lycosoura. From Lycosoura one may go e a s t ­
ward to the plain of Megalopolis or westward across the north
flank of Mt. Tetrazi to the headwaters of the Neda River and to
Pausanias offers some evidence for the ancient use of the
routes under discussion. His description of the route after l e a v ­
ing Messene runs as follows:
As you go along the road for Arcadia to Megalopolis at
the gates [of Messene] Is a harm of Attic style.........
After a descent of thirty stades from the gates is the stream
of Balyra......... The Rivers Leucasia and Amphitus unite to
form one stream.
When these are crossed there is a plain called t)ie plain
of Stenyclerus. . . . . Facing the plain [tou tt c & i o u
. . . . a . T T o . v T i t - P u ] is a site anciently called Oechalia,
now the Carnaaion Grove." Many cypresses grow t h e r e .........
Water rises from a spring close to the statue [this was the
grove where the mysteries of Andania were celebrated and e v i ­
dently Pausanias went there In person as he goes on to speak
of a dream he had at the G r o v e ] ............A river, Charadrus,
flows by the Grove; about eight stades along the road are the
ruins of Andania to the l e f t ......... On the road from Andania
toward Cyparissia Is Polichne, as It is called, and the streams
of Electra and C h o e u s .........
The route from Messene to Arcadia, then, led out the so-
called Arcadian Gate and down to the Balyra River. It is probable

mannsfeste der archaeologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, LXXI

CiaiT), PI. I, and by K. Graeflnghoff, Ath. M i t t ., XXXVIII (1913),
PI. IV, are useful for the northern part of Messenla.
The name of the Grove Is given as Carniasion In the f a ­
mous mystery Inscription (IG, V, 1, 1390.60); i n f r a , p. 35.

10 Pausanlas, ed. F. Spiro (Leipzig, 1903), i v . 33. 3-6.

from the nature of the terrain that this route followed much the
same course as the modern path which skirts the northwestern flank
of Ithome, then turns down a valley leading to the Mavrozoumenos
River. Along the route on a hill not far from the river are a
round tower and a rectangular foundation^ which control this v a l ­
ley and the route. After discussing the Balyra River, Pausanias
states that the rivers Leucasia and Amphltus unite to form one
stream. Across them lay the Stenyclerian plain. The Juncture of
the Leucasia and the Amphltus is identified with the confluence
of the Vasillko River flowing from the valley of Soulima and the
stream from the northeast. 12 Across them is the upper plain,
identified as the Stenyclerian plain. The Balyra River is proba­
bly the united stream, the present Mavrosoumenos.
At the juncture of the streams la a bridge, the substruc­
ture of which is ancient, but the upper part medieval and modern.
Although Pausanias must have crossed over it on his way to the
Grove, he does not mention the structure. The bridge consists
of three arms of unequal length radiating from a large central
pier. The western arm bridges the Vasillko stream, the eastern
arm the stream from the northeastern corner of the plain, and the
northern arm gives access to the ground between the two. The
streams unite their courses immediately below the bridge.
The route from the Arcadian Gate must have utilized the
western arm of the bridge. To get to the Carnaslon Grove, which
was eight stades from Andania, Pausanias would either have turned

n Valmln, Etudes, pp. 69-70. 12Ibid. , pp. 82-88.

13A plan and some drawings of the masonry are published

by A. G. Blouet, Expedition aclentlflque de la Mor6e, Vol. I,
Architecture ( P a r i s , 1833), PI. XLVllf. Although most of the to-
pographers have noticed this bridge, it has not been published as
it deserves, for its plan is unique, and it is the beat-preserved
bridge of the Greek period In Greece. It preserves several
courses of a true arch--one of the earliest examples of this in
Greece, since the bridge appears from the style of its masonry to
have been built in the fourth century B.C.
The plan drawn by Blouet is that of the actual state of
the bridge and la misleading since it does not Indicate the dif­
ferent periods of construction. None of the pointed ends of the
piers are ancient, and the south end of the large central pier
was originally rounded, not pointed. The arm extending along the
eastern stream is medieval and alters the original dlreotlon of
that side of the pier. Enough of the first construction is pre­
served, however, to indicate that this three-armed plan was the
original one.
left along the northern arm or continued east across the plain.
Prom the vantage point of Andania he described the road to Cyparis-
sla. We know from Livy** that Andania lay on a route between Hes-
sene and Megalopolis. The only direct routes to Megalopolis are
those from the northeast corner of the plain. Thus the i d e n t i f i ­
cation of the site of Andania or the Carnasion drove would serve
as a key to the routes of the upper plain.
Two districts in the upper plain have been proposed as
the site of the drove and its corollary, Andania. The view first
proposed and unanimously accepted*® until Valmln's studies, placed
the drove in the northeast corner of the plain not far from the
entrance of the highway, and Andania on an acropolis called Hel-
leniko situated at the mouth of the Isari dorge. Valmin, however,
has proposed a site on the west side of the plain, north of the
triple bridge and near the village of Polichne.
The Identification of Andania with the site in the n o r t h ­
east part of the plain rests chiefly on a n interpretation of the
literary evidence.*® Pausanias, from the vantage point of the

**LIvy, ed. W. Weissenborn (Leipzig, 1894), xxxvi. 31. 7.

Valmin (B t u d e s , p. 91, n. 54) lists its adherents.
Relncke (P.-W., XV, 1235) has accepted Valmin*a identification.
Pausanias is the chief literary source but his r e f e r ­
ences (iv. 1. 2, 9; 2. 2, 6; 3. 7, 10; 14. 7; 16. 6; 17. 10;
26. 6; 27. 1), with the exception of iv. 33. 5-6 quoted above,
describe Andania only as a center of early Messenlan history and
religion and are of little value, except in a general way, for its
identification. Strabo (ed. A. Melneke [Leipzig, 1915), viii. 3.
6, 25; 4. 5; x. 1. 10) describes Andania as an Arcadian town
situated near Dorion. Valmln has plausibly identified Dorion with
Malthi w hich occupies a hill overlooking a pass from the upper
plain Into the valley of Soulima (The Swedish Messenla E x p e d i t i o n ,
p. 13). The statement of Livy (xxxvl. 3 l . 7) has been noticed
above. Polybius (ed. T. Btittner-Wobst [Leipzig, 1889-1905], v.
92. 6) mentions a n attack made during the Social War by Lycurgus
of Sparta on a Messenlan town whdeh has been corrected from the
t v &£ I v of the MSS to ‘A v a <X v i a . V b y S c h w elghHuser, Hultsch,
and Btittner-Wobst. Ross (Relsen und Relserouten durch G r l e c h e n -
land, Vol. I, Relsen lm Peloponnes [SeriIn, l 8 4 l ] , p. 2, n. 3}
conjectured “A v U i The objection to Anthela is that It Is
known only as a Homeric site (Homer Iliad, eds. D. B. Monro and
T. W. Allen [2d ed. ; Oxford, 1908], 1 x 7 1 5 1 , 293; Paus. iv. 31. 1;
Strabo viii. 4. 5; Stephanus Byzantinus, ed. A. Meineke [Berlin,
1849], s .v . T h o u r l o l ; Pliny Natural H i s t o r y , ed. C. Mayhoff [ L e i p ­
zig, 1892-1953], i v . 5. 8). Valmin (fitudes, p. 62) favors reading
£ I Q- for the A * 3 ^ < ft of Stephanus Byzantinus (s .v. ) who
follows Philochorua. To do so Involves a change in the text of
Thucydides also, for the perioeci who joined In the revclt of 464
triple bridge, refers to the Carnaslon Grove as facing the plain,
T'-j'- TT £ & i o u _ _ _ . ‘a , 77 a- V T i This was interpreted to
mean a site on the east side of the plain since FausanLi *?1 direc­
tion of approach was from the southwest. The reference of Livy,
placing Andania on the road between Messene and Megalopolis, was
assumed to indicate the Derveni pass and combined with Pausanias'
statement as indicating a site in the northeast part of the plain.
j \
The word, a 77 a P T 1^ '> u , however, could equally well indicate a
direction along the north arm of the bridge. If Pausanias went
to the Carnaslon drove by the north arm of the bridge it is a
natural phrase to use. As for the passage of Livy ws have seen
that there are three possible routes to Megalopolis from the upper
plain, and there is no indication as to which Livy refers or to
what point on it.
The archeological evidence for the sites in the northeast
corner of the plain is likewise slight. The Carnaslon Grove is
identified with a place called Trypha to the south of the Isari
Gorge where a mosaic of the Roman period has been found. The
scenes were supposed to refer to the mysteries celebrated at the

(Thucydides, ed. H. S. Jones [Oxford, 1898], i. 101. 2 ) would,

then, be the Antheians, not Aethaeans. To read "A v t? f i a. one
must assume a double error, first in Thucydides, and secondly in
Philochorus or his source. This seems needless as there is no
valid reason to suspect the text of Thucydides. Thus the identi­
fication of A 0 1 * and ‘A v & £ l seems unlikely. The p o s ­
sible occurrence of ^ * t? £ 1 a in LG, V, 1, 1426. 1, is discussed
below (p. 9, n. 20}. Since, then, Antheia does not seem to be
attested as a site of the historical period it seems better to
accept the usual correction of Andania in the text of Polybius.
Stephanus Byzantinus has a lengthy note on Andania (s.v . ),
but it is the Andania of the Messenlan-Spartan Wars and is of
little use in the identification of the site.
It is^scarcely possible to Insist on a literal meaning
of a. v a. ¥ r i pausanias, for he uses the word to express
the relationship of the Lacedaemonian to the Arcadian dedication
at Delphi (x. 9. 7). Actually the Lacedaemonian monument is b e ­
hind that of the Arcadians; cf. W. Dinsmoor, "The Burning of the
Opisthodomos at Athens," AJA, XXXVI (1932), 316, n. 2; G. Daux
(Pausanias a Delphea [Paris, 1936], p. 82) finds the choice of
the expression unfortunate, but in no real contradiction with
topographical reality.
P. Kavvadias, Praktlka, 1900, p. 17. The mosaic d e ­
picts hunting scenes, the seasons, and a male figure driving pan­
thers harnessed to a chariot. The inscriptions i J!* • and
£ u ^ y are written near the chariot. These seem conventional
motives and without any religious significance.
Grove, but seem to bo of a secular character. Although a few
blocks have been found In this neighborhood there is no indication
of an extensive establishment. The acropolis, called Helleniko,
at the mouth of the Isari Gorge identified wit h Andania has a
fairly well-preserved fortification. The fort commands the e n ­
trance to the gorge, and since it Is situated near the Derveni
route it may be said to control that pass also. This fort has
been dated to the archaic period by Hiller von Gaertringen, but
that seems to have been the result of the Identification of the
site with Andania. The wall construction is similar to that of
the walls of Messene and it will be argued later that this fort
Is a part of the fortification system of Messene Instituted after
the refounding. It is sufficient to point out here, that, in
Itself, the fort is no evidence for the site of Andania. Thus on
both the literary and archeological evidence there are very slight
grounds for placing the Carnaslon Grove and Andania in the n o r t h ­
east part of the plain.
Valmin, however, has shown that for the Identification of
the Grove with the site near Pollchne on the western side of the
plain there is excellent archeological evidence. Most decisive
is the provenance of the famous inscription describing the r e g u ­
lation of the Andanlan mysteries. It was found In a field near a
spring called Divari, which is the water supply of the village of
Pollchne. The advocates of the site in the northeast corner of

Hiller von Gaertringen and H. Lattermann, Programm zum
Wlnckelmannsfe 3 t e , LXXI, 31-37.

^^Valmin (S t u d e s , pp. 75 f f .) suggests the Identification

of Helleniko w i t h Ampheia known from Pausanias (Iv. 5. 9; - 9. 3).
Pausanias, however, refers to Ampheia In the past tense, and in
his account of the Messenlan-Spartan wars, not in the itinerary.
That does not necessarily mean that It did not exist after the
refounding, but his evidence must be taken with reserve. There
may be an epigraphical reference to Ampheia in IG, V, 1, 1426. 1.
Kolbe In his publication of the inscription (p.- 580) reads
"a i- c? f / a- but later (p. 308) states: "Haud sclo. an in tltulo
n. 1426. 1 'Afu.1 $ t i <x vel 'fa ^ a f i a. lntelllgendum sl t .ff I have
examined the stone, and made a squeeze from it. The first two
letters seem to me to ^ . . . . but I cannot read the rest
of the word. It seems probable that the reference Is to some
town outside of Messenla (infra, p. Ill, n. 10).
Valmln, B t u d e s , pp. 92 ff.
22 x
IQ, V, 1, 1390 (Ditt. S y l l . , 736).

the plain argue that the stone was carried across the plain to
this place. Although the exact circumstances of the finding of
the inscription are not very clear, It does not seem to have been
built into any modern or medieval building, but to have been In a
field, probably near Its original position. In addition to this
inscription others have been found in the district.
Pausanias had mentioned a spring at the Grove which might
well be the spring, DIvari, In which some ancient masonry may be
seen. The enlargement of the pool to Its present size is modern.
In the district of the spring are many churches, which may be a
heritage of its former religious importance, and many architec­
tural blocks. The neighborhood of the pool should mark the site
of the Grove. As for Andania Itself, a heavy circuit wall has
been found to the north of the pool, but the topographical sig-
nificance of that can scarcely be settled without excavation. 24
Pausanias also mentioned a river, Charadrus, near the Grove. The
stream from the northwest corner of the plain flows close to
Pollchne on the east. Thus, for the identification of the drove
with Pollchne there is excellent archeological evidence and, as
it is not contradicted by the literary evidence. It seems prob­
able that the Grove and Andania should be placed in the region
of Pollchne.
Accordingly, with the site of the Grove fixed at Pollchne,
the road followed by Pausanias Is Indicated by the northern arm
of the triple bridge. The route would have extended along the
west side of the plain to the Grove whenceone branch would have
turned west to Cyparissia. Another branch must have extended to
the passes in the northeast corner of the plain. Although Pau­
sanias seems to have returned to Messene from the Grove some in­
dication of the use of the passes is to be found in his descrip­
tion of Arcadia. There, two routes are traced, the first from
Megalopolis to Messene, the second from Megalopolis to Carnaslum,
presumably the Grove.
The first route described is called the leophoros so that

^Valmin, ''Inscriptions de la Messanie," Bull. Lund, 1920-

29, pp. 138-41, Nos. 6 -8 .
Pausanias (iv. 33. 6 ) had referred to Andania as a ruin.
If it was in ruins in his period we should hardly expect very
prominent remains to survive at the present time.
It was evidently the main highway.^5 it crossed the Alpheius
near Its Junction with the Gatheatas, probably the modern Xerlllas.
2 6
which Is a little to the south of the present highway bridge.
Although Pausanias does not describe it beyond the frontier. It
can scarcely have followed any other route than that of the modern
highway, through the Derveni pass. Upon entering the upper plain
the route would probably have branched diagonally across the plain
to the eastern arm of the triple bridge, and also followed the
eastern edge of the plain to join the road from the lower plain
which will be noticed later.
The second route, that from Megalopolis to Carnasium,
crossed the Alpheius farther to the north and ascended to a place,
Phaedria not far from Despoena or Lycosoura where It would enter
V.essenian territory. Pausanias does not describe It beyond the
frontier. This at least fixes the general line of the route as
from Megalopolis to Lycosoura. Apparently Its main branch led
straight down the Isari (Jorge, The route probably followed the
north edge of the upper plain, then turned down its west side to
the drove where It would meet the road from the triple bridge and
that to Cyparlssia and the west coast. At the north edge of the
plain near the village of Ttorota are the remains of a watch tower
overlooking the route. 28

The gorge of the Neda formed the boundary of Messenla on

the north. On the Arcadian side of the gorge the city of Phigalea
was situated. The tiny valleys of the southern tributaries of the
Ueda were cut cff from the upper plain by the peaks of M t . Tetrari
and M t . Hagios Silas (V.t. Elaeum) so that the district was as
closely connected with Arcadia as with Kessenla, and Phigalea was
In a position to exert a certain amount of control over It. On
the south side of the stream two forts were located which probably

Faus. viii. 34. 1-6.

2 ®See the m ap b y H. Latteraann (^2.* V» 2, PI. VIII'.

2 7 Faus. viii. 35. 1-2.

Hiller v o n Gaertringen a n d H. Lattermann, Programm tun
Wln c k e l m a n n s f e s t e , LXXI, 37-38.
C a . 240 B.C. the Aetolians mediated an agreement b e ­
tween Messene and Phigalea in which some territorial disputes were
settled (infra, p. 69).

represent the efforts of Messene at different periods to prevent

this. One Is of the archaic period and Is plausibly Identified
with ancient Hlra, but the other Is a construction of the period
after the refounding and evidently formed a part of the f o r ­
tress system.
Pausanias seems not to have gone west of the Carnaslon
Grove Into the Soulima valley, but merely to have enumerated the
sites along the route to Cyparissla. It Is difficult to Identify
them and the names have been shuttled around the known ruins.
The latter are small and It is clear that no town of Importance
lay in the Soulima valley. At Its eastern and western ends by
Vasillko and Kopanakl the valley closes In to comparatively n a r ­
row passes. The main route would have led through these, and at
the western end, near the village of Stylari, are the ruins of
another fort of the period after the refounding which would have
controlled the route to the west coast. By the eastern pass, not
far from Malthl (Dorion), Valmln has discovered the ruins of a
guard house of the late archaic period, but it apparently went
out of use well before 369 B.C.

The Region of Taygetus

Between Messenla and Laconia stretches the highest and

most difficult part of the Taygetus range, from the plain of
Megalopolis to Kardamyll (Cardamyle) and Xerokampl. It falls i n ­
to two unequal sections divided by the Langada Gorge. North of
the Langada the range is formed by two ridges extending to M t .
Malevo. Between them, high up in the mountains, Is set a fertile
district around the headwaters of the Nedon River. It is proba-
bly to be Identified with the Ager Denthaliatis which was the
subject of so many disputes between Messene and Sparta. The d i s ­
trict is equally accessible from each country so that, as In the
case of the valleys north of Mt. Tetrazi in the Phlgalean moun-

Hiller von Gaertringen and H. Lattermann, Programm sum
Wlnckelmannsfeste, LXXI, 13-30.
See Valmin, Et u d e s , pp. 99-107, for a discussion of the
topography of the region.
Valmin, Skrifter utgivna av svenska Institute! 1 Ram, V,
See Appendix I.


tains, dispute over its ownership was inevitable.

In the northern section of Taygetus there are a number of
paths through the mountains but all are difficult a n d there Is no
evidence to suggest that they served more than a local use In a n ­
tiquity. A path leads from the southwestern end of the p lain of
Megalopolis up the valley of the Xerillas River (Gatheatas) to
its headwaters east of K t . Hellenitza. Thence, it is possible to
descend along the south and southwest flanks of Mt. Hellenitza
into the upper Messenlan plain or to the lower plain b y Hagios
•I A
Floros. There Is another network of paths north of Mt. Malevo
which lead from Messenla into northern Laconia. It Is probable,
however, that most traffic between northern Laconia and Messenla
went through the easy Derveni route north of Mt. Hellenitza.
To the south of Mt. Malevo a path runs from Kalamata
(Fharae) to the headwaters of the Nedon River and the district of
the Ager D e n t h a l l a t i s . The path leads from Kalamata to Lada and
thence by way of Sitsova into Laconia. The route is too long and
hard for general use and serves local inhabitants only.
The Langada pass marks the division between the northern
and central sections of Taygetus. Although it offers one of the
shortest routes between Messenla and Sparta, it Is also one of
the roughest. The pass Is entered on the Spartan side at Trypi
and follows the Langada gorge up Into the mountains. From the
crest, the route leads directly to Kalamata but there are branches
to Lada on the Nedon route and to Giannitza (Calamae) a few k i l o ­
meters to the southwest. There Is no evidence for the regular
use of the Langada route in antiquity and it seems to be referred

F. B&lte (P.-W., Ill A, 1343 f f .) gives a useful d e ­
scription of the paths in this region.
Valmin (H t u d e s , p. 73) ascribed some importance to the
route entering the Messenlan plain from the gorge of Katiarou.
He was Influenced In this b y the discovery of a wall on the hill
of Tzoukalelka near the division between the upper and lower Mes-
senian plains. On the basis of later Investigation, however, he
has concluded that the summit of Tzoukalelka was unfit t e d for c o n ­
tinuous habitation and that the wall was comparatively modern,
built possibly in the Greek War of Independence (Bull. Lund, 1933-
34, p. 12). ‘
The road w h i c h Is being constructed through the Langada
pass at the present time Involves considerable difficulties in
to in a boundary regulation of 78 A . D ."^7 as a r ' v ^ J 1 **■ which
scarcely suggests that It was the usual road.
It Is probable that the next pass to the south, that b e ­
tween Glannitza (Calamae) and Mistra was the pass used In antlq-
uitv as a regular route from southern Kessenia to Sparta, although
It is very high and sometimes Impassible in winter because of
snow. At three places on this route traces of wheel marks have
been observed. From Glannitza the route leads up a valley near
the end of which are the best-oreserved marks. Beyond it on a
small plateau called Tikll and at a place at the eastern edge of
the plateau marks with the same axial spacing have been observed.

IG, V, 1, 1431. This inscription, discussed by W. Kolbe

("Die Grenzen Messeniens In der ersten Kaiserzeit," Ath. Mitt.,
XXIX [1904], 364-76} is a precise, point-by-point description of
the boundary between Laconia and Ve 3 senia as laid out by T. Flavlua
Honomltus, a surveyor, in 78 A.D. Kolbe discusses itin connec­
tion with some boundary markers found by himself (IG, V, 1, 1371
a-c) and by Ross (10, V, 1, 1372 a-b) high up in Taygetus. The
inscription is only about one-third preserved, but Kolbe's inter­
pretation seems sound. A starting point is furnished by the end
of the Inscription which refers to the Choerius hlver. Pausanias
(iv. 1 . 1 ; apparently refers to this very regulation: i * - t r ? ^ 0 1s
„ lj 77 0 7 a Q tX. C X ( Lu f £5 7 o' f K Li. T& 7 ^ Is
r £ fQ 'Ij v - A. U £ /r t v t O L* UV * *0 Is O 0 . ^ 0 yx £ is' h X C t <i I 0 s if rb.
The Choerius gorge is described by him in connection with Gerenia
which is plausibly Identified with Kampos, thus identifying the
gorge with the Sandava (Valmin, Etudes, pp. 182 ff . ). Thus the
delimitation of the boundary runs from north to south. Kolbe d e ­
scribes It from south to north. The Inscription mentions two malr.
topographical points in the southern section of the boundary line
as we 11 as markers. They are .-vl.o ■> i x. (line 20), and f J a 0 5
(line 26). Kolbe, reasonably assuming that in the southern fart
of the area the main ridge of Taygetus served as the boundary line.
Identifies the r I v J ° 1 as the Langada and the 4 - o & u sa 3
the pass between Gianr.ltza and h'lstra. They are the o n l y natural
features which lend themselves to this description taker. In c o n ­
nection with the boundary stones. If Kolbe's assume* '.on Is cor­
rect we have * . . . . preserved as the first two letters of the
ancient name of the Langada. With the aid of the tour, iary mark­
ers, the formulae on which correspond with some of those mentioned
in the Inscription, Kolbe worked out the general line of the bound­
ary of 78 A.D. a a follows: from, the gorge of the Sandava (Choerius,
on the south, along the main ridge of Taygetus to V t . Malevo where
it turned west along Xerovouno, then north again along the main
ridge of Taygetus (Bfilte, P. -W. , III A, 1312-15, makes some cor­
rections of detail in Kolbe's interpretation}.
Phillppaon, Per Peloponnes, p. 234, n. 1.

Pernice, "Aus Messenien,” Ath. Mitt., XIX (1694),

.3 6 5 -6 7 .
Valmln 4 0 thinks that the terrain allowed the route to continue
beyond this. It la, of course, impossible to date these wheel
marks and to assume that the whole route was a cart road, hut i~
seems probable that the marks indicate a considerable use of the
road in antiquity, for at Giannitza are the remains of a fortifi­
cation whose function it must have been to guard the Messenlan
end of the pass. This fort is probably to be Identified with
Calamae.41, It Is near enough to the ends of the Nedon and Langadi
routes to control them also.
The southernmost pass with which we are concerned is that
which leads from Kardamyli (Cardamyle) on the coast of the M e s ­
senlan Gulf, across Taygetus south of M t . Hagios Blias to Xero-
campl in Laconia.42 It Is very high and like the route from Gian-
nltza to Mistra sometimes Impassible in winter. Valmln found
traces of wheel marks to the north of Kardamyli, which may I n ­
dicate the course of the route in this section. Farther to the
south the Taygetus range is not so high and difficult, and commu­
nication is easier between Its west and east sides.

The Bast Coast of the Messenlan Gulf

and the Lower Plain

In the fertile valleys of southeastern Messenla are sar.y

ancient sites. Those in the mountains, Calamae and Gerenla have
already been noticed, but along the coast are another group, not
very important in historical times, but to Judge from their r e ­
mains fairly prosperous. The farthest point southward which M e s ­
sene ever reached appears to have been the little Pamlsus River
identified as the modern Milia River which flows into the sea a
few kilometers to the north of Koutlphari (Thalamae). The
coastal sites north of this point were Leuctra, near modern

40E t u d c s , p. 50. 41-See Appendix II.

For a description of the gorges on the Spartan side of
the mountains, see H. Ormerod, "Laconia, II-Topography," B S A , XVI
(1909-10), 66-68.

4^See Btu d e s , p. 50, but also p. 201, n. 83, where it Is

suggested that the marks may belong to a coastal road.

44E. S. Forster, "South-Western Laconia," B S A , X (1903-4),

162. The historical evidence for this boundary is <3Tscusaed
infra, p. 56, n. 132. The boundary of this district, called the
Manl, was, in the Turkish Period, at Almyro near Kalamata.
Leftro4^ and Cardamyle at the modern town of that name. The early
site of Cardamyle appears to have been on the acropolis which
rises two kilometers from the sea, but the later town was located
on the coastal plain.
Between Cardamyle and the Sandava River (Choerius} the
coastal district is very rocky, and there la no site of any size
along the coast until Palaioehora, identified with ancient Abia,
is reached.47 The plain of which this town is the center is sepa­
rated from the plain of Kalamata by a high ridge running down to
the sea. Beyond Kalamata another low ridge projects from the
mountains which thus gives Kalamata a small corner to Itself sepa­
rate from the lower Messenlan plain. The identification of Kala-
mata with ancient Pharae seems to rest on fairly sure grounds.
In the lower plain the most important site Is Thouria
which occupied a long narrow hill at the eastern edge of the plain
near the village of Velsaga. There are some remains of a city on
the plain which Is noticed by Pausanias ae later than the acrop-
oils site, The territory of Thouria appears to have extended
to the sea on the south and as far as the low ridge west of Kala-

Valmln, Btudes, p. 203. Valmln’s views as to the exten­
sion of the city over the plain to the south of the acropolis have
been confirmed by the cutting of the modern coastal road. In
several places the cutting has exposed marble architectural m e m ­
bers and heavy walls, apparently foundations. The form Leuktron
is also found (Strabo viii. 4. 4; Plutarch Vitae Parallelae, eds.
C. Lindskog and K. Ziegler [Leipzig, 1914-391, Pelopldas 20.7).

4&V almin, Btudes, pp. 198 ff. In addition to the remains

noticed by Valmin and Forster (BSA, X, 163) on the acropolis, I
have observed a rock-cut stairway which leads up to the southwest
corner of the acropolis through a cleft. Above the stairway on
the rim of the acropolis is a short stretch of polygonal wall.
There was evidently an entrance at this corner in ancient times.
The ascent is very steep and could easily have been defended.
Valmin, Btudes, p. 181. The paucity of ancient remains
has been remedied to a certain extent by the cutting of the m o d ­
ern coaatal road. It has exposed some light walls, and tiles and
sherds may be seen along the edge of the cutting. The sherds a p ­
pear to be of Raman types. The form Abea is found in Ptolemy
Geographia, eds. C. Muller and C. T. Fischer (Papis, 1883-1901),
iiiT 14. 7l, and the ethnic ' A p t 8. t a. i or * a t / a. r a , in v?
1, 1352-54.

4®See Appendix II. The fora Pharae is met as frequently

as Pherai; cf. H. Hitzlg and H. Blflmnor, Pea Pausanias Beschrlo-
bung von Orlechenland (Leipzig, 1896-191C7T tt , Fart Tj 162-63.
Paus. iv. 31. 2; Valmin, Btudes. pp. 56 ff.

rnata on the east, for Strabo speaks of it as bor d e r i n g on Pharae

and calls th e northeast part of the Gulf of Messenla, Thouriate.
Our chief source for these sites, Pausanias, gives some
indication also concerning the routes in the lower plain. It is
scarcely possible to tell whether he travelled up the east coast
of the Messenlan Gulf by boat or b y road. The steep ridges
which run down to the sea make communication easier b y boat. It
seems probable that Pausanias visited Thou r i a in person, for he
Is precise about the routes beyond it. Pausanias describes the
route to Arcadia as passing b y the springs of the Pamisus where
cures were m a d e . 53 This healing place Is evi d e n t l y to be i d e n t i ­
fied with the sanctuary of the river-god Pamlsus, near Hagios
Floros, w h i c h has been excavated b y Valmln. The route must
have followed m u c h the same course as the present highway, along
the east aide of the lower plain to a v o i d the marshes, through
the low hills w h i c h separate the upper and lower plains to Join
the highway through the Derveni pass described above. At the
springs of the Pamlsus a roa d b r a n c h e d off to the left to Messene.
This w ould have entered the city b y the so-called Laconian Gate
on the saddle between Ithome a n d Eva.
From Messene, after visiting the C a rnaslon Grove, Pausanias
went to C o r o n e . 55 It is likely that his route l a y along the west
side of the Pamlsus, for he devotes a lengthy d escription to the
river. Near the river's m o u t h It w ould turn west along the coast.
The sites in the lower plain be tween the Pamlsus a n d Corone, as

50Strabo viii. 4. 4-5. Valmin's argument (B t u d e s . p. 45)

that It is surprising that this part of the G u l f la not called
after Pharae, if Pharae is p l a c e d at Kalamata, is invalidated b y
the considerations that the corner occupied b y K a l amata has a
comparatively small amount of coastline an d that, t o judge from
the remains and the historical notices, Thou r i a was of mor e I m ­
portance than Pharae except in the M y c enean period.

51R. H e b e r d e y ("Die R e l s e n des Pausanias," Abha n d l u n g e n

des archJtologlach-eplgraphlscben Seminarss der TJnlversltlt ^ t e n *
X [18941, 63-64) suggests that Pausanias u s e d a ^erlplus for ihs
coast of the Taygetus peninsula as well as v i s i t i n g some of the
sites in person, p r o b a b l y b y boat.

52Valmin, B t u d e s . p. 58. 6 3 Paua. iv. 31. 4.

54The Swedish Messenla E x p e d i t i o n , pp. 417 ff.

Heberdey, Abhandlungen des a r c h ! o l o g l s c h - e p l g r a p h i s c h e n
Semlnares der Unlversltflt #lsn, X~ 65.
enumerated by Pausanias, were a sanctuary of Ino, the Bias River,
and a spring Plataniston, twenty stades from the road, which sup­
plied Corone with water. None of these has been identified with

The Sast Coast of the Acritas Peninsula

Along the east coast of the peninsula and on the saddle

to the south of Mt. Lykodimo lie small and fertile valleys which
shrink in size toward the tip of the peninsula where there are
few inhabitants and little food for anything except goats. The
coast has one fair harbor at Koroni (Asine) and offers some shel­
ter at Petalidi (Corone), but elsewhere is either too exposed or
too rocky to be utilized for ports. The cool breezes off the
Gulf, however, make it a pleasant place in which to live, and in
addition to the sites discussed below the remains of a number of
Roman villas have been found. Pausanias apparently did not go
beyond Corone in his travels so that it is scarcely possible to
discuss the routes of the peninsula in any detail. Communication
is, however, much easier along the coast, except near the tip,
than on the eastern side of the Gulf.
The ancient sites along the coast, known from the liter-
ary sources, are Corone, the sanctuary of Apollo Corynthus,
Colonides,^® and A s i n e . N o other sites are known from the

^^Valmin, gtudes, p. 178.

^7Paus. iv. 34. 4-6; Strabo viii. 4 . 5-6; Ptolemy ill. 14.
31; Pliny N.H. iv. 5. 7.
Paus. iv. 34. 7. The sanctuary has been excavated and
many votive offerings, same inscribed wijh the,name of the god,
discovered, Ph. Bersakes, " T -' 1 ‘ /* ^ Tou * 0 J * e ou 'A & v 0 s ,"
Archalologikon Deltion, II (1916), 65-118; Valmln, Bull. Lund,
1928-29, pp. 146-47, Sos. 18-19.
Paua. iv. 34. 8. Plutarch (Phllopoemen 18. 5) mentions
a site Colonls, for which Livy (xxxix. 49. 1) gives the name
Corone, as the place for which Phllopoemen was making when he was
captured In the Messenlan revolt against the Achaean League In
183 B.C. Ptolemy (111. 14. 31) lists a site Colone on the west
side of the peninsula. It seems probable that Colonldes and
Colonls indicate the same site, but Colone a different town since
an Imperial coin issue is assigned to it (P. Gardner, A Catalogue
of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Peloponnesus ILondonT
1857Tr p-.-TTTn------------ ------------- ------ --------
®®Paus, iv. 34. 9-12; Strabo viii. 4. 4; Ptolemy ill. 14.

sources except Mycenaean Identification-, and modern scholars

have suggested that Rhlum, one of the sites of the legendary p e ­
riod of Messenlan history Is to be Identified with Koroni (Aslne).
The site of the Apollo Corynthus sanctuary Is definitely
fixed at Hagios Andreas by the dedicatory inscriptions found In
the excavation. This gives a fixed point In the series of sites
In the literary sources. Pausanias visited Corone in person so
that it Is unlikely that the order of the sites from north to
south as he gives them, Corone, Sanctuary of Apollo Corynthus,
Colonides, Aslne, and Acritas, the tip of the peninsula, w o u l d be
Incorrect. In addition, the other literary sources giving the
series of sites are In accord with this order. An inscription
has been found at modern Koroni, however, w hich has been Inter-
preted as Identifying that site with ancient Corone. Since the
site lies south of the sanctuary of Apollo Corynthus at Hagios
Andreas, this Is In contradiction to the literary evidence. The
stone is a fragmentary statue base dedicated by <-*■ it o [ a >s j T u '1'
f a. i uj i/j.^4 jt was found In the excavation of the Byzantine

31; Pliny N . H . i v . 5. 7. The references of Scylax Perlplus (ed.

C. Mdller. deographl Iraecl V.lnores, I [Paris, 1 8 8 2 1 ) , 45, and of
Potnponlus Mela {ed. C~. Prick [Leipzig, 1880]), II. 3. 51, are too
general to have muc h bearing on the problem of identification.
Strabo viii. 4. 5; Curtlus, P e l o p onnesos, II, 168;
Valmln, Etude a , p. 169.
62 3 r ir x ' 'C I s f
P a u a . I v . 34. 6: tid ok 6 1 £ Q* t To o t T T f f u ^ A f d o u

®3Valmin ('’Rapport preliminaire de 1 ’expedition en Mes-

senle 1934,” Bull. L u n d , 1934-35, pp. 44-46) considers that the
identification of modern and ancient Corone Is proved b y the I n ­
scription. In his final report (The Swedish Messenla E x p e d i t i o n ,
p. 469) he seems to have modified his view, but does not discuss
the matter further.

64The r e s t o r a t i o n , ^ 0^ 1 might be proposed, of

course, but that Is almost equally upsetting to the literary e v i ­
dence, as It would compel one to look for Aslne to the south of
modern Koroni where there do not seem to have bee n any Important
sites. Another inscription found in the same church at Koroni
and published b y Valmin (Bull. L u n d , 1928-29, pp. 151-52, No. 24)
Is an honorary decree to a certain Oeganlus, a n Aslnean. Valmin
had pointed out (B t u d e s , p. 167) that the m e n t i o n of the m a n ’s
citizenship might indicate that the town w h i c h honored him was
situated elsewhere than the place the stone was set up. As a s o ­
lution, for he then identified Aslne with m o d e r n Koroni, he s u g ­
gested that Ceganiua might be a R oman magistrate h o n o r e d with
citizenship In Aslne. The ment i o n of citizenship, however, even

Church of Hagia Sophia on the acropolis at Koronl.

It is clear from ancient notices and their right of coin­
age that Corone and Asine were fairly important sites so that one
would expect to Identify them with the more important remains.
The modern sites at which remains have been found on the east
coast of the peninsula are, from north to south: Petalidl, a large
site; Haglos Andreas, the site of the sanctuary of Apollo Coryn-
thus; Vounarla, a smal] site; near the chapel of Hagia Trlada,
a Roman building; Kandlrogli, a few Roman remains; Koronl, a large
site, and Phaneromeni, a small site, with mosaics of the Roman
period. Sherds and blocks have been found at other places, but
they do not seem to have been of much importance. Since the sanc­
tuary of Apollo Corynthus is definitely fixed at Haglos Andreas
and Petalidl is the only suitable site north of it. It seems prob­
able that Petalidl should be identified with Corone. This identi­
fication is further supported by Pausanias* statement that Corone
Is at the foot of M t . Mathla which is descriptive of the relation­
ship of Petalidl and K t . Lykodimo . ^ 7
After the sanctuary of Apollo Corynthus, Pausanias m e n ­
tioned Colonides. This is plausibly identified with Vounarla, a
site on two small hills to the south of Hagios Andreas, While
the site fits Pausanias* description admirably as on a height near
the sea, the objection that there are few remains there has been
raised. A group of graves, however, has been found recently on

if the stone was found in situ, does not seem very important for
fixing the Identification of the site.

^^Valmin, Btudes, pp. 164-80, describes them carefully.

Valmin, The Swedish Measenla Expedition, pp. 469-75.
Valmin's objections (Etudes, p. 176) to Pausanias* state­
ments seem unfounded. He finds Pausanias' location of Corone with
reference to the Pamlsus River strange, for the Pamleus Is at
some distance from Petalidl. But Pausanias had just devoted a
lengthy description to the Pamisus and it is the cost important
landmark before Mt. Lykodimo. Valmin «l^o objects to the descrip­
tion of Corone, i r r o t o^>£/ r-f A\o.6 ia. (p«us. iv. 34. 4 ), as
inappropriate to Lykodimo and Petalidl. Lykodimo is the only
conspicuous mountain at the base of the peninsula and stands out
markedly in the landscape. Petalidl is at the end of a long ridge
which Juts down from Lykodimo to the sea. It is only about six
kilometers from the top. The description seems, In fact, a natu­
ral association of outstanding landmark and Important site.
Valmin (Etudes, p. 173) suggests that the town was lo-

the southeast slop© of the kills.

Asln© Is p l a c e d b e y o n d C o l o n i d e a b y Pausanias. The other
sources concur In this order, a n d m o s t m o d e r n t o p o g r a p h e r s have
Identified it w i t h m o d e r n Koronl. The latter seems t o have b e e n
an Important site a l t h o u g h few rema i n s are visi b l e there t o d a y
because of the V e n e t i a n and T u r k i s h overbuilding. T his Iden t l -
fi c atlon r ests m a i n l y on the order of the sites w i t h the f i x e d
point of the s a n c t u a r y of A p o l l o Cor y n t h u s as a s t a r t i n g point.
If the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of anci e n t Co r o n e with m o d e r n Ko r o n l is m a d e
on the e v i d e n c e of the i n s c r i p t i o n f o u n d there, we are compelled
to reject the l i t e r a r y evidence. The b e t t e r solution seems to be
that the stone was c a r r i e d from the pr o p e r site of Corone, Petalidl,
to m o d e r n Koronl. This s u g g e s t i o n has some support In the h i s t o r y
of m o d e r n Koronl, for there has b een a great a m o u n t of Byzantine,
Venetian, and T u r k i s h b u i l d i n g w h i c h w o u l d require stones. These
w o u l d be c o m p a r a t i v e l y e a s y to transport b y sea f r o m n e a r b y coas t a l
sites such as Petalidl.
The i m p o r t a n c e of Koronl In B y z a n t i n e a n d later times
raises the q u e s t i o n of the t r a d i t i o n of the n ames C o r o n e a n d A s l n e
from antiquity. There is no f i r s t - h a n d r e f e r e n c e to ei t h e r in
the w r i t e r s of the R o m a n K m p l r e a f t e r Pausanias. The Imperial
coinage of Aslne attests a continued existence until the third
cent u r y A.D. In the sixth c e n t u r y S t e p h a n u s B y z a n t l n u e and
Hlerocles, the grammarian, mention Aslne and In the t w e l f t h c e n ­

cated on the p l a i n to the north. This is e x p r e s s l y a g a i n s t Pau-

aanlas' notice (lv. 34. 8) that It w a s on a height. It Is quite
possible, of course, that there was a l s o h a b i t a t i o n at the foot
of the height as at Cardamyle. I have p i c k e d up same b l a c k - g l a z e d
sherds on the hills.
See Valmin, E t u d e s , pp. 166-67, for a d e s c r i p t i o n of
the anci e n t remains.
T h e dis t a n c e s given by P a u s a n i a s (iv. 34. 7), 80 stades
from Corone to the s a n c t u a r y of A p o l l o Corynthus, a n d (iv. 34. 12)
40 stades f rom C o l o n l d e s to Aslne, a n d 40 f r o m A s l n e to A c r l t a s are
of no help, f o r It is not c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e y are sea or land d i s ­
tances, a n d In a n y case t h e y do not fit a n y c o m b i n a t i o n of the
7 1 B a r c l a y V. Head, H i s t o r l a Nuznorum (2d ed. ; Oxford, 1911),
p. 432.
Steph. Byz. s . v . Aslne.
H l e r o c l e s S y n e c d e m u a . ed. A. Burckhardt (Leipzig, 1693),
647. 16.
tury it is found in Ouldo and the Tabula Peutlngerlana. Thus,
after the third century Asine is only a litorary survival. There
75 76
are references to Corone in Stephanus Byzantinus and Hlerocles,
but it is known as an episcopal see in the reign of Nicephorus I
in the ninth century and in the thirteenth appears in the Chron­
icle of the Morea and thereafter in Venetian records. The Corone
of the ninth and thirteenth centuries is presumably the same
place. If the name Corone was transferred from Petalidl (ancient
Corone) to modern Koronl the transfer must have occurred between
the third and ninth centuries A.D. Although the subject of such
transferences is very obscure, they do seem to have taken place
in the Slavic movements of the eighth century when the villages
of Mandlni in the northern Manl may have received their names from
Mantinea, and Cyparissla became Arcadia.
Thus, although the evidence of the statue bc.se would be
decisive if it had been definitely found in situ, yet, since it
was found in fragmentary condition in a Byzantine building, it
seems better to accept the evidence of the literary sources which
are in agreement and which cannot be reconciled with the evidence
of the inscription.

The West Coast

The upper and lower plains form the heart of Messenla and
its most fertile district, but along the west coast are well-
watered terraces, valleys, and a coastal plain which make an a p ­
preciable contribution to the wealth of the country as well as
furnish ports on the Ionian Sea. A range of mountains separates
the west coast from the central plains, but through them are two
easy lines of communication. That on the north from the upper
plain across the Soullma valley to the coastal district of Kyparis-
sla has already been discussed. There is also a southern route
from the lower plain across the saddle north of Mt. Lykodimo at

Suido Oeographla, eds. If. Pinder and 0. Parthey (Berlin,
1860), .
1 11

75 76
Steph. Byz. s.v . Rorone. Hlerocles Synecdemus 647. 15.
I depend for this statement on Valmin, Bull. Lund, 1934-
35, p. 46.
0. P. Hertzberg, Qeschlchte Orlechenlands aelt dem Ab-
sterben dee antlken Lebens bis zur Oegenwart (Qotha, 1876-79). I.

the base of the Acritas peninsula. The m o d e r n road fro m Kalamata

to Pylos utilizes this route. T o the south of M t . L y k odimo the
range sinks a gain to a saddle which offers easy communication b e ­
tween the east and west coasts of the peninsula. There is a dif -
ficult path farther to the south through Mt. Tzarnaoura which
connects Phaneromeni and Modon. Evidence of the ancient use of
this route Is furnished by two small sites along Its course at
'I n , > vol ‘
A /t ->/«- an(j T» ^& >°i *j‘ A <*-/ i* ' T f a ^ 79

C omrr.un i ca 11 on along the coast Itself Is fairly easy north of

Mothone but one ma y only conjecture. In the absence of evidence,
that the various sites were linked by a cart road as at the present
t ime .
The sources give the series of major sites a l o n g the
west coast from north to south as Cyparissia, Pylus, and Mothone.
Strabo places E r a n a , Cape Platamodes, a n d the island Prote betw e e n
the Cyparissels River and Pylus. Ptolemy adds the Cyparissian
headland and Sela River. These minor places are not referred to
precisely enough to admit of certain identification, but Valmin*s
proposals, which take advantage of the natural features of the
landscape, are satisfactory. T h e y are to identify the C y p a r i s ­
sian headland with the promontory near Pharaklada, a n d Platamodes
with the cape west of Philiatra. Erana, he places at DIalisKari
approximately nine kilometers north of Pylus. Prote, known also
from Thucydides, is Identified wit h the island opposite Marathos
on which there is a fairly well-preserved fort and many euplola
Inscriptions In the small harbor at the n o r t h of the Island.
Mothone is identified with Modon, the V e n etian strong-

Valmin, E t u d e s , pp. 162-63.
Strabo viii. 3. 23; 4. 1-3; Paus. iv. 36; Ptolemy ill.
14. 31; Pliny N.H. I v . 5. 7.

81 Etudes, pp. 134 ff. 82 Thucyd. iv. 13. 3.

O' *
10, V, 1, 1533-60; Valmin, Bull. L u n d , 1928-29, pp. 152-
55, Nos. 25-44.
There is some variation In the form of the name (Valmin,
E t u d e s , p. 152, n. 5). The reference to Mothone In Plutarch
(Aratus 12. 2) may be to Methana (see J.A. 0. Larsen, "Review of
A. J. Koster, Plutarch! V l t a m Arati edldit, prolegomenis c o m m e n t s -
rioque l n s t r u x i t ,^ Cl. P h i l T, XXXV [1940], 91). In general, the
geographers a n d the coinage support the form Mothone, while the
literary sources favor Kethone. The reference In 10, IV, 619. 2,
may be either to Messenlan Mothone or to Methana.

hold which, like Koronl Is largely overbuilt by Venetian and

Turkish constructions. Classical Pylus or Coryphaslum on the
site of Palalokastro at the northwest corner of Navarlno Bay has
been thoroughly studied by Burrows and Grundy In connection with
the Sphacteria Incident In Thucydides.
Although the topographers are in agreement In Identifying
the site of ancient Cyparissla with the medieval Arkadla and the
modern Cyparissla, there is some confusion In Strabo's notices
96 Q7
and In the various forms of Its name. Strabo distinguishes
carefully between the Homeric Cyparlssels which was south of the
Neda River and uninhabited In his own time, the Messenian Cyparls-
sla of his own period, and a river Cyparlssels. The Homeric site
Is referred to again, and apparently the river also, as the
starting point for a geographical discussion of the sites of
a9 90
Strabo's own period. Then, apparently referring to the Cypa -
rlssla of his own period Strabo observes that both Coryphaslum
and Cyparissla are below (south of) a cape common to both Trl -
phylia and N'essenia. Should one assume that Strabo is writing
loosely, or that the text has somehow become confused, for Cypa-
rlssia is plainlv not farther south along the coast than Pylus?
Strabo elsewhere implies that It Is farther north. The editors
have assumed that the text is wrong. Melneke omits '’and Cypa-
rlssia’' from the passage and Jones inverts the order. The pas­
sage, however, unless "and Cyparissla" Is an intrusion. Implies
that Cyparissla Is in the neighborhood of Pylus, for there 13 no
headland above the site of modern Kyparissla which could be called
a boundary between Messenla and Triphylla. In addition, Strabo
implies again that Cyparissla Is in the neighborhood o f Pylus

G. B. Grundy, "An Investigation of the Topography of
the Region of Sphakteria and Pylos, JHS, XVI (1896), 1-54; R. M.
Burrows, "Pylos and Sphakteria," JHS,~X?I (1896), 55-76. The
Mycenaean site of Nestor's city appears to have been discovered
at Ano Kngllano farther to the north In the foot hills; cf. C. W.
Elegen and K. Kourounlotis, "Excavations at Pylos, 1939," A J A ,
XLIII (1939), 557 ff.

86 Valmin, Etudes, pp. 126 ff. 87Strabo viii. 3. 25.

88Strabo viii. 3. 22. 69Strabo vlii. 3. 23.

90 Q1
Strabo viii. 4. 1. wlStrabo viii. 4. 6 .
n o , o , j \ v

Strabo viii. 4. 2: <x \J u (near Pylus ) i ( f ’ 1 K '

h V TTCl o -j M f <~r ^ ^ t A. K. >7 . . . -
although his discussion may b© too general to press the point.
Valmin attempts to solve the difficulty by searching for
another Cyparissla between the modern town and Pylus. As a
candidate he suggests Christian!, twelve kilometers to the south
of the modern town, where two inscriptions have been found bearing
the name of Cyparissla. There are the remains of a temple at
Christiani, but not of a town. Accordingly Valmin suggests that
the territory of Cyparissla extended to Christiani which is about
parallel with the point on the shore where the plain of modern
Kyparissia ends in a cape. Thus Strabo's use of Cyparissla would
refer to the territory of his own time, and, as a corollary, sug­
gest that the territory of Coryphaslum extended up to it. It
seems reasonable to conclude with Valmin that Greek and Raman
Cyparissla should be identified with the modern town of Kyparissia
and that its territory extended to the end of the coastal plain
terminating at Phlliatra on the south. The eastern boundary
might, then, be M t . Psychro and the watershed by Kopanakl. The
territory of Pylus would have extended from Phlliatra on the north
to the mountain separating Pylus from Mothone, the modern M t .
Hagios Nlkolaos. Some color is lent to this theory from the va -
riations of the name of Cyparissla, for which Cyparissus, Cypa-
rlssla, and Cyparlssiae are found.
The coastal plain of Kyparissia closes in at its north
end to a narrow passage between the Phlgalean mountains and the
shore. It is through this passage that the main route of c o m m u ­
nication with Triphvlla and Elis lies. The passage is controlled
by a small hill approximately three kilometers south of the Neda
River on the top of which are the remains of a fort. The fort Is
identified by Valmin with Aulon, the name o’f which is apparently
derived from the narrow passage along the shore. This fort a p ­
pears to be another of the chain of small forts and towers by
which Messene secured its approaches in the period after the re-
foundlng . 9 5

9 3 Etudes. pp. 129 ff. 9 4 Ibid., pp. 127-28.

Ibid., pp. 107 f f .; Bull. L u n d , 1933-34, p. 11. The
chief objection to the identification of Aulon as a town is that
the better sources (Xenophon He l l e n l c a , ed. E. C. Marchant [Oxford,
1900], H i . 2. 25; Strabo viii. 3. 25; Paus. Iv. 36. 7) imply that
It was a district. Only Pliny (N.H. iv. 5. 6 ) and Stephanus By-
zantlnus (s .v, ) specifically call it a town. The Aulon mentioned

in Xenophon's account of the conspiracy of Cinadon (Hail. ill.

3. 8) is presumably V.es3enian Aulon. If it *as a perioecic town
(infra, p. 30, n. id) it seems probable that the name was applied
both to a district and to a town by Xenophon and that such a us -
age continued after his period. Whether the Messenian fort of
the period after 369 was on the site of the Spartan perioecic
town is unknown.


The refounding of Messene in 369 B.C. shows a m i n g l i n g of

traditional and completely new elements. The citizens of the new
state were linked to the past b y their nationality, cults, and
name and the term "refounding" Is so far Justified. But the old
kingdom of the period before the Spartan conquest was almost for­
gotten a n d a revival of it u n s u i t e d to f o u rth-century Greece.
New political institutions had to be created and a new social and
economic structure worked out. The most immediate n e e d was d e ­
fence so that time might be wo n for a solution of the other p r o b ­
lems. In addition the new state possessed no standing a mong the
other Greek powers and had to secure its recogn i t i o n so that It
could defend Itself b y diplomatic as well as by m i l i t a r y means.
The existence of Messene as an Independent power for two centuries
and later as an integral part of R a m a n Greece attests that s a t i s ­
factory answers were f ound for these problems.
In the fifth a n d early fourth centuries the Messenlans,
despite the occupation of their country, preserved a sense of
their nation a l i t y which was recognized also by the other G reek
states. This was true both of those who se r v e d the Spartans as
heiots^ and of those wh o had escaped bondage after the revolt of
464 and had been settled at Naupactua by the Athenians. Those at
Naupactus made their dedications at Olympia and Delphi as lies-
senians. Athens h a d fostered this feeling of n a t i o n a l i t y by
using them against the Spartans at Pylus. A l t h o u g h this group of
Messenlans was dispersed after the P e l o ponnesian W a r whe n the
Spartans expelled them from Naupactus and Cephal l e n i a and forced
them to take refuge In Sicily and Cyrene, the t r adition of their

^Thucyd. I. 101. 2; Herodotus, ed. C. Hude (Oxford, 1908),

ix. 64. 2.

^Ditt. Syll.^, 80-81; M. G. Colin, F o u i l l e s de Delphes,

Vol. Ill, Pasc. IV (Paris, 1922), No. 1.
Diodorus, eds. I. Bekker, L. Dindorf, P. Vogel, a n d C. T.
nationality had not been forgotten by the time Thebes found a use
for it.
Before the refounding in 369 Messenla was divided between
Spartiate territory worked by helots for the Spartans and a num­
ber of perioecic towns. The upper plain, the lower plain west of
the Pamlsu 3 River, and the district at the base of the Acritaa
peninsula seem to have been Spartiate territory. The names of
certain districts or topographical points in the Spartiate terri-
tory are known: Ithome, where the helots and perioeci who re-
€> 7
volted in 464 made their last stand; Stenyclerus and Isthmus,
which were the scenes of skirmishes In the revolt; and Andanla,
which Pausanias makes the center of the mystery cult in early
Messenian history. The district of Coryphaslum (Pylus) on the

Fischer (Leipzig, 1B88-1906), xlv. 34. 2-3; 78. 5-6.

D. Kahrstedt, Grlechlsches Staatsrecht, Vol. I, Sparta
und seine Symraachle (Gtttt ingen, 1922), pp~ 5-6; L. Pareti, Storla
dl Sparta arcalca (Florence, 1917), I , 200-5. Buripides (Tragi -
corum Oraecorum fragments, ed. A. Nauck [2d e d . ; Leipzig, 1889],
No. lO&t) quoted by Strabo (viii. 5. 6 } gives some useful informa­
tion about the Messenian boundary, presumably that of the helot
district of his own period. The Pamisus River is indicated as
the boundary between Messenla and Laconia, and Messenla is said
to be cut off from access to the sea. Strabo adds to the useful­
ness of the passage by falling to recognize its historical value
and critically comparing Buripides' Information about the extent
of Messenla with its limits in his own period. The territory to
the east of the Pamisus in the lower plain would presumably have
belonged to the perioecic townsofThouria and Aethaea, the loca­
tion of which is uncertain. The theory of Valmin (Etudes, pp. 21-
22) by which the little Pamisus River is considered the boundary
between Spartiate and Laconian territory fails to take the p e ­
rioecic towns of Pharae and the smaller coastal sites into account.
Even If Thouria was punished for its share in the revolt of 464
(Thucyd. 1.101. 2) by the loss of perioecic status (for which
there is no evidence), there isnoreason to suppose that Pharae
was affected.
5 ft
Thucyd. i. 101. Herodotus ix. 64. 2; supra, p. 6 .
Herodotus lx. 35. 2; Paus. ill. 11. 8 ; Valmin (Etudes,
pp. 64-65} Identifies Isthmus with the line of hills dividing the
lower and upper plains.

®For the site of Andania see supra, pp. 7-10. Andanla is

considered to have been perioecic by B. Riese ("Neue BeitrMge zur
Geschichte und Landeskunde LakedHmona," Nachrlchten von der Kdnlg-
llchen Gesellschaft der Wlssenschaften zu GBttlngen, 1956, pp.
122-24). This view Is rejected by Kahrstedt (Grlechlsches Staats­
recht , I, 5, n. 1) who regards it as Spartiate. The cult at
Andania appears to have survived throughout the period of Spartan

west coast an d the island of Proto are usually regarded as S p a r ­

tiate territory also, although Pylus m a y have bee n occupied b y a
Spartan garrison in the late fifth and early fourth centuries
after it was recovered from the Athenians. Since a large part of
the west coast had no perioecic towns in the fifth century, the
Athenians had been able to establish their fort at Pylus before
the Spartans could interfere effectively.
At the south and north ends of the west coast and along
the shore of the Messenian Gulf the perioecic towns formed a ring
around the Spartiate territory. At the south, on the west side
of the Acritas peninsula was Mothone w h i c h had b e e n a t t a c k e d by
Tolmides in 4 5 4 1 0 and a g a i n early in the Peloponnesian W a r . 1 1 At

control when Apollo Carnelua was associated w i t h it (i n f r a , p. 35).

Kahrstedt reasonably maintains that this continuity is not i n c o m ­
patible with Spartiate t e r ritory and does not presuppose a p e r i ­
oecic state as Niese had suggested. It seems doubtful if Andanla
existed as a town site before 369 B.C., for it does not appear in
the sources until the latter part of the third century {Pol. v.
92 . 6 ) .

®Pylus was uninhabited (Thucyd. iv, 3. 2-3) until the

Athenians made it a base (Thucyd. iv. 41. 2) an d establ i s h e d Mes-
senians from Naupactus in it. The latter were w i t h d r a w n in 421
(Thucyd. v. 35. 6-7) but, when relations between the Spartans and
Athenians deteriorated, were sent back a g a i n (Thucyd. v. 56. 3).
Pylus was recovered by the Spartans in 410 or 409 (Xen. H e l l . 1.
2. 18; Diod. xiii. 64. 5-7; for the chronology see W. S. Ferguson,
C A H , V, 483-85). There is no indication as to what the Spartans
did with Pylus at that time, but presumably they would garrison
It to prevent recapture. It seems to have offered resistance in
365 when captured by the Arcadians (Diod. xv. 77. 4; i t X o v t t o A E I S
is the phrase used). This episode of the Ar c a d i a n - E l e a n W a r which
began in 365 is reported only in the ab b r e v i a t e d account of D i o ­
dorus (xv. 77). Its temporal relation to the other events is not
clear and it m a y have occurred after Sparta b e g a n to send m i l i t a r y
aid to the Eleans (Xen. H e l l . vii. 4. 19-20). Yet Sparta h a d
moved against Arcadia before the outbreak of hostilities b e t w e e n
that state and Elis by capturing Sellasia (Xen. H e l l . vii. 4. 12).
K. J. Beloch (Orlechlsche Geschichte [2d e d . ; Berlin, 1912-27],
III, Part I, 202-3) places the episode between the repulse of the
Arcadians by the Eleans and Achaeans and the capture of Cromnus
by the Spartans. There is no r e a s o n to suppose that the west
coast of Messenla was under E l e a n control at this time and that
Cyparissia and C oryphaslum (Pylus) were taken from them b y the
Prote was d e s e r t e d at the time of the fortification of
Pylus by the Athenians (Thucyd. iv. 13. 3).

10 Diod. xi. 84. 6 .

^Thucyd. ii. 25. 1-2; Diod. xii. 43. 2.

12 13
the north end of the west coast were Cyparissla and Aulon.
Both were probably perioecic but the evidence is not conclusive.
No perioecic towns are known on the northern frontier of Messenla
in the Phigalean mountains. If Aulon was perioecic it may have
been considered sufficient to control this district. On the Mes-
senian Gulf were Aslne which had a Lacedaemonian garrison and
had been settled by Asineans from the Argolid," and Pharae, a
Spartan colony. 16 The small towns of the northern Mani, Abla,
Gerenia, Alagonia, Cardamyle, Leuctra, and Pephnus are usually
regarded as perioecic although there is very little evidence even
for their existence in the fifth century. Bast of the Pamisus

Kahrstedt (Grlechlsches Staatsrecht, I, 5-6) argues
that Cyparissia wf j perioecic because Lepreum, its neighbor, is
said to border ou perioecic territory (Lakonike, Thucyd. v. 34. 1}
Aulon is more properly the neighbor of Cyparissia. Kahrstedt con
siders that Lakonike was always used exclusively of perioecic ter
ritory. B&lte (P . -W., III A, 1278-79) followed by Larsen (P.-W.,
XIX, 817), has shown that this distinction Is invalid. An argu­
ment that might be advanced in favor of its perioecic status is
that in 365 when captured by the Arcadians it seems to have of­
fered resistance as did Coryphaslum (Diod. xv. 77. 4; supra, p. 25
n. 9). Valmin dates the wall of the acropolis in the fifth cen­
tury (Etudes, pp. 129-31).

^ A u l o n has usually been considered perioecic (G. Busolt

and H. Swoboda, Grlechlsehe Staatskunde [Munich, 1920-26], p. 635
n. 3), but Kahrstedt (Drlechlsches Staatsrecht, I, 5, 55-56) argue;
that It was Spartiate. He identifies the Aulonites (Xen. Hell.
ill. 3. 8 ) as the freed helots who had fought under Brasidas and
were settled in the neighborhood of Lepreum (Thuc. v. 34. 1) and
points out that helots were present In the district (Xen. Hell.
iii. 3. 8 ). Neither of these arguments is convincing, for ethnic:
were used of perloeci (NIese, Nach. Ges. Gtttt,, 1906, p. 10S), ar.:
F. Hampl has shown that the presence of helots was not incompati­
ble with perioecic status ("Die lakedMmonischen Peri&ken," Hermes
LXXII [1S37 ], 36).
Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 25. Xenophon prooably refers to Mei
senian Aslne, not Taconian Aslne (Beloch, Grlechlsehe Geschichte
III, Part I, 185, n. 3; see also Thucyd. iv. 13. ITj v l . 3T[

^Paus. Iv. 34. 9; Herodotus viii. 73. 2.

■J C
Xen. Hell. iv. S. 7; Cornelius Nepos, ed. K. Witte
(Berlin, 1913), Conon I. 1.
The evidence for the perioecic status of these towns
consists chiefly in the notices of Pausanias which make them mem­
bers of the Eleutherolaconian League of Roman times or connect
them with Sparta's legendary past. Abla is connected with Cres-
phontes by Pausanias (iv. 30. 1), but the only tangible evidence
of its inhabitation in the fifth century is a graffito recording

River was the perioecic town of Thouria and probably Aethaea a l ­

so, both known for their share In the revolt of 464 w h e n they
joined the helots.
Such was the situation of Messenla when Epamlnondas Invaded
Laconia with his Elean, Arcadian, and Arglve allies In the latter
part of 370 B.C. After laying Laconia waste and swelling his
ranks by deserting perioeci Epamlnondas returned to Arcadia and
probably entered Messenla by the easy Derveni route on the n o r t h ­
east. If any Spartans remained In the Spartiate territory of M e s ­
senla they were scarcely In a position to resist, and the building
of the city on the slopes of Ithome was probably begun in the
early spring of 369 B.C.
Epamlnondas seems to have conceived the plan of refound-
Ing Messene himself and to have convinced the Thebans and their

the names of two priests (10, V, 1, 1356). It is ascribed to the

site with only fair probabTTity. The name Abla does not appear
In the sources until the year 183 B.C. when it became an i n d epend­
ent member of the Achaean League (Pol. xxlil. 17. 2). Oerenla,
later a member of the Eleutherolaconian League (Paus. ill. 21. 7;
26. 8 ), is plausibly Identified by Valmin with Kampos. Some fifth-
century inscriptions have been found at Kampos (10, V, 1, 1337-38).
Alagonia was a member of the Eleutherolaconian League (Paus. iii.
26. 11). Leuctra Is cited by Plutarch In his life of Pelopldas
(Pelopldas 20. 7), but It has been suggested by L. Heidemann (Die
territorials Entwlcklung Laceditmons und Messenlans bis auf A l e x ­
ander LDlss. ; Berlin, 1904 J, pi 51) that It was a Messenian foun-
dation of the period after 369. Pephnus Is traditionally c o n ­
nected with the Dioscuri (Paus. III. 26. 2). Cardamyle, however,
does seem to have been of some Importance In the fifth century
and earlier (Herodotus viii. 73. 2). While these sites were p r o b a ­
bly Inhabited in the period before 369 and known by the names
they bore later, It seems unwise to Identify them all as perioecic
without some definite evidence to that effect. Only the case for
Cardamyle seems convincing.
It seems unlikely that Thouria lost its perioecic s t a ­
tus as a result of its share in the revolt, for a cult ofP o s e i ­
don, patronized by Spartans, Is known there for the fifth century
(IG, V, 1, 213. 19), and the fortification wall may date to the
llTe fifth century (Valmin, E t u d e s , pp. 58-59; but see BBlte,
P.-W., VI2 , 636). For Aethaea, s u p r a . p. 7, n. 16.
1 9 Xen. H e l l , vi. 5. 25, 32.
Pausanias (iv. 27. 9) places the refounding In the
archonship of Dyscinetua, 370/69; Diodorus (xv. 61. 1; 6 6 . 1) in
the year of Lysistratus, 369/68. Beloch (Qrlechlsche Geschichte^,
III, Part II, 238) argues that the dating o t Diodorus Is i n c o r -
rect and E p a m l n o n d a s ' first Peloponnesian campaign should be
placed In 370/69. This has found general acceptance.

23T h e sources for the refoundlng are ver y unsatisfactory.

22 of Its potential efficacy as a link In the chain around!
Sparta. The communications of Sparta with the nortaern Pelopon­
nesus, Attica, and Central Greece were necessarily through Arcadia
and the Argolid. A great part of Its economic resources consisted
In the fertile plains of Messenla. Thus, If Its routes of c o m ­
munication were closed and Its economy Impaired, Sparta would be
broken as a first-rate power In Greece. Epamlnondas already had
the support of Argos and Arcadia. The foundation of Messene was

Xenophon does not mention the refounding at all. Pausanias .lives

the longest account (iv. 26. 3-27), but It Is a patchwork of l e g ­
endary material designed to link the refoundlng with the corpus
of tradition about early Messene. His account falls Into- tTIe fol­
lowing divisions: 26. 3-5, the portents before the battle of
Leuctra, and the Theban invitation to the Messenian exiles to r e ­
turn; 26. 6 -8 , the dreams of Epamlnondas and Epiteles; 27. 1-4,
the story of the wrath of the Dioscuri; 27. 5-8, a f o m a l account
of the founding to which Pausanias has added a few conrer.ts in
section 8 ; 27. 9-11, some chronological platitudes. Of these,
the portents before the battle of Leuctra, the dreams of Spair.i-
nondas and Epiteles and the story of the wrath of the Dioscuri
are patently legendary. The last has nothing to do with the re
founding at all. The story of the dreams of Epamlnondas and
Epiteles has been plausibly connected with the reformation of the
mystery cult In Andania In 91 B.C. by its mention of the sacred
books, also referred to in the inscription recording the cult ref­
ormation (.13, 7, 1, 1390. 12; U. von Wilamowitz- Moe 1 lendorff, De:
Glaube der Hellenen, II, ed. 3, Klaffenbach [Berlin, 1332], 5 4 1 J.
Whether this connection Is Justified or not. It is probable that
the different parts of the account appeared at different times and
in different connections, and were only welded into a single stor-
by'Pausanias himself. Speculation on the sources of the formal
account of the founding is scarcely profitable, but by its m e n ­
tion of the great goddesses among the deities invoked it probably
postdates 91 B.C. (I n f r a , p. 35). The chronological data aypear
to be correct so far as the date of the founding is concerned
(see p. 31, n. 20) and in general agreement with Diodorus or. the
length of the period of subjugation (xv. 81. 3). Diodorus {x v .
6 6 . 1 , 6 ) gives a brief account of the refoundlng without legend
ary accretions. It may be based on Ephorus as is most of this
section of his history. The other notices (P l u t . Agesllaus 34;
Pelopldas 24. 9; 25. 2; Isocrates, ed. F. Blass [2d e d . ; Leipzig,
1985-89 j, Archldamus 28; Paus. Iv. 1. 3; lx. 14. 5; 15. 6 ; x. 10.
5; Lycurgus"] ed. F] Blass [Leipzig, 1899], Leocrates 62) do little
more than record the event.
22 Diod. xv. 6 6 . 1, 6 . Epamlnondas was regarded as the
olklstes of Messene (Paus. Ix. 14. 5) and was worshipped as a here
in the city where statues of him were erected with those of the
gode (Paus. i v . 31. 10; 32. 1). See also Plutarch Moralla, eds.
W. Nachstfldt, W. Sleveking and J. Titchener, II (Leipzig, 1935),
Regum et laperatorum apophthegmata, 194 B; Paus. ix. 15. 6 .
Diod. xv. 6 6 . 1; Plut. Agesllaus 34.
the next step in the process, and after it was made, there r e ­
mained only the consolidation of Arcadia which was brought about
by the foundation of Megalopolis in the summer of 369.
Although the plan of refoundlng Messene may have occurred
to Epamlnondas before the invasion of the Peloponnesus, It would
necessarily depend on the successful outcome of the campaign.
The details were worked out with the Arcadians and Aj*gives and
they had a large share in the work. The Arglves In particular
played a prominent part and, if Pausanias' account may be trusted
in this respect, one of their generals, Epiteles, was in formal
charge of the refounding. The base of a dedication made by
them to couxnemorate the occasion has been found at Delphi.
The obvious site for the new city was Ithome w hich was
the strongest natural fortress of Messenla, was advantageously
placed to control the country, and was fixed in Messenian t r a d i ­
tion by its part in the revolt of 464 and its association with
Zeus Ithomatas. The new city was built on the western slope cf
the mountain and the acropolis Itself reserved for sanctuaries.
Pausanias writes an account of the foundation ceremonies. Aus­
pices were taken, and when all was in readiness sacrifices were
made, each party sacrificing to its national gods. The Messenlans
sacrificed to Zeus Ithomatas, the Dioscuri, the great goddesses,
to Caucon and the national heroes. The walls were built to the
accompaniment of Boeotian and Argive flutes. While the details
of the account may not be true, some such ceremony may be imagined.
Of the more prosaic but useful details we know only that land al-
lotments were made to the settlers, but nothing cf how this was
done or the countless other details attendant on the foundation
of a new community. The cost was probably paid in part from the
booty obtained in Laconia.

Paus. iv. 26. 7. Supervision of the work w ould have to
be delegated to someone, for Epamlnondas left the Peloponnesus in
the spring.
2 1
G. Daux, Pausanias a D e l p h e s , pp. 92-94; E. Bourguet
Foullles de Delphes^ 111, Fasc"! T (Paris, 1929), 41-45; Paus. x.
10. 5.
26Strabo viii. 4. S. 2 7 Paus. iv. 27. 5-7.
Diod. xv. 6 6 . 1.
2 Q
°*Diod. xv. 65. 5; M. Cary, CAH, VI, 90.


The greater part of the population would consist of the

helota previously settled on the Spartiate territory and of the
perloeci who h a d Joined the Thebans In the course of the i n v a -
slon. Some land-hungry Greeks of other states appear to have
been Included, possibly from the Invading a rmy.3 * Great p r o m i ­
nence Is given in the sources to the return of the Messenlans who
had been in exile In Sicily and Africa. Among them were the
members of the old priestly families. It Is possible that some
of them gave up their new homes for a share in the rich land of
Messenla, but the dramatic appeal of their return probably had
more effect on later tradition than their numbers warranted.
At the time of the refoundlng some of the traditionally
Messenian cults which had been kept alive by the helot population
and the Messenlans In exile were revitalized. Other cults were
introduced as the result of new contacts. The most important
cult of Messene was that of Zeus Ithomatas. The cult is known
from very early times and the epithet apparently derived from the
place name. During the period of Spartan domination the sanc-
tuary continued in use. At the time of the refoundlng Zeus
Ithomatas was traditionally the first god invoked by the Messenlans
and In the formal oaths of the state his name appears f i r s t . 3 5
His priest wa s eponymous in Messene. That the prominence given
to Zeus Ithomatas at the time of the refoundlng by Pausanias is
probably correct ie attested by the design on the first Messenian
coins w h i c h reproduces the cult statue b y Ageladas,
made for, the Mesaenlana In exile and brought back by them*

Isocrates vl. 28. Allowance must be made, of course,
for the strong pro-Spartan bias of the A r c h l d a m u s , but the c o n d i ­
tions of the foundation suggest that the helots must have formed
the greater part of the population of the new state.

3 ^Diod. xv. 6 6 . 1; Lycurgus L e o c . 62.

Paus. Iv. 26. 5; 27. 5; Plut. Agesllaus 34. 1; Pelopldas
24. 9; Diod. xv. 6 6 . 6 .
Bumelus, the Corinthian poet of the eighth century, m e n ­
tions Zeus Ithomatas (quoted In Paus. iv. 33. 2); W. Otto, De
sacrls Messeniorum (DIss.; Halle, 1933), pp. 25-26.

34 Thucyd. i. 103. 2. 3 5 IG, V, 2, 419. 23.

3 6 I0, V, 1, 1468. 4-6.

3 ^Head, Hlatorla Numorum^, p. 431; Paus. Iv. 33. 2.

The q u e s t i o n of the m y s t e r y cult, a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the re -
f o u n d i n g in the acco u n t of Pausanias, is v e r y complex. In the
famous inscription wh i c h records the r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the cult
in 91 B.C., a list of the gods to whom s a c r i f i c e is to be m a d e Is
•X Q
given: Demeter, Hermes, the g reat gods, A p o l l o C a r n e i u s an d
H a g n e , e v i d e n t l y a h e t e r o g e n e o u s group. Pausanias' a c c o u n t of
h l 3 v i s i t to Carnfesium diff e r s f r o m this In that H a g n e h a s b e e n
ident i f i e d w i t h Core. She a n d D e m e t e r are e v i d e n t l y the g reat
god d e s s e s for w h o m the m y s t e r i e s are perfo r m e d , bu t t h e r e is n o
m e n t i o n of the great gods. This
d i s c r e p a n c y has b e e n v a r i o u s l y
I n t e r p r e t e d as a d e v e l o p m e n t of the cult or as a f a l s i f i c a t i o n
by w h i c h P a u s a n i a s was misled. The v a r i o u s s c h o l a r s w h o h a v e
treated the p r o b l e m have e n d e a v o r e d t o e s t a b l i s h the times of the
I n t r o d u c t i o n of the different gods Into the cult. The results
are n e c e s s a r i l y v e r y t entative, but some g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t h a s
been reached.4^ H agne is p r o b a b l y the oldest d e i t y a n d is I n d i g e ­
nous, a goddess In h e r own right, and o n l y I d e n t i f i e d w i t h Core
at a m u c h later date. A p o l l o C a rneius, an essentially Spartan
god, was p r o b a b l y I n t r o d u c e d into the s a n c t u a r y d u r i n g the p e r i o d
of t h eir supremacy. T h i s w o u l d not m e a n so m u c h a s u p p r e s s i o n of
the e a r l i e r cult as Its r e l e g a t i o n to a s u b o r d i n a t e position.
That A p o l l o C a r n e i u s was f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d is a t t e s t e d b y the
name of the sanctuary, Carneiaslum. T h e case of the other

3 8 IG, V, 1, 1390. 33-34, 68-69 (Ditt. S y l l .3 , 736).

3 9 Paus. iv. 33. 4 -6 .

4 0 M. G u arduccl, "I c u l t i dl A n d a n i a , " S t u d I e m a t e r i a l e

dl storla d e l l e r e l l g l o n e , X (1934), 182-83.
Wi l a m o w l t z , G l a u b e der Kellenen, II, 536-40. The story
told b y P a u s a n i a s (i v . 1. 5-9; SZ 6 ) w h i c h a s c r i b e s a great a n ­
t i q u i t y t o the m y s t e r i e s a n d c o n n e c t s t h e m w i t h B l e u s i s Is c o n ­
side r e d a late f a b r i c a t i o n (Guarduccl, S t u d l e m a t e r i a l e dl st o r l a
delle r e l l g l o n e . X, 191-97). S i m i l a r l y the s t o r y of the d-nenma
of E p i t e l e s a n d E p a m l n o n d a s (Paus. iv. 26. 6 -8 ; supra, p. 31.
n. 21) Is late in o r i g i n a n d a t t a c h e d r a t h e r a w k w a r d l y t o the
fo n n e r s t o r y b y the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the o l d m a n w h o a p p e a r e d In
the d ream w i t h C a u c o n (Paus. iv. 26. 8 ) w h o wa s s aid to h a v e
brou g h t the m y s t e r i e s f r o m S l e usls.
Ott o (De sacrls M e s s e n l o r u n . pp. 51-54) s u m m a r i z e s some
of the v i e w s a n d cites the l i t e r a t u r e . T o t h i s s h o u l d be a d d e d
G u a r d u c c l ' s a r t i c l e n o t i c e d a b o v e (n. 40).
A p o l l o C a r n e i u s a l s o h a d a s a n c t u a r y n e a r Pharae, the
S p a r t a n c o l o n y (Paus. Iv. 31. 1).

deities is more obscure. D e m e t e r Is cons i d e r e d b y Z i e h e n to have

become a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the cult at a v e r y e a r l y date be f o r e Apollo
Carneius, but Guarduccl argues that the Influence of Demeter
b e g a n in the f o u r t h century t h r o u g h contact w i t h Athens, but that
she was not i n troduced into the m y s t e r y cult until the e a r l y s e c ­
ond c e n t u r y B.C. w h e n D e m e t e r cults were popular in Arcadia. Yet
the portrait of D e m e t e r on the earliest coins suggests that,
like Zeus Ithomatas, she was v e r y prominent at the time of the
r e f o u n d l n g a n d it seems reasonable to a s s u m e that Demeter was
either a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the m y s t e r y cult
then or p o s s e s s e d an i m -
portant cult In Messene In her own right.
The great gods have been v a r i o u s l y I n t e r preted as the
Dioscuri, the Cablri, or v e r y old deities from the folk religion.
If they are T h e b a n Cabiri they m a y well have b een intr o d u c e d Into
the cult as the result of Boeotian Influence soon a fter 369. None
of the various gods m e n t i o n e d in the Inscription, however, can be
d e f i n i t e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h the refoundlng. W hile It is a priori
likely that changes w o u l d have b e e n made, since the cult seems to
have a c q u i r e d a S p a r t a n character, it can only be suggested that
the I n t r o duction of D e m e t e r and the Cablri w e r e efforts to m e n d
In a d d i t i o n to these m o r e important cults there must have
b een m a n y small shrines to Indigenous deities. Of this type are
the older stratum of Athena cults such as that of A t h e n a A n e motls
of Mothone a n d the river god Pamisus at w h o s e sanctuary cures
were made. T h e votive offerings found at the s a n ctuary show that

L. Ziehen, "Der Mysterienkult von And a n l a , " Ar c h l y ftlr
R e l l g l o n s w l a s e n a c h a f t , X XIV (1926), 45-47.
45 2
Head, H i s t o r l a N u m o r u m , p. 431. T h e type is a copy of
that I n t r o d u c e d b y Suaenetus, tKe S y r a c u s a n engraver. A. Bvans
(E. A. Freeman, The H i s t o r y of S i c i l y fro m the E a r l i e s t T imes
[Oxford, 1891-9417 TV, 235; suggests that the S y r a c u s a n coin types
found at Messene and Pheneus m a y be due to the m o n e y spent on
Pelopo n n e s i a n m e r c e n a r i e s by Di o n y s i u s of Syracuse. M e ssenlans
served Dio n y s i u s as m e r c e n a r i e s (Diod. xlv. 34. 3).

* ® A c c o r d l n g t o W l l a m o w l t s the I n t r o d u c t i o n of Deme t e r is
the immediate cause of the r e f o r m a t i o n of the cult in 91 B.C.
(Glaube de r Hellenen, II, 541-42).

^ Z i e h e n , A r c h l y ftir Religion. , X X I V , 39, n. 2.

j fl
Otto, De sacria Measeniorurn, pp. 35-36.
the cult of Pamlsua had a continuous h i s t o r y fro m the late arch a i c
period Into the R o m a n Empire. P o s s i b l y U a c h & o n also b e l o n g s to
this early period an d is an Indigenous Mes s e n i a n god identified
at a later date w i t h A s c l e p l u s .^ The date of the votive offer­
ings, w h i c h b e l o n g to the archaic period, found In the s a nctuary
of Apollo Corynthus at Hagioa Andreas suggest that it, too, is
Messenian In origin. 51
The Influence of the M e s senian exiles m a y beseen in the
introduction of the cult of Artemis Laphria fro m Naupactus.
The other more famous cult of Artemis Llmnatis Is t r a d i t i o n a l l y
Messenian If that m u c h credence ma y be placed in the account of
The acropolis on the site of the refo u n d l n g h a d been
called Ithome in the f ifth c e n t u r y . 3 3 It retained this name
throughout antiquity, but at least until the en d of the fourth
century the newly founded city seems to have been called Ithome
also. The city p r o b a b l y a c q u i r e d the name Messene beca u s e of
its leading position In the ter r i t o r y which was d e s i g n a t e d as
Messene. The territory had always been k n o w n as Messene and

Valmin, The Swedish Messenla E x p e d i t i o n , pp. 424-25.
Valmin, S k r ifter utgivna av svenska Instltutet I Rom,
V, 70.

3 ^Bersakes, A r c h a l o l o g l k o n D e l t l o n , II (1916), 86-113;

Paus. iv. 34. 7.
Paus. iv. 31. 7; Otto, De sacrls M e s s e n l o r u m , p. 46.

53 Thucyd. i. 101. 2; ill. 54. 5.

Scylax Perlplus 45; for a d i s c u s s i o n of the w o r k w h i c h
has survived under Scylax's name see P. Oislnger, P . - W . , III A,
635-46. Proxeny was granted by Delphi t o a Mes s e n i a n from Ithome
in 326/25 B.C. {Colin, Foullles de D e l p h e s , III, Fasc. IV, No. 6 ;
for the date see E. Bourguet, i b i d ., Fasc. V [Paris, 1932], 20 ff.
and 320). Diodorus refers t o C a s sander h o l d i n g all the cities of
Messene except Ithome (xix. 54. 4). Pausanias (iv. 27. 7) Is
thus m i s t a k e n whe n he states that the new city was called M e s s e n e ;
Beloch, Orlechlsche Q e s c h l c h t e ^, IV, Part I, 111, n. 1.
Homer O d y s s e y , ed. T. W. A l l e n (Oxford, 1907), x x l . 15;
Tyrtaeus, Anthologla lyrlca Q r a a c a . ed. E. Diehl (2d e d . ; Leipzig,
1925-36), 4~. £; P i n d a r , ed. 5^ Schroeder (Leipzig, 1914), Pythians
iv. 127; Aristophanes, ed. F. W. Hall and W. M. Oeldart (Oxford,
1907), Lyslstrata 1141; Plato, ed. C. H e r m a n n (Leipzig, 1905-21),
Alclblades 122 D: in T h u c y d i d e s (iv. 3. 2) the a d j e c t i v a l f o r m
Messenla is used to qualify g e .

a fter the refoundlng the name naturally continued in use, gener-

a ll y wit h reference to the new state In a political sense, but
o c c a s ionally In its former purely geographical sense.
The territory of Messene at the time of the r e foundlng
seems to hav e comprised only the p r e v i o u s l y Spartiate district of
Messenla, the upper plain,
the lower plain west of the Pamisus,
and the base of the Acrltas peninsula. The absence of large
town sites an d of names of towns In the u pper plain and the t e r r i ­
tory west of the Pamisus supports the vie w that this territory
was contr o l l e d b y the n e w l y founded city itself. The land a l ­
lotments r e c orded by Diodorus w o u l d have been made from it. The
perioecic towns r e m a i n e d loyal to Sparta and were a d d e d to Ides-
senian t e r r i t o r y piecemeal, either by conquest or b y the general
settlement In 338. In the summer of 369 the Arcadians made a
r aid on Aslne, d e f eated the garrison, ki l l e d the commander and
sacked a part of the town called the p r o a s t l o n . The raid a p ­
p a r e n t l y had no other result than m a t e r i a l damage a n d Aslne re-
m a i n a d Laconian. The Arcadians, In the course of their war with
S lis and Sparta (ca. 365), c a p tured Cyparissia and Co r y p h a s l u m
(Pylus) and turned the ter r i t o r y over to the Messenlans w i t h the
Island of Prote. Thus about 365 Messene comprised the previ-

5 6 Xen. H e l l . vii. 1. 27, 36; Demosthenes, ed. P. Blass

(Leipzig, 1888-1908), xvi. 8 , 9, 10, 17, 18, 20; Ps. Dam. xvli. 4;
L y c urgus L e o c . 62. It Is scarcely possible to limit a n y of these
references to the city only.
5 7
Xen. H e l l . vii. 4. 9; Isocrates vi. passim.

^®Valmln, S t u d e s , pp. 24-25; Busolt and Swoboda, Q r l e -

chlsche S t a a t s k u n d e , p. 725. The evidence consists in the notices
of the additions of territory over the period 369- 3 3 8 B.C.
K. Seellger, "Messenien und der achllsche B u n d , M Jahres -
berlcht des Gymnasiums In Z i t t a u , 1896-97, pp. 27-28.

^ X s n . Hell. vii. 1. 25; Belocfa, Grlechlsehe Geschichte^,

III, Part I, 185; Part II, 238.

^ S c y l a x Perlplus 46. W h e n Aslne did come u nder Messenian

control, p r o b a b l y in 338, the Inhabitants were left u n d i s t u r b e d
(Paus. iv. 27. 8 ; 34. 9).

S u p r a , p. 29, n. 9. D i o dorus (xv. 77. 4) records only

the capture of the places, but S c y l a x (Perlplus 45) refers to
Cyparissus (=Cyparlssla, s u p r a , p. 25) as Messenian. Presumably
then. It was turned over to Messene by the Arcadians. There Is
no re c o r d of Pylus in Scylax, but it seems probable that it w o u l d
ously Spa r t i a t e t e r r i t o r y of the Interior, a n d the weet coast f r o m
the Neda R iver on the n o r t h to Mothone on the south. Mothone,
like Aslne, r e m a i n e d loyal to Sparta w h i c h gave the S p a r t a n s con -
trol of the lower A c r l t a s p e n i n s u l a . 6 3 They also probably r e ­
tained the t e r r i t o r y of s o u t h e a s t e r n M e s s e n l a a n d the n o r t h e r n
Mani district.
Ithome was not the only n e w c ity of the refoundlng.
Corone Is said to h a v e bee n founded w i t h a Boeotian, Bplmelides
of Coronela, as o l k l s t e s . 6 6 In this m a y be seen a m o v e of M e s ­
sene to cut off the S p a r t a n pe r i o e c i c towns of A s l n e a n d M o t h o n e
farther to the south. T h e A r c a d i a n raid on A slne m a y thus hav e
bee n p r e l i m i n a r y to the f o u n d a t i o n of Corone. T h e B o e o t i a n name
Haliartus is a l s o k n o w n from Messenla. It m a y a l s o be a f o u n ­
dation of this period of B o e o t i a n influence. P o s s i b l y the foun­
dation of C o l o n l d e s w h i c h p r e s e r v e d a t r a d i t i o n of A t t i c or i g i n
and the name of a founder, Colaenus, is a l s o to be d a t e d to this
general period. 67
i ^
Before the p o s i t i o n of Mess e n e w a s consolidated, the q u e s ­
tion of Its defence was a vital problem. The perioecic t owns of
Mothone a n d Aslne were p r o b a b l y little mor e than nuisances, but
the threat of S p a r t a n Inroads fro m the t e r r i t o r y r e t a i n e d In the
southeast m ust have been constant. Not only was It n e c e s s a r y for
the Messe n l a n s to protect their territory, but a l s o to h o l d c o n ­
trol of the r o u t e s of communlcation, p a r t i c u l a r l y those on the
northeast w i t h their A r c a d i a n allies.
Ithome itself was the focal point of the d i s t r i c t a n d its
w e l l - p r e s e r v e d walls are still an e v i d e n c e of the t h o r o u g h n e s s of
its defences. In a d d i t i o n to Ithome, however, there are a n u m b e r
of small forts an d towers l o c a t e d at s t r a t e g i c p o i n t s in the

be i n c luded w i t h C y p a r i s s i a since the island of Prote, not far

from Pylus, seems a l s o to be r e f e r r e d t o as Messenian. T h e r e Is
no r e c o r d of A u l o n at this period.

63S c y l a x Perlplus 46. 6 4 Paus. iv. 27. 7.

6 5 Paus. Iv. 34. 5.

P t o l e m y ill. 14. 42; K o l b e has s u g g e s t e d its I d e n t i f i ­
ca t i o n w i t h a site near V r o m o n e r i on the w o s t coast, n o r t h of
Pylus (I Q , V, 1, p. 277), bu t B&lte h a s q u e s t i o n e d the text of
P t o l e m y T P . - W . , VII, 2241).

6 ^Paus. Iv. 34. 8 .


former Spartiate territory which are built In the general style

of the walls of the capital city. On the northeast In control
of the routes from Arcadia was the fortress now called Hellenlko,
large enough to house a garrison, and not far from it a signal
tower near Tzorota. At Stylarl was the fort which controlled the
approaches from the west coast through the Soullma valley. Near
Ithome Itself were towers, one to the southwest, on M t . Psoriari,
the other to the north along the road to the triple bridge. Fi­
nally there is the bridge itself, the maso n r y of which is very
similar to the walls of the city. Its construction would have
ensured better communication on Messene's most Important route.
Possibly the fort on the Island of Prote should be added
to this list. The scarcity of water and the bareness of the is­
land would not make it a desirable place for residence and the
fort Is evidently due exclusively to m i l itary considerations.
V almin hassuggested that the fort may belong to the period of
the Peloponnesian War. There is, however, no mention of the
construction of a fort on Prote in the account of the operations
around Pylus.
Until the fortifications of Ithome were at least partly
built and its state organization established, Messene could not
play the part of an active ally with Its founders, Thebes, Arcadia,
a nd Argos against Sparta. It was at first dependent on them for
protection. Messene also had no standing among the other Ireek
powers and had to use its founders as sponsors in the diplomatic
field as wall. There is no record of a formal alliance having
been concluded with those states, but the episodes of the years

Valmin (Etudes, p. 70) has pointed out the similarities
in detail for the tower along the road from the Arcadian date to
the triple bridge and (pp. 79-32) for the fort at Stylarl. He has
also emphasized the strategic connection of all the forts with
Ithome (pp. 67-68). I have linked the construction of the fort
called Helleniko (supra, p. 9), the tower near Tzorota (s u p r a .
p. 1 1 ), the tower on Psoriari (s upra, p. 4), and the tripTe bri i.'s
chronologically with Messene. It is perhaps rash to group all
these together as part of a deliberate building scheme encompassed
within a few years, merely by the style of their masonry, but
some Justification can be found in the obviously different m a s o n ­
ry of the fort at 31annltza built in territory added at a later
date (i n f r a , p. 56), and In the m i l itary needs of the years Im-
med i a t e l y following the refoundlng.
E t u d e s , p. 144. The sherds found on Prote are said to
date from the latter part of the fifth century.

following 3 6 9 show Messene a c t i n g In close c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h

them. A c c o r d i n g l y It Is probable that formal a l l i a n c e s wer e m a d e
with each of the powers, Thebes, Arcadia, and Argos soon a f t e r or
at the time of the refoundlng. These all i a n c e s w o u l d be t a n t a ­
mount to M e s sene's first step toward r e c o g n i t i o n b y the other
Greek powers.
W h e n the T h e b a n s d e p a r t e d p r e c i p i t a t e l y fro m the Pelopon­
nesus In the spring of 3 6 9 before the advance of the Athenians,
who h a d come to ai d Sparta, a substantial force was left In Mes-
sene. D u r i n g the summer of that year the Arcadians, as a l r e a d y
noticed, e x t ended further p r o t e c t i o n b y m a k i n g a raid on the p e r i ­
oecic tow n of Aslne, but it was not until 3 6 8 that the M e s s e n l a n s
began to r e p a y the favors made them. T h e y came to the h e l p of
Arcadia Invaded b y the S p a r t a n s u nder A r c h i d a m u s a n d the m e r c e ­
naries w h o m Dio n y s i u s of Syracuse h a d sent to his help. As the
mercenaries, w h o c o n s i d e r e d their ter m of service was up, were
ma k i n g for Sparta from the heig h t s above Malea the M e s s e n l a n s cut
them off in a n a r r o w pass. The a c t i o n was not f u l l y effective,
however, for A r c h i d a m u s p r o m p t l y came to the h e l p of the m e r c e ­
naries a n d e x t e n d e d the e n gagement into the defeat of the A r c a d i a n s
and Arglves in the "Tearless Battle" w h i c h h e l p e d to r e s t o r e Spar­
tan prestige. A g a i n about 365 the M e s s e n l a n s were found fighting
on the side of their allies in the war against Slls. W h e n the
Spartan prisoners c a p t u r e d In Cromnus w ere d i s t r i b u t e d a m o n g the
Thebans, Arglves, and A r c a d i a n s the Messe n l a n s a l s o r e c e i v e d a
Early in 368 b e g a n the series of diplo m a t i c a c t i o n s that
eventually r e s u l t e d In 362 In the full a c c e p t a n c e of Messene as
an Independent state b y the other Greek powers w i t h the e x c e p t i o n
of Sparta. Phlllscus of Abydus, sent to Greece as a n agent of
Artaxerxes, the k i n g of Persia, to r aise mercenaries, Invi t e d the
w a r r i n g powers to a peace conference In Delphi. The Thebans m a i n ­
tained that the Independence of Messene was a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n
to a settlement, but, as the S p a r t a n s r e f u s e d to r e c o g n i z e it and
objected t o the right of T h e b e s to vote for the B o e o t i a n cities,
the c o n f e r e n c e broke u p w i t h no result. P h l llscus did, however,

70 71
Diod. xv. 67. 1. Xen. H e l l , vii. 1. 28-32.

72 Xen. Hell, v i i . 4. 27.

raise a small force of m e r c e n a r i e s w hich was put at the service
_ „ 73
of Sparta.
Despite this h e l p and that from Dionysius and Athens,
Sparta made little h e a d w a y In the war and In the aut u m n of 367
decided on the venture of obtaining a renewal of the K i n g ’s Peace
in its own Interests. R e p resentatives were d ispatched to the
k i n g In Susa. The other major Greek powers were quick to follow
suit and delegations went from Thebes w hich Pelopldas represented,
Athens, Arcadia, Elis, and Argos. 74
In the conduct of the negotiations at S u 3 a, Pelopldas, by
a co m b i n a t i o n of his personal talents and the claims of Thebes tc
be the leading power In Greece succeeded in obtaining a rescript
from the k i n g w h i c h embodied the views of Th e b e s for a general
settlement of the wa r and reco g n i z e d that city as hege m o n of
Greece. The m a i n terms called for the r e c o g n i t i o n of M e s s e n e ’ 3
Independence an d the laying up of the Athen i a n fleet on penalty
of m i l i t a r y a c t i o n against Athens for non-compllance and against
any other state of the signatories which refused to co-operate
against Athens. The terms were conveyed officially to Greece by
a represe n t a t i v e of the king.
In accordance with Thebes' assu m e d p o s ition as h e g e m o n of
Greece the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the r a t i f ication of the terms lay
w i t h her. Thus a general conference was called in Thebes in the
summer of 366 a t t ended by delegates f rom the Greek states. The
delegates refused, however, to ratify the terms on the grounds
that they were not e m p owered to do more than report them. Ac­
cordingly Thebes sent out repr e s e n t a t i v e s to the Individual states
to have the terms approved. Corinth to w h i c h they went first
w o u l d not do so. The other states followed its lead and the r e ­
script w h i c h w ould have e stablished a general peace or k o i n e
elrene was refused. If It had b een a c c epted by all the Greek

Xen. H e l l . vii. 1. 27; Diod. xv. 70. 2; G. Glotz and
R. Cohen, H l s t o l r e " g r e c q u e {Paris, 1925-38), III, 159.

7 *Xen. H e l l . vii. 1. 33-40; Diod. x v . 81. 3; Plut. Pelopl­

das 30; A r taxerxes 22. 8-12.
Xen. H e l l . vii. 1. 36; Plut. Pelopldas 30; Diod. x v .
81. 3; E lls was a p p a r e n t l y granted some c o ncession against Arcadia
(Xen. H e l l . vii. 1. 38). Glots and C o h e n (Hist, g r e c q u e , III,
162) suggest that the Eleans were to receive control of Triphylia.

states the Ind e p e n d e n c e

of Messene w o u l d have b e e n r e c o g n i z e d In
366, but a gain it was left in abeyance.
The q u e stion of M e s s e n i a n independence, w h i c h h a d pr o v e d
a s t u mbling block at two peace conferences, was t a k e n up by the
pamphleteers. Al c l d a m a s of Blaea, a pupil of Gorgias, defended
tie right of Messene t o independence
on m oral grounds, that all
mankind h a d a natural right to freedom. Isocrates in the
Archidamus stated the S p a r t a n side of the case. It p u r p o r t s to
be an oration del i v e r e d b y K i n g A r c h i d a m u s to the S p a r t a n s u r g i n g
them not to come to terms w i t h the T h e b a n s as that w o u l d Involve

I have f o l l o w e d the treatment of P. Hampl for the peace

of 366 (Die g r l e c h l s c h e n S t a a t s v e r t r l g e das 4 J a h r h u n d e r t s v.
Christi Oeb. [Leipzig, 1938], pp. 62-64). In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the
fa Ilure of the ki n g ' s rescript and the k oine eIrene Hampl c o n ­
siders that the t r e aties mad e b e t w e e n T h e b e s on the one side and
Corinth, Phlius, and some other states on the other, w h i c h X e n o ­
phon treats as a separate episode {Xen. H e l l . vii. 4. 7-11), were
ordinary separate peace treaties and not part of a k o i n e e l r e n e .
G. De Sanctis, h o w e v e r ("La pace del 362/1," R l v . f 1 1 -, LXll
[1S34], 149-50) a n d A. H o m l g l l a n o ("La K o i v ^ £ V p >j' * tj dal 386
al 338 B.C.," Rlv. f l l ., LXII [1934], 489-90) have a r g u e d that a
koine elrene was made In 366 on the e v i dence of D i o d o r u s (xv. 76.
3l wh o d e f i n i t e l y states that a koine eirene was mad e at the r e ­
quest of the king. De Sanctis connects X e n o p h o n Ts account of the
separate treaties w ith the Diodorus passage a n d c o nsiders the }
otherA states r e f e r r e d to under the phr ase r o ‘£ X 0 o u <r > f*. e T
a. 6 T ^ v Included Athens. Homlgllano explains Xenophon's t r e a t ­
ment as the result of hie a n t i - P e r s i a n bias.
In this c o n n e c t i o n It s h o u l d be n o t i c e d that the q u e s t i o n
of Messene*s right t o pa r t i c i p a t e in the p r e l i m i n a r y n e g o t i a t i o n s
of the peace of 362 was ra i s e d on the grounds of h e r n o n - I n d e p e n d ­
ence (I n f r a , p. 46). If a koine eirene h a d b een mad e in 366 on
the basis of the k i n g ’s rescript it w o u l d h a v e I n v o l v e d the r e c o g ­
nition of M e s sene's Independence. No m o r e Is h e a r d of the q u e s ­
tion In the peace confer e n c e s a f t e r 362 w h e n the q u e s t i o n h a d b e e n
settled. F. T a e g e r ("Der Frlede v o n 362/1," Tilb l n g e r Beltrflge zur
A l t e r t u m s w l s s e n s c h a f t . XI [1930], 31, n. 35) a u s o r e j e c t s the h i a -
toricity of the D i o dorus passage (xv. 76. 3).
Only two fragments of Alcldamas' M e s s e n l a c a are p r e ­
served, qu o t e d by Ari s t o t l e (R h e t o r i c s i. 13. 2 a n d li, 23. 1).
T h e y are pub l i s h e d w i t h pertinent scholia b y C. Mfl.ller (Ora tores
A t t l c l , II [Paris, 1888], 316). Th e date of the s p e e c h a n d its
temporal r e l a t i o n to the A r c h i d a m u s of Isocrates are not certain.
Brzoska (P.-W., I, 1536) considers the M e s s e n l a c a a school piece
written against Isocrates' A r c h 1damus and c o m p o s e d s o o n a f t e r the
battle of Mantinea. The question of M e s s e n i a n I n d e p e n d e n c e was a
diplomatic p r o b l e m throughout the p e r i o d 369-61 a n d w o u l d be m o s t
acut e l y d i s c u s s e d in 366 w h e n the k i n g ' s r e s c r i p t was refused,
and in 362-61 w h e n M e s s e n i a n i n d e pendence was u l t i m a t e l y r e c o g ­
nized. E i t h e r date, then, w o u l d be a p l a u s i b l e one for the c o m ­
position. Public interest In the q u e s t i o n w o u l d ebb a f t e r 362.

the recognition of the Independence of Messene. The pretended
occasion of its delivery was evidently 566 when the allies of
the Spartans were pressing Sparta to accept the Theban peace
terms. Although It Is open to debate whether the Archidamus
was a seriously intended political pamphlet designed to stiffen
the Spartan and Athenian attitude to Thebes or merely a rhetori­
cal exercise, it has the historical value of presenting the Spar
tan claims and feeling about Messene.
The shame and anger of the Spartans at the prospect of
having to treat with their former serfs on an equal footing Is
stressed throughout the speech, but Isocrates also gives an
elaborate statement of the Spartan claim for the restoration of
Messene. It is based on the right of traditional conquest and
occupation Justified by the legendary division of the territory
by the Heracleidae. Messene, they regarded as much their own as
Sparta. This claim had never before been challenged. It was
probably in answer to such claims as these that the elaborate
tradition of early Messenian history which is presented by
Pausanias In its developed form was Invented. Traces of it are
found in Sphorus and Theopompua and it was put in poetical form
by Rhianus on whom Pausanias' account is based. The questions of
its development and Its reliability are very complex. The latter
would depend on how accurately and in what form the traditions of
early Messenian history were preserved and In what spirit the

7®The strict historicity of the speech as stated in Its

hypothesis is, of course, highly Improbable. It is generally ac­
cepted, however, that the circumstances of the year 566 were
chosen by Isocrates as a setting for it. The conduct of the Spar
tan allies (Archidamus 11) is confirmed by Xenophon (Hell. vii. 4
7-9). For a discussion of the internal evidence see Z~. Fareti,
"La cronologla dell 1 Archldamo dl Isokrate," Boll. f11. , XVII
(1910-11), 278. The purpose and date of composition of the Archi
damus have been long debated. It Is considered either a serTbus
political pamphlet written for the political situation in 366
(Vttnscher, P.-W., IX, 2200-2) or a rhetorical exercise which may
have been composed as late as 356-51 (Blass, Die attische Beredsu
keit, II [2d ed.; Leipzig, 1892], 289); see also te'alirTmiCE, TH
Oenulneness of the Ninth and Third Letters of Isokrates (Lancasts:
Pa., 1940), pp. 42-43, for a discussion of the genuineness of the
ninth epistle of Isocrates on which the later dating partly d e ­
pends. The general accounts of Cary (CAH, VI, 96) and Olotz and
Cohen (Hist, grecque. III, 166) relate the Archidamus to the
events of i667
79 BO
Isocrates vi. 8 , 70, 95-96. Isocrates vi. 24, 29.
writers of the fourth and third centuries treated it.
Sparta maintained the resolve not to relinquish its claims
on Messene despite the exhortations of its allies, particularly
the Corinthians, who were desirous of peace. E v e n after the f a i l ­
ure of the k i n g ’s rescript in which Messenlan independence had
been a stipulation Thebes insisted on it as essential, as Indeed
it was, In any settlement with 3parta. Although separate peace
treaties were made with the Spartan allies, Corinth, Phlius, and
some of the smaller states they were only on a status quo basis
with regard to the territory of each state. There is no m e n ­
tion of the recognition of Messenlan independence which ha d b e ­
come associated with the question of a koine eirene or a separate
treaty with Sparta.
In the war between Elis a n d Arcadia Messene, as we have
seen, aided Arcadia and was rewarded by the addition of the west
coast of Messenia. The Arcadian League, however, w hich had won
the war, split into two sections over the question of the use of
the Olympia temple treasures, a southern group of states headed
by Megalopolis, and a northern group by Mantinea. Messene r e ­
mained on good terms with Megalopolis and the eve of Epaminondas'
last invasion of the Peloponnesus found them both among the
3oeotian allies. In the battle of Mantinea the Messenlans were
grouped in the center of the battle order with the allies of
lesser military reputation, the Euboeans, Locrians, Sieyonlans,
Maliaeans, Aenlanes, and Thessalians while the Thebans were a r ­
ranged on the left and the Argives on the right wing.®* The
battle ended indecisively with the death of Epaminondas. The
battle and the dragging years of war before It had temporarily
sickened the Creeks of their bickering and a general peace was
quickly arranged.

The problem has provoked a great amount of discussion
of which I cite only a few recent treatments: J. Kroymann, ’’Sparta
und Messenlen," Neue Phil. U n t e r s u c h u n g e n , XI (1936); E. Schwarti,
" P 1® messenlsche Geachlchte bel Paus a n i a s , 1' Phllologus, XCII
(1937), 19-46; L. R. Shero, "Aristomenes the k e s s e n l a n , " TAPA,
LXIX (1938), 500-31. — —
82 or
S u p r a , p. 43, n. 76. °°Xen. H e l l , vii. 5. 4-5.

®*DIod. xv. 85. 2.

Diod. xv. 89. 1-2; Plut. Agesilaus 35. 3-4: Pol. iv.
33. 8-9. --------

In the preliminary negotiations the Spartans attempted

to exclude Messene from the peace on the grounds that it was not
an independent state. The Megalopolitans and the other states
of Arcadia allied to them insisted on Messene 1 3 right to be a
party to the peace so that the Messenlans were admitted by all the
other Greek states while Sparta remained outside the settlement.
The peace of 362-61 accepted by all as a koine elrene has been the
subject of much discussion on the two related points of whether a
symmachy was formed by the parties to the peace and whether an in-
scriptlon found in Argos should be connected with it. The in­
scription is an answer in the name of all the Greek states, which
have recently made a koine elrene, to an emissary of the satraps
that the Greek states are resolved to resist by force any attempt
of the king or anyone from his country to attack a signatory of
the peace or dissolve it. If this document is rightly connected
with the peace it is in effect a sanction to it. It is a specific
guarantee against Persian aggression and in principle a sanction
against any violator of the peace, signatory or otherwise. The

Such seems to be the implication of Plutarch's expres­
sion that the Messenlans had no city (Agesllaus 35. 3>.
67 **
Dltt. Syl 1 .~ . 182. Taeger (Tttblnger Beltrflge, XI, 1-3;
is of the opinion that the inscription is to be connected with
the peace and that a symmachy was formed; De Sanctis (Rlv. fll.,
LXII, 145-55) has attempted to show that the inscription should
not be connected with the peace and that no symmachy was formed;
Momigliano (Rlv. fll., LXII, 490-93, 494-98), that the inscrip­
tion should be associated with the peace of 371-70, although he
accepts a syamachy as implicit in the koine elrene; Hampl (Die
grlechlschen Staatsvertrflge, pp. 26-34T] In a successful refuta­
tion of Momigliano, that the inscription should be connected with
the peace of 362-61, but that no symnachy was formed; Larsen
("Review of Hampl," 01. Phil.. XXXIV [1939], 377),that It is
probable a symmachy was made.
Hampl, Die grlechlschen Staatsvertrflge, p. 28. The
document is dated by the interpretation of it as a request for
aid by the satraps in their revolt against the king ( A . Wilhelm,
"Sin Friedensbund der Hellenen," Jahreshefte, III [1900], 145 ff.).
De Sanctis and Momigliano who both separated It from the peace of
362-61 based their views in part on the supposition that the
peace was made on the king's authority citing Diodorus (xv. 90. 2),
that the Spartans were alienated from Artaxerxes by his insist­
ence on the Independence of Messene, as a specific reference to
362-61. Hampl (p. 31), however, has emphasized the haste with
which the treaties were made after the Battle of Mantinea and
pointed out that the reference may be general in that the proviso
was contained in the king's rescript of 367-66.
connect Ion a l s o gives a d d e d we i g h t to the v i e w that a s y m m a c h y
was made. T h e c o n n e c t i o n of a s a n ction a n d s y m m a c h y w i t h the
peace settlement is of some Importance for Messene. Its a d m i s ­
sion to the peace settlement was t antamount to r e c o g n i t i o n toy the
Greek powers, but the a d d i t i o n of a s a n c t i o n was a gu a r a n t e e of
independence a g a i n s t Sparta. E v e n if the peace p r o v e d in effect
to be a failure an d the sanction w h i c h g u a r a n t e e d M e s s e n l a n in-
dependence of no pra c t i c a l use, Messene h a d wo n the Juridical
right to make f u r t h e r all i a n c e s in its own nam e an d p r o t e c t it­
self by d iplomatic as well as b y m i l i t a r y means.
The death of B p a m l n o n d a s h a d d e p r i v e d Messene of a p o w e r ­
ful personal p r o t e c t o r and Thebes' a c t i v i t y in the S a c r e d W a r d i ­
verted Its a t t e n t i o n a n d l e s sened its a b i l i t y to interfere in
Pelop o n n e s i a n affairs. A l t h o u g h the c o a l i t i o n Argos, Megalopolis,
and Messene m i g h t toe able toy joint a c t i o n to de f e n d t h e m s e l v e s
against Sparta, t h e y were dependent on e x t e r n a l a i d for d e c isive
results. A bout 35 6 B.C. Messene secu r e d a n a l l i a n c e w i t h A t h e n s
by w hich At h e n a g u a r a n t e e d it a g a i n s t S p a r t a n a g g r e s s i o n . " This

Diod. xv. 89. 1 a n d Pol. iv. 33. 9 state In so m a n y
words that a symma c h y was m a d e but De Sanc t i s (R l v . f 1 1 .. LXII,
147) has a r g u e d that it Is impossible to insist on the Juridical
exactness of their terms. The q u e s t i o n is not w h o l l y dep e n d e n t
on the specific e v i d e n c e for 362-61 w h i c h c e r t a i n l y favors the
view that a s y m m a c h y was made, tout a l s o on the g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n
of whether s ymmachles w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h k o l n a l e l r e n a l before
this date as seems p r o b a b l e (Larsen, Cl. P h i l ., XXXIV, 377-78).

®^Xen. B e l l . vli. 5. 26-27; Hampl, Die g r l e c h l s c h e n S t a a t s -

vertr p. 1 1 0 .
Hampl (ibid., p. 110, n. 1) suggests that the M e s s e n l a n s
might have h a d a h a n d In the m a k i n g of the sanction. It Is u n ­
likely that t h e y w o u l d take the initi a t i v e in suc h a step In the
first n e g o t i a t i o n s to w h i c h the y were a d m i t t e d on e q u a l terms
with the other G reek states.
D e m . xvIII. 18.
D e m o s t h e n e s (xvi. 9} ind i c a t e s that a M e s s e n l a n - A t h e n l a n
pact h a d b e e n m a d e on such terms at least b e f o r e 353-52, the date
of the speech for the M e galopolltans. T h e date of ca. 356 is o b ­
tained fro m Isocrates' A r e o p a g l t l c u a (vli. 10) w h e r e r e f e r e n c e Is
m/ide to Athens' succ o u r of the friends of Thebes. Pau s a n l a s (iv.
2 i. 1-2) Is in a g r e e m e n t w i t h these sources. Jaeger, however,
rejects the r e f e r e n c e of Isocrates a s to the M e s s e n l a n - A t h e n l a n
pact a n d c o n si ders it a n a l l u s i o n to some d e f i n i t e m i l i t a r y a i d
r e n d e r e d t o T h e b a n allies. He s u g gests that it m a y r e f e r to the
h e l p given A r c a d i a at the time of the w a r w i t h E l l s (’*The Date of
Isocrates' A r e o p a g l t l c u a a n d the A t h e n i a n O p p o s i t i o n , " H a r v a r d
Studies in C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y . Supp., I [1940], 433).
alliance appears to have been part of the militant policy pursued
by Athens under the leadership of Aristophon at that period. But
by 353-52 Athenian policy was following a more cautious course
under Bubulus and when Megalopolis attempted to secure an alli­
ance similar to that granted Messene it was refused. Demosthenes
spoke in favor of the alliance on the grounds that it was to
Athens' advantage to keep both Sparta and Thebes weak, which could
be done by supporting the smaller states against them. He p r e ­
sented the case as a diplomatic method of checking Sparta before
it was necessary to send military aid to Messene according to the
terms of the alliance. The Spartan proposal for a general resto­
ration of territory, Oropus to the Athenians, part of Triphylia
to the Sleans, Trikarana to the Fhliasians was branded a specious
lead to an eventual attempt on Messene. The alliance of the lat­
ter with Athens had apparently prevented any action by Sparta
against Messene.
The sequel to the refusal of the Megalopolitan alliance
was the invasion of southern Arcadia by the Spartans. Messene,
Argos, and Sicyon, allied to Megalopolis, sent aid immediately,
but Thebes was unable to do so until the next year. After some
initial successes by the Spartans Theban aid arrived in sufficient
force to save the situation. Neither side, however, won a really
decisive victory and a peace was made which terminated the fight­
ing leaving all the parties their independence and maintaining
the precarious balance of power in the Peloponnesus.
The Peace of Fhilocrates in 346 and the conclusion of the
Sacred War, in which Messene, busied with her own interests in
the Peloponnesus, seems to have taken no direct part, assured the
place of Philip II as one of the dominating figures in Greece it­
self. Opposed to him and at last bitterly aware of the powers of
their adversary was Athens. In the years between 346 and 338 the
two powers waged a diplomatic struggle in which, from their point

Dem. xv1. The date of the speech is disputed. A. W.
Pickard-Cambridge (CAH, VI, 223) and Glots and Cohen (Hist, grecqui
III, 256) place it £ri""the winter of 353-52; Be loch (Grlechlsche
Qeschlchte 3. Ill, Part II, 271-72) at the beginning of 353. TEe
speech is discussed at length by P. Cloche, Demosthenes (Paris,
1937), pp. 48-57; Jaeger, Demosthenes (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1938), pp. 83-90.
Dlod. xvi. 39; Glots and Cohen, Hist, grecque. III, 256-

of view, the Peloponnesus was one of the fields and Messene one
of the pieces. From the Messenlan viewpoint, however, there were
certain definite gains to be secured from an alliance with the
ultimate victor, not only a guarantee of their Independence, but
the addition of that territory which remained under Spar t a n c o n ­
trol .
Philip found an opportunity for interference in the P e l o ­
ponnesus soon after the settlement of 346, for in the next year
the Spartans seem to have shown a more openly hostile policy t o ­
ward M e s s e n e . ® 6 He elected to assume the role formerly played b y
Thebes and supported the anti-Spartan coalition of Argos, Megal­
opolis, and Messene. The Spartans were warned to leave Messene
alone, and the warning backed by the dispatch of m o n e y and m e r c e ­
naries to Messene and Argos while Philip held himself in readiness
to Invade the Peloponnesus should Laconia move against those
states. The Athenians, who had b een negotiating with the Spar-
tans in disgruntlement after the Peace of Phllocrates, were
thus faced with the choice of declaring openly for Sparta, which
would involve them with Philip, or attempting to counteract his
diplomatic action in the Peloponnesus. T h e y chose the latter
course and dispatched an embassy of which Demosthenes was a mem-
ber. He warned the Messenlans that they should distrust Philip
both on general principles and because of the specific examples
of Olynthus and Thessaly whose citizens had been favored only to
be destroyed or subjected to a government of Philip's own choice.^®®
At the time of the embassy to Messene it seems that the
latter had not yet committed Itself to a definite alliance with
Philip, but b y the time of the delivery of the second Philippic
an alliance m a y have been made.*®^ Thus the e m b a s s y ha d failed
in its purpose of substituting Athens in the place of Macedonia

Dem. vi. 13. Demosthenes does not p r e t e n d that Sparta

was innocent at this time. For an analysis of the political s i t u ­
ation of the period see Cloch 6 , "La Orece de 346 a 339 a v . J.C.,"
B C H . XLXV (1920), 117 ff.

97 Dem. vi. 13, 15. 90 Dem. v. 18.

® 9 Dem. vi. 19. 100 Dem. vi. 19-25.

1 0 1 Dem. vi. 26. The usual date given the speech is 344-43
and the Athenian embassy la placed in the autumn of 344.
aa a supporter of the anti-Spartan bloc. Philip seems to have
pressed his advantage home by making a formal protest to Athens
supported by his new Messenlan and Arglve allies.
The Peloponnesian allies of Philip were benefited by an
increase In prestige at Delphi as well as by a guarantee against
Sparta through their association with him. The Messenlans had
contributed 70 drachmae In 363^0S to the rebuilding of the temple
of Apollo so that there Is some Justification for the honor con­
ferred on them about 345 when they were granted the title
’’Euergetae of the god and the Amphlctyons" In response to their
own request. They also asked, with Megalopolis, to become
members of the Amphictyony, evidently wishing to win a place amors.;
the older, traditional powers of Greece. The question was referrs
to the individual members of the council for deliberation and the
answer postponed until Its following meeting. Since Messene and

102There is no mention of the Messenlan-Athenlan treaty

of the previous decade In these negotiations. Probably It had
been made for a limited term only.
i 03
The reference In Demosthenes' Crown (xvlil. 156) to
the Peloponnesian allies of Philip Is certainly to Argos and Mes­
sene and probably to Megalopolis as well. Thus, although the
sources for the period ca. 345 do not refer to them specifically
as allies, it is probable that formal alliances were made with
Philip at that time. Pickard-Cambrldge (CAH, VI, 245-46) and
Glotz and Cohen (Hlat. grecque, III, 316-17) have adopted the vlei
suggested by Llbanlus In the hypothesis of the second Philippic
that the envoys present in Athens, who must be answered by the
Athenians, were from Philip, Argos, and Messene. G. M. Calhoun,
however ('Demosthenes Second Philippic," TAFA, LXIV [1933], 1-17*
is of the opinion that the envoys were from Sparta and the speech
is a discussion of the preparations of Philip to attack Sparta in
conjunction with Argos and Messene. The Spartan envoys would
have come to request Athenian aid. Calhoun's observation that
the subject of the second Philippic was Philip's preparations to
Join with Argos and Messene In fighting Sparta is correct, but
such a speech might conceivably be delivered in a debate on
Philip's complaints as well as in a debate on aid to Spnrta.
Cloche ("Lea naopes de Delphes et la politique hel-
lenique de 356 a 327 av. J.C.," BCH, XL [1916], 116) has pointed
out how the political changes ln~FEia period are reflected In the
administration of the Delphic oracle.

* 0 5 Bourguet, Foullles de Delphes, III, Fasc. V, No. 3.

28-30; Ditt. Syll. . 239 B.

Dltt. Syll. , 224. For the date see Glotz and Cohen,
Hlat. grecque, IlT, Jl 6 ; F. Wllst, Philipp II von Makedonlen und
Grlechenland (Munich, 1938), p. 25^ nt St
M egalopolis do not appear on the a m p h i c t y o n l c
lists of the fol-
lowing y ears their request was a p p a r e n t l y refused.
Athens h a d lost the first r o u n d of P e l o p o n n e s i a n d i p l o m a c y
1 rtQ
but cowards the end of 343 a r e a c t i o n came. P h i l i p ' s ac c e s s
to the F e l o p o n n e s u s was b l o c k e d b y the seizure of the Megarlan
forts. T his a p p a r e n t l y h a d an Immediate r e p e r c u s s i o n in the p ro-
Vacedonian states on w h i c h Athens was quick to seize. A second
emba s s y was sent to the Pel o p o n n e s u s of w h i c h D e m o s t h e n e s was
again a member. It s u c ceeded In w i n n i n g over Argos, M e g a lopolis,
Messene, Achaea, an d Mantinea. An alliance was m a d e wit h Mess e n e
In the late spring of 3 4 2 1^° a n d p r o b a b l y w i t h the other states
at the same time. This w o u l d not mean, of course, a renunciation
of their fo r m e r a l l i a n c e s w i t h Philip.
Thi s r e v e r s a l of Philip's p o l i c y in the Peloponnesus did
not last for long. His agents a n d b r i b e r y m a y hav e a c c o u n t e d for
the change in part , but A t h e n s was unable to m a i n t a i n its s u c ­
cesses elsewhere. Thus in 340 when A t h e n s a t t e m p t e d to f o r m its

The p o s t p o n e m e n t was p r o b a b l y t a n t a m o u n t to a tactful
refusal. A table of the a m p h l c t y o n s is given, Bourguet, F o u l l l e s
de D e l p h e s , III, Fasc. V, a d f l n e m , for the p e r i o d 343-27"! Since
the list Is Incomplete a n d the P e l o p o n n e s i a n h l e r o m n e m o n e s are
sometimes r e f e r r e d to w i t h o u t a n ethnic, it is p o s s i b l e "EEat M e s ­
sene a n d M e g a l o p o l i s w ere represented. G lotz a n d C o h e n (H i s t .
g r e c q u e , III, 316) suggest that the two states a p p l i e d for tEe
seat which, a c c o r d i n g t o Pausanlas (x. 8 . 2), was lost b y the
L a c e d a e m o n i a n s at the end of the S a c r e d W a r In 346. Th e list for
329, however, shows a L a c e d a e m o n i a n h l e r o m n e m o n . If Pau s a n l a s
Is correct In s a y i n g that the L a c e d a e m o n i a n s Tost t h e i r r e p r e ­
s e n tation in 346 the y mus t have r e g a i n e d It s h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d s
(G. Daux, Delphes a u IIe et a u Ier slecle [Paris, 1936], pp. 329-
30). Daux has a l s o p o i n t e d out that the L a c e d a e m o n i a n s shared
their seat w i t h the D o r i a n s of the m e t r o p o l i s a n d not w i t h the
Peloponnesians. A c c o r d i n g l y the M e s s e n l a n s a n d M e g a l o p o l l t a n s
p r o b a b l y a p p l i e d for a p lace a m o n g those P e l o p o n n e s i a n states
w hich sent r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - - A r g o s , Corinth, Megara, Sicyon, a n d
T r o e z e n - - r a t h e r than for the L a c e d a e m o n i a n seat w h i c h m a y never
have been vacated.
Fo r the c h r o n o l o g y see G l o t z a n d Cohen, Hist, grecque,
III, 324. ------- --- --
Dem. lx. 72; scholiast to A e schines, ed. F. Schultz
(Leipzig, 1865), ill, 83.

^ ^ I Q , 11^, i,, 225., O n l y the s u p e r scrj.ption r e m a i n s and

the phrase r i«. T o o . . . . M i r r ^ v t c u p ; n o m o r e tha n
e n o u g h to I d e n t i f y the document.

111 Dem. xv ill. 295.

"Hellenic League" against Philip and again sent out an embassy on
which Demosthenes served it met with only partial success, for,
of the Peloponnesian states, only the Achaeans and Corinthians
appear to have joined. Messene, Argos, and Megalopolis did
not Join and Sparta had apparently withdrawn from participation
in Greek politics. Shortly before the Battle of Chaeronea both
sides seem to have attempted again to rouse Argos, Megalopolis,
and Messene. Philip sent a letter representing himself as the
agent of the Delphic Amphictyony. This had at least the e f ­
fect of neutralizing the appeal of Athens, but the states remained
neutral. Messene had alliances with both Philip and Athens and
was deeply obligated to Thebes even if its alliance may have
lapsed. Megalopolis and Argos were similarly obligated to Thebes
and probably allied to Philip and Athens as well. it is likely
that these pacts were defensive alliances and did not require aid
in what might be construed as an aggressive action, but to exceed
their letter and commit themselves definitely by sending support
to one side or the other might have meant future political dis­
aster at the hands of the victor. It is probable also that some
distrust was felt of Sparta, although Archldamus was in Italy
helping Tarentum, for Sparta still held southeastern Messenla and
the passes into Argos and Arcadia. Since Corinth and Megara had
joined the coalition against Macedonia in 340 that meant the way
to central Greece was barred at the Isthmus except to allies of
The pro-Macedonian policy of Messene during the period b e ­
fore the Battle of Chaeronea and later under Alexander was the
work of a pro-Macedonian party of which the leaders were Neon and

Dem. xviil. 237; Aeschines ill. 95 ff.; Plut. Demosthe­
nes 17. 3.

^ ^ O n e of the lists which gives the names of the states

which Joined this coalition Includes the Messenlans (Ps. Plut.
Vitae X orat. 851 B: Thebans, Euboeans, Corinthians, MegarIans,
Achaeansf, Eocrians, Byzantines, and Messenlans). None of the
other lists does so (Aeschines ill. 95; Dem. xvlli. 237; Plut.
Demosthenes 17. 5, which Is a duplicate of the former; Ps. Plut.
Vitae X orat. 845 A). The inclusion of Messene must be Incor­
rect, for Demosthenes (xvlil. 64) specifically reproaches T h e s ­
saly, Argos, Arcadia, and Messene for non-collaboration. Further­
more Messene was neutral at Chaeronea (Paua. iv. 28, 2).
Dem. xviil. 155-58; Glotz and Cohen, Hist, grecque.
Ill, 356.
Thra s y l o c h u s , the sons of P h i l i a d e s . 1 1 5 That there was a l s o a n
antI -Macedonian group might be a s s u m e d from the g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l
habits of G reek states, but Its a c t i o n seems apparent In the e x ­
pulsion of N eon and T h r a s y l o c h u s , p r o b a b l y at the time of the
1T g
revolt of The b e s in 335. T h e y were r e s t o r e d later b y Alexander,
and a p parently r e t a i n e d sufficient Influence to k e e p Messene out
of the revolt of Agls in 331. It is likely that the m e n were
prominent and weal t h y officials of Messene who, b y their wealth,
had great personal Influence w h i c h w ould n a t u r a l l y increase since
they h a d picked the w i n n i n g cause. S i m i l a r l y about 2 2 0 B.C. a
few w e a l t h y Individuals ha d great influence on M e s s e n l a n policy.
It was a natural sequel to the settlements w i t h T h e b e s
and Athens after the Battle of Cha e r o n e a for Philip to regulate
the affairs of the Peloponnesus. Achaea, Megara, an d C o r i n t h h a d
joined the coa l i t i o n against him In 340. A fter Philip's v i c t o r y
his partisans in those states brought them over w i t h little dif­
ficulty. His own allies Argos, Arcadia, a n d Messene
seem to have
urged their territorial claims against Sparta at this time.

^ 1 SDem. xviil. 295; Pol. xviil. 14. 3.

11 6 Ps. Dem. x v 11. 4; Glotz and Cohen, Hlat. g r e c q u e , IV,


1 1 7 Pol. Iv. 32. 1; D e m o s thenes (xviii. 295-96) charges

that Neon and T h r a s y l o c h u s h a d e n s laved their fellow citizens In
their own interests and the charge against A l e x a n d e r (Ps. Dem.
xvil. 4, 7) is that he has r e s t o r e d tyrants--the charge is not
that he has r e s t o r e d e x i l e d leaders. Thi s h i g h l y p r e j u d i c e d view
Is c r iticized b y Polybius (xviil. 14) who states that t hey did
not receive garrisons from Philip nor tamper w i t h the laws and
the rights of their fellow citizens.
I attempt to show that the t erritorial a d j u s t m e n t s made
in favor of Messene, Argos, a n d M egalopolis were made t h r o u g h the
regular m a c h i n e r y of the Hellenic League for such disputes an d
not b y Philip p e r s o n a l l y as one of the p r e l i m i n a r i e s to the f o r ­
mat i o n of the League; this also Involves a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of his
Laconian Invasion. Glots a n d C o h e n (Hist, g r e c q u e , III, 369-70),
and Pickard-Cambridge (CAH, VI, 266) c o n sider the territorial
changes to have been Imposed b y Philip h i m s e l f and m o t i v a t e his
invasion of Laconia b y Sparta's refusal to accept them. Beloch
(Qrlechlsche Q e s c h l c h t e ^. Ill, Part I, 574-75) likewise considers
the changes a personal act of Philip. V. E h r e n b e r g (P.-W., Ill A,
1418) a n d Bttlte (pas s i m in his account of the h i s t o r i c a l g e o g ­
raphy of Sparta, P .-W., III A) state that the t erritorial changes
were made thro u g h the decision of a n all Greek court set up by
Philip, but do not connect it w i t h the H e l lenic League. Some of
the older treatments (Kolbe, Ath. M i t t .. XXIX, 375-76; R. Weil,
"Messenlsche G r e n z f e h d e n , " Ath. Mitt., VII [1882], 213) c o n t a i n a
Some of the perloecic towns in Messenla had remained loyal to
Sparta and the passes leading from Sparta to Arcadia and Argos
were also in control of the Spartans. Philip's mere presence in
the Peloponnesus with an army was not sufficient to intimidate
the Spartans into giving up the territories claimed. Accordingly
Philip invaded and laid waste part of Laconia in the autumn of
333 to put them in a more receptive frame of mind. Thus the

similar view. P. VTtlst (Philip II von Makedonlen und Grleohen-

land, pp. 173-74) Includes the territorial changes I n T S e - prelimi­
nary settlements before the formation of the League. B. Niese
(Geschlchta der grlechlschen und makedonlschen Staaten [Gotha,
1833-1903], I, 37) states that the changes were made through an
arbitration process after the formation of the Hellenic League,
but does not associate them with the regular machinery of the
League for such cases. A. Schaefer (Demosthenes und seine Zeit
[2d e d . ; Leipzig, 1885-87], III, 46) considers that Philip ar-
ranged the adjustments through an arbitration on which all the
states of Greece were represented. The older views which asso­
ciate the changes with the League were written, of course, before
the mass of recent literature which has contributed so much to an
understanding of the purpose and workings of the League. In
these recent special treatments I have noticed no discussion of
the territorial changes made at Sparta's expense. The articles
are, of course, not primarily concerned with the question.
This is the usually accepted date for the invasion.
Our chief source of information is Polybius who introduces the
matter into the speeches of Chlaeneas, the Aetolian, and Lyciscus,
the Acarnanlan, before the Spartans in 211. Chlaeneas' speech
is, of course, very anti-Macedonian. He states (ix. 28. 6 ) that
Philip had snatched at any excuse that offered to invade Laconia.
Lyciscus, forced at the same time to defend Philip's action, and
yet not offend the Spartans, gives a more circumstantial account
(ix. 33. 8-12) from which the following fact seems clear: there
was a dispute between Messene, Argoe, Megalopolis, and Sparta
which permitted of a later arbitrated settlement. The only set­
tlement, of which we know, made between these states and Laconia
was the territorial adjustment. On the authority of Polybius
(xviil. 14. 6-7) Argos, Megalopolis, and Messene invited Philip
Into the Peloponnesus at this time. This Is confirmed by Lyciscus
who states (ix. 33. 10) that Philip's allies urged him to lay
waste Laconia and humiliate Sparta. Instead Philip justly turned
over the dispute to an arbitration pourt composed of/all the c^reek
stat es Jc k tta ts t v t Ju ^ £ AA k Q tf * s t
Lyciscus avoided mention of an Invasion so that he would not of­
fend the Spartans. It is clear, however, from other sources that
Philip did Invade and lay waste Laconia (Paus. ill. 24. 6 ; v. 4.
9; vli. 10. 3; even Lyciscus ambiguously says Philip was present
with a force, ix. 33. 8 ). On these facts, then, that the quarrel
with Laconia was over the territorial claims of Philip's allies,
which he sponsored, that he did invade Laconia, and that the
claims were ultimately settled by an arbitration of the League
(as the following pages attempt to show), the reconstruction of
events given above Is based.
Spartans were in no p o s i t i o n to protest any settlement w hich
might be made, btit Philip p r eferred to act t h r o u g h the n e w l y
founded Hellenic League of w h i c h Messene h a d be c o m e a member.
The me t h o d of the League for deal i n g w i t h such cases has
been noticed in connection with the a r b i t r a t i o n b e t w e e n Cimolus
and Melus w hich the aynedrlon had r e f e r r e d to Argos for s e t t l e ­
ment. ^ 1 That this was appl i e d in the case of Messene, Argos,
and Arcadia against Sparta 122 seems clear, a l t h o u g h there are two
traditions in the sources about the settlement. The p r o - L a c e ­
daemonian tradition makes out that the territorial losses of
Sparta were a personal act of Philip. Chlaeneas, the Aetolian,
in a speech d e s igned to vilify the Macedonians before the Spar t a n
assembly in 211 made such a charge and it was r e i t e r a t e d by the
Spartans themselves before the R o m a n senate in the r eign of Ti-
berlus. The better tradition connects the changes wit h an a r ­
bitration by the League. It is stated thus, of course, by the
pro-Macedonian Lyciscus before the Spartans In answer to Chl a e n e a s
and referred to as a precedent by the Messenlans before the R o m a n
senate. Proof, however, is furnished by a n I nscription r e c o r d ­
ing an ar b i t r a t i o n settlement of the second century B.C. b e t w e e n
Megalopolis and Sparta w hich cites the a r b i t r a t i o n of the Hellenic
League as a p r e c e d e n t : < T ’ it v T o t £ X X a. g - i v k a. /

f v yt y <Ly o !s f S y { k ^ y t v<X. : tTy o T Cy3*r f]*~* * T S € (3 a. i

Ps. Dem. xvll. 4. Alexander, it Is charged, has r e ­
stored "tyrants" to Messene contrary to the oaths and treaties
written In the general peace, i.e., the Hellenic League.
i pi *5
Dltt. S y l 1 . , 261. Larsen ("Representative Gove r n m e n t
in the Panhellenie Leagues, II , " C l . P h i l ., XXI [1926], 55) cites
this ar b i t r a t i o n as suggesting "a n e c e s s a r y c o r ollary to the
stipulation that peace was to be m a i n t a i n e d within the League,
namely, that in case of dispute b e t w e e n members, the dispute was
to be submitted to the a y n e d r l o n , which then Itself could settle
the matter or delegate Tt Eo some one else."
It is apparent from tne r e f e r e n c e s of Polybius (Ix. 28.
7; Ix. 33. 8-12; xviil. 14. 6-7) that the case of each state was
treated similarly and by the same court. Thus, evidence, be t t e r
preserved for the case of Megalopolis, will be e q u a l l y v a l i d for
the cases of Messene, Argos, a n d Tegea.
Pol. Ix. 28. 7; Taci t u s Annals Iv. 43. 1.

1 ^ 4 Pol. Ix. 33. 11-12; Tacitus Annals I v . 43. 3.

je a / ' j4 / < y « , T o / us * T i eft Tofisjie/ 125 Thla arbltra_
tion of the Hellenic League la also noticed by Livy in a refer­
ence to the territorial changes Involved when Sparta entered the
Achaean League in 189. In the case of Messene also there is
evidence from Strabo that the settlement was made by arbitration
although it is not connected specifically with the Hellenic
127 1^0
League, ' and similarly from Pausanlas for Argos. Thus it is
clear that the territorial adjustments were made tiirough the Hel­
lenic League. It Is probable to judge from the phrase of Polybius,
K O I iro * * TT <t ►' T uu y Tu/f E \ \ *1 V w Is 1( 0 . & I f X S K t> i T ^ p /o V 129

that they were made by the synedrlon Itself and so closely are
the changes linked with the events around the formation of the
League 'hat this may well have been the first case of its type.
Since Fhilip's wishes, already made clear to Sparta, would be the
governing factor In the decision it is probable that hid name
would be associated in later tradition with the decision equally
with that of the League. Although Sparta was not a member of the
League, it could scarcely do other than assent to such a process.
The decision placed the control of the passes to the
north from Sparta in Arcadian and Arglve hands. Messene r e ­
ceived the Ager Denthaliatis^3^ and the coastal territory along
the Messenlan Gulf as far to the south as the little Pamisus
River. There is some evidence that Thalaraae situated near

S 12 "s
^Ditt. Syl1 . 1 , 665. 19-20. The connection of this in­
scription with the arbitration by the Hellenic League has been
pointed out by Larsen (Cl. Phil., XXXIV, 378) who emphasizes the
importance of the document, previously unnoticed, as proof that
the Hellenic League of Philip II was a symmachy.

i2^Livy xxxvili. 34. 8 . ^ 7Strabo viii. 4. 6 .

Paus. vli. 11, 2; see also Paus. 11. 20. 1.

129 Pol. Ix. 33. 12. 1 3 0 B8 lte, P.-W., III A, 1303-12.

Tacitus Annals Iv. 43. 3. For its location see Appen­
dix I .
Strabo (viii. 4. 6 ) states that the Meosenians were
Involved In an arbitration with the Lacedaemonians in the time of
Philip over the town of Leuctra. Leuctra is situated a few kilo­
meters to the north of the little Pamisus River and probably con­
trolled the territorv as far as the river. Pausanlas (111. 26. 3)
records a Messenlan claim to the territory of the village of
Pephnus. Pephnus is identified with the modern village of Pephnos
near the mouth of the river. Since this territory was in dispute
Koutlphari to the south of the little Pamisus was a lso i n v o l v e d
in this settlement, a l t hough it is not clear what d e c i s i o n was
made In its case. The perloecic towns outside of the a bove
territories, Asine, Mothone, and Thourla, were p r o b a b l y h a n d e d
over to Messene also. There Is no specific e v i d e n c e for them,
but on their next appearance in the sources, they are Messenlan.
In addition, Philip and the leaders of the p r o - M a c e d o n i a n p a r t y
in Messene are regar d e d almost as its second founders a n d respon-
sible in large part for its prosperity.
Thus b y 3 3 8 - 3 7 Messene had e x p anded its t e r r i t o r y to the
natural frontiers formed by the Neda River and the P h i g a l e a n m o u n ­
tains on the north, and Taygetus on the east, an d c o m p r i s e d the
whole of the district known as Messenia. The state was made up
of two elements, the p r e v i o u s l y Spartiate district an d the p e r l ­
oecic towns which had bee n added to it. F o u n d e d in 36 9 Its i n ­
dependence had been r e c o g n i z e d by all the G reek states except
Sparta in 362-61. But the threat of Sparta was almost n e u t r a l i z e d
by Philip in 338. The loss of the Spartiate ter r i t o r y in 369 ha d
crippled Its economy, and the further loss of the p e rloecic towns
and southeastern M e s senia deprived It of m i l i t a r y bases for eas y
raids on Messenlan territory. Messene had a c h i e v e d this result
by a p o l i c y of lending Itself to the plans of the powerful states
outside the Peloponnesus, first Thebes, then Athens, an d f i n a l l y

and ths river is the most suitable natural feature w h i c h might

serve as a boundary. It seems probable that it was made the b o u n d ­
ary line. Messene won the a r b i t r a t i o n so that all the t e r r i t o r y
north of the r iver w o u l d have been a s s i g n e d to that state (B 8 lte,
P . - W . , III A, 1314-15).
Stephanus Byzantinus (s .v . T h a lamae) q u o t i n g f r o m T heo-
pompus calls Thalamae, Messenlan, and Pausanlas (ill. 1. 4) r e ­
counts a legendary claim of Messene to the territory. It seems
unlikely that T h a l a m a e was a w a r d e d to Messene at this time, for
Strabo indicates the little Pamisus as the boundary. Bttlte (F.-W.,
Ill A, 1315) suggests that Messene claimed T h a l a m a e In the a r b i ­
tration, but did not get It. If that is correct there Is some
justification for the statement of Lyciscus (Pol. Ix. 33. 11)
that Philip did not ac c e d e w h o l l y to the wis h e s of his allies.
S t r a b o viii. 4. 8 ; Pol. xviil. 14.


The territorial award to Messene by the Hellenic League

had placed the state In control of the whole district of Messenia,
and greatly strengthened Its position, strategically as well as
economically. During the following period of Its history, a l ­
though It Is impossible to trace the process In detail, the e f ­
forts of Messene seem to have been devoted to the consolidation
and unification of the territory. The tumultuous period of the
Wars of the Successors scarcely allowed Messene, or any Jreek
state, to pursue an orderly development. The policy of freedom
for the Ireek states, adopted by Antigonus Monophthalmus and
Demetrius Pollorcetes, which would have been put into practice if
they had proved victorious, was necessarily abandoned, even as
propaganda, after the defeat at Ipsus. Demetrius himself, and
later Sonatas, found the policy of indirect control by partisan
governments or directly by garrisons more effective. Such a p o l ­
icy accorded well with that of Messene. The strengthening of the
state enhanced Its value to Sonatas as a check on the ambitions
of Sparta revived by King Areus, and enabled Messene Itself to
enjoy its fertile plains In comparative security. The protection
offered by the natural barriers of Taygetus and the Phlgalean
mountains was Increased by the extension of the fortification sys­
tem begun in the period from 369 to 338.
The Messenlans tended toward this policy of deliberate
seclusion even in the first flush of the expansion of 338. Al­
though they had profited greatly as a result of their support of
Philip, they did not co-operate wholo-heartedly with Alexander.
The banishment and subsequent restoration by Alexander of the
leaders of the pro-Macedonian faction has already been noticed.
Their Influence and a natural distrust of the alms of Sparta evi­
dently kept Messene from participation in the revolt of Agis In
331. While Messene, as a member of the Hellenic League, Joined

the Greek states in the war against Antipater^" in 323 it was slow
to make its decision, as were the other Peloponnesian states
which took part in the war, Elis, Sicyon, Argos, and the towns on
Acte. They evidently felt some reluctance at being involved in
a quarrel in which their own interests would not seem to have
been greatly at stake. Furthermore, no action by Messenlan troops
is reported in the war, but it is highly unlikely that their lack
cf enthusiasm saved the Messenlans from the political changes
made by Antipater in the Greek states. It is probable that when
he regulated the affairs of the Peloponnesus the government of
Yessene was reformed on a tlmocratic basis and his own adherents
established in power, even If no garrison was placed in the c i t y . 3
Antipater had dissolved the Hellenic League by refusing
to treat with it as a whole after the Battle of Crannon In 322,
insisting on settlements with the separate Greek states. By the
establishment of oligarchical governments in them he had secured
partisan support. His death In 319 would evidently rouse the
hopes of the democratic factions and of those who had supported
the Hellenic League. Antlpater had designated Polyperchon as his
successor In Greece, and the army duly elected the latter as r e ­
gent. Cassander, Antipater's son, had expected to receive the
position and refused to acquiesce in Polyperchon's election. He
evidently could count on the support of his father’s partisans In
the Greek cities. To counteract that and rouse sentiment in his
own fa vcr, Polyperchon Issued a proclamation in the name of Fhilip
Arrhidaeus designed to re-establish the freedom of the Greek
states. The proclamation was followed up by an invasion of the
Peloponnesus In the spring of 318. Only Megalopolis, under the

^Paus. iv. 28. 3; I. 25. 4. The war against Antipater

was apparently engineered through the machinery of the Hellenic
League (Larsen, Cl. Phil. XXI, 63-65; for a different view see
W. W. Tarn, CAH, Vi, 456).
Diod. xviil. 11. 2; Paus. 1. 25. 4; Plut. Demosthenes 27;
Justin, ed. 0. Seel (Leipzig, 1935), xlil. 5. 10; the addition of
Corinth by Justin is usually rejected. The participation of
Megalopolis Is doubtful. According to Pseudo Plutarch (Vitae X
orat. 846) it was won over by the Athenian embassies, but a c c o r d ­
ing to Pausanlas (viii. 6 . 2) remained neutral. An oligarchy was,
however, established there by Antipater (Diod. xviil. 6 8 . 3).
Diod. xviil. 18. 4; Pol. Ix. 29. 2-4. Beloch, Griechl-
sche GeschlchteS, IV, Part I, 77-78.
oligarchy established by Antipater, Is said to have held out bot;
against Polyperchon1a propaganda and his army. Thus Messene
probably came under Polyperchon's control at that time. It is
likely that he garrisoned Ithome, for it alone of all the Mes­
senlan towns beat off Cassander during the invasion of the Palo-
C fi
ponnesus in 316 and again In 315. In connection with the lat­
ter episode it is stated that Ithome was held by Polyperchon 1 s
troops. When Alexander, the son of Polyperchon, went over to
Cassander in 315 Messene was probably transferred to the latter
name. Apparently It was freed by the expedition under Telesphor.
sent out In 313 by Antlgonus Monophthalmus who had adopted the
policy of supporting the freedom of the Greek states. Their fre:
dam was affirmed in the treaty of 311 between Cassander, Lysi-
machus, Ptolemy, and Antlgonus.
During the period of the Wars of the Successors Messenia’
political life must have been of little significance. Before 31;
it was carried out on the sufferance of a garrison and after tha:
date could deal with little more than local affairs or the ameni­
ties of international relationship, such as proxenles, one of
which may have been granted to a Zacynthian about this t i m e . ^
In the short period of quiescence which followed the treaty of

4 Diod. xv ill. 6 8 . 3; 69. 4. 5 Diod. xlx. 54. 4.

®Diod. xlx. 64. 1. 7 Dlod. xlx. 64. 3-4.

sDiod. xlx. 74. 2.Diodorus states that all the cities
held by Alexander were freed except Corinth and Sicyon.
Diod. xlx. 105. 1; C. B. Welles, Hoyal Correspondence lr.
the Hellenistic Period (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1 934 j7
No. 1.
^ I G , V, 1, 1425. The inscription Is dated to the late
fourth or early third century B.C. by Its letter forms. A pos­
sible objection to that date, however, may be raised by the deslg
nation of the month In which the decree was passed by an ordinal,
Such a usage Is frequent In the second and first centuries B.C.
(Blschoff, P.-W., X, 1574; M. Nilsson, Die Sntstehung und rell-
glOse 3edeutung des grlechlschen Kalendera [Lund, 191QJ, pp. ?>1-
52; the other Messenlan documents which designate the months by
ordinals are dated In the second or first centuries B.C. [IG, V,
1, 1433. 32; 1390. 116; 1379. 31; Bull. Lund, 1928-29, p. 159,
No. 1. 6 ]). In a Messenlan Inscription of the third or second
century B.C. (IG, V, 1, 1447), providing for the regulation of a
festival, the names of three months are preserved, Fhylllkos {?),
Knaster, and Agranlos. It Is possible that both systems of nomer.
clature could exist side by side.
311 Messene may have found an opportunity to send its contribution
to the rebui l d i n g of Thebes b e g u n in 316 b y C a s s a n d e r . 1 ^
The freedom of the Greek states proved to b e short-lived.
Ptolemy's attempt In 308 to gain control of the Peloponnesus r e ­
sulted in the ac q u i s i t i o n of Corinth, but provoked Antlgonus Into
another attempt to crush both Cassander and Ptolemy. Demetrius'
capture of Athens In 307 from Cassander began a struggle for the
Greek cities. Polyperchon, acting as the general of C a ssander
was enabled to enter the Peloponnesus as a result of the alliance
of Ptolemy and Cassander. Many of the cities freed in 313 were
recaptured. It Is probable that Messene was a mong t h e m and that
it was retained by Folyperchon during the Invasion of Demetrius
in 303 when most of the cities were again freed to form the re-
newed Hellenic League. Thus In 295 Demetrius a t t a c k e d the city.
He was wounded In the assault and It is not clear whether he was
successful in taking Messene or not.
After the defeat of Antlgonus and Demetrius at Ipsus in
301 the insecurity of Demetrius' position In Greece and later of
that of Antlgonus Gonatas per m i t t e d a revival of an independent

Faus. ix. 7. 1. On the r e f o u n d i n g of Thebes see D i o ­
dorus (xlx. 54. 1-2) and M. Holleaux (Etudes d'eplgraphle et
d'hlstolre g r e c q u e , ed. L. Robert [ParTs” 1538 j, l7 1-42).

^ B e l o c h , Grlechlsche G eschlchte^, TV, Part II, 444-45.

The evidence Is very Inc one1us i v e . The name of Messene does not
appear in any of the lists of places recovered by Demetrius in
303 and Demetrius did not recover all the cities of the P e l o p o n ­
nesus, for Plutarch (Demetrius 25. 1) specifically excepts M a n ­
tinea. On the other hand. Ells Is k nown to have bee n r e g a i n e d b y
him only from the famous inscription containing pert of the c o n ­
stitution of the revived Hellenic League (HJ, IV2, l, 6 8 ). Thus
It is also possible that Messene was r e g a i n e d b y Demetrius, but
was lost to h i m again after the defeat at Ipsus when man y of the
Creek states fell away (Plut. Demetrius 31. 2).
Plut. Demetrius 33. 3-4. Plutarch does not m e n t i o n the
result of the attack, but seems to i mply that it was unsuccessful.
In hiB life of Demosthenes (13. 4), however, there Is a reference
to a Messenlan, Nicodemus, who first supported Cassander, then
Demetrius, because It was always advantageous to o b e y conquerors.
Beloch holds that the reference is to the attack of 295 and i n d i ­
cates Its success (Grlechlsche G e s c h l c h t e ^, IV, Part II, 368;
Tarn remarks that the attack was u n s u c c e s s f u l , Antlgonos Gonatas
[Oxford, 1913], p. 13). A M e ssenlan n amed Nicodemus was granted
proxeny by Delphi ca. 324-23 (Colin, Foullles de D e l p h e s . Ill,
Fasc. IV, No. 7; for the date, B o u r g u e t , i b i d ., FascT V, p. 321).
It may be the same Nicodemus as that of the account of Plutarch.
foreign policy on the part of some of the Peloponnesian states.
Sparta, about 280, under its king Areus, began to reorganize a
Peloponnesian League directed against Gonatas. On the side of
Sparta were Mantinea, the Arcadian towns with the exception of
Megalopolis, Slis, Argos (?) and four Achaean towns, Patrae, Dyme
Tritaea, and Pharae which formed the kernel of the Achaean League
The pro-Antigonid states were Troezen, Sicyon, Megalopolis, and
Messene. 14 If Messene had been taken by Demetrius' assault In
295 it was probably still held by an Antigonid garrison, and thus
necessarily was hostile to Sparta. The expansionist policy of
Sparta, however, would menace Messene in any case, so that, even
if independent, it would support Gonatas.
Gonatas was at this time engaged in fighting Ptolemy
Ceraunus in the Hellespont thus offering Areus an opportunity for
aggrandizement. The latter seems to have begun hostilities by
the pretext of a sacred war on Aetolla, allied tc Gonatas, with
the object of ousting the Aetolians from D e l p h i . ^ An attack was
made across the Gulf of Corinth, but was repulsed. Thus Areus
was limited to action against the pro-Antigonid states of the
Peloponnesus. Messene and Megalopolis were evidently attacked,
for they later used the war as an excuse for not having shared ir.
the defence of Greece against the Gauls. I4- is probable that
Messene lost control of the Ager Denthaliatis to Sparta during
the war. It is not recorded how or when hostilities ended, but
probably a peace was arranged before the invasion of the Pelo-

14 Justin xxiv. 1. 2-7. The evidence for the alignment o£

the various states is discussed by Beloch, Grlechlsche Geschichte*
IV, Part II, 370-71.
R. Flacellere, Les Altollens a Delphes (Paris, 1937),
p p . 02-83.

1 6 Paus. iv. 28. 3; viii. 6 . 3. The latter passage im­

plies that Megalopolis was not defended by Antlgonus' troops.
The Megalopolltan excuse for not sharing in the defence of Greece
was that their territory would have bee n left defenceless bv the
dispatch of their own troops. Accordingly, Tarn (Antlaonos
Gonatas, p. 132, n. 44) suggests that Megalopolis was- independent
at that time. The same deduction might be made for Messene, al*
though Pausanlas Is less explicit about its situation (iv. 28. 3;
The loss of the Ager is not reported, but according to
Tacitus (Anna 1 s iv, 43. 4) it was restored to Messene by Antlgonus
(whether Gonatas or Doson is not specified).

ponnesus by Pyrrhus in 272.
At the time when Pyrrhus invaded the Peloponnesus in the
course of his war against Antlgonus, Messene a cted as an I n d e ­
pendent state and sent a n embassy to Pyrrhus evidently to ensure
Its safety in the event of his victory. The tradition preserved
In Fausanias that Messene supported Sparta against Pyrrhus seems
Incorrect, for before the invasion of Pyrrhus Messene had been
fighting Sparta ar.d shortly afterwards, at the time of the Chremo-
nidean War, is not found among the Spartan allies.
A n attack made by Messene on Slis must belong to this
general period. The episode Is known through the account of
Pausanlas. The occasion was offered b y civil strife in Ells.
There, a pro-Lacedaemonian p arty had gained control of the city
and was expecting help from Sparta. The Lacedaemonians prepared
a force, but in the meantime a contingent of Messenlans hurr i e d
to Ells. The y h a d marked their shields wit h Iaceda e m o n l a n i n ­
signia, and were admitted by the pro-Lacedaemonian party. Once
in the city the Messenlans promptly overpowered them and handed
the place over to their own adherents. The sequel of the story
is omitted by Pausanlas. The episode best fits the War of Areus,
about 279, whe n Messene and Sparta were in open hostility, but it
is possible that, about 270, in the years immediately following
Pyrrhus’ death an opportunity for Messenlan interference was
found in the disturbance attendant on the Installation of the

18 2
Beloch, Grlechlsche Geschlchte , IV, Part I, 568.
J ustin xxv. 4. 4. T a r n has pointed out that the s e n d ­
ing of envoys does not n ecessarily m e a n that the states in q u e s ­
tion joined Pyrrhus (C A B , VII, 214; Antlgonos G o n a t a s . p. 269,
n . 33).
Paus. I v . 29. 6 . Pausanlas observes that better r e l a ­
tions followed b e t w e e n Sparta and Messene as a result of this aid.
There Is, however, no evidence of good relations b e t w e e n the two
states until both were allies of Aetolla at the time of the First
Macedonian War. Seellger (M e s s e n l e n . p. 6 ) accepts b o t h the n o ­
tice of Justin (xxv. 4. 4) that Messene sent a n emba s s y to Pyrrhus
and that of Pausanlas that help was sent to Sparta, a s c r i b i n g the
change of policy to internal politics. Beloch (Grlechlsche
Geschlchte^, IV, Part I, 575, n. 1) and E h r e n b e r g {'P. M . , Til A,
1424), because of the conflicting evidence, consider the p o s i t i o n
of Messene doubtful.
Paus. lv. 28. 4-6.
pro-Antigonld tyrant Aristotimus.^
The formation of the Peloponnesian League of Areus had
split the Peloponnesian states politically Into two sections.
After the invasion of Pyrrhus the League seems to have been e x ­
tended and strengthened. At the time of the alliance with Athens
just before the Chremonidean War, Slis, Achaea, Caphyae,
menos, Mantinea, Tegea, and Phlgalea were allied to Sparta. 23
Messene, Megalopolis, and Argos remained outside the League.
Thus the lines of political division were drawn almost as they
had been in the period, 369-38 B.C. The combination of Messene,
Megalopolis, and Argos, however, was probably not as strong as at
that time, for Messene, well guarded by Its forts, was satisfied
to remain in security behind them and leave the crushing of Sparta
to Antlgonus. The defeat and the subsequent breaking up of the
League after the war removed the fear of Spartan aggression. Mes­
sene may have been further strengthened by the restoration of the
Ager Denthaliatis.
Thus at the conclusion of the Chremonidean War Messene
probably had Its territory Intact, was Independent, and not m e n ­
aced by any of the Peloponnesian powers. It would feel secure
under the non-aggressive policy of Gonatas, and the expansion of
the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues had not yet begun to disturb the
Feloponnesus. Politically, however, Messene was isolated, except
for the support of Antlgonus, which could be counted on only when
his own interests were directly menaced.
During this period of hostility with 3parta and Elis, Mes­
sene seems to have guarded Its approaches by the construction of
the forts at Giannltza (Calamae), "New" Hlra, and Vounakl (Aulon?).

Seeliger (Messenlen, p. 6 , n. 4) places the episode In
the war of Areus; NIes'e (Geschlchte der grlechlschen und makedonl-
achen Staaten, II, 227-28"]"] after the Invasion of Pyrrhus. Beloch
omits the episode. For Aristotimus see Justin xxvl. 1. 4; P a u ­
sanlas v. 5. 1; vl. 14. 11.

2 3 IG, II2 , 1, 687. 23-25.

Tacitus Annals i v . 43. 4. Antlgonus is said to have
awarded the Ager to Messene. If Gonatas Is meant, the end of the
Chremonidean War was probably the time of the restoration (Khren-
berg', F.-W., Ill A, 1422, 1426). The more usual view is that g
Doaon restored It after Sellasla (Beloch, Grlechlsche Geschlchte ,
IV, Part I, 718; J. V. A. Fine, "The Background o/ the Social War
of 220-217 B.C.," AJP, LXI [1940], 155).
While there is no specific notice in the sources of their c o n ­
struction, the archeological evidence, so far as it has been i n ­
vestigated, supports such a view. The fort at Giannitsa was built
on territory which was added to Messene in 338, and its masonry
has been dated to the third century B.C. By its construction,
control of the Messenlan end of the important pass from Miatra to
G l a n n i t z a was secured. The fort at "New" Hira is dated by the
style of its masonry and the Hellenistic coins and sherds found
there to the period after 369.26 The fort was evidently designed
to protect the border territory of the Neda. Phlgalea had been
drawn into the Spartan orbit by Areus and m a y have been a base
for encroachment on Messenlan territory, for about 240 when Aetolia
mediated a treaty between Messene and Phlgalea some territorial
adjustments were m a d e . 2 7 Similarly the fort on Vounaki, control­
ling the narrow coastal passage from Blls was probably the product
of the hostility between Messene and Elis which would have re-
suited from the letter's alliance with Sparta.

25 F. Noack, "Arne,” Ath. M i t t ., XIX (1894), 481-85.

Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann, Programs sum
Wlnckelmannsfeste. LXXI, 26-30,
IQ, V, 2, 419. 12-15.
28The fort has been investigated b y Valmln, who found
that It was inhabited in the late Hellenistic Period (Bull. L u n d ,
1933-34, p. 11).


After the Chremonidean War, as before, Antlgonus Gonatas

established his control over the Peloponnesus by setting up his
partisans in various cities.^ So long as Macedonian policy was
concerned with Central and Northern Greece, the Aegean, and Asia
Minor, direct control of Messene was of little importance, and
Gonatas acquiesced in the letter's Isolation and neutrality. But
as the encroachments of the Aetolian League and the growth of th«
Achaean League under Aratus gradually loosened the Macedonian
hold Messene became of strategic importance. To Aetolia and late:
to Rome the western states of the Peloponnesus offered a means of
access against the Achaean League. Their possession or alliance
could hold the latter immobile or afford an avenue of attack
against it, while for the Achaean League their incorporation woul:
neutralize this danger.
The repulse of the Gauls In 279 B.C. had started the
Aetolian League on a program of expansion. Through the extenslor.
of their federal citizenship by grants of isopollty to whole
states as well as to individuals, through alliances, and, on oc­
casion, by direct military intervention the influence of the
League was increased. While its main effort was directed toward
Central Greece, excuses were early found for interference in the
Peloponnesus. Not until about 244, however, was intervention
made on a large scale. At that time the traditional Slean claim
on Trlphylia against Arcadia was championed by the Aetolian
League, and troops sent to aid the Sleans. The fort at Samlko
was made their base and the Triphylian towns brought under the

*The evidence for the separate states involved is dis­

cussed by Beloch, Grlechlsche Geschlchte , IV, Part II, 374-76.

^The Aetolians, ca. 270, received the Bleans exiled by

Aristotimus and apparently furnished some military aid for their
restoration (Flacellere, Lea Altollena a Delphes, p. 194).


control of Elis. Marauding expeditions seem to have been made
into Arcadia and some of its towns, Phlgalea, Tegea, Mantinea,
and Orchomenos united with the Aetolian League, apparently by the
bond of isopolity.
Messene evidently saw in the Aetolian League a vigorous
protector against both Sparta and the Achaean League. In addi -
tion, the establishment of Aetolian influence over the territory
along their northern border would have had an intimidating e f ­
fect on the Messenlans. The Aetolians seem to have prepared the
ground for an alliance with Messene as early as 260, for about
that time grants of proxeny and Isopolity were made to Individual
Messenlans.^ This does not seem to have been followed up by an
alliance until about 244 In the course of the Aetolian operations
in Triphylia and Arcadia when an alliance was probably made with
Messene. The Aetolians further consolidated their position In

^Faus. v. 6 . 1; Pol. iv. 77. 9-10; Flacellere, Les A l t o -

llena a Delphes, pp. 239-40; Beloch, Grlechlsche Geschlchte2 , TV,
Part I, 619-20.
Polybius describes the relationship of these statss to
Aetolla as sympolitical in 221 (11. 46. 2; iv. 3. 6 ). Swoboda
takes Polybius' language as used of a common citizenship and i n ­
dicative of a relation based on Isopolity (Busolt and Swoboda,
Grlechlsche Staatskunde. p. 1511, n. 1). A. Aymard observes (Les
premiers rapports de Rome et de la confederation achalenne
[Bordeaux, 1938], p^ 23, ru 41} that it at least permitted the
presence of an Aetolian military official in Phlgalea In time of
peace (Pol. Iv. 3. 7).
5 2
IG, IX , 1, 12. 47: the stone is badly preserved in this
particular place, but judging from the remainder of its contents
a grant of proxeny and lsopollty is made to some Messenlans whose
names are not preserved (272-60 B.C.); 10, IX2 , 1, 17. 7-8, 62:
two Messenlans, Kudaemocles, son of Sudaemon, an d Delnes, son of
Satyrus, are granted proxeny and lsopollty (ca. 262 B . C . ); IG,
IX2 , 1, 18. 16-18: a similar grant to Nicylus, son of NieasTfjpus
(ca. 260 B.C.); the dates are the editor's.

^Polybius observes (Iv. 6 . 11) that In 221 an Aetollan-

Messenian pact had been in existence a long time. The alliance
was probably in effect ca. 240 when Aetolla mediated a treaty of
lsopollty between Phlgalea and Messene (10, V, 2, 419; Dltt.
S yll.5 , 472). In the treaty the relationship between Messene,
Phlgalea, and Aetolla Is described as phi11a (lines 19-20). Thus
It is not clear from the document itself whether a n alliance e x ­
isted or not at the time of the mediation. The vigorous policy
of Aetolla ca. 244 is usually made the occasion for the alliance
(for a recent discussion of this period see F. W. Maibank, "Aratoa 1
Attack on Cynaetha," JUS, LVI [1936], 64-70).

the western. Peloponnesus by mediating a treaty of lsopollty be-

tween Messene and Phlgalea about 240. Thus Messene was linked
closer to Aetolla through the medium of Phlgalea, and citizens of
Messene were enabled to obtain Aetolian citizen rights, albeit by
the indirect method of establishing themselves at Phlgalea first.
The recommendations of the Aetolians to Messene and Fhlg-
alea were drawn up In a decree and sent to Messene. Phlgalean
envoys were present In Messene and both parties accepted the
recommendations and embodied then In an agreement by which mutual
lsopollty and eplgamla were established, territorial disputes
were settled on an utl possidetis basis, provision was made for a
commercial treaty and for a pact on other points of mutual agree­
ment.^ Thus the friction between Messene and Phlgalea was r e ­
moved for the time being and a harmonious bloc under Aetolian In­
fluence established in the western Peloponnesus.
A pretext for further Aetolian Intervention was offered
by internal strife in Sparta. The social reforms, which King
Agis attempted to institute, met with bitter opposition from the
wealthy and by a coup d'etat Leonidas, the other king, established
himself as sole ruler. Many of A gis 1 followers and relatives
were exiled and took refuge In Aetolla. Archidamus, Agis* brother,
went to Messene where a Messenlan merchant, Nlcagoras, was his
host . 1 1 The reception apparently had no political significance,
for Messene did not take up, with the Aetolians, the cause of the

Id, V, 2, 419. The treaty Is dated to ca. 240 by the
IdentlfieaTion of Timaeus, one of the Aetolian envoys mentioned
in It, with the Timaeus who led the raid on Sparta (Pol. iv. 34.
9; ix. 34. 9; Plut. Cleomenes 18. 3). The other envoy whose name
is preserved in the Inscription, Cleopatrus^ Is Identified as a
hleromnemon at Delphi ca. 236/35 by Flacellere (Les Altoliens a
Delphes, p. 402).

8 I0, V, 2, 419. 1-10,

10, V, 2, 419. 21. The document itself is a decree of
the city ~ofMessene (lines 9-10).

1 ®I0, V, 2, 419. 11-20. The territory involved would

probably 5e that on the north slopes of the Phlgalean mountains.

1 1 Fol. v. 37; Plut. Cleomenes 35. Nlcagoras negotiated

with Cleomenes, the son of Leonidas, for the return of Archidamus,
but as soon as the latter came into the hands of Cleomenes he was
killed thus throwing suspicion of collusion in the murder on
Nlcagoras. The latter had his revenge by slandering Cleomenes to
Ptolemy after he had taken refuge In Alexandria.
Spartan exiles nor share In the Aetolian raid Into Laconia, a l ­
though the raid must have been launched from Messenlan territory.
After the death of Antlgonus Sonatas about 239 and the
succession of Demetrius to the throne of Macedonia, common h o s ­
tility to the latter drew the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues t o ­
gether. The Aetolians were occupied In Central and Western Greece
and apparently did not keep up their less Important Peloponnesian
connections. They seem to have made no effort to prevent Pylua
from falling under Achaean control and had been defeated by the
Illyrians at the siege of Medeon, thus failing to check the raids
of the Illyrian privateers on the coasts of Ells and Messenia
which were intensified after Queen Teuta became regent of the
Illyrian kingdom In 2 3 0 . 13 This tended to force Messene into a
position of isolation. At the same time the expansion of the
Achaean League continued. In addition to acquiring Pylus from
Messene the League's incorporation of Megalopolis in 235 gave It
a continuous frontier with Messenia. While Sparta under Cleomenes
roused itself to check this expansion, Cle o m e n e s 1 aim of hegemony
in the Peloponnesus was as dangerous to Messenlan independence as
the growth of the league. Further, his social program seems to
have had repercussions In Messene. For, when Cleomenes captured
Megalopolis in 223, some Messenlan exiles who were staying there
admitted him to the city by night. Just before the Social War

The date of this first encroachment of the Achaean
League on Messene Is unknown, but falls before 220, for at the
meeting of the Hellenic League in Corinth In 220 the Achaean d e l e ­
gates complained that the Aetolians had raided Pylus {Pol. Iv. 25.
4) thus Implying that it was a member of their League (Nlese,
Geschlchte der grlechlschen und m a k e d o n l a c h e n S t a a t e n . II, 411,
n. 1. Nlese also argues that Cyparissla had become a member of
the Achaean League at this period. This seems leas well founded,
infra, p. 94, n. 124). The Achaean charge Is not strictly c o r ­
rect, for the raid was made by Demetrius of Pbarus and Scerdllaldus
(Pol. iv. 16. 6-7; Ix. 38. 8 ) before the latter was co-operating
with the Aetolians whom he Joined on his way back from the raid
(Pol. Iv. 16. 9-11). It is surprising that Pylus should be the
first Messenlan town to become a member of the Achaean League
since it was situated so far from the territory of the League.
Pol. 11. 4. 8-9; 5. 1-2. It was the sacking of the
Epirote town of Phoenlce by these privateers which led to the I n ­
terference of Rome and the first Illyrian War (M. Holleaux, Rome,
la Qrece et les monarchies hellenlstlquea [Paris, 1921], p. 99).

14 Pol. 11. 55. 3.


in 220 Messene la aaid to have been under an oligarchic regime

for some tirae.^ Accordingly it ia probable that the exiles b e ­
longed to the poorer classes of Measene and had been attracted by
Cleomenes* social reforms to attempt some political change, the
failure of which resulted in their banishment. Another Mes-
senian, Tritymallus, acted for Cleomenes as an intermediary with
Aratus when Cleomenes tried to get control of Acrocorinth in

Thus, common hostility to Cleomenes probably had some ef­

fect in drawing Messene closer to the Achaean League. The rela­
tions of Meassne and Megalopolis were traditionally cordial, and
the inclusion of some Messenlans in a proxeny list of Cleitor in-
dicates friendly relations between Messene and that city. Yet,
because of the Achaean occupation of Pylus, close relationship
with the Achaean League must have appeared to the Messenlans as
the lesser of two evils.
There is some evidence of co-operation between Messene
and the Achaaan League in the later years of the Cleomenean War.
When the Megalopolitans were driven from their city by Cleomenes
they took refuge in Messene. Pauaanlas states that Messene
helped the League in the Battle of Sellasia. That is probably
incorrect, for Polybius makes no reference to it in his detailed
account of the battle and does not refer to it in the account of

15 Pol. iv. 32. 1-2.

isThe collusion of the exiles with Cleomenes is suggestive
of their political beliefs, although it is surprising to find
them in refuge at Megalopolis. The Achaean League as well as be­
ing politically opposed to Cleomenes was opposed to his social
reforms (cf. Aymard, Premiers rapports, pp. 32-33).
Plut. Cleomenes 19. 8 ; in Aratus 41. 5 the name Is given
as Tripylus which is probably a corruption of Trityaallua (W. E.
Porter, Pl u t a r c h ^ Life of Aratus [Cork, 1937], p. 78).
IG, V, 2, 368. 46-49, 82-87; the entries on the list ap­
pear to cover a number of years. Most of them are to be dated b e ­
fore 222 since the ethnic Antlgoneus ia found near the end of the
list (line 169; the name of Mantlnea was changed to Antigonea aft­
er the Battle of Sellasia). On the date see H. Swoboda, Zwei
Kapitel aus dam griechische Bundesrecht , 11 Sb. Akad. Wien, CXCIX
(1924), 10.
1 9 Pol. ii. 62. 10; Paus. iv. 29. 8 ; viii. 49. 4; Plut.
Cleomenes 24; Phllopoemen 5.

20 Paus. iv. 29. 9. 21 Pol. ii. 65-69.

M e s s e n e * s entrance to the Hellenic League. ' Measenla Is also
said by Polybius to have been the only Peloponnesian state un-
ravaged In the Cleomenean War. One may be sure, however, that
Aratus would not leave the common ground offered by hostility
against Sparta and the gratitude of Megalopolis untilled. Suf­
ficiently good relations evidently existed between Messene and
the League to be later suggested as a possible excuse for an
Aetolian attack on Messene.
The conclusion of the Cleomenean War In 222 left the
Achaean League as the chief power in the Peloponnesus, although
to achieve that position the League had been forced to a s k M a c e ­
donia's help, and to become a member of the Hellenic League.
Sparta had been incorporated into the Hellenic League after the
Battle of Sellasia but, as events were to prove, was an unwilling
adherent. The independent states of Elis, Messene, and Phigalea
were allied to Aetolia, although the Aetolian-Messenlan ties must
have been weakened by neglect. Aetolia Itself, which had remained
neutral during the war, was surrounded In Central and Northern
Greece by the states of the Hellenic League and was faced w ith
the prospect of losing its hold on the Peloponnesus to the Acha e a n
League. The death of Doson and the accession of the seventeen-

2 2 Pol. Iv. 9. 2; 15. 2; 16. 1.

2 3 Pol. Iv. 5. 5. Fine (AJP. LXI, 155-56) has argued for

the participation of Messene in the Battle of Sellasia. As he
points out, none of the evidence from Polybius is conclusive
against I t ; yet the evidence all points to that conclusion. He
advances the reception of the Megalopolltans in Messene, the p r e s ­
entation of the Ager Denthallatls to Messene by Doson and the c o n ­
sequent hostility of Sparta as strong reasons for Messenian p a r ­
ticipation. While the reception of the Megalopolltans Is i n d i c a ­
tive of a friendly relationship, it need have led to nothing more.
The award of the Ager should scarcely be taken into account since
It Is uncertain whether Doson restored It (s u p r a , p. 64, n. 24).
Sparta, as we have noticed, was probably hostile to Messene
throughout this decade. Accordingly It seems preferable to reject
the statement of Pausanlas, as Is done b y Niese (Geachlchte der
grlechlschen und makedonlschen S t a a t e n , II, 412, ru IT and Walb a n k
(Philip V of Macedon [Cambridge, 1940], p. 24, n. 1).
Pol. iv. 5. 8 . Pausanlas (iv. 29. 7) dates Messene's
entrance Into the Achaean League shortly before the capture of
Megalopolis b y Cleomenes. This, of course, is Incorrect but it
may be that Pausanlas has misunderstood his source w h i c h contained
an allusion to the Improvement in Messeni a n - A c h a e a n r e l a t i o n ­
ships .
year-old Philip V had a catalystic effect on the situation. In
It Aetolia saw an opportunity for aggrandizement, but moved
cautiously. The first move was made In the Peloponnesus against
the Achaean League and Measene was selected as affording the best
opening. Its possession, or at least co-operation, would have
furnished a base against the League and formed a link between
Ells and Sparta which was evidently ripe for secession from the
Hellenic League.2^
An Aetolian official, Dorlmachus, was sent to Phigalea
nominally as military commander. By a program of studied provo­
cation he forced the Messenian government Into taking official
action against him. A band of brigands was allowed to raid Mes
senian territory. When the Messenlans protested, Dorlmachus at
fir^t gave no satisfactory answer, but shortly after went to Mes­
sene ostensibly to settle with those victimized. Again he r e ­
fused to make amends and while he was in Messene another raid was
made on a farm near the city. This stirred the Messenian magis­
trates into taking official action. Dorlmachus was summoned b e ­
fore their college and one, Scyron, proposed that Dorirr.achus be
detained until he promised recompense. He unwisely insulted
Corimachus personally and the latter threatened the Messenlans
with punishment by the Aetolian League. The Messenian magis­
trates, however, persisted In their demand and Dorlmachus was
forced to promise redress.
The Aetollans had thus secured a diplomatic excuse for
further action, but they continued to work indirectly. Dorlmachus

Polybius (iv, 5) sums up all the reasons for Aetolian
aggression after the death of Doson In connection with their I n ­
terference in Messene which, of course, started the train of
events that led to the Social War. His presentation of the events
is marked by a strong anti-Aetolian bias (this is discussed at
some length by Fine, AJP, LXI, 129-65). While the Aetolian method
of privateering contributed to Polybius' presentation of their
acts as unscrupulous looting and banditry, there is more deliber­
ate purpose In their methods than he allows.
Pol. iv. 3. 5-4. Fine I AJP, LXI, 157) has suggested
that Dorlmachus was sent to Phigalea to work against the pro
Achaean party In Messene and try to bring It back under Aetolian
influence. His method of deliberate provocation would scarcely
accomplish this and rather suggests that he was creating an Inci­
dent which could. If Aetolia wished, be magnified into an excuse
for taking reprisals. It challenged the Achaean position of pri­
macy in the Peloponnesus, but only indirectly, through what the
Achaeans would regard as their sphere of influence.

and Scopas, on whom m a n y of the duties of the a t r a t e g u a , Ariston,

had devolved because of the letter's Illness, prepared a raiding
expedition w hich was aimed at Achaea as well aa Messene. At the
same time pri v a t e e r i n g raids were planned in Cent r a l and N o r t h e r n
Greece eviden tly aa feelers to see how far the temper of the H e l ­
lenic League could be tried. In the Peloponnesus they e s t i m a t e d
that the c o - o p e r a t i o n of Elis could be counted on a n d at least
the passivity of Sparta. The p ossibility of A c h a e a n Interference
was minimised, and
It was evidently felt that such Interference
would be Ineffective. Aetolia could, of course, deal w i t h the
Achaean League itself. The danger to be feared was Joint ac t i o n
by the Hellenic League. As events pr o v e d they u n d e r e s t i m a t e d
Aratus' a b i l i t y to influence Philip and the capacity of Philip
The rai d was car e f u l l y timed to a v o i d Acha e a n interference.
In the early spring of 220, p r o bably in April, when the year of
Tlmoxenus as strategus of the A c h a e a n League was ne a r l y up a n d
Aratus had been elected but had not yet taken office, the A e t o l i a n
force crossed the C o r i n t h i a n Gulf at R h i u m and m a r c h e d to Phigalea
through Achaean territory. Patrae, Pharae, and Tritaea were
plundered en route. F r o m Phigalea a sudden rai d was made into
Yesser.la which the Messenlans made no attempt to resist.
Instead Messene seems to have c alculated that the p i l ­
laging of A c h a e a n t e r r i t o r y would draw the League into action.
In the face of a war against Aetolia the A c h a e a n League would
scarcely demand that Messene become a me m b e r of the League. Ac­
cordingly the Messenlans made an a p p l i c a t i o n for aid at the regu-
lar meeting of the synodos of the League hel d In May, complain­
ing that the A e t o l i a n attack was b oth unjust and in v i o l a t i o n of
their treaty wit h Aetolia. At the same time the A c h a e a n states
which ha d been pilla g e d made their complaints. Aratus saw In the
situation an o p p o r t u n i t y for the further e x p a n s i o n of the League's
influence. If he could enlist the support of the Hellenic League

Pol. iv. 5-6. 3.
Pol. I v . 6 . 7-12. The rai d Is cons i d e r e d b y Aymard
(kos assemblies de la confe d e r a t i o n achalenne [Bordeaux, 1938],
P* 253, n. 5") to have started about April 20. The date is o b ­
tained by calculating from the dates of Aratus' e l e c t i o n and a s ­
sumption of office.

Aymard, Les a s s e m b l i e s , pp. 253, n. 6 , 263.

against Aetolia, victory would be likely and Achaean control se­
curely established over the western Peloponnesus. Thus the
synodos responded vigorously to the Messenian appeal, aid was
voted to Messene, and the strategus directed to mobilize the
Achaeans in a general levy to decide on a course of action. Since
the more timid Timoxenus was reluctant to act, Aratus arranged to
take office five days ahead of the normal time and convoked the
levy at Megalopolis.
The levy possessed powers equivalent to those of the r e g ­
ular Achaean synkletos and continued the preparations against
Aetolia. The Messenlans sent a delegation and again begged the
Achaeans not to countenance the wrong done them and also asked
for admission to the Hellenic League. The latter request had to
be referred to Philip as hegemon of the League and to the other
members, but the Achaeans agreed to send aid to Messene if the
Messenian envoys would hand over their sons to Sparta to be kept
as hostages so that Messene would not come to terms without
3 "1
Achaean consent. This stipulation would help to ensure the co­
operation of Sparta, which had already mobilized its forces near
the Arcadian border. It could scarcely be refused by the Mes­
senlans since Sparta was a member of the Hellenic League which
they had asked to Join.
The demand for hostages and the grant of aid may also im­
ply that an alliance was made between Messene and the Achaean
League at the meeting of the levy. Such an alliance is only r e ­
ferred to specifically by the Aetolians at their meeting held

Pol. iv. 9. 1-5. The demand for hostages implies that
Aratus was not as sure of Messenian co-operation as Fine’s view
of the pro-Achaean sentiment in Messene would suggest (Fine, AJP,
LXI, 157). There is no further record of these hostages and it
has been suggested that they were not handed over (A. Ferrabino,
II problems dell 1 unlta nazlonale nella Grecla antlca [Florence,
1921 ]„ T[ 131). Since the surrender of hostages was a condition
of Achaean aid to Messene, and since the aid was given, it seems
probable that the hostages were handed over (Fine, nJP, LXI, 160,
n. 142). ---
Pol. iv. 9. 6 . Polybius' admission of this is made
grudgingly enough. The political effect on Sparta is usually con­
sidered the motivation for Aratus' action (Fine, AJP, LXI, 160:
Walbank, Philip V of Macedon, p. 26). It would tend to weaken
Aratus' hold on Messene, but if it helped to secure Spartan sup­
port the aims of the Achaean League would be furthered.

later In the summer, 33 "but the subsequent acts of the A c h a e a n

League In ordering the Aetollans to evacuate Messenia a n d the
arrangements made for m i l i t a r y co-operation seem to rest on a n
,l i
al , a n c e .34
Aratus n o t i f i e d the A e t o l i a n raid i n g p a r t y of the A c h a e a n
decisions and demanded that they should leave Messenia and not
set foot in A c h a e a n t e r r i t o r y under penalty of b e i n g t r e a t e d as
enemies. T h u s by a v o i d i n g A c h a e a n t e r r i t o r y the A e tolians could
have avoided further complications w i t h the A c h a e a n League. They
chose, however, to offer additional provocation. Although M e s ­
senia was eva c u a t e d the y m a r c h e d home thro u g h League t e r r i t o r y
and when Aratus a t t e m p t e d to c arry out his threat at Caphyae out -
maneuvered and d e f e a t e d him.
A l t h o u g h Aratus had m i s m a n a g e d the m i l i t a r y situation and
was bitterly a t t acked at the next m e e t i n g of the A c h a e a n synodos
1 C
in July, he succeeded in c l e a r i n g hims e l f and the s y n o d o s dealt
with the practical d e t a i l s of aid to Messene and the p r o b l e m of
rousing the Hellenic League agai n s t Aetolia. En v o y s were sent to

3 3 Pol. iv. 15. 9.

The evidence for such a n allia n c e is di s c u s s e d b y Fine
(A J P , LXI, 160, n. 141). He rightly rejects the v iew of F e r r a b l n o
(II p r o b l e m a , I, 129-31) that no aid was g i v e n to Messene and no
alliance made w ith it. Aymard, however, has dis c u s s e d the q u e s ­
tion on the basis of the competence of the A c h a e a n s y n o d o s . If It
was a primary a s s e m b l y w h i c h sotaetlmes i n fringed on the powers
proper to the synkletos (for w hich a n armed levy might substitute)
of declaring war an d m a k i n g a l l iances as A y m a r d holds (Les a s s e m ­
blies , pp. 222-23), the final d e c i s i o n to aid Messene was a p p a r e n t ­
ly taken at the m e e t i n g of the synodos of Aegium, and the details
of method left to the levy at Megalo p o l i s for regulation. If,
however, the synodos Is regarded as not p o s s e s s i n g the power to
make final decisions, the question of a i d to Messene would have
been turned over to the levy to be treated ex lntegro (Beloeh,
Griechlsche O e a c h l c h t e ^ , IV, Part II, 234). So far as the evi-
dence furnished Ijy P o l y b i u s ’ account of the levy is c o n c e r n e d it
seems to point to the correc t n e s s of Beloch's view. The M e s s e n i a n
request for a i d Is a r e i t e r a t i o n of that m a d e to the synodos, a n d
the condition made for g r a nting aid implies that the right to grant
aid was In the control of the levy. Aymard's e x p l a n a t i o n that the
Messenian envoys a t t ended the levy to prevent d e l a y an d see that
no advantage was taken of their nee d Is not e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y
since advantage was taken of their need.
Pol. I v . 9. 7. No specific threat is a t t a c h e d t o the
order to leave Messenia.

For the date see Aymard, Les a s s e m b l i e s , pp. 263-64.

the members of the Hellenic League to ask for aid against Aetolia
and to request Messene's admission to the League. Aratus was di­
rected to mobilize a force of 5,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to
go to the aid of Messene, if the Aetollans should raid it again,
and to make arrangements with Sparta and Vessene for their quota
to the common army. Each was to send 2,500 i.nfantr7 and 250
cavalry. 38

The Aetollans countered this attempt of Aratus to involve

the Hellenic League bv trying to make the Messenian question an
issue between Aetolia and Achaea alone. At an extraordinary 39
meeting of the Aetolian assembly held in the summer it was voted
to maintain peace with Sparta, Messene, and the rest of Oreece,
but with the Achaean League only if the latter would withdraw
from their alliance with M e s s e n e . I n the meantime the applica­
tion of Messene to Join the Hellenic League was accepted, although
Philip, probably in concern over the Rjman-Tllyrian situation, de-
cided to remain at peace with Aetolia. Yet by admitting Messen*

Pol. Iv. 14-15. 4. Ferrabino (II problems. I, 139) rep­

resents the provision to aid Messene as taken In anticipation of
Messene's entrance to the Hellenic League. This is rejected by
Fine who bases It on the Achaean-Messenian alliance (AJP, LXI,
162, n. 147). Aymard in accordance with his general thesis on
the competence of the Achaean synodos (Les assemblees, p. 225)
considers that if the question of Messenian aid was ever treated
ex lntegro it was at this synodos meeting. Yet the decisions of
the synodos seem concerned with ways and means in the light of ar.
existing arrangement rather than with a new decision.

38 Pol. iv. 15. 6 .

39 *
Holleaux, "Sur les assemblees ordinaires de la ligue
aitolienne," BCH, XXIX (1905), 363, n. 2.
Pol. Iv. 15. 8-9. Polybius assails the decision as Ir­
rational as well as unjust, for Aetolia was allied tc both the
Achaean League and Messene, yet sought to prevent an alliance b e ­
tween those two states. The Aetolian alliances, however, althougl
they might be regarded as In effect de lure for Aetolian diplo­
matic convenience had been violated by the raid of Dorlmachus and
Scopas (Fine, AJ P , LXI, 154, n. 110). E. Bickermann ("Les preliml
naires de la seconds guerre de Macedoine," Rev, phll., LXI [1935],
70-71) has argued that Doson made a koine elrene at the time of
the revival of the Hellenic League. As part of his evidence he
cites these alliances (Pol. iv. 15. 10). This view has been r e ­
futed by Larsen ("The Peace of Fhoenice and the Outbreak of the
Second Macedonian War," Cl. Phil., XXXII [1S37], 27, n. 34). In
addition to the remarks of Larsen it might be observed that the
Aetolian alliances with Messene and Achaea were made before the
time of Doson.

41 Pol. iv. 16. 1-3. On the position of Philip at this

3 as a member of the Hellenic League Philip c o n f r o n t e d the A e t o l l a n s
^with a new factor- The risks Involved in a t t acking it w ould be
42 ,
; as *reat as those Involved in attacking the A c h a e a n League. The
Aetollans, p o s sibly c o n s i d e r i n g Philip's refusal to fight over
the provocation alre a d y offered a sign of weakness, a gain raided
‘A c h a e a . 4 ^ Philip r u s h e d to the Peloponnesus, but a r r i v e d too
late t o trap the A e t o l i a n force.
A meet i n g of the Hellenic League was held in C o r i n t h and
44 ,
: It was doclded to make war on Aetolia. Envoys were sent to the
members of the League to have the r e solution r a t i f i e d a n d get
; their consent to p articipate in the war. A n op p o r t u n i t y of
:peaceful settlement was offered to Aetolia by inviting them to a
conference. A l t h o u g h a day was set to meet Fh*lip at R h i u m the
Aetollans excused themselves as unable to act before their a s s e m ­
b l y r.et,4€ When it did meet in the au t u m n Scopas was elec t e d
atrategus thus winning a p p r o v a l for his militant policy.
Hostilities did not commence until the spring of 219, but
^he autumr. was spent in diplomatic a c t i v i t y and organization.
I.'essene, a l t h o u g h the immediate cause of the war, a v a i l e d itself
of the privilege by w hich memb e r s of the Hellenic League could
remain n e u t r a l 4*^ and r e f u s e d to participate until Phigalea was
taken from the A e t o l l a n s . 4 9 The M e ssenian attitude was caused by
the anxiety of the oligarchic, or more p r o p e r l y speaking, timo-
cratic government for its personal property. T h e i r w e a l t h w ould
consist in estates in the fertile M e s senian plains w h i c h h a d b e e n
devastated b y the Aetollans in the spring. The M e s s e n i a n g o v e r n ­
ment seems to have c a lculated the Spar t a n attitude c o r r e c t l y as
favorable to Aetolia and feared to be invaded from two sides at

time see Holleaux, R o m e , pp. 145, 149, n. 1; Tarn, C A H , VII, 765.

42 Pine, A J P . LXI, 163. 4 3 Pol. iv. 16. 11.

4 4 Pol. iv. 25. 5. 4 5 Pol. iv. 26. 2.

4 6 Pol. iv. 26. 3-6. 4 7 Pol. iv. 27. 1.

48The most notable Instance of this Is the n e u t r a l i t y of

the Achaean League at the outset of the Se c o n d M a c e d o n i a n War.
Since the Hellenic League h a d taken the war against A e t o l i a on
itself Messene was called to take part In it as a m e m b e r of that
League, not as a n a l l y of the A c h a e a n League.

4 9 Pol. Iv. 31. 1.

once. On the other hand the Messenian commons were favorable to
war. They had not as much to lose and possibly hoped for some
betterment of their condition. While the action of the Messenia:,
Is difficult to excuse morally, their Immediate political aim of
averting Aetolian aggression without losing their own independent
to the Achaean League had been achieved.
The Messenian excuse for refusing to Join In the war waa
removed by the surrender of Phigalea to Philip as a result of his
successful campaign in Triphylia in the autumn of 2 1 9 . In the
spring campaign of 218 Messene is found acting in co-operation
with the Hellenic League. Evidently the pressure of public opin­
ion and the different military situation prompted their entrance
into the war. Whether this resulted in a change of government Is
not clear, but a new name is prominent at this period, that of
Gorges, the most prominent athlete of his day and a member of an
Important and wealthy family in Kessene. He Is mentioned as hea:
ing the envoys to Philip In Cephallenla later in the year.
Polybius' praise of Gorgos' political career 53 and his observa­
tion that the Messenian commons was anxious for war against Aetol.
have been interpreted as Indicating that Gorgos modified the Mes-
senlan oligarchical government. Certainly Polybius' praise is
suggestive, but Gorgos would seem to have been a member of the
oligarchy from his birth and wealth so that probably nothing

Pol. iv. 31. 2; 32. 1. Polybius offers an analysis oi
Messenian history at this point In his narrative (iv. 32-33) mak­
ing Messenian policy a simple choice between Sparta and Megal­
opolis throughout the course of its history. He seems to be in­
fluenced by local patriotism as usually more factors were in­

51 Pol. iv. 79. 5-8. 52 Pol. v. 5. 2-5.

53 Pol. vii. 10. 2-5; Paus. vl. 14. 11.

Seeliger, Messenlen, pp. 11-12. Seellger's general
view is reasonable, but his suggestion that it was Gorgos' i n ­
fluence which kept Messene from declaring for Aetolia when Sparts
went over to their aide in 219 goes beyond the evidence. The
party cleavage In Messene was evidently more complicated than a
simple pro- and anti-Achaean division. The primary interest of
the commons as elsewhere in the Peloponnesus would have been In
social reform.

This is pointed out by Walbank, Philip V of Macedon,

p. 72, n. 3. It is possible, of course, that in spite of Gorgos
social position he may have been a leader of the commons.

more than a change of personnel In the magistracies is indicated.

In the spring of 218 Philip had decided to press the war
by sea and attack Cephallenla which served as an Aatollan base
for raids. Ships were requested from Messene and dispatched
to Cephallenla where they took part in the unsuccessful siege
of Palus. In the msantime Lycurgus had invaded Messenia from
Sparta. Messenian envoys, among whom was Gorgos, went to
Cephallenla to ask for aid from Philip. Philip, however, kept
the larger Issue of Aetolia In mind and went himself to the aid
of the Acarnanians, directing Eparetus, the Achaean strategus, to
aid the Messenlans. Either the aid was effective or the Mes-
senians coped with the situation themselves, for Lycurgus returned
to Sparta without accomplishing anything of Importance.
Later In the year Philip turned his attention to the P e l o ­
ponnesus. The allies were directed to assemble at Tegea for an
invasion of Laconia. The Messenlans enthusiastically sent their
best troops, 2,000 Infantry and 200 cavalry, to Tegea, but the
force arrived late. To avoid the suspicion of having deliberately
delayed en route it was decided to advance Into Laconia to join
Philip. Accordingly they started off from Tegea with the i n t e n ­
sion of entering Laconia from the Cynuria region of Argos. Camp
was pitched outside the walls of a small town called Glympeis In
the border district und no precautions taken. When Lycurgus heard
of this he attacked at dawn. The Messenlans hastily took refuge
in the town and lost only eight cavalrymen, but almost all their
equipment and horses. Thus they returned home to Messene after
Lycurgus' departure and made no attempt to Join Philip.
Messenia was Invaded again early in the next campaigning
season, that of 217. Pyrrhias, an Aetolian general, had been
stationed In Elis during the winter and had arranged with Lycurgus
for simultaneous raids from the north an d e a s t . ® 4 Accordingly

56 Pol. v. 2. 1-3. 57 Pol. v. 3. 3.

58 Pol. v. 4. 4-5. 59 Pol. v. 5. 1.

60 Pol. v. 5. 2-5.
6 X
Pol. v. 5. 5-11. For a discussion of the Intrigue In-
■volved in Philip's decision see Walbank, Philip V of Macedon.
p. 53. *---------------

62 Fol. v. 17. 1. 63 Pol. v. 20. 64 Pol. v. 91. 3.

Pyrrhias startec. down through Elis as Lycurgus left Sparta. I:
the meantime Aratus advanced to Megalopolis with some mercenarie:
and picked Achaean troops. The Messenians, however, beat off the
invaders themselves. Lycurgus crossed Taygetus, probably by the
Mistra-Giannitza route and took Calamae by treachery, then ad­
vanced north through the lower plain to meet Pyrrhias. Pyrrhias,
however, had started with only a light force and as he entered
Messenian territory was defeated and turned back by the Cyparis-
67 68
sians. Lycurgus made an ineffectual attempt on Andania and
then withdrew to Sparta. To guard against such forays in the
future Aratus arranged with Taurion, Philip's general in the Pel:
ponnesus, and the Messenlans for each to provide a force of fifty
cavalry and five hundred Infantry as a border patrol. No fur­
ther action is reported in the war on the part of Messene. The
state must have participated in the Peace of Naupactus which ter
mlnated hostilities in the autumn of 217 on an utl possidetis be
sis. Whether Sparta retained Calamae, which Lycurgus had taken
in the early summer is unknown.
At the conclusion of the Social War in 217 Messene was
definitely within the sphere of influence of the Achaean League.
The Messenians had incurred an obligation by asking for and r e ­
ceiving Achaean aid and by becoming members of the Hellenic Leap
through the recommendation of Achaea. In addition, they were
probably bound to the latter by a treaty of alliance. In the
practical conduct of the war in the Peloponnesus Philip had left
the direction of affairs in the hands of the Achaean strategus
when he was not present himself. Eparetus had been directed to
help Messene against Lycurgus in 218, and Aratus in 217 had ar­
ranged that Messenian troops should act as a border patrol. Thu:

65 Pol. v. 92. 2. ^®Fol. v. 92. 3-4; see Appendix II.

67 Pol. v. 92. 5. ®®Pol. v. 92. 6 ; supra, p. 7, n. 16.

69 Pol. v. 92. 7-9.

79Kolbe (IG, V, 1, p. 258) considers that Calamae remaine.

Spartan. Valmin Tstudes, p. 27, n. 42; but see p. 55) follows
him In citing the inscription, _IG, V, 1, 1369, as evidence that
It remained Spartan. That Inscription states that a Spartan re­
siding in Calamae was honored by the Spartan government. The in­
scription Is undated and in any case scarcely proof of Spartan r«
tentlon of the fort. On the whole it seems probable that It was
returned to Messene, for It is not reported as claimed by the
Messenlans at any time (e.g., after the defeat of Nabls in 195).
the Achaean League had established its Influence over Messene
even If the latter remained politically Independent and outside
the League, a n d the control was not legally defined.
The party troubles In Messene, of which there were hints
at the time of the capture of Megalopolis In 223 and during the
Social War, came to open stasis In 215-14. The details are ob-
acure but the dissension was evidently social In origin as It
seems to have resulted In a confiscation and redistribution of
property with an extension of the franchise. W h e n the stasis
broke out, Philip,
who happened to be in the Peloponnesus, possl-
bly to make the best of such an opportunity, and Aratus started
for Messene to offer their services as mediators. Philip arrived
one day ahead of Aratus and inflamed the situation by appearing
to favor each party, asking the magistrates, evidently timo-

7 "*
xFor the date see Seellger, Me s a e n l e n , p. 13, n. 12;
Holleaux, R o m e , p. 197, n. 4; T. W a l e k - C z e r n e c k l , "La chronologic
de la premiere guerre de Macedoine," R e v . p h l l ., LIV (1928), 7.
The account of Polybius (vll. 10. 1; 12; 13. 6-7; 14.
2, 5) Is fragmentary and that of Plutarch (Aratus 49-50) more c o n ­
cerned with the picturesque Incident on M t . Ithome than its a n t e ­
cedents or results. Plutarch's source for the life of Aratus
from chapter 47 to the end is apparently Polybius (Porter,
Plutarch's Life of A r a t u s , pp. xlx-xx).
Pol. vll. 10. 1. The fragment Is from Suldas with no
indication as to where in Polybius It should be placed. The e d i ­
tors have placed It with the fragments In Bk. VII which mention
the stasis of 215-14, but its sequence Is obscure. Seellger
(Measenlen, p. 12, n. 10, and p. 13) places It as a sequel to
the massacre of 215-14. This has been accepted by the more r e ­
cent writers. Nlese, however (Geschlchte der grlechlschen und
makedonlschen Staa t e n , II, 470) considers that stasis broke out
soon after the Peace of Naupactus and Inserts tfTe passage as p r e ­
liminary to the events of 215-14. S e e l l g e r 1s reconstruction Is
preferable, for the governing party at the time of Philip's I n ­
tervention was evidently timocratlc.
Philip had concluded his treaty with Hannibal in 215
and was on the eve of war with Rome. Accordingly he would desire
to have the Peloponnesus quiet. Possession of Ithome would have
driven a wedge between Slis and Sparta, the pro-Aetolian states
of the Peloponnesus and have prevented Aetolia from making c a p i ­
tal out of Messene's political troubles (Holleaux, Rome, pp. 197-
98; CAH, VIII, 120-21; Walbank, Philip V of M a c e d o n T ~pp. 72-73).
Pol. vll. 13. 6 ; Plut. Aratus 49. 3.
Plutarch (Aratus 49. 4) uses the word strategoi. Seellger
(M e s senian. p. 12, n“ 10) has suggested that after the Social War
there was a constitutional change in the government which is lndi-
cratlc. If they did not have laws to enforce against the people
and the demagogues if they could not use violence against their
"tyrants .'1 Encouraged by this, the magistrates attempted to ar­
rest the demagogues, who Incited the commons to violence. The
magistrates and about two hundred other citizens were killed by
On the following day Aratus and his son arrived in Mes­
sene. The younger Aratus bitterly attacked Philip for his con­
nivance in the massacre. Their meeting took place in the theater
from where the party went up Ithome to Inspect it and offer sac-
rifice. Access to the citadel was apparently Philip's price
for co-operation with the demagogues, and he held possession ol
it with his troops while he sacrificed. Over the entrails of
the victims Philip asked if they indicated whether he should hold
the citadel or withdraw. Demetrius of Pharus, who had accompanie;
Philip to Messene, advised him to hold it as Ithome with Acro-
corinth would give him control of the Peloponnesus. Aratus, how­
ever, advised him not to garrison it as that would alienate the
loyalty of the other Peloponnesians. Aratus 1 tacit threat pr e -
vailed and Philip withdrew from Ithome.
Thus Messene was again indebted to Aratus. The latter,

cated by the use of the word strategoi instead of the ephors men­
tioned in connection with the events of 220 (Fol. Iv. 4. 2; 31.2
In this he Is followed by Walbank (Philip V of Macedon, p. 72,
n. 3) with the reservation that It does not Imply a complete
change from oligarchy to democracy. Aside from the question,
whether Plutarch has copied Polybius correctly, there is the a d ­
ditional problem of the application of the term. There is noth­
ing to Indicate that strategoi have replaced the ephors as the
main magisterial boarci^ for 7 In a crisis such as tnis, one would
expect to find military officials in charge of affairs.

7 7 Plut. Aratus 49. 4-5; Pol. vll. 12. 9; 13. 7 ; 14. 2, 5.

The Polybian tradition Is markedly hostile to Philip so that his
responsibility for the massacre may have been much less than rep­
Plut. Aratus 50. 1-3.
Pol. vii. 12. 1. The proestotes of the city are evi­
dently the demagogues of the previous day; Seellger (Messenian,
p. 13, n. 12) suggests that they may have been elected to office
in the theater on the day cf Aratus 1 arrival.

80 Pol. vii. 12. 7.

Pol. vii. 12; Plut. Aratus 50. 4-10; Strabo viii. 4. 8.

however, would be disturbed at Philip's attempt to Interfere In a

state within the sphere of Achaean Influence and p r o bably regarded
the new Messenian government with suspicion. Possibly Philip
counted on the continued support of the commons to hold Messene
for him. In Messene Itself the situation continued tense. The
property of the tlmocrats who had been killed or exiled was d i s ­
tributed and the franchise extended. This was endured wit h dif-
flculty by those of the tlmocrats who remained there.
Whether Fhlllp's adherents in Messene did not support him,
or whether he desired a more direct control, is not clear, but he
soon again attempted to get control of Ithome, both through D e -
metrius of Fharus and by his own efforts. According to Pausanlas,
who 1 3 probably incorrect In this detail, Demetrius landed his
force In the Argolld and marched across the Peloponnesus without
news of his approach preceding him to Messene. The force reached
the city at dawn and scaled a section of the wall between the
houses and the cliff of Ithome. The inhabitants woke up to find
troops In the city, but rallied to attack them both down from
Ithome and among the houses. The Macedonians were worsted in the
street fighting, in which the women threw down tiles on them, and
sought refuge on Ithome. As the soldiers scrambled up the cliff
many were pushed off and killed. In the attack Demetrius lost
his life,
Philip himself tried late In 214 to gain possession of
Ithome on some pretext. Failing In that he devastated the coun-
tryside. Possibly Philip was acting In support of the exiled

Pol. vii. 10. 1; s u p r a , p. 81, n. 73.
Paus. Iv. 29. 1-5; 32. 2. Pausanlas' account contains
several errors: Demetrius of Pharus Is confused with Demetrius,
the son of Philip; the account Is Incorrectly placed before the
Invasion of Laconia b y Pyrrhus In 272; the raid is m o t i v a t e d
merely as an attempt to gain booty; the d eath of Demetrius Is
omitted (it Is vouched for b y Fol. ill. 19. 11 = viii. 8 a).
It Is uncertain when the raid of Demetrius should be dated.
Seellger (M e s s e n l e n . p. 14, n. 14), Holleaux (R o m e , p. 202, n. 3),
and Walbank (Philip V of M a c e d o n , p. 78, n. 3) place It before
Philip's second attempt. Wiese, wit h lees p robability (Geschlchte
dei- grlechlschen und make don lschen S t a a t e n , II, 471-72), puts It
after Philip's attempt.

8 4 Pol. viii. 8 . 1; viii. 12. 1; Plut. Aratus 51. 2. The

passage of Liv y (xxxii. 21. 23) recording the mu r d e r of Philip's
Cyparisslan host is usually placed in connection w ith this episode,
although Walbank (Philip V of M a c e d o n , p. 79) places it in 216.
tlmocrats, but party conditions In Messene become obscure after
the brief flash of 215-14. By his devastation of the country
Philip had committed a warlike act against one of his allies,
for Messene was still a member of the Hellenic League. It estrang*
Messene also from the Achaean League and produced such a violent
revulsion of feeling that the Messenians went over into the oppo­
site camp. Thus Aratus* careful work in extending the influence
of the Achaean League to Messene was In vain, and at the outset
of the First Macedonian War the city was ranged with the League's
enemies. The personal bitterness of the Messenlans against Phlii.
may be gauged from the scathing attacks of the poet Alcaeus.
In reaction to the attack of Philip Messene allied itself
again with Aetolia. The alliance was probably made in 213 shortl-
before the First Macedonian War began, although there Is no
reference to It until the Aetollans were rousing their Felopon-
neslan allies to action In 210. The Messenian price for their
alliance vas probably a pledge by the Aetollans to regain Pylus
for them from the Achaean League since Aetolia made that one of
the conditions of peace at the conference at Aeglum In 209. 89
The Aetolian alliances with the Peloponnesian states were defen­
sive, obliging them to send aid in the case of invasion of their

The psychological change in Philip's character is con­
nected with these Messenian episodes by the ancient sources.
Polybl us places only a moral Interpretation on the actions of
Philip (for discussion see Walbank, Philip V of Macedon, pp. 74-
75, 79).
Seellger, Messenlen, pp. 14-16. The poems are to be
found: Antholosla Qraeca, trans. W. R. Paton (London, 1916-18),
vii. 238, 247 TPlut. Tl~tus 9); ix. 518-19; x l . 12; xvl. 5-6.
Holleaux, Rome, p. 203, n , 3.
Pol. ix. 30. 6 . Messene is not mentioned among the
Aetolian allies in the Roman-Aetolian treaty (Livy xxvi. 24. 9).
Whatever the date of that treaty, 212 or 211 (G. De Sanctis,
Storla del Romani [Torino, 1907--], III, Part II, 440-42; Walbank.
Philip V of Macedon, pp. 301-4, for discussion) it at least pre­
ceded the Aetolian embassy to the Peloponnesus since It is r e ­
ferred to in the speech of Chlaeneas (Pol. ix. 30. 7). Thus the
omission of Messene from the list of Aetolian allies may Indicate
that the date of the alliance falls between the Roman-Aetolian
alliance and the Aetolian embassy to the Peloponnesus (Seeliger,
Messenlen, p. 16). Otherwise one must assume that the name of
Messene was omitted by Livy.
B9Livy xxvii. 30. 13; Holleaux, Rome, p. 203, n. 3.
allies' territory.
The Messenian part in the First Macedonian War was small.
Its strategic position, with that of Sparta and Elis, was of
value In holding the Achaean League In check, but the only r e ­
ported action of Its troops, or possibly mercenaries which It
hired, was the garrisoning of Delphi about 207-6 toward the end
of the war when the Aetollans were hard pressed by Philip. Two
detachments of Messenlans were sent, apparently at short Inter­
vals, the first under Mnasagoras and Damocrates, the second under
Xer.aretus and Epichares. In return for this aid the Delphians
granted proxeny to the cormnandIng officers and voted official
thanks to the Messenlans making them "Euergetae of the sanctuary
ar.d the city."
The Roman failure to support Aetolia forced the latter to
conclude peace with Philip in 20C. It is probable that Messene
and the other Peloponreslan allies shared in the peace, for it
would scarcely be possible for them to continue the war without
Aetolian and Roman aid, particularly since Sparta had been d e -
feated at M a n t 1n e a .~^
A clause
of the Aetollan-Roman treaty had provided that
the Ireek allies of Aetolia could become allied to Rome. Mes­
sene was not Included in the list of Aetolian allies given by
LIvv in the treaty whether by his Inadvertence or because their
alliance with Aetolia had not then been made. The y evidently did.

Pol. x v 1. 15. 5.

■'1 Colln, Foul lie s de D e l p h e s , Vol. Ill, Fa sc. IV, Nos. 21-
24 (Ditt. Syll . ~ 5 5 5 - 5 6 ) . The four decrees are dated to the
same period because of their verbal similarity and because the
name of the b o u l e u t e s , Lysiraachus, occurs in three of them, Nos.
cl, 23-24. ?FKe enu of the war seems the most plausible date since
at that time Aetolia was Invaded b y Philip and would need troops
fFol. x i . 7. 2; I,ivy xxxvi. 31. 11). For a discussion of the
date of the Delphic archon Alexeas, preserved In Nos. 23-24, see
Flacellere, Lea Aitollens a D e l p h e s , pp. 305, n. 2, 490-91.
The relative order ia determined by the respective p o ­
sition of the decrees on the base of the Messenian monument.
Holleaux, R o m e , pp. 254-57, 262-63. Holleaux points
out that the Aetolian alliance with the Peloponnesian states was
in effect in 201 at the time of Nabis* attack on Messene (Pol.
xvi. 13. 3). The persistence of the alliance is an Indication
that they had Joined Aetolia In m a k i n g peace In 206.
Livy xxvl. 24. 8-9.

however, make an alliance with Rome during the First Macedonian

War. Flamininus in the negotiations with Nabls In 195 stated
that Rome had concluded an alliance with Messene at the same time
as that with Sparta and most scholars, whatever their views on
the duration of the alliances, have agreed that Rome became formal
ly allied to the Peloponnesian allies of Aetolia during the war.^
In 205, the year following the Aetolian-Macedonlan peace,
Rome also came to terms with Macedonia in the Peace of Phoenlce.
Its conventions were made between Rome and Macedonia only, but
In the account of Livy a list of states is added to the treaty by
each party (foederl adscriptl). The problem of whether the addi­
tion of these states is correct and If so In what quality they
were added has been the subject of much discussion. Among the
adscriptl of Rome are Elis, Sparta, and Messene. If they are
rightly added it indicates that Rome retained a means of Inter­
fering in Greek politics through their interests whether they are
to be regarded as allies with a formal treaty, as seems probable,
or as third parties to the Roman-Macedonian agreement which would,
In effect, guarantee their territory. For the Messenians it

De Sanctis, Storla del Romani, III, Part II, 436, n. 94
(who refuted the view of E. TSubler, Imperlun Romanum [Leipzig,
1913], I, 214-15, that as Aetolian allies these states would not
become allies of Rome); Holleaux, Rome, p. 261; Larsen. "Was Greece
Free between 196 and 146 B.C.," ClTPhTl., XXX (1935), 210; Aymard,
Premiers rapports, p. 73, n. 26; A. Beuss, "Die vftlkerrechtllchen
Grundlagen der rSmischen Aussenpolitik in republlkanischer Zelt,”
Kilo, Belheft XXXI (1933), 39, considers this provision for e n ­
abling Aetolian allies to become allies of Rome understandable In
that the Roman-Aetolian alliance was temporary and made only for
the war against Philip. That question ia involved with the prob­
lem of the foederl adscriptl of the Peace of Phoenlce. If the
adscriptl were added in the quality of allies the alliances were
permanent, not temporary (Larsen, Cl. Phil., XXX, 199, n. 30).
Livy xxlx. 12. 8-16; Appian, Hlstorla Romana, ed.
P. Viereck and A. Roos (Leipzig, 1939), Macedonioa 3. 4.
Livy’s account la considered to have been mainly based
on Polybius, but to show traces of annalistic tradition or of his
own invention. The list of foederl adscriptl (Livy xxlx. 12. 14)
is on its face suspect, for "Ifabis Lacedaemoniorum tyrannus" would
scarcely be used in a formal document (for a discussion of the
list from this point of view see Holleaux, Rome, pp. 259-60).
The Indications of tampering are not sufficient to condemn It and
the recent discussion of the problem has been along the lines of
historical evidence and of Juridical practice. The question is
complicated by the consideration that In this period Rome was
dealing directly with the Greek states for the first time end Its

would m e a n that they were entitled to R o m a n protection. Whether

Rome would feel disposed to extend it or was in a p o s ition to do
30 , was, of course, another matter.
Thus, at the end of the First Macedonian Wa r in 205, Mes­
sene, although it ha d been on the losing side, might seem to have
a fairly strong diplomatic position. It had defensive a l l iances
with Aetolia, SpartR, and £lls and appar e n t l y was an a lly of Rome.
Actually, however, It was almost isolated. The separate peace
made by Aetolia and the Inclusion of the other three states by
Rome In the Peace of Phoenlce must have weakened the A e t o l i a n
bloc considerably, for Aetolia was the d r i v i n g force be h i n d it.
Then, Rome probably regarded the alliances w ith the Peloponnesian
states as diplomatic weapons rather than obligations to def e n d
the latter. Of the Peloponnesian states themselves, Sparta, under
Nabis, was again In the throes of a social revolution and a m b i ­
tious of re-establishing its h e g emony in the Peloponnesus.
In 201 Nabis considered the time ripe for action. Mace­
donia was busied In Asia Minor and Rome was e v i d e n t l y more con­
cerned with that than with Peloponnesian affairs. A c c o r d i n g l y in

legal practices a n d concepts were different from those of the

Greeks. Holleaux (Rome, pp. 261-65) rejects the Peloponnesian
states as allies, chiefly on the grounds that, as they were i n ­
cluded In the Aetolian peace in 206, they, like the Aetollans,
forfeited their Roman alliances. He is followed b y A y m a r d (Pr e ­
miers rapports, p. 73, n. 26) and W a l b a n k (Philip V of Macedon,
p. 101, n. 3, and p. 103, n. 6 ). Larsen (Cl. P h i l . , XXX, 210-12)
argues that the Peloponnesian states had permanent formal treaties
of alliance with Rome citing as specific evidence Livy (xxxiv. 32.
16) where Flamininus states that Sparta and Messene were R oman
soc11 when Nabis attacked Messene In 201, a n d Polybius (xviii. 42.
7). The latter passage records the objection made b y the senate
to the Achaeans when they applied for an alliance, namely, that
some Roman allies, Ells and Messene, h a d claims against the
Achaean League. The passage proves that In 196 Rome regarded Its
alliances with Elis and Messene as In effect. W h e n considered
with the statement of Flamininus w h i c h shows that the alliances
were regarded as in effect in 201 it seems probable that Larsen's
view should be adopted. Of the older treatments, Tftubler, Tmperlum
R o m a n u m . I, 214-15, rejects the list completely; De Sanctis,
Storla del R o m a n i , III, Part II, 436-39, accepts It. Blcke r m a n n
(R e v . p h l l ., Lxl, 59-73) has a n a lyzed the tr e a t y f rom a Juridical
viewpoint" and concluded It was a b i l a t e r a l pact b e t w e e n M a cedonia
and Rome to w h i c h the adscriptl w ere added as third parties. Its
political effect w ould be that of a koine elrene. The practical
consequences of the treaty regarded f r o m that"point of view are
not unlike those w hich follow from Larsen's, but the view of the
legal position of the adscriptl Is, of course, quite different
(Larsen, C l . Phi 1 .. XXXII, 16, 25-28).

violation of all the alliances by which he was bound with Mes­

sene, directly or indirectly, Nabis made a sudden raid on the
city. It is usually considered that he seized the occasion of
some internal quarrel to intervene as had Philip and Aratus In
215-14. ~ The raiding party left Thalamae, travelled up the
coast past Pharae to the Paoisus and through the lower plain to
Messene. Nabis succeeded In getting control of the city, but
not Ithome. * ihilopoemen, who was In Megalopolis, probably saw

Pol. xvi. 13. 3; Livy xxxiv. 32. 16. Not too much
weight should be placed on the force of the alliances binding the
Aetolian bloc. As in connection with the Aetolian alliances of
22C, Polybius is concerned to point out the moral guilt of the
aggre ss o r .
De Sanctis, Storla del homanl, IV, Part I, 72 : Aymard,
Premiers rapports, p. 41, n. 56; Bhrenberg (P.-W., XVI, 1475) sug-
gests that Nabis sought to recover the Ager DenthaliatIs. C e r ­
tainly that would have followed from his success, but it is prob­
able, as Aymard points out, that his general aim was the hegemony
of the Peloponnesus to which the Messenian attack was preliminary.
The sources (Flut. Philopoemen 12. 4-6; 19. 2; Paus. iv. 29. 10;
viii. 50. 5; Pol. xvi. 13. 3; Zeno quoted In Pol. xvi. lt-17;
Livy xxxiv. 32. 16; 35. 6 ; Ditt. Syl1 ■“ , 595. 3;, fragmentary as
they are, stress the surprise element in the attack and give no
hint of Internal disturbance In Messene.
Polybius (xvi. 16. 2-9) criticizes only that portion of
Zeno's account, which gives the first part of Nabis' route as
from Sparta to Sellasia and thence to Thalamae. Seellger tM e s -
senlen, p. 17) and Niese (Geschlchte der grlechlschen und mane-
donlschen Staaten, II, 566") nT 5 1 have suggested that the march
to Sellasia was a feint. If this Is so Nabis could have arrived
at Messene faster by taking one of the more northern routes across
Taygetus. While the route via Thalamae is not the fastest it mav
have been the most convenient since Messene probably controlled
the Mistra-Giannltza route by the fort at Calamae (supra, p. 15).
The oracle at Thalamae would have furnished Nabis with a pretext
for going there.

^^Paus. viii. 53. 5. There are several contradictions

between the accounts of Pausanlas and Plutarch (Phil. 12. 4-6).
The time interval between the arrival of Nabis and that of Philo-
poemen is indicated (nor specifically) as greater in Ilutarch
than Pausanlas. Pausanlas states that Nabis departed from Mes­
sene under truce while Plutarch emphasizes the hastiness of his
departure before the arrival of Philopoemen. In this episode in
his account of Philopoemen, then, Pausanlas must have drawn upon
a different source than the life of Philopoemen wnich furnished
the material for most of Pausanlas' account (H. Nlssen, K r 1t1sche
Untersuchungen liber die Quelien der vierten und filnfter. Dekade
des Llvius [Berlin, 1863 ], pp. 537-96). The source does not ap-
pear to have teen Polybius' History, for Plutarch's Philopoemen
(drawn from Polybius' Biography of Philopoemen) apparently agrees
with Polybius' criticism of Zeno In the detail of Nabis' departure
In the situation an opportunity for the Achaean League to recover
its influence over Measene. He held no official position in the
League at the time but, when he failed to persuade Lysippus, the
s t r a t e g u s , to send aid, recruited some Megalopolitans on the spot
and dashed off to Messene. As he approached Nabis h u r r i e d l y de -
parted through the opposite gate and escaped to Sparta with the
booty he had had time to acquire. As much of it aa could be r e c o g ­
nized by its owners was recovered by the Messenians after the d e ­
feat of Nat is ty Flamininus in 195.
The Messenians seem to have made no attempt to follow up
the attack by calling on their Aetolian and Elean allies for s u p ­
port. Apparently it was felt that any attempt to rouse them would
fail since the Achaean League itself soon became involved in war
against Nabis. Aetolia would scarcely desire to ally Itself with
the Achaean League against Sparta which was a more valuable ally
than Messene. Messene, too, would feel no desire for a closer
relationship with the Achaean League, which already held Pylus
and probably Aslne and showed too keen an interest in Messenian

through the opposite gate by which Philopoemen w ould enter (Pol.

xvi. 17. 3; Plut. Phi 1 . 12. 6 ). Polybius' criticism is directed
only against Zeno's designation of the gate, so that Nabis' hasty
departure evidently formed part of the Polybian tradition. As
such it is to be preferred to P a u s a n l a s 1 version that Nabis d e ­
parted under truce. Aymard has pointed out that there is other
material in P a u s a n l a s ’ notices of Nabis, additional to that in
Plutarch, but has not identified Pausanlas' source (Premiers r a p ­
ports, p. 40, n. 53, and p. 303, n. 48). RUhl ("Der letzte Kampf
der AchMer gegen N a b i s , ” Jahrb. f. cl. P h i l ., CXXVII [1383], 41-
42) and Seellger (M e s s e n l e n , p^ T T , n~. 21) had suggested that
Pausanlas drew directly from Polybius.
Flut. Phil. 12. 6 . Polybius (xvi. 17. 3) identifies
the gate by which Nabis \eft as, the "Tegeate" gate rejecting Zeno's
description of it as 'S'7 f * • P h i l o p o e m e n ’s route would
have been across the upper plain to the Arcadian Gate. Since
Nabis was in a hurry he would probably take the fastest route to
Sparta, that w hich led out of Messene by the gate on the saddle
between Eva and Ithome. That gate, then, called by modern s c h o l ­
ars the Laconian Gate, should, if we follow Polybius, be properly
called the "Tegeate" Gate.
103., , _e _
Livy xxxiv. 35. 6 .
Aslne was claimed by Messene from the Achaean League
in 1S6 (Pol. xvlii. 42. 7} which furnishes an ante quem date for
its loss. It Is not mentioned in the claim made by Aetolia for
Messene In 209 at Aegium. Accordingly Niese has suggested (Ge-
schlchte der grlechlschen und makedonlachen S t a a t e n . II, 6467_n. 4)
^ was taken by the Achaean League Tn the latter part of the
affairs. Thus, so far as Messene was concerned, It seems to
have preferred to let the matter drop.
During the Second Macedonian War the Achaean League after
an anxious weighing of the pros and cone of the situation threw
In Its lot with Rome. Thus at the close of the war, Rome, as
the new arbiter of Greece, was confronted with a very complex
Peloponnesian problem. Messene and Elis had been allied to Rome
since the beginning of the First Macedonian War about 212, but,
because of their small size and geographical position, had been
of no use In the Second and had taken no part in It. They had
suffered from the territorial encroachments of the Achaean League
and felt their independence menaced by It. The League was press­
ing Rome for a formal alliance. Nabis of Sparta, also a Roman
ally, had challenged the position of the League, and between him
and Messene was the unsettled account of the raid of 201. All
tried to get what they could out of the situation.
Ells made a claim to the Senate for the restoration of
Triphylla, Messene for Asine and Pylus. The situation was compli
cated by an Aetolian claim on Heraea. Rather than deal with the
problem Itself, the Senate deferred action on the Achaean alli­
ance pending these claims and referred their settlement to the
Board of ten commissioners which had Just been appointed to set
the affairs of Greece in order under Flamininus' management.
The commissioners preferred the claims of the Achaean League.
Triphylla and Heraea were awarded to it and presumably Asine and
Pylus also. Thus Rome had chosen to support the League as

First Macedonian War. Aymard (Premiers rapports, p. 13, n. 6) has

refuted the view of Kolbe (IG, V, p~I 273) that Asine became a
member of the Achaean League during the Second Macedonian War. As
in the case of Pylus, it is surprising to find a town so remotely
situated from the League becoming a member.

^^Aymard, Premiers rapports, p. 41, n. 57; p. 28, n. 6.

*°®Aymard, Premiers rapports, chap. 1, has Investigated

ths motives of their action in minute detail.
Larsen, C l . Phi 1 ., XXX, 211; Aymard, Premiers rapports,
p. 139, n. 25.

108Pol. xv111. 42. 7.

Pol. xviil. 47. 10; Livy xxjtiii. 34. 9. The text of
Polybius has been supplemented from Livy. Asine and Pylus are
not mentioned, but it seems probable that their possession by the

acrainst the smaller allied states. A sop was offered to Messene

In return for Its co-operation against Nabis In 196-95. In
the treaty which concluded the war the Messenlans were to receive
as much of the booty carried off by him In 201 as their owners
could Identify . 1 * 1 Obviously after six years it w o u l d have been
no great a m o u n t .
Rome continued to show a disposition to allow. If not to
approve, the Achaean control of the Peloponnesus. In 192 on the
eve of the Invasion of Antiochus the League was allowed to I n c o r ­
porate Sparta. It was natural that Elis and Messene should see
little hope of a continued Independent existence so long as the
Achaean League remained In control of the peninsula. Their a l l i ­
ances with Aetolia were still In effect and, w h e n the latter s u c ­
ceeded in getting Antiochus to come to Greece, b o t h Elis an d M e s ­
sene considered their advantage lay with that side. A victory
over Rome and the Achaean League w ould result in the restoration
of their territory and guarantee their continued political inde-
Probably Messene as well as Elis declared openly that It
would support its Aetolian alliance, although such action Is a t ­
tested only for Elis which sent for troops to Antiochus and re-
ceived 1,000 Infantry from him to hold off the A c h a e a n League.

League was confirmed at this time. These claims should have been
settled by the time the Roman-Achaean alliance was concluded.
Larsen suggests 196 as the date of that alliance (C l . Phi 1 ., XXX,
212-14), but Aymard, 194-93 (Premiers r a p p o r t s , ppl 261-67).

11^Messenian participation in the war against Nabis was

deduced by Seellger (M e s s e n l e n , p. 18) from Polybius (xxiii. 5. 2)
who mentions that Dinocrates, who played such a prominent part in
the revolt of 183, became acquainted with Flamininus during the
Laconian war.

111LIvy xxxiv. 35. 6 .

De Sanctis, Storla del R o m a n i , IV, Part I, 149, has
suggested that Flamininus promised Messene and B l l s to the Achaean
League as the price of the letter's assistance.
Livy xxxvi. 31. 2; Pol. xx. 3. 1, 5, 7. Aymard (P r e -
rulers r a p p o r t s , p. 339, n. 3) considers that Messene was Included
In A c h a e a 's declaration of war. De Sanctis (Storla del R o m a n i ,
IV, Part I, 170) argues that Messene did not compromise It self to
the extent of declaring openly for Antiochus. Since, however, no
allusion is made to the Roman alliance in the negotiations c o n ­
ducted later b y Flamininus (Livy xxxvl. 31. 5-9), It Is probable
Their strategic position at least paralyzed Achaean aid to Rome,
for, although at the outset of the war 1,000 Achaeans were sent
out of the Peloponnesus for garrison duty, the League took no
further action until Antiochus had been defeated at Thermopylae.
Then, when Rome was following up the victory by a campaign agair.s*
Aetolia which cut off all hope of aid to Elis and Messene, the
Achaean League sent envoys to those states demanding that they en­
ter the League, hoping to present the Romans with a fait accompli
as at Sparta. Elis temporized while it dismissed the troops A n ­
tiochus had sent, but Messene refused to negotiate and prepared
to fight. The Achaean army under Diophanes invaded Messenia,
laid the fields waste, and besieged the city. Messene's last
hope of political independence lay in Roman intervention, and
envoys were despatched to Flamininus at Chalcis offering to sur­
render to him. ^ The Roman policy in Greece to states which had
surrendered had been uniformly generous, but in any case F l a ­
mininus was Messene’s last recourse.
Flamininus hurried to Megalopolis and from there sent a
messenger ordering Diophanes to break off the siege and come to
meet him. The meeting took place at Andania, where Flamininus
made arrangements for settling the affair. He does not appear t;
have formally accepted the Messenian offer of surrender which
would have relegated the ultimate settlement to Rome. Instead,
Flamininus acted on the rather vague authority granted him as leg­
ate which could be interpreted to cover such cases concerning

that Messene was considered to have forfeited the alliance by

openly supporting the Roman enemies.

^ ^ L l v y xxxvi. 31. 1-4. ^ ^ L l v y xxxv!. 31. 5.

^^Larsen, C l . Phil., XXX, 197-98. Aymard -Premiers rap­

port s , p. 343) suggests that Messene might have been spared the
restoration of its exiles by treating directly with the Achaean
Livy xxxvi. 31. 6-7. Aymard, Premiers rapports, p. 344,
n. 7; Larsen, C l . Phi1., XXX, 197, n. 19. The sequel of Livy's
account shows that flamininus himself made final arrangements for
Messene's entrance into the League; had he accepted the surrender
on behalf of Rome he could scarcely have done this, although a
Roman commander who accepted dedltlo had wide powers (Heuss, K i lo.
Beiheft XXXI [1933], 64 ff.). TMuUler (Imperlun Romanum, p. 222T
and De Sanctis (Storla del Romani, IV, Part T t 170-71} consider
that the dedltlo was accepted and .Messene's adherence to the
Achaean League made dependent on the good will of Rome.
Roman allies- D i ophanes was ordered to d i s b a n d the A c h a e a n
arnTy and not disturb the peace further. Messene was i nstructed
to restore its exiles a n d to join the League.
The arra n g e m e n t s under w h i c h Messene was to enter the
League were to be wo r k e d out by the two parties. If f r i c t i o n
arose or if Messene w i s h e d to provide In the agreement against
future contingencies, the Messenlans w e r e auth o r i s e d to a p p l y to
la mi-sinus while he was In Corinth. Thus Flami n i n u s r e s erved
the right of a final d e c i s i o n on the a r r a n gements by w h i c h Massene
was to enter the League. He seems to have e x e r c i s e d It In the
case of a d ifficulty w h i c h arose over the return of the exiles,
and possibly the r e t e n t i o n by Messene of some of the M e s s e n i a n
towns is to be a s c ribed to him. It seems probable that r.e i n ­
tended the arrangements to be completed while he remained In Greece
and thus did not put himself f o r m a l l y in the p o s ition of a p* -
tron, although, by his d i rection of the agreement, he might
seem to have done so.
The conditions wo r k e d out with the League were p r o b a b l y
embodied in a treaty as was the usual practice. The t e r r i t o r y of
Measene already Impaired by the loss of Pylus and Asine was f u r -
ther curtailed by the A c h a e a n League. The towns of Mothone,

“T n e legates a p p o i n t e d in 193 had bee n d i r ected to s e ­
cure the loya l t y of the R o m a n allies (Livy xxxv. 23. 5) and, as a
corollary, to keep the peace In the Pelo p o n n e s u s (Aymard, Premiers
rapports, p. 301, n. 38).
Livy xxxvi. 31, 9. T h e order p r o b a b l y r e f e r r e d to Mes-
ser.ian exiles In general and was d e s i g n e d to contribute to a c o n ­
dition of peace and s t ability In the Peloponnesus (Aymard, P r e ­
miers r a p p o r t s , p. 346;. It has b een suggested that there was
some civil dlsturbance In Messene when it threw in Its lot w i t h
Antiochus; this is possible, but there is no hint of it In L i v y
(Seellger, Me s s e n l e n , p. 19).
Livy xxxvi. 31. 9. Aymard, Premiers rapports, p. 346,
n . 14.
Pol. xxll. 10. 6 . F l a m i n i n u s made some r e g u l a t i o n c o n ­
cerning the exiles, the nature of w h i c h is not clear, by issu i n g
* 31 a g r a m m a • This might have been done either at A n d a n l a or later
at Corinth.
Aymard, Premiers r a p p o r t s , pp. 346, n. 14, 347,
T h i s was the regu l a r po l i c y of the Le a g u e in the case
of large organizations i n c o r p o r a t e d Into It (H. Swoboda, " S t udien
zu den g r i e c hischen Btinden, " K i l o , XII [1912], 21).

Colonides, Corone, and Cyparlssia were apparently made independe:

members of the Achaean League. Thu3 Messene was cut off froc
the sea on the west and from Its best ports on the Messenian Gul;
It retained only the upper and lower plains and the towns of AbL
Thourla, and Pharae under Its control.
The restoration of the exiles in Messene caused consider­
able disturbance and dissatisfaction as in Sparta. Flamininus'
arrangement in 191 did not settle the matter and Philopoemen's
regulation apparently made while he was strategus In 190 or 139 1c

^The entrance of Messene into the League in 191 is the

most plausible occasion for the Incorporation of these towns as
independent members of the League. Corone is known as a member
the League from its federal coinage (Head, Hlstorla N'jaiorum^ ,
p. 418) and from the inscription recording the honcrs of Sassande:
(Ditt. Syll. , 653. 17) of C£. 165 B.C. A date before 182 for
the detachment of Corone and presumably of Colonides also is sug­
gested by the events of the revolt of that year. The Messenians
planned to take Corone (Livy xxxix. 49. 1; Colonis, according to
Plutarch Fhllopoemen 13. 5), which may indicate that Corone was %
member of the Achaean League at that time. Polybius states that
In 192 Abia, Thouria, and Fharae were detached from Messene (xxii
17. 2) which Implies that the other communities had been lost on
some previous occasion. That of 191 is accepted by the followir.-
Nlese, Ceachlchte der grlechlschen und makedonischen Staaten, II,
713, n. 4; Valmin, Etudes, p. 27; Aymard, Premiers rapports, pp.
13, n. 6, 347, n. IS”; Aymard has, however, wrongly attributed a
federal coinage to Mothone,
The case of Cyparlssia Is more controversial. Nlese (le-
schlchte der grlechlschen und makedonlschen Staaten, II, 411, r.. 1
suggested It was already Achaean in 220. He Is followed by Aymar:
(Premiers rapports, p. 13, n. 6) with the qualification that 213
Is the latest date for its entrance into the League. Nlese’s
chief arguments lie in the assumption that Cyparissia Is shown t:
be an independent community by Its action against Pyrrhias In 21 '

(Pol. v. 92. 5), by the fact that a Cyparisslan, Foiyaenus, is

found in the service of Philopoemen at the battle of Mantinea in
207 (Pol. xi. 19. 2), and the notice of Livy (xxxii. 21. 23) that
Philip murdered his host in Cyparlssia, which is taken to mean
that Cyparlssia did not belong to Messene, for, in that case,
Fhllip would not have been entertained there. It will be remem­
bered that Philip did not try violence immediately on his entrane-
into Messenia in 214 (supra, p. 83). Thus in the obscurity of
the circumstances surrounding the notice In Livy It Is Impossible
to say whether he had made a hostile move before going to Cyparls­
sia or not. Nlese’s Interpretation of the evidence for Cyparls-
sian independence of Messene rests on his conception of the Mes­
senian political organization which seems to be incorrect (infra,
p. 113). In this connection it should be noticed that demands
for the restoration of Cyparlssia were not made In 209 by the
Aetollans when they requested that the Achaean League restore
Pylus to Messene, nor In 196 when the Messenians claimed Pylus an:
Pol. xxii 10. 6. Aymard connects this regulation witc

had led to fresh discontent. The precise nature of the d i f f i ­
culties is unknown, but an y restoration of property w o u l d touch
the personal wealth of the tlmocrata and the re-enfranchisement of
the exiles Imperil their political position.
As the dispute with the League was prolonged Messene wanted
T2 Q
t; have it submitted to Rome for settlement. The Achaean
League, however,considered that it was a matter w hich concerned
them exclusively inasmuch as Messene was a member of the League. 129
Dinocrates, a prominent member of the wealthy class in Messene,

the fifth strategela of Philopoemen which he dates 191/0 (Premiers

rapports, p^ 365/ n. 26). It is usually placed In 190/89 (Hoi -
leaux, CAH, VIII, 236, n. 1).
Pol. xxil. 10. 6 . Diophanes* criticism of Philopoemen*s
measure, made in hie speech before Caecilius in 186/5, implies
that conditions In Messene had not Improved by that time. The
changes introduced by Philopoemen are usually considered to have
t e e n of a political nature, establishing a more democratic form
of government (E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government in
Greece and Italy [2d ed. ; London, 1893 J, pT 505; 3"! lUlccolInl, La
confederazlone achaea [Padua, 1912], p. 157; G. Colin, Rome at la
Grece ~[~Parls~, 1965 J, p. 227). Certainly the re-enfranchisement of
the exiles would have had a modifying effect on the government If
carried out, but Dlnocrates and his timocratic associates are d e ­
scribed In 183/2 as normally established in the magistracies (Livy
xxxix. 49-50) so that It seems unnecessary to assume any c o n s t i t u ­
tional change In the period between 191 and 183, for the g o v e r n ­
ment In 191 had been hostile to the Achaean League also. The last
positive Indication, however, as to the form of government in Kes-
sene was that given by the events of 215-14 w h e n the commons had
established Itself in power. Thus at some time between 214 and
191 there was a reversion to a timocratic f o r m of government. A
hint to that effect 13 given by the fragment of Polybius, vii. 10.
1, If it is rightly placed as a sequel to the massacre of 215-14
(supra, p. 81, n. 73).
2 The statement of Freeman (History of Federal G o v e r n -
ment , p. 505) that the question of union or secession from the
Achaean League was identified with the question of democracy or
oligarchy should be qualified. It was Dlnocrates* refusal to use
Philopoemen to obtain an advantageous settlement wit h the League
and the resulting devastation of Messene w hich changed the temper
cf the commons.
12 Q
Pol. xxlv. 9. 13. Such had probably b e e n the Measenlan
attitude throughout the course of the dispute, a l t h o u g h this p a s ­
sage refers only to 183 whe n Q. Marclus Philippus was in the P e l o ­
ponnesus. Justin's account (xxxii. 1. 4) hints at a period of
dissension before open revolt: prlmo dlssenslo, m o x be H u m .
Pol. xxiil. 9. 8 ; xxlv. 9. 12.

13°Pol. xxiil. 5. 4-13; Plut. Titus 17. 6. The events of

went to Rome as an envoy of the state in the winter of 184/63.
He saw only Flamininus with whom he had become acquainted during
the war against Nabis. Although Folyblus ascribes this seeming
neglect of his business to Dinocrates* frivolity, it is prob­
able that he had no other alternative. The senate could scarcely
take remedial action against the Achaean League when the League
had not submitted the matter to it. Officially speaking the sen-
ate was not cognisant of the Messenlan-Achaean dispute.
Dinocrates prevailed upon Flamininus to use his personal
Influence on behalf of Messene. When Flamininus set out for Bl-
fchynia to which he had been appointed legate, probably in the
early summer of 163, Dinocrates went with him as far as Oreece.
Upon arriving at Naupactus Flamininus wrote to the Achaean magis­
trates asking them to hold an assembly for him evidently intending
to plead for Messene. His personal enmity to Philopoemen as well
as the Achaean determination to settle the matter themselves
brought an urbane invitation to Flamininus to give a written state­
ment of his wishes. Otherwise the Achaean laws did not permit

the revolt offer some basis for criticism of Polybius 4 picture of

Dinocrates. He, at any rate, possessed sufficient military abil­
ity to forestall the invasion of Lycortas in the spring of 182
and to capture Philopoemen.
Pol. xxiii. 5. 1-3. Dinocrates came to Rome just after
Flamininus had been appointed legate to Prusias of Bithynia ( Pol.
xxiii. 5. 1). Flamininus' mission to Prusias is placed by Livy
(xxxix. 51. 1) in 183 which is usually accepted (De Sanctis,
Storla del Romani, IV, Part I. 242, n. 12; Aymard, "Les strateges
de la confederation acheenne, 1 RSA, XXX [1928], 53, n. 3). Fla-
mininus' appointment was presumably made in the winter of 184/83
as was that of Q. Marcius Phllippus as legate to the Peloponnesus
and Macedonia (Pol. xxiii. 1. 1; 4. 16; Aymard, REA, XXX, 26-27).
Pol. xxiii. 5. 3, 9.

*3^This assumption follows from the view that Messene had

not entered the Achaean League on precarious tenure.

^^Flamlninus would probably leave for Bithynia shortly

after his appointment in the winter of 184/63. The negotiations
with the Achaean League, however, might seem to indicate that
Philopoemen was strategus at that time (Pol. xxiii. 5. 14-18).
Since the Achaean League held its elections in the autumn at this
period, that would place Flamininus* intercession in the autumn
of 183. Aymard (R S A . XXX, 53, n. 3) thinks that. If Philopoemen
had been strategus at the time of the intercession, Polybius would
have said so In so many words. Some difficulty does remain, h o w ­
ever, but it is preferable to those Involved in placing Flamininus'
Intercession in the autumn after the election.
them to convoke an assembly . ^ 3 3 Since Flamininus had no Instruc­
tions from the senate to deal with Greek affairs, as the Achaeans
knew very well, he was unable to give Dinocrates further help.
Accordingly Dinocrates returned to Messene and apparently
spent the sunsner preparing the revolt. When Q. Marciua Phllippus,
the legate to Macedonia and Greece, arrived in the Peloponnesus
the situation had evidently reached a critical stage. He urged
the Achaean League to submit the dispute to the senate, but the
Achaeans refused and decided to take military action.
In the winter of 133-02 when the hostilities had started
the Achaean League in accordance with its position as a Roman
ally asked the senate for aid, or, falling that, an embargo on
the export of arms and grain to Messene. The request was pre­
sumptuous, for even if the senate had not granted Messene to the
League in 191 on precarious tenure and had allowed Philopoemen to
Interfere later in an arrangement of Flamininus made at that time,
it had been made quite clear that the dispute should be submitted
to Ro; is. Flamininus had tried to settle It unofficially and the

IT t
The Achaean attitude was legally Justified if not cal­
culated to please the Romans (Larsen, Cl. Phil., XXX, 208, n. 76).

136The exact time Is unknown. Marclus 1 appointment had

been made in the winter of 184/83 and his report to the senate on
the Peloponnesian situation was given in the winter of 183/82
(Aymard, REA, XXX, 26-27). It seems reasonable that he would
visit the Peloponnesus on his return from Macedonia, possibly tim­
ing his visit to coincide with the electoral assembly of the
Achaean League which would fall in the autumn. Livy (xxxlx. 48.
5) states that Messene was in revolt at the time of Marclus' a p ­
pointment. If that was the case there would probably have been
some mention of it in Polybius' account of the senatorial activi­
ties at that date (Pol. xxlll. 1-4). Livy's statement is probably
the result of his condensation of the account of the revolt (Nic-
collnl, La confederations achaea. pp. 294-55).

J‘3 7 Pol. xxiii. 9. 8 ; xxiv. 9. 12-13. The latter state­

ment implies that the Achaean League started hostilities. Mes­
sers' s 'revolt" up to that point had evidently consisted in main­
taining an obdurate attitude to the League's demands.

13fW e meeting of the senate in which Marclus reported,

and the Achaeans asked for aid furnishes an ante quern date for
the revolt, namely the winter, 183/82. Plutarch (Phil. 18. 1)
implies that there was no trouble at the beginning of Phllopoemen's
strategela, but in the light of the other evidence that seems i n ­
correct .

139Pol. xxiii. 9. 12.


official legate, Q. Marclus Phlllppus, had advised the League to

refer to the senate. The senate could, however, scarcely give
Messene military support as that would have meant war with Achaea
and a disruption of the settlements of 196 and 191. It did all
that was possible to embarrass the League. The request for aid
and the embargo were ignored and at the same time a statement
issued that, if Corinth, Sparta, and Argos should revolt, Rome
would not interfere. At the same time a settlement on the
problem of the Spartan exiles was delayed to aggravate anti-
Achaean sentiment in Sparta.
It has usually been assumed that the campaign in which
Philopoemen was captured was the opening action of the war.
There are, however, same indications In the accounts of Pausanias
and Livy of a previous campaign, probably in the autumn of 183,
although its details are lost.
In the late spring of 182 the Achaeans prepared to ln-
vade Messenia. Philopoemen was ill of fever at Argos so that

140 Pol. xxiii. 9. 13-14; Larsen, Cl. P h i l ., XXX, 208-9,


141 Pol. xxiii. 9. 9-11.

Seeliger, Measenlen, pp. 21-22; Colin, Rome et la
G r e c e , p. 228; Niese, Geschlchte der grlechlschen und m a k e d o n l -
schen S t a a t e n , III, 52; NIccollnl, L a c o n f e d e r a z l o n e a c h a e a ,
p. 159; De Sanctis, Storla del R o m a n i , IV, Part I, 243.

A Paus. iv. 29. 11, The temporal transition, i ^

AiP'i 77£ ,j /' u * u / <r / t o u , implies a preceding campaign.
Because of the suiin&ry nature of Pausanias' account it is not
clear whether the preceding reference to the devastation of M e s ­
sene Is to be referred to an Insnediately preceding campaign or to
the events of 191. Livy (xxxlx. 48. 6 ) also Implies a longer war
than the single action of Philopoemen's death and the revenge of
Lycortas w hich followed closely on It.
Paus. Iv. 29. 11. The evidence of Plutarch and Livy
may be supplemented with that of Pausanias. The preliminaries to
the capture of Philopoemen are omitted by Livy and Plutarch e x ­
cept for the enigmatic references to Corone and to Lycortas In
Livy (xxxlx. 49. 1; 50. 7) and to Colonis and the five hundred
Messenian troops in Plutarch (P h i l . 18. 5, 9). The account of
Pausanias (iv. 29. 11-12) has a value Independent of Plutarch's
Philopoemen (18-20). Pausanias 1 fuller account (viii. 51. 5-8)
us 3 s the material from Bk. IV and combines with It some details
from Plutarch's Philopoemen (NIssen, Krltlsche Untersuchungen,
p. 289). The question arises, as in the case of his material for
Nabis, whether Pausanias drew directly from Polybius' History or
not. A comparison Is difficult, for the two accounts do not ex-
the expedition was under the command of Lycortas. Dinocrates,
who had been elected general, took the precaution of stationing
troops to guard the passes on the northeast from Arcadia. At
the same time an attack was prepared against Corone. Its harbor
was better than those of Abla and Pharae, the only ports which
remained to Messene after the settlement of 191, and Dinocrates
may have hoped to use It for Importing supplies from Italy.
Lycortas started for Messene but on finding the passes blocked
returned to Arcadia. In the meantime Philopoemen, despite his
Illness and seventy years, rushed from Argos to Megalopolis in
one day hoping to catch up to Lycortas. At Megalopolis he
picked up some of the local cavalry and about sixty light armed

actly overlap at any one point. Yet the expedition of Lycortas

preceding that of Philopoemen, which Is not found In Plutarch, is
vouched for by Livy xxxix. 50. 7; the peltasts mentioned by Pau­
sanias (viii. 51. 5) would be the Thracians and Cretans of Livy
xxxix. 49. 2. Since Livy is considered to have used Folyblus as
a source at this point it is probable that the account of Pau­
sanias is also based on Polybius {Rfihl, Jahrb. f. cl. Phil.,
CXXVII, 44; Aymard, Leg assembless, p. 275, n. 1, evidently con­
siders Pausanias used Polybius directly).
Paus. lv. 29. 11. Pausanias does not specify the o f ­
fice to which Dinocrates had been elected, but his measures Imply
that he was military commander.
Livy xxxlx. 49. 1 ; Plut. Phil. 18. 5 (Colonis is in
the same neighborhood as Corone). Seellger (Messenlen, pp. 21-
2 2 ) suggests this was the beginning of a general action against
the southern coastal states which had not joined in the revolt.
Pausanias (Iv. 29. 11) states that some of the perioeci aided
Messene with troops. Perioeci should not be taken In a techni­
cal sense, but merely as a reference to the towns of Abla, Thouria,
and Pharae, or possibly to the inhabitants of the villages in Kes-
sene's own district.
1 47
Pol. xxlll. 12. 1-2. The death of Philopoemen has
been placed In 182 by recent historians and his eighth strategela
In 183/82 (Aymard, REA, XXX, 49-53; Lea assemblies, pp. 2^4-T5; D©
Sanctis, Storla del Romani, IV, Part I, 244, n. 17; Niccolini, La
confederations achaea~| pp. 292 £ f .). Pausanias places the action
(iv. 29. 11), *h ? ' r o o , that Is In May -June. The
older accounts of the revolt (Freeman, H i s t ^ r j o f F e d e r a l ^ o v e r n -
ment*, pp. 505-7; Colin, Rome et la Qrece, pp. 227-50; Niese, <5e-
schlchte der grlechlschen und makedonlschen Staaten, III, 51-55;
Seellger, Messenlen, pp. 19-24) were based on the view that Philo-
posmen's eighth strategela was In 184/83 and that he was killed
in the autumn of 183. Accordingly, In them the attempt of Q. Mar­
clus to reconcile Messene and Achaea is placed after Philopoemen1s
death and the revenge of Lycortas in the following spring of 182.

troops and started off for Messenia evidently by a different

route from that taken by Lycortas. As the force vas picking
its way along a valley they ran into a Messenian force under
Dinocrates near a place called Evander's Hill of which the loca­
tion is unknown. At first Philopoemen was successful, but some
of the MesBenian frontier guards arrived on the scene and he was
forced to withdraw. The light-armed troops under Philopoemen
escaped,15® as did most of the cavalry, but, as Philopoemen was
covering the retreat, his horse slipped and fell stunning him.
The Messenians, when he was recognized, could scarcely believe
their good fortune and sent messengers ahead to Messene with the
news . 1 5 1
When the troops arrived with Philopoemen they found the
road and the Arcadian Oate packed with people. Those who could
not get a glimpse of him crowded into the theater and demanded
that he be shown to them. The magistrates, who had taken Philo­
poemen in charge, were anxious to get him in safe keeping immedi­
ately. Thus, after a brief exhibition, he was hustled down to
the bouleuterion where a council meeting had been called to d e ­
liberate on the situation .'*'5 5 It was decided to place Philopoemen
in an underground storage chamber which could be closed by a
large block. On the following day an assembly was held and the
commons urged that Philopoemen be used to bargain with the League

Paus. viii. 51. 5-6; Livy xxxix. 49. 1; Plut. Phil. 18.

149 Plut. Phil. 18. 9.

1 5 ®M. Ouarducci ("Intorno all' epigranana cnoslo di Tharsy-

machos," Rlv. fll.. LXII [1934], 71-75} identifies the Cretan
Tharsymachus, in whose epitaph (SODI, 5074. 6-7) an exploit in a
cavalry engagement near Mt. E l a e u m T s recorded, as one of the
Cretans who accompanied Philopoemen (Livy xxxlx. 49. 2). While
the engagement probably took place to the southeast of Mt. Blaeon,
a certain amount of liberty may be allowed to the poet as Ouarducci

151The account of Livy (xxxix. 49-50) gives a detailed

narrative from this point to the death of Philopoemen.

162The mention of the theater (Livy xxxix. 49. 10) as

near the road identifies the locality, for in Messene the theater
Is on the slope along the path between the Arcadian Oate and the
Livy xxxix. 49. 6-12. Livy's terms are curiam and
senatus which presumably refer to the bouleuterion and to the

for a good settlement. Dinocrates, however, and the other

timocratic sponsors of the revolt, possibly from personal enmity
or from the feeling that no settlement could be made with the
League that would assure their position, held a secret meeting
and decided to poison Philopoemen. The design was carried out
The Achaeans on hearing of Philopoemen's capture took
steps to send an embassy to recover him, but at the same time
Lycortas prepared for action. The latter was elected strategus
on the report of Philopoemen's death and invaded Messenia. The
fields were laid waste and the harvest destroyed. The Messenian
populace, probably never very enthusiastic for the revolt, had
seen all chance of an equitable settlement with the League lost
through the death of Philopoemen. The Invasion of Lycortas and
the loss of the harvest roused them to insist on a truce. Dinoc­
rates and the magistrates were forced into retirement and the
elder men of the commons assisted by two Boeotian envoys, Epaenetus
and Apollodorus, who had previously attempted to negotiate a set-
tlement, took charge and advised the commons to ask for a truce.
Accordingly the commons appointed envoys who went to Lycortas
with a plea for pardon. They were offered a truce on condi­
tion that those responsible for the revolt and the death of Philo­
poemen be handed over immediately, that Messene surrender u n ­
conditionally to the Achaean League, and admit a garrison to
Ithome at once. With no alternative but a hopeless siege Messene
surrendered. Lycortas placed a garrison on Ithome and recommended

Paus. viil. 51. 6-7, An assembly meeting is Implied
in Livy xxxix. 50. 5.

155Llvy xxxix. 50. 6-0; Plut. Phil. 19-20.

166 Plut. Phil. 19. 7.

157 *
Plut. Phil. 21. 1; see Aymard, Lea assemblies, pp. 212-
13, for the election. There is a break in the accounts of the
sources at this point, but Polybius xxiii. 16 probably follows
closely on the election of Lycortas. Possibly thefragmentary
chapter 15 belongs to an account of the devastation of Messene.

1 5 8 Pol. xxxlii. 16. 1-5. This is the only mention of the

Boeotian envoys. As a traditional friend of both Meaaene and
Arcadia Boeotla could offer to negotiate a settlement.

159Pol. xxiii. 16. 5.


those responsible for Philopoemen's death to commit suicide .'*'®0

The second synodos of the year was In session at that time and
drew up the terms of settlement.
The hopes Messene may have had of extending the revolt on
the senate's encouragement had come to nothing and, when the sen­
ate heard of the failure of the Messenlans It acquiesced in the
League's settlement with what grace It could muster. The Achaean
envoys were informed that the senate had taken measures to pr e -
vent the importation of supplies from Italy to Messene. Short­
ly afterward the regulations imposed by the League on Messene
were accepted without question. Such acquiescence on the part
of Rome was necessary to preserve order in the Peloponnesus but
it must have further embittered the Messenlans.
Me ssene was restored to its former position as a member
sul lurls of the League, but the towns of Abla, Thouria, and
Pharae were detached from the capital city and each became an
independent member of the League. In the following year Me s ­
sene was granted three years' exemption from taxes and the settle-
*1 c c

ment was ratified. It is evident that a change of government

16 6
resulted and that some of the timocrats were sent into exile.
Although it is not recorded in Polybius, Messene seems to have
lost Andania and with it the greater part of the upper plain
1 67
about this time in a boundary settlement with Megalopolis.

1 6 °Pol. xxiii. 16. 6-13. Plut. Phil. 21. 2, 9. Plutarch

records that Dinocrates committed suicide while the other guilty
ones were put to death, some by torture, some by stoning at
Philopoemen's funeral (cf. also Pol. xxiv. 9, 13).
T fil
Pol. xxiii. 16. 12; 17. 1-2. There is a break in the
continuity between chapters 16-17 of Polybius, but the lacuna Is
evidently slight and the terms were made at the meeting of the
synodos held in the late spring (Aymard, Les assemblies, pp. 274-
Pol. xxiii. 17. 3. The measures must have been taken
very quickly after news of the failure of the revolt came.

163 Pol. xxiv. 1. 6-7; Livy x l . 20. 2.

164 Pol. xxiii. 17. 1-2. 165 Pol. xxiv. 2. 3.

Pol. xxiv. 9. 13. They were restored in 180/79 by
Callicrates as part of his policy of appeasement to Rome (Pol.
xxiv. 10. 15).

167Strabo (vili. 3. 6 , 25; 4. 5; lx. 5. 17; x. 1. 10)

calls Andania an Arcadian town. Strabo's source was Demetrius of
The expansion of Megalopolitan territory also necessitated a de-
limitation of Its boundary with Thouria.

Scepsis, the commentator on Homer, who was almost contemporary

with the event (W. von Christ, Geschlchte der grlechlschen L l t -
teratur, revised by 0. Stflhlin and W. Schmidj II, Part I IMunich,
1920], 245). A boundary delimitation between Messene and Megal­
opolis affords some further evidence, W. Dlttenberger and K. Pur-
gold, Die Inschrlften von Olympia (Berlin, 1896), No. 46 (IG, V,
2, p. xxvll). The inscript1 on, which is in a very fragmentary
state, records a delimitation of the boundaries of Megalopolis
and Thouria on one side (A) and of Megalopolis and Messene on the
other (B). It is possible that the Thourlan delimitation carried
over a short distance on B as Q o \ u j o i t ^ v] is restored in line 44
(the lines are numbered continuously from the beginning of A).
The delimitation for Messene appears to have been made according
to a regulation of the Achaean League at a meeting of the synodos
in Sicyon (lines 56-57). The editors suggest that the synodos
in question Is the meeting referred to by Polybius (xxiii. 1?. 5)
which fell In 182/81, but Polybius does not specify that the
meeting was a synodos and the Identification is questioned by
Aymard (Les assemblies, p. 25, n. 4). In any case the mention of
the names of Diophanes, Polybius, and Thearldas (lines 5-6) dates
the document to the period, 182-68. The only certain point in
the effect of the regulation is that Megalopolis was to receive
territory except for Doris (lines 57-585, This Doris has been
considered the same locality as the Dorion of Pausanias (iv. 33.
7) and Strabo (vili. 3. 25) and identified with localities in the
Soulima plain district (Valmin, Etudes, pp. 106-7, 116-18). It
Is possible that this is an indication that Megalopolis was to r e ­
ceive the upper plain of Messenia. In that case the line of hills
which closes the plain on the west by Malthi (Dorion) would have
been the border. The other topographical points mentioned in the
document have not been identified so that It is impossible to
trace the boundary with any precision (for discussion see ibid.,
pp. 122-25).
I am unable to follow the argument of Valmin In his arti­
cle on the topography of northwestern Messenia (Skrlfter utglvna
av svenska Institutet 1 Rom, V, 74) where he argues that the
Soulima plain district was assigned to Megalopolis by this regu­
lation. In that article he cites Etudes, p. 106, as a discussion
which proves that Doris was Arcadian. But his discussion at that
point in Etudes argues very cogently that Doris and thus the
Soulima plain was assigned to Messene. The other evidence cited
to demonstrate that northwestern Messenia was Arcadian involves
the Inclusion of that district in Lepreum for which there seems
to be no justification (Scylax Perlplus 44; Cicero Ep. ad Attlcum,
ed. L. C. Purser [Oxford, 1903 ], v i . §7 3; Steph. Bye. s.v. Aulon.
Stephanus does say that an Aulon was Arcadian but does not give
the source or the period of his information so that his evidence
is of little value).
\ 68
Ins. von Olympia, No. 46 A. The delimitation of the
Thourlan-Megalopolitan boundary was apparently made according to
the decision of a commission tinder a certain Arlstomenes (lines 2-
3, 13-14, 67). It Is probable that this decision was made at the
synodos meeting In Sicyon where the regulation for Messene and
Megalopolis was drawn up (see the preceding note) despite the dif-
The settlement with Messene, which Polybius characterises
as gene r o u s , ^ 6 ® was In effect severe. The Messenian state was
dismembered and the capital city, like Sparta, cut off completely
from the sea. The loss of Thouria meant that the fertile t e r r i ­
tory east of the Pamlsua River was no longer available as a source
of revenue; and similarly the loss of Andania, that the greater
part of the upper plain as well as control of the routes to Arcadia
was taken away. In addition, the loss of Andania was a blow to

ferent form of reference. The place names mentioned as boundary

points are unidentified, but presumably are situated in Taygetus
to the east of Thouria and in the line of hills which divide the
upper and lower Messenian plains (for discussion see Valmin,
B t u d e s , pp. 122-25; BSlte, P.-W., VI^, 637). An Inscription from
Thouria published b y Valmin (Bull. Lun d , 1328-29, pp. 108-23, No.
1) was connected by him wit h this regulation of ca. 180. The
connection Is, however, open to several objections. The Thourlan
document is a decree of the Thourlan synedrlon which authorises
the attendance of Thourlan officials and citizens at the a r b i t r a ­
tion of a dispute (Its nature is not specified) between M e g a l ­
opolis and Thouria which Patras had been asked to arbitrate. If
Thouria won it the names of the representatives were to be carved
on the stele. Since a list of names la found on the stele,
Thouria was apparently the victor. The connection of this d o c u ­
ment with the delimitation of the Olympian inscription Is based
chiefly on the coincidence of the names Aristomenes (I n s . von 0? .
46. 3, 14, 67; Bull. L u n d , 1. 1, 17) and Tritios (T f i£ . ! ! I
I n s . von 01. 467 10; BuTT. L u n d , 1. 44) and the interpretation of
the document as an agreement between Thouria and Megalopolis s e t ­
tling the conditions of the arbitration (a c ompr omla s u m ). In the
Thourlan inscription Aristomenes is described as the secretary of
the T h o urlan synedrol and as a representative of Thouria at the
arbitration in Patras. According to t-he Olympian Inscription a
commission under the chairmanship of a certain Aristomenes had
made the decision b y which the delimitation was worked out. It
Is scarcely possible that Aristomenes, as a Thourian disputant in
the case, was In a position to make a ruling on It. Valmin's I n ­
terpretation of the document as a compromlssum has been revised
by M. A. Levi wh o points out that it is a decree of the Thourlan
aynedrlon and comnemorative in character ("Un documento d'arbi-
trato fra Megalopoli e Turia," Rlv. f 11., LIX [1931], 93-97; see
also Aymard, Las a s s e m b l i e s , p.— 175, n. 1, for objections to
Valmin*s interpretation from the legal point of view as evidence
for League practice in the case of disputes between members).
If the connection of the Thourian Inscription with that from
Olympia is invalid, the mai n argument for Its date is destroyed
and it Is not clear whether It should be placed before or after
146 (see also the remarks of M. Guarducci, "Nota di epigrafia
spart ana," Rlv. f l l ., LX [1932], 85, n. 2, on the Institution of
synedrol as municipal officials in the second century B.C.).

^■®^Pol. xxiii. 17. 1 . P o l y b i u s ’ view is usually followed

(Holleaux, CAH, VIII, 299).
the religious life and prestige of the state. The exemption from
taxation for three years had probably been granted to allow for
the necessary economic adjustment to these circumstances rather
than for the more immediate loss of the harvest in 182. The death
and banishment of many wealthy citizens would also have had an
adverse effect on the life of the state. The exiles were later
restored, but only as the result of the pro-Roman policy of Calli­
crates. 17®
Messene and the Messenian towns had thus become regular
members of the Achaean League . 1 7 1 Although Messene was a member
sul lurls and had been purged of its anti-Achaean elements it
apparently still chafed against co-operation with the League and
felt that It had been betrayed by Rome . 1 7 2 Aymard has also n o ­
ticed that no Achaean assembly Is recorded as having been held at
Messene and ruggests that It may have been because the city was
suspected of Ill-feeling toward the League.17'' Thus when the

17 ®Pol. xxiv. 10. 15.

171There are several references in inscriptions to Mes­
sene, the capital city, as a member of the League (IG, II , 3,
2314. 27; T. Klee, Zur Qeschlchte der gymnlschen Agone a n .fP _c _-~
schen Festen [Berlin^ 1918 J, p^ 12, lines 75-76). After Its
trance Into the League Messene may have Issued an autonomous as
well as a League coinage (M. Thompson, "A Hoard of Greek p®d®ral
Silver," Hesperia, VIII [1939], 148-51; for a discussion of League
coinage see Aymard, Lea assemblees, p. 167, n. 6 ; ' Larsen, Roman
Greece," An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. Tenney Frank
[Baltimore, 1633-40J,' IV, 3 2 8 - 2 9 ^ As members of the League Asine
and Corone issued a federal coinage (Head, Historla Numor ag ,
p. 418) and Asine an autonomous coinage also (ibid., p. 40*JJ, 11
It is correctly dated to the second century B.C. (Asine had e n ­
tered the Achaean League before 196 B.C.). No federal coinage is
reported for Cyparlssla, Pylua, Mothone, Pharae, Abia, and Thouria
There is no record of what disposition was made of the small towns
along the east coast of the Messenian Gulf: Cardamyle, Leuctra,
Oerenia, and Alagonla.
172Livy xlil. 37. 8-9. This information is drawn from
the Achaean protest against the methods of the Roman envoys uf*®d
to rouse them against Perseus. The Achaeans complained that the
Romans were placing them In the same position as the Messenlans
and Eleans who, lately assigned to the Achaean League, were com­
plaining that they had fcsan handed over as spoils of war to the
Achaeans. Evidently then the Messenlans nursed a grudge against
Rome for Its lack of support in the revolt, and were regarded by
•the Achaean League with suspicion since they were singled out for
1 7 ^Aymard, Les assemblees, p. 307, n. 8 .

states of the Achaean League were being mobilized in 146 by Diaeus

for the war against Rome the Messenlans sent no troops. Polybius
1 74
ascribes the reason to fear of an attack by the Roman fleet,
but it may well have been partly due to ill-will against the
The specific evidence for Messene in the settlement of
146/45 like that for all of Greece is very scanty and drawn
largely from the succeeding period before Greece is known to have
1 7ft
been made a province by Augustus. It is probable that the
Achaean League was broken up, although restored in a modified
form a few years later. Whether the small Messenian towns were
again united with the capital city as is usually supposed is
not clear. The city on Ithome apparently regained control of
Andania and probably the entire upper plain which had formed part
of the city's own district. '' Control was also retained over
the Ager Denthaliatis through the Milesian decision of about
140. It was made on the question of fact as to which claimant,

174 Pol. xxxviii. 16. 3.

Paus. vli. 16. 9-10; Pol. xxjcix. 3-5. The Juridical
aspect of the settlement Is discussed by V. Costanzi, La c o n d i -
zlone giuridica della Orecia dopo la distruzlone di Corinto nel
146 a. Ch.," Rlv. f l l ., XLV (1917), 402-23. There Is a summary
of the settlement In Larsen, "Roman Greece," Sconomic Survey, IV,
Dio Cassius, ed. U. P. Boissevain (Berlin, 1885-1926;,
1111. 12; Strabo xvii. 3. 25.
G. P. Hertzberg, Die Qeschlchte Grlechenlands u n t e r
der Herrschaft der Rttmer (Halle, 1866^75), 296, n. 5; Niese,
Geachlchte der grlechlschen und makedonlschen S t a a t e n , III, 355;
Seellger, Messenlen, p. 26; Valmin, E t u d e s , p. £9; BSlte, P.-W.,
VI*, 637. Kolbe questions this view ( V, 1 , p. 277).
1 7A **
IG, V, 1, 1390 (Ditt. S y l l . . 736). It was recognized
by Seeliger that the elaborate organization shown in the mystery
Inscription was properly that of the city of Messene and not of
Andania (Mes s e n l e n , p. 27). The boundary regulations, IG, V, 1,
1429-30, are too fragmentary to be of use.
170 "x
Ins. von Olym p i a . 52 (Ditt. S y l l . , 683). According
to Tacitus (Annals ly. 431 4) Mummius himself had awarded the
Ager to Messene. This seems unlikely, for In the arbitration the
senate directed that the decision should be made on the question
of fact as to which disputant was In possession of the territory
when Mummius was In Greece as consul or proconsul (lines 54-55).
If he had made an award it Is probable that it would have been
cited as a precedent (for the procedure involved In this case see

Sparta or Messene, was in possession In 146 when Munmilus was In

Greece, The Milesians awarded the Ager to Messene by a vote of
584 to 16. Apparently then Messene had not lost the Ager with
the towns of Abla, Thouria, and Pharae In 182. Similarly, the
fact that Messene was allowed to retain it In 140 can scarcely be
taken to Indicate that those towns were once more made part of a
Mrs'enian state.
As the famous mystery Inscription and the decrees regu­
lating the collection of taxes for Roman officials show, Messene
was again in a prosperous state about 100 B.C. Although the
documents throw valuable light on the municipal Institutions of
Messene for that period, they are of no help in determining the
political relations of the towns to Messene Itself. There is
evidence that their institutions were similar. The main
governing body was the aynedroi, the secretary of which played a
prominent part. In Thouria and Messene much of the routine work
of supervision of special activities was borne by commissions r e ­
sponsible to the synedrol. This similarity is probably the result
of the regulations made by the Roman commissioners in 145 and
cannot be used as an argument for a league organization or be
projected to the period earlier than 145.
In the first part of the first century B.C., If a story
told by Polyaenus Is correctly dated, Pharae was independent of
Messene but was taken forcibly by it, which Implies a control by
the capital city after that date. Nlcon, a pirate of Pharae

M. N. Tod, International Arbitration amongst the Greeks [Oxford,

1913), pp. 81 -82). Accordingly the Messenlans are speaking
rather loosely before the senate in claiming Mummius' award as a
precedent. (For this view see Ditt. Syll.3, 683, n. 1; Bhren-
berg, F.-W., Ill A, 1445; on the other side, Kolbe, ^0, V, 1,
p. xiv; Valmin, Etudes, p. 29.)
1 so
Niese, Geschlchte der grlechlschen und makedonlschen
Staaten, III, 355, n. Q.

*®^IG, V, 1, 1432-33 (A. Wilhelm, "Urkunden aus Messene,"

Jahreshefte, XVII [1914], 1-120); Larsen, "Roman Greece," Economic
Survey, IV, 419-21, 430.

182There is detailed evidence for Thouria (from the in­

scription regulating the grain distribution, IG, V, 1, 1379;
L. Robert, "Notes d'epigraphie hellenistlque,ir_BCH, LII [1928],
426-32; Busolt-Swoboda. Qrlechlsche Staatskunde, p. 435); for
Corone (HJ, V, 1, 1392) and Colonldes (lO. V, I, 1402).
Polyaenus Strategemata. ed. J. Melber (Leipzig, 1887),

who had been harrying the Messenlans from that port, was captured
by them. In return for his life he betrayed Pharae to the Mes-
eenlans who occupied it. Whether the Messenlans of the story are
the Inhabitants of Messene only or of the district as a whole is
not clear. Nlcon's profession suggests that raids had been made
by him on the coast. In that case the Messenlans as a whole may
have taken joint action against him.
Hertzberg conjectured that a league was formed in M e s ­
sene after 145 on the evidence that Augustus handed over some
towns of Messene to Sparta. They were Cardamyle, Pharae,
1 fl7
and Thouria. The reference to the towns as Messenian may r e ­
fer to their geographical situation only. Similarly Strabo r e ­
garded the district as a unit, but probably In a geographical
rather than a political sense. Thus the evidence as a whole
is inconclusive and it seems impossible to decide on the relation
of the towns to the capital city after 145. It is, however,
clear that the capital city regained the territory of its own
district and enjoyed considerable prosperity.

ii. 35. The episode is dated to the period of the pirate wars
(W. Brandenstein, P.-W., XIX, 1804). A Nicon is known from
Cicero Verr. v. 79.
1 QA
Hertzberg, Qrlechenland unter der Herrschaft der Rbmer,
I, 296, n. 5.

185 Paus. lii. 26. 7. 186 Paus. iv. 30. 2.

187Paus. iv. 31. 1. 188Strabo viii. 3. 1 ; 4.1.



While the district of Messenia was by long tradition Mea-

senlan, although under the domination of Sparta, the state of
Messene, unlike the other states of Greece, was a momentary, a r ­
tificial creation with no period of political development behind
it. As established between 369 and 338 B.C. it was composed of
two main elements: first, the city on the slopes of Ithome and
its dependent district comprising much of the formerly Spartiate
territory, and, second, the Spartan perioeclc towns along the
coast. In addition, Corone was traditionally founded In 369 and
possibly also Colonides. The relationship between these elements
constitutes the problem of the political organisation of Messene.
Flainly the city on Ithome, by its location and its else, was in
a position to dominate the whole district and play a leading part
in it no matter how it was organised.
Various proposals have been made for the solution of the
problem of Its political organisation. Kuhn^ argued that the
separate towns stood in a perloecic relationship to the main city,
Messene, which was the leading and ruling city: an organisation
essentially the same as that of Sparta. Seellger distinguished
two periods in the history of the Messenian state. Cyparissla
and the new foundations were independent during the period 369-38,
but because of their Insignificance, forced to seek union with
the leading city, Messene. Philip, by his territorial additions
in 338 and the guarantee of independence furnished the separate
towns by the Hellenic League, provided a groundwork for the union
of the district. This Incipient federal state did not develop,
however, because of the disturbed conditions of the following
years in which the capital city came to assert a preponderating

^E. Kuhn, Ueber die Entstehung der Staedte der Alten

(Leipzig, 1878), pp. 244-49.
Seellger, Messenlen. pp. 27-30.


Influence. Niese regarded Messene as a very loosely knit, ethnic

state formed like Boeotla, with Messene In the place of Thebes,
lacking coherence and weakened by Internal struggles. More recent
writers have not dealt with the problem In detail. Thus there Is
general agreement that the district of Messenia formed a unity of
some type during the period of Its independence, although the
estimates of Its nature vary. The scanty evidence bearing on the
problem may be considered under the two heads of Messenian e x t e r ­
nal relations and the relations of the separate towns to the c a p ­
ital city.
Throughout the period of independence, as Is apparent
from the historical narrative, the sources give the impression
that the district of Messenia dealt with its external affairs as
a unity and was regarded as such by the other states of Greece
and by Rome. There Is no mention of treaties made, or separate
dealings with the Messenian towns until the latter were i n c o r p o ­
rated as Independent entities Into the Achaean League. It Is the
Messenlans as a whole who make commitments for the state. Such a
usage indicates that the Inhabitants of the district were r e ­
garded as forming a unity based on common race and Messene is
called an ethnos by Scylax soon after Its refoundlng. In the
latter part of the fourth century the term ethnos was the usual
name for any ethnic or federal organization as opposed to a
p oi
l«l s .5
The epigraphlcal material, while very scanty, shows a v a -
rlatlon in usage. The documents of the fourth century refer to
the Messenlans as agents in external affairs, but those of the
latter part of the third century refer to the polls of the M e s ­
senlans. The treaty made between Messene and Athens in 342 refers
to Messenlans only, and the reply of the Delphic amphlctyony to
the Messenian request for membership about 345 Is addressed to
Messenlans. A Zacynthian is made a proxenus of the Messenlans

3Geschlchte der grlechlschen und makedonlschen 3 t a a t e n ,

II, 410-in

^Scylax Perlplus 45.

5 IQ, IV2 , I, 68; Larsen, Cl. P h i l .. IX, 321.

6 IQ, II2, 225. 6 . 7DItt. Syll.3 . 224. 3.

In the latter part of the fourth century. That this designa­
tion included the inhabitants of the separate towns is indicated
by two Delphic proxanles, dated to the last quarter of the fourth
century, one granted to a Messenian from Thouria, the other to a
Messenian from Ithome.
The treaty of Isopolity made about 240 with Phigalea,
however, is made between the cities of Phigalea and of the Mes-
senians.^ Similarly about 207 the Delphians passed decrees of
thanks addressed to the polls of the Messenlans for the troops
which had been sent to garrison the sanctuary.^ This nomencla­
ture makes It probable that the reference to the kolnon of the
Messenlans in a Magnesian document of the same date cannot be
taken as indicating a federal organisation. These indications
that the city on Ithome conducted the external affairs of the
district of Messenia in the latter part of the third century are

®IG, V, 1, 1425; supra, p. 60, n. 10.

Colin, Foullles de Delphes. Ill, Fasc. IV, N 0 3 . 5, 6.
The proxeny decrees of the Delpnians to the Messenlans are In­
scribed on the base of the Nike dedicated ca. 426 by the Messen-
ians and Naupactians. The oldest proxeny Is dated ca. 340 (No. 4)
and the latest, ca. 207 (No. 24). All are inscribed simply to
Messenlans excep^Nos. 5 and 6. For the date (319/8) of No. 5,
the grant to the Thourian, Bourguet, ibid., Fasc. V, p. 321; for
that of No. 6 (326/5), the grant to the Messenian from Ithome,
Ibid., Fasc. V, p. 320.

1010, V, 2, 419. 13, 18. The inscription, 10, V, 1, 1426,

is a grant of isopolity to some allies In a military operation.
The name of the recipient city (line 1) is uncertain (supra, p. 9,
n. 20). It seems unlikely that this is a grant to a Messenian
town for their inhabitants would scarcely be designated as allies
{1 ine 4 ) .

^Colin, Foullles de Delphes, III, Fasc. IV, Nos. 21, 23.

0. Kern, Inschrlften von Magnesia am Maeander (Berlin,
1900), No. 43; Busolt and Swoboda, Orlechlsche Staatskunde,
p. 1550, n. 1. The Magnesian inscription records the Messenian
answer to the invitation of Magnesia to recognize the recently
reorganized festival of Artemis Leucophryene. The Invitation was
made to the kolnon of the Messenlanp. There is no prescript to
the answer except Mt r r v i u s \s ao that the body which
made the answer is unknown. The group of inscriptions recording
the answers to the wholesale invitation of the Magnesians is
dated to the last years of the third century from the internal
evidence of the documents (0. Kern, "Magnetische Studien," Hermes,
XXXVI [1901], 499-504). Valmin (Etudes, p. 29, n. 57) wrongly
cites this document as evidence for the period after 146 B.C.

strengthened by the evidence of Polybius. In connection with the

raids of the Illyrian pirates on the coasts of fcessenia and Ella,
he implies that the responsibility for defence lay with the city
on Ithome.^5 Then in 182 B.C., Abia, Thouria, and Pharae are
said by Polybius to have been separated from Messene, evidently
meaning the capital city. Similarly it is significant tha-; the
capital city referred to by its traditional name of Ithome in the
fourth century^3 has taken the former name of the country, Mes­
sene, by the time of Polybius and that the country is referred
to as Messenia.^7
It remains to consider the specific evidence for the r e ­
lation of the towns to the capital city on Ithome. There is d e ­
tailed information only for Cyparissia and Thouria and it Is to
a certain degree conflicting since that for Cyparissia points to
a considerable degree of Independence, while that for Thouria
shows a very close union of that town with the capital city.
Cyparissia was Included In the Messenian ethnos by Scy-
lax. Evidently then it formed part of the Messenian organize-
tion of that period. A n inscription of the late fourth or
early third century found In Cyparissia contains a regulation of
the taxes on imports and exports by sea In the territory of the
Cyparissians. The body passing the decree Is not indicated, but
the specification about Cyparissian territory at least shows that
It was regarded as a separate entity. The eventual disposition
of the revenues is not given so that Itis not clear whether they
were to be paid to a central authority or retained by the city of
Cyparissia. It Is, however, noteworthy that only trade by sea is
regulated. Possibly this Indicates that there were no restric-

13Pol. it. 5. 2. 14Pol. xxiii. 17. 2.

S u p r a , p. 37, n. 54.

16Pol. Iv. 3. 12; 4. 1, 5; vill. 12. 2; xvi. 17. 1; xxiii.

16. 5; the city of the Messenlans, xvi.13. 3. Sometimes Messene
Isused in a sense almost equivalent to the state: iv. 33. 7;
xxil. 10. 5; xxiii. 17. 2, 3. Polybius evidently considers that
the state was centered there; cf. also Strabo vill. 4. 1.

17Pol. II. 5. 1; Iv. 5. 4; 6. 8; 80. 6; v. 5. 1, 3, 6, 7;

17, 1; 91. 3; 92. 2; xvi. 16. 9; 17. 4; cf. also Ditt. Syll.3 ,
624. 6-7.

18Perlplus 45. 10 IG, V, 1, 1421 (Ditt. Syll.5 , 952).


tlona on trade over the land boundaries of the territory. If
Cyparissia formed part of an organization with the rest of Mes­
senia that would be expected.
A further indication of Cyparlsslan autonomy is to be
found In a grant of proxeny by Lusl to two Cyparlasians. It la
dated to the late fourth or early third centuries. This Is not
Incompatible with membership In a Messenian organization, for cit­
izens of the Achaean League are sometimes referred to only by
their native cities with no indication of their federal cltlzen-
,, 21
In 217 during the Social War the Cyparisslans repulsed
Fyrrhlas, the Aetolian general, when he invaded Messenia from
22 23
Ells. This has been Interpreted by Niese as indicative of
the Independence of Cyparissia from Messene, but in Itself the
statement gives no positive evidence. Cyparissia could have
fought against Pyrrhlas as a member of the Messenian organization
just as well as an independent member of the Achaean League.
Thouria, as the Delphic proxeny decree Indicates, stood
in the same theoretical relation to the Messenian state about 320
as did the city on Ithome itself. For the second century B.C.
there Is evidence that the Thourlan tribal divisions had the same
names as those of the capital city. 25 The tribes had been called

20 IG, V, 2, 390.

2 ^Cf. IG, 2 II2 , 3, 2313. 62: Polycrates, son of Knasiades,

an Arglve; hl,~Tl , 3, 2314. 17; Menander, son of Menippus, an
Achaean from Argos.

22 Pol. v. 92. 5.
Qeschichte der grlechlschen und makedonlschen Staaten,
II, 411, nT~T.

2 4 B&lte (P.-W., VI2 , 636) considers that the form of the

ethnic in the Delphic proxeny decree Indicates that Thouria stood
in a perioecic relation to Messene (the capital city on Ithome).
The similar use of the ethnic for Ithome, however, indicates that
their position was theoretically the same at that period.
The names of the five Messenian tribes are known from
the tax decree, IjG, V, 1, 1433 (Wilhelm, Jahreshefte, XVII [1914],
52-53), dated ca. 100 B.C. They are named after the Heraclids:
Cresphontis, DaTphontis, Aristomachis, Hyllis, and Cleolaea. The
name Dalphontls appears in an earlier document, IG, V, 1, 1425.
Both Dalphontls and Aristomachis appear in a Thourlan catalogue of
the second century B.C., IQ, V, 1, 1386. S. Szanto (AusgewShlte
Abhandlungen, ed. H. Swoboda [Tdbingen, 1906], pp. 241 -42) sug-
after the Heraclids, evidently as part of the attempt to create a
tradition for the state. It la probable that the tribes were i n ­
stituted In the capital city at the time of the refounding and
extended to Thouria when that town was Incorporated Into the M e s ­
senian state in 338. Thus there is evidence that Thouria both
enjoyed some local independence and that It was linked to the
capital city closely since both had the same tribal organization,
and theoretically were on the same footing In respect to the
Corone, Thouria, and Mothone possessed an autonomous coin-
2 0
age. If the Indications of the epigraphical evidence and P o l y ­
bius are accepted, which indicate the complete control of the d i s ­
trict by the capital city In the period after 240, this coinage
should probably be dated before that year. It has been dated to
the period Just before the entrance of Messene into the Achaean
League. The dating apparently rests on the view of Kuhn that
the Messenian towns stood in a perioecic relation to the capital
city. An autonomous coinage seemed Incompatible with that and
the years when the state was being dismembered by the Achaean
League were apparently the most suitable for this Indication of
the Independence of the Messenian towns. Stylistically the coins
can be placed In the third century, and Bftlte has suggested a
third century date for those of Thouria. They could have been
issued by the towns as members of a federal organization. During

gests that the institution of the tribes occurred after 338 when
Thouria was added to Messene. It seems more probable that 338
would be the date of their extension throughout Messenia rather
than of their Institution. Valmin has proposed (following a s u g ­
gestion of L. Robertj t h a t Oupisia found in the Thourian document
about the dispute with Megalopolis (Bull. L und, 1928-29, Nc. 1-
supra, p . 103, n. 168) is also a Thourian tribe (Et u d e s , p. 6 6 ).
It may be that another tribe of different nomenclature existed In
Thouria, but Valmin's original suggestion that Oupisia was a koma
s e e m s preferable (Bull. L u n d , 1 S 2 8 - 2 9 , p. 117).
26 Head, Hia t o r i a H u m o r u m 2 , p. 433. The a u t o n o m o u s c o i n ­
age of Asine, if c o r r e c t l y d a t e d to the second century B.C., must
have b e e n issued. 8 7 it as a aestor of the Aohaean heag-oe w h i c h it
e n t e r e d bef~re 196.
h. »e!*., :•« Win cwe *er, lea ec'jl't -ter B-.r. lea, * 2* J'
*• * * >, •'* fw : f f . g l i f - f i .

VI2 , $ 3 $ ,
29T2ie su b je c t ±9 very obscure but a p p a re n tly sense of th e
the period from about 240 to 191 there Is no evidence that the
towns were Independent.
The evidence thus shows that In the fourth century, b e ­
fore the Wars of the Successors, the Messenian towns possessed a
certain local Independence, but, If the position of Thouria may
be taken as indicative, they were closely Joined to the capital
city politically by a common tribal system, which--in a state
founded, as Messene had been, at one stroke--implies a common
political organisation. This view is strengthened by the evi­
dence of the Delphic proxeny decrees which suggest a sympolitical
organization. The combination of local autonomy and a general
sympolitical relationship indicates that Messene was organized
originally as a federal league. It is significant that two of
the states which founded Messene, Boeotia, and Arcadia were organ­
ized as Leagues. The almost complete lack of details, however,
from Messene does not allow a comparison to be made with their
organizations. Yet, If an Inscription vouching for the presence
demlourgol In Messene is correctly dated to the late fourth
and early third centuries, it Is probable that the Messenian gov­
ernment was originally organized on the model of that of the
Arcadian League where demlourgol are found as both a federal and
municipal institution . 3 0 Until 336 the organization would have
included only Ithome, Cyparissia, added about 365, probably Pylus,
and the newly founded towns of Corone and Colonldes. The terri­
torial award of the Hellenic League would bring in the former

Arcadian towns issued autonomous coins while members of the A r ­

cadian League (Busolt and Swoboda, Grlechlsche Staatskunde,
p. 1405). Likewise some of the members of the Achaean League i s ­
sued autonomous coins in addition to their federal coinage 'Ay­
mard, Les assemblees, p. 167, n. 6 ).

3 0 I1, V, 1, 1425. T h e i n s c r i p t i o n may, h o w e v e r , b e d a t e d

t o o e arly, see s u p r a , p. 6 0 , n. 10. T h e I n s t i t u t i o n of aemlourg;ol
w a s f a i r l y w i d e s p r e a d i n the P e l o p o n n e s u s a n d a t a l a t e r p e r i o d
Is f o u n d I n the A c h a e a n L e a g u e a n d I t s m e m b e r s t a t e s (Ay m a r d , L e s
a s s e m b l e e s . pp. 1 7 3 - 7 5 ) . O f the o t h e r M e s s e n i a n I n s t i t u t i o n s t h e
epfcorate Is k n o w n for the p e r i o d ca. 2 2 0 (Pol. lv. 4. 2; 31. 2).
It Is p r o b a b l y ortly t h e f o r m t a k e n b y the t i m o c r a t i c g o v e r n m e n t
an d loes not I n d i c a t e a n y s p e c i f i c b o r r o w i n g from Sparta; Valmin
.'jt n >t! c*d 3f art sr. Influence tr. the second cer.t ~ r y 1 . 2 . at
?h 5-.f :• I : . I -.nd, I .C- - 2 1 , , . : . m * s y n e -:.!a dr. m r . f r x s
(fa lid# { - i r t j f f a t fa in *§;':■!?*] f. (fa I n f l u i t n i 'if !:,1 A .f a i m
League Uol. iv. 2; Busolt and Sioboda, urlechlsche Staatskunde,
v 512, ft. I 515*. Ia* 522.
n. 9, 173-75).
perioecic towns, Thouria, Pharae, Asine, and itothone, and the
small towns along the east coast of the Messenian Gulf.
It also seems clear that, as Seellger deduced, in the la t ­
ter part of the third century the capital city must have been
completely predominant. Prom the beginning it would have d o m i ­
nated the organisation by Its size and position and eventually
suppressed the rights of the other states. The obscure period
between 320 and 240 does not allow one to hazard a guess as to how
or when the change took place. Poseibly it resulted from the
Macedonian use of Ithome to control the district. This closely
knit organization was broken up when Messene was Incorporated I n ­
to the Achaean League and the separate towns made members of the
Achaean organization in their own right.
Throughout the period of Messenian independence, from the
founding of the state in 369 to its Incorporation into the Achaean
League In 191, Messene was evidently a unified, strongly central­
ized state. It survived the frequent Spartan raids and the di s ­
ruptive Invasions of the Wars of the Successors. Similarly the
social unrest which resulted in the massacre of the normally t i m o ­
cratic government In 215 does not seem to have Impaired Its unity.
Against the aggrandizement of the Achaean League Messene held out
until further resistance was hopeless, and, once In the League,
had striven to break away. The practical measures taken to create
such a state may be seen in the deliberately planned scheme of
fortification by which small forts and towers were disposed alcng
the principal routes of communication. Psychologically the co n ­
sciousness of a distinctive Messenian nationality, which had s u r ­
vived the period of Spartan domination, was fostered by the c r e a ­
tion of a historical tradition, for which stories about early Mes-
senian history were invented. The state was linked to this s u p ­
posed past by naming the tribes after the Heracllds and by the a t ­
tempt to become a member of the amphietyonlc council. The c o n ­
sistent foreign policy of Messene, however, of lending Itself to
the alms of the major Greek powers seeking to create a bloc In
the Peloponnesus at last proved its undoing. While Messene had
made a Roman alliance and looked to Rome for protection, the I n ­
terest of Rome was In the maintenance of order in the states under
its control and that purpose could be served better by allowing
the Achaean League to control the Peloponnesus than by supporting
the cause of Greek particularism. Thus the history of Messene as
an Independent state in control of its own foreign policy was
closed in the year 191 when Rome allowed Its Incorporation into
th-> Achaean League. Prom that time its history is of Interest
only as a unit of the larger whole of the Achaean League and fi­
nally of Roman Greece.

The Identification of the Ager Denthaliatis

The identification of the Ager Denthaliatis has been a l ­

most as vexed a problem as was its ownership in antiquity. The
problem Is Involved with the identification of the famous sanc­
tuary of Artemis Limnatis where Teleclus, one of the Spartan
kings, was slain at the beginning of the early Messenian-Spartan
Wars. Tacitus (Annals Iv. 43. 1-2) states that the Messenlan-
Spartan dispute, with which the senate dealt, concerned:
. . . . de lure templl Dianae Llmnatldle, quod suis a maiori-
bus suaque in terra dlcatum Lacedaemonll firmabant anna H u m
memcrla vat unique carminibus sed Macedonia Philippi, cum quo
bellassent, armls ademptum ac post C. Caesaris et M. Antonll
sententia redditum. contra Measenii veterem inter Herculis
posteros divisionem Peloponnesi protulere, suoque regi Den-
thallatem agrum,In quo id delubrum, cesslsse; . . . .
It is reasonably supposed that this temple, famous In t r a ­
dition, was the same temple of Artemis Limnatis as that referred
to by Pausanias and Strabo, although they do not mention the Ager
Denthaliatis In connection with It. Stephanus* notice of the Ager
(Steph. Bya., s.v. Denthallol) is of little topographical value.
Accordingly, to ascertain the general location of the district,
one must consider the Identification of the famous sanctuary of
Artemis Limnatis.
Pausanias four times refers specifically to the famous
sanctuary where Teleclus was killed (ill. 2. 6 ; 7. 4; iv. 4. 2;
31. 3). The first three references are in historical discussions,
the last in a topographical section. The notices are consistent
throughout. When the sanctuary is first mentioned, he observes
that it was in the Messenian-Spartan border district at a place
called Limnae; when he refers to LImnae In his itinerary he e x ­
pressly states that it was there Teleclus was killed (iv. 31. 3).
The only variation is that in the historical section Pausanias d e ­
scribes it as In the border district, but in the topographical
section It Is placed ^ v Tjj ^ . t r o ^ y a i u j with reference to Thouria
and coupled with Calamae (see Appendix II). The references are
not incompatible, for £^ T j ^ i r o y a i u ; in relation to Thouria


may indicate a direction eastward In Taygetua where the boundary

line of Pausanias1 period was drawn.
Strabo's topographical notice (vii.'l. 4. 9) agrees with
those of Pausanias. He describes the sanctuary as on the Mes-
aenian-Spartan border.
The topographical information from the notices, then, is
that the famous sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis was in the border
district of Laconia and Messenia in such a position that it could
be described as ft/ tj f t r o y a ( w/ with reference to Thouria,
and in the neighborhood of Calamae.
Two Bites have been identified as the place of the famous
sanctuary, one by Ross (Relsenund Relserouten durch Orlechenland,
I, 5) at Volimno in the headwaters of the Nedon River, the other
by Kolbe (10, V, 1, p. 260) near the Sandava River (Choerius),
and more precisely at Brinda, a small village near the Sandava,
by Valmin (Etudes, pp. 190 f f . ). Both.are supported by epigraphi-
cal evidence as the sites of a temple of Artemis Limnatis, but
the question 1s which is the famous sanctuary?
First, let us consider the arguments of Kolbe and Valmin.
The inscription recording the boundary delimitation of 78 A.D.
(supra, p .14, n. 37) between Messenia and Sparta mentions a sanc­
tuary of Artemis Limnatis at the southern end of the boundary
line (10, V, 1, 1431. 38 ff.}: ’(.[rr t 76 o
* JA * A f *1 A ^ 1 ) I
U j-O u <r / 1/ /} A T f^4 t T OS 0 I <T T U p T o y s t JM —
a- o v* t
t ^
~7a o <r o i
' t-
aj du r
V '
A o ty% t / ois o$
"• ' . 1
oys >j i / A T I

Tfai Am. h 1 6 a ' fAO* / rryios ‘E Ac u k<*-s . The Choerius is

identified with great probability as the Sandava. The sanctuary
of Artemis Limnatis mentioned In the Inscription is identified
with the famous sanctuary where Teleclus was killed, because the
latter is referred to in the literary sources as Ji v f t ( &oo /o / s
or Jt * to/V of> / o i s , and the sanctuary of the inscription plainly
satisfies that requirement. Further, Pausanias (ill. 26. 11)
mentioned a sanctuary of Artemis at Alagonla: 6t a. u T o 9 1
d § i <t A i o i/ u s~ i) v * a / A ,o T f <6 os i s t Hr' /iy$ a . Alagonla is
plausibly identified with Brinda by Valmin (Btudes. pp. 187 ff.)
who has also suggested a site for the Artemis temple on the hill
occupied by the chapel of Hagios Ilias. Kolbe had previously
considered this reference of Pausanias to be to the famous temple
of Artemis Limnatis and Valmin has followed him. Thus the fol­
lowing equation is obtained by Kolbe and Valmin: the famous temple

of Artemis Llmnatls = the Artamis Llama11a temple of IG, V, 1,

1431 = the site at Brlnda (Alagonla) where Pausanlas had placed
a temple of Artemis.
The difficulties in this view are that Pausanlas* state­
ments do not support It. The assumption that the temple of Ar t e ­
mis at Alagonla (Paus. 111. 26 . 11) la the famous temple of Arte
mis Llmnatls seems unjustified, for the temple at Alagonla Is not
even qualified with the epithet Llmnatls, and, whan the famous
V* tall* tba
of 1 o 1 « o 1 m b I n « o n n « e t i o n «ri C£z It. X a aSAltlcra, 7*na*nl»&

in his topographical section states that the famous temple was at

Llmnae, Te V [ r o ^fa. r u< w i t h T « f « r « n c e t o T h o u r 1&. KoVba

felt no difficulty in making the Identification with a site at

some distance to t h e southeast of Kalamata (ef. Kolbe, 3b. Berlin.
A k a d . . 1905, p. 59), but Valmin assumes a confusion In Pausanlas
and 3traho (Etudes, p. 193) of t w o dllferent a c c o u n t * of the s l a v ­
ing of Teleclus.
Valmin1s discussion of the problem In the Etudes la Im­
paired by his suggested identification of Llmnae with the marshes
of Haglos FIoros (Etudes, p. 53) and of the temple there with t h e
temple of Artemis Llmnatls. To allow this he assumed the confu­
sion of two separate accc'tnts in Pausanlas. Even with the cor­
rect Identification of the temple at Haglos Floros as the temple
of Pamlsus the difficulty does not disappear, for It is very dif-
j /
ficult to understand Pausanlas1 phrase, T'ji j* t r v / a i , as
applied to a site so far to the southeast of Kalamata. (There Is
n o further reference to the problem of Llmnae In Valmin*s prelimi­
nary or final accounts of his Investigations at the temple of
Pamlsus [Bull. Lund. 1933-34, pp. 20-23; 1934-35, pp. 42-r43; The
Swedish Measenla Expedition, pp. 417 f f . J.) Then, plausible as
is Valmin*s Identification of Alagonla with Brlnda and the temple
with the chapel of Haglos Illaa, it Is not directly supported as
the site of a sanctuary of Artemis Llmnatls by inscriptions as Is
the site at Volimno by Ross's discoveries.
These difficulties with Pausanlas largely disappear If
Ross's identification with the site at Volimno Is accepted. Some
Inscriptions discovered there refer to Artemis Llmnatls (10, V, i,
1375-77). They do not specifically identify that sanctuary with
the famous sanctuary, but the site satisfies the other known r e ­
quirements well. Volimno can be referred to as \ v j j . t r * ya. Iuj

from Tbourla, for It is In the s e x tains to the east. There is a

little difficulty In including Celearns (Otannitsa) In the earns d e -
scriptlon, but not nearly so such •• «ltb the identlfleet ton aede
by Kolbe end Valmin. A coupling of two eaell sites in the saae
general region Is understandable. The references to the sanctuary
j * < 0
as i r ju * t' * i or ** '* - * J * ere applisable to
Vollaeo as well es to Brlnda. It i• eeperflwewe \a male* aa e
literal aeealng for tianee end ( *e » site at is «*?*&**. se
its salt of art eats U a a U i e»* el teetreat is tea •v«aw«»«4
\o i. a, 'ixio, ^
Thai i t M IDI DfltWr 5? 9 W 9M *T ^ *ewww u n c e««rf
or trtami* Liszatia i* to be identified with the site at Voliano
and that the temple of irtemie Llmnatie of IG,v, l, leai aay be
the same ae the Artemi s temple of Pausanlas (111, 26. 11) at ill*
gonln, but la not the famous sanctuary.
Bhite CP.-H.. Ill A. 1312-15), arltlng before the publi­
cation Of ValminfS Btudea accepted Ross's identification on the
grounds that Kolbs's reconstruction of the boundary described In
IQ , v, 1, 1431, was Incorrect in placing the famous Artemis sanc­
tuary too far east. He pointed out that the famous sanctuary Is
more closely connected with Pharae (Ealamata) through Teleclus
and so preferred Ross's identification.
Although the famous sanctuary Is plausibly located at
Volimno thus localizing the Ager Denthallatls to this region, the
extent of the Ager must still remain uncertain. Is it limited,
as seems probable, to the district of the upper Hedon or does It
Include all the mountain district to the south and north as Valmin
suggests (Etudes, p. 195)? It scarcely seems possible to answer
the question. The fact that It was the subject of so much dispute
may be explained as well by the fact that It contained a famous
sanctuary as that it was a large and fertile district.

The Identification of Calamae and Pharae

The modern village of Glarmitza has been suggested as the

location of three ancient sites, Calamae (Weil, Ath. M i t t ., VII,
216; Kolbe, IG, V, 1, p. 258), Pharae (Pernlce, Ath. M i t t .. XIX,
355 f f .; Valmin, E t u d e s , pp. 41 ff.), and Mesola {Fcvster, BS A ,
X, 166; Brandenatein, P.-W., XIX, 1801-3). On the whole the e v i ­
dence seema to favor Calamae.
The literary evidence for Calamae is slight. Pausanlas
(lv. 31. 3) coupled it with Llmnae (see Appendix I) and placed
both v t-j p . t r o in relation to Thouria. Polybius relates
that in the Social War Lycurgus of Sparta took Calamae by treachery
while an route to meet his Aetolian allies advancing through Elis
under Pyrrhiaa (v. 92. 4). Since the Cyparlsslans turned Pyrrhias
back the Junction was never affected and Lycurgus did not get b e ­
yond Andanla. Thus we know that Calamae was a small fortified
site on one of the routes from Sparta to northern Messenla. As
Valmin has pointed out (R t u d e s , p. 55) the expedition of Lycurgus
was in the nature of a sudden raid so that he would probably
choose one of the paths over Taygetus in preference to the easy
route through the Derveni pass where Aratus might have interfered.
It is scarcely possible to decide which route Lycurgus took, but
the speediest one from Sparta would have been by way of the Mistra-
Glannitza pass. Valmin has used this argument to advance the
claims of Pidima, near Haglos Floros, his own candidate for C a ­
lamae, but the route o.Ter Taygetus at that point is farther from
Sparta and Pidima does not have the characteristics of a fort.
Two inscriptions found near the chapel of Haglos Basllelos,
approximately twenty minutes walk from Giannitza, mention the
name Calamae, but not in such a context that an identification may
be made on their evidence alone. IG, V, 1, 1369. 1-4, reads;
■■ij 77 ijs '*/ A £- k^t fja. 1 1 * ov >w v I ojujy i o y V a. t T f J sj A &. k f <( a i-

p o u t e y y* t o /a ^ [ r j * * r *.. . . . Since the stone was

not set up in Sparta it is a reasonable supposition that it was
set up where the man lived, in Calamae. The other inscription (IQ,


V, 1, 1370. 28) Is read by Kolbe: \ s k ^ X a s , but the impli­

cation of the phrase is obscure. Although these inscriptions are
not conclusive, it is significant that both, found near Giannitza,
mention Calamae.
The other factor involved in the identification is how
well Giannitza and Pidima (proposed by Valmin as the site of
Calamae) satisfy the indications of the literary sources. Gian­
nitza is an acropolis of great natural strength, is strongly for­
tified, and its position at the end of a pass is clearly of stra­
tegic importance. It would have been to Lycurgus* advantage to
occupy it, thus ensuring his own line of communication, and giving
him a base on the Messenlan side of the mountains. Pidima on the
other hand is very weak naturally. It is situated In a cleft
dominated by a cliff from which an enemy could shoot arrows or
roll stones. It gives one the impression, from its diminutive
size and position, of having been a farmers* village rather than
a regular fort. Pidima, however, fits Pausanias* Indication of
being r y ytfiro ya . / u/ from Thouria better than Giannitza, a l ­
though the phrase is not Inappropriate to the latter (see A ppen­
dix I). On the whole, then, because of the epigraphical evidence
and the better physical qualifications of Giannitza it seems p r e f ­
erable to Identify Calamae with that site.
It remains to consider Valmin*s arguments for identifying
Pharae with Giannitza. He discounts the epigraphical evidence as
indecisive and bases his argument on the following points (Etudes,
pp. 41 f f . ). Pausanias (lv. 30. 3) referred to a sanctuary of
Nicomachus and Gorgasus, a curative establishment, at Pharae.
Valmin believes he has found this on the summit of Giannitza where
a current of warm vapor issues from a cleft In the rock. Then,
Valmin stresses the argument proposed by Pernice that there are
very few ancient sherds and blocks at Kalamata. Thirdly, Pau­
sanlas (iv. 31. 1) mentioned a grove near Pharae which Valmin sug­
gests identifying with Haglos Basilelos where the inscriptions
cited above (IG, V, 1, 1369-70) were found. There Is a spring
there and probably It was a cult place In antiquity.
Pausanias, however, gives no details of the curative e s ­
tablishment at Pharae and warm vapor suggests a prophetic rather
than a curative shrine. There are, it is true, very few blocks
around Kalamata but there are some in the wall of the medieval
castle and Sklas (" T o -no y ■>a 0 / * a. Jt t* / a. 0 m *L t **• y 'ty
M£ir<rTf*'. c (pa/otZis * at r<^ 7T//? / f .« gphemerla Arohalologlke.
1911, pp. 107 f f .) reports the discovery of ancient masonry. In
addition, the flooding of the Nedon must have deposited a great
deal of gravel over the site. As for the grove, many sites can
be pointed out around Kalamata even If It cannot be narrowed by
definite evidence to a particular one.
The identification of Fharae with Kalamata Is favored by
the literary evidence. Strabo (vlli. 4. 4-5) states that the
Nedon River flowed into the sea by Pharae and that It lay five
stades from the sea. Pausanias (lv. 31. 1) gives the distance as
six stades from the sea. There has been a certain amount of argu­
ment about the rate of alluvlation of the Nedon to account for
the discrepancy between these and the present distance of Kalamata
from the sea which Is greater than both. Since there is no reli­
able data over a long period of time on the rate of Increase,
argument appears superfluous. The Important point Is that Pau­
sanlas and Strabo Indicate a site near the sea and Giannitsa lies
about three miles from It, while Kalamata Is only about half a
mile distant. Valmin answers this by assuming an upper and lower
city as at Thouria and Cardamyle. He proposes Giannltsanlka, a
village near the coast, as the lower city, but It Is at some dis­
tance from the Nedon and has even fewer ancient remains than
Kalamata. Accordingly It seems better to accept the usual identi­
fication of Fharae with Kalamata.
The evidence for placing Meaola (Strabo vlll. 4. 5, 7) at
Olannltza is very slight. The name is known from Strabo and
Stephanus Bysantlnus (s.v. Mesola). Strabo makes It a locality
of his own period and, on the authority of Bphorus, one of the d i ­
visions of the country In the period of Cresphontes (vlll. 4. 7).
Considering that It Is not mentioned elsewhere as a historical
site it seems better to regard it with Strabo as a name for the
district of the northeast corner of the Messenlan Gulf, rather
than apply It specifically to the town site of Glannltsa. The
name sty well have survived from the early period of Messenlan

Aymard, Andre. Lee premiere rapports de Rome et de la c o n federa­

tion achaienne. Bordeaux, 1938.
Lee assemblies de la confederation achaienne. Bordeaux,
"Les strateges de la confederation acheenne de 202 a
172 av. J.-C., Revue des itudea anclennes, XXX (1928),
Blckermann, E. "Les prelimlnalres de la seconds guerre de M a c e ­
doine,” Revue de phllologle, LXI (1935), 59-81.
BSlte, F. Real -EncyclopMdie der claeslschen Altertumsvissen-
schaft. Ed i t e d b y Pauly-Wissova-Kroll. Vol. Ill A.
Article, "Sparta (Geographic)"; Vol. V I 2 . Article,
Brandensteln, W. Real-EncyclopMdle der classlschen Altertums-
v lssenschaft. Edited b y Pauly-Wissova-Kroll. Vol. XIX.
Article, "Pharae."
Busolt, G . , and Svoboda, H. Griechische Staatskunde. 2 vols.
Munich, 1920-26.
Calhoun, G. M. "Demosthenes' Second Philippic," Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association,
LXIV (1933), 1-17.
Clochi, P. "La Grace de 346 a 339 av. J.C.," Bulletin de c o r r e ­
spondence hellenique, XLIV (1920), 106-59.
_________ . "Les naopes de Delphes et la politique hellinlque de
356 a 327," Bulletin de correspondence hellinique, XL
(1916), 78-142.
Colin, G. Rome et la Grace. Paris, 1905.
De Sanctis, G. "La pace del 362/1," Rivista dl fllologla, LXII
(1934), 145-55.
Ehrenberg, V. Real-Encycloptdle der classlschen Altertumsviasen-
schaft. Edited by Pauly-Wissova-Kroll. Vol. XVI. Ar­
ticle, "Nabis." Vol. Ill A. Article, "Sparta (Geachi-
c h t e )."
Fine, J. V. A. "The Background of the Social Wa r of 220-217 B.C.,"
American Journal of Philology, LXI (1940), 129-65.
Oaertrlngen, Hiller von, and Lattermann, H. "Hlra und A n d s n l a , ”
Programs sum Wlnckelmannafeste der arehaeologlschen Ge-
sellschaft su Berlin, LXXI (1911).
Guarducci, M. "I culti dl Andanla," Studl e materials dl storla
della rellglone, X (1934), 174-204.
Haapl, F. "Die lakedftmonlsche PeriUken," Hermes, LXXII (1937),
_________ . Die grlechlschen staatsvertrlge des 4 Jahrhunderts v.


Christi Geb. Leipzig, 1936.

Heuss, A. "Die vSlkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der rBmiachen Aussen-
polltik in republikanlacber Zeit, Kilo, Beiheft XXXI
Holleaux, M. Rome, la Greco et les monarchies hellenistiques au
111° siecle avant J.-C. Paris, 1921.
Kahrstedt, U. Oriechisches Staatsrecht. Vol. I, Sparta und seine
Symmachie. GBttlngen, 1922.
Kolbe, W. "Die Grenzen Messeniens In der ersten Kalserzelt,"
Hltteilungen des deutschen archtologisches Institutes
(Athenische Abteilung), XXIX (1904), 364-78.
Kroymann, J. "Sparta und Messenien," Neue ptailologische Unter-
suchungen, Vol. XI (1936).
Kuhn, S. Ueber die Entstehung der Staedte der Alten. Leipzig,
Larsen, J. A. 0. "Representative Government in the Panhellenlc
Leagues," Classical Philology, XX (1925), 313-29; XXI
(1926), 52-71.
"Was Greece Free between 196 and 146 B.C.," Classical
Philology, XXX (1935), 193-214.
_________ . "The Peace of Phoenice and the Outbreak of the Second
Macedonian W a r , " Classical Philology, XXXII (1937), 15-
Levi, M. "Un docuiaento d'arbitrato fra Megalopoli e Turla,"
Rivista di filologia, LIX (1931), 93-97.
Momlgllano, A. "La !c oi i/ i, £ t # / v dal 386 al 338 a.C.," Rivista
di filologia, LXII (1934), 482-514.
Niccolinl, G. La confederazlone achaea. Padua, 1914.
Nlese, B. "Neue Beitrtge zur Geschichte und Landeskunde Lake-
dtmons," Nachrichten von der kBnlglichen Gesellschaft der
Wlssenschaften zu Gftttingen, 1906, 101-42.
Otto, W. De sacrls Messenlorum. Dissertation. Halle, 1933.
Pareti, L. Storia di Sparta arcaica. Part I, Dalle originl alia
conquista della Messenia. Florence, 1937.
Reincke, W. Real-Encycloptdie der classlschen Altertumswissen-
schaft. Bdited by Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll. Vol. XV. A rti­
cle, "Messenien."
Seellger, K. "Messenien und der aohllsche Bund," Jahresberlcht
des Gymnasiums in Zlttau, 1896-97.
Shero, L. R. "Aristomenes the Messenlan," Transactions and P r o ­
ceedings of the American Philological Association, LXIX
(1938), 500-31.
Swoboda, H. "Studien zu den griechlschen Bttnden," Klio, XII
(1912), 17-60.
Taeger, F. "Der Friede voa 362/1," Tfibinger Beitrtge sur Alter-
tumswlssenschaft, XI (1930).
Tara, W. W. Antlgonos Gonatas. Oxford, 1913.
Thompson, M. "A Hoard of Greek Federal Silver," Hesperia, VIII

(1939), 116-54.
Tod, M. N. "Notes and Inscriptions from South-Weatern Kessenla,"
Journal of Hellenic Studies, XXV (1905), 32-55.
International Arbitration amongst the Greeks. Oxford,
Valmin, M. N. Etudes topographlques aur la Messenle anclenne.
Lund, 1930.
. The Swedish Messenia Expedition. Lund, 1938.

. "Inscriptions de la Mesaenle," Kungl. humanistiska


Vetenskapssamfundet 1 Lund, Arsberflttelae (Bulletin de la

societe royale dea lettrea de Lund), 1926-29, pp. 108-55.
. "Rapport prelimlnaire de 1'expedition er. Mesaenle,
1933," Bulletin de la societe royale des lettres de Lund,
1933-34, pp. 9-24.
"Rapport prelimlnaire de 1'expedition en Mesaenle,
1934," Bulletin de la societe royale des lettres de Lund,
1934-35, pp. 1-52.
_________ . "Bin messenlsches Kastell und die arkadlsche Grenz-
frage," Skrlfter utgivna av avenska Instltutet 1 Rom, V,
(1939), 59-76.
Walbank, P. W. "Aratos' Attack on Cynaetha," Journal of Hellenic
Studies, LVI (1936), 64-70.
_________ . Philip V of Macedon. Cambridge, 1940,
Wilhelm, A. "Urkunden aus Messene," Jahreshefte des dsterrelchl-
schen archfiologischen Institutes In Wien, XVII (1914),
1 - 120.


_ h , :tu«( M T - 1\ V
'l«»' T<T»A*V I ;/.-■ . xTJJI
J ^ 1»

n . »* * T 4 0 1 ^
\Hp-t(.r*'i*k0 I / v ■
' W
#/ j *T vt '
•. l end? fY**
ot-rrA m stn Ooiht*

■. M C I 16-41. *
m 7. ?*/<■/!•*
;a 71 tu» A L f t f 14
M-r. iTt t e ' f i f

O« T-/* VI m« . fvi ’c\ y

Hut -14 **■ T\ / o r 1* ' * *

t-*aXy I

r * ’ !C
. . , o4
- ...........

a a pa
r i t . » /, \f
OltofoMt (rOLp OF
(M 4 « r « « U
m e $s c * " *
/* /*rtoi
Ti/A (f •^
A *>•.<.* <-ofr*TH»t

O \ c o l a«i ots rf>«

, A va,fO*i.i
ptr ^w-'i
•/ * T Ti* * r » t **A jP * * '* e

At «/ T A S

Q rHtt-AA/uSA

Hap of Mesaenla

Centres d'intérêt liés