The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 04 : $b Greece to the Roman Conquest
History
The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 04 : $b Greece to the Roman Conquest
World history
The treaty founded on these conditions was ratified by all the parties
almost without opposition. A little delay arose from the Thebans, who
were reluctant to part with the sovereignty they had hitherto exercised
over many of the Bœotian towns, and wished, for the sake of at least
retaining their pretensions, to ratify in the name of all the other
Bœotians. But Agesilaus, who was charged to receive the oath of their
ministers, refused to accept it in this form, and required them strictly
to conform to the Persian ordinance, and expressly to acknowledge the
independence of all other states. One impediment to the general peace
still remained. The governments of Corinth and Argos did not consider
themselves bound by the treaty to alter the relations which had hitherto
subsisted between them; and it was only when Agesilaus threatened them
with war, that they consented, the one to dismiss, and the other to
withdraw, the Argive garrison from Corinth. Its departure was attended by
an immediate reaction in the state of the Corinthian parties. The authors
of the massacre, knowing themselves to be generally odious to their
fellow citizens, thought themselves no longer safe at home, and left the
city. Most of them found refuge at Athens, where they met with a much
more honourable reception than they deserved. The exiles of the opposite
faction were recalled; and their return dissolved the union with Argos,
and restored the influence of Sparta, and the oligarchical institutions.
This treaty, which was long celebrated under the name of the Peace of
Antalcidas, was undoubtedly a masterpiece of policy, nor does it appear
to deserve the censure which it incurred from the Attic orators and from
Plutarch, and which has been repeated by some modern writers, as a breach
of political morality. Sparta in her transactions with Persia during
the Peloponnesian War, had more than once acknowledged the title of the
Persian king to the dominion of the Asiatic Greeks; she had never pledged
herself to maintain their independence; and even if she had done so,
the revival of the maritime power of Athens, and its union with that of
Persia, would have afforded a fair plea for receding from an engagement
which she was no longer able to fulfil. The clause in favour of Athens
was perhaps only designed to excite jealousy and discord between Athens
and the hated Bœotians. It has been attributed to a deeper policy; it
has been considered as a device, by which Sparta reserved a pretext for
eluding the conditions of the treaty which she rigorously enforced in the
case of other states. But it is doubtful whether the exception expressly
made concerning the three islands which Athens was allowed to retain,
could have been needed, or if needful could have availed, as a colour
under which Sparta, while she stripped Thebes of her sovereignty in
Bœotia, might keep possession of Messenia and the subject districts of
Laconia. Sparta did not permit a question to be raised on this point. She
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account