Luke Madson (Rutgers University)
Xenia, proxenia, and other formal or informal delegations and diplomatic interactions (such as angeloi; presbeis; apostoloi; spondophoroi) between Athens and Sparta in the classical period represent a subset of data surrounding interstate transactions and political actors. These episodes have a direct bearing on Laconism within the Athenian civic community and are integral for understanding how Athenians perceived their own politicians and members of the elite who interacted diplomatically with Spartan emissaries at Athens or traveled to Sparta for various negotiations. There are certainly embassies which are unpreserved in the historical record (e.g., Thuc. 1.126: ἐπρεσβεύοντο may refer to multiple delegations), as well as impromptu negotiations (e.g., Thuc 1.72: τῶν δὲ Ἀθηναίων ἔτυχε γὰρ πρεσβεία…περὶ ἄλλων παροῦσα), and private interactions (e.g., [Andoc.] 4.26 and Plut. Alc. 12 on Alcibiades personal relationships at Olympia) which could result in diplomatic discussions and political scrutiny. Thus, such a broadly conceived catalogue presents a series of inflection points and establishes a timeline for Laconism at Athens. For our purposes, Laconism will be a mode of ethnic, ideological, political, and philosophical ideation which embodied a particular social praxis. This cultural phenomenon could embody elitism, anti-populism, conservatism, and nostalgia (cf. Tigerstedt 1965; more recently Zaccarini 2011 and 2017).
While prior studies have examined particular civic orders (like the Thirty at Athens), the structure of embassies, or types of international agreements (like the Peace of Nicias), there is (surprisingly) no complete synthesis on Athenian-Spartan diplomatic history. Similarly, the relationship of these diplomatic interactions with Laconophilia (e.g., Munn 2000: 67–70; Mack 2015: 116–7) is relatively unexplored. The basic evidence is amply reported: official embassies between Athens and Sparta have been documented by Mosley (1963; 1965; 1970; 1971a and 1971b and 1973b), and there are catalogues of treaties, alliances, and other interstate transactions (e.g. Calderini 1949; Piccirilli 1973; Bengston 1975; Nieto 1975; Walbank 1978; Baltrusch 1994; Panessa 1999; Buis 2018). Since these diplomatic exchanges can offer opportunities for espionage, subterfuge, and unconventional conflict, scholars have examined that aspect as well (Gerolymatos 1986; cf. Losada 1972; Starr 1974; and Price 2001).
I present an investigation into all such episodes preserved in the historical record (supplementing Mosley’s conservative estimates). I also establish an earlier chronological framework for understanding Laconism as a serious concern in Athenian politics. Isagoras & Kleomenes I (Hdt. 5.70–72) suggest this phenomenon is earlier than Zaccarini’s (2011) analysis, who situates Laconophilic discourse in late fifth-century retrospections on Kimon’s career. I also outline an innovative prosopography of Laconizers at Athens, that argues for segmental Laconism where the ideology of discrete factions in the two poleis could intersect. Among many others, I classify Kimon (Plut. Cim. 15–16; Eupolis fr. 221); Xanthippos & Leotychidas (Hdt. 8.131); Pericles & Archidamos (Thuc. 2.13.1; Plut. Per. 23); Nicias & Pleistonax (Thuc. 5.16.1; Plut. Nic. 9–10; Lys. 18.10); Alcibiades (e.g., Thuc. 6.61.7; 6.88.9; 7.19.1; 8.47.2; 8.86.6; Lys. 14.30; Theopompus fr. 288; Timaios fr. 99); Xenophon (Xen. Anab. 3.1.4–7; 5.3.6–13; 7.7.57; Diog. Laert. 2.6); and Phokion (Plut. Phoc. 10; 20).