Brock and Hodkinson’s Alternatives to Athens is an important collection. The essays, selected from papers given during the three-year Leeds-Manchester Greek History Research Seminar, explore the constitutional variety and breadth of socio-political organization outside democratic Athens, and in so doing complement other recent studies such as the Copenhagen Polis Centre’s Defining Ancient Arkadia, Catherine Morgan’s Athletes and Oracles, Jeremy McInerney’s Folds of Parnassos, and Angelos Chaniotis’ Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit.1
The essays contained in this volume provide a cogent, wide-ranging introduction to the scope and scale of political expression in the ancient Greek world that will be warmly welcomed by ancient historians and classical scholars alike. Analysis centers on the instability and diversity of governmental structure in Greece, from democracy to oligarchy and everything else in between. As befits such a project, contributors tackle polis and non-polis communities such as ethne, confederacies, and amphiktyonies. The appreciation of the variety, complexity, and chronological differentiation between and within ethne fits well with the trend in recent scholarship to rescue the ethnos from its previous scholarly ignominy as a primitive “tribal” and pre-polis entity.
In itself Brock and Hodkinson’s introduction unifies the collection and also makes a significant contribution to the discussion of alternative political and social identities by analyzing the reasons behind the modern tendency to overlook them in favor of democratic Athens. B and H demonstrate how the contemporary focus on Athens has been influenced both by the sheer quantity of material and literary evidence pertaining to classical Athens and especially by the importance of democratic forms in political debates of the twentieth century. As part of a wider cultural trend, political theorists and many classicists have often viewed Athenian democracy as the beginning in a teleological process of political and ideological evolution. Consequently, Athenian democracy has become integral to many western nations’ self-definition, especially the United States. And yet, Athenian democracy was not truly a model for the American founding fathers; nor does the evidence from antiquity suggest that the various phases in Athenian democratic reform were entirely “democratic” in intent or part of any directed evolution.
Together with many of the contributors B and H admirably address the problems in using Athens as a political model and in viewing ancient constitutional development as linear. Monarchy and tyranny were not necessarily preliminary “stages” of political development, steps on the way to democracy or oligarchy. The polis was not the ultimate form of ancient constitutional evolution, nor was Athens with its demokratia the archetypal, or “mature” polis. As B and H point out, for most of its history Athens was unusual in terms of its economy, resources, population, and territory. Even among democracies Athens cannot claim any primacy. As recent scholarship has shown, democratic and consensual political systems and institutions arose in relatively early periods of Greek history outside of Athens, independent of Athens and differing from the Athenian expressions in a variety of ways.2
The introduction sets the tone for the rest of the work, and throughout their discussion, B and H identify many of the problems inherent in such a collaboration, especially in terms of standardization and common descriptive vocabulary. They underscore the methodological challenges faced in formulating a suitable “interpretive framework” for the realities of ancient communities. Where, for example, does an amphiktyony end and an ethnos-state or confederacy begin? As the essays in this collection demonstrate, one type of community might easily and rapidly transform into another or add another layer of group identity to the collective without detracting or challenging the original structure. By recognizing the need for a descriptive methodology for non-polis groups, and by identifying some of the challenges, this volume has done much to shape the direction of future study.
B and H divide the essays into two main sections, the first concerning poleis and the second non-polis communities. The first half of this polis section deals with non-democratic communities and thus often concerns aristocratic and oligarchic groups.
R. Lane Fox opens the section by discussing Theognis’ anti-democratic sentiments. After reviewing the vexed questions of Theognis’ authorship and locale, Lane Fox dates the poet c. 600-560 (contra West), thereby placing him after Theagenes’ Megarian tyranny. He suggests that one of Theognis’ fears was thus not of a sole tyrant ruling over Megara, but rather of an oligarchy of city officials, the aisymnoi, known from Pausanias and later inscriptions. The late date for Lane Fox’s sources make this conclusion problematic, although they do not negate his previous argument for Theognis’ date. More persuasive is Lane Fox’s discussion of the effects on Theognis of social “reshuffling” in Megara and a loss in power among Megarian nobles, some of whom were even driven to attack other aristocratic noblemen, the Samian Geomoroi. He suggests, then, that Theognis writes not an “alternative” to democracy or Theagenes but to stasis and the breakdown of aristocratic society. In the second section of the essay Lane Fox turns to Theognis’ Nachleben, arguing on the basis of evidence from Plato that Theognid poetry became a partial foundation for anti-democratic ideology in late fifth-century Athens. His songs were sung at aristocratic gatherings and thus became learning material for educated and social males of the upper classes, e.g., the “Old Oligarch,” Kritias, and other so-called agathoi, but especially Alkibiades, whose Thucydidean speeches seem to echo Theognid sentiments and phrases. Lane Fox’s stimulating conclusions will hopefully encourage more discussion of the use of Theognid poetry.
H. van Wees offers a fresh look at Theognis’ Megara through the comparative lens of the Sicilian and American mafiosi. The fruitful new conclusions reached on this well-known subject demonstrate the value of such comparative studies and will certainly spark a lively discussion. Van Wees argues that Archaic Megara by Theognis’ time was not an aristocracy of birth, but rather a meritocracy of violence. He paints a vivid picture of a society in which men who are best at intimidating their peers and underlings retain power. This seizure of power by the most violent and greedy runs counter to traditional explanations for revolution at Megara and for similar stasis in other archaic communities. Social reshuffling occurred because the new wealth afforded by trade and manufacture of trade goods drove social mobility and caused the overturning of the well-born landed elite. In van Wees’ reconstruction, endemic violent conflict among the elites, rather than economic expansion, in and of itself created the necessary social mobility that forced the hereditary elite to give way to a more broadly based system of power-sharing based on wealth, i.e. timocracy. Because of this endemic violence, opportunities were to be had by “henchmen” who through their service and exercise of violence might quickly rise to wealth and power. In support, van Wees offers a close reading of Theognis’ statements and his complaints, showing quite convincingly how well they mesh with similar statements of mafiosi. Even Theognis’ black and white characterization of the “good men” and the “bad” has analogues in Mafia parlance: those who have recently taken power are bad, not because they are of ignoble birth, but because they have gained prominence at the speaker’s expense. But what is perhaps most disturbing about this provocative essay is the conclusion that Megara’s upwardly mobile were not in any sense popular leaders against the establishment but rather the most aggressive and oppressive men among the ruling class.
N. Spencer next discusses variation in state formation between communities sharing borders in archaic Lesbos. By deftly blending archaeological and literary evidence, Spencer argues that the polis of Mytilene differed considerably from its neighbors in terms of its lack of large-scale construction and the wide distribution of Lesbian amphorae outside the island, some of which were dedicated specifically by Mytileneans. These and other factors point toward Mytilenean desire for interactions abroad, including military activity, particularly naval. The other poleis in central and western Lesbos were insular. Mytilenean international activities were likely funded by the Mytilenean aristocratic gene but manned by groups of traders and sailors who leased the equipment necessary for overseas travel. These international activities resulted in an increase in social conflict between aristocratic groups and the nouveaux riches, as attested by Alkaios and other, later sources. Mytilene thus paid the price with stasis for its external contacts with international emporia.
Moving beyond Greece proper, B. Mitchell explores the history of the Theran colony of Cyrene from its foundation around 630 BCE to the end of the Battiad monarchy two centuries later. By uncovering the political connections of the Battiads, she offers reasons why Cyrene differed so markedly from other contemporary Greek colonies. While much of the background discussion of Cyrene’s history is well-known, Mitchell’s analysis of the social, political, and economic conditions which contributed to the atypical length of the dynasty is not. She argues that royal retention of the oikist’s power over land distribution, together with the king’s control over the revenues from sacred lands and the royal monopoly of silphion export, maintained Battiad wealth and influence even in the face of Demonax’s political reshuffling around 550. Support from Persia, and to a lesser extent from local Libyan potentates, was even more essential to a strong monarchy. Arkesilas III used his relationship as a Persian vassal to regain the power and authority lost under Demonax’s reforms, an action similar to the political maneuverings of contemporary pro-Persian tyrants in Asia Minor. Arkesilas’ mother Pheretima used Persian support to avenge her son’s murder, act as regent with full royal powers, and even ensure the succession of the future Arkesilas IV. But once Persia was no longer a power in the region, the Battiad monarchy was doomed; Arkesilas IV was unable to preserve either his office or his life, and a system that Aristotle called a democracy was constructed in his place. According to Mitchell, the withdrawal of Persia ended the monarchy, thereby allowing Cyrene to develop like other more mainstream Greek communities.
Although reviewing a great deal of familiar material, D. Braund subtly addresses Athens’ foreign policy and relations with monarchies under the democracy. Braund thoroughly presents Athenian attitudes toward powerful individual Athenians and would-be tyrants (e.g., Perikles); he also explores Athens’ own position as imperial monarch and Athens’ relationships with individual monarchs from elsewhere. Braund treats this last category particularly well by analyzing the often risky links between Athenian individuals and foreign monarchs. Braund then delves into Athenian ambivalent attitudes toward monarchy, including its own past monarchs and those of other collectives, such as Persia and Sparta; here Braund also argues that as a genre Athenian tragedy portrays monarchy as a negative system, entirely alien to the Athenian constitution.
P.J. Rhodes discusses oligarchs in Athens from Solon to the end of the fifth century. Rhodes’ essay, together with a recent monograph by Martin Ostwald, are welcome signs of a shift in interest towards what was, as Ostwald points out, the most common form of political expression in ancient Greece.3 Although the political development of early Athens is well studied, Rhodes offers a fresh perspective by searching for “opponents to democracy.” This is no easy task and Rhodes himself acknowledges that terms such as oligarchy and democracy are often more problematic than useful. Starting with what he calls “ur-oligarchs,” men active before the concepts of oligarchy and democracy were formulated in the mid-fifth century, Rhodes observes that while the main issues are relatively simple to identify, it is difficult to locate the proponents of those issues. In the end, he concludes that oligarchs in early Athens were any men advocating the protection of aristocratic privilege. He then identifies Kimon as the first Athenian self-consciously opposed to democracy and suggests that down to the time of Thucydides son of Melesias, oligarchs were men like Kimon, men from aristocratic backgrounds, resistant to power-sharing. In contrast, oligarchs of the later 5th century are indistinguishable in background from their democratic counterparts, largely because of new opportunities for wealth brought on by the Empire. Thus the political/ideological division at the end of the 5th century was not between new and old ruling classes, but rather within the ruling class itself.
The polis section continues by turning to non-Athenian democratic polis communities.
N.K. Rutter presents material and literary evidence for Syracusan government in the second half of the fifth century BCE. After treating the pre-democratic history of the area, Rutter turns to Aristotle’s, Diodorus’, and Thucydides’ accounts of Syracusan government. Although Rutter finds little evidence from Aristotle securely applicable to the democracy, he argues that Aristotle’s classification of democratic politeiai is at least suggestive of what post-466 Syracuse might have been. Turning to Diodorus, Rutter concludes that Diodorus uses the term demokratia in a formulaic and particularly Hellenistic way. However, in analyzing two Diodoran passages Rutter finds evidence for early activities of the post-tyrant Syracusan assembly and their significance in defining the revolutionary group that seized power after the tyranny. Diodorus’ account may also support interpreting Syracusan petalism as an institution restricted to the few. Rutter treats Thucydides too briefly, but he comments incisively about Thucydidean use of the collective ethnic and the different chronological interests of Thucydides and Diodorus. In the end, Rutter concludes that Syracuse enjoyed a relatively oligarchic democracy, insofar as the sources can divulge much at all about Syracusan government of the period.
Andrew Lintott next searches for the origins of Aristotle’s mixed constitution in the Politics. To Aristotle this mixed constitution was the best political organization of all because monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy have been blended or combined, thereby neutralizing their undesirable effects and enhancing their desirable ones. In an intriguing argument, Lintott suggests that Aristotle’s fascination with such “checks and balances” is only a side issue; “checks and balances” in themselves are not as important to Aristotle’s wider discussion as the class of people who dominate political decisions. In this Aristotle is returning to the favored topic of the golden mean; he seeks a moderate constitution dominated by a large number of mesoi who will balance the state against the interests of those who have much and those who have little. It is this balance of participants, rather than balance of governmental types, that is most important. Lintott suggests that Aristotle discusses the mixing of constitutional elements only because such mixing further supports common, not sectarian, interests. In many respects this perfect constitution differs little from the moderate democracy of farmers with which Aristotle began his discussion, yet Aristotle is loath to call his perfect constitution a democracy, because democracy has by his time acquired a bad name.
K. Lomas concludes this section of the proceedings with an excellent analysis of Magna Graecia — an area often defined in relation to more well-discussed areas of the Greek world. Lomas looks at southern Italian and Sicilian communities in terms of their colonial situation, their definitions of state and citizen, and the development of ethnic identities. Considering why these western states developed fewer democratic institutions and defined citizenship in the way they did are two of Lomas’ goals. In the archaic and classical periods, Lomas finds a variety of evidence for the coexistence, cooperation, and even enfranchisement of citizens from different ethnic groups, particularly at Naples, but also in Herakleia and later in other areas in Magna Graecia. Lomas also discusses the flexibility between ethnic and legal boundaries in the region and the permeability of citizenship in various southern Italian and Sicilian communities.
The contributions in the second main division of the volume concern non-polis communities, such as ethne, amphiktyonies, and confederacies.
C. Morgan tackles the implications of community development and does much to dismiss the misconception of ethne as primitive tribal groups. She begins her analysis with a welcome focus on terminology, especially the use of “city.” City not only conjures up linear progression to the polis ideal, it also implies anachronistic assumptions of modern urbanism. As an alternative to city Morgan suggests that areas of nucleated settlement be labelled “big sites.” By focusing on such big sites of the archaic period, especially those in Achaea, Morgan seeks to determine the role size played in shaping economic production and community and regional identities. Her conclusions are initially startling: (1) aside from activities influenced by resource location, there is no close relationship between centralization of political power and craft production; (2) the extent of urbanization is not a necessary indicator of political development. As evidence for this she offers settlement patterns from the Pharai valley of Achaea, a region slow to develop major settlements, but replete with signs of highly structured, quickly changing, socio-political relationships. In the end, Morgan’s discussion urges that we reconsider the traditional view of community development. Only by viewing big sites in ethne alongside contemporary poleis like Corinth and Athens we can better understand the inherent structures and variation of archaic communities.
In an excellent contribution, Z. Archibald compares the early development and articulation of ethne in Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly and the relationship between their civic and regional communities. Archibald argues that all three regions shared a higher degree of geographic and even political unity than other areas of Greece; such cooperation partly depended on patterns of subsistence, the large quantity of available resources in these regions, and the size of the plains. Archibald rightly stresses the coexistence of ethnic and civic/urban communal identities in each region; she also emphasizes the necessity of analyzing the use of regional space and regional interactions over time in documenting socio-economic and political systems of cooperation.
Archibald explores Thessaly in the most detail. She argues that Thessaly shared quasi-“dynastic” tendencies with Macedonia and Thrace in terms of leadership and dominance of a few powerful aristocrats who mobilized certain areas and communities within the region. In this Archibald challenges the traditional interpretation of a Thessaly organized from a federal center. Members from these powerful Thessalian families served in administration, both civic and regional, in ways that have yet to be clarified from lack of evidence; it is relatively clear, however, that the regional aristocratic and landowning authority in Thessaly superseded the smaller local areas and communities. Macedonia and Thrace seem to have operated with a comparable regional hierarchy. Thus, although civic officials did exist, the regions are usually represented as strongholds of royal power in both ancient and modern sources. How closed and exclusive Thessalian local governments were in terms of citizenship or office-holding is a matter of debate since, as Archibald shows, evidence supports interpreting Thessalian communities as both closed and open, at least by the Hellenistic period.
Although J.K. Davies insists that his purpose is simply “to bring the evidence before a wider audience which may not be fully aware of recent and current work,” his essay offers more than a simple review of current scholarship. Davies brings into sharp focus Molossian conceptions of citizenship, gender, and identity as revealed through their dedications and decrees. After reviewing the literary and numismatic evidence, Davies employs the epigraphic evidence to flesh out and modify the picture of Molossian social and political life garnered from literary sources. His conclusions confirm those made by Morgan: there is no necessary correlation between the process of city formation and the process of crystallization into a large and effective political entity. Davies concludes that even though late-classical Epirus was a very non-Aristotelian world, a world not of the polis, Epirus still rewards careful study by producing useful comparative data. He also reminds us that regions like Epirus and its close analog Macedonia served as crucibles for Greek political activity in the fourth and third centuries. If we wish to understand the evolution of the hellenistic monarchy, we would do well to study its predecessor.
P. Carlier next challenges the traditional reading of Macedonian kingship in terms of epic kingship. Instead Carlier argues that, although Macedonian kingship can be understood to resemble certain aspects of epic kingship, the basileis of Macedonia had developed their own particularly local systems of power. Carlier first adduces certain parallels between the two systems: the varied meanings of the term hetairos in epic and in Macedonian society, the tripartite system of borough (polis)/ethnos/pan-Achaian community in the Iliadic Catalogue of Ships and the existence of poleis, and other regional divisions (merides) within the Macedonian royal system by the Antigonid period. Despite these similarities, Carlier argues, contrasts between the two systems are significant and include the potentially strong role of the Macedonian kings in religious matters; representation of Macedonian kings as great fighters; the relative weakness of a Macedonian people’s assembly in terms of free discussion, communal decision-making, judicial procedure, and pressure by royalty; and the lack of interaction between the Macedonian royal council and the assembly. These powers of the Macedonian kings evolved because of historical circumstances particular to the region, such as access to resources, the insurmountable gap between the demos and the aristocrats, and the vast scale of the region itself.
A. Keen takes as his subject the communities of Lycia during the Achaemenid period and concludes that two main features dominate political life: cities and coin-issuing dynasts. He examines the roles and interdependencies of each and suggests that Lycia may have been unified only in the sense that there were a number of quasi-autonomous dynasts and cities dominated by a central “king” whose seat was at Xanthos. These dynasts had some degree of local autonomy reflected in their right to mint their own coins. While Keen provides a good overview of the evidence for the Lycian dynasts and comes to some original and intriguing conclusions about the meaning of the title Xn~tawati — “someone with overall authority” — his analysis is at times brief and could have been strengthened had he explored the role of Persian influence, as did Mitchell for Cyrene, in shaping the relationships between cities, dynasts, and kings.
In an article revised and completed by B and H after his death, W.G. Forrest turns to early amphiktyonies and koina. He stresses the multi-dimensional character of these early communities but places particular emphasis on the sharing of a central cult place disassociated from a major political center. Forrest’s introductory discussion of early communal activity in Asia Minor is somewhat problematic since he presents positive evidence for Pan-Ionian enterprises but does not mention a passage from Herodotus which may call into question the solidity of Pan-Ionian cohesion (Hdt. 1.15-1.18 in which the Ionian cities do not aid Miletos under attack). Similarly, in treating the Kalaurian amphiktyony, Forrest raises the significant question of Boiotian Orchomenos’ inclusion, yet he dismisses the issue as “more entertaining than important,” a somewhat inapt characterization since Forrest’s goal includes discussing such variety within early communities. Despite these problems, Forrest draws useful conclusions. He studies the choice of divinity for amphiktyonies and the early set-up of such organizations. He also suggests that each town and village located around a central amphiktyonic cult place had a single basileus who met in common with the other basileis from nearby communities. Forrest identifies a decline in the importance of most amphiktyonies over time as poleis solidified; instrumental in their demise was a rise in the number of basileis in various single communities and material evidence for the expression of a plurality of opinion. He also stresses the importance of Cyprus and Euboia as stepping-stones from the Levant in terms of institutional development in mainland Greece. Forrest’s disjointed writing style is troublesome, and conclusions are often left for the reader to draw, but these small troubles are likely the result of the draft form of the original contribution.
Also in this section M. Arnush considers the relationship of the Delphic polis within the Amphiktyony of Anthela and Delphi during the reign of Alexander in an effort to uncover what independent role, if any, the polis might have played in opposing Macedonian rule and in courting Aetolian support. Aside from providing a useful review of the internal workings of the Delphic Amphiktyony and Delphi’s position within it, Arnush successfully brings to light Delphic foreign policy by analyzing proxenia decrees. He argues that these often-ignored attestations of friendship issued by the polis of Delphi to foreign individuals show Delphi’s political position with respect to those individuals’ homelands.4 Analysis shows that in the early years of Alexander’s sovereignty Delphi granted proxenia to Macedonians (perhaps even to Polyperchon), Macedonian allies such as Thessalians, and Macedonian enemies such as Aetolians. Only after 324, with the publication of the Exiles’ Decree and general shift in public opinion away from Alexander, does Delphi restrict her grants to individuals from scattered groups of poleis and ethne who opposite Macedon. This shift in attitude is also reflected in the actions of the Amphiktyony, which refused to seat the new Macedonian councilors and declined to purchase the crowns honoring Alexander’s mother Olympias that were promised three years earlier. In the end, Arnush convincingly demonstrates that Delphi was an independent polis that could use its sovereign institutions to take an active role in foreign affairs, though perhaps only in concert with its larger cousin, the Amphiktyony itself.
J. Roy turns to the fourth century, a period in which the development of confederacies quickly accelerated, and he tackles the complex topic of democratic politics within a federal system: the Arkadian confederacy of 370-362 BCE. Roy convincingly disassociates the Arkadian constitution from a Boiotian model. When possible, he discusses specific democratic aspects of the Arkadian confederacy’s constitution, such as officials and governing bodies, e.g., the probable polis-representatives, the damiorgoi, the federal boule, and the Myrioi, the assembly. Roy also includes a longer discussion of the eparitoi, a relatively long-lived Arkadian military corps, and the role which they played as a pro-democratic force before c. 363 and in the debate between democrats and oligarchs c. 363. Roy, arguing against Thompson, also associates Arkadian foreign policy with democratic tendencies in the confederacy.
In the final contribution, N.V. Sekunda identifies the forces that led to the establishment and collapse of two alliance systems in western Crete during the classical and hellenistic periods: the Polichnitai, or “league of small communities,” and the Oreioi, the inhabitants of the White Mountains. For the Polichnitai, Sekunda argues that opposition to an external threat in the form of Aeginetan settlement at Kydonia, as well as a common, perhaps even non-Greek ethnicity were the principal factors behind the establishment of an alliance. Only the rise of individual poleis among the Polichnitai in the 4th century, such as the expansionist Polyrrhenia, broke up the alliance. For the Oreioi, Sekunda observes that terrain and land-use strategies provided an impetus for confederacy, as common upland pasture and transhumance led to common economic and political goals. In order to illustrate the dynamics of this process, Sekunda uses comparative ethnographic data from the Turkish and Venetian periods, as well as the epigraphic evidence for ancient transhumance assembled by Chaniotis.5 Sekunda’s observation that economic goals (here the transhumant production of sheep and goats) can help shape the form and structure of political systems is perhaps his greatest contribution and certainly welcome in a volume that tends to ignore the interdependencies of economic and political systems.
The reviewers have only a few criticisms of this volume, most of which pertain to their own scholarly work. For example, more discussion of Boiotia and the Boiotian confederacy would have been welcome, particularly since Boiotia consisted in a complex system of collective regional and polis identities of great significance historically and also often served as a foil for Athens.6 Related to this is a methodological problem of terminology. Where does an amphiktyony end and an ethnos-state or confederacy begin? Particularly troublesome in the volume is the use of the term ethnos. Although B and H acknowledge and discuss the problem and even use the term ethnos-state (22, 25, 29), they occasionally seem to speak of ethne as homogenous groups. It seems preferable to analyze each ethnos on a case by case basis. Equally troublesome is the tendency to view political systems in isolation. Although several contributors (e.g. Mitchell and Sekunda) have hinted that economic strategies can have a considerable impact on the shape and character of socio-political systems, a greater appreciation for the interrelationships between economic and political systems is needed. The reviewers eagerly anticipate further work in these directions and view B and H’s volume as an important contribution to this process.
One typographical error mars an otherwise clean text: n. 48, p. 18, should read Whibley (1896) instead of (1986).
Notes
1. Missing from the bibliography is McInerney’s 1999 Folds of Parnassos, the most recent study of the regional and institutional development of the Phokian ethnos, although McInerney’s dissertation, the foundation for the later book, is included.
2. See Robinson’s 1997 survey, The First Democracies: Early Popular Government outside Athens (Historia Einzelschriften 107).
3. Oligarchia. The Development of a Constitutional Form in Ancient Greece. Stuttgart, 2000.
4. Although Arnush is correct that few have studied the proxenia decrees, he should acknowledge Marek’s important study, ( Die Proxenie. Frankfurt am Main, 1984), which sorts out both the provenance of grantees and specific privileges granted.
5. The ideas expressed in Chaniotis’ 1995 article are discussed in a wider context in his monograph, Die Verträge zwischen kretischen Poleis in der hellenistischen Zeit. Stuttgart, 1996.
6. See 27-28 for B and H’s brief comments on the Boiotian confederacy.