The first stage of the break-up of the empire of Alexander the Great has not been a popular subject in recent years. Yet despite this lack of attention, a wholly satisfactory exposition of the source material relating to the political events of the period has not yet been written. Earlier writers, with rare exceptions, have been hamstrung in their interpretations by an over-rigid or static view of Macedonian Staatsrecht, elucidation of which was thought to be the key to the problems. (...) This article returns to the sources. And while the condition of our sources may preclude a final definitive interpretation, I hope to show that a more realistic account can be written than has been produced so far. (shrink)

The view that Pausanias 9. 13. 1–15. 6 is a simple epitome of Plutarch's lost Epaminondas, first advanced by Wilamowitz in 1874 and later elaborated by Wilamowitz himself and by Ludwig Peper, has commonly been accepted, with little or no further discussion, by students of Plutarch, Pausanias and fourth-century history. In a recent general reaffirmation of the thesis John Buckler does note that what Pausanias says about Mantinea is hard to square with Plutarchan evidence and he therefore admits some contamination (...) of the hypothetical source with non-Plutarchan material. But Buckler's discussion of the matter within the framework of a book on the Theban hegemony is necessarily brief and somewhat unsystematic, and may be thought over-ready to assume Plutarchan connections where none can be demonstrated. The purpose of this paper is to show that the Wilamowitz/Peper hypothesis in its pure form cannot reasonably be sustained, that at the very least some degree of contamination must be presumed, and that the existence of a direct connection between Pausanias and Plutarch can hardly be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt. (shrink)