Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
Less than a decade ago Robin Seager wrote that further discussion of the Peace of Callias would be inexcusable. Needless to say, discussion has continued. Wherever one stands, on the problem as such, it ought to be admitted that new ideas have been put forward, or (since it seems unlikely, on a topic so much discussed, that anything new can now be said) at least old and forgotten ones have been revived and put in new perspectives. Meiggs's estimate of a special treatment to be expected every two years has stood up well enough: Klaus Meister's bibliography lists twenty special treatments between 1945 and 1982, and one (by S. Accame) appeared in the same year (1982) as Meister's own.
2 Meister, Klaus, Die Ungeschichtlichkeit des Kalliasfriedens und deren historische Folgen, Palingenesia xviii (Wiesbaden 1982) 124–30Google Scholar. Works not specifically devoted to this topic but treating it incidentally are listed p. 2 n. 3. His ample references to modern views have dispensed me from collecting them here, which would have doubled the length of this study. My references to modern works are very selective: chiefly to standard works, to points of significance not dealt with in my text, and to works not yet known to Meister.
3 Ottava Miscellanea Greca e Romana (1982) 125–52. Accame has since returned to the subject with an attack on Meister in Nona Miscellanea (1984) 1–8.
4 See especially Meister 5 n. 14.
5 Meister has collected 162 items referring to the peace, some of them containing more than one entry, down to 1982. Of those, about 26 are of the nineteenth century, 20 between 1901 and 1939, 4 between 1940 and 1945, and the rest since 1945. Of 151 whose opinions he has counted, 114 believe in authenticity and 29 deny it. (The rest express no clear opinion.) Significantly, 15 of those who deny authenticity are among the 26 listed for the nineteenth century, and only 13 of them are among the well over 100 since 1940. In other words: since 1940 nearly all scholars who have written on the peace have regarded it as authentic. In 1953 (printed in Probleme der Alten Geschichte [Göttingen 1963] 253)Google Scholar Hans Schaefer could say that ‘today, quite rightly, no one presumably doubts its authenticity’.
6 Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 130Google Scholar. It was three years after this that I began to argue the case for acceptance of the fourth-century sources, which I have since done in numerous public lectures and seminars. Acceptance first found its way into print in Walsh, J., ‘The authenticity and the dates of the Peace of Callias and the Congress Decree’, Chiron xi (1981) 31Google Scholar ff. Meister's independent and exhaustive discussion in Part i of his study is now, and will remain, definitive.
7 See Parker, R. A. and Dubberstein, W. H., Babylonian chronology 626 BC—AD 75 2 (Providence 1956) 17Google Scholar. They report an unpublished eclipse text that dates the murder of Xerxes between August 4 and 8, 465. About the same time, it was reported that in a tablet found at Uruk the scribe still dated by the 21st year of Xerxes in Kislimu (December—January) 465/4; while at distant Elephantine Artaxerxes' accession was known by January 2–3, 464 (see JNES xiii  8Google Scholar f. and [Elephantine] Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC [Oxford 1923] no. 6)Google Scholar. In response to an enquiry, Professor Stolper has very kindly informed me that the Uruk tablet has been wrongly restored and in fact does not contain the month, only the year. It therefore gives no information on the month of Xerxes' death. He is to publish a corrected version of this text in a forthcoming issue of JHS.
8 A further revolt by an Artabanus in Bactria is reported by Ctesias (FGrH 688 F 14 ), certainly before the Egyptian revolt of the late 460s in which Athens ultimately became involved, and so presumably connected with the early accession struggles centred in Artabanus the conspirator: he may have controlled, or been recognised in, some (but not others) of the satrapies. Eusebius (P. 110H) makes Artabanus the sixth Persian King, with a reign of seven months. This can hardly be wholly invented. The Bactrian ‘rebel’ was most probably a relative who was on his side.
9 Unz, R., CQ n.s. xxxvi (1986) 68–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Violent measures have been necessary to maintain the claim of the fundamentalists, most notorious the emendation of a numeral at 103.1, which both removes a sound text in favour of an emendation not easily justified on palaeographical grounds and impairs historical plausibility by separating the capture of Naupactus from the campaigns in central Greece and the periplous of Tolmides. The substitution of Thasos for Naxos (see text) is probably a similar case, though here the possibility that Plutarch's text of Thucydides already read ‘Thasos’ can be claimed to provide some plausibility. Thucydides himself never disguises the nature and limits of his chronological knowledge. Such phrases as κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους τούτους (107.1), οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον (111.2), χρόνου ἐγγενομένου (113.1) make no claim to accurate knowledge and must not be stretched beyond what they claim. They contrast with precise information: δεκάτῳ ἔτει (103.1), ἓξ ἔτη πολεμήσαντα (110.1), διαλιπόντων ἐτῶν τριῶν (112.1); once even δευτέρᾳ καὶ ἑξηκοστῇ ἡμἑρᾳ (108.2)—which he obviously does not withhold when he has it.
10 Frost, Frank J., Plutarch's Themistocles (Princeton 1980) 211Google Scholar. Gomme, , Hist. Comm. on Thucydides i (Oxford 1945) 397 fGoogle Scholar. expresses the same idea more verbosely. There is confusion in Podlecki, A. J., Themistocles (Montreal 1975)Google Scholar, which contains much the best summary of the sources (38 ff. et al). On p. 197 Themistocles' ‘arrival in Persia … probably took place early in 464’ (with the evidence promised for later); on pp. 198 f. the Naxian war is ‘between 469 and 467’, with a two- or three-year gap ‘between this and Themistocles’ arrival in Ionia in late 465 or early 464’ and in Susa a year later. No interval of this length should be assumed at any point.
11 If Plutarch is right in putting Themistocles' Ionian landfall at Cyme, Ephorus should have had some local tradition about such an important event to follow. Certainly, nothing in Thucydides contradicts the report of his arrival in Asia before Xerxes' death: it must be stressed, against Unz and (long before him) Gomme, that Thucydides neither says nor implies anything as to the length of Themistocles' stay near the coast, except (as Gomme, but not Unz, saw) for the delay due to his having to get his money sent over from Greece. The various romantic tales regarding Themistocles' interview with Xerxes should certainly not be preferred to Thucydides' statement. (See, e.g., Diod. xi 57 ff., presumably from Ephorus, and the reference to Phanias in Plutarch, mentioned in the text.) But they may be spun out of a tradition that Themistocles did arrive under Xerxes and that Xerxes was informed of his arrival.
12 Meister 46 f., adding the Ceramicus ostraca with Callias' name as further evidence for the unpopularity incurred by his mission to Susa. (I do not think that the ostraca can be dated.) As a point of method, it seems unjustified to accept Demosthenes' story of the conviction and reject the report of the conclusion of peace on which Demosthenes in fact bases it. The rejection seems to be based solely on Meister's view that the peace was too glorious for conviction to be conceivable. We cannot tell whether the story of the fine is authentic or a fourth-century moral tale. If it is authentic, the trial and conviction should be set in the context of the Ephialtic reforms which led to the overturning of the peace itself (see Section II below). Since the events would be only a year or two apart, slight foreshortening, a century later, would easily abolish the interval and misinterpet the context. In any case, the facts connected by Demosthenes must be either accepted or rejected in toto.
13 On this (not important in detail here) see Ath. pol. 25 ff. (confused); Plut. Cimon 14 f; Per. 7 and 9 (embroidered). Ath. pol. is so ill informed that the statement that the prosecution was at Cimon's euthynai may be a mere guess. Plutarch's statement that Pericles was chosen as prosecutor by the People does not merit any more confidence. It is clear from his account how the story of the first clash between the two men was later adorned with romantic fiction. Precise details may not have been known by the middle of the fourth century.
14 The chronological problems connected with the revolt and the Athenian expedition(s) are well known and need not be discussed here. If there were two Spartan appeals, as Hammond has argued, then the first must be placed earlier and might lead to an earlier date for Eurymedon; only the second would come in 463–2.
15 Meiggs, Ath. Emp. 79. Unz, strangely, shows no interest in these actions, any more than in the Peace of Callias, even though they are surely important for any scheme of chronology proposed for the Pentecontaetia. The lists in Fornara, C. W., The Athenian board of generals from 501 to 404 (Wiesbaden 1971)Google Scholar, do not include Ephialtes at all, and Pericles only in 454/3. Since Pericles was in his thirties by 463, there is no reason why the date suggested by the link with Ephialtes should not be followed. Lewis, D. M. (Sparta and Persia [Leiden 1977]Google Scholar—a book to which I owe a great deal—60 n. 68) is not at his best on this. He does not mention Ephialtes and, as regards Pericles, writes: ‘I find it impossible to believe that Pericles was general in the 460s’ (he does not tell us why); he goes on to suggest that the right context for Pericles' naval sweep is the Samian War: ‘the difference between Kallisthenes’ 50 ships and Thucydides' 60 is hardly important' (sic)!
16 Pol. ii 13.7 (explicit); cf. iii 27.9. On this see my comments in Miscellanea Eugenio Manni (Rome 1980) 159 ff. Walsh's, idea (Chiron xi  46 f)Google Scholar, in further refinement of this misconception, that the limit was imposed only on the Athenians and their allies and not on the Persians at all rests on a strange mistranslation of the Greek and, of course, runs counter to much of the other evidence regarding the peace.
17 Probably and not certainly, since our evidence on all these events is far worse than is often realised. Neither the date of Ephialtes' death nor the date when operations in the East began can be stated with real confidence. As to the former, Ath. pol. dates it ‘not long after’ the reforms (25.2) and (later) in the sixth year before the decision to admit zeugitae to the archonship (26.2). Mnesitheides (archon 457/6) is said to have been the first zeugites elected under this law, which would put it in 458/7. But Ephialtes cannot have died before the year in which his reforms were passed (462/1), which is (by inclusive count) the sixth year before 457/6. Hence the author has (to us, inextricably) confused the date of the law with the date of the first tenure under the law. We therefore cannot trust him sufficiently to put Ephialtes' death before the end of 462/1. On the other hand, Thucydides is here at his most obscure. He tells us (i 104.2) that in what appears to be the spring of 460, when the appeal from Egypt came, the Athenians ἔτυχον ἐς Κύπρον στρατευόμενοι—it is not clear whether they were about to set out, or already on their way, or already there; nor, of course, whether this was the first expedition to Cyprus or whether there had been one before (e.g. in the previous year) which (like so many other events) he did not regard as sufficiently important to mention: it is mentioned here, clearly, because it is its diversion to Egypt that makes it important. Nor does his statement that they now ‘left’ Cyprus (ἀπολιπόντες) securely tell us whether they were already on the island or merely abandoned it as a target. We cannot even be quite sure whether or not the invasion of Cyprus continued (on a reduced scale). The fact that Thucydides never mentions it again is inconclusive: cf. the attack on Egypt in 450 (112.3), never again referred to except for its end. All this unfortunately makes it impossible to discuss the Eastern policy of the new leaders with real precision, although the general picture is clear enough.
18 Thuc. i 102.4. This should not be dissociated from the attack on Cimon after his return from the north, a mere two or three years before.
19 Gomme, HCT i 306. It should be noted that in his actual discussion the facts force him into considerable qualification of this statement.
21 It appears, in one form or another, in several sources. Unz (p. 76) cites Plutarch, Theopompus, Aristides, Nepos and Andocides (in this order, and without discussion of precise relevance, relationship or credibility; the statement that Andocides ‘says that Kimon was recalled from exile in order to make peace with Sparta and did so’ is more misleading than the qualification regarding the orator's confusion admits: Andocides in fact says that Miltiades was recalled from his ostracism in Chersonese in order that he should be sent, as Spartan proxenos, to make peace with Sparta, and that he concluded the Thirty Years' Peace). He sums it up as ‘an overwhelming weight of evidence’, and believes all of it except for what does not suit his case (the connection with Tanagra attested by Plutarch and probably known to Theopompus).
22 The ἔνιοι seem to include (or to be) Idomeneus, whom Plutarch rightly tells us to disbelieve. Unz thinks the part allegedly played by Pericles ‘especially supportive [of the story of the recall]: such an unlikely fact is not easily invented’(l). He does not mention the use of dramatic colour in biographical and later historical tradition, nor comment on the part of Elpinice.
23 Theopompus' date seems to presuppose the Tanagra correlation. If (as suggested in the text) his recall was enough to stop Spartan action against Athens at a critical time, this might later easily be confused with the five years' truce which Thucydides seems to put in 450 (see Appendix). Unz (79 n. 48) thinks the dates ‘can be accommodated’. First, Cimon has to leave for Sparta as late as spring 461, with Ephialtes' reforms following still before midsummer; then Cimon has to stay in Sparta ‘for seven or eight months’ after the reforms before being sent home, in order to make it possible for him to return to Athens ‘too late for the first round of the ostracism vote of 461/0’ [which the new leaders, with unusual courtesy, apparently delayed until his return home with his presumed supporters]. Thus the ostracism is finally voted only in the eighth prytany of 460/59, and Cimon then left ‘within a few weeks of the end of the 460/59 Athenian political year’, with the result that it was only the next year (459/8) that was ‘traditionally recorded as the first (full) year of his ostracism’. After this, the recall can be placed in 455/4, in the early summer of 454, conveniently already after the Egyptian disaster. Further comment seems superfluous, except that it should perhaps be noted that Unz does not mention that Theopompus connects the recall with the ‘outbreak’ of war with Sparta.
24 See the epigram in Diod. xi 62.3, which is generally agreed to refer to this occasion. Cf. Badian, E. and Buckler, J. in RhM cxviii (1975) 226–39,Google Scholar and, for the chronology, my Appendix below with text.
25 Plato, Charm. 158a (‘whenever’ he went). That he went to Susa together with Callias has been suggested and, of course, is quite possible; but it is only a guess. We must not underestimate the number of such embassies during the time of peace (see n. 27 and text).
26 Athen. ix 397c; cf. Ael. HA v 21 (the admission charge). By the time of Aristophanes, peacocks had become the standard gift and status symbol of ambassadors to the King: Dicacopolis says he is getting tired of them (Acharn. 63). Davies, J. K. (Athenian propertied families [Oxford 1971] 330)Google Scholar describes the peacocks as a symbolon—a term correct in principle, but presumably not to be taken literally.
27 For the phiale see Lys. xix (Aristoph.) 25— fortunately making it clear that it was a personal gift to Demus, not inherited from his father. See further Vickers, M. in AJAH ix (1984),Google Scholar forthcoming. For the King's xenoi in general, see Hdt. viii 85.3 and cf. Nymphis, FGrH 432 F 6.
28 Davies, APF 259 (with all the source references). For Callias as the negotiator of the Thirty Years' Peace sec Diod. xii 7. Davies accepts (with proper misgivings) the modern story that Callias had at some time divorced Cimon's sister Elpinice, since this substantiates his ‘shift to the Left’. It is based on nothing more than her burial not far from her distinguished brother, which may be explained in any number of ways. We do not hear of Callias' marrying anyone else, and we do not know whether he survived her.
29 Jacoby, FGrH iic p. 320: ‘irrtümer und verschiebungen sind ebenso häufig, wie in den späteren chroniken, daten fehlen ganz, und der autor hat offenbar nur eine sehr dunkle vorstellung von der chronologie’ As for his date, Jacoby's ‘in späthellenistischer und römischer zeit’ (Ibid. 319) is still all that can be said.
30 See Jacoby, l.c.: ‘daβ auch Ephoros zu den grundquellen gehört, ist an sich wahrscheinlich und scheint durch die oft starke übereinstimmung mit Diodor und Justin bestätigt zu werden.’
31 A minor consequence is that Callias should be allowed his strategia, which has apparently not gained recognition from modern scholars. Thus Davies (APF 259) says that he was never a strategos and Fornara (n. 15) does not list him. Meiggs, in his selection of sources on the Peace of Callias (Ath. Emp. 487 f.), extracts the ‘sea limits’ from Aristodemus, but perversely omits the reference to Callias' strategia. Yet there is little reason to doubt it and none to ignore it. Cimon's brother-in-law may well have served with him on Cyprus, or possibly on the expedition that went to Egypt. It was not uncommon for generals to go on important diplomatic missions in time of war; thus, e.g., Xanthippus (480/79), Aristides (479/8), Nicias, Nicostratus and Autocles (424/3), Alcibiades (418/7).
32 Cf. IG ii/iii2 1, nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 12; i3 227–9 (227 with M. B. Walbank, ZPE li  183 f). Reengraving was independently suggested by Eddy, S. K., CP lxv (1970) 13;Google Scholar but he quaintly described it as a ‘sentimental’ act after the end of the war. Recognition of the need to reengrave fortunately renders discussion of various hypotheses as to what Theopompus might have seen otiose.
33 Hands, A. R. (Mnemosyne xxviii  194–5)Google Scholar was right in his explanation of the article in τὸν πόλεμον, but failed to notice the simple grammatical explanation of the tense. His own explanation may cause confusion and is not helpful.
34 See Kühner-Gerth ii 1, p. 200, with numerous examples, some quite striking.
35 See p. 10 above.
36 For the flight to Asia see Podlecki (n. 10). Davies (APF 215) carefully sifted the complex tradition on the date of death, in the end cautiously accepting 459. On Magnesia see ATL iv s.v. and Podlecki 107 f. For Themistocles and Lampsacus see the honours for his son Cleophantus, discussed ATL iii 111 ff.: a claim inherited from his father is implied, and the latter's generosity seems to be confirmed by implication. The reference in Themistocles' pseudepigraphical letter (cited ATL) may well have been spun out of a local record. That Lampsacus and Myous were not in the King's possession when he gave them to Themistocles (suggested ATL, and similarly Gomme, HCT 292: ‘empty show’) is an odd suggestion: it would hardly confirm his loyalty at a critical time. The cities are said to have been given him for bread, wine and ὄψον ( = fish?). It is interesting to compare the rations dispensed ‘on behalf of the King’ and royal personages in Hallock, R. T., Persepolis fortification tablets (Chicago 1969) 214Google Scholar ff. (‘J texts’): they consist of food animals; grain or flour or bread; and wine (oil appears once). Fish would no doubt be substituted for a Greek more used to it than to meat.
37 Meister (67 ff.) makes much of contradictions in the literary sources on the peace terms. Meiggs (Ath. Emp. 146 f.) gives examples of inaccuracy in literary quotation of documents. I have noted two striking cases in the text. de Ste Croix, G. E. M. (The origins of the Peloponnesian war [London, 1972] 293)Google Scholar states that he knows ‘of no complete and correct account of the Thirty Years' Peace by any modern scholar’ and proceeds to construct a version which he implies will remedy the deficiency. But this is pure delusion. The state of the sources is such that a complete account cannot even be attempted: the casual reference in Pausanias (see text) makes this amply clear. (For analysis of the accounts of the peace of 404, see Thompson, W. E., Historia xxx  175Google Scholar f.)
38 In addition to the standard case of Aegina, see Thuc. i 58.1 for a Spartan promise to invade Attica if Potidaea were attacked (which prima facie implies that Sparta would regard this as a violation of the peace), and above all the striking example of Samos. (See i 40.5; 41.2; 43.1.) Ste Croix (citing A. H. M. Jones) correctly pointed out (op. cit. 200) that the story must be taken to imply that Sparta had passed the same kind of vote as later on the motion of Sthenelaidas. (He mistakenly thinks this a vote for war: in fact, it was a vote that the peace had been violated.) This implies that Samos, just like Megara, Aegina and (probably) Potidaea later, provided a prima facie case of Athens' having broken a clause of the peace. All these instances add up to a strong suggestion that there was a general clause stipulating the autonomy of certain cities (perhaps all those cities autonomous when the peace was concluded: see Pericles' remark at i 144.2). I have discussed these issues in two forthcoming articles. No doubt that autonomy was subject to fixed conditions in the case of cities in fact ‘allied’ to Athens; we should compare the Peace of Nicias (Thuc. v 18.5).
39 I have discussed these issues in two forthcoming articles.
40 See Lewis, Sparta and Persia 70 ff., superseding Parker and Dubberstein.
41 The chronology of Megabyxus is not easy to disengage from Photius' summary of Ctesias, which is almost the only evidence we have. (See FGrH 68 8 F 14.) Lewis (op. cit. 51 n. 5) tries to argue from Nehemiah that the revolt of Megabyxus in Syria was over by 445, but he (quite properly) does not express any great confidence in his argument: as he says, other scholars have expressed the opposite opinion on the basis of the same evidence. But it seems certain that Megabyxus must have lived more than five years (probably considerably more) after the end of the revolt, if all that follows is to be fitted in (Ctes. l.c. sections 39–41).
42 The fictions spun in RE s.v. ‘Zopyros 2’ should be ignored. The author adduces no serious evidence for his reconstruction. Photius' summary does not specify the great benefit conferred on Athens by Zopyrus' mother, which gave him confidence in a friendly reception there when he decided to flee. RE suggests that it was an offering, as by a Hellenistic queen, in an Athenian temple. But that seems wholly inadequate and would not lead to long-surviving gratitude. It may be suggested that she prevailed upon her husband to have some of the Athenian prisoners released, or at least saved from death, after he captured them in Egypt. (Cf. the story in Ctesias, l.c. sections 39–40.) That was a benefit of which Athenians could be reminded. For the chronology of the revolt of Caunus, see Eddy, S. K., CP lxviii (1973) 255Google Scholar f.—an article which can be read with considerable profit, even though he is too ready (like Meister after him) to see Persian aggression where none is attested. (Sec, e.g., pp. 250, 254.)
43 Amisus is not connected with this in the sources. See ATL iii 116.
44 See Burstein, S. M., Outpost of Hellenism (Berkeley 1976) 28Google Scholar ff. He assembles (27 f.) the evidence for the status of the south Pontic cities: probably autonomous and certainly at one time under the King, which would mean that he maintained his claim. Astacus: ATL i 471 f. Diod. xii 34.5 (435/4) can be emended, in a context that demonstrably needs emendation of other names, so as to refer to a colony there. ATL iii 116 regards Lamachus' ‘adventure at Herakleia in 424 (Thuc. iv 75.2)’ as involving an attempt to collect money in the King's territory within the Black Sea, hence as contrary to the peace. This seems to be fiction. What Thucydides tells us is that, while two other generals were engaged in their legitimate business (including the collection of tribute) in the Hellespont area, Lamachus ‘had sailed into the Black Sea with ten ships’ and, after seeking refuge from a storm (so it seems) in a harbour belonging to Heraclea, lost his ships and had to return overland. The purpose of his mission is not stated, but it can easily be conjectured as being support for Heraclea and Amisus, not long after Pericles' intervention there. Thucydides, at any rate, makes no mention of any collection of tribute outside the Athenian arche. As we have seen, sailing into the Black Sea is nowhere stated to have been contrary to the terms of the peace.
45 Hypothetical cases of Persian aggression have been found by scholars, e.g. from scrutiny of the tribute quota lists. (See Eddy [n. 42] 241 f, 248 f.) If it is hazardous to draw any firm historical conclusions from such evidence, for which we lack all background, it is plain fancy to infer rebellion supported by Persian intervention. Even in the better-documented cases (Miletus and Erythrae), the documents do not make the sequence and precise nature of the events clear, and we certainly have no basis for judging how the question of legitimacy (of govenment or of intervention) might appear at the time. The case of Colophon and Notion should serve as a warning. In the end, we have to argue from the literary tradition, unsatisfactory as even that is.
46 Sparta and Persia 60 n. 70. (But it will be clear that I cannot accept his unargued assumption that the Persians had no right to support Samos.)
47 This is similar to the question asked by G. L. Cawkwell about the King's Peace in CQ n.s. xxxi (1981) 69Google Scholar ff.; though there the evidence he found did not permit an answer.
48 On this see p. 36 below. On the ‘Peace of Epilycus’ see Andoc. iii 29. Mattingly's attempt (Historia xiv  273Google Scholar ff.) to make this peace into the ‘true’ Peace of Callias by changing the identification of Callias as the son of Hipponicus, surnamed Laccoplutus, which we see the sources provide, to one with a bouleutes of the right year is an ingenious fantasy. Admittedly, the name is common in Athens; but the Callias reported at Susa by Herodotus and again by the Ephorus tradition cannot be simply turned into another man a generation later. Blamire, A., Phoenix xxix (1975) 21–6,Google Scholar following other scholars, accepts Andocides' statement as to the nature of the treaty and elaborates at length. (Thus, it seems, also Lewis, Sparta and Persia 76 f.) For the nature of Andocides' evidence see Andrewes, A., Historia x (1961) 2Google Scholar f. For the embassy to Artaxerxes see Thuc. iv 50. The precise chronology of the ‘Peace of Epilycus' is fortunately not relevant here. (See Blamire on this.) See also IG i3 227, with Walbank, M. B., ZPE li (1983) 183–4Google Scholar.
49 Tod, GHI ii 118. From this it has been restored in other texts—whether correctly is historically insignificant.
50 The text listed in Kent, , Old Persian grammar 2 (New Haven 1953)Google Scholar as DNb is now paralleled by what (to give it the most sensible name) should be known as XPl. See Mayrhofer, M., Supplement zur Sammlung der altpersischen Inschriften, SAWW cccviii (Vienna 1978) no. 4.5 (pp. 21–5)Google Scholar.
51 As we have noted, the fourth-century prescript must not be imagined to have been a verbatim copy of the original prescript, as it stood on whatever stele was ultimately the model for the copy. That Theopompus saw a stele giving a treaty that claimed it had been made with Darius should be believed, even though the text of the quotation is corrupt. As we have it, it reads: ai αἱ πρὸς βασιλέα Δαρεῖον 'Αθηναίων πρὸς Ἕλληνας συνθῆκαι. Some scholars have advocated the radical cure of deleting both Darius and the Hellenes, arguing that they cannot both be right and that there is no good reason to prefer one to the other. But as Connor, W. R. pointed out (Theopompus and fifth-century Athens [Washington, D.C. 1968] 78 ff.)Google Scholar, there was no good reason for anyone to make up the reference to Darius by name, hence there is no good reason for deleting it. In fact, I should not be surprised if at some much later date there existed a stele showing the King's Peace as made with King Darius: Arrian twice refers to it this way (ii 1.4; 2.2: see Bosworth ad loc.), and I think it unlikely that he made it up. It should, however, be pointed out that Pausanias (i 8.2) knew of a peace which Callias had made for the Greeks with Artaxerxes son of Xerxes. It is not impossible that the fourth-century prescript mentioned both the original peace and its renewal under Darius: as we can see from the Themistocles stele, there was no economy of words in these documents, and Theopompus (and even less the rhetor quoting his comment) had no reason to quote what he saw in full: such pedantry would not have suited his style, or his purpose. (See Wade-Gery, , HSCP Supplement i (1940) 127Google Scholar for a different suggestion.)
The phrase regarding the Hellenes undoubtedly needs emendation or deletion. Again, Connor noted that it is difficult to see how it could be a gloss (or on what), hence how it could have been erroneously added to the text. Emendation is therefore preferable. Of the various proposals known to me, the only one worth entertaining is Jacoby's περὶ Ἑλλήνων. (Alternatively, perhaps ὑπὲρ Ἑλλήνων, frequently found in such contexts.) For the idea, see Pausanias (l.c.): (Callias) πρὸς 'Αρταξέρξην…τοῖς Ἑλλησιν ἔπραξε τὴν εἰρήνην. Pausanias, incidentally, says that he heard this version from ‘most Athenians’: he does not say what the minority told him (perhaps Xerxes or Darius?).
52 See Thuc. viii 18, 37, 58 for the three treaties. Even if they are not all formal international documents fully sworn to, they are (at least as drafts) fully comparable to our treaty. (My rendering preserves the reference to cities and territory.) The importance of the prescripts was noted (perhaps for the first time) by Andrewes in his commentary, in Gomme, et al. , Hist. Comm. on Thuc. v (Oxford 1981) 140Google Scholar. But he did not make the connection here attempted.
53 For a full narrative exposition and political analysis of the treaties, see Lewis, Sparta and Persia, ch. 4. I have here taken out some points of interest for my purpose, but my formulation is not identical with his.
54 Lewis (p. 104) suggests that he appears in the treaty as ‘a visiting representative of the King’. This seems unlikely, both because of his mention in the Lycian text (cited by Lewis) and because we must surely assume that the others mentioned have permanent posts in Asia Minor: indeed, in two cases we know this. Had he been a special representative, this ought to be somehow indicated, and he ought not to appear (as he does) between the regular satraps. It is best to admit that he had a position which we cannot define, owing to our ignorance of Achaemenid administration.
55 He cannot be fitted into the known stemma of the family with any approach to certainty. It is almost inconceivable that he should be identical with the Artabazus somewhat earlier (477) known to have been based on Dascyllium (Thuc. i 129.1: appointed there to negotiate with Pausanias), even though Lewis identifies them without any discussion (op. cit. 52). That Artabazus, son of Pharnaces, was a senior commander in Xerxes' invasion, a man even then ‘of much renown among the Persians’ (Hdt. vii 66; viii 126), who led the remnants of the army in its hazardous retreat after Plataea.
56 See pp. 38–9.
57 See, e.g., Thompson (n. 37) 171. It should be added, however, that Aristodemus is the one who (oddly enough) seems to have recorded (from Ephorus, as we have suggested) the most precise version of the geographical points named. He gives the Fahrtgrenze ‘for the Persians’ (a phrase which is also precise and, as we have seen, correct—though often ignored by scholars) as the Cyaneae, the Nessus river, Phaselis in Pamphylia and the Chelidonian Islands. No one else mentions the Nessus, or any river that can reasonably be got out of it by emendation, anywhere near the mouth of the Bosporus, as it presumably has to be (since the places are neatly divided into two pairs: one in the north and one in the south—again a point missed by distinguished scholars, who wanted to misidentify the Cyaneae). Thus no one could have made it up, even though we (not at all surprisingly) cannot identify it. (It is certainly not the well-known river in Thrace, but homonymity in rivers is common.) The precision of Aristodemus at this point must be borne in mind in any discussion of the Peace of 449/8.
58 If it was still necessary to give a formal refutation of Gomme's ill-starred attempt to deny the plain meaning of Isocrates, that task was elaborately and definitively performed by Thompson (n. 37) 173.
59 The definition of what was a Greek city would not be easy, since many cities were of mixed population. It might depend on who did the judging, and for what purpose. Thus the ‘Greekness’ of Aspendus, often doubted by scholars (especially in connection with Alexander the Great's treatment of it), has been strikingly confirmed, from a friendly point of view, by the Argive decree honouring the Aspendians as ουγγενεῖς, published by Stroud, R. S. in Hesperia liii (1984) 193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar (text at p. 195) and dated by him around 300 BC. Hence a precise enumeration seems a preferable hypothesis.
60 See Xen. Hell. iii 4.25, which should have been true at an earlier time. Thompson (op. cit.) gives various reasons that might have prompted Isocrates to omit any reference to autonomy, but not the obvious and striking one (as I think it) implied in the text above.
61 See, in general, Andrewes, , Historia x (1961) 15Google Scholar ff.; Meiggs, Ath. Emp. 148 ff. The explanation is still sometimes missed; thus Thompson (op. cit. 171) calls this item a ‘wild exaggeration’. Yet note that it is mentioned by Isocrates both in the Areopagiticus (80) in the 350s and, near the end of his life, in the Panathenaicus (59). Presumably no one, during this time, had consulted the stele and contradicted him.
62 See Andrewes in Gomme et al., HCT v 16 ff., with recent bibliography. Andrewes convincingly refutes some attempts at alternative explanations—advanced (I suspect) chiefly in an attempt to circumvent the obvious implication of the correct interpretation in confirming the authenticity of a peace treaty between Athens and the Persians.
63 I assume (as is generally assumed) that the satrap would be personally responsible for the tribute due to the King from his province, even though I do not know of any positive evidence for this. It fits in with the Persian conception of government in terms of personal relations within a hierarchic system.
64 See, e.g., Thuc. ii 67 (cf. Hdt. vii 137); iv 50.
65 Thuc. viii 56.4. For a defence of the reading of C (ἑαυτῶν) see Goldstein, M. S., CSCA vii (1974) 155Google Scholar ff. Against, see the strong linguistic arguments in HCT v ad loc., by Dover and Andrewes. They also point out the isolated sense that the reading of C would yield, as compared with the historical plausibility of the sense yielded by the better-attested reading. We may note that the demands to which the Athenians were willing to submit had (as reported by Thucydides) concerned only the Ionian cities and the offshore islands: the better-attested reading fits in with these demands, but not with a request concerning Attica.
66 The views here collected have been presented, in various partial forms, in lectures given from Princeton to Perth and from Marburg to Melbourne, ever since I first advanced the basic outline at the University of California at Berkeley in 1975, to a large and helpful audience. As a result, I can no longer acknowledge the numerous individual suggestions which helped me in clarifying my ideas. In the particular form here submitted, however, the argument was first presented in a paper read to the Oxford Philological Society, and later at the Institute of Classical Studies in London, in the spring of 1985. The former occasion was followed, until late at night, by vigorous discussion, the impact of which will perhaps be recognised by some of those who contributed, although I suspect that neither they nor I have ended up by changing our basic opinions. The article was drafted in the ideal environment of Oxford, which I owed to the kindness of St John's College and, in particular, to Nicholas Purcell. It forms part of the work done while I was on a leave partly supported by the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. To those generous patrons, as well as to the unfailing courtesy of the staff of the Ashmolean Library, I owe gratitude that must at least be expressed, though it cannot be repaid, Last, but not least, I am grateful to the Editor of this Journal, who accepted a work that had become ὑπερφυὴς μεγέθει, ingeniously fitted it into his limited space, and put up uncomplainingly with my revisions of the typescript.