A rather interminable and endless debate as centred on the historical veracity of the Peace of Kallias, (c. 449-448 B.C.E.), or (c. 465 B.C.E.). The following is a brief review of some of the issues surrounding the Peace of Kallias.
The best description of the Peace comes from Diodorus who writes:
Other terms appear to have been that the Athenians agreed that the cities in the Delian League on the coast of Asia Minor would not be fortified. Also that the Athenians would not aid rebellion in Cyprus and Egypt , and would leave the eastern Mediterranean to Persia. Persia recognized the Athenian Empire and abandoned their claim to Ionia.3The Athenians and their allies concluded with the Persians a treaty of peace, the principal terms of which run as follows: All the Greek cities of Asia are to live under laws of their own making; the satraps of the Persians are not to come nearer to the sea than a three days’ journey, and no Persian warship is to sail between Phaselis and the Cyanean rocks;1 and if those terms are observed by the King and his generals, the Athenians are not to send troops into the territory over which the King is ruler.2
The attack on the historical veracity of the Peace of Kallias is based on one very damaging fact, the historian Thucydides fails to mention it.4 It seems hard to believe that Thucydides would fail to mention this Peace if it in fact had occurred. However this argument is not conclusive after all Thucydides also seriously downplayed the Megarian decrees5 to give put one example. Although other 5th century sources are also silent about the Peace of Kallias. Arguments from silence do not prove something did not happen, although in the case of Thucydides silence one is left puzzled about why.
The first mention of the Peace of Kallias is in the writings of the Greek writer Isocrates, who briefly records the treaty as limiting the Persian Empire and preventing Persian ships from going west of Phaslis and that no troops will be sent west of the Halys river.6 This differs from the version given above.7 All other references to the treaty post-date this reference.8 So it appears that our earliest reference is about 70 or 85 years after the alleged treaty. No surviving inscription records the treaty or makes a reference to it.9
This combined with the fact that the best and basically only surviving near - contemporary historian, (Thucydides), does not even mention the treaty is certainly enough to raise doubts about the Peace of Kallias being historical.
Further the 4th century historian Theopompus of Chios regarded the Peace of Kallias, or some other treaty with Persia as a forgery based on the fact that the inscription he found in Athens was written in a alphabet, (Ionic), used after 403 B.C.E.10 About 350 B.C.E., references to a whole series of decrees and decisions dating, allegedly, to the period 490-440 B.C.E. start to appear. It appears all too likely that these documents were at worst forgeries and at best imaginative recreations. There is the possibility that the Peace of Kallias was one of those documents,11 if so its’ historical veracity is slight. Further what Isocrates tells us of its terms varies from the version that became generally accepted. The 4th century historian Callisthenes also said that the Peace of Kallias was a fraud.12 The sceptics can hardly be blamed for their doubts about the historical veracity of the Peace of Kallias.13
Regarding Theopompus of Chios, his reliability as an historian is not of the highest so his arguments are not conclusive.14 For example the point about the use of the Ionic alphabet after 403 B.C.E; despite what Theopompus says, several inscriptions in Ionic have been found at Athens dating much earlier than 403 B.C.E.15 As for Callisthenes his reputation as an historian is rather low and he had a reputation for sensationalism and exaggeration.16 Given Plutarch’s confusing date of the peace, (c. 465 B.C.E.)17, in the section in which he refers to Callisthenes it is possible that Plutarch has confused the question of a peace after Eurymedon, (c. 469-466 B.C.E.), with a peace after the Cyprian Expedition of c. 450 B.C.E., resulting in a misunderstanding of what Callisthenes was in fact talking about. Also what Theopompus saw, and Callisthenes referred to, could have been an accurate copy done after 403 B.C.E., of the Peace of Kallias. It also appears Theopompus may not have been referring to the Peace of Kallias but to a later treaty with Darius II of Persia.18 If so the fact he refers to the treaty as forgery when we have the evidence of Andocides for its authenticity does not help Theopompus’ credibility. It is also quite possible that although the terms of the Peace of Kallias, or some other treaty, given in the inscription are “fake”, the Peace of Kallias was in fact real.
The considerations mentioned above also apply to the question of the “faked” documents only some of which we have in their inscriptional form. Perhaps we would be in a better position to settle this question if we had the actual inscription of the Peace of Kallias, but we do not.
Isocrates is also not a good source being basically a political pamphleteer, and rhetorician, who was quite careless all too often.19 His reliability in reporting the Peace of Kallias is not high. Certainly the term forbidding Persian troops west of the Halys river is hard to take seriously.20 Isocrates summary is as follows:
The idea that the restriction of Persian troops against going west of the Halys is believable if we amend it to mean that Royal troops could not go west of the Halys and had nothing to do with the local armies of the Satraps,22 also has problems. It is not reasonable to think that the Persians would accept such a limitation on their ability to crush rebellion in western Asia Minor and that the Persian King would at the time reduce his ability to rein in his Satraps is problematic and doubtful. No amount of massaging this data makes it any less hard to believe. Finally given what our author says about reading in, (see next two paragraphs), information when something is not clearly stated. This seems to be a prime example. Also Isocrates account of the terms is still at a minimum 70 years after the alleged events and his version still contradicts the other versions.23In the time of our supremacy, the barbarians were prevented from marching with an army beyond the Halys river and from sailing with their ships this side Phaselis.21
And our three other sources from the 4th century Demosthenes, Lycurgus and Aristodemos disagree with Isocrates version of the terms and support Diodorus ' version.24 Demosthenes account, which is the same as Lycurgus, states referring to Kallias:
Who negotiated the celebrated Peace under which the King of Persia was not to approach within a day’s ride of the coast, nor sail a ship of war between the Chelidonian islands and the Blue rocks.25
Lycurgus adds to the above that it was agreed:
...that the Greeks should be free not only if they lived in Europe but in Asia too...26
The writer Aristodemos, gives the following terms:
The treaty was made on those conditions: the Persians were not to sail in warships beyond the Kyanai, the river Nessos and Phaselis, which is a Pamphylian city, and helidoniai. Nor were they to advance within a three day journey to the sea as overed by a horse at speed.27
There is no reason not to accept Diodorus' version of the treaty given the support it has from those three sources.
Basically it appears that fourth century historians, writers, and orators contrasted the glorious achievement of the Peace of Kallias with the humiliation of the Peace of Antalkidas,28 (also known, more accurately in the Authors’ opinion, as the Kings’ Peace, 387 B.C.E.), which both formally gave the Greeks cities of Asia Minor to Persia and ratified continued Persian interference in Greek affairs. It is surely not a coincidence that the first surviving mention of the Peace of Kallias occurs about 380 B.C.E., in the writings of Isocrates, who quite deliberately and rhetorically contrasts the Peace of Kallias with the "Kings Peace" in the same passage.29
For example Isocrates writes such things as:
We were constantly setting limits on the Empire of the King…
Levying tribute on some of his subjects and banning him from the sea…30
But right now according to Isocrates:
Do we not address him as "The Great King?"
Is it not he who presides over our affairs as though captive of his spear.31
The Athenian Orator Lysias also contrasted the glorious achievements of the 5th century B.C.E., with the early 4th century B.C.E., reality. In the past, according to Lysias, Athens had:
…displayed their own power to such effect that the Great King no more coveted the possessions of others, but yielded some of his own and was in fear for what remained.32
Right now however things had changed for now it is;
…fitting for Greece to come and mourn over this tomb, and lament those who lie here, seeing that her own freedom was interred together with their valour. Unhappy Greece, to be bereft of such men, and happy King of Asia, to be at grips with other leaders! For Greece, deprived of these men, is sunk in slavery…33
The polemical and rhetorical purpose of Isocrates comments about the Peace of Kallias in contrast to the "Kings Peace" are obvious and clear and was part of a rapidly developing tradition. So the reliability of Isocrates’ comments concerning the contents of the Peace terms for both Peaces’ is suspect, so there is no compelling reason to accept Isocrates version of the Peace of Kallias over Diodorus.
The writer Aelius Aristides who lived and wrote in the 2nd century C.E. also provides evidence of the terms of the Peace of Kallias, and the terms he reports agree with Diodorus , Lycurgus and Demosthenes.34 Aristides however follows in the tradition of Isocrates in contrasting the terms of the Kings Peace with those of the Peace of Kallias.35 Bluntly the victorious Peace of Kallias is contrasted with the humiliation of the Kings Peace with, like Isocrates, considerable rhetorical flourish. All of this does not lead to great confidence in the reported terms and reads very much like a cliche. For example Aristides states in his very rhetorical Panathenaic Oration, that Athens:
...crushed the barbarians.,
...it (Athens –Author) made terms of peace with the former and with the later (Persia and Sparta) accordingly, being superior to both, together and separately.36
Aristides whole effort is such a celebration of Athens that its honesty and accuracy are seriously in doubt. Its value has a source for the peace of Kallias is questionable, given its almost hysterically patriotic celebration of Athens and down playing of Athens’s defeats through all sorts of rhetorical tricks.37
The hypothesis that the Peace of Kallias was originally concluded in c. 465 B.C.E., although quite seductive, has several problems.38 In the proposal an attack has to be made on Diodorus ' account because it clearly dates the Peace of Kallias right after the expedition to Cyprus.39 Firstly it does not deal with the evidence that Athens occupied parts of south-eastern Asia Minor, Cyprus and maybe even Palestine.40 Also the historians Ephorus and Callisthenes are used to contradict Diodorus.41 Since these historians only survive in fragments and in summaries, do they really contradict Diodorus? Also Plutarch 's account which refers to Callisthenes could mean that no peace was concluded then. (c. 465 B.C.E.), but was later. It is ironic that a historian who denied the Peace of Kallias is used to date it to c. 465 B.C.E.; because he says no such peace was concluded then!42
Regarding Ephorus since all we have are fragments none of which unambiguously place when the peace was made it doesn't help to set Ephorus against Diodorus when we are not sure they do in fact contradict each other. Further explanations that Herodotus or Thucydides didn't mention the peace because it clashed with the purpose of their works,43 are less than convincing because at the same time the position is advanced that the usual interpretation of the peace has forbidding both sides from going into both areas is rejected on the grounds that no account mentions a limit on Greek ships but only on Persian ships.44 So in two cases something is not mentioned, the Peace of Kallias, and it means nothing about whether or not something really happened. In the other the failure to mention a restriction on Greek ships means none existed.
Regarding Ephorus and Diodorus , a great deal of play as been made by various historians concerning Diodorus' ability to mess up dates.45 As already noted Diodorus, may have messed dates up in crediting an inscription describing Salamis, (c. 450 B.C.E.), as describing Eurymedon, (c. 469-466 B.C.E.).46 So this argument has validity. The problem comes in the following manner. The accepted dates for the Egyptian Expedition are 460-454 B.C.E., and that it lasted c. 6 years.47 Diodorus gives the dates as 463 - 460 B.C.E. which means the expedition lasted about 3 years, and Diodorus further associates the expedition with a rebellion after the death of Xerxes, (465 B.C.E.).48 This leaves very little room for a "Peace of Kallias" after Eurymedon. A Truce would be more likely. The contradictions with Thucydides are pretty blatant.59 So is it just Diodorus who made the error? Since Diodorus is copying Ephorus it is possible Diodorus was copying Ephorus in his dating the events.50 If that is the case then there is a problem. It means that early on, (4th century B.C.E.); there was a fundamental problem with the dates of the Egyptian Expedition including both start and finishing dates and duration. The reason that this is likely is not only was Diodorus copying Ephorus he was compiling a year by year chronology he would have to have made the same error three times and separated out events occurring in the same year has occurring in different years. The other reason is that Ephorus had problems with chronology and was criticized for ignoring it.51
The above being the case there is the possibility that Ephorus' apparent dating of the Peace of Kallias at 465 B.C.E., if such is the case is an error. Ephorus' credibility with dates is not enhanced by his likely incorrect dating of the Egyptian Expedition. Given that Diodorus was copying Ephorus, Diodorus would have had to have made multiple errors in copying in order to produce the chronological mess that resulted. It is submitted that Ephorus is the likely source of this muddle and that part of the muddle is in fact the placing of the Peace of Kallias.
Voyages of Pericles and Ephialtes that were unopposed at this time prove nothing one way or the other.52 the main problem with the idea of a Peace of Kallias at this time c. 465 B.C.E., is that according to the terms we have it would have entailed abandoning Cyprus and other recent conquests and the war does not seem to have stopped anyway. At best we have a truce.53
Finally there is the tantalizing hint in Herodotus who refers to an embassy from Athens lead by Kallias sent to the Persian court.54 Unfortunately Herodotus does not directly or indirectly provide a clear date for this embassy neither does he tell us what the embassy was doing at the Persian court.55 Herodotus' comments that:
Callias, the son of Hipponicus, and a number of other Athenians were in Susa, the city of Memnon, on quite different business, and it so happened that their visit coincided with that of some representatives from Argos, who had been sent to ask Xerxes' son Artaxerxes if the friendly relations, which the Argives had established with his father still held good, or if they were now considered by Persia as enemies. 'they do indeed hold good', Artaxerxes is said to have replied; 'there is no city which I believe to be a better friend to me than Argos'.56
Herodotus does mention that the embassy occurred in the reign of Artaxerxes I, which gives a time period of c. 465-423 B.C.E. for this embassy. Although the implication of the passage would seem to be shortly after the death of Xerxes. At the very least Herodotus at least tells us that Kallias was in fact involved in diplomatic dealing and possible negotiations of some kind with the Persians, at the right time, (approximately), for the Peace of Kallias.57
Herodotus then adds the following which throws the above into confusion:
For my own part I cannot positively state that Xerxes either did, or did not send the messenger to Argos; nor can I guarantee the story of the Argives going to Susa and asking Artaxerxes about their relationship with Persia.58
This quite messes up the dating and the reliability of Herodotus ' account, which Herodotus refers to as "another story current in Greece",59 so he does not claim it as "true". Herodotus merely records and lets the reader decide. Herodotus' account states that Callias' visit coincided with an Argive embassy, at which Artaxerxes made some comment about the good relations between Argos and Persia. Besides the blatant anti-Argive bias of the story. It does not bode well that so soon after the alleged embassy of Kallias that such possible misinformation was circulating about what went on during it. Herodotus is generally thought to have written the Histories, c. 445-430 B.C.E. and died after 430 B.C.E.60 So that within about one generation of the Peace of Kallias, if you accept the early date for the Peace of Kallias, (c. 465 B.C.E.), or within about 14 years if you accept the later date, (c. 449-448 B.C.E.), significant misinformation may already have been circulating concerning the Peace of Kallias. Since in this story Herodotus dates Kallias' embassy by tying it to an alleged Argive embassy after the death of Xerxes, which by implication seems to be shortly after Xerxes death; if said Argive embassy never happened than said embassy no longer helps to date the Kallias' embassy and hence the peace. Certainly it seems all too likely that a lot of "stories" were circulating to muddy the historical waters.
For historians the best evidence for the veracity of the Peace of Kallias is the end of the Persian / Greek war shortly after the end of the expedition to Cyprus in 450 B.C.E., and the following 30 years of peace with Persia before Persian intervention in the Peloponnesian War.61 Thus c. 449-448 B.C.E. is more "logical" for the Peace of Kallias than c. 465 B.C.E. Also there was apparently a mysterious suspension of tribute payments in 449-448 B.C.E., which may be related to the Peace.62 This again is not conclusive, because despite the statements of some historians that “hostilities did cease".63 Hostilities in fact did not cease. Too give but one example Thucydides records that when Samos, (c. 440-439 B.C.E.), revolted against Athens and the League, Persian ships and men tried to help the Samians.64 It appears that the Peace of Kallias did not completely end hostilities.
That the Peace of Kallias is historical is rendered more probable by the oldest written account of a Peace with Persia in the fifth century B.C.E., the account given by the Athenian orator Andocides in his oration On the Peace with Sparta, in which he says:
Thus-- and it is only by calling the past to mind that one can properly policy-- we began by making a truce with the Great King and establishing a permanent accord with him, thanks to the diplomacy of my mothers' brother Epilycus, the son of Teisander.65
This is the so-called Peace of Epilycus usually dated to c. 424 B.C.E.66 Andocides made this speech about 392 B.C.E., when Athens was considering accepting terms to end the Corinthian war. If nothing else this indicates that Athens could have made a number of "Peaces", "Truces" with the Persian Empire in the 5th century B.C.E.
So what is the conclusion of this rather inconclusive ramble through incomplete, bad and quite inadequate source material about the “Peace of Kallias”?
Probably there was a “Peace of Kallias” concluded in about 449 B.C.E. A peace of exhaustion no doubt. Athens had Sparta and its allies to worry about and Persia had its own problems without having to worry about a frontier state like Athens and its’ allies. Whether the “Peace” was a formal peace, a truce, an agreement, or an informal suspension of hostilities cannot now be known.67 Regarding the terms of the “Peace” we can say very little. The terms recorded in the 4th century, by Ephorus and others are very dubious and probably at least partially false. It appears likely that both sides agreed to a suspension of hostilities and set up no go areas for each other's fleets and armies. It is unlikely that Athens imposed terms on Persia and in fact Athens was probably mainly confined to the Aegean by the “Peace”. If there were no go areas agreed too this did not last long in that when favourable opportunities arose the Persians at least would intervene with ships and men. Despite this it is also clear that neither side was willing to make an open breach and resume full-scale war. So a sort of “peace” endured for about 30 years.68
The Peace of Kallias was referred to by various Greek historians and writers of the 4th century B.C.E. Below are the various terms as reported by these sources. Diodorus used the 4th century B.C.E.; historian Ephorus as his source and so apparently did Plutarch . Isocrates mentioned the peace several times in his political writings in detail, along with more general references elsewhere. The Athenian politician Demosthenes mentioned the peace in fair detail in one of his speeches. Also another Athenian politician Lycurgus also mentioned the peace. In the 2nd century C.E., the Orator Aristides also mentions the Peace of Kallias in fair detail. The quote from Diodorus is taken from, C. H. Oldfather, Diodorus Siculus, Harvard University Press, London, 1989. The quote from Plutarch is taken from, Ian Scott-Kilvert, The Rise and Fall of Athens, Nine Greek Lives of Plutarch, Penguin Books, London, 1960. The quotes from Isocrates are from, George Norlin, Isocrates, v. 1 & 2, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980. The quote from Demosthenes is from, Vince, J.H., Ed., Demosthenes, with an English Translation, v. 2, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinman Ltd., London, 1935. The quote from Lycurgus is from, Burtt, J. O., Minor Attic Orators, v. 2, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinman Ltd., London, 1954. The quote from Aristodemos is from, Fornara, Charles W., Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1977. The quotes from Aristides are from Aristides, v.1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinmann Ltd, London, 1973.
Consequently Artabazus and Megabyzus sent ambassadors to Athens to discuss a settlement. The Athenians were favourable and dispatched ambassadors plenipotentiary, the leader of whom was Callias the son of Hipponicus; and so the Athenians and their allies concluded with the Persians a treaty of peace, the principal terms of which run as follows: All the Greek cities of Asia are to live under laws of their own making; the satraps of the Persians are not to come nearer to the sea than a three days' journey and no Persian warship is to sail inside Phaselis or the Cyanean Rocks; and if these terms are observed by the king and his generals, the Athenians are not to send troops into the territory over which the king is ruler. After the treaty had been solemnly concluded. The Athenians withdrew their armaments from Cyprus, having won a brilliant victory and concluded most noteworthy terms of peace. And it so happened that Cimon died of illness during his stay in Cyprus.
(Diodorus, Book 12, 4.)
This blow so dashed the king's hopes that he accepted the terms of that notorious peace, whereby he agreed to stay away the distance of a whole day's ride from the Greek sea board of Asia Minor and not to let a single warship or armoured vessel sail west of the Cyanean and the Chelidonian islands.
(Plutarch, Life of Kimon 13)
Well then, the Hellenes felt such confidence in those who governed the city in those times that most of them of their own accord placed themselves under the power of Athens, while the barbarians were so far from meddling in the affairs of Hellenes that they neither sailed their ships-of-war this side of Phaselis nor march their armies beyond the Halys, refraining, on the contrary, from all aggression. Today, however, circumstances are so completely reversed that the Hellenes regard Athens with hatred and the barbarians hold us in contempt. As to the hatred of us among the Hellenes, you have heard the report of our generals themselves and what the king thinks of us, he has made plain in the letters which have been dispatched by him.
(Isocrates, Areopagiticus, 80-81.)
In the time of our supremacy, the barbarians were prevented from marching with an army beyond the Halys river and from sailing with their ships of war this side of Phaselis, but under the hegemony of the Lacedaemonians not only did they gain the freedom to march and sail wherever they pleased, but they even became masters over many Hellenic states.
(Isocrates, Panathenaicus, 59.)
In fact, after the disaster which befell us in the Hellespont, when our rivals took our place as leaders, the barbarians won a naval victory, became rulers of the sea, occupied most of the islands made a landing in Laconia, took Cythera by storm, and sailed around the whole Peloponnesus, inflicting damage as they went. One may best comprehend how great is the reversal in our circumstances if he will read side by side the treaties which were made during our leadership and those which have been published recently; for he will find that in those days we were constantly setting limits to the empire of the king, levying tribute on some of his subjects, and barring him from the sea; now, however, it is he who controls the destinies of the Hellenes, who dictates what they must each do, and who all but sets up his viceroys in their cities. For with this one exception, what else is lacking? Was it not he who decided the issue of the war, was it not he who directed the terms of peace, and is it not he who now presides over our affairs? Do we not sail off to him as to a master, when we have complaints against each other? Do we not address him as "The Great King" as though we were captives of his spear? Do we not in our wars against each other rest our hopes of salvation on him, who would gladly destroy both Athens and Lacedaemons?
(Isocrates, Panegyricus, 119-121)
I am sure you have heard the story of their treatment of Callias, son of Hipponicus, who negotiated the celebrated peace under which the King of Persia was not to approach within a day's ride of the coast, nor sail with a ship of war between the Chelidonian islands and the Blue Rocks. (Cyanean Rocks- Author).
(Demosthenes, De Falsa Legatione, 273.)
And to crown their victory: not content with erecting the trophy in Salamis, they fid for the Persian the boundaries necessary for Greek freedom and prevented his overstepping them, making an agreement that he should not sail his warships between Cyaneae, (Cyanean Rocks- Author) and Phaselis and that the Greeks should be free not only if they lived in Europe but in Asia too.
(Lycurgus, Against Leocrates, 73.)
They elected as general Kallias – the one nicknamed Lakkopoutos (“pit-wealth”) – because he became wealthy by discovering a treasury at Marathon and appropriating it. This Kallias made atreaty with Artaxerxes and the rest of the Persians. The treaty was made on those conditions: the Persians were not to sail in warships beyond the Kyanai, the river Nessos and Phaselis, which is a Pamphylian city, and Chelidoniai. Nor were they to advance within a three day journey to the sea as covered by a horse at speed.
(Aristodemos, 104. 13.)
He (The Persian King) valued his safety more, and he retreated before their city (Athens –Author) on land and sea not the distance, as the saying goes, of a ship's backwater, nor of a step backwards, but he gave up all his land down by the sea, tens of thousands of stades in Asia, in all no less than the area of a great empire…
(Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 208.)
But after the struggles and expeditions of the city, he sank so low that he agreed that he would no longer sail within two boundaries, the Chelidonean Isles to the south, and the Cyanean to the north, and that he would everywhere keep five hundred stades away from the sea, so that this very circle was like a crown upon the head of the Greeks, and the king was under surveillance from his very territory.
(Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 209.)
But in the matter of the peace what a great difference there is! For the city’s peace gave orders to the king and said he must do what he was commanded. For it did not allow him to sail within the Chelidanian and Cyanean islands, and if you are proud of your cavalry, no longer will you ride up to the sea but it says you will stay away from the sea the distance of a day’s ride of that cavalry, and you will here much about the Greeks who live in Greece as about the Greeks who live in your own land.
(Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 274.)
1. For locations see Maps. Note the Cyanean rocks are the Cheledonian Islands on the Map.
2. Diodorus , Book 12, 4. Diodorus is quoting the 4th century B.C.E., historian Ephorus. For a review of the terms and related issues see de Ste Croix, pp. 310-314, McGregor, pp. 67.
3. de Ste Croix, pp. 310-314, McGregor, pp. 67.
4. Thucydides , Book 1, 113-120, Powell, 1988, pp. 49-50, Sealey, p. 278.
5. See Grant, 1995, p. 77, Powell, 1988, p. 114-117.
6. Isocrates, v. 2, Panathenaicus, (12), 59, Areopagiticus, (7), 120. See Sealey, p. 279.
7. Powell, 1988, p. 114.
8. For example Demosthenes mentions it in 351 and 343 B.C.E., in v. 2, De Falsa Legatione, (19), 273., and so does Lycurgus in 328 B.C.E, in v. 2, Against Leocrates, (1), 73. See also Addendum on p. 80, for complete text of Demosthenes and Lycurgus. See also Meiggs, 1972, p. 129. See also Powell, 1988, p. 114-115.
9. Powell, 1988, p. 114-123, Davies, 1993, p. 80-82.
10. Davies, 1993, p. 81. Fornara, p. 96 quotes Harpocration, Attic Letters, '…Theopompus in book 15 of the Philippika says that the treaty with the Barbarian was a fabrication, and that it was not inscribed on the stelae with Attic letters but with the letters of the Ionians'.
11. Davies, 1993, p. 81.
12. See Plutarch, Life of Kimon, 13., for Callisthenes. See also Sealey, p. 279. See Addendum for complete text of Plutarch concerning the Peace terms.
13. The best attack on the historical veracity of the Peace of Kallias is Sealey, pp. 278-282.
14. Grant, 1995, p. 109.
15. Powell, 1988, p. 51.
16. Grant, 1995, p. 110.
17. Plutarch , Life of Kimon, 13. This position of the Peace of Kallias has many modern defenders. See Miller, pp. 13-14, 16-17, Badian, pp. 20-23.
18. Theon, in his Progymnasmata II, 67. 22, quotes Theopmpus as saying the 'Hellenic oath is a fabrication, which the Athenian say the Hellenes swore before the battle of Plataea against the barbarians, and so is the Athenian treaty with King Dareios in regards to the Greeks.' The above isquoted in Fornara, p. 96. The, so called Peace of Epilycus. See Andocides, v. 1, On the Peace with Sparta, (3) 29, from Burtt, Minor Attic Orators, v. 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heineman Ltd., London, 1962, and Sealey p. 281.
19. Davies, 1993, p. 170-171.
20. See Sealey, p. 279-280, Powell, 1988, 49-54. See also Badian who does take this provision seriously, pp. 49-50.
21. Isocrates, v. 2, Panathenaicus, (12), 59. For a repeat of these terms see his, v. 2, Areopagiticus, (7), 80.
22. Badian 51-52.
23. See above.
24. See Demosthenes, v. 2, De Falsa Legatione, (19), 273, Lycurgus, v. 2, Against Leocrates, (1), 73 and Aristodemos, 104. 13.
25. Demosthenes, v. 2, De Falsa Legatione, (19), 273.
26. Lycurgus, v. 2, Against Leocrates, (1), 73.
27. Aristodemos, 104. 13, quoted in Fornara, pp. 97-98.
28. Powell, 1988, p. 50. See for example Lysias, Funeral Oration, (55)-(61).
29. See Isocrates, v. 1, Panegyricus, (4), 120, v. 2, Areopagiticus, (7), 80, v. 2, Panathenaicus, (12), 59-61. Sealey, p. 279.
30. Isocrates, v. 2, Areopagiticus, (7), 120..
31. Isocrates, v. 2, Areopagiticus, (7), 121.
32. Lysias, Funeral Oration, (56).
33. Lysias, Funeral Oration, (60).
34. See Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 209, 274, and Addendum to this Note for quotes.
35. See Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 271-279.
36. See Aristides, Panathenaic Oration, 227, 226.
37. No better evidence of this exists than to read Aristide’s Panathenaic Oration. Read the Aristides quotes in the Addendum to this Note. In this respect it is interesting that Aristides mentions Athenian forces going to Egypt but 'inadvertently' neglects to mention the disasterous outcome. Aristides is also an excellent example of the takeover of History by rhetoric in antiquity.
38. See Badian, pp. 20-60, and Miller, pp. 15-16, 22-23
39. Diodorus , Book 12, 4.
40. See also Meiggs, 1972, p. 102.
41. Badian, pp. 20-26.
42. Plutarch, Life of Kimon, 13. Badian's comment, 'The fact that Ephialtes and Pericles, on separate occasions, refrained from attacking the King's territory can be explained only on the hypothesis that there was already a peace in existence, which they would not break:', p. 15. This comment is amazing. Badian seems to be assuming that these Athenian naval incursions if they did not raid or fight other ships must have been in a time of peace. This is unacceptable. War fleets historically have often neither fought nor raided merely patrolled or looked for enemies. Finally it is hard to accept Badian's contention that the treaty would have allowed Athenian war fleets to go anywhere while restricting the Persians. Such terms being accepted by the Persians unless they were utterly crushed, is simply not believable.
43. Badian, p. 27.
44. Badian pp. 14-15, 50-52, Badian’s linkage of the debate over the terms of the Peace of Kallias with the treaty with Carthage at the end of the First Punic war, which attacks historians who argue that the Ebro river limit on Carthage imposed a limit on Rome south of the river, on the grounds that ancient historians do not mention it does not help his argument. It is hard to believe that Carthage would have agreed to a document that would have allowed Roman interference in their domain in Spain. Such acquiescence to Roman messing in an area of Carthaginian interest is simply not believable.
45. See Grant, 1995, pp. 101-102, 108.
46. See Diodorus , Book 11, 62.
47. See above.
48. See Diodorus Book 11, 71-77.
49. See Thucydides , Book 1, 104. 109. 110.
50. Grant, 1995, p. 109. Grant gives Ephorus' dates has c.405-330 B.C.E.
51. See Grant, 1995, pp. 108-109.
52. Badian thinks otherwise pp. 26-30. Plutarch , Life of Kimon, 13, refers to Callisthenes has saying 'the Persians never agreed to observe any such terms. He says that this is merely how they behaved in practice, because of the fear in which the victory of Eurymedon had implanted in them; and, indeed, they kept so far away from Greece that Pericles with a squadron of fifty and Ephialtes with no more than thirty sailed far beyond the Chelidonian Islands without meeting anything resembling a barbarian fleet' I merely note that the implication of this passage, contra Badian, is that Callisthenes assumes some sort of reciprocity in terms of limits about where fleets and armies could go.
53. Meiggs, 1972, pp. 101-103.
54. Herodotus , Book 7, 151.
55. Herodotus , Book 7, 151.
56. Herodotus , Book 7, 151. See the de Sélincourt-Burn, translation of Herodotus.
57. See Powell, 1988, pp. 51-53.
58. Herodotus , Book 7, 152. See the de Sélincourt-Burn, translation of Herodotus.
59. Herodotus , Book 7, 149. See the de Sélincourt-Burn, translation of Herodotus.
60. See Burn, Introduction, p. 14, in the de Sélincourt-Burn, translation of Herodotus.
61. See Lewis, The Thirty Years' Peace, The Cambridge Ancient History, v. 4, 2nd Edition, Ed., D.M. Lewis et al, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p, 121, p. 123.
62. Powell, 1988, p. 49-54, Davies, 1993, p. 81, Meiggs, 1972, p. 129.
63. Davies, 1993, p. 81.
64. Thucydides , Book 1, 114-115. Badian, pp. 37-39. Miller p. 22-23, discusses the treaty has minimizing conflict not eliminating it, and refers to a 'Cold war', between Athens and Persia and also discusses the Samian revolt and Persia's possible aid to in detail.
65. Andocides, v. 1, On the Peace with Sparta, (3) 29.
66. See Burtt.
67. Bengtson, p. 128, is of the opinion no formal peace was made.
68. See Powell, 1988, pp. 49-54 for a fuller discussion. See also Miller pp. 22-23.
Badian, E., From Plataea to Potidaea, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1993.
Aristides, Aristides, v. 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann Ltd., London, 1973.
Bengtson, Hermann, The History of Greece, 4th Ed., University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, 1988.
Burtt, J. O., Minor Attic Orators, v. 2, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinman Ltd., London, 1954.
Davies, J. K., Democracy and Classical Greece, 2nd Ed., Fontana Press, London, 1993.
Herodotus, Herodotus , the Histories, Penguin Books, London, 1954.
de Ste Croix, G. E. M., Origins of the Peloponnesian War, Duckworth, London, 1972.
Grant, Michael, Greek & Roman Historians, Routledge, London, 1995.
Fornara, Charles W., Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1977.
Diodorus, Diodorus Siculus, v. 1, 4, 5, & 8, Loeb Classic Library, William Heinemann Ltd., London, 1989.
McGregor, Malcolm F., The Athenians and their Empire, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 1987.
Powell, Anton, Athens and Sparta, Routledge, London, 1988, Athens and Sparta, 2nd Ed., Routledge, London, 2001.
Isocrates, Isocrates, v. 1 & 2, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980.
Demosthenes, Demosthenes, with an English Translation, v. 2, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinman Ltd., London, 1935.
Plutarch, Plutarch , The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, The Modern Library, New York, 1954, The Age of Alexander, Nine Greek Lives of Plutarch , Penguin Books, London, 1973. The Rise and Fall of Athens, Nine Greek Lives of Plutarch , Penguin Books, London,1960.
Sealey, Raphael, A History of the Greek City States, ca. 700 B.C. – 338 B.C., University of California Press, Berkeley, 1978.
Andocides, In Burtt.
Lycurgus, In Burtt
Aristodemos, In Fornara
Lysias, Lysias, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinman Ltd., London, 1930.
Miller, Margaret, C., Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
Lateiner, Donald, The Historical Method of Herodotus, University of Toronto, Press, Toronto, 1989.
Meiggs, Russell, The Athenian Empire, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972.
Lewis, D. M., Chronological Notes, The Cambridge Ancient History, v. 5, 2nd Ed., Editor, D. M. Lewis et al, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p, 499.