Journal of Hellenic Studies ex (1990) 1-13

PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS

THE continuing and polemical debate over the authenticity of the Peace of Callias
has become so complicated that it would be a positive service to scholarship to remove
some of the more contentious evidence and reduce the scope of the argument. That is
the object of this article. A fragment of Callisthenes has bulked very large in the modern
literature. According to the received view the Olynthian historian denied the existence
of a formal peace between Athens and the Persian King and alleged that the King
observed a de facto limit to his empire, never venturing west of the Chelidonian islands.1
For sceptics this is grist to the mill. A writer of the mid-fourth century rejected the
Athenian patriotic tradition, and it is assumed that he had good reason to do so.2 On the
other hand defenders of the authenticity of the Peace stumble over Callisthenes'
apparent denial and are forced to counter-denial or to sophistry.3 What is common to
both camps is a tendency to refer to the evidence of Callisthenes without noting that the
original text is lost. The 'fragment' (which it is not) 4 is preserved by Plutarch in a
sophisticated passage of source criticism and due attention needs to be paid to his mode
of citation. Only then can we begin to elicit what Callisthenes may have said and
reconstruct the probable context in his historical exposition. As always, we need to
approach the unknown through proper study of the known.

I. WHAT PLUTARCH SAYS

The reference to Callisthenes comes in a complicated passage of Plutarch's Life of

Cimon. Plutarch first deals with the campaign of the Eurymedon, creating a composite
narrative out of the mutually contradictory reports of Ephorus, Callisthenes and the
Atthidographer, Phanodemus.5 Having concluded his story of the battle he adds that the
engagement so demoralised the Persian King that he contracted the celebrated peace,
which involved his keeping a day's ride from the Aegean coast and not sailing beyond
Cyaneae and the Chelidonian islands with a warship (13.4). That categorical statement is
contrasted first with Callisthenes, then with the transcript of the treaty made in the third
century BC by Craterus and finally with unidentified reports of an altar to Peace
dedicated at Athens because of the treaty and honours conferred upon the Athenian
ambassador Callias.6
1
This is the most conservative interpretation of Forschungen zur alien Geschichte ii [Halle 1899J 4-5)
the fragment, as found for instance in Luisa Prandi, or that Callisthenes did know of some form of the
Callistene: uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni treaty. Wade-Gery (above, n. 2) 204 suggested that
(Milan 1985) 53-4 he was influenced by the doubts of Theopompus
2
See, in particular, K. Meister, Die Ungeschicht- and preferred to refer to the de facto situation after
lichkeit des Kalliasfriedens und deren historische Folgen the Eurymedon, while John Walsh, 'The authen-
(Palingenesia xviii: Wiesbaden 1982) 12-15, 34. ticity and the dates of the Peace of Callias and the
58-66, with full citation of earlier literature. Cf. Congress Decree', Chiron xi (1981) 31-63, esp.
H. T. Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek history (Oxford 46-9, argued that Callisthenes rejected specific
1958) 204: 'the unknown arguments which may clauses of the Peace while accepting in general the
have moved Kallisthenes remain one of the most historicity of the compact.
potent weapons in the armoury of doubt'. "'Fragments' should properly imply verbal
3
A summary is conveniently provided by Meis- quotation. It has recently been suggested that
ter (above, n. 2) 14. Usually Callisthenes is assumed reliquiae is a more appropriate term: P. A. Brunt,
to have been in error: see, most recently, the 'On historical fragments and epitomes', CQ xxx
massive article by Ernst Badian, 'The Peace of (1980) 477-94 (note his collection, p. 479, of
Callias', JHS cvii (1987) 1-39, esp. 18: 'knowing misquotations of Herodotus in Plutarch's
little about the political history of Athens, thought De malignitate Herodoti).
5
that the first reported peace was due to confusion Plut. Cim. 12.5-13.3 = Jacoby, FGrH 70
with the later . . . one'. Otherwise it is assumed that F 192, 124 F 15, 325 F 22.
6
Plutarch misreported Callisthenes (so E. Meyer, Plut. Cim. 13.4-5 = FGrH 124 F 16, 342 F 13.
2 A. B. BOSWORTH
It cannot be denied that Plutarch is discussing the historicity of the Peace of Callias,
in which he believed, and he adduces the report of the decree given by Craterus as
evidence of its authenticity alongside anonymous writers who associated the Peace with
the altar at Athens.7 In other words it is an excursus on an issue which was contentious in
Plutarch's own day, not unlike the discussion (say) of the date of Lycurgus.8 Variant
reports are assessed and evaluated against each other. Now Craterus is alleged to have
given a transcript of the treaty as a historical fact (avriypo^a O-UV6T]KGOV cos ysvouevcov
KaTOtTETOKTai). That implies that the previous material, from Callisthenes, shed some
doubt on the historicity of the Peace. The vast majority of scholars have taken it as
axiomatic that he actually denied that the peace was concluded and see confirmation in
Plutarch's wording. There is first a categorical statement that the King made peace and
accepted the two restrictive territorial clauses. Then Plutarch adduces the evidence of
Callisthenes: KaiToi KaAAicT6evr|s ou <pr|ai TauTa auv0eo~6cu TOV pdpfiapov, ipyco 5e
Trotelv 5ia TOV <po|3ov TT)S f|TTr|s EKSIVTIS (Cim. 13.4). Almost invariably the sentence is
translated as follows:9 'and yet Callisthenes denies that the barbarian made this compact
but (claims) that as a matter of fact he acted in this way, because of the fear inspired by
that defeat'. If the translation is correct, we must inevitably conclude that Callisthenes
declared himself against the historicity of the Peace of Callias.
But is that so? In my opinion there has been a pervasive error in the interpretation of
the key phrase. The crux is the meaning of ou <pr|cn in the main clause, which is
regularly taken in its usual sense 'denies'. That usage is, of course, amply attested in
Plutarch, but it seems confined to simple statements, where,a single fact is rejected.10
Here the sentence is compound; there is a contrast between what Callisthenes does not
say and what he does. It is not a contrast unique either to the Life ofCimon or to Plutarch,
and it has a distinct rhetorical pedigree. In general, I would argue, the meaning is not
'denies X and maintains Y' but 'does not say X but says Y'. 11 In other words the idiom
draws attention to an omission of significant detail and reports what variant material is
actually given. An obvious instance where we can check the original is provided by
Aeschines in his speech On the Embassy. There Aeschines records what he said in the
great debate of Scirophorion 346, quoting the suspicions of Cleochares of Chalcis about
the secret diplomacy of larger states. Demosthenes perverted this, he claims, into a
promise that Philip would surrender Euboea to Athens—TOCOTCC OU 6ir|yr|aaa6ai us

7
These authorities cannot be identified, but they was arranged.'
10
were obviously in error. It is clear that the altar to E.g. Plut. Agis 2.5; Lucull. 28.8; Mor. 871C {cf.
Peace was established in the aftermath of the Hdt. viii.112). For a slightly more elaborate
Common Peace of 375, as was attested by example see Mor. 435B (with Eur. Cyc. 334). But I
Philochorus (FGrH 328 F151; cf. Isocr. xv n o ; can find no clear instance where the formula
Nepos Timoth. 2.2). See the exhaustive commen- introduces a variant with the sense 'this is denied
tary byjacoby, FGrH iiiB (Suppl.)/i(Text), 522—6. by X'.
8 n
Plut. Lye. 1. The discussion in the Life ofCimon T h i s was suggested long ago by Eduard
is relatively uncomplicated. For a more elaborate Meyer (above, n. 3), and it was seriously
example compare the excursus on Alexander and considered by Wade-Gery (above, n. 2) 203. But
the Amazon Queen (Plut. Alex. 46). Wade-Gery accepted the traditional location of the
9
This is my own translation, which corresponds discussion in Callisthenes' Hellenica and the tradi-
to Perrin's in the Loeb edition and which, I think, tional theory that the point of departure was the
does justice to the communis opinio. There are King's Peace (see below, p. 5); in other words, if
occasionally variants, such as in W. R. Connor, Callisthenes had known of and believed in the
Theopompus and fifth century Athens (Washington . Peace of Callias, he must have mentioned it in the
1968) 84: 'Callisthenes says that the barbarian did context. As will be seen, the traditional theory is
not make such an agreement...'; but Connor has fallacious, and the linguistic parallels, hitherto not
no hesitation in arguing that Callisthenes adduced, overwhelmingly support the minority
'attempted to refute a tradition that a formal peace view.
 PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS 3
12
<pr|<jiv dcAA* eirriyyeASai TT|V Eupoiotv TrapaScoaeiv. Now Demosthenes did not deny
that Aeschines reported his conversation with Cleochares. What he did was to
misrepresent it, stating (falsely) that the Euboeans had wind of an agreement to place
Euboea in Athenian hands. It is only the second clause that refers to what Demosthenes
actually said: 'he does not say that I reported these statements, rather that I promised to
hand over Euboea'.13
When we revert to Plutarch, we find the idiom at least a dozen times in the Lives
alone. In each case it is a question of comparing variant sources, and in each case what is
addressed is a significant silence. There is a clear instance in the Life of Marius, where
Plutarch reports the tradition that Sulla sought and found refuge in the house of Marius
when he was in flight from the forces of the tribune, Sulpicius Rufus. To counter that
report he adduces Sulla's autobiography, where the dictator claimed that he visited
Marius as a matter of policy (CCUTOS 6e ZuAActs ev TOIS UTrouvriuaaiv ou <pr|ai KctToupuyElv
•rrpos TOV Mdpiov aAA' <5cTrocAAax9rivai PouAeuaopevos. .. ) 1 4 It would seem most
unlikely that the dictator deliberately drew attention to an act of generosity on the part
of his rival. When he wrote his autobiography (before there was any written tradition to
counter), it was in his interest merely to give his preferred version, that he was taken to
the house of Marius by superior force and emerged to comply with the demands of
Sulpicius. That is the version Plutarch gives in the Life of Sulla,15 a unitary account with
no denial of the rival tradition, implying that Marius was in collusion with Sulpicius (the
variant tradition made him a free agent and benefactor of Sulla). Sulla, then, did not
deny that he found shelter with Marius: he said nothing about the tradition and gave a
version more flattering to himself.
Other examples are less conclusive, but they combine to corroborate the pattern.
The dream of Calpurnia shortly before Caesar's assassination is reported in two versions,
the first simply that she was holding the murdered dictator in her arms, the second that
the honorific gable ornament on Caesar's house broke away. Plutarch introduces the
second tradition with the statement: oi 8' ou <pocai Trj yuvami TaOrnv yeveaOai TT)V
oyiv (Caes. 63.9). As before, it is likely that he was simply drawing attention to the
silence of the sources. They said nothing about the first dream, reporting only the vision
of the fallen gable. These portents are reported elsewhere, some authors (like Appian)
giving one, others (Suetonius and Dio) both;16 but nowhere is there any hint of a denial
in the sources.17 The variant about Crassus' death is much the same, According to
Plutarch he was killed by a Parthian named Pomaxathres: oi 5' ou 9a<7iv ctAA' rrepov

12
Aesch. ii 120. Aeschines is referring explicitly 280-1.
15
to the exposition at Dem. xix 22, where Demos- Plut. Sull. 8.7; cf. App. BC i 56.247.
16
thenes quotes the alleged statements of (unnamed) App. BC ii 115.481: Val. Max. i 7.2; Suet.
Euboean delegates, mentioning rumours OTI Caes. 81.3; Dio xliv 17.1. Nicolaus of Damascus
. . . cDiAiTrrros 8' uuiv Eu|3oiav cbuoA6yr|KEV (FGrH 90 F 130 [23.83], simply mentioned a
•rrapaScbaeiv. For the historical background see number of dreams experienced by Calpurnia and
G. L. Cawkwell 'Euboea in the late 340's', Phoenix did not give their content. The variant tradition of
xxxii (1978) 48-9. the falling gable, which Plutarch specifically
13
The idiom recurs more explicitly a paragraph attributes to Livy, recurs in Obsequens 67 without
earlier, where Aeschines claims that Demosthenes reference to any other story.
17
turned his statement that he believed it right that For a similar account of portents compare
Thebes should be Boeotian into a promise that Plut. Brut. 48.2, where the famous report of the
Philip would actually bring that about: TOOTO OUK appearance of Caesar's ghost is contrasted with the
ccrroryyeTAai &XX' CnrocrxECTOca UE <pr|<7iv. (Aesch. ii story of Brutus' contemporary and intimate,
119; cf. Dem. xix 20-1). P. Volumnius (Peter HRR ii.52 [F 1]), that one of
14
Plut. Mar. 35.4 = Peter HRR i. 199 (F 11). the eagles became infested by bees (TOOTO UEV OO
For the literary and historical background see Xeyei TOCTTIHETOV,UEAICTCXCOV 5E q>r|CTi. . . ) . Once
A. Passerini, 'Gaio Mario come uomo politico', again Plutarch draws attention not to a denial but
Athenaeum xii (1934) 363-4; I. Calabi, 'I commen- to a variant report.
tarii di Silla come fonte storica', RAL iii. 5 (1950)
4 A. B. BOSWORTH
18
efvoci TOV aTTOKTeivotVTa. It is unlikely that the variant tradition explicitly denied that
the killer was Pomaxathres. More probably it simply reported a different name and
Plutarch noted the disagreement. The same applies to the discussion of the course of the
river Cyrus in the Life of Pompey. Plutarch contrasts the report of his main historical
source, that the Araxes joins it before its delta, with a variant that the two rivers have
separate courses and enter the Caspian at different points.19 Both traditions recur
elsewhere and, once again, there is no trace of debate or polemic.20 The overwhelming
probability is that Plutarch simply reported the version of his principal narrative source
(which he shared with Appian) and added that other sources known to him gave a
different description.21
The only notice of this type which seems to me ambiguous comes in the Life of
Nicias. There Plutarch cites Timaeus' account of the deaths of Demosthenes and Nicias:
'he does not say (oO (pr|aiv) that they died at the behest of the Syracusans, as was
recorded by Philistus and Thucydides, but claims that they committed suicide while the
assembly was still in session, after Hermocrates sent word to them'. 22 Given Timaeus'
known penchant for criticism of earlier writers,23 it is certainly possible that he referred
to Philistus and Thucydides by name and rejected their accounts. But the parallels cited
(and the fact that Plutarch gives no details of Timaeus' argumentation) in my opinion
tip the balance towards a simple variant.24 Elsewhere Plutarch tends to be explicit when
a tradition is rejected by his sources and speaks openly of fiction. If Timaeus had
inveighed against the historicity of Thucydides' and Philistus' version, Plutarch should
have made it clear, as he does, say, with the story of Alexander's relations with the
Amazon Queen or the criticisms of Solon's interview with Croesus.25 The same applied
to Callisthenes and the Peace of Callias. If he had denied the existence of the peace, then
it was natural for Plutarch to have signalised the fact. Where we have the simple formula
oO <pr|at/(paai, it is most economical to suppose that he is merely reporting a variant.
We can no longer assume that Callisthenes denied the existence of a peace after
Eurymedon. All Plutarch does is to emphasise that he said nothing about such a peace
but drew attention to the actual behaviour of the King, who took no defensive measures
even after Pericles and Ephialtes led naval forces east of the Chelidonian islands. What
led Plutarch to express himself in the form that he does? I would suggest that it was
primarily a piece of rhetorical embellishment on his part. By the second century AD it
was an established literary topos that the victory of Eurymedon forced the Persian King
to accept a humiliating peace, whose two principal clauses were the prohibition against
venturing by land within a day's ride of the sea and by sea beyond Cyaneae and the
Chelidonians. That was the formulation of Demosthenes in his speech On the Embassy.26
18
Plut. Crass. 31.7. For other reports of Crassus' unique report for which there is no control source:
death see Dio xl 27.2. once again it seems a simple variant, an aberrant
19
Plut. Pomp. 34.3: oi 6' oO <paai TOUTCO account of Caesar's role at Thapsus (cf. M. Gelzer,
C7un<p4pea6ai T6V 'Ap&|r|v dtAAa KCC0' icarrov, lyyus Caesar [Oxford 1968] 268 n. 3).
22
8e TroieTcr9ai TT|V ei<|3oAf|v eis TOUTO TTEAccyos. Plut. Me. 28.5 = Timaeus FCrH 566 F 101.
20 23
App. Mithr. 103.480 repeats the first tradition Polyb. xii 4a, 23 (with Walbank's commen-
in Plutarch, agreeing on the twelve mouths of the tary ad loc); FGrH 566 T 1, 11, 16-19, 23, 27,
24
delta and the variant spelling Cyrnus (cf. Dio xxxvi Jacoby, FGrHiii B(Kommentar) Text, 582-3,
53.5), and Pliny, NH vi 26, alleges that it was argues that Timaeus consciously falsified the record
majority opinion that the Araxes flowed into the to the greater glory of Hermocrates, filling the
Cyrus. On the other hand Strabo repeatedly gives rhetorical gap left by Thucydides and Philistus and
the alternative version that the rivers had separate (implicitly) reacting against the account of Ephorus
courses (xi 1.5 [491], 4.2 [501], 14.3-4 [527—8], (cf Diod. xiii 19 ff.). There was no direct polemic
i4-'3 [531J: so apparently Mela iii 40-1) and there here, but idiosyncratic elaboration.
25
is no hint of any polemic. Plut. Alex. 46.2 (TrAcroya 9 0 a ! yEyovivai
21
See also Plut. Publ. 19.8 ( = Mor. 250 F), The TOUTO); Sol. 27.1 (cos TrETrAc«7U£vr|v). See also Alex.
variant tradition here recorded seems that of Dion. 77.5; Them. 32.4.
26
Hal. v 34.3, where there is no detail (or record) of Dem. xix 273 (so Lycurg. i 73); cf. Meister
any other story. One may add Plut. Caes. 53.5, a (above, n. 2) 16-18.
 PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS 5
It was adopted by Aelius Aristeides, who followed Isocrates' model in contrasting the
King's Peace unfavourably with the terms of the Peace of Callias but also, in a very
different context, used the Peace as a debating point to enhance the glory of the Romans
whose empire was not bounded by the Cyaneae, the Chelidonians or a day's ride from
the sea.27 The same clauses are echoed by Himerius (vi 29) in the fourth century AD, and
there is no doubt that they were firmly established in the stock repertory of rhetorical
cliches.
When Plutarch researched his material for the Life ofCimon, he clearly believed that
the Peace of Callias was a direct sequel to the campaign of Eurymedon, and he
presumably found a report to that effect in one of his sources, no doubt the
Atthidographer, Phanodemus, whose work had a tendency to panegyric of Athens and
was composed in the latter half of the fourth century,28 when the Peace was extolled by
the orators as one of the glories of the city. Callisthenes by contrast had no reference to
the Peace itself, but he did refer to the Chelidonian islands as a self-imposed boundary of
the Persian Empire beyond which the King did not venture and within which he did not
assert himself. That inspired Plutarch to draw attention to the clauses of the Peace which
were standard in his day and to comment that Callisthenes had no reference to the Peace
itself but mentioned the Chelidonian islands in a different context, as a de facto boundary
of the Persian Empire.The suspicions that are evoked by the absence of a reference to the
Peace are immediately countered by the documentary evidence of Craterus and the
dedication of the altar to Peace. There is no necessary—or likely—implication that
Callisthenes denied the existence of the peace. Plutarch names him as a significant
variant, a source which did not mention the peace when he might have been expected to
do so and whose silence by implication cast doubt on the historicity of the episode.

II. WHAT CALLISTHENES MIGHT HAVE SAID

The entire context of Plutarch's citations of Callisthenes is problematical. The

material relates to the battle of the Eurymedon and its sequel, but the period of the
pentekontaetia was not covered in any attested work of Callisthenes.29 It probably comes
from a digression, but what could be the context? There is an easy and traditional
answer. It comes from the introductory portion of the Hellenica, Callisthenes' ten book
coverage of the thirty year period between the King's Peace (387/6) and the outbreak of
the Sacred War (356).30 The choice of the King's Peace as a starting point is conceived as
a political manifesto in its own right, placing Callisthenes in the panhellenic tradition of
thought represented by Isocrates. As Isocrates' Panegyric drew a contrast between the
immediate disgrace of the King's Peace and the glorious tradition of the Peace of
Callias,31 so Callisthenes compared the present with the past and wrote an introductory
digression setting the relations between Greek and Persian in their proper historical
context. The great Athenian victories and their political consequences in the fifth
century formed an ironical counterpoint to the sordid political intrigue that resulted in
the King's Peace.32
27
Arist. i (Panath.) 274, 209; xxvi (Rom.) 10; cf. ary output see Prandi (above, n. 1); L. Pearson, The
Meister (above, n. 2) 18-20. lost histories of Alexander the Great (Philological
28
Jacoby, FGrH iii B (suppl.)/i (Text), 172-3, Monographs 20: New York i960) 22-49; P.
argues that Phanodemus began his work sometime Pedech, Historiens compagnons d Alexandre (Paris
between 340 and 335. If Badian's complex argu- 1984) 15—69.
30
ment (above, n. 3, 15-17) is sound, Ephorus also FGrH 124 T 27 (Diod. xiv 117.8; xvi 14.4)
31
referred to an earlier peace contracted after Isocr. iv (Pan.) 120; cf. Meister (above, n. 2)
Eurymedon and could also have inspired Plutarch's 8—11.
32
excursus. For fullest expression of the theory see Pedech
29
For convenient reviews of Callisthenes' liter- (above, n. 28) 27—8, 30—1, Prandi (above, n. 1) 53—4.
6 A. B. BOSWORTH
The theory is superficially attractive,33 but it is based on nothing more than wishful
thinking. I do not see how the choice of the King's Peace as a point of departure proves
anything about Callisthenes' political orientation. It was a key episode in fourth century
history, marking the recovery of Spartan supremacy in Greece and with it the
dissolution of the Boeotian confederacy. The Persian role in these transactions could
well be seen as secondary. One might compare the preface of Diodorus xv, which is
probably taken from Ephorus and comes in the immediate aftermath of the King's
Peace.34 There is violent censure of the Spartans, but the Persians play no role in the
polemic. The emphasis is on the Spartan abuse of hegemony which led to the alienation
of their own allies. That is rightly seen as the dominant theme of the period, and there is
no evidence that Callisthenes had any other perspective in the Hellenica. The fragments,
admittedly scanty, give no indication of any preoccupation with Greco-Persian
relations, nor do any of the extant texts, such as Plutarch's Life ofPelopidas,35 which are
considered to be directly influenced by Callisthenes. He appears to have dealt (as one
would expect) with the great Persian invasion of Egypt in 374, commenting upon the
phenomenon of the Nile floods,36 but we cannot trace any Isocratean zeal for a united
Greek front against the barbarian. There is also the question of economy. We know that
Callisthenes dealt with Sphodrias and his abortive invasion of Attica (378) in Book ii,
and the battle of Tegyra (375) appeared in Book iii.37 That presupposes a plethora of
material in Book i: events such as the Spartan initiatives against Thebes, Mantineia and
Olynthus and the protracted Persian campaigns against Evagoras of Salamis. There is
little apparent space for a preliminary digression into the fifth century. One gains the
distinct impression that Callisthenes' panhellenism was artificially conjured up to
provide a home for the Eurymedon fragments.
But is there any acceptable alternative location? In 1900 Eduard Schwartz proposed
briefly that the proper home for the digression was Callisthenes' work on Alexander, in
particular his narrative of the Macedonian king's march through Pamphylia early in
333.38 This suggestion was emphatically rejected byjacoby in his classic article in Pauly-
Wissowa (REx. 1695-6) and immediately fell into the limbo of forgotten things. If the
alternative location is mentioned at all, it tends to be dismissed perfunctorily.39 Klaus
Meister, for instance, echoes Jacoby and states dogmatically that the excursus comes

33 36
Best stated, with admirable rhetoric, by FGrH 124 F 12; cf. S. M. Burstein, 'Alex-
Jacoby, RE x. 1694: 'Dieser Friede bedeutet fur ander, Callisthenes and the sources of the Nile',
jeden Griechen, der sich iiber die engen Grenzen GRBS xvii (1976) 135-46; Prandi (above, n. 1)
seiner vaterstadtischen Interessen zu erheben 153—8.
37
vermochte, einen Schandfleck fur den griechischen FGrH 124 F 9, 11 (the book numbers are self-
Namen'. It is, I think, more an expression of the consistent and credible).
38
Pan-German sentiment of the early twentieth cen- E. Schwartz, 'Kallisthenes' Hellenika', Hermes
tury than a reflection of fourth-century Panhellenic xxxv (1900) 106-30, esp. 109. 'fur eine solche
thought. Schilderung ist kein leichterer Anlass denkbar, als
34
Diod. xv 1.1—5. The subsequent narrative, Alexanders Marsch durch Pamphylien im Jahr
certainly based on Ephorus, does mention the 333'.
39
discredit brought on Sparta by the King's Peace Cf. Wade-Gery (above, n. 2) 204. In recent
(xv 9.5), but it is very much a secondary theme, years F. C. Schreiner, 'More anti-Thukydidean
overshadowed by Spartan abuses in Greece proper studies in the Pentekontaetia', SO Hi (1977) 19-38,
(cf. xv 19.4). See the Bude edition of Diodorus xv esp. 23-9, has accepted Schwartz's location; but his
by Claude Vial (Paris 1977), xvi-xix. grounds seem to me wholly subjective, and he
35
Cf. Jacoby, RE x.1707; Prandi (above, n. 1) argues (quite implausibly) that Callisthenes was the
70-3. Note particularly the highly flattering pic- main source for the Life of Cimon. Schreiner cites
ture ofPelopidas' diplomatic mission to Susa (Plut. G. Lombardo, Cimone. Ricostruzione della biografia
Pel. 30), which basically reaffirmed the terms of the e discussioni storiografiche (Rome 1934) 83, 133, w h o
King's Peace, with Thebes playing the role of apparently endorsed Schwartz's views (non vidi).
Sparta.
 PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS 7
40
from the preface of the Hellenica. That is a pity. Jacoby did not dignify Schwartz's
suggestion with serious argument. He rejected it a priori: 'ein Notbehelf, der mcincs
Erachtcns einer Widerlegung nicht bedarf. In the context of Alexander's passage of
Pamphylia, which Callisthenes treated in panegyrical fashion, the excursus had no
relevance or point. That is the sum of the criticism, and it is sad that it has had such a
devastating effect. A more sober appraisal of the issue will establish that there was every
reason for Callisthenes to digress and comment on the achievements of the past, so as to
enhance the present glory of Alexander.
What cannot be denied is that the epic events of the fifth century were starkly
relevant (in propaganda at least) to the aims and objectives of Alexander. The official
pretext for the war, which he inherited from his father, was to take revenge for the
injuries inflicted by the Persians upon Hellenic shrines, a manifesto which deliberately
echoed the foundation oath of the Delian League.41 Athene, the principal victim of
Xerxes in 480, was the patron goddess of the new crusade and it was to her that
Alexander dedicated the first fruits of victory at the Granicus.42 War with Persia was
seen as a continuous obligation, a legacy to the generation of Alexander from the heroic
age of the Persian Wars. Alexander himself emphasised the continuity in great and small
issues, when he promised the restoration of Plataea in recognition of the city's sacrifices
in 479 or sent a portion of the spoils of Gaugamela to distant Croton in return for the
services of Phayllus in the defence of Greece.43 We should expect that his personal
historian would duly record instances where he had continued or surpassed the great
tradition.
The extant citations of Callisthenes' Praxeis Alexandrou are few and selective, but
what emerges clearly is a conscious design to place the campaign of Alexander in a
heroic context. There were antiquarian digressions devoted to the Homeric antecedents
of the settlements visited by Alexander,44 and there were also direct references to
significant episodes of the Persian Wars. Callisthenes mentioned the Persian sack of
Miletus in 494 BC and referred to the fine imposed upon the Athenian tragedian,
Phrynichus, for his unseasonable dramatisation of the event.45 It is likely enough that he
made a feature of Alexander's comparatively magnanimous treatment of Miletus, which
he spared and gave a formal grant of freedom, even though its surrender came at the
eleventh hour, when the city walls were already breached.46 His restraint and respect for
past affliction could be honourably compared with the excesses of the Persians after the
Ionian Revolt. Apollo, the patron of Miletus, was appropriately appreciative. Accord-
ing to Callisthenes the oracle at Branchidae, silent since its devastation in the time of
Xerxes, now disgorged oracles attesting the divine sonship of Alexander.47 The
problem of the sacrilege of Xerxes does not concern us here. What matters is the
propaganda for Alexander. By its sudden resurrection the oracle signalised a new age,
the return of the god after his long exile throughout the Persian dominion.
40 42
Meistcr (above, n. 2) 65, arguing that the Arr. i 16.7; Plut. Alex. 16.17 Cf. A. B.
Hellenica provided an ideal context for the old Bosworth, Historical commentary on Arrian's History
rhetorical topos, the comparison of the Peace of of Alexander i (Oxford 1980) 127.
43
Callias and the King's Peace. But, on his view, Plut. Alex. 34.2-3; cf. J. R. Hamilton,
Callisthenes denied the historicity of the Peace of Plutarch: Alexander (Oxford 1969) 91-2.
44
Callias and there could be no direct comparison. FGrH 124 F 28, 32—3; 53-4; cf. Pedech (above
Jacoby (RE x. 1696) was more prudent: Callisthenes n. 29) 45-9; Prandi (above, n.i) 76-82.
45
was sceptical about the Peace and confined himself Strabo xiv 1.7 (635) = FGrH 124 F 29; cf.
to stressing the glorious consequences of the vie- Hdt. vi 21.2.
46
tory at the Eurymedon, which could be adversely Arr.i 19.4-6; Diod. xvii 22.3-5.
47
compared with the King's Peace. Strabo xvii 1.43 (814) = FGrH 124 F 14a. On
41
Diod. xvi 89.2; cf. Arr. ii 14.4; iii 18.12; the attribution of the sack to Xerxes see, most
Curt, iv 1. I O - I I . See further H. Bellen, 'Die recently, H. W. Parke,'The massacre of the Bran-
Rachegedanke in der griechisch—persischen chidae', JHS cv (1985) 59-68, esp. 64-5.
Auseinandcrsctzung', Chiron iv (1974) 43—67.
8 A. B. BOSWORTH
In that context it made a great deal of sense to rehearse the glorious victory of
Eurymedon.48 In the Athenian rhetorical tradition that marked the high tide of success
against the Persians. Now Callisthenes could show Alexander emulating and surpassing
the triumphs of Cimon. He too reached the Eurymedon, but that was no term of
conquest, only a passing episode in the greater war. He followed the Athenian fleet into
Pamphylia, just as he later followed Heracles and Perseus to Siwah,49 and he improved
upon its performance. This was to be no temporary intrusion into alien territory. It was
permanent conquest. That was underlined by Callisthenes in the most striking way. As
Alexander marched along the Pamphylian coast between Phaselis and Perge, the sea
itself recognised him as its new lord. The long arched rollers thrown up by the land
breeze appeared to perform a kind of proskynesis,50 the traditional act of obeisance
offered before the Persian king by his subjects. Now the very elements recognised the
charge of suzerainty. This demonstration occurred immediately after Alexander
impinged on the Pamphylian Gulf at Phaselis,51 a little to the north of the Chelidonian
islands, the limit of the Persian Empire as recognised in the Peace of Callias. Unlike the
Athenians, Alexander did not recognise Persian sovereignty. He arrogated it for himself.
But, as we have seen, Callisthenes did not mention the Peace of Callias, which might
have been seen as an effective propaganda point. That is a problem, but it is easily
answered. There is another example of silence on his part which is highly pertinent to
the argument. Callisthenes digressed on the fate of Sardes, the Lydian capital, which he
claims was taken three times by storm: first by the Cimmerians, then by the Treres and
Lycians and finally by the Persians under Cyrus. 52 Once again there was presumably an
encomiastic motive, to contrast the destruction of the past with Alexander's peaceful
occupation of Sardes, which saw the return of the ancestral laws of the Lydians and the
establishment of a state temple for Olympian Zeus.53 But Callisthenes omitted the
fourth capture of the city, by the insurgent Ionians (with Athenian assistance) in 498.54
That was conscious. According to Herodotus the capture of Sardes resulted in the
burning of the temple of Cybebe, which was the pretext for Persian retaliation against
the shrines of Greece.55 It was a very inopportune theme to recall in the context
of Alexander's expedition, when it was a tenet of faith that the Persians had been
the aggressors. That is explicitly stated in both versions of Alexander's letter to
Darius in winter 333/2. It was Darius I and Xerxes who invaded both Greece and
Macedon without provocation (ou8sv Trpor|8iKr|UEvoi).56 Even the Thespian cavalry
contingent saw itself as the instrument of vengeance, repaying the injuries suffered
48 50
There were of course other contexts in which FGrH 124 F 31 (Townley scholion on Iliad
Callisthenes might have expounded the theme of xiii 29); cf. Prandi (above, n. 1) 81-2, 97-8.
51
Eurymedon. It is not impossible (as a referee has Arr. i 26.1-2; for the other sources see
suggested) that the discussion occurred in an Bosworth (above, n. 42) 165—6. Divine interven-
Introduction which delineated the previous history tion is implied (OUK dvgu TOO 0E(OU: Arr.; cf. Plut.
of Greco-Persian conflict. There is, however, no Alex. 17.6; Jos. AJ ii 348; App. BC. ii 149.622), but
evidence that Callisthenes prefaced his work with a the recognition of sovereignty was an embellish-
formal introduction (though it is admittedly likely) ment unique to Callisthenes.
52
and no hint of what material might have been Strabo xiii 4.8 (627) = FGrH 124 F 29.
53
chosen for introductory purposes. O n the other Arr. i 17.3-7; cf Bosworth (above, n. 42)
hand there is ample evidence for antiquarian and 128-30).
54
historical digressions in the course of the narrative, T h e Ionians admittedly did not capture the
and I assume that the observations on the acropolis of Sardes, which held out during the
Eurymedon and its sequel came at the point when occupation and conflagration of the lower city
Alexander impinged on the field of the campaign. (Hdt. v 100); but the same was apparently true of
But, wherever Callisthenes placed his discussion, it the Cimmerians, w h o also failed to capture the
remains true that the Peace of Callias was an acropolis (Hdt. i 15). The citadel itself may only
uncomfortable theme, best buried in tactful silence, have fallen once—to Cyrus.
49 55
For the motif of heroic emulation in Callis- Hdt. v 102.1 (emphasising the cams belli);
thenes see FGrH 124 F 14a, with Pedech (above, vi 101.3 (revenge motive); cf. vii 8|3.i.
56
n. 29) 49-51. Arr. ii 14.4; Curt, iv I . I O - I I .
 PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS 9
57
by an earlier generation. Callisthenes necessarily repeated that propaganda, and the
burning of Sardes during the Ionian Revolt was an episode to be buried in discreet
oblivion.
The encomiastic Athenian tradition of the Peace of Callias falls in the same category.
What is emphasised in Alexander's propaganda is the continuity of the struggle against
Persia. The injuries inflicted in 480/79 had never been adequately avenged, and
Alexander presented himself as the champion of Athene, redressing the wrongs suffered
at the hands of Xerxes and Mardonius. Those pretensions could not be reconciled with
the Athenian rhetorical tradition. There, rightly or wrongly, the Peace of Callias was
presented as the culmination of the war of revenge.58 It was a recognition of the
effectiveness of the Athenian retaliation; the King agreed to a restriction of his imperial
boundaries and to keep his military forces within those limits. In the eyes of the
Athenians they had brought the war of revenge to a glorious finale, avenged their
wrongs and enshrined the new state of things in a formal peace. If the tradition was
taken at face value, there was nothing for Alexander to avenge, and it is hardly
surprising that Callisthenes said nothing about a formal peace.
What he did, it seems was to embroider another topos of Athenian rhetoric. Isocratcs
and (apparently) Plato had alleged that the great Athenian victories of the fifth century
so demoralised the Persian King that he renounced any idea of aggression and kept his
naval forces east of Phaselis.59 That was much more accommodated to the propaganda
of Alexander's reign. From the Athenian side there was no renunciation of hostility.
Their military effort had a significant result in humiliating the King and securing the
Aegean coast, but it left open the prospect of further campaigns. The Athenian successes
under Cimon were a benchmark for a greater conqueror to surpass. Callisthenes
therefore gave appropriate publicity to the campaign of the Eurymedon. It marked the
high tide of Athenian successes in Asia Minor (the campaigns in Cyprus and Egypt came
in another category), and it resulted in the collapse of the Persian will to resist.
Subsequent forays by Pericles and Ephialtes east of the Chelidonian islands evoked no
response. Against that background Alexander's achievements shone in a brighter light.
Unlike the Athenians, who merely made incursions into the King's territory and had
only an evanescent presence in Pamphylia, he annexed the entire area to his rule and the
very sea accepted his sovereignty in an act of obeisance. Again, the Athenian actions,
however glorious, merely deterred the King and left him passive in his domains, lacking
the will or the potential for aggression, whereas Alexander challenged him directly,
arrogating his empire. He surpassed the most glorious achievements of Athens and could
still be seen as pursuing a traditional and indeterminate campaign of revenge.
The Eurymedon and its sequel was highly pertinent to Callisthenes' history of
Alexander, and its context explains some of the peculiarities of Plutarch's exposition.
What is at issue is the Athenian involvement in Pamphylia, which was the foil for
Alexander's own actions there. Cimon's push to Phaselis and the Eurymedon was the
great event in previous history, which Alexander emulated and surpassed. The two later
actions by Pericles and Ephialtes, which Plutarch lists according to importance, not strict
chronology, illustrated the effect of Cimon's victory and the lack of Athenian will to
conquer the Pamphylian coast. That set the proper context for Alexander's triumphal
progress. Callisthenes could stress the effortless capitulation of the area (glossing over less
heroic aspects like the tenacious and unbroken resistance of the Persian garrison at
57
Anth. Pal. vi 344: Tipcopous Trpoyovcov pdp- probably the version of Phanodemus also (see
(3apov E!S 'Aair]v. above, p. 5).
58 59
M o s t explicit in L y c u r g . i 73: Kai T O Isocr. vii (Areop.) 80 (cf. Meister [above, n. 2]
KEcpaAouov Tfis v i x r i s . . . o p o u s TOIS ^ a p P A p o i s 9-11); Plato Menex. 241c (perhaps referring to a de
£ . . . ovv6r|KC<s ETroir)crc<VTo KTA. T h a t was facto peace: cf. Meister 7—8).
io A. B. BOSWORTH
60
Sillyum) and the permanent annexation of Persian territory. By the winter of 334/3
Alexander had passed the limit of Athenian campaigning on the coast of Asia Minor,
and that was only the first act of the war of revenge. What was not relevant was a
reference to the Peace of Callias, and Callisthenes passed it over in tactful silence as he
did the Ionian attack upon Sardes.

HI. SOME HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS

As we have seen, Callisthenes' account of the Eurymedon and its sequel makes best
sense when viewed against the background of Alexander's campaigns. The information
provided about fifth century history is strictly limited and somewhat disappointing. The
most significant result of this investigation concerns the debate about the authenticity of
the Peace. Callisthenes did not argue against the existence of a peace with Persia. He
omitted all reference to it because it was not easily reconcilable with the propaganda of
his royal patron. If he had doubts about authenticity, they were better kept to himself,
for even to mention the glorious tradition of the peace would have meant a weakening
of Alexander's claim to be continuing an unbroken war of revenge. The one apparent
sceptic, from the fourth century at least, was Theopompus of Chios, who included in
the twenty-fifth book of his Philippica an attack on the Athenian panegyrical tradition,
assailing the authenticity of the oath of Plataea and the treaty with the barbarians and
minimising the importance of Marathon.61 This was a famous digression which ranked
with Thucydides' analysis of the affair of Harmodius and Aristogeiton and was widely
read in the Roman period.62 Theopompus' doubts, taken with the apparent denial of
Callisthenes, led scholars to posit a strong sceptical current of thought, a contemporary
onslaught against the Peace of Callias. If Callisthenes is removed from the ranks of the
sceptics, then Theopompus stands alone and the scattered testimonia of his excursus
must be considered in isolation.
That does not help the debate over the Peace. There are two explict references to
Theopompus' criticisms. According to Harpocration he claimed that the treaty with the
barbarian was a forgery because it was incised in Ionic (not Attic) lettering.63 Not
surprisingly it is usually assumed that the treaty Theopompus denounced was the formal
Athenian record of the Peace of Callias, which Craterus transcribed at the end of the
fourth century.64 The definite article (TOCS Ttpos |3dp|3ocpov cruv6r)Kas) is often stressed. If
Theopompus referred without qualification to the treaty with the barbarian, he can
hardly have meant anything other than the Peace of Callias.65 But there lies the
problem. We cannot be sure that Harpocration is quoting with deadly verbatim
accuracy. Even if he is, his citation is selective and deals only with Theopompus'
comment about Ionic letters. The original may have been far more expansive, giving
more detail about the historical context of the suspect treaty and then using the definite
60
Arr. i 26.5. Alexander clearly left a good deal and Herodotus' triple division of the known world
of unfinished business to be cleared up by (iv 42-5).
63
Nearchus, whom he appointed satrap of Lycia and Harpocr. s.v. 'ATTIKOTS ypaimaow = FGrH
Pamphylia. 115 F 154. A further fragment of this discussion is
61
Theon, Prog. 2 (Rhetoresgraeci [ed. L. Spengel] apparently preserved in Photius and the Suda
ii. 67.22-9) = FGrH 115 F 153. The standard (FGrH 115 F 155); cf. Connor (above, n. 9) 89—94.
64
discussion is that of Connor (above, n. 9) 78-89; see See the full exposition of this view in Meister
also Meister (above, n. 2) 59-65. (above, n. 2) 60-5).
62 65
Theon's reference is embedded in a list of So (e.g.) David Stockton, 'The Peace of Cal-
classic models for rhetorical training. The immedi- lias', Historia viii (1959) 62: 'It is hard to believe that
ate context is the technical excursus in historical it was not this, the big bubble, that Theopompus
narrative (TrpccyucrriKai 5ir)yr)CT6is). Theopompus was out to prick'.
is placed alongside Thucydides on the tyrannicides
 PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS u
article resumptively ('the treaty which I mentioned'). Indeed there is a positive
statement that Theopompus mentioned the name of the Persian signatory to the treaty.
In the other direct reference to his excursus (in Theon's Progymnasmata) it is alleged that
he impugned 'the treaty of the Athenians with King Darius'. Now the text of Theon is
difficult and possibly corrupt, but (as has been repeatedly stated) there is no reason to
delete the name Darius as an intrusive gloss.66 Theopompus, then, directed his
comments to a stele which recorded a treaty between the Athenians and a King Darius
and was inscribed in the Ionic alphabet. That can hardly be the Peace of Callias as such,
which on most calculations is believed to have been concluded in the reign ofArtaxerxes 1.67
There are only two possibilities. The first, that there was an Athenian tradition of peace
concluded (after Marathon) by Darius I, can safely be rejected,68 as there is no hint in
any source of such a Persian volte face. It was part of the authorised gospel that Darius
was determined to the last to wipe out the disgrace of his defeat,69 and there was no
point in fabricating a treaty. The reign of Darius II is the only alternative. We must
assume that in Theopompus' day there was on display a stele recording a treaty with
King Darius and that its provisions were particularly flattering to the Athenians. It may
be the authentic record (reinscribed in the fourth century) of some ephemeral compact
made with Darius shortly after his accession (424/3),70 the concessions to Athens
reflecting the time of troubles which followed the death of Artaxerxes; or it may be an
imaginative fourth century embellishment of an incomplete or relatively prosaic
transaction. What we cannot infer is that the decree was a re-enactment of the Peace of
Callias.71 It was a piece of documentation which happened to be vulnerable to
subversive criticism and was attacked by Theopompus as a forgery. If we had more of
the Atthidographic tradition, it might have been possible to see what encomiastic use the
Athenians made of the rapprochement, real or imaginary, with Darius II, but, as things
stand, there is no basis for speculation.
All that seems certain is that Theopompus did not impugn the Peace of Callias as
such. That would explain the silence of Plutarch in the Life of Cimon. He knew his

66
For discussion see Connor (above, n. 9) 79-82, new join at the Epigraphical Museum', ZPE li
enlarging on Wade-Gery (above, n. 2) 206-7. See [1983] 183-4; rf- D. M. Whitehead, ZPE lvii [1984]
also Badian (above, n. 3) 28 n. 51. 145-6), which proves that the recipient was indeed
67
The only other (outside) possibility is a dating Heracleides of Clazomenae. Heracleides served
to the reign of Xerxes, in the immediate aftermath Athenian interests in negotiating spondai with the
of Eurymedon (so Badian [above, n. 3] 3-8). In that Great King and did so before he achieved Athenian
case the attested embassy of Callias to the court of citizenship (i.e. during the Peloponnesian War).
71
Artaxerxes (Hdt. vii 151) is interpreted as a re- That is often argued (most recently by Badian
enactment of an earlier treaty (made under the [above, n. 3] 27—8) but there is no evidence. It
aegis of Cimon and Callias) after the change of seems unlikely, even if the Peace of Callias is
reign. historical, that a subsequent compact would merely
68
This is a theoretical possibility only. To my have repeated the clauses of the original treaty
knowledge it has never been seriously advanced. without modification. The documentary record of
69
Hdt. vii 1.1. See the full rhetorical elaboration the agreements between the Spartans and the Per-
in Aristid. i (Panath.) 114-115. sian court as preserved in Thucydides viii is inter-
70
O n the historical background see, most fully, esting evidence of the changes which political
D. M. Lewis, Sparta and Persia (Leiden 1977) 69—77; circumstances might impose within a matter of
and, for a sceptical review of the evidence for a weeks (cf. Lewis [above, n. 70] 90-107). Wade-
treaty in 424/3, see Meister 79-94. Despite the Gery (above, n. 2) 210 claimed that a re-enactment
perversions of fact that surround it, most scholars of an existing treaty would be a less startling
accept that the reference in Andocides (iii [De pace] omission in Thucydides than a totally new agree-
29) to a perpetual peace negotiated by Epilycus ment (for other adherents to this view see Meister
does relate to some actual negotiation transacted [above, n. 2] 50). Possibly so, but it is merely a
around 424. The supposition is greatly streng- matter of degree. On any hypothesis of a peace in
thened by the recent discovery of a new fragment 424/3 Thucydides (iv 50) recorded the abortive
of the famous honorary decree for Heracleides embassy of 425/4 but ignored the successful nego-
(M. B. Walbank, 'Herakleides of Klazomenai: a tiations with Darius.
12 A. B. BOSWORTH
Theopompus and in another context echoed the disparaging comments on Marathon.72
Yet in his discussion of the Peace of Callias, which he identified as a problematic area,
there is no reference to Theopompus, whose excursus was almost required reading in the
schools. It would follow that Theopompus did not refer explicitly to the Peace of Callias
but addressed his criticism to a later compact with Darius II. By the end of the fourth
century there was also an epigraphic record of the Peace of Callias for Craterus to copy.
One assumes that it was inscribed in Attic letters but it is not a necessary conclusion.
What is important is to acknowledge that there was scope for any number of treaties,
real or imagined, which might have been recorded for public edification in fourth
century Athens,73 and it is most dangerous, given our pathetically inadequate documen-
tation, to conflate them. As far as the Peace of Callias is concerned, we cannot speak of
any denial of historicity during the fourth century. The problems seems to have come
later. Plutarch was puzzled by Callisthenes' omission of the Peace in a context where he
expected some reference to it, and he addressed the explicit evidence of Craterus to
counter the implicit argument from silence. Whether it was an original approach to the
problem or not is irrelevant here. What seems undeniable—and highly important—is
that we have no attested attack on the Peace of Callias that can be attributed to the fifth
or fourth centuries BC
Finally we should ask what historical consequences for the fifth century emerge
from Plutarch's citation of Callisthenes. The principal factor, in my opinion, is the
deliberate limitation of the discussion to Pamphylia and the boundaries of Persian
military activity. Cimon's crowning victory at the Eurymedon resulted in the
renunciation of further action in the west by the King, so that as a matter of fact his fleets
remained east of the Chelidonians. There is nothing about a de facto cessation of
hostilities, which appears so frequently in recent scholarship. The cessation is one-sided.
The King no longer defended his territory, even against Athenian actions which must be
seen as a clear provocation. Both Pericles and Ephialtes sailed beyond the Chelidonian
islands. Ephialtes' expedition clearly came between the Eurymedon and his death in 461,
but the actions of Pericles are undatable and I see no way of dating them. It is possible
that he operated in the late 460s, soon after he attained the statutory age for the
generalship,74 but that is only one possibility. During the long Athenian involvement
with the Egyptian insurgency there was ample opportunity for a brief foray against the
Pamphylian coast (the Samian revolt seems to me a much less likely context),75 and our
sources for the period are too scanty for us to evince surprise that there is no record of it
outside Plutarch.76 Nor is there any possibility of delineating the type of action
72
Plut. Mor. 862D: criticism of unnamed which Pericles undertook with sixty ships. It is just
authorities w h o denigrated Marathon as 'a brief possible that Callisthenes exaggerated this action
clash with the barbarians on their landing'. For the into a push against Pamphylia, much as Stesim-
attribution to Theopompus see Jacoby, FGrH brotus (Plut. Per. 26.1 = FGrH 107 F 8) made
iiD.380; C o n n o r (above, n. 9) 88; and, on Cyprus the ultimate objective (Wade-Gery [above,
Plutarch's use of Theopompus, particularly in the n. 2] 203 n. 3, 221; most recently Prandi [above,
Life of Cimon, see C o n n o r 112-6. n. 1] 54-5); but I see no reason to opt for this
73
N o t e Demosthenes' ironical reference to alternative.
76
Aeschines having read texts of the decrees of Note for instance Thuc. i 104.2, where it is
Miltiades and Themistocles (Dem. xix 303) along- recorded parenthetically that the Athenians and
side the ephebic oath. That would have been not their allies were involved in Cyprus with a force of
unlike Lycurgus' invocation of the Oath of Plataea 200 ships at the time that they received the appeal
(i 80-2), which comes a few sections after the from Inaros. W e have no idea h o w they came to be
reference to the Peace of Callias (i 73). Had it suited there or h o w long they had been operating. P a m -
his purposes, Lycurgus might have had the entire phylia admittedly is not one of the scenes of
treaty read out to the court. operation in the Erechtheid casualty list (Meiggs/
74
So R . Meiggs, The Athenian empire (Oxford, Lewis no. 33), which most probably dates to 460;
1972) 79; Badian (above, n. 3) 9—11. but there is surely scope for a foray in that area
75
Thucydides i 116.3 records a brief and abor- during the following years, when the Athenian
tive foray in the direction of Caunus and Caria presence in Egypt was probably much reduced.
 PLUTARCH, CALLISTHENES AND THE PEACE OF CALLIAS 13
involved. It has recently been argued that Ephialtes and Pericles carried out naval sweeps
east of Phaselis without attacking the King's territory or taking plunder—a studied
provocation but not a formal breach of the Peace.77 I do not think that one can extract
such an inference from the text. Plutarch is emphasising the Persian inactivity. The King
failed to take action against two successive Athenian incursions. The fact that nothing
more explicit is reported does not entail that there was no landing or looting. There may
well have been and it may have been mentioned by Callisthenes. For Plutarch the issue
was simply the King's quiescence, despite provocation. Callisthenes could have been
more specific, stressing the sporadic and inconclusive nature of the Athenian actions, as
opposed to Alexander's complete annexation of Pamphylia; but in the absence of a more
detailed digest from Plutarch there is no possibility of fleshing out the bare bones of the
story. It is a melancholy reminder what an incomplete and fragmentary record we have
of the pentekontaetia.
The conclusion for the Peace of Callias is simple. Callisthenes falls out of the picture.
He did not affirm or deny the authenticity of the Peace but avoided any reference to it,
and the details he gives may (at a pinch) be marshalled either in support or refutation of a
formal treaty after Eurymedon. The dilemma remains essentially what it was. In fourth
century Athens there was a panegyric tradition of a formal peace with Persia, the terms
of which were recorded on a stele in public view, but there is no reference to it in any
fifth century source, most notably Thucydides, who could—and should—have men-
tioned it on any number of occasions. That is a nasty enough complex of problems. It
does not need the further complication of a fourth-century sceptical tradition or the
hypothesis of a de facto peace, neither of which can be conjured from the text of Plutarch
or laid at Callisthenes' door.
A. B. BOSWORTH
University of Western Australia

77
Badian (above, n. 3) 9-10.