Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:30:34.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Isocrates on the Peace Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Wesley E. Thompson
Wesley E. Thompson
Affiliation:
University of california, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The Greeks have two treaties with the King: the one which our city made, which all praise; and later the Lacedaemonians made the one which all condemn,’ says Demosthenes (15. 29) c. 350. Isocrates, however, did not always run with the pack, for a few years earlier he urged the Athenians to make peace on the basis of the treaty ‘with the King and the Lacedaemonians [which] commands the Greeks to be autonomous, the garrisons to depart from the cities of others, and each people to have its own territory’ (On the Peace 8. 16)

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 75 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ryder, T. T. B., Koine Eirene (London, 1965), p. 122Google Scholar; Sinclair, Robert K., ‘The King's Peace and the Employment of Military and Naval Forces 387–378’, Chiron 8 (1978), 29 f.Google Scholar; Cargill, Jack, The Second Athenian League (Berkeley, 1981), p. 182Google Scholar.

2 Cawkwell, G. L., ‘The King's Peace’, CQ n.s. 31 (1981), 72 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 At 7. 65 Isocrates, contrasting the tyranny of the Thirty with the government of the restored democracy, says that ‘when the exiles, having returned, dared to fight on behalf of liberty and Konon conquered in a sea battle, ambassadors came from [the Lacedaemonians] and offered the command of the sea to the city’. This offer is otherwise unattested, but surely Isocrates means that it occurred in the 390s, not the 370s.

4 In this speech (56) the Spartan sea empire lasts ten years, obviously 404—394.

5 4. 142; the theme of Persian incompetence appears again at 9. 55.

6 14. 40 f.

7 IG ii2. 43, lines 9 ff., as revised by Cargill, op. cit. 16. Cf. also IG ii2. 44 for an Athenian treaty providing for autonomy.

8 See Cargill, op. cit. 28 ff. In other inscriptions of the 380s (IG ii2. 34 and 35) it is not clear whether the Athenians are lauding the King's Peace or merely saying that their current activities do not contravene it.

9 This evidence is not considered by Hamilton, Charles, ‘Isocrates, IG ii2 43, Greek Propaganda and Imperialism’, Traditio 36 (1980), 83 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 The scholiast to Aeschines (3. 222) says that the battle of Naxos occurred ⋯ν τῷ ὐπ⋯ρ τ⋯ν Ἐλλ⋯νων δικα⋯ῳ πολ⋯μῳ. where the emendation ‘Eλληνικ⋯ν δικα⋯ων is very likely. Demosthenes refers to Athens’ championing of Hellenic rights at 2. 24; cf. also 4. 3, 6. 10, and 15. 29. Notice that Isocrates is alive to another Athenian propaganda ploy, the renunciation of the right to own property in other states; compare 15.44 with lines 35 ff. of the Aristoteles Decree.

11 This is true whether or not Lewis, David, Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977), p. 147, n. 80Google Scholar, is correct in saying, ‘in 377 the Athenians did not denounce the Peace, as Cawkwell thinks, but were proclaiming that Sparta had broken it’. See Cawkwell's rejoinder, op. cit. 75.

12 See the translations by Norlin, George (Loeb) and Argentati, Argentina and Gatti, Clementina, Orazioni di Isocrate (Turin, 1965)Google Scholar.

13 §§56 f. show clearly that Isocrates regards Aigospotamoi as the ultimate disaster produced by Athenian imperialism: Athenian supremacy was undisputed from 480 to 415; thereafter the city held out for ten years against all opponents. He describes the crisis which followed the battle at 7. 64 ff., 8. 91 If., and 14. 31 f.

14 See especially §§59 ff. and 102 ff. In the latter he is discussing a treaty of friendship and alliance, not a peace.

15 This severe telescoping of events also occurs in Polybius, writing – of course – at a far greater distance from them: ‘Fighting for the freedom of the Greeks [the Spartans] conquered the Persians when they invaded but betrayed the Greek cities to them once they had gone home and fled, in accordance with the Peace of Antalkidas’ (6. 49. 4 f.).

16 The Panathenaicus is an unusual panegyric in praising by comparison, not absolutely; thus there is room for such a criticism.

17 F 153; for the view that Theopompus is discussing the nature of the treaty cf. Raubitschek, A. E., ‘The Treaties between Persia and Athens’, GRBS 5 (1964), 158Google Scholar.

18 4. 115 ff.; 7. 79 ff.

19 Welles, C. Bradford, ‘Isocrates' View of History’, in The Classical Tradition, ed. Wallach, Luitpold (Ithaca, 1966), p. 23Google Scholar. Those scholars who criticize Isocrates for inaccuracy should avoid this fault themselves. Contrary to Welles, Isocrates does not say that the Spartan kings never lost a battle or that the Chians were always successful at sea. Nor does he actually say that the bands of exiles roaming through Greece consist of oligarchic gentlemen; in any event, these mercenaries were no less dangerous for their pedigree.

20 Buckler, John, ‘The Alleged Theban-Spartan Alliance of 386 B.C.’, Eranos 78 (1980), 180 f., including n. 13Google Scholar.

21 cf. 4. lOOff. and 12. 53 ff.

22 Areopagiticus, passim, especially 63 ff.

23 5. 100 and 9. 64 vs 4. 140 ff. Notice here Isocrates' treatment of the three years prior to Knidos. As a panegyrist, he says that in ten years of fighting the King could not subdue Euagoras, but it took him only three years to deprive the Spartans of their sea empire. As a counselor, he argues that Sparta's fleet besieged the Persian for three years: πολιορκο⋯μενον is the same term Xenophon uses (Hell. 5. 1. 29) to describe the harassment inflicted on Athens by raiders from Aigina.