T. G. Tucker, Commentary on Thucydides: Book 8

---

---

ὤστε τὸ τῶν Ἀθηναίων . . . αἴτιον γενέσθαι, ‘so that the Athenian side (or position) became responsible’ (sc. for the failure of the negotiations). Cf. iii. 59, τὸ τῆς ξυμφορᾶς; vii. 61, τὸ τῆς τύχης. Without τὸ we must render less well ‘so that it (the failure) became the fault of the Athenians.’

νήσους τε . . . καὶ ἄλλα What these other demands were we do not know. ἄλλα seems somewhat bald, but is relieved by the following οἷς οὐκ ἐναντιουμένων κ.τ.λ., ‘he demanded that all Ionia should be given up, and then the adjacent islands, as well as making other demands which the Athenians did not oppose, etc.’ The variant καὶ τἆλλα would apparently mean ‘and everything else (which appertained to Ionia and its adjacent islands)’: cf. c. 37, § 5, ἐν τῇ βασιλέως χώρᾳ ἢ ὅσης βασιλεὺς ἄρχει, with the same vagueness. See crit. note.

τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γῆν The ἑαυτῶν of some inferior MSS. is allowable for σφῶν on the ground of emphasis. But ἑαυτῶν would imply a ridiculous demand. On the other hand it might seem a small request to make that the Persians should be allowed to use any fleet they wished along their own shore. Yet in reality the concession would be great. For the Persian king to keep as large a fleet as he chose sailing where he chose off the coast of Ionia in the Aegean, was to endanger every outlying part of the Athenian empire. Unfortunately the evidence with regard to existing agreements between Persia and Athens is contradictory and obscure. Historians are at variance as to the existence of the so-called ‘Peace of Callias’ (wrongly called ‘of Cimon’) of B.C. 445. Thucydides says nothing of the convention, but, as Grote points out (Hist. pt. ii. c. xlv.), it is clear from Thucydides himself that since the supposed date of the ‘Peace of Callias’ such a state of things had existed between Athens and Persia as would correspond to the supposed terms of the treaty. That there was an embassy of Callias to Susa is seen from Hdt. vii. 151. It is its results which are uncertain One cannot, however, suppose that all the statements of the Attic orators relating to the ‘Peace of Callias’ are based upon either imposture or mere mistake. Dem. De F. Leg. 428 has Καλλίαν τὸν Ἱππονίκου ταύτην τὴν ὑπὸ πάντων θρυλουμένην εἰρήνην πρεσβεύσαντα, ἵππου μὲν δρόμον ἡμέρας πεζῇ μὴ καταβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὴν θάλατταν βασιλέα, ἐντὸς δὲ Χελιδονίων καὶ Κυανέων πλοίῳ μακρῷ μὴ πλεῖν κ.τ.λ. Plutarch, Cim. 487 [13. 5], refers the convention to Cimon, but quotes Callisthenes (circ. B.C. 350) as saying that there was really no such agreement, but that merely de facto the king did keep his fleet within these limits. For the present passage we may point out (what seems to have been forgotten) that the reality of the existence of such a treaty is not here involved. It will be quite enough to suppose that in their negotiations, if not in any convention, with Persia the Athenians claimed that the king should not use a fleet on the Ionian coast. If Callias had demanded this, Tissaphernes would now seek to settle the matter before concluding an alliance. We cannot reject the consensus of ancient statement that this restriction upon the Persian navy was at least a condition insisted upon by Athens. We should not try to emend Thucydides from our preconceptions as to the ‘Peace of Callias,’ but rather correct our preconceptions of the ‘Peace of Callias’ from the hint of Thucydides. There is, however, no statement in any writer that the king was not allowed to build a fleet. Hence ναῦς ποεῖσθαι καὶ παραπλεῖν is correctly taken as =ναῦς ποησάμενον παραπλεῖν. Cf. c. 15, § 1, τὰ χίλια τάλαντα ἔλυσαν τὰς ζημίας καὶ ἐψηφίσαντο κινεῖν.