was very probably, pace Burnett, Athenian.
‘cannot be any other than the embassy which came seeking the treaty’, i.e. the Theban embassy which negotiated the Theban treaty recorded in the main body of the inscription. But, to me, such a description of an embassy from Thebes is wholly improbable. This is a very strange inscription in various ways, but one thing that seems reasonably clear is that the persons named in lines 6 and 7 are Athenian (cf. n. 3 above) and that they were the members of an Athenian embassy to the allies, which may or may not have concerned the accession of Thebes. Lines 12 are mysterious indeed, but it is hard to see how 
in line 13 can refer to anyone other than Antimachos of Chios and the Mytilenaean mentioned just before. So the stelae would appear somehow to concern them personally, and Accame's notion of honorific stelae may not be as wide of the mark as Burnett supposes.
. cf. Isoc. 4. 162 (of Hecatomnus of Caria). It is not found in any other fourth-century work, and appears solely to represent a Persian official. Cf. Bekker, Anecd. 253 
.
. PaatAkc Kowa' Optcot, though it is not clear whether the Persian who was present was to receive them. Was the King similarly represented in 387/6 in Sparta?
.
(Andoc. 3. 14). I am suggesting that the King's Peace denied Athens these rights. For the status and significance of her treaties with Chios and Methymna, seep. 56. Athens contemplated alliance with Olynthus at first, when Olynthus was thought to be facing only the Macedonian king, who had not joined in the King's Peace (cf. Aristides, Panathenaicus 172, which mentions Seuthes and Dionysius, but not Amyntas). But once it was no longer merely a matter of supporting Olynthus against an outsider, as the Ephoran version would have it (Diod. 15. 19), but Sparta and the Peloponnesian League had decided to prevent Olynthus infringing the autonomy of the surrounding Greek states, as the Acanthians had claimed(Xen. 5. 2. i s IT.), Athens had no more to do with Olynthus.
(§ 30), and Ismenias was tried by a large court of Spartans and Peloponnesian allies (§ 35). But the case of Thebes is not relevant to the proposed view of the King's Peace, since the whole affair is to be understood within the framework of the Peloponnesian League, which was Sparta's prime instrument for dealing with breaches of the King's Peace. Hence Isocrates ( r4. 29) claimed that the Thebans might have joined the Spartans in an attack on Athens, i.e. as part of the Peloponnesian League. Whether Sparta could have required states not in the league to act against those infringing the King's Peace is unsure. The Thebans in 379/8 expected 
. (Diod. 15. 25. 4), but they may have been thinking merely of the league (cf. Diod. 15. 31. 2 for its extent in 378).
of the Confederacy. (Cf. Justin 9. 5 for similarly large figures for the League of Corinth.)
(Hdt. 1. 164. r)—a compromise with the normal practice, shown in Darius' treatment of Babylon (Hdt. 3. 159 
). The right explanation, to my mind (pace Brunt in Ancient Society and Institutions, p. 92 n. 54), of the fact that the cities of Ionia were without walls in the Archidamian War (Thuc. 3. 33. 2, etc.) was given by Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History, p. 219, viz. that one of the clauses of the Peace of Callias had required it. Yet the Persians could be content with the destruction of gates alone. The writer of Isaiah 45: I, 2 foresees that the coming of the Persians will mean the destruction of gates—‘… I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two-leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut … I will break in pieces the gates of brass and cut in sunder the bars of iron.’
(G.H.I. 122, 1. 17) were perhaps being advanced.
should be taken with both parts of the 
sentence.
(14. 28), refers probably not to alliances with Athens, but to their not joining the Peloponnesian League as Thebes did (cf. Paus. 9. 13. I, Plut. Pel.4); the following words of Isocrates strongly suggest this, and the Chios decree shows that Chios did not exactly 
in 386, and the Methymna) decree shows that, if Isocrates was listing Athens' allies before the Liberation of Thebes, there was at least one other name for him to list. The real question about this mention of Chians, Mytilenaeans, and Byzantians is why there are so few names. Presumably these are the main allies of Athens in the Corinthian War that did not join the extended Peloponnesian League (for which cf. Diod. 15. 31. 2), but they are all naval powers and Sparta did not, after the King's Peace, want a navy.
(cf. Dem. 24. 20 ff.) meant that the new situation of 379/8 could only be provided for in the first prytany of 378/7.
.
, at a time of the year when such a thing was unthinkable.’ Cleombrotus marched out. Why should it be unthinkable for Athens? (c)‘The general whom Diodorus names as sent with the Athenian forces is Demophon, which seems to have been the name of the man chosen with Chabrias for the command against Agesilaus in the summer of 378 (see Schol. ad Aristides, Panath. 173, where Vater read 
for 
).’ That is, the scholiast must be made to agree with the theory. (d) ‘The force Demophon is said to have led out in midwinter is almost exactly that reported later as the army sent to Boeotia after the acquittal of Sphodrias.’ So was the force sent to Thermopylae in 352 (Diod. 16. 37. 3). 5,000 seems to be the regular figure for an expeditionary force. (e) ‘The Athenians are said to want to secure Theban support in their own struggle with Sparta (Diod. 15. 26. i) although in December 379 the chief fact of Athenian foreign policy was the Spartan truce.’ If two generals were prepared to act in the conspiracy, they may have expected the 
not to disapprove. Cf. the Athenian response to the Spartan order in 382 (Plut. Pel. 6). Miss Burnett concludes that ‘in the presence of contradictory testimony from Xenophon’ Diodorus is discredited. But Xenophon does not contradict. He merely omits, and all inferences based on his omissions are weak.
. This does not, pace Burnett, art. cit., p. 15, show that therewas an alliance between Thebes and the Second Athenian Confederacy when war broke out in 378. The clause can have a conditional force. It is also to be noted that Isocrates 54. 29 does not say that Thebes made an alliance with Athens.
in early 378.
i.e. he did not make peace until the Corinthians and the Thebans accepted a clause about exiles. The return of the -Phliasian exiles might seem to belie this (Xen. 5. 2. 8). Although their return did not necessarily come after the settlement at Mantinea, it seems preferable to narrow the interval between their return and their complaining at Sparta (Xen. 5. 3. t o f.) that the Spartan terms (Xen. 5. 2. to) were not being fully obeyed, i.e. to place their return not long before the Acanthian appeal of 382 (Xen. 5. 2. i I) and shorten the period of their dissatisfaction as much as possible. If they were restored in accordance with a clause of the King's Peace, why the delay? They knew their rights. Why did they not appeal earlier? Further, the manner in which Xenophon describes their appeal to Sparta (5. 2. 8) suggests that they could not base their appeal on the King's Peace. What need was there to convince the Spartans that they were worth restoring, if they could appeal to the Peace? However, Xenophon may here, after his fashion, be concerning himself with only part of the case; he has no words to explain how theephors decided that the exiles had been exiled 
(§ 9); they may have been exiled as 
in the Phliasian view, for some act of violence and murder which was held to exclude them from benefiting under the Peace. So the case of Phlius may be misleading. Nor does the case of Xenophon himself cause difficulty. It is commonly stated that he was recalled in 369, but there is no evidence for that or that he was not free to return to Athens in 386—he never did return (Diog. Laert. 2. 56) and the decree alluded to by Istros (F.G.H. 334 F 32) may indicate nothing more than the sympathy between him and Eubulus. Again, if men were exiled after the Peace (LG. ii2. 33, 37), whether for real or pretended breaches of the Peace, that argues nothing about whether there was a clause about recall in the Peace itself. It may be added that, if there were such a clause in 387/6, it may well have been repeated in renewals of the Peace. The long exile of Theopompus of Chios (F.G.H. 115 T 2) is not relevant. For all we know he could have been exiled 
in the 360s when Chios had to choose between Sparta and Thebes.
(Xen. 5. I. 34) under the Peace deserved death, despite the fact that, by going out shortly after 
, the Athenians might seem to have approved of assisting the Liberation.
is not legible, and the upright stroke immediately preceding may well have been a p. So the line may have read 
, and the clause have been concerned not to assert an intention to maintain the Peace, but to condemn Sparta for acting on behalf of the King under the treaty in a manner improper to the hegemonic power. With the peace of 375 and the new arrangements for shared hegemony such a clause would have seemed out of date, and since the stele was to remain after 375 the place where the names of new members were to be inscribed, the clause was erased. Cf. Accame, 
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Cawkwell, G. L.
1981.
The King's Peace.
The Classical Quarterly,
Vol. 31,
Issue. 1,
p.
69.
Clark, Michael
1990.
The Date of IG II21604.
The Annual of the British School at Athens,
Vol. 85,
Issue. ,
p.
47.
Lewis, D. M.
1992.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
p.
121.
Lewis, David M.
Boardman, John
Davies, J. K.
and
Ostwald, M.
1992.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
Seager, Robin
1994.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
p.
156.
Lewis, D. M.
Boardman, John
Hornblower, Simon
and
Ostwald, M.
1994.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
Hornblower, Simon
1994.
The Cambridge Ancient History.
p.
45.
Radicke, Jan
1995.
Die Rede des Demosthenes für die Freiheit der Rhodier.
p.
11.
Georgiadou, Aristoula
1997.
Plutarch’s Pelopidas.
p.
227.
2008.
Grecia exhausta.
p.
329.