[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

ignominious agreement at a time when Persia's entry into the war in opposition to Athens was under
serious consideration? And even if Darius had been willing to reaffirm formally a humiliatingly
disadvantageous treaty, why would Andocides choose to be so vague about it, and why would
Thucydides ignore it altogether?
Perhaps the most critical, though widely misunderstood, feature of the Epilycus treaty is its
specification of philia . This detail has been noticed in the past but has never been properly explained,
for the fact is that as far as we know the establishment of diplomatic "friendship" (philia ) between
Persia and Athens was new and represented an important formalization of the relations between the
two powers. If it is right, as it must be, to reject the idea that the Epilycus treaty was nothing more
than a renewal of an existing agreement negotiated by his predecessor, then the spondai kai philia
accepted by Darius II must represent the formal cessation of Persian-Athenian hostility, which went
back to the time of the Persian invasions of Greece. But achieving a formal end of their old hostility
was almost certainly not the aim of the spondai . What mattered most of all was the treaty of philia .
As A. Blamire succinctly puts it, philia involved "a formal guarantee that neither party would in any
way assist the other's enemies."[48] Hence the treaty that Epilycus negotiated for Athens with the new
Persian king, Darius II, provided confirmation through a formal agreement that he would continue to
refrain from active participation in the ongoing Greek conflict.
Given the Athenians' acute concern about Persian intentions after Artaphernes was intercepted,
not to mention their extremely careful and respectful handling of him, it is not at all surprising to learn
(from Andocides) that they subsequently sent another embassy to Darius II to obtain his philia .
Thucydides had no special reason to be interested, since the outcome was maintenance of the
[47] E.g., Wade-Gery, Essays in Greek History ; Meiggs, Athenian Empire .
[48] Blamire, "Epilycus' Negotiations with Persia," 23.
 128 
status quo. After all, the Epilycus treaty was nothing more than a traditional philia agreement, which
had no impact on the war, aside from relieving the minds of the Athenians and postponing Persia's
entry into the conflict by as much as ten years. Yet for the study of classical neutrality, this flurry of
74 of 236 7/9/2006 11:49 AM
The Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece http://content-backend-a.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft4489n8x4&chunk.i...
diplomatic activity provides an especially valuable glimpse of the kind of interaction that went on
between the belligerents and states that continued to abstain from involvement in the war.
IV. The Proposed Neutrality of Plataea (429)
Plataea's ill-fated role in the war (431-427) also involved the issue of neutrality, in 429 and again in
427.[49] In 429, when Archidamus brought a Peloponnesian army into their territory, the Plataeans
boldly demanded that he withdraw, because the invasion violated the sworn guarantee against attack
granted to Plataea by the Greek allies in 479 (Thuc. 2. 71.2-4).[50] According to Thucydides, however,
Archidamus replied that the Plataeans' appeal to the oath of 479 could only be justified if their action
corresponded to their rhetoric (2. 72.1). As it was, Archidamus claimed, Plataea's continued alliance
with Athens (2. 2.1) violated the spirit of the old covenant; so
[49] The full account is given in Thuc. 2. 2-6, 71-78; 3. 20-24, 52-68; neutrality is treated in 2.
72-74; 3. 64.3, 68.1.
[50]
 129 
he offered the Plataeans two choices: (1) alliance with the Peloponnesians against Athens or (2)
adoption of neutrality. The exact words of the second proposal run as follows: "And if not [alliance],
then remain at peace, as we have previously proposed, enjoying your own possessions; and be not
with either side; but receive both as friends, while neither for hostile purpose; and this will satisfy
us."[51] In response, the Plataeans raised two objections: (1) the Athenians, who held their women
and children, would have to approve the proposal and were unlikely to do so and (2) if the Thebans
were included in the stipulation about receiving both sides, they would surely try again to seize the
city (2. 72.2).[52]
Archidamus countered with an offer to hold the city-state in trust until the conclusion of the war [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

zanotowane.pl

doc.pisz.pl

pdf.pisz.pl

forum-gsm.htw.pl