The Fall of the Athenian Empire-(A New History of the Peloponnesian War) Donald Kagan - (1987)

278 -THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN EMPIRE
Scholars have thought that at this point the fate of Chalcedon was
sealed, that it was only a matter of time before it fell," but Pharnabazus
and his large army of infantry and cavalry, strong and frustrated, was
only a short distance away at the sanctuary of Heracles in Chalcedonian
territory. There could be no certainty that they would not find a way
to get through the fence and present the besieging Athenians with a
challenge from two directions. Perhaps these circumstances help explain
the action the remaining Athenian generals took after the departure
of Alcibiades. They negotiated a treaty with Pharnabazus on
behalf of Chalcedon containing the following terms: the Chalcedonians
would pay the tribute they had been accustomed to paying before their
defection as well as the arrears that had accumulated; Pharnabazus
himself would pay the Athenians 20 talents and would conduct Athenian
ambassadors to the Great King; in return the Athenians swore
not to attack the Chalcedonians or the territory of Pharnabazus until
those ambassadors returned. The generals and Pharnabazus swore the
required oaths to approve the treaty, but the satrap insisted that Alcibiades
must swear too. When the latter returned, he refused merely
to add his oath to the ones sworn by his colleagues and insisted that
he would swear to Pharnabazus only if the satrap did the same to him.
Each finally swore the oath in the presence of representatives of the
other, and the deed was done. 16
The Athenian negotiations with Pharnabazus reveal much about the
situation in 408 and also raise important questions. They show that
the Athenian generals in the Hellespont were cooperating and acting
without any distinction of status, for the sources say nothing of any
disagreement among them in undertaking such important and novel
actions. Diodorus attributes the agreement to Theramenes, but Thrasyllus
was also present and must have approved of and taken part in
15 E.g., Hatzfeld, Alcibiade, 282; and Amit, LAC XLII (1973), 440.
16 Xenophon (I.J.B-12), Diodorus (q.66.J), and Plutarch (Ak. JI.I-2) all tell the
story somewhat differently. Xenophon's account is the fullest and most satisfactory,
and I follow it, with one addition. Xenophon says the Athenians swore "not to make
war on the Chalcedonians." Plutarch, however, says nothing abom Chalcedonians,
reporting that the Athenians promised "not to harm the territory of Pharnabazus."
Scholars, without any manuscript support, have suggested that a scribal error is responsible
for the reading we have and propose to substitute Pharnabazus for the Chalcedonians
to make the account agree with Plutarch (see Grote, VIII, 1 p with n. 3;
Hatzfeld, Alcibiade, 285, n. 2; M. Amit, LAC XLII [19731, 456). I see no good reason
to do so. Instead, I suggest that the Athenians promised to refrain from attacking either
party, which in fact they did, going off at once to the siege of Byzantium. Xenophon
and Plutarch simply reported different clauses of the treaty.