89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 1

1
THE ALLIES VIEWPOINT ON THE
ATHENIAN EMPIRE: THE EVIDENCE
OF PLUTARCHS LIVES
Dominique Lenfant
One of the grievances that todays historians often express against classical
Athens is her imperialism toward her allies of the 5th century BC.1 The state
of evidence on that hegemony is, however, disconcerting, since we lack
any evidence directly from the allied cities,2 and the sources of the time of
the Delian League are exclusively Athenian, be they inscriptions, or the
writings of pseudo-Xenophon, Aristophanes or Thucydides.3 Thus, by a
strange paradox, we only know of the viewpoint of the hegemonic power,
and the imperialist domination is only known through the voice of those
who imposed it, and not through that of their supposed victims outside
the city.
Now this Athenian evidence is not without drawbacks. On the one
hand, since they express official decisions of the city, inscriptions leave no
room either for the allies viewpoint or for that of Athenians who would
criticize the empire. On the other hand, the Athenians who criticize the
imperialism of their city are not themselves free of bias, due to their
political or literary purpose.4 Their testimony may then be suspected of
not even being the general viewpoint of the Athenians, nor a fortiori that of
the allies, even when they claim to defend the latter. Another disadvantage
of these sources is that they are mostly contemporary to the Peloponnesian
War, a period when the empire had changed considerably. This is especially
true of literary sources, but also concerns many inscriptions, especially if
one accepts the revised datings by Mattingly and Papazarkadas.5
This may lead us sometimes to wonder whether the best documentary
expression of the allies discontent is the decree of the Second Athenian
Confederacy,6 a document which is again Athenian and 25 years later
than the end of the empire, which makes no explicit reference to the
Delian League, but, by the guarantees it provides to allies of the fourth
century BC against certain practices in the previous alliance (cleruchies and

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 2

Dominique Lenfant
garrisons, e.g.), would reveal disapproval on the part of the fifth-century
allies toward these forms of domination. At the same time, the fourthcentury alliance also testifies and this is often overlooked that for the
allies the expected benefits could outweigh the risks, which implies that
the memory of the empire was not among them totally negative. As a result,
this testimony is at best indirect and ambiguous.
However, the absence of any allied perspective in our sources is perhaps
not total: it is a well-known virtue of Plutarchs writings that he has
transmitted to us information which goes back to literary sources now lost,
particularly in his Lives of politicians from the fifth century BC. True, he
sometimes does not name his sources, as on the matter here under review.
This is the case when, in his Life of Pericles, he gives us a unique view of
the criticisms that were levelled against Athens policy towards her allies in
a period before the Peloponnesian War. Specifically, opponents of Pericles
are said to have criticized the transfer of the federal treasury from Delos
to Athens and the use made of it (Per. 12.1). In an address reported in direct
speech, suggesting that the accusation was uttered in the Assembly, it is
said that Greece ( ) considers herself a victim of terrible abuse
() and tyranny because the tributes she is forced to pay for the war are
used to beautify Athens like a pretentious woman (12.2).7 While this
thought is ascribed to Greece, one may be reluctant to see it as the
expression of an allied viewpoint. In fact, not only the existence of a
consensus among allies can be doubted, but above all the claim is used
here for fueling a controversy within Athens internal politics,8 so that, just
like the fifth-century literary sources discussed above, this story in fact
makes Athenians speak in criticism of other Athenians. It is certainly
possible that these critical Athenians had links with people of the allied
cities. Nevertheless they had their own motives and are not indisputable
spokesmen of these cities.9 It is also possible that the literary source from
which Plutarch drew this story was issued by a native of an allied city,10 but
we are here reduced to speculation.11
Thus, in an attempt to escape such incertainties, it seems better to turn
to the authors that Plutarch quotes by name: many of them are from allied
cities, some are contemporaries of the Delian League and sometimes even
testify to a period before the Peloponnesian War. Does Plutarch, then, by
citing these authors allow us to access indirectly the views of allies and to
escape from strictly Athenian points of view? I propose to examine here,
in chronological order, the authors referred to by Plutarch, who come from
cities of the empire and who allude to the Athenian hegemony.12 The focus
will be, then, on one specific type of attitude, the expression of a foreign
judgement on the hegemonic Athens as part of a literary production.

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 3

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
We will consider successively Timocreon of Rhodes, Ion of Chios,
Stesimbrotus of Thasos and Douris of Samos.
The lyric poet Timocreon of Rhodes is quoted in the Life of Themistocles,
that is the Life which refers to the earliest period of the Delian League.13
Plutarch reproduces verses in which the poet accused Themistocles of
having acted unfairly in Rhodes and of having been motivated by selfinterest in allowing the return of some exiles, while he drove out others
and prevented the return of Timocreon himself (Them. 21.4).14
Probably no one would relate these verses to the perception of the
Athenian hegemony by allies if Plutarch himself had not prompted us to
do so. In fact, Plutarch claims here to illustrate the fact that Themistocles
had aroused the hatred of the allies ( ) by
going around the islands to make money (21.1). And before quoting
Timocreon as a witness, he recalled, according to Herodotus, the coming
of Themistocles to Andros. Now, it is unclear how the term ally could
apply here to Rhodes: the cities of the island, being under Persian rule,
could not have been allies of Athens in the Second Persian war,15 and if
Themistocles landing at Rhodes which Timocreon alludes to is part of the
tour which the Athenian made citing the islands medism to extort money
from them,16 this happened before the formation of the Delian League.
The term ally is then the result of confusion and anachronism in
Plutarch.17 One may even wonder whether the very idea of the hatred of
the allies is not due to the influence of Thucydides, who dealt, however,
with a later period.18 Moreover, even apart from the reference to allies,
Plutarch also makes a sweeping generalization, when from Timocreons
hatred he concludes to that of the allies: the poet mainly complains of his
personal fate, even if he wishes to suggest that it is not isolated. This does
not mean that all people of his city Ialysos or his island Rhodes, let alone
all the allies, were hostile to Themistocles or his city. Timocreon only
witnesses to his personal hatred.
Once released from Plutarchs interpretation, do the poets verses have
an interest for our purpose? It should be noted that the hostility of the
poet exclusively concerns Themistocles, not his city, described as sacred
(), nor even all her leaders: Timocreon proclaims, on the contrary, his
sympathy for Aristides, a rival of Themistocles. To draw conclusions about
Athens popularity among her allies, we would need to know two things:
the date of composition of these verses and the listeners for whom they
were composed. However, the suggested dates vary within the decade
following the Second Persian War,19 leaving open the possibility that
Timocreon knew the beginning of the League (he mentions the coming

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 4

Dominique Lenfant
of Aristides).20 In that case, we might have evidence for the good reputation
of the alliance in its earlier period. The audience is a second unknown, but,
since lyric verses were usually sung at banquets (symposia), they may have
been originally designed for the elite of Ialysos. These various doubts
about circumstances considerably reduce the historical significance of
Timocreons testimony for the issue at hand.
Two other authors seem a priori more promising because of the evolution
of the Delian League in their time. These are Ion of Chios and Stesimbrotus
of Thasos.21 Ion of Chios is mainly known as author of tragedies, but
he also composed lyric poetry and prose works, including a book of
reminiscences.22 It is certain that he visited Athens, first because as a tragic
playwright he participated in several Athenian competitions, probably the
Dionysia between the years 450 and 420,23 and second because he alludes
to Athenian politicians such as Cimon and Pericles and to their attitude in
society. Ion even appears as a personal friend of Cimon, whom he had met
when visiting Athens in his youth and taking part in a dinner followed by
a symposion (all of which suggests that the young man was well-off).24
However, Ion did not break with his own city: he not only wrote a
history of her foundation,25 but several anecdotes show him living in Chios
at the very time of the Delian League. Thus, according to a scholium to
Aristophanes Peace (835 = T 2), he sent to the Athenians wine from his
island to thank them for the prize he had won in the competitions of
dithyramb and tragedy (the date is unknown); in addition, in 441/0, he met
the poet Sophocles in Chios, when the latter sailed to Lesbos as a strategos.26
This draws the picture of a happy sympathizer of Athens.27 Moreover,
his city, one of the first islands to have joined the Greek coalition
(Herodotus 9.106), remained most loyal to Athens until 412, that is beyond
the end of his life:28 Chios even procured ships for Athens to help crush
the revolt of Samos in 440.29 It is true, however, that the relationship
between the two cities began to deteriorate as early as 42530 and we should
not overlook the divisions among the citizens of Chios: in 412 Chian
supporters of Athens were sentenced to death by Spartans. It is worth
noting that among them was precisely the son of Ion.31
Does then Plutarch allow us to identify Ions view of Athenian hegemony?
He cites him five times in Cimon and Pericles, for data that he probably draws
from the Epidemiai, Ions book of reminiscences.32 These few fragments
show that Ion was an avowed admirer of Cimon, that he described in
flattering terms his handsome body (Cim. 5.3), his stratagems (Cim. 9) and
eloquence (Cim. 16.10). He also praised his good manners, which he
insistently contrasted with Pericles haughtiness and disdain (Per. 5.3):

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 5

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives



.

The poet Ion says that Pericles had a presumptuous and somewhat arrogant
manner of address, and that into his haughtiness there entered a good deal
of disdain and contempt for others; he praises, on the other hand, the tact,
complaisance, and elegant address which Cimon showed in his social
intercourse.33

This contrast, unflattering to Pericles, concerned the attitude of both men

in society: it did not oppose their policies vis--vis the allies. It is true that
Ion also referred to Pericles pride concerning an imperial affair, the
repression of the revolt of Samos: the strategos took an extraordinary pride
in it ( ), because whereas Agamemnon was
all of ten years in taking a barbarian city, he had in nine months time
reduced the foremost and most powerful people of Ionia) (Per. 28.7).34
But, as far as can be judged from these fragments, the contrast is between
Cimons and Pericles temperaments. Nothing expresses the idea of a break
between two periods or two policies.35
It is true that this view can be linked to Plutarchs interpretation and
interests: it is remarkable that in both references to Pericles arrogance
according to Ion Plutarch disputes the criticism made by the Chian writer.
In the specific case of the war of Samos, he considers Pericles pride as
perfectly legitimate (28.8),36 which, as noted by Stadter, reveals Plutarchs
own feeling on the Samian campaign not indignation, but admiration.
Thus, even if Ion had a polemical view of Pericles imperialist policy,
Plutarch does not reflect it.
Ion is also known through quotations from other authors,37 but these do
not shed more light on the question of his relationship with the empire
with perhaps one exception: the episode of Sophocles stay in Chios. The
tragic poet was then strategos, and was on his way to Lesbos (441/0).38 When
he passed through Chios, Ion could meet him in a symposion offered by
a proxenos of the Athenians.39
This anecdote told by Athenaeus at least confirms the impression already
given by the fragments transmitted by Plutarch: Ion appears as a member
of high society who got along with people like Cimon or Sophocles,
Athenians from the same class, whom he met in symposia. We saw that there
was no trace in his fragments of any animosity against Athens, but at most
against the individual Pericles. More importantly, the banquet of Chios is
located in a specific context, that is the ongoing repression of the revolt of
Samos, since Sophocles is about to sail to Lesbos for reinforcements.40

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 6

Dominique Lenfant
of allied cities, that is good men of their upper classes, could
then be on excellent terms with of Athens: they could be far
from any hostility to the Athenian empire and even be important actors
within it:41 this is a prime counter-example to the claims of pseudoXenophon saying that the elites of the allied cities were the main victims
of Athenian imperialism and that they only felt hatred for Athens and her
local supporters who, according to him, would have been from the lower
class.42 As is well known, the oligarch needed to represent the relationship
between Athens and the allied cities as a class conflict typical of the
Athenian democracy and exported by it beyond the city. At least there were
individual counter-examples, without which the empire could hardly have
continued.43
So, at a time when the alliance had clearly taken an imperialist turn and
Athens had already crushed several revolts, Ion appears to have been a
supporter of Athens as an individual and as a member of Chios elite.
Members of this local upper class had connections with members of the
Athenian elite who took an active part in the consolidation of the empire
(Cimon) and the suppression of revolts (Sophocles). But we should also
not forget that Ions city enjoyed a special status in the empire which
could also be a manifestation of discrepancies between the allied cities.

Stesimbrotus of Thasos has many features in common with Ion of Chios.

His main literary activity was related to poetry, since he was a rhapsode
and a commentator on Homer. He also spent periods in Athens, where he
was known as a rhapsode. He too knew prominent Athenian politicians
such as Cimon and Pericles.44 And he too wrote about men of his time,
before dying in the 420s.45 He is, indeed, the author of a work On
Themistocles, Thucydides, and Pericles,46 which is almost exclusively known
through what Plutarch has preserved of it,47 namely anecdotal details
regarding morals of Athenian politicians Miltiades, Themistocles, Cimon
and Pericles. These are details that specifically pertain to sexual and family
life, and are similar to scandalous gossip found in Attic comedy or forensic
speeches.48 Some of these statements are deemed slanderous by Plutarch
himself (e.g. the allegation that Pericles slept with the wife of his son).49
That Plutarch is almost the sole transmitter of fragments of Stesimbrotus
makes it difficult to describe the latters work. And indeed, modern scholars
are divided about the nature and meaning of Stesimbrotus text.50 Some
suggest that it was a political pamphlet against Pericles and Themistocles,
and more generally against Athens imperialism. But others have shown
the weaknesses of this thesis. First, the allusions to the Delian League are
extremely slight, and do not allow us to establish a precise position, let

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 7

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
alone to link it to the fact that the author is from an allied city.51 Secondly,
the interpretation of this work being written as an anti-imperialist pamphlet
rests on two flimsy bases: on the one hand, sarcasm on the morals of
Athenian politicians, which is specific neither to Stesimbrotus nor to the
allies,52 and is then inconclusive. On the other hand, Stesimbrotus city of
origin is a weak argument: he certainly came from a city which had revolted
(465463 BC) and seen its revolt crushed by Athens, but this fact is all the
more inconclusive in that we know nothing of the relationship between
Stesimbrotus and his city.53 It therefore appears that the case of
Stesimbrotus does not allow for any real conclusion.
After consideration of these contemporaries of the League, we should
also mention a later writer, Douris of Samos, author among other
works of a chronicle of his city, composed in the late fourth or early third
century BC.54 He is quoted by Plutarch for his sensational account of the
measures taken by the Athenians after their victory over Samos (Per. 28.13
= FGrHist 76 F 67). In fact, after mentioning banal repression settlements
(destruction of walls, surrender of ships, payment of war indemnity, taking
of hostages, that is to say the measures already mentioned by Thucydides
1.117.3), the author of the Lives then reports, following Douris, that the
Athenians inflicted on a number of Samians a terrible and prolonged form
of torture:
He says that Pericles had the Samian trierarchs and marines brought into the
market-place of Miletus, and tied up to planks, and that then, when they
had already suffered grievously for ten days, he gave orders to break their
heads in with clubs and make an end of them, and then cast their bodies
forth without burial rites.55

This story is most controversial at least since Plutarch, who challenged

its historicity, down to modern scholars, who remain divided.56 Now the
question is important, as it entails many uncertainties. If such events
occurred,57 their detail has been overlooked by other historians in Antiquity,
either through lack of any information or through lack of non-Athenian
information, or because of their literary practise, such as e.g. the choice of
a concise narrative, which excluded this type of detail: Diodorus thus simply
says that Pericles punished those who bore responsibility for the revolt
(12.28.3), so that he says more than Thucydides, but less than Douris.
If one assumes, on the contrary, that nothing like this happened, several
scenarios are possible. The first is to consider the story as an invention of
Douris. This is Plutarchs interpretation, which he defends with vigour and
persistence, accusing the Samian historian of lying, over-dramatising and
slander, in order to denigrate the Athenians and Pericles. One may,

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 8

Dominique Lenfant
however, wonder whether Plutarch knew any more than we do on the
foundations of Douris version.58
A second possibility, more likely, is that Douris was echoing a Samian
tradition. And, because of the lateness of Douris, this hypothesis splits into
further alternatives: either this local tradition went back to the days of the
empire59 (which does not exclude that it was dramatically exaggerated), or
it only developed in the fourth century, as a result of Athens very harsh
attitude to Samos during that period)60 in which case we may be dealing
with extreme denigration of Athens.
A final hypothesis cannot be excluded: Douris may be employing a
tradition hostile to Pericles, dating back to the fifth century, but not
necessarily Samian, perhaps even Athenian, like those that can be detected
in Aristophanes comedies.61 The assumption is all the more tempting as,
on other points in the same story of the war of Samos, Douris issues the
same allegations as the comic poet: Aspasia was a warmonger, and
prisoners were tattooed by their enemies.62 The local historian could easily
have drawn on traditions from outside Samos, the more so as he had long
lived in exile. Moreover, it should certainly not be assumed that local
traditions were confined to the places concerned: literature circulated and
often sought a hearing outside.63 If there was in Douris account the echo
of an Athenian tradition (mediated, among others, by comedy), this
scenario would ironically bring us back in the final analysis to an Athenian
view or at least an anti-Athenian tradition which was not without
supporters in Athens herself. All this means that it is quite unsafe to use this
fragment of Douris as testimony for the views of Athens allies.
Conclusion
Does Plutarch, then, give us access to views of allies on the empire,
including a literature reflecting anti- or pro-Athenian attitudes? Admittedly,
we can only collect a few pieces of the puzzle. Timocreon of Rhodes seems
to confirm the good reputation of Athens and of Aristides in the early days
of the Delian League. Even though the alliance clearly took an imperialist
turn, the case of Ion of Chios reflects forms of agreement between
members of the local elites of Athens and the allied cities: while making a
distinction between Cimon and Pericles, Ion is among the supporters of
Athens. It is true, however, that, unlike other cities, Chios long remained
faithful to the hegemonic power and it was one of the few allied cities to
enjoy a privileged position, as did Mytilene until her revolt.64 These
divisions between cities are clearly visible at the time of the revolt of Samos,
when Lesbos and Chios assist Athens in the repression. It is therefore
probably no coincidence that the darkest picture of Athenian ways of

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 9

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
repression precisely comes from Samos. Despite the uncertainties affecting
the foundations of Douris version, by giving voice to the victims of the
repression of Samos or their descendants,65 he tends to confirm this picture
of a division between allies even within the allied cities.
The question that arises is why our quest for dissonant allied voices has
not proved more fruitful. This can probably be explained both by the
literary nature of the writings produced by allied citizens and by Plutarchs
mediation. In fact, our allied authors may only express individual views.
The first three of them got together with Athenian politicians, and they
above all express themselves about these men, without necessarily referring
to Athens as a whole. Their audience need not have been purely local or
of allies, but might include elite Athenians who were not all in favour of
one or another of their leaders.66 As to Douris, who gives us the passage
most clearly hostile to Pericles (then dead for a century) and Athens (still
very much alive), he reports about imperialist Athens as part of a local
history of which the political significance is obvious.
Assuming that we could detect in all these fragments a clear view on
Athenian hegemony, the question would arise of their significance. Is a
certain fragment representative of an allys perspective and, if so, of the
personal position of an individual, or, if that individual is the spokesman
of a group, is this group a fraction of his city (e.g. oligarchs of Samos), or
is it his city as a whole (Samos), or even descendants of people who were
once allies of Athens (the people of Samos in the early third century), or
all the allied cities, or some of these cities with a privileged position in the
empire?
It is hardly possible to have certainty on this representative character, but
there is still a more radical problem, which is due to Plutarch and his own
attitude towards these writings of allied authors. First, his literary goal led
him to select: he is less concerned with power relations than with the
depiction of personal temperament. He logically drew from the allied
sources data that had something to do with the eponymous subjects of his
Lives, anecdotal and often morally connoted evidence. He used, in short,
a highly selective filter. It is possible that, apart from the above-mentioned
principles of selection, his literary objective as a moralist has also led to
distortions, as seen at times when the author claims e.g. to quote
Herodotus, whereas he in fact invents details that show his eponymous
figure in a flattering light.67
Secondly, Plutarchs attitude toward these allied sources is paradoxical
and reflects a dilemma already noted by Stadter. The moralist admired
Thucydides, who provided him with the background chronology for the
period of the Delian League,68 but Thucydides proved a frustrating source

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 10

Dominique Lenfant
with respect to individuals. In a sense, writing lives by drawing on
Thucydides was hardly possible, given the limited interest that the historian
granted to individuals (with some rare exceptions). In these circumstances,
authors such as Ion, Stesimbrotus or Douris enabled Plutarch to give flesh
to these individuals.69 On the other hand, the biographical elements he
found in these writings were often ex parte and controversial which may
have led Plutarch to reject material by which he might have added elements
of personal histories to the narrative of Thucydides.
Plutarch rejects such information where it conflicts with ideas that he has
conceived of his main characters. The story of Douris is a clear example:
it is quoted to be rejected in favour of a return to the starting point, the
narrative of Thucydides, because Plutarch expressly says Pericles can
be neither cruel nor arrogant; he even deserves to be admired for his
efficiency in the Samian campaign. Thus, Douris allegations are rejected
because they contradict Plutarchs idea of Pericles and Athens, an idea
largely influenced by Thucydides,70 and which moreover suits well a Greek
of Roman times, when the Athens of the fifth century BC is often regarded
as a cultural symbol, or even a glorious image of hellenism.71
However, before rejecting such unflattering allegations where they
conflict with his own preconceived ideas, Plutarch quotes them, and thus
enables us to know them albeit subject to a degree of distortion and
omission which we cannot assess. We have to wonder whether he has not
entirely neglected the voices of some other allies and whether, by
discrediting almost automatically such dissonant allied testimony as he does
notice, he has not intensified the dominance in our sources of the Athenian
viewpoint, and more specifically of the viewpoint of Thucydides, infused
as that was with admiration for Pericles.72
Notes
1 While the historian is supposed, in the words of Marc Bloch, to understand rather
than to judge, the term imperialism so freely used today about Athens contains in
itself a value judgement that means we are indeed talking here of grievance.
2 e.g. Meiggs 1972, 396; Kallet 2009, 46.
3 Non-Athenian inscriptions are rarely usable on this subject: even the decree issued
by Eretria in 411 to honour a Tarentine who had taken part in the liberation of
the city from Athens (Meiggs-Lewis 82: ),
although it has the interest of presenting the Athenian alliance as a source of servitude,
has the disadvantage of being issued by a city which had passed into the hands of the
oligarchs, which leaves open the possibility of differences of opinion within Eretria
herself.
Among the literary sources, the name of Herodotus is intentionally not listed here.
It is true that the historian is from a city that was an ally of Athens and that some

10

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 11

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
passages of his work, composed at the time of the Delian League, evidence the
contemporary unpopularity of the hegemonic city (at 7.139, before describing the
Athenians as saviours of Greece, he says he is aware of having to express an unpopular
opinion). But it is clear that he never explicitly speaks of the Athenian hegemony.
4 For pseudo-Xenophon, victims of Athenian imperialism are not the whole cities,
but a social class, the elite, in each of these cities: this helps his case that the nature of
the Athenian constitution was a way for the poor to oppress the elite.
For other reasons, the denunciations believed to be found in Aristophanic comedy
are not expressing an allied view, but may reflect in a comic way the discontent of
Athenians about the consequences of imperialism for the hegemonic city herself.
As for Thucydides, the words he puts into the mouths of the Athenians certainly
insist on the hatred of the allies against them, but occur in speeches which have in each
case a particular aim and which are also used by the historian to express his political
analysis. He makes allies speak on one occasion (Mytilenaeans at Olympia), but this
speech has a specific purpose (to obtain an alliance with Peloponnesians) in a given
context. Ste. Croix believed that Thucydides tended to exaggerate and generalize a
hatred of the allies which was actually that of oligarchs, the class with which he himself
supposedly kept most company (Ste. Croix 1954, 115 and 31). This interpretation has
aroused various reactions, e.g. that of Bradeen 1960 and de Romilly 1966.
5 If we follow the late dates recently proposed by Mattingly and Papazarkadas for
several important inscriptions, the years before the Peloponnesian War appear even
less than previously documented (Ma 2009, 226).
6 Meiggs 1972, 403: the declaration of policy in the decree of Aristoteles is an
admission that the forms in which [Athens] exercised her control in the fifth century
had been unpopular, and not only among oligarchs.
7 On this metaphor and its interpretation, cf. Powell 1996 and 2010, 9799.
8 On the opposition to Pericles and the role played by Thucydides son of Melesias,
cf. Tuci 2008.
9 Meiggs 1972, 17 notes that, according to Platos Meno (94d), Thucydides son of
Melesias, the opponent of Pericles, had many friends both in Athens and among her
allies.
10 Powell 2010, 99, is certainly right to assume a contemporary source, and not
without reason suggests Stesimbrotus of Thasos and / or Ion of Chios.
11 We do not know Plutarchs source and certainly cannot presume that he
accurately reflects an unimpeachable source, notes Stadter 1989, 149. The same can
be said about the words of reproach which Plutarch puts into the mouth of Elpinice
after the suppression of the revolt of Samos, when she blames the strategos for having
caused so many deaths in order to overthrow an allied and kindred city (Per. 28.6).
12 Under this criterion, we will not consider Simonides of Ceos (his extant verses
do not refer to the Delian League, which is understandable since he migrated to Sicily
in 476 and died there about 465). The same applies to Hellanicus of Lesbos, whom
Plutarch never quotes about the empire, and to Theopompus of Chios and Ephorus
of Kyme, historians of the fourth century who were certainly later than the empire, but
contemporaries of the Second Athenian Confederacy and likely to transmit an
inherited perspective. Actually, Theopompus is never quoted by Plutarch or by others
concerning the Athenian empire, while Ephorus is named only once, on the siege of
Samos (Per. 27.3) to say that Pericles made use of siege engines (at 28.2, Plutarch also

11

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 12

Dominique Lenfant
reports that historians silence on the cruel punishment described by Douris, but we
are not able to interpret such silence).
13 Testimonies and fragments: Campbell 1992, 8497. Timocreon was, to be
precise, from Ialysos (Them. 21): as recalled by Frost 1980, 181, Rhodes was not a city
at that time. Much of what can be said of Timocreon is indicated by Frost 1980,
181182. On the relationship between Timocreon and Themistocles, cf. Meiggs 1972,
414 ff. and Robertson 1980.
14 Timocreon puts forward Themistocles greed, but some of his verses reveal that
the Rhodian was criticized for medism. In fact, one of the few other allusions to the
life of this character (due to the sophist Thrasymachus of Colophon quoted by
Athenaeus, 10.416a) shows him as a guest staying at the court of the Great King, a
guest who becomes famous both through his gluttony at table and his demonstrations
of force as an athlete (he brings down all the Persians who face him). As noted by
Frost 1980, 182, Rhodes was before the Second Persian War under Achaemenid rule
and could not be accused of medism as such, but there occurred just after Mycale
settlings of scores in the cities near the Ionian coast.
15 Frost 1980, 182.
16 Herodotus (8.112) only mentions Cyclades (Paros and Andros) and Carystus in
Euboea, while admitting that his list is probably not exhaustive.
17 See Frost 1980, 180181, on Herodotus passage, a locus classicus of misquotation.
18 Thuc. 1.76; 2.64.5. Cf. ps.-Xen., Ath. Pol. 1.16: .
19 On the various dates proposed (480, 478/7, end of 470?), cf. Carena, Manfredini
and Piccirilli 1983, 263.
20 Probably the one that allowed him to set the amount of the tribute two years
after the battle of Salamis, according to Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.5.
21 The two authors are cited in the Lives of Cimon and Pericles, and Stesimbrotus is
also mentioned in that of Themistocles.
22 The prose works include a philosophical treatise, a history of the foundation of
Chios and a writing entitled Epidemiai (Stays [abroad] ), or Hypomnemata (Memories).
Edition of Ions fragments: Leurini 2000. The fragments of historical writings are
numbered as in Jacoby, FGrHist 392. Recent studies: Federico 2005; Jennings and
Katsaros 2007. Federico is currently preparing an annotated edition for the collection
I Frammenti degli storici greci (Tored, Rome): the volume will include the Foundation of
Chios and the Epidemiai / Hypomnemata). More directly tied to the present topic: Cataldi
2005 and Leurini 2005.
23 His first participation would date back, according to the Suda ( 487), to the 82nd
Olympiad (between 451 and 448). Ion won several awards, including one in 429/8
(first prize at unknown date [FGrHist 392 T 2], third prize in 429/8 [T 6]).
24 Cim. 9. This social status is confirmed by the anecdote of F 6 on the banquet of
Chios in which Sophocles took part, as well as Ion himself (see below).
25 F 13.
26 See below.
27 This is in fact his reputation in modern studies. See Federico 2005, 183185.
28 Ion had died in 421, when the Peace of Aristophanes was performed (see
v. 8337).
29 It is true that Chios was also one of the three allies that the Athenians spared for
a time, leaving their constitutions untouched, and allowing them to retain whatever

12

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 13

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
dominion they then possessed (Arist. Ath. Pol., 24.2). On the relationship between
Athens and Chios in the context of the empire, cf. Barron 1986.
30 See Meiggs 1972, 314 on probably legitimate suspicions from Athens as early as
425. Cf. Thuc. 4.51. On the deterioration of relations between Athens and Chios in
those years, cf. Federico 2005, 193195.
31 Thuc. 8.38.3 (T 7).
32 Plutarch cites Ion three times in Cimon and twice in Pericles (Cim. 5.3; 9.1; 16.10;
Per. 5.3; 28.7). As usual, he does not indicate the title of his source, so that Jacoby has
classified these fragments in those Ohne Buchtitel.
33 Transl. B. Perrin slightly emended, Loeb Classical Library.
34 Transl. B. Perrin, Loeb Classical Library.
35 Federico 2005 considers instead that Ion opposed a just empire, that of Cimon,
to the unjust one of his successors. But I wonder if he does not ascribe to Ion
judgements that Plutarch does not impute to him.
36 And indeed his estimate of himself was not unjust, nay, the war actually brought
with it much uncertainty and great peril, if indeed, as Thucydides says, the city of
Samos came within a very little of stripping from Athens her power on the sea. (transl.
B. Perrin, Loeb Classical Library).
37 List of historical fragments (FGrHist 392) in Bonnechere 1999, 307 (testimonies
p. 63).
38 On Sophocles as strategos and more widely as politician, cf. Jouanna 2007, 2372.
On the office of strategos that he held in 441/0 at the same time as Pericles who was
his colleague in the expedition of Samos, cf. Androtion FGrHist 324 F 38 and Strabo
14.1.18; Jouanna 2007, 2728.
39 This F 6, a long passage quoted by Athenaeus (13.603e604d, fr. 104 Leurini),
reports how Sophocles pederasty was in evidence when he was received in Chios on
his way to Lesbos as a strategos in 440 (test. 75 Radt). See Leurini 1987.
40 On the circumstances of this stay in Chios, cf. Jouanna 2007, 3538. Note that
Sophocles had been previously a treasurer of the Delian League (hellenotamias) in 443/2
(ATL II, p. 18: 12 l. 36). See Jouanna 2007, 2527.
41 Sophocles is explicitly named in F 6 as falling within the category of chrestoi (Ath.
13.604e).
42 1.14 and 16. See also 3.10: the best men in the cities only have antipathy for the
(Athenian) demos. This view of a social antagonism between cities is only qualified by
the idea that the Athenian elite sought to protect the elite of the cities (1.14).
43 According to Plato, the Athenians had only maintained their power over the
cities for 70 years because they had trusted men in those cities, but the philosopher is
silent on their social origin (Letter VII, 332bc). There was such a network of proxenoi
of the Athenians in the cities of the empire, and these proxenoi were generally welloff. See Meiggs 1972, 215219.
44 Stesimbrotus as contemporary with Cimon: Plut., Cim. 4.5 = FGrHist 107 T 1;
with Pericles, whom he had seen: Ath. 13.589d = T 2.
45 Engels 1998, 51, based on F 11.
46 The title is indicated by Athenaeus 13.589e (F 10a), for a quotation which is
parallel to that in Per. 13.1516 (F 10b). Testimonies and fragments of On Themistocles
have recently been edited, translated and annotated by Engels 1998, 4049 (Greek
text, apparatus criticus, English transl.), 5077 (introduction and commentary, which

13

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 14

Dominique Lenfant
are the best current development and indicate the earlier bibliography) = FGrHist
Continued 1002. For other prose fragments and testimonies: FGrHist 107.
47 Stesimbrotus is quoted in the Lives of Themistocles, Cimon and Pericles (Them. 2.5;
4.5; 24.67. Cim., 4.5; 14.5; 16.1; 16.3. Per. 8.9; 13.16; 26.1; 36.6). One must add a
parallel fragment in Athenaeus (F 10a). On Plutarch and Stesimbrotus, cf. Vanotti
2011.
48 Engels 1998, 67, about the insinuation that Cimon sons would not be born from
an Athenian mother. See, also, the allegations of sexual greed against Pericles (F 10ab).
On comic jokes on the politicians sexual life, cf. Holzberg 2010.
49 Plut. Cim. 16.1. As he does for Ion, Plutarch shows little confidence in the data
provided by Stesimbrotus (Per. 13.16 and 26.1).
50 See Engels 1998, 5156, who gives a clear and convincing summary and critique
of the main interpretations.
51 For instance, Per. 26.1 shows that Stesimbrotus mentioned the expedition of
Samos, but what Plutarch retains seems very insignificant (F 8).
52 They are similar to the sarcasms of Attic comedy, so that they do not seem typical
of an outside view.
53 Engels 1998, 51 notes that S. may have left his native soil as early as 463 BC after
Kimon had suppressed the rebellion of the Thasians.
54 FGrHist 76: Greek text. Landucci Gattinoni 1997, 224258: translation and
commentary of the fragments of the Chronicle of Samos.
55 Transl. B. Perrin slightly emended, Loeb Classical Library.
56 Among the sceptics: Kebric 1977, 79 (Apparently, Duris Chronicle also distorted
facts since Plutarch accused him of manipulating history in order to discredit Pericles
and Athens) and Karavites 1985 (who concludes, however: It is impossible to
determine the truth of the story). The historicity of the episode of torture is, however,
not excluded by Meiggs 1972, 192, Hornblower and Greenstock 1988, 110 (if he is
right, it is a serious matter), Landucci Gattinoni 1997, 233 and 2005, 2334, or
Azoulay 2010, 72, who considers Douris bien plac pour connatre laffaire en tant
quoriginaire de la cit rebelle.
57 The punishment of exposing the condemned on a board is a long and painful
Athenian torture that is well attested by literary and archaeological sources (Gernet
1924, partly based on Keramopoullos 1923; Stadter 1989, 2589; Charlier 2009, 148
150) and it would not be the only case of execution of the supposed leaders of a revolt
(think of the 1000 responsible Mytilenaeans executed twelve years later. See Thuc.
3.50.1). Plutarch seems to dismiss morally and intellectually the refinements of cruelty,
the heads crushed and the lack of burial, but these too seem not without parallel (the
apotympanismos was often associated with further abuse, and the skeletons found at
Phaleron with iron collars and irons around wrists and ankles had been in fact buried
in a common grave). See Gernet 1924.
58 Plutarch makes three arguments (the silence of other sources, Douris trend to
dramatize, and his patriotic bias), which are not compelling. Cf. Meiggs 1972, 192194.
59 Kebric 1977, 79 notes that Samos had a tradition of local historians going back
as far as Asius in the seventh (?) century BC, he states that Douris had made use of
this author (Ath. 12.525ef = FGrHist 76 F 60), but that his most immediate
predecessor, however, would have been Aethlius of Samos, who lived in the fifthfourth century BC.

14

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 15

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
60 From 365 to 321, the Athenians exiled Samians from their own city and settled
a cleruchy in their island. See Shipley 1987, 155168. Douris was a member of a
prominent family who had chosen exile in 365, when Athens had taken possession of
the island (Landucci Gattinoni 2005, 227). With such a background, local history had
an undeniable political dimension (see, in this volume, Constantakopoulou on Delos).
61 The hypothesis is presented by Landucci 1997, 232233, with earlier bibliography.
62 FGrHist 76 F 65 and 66. The picture of Aspasia as a warmonger is both attested
by Douris (Harpocration s.v. = FGrHist 76 F 65) for the war against Samos
and by Aristophanes (Ach. 5249) for the Peloponnesian War.
On the tattooing (and not branding) of prisoners in the war between Athens and
Samos, see Stadter 1989, 24950 and Landucci Gattinoni 1997, 232233. On
Aristophanes allusion to the tatooing of allies in his Babylonians (fr. 71 Kassel-Austin),
see Lenfant 2003a, 1011.
On the possible influence of comic scenarios on Douris, cf. Lenfant 2003b, 402.
Similarly, when Alexis of Samos, another author of a Chronicle of Samos, mentions
the Athenian courtesans who came to Samos with Pericles (FGrHist 539 F 1 = Ath.
13.572f), this seems to echo attacks on Pericles in fifth-century Athens, especially in
comedy. On Alexis, see DHaucourt 2006.
63 See, in this volume, Constantakopoulou.
64 Thuc. 3.10; 3.36.2; 3.39.27 (where two sorts of allies are distinguished). See
Arist. Ath. Pol. (above n. 29).
65 It cannot be ruled out that the good family which Douris was born of had links
with the Samians considered responsible for the revolt and executed after it,
according to Diodorus and Douris.
66 I thank Edward Harris and Seleni Psoma for drawing my attention to this issue
of the audience.
67 See, for example, on Themistocles tour to previous medizers, Frost 1980 (above
on Timocreon) and Lenfant 1999, 112113.
68 Stadter 1989, lxlxi.
69 In the words of Stadter 1989, lxii, such authors helped personalize the excessively
political account of Thucydides. Powell 2010 also shows that Plutarch sometimes
wanted to depart from Thucydides.
70 The same process has been observed above concerning Ion and Stesimbrotus.
We may compare Plutarchs reaction to the accusation of Idomeneus of Lampsacus,
according to whom Pericles had murdered Ephialtes: Plutarch puts forward Pericles
moral qualities, which were, in his view, not at all compatible with anything cruel and
atrocious (Per. 10. 7). See also how, in his Life of Lycurgus, he refuses to ascribe the
crypteia to the beneficient legislator of Sparta.
71 See Powell 2006, esp. 288 and 290; Powell 2010.
72 See again, most recently, Powell 2010, which also highlights the differences
between the Pericles of Plutarch and Thucydides. More generally on the
historiography of Pericles from Thucydides to the present: Pbarthe 2010, 463490
and Azoulay 2010.

15

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 16

Dominique Lenfant
Bibliography
Azoulay, V.
2010 Pricls. La dmocratie athnienne lpreuve du grand homme, Paris.
Barron, J. P.
1986 Chios in the Athenian Empire, in J. Boardman and C. E. VaphopoulouRichardson (eds), Chios, Oxford, 89103.
Bonnechere, P.
1999 Jacoby. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Indexes of parts I, II, and III. III:
alphabetical list of historians with alphabetical list of source-authors for each, Leiden
Boston Cologne.
Bradeen, D. W.
1960 The popularity of the Athenian Empire, Historia 9, 25769.
Campbell, D. A.
1992 Greek Lyric, vol. 4, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.
Carena, C., Manfredini, M., and Piccirilli, L.
1983 Plutarco. Le vite di Temistocle e di Camillo, Milan.
Cataldi, S.
2005 Filosofi e politici nellAtene del V secolo a.C., in L. Breglia and M. Lupi (eds),
Da Elea a Samo. Filosofi e politici di fronte allimpero ateniese, Naples, 95150.
Charlier, P.
2009 Male mort. Morts violentes dans lAntiquit, Paris.
DHaucourt, A.
2006 Alexis, les prostitues et Aphrodite Samos, Kernos 19, 3137.
Engels, J.
1998 FGrHist Continued IVA, fasc. 1, n 1002, Leiden Boston Cologne.
Federico, E.
2005 Syngeneia, dike, hegemonie apisou. Limpero etico di Ione di Chio, in L. Breglia
and M. Lupi (eds), Da Elea a Samo. Filosofi e politici di fronte allimpero ateniese,
Naples, 183224.
Frost, F. J.
1980 Plutarchs Themistocles. A Historical Commentary, Princeton.
Gernet, L.
1924 Sur lexcution capitale ( propos dun ouvrage rcent), REG 37, 261293.
Holzberg, N.
2010 Aristophanes: Sex und Spott und Politik, Munich.
Hornblower, S. and Greenstock, M. C.
1988 The Athenian Empire, 3rd ed., Cambridge.
Jennings, V. and Katsaros, A. (eds)
2007 The World of Ion of Chios. Mnemosyne Supplementa, 288, Leiden.
Jouanna, J.
2007 Sophocle, Paris.
Kallet, L.
2009 Democracy, empire and epigraphy in the twentieth century, in J. Ma, N.
Papazarkadas and R. Parker (eds), Interpreting the Athenian Empire, London,
4366.
Karavites, P.
1985 Enduring problems of the Samian Revolt, RhM 128, 4056.

16

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 17

The allies viewpoint on the Athenian empire: the evidence of Plutarchs Lives
Kebric, R. B.
1977 In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos, Historia Einzelschriften 29, Wiesbaden.
Keramopoullos, A.
1923 , Athens.
Landucci Gattinoni, F.
1997 Duride di Samo, Rome.
2005 Duride di Samo e limperialismo ateniese, in L. Breglia and M. Lupi (eds),
Da Elea a Samo. Filosofi e politici di fronte allimpero ateniese, Naples, 225245.
Lenfant, D.
1999 Peut-on se fier aux fragments dhistoriens? Lexemple des citations
dHrodote, Ktma 24, 103121.
2003a Des dcrets contre la satire: une invention de scholiaste? (Pseudo-Xn. II,
18, schol. Ach. 67, schol. Av. 1297), Ktma 28, 531.
2003b De lusage des comiques comme source historique : les Vies de Plutarque
et la comdie ancienne, in G. Lachenaud and D. Longre (eds), Grecs et
Romains aux prises avec lhistoire. Reprsentations, rcits et idologie, Rennes,
391414.
Leurini, A.
1987 Pedanti a confronto. A proposito di Ione di Chio fr. 8 bl., QUCC 54,
1319.
2000 Ionis Chii testimonia et fragmenta, Amsterdam (1st ed. 1992).
2005 Ione di Chio in Plutarco, in Valori letterari di Plutarco. Studi offerti al professore
Italo Gallo dallInternational Plutarch Society, 249263.
Ma, J.
2009 Afterword: Whither the Athenian Empire?, in J. Ma, N. Papazarkadas
and R. Parker (eds), Interpreting the Athenian Empire, London, 223231.
Meiggs, R.
1972 The Athenian Empire, Oxford.
Pbarthe, C.
2010 Pricls, au-del de Thucydide in P. Payen, V. Fromentin and S. Gotteland
(eds), Ombres de Thucydide, Bordeaux, 46390.
Powell, A.
1996 Athens pretty face: anti-feminine rhetoric and fifth-century controversy
over the Parthenon in id. (ed.), The Greek World, London, 24570.
2006 Why did Sparta not destroy Athens in 404, or in 403 BC?, in S. Hodkinson
and A. Powell (eds), Sparta and War, Swansea, 287303.
2010 Pricls chez Thucydide et chez Plutarque, in V. Fromentin, S. Gotteland
and P. Payen (eds), Ombres de Thucydide, Bordeaux, 93104.
Robertson, N.
1980 Timocreon and Themistocles, American Journal of Philology 101, 6178.
Romilly, J. de
1966 Thucydides and the cities of the Athenian Empire, BICS 13, 112
(= P. Low (ed.), The Athenian Empire, Edinburgh, 2008, 277293).
Shipley, G.
1987 A History of Samos. 800188 BC, Oxford.
Stadter, P. A.
1989 A Commentary on Plutarchs Pericles, Chapel Hill.

17

89000_Eyesore_of_Aigina_Book_1:Layout 1

11/10/16

08:20

Page 18

Dominique Lenfant
Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de
1954 The character of the Athenian Empire, Historia 3, 141.
Tuci, P. A.
2008 Tucidide di Melesia e il partito di opposizione a Pericle, in C. Bearzot
and F. Landucci (eds), Partiti e fazioni nellesperienza politica greca, Milan.
Vanotti, G.
2011 Plutarco lettore di Stesimbroto di Taso (nota a FGrHist 107/1002 F 5
= Plutarco, Cimone xiv), in F. Gazzano, G. Ottone and L. Santi Amantini
(eds), Ex fragmentis/per fragmenta historiam tradere, Rome, 6187.

18