Abstract
An examination of Plut. Cim. 13, 4-5 and Harp. Α 261 Keaney s.v. Ἀττικοῖς γράμμασιν suggests that fourth-century historians Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F 16) and Theopompus (FGrHist 115 F 154) challenged the view of contemporary Athenians – attested especially in rhetorical writings – that the Peace of Callias was concluded in the 460s BC in the aftermath of the battle at the river Eurymedon. Such a view described the peace as unilateral, i.e., not implying any obligation on the part of the Athenians. The fact that Callisthenes and Theopompus did not accept that tradition, doesn’t imply, per se, that they believed that no peace between Athens and Persia was ever concluded in the V century BC. On the contrary, the peace of 449 BC, as described by Diodorus in XII 4, 4-6 on the basis of fourth-century sources (Ephorus among them), was bilateral, i.e., it implied obligations on both sides (Athens and Persia); whether Callisthenes and Theopompus also disputed that peace was made in 449, is unclear. In addition, this paper explores the possibility of changing the unknown Νέσσου ποταμοῦ with Νείλου ποταμοῦ in the so called ‘Aristodemus’ (FGrHist 104 F 1, 13, 2).