ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides 

Michael Arnush 

T HUCYDIDES OBSERVES that in the summer of 421/420, 
Athens and Boeotia were observing a ten-day truce 
(5.26.2: £KExnptav OEX"~EPOV ~yov). But although he 

makes several other references to this and to other ten-day 
armistices (5.32.5, Corinth's failure to obtain one from Athens; 
6.7.4, between Athens and the Thracian Chalcidice; 6.10.3, 
between Athens and some of Sparta's allies, presumably Boeotia 
and the Chalcidice), Thucydides does not provide specific 
details of the character of these truces. Andrewes' commen­
tary, which supplements Gomme's initial work, postulates a 
definition for this type of cease-fire: 

presumably a truce made in the first instance for ten days 
and thereafter terminable at ten days' notice by either side. 
A truce which needed explicit renewal every ten days would 
require an unconscionable amount of travelling by envoys 
... and one tacitly renewed every ten days would involve 
risks of miscalculation.1 

This interpretation misrepresents and incorrectly explains 
Thucydides' understanding of a ten-day cessation of hostilities, 
for the evidence suggests that during the Peloponnesian War 
poleis explicitly renewed truces every ten days; and it may be 
suggested that proxenoi may have been responsible for the 
formalities involved. If correct, this affects our understanding of 
proxenoi and the nature of diplomatic relations in the late fifth 
century. 

A discussion of these truces in their historical and political 
contexts requires first a thorough understanding of the terms 

I A. W. GOMME, A. ANDREWES, and K. J. DOVER, A Historical Commentary 
on Thucydides IV (Oxford 1978: hereafter 'Andrewes') ad 5.26.2 s.v. 
h:£xnpto.v O£XTJf.1£pov. This interpretation receives support from G. E. M. de 
Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (Ithaca 1972) App. XVII, 
esp. 33M; and J. A. O. Larsen, Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and 
History (Oxford 1968) 73 n.1, 148 n.3, who follows A. B. West, The History of 
the Chalcidic League (diss.University of Wisconsin 1912) 90. 

329 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

330 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

and their meanings in ancient commentators to refer to various 
types of agreements available to warring parties and the duration 
of these agreements. An examination of these issues should 
place T~ucydides' notices of ten-day truces in their proper 
perspectIve. 

1. Terminology 

The Adjective 8E)~fH1EPO<;. Because so much of the discussion 
regarding the meaning of a ten-day armistice hinges upon 
modern interpretations of the terminology of Thucydides and 
others to describe such short-term truces, my initial investiga­
tion focuses on analyses by modern commentators. Lexica of 
the early nineteenth century consistently translated CEXllIlEP0<; 
as "ten days" or "lasting ten days"; when the adjective modified 
such substantives as £KEX£tptU and mrov8ul, they understood 
the phrases to mean "ten day truces."2 Only in the mid­
nineteenth century did English and American lexicographers 
cite some or all of the relevant Thucydidean passages in the 
entry for 8EXT)IlEPO<;, -ov and therefore expand the meaning of 
the adjective when it modified EKExnpta or (J1tov8aL The first 
publication of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon 
presented the initial interpretation of EKExnpta DEXllIlEP0<; as an 
armistice terminable on ten-days' notice. 3 The most recent 

2 F. W. Riemer, Kleines griechisch-deutsches Hand-Worterbuch Gena 1815); 
J. G. Schneider, Handworterbuch der griechischen Sprache, ed. F. Passow 
(Leipzig 1819); C. Schreucl, Lexicon M anuale Graeco- Latinum et Latino­
Graecum (London 1825); B. Hederich, Graecum Lexicon Manuale (London 
1826); B. C. F. Rost, Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch (Erfurt 1829); F. 
Passow, Handworterbuch der griechischen Sprache (Leipzig 1831); C. 
Alexandre, Dictionnaire grec-frant;ais (Paris 1835); K. Ramshorn, Griechisch­
Deutsches Handworterbuch (Leipzig 1838). 

3 H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon Based on the German 
Work of Francis Passow, ed. H. Drisler (London 1846; first American edition, 
New York 1864): "for ten days, lasting ten days; h. DEX., a truce, from ten 
days to ten days, i.e., terminable at any time on giving ten days' notice," citing 
Thuc. 5.26; (f J. Pickering, Comprehensive Lexicon of the Greek Language 
(Boston 1847) s. v. D£XTt~po~. 

The concept of an agreement terminable within x period of time, introduced 
to the discussion by Liddell and Scott in 1846, seems to drive from nineteenth­
century British diplomatic parlance. A survey of British treaties since the 
beginning of the twelfth century collected in C. Parry and C. Hopkins, An 
Index of British Treaties, 1101-1968 I-III (London 1970) brought to light 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 331 

edition of this lexicon (LSP s.v.) supplies a general definition of 
"for ten days, lasting ten days" and, as an adjective modifying 
EKExnpta, onov()at, or avoxa{, ()EXl1J.lEP0C; also means "ter­
minable at ten days' notice (or, renewable every ten days).» 
Clearly Andrewes accepted Liddell and Scott's version and 
incorporated it into his discussion of the events following the 
Peace of Nicias. 

Contrary to Andrewes' position, the scholiast to Thuc. 5.26.2 
defines ()EXl1J.lEPOV as npoc; ()£Ka llJ.l£pac;, 4 which LS] (s.v. IlIA) 
interprets as the use of np6c; plus a temporal accusative; i.e., 
something "lasting for (ten) days." A translation of ()EXl1J.lEP0C; as 
"terminable within ten days' notice" or "within ten days" is not 
possible with np6c; and the accusative. Had Thucydides used the 
dative and the preposition EV (LS] S.v. IV, of time) to describe 
this length of time, then that meaning would have been clear. In 
addition, Pollux, when addressing the division of months into 
days, describes the last third of a month as ()EXl1J.lEP0C; (1.63). No 
indication from the ancient lexicographers suggests that this 
adjective means anything more than a period of ten days; 
nowhere do they propose that ()EXl1J.lEP0C; implies an event to 
occur within ten days, or that anything shall result after ten days. 

only two agreements negotiated before the nineteenth century that might have 
terminated upon x years' notice. Parry and Hopkins cite a treaty of truce and 
mercantile intercourse between England and france in 1471 during the War of 
the Roses as the first occurrence of this idea. A reading of the text reveals 
instead that the truce could be revoked only after the first five years of the 
twenty-year truce had elapsed. For the text see T. Rymer, Foedera, 
conventiones, literae et cuiuscunque generis Acta publica inter Reges Angliae .... 
(London 1704-17) XI 683-90. Eleven years later England negotiated a 
mercantile agreement with the province of Guipuscoa in northern Spain, 
terminable on six months' notice. The next instance of a treaty so described 
appears in 1813, an agreement between England and the U.S. providing for the 
exchange of prisoners during the War of 1812; after this the concept becomes 
fairly standard. I suggest that Liddell and Scott employed for their translation 
a diplomatic term that had fallen into disuse in the late fifteenth century and 
had not re-entered the language of diplomacy until more than 300 years later. 
Unfortunately, the conflation of a nineteenth-century British diplomatic 
convention with one mentioned by Thucydides and in use during the 
Peloponnesian War has had a profound effect on our understanding of ten­
day armistices. 

4 C. Hude, ed., Scholia in Thucydidem (Leipzig 1927) S.v. BotCtYtot (5.26.2). 
See also the TGL S.v. OEXYtIlEpOr;: "Decem dies durans, spatio decem dierum 
constans, ut iXEX£lpta, o1tovOa1., Suid." 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

332 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

A study of other numerical adjectives lends credence to a 
definition of 8£XllJlEp0<; as "lasting ten days." Ordinal adjectives 
ending in -0<; mean only a duration of x (period of time).5 Only 
when the adjective is formed by the addition of -a'io<; can it 
mean 'recurring every x,' 'on the xth', or 'within x'. 6 Hence it 
appears that Thucydides only uses 8EXllJlEvo<; as an adjective that 
specifies explicitly a duration of ten days and that no implicit 
meaning accompanies this term. Andrewes adopted LSI's 
interpretation and dismissed the possibility that negotiated 
truces were either explicitly or implicitly renewed within any 
particular period of time. 

The Terminology of Truces and Treaties: EK£X£tpta, avoxai, 
avoKwxai, <J1tov8aL According to Karavites, the terms Thu­
cydides uses-EK£X£lpta, avoxai, and avoKWxat-to describe "a 
cessation of hostilities" or "an armistice/truce" are all interchan­
geable and refer to truces of various lengths, with no one term 
used any more specifically than any other. So, the ten-day truce 
between Athens and Boeotia is E1C£X£lptaV 8EXllJl£pov (5.26.2), 
while such truces are also described as 1a<; ... 8EXT\JlEPOU<; 
E1tl<J1tov8a<; (5.32.5), 8£XT\JlEPOU<; <J1tov8a<; (6.7.4), and 
8£XT\JlEPOl<; <J1tov8a'i<; (6.10.3). 7 Since Thucydides draws no 
distinctions between ten-day armistices labelled (E1tl)<J1tov8at 
and those described as EK£X£tptal (or, as we shall see, as avOxat 
or avoKwxai), then (E1tl)<J1tov8at can also signify a 'truce'. In 
this last instance, however, there is the implication of a formal 

5 The references in this and the succeeding note are from LS J s. 'll. 
't£'tpaTH.u:po~, Arist. HA 553al0; i#HJ.l:PO~, Vett. Val. 369.24, Prod. Hyp. 3.56; 
bt'taTU.lEpo~, Dio Casso 76.1; EvOE1l:aTlI.lEpO~, Gal. 7.510; oOloE1l:afH.lI:po~, Eust. 
128.13; OOlOEK"f..lEPO~, I G F 374.89; 1tEv'tEKatOEX"f..lEPO~, Polyb. 18.34.5; 
'tPtaKOVe"f..lEpo~, Hdt. 2.4, Polyb. 21.13.12, IG IV.12 532; 1tEV'tEKOV%f..lEPO~, D.H. 
2.57. 

6 E~OOf..lato~, Hp. Epid. 1.24; oyooato~, Gal. 7.505; EV'tatO~, Thuc. 2.49; 
OE1(a'tatO~, PI. Resp. 614B; oOloEKa'tatO~, ibid.; EKKatOEKa'tatO~, L Ar. Thes. 86; 
E1t'taKatOEKa'tatO~, Hp. Aph. 4.36; OK'tOlKatOEKa'tatO~, Hp. Morb. 2.25; 
EiKO(natO~, Hp. Prog. 15, Antiph. 1.20; EiKOo'toEK'tatO;, Gal. 7.501; Oy0011KOO­
'tOtO;, Hp. Art. 69. 

7 P. Karavites, Capitulations and Greek Interstate Relations: The Reflection 
of Humanistic Ideals in Political E'llents (Gottingen 1982) 26-29. So C. 
Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome 
(London 1911) I 376, links hEXElpia and clVOKOlXai as "the suspension of 
arms" that were distinct from o1tovoai or a definite treaty. See also II 280f, 
where Phillipson outlines the differences between such terms as E1tto1tovoai 
and \)1tOO1tOvOOt that are discussed infra. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 333 

act (the pouring of libations, the taking of oaths, etc.) that accom­
panies the implementation of (mov<>uL 8 The sources never state 
whether the other terms used for a truce also include libation­
pouring and oath-taking; since O'1tov<>ut, however, require these 
actions KU'tel 'tel 1tCltptU and Thucydides considers <J1tOv<>Ut a 
synonym for EKEXEtptU, it follows that all these types of agree­
ments 9 were accompanied by formal religious acts.l0 

Other related terms appear in military or diplomatic cir­
cumstances and convey corresponding connotations. U1tOO"TCOV­
bot usually refers to the dead retrieved from a battlefield after 

8 F. ADCOCK and D. J. MOSLEY, Diplomacy in Ancient Greece (London 1975: 
hereafter' Adcock and Mosley') 122, draw a clear picture of the meaning and 
use of O"1tovoai: "Spondai, basically libations, then by extension the agreement 
solemnized by the libation, was used extensively first to denote a truce, then as 
a synonym for an agreement or treaty in general." 

The term is perhaps best defined and discussed by J. Herrmann, "LrrON~H 
und LrrON~AI," in Studi in Onore di Edoardo Volterra (Milan 1971) III 
135-42, who uses the definition given by H. Etienne (TGL) S.v. crrcov&!l as the 
basis for his discussion of the political implications of O"1tovoa i: "L1tOVOa i 
peculiariter de iis etiam libationibus dicuntur, quae foederibus et induciis 
sanciendis adhibemur; atque pro ipsis etiam foederibus, pactis, induciis, 
induciis accipiuntur, quae scilicet libatione intercedente sanctae sunt." 

On the technical use of O"1tovoai to indicate a cessation of hostilities and the 
accompanying formalities, see also H. Bengtson, Die Staatsvertrage des 
Altertums II (Munich 1962) 165ff; G. Busolt, Griechische Slaalskunde Hft.2, 
with H. Swoboda (Munich 1926) 1250-59; P. Graetzel, De pactionum inter 
Graecas civitates factarum ad bellum pacemque pertinentium appellationibus 
formulis ratione (diss.Halle 1885) 5-15; F. Hampl, "Thuc. IIL75.1 and der 
Terminus' L1tovoai'," Philologus 91 (1936) 153-60; A. Kirchoff, Thukydides 
und sein Urkundenmaterial (Berlin 1895) 150-75; C. Meyer, Die Urkunden im 
Geschichtswerk des Thukydides (Munich 1955) 41-65; P. Karavites, "Spondai­
Spendein in the Fifth Century B.C.," AntCl 53 (1984) 60-70, esp. 67, where he 
equates o.vol(wj{ai and iX£j{Etpim with short-term u1tovOai. 

9 Separate from this discussion is the sacred or Olympic truce (Tj 'OA'U!l1ttari) 
f.K£j{npia); on this see Thuc. 5.49.3, Plut. Lye. 23, Xen. Hell. 4.2.16, IG IF 
1126.48f; also P. Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertumer3 (Munich 1920) 
192-95; and K. Latte, "Spondophoroi," RE III A.2 (1929) 1847-50. Note also 
Adcock and Mosley 11. 

10 A notice in [Ammonius] De vocab. difl 129f states that u1tovOai are types 
of agreements that are inscribed (a~ o.vaypo.<povta i). This is not to suggest that 
every truce, regardless of its duration, was inscribed and displayed on a stele; 
certainly armistices of short duration were not likely to be preserved on stone. 
Nevertheless, the late reference of Ammonius adds to the concept that O"1tOVOat 
and probably its synonyms, were formal agreements accompanied by 
traditional rituals. Cf Karavites (supra n.7) 69f. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

334 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

the negotiation of a brief armistice lasting a day or twO. 11 

Typically heralds conveyed the negotiating positions of each 
side prior to the issue's resolution. 12 Analogously, EV<J7wv8ol 
signifies those individuals party to an agreement,13 and a<J7WV80l 
those who have been excluded (Thuc. 3.113.2). 

Thucydides calls the ten-day armistice between Boeotia and 
Athens agreed upon after the Peace of Nicias in 4211420 £1tl<HtOV­
&Xi, i.e., "a treaty made after another" (LSJ S.v. £1tlc}"1tov8i] ).14 As 
Andrewes points out, this notice should have appeared directly 
after the text of the Peace (5.19), for as a truce concluded as a 
series of "additional clauses to a treaty" (5.32.5, S.v. 'tas 'tE 

8£XT\Jl£pOUC; £1tl<Htov8ac;) it would be natural for it to receive 
mention after the treaty between Athens and Sparta that Boeotia 
rejected. The apparent lack of connection between the Peace of 
Nicias and the Athenian/Boeotian truce termed £1tl01tOv8ac; 
makes sense if instead it means "a ten-day renewable armistice" 
totally separate from the Peace, and not as an appendix to it. 

Also at 5.32 Thucydides states that Corinth, whose avo1«(t)xi] 
with Athens was a01tov8oc;, sought one that was £1tl01tOv8ai. as 
Boeotia had. What does this imply? If an armistice was 
£1tl01tov8ai and thus, presumably, subject to the traditions 
suitable to the conclusion of 01tov8ai. and desirable, then one 

II W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War IV (Berkeley 1985) 153ff, esp. 
186-234, amasses all the literary and epigraphic evidence for the retrieval of 
corpses after battle. The earliest attested use of \mo(movom in the context of a 
battlefield truce occurs in Thucydides (1.63.3). For 'to: \moO'1tovoa as the truce 
itself see Thuc. 2.92.4. For the synonymous use of O'1tovOai see Paus. 3.5.5-8; 
Thuc. 3.113; 4.14.5, 38, 98-101, esp. 98.8. 

12 Pritchett (supra n.11) 159 and passim. 
IJ E.g. Thuc. 1.31.2, 40.4; Dio 38.10.1, but cf 54.9.1, where 'to EVO'1tOVOOV refers 

to an allied nation; cf also Thuc. 1.31.2,35.2,40.3; 3.10.6; Eur. Bacch. 924, 
where EvO'1tOvo<n signifies allies. 

H J. Classen's commentary on 5.32.5 U. CLASSEN, Thukydide5, edd. ]. Steup 
and R. Stark [repro Berlin 1966-77: hereafter 'Classen'] 5.7). £1ttO'1tovM~) points 
out that at 5.22.2, regarding the context of the Spartan-Athenian fifty-years' 
peace of 421, Argos had not wished to renew (£1tt0'1t£Vo£0'8al) her treaty with 
Sparta: • einen neuen Vertrag schliessen, einen ablaufenden Vertrag erneuern.» 
But cf LS] S.7). £1tlO1t£VOW med., "make a fresh treaty" (citing 5.22). Classen 
does not apply this meaning to the £1ttO'1tovoa~ at 5.32.5, however, but simply 
equates it with the O'1tovoa~ of 5.26.2. If the substantive £1tlO1tOVOa i can retain 
the middle-voice meaning of a renewed treaty, as opposed to additional nego­
tiations, then the at o£Xti~£pOl £mO'1tovoai at 5.32.5 might signify a 'ten-day 
renewable armistice'. See also E.-A. Betant, Lexicon Thucydideum (Geneva 
1843-47) 5.7). E1ttO'1tOVoai: "foedus post alterum factum." 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 335 

that was aO"1tOY()oc:; (as Thucydides seems to imply at 5.32.7) was 
insufficient, at least for Corinth's purposes. The alpha privative 
suggests that a cease-fire negotiated under such terms lacked the 
ritual pouring of libations and the taking of oaths. is Corinth's 
desire to alter the terms of her arrangement with Athens by 
equating it with the one Athens had struck with Boeotia, and her 
unsuccessful efforts to compel Boeotia to break off her truce 
with Athens if the negotiations failed (which they did), suggests 
that Corinth sought a more permanent and religiously sanc­
tioned arrangement. I accept as the most probable solution 
Grote's suggestion that the Corinthian-Athenian armistice was a 
de facto agreement lacking the appropriate oaths and libations. 16 

The same holds true with a polis that is El(J1tOY()oc:; in 
negotiations, not because the armistice is not ritually confirmed, 
but because the polis concerned is not party to an agreement at 
all. 17 

The Duration of Armistices. Truces and treaties of lengths 
from as little as one day's duration to as much as one made to 
endure forever occur throughout Greek literature. 18 Typically, 
those of relatively short duration (i.e., of one year or less) either 
dealt with the removal of the dead from fields of battle or 
provided for negotiations to secure a longer, lasting peace. 19 

15 So Andrewes ad 5.32.7 5.7). o.V01CCOX-f) ao1tOVooC;. 
16 G. Grote, A History of Greece (London 1888) V 423f. 
17 LSJ 5.7). EK01tOVOOC;: "out of the treaty, not a party thereto," Thuc. 3.68.1; 

Xen. Hell. 5.1.32; Oem. 19.44; Polyb. 21.30.5. At Thuc. 1.37.4, 'to ... ao1tOVOOV, 
which the Corcyreans possessed in 433 prior to the outbreak of the war, seems 
to signify a policy of neutrality, in the sense that Corcyra had avoided making 
alliances prior to the conflict with Corinth; cf 1.32.4 and R. A. Bauslaugh, The 
Concept of Neutrality in Classical Greece (Berkeley 1991) 7, 26, and 9, where 
he shows that the political rhetoric of the Corinthian speech makes a pointed 
reference to the (so-called) policy of nonalignment pursued by Corcyra; cf 13. 
See also Betant (supra n.14) 5.7). ao1tovooC;: "nullo foedere icto." 

18 The question of the terminology of treaties and their duration in Latin 
literature is similarly complex and will not be addressed here. Parallels with 
Greek political and military terms certainly exist, e.g. Liv. 9.41.5f (indutiae ); cf 
Dian. Hal. Ant. Rom. 8.68.4, 9.43.6, 10.46.12, 24.27.4 (indutiis). For the Latin 
terms used to distinguish between types of truces and treaties see Liv. 34.57.7ff; 
F. De Martino, Stona della costituzione romana2 (Naples 1973) II 63-68. 

19 The following excludes those truces enacted for the removal of the dead 
from the battlefield: Thuc. 4.39.1-3,118.1-119.2; 5.60.1 (cited at 5.63.1); Pluto 
Pel. 29.6; Oem. 18.164; Diod. 11.80.6; 14.38.3,80.8; Polyaenus, Strat. 2.1.8. On 
truces of short duration intended for various political reasons, such as 
negotiations or the encouragement of a change in the domestic or foreign 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

336 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

Those agreements concluded for a longer period of time 
generally should not be considered armistices but peace treaties 
and will not be discussed here, but several truces of various 
lengths of time merit special attention. 

A decree of Argos that includes provisions for Cnossos and 
Tylissos refers to a1tOVCUt of five days' duration. 2o Unfor­
tunately, the commentaries both of Meiggs and Lewis and of 
Volgraff do not address the duration of these provisions (col. II 

1SH): a1t/ovcav~ SEaSo 'v 'tOt C£OJ..lEvo/t 1tEv'tE uJ..lEpuv<;. The 
making of a five-days' truce arises only if a battle takes place and 
one of the other signatories to the overall agreement is absent 
(lines 17f). The causal relationship between this provision and 
the legality (SEaSo) of entering into a five-days' cease-fire, 
which follows directly after provisions for meeting in the federal 
assembly to forge new spondai (col. I 6-11) or to establish new 
relations with other poleis (cols. I-II 11-17), implies that the five 
days' truce would allow Argos, Cnossos, and Tylissos to consult 
with each other and attempt to solicit assistance from the allies 

policy of a polis, see D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece 
(Wiesbaden 1973) 68-74, esp. 68f. 

Truces often appear in the sources with no specified duration: Thuc. 3.4.4, 
109-111, 114.2; 4.16.1, 21.3, 23.1, 38.1, 58.1; 6.7.1; 8.17, 36ff, 57ff. (the three 
Spartan-Persian treaties); Diod. 14.39.6; Zonar. 8.17.3; IG P 86 and 61, 
Athenian relations with Methone and Macedon in 430. Here, no truce is 
mentioned but reference is made to negotiated terms, and the language 
suggests a cease-fire may have been in force. Cf Thuc. 3.114.3 (1 DO-year peace), 
5.18.9 (fifty years; see infra) 1.112.1 (five years). 

B. Keil, cited by J. de Romilly ("Guerre et paix entre cites," in J.-P. Vernant, 
ed., Problemes de la guerre en Grece ancienne [Paris 1968] 208), summarizes 
the function of a peace of specific duration, whether it is one lasting five years 
or a century: "La paix etait une interruption contractuelle de la guerre, et non 
la guerre une interruption de l'etat de paix." Karavites (supra n.7) 64-68, esp. 
67, collates the uses of spondailspendein in Thucydides and demonstrates that 
they could apply to treaties of various lengths, as well as to defensive alliances 
and truces. 

20 R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, edd., A Selection of Greek Historical 
Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. 2 (Oxford 1988) no. 42, esp. 
col. II 18H; 1. Chatzidakis, "Kvwcrtwv Kat TUAtcrtWV cruv9ilKTl," ArchEph (1914) 
94-98 (cd. prin.); I.Cret. I 307 (phot.). The most thorough commentary appears 
in W. Volgraff, "Le Decret d' Argos relatif a un pacte entre Knossos et 
Tylissos," VerhAkWetAmsterdam N.S. 51.2 (1948) 1-105. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 337 

not previously involved. 21 There is no indication that this 
potential truce provides for any other specific circumstance, 
such as the retrieval of corpses from a battlefield or of renewal. 

In 423/422 Athens and Sparta concluded a one-year armis­
tice.22 Thucydides expressly states in the text of the truce the 
reason for this cease-fire's duration (4.118.13): EV 'tou'tcp Xpovcp 
i6v'ta<; 00<; aAAllAou<; 1tPE(J~£l<; Kat KllPuKa<; 1tOl£l(J8al 'to\:><; 
AOyoU<;. Ka8' on E(J'tatll Ka'taAU<Jl<; 'tou 1toAEIlOU. This armistice 
clearly served as a hiatus during which negotiations towards a 
more lasting peace might proceed. No provision, however, 
existed for this truce's renewal, and after the year ended the 
truce expired. 23 

Polybius, in a number of passages pertaining to the events of 
the early second century, illustrates the purpose of a short 
armistice, specifically of ten or fifteen days and on one occasion 
of four months: the period of the cease-fire permitted 
negotiation toward a permanent peace. In 197 T. Flamininus 
granted Philip V a fifteen-day cease-fire in order to confer and 
settle the war (18.34.5). The same year saw Flamininus grant 
Antiochus and the Aetolians four months during which they 
were to work towards a peaceful settlement (18.39.5). When 
Phaineas and the Aetolians sought peace with Rome in 191 M'. 
Acilius Glabrio conferred upon them a ten-day truce for the 
purpose of negotiations (20.9.5); and when more time was 
needed, he renewed it for another ten days (20.10.12: 1taAlV 
avoXCx<; au'tol<; 808ftvat 8£X1WEpOU<;). The Aetolians rejected 
Glabrio's proposals and o8£v alla 'tep 8l£A8£lV 'ta<; EV 'tat<; 

21 The only discussion of this portion of the text, in Chatzidakis' initial 
publication, suggests this scenario: "[6pi~E'tat D'tt] .,. (Xv aUIl1tAaxn d~ llaXTlV 
7tpO~ Ex8pov it hEpa 'tOOV aUllllaxl0Ulv. Ill] 1tapov'tUlv 'tOOV au IlllaxUlv , ot £XOV'tE~ 
QVU"fl'T1V ~oTl8da~ OOq>£tAOV va OUVU1t'tUlcrt 1tEV'tE lJll£poov QVaKUlxfIv. £Ul~ o{) 
<p9uon ~eE1a." 

22 Thuc. 4.117ff; 5.1.1,16.1. 

23 Thuc. 5.1.1. Note that during this armlstlce meetings took place to 
consider whether the period of one year could be extended (5.15.2). There 
were in most treaties no provisions for renewal but provisions that stipulated 
the abrogations that would cause the termination of an agreement-e.g. Thuc. 
1.23.4; 4.16.2; cf Meiggs and Lewis (supra n.20) no. 20. 

A good example of a treaty's expiration can be found at Xen. I-Iell. 5.2.1-4, 
on the Peace of Antalcidas and the thirty-years' peace of 418 after Mantinea. 
The only example in Thucydides in which a treaty or truce stipulates 
provisions of renewal occurs in the text of the Peace of Nicias (5.18.10f). This 
renewal occurred annually and the Peace was to endure for a considerable 
length of time. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

338 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

avOxat<; TtJl.Epa<; Ka'taJl.Ovo<; a1jet<; 6 1tOAEJl.O<; EyqoVEt 'tOt<; 
Ai'tffiA.ol<;. Here Polybius explicitly states that a ten-day truce had 
to be externally renewed and if not, no renewal occurred. 

In another passage Polybius refers to a truce of six months 
(21.5.11) and provides a reason for seeking a truce longer than 
one of ten or fifteen days. When the Aetolians learned that the 
redress sought could not be obtained from the Roman general 
in the field, L. Scipio, but only from the Roman Senate, the 
Aetolians asked for and received a six-month armistice in order 
to send an embassy to Rome (21.5.11). 

These passages from Polybius demonstrate that by the mid­
second century at avoxai. of specified duration were sought 
and/or granted to facilitate negotiations for peace, and the length 
of armistices depended upon the time needed for travel and 
discussion. In addition, the renewal of an armistice was not 
implicit but could be conferred or, perhaps, agreed upon jointly, 
if additional time was needed to establi sh a political or mili tary 
response to a particular situation. 

Similar circumstances arise in a number of passages in 
Thucydides. He describes in the events preceding the Spartan 
siege of Plataea in 429 a situation in which an armistice serves to 
facilitate negotiations. Archidamus offered the Plataeans con­
ditions under which they would evacuate their city until the end 
of the war, at which time the Spartans would return it intact. 
Bound already by oaths to the Athenians and with the Spartan 
army encamped on the Plataean border, the Plataeans requested 
an armistice (2.73.1: <J1tElcra<Jeat ... EKEAEUOV), during which time 
Archidamus would not violate their territory: 6 O£ TtJl.Epa<; 'tE 
E<J1tElcra'to EV at<; dxo<; ~v K0Jl.tcrellVat, Kat "Cilv YllV OUK E'tEJl.VEV 
(2.73.1).24 

A similar scenario arises immediately after the Athenian vic­
tory at Pylos in 425. In order to secure the release of the 
hostages on the island the Spartans decided to approach the 
Athenian strategoi and <J1tovOa<; 1tOtTlcraJl.EVou<; 'ta 1tEpt ITUAov 
a1to<J'tEtAal E<; 'tu<; 'Aeilva<; 1tPE<J~Et<; 1tEpt SUIl~acrEffi<; (4.15.2).25 
The provisions of the cr1tovOai. are given at 4.16, including the 
stipulation that if either side breaks any ponion of the truce the 
armistice shall terminate (4.16.2). The armistice, otherwise, 

24 "He gave them an armistice for the days during which it was reasonable 
to journey [to Athens] and did no damage to the land." 

25 ...... concluding an armistice at Pylos, to send ambassadors to Athens with 
a view to ending the war." 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 339 

remained in force until the Spartan presbeis returned from 
Athens. 

Neither of these examples from Thucydides mentions the 
duration of the armistice but from the contexts the length of 
each truce must have been brief. 26 Armistices of short duration 
served particular political and military purposes. The ten-day 
armistice seems to have had very limited use outside the period 
of the Peloponnesian War; the only other recorded incident 
involved the Aetolians and Romans in 191, and in this case it is 
clear that renewal would have occurred only under external 
influence, not from some implicit understanding intrinsic to ten­
day armistices. The type of ten-day truce negotiated by Athens 
with other Greek states in the late fifth century, specifically in 
the period just after the Peace of Nicias, seems to have been an 
institution unique to Athens that permitted a continuation of the 
status quo. Thucydides is curiously silent about the rcason for, 
and advantages of, entering into such an agreement. Perhaps it 
served as a temporary expedient for the Athenians to maintain 
the cease-fire negotiated by Nicias with those Peloponnesian 
allies reluctant to become signatories to the Peace of 421. Were 
these ten-day armistices sufficient for travel, discussion, and the 
formulation of a response to a situation or did they signify 
something else? 

II. Thucydides and Ten-Day Armistices 

As I noted earlier, Andrewes interprets Thucydides' refer­
ences to ten-day cease-fires as those that are terminable at ten­
days' notice and rejects the idea of an armistice renewed every 
ten days. The analysis of the adjective DEXfUH:PO<; (supra 330ff) 
indicates that a truce so described means "lasting ten days" and 
the definition offered by Andrewes must be rejected. It remains 
then to define further a ten-day armistice and establish that this 
definition suits the contexts in which they occur in Thucydides' 
account. 

26 Aulus Gellius (N A 1.25) quotes Varro's definition of a truce (indutiae), 
which is described as a peace lasting for a few days in a military camp, during 
which a state of war continues although fighting ceases. Gellius rightly points 
out that a truce can last longer than a few days, but that its general meaning 
connotes no fighting and no trouble up to a fixed time, after which all laws of 
war are again in force. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

340 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

The end of winter and the beginning of spring of 422/421 saw 
the conclusion of the Peace of Nicias, a treaty that Thucydides 
labels (mov<>ai (5.18.11), ~uJlPacrl<;, and dpfJvT) (5.17.2). Soon 
after the finalizaton of this treaty, just before the summer of 
421/420 (5.24.2), Athens and Sparta negotiated a separate alliance 
(~uJlJlaxia, e.g. 5.25.1).27 Boeotia and Athens had concluded a 
ten-day truce shortly after this alliance, presumably at the 
beginning of the summer of 4211420 (5.32.5). The Corinthians 
approached the Boeotians and asked them to help them gain a 
ten-day truce from Athens-the same type of truce Boeotia had 
with Athens-in the same summer (5.32.1: '[ou 8EPOU<; 
'[ou'[OU ).28 If the Boeotian-Athenian armistice began at the onset 
of the summer of 421/420, an examination of the chronological 
sequence of events concerning Corinth during this season 
reveals the following: 

27 For analyses of the relations between Athens and the allies of Sparta after 
this alliance see R. J. Buck, "The Athenian Dominance of Boeotia," CP 65 
(1970) 217-27; H. D. Westlake, "Thucydides and the Uneasy Peace," CQ NS. 

21 (1971) 315-25; R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 338-50, 462; 
D. J. Mosley, "Diplomacy in Classical Greece," AncSoc 3 (1972) 1-16 and 
"Greek Perpetual Alliances in Macedon," Ri7JStorAnt 2 (1972) 7-11. 

28 5.26.2: KUl oi btl 8p9:lCT)\; ~U)l)lUXOl ouoi:v ~ooov 1tOA£)ltOl ~ouv BOU.o'tOl 't£ 
EK£XElpiuv OEXi))lEPOV ~yov. In Classen's text and commentary this phrase is 
bracketed as an insertion. Among the reasons offered for its unlikely 
Thucydidean origin is the author's failure to refer to the actual state of affairs 
between Athens and the Thracian Chalcidice (in the light of 6.7.4, on which 
see infra n.30), which admitted the same type of ten-day armistice Boeotia is 
described as maintaining. Yet, although they are 1tOA£)llOl, Athens and the 
Thracian Chalcidice do not renew hostilities actively between 421 and 415 
(although Dion reduces Thyssos in Acte, allied to Athens, in 421: see 5.35.1 
with Andrewes ad loco on the Ms. problems; and in the winter of this year, 
Olynthos took Mecyberna, which was garrisoned by Athens: see 5.39) and 
when Sparta sent to the Chalcidice to enlist their support against Athens by 
supporting Perdiccas, they refused (6.7.4), thereby maintaining the armistice. 
Perhaps the seeming contradiction between the notices in 5.26.2 and 6.7.4 
simply reflect an omission on Thucydides' part; it does not seem to reflect an 
error, for the parties to an armistice could with reason be described as ItOAC)ltOl. 
Nicias' speech before the ecclesia in 415 confirms the hostile, if perhaps static, 
relationship still in force between Athens and the Chalcidice (6.10.5: XUAKlOll\; 
yE oi EItl 8p~lCT)\; E'tT1 'to(JUtl'tU U<PE(HOn:E\; u<p' 1])lOW £'tl uXEiPOl'tOl dOl). The 
tenor of Nicias' remarks reflects the temporary nature of the armistices 
maintained with Sparta's allies who would revert to hostilities at the first 
opportunity (6.10.3f). Another solution would put the conclusion of the 
Athenian-Chalcidicean armistice sometime after 421 but before 415, and 
reference to it would not appear in 5.26.2. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 341 

(1) Corinth sends an embassy to Argos, discusses a possible 
alliance, and returns home (5.27). 

(2) Corinth receives a deputation from Sparta, which tries to 
prevent Corinth from deserting Sparta and joining Argos. 
Corinth dismisses the Spartans with the promise to discuss the 
question. An Argive embassy present at Corinth urges the 
alliance but is put off until the next meeting (5.30). 

(3) An Elean embassy arrives at Corinth and fashions an 
alliance with her. Corinth and the Chalcidice then join the 
Argive alliance while the Boeotians and the Megarians take no 
action (5.31). 

(4) About the same time during this summer Athens reduces 
Scione and returns the Delians to Delos. Also, Phocis and 
Locris go to war (5.32.1£). 

(5) Corinth and Argos send envoys to Tegea to urge her to 
revolt from Sparta. Corinth then approaches the Boeotians and 
attempts to convince them to join an alliance with Corinth and 
Argos. 

At this point the Corinthians ask the Boeotians to accompany 
them to Athens and obtain for them a ten-day truce like the one 
Athens and Boeotia negotiated at the beginning of the summer. 
The Boeotians and Corinthians proceed to Athens but are 
unsuccessful in gaining a ten-day truce for Corinth. Boeotia 
refuses to denounce her armistice with the Athenians. 

Due to the considerable number of negotiations that involved 
Corinth at this time, it is safe to assume that from the initial 
Boeotian-Athenian armistice until the arrival of the Boeotian­
Corinthian embassy in Athens more than ten days had elapsed. 
In addition, the status that Boeotia had with Athens and that 
Corinth sought implies that a ten-day armistice did not provide 
enough time to negotiate peaceful terms. 29 Furthermore, if the 
armistice was not somehow renewable, there would be no 

29 Note also that according to the "Old Oligarch" (Alh. Pol. 3.1H) there 
were often delays, lasting as long as one year, in Athens for those wishing to 
consult with the boule and the demos (3.2). At 3.1 the author emphasizes the 
delays and difficulties of foreigners (which would include envoys) getting an 
audience in Athens. It seems unlikely that envoys involved in presenting 
testimony relevant to major foreign policy decisions could undergo 
considerable delay, to which I G P 40 appears to speak. In this text, in which 
Chalcis treats with Athens ca 446/445, hearings are granted within ten days to 
any deputation from Chalcis (lines 12ff). This certainly appears to confirm the 
Old Oligarch's observations. See also IG IF 96,128; Adcock and Mosley 170. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

342 TEN-DA Y ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

reason why Corinth needed a ten-day truce unless battle had 
just recently been joined and time was required to regroup; no 
such event, however, had occurred. 

Thucydides makes clear at the end of 5.32.7 the precise 
difference between the status of Boeotia and Corinth in terms of 
Athens. The ten-day truce between Athens and Boeotia, and for 
that matter between Athens and the Thracian Chalcidice,3o 
probably gained religious sanction through the administration of 
oaths and the pouring of libations. This assumption derives from 
the juxtaposition of the description of Boeotia's truce (5.32.7: 
(ntov8a<;) with that of Corinth's (5.32.7: amtOv80<;).31 In other 
words, Corinth's present armistice with Athens, unlike the 
Boeotian-Athenian relationship, was not ratified according to 
custom. Corinth then eagerly sought the type of cessation of 
hostilities Athens maintained with Boeotia and the Chalcidice, 
one that was K<l'tCx 'tCx 1ta'tpt<l. 

If ten days were insufficient for negotiations leading towards 
peace and yet there were no explicit provisions for the renewal 
of a ten-day armistice, a number of interpretations arise. Such a 
truce might have lasted only ten days; but then, surely Corinth 
would not seek so eagerly to engage Athens in a short term 
agreement whose termination approached so abruptly. Or, 
implicit in a ten-day cease-fire lay a perpetual, de facto renewal 

30 6.7.4. In 416/415 Thucydides says that the Thracian Chalcidice was 
observing a ten-dap' armistice with Athens, which the scholiast attempts to 
clarify ('to\l't£<J'tlV otcrnenv flE'tCx 'trov 'A~vat(ov UTtT1PXOV at O£Xtlflrp<n crTtovOat ). 
If the Chalcidice belongs to the group of Spartan allies mentioned at 6.10.3, 
who had had such an armistice since the Peace of Nicias, and who had not 
signed the Peace, as the Chalcidice did not, then this relationship had endured 
for five years (see supra n.28). Classen remarks that Ot Of Kat ... au'tOt 
Ka't£xov'ta t (6.10.3) refers to "namentlich die Booter nach 5,26,2 und die 
thrakischen Chalkidier nach 6,7,4." The ultimate source for this notion, which 
seems correct, is Doukas, quoted by E. F. Poppo, ed., Thucydidis De Bello 
Peloponnesiaco Libri Octo (Gotha 1843-51) S.'V. Ot Of Ka'tExoV'tat: " OU'tOt den 
B<n(O't01. [5.26, 32] Kat ot XaAKtOrtt; [Ttt 8p~1CTlt; [6.7J." Poppo suggests that 
"Addendi videntur Megarenses. vid. V,17.3l." Thucydides never explicitly 
states that Megara and Athens had entered into a ten-day cease-fire, but 
Poppo's suggestion is not unreasonable, especially in light of the unsuccessful 
offensive and defensive alliance between Boeotia, Corinth, Megara, and 
Thrace in 421 (5.38). For the complicated relationships between the Spartan 
allies who did not sign the Peace of Nicias see 5.17.2,31, esp. 31.6, 47. 

31 See supra n.16. Grote draws from comments made by T. Arnold, 
Thucydides 4 (Oxford 1857); see also Andrewes ad 5.32.7. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 343 

that endured until one of the parties broke the agreement. 32 The 
latter scenario envisions an armistice renewed every ten days, 
and diplomatic convention precluded the necessity for this 
provision to be stipulated expressly in a negotiated ten-day 
truce. Andrewes rejected this latter suggestion because he 
envisioned risks of miscalcultion that would render useless such 
an agreement. Thucydides makes some pointed remarks on 
precise chronological calculations that counter Andrewes' 
position. A consideration of the historian's discussion of the 
events surrounding the Athenian-Spartan truce of 423/422 will 
support this view. 

The one-year truce between Athens and Sparta began on the 
fourteenth day of Elaphebolion at Athens in 423/422;33 during 
the truce, 1tp£O"~£t~ Kat KllPuKc~ travelled between the two 
states to negotiate an end to the war (4.118.13). Thucydidcs 
provided the precise date for the beginning of the truce, in part 
to explain the events concerning the revolt of Scione in the 
spring of this same year (4.122.3): 'AplO"'tOVUIlOe; ... LKuDvaloue; bE 
aiO"SoIlEYOe; EK AoytO"Il0U 'tmY illlEpmv on UO"'tEPOV a<pEO"'tllKolEv, 
OUK E<PTl EvO"novboue; EO"EO"Sal. BpaO"lbae; bE av't£A£YE 1tOAAa, cDe; 
1tPO'tEpOY, Kat OUK a<plEt 'tT)V nOAlv. 34 Aristonymus then sent a 
message to Athens, which prepared to attack Scione. Sparta, 
trusting Brasidas, sent envoys to Athens to warn the Athenians 
that this constituted an abrogation of the armistice. Athens 
ignored Sparta's warning and resolved to destroy Scione, for dXE 
bE Kat il aAllSna 1tcpt 'tile; anOO"'taO"EWe; llaAAOV n Ot 'ASTlvalol 
EblKaiouy· buo yap illlEpale; UO"'tEPOV a1tEO"'tTlO"aY Ot LKlWyalOl 
(4.122.6).35 Although Thucydides rejected as imprecise dating 
systems that relied upon eponymous magistrates, he recognized 
that individual poleis throughout Greece employed calendrical 

32 See Classen ad 5.26.2 s.'v. ExEXOptOV OEX~flEPOV: "einen Waffenstillstand, 
'den man aile 10 Tage erneuerte (erneuen musste), Kruger: vgl. 32.5ff; 6,7,4. 
10,3." This interpretation accurately explains the meaning of the adjective 
O£X'iflEPO<; in the context of truces; unfortunately, Classen docs not pursue the 
issue nor elucidate further. 

)) 4.118.12. Probably the same day when ratification by oath occurred at 
Sparta, on the 12 lh of Gerastios (4.119.2). 

H "Aristonymus, finding on a calculation of the dates that the Scionians had 
revolted after the agreement, said that they would not be included in the truce. 
But Brasidas made many counter-arguments, that they had revolted before 
the agreement, and would not give up the city." 

35 " ... moreover the truth about the revolt was rather as the Athenians 
claimed; for the Scionians revolted two days after the agreement." 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

344 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

calculations to conduct interstate relations. The confusion 
surrounding the truce of 423/422 proves that calendrical 
conflicts involving a specific date could be resolved, at least by 
the historian. If this truce had undergone a number of implicit 
renewals it is conceivable the confusion would have been 
substantially enhanced. 

Thucydides' final reference to ten-day armistices supports the 
notion that such agreements were continually renewed. Nicias, 
addressing the Athenians in 416/415, warns them that if they 
depart for Sicily, considerable military threats will remain at 
home (6.10.3): a:A./",' Ot /lEv a.vnKp'\)~ 1to/"'£/101)O'tV, ot 8E Kut8uJ. 'to 
AUK£8ut/lov{0,\)~ En 1l0'UXasEtv 8tXT\/l£pOt~ 0'1tOV8Ul~ KUt uu'tOt 
KU'tEXOV'tUl. 'taxu 8' liv l'crW~, d 8ixu ll/lWV 't~v 8UVU/llV Aa~olEv 
... Kut1taV1.) liv ~uVE7tt90lV'tO KU'ttJ. LlKEAtw'twv. ~ In other words, 
among the states who would not accept the Peace of Nicias, 
some, presumably including Boeotia and the Thracian Chal­
cidice and perhaps Megara, were still preserving ten-day truces 
from 421 to 415 that they might abrogate. If enough 
disagreement could arise over the timing of a revolt with the 
inception of a truce that Sparta and Athens could prepare to 
break that truce, then it seems implausible that a tacitly renewed 
armistice could remain valid for six years.37 

I suggest that although these cease-fires contained no explici t 
provisions for renewal, there was an understanding based upon 
diplomatic convention that they were renewed continually. I 
envision a system of renewal that would be mutually convenient 
and verifiable, and conducted by official representatives of a 
polis to guarantee validity. 

III. Heralds, Ambassadors, and Proxenoi 
and their Roles in Diplomatic Relations 

What steps did poleis employ to negotiate and maintain ten­
day armistices? The Ii terary evidence closel y links heralds and 

36 ·Some [of the states that did not sign the Peace] are openly at war [with 
us], and others, because the Spartans have continued to remain inactive, are 
maintaining ten-day armistices [with us]. It is very likely that if they should 
find our power divided ... they will be very eager to make war [on us] along 
with the Siceliotes." 

37 Such an arrangement would require more than 200 implicit renewals! 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 345 

ambassadors in their roles as diplomatic representatives. 38 

Typically one herald with an unspecified number of ambas­
sadors negotiated terms of peace39 and received safe conduct. 40 
In Thucydides heralds usually act as negotiators for warring 
states during the Pe1oponnesian War.41 The herald's participation 
in negotiations was limited to wartime. States imposed certain 
limitations on them and reserved for ambassadors the more 
extensive powers of negotiating during periods of peace.42 

The duties of heralds on an international scale include "Ie 
declarations de guerre,43 les treves,44 l' enlevement des morts sur 

38 Thuc. 4.118.13 (discussed supra 343ff). Included among the list of priorities 
that the Athenian ecclesia or boule addressed was the reception of heralds and 
ambasadors: Aeschin. 1.23, cf 1.20; Dem. 19.185; Arist. Ath. Pol. 30.5,43.1,6; 
Pollux 8.96. See also 1: Thuc. 1.29; Pi. Leg. 941 A; IG 12 114A8f, f3 105 for the 
collection of laws dealing with the boule. P. J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the 
Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia (Oxford 1981) 398, 529, addresses the 
complications arising from the confusion in the sources as to which Athenian 
assemblies handled sacred or profane business. 

39 See e.g. Aeschin. 3.62. Mosley (supra n.19: 21-29) discusses the charges 
given envoys by a state "'to achieve whatever benefits they could" (25); cf IG 
IF 43.74f. Herodotus (7.9.2~) has Mardonius, in his condemnation of Greek 
behavior, observe that states might employ heralds to settle their differences 
rather than enter into open conflict. 

40 Aeschin. 2.18. On the inviolability of heralds see [Dem.] 12.2ff (note that 
in 12.2 both heralds and ambassadors possess sacrosanctity); Pluto Per. 30.3; 
Eur. Heracl. 271; D. Lateiner, "Heralds and Corpses in Thucydides," CW 71 
(1977) 97-106, esp. 99; de Romilly (supra n.19) 207-20; P. Ducrey, "Aspects 
juridiqucs de la victoire et du traitement des vaincus," in Vernant (supra n.19) 
231--44; on heralds and their inviolability see L. M. Wery, "Le meutre des 
herauts de Darius en 491 et l'inviolabilite du heraut," AntCI 35 (1966) 468-86, 
esp. 468 n.1, 480 nA3 for previous bibliography; Y. Garlan, War in the Ancient 
World: A Social History (London 1975) 529; for a succinct discussion and 
collection of the sources, see Mosley (supra 19) 81-92. 

41 E.g. 1.29.1; 2.204, 5.5, 6.2f, 12.2; 3.24.2, 52.2f, 113; 4.30.4, 37f, 68.3, 97.2-99, 
114.2, 118.6, 13; 5.80; 6.32. 

42 LSJ S.v. "KllPUS (l.1.a), distinguishes between "KllPU"K£S and 1tpt(}'~£tS (s.v.: 
1tP£(}'~£uc;, "ambassador") by describing the former as "messengers between 
nations at war"; see Suda S.v. Kf1pu~ EV 1tOA£J.lCP, 1tp£apUS EV dp~vn ; cf Andoc. 
3.23; Isoc. 4.177; Dem. 19.134. But cf Lateiner (supra nAO) 100. 

Thucydides depicts the herald as a messenger in times of conflict when he 
contrasts the herald's role in the periods before and after the outbreak of the 
Peloponnesian War; cf 1.146,2.1. 

43 E.g. Paus. 4.5.8; Polyaenus Strat. 4.71.11. On a 'heraldless' war (a~pu1C'tOS 
1tOA£J.l0S) see Hdt. 5.81.2; Xen. Anab. 3.3.5; Pluto Per. 30.2; Aeschin. 2.37. 

H Aeschin. 3.62; Xen. HelL 4.7.3; cf Aeschin. 2.13. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

346 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

Ie champ de bataille, les negociations de tout genre."45 These 
responsibilities are supplemented by the herald's role in the 
negotiations preceding an armistice 46 and in proclaiming it once 
it is concluded (Thuc. 4.117.1, 119.3, 122.1). Although never 
specified by Thucydides it seems logical to assume that ten-day 
armistices represent another type of truce that a herald would 
announce after assisting in the conclusion of such an agreement. 

If heralds were actively engaged in the initial stages of this 
process, could states have charged them with the responsibili ty 
of renewing these armistices every ten days? In the case of 
Athens in the late fifth century, a corps of heralds would have 
been required, given that at least four states 47 might have been 
linked to her through ten-day truces. Epigraphic evidence 
indicates that on various occasions states dispatched a number of 
heralds to conduct business overseas. An Athenian decree from 
Eleusis (IG 13 78.22ff) ca 422 provides for the dispatch of heralds 
by the boule to the allies to inform them of the results of a vote 
of the demos. 48 A second document from the same period 
indicates the size of the corps of heralds employed by Athens 
for such purposes. The reassessment of 425/424 (IG 13 71.4-7) 
specifies that eight heralds-one to Ionia, one to Caria, and two 
each to Thrace, the islands, and the Hellespont-will travel to 
the corners of the empire to announce the new assessment. The 
availability of at least eight heralds at a given moment in Athens 
demonstrates that the boule had at its disposal a number of 
individuals who could, when required, conduct governmental 
affairs abroad. 49 Although the evidence is sparse, other states 
also apparently utilized a corps of heralds to conduct the 
preliminary stages of diplomatic business. 50 Athens then was not 

45 E. Pottier, "Praeco," DarSag 4.1 (1907) 609. 
46 E.g. Dem. 19.163-65; Pollux 4.91, 92ff; 8.138. 
47 Boeotia, the Thracian Chalcidice, Megara, and Corinth; sce supra n.30. 
48 An early bu: thorough commentary on this tcxt is provided by P. Foucart, 

"Inscription d' Eleusis du yrne siecle," BCH 4 (1880) 225-56, esp. 235f; on the 
date of the inscription see B. D. Meritt, "First-Fruits at Eleusis," CW 56 (1962) 
39-41. 

49 Cf Meiggs and Lewis (supra n.20) no. 45, the Coinage Decree (Kos fr., 
sect. 9), where half as many heralds are dispatched by the boule. 

50 Two inscriptions from Nemea outline the dispatch of heralds for state 
business (S. G. Miller, "Excavations at Nemea, 1978," Hesperia 48 [1979] 
73-103 at 77-80 with pI. 22a-c): one indicates that at least twelve theoroi were 
dispatched to announce the Nemean games, while the other lists the 
theorodokoi of the festival at Nemea and the sacred truce who were sent 
throughout the Mediterranean. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 347 

alone in having a relatively large professional corps of heralds 
that could convey messages to all areas of the Greek world. 

The sources are imprecise about the full complement of 
heralds available for diplomatic dispatch, although we do learn 
that various political organs operating in Athens retained their 
own heralds in addition to the aforementioned state represen­
tatives. 51 We do not know if Athens or any other polis enlisted 
the service of urban heralds for foreign affairs (or if such a 
distinction was drawn), but the epigraphic evidence cited infra 
suggests that a sufficient corps was available to handle diplomatic 
business abroad. Was it practical to dispatch a herald often 
enough to renew an armistice every ten days? 

The problem with the frequent renewal of an armistice arises 
not from the available number of representatives that any state 
might dispatch but from the time taken by a herald's journey to 
and from a contractual party. More than 360 km., either by land 
or sea, separates Athens and the Thracian Chalcidice, the 
farthest state with which Athens negotiated a ten-day truce. 
Studies on travel in antiquity do not address precisely the time 
needed for diplomatic journeys to various regions of the ancient 
world; they focus either on leisurely visits by tourists 52 or on 
long-distance runners moving at a maximum speed of roughly 
130-200 km. per day. 53 The latter pace finds some confirmation 
in two notices in Thucydides. At 3.3.5 a man clearly in a hurry 

51 The most prominent and active herald in Athens was that of the boule 
and demos; for a brief discussion of his duties see B. D. Merit and J. S. Traill, 
Agora XV (1974) 14.]. Oehler ("Keryx," RE 11 [1922] 349-57) and Pottier 
(supra n.45) review the other official heralds in the city, including the herald 
(and flautist) of the nine archons (Alh. Pol. 62.2, cf 56.2), the logistai (Aeschin. 
3.23), the Areopagos, etc. Separate from these 'political' officials were the 
kerykes of the Eleusinian Mysteries, filled by a particular genos at Athens; see 
Ath. Pol. 39.2, 57.1; Rhodes (supra n.38) s.v.; PI. Pol. 290Af, cf 260D; for a genos 
of heralds at Sparta see Hdt. 6.60. 

In addition, Ath. Pol. 66.1, 68.4, and 69.1 state that each of the dikasteria 
had its own herald. Paus. 1.28.5, 8-11 and L Ar. Plut. 277 suggest nine or ten 
dikasteria (court buildings, not courts). The total number of courts can not be 
determined from the available evidence. Cf Busolt (supra n.8) 1154f; E. S. 
Staveley, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections (Ithaca 1972) 96; R. J. 
Bonner and G. Smith, The Administration of Justice from Homer to Aristotle 
(London 1930-38) I 234f, 239, 244-47; Aeschin. 1.79; Ar. Vesp. 752. 

52 See e.g. L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London 1974). 
53 V. J. Matthews, "The Hemerodromoi: Ultra Long-Distance Running in 

Antiquity," CW 68 (1974) 161-69; H. M. Lee, "Modern Ultra-Long Distance 
Running and Philippides' Run from Athens to Sparta," AneW 9 (1984) 107-13. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

348 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

travels from Athens to Geraetos in Euboea by land (m:CfI), sails 
on a merchant ship 54 and arrives in M ytilene on the third day 
after departing from Athens. This constitutes a total of ca 360 
km. and an overall average of 120-80 km. per day. Demosthenes 
and his army marched from Nemea to Potidania in Aetolia in 
one day (3.96.lf), a distance of approximately 130 km. In both 
instances the travellers appear to move at a maximum pace; if a 
herald on a diplomatic mission had to journey 360 km., the pace 
would preseumably have been slower. Herodotus calculates a 
day's journey at 200 stades (37 km.) in flat territory (4.101.2) but 
only 150 stades (28 km.) through more mountainous terrain 
(5.53). Therefore, if a herald travelled at a standard, less than 
hectic pace through uneven territory he would cover 360 km in 
ten to thirteen days. 

In other words, if a herald, charged with renewing an 
armistice, spent more than the total period of truce in transit, 
then a number of heralds were required. This would necessitate 
a series of heralds travelling to and from each contractual partner 
on a continual basis, which seems an unlikely scenario. The 
process of renewal might better be accomplished if each state 
could invest the power to renew pacts made between states 
upon local inhabitants, such as proxenoi, whose official ob­
ligations often limited their spheres of influence to the states in 
which they resided. 

The status of a proxenos in the state in which he worked 
seems to have seen considered 'official' in the sense that he was 
expected to perform services for the state he represented on a 
local as well as international level. Adcock and Mosley (122), on 
the basis of an etymological analysis, deduce that the proxenos 
did not have an official position in his own state of residence. 
That the proxenos did not participate in an 'official' function in 

54 Xen. Anab. 6.4.2 states that on a "long day" (~J.ltpo.~ J.lo.)(pa~) a trireme 
could sail from Byzantium east along the Black Sea to Heracleia. J. S. 
Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships 900-322 B.C. (Cambridge 
1968) 309, calculate this distance at approximately 140 miles and the speed of 
the ship at less than eight to as many as twelve knots per hour. This 
calculation applies only to a trireme sailing twe!ve to eighteen hours per day; a 
merchant ship (6A.)(a~) sailed day and night at a slower pace. Assuming a 
speed of four knots per hour, the distance from Geraistos to Mytilene would 
consume about thirty-one hours, leaving as much as forty-one hours to trave! 
from Athens to Geraistos, and an average of ca 120-70 km. per day. See also 
Thuc. 2.97.1; Hdt. 1.72.3; and W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on 
Herodotus (Oxford 1912) I 93. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 349 

the sense of a state magistracy does not affect the notion that 
only the proxenos could be expected to serve a foreign power 
on a regular basis. For example, although not considered 
inviolable, proxenoi on occasion did receive guarantees of 
protection, a surety usually afforded heralds in their official 
capacity as interstate agents. 55 

Epigraphic and literary evidence reveals a handful of examples 
in which proxenoi assisted visiting envoys from the states the 
proxenoi represented. 56 Pherax of Sparta, the proxenos of 
Thebes in 3911390, offered to conduct visiting Theban envoys to 
the Spartan authorities (Xen. Hell. 4.5.6). When Sphodrias was 
raiding Athenian territory in 378 with a Spartan force, an 
embassy from Sparta was found in the home of Callias, their 
proxenos in Athens (Xen. Hell. 5.4.22). An inscription from 
M ytilene, from perhaps the second century B.C., records honors 
awarded Cleosthenes son of Cleophon of Athens, who as the 
Mytilenean proxenos reported to the boule that he had served 
ably a delegation from MytileneY 

Proxenoi frequently acted on behalf of the states they 
represented as diplomatic agents 58 and a considerable corpus of 
inscriptions records the honors subsequently received for their 

55 I G P 156.14-17 records such a guarantee to Leonidas of Halicarnassos in 
ca 440-425; see R. Meiggs, "A Note on Athenian Imperialism," CR 63 (1949) 
9-12, esp. 11 f, for a collection of epigraphic evidence addressing protection 
awarded proxenoi. On the judicial standing of proxenoi see P. Gauthier, 
Symbola: Les itrangers et la justice dans les cites grecques (=MemAnnEst 42 
[Nancy 1972]) 137ff (on Athens), noff (elsewhere); F. Gschnitzer, "Proxenos," 
R E Supp!. 13 (1973) 722-26. 

56 The consensus among modern scholars supports this view: see Mosley 
(supra n.19) ch. II, esp. 6, who cites examples from the fifth and fourth 
centuries when states provided guarantees of safety to their proxenoi to 
substantiate the claim that these agents actively assisted the states they 
represented; P. Monceaux, "Proxenia," DarSag 4.1 (1907) 736f; K. von Fritz 
and E. Kapp, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens and Related Texts (New York 
1950) 161 n.4; see Adcock and Mosley 161. 

Ar. Av. 1021 reflects the preeminence of the proxenos in the reception of 
visitors from the state he represents: when an episkopos arrives in one of the 
allied cities his first reaction is to ask the question, "Where are the proxenoi?" 
(1tOV 1tp6~£vOt;). On the self-perceived role of a proxenos see Xen. Hell. 6.1.4. 

57 I G XII.2 18.1-5, esp. 3: 1tp£(J~£u ]cml~ Et)£py£'tlllCL For another possible 
example of a proxenos receiving honors for assisting an embassy see J G 13 227 
and J. Pecirka, The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions 
(Prague 1966) 22ff; cf 352 with n.64 infra. 

58 PallS. 3.8.4; Lys. 19.19; Thuc. 2.29.1 (Nymphodorus; see 351 infra), 85.5; 
5.59.4-60.1,76.3; 8.92.8; Xen. Hell. 1.1.35; 4.5.6; 6.1.4, 3.4; cf Hdt. 8.136. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

350 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

services. On other occasions individuals performed services for 
foreign states and received grants of proxeny as a result. 59 In 
some cases ambassadors, upon their return from successful 
missions, were the recipients of such honors.60 The financial 
value and political prestige gained through receiving a grant of 
proxenia led individuals to seek this honor and often resulted in 
political charges of currying favor with other states, particularly 
in the fourth century.61 

The diplomatic sphere of responsibilities of a proxenos 
included the initial negotiations of armistices and treatises. The 
Athenian diplomat who worked out the details for the five­
years' truce between Athens and Sparta of 451/450 was the 
Spartan proxenos. (,2 When Alcibiades served as the Spartan 
proxenos, thus renewing a family tradition, he was affronted 
because the Spartans had not employed his services when they 

59 One limited but useful collection of such awards can be found in M. B. 
W ALBANK, Athenian Proxenies of the Fifth Century B.G. (Toronto 1978: 
hereafter 'Walbank'). S. Perlman, "A Note on the Political Implications of 
Proxenia in the Fourth Century B.C.," CQ 52 (1958) 185-91, addresses the value 
of awards of proxenia and the internal politics that led to or resulted from 
such beneficences. For awards of proxeny and other honorific decrees, see A. S. 
Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal Formulae 
of Athenian Honorary Decrees (Hildesheim 1983). Individual studies of 
awards of proxenia, promanteia, etc., generally do not address the more 
general topic of the value of such awards. See, however, H. Bouvier, 
"Honneurs et recompenses a Delphes," ZPE 30 (1978) 101-18, for honors 
awarded and the value they held at Delphi. 

C. Marek, Die Proxenie (Frankfurt a.M. 1984) addresses the political, 
cultural, and religious function of proxenoi and focuses on the conditions 
under which individuals received grants of proxenia. He notes that proxenia 
often served as a political instrument used by poleis to facilitate rclations with 
other poleis or with kingdoms (335ff). Although, as Marek sees it, proxenoi 
had few specific obligations, they did function as advisors and political and 
religious 'agents' for the poleis they represented, particularly during conflicts 
(355ff). 

60 See Perlman (supra n.59) 187; IG P 80, 227, for which see 351 infra; M. N. 
Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford 1948) nos. 135 (IG 
IF 106+), 139 (IF 141 +), and perhaps 182 record awards granted as the result 
of diplomatic missions. Also Marek (supra n.59) 354ff. 

61 One notable example is the accusation levied by Demosthenes against 
Aeschines, which the latter successfully refuted (Aeschin. 2.89). 

62 Aeschin. 2.172. Note, however, the author's confusion over the individual 
involved (Miltiades instead of Cimon), the length of the truce (fifty years), and 
its duration (thirteen years instead of five); the author has in mind the thirty­
years' peace of 445, and this muddled account draws into question the 
reliability of this source; cf. Andoc. 3.3 for the same historical error. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 351 

had negotiated with Athens in the period between the Pylos 
campaign and the Peace of Nicias (Thuc. 6.89.2; cf 5.43.2). The 
period to which Alcibiades refers includes the one-year 
armistice of 422/421 and the assistance he had hoped to give may 
have included the negotiation of this truce. 

Two inscriptions provide a glimpse in to the assistance 
provided by proxenoi to the Athenian embasssies involved in 
the discussions preceding the Peace of Nicias and the Spartan­
Athenian alliance. Walbank (nos. 48-49) uses IG P 80 (honoring 
Asteas of Aleia) and 81 (honoring Polystratus [of Phleius?] and 
his brother [?]) as examples of two proxenoi who lent their 
services to embassies from the state they represented as the 
envoys travelled from Athens to Sparta, and perhaps stopped en 
route in both Phleius and Asteia. 63 

No direct evidence for the participation by proxenoi in 
armistice negotiations survives, yet indications remain that 
proxenoi were, on occasion, actively involved in either 
arranging treaties or assisting embassies on missions to secure 
terms of peace. Athens summoned Nymphodorus to the city in 
431 to negotiate on her behalf with Sitalces (Nymphodorus' 
brother-in-law) after making him their proxenos (Thuc. 2.29.1), 
and as a result of Nymphodorus' efforts Sitalces allied with 
Athens (2.29.4). Athens hoped to take advantage not only of 
Nymphodorus' relationship with his kin but also realized the 
influence held by, and the obligations enjoined upon, a 
proxenos. Nymphodorus' situation seems exceptional because 
of the family ties to Sitalces, yet as the Athenian proxenos he 
also successfully negotiated with Perdiccas on behalf of Athens 
and secured an alliance between the two (2.29.6f).64 

An inscription tentatively dated ca 424/423, which was 
probably inscribed in the early fourth century (l G P 227), 
records grants of enktesis and ateleia (lines 21 f) to Heracleides 
(of Clazomenae?) for the services he provided to an embassy 
returning from the Persian king to Athens (lines 15-19): 

... E1t[ £lBl) BE 01. 1tP£crp£~] 
[01. 1t]apa ~acrtA£ro~ frK[OV't£~ a:YY£Aocrl 'H]-

63 For the likely historical context see I G P 80.9-12 with Walbank's 
comments 276, 279. Cf Henry (supra n.59) 119£ (Asteas), 216 (Polystratus). 

H See Marek (supra n.59) 335 on the political instrument of proxenia 
employed by Athens in its negotiations with the royal court of Sitalces. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

352 TEN-DAY ARMISTICES IN THUCYDIDES 

[palc]Ad81lv CfUJl1tPU'r[t£V EaU'tOt~ 1tp08u]­
[Jlro~] E~ tE t&Cf1tov8a~ [ta~ 1tPO~ ~a(nAfa E]­
[~ tE lilAAO on E1tayyE[AElav .... 

This text specifically states that Heracleides assisted the 
ambassadors in the negotiations for the Cf1tov8ai that earned him 
the privileges awarded. 65 Athens awarded Heracleides the status 
of proxenos and eugergetes for the services he provided. 

Finally, the relationship between Artas, dynast of Messapia, 
and Athens that surfaced in the Sicilian expedition may find its 
roots in Artas' participation in the renewal of treaties earlier 
negotiated. Walbank (no. 70) observes that Artas 66 provided 
military assistance to the Athenians for the expedition to Sicily, 
and that the 1taAata <plAia (Thuc. 7.33.4) provided the Athenians 
by Artas may have originated in "the renewal of the treaties with 
Rhegion and Leontinoi in 433/432 or Laches' expedition to Sicily 
in 427/426 B.C." (Walbank 372). The participation of this 
Athenian proxenos in treaty renewals remains tenuous and at 
best shows the role of a diplomatic agent in the renewal not of 
short-term armistices but of long-term treaties. 

IV. Conclusion 

Until the publication of the first edition of Liddell and Scott's 
Greek-English Lexicon in 1846, commentators and lexicog­
raphers had maintained that Thucydides understood EK£Xnpia 

65 See Walbank no. 47 for the text, and "Herakleides of Klazomenai; a new 
join at the Epigraphical Museum," ZPE 51 (1983) 183f, for a new restoration 
by means of a join with I G IF 65, which does not alter the interpretation of 
lines 15-19. As in the cases of Poly stratus and Asteas, the home town of the 
proxenos (in this case possibly Clazomenae, an identification long disputed) 
was situated along the route the envoys may have taken, and Heracleides 
could have provided whatever assistance or hospitality they might have 
required. See also A. Gerolymatos, Espionage and Treason: A Study of the 
Proxenia in Political and Military Intelligence Gathering in Classical Greece 
(Amsterdam 1986) 10, 110. I exclude here the continuing controversy regarding 
the date(s) of the inscription and the peace in which Heracleides played a role, 
resulting in the honors accorded him in I G 13 227. For a recent discussion of 
these problems see H. B. Mattingly, "Methodology in Fifth-Century Greek 
Epigraphy," EchCi N.5. 7 (1988) 321-28, and M. B. Walbank, "Herakleides and 
the Great King," EchCl N.S. 8 (1989) 347-52. Cf Henry (supra n.59) 119, 242. 

66 Suda S.v. "Apto~, quoting Polemon, states that Athens made him their 
proxenos. See also Ath. 108F-I09A and Thuc. 7.33.4 for the connection between 
Athens and Artas. 



ARNUSH, MICHAEL, Ten-Day Armistices in Thucydides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine 
Studies, 33:4 (1992:Winter) p.329 

MICHAEL ARNUSH 353 

O£XTtI.H:PO~ to mean an armistice that lasted only ten days. The 
notion of an armistice terminable upon ten-days' notice was 
adopted as the standard interpretation by Andrewes and has 
since gained acceptance among scholars. The adjective 
O£XTtIlEP0C;. however, does not signify anything other than a 
period of ten days, and this translation holds when the adjective 
modifies £KExnpia, avoxai, avoKwxat, and (£1tl)O'1tovoai. The 
ineffectual nature of a truce lasting only ten days suggests one 
that instead was continuously renewed by the poleis par­
ticipating in such an agreement. In order for poleis to renew, 
perhaps frequently, armistices of brief duration while negotia­
tions proceeded towards a more lasting peace, they employed a 
convenient and simple mechanism that facilitated continuing 
discussions. The most feasible scenario requires the cooperation 
of local diplomats, proxenoi, who as agents for foreign powers 
would then have the responsibility of renewing the armistices 
between the states they represented and those in which they 
resided. 67 

SKIDMORE COLLEGE 

March, 1993 

67 I would like to thank A. J. Graham, L. C. Mechem, and the anonymous 
reader for GRBS for several useful suggestions and corrections.