clean strike. Alcibiades’s boldness and speed had triumphed.
Diodorus Siculus, however, tells a slightly different story 2 in which Alcibiades’s role was not so important. In his telling, Alcibiades had taken
the initiative in launching the attack, but many decisions were attributed
to other generals, and Alcibiades’s success on land was due to their sup-
port. Is Diodorus drawing on a reliable source here? 3 Does Xenophon give
Alcibiades too much credit? Possibly. However, that boldness was charac-
teristic of him. And in any case, the question is simply one of degree. His
participation and his resolution were undeniable.
The victory was an important one. Both Xenophon and Plutarch quote
the message sent by the Lacedaemonians to the Spartan authorities. It was
typically laconic, but brutally clear: “Ships lost; Mindarus killed; troops
starving; no idea what to do.” 4
This is all true; the consequences followed quickly, and Alcibiades
reaped the benefi t. The people of Perinthus welcomed him inside their
walls; those of Selymbria gave him money; the two cities are west of
2. Diodorus 13.51, with statements such as “Theramenes fl ew to the aid of Alcibiades,
who was in danger.”
3. Some scholars think it was Ephorus. Modern historians are split almost equally be-
tween the two versions (or are tempted to correct one as a function of the other). In addition to these different interpretations, there are differences in details as well, particularly regarding the number of vessels.
4. 1.1.23 = Plutarch 28.10; the translation is slightly altered.
144 Chapter
9
Byzantium. He fortifi ed another to the east that allowed the Athenians a
crucial advantage—to levy a tax on all shipping through the Bosphorus.
These were important achievements. Alcibiades may have hoped that
they would be suffi cient to assure his return. In any case, he gained some
breathing room. The victory at Cyzicus occurred in the winter of 411–
410. We know nothing more before the summer of 409.
It is important to note that power in Athens during this time was held
by the demagogue Cleophon, who was clearly an opponent. 5 Perhaps
Alcibiades was waiting, in vain, for some encouragement. As this did
not come, however, he went back to work. His winter quarters were at
Lampsacus, from which he threatened Pharnabazus and even tried to
attack Abydos. Then, the next spring, he was again found at the gates
of Byzantium, which was attacking the surrounding barbarians. Then
he turned against the great city of Chalcedon, opposite Byzantium, and
surrounded by a wall extending from one sea to the other. There the
enemy came out and attacked the Athenians, commanded by another
leader. The battle dragged on . . . “until Alcibiades came to the rescue
with a few hoplites and the cavalry” ( Hellenica 1.3.6). 6 It was another victory, and the people of Chalcedon were once again loyal to Athens,
once again paying tribute.
While the agreement ratifying this was being fi nalized, Alcibiades was
absent: he had departed to the other end of the Hellespont in search of
money.
Money again? In the past, the grandeur of Athens commanded pay-
ments that allies had paid more or less willingly. However, after the occu-
pation of Decelea and the defections that followed the Sicilian disaster (for
both of which Alcibiades was mostly to blame), with the heroic achieve-
ment of rebuilding a fl eet, with the loss of Euboea, the need for money
had become great. Alcibiades remembered what Pericles had said twenty
years earlier: “ Capital, it must be remembered, maintains a war more than
forced contributions” (Thucydides 1.141.5). Alcibiades’s bravery in battle
had intensifi ed in him a practical and realistic spirit.
5. For example, Hyperbolus or Androcles: see above, chapter 8. A cousin of Alcibiades,
exiled at the same time, was taken prisoner by the Athenians and stoned: again, not very encouraging.
6. The translation is that of Carleton L. Brownson (repr., London: Heinemann, 1930),
https://archive.org/details/xenophonwithengl01xenouoft.
A
Triumphal
Return 145
On the way home, he laid siege to another city, Selymbria: he seized it and
retook Byzantium with soldiers, both Greek and barbarian, and with cavalry.
Note the cavalry. Almost all battles in the Hellespont were naval battles.
But Alcibiades liked to go ashore. He loved swift battles and sudden attacks.
He wanted to take on the army of the satrap. So he insisted on the cavalry. As
we just saw, it played a role under his command in the battle of Chalcedon.
As he was returning, strengthened with fresh troops and money, an im-
portant satisfaction awaited him. The agreement between the Athenians
and the satrap regarding Chalcedon had been arranged and concluded in
his absence by other Athenian leaders. The satrap, however, was not satis-
fi ed by this: “He needed for Alcibiades also to pledge to support the deal”;
and he was awaiting Alcibiades’s return. 7
This demand represented a great honor. It recognized Alcibiades as the
true leader of the Athenian forces, and the true victor. Alcibiades knew
that, and he took advantage of it: he demanded a new agreement made
specifi cally with him and he demanded an exchange of oaths between sov-
ereigns. And it was done. The commitment was made in the name of the
community. Not bad for an exile!
This agreement still exists in stone. 8 It is moving to imagine the ritual accompanying the ratifi cation. It would have been the recognition of Alcibiades’s new status. He had been pampered by Tissaphernes; he had
advised and directed him. Later their relations grew strained. But now
suddenly another satrap would recognize no one else. Moreover, and
more important, he was recognized as the leader and representative of the
city where, offi cially, he no longer existed.
The time had clearly come to make a change. In Athens, attention was
on him. When Sophocles presented Philoctetes in 409, many people likely
thought of Alcibiades. Philoctetes had been sent, alone, to an island; vic-
tory in the Trojan War depended on him. Alcibiades was in the same situ-
ation. 9 More and more people felt, increasingly, that the solution was at hand. There was no time to lose.
7. Similarly, and more briefl y, see Plutarch, Alcibiades 31.2. This fact is not included in Diodorus’s account (13.66).
8. IG I2, 116.
9. See Glen Bowersock, Fiction as History, 57, who notes that a proverb cited twice by Aelius Aristides (once in connection with Philoctetes) is cited by Alcibiades in the Symposium 217e.
146 Chapter
9
And throughout this time, another achievement, and not the least: the
taking of Byzantium!
The city was occupied by the Peloponnesians and attacked by the Athe-
nians. The Peloponnesian leader departed to ask for Pharnabazus’s sup-
port. Following a secret negotiation, an agreement was sealed with some
inhabitants, and Alcibiades was able to get his troops into the city through
a gate that had been left open. Byzantium surrendered. The effort proved,
once again, Alcibiades’s unique abilities in scheming and per
suasion.
To fully appreciate the situation, we have the picture drawn by Jean
Hatzfeld, summarizing the achievements since the destruction of the Pelo-
ponnesian fl eet at Cyzicus: “The straits were taken; communication re-
established with the Black Sea and the wheat fi elds; customs installed at
the entrance to the Bosphorus; the Athenian fl eet supplied by the rich
crops and pillage of enemy territory—and thus not suffering the problems
of the city’s fi nances; the cities of the region were again loyal, and once
again paying tribute.” 10 To which could be added the effective neutrality of Pharnabazus and the support of the Thracian barbarians . . .
All of that was important. And this time, it was enough. The following
spring, Alcibiades’s candidacy for the position of general was announced
in Athens. The elections were delayed. Alcibiades was waiting on Samos,
and then left to raise money in Caria before fi nally setting out, with some
detours . . .
He was traveling when he received the news: he had been elected
general—along with another individual who had also once been involved
in the affair of the mysteries. Everything was swept away, relationships
were repaired. He was returning in triumph.
In Athens, however, opinion was still divided. Xenophon, who was no
doubt present at the time, writes about the debates and the rage they
aroused. It was easy to blame Alcibiades; many recalled that he was the
sole cause of all the problems of the past and could well bring on more in
the future. There were arguments on both sides: the scandal of the myster-
ies had led to the Sicilian disaster, the occupation of Decelea, the defection
of the colonies on the Ionian coast, the help given to Sparta by Tissapher-
nes . . . The other side recalled his talents and the intemperate decision
10. J. Hatzfeld, Alcibiade, 288.
A
Triumphal
Return 147
that had precipitated his support of the enemy. Supporters argued that he
had wanted to defend himself, but that he had been a victim “of the plot
of those who were less powerful than he was and who made up for their
weakness with this cruel plan,” and who then “profi ted from his absence
to prevent him from returning to his own country.” They blamed the exile
into which he had been forced, the dangers he had known, his powerless-
ness to help his homeland . . .
Rationales were found in various explanations in vogue at the time: his
own circumstances, they said, would preclude Alcibiades’s involvement in
a regime change; only his less advantaged adversaries had anything to gain
from that. That was a common argument, one that was to be developed
at length in speech 25 of Lysias ( Defense against a Charge of Subverting
the Democracy ), in sections 9–14. In short, both sides argued vehemently
about Alcibiades’s true leanings. Mostly, they were thinking about the
future. By simply dismissing him, they had forced him to act against his
country. If they gave him back his rights and put him in charge, he would
be in a better position to help them.
Which is why his return was being followed with such intense interest.
There are several accounts. One is that of Xenophon, which may well
be an eyewitness account; others were from a later period: they come to us
from Plutarch and Diodorus. 11 Both, however, may have drawn on earlier, well-informed sources—the historian Ephorus, whose work has been lost,
and Duris of Samos, who claimed to be a descendant of Alcibiades.
These works are important for two reasons.
The fi rst reason is a literary one: the version that is most immediate and
concrete, most apt to excite the imagination and emotions, is not the fi rst-
hand account by Xenophon but the one written fi ve hundred years later
by Plutarch. It is easy to see in it a work of literary genius. And it may be
that the difference in the accounts is not accidental, that little by little, the
original story may well have been enriched and embellished.
In Xenophon, Alcibiades returns alone.
12 With twenty triremes.
Later accounts show him returning along with the generals and with an
11. See Xenophon, Hellenica 1.4.12–20; Plutarch, Alcibiades 32–33; Diodorus 13.69. We should add Cornelius Nepos 6.
12. Plutarch mentions other generals, without saying that they went ashore with him. Diodorus refers to the generals returning from the Hellespont together. Xenophon is not specifi c, but he mentions the separate returns.
148 Chapter
9
enormous number of ships. Duris, as quoted by Plutarch, describes his
ship as having a purple sail and a cortege of ecstatic supporters. At this
point, even Plutarch expresses some reserve.
In fact, and considering whatever prudence Alcibiades might still have
had, the reality must have been splendid.
The return took place on the day of the festival of Plynteria (the day
when the robes of the statue of Athena were washed: from pluno, I wash).
This seemed to be an auspicious date, as the statue of Athena remained
veiled on that day, and no one would have chosen that moment for seri-
ous activity. But it was also a festival day. The whole city went down to
the port: the crowd came from Piraeus and from Athens, thrilled by the
occasion and wishing to see the famous man.
There he was. Twenty ships, says Xenophon. Plutarch paints a larger
picture: “His own Attic triremes were decked from stem to stern with
shields and other spoils of war, and had plenty of captured triremes in
tow, as well as a cargo of an even larger number of fi gureheads from ships
he had defeated and destroyed. The number of enemy triremes in both
categories amounted to at least two hundred” (32.1). Why not add to the
victorious little squadron the long display of insignia recalling all his victo-
ries? Alcibiades was not one to neglect such an opportunity or such a show.
We will indulge ourselves with some details, possibly imagined, from
Duris. Plutarch continues: “Duris of Samos, who claims to be a descen-
dant of Alcibiades, goes into more detail: He says that Chrysogonus, a
victor of the Pythian Games, played the pipes for the rowers, and that the
tragic actor Callipides called the time, both wearing their full competition
costumes” (32.2). And why not, after all? 13 We will stop here, before the purple sail, in order to show some restraint. Obviously, this return had all
the elements, even later, to stir the imagination, to start men dreaming.
All the while, Alcibiades was watching. He recognized his friends and
relatives celebrating him, and he went ashore.
Once he was ashore, however, people hardly even noticed any of the other
military commanders they met, but ran and crowded round him, calling
out to him, greeting him and accompanying him on his way, and crown-
ing him with garlands if they could get close to him, while those who could
13. Athenaeus 12.535.c–d provides the same information.
A
Triumphal
Return 149
not watched him from a distance, and the older men pointed him out to the
younger ones. (32. 3)
Alcibiades—i
n a strange position, having been made general but still
under the decree of his prior conviction—went at once up into the city,
surrounded by a security escort of friends, ready to repel any attempt
against his person. He was welcomed to the Council, then to the Assem-
bly, where he gave a promotional speech that no one dared to interrupt.
And the people rewarded him with crowns and proclaimed him supreme
leader with full authority!
Honors and reparations were to follow quickly. “They also voted to
restore his property to him, and decreed that the Eumolpidae and the her-
alds were to revoke the curses they had spoken against him in accordance
with the people’s instructions” (33.3). 14 We even know that property was given to him in compensation for goods that had been confi scated. 15 In short, the people could not do enough to erase the memory of the past. A
crown of gold, or several crowns of gold, was awarded (as Plutarch says,
at 33.2). Later, there was much talk about the gifts that he received from
the people. 16 A clear sign of the fragility of popularity, these gifts would once again be taken away; but that fact does nothing to diminish the fer-vor during these times of reunion. He could not have dreamed of a more
glorious return.
He may well have had his doubts, his fears. Xenophon and Plutarch
say he did. Xenophon writes that on arrival he was not eager to go ashore
for fear of his enemies, and “mounting on the deck of his ship, he looked
to see whether his friends were present” (1.4.18). He also says that those
friends surrounded him to prevent any attack. For his part, Plutarch uses
those fears as evidence of his accuracy: and he dismisses some of the de-
tails found in Duris as exaggerations: “Nor is it likely that he would have
behaved in such a willful manner when he was returning from exile and
after having been in so much trouble. In fact, he was very nervous as he
came in to land” (32.2).
14. Plutarch 33.3, who states clearly: “All the other priests revoked their curses, except for Theodorus, the high priest, who said, ‘No, I never prayed that he would suffer harm—
provided he does no wrong to the city.’”
15. Isocrates 16.46.
16. Lysias 14.31.
150 Chapter
9
Indeed, he was taking a risk. Those who had exiled him were still there.
The Life of Alcibiades Page 22
