Divination, Royalty and Insecurity in Classical Sparta*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 22 | 2009 Varia Divination, Royalty and Insecurity in Classical Sparta Anton Powell Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1767 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.1767 ISSN: 2034-7871 Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 2009 Number of pages: 35-82 ISSN: 0776-3824 Electronic reference Anton Powell, « Divination, Royalty and Insecurity in Classical Sparta », Kernos [Online], 22 | 2009, Online since 01 October 2012, connection on 19 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ kernos/1767 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1767 Kernos Kernos22(2009), p. 35-82. Divination,Royaltyand .nsecurity inClassicalSpartak Abstract5 DiEination forms an unexpectedly high proportion of our tota information on SpartaFs po itics, interna and externa . It shou d be studied diachronica y, as we as generica y. To abstract it from secu ar andpo itica context wou dconcea both causes and effects of re igious credu ity. We read that SpartaFs hereditary dyarchs, the stateFs chief genera s, were appointed, contro edanddeposedaccording to the interpretation of omens andorac es. Grandomens in particu ar were respected, such as earthDuaLe or a succession of mi itary fai ures. This was in Leeping with the Spartan bias in faEour of eEents that a cou d perceiEe. SpartaFs Lings made famous and apparent y extraEagant c aims to haEe priEi eged ancient inLs with the gods. 7ut by studying the po itica Eu nerabi ity of the Lingship, we see these re igious pretentions as defensiEe, the most effectiEe shie d for an institutionunderthreat. ésumé : La diEination constitue de faCon inattendue une part importante de notre information sur a po itiDue de Sparte, tant int rieure DuFext rieure. On peut F tudier tant de faCon diachroniDue Due dans une perspectiEe g n riDue. LFabstraire de son contexte s cu ier et po itiDue reEiendrait H occu ter H a fois es causes et es effets d’une cr du it re igieuse. Nous Eoyons Due es deux rois h r ditaires de Sparte, es g n raux en chef de F@tat, taient désign s, contrK s et dépos s se on Finterpr tation des pr sages et des orac es. Des pr sages exceptionne s taient tout particu i;rement respect s, comme es tremb ements de terre ou une succession de reEers mi itaires. Les Spartiates aEaient tendance H mettre en Ea eur es E nements Dui taient Eisib es de tous. Les rois de Sparte ont aEanc de c ;bres reEendications, apparemment extraEagantes, H entretenir d’anciens iens priEi gi s aEec es dieux. Mais en tudiant a Eu n rabi it po itiDue de a royaut , nous constatons Due ces pr tentions re igieuses aEaient une port e défensiEe et formaient une sorte de bouc ier tr;s efficace pourune institutionmenac e. .ntroduction 1ow far, if at a , were SpartaFs po itica decisions inf uenced by diEination? The Duestion eads us into numerous episodes within the c assica period; it a so cha enges traditiona scho ar y method. 1erodotos, Thucydides and 3enophon suggest c ear y and often that re igious prophecy formed part of SpartaFs motiEa- k This paper owes its existence to an inEitation from Vinciane Pirenne-De forge andCarine Van Liefferinge to address the subject in a communication at 7ruxe es: sine 2uibus non. –I am fortunate to haEe receiEed criticism and adEice for the paper from Pau Cart edge, Thomas Figueira, Stephen 1odkinson, Simon 1ornb ower, E en Mi ender andKaren Radner. Iam most gratefu fortheimproEementsthey haEemade. 36 A. POWELL tion in po itica matters. Scho ars for ong tended to react eEasiEe y or de icate y.1 Nowhere, perhaps, is there a pub ished rationa e for genera y disbe ieEing what we are to d on this subject by these ancient sources who are, for other aspects of Spartan history, proper y treated as fundamenta . The deserEed y inf uentia study of Spartan re igion by Robert ParLer (1989) co ects, in its dense treasury of information, prima facie eEidence that diEination had the power to reEerse the pub ic undertaLings of Spartan authorities: on seEera occasions Spartan mi itary expeditions a ready under way were postponed or abandoned in the face of negatiEe omens.2 1ere, it may seem, is behaEiour to compare with that of the Athenian- ed troops in Sici y in 413 who, on ThucydidesF showing, because of diEination about a unar ec ipse dropped their c amorous insistence on a prompt departure from Syracuse and instead urged their genera s to remain.3 2et, in the twenty years since the appearance of ParLerFs worL, scho ar y opinion both on Spartan history and on GreeL diEination has changed considera- b y. It may be a owab e now for an admirer of that worL to cha enge one aspect of it: name y, ParLerFs response to the Duestion how inf uentia diEination was among Spartans. That response may seem itse f to haEe a somewhat De phic Dua ity. On the one hand, ParLer imp ies disapproEa of the way that YA most eEery incident of a campaign abandoned or an attacL postponed because of unpromising omens has receiEed a rationa ising exp anation from one scho ar or anotherF (1989, 157f.). 1e writes that Spartans Yheeded diEine signs and obeyed the ru esF (1989, 161); Ythe power of prophecyF (ibid.) among Spartans ref ected a distinctiEe oca attitude. On the other hand, he states that YDiEination was doubt ess under contro in Sparta, as it norma y is whereEer it is practisedF (1989, 160). 1e notes with ironic disapproEa that YThe charm of diEination for the consu tant is that he need neEer fee that he is acting at randomF (ibid.). 1e himse f rationa ises about the apparent power of omens to affect mi itary expeditions: YIf, therefore, a p an or expedition was abandoned because of the esser obstac e of discouraging sacrifices, the Ling must either haEe been unusua y timorous, or haEe fe t genuine doubt whether the proposed action was wiseF (1989, 159-60; emphasis added). 1e iLens diEination among Spartans to the economic forecasting of modern times: YPo iticians be ieEe profound y in 1 For an examp e of de icate eEasiEeness, Fontenrose, in a genera conc usion about De phic history: YWhat effect or inf uence didDe phi haEe upon the GreeL states? If we ooL through genuine responses, we must say that it hadno direct andactiEe inf uence upon themcF (1978, p.239). One notices the trip e Dua ification (YgenuineF, YdirectF, YactiEeF): how much is being exc udedthereby? Contrast PRITC1ETT (1979), p.298, 300: YCertain y the orac e at De phi had immense inf uenceF. On the (typica y unaEowed) reasons for modern disbe ief in inf uentia ancientdiEination,POWELL(2001),p. 423-7,FLOWER(2008), p.245,JO1NSTON(2008),p. 23. 2 1989, 156-7. Other scho ars who haEe taLen serious y eEidence of Spartan regard for diEination inc ude GROTE, POPP (1957), PRITC1ETT (1979) esp. chs. 1, 3, 9, 1ODKINSON (1983), p. 273-6, 1OLLADA2 and GOODMAN (1986), p. 155f., CARTLEDGE (1987), JACT.EMIN (2000), p.102-104. 3 Thuc., VII,50,4 with VII,47,1f.,48,4;POWELL(1979a). DiEination, Roya ty, andInsecurityin C assica Sparta 37 economic predictions; po iticians are sometimes swayed by economic adEice; po iticians find ways of carrying through certain faEoured po icies whateEer economic adEisers may say.F (160) 1ere, as Yprofound be iefF giEes way to Ysometimes swayedF, we are eft in some doubt as to the practica force of economic, and thus diEinatory, forecasts to affect decisions. ParLer writes of modern historians as YembarrassedF by ancient accounts of mi itary diEination (1989, 157). In seeLing to negotiate the distance between those modern scho ars incredu ous of the sources and those who taLe them serious y or between, as ParLer puts it, Yscepticism of the scepticsc shown up as dogmaticF and Ysomething simp istic about the faith of the be ieEersF (1989, 158), a modern writer may we haEe recourse to irony and obscurity for reasons that an ancient diEiner wou d haEe recognised. For a diachronic approach As members of a rationa ist tradition of history, we may haEe earned to read our sources counter-re igious y. Thus when we meet, in Thucydides, ists of those who, on AthensF beha f, swore (not YsignedF) treaties with Sparta, our eye may be tempted to moEe to the names of the genera s and ay po iticians, LaLhes and NiLias, LamaLhos, Demosthenes and the rest, whi e cognitiEe y resisting the fact that at the head of the ist, on two occasions, comes the seer Lampon (V, 19, 2; 24, 1). The present paper may eEen surprise, not on y by the Eo ume of surEiEing ancient references to re igion in SpartaFs po itica and mi itary affairs, but especia y by the proportion which they form of our tota information on those subjects. And, if we do become aware of the prominence of re igion in our sources, eEen in Thucydides who – when writing of Athens – has right y been judged parsimonious in his references to po itica diEination,4 we may be tempted – in reaction – to re-emphasise that prophecy by p aying down its apparent y secu ar context, the context which caused re igion to be neg ected in the first p ace. 7ut by abstracting re igion in this way, we may reduce our abi ity to judge its ro e, its comparative importance, in the discourse of the po is.