‘NO FREER THAN THE HELOTS’ MESSENIAN REBEL BEHAVIOUR IN PAUSANIAS’ MESSENIAKA IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Drs. Lydia L.B.M. Langerwerf Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy FEBRUARY 2010 1 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores Pausanias’ depiction of the (mythical) Messenian revolt against the Spartans in book 4 of his Periegesis in comparative perspective with ancient depictions of slave revolts and Flavius Josephus’ Jewish War. I concentrate on how Pausanias portrays Aristomenes and the other rebels, as well as the Messenians in general. Although recently the Messenian Wars have been the subject of scholarly interest from literary critics, historians, and archaeologists, who have fruitfully combined their disciplines in their interpretations of the story, Pausanias’ aims and agenda in his representation of the Messenians have so far been left unexplored. This dissertation therefore asks: What stance did Pausanias take in the contested history of Messenia? In my analysis of Pausanias’ figuration of Messenian history, in chapters 1 (the introduction) and 2 I concentrate on his frequent use of τόλμη and in particular in its combination with ἀπόνοια (‘despair’). Τόλμη, translated as daring, contains both positive and negative connotations. It is a necessary ingredient of courage, but can also lead to recklessness if uncontrolled. My comparative framework in chapters 3 to 6 puts this reading of Pausanias’ book 4 to the test. In chapter 3 I compare Pausanias’ depiction of Aristomenes’ leadership qualities with Athenaeus’ use of the story of Drimakos, the rebel leader of a slave revolt on the island of Chios. In chapters 4 and 5 I pursue the connection between slavery, τόλμη and ἀπόνοια further in a comparison of the Messenian revolt with Diodorus’ depiction of the two Sicilian slave wars, along with Plutarch’s and Appian’s account of Spartacus’ revolt. In the sixth chapter I interpret the Messenian revolt as a ‘nationalistic’ uprising and compare Pausanias’ account with Josephus’ Jewish War. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the four years of my doctoral research I have had the good fortune to meet and work with many inspiring people. My primary debt of gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor Steve Hodkinson, whose ability to offer much food for thought and fresh insights did not in the least suffer from my decision to leave helots as a topic of research alone and concentrate on Pausanias. My work has benefited enormously from his constructive criticism. He was also very helpful in correcting my English. The other members of the Sparta in Comparative Perspective Project have on numerous occasions given helpful advice. In particular Rosie Harman has enthusiastically listened to all my ideas as well as frustrations. I could not have wished for a better office- and flatmate. The writing-up year I spent alterably in Mainz at the Forschungen zur antike Sklaverei Project and in Groningen where I gained valuable teaching experience. Cressida Ryan put up with me whenever I had to come to Nottingham and has been a very good friend throughout. Wim Jongman, Onno van Nijf, Jan-Willem Drijvers and Ed van der Vliet I owe thanks not just for the half year that they were my colleagues, but also for the five years that I was their student during my undergraduate studies. They encouraged me to try my luck in England and take up an academic career. In Mainz I was made to feel very welcome by Johannes Deiβler and Heinz Heinen. They facilitated my stay in every possible way. I could not have completed the project without the financial help from the School of Humanities, the Fundatie van de Vrijvrouwe van Renswoude te ‘s Gravenhage, the Graduate School (sponsoring my first stay in Mainz and offering me a Travel Prize to attend a conference in Wroclaw), the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD; sponsoring my second stay in Mainz) and the Thomas Wiedemann Fund. I thoroughly enjoyed the visits from the ladies of LHB in Nottingham. Katrijn de Ronde en Minte Kamphuis even managed to visit me in the short period I was in Mainz. My parents have supported me both financially and emotionally. I also owe Manfred Tjapkes for his support, in particular when my dissertation took me away from him for 5 years. I am so glad to be back! 3 CONTENTS Chapter one: Pausanias in between epic history and irony 1 Chapter two: The Messenians and their foolish courage in Pausanias’ Messeniaka 45 Chapter three: Drimakos of Chios: Rebel leader and civic hero 95 Chapter four: Decadence and despair: Diodorus Siculus’ account of the two Sicilian Slave Revolts 120 Chapter five: Despair and death defiance: on ἀπόνοια and φρονήμα in Appian’s and Plutarch’s Spartacus 156 Chapter six: Stubborn slaves and their daring love of liberty in Flavius’ Josephus’ Jewish War 179 Chapter seven: Being ‘happy in other things’ in Antonine Greece 241 Bibliography 257 4 CHAPTER ONE PAUSANIAS IN BETWEEN EPIC HISTORY AND IRONY When they were about to come to close quarters, they threatened one another by brandishing their arms and with fierce looks, and fell to recriminations, these [the Spartans] calling the Messenians already their slaves, no freer than the Helots (οἰκέτας αὑτῶν ἤδη τοὺς Μεσσηνίους καὶ οὐδὲν ἐλευθερωτέρους ἀποκαλοῦντες τῶν εἱλωντων); the others answering that they were impious in their undertaking, who for the sake of gain attacked their kinsmen and outraged all the ancestral gods of the Dorians, and Heracles above all.1 In this scene from Pausanias’ description of the ‘First Messenian War’, the Spartans insult the Messenians by comparing them to their helots. This Spartan depiction of their enemy is at first sight in stark opposition to Pausanias’ overall account of the revolt, which is from a Messenian perspective. It is the only reference to the Messenians as helots in the whole of his narrative on Messenia in the Periegesis. In this dissertation I will evaluate Pausanias’ stance in his representation of the Spartan-Messenian conflict and compare his depiction of the Messenians as a people and as rebels with other literary accounts of slave revolts from Diodorus, Appian, Plutarch and Athenaeus as well as Josephus’ account of the Jewish War. The second-century Greek travel writer or historian,2 devoted much of his fourth book, on Messene, to the events of a revolt that, according to him, broke out a generation after the Spartans had subjugated Messene. He dates this subjugation to the end of the ‘First Messenian War’, lasting from 743 B.C. to 1 Paus. 4.8.2. All translations are based on the translation of W.H.S Jones in the Loeb Classical Library edition (1926), with minor adaptations, in particular with the translation of τόλμη (daring) and ἀπόνοια (despair). 2 Both definitions of Pausanias as an author are problematic. I address this in the second half of this introduction. References to his own time in the Periegesis refer to a period between AD 120 and AD 180. 1 724 B.C., and the revolt, also known as the ‘Second Messenian War’ to 685 B.C.3 According to his account, as part of the original subjugation the Spartans had imposed measures unacceptable, in particular, to the younger Messenians who, with no experience of warfare, thought death and exile preferable to this slavery.4 In Pausanias’ account, the revolt was led by the ‘younger men’ from Andania, whose main leader was Aristomenes, the man ‘who first made the name of Messene important and respected’5. Pausanias is careful to call the rebels at all times ‘Messenians’, so that the only reference to them as slaves is, as may be read in the citation above, indirect. Yet, the status of the Messenians was a subject of heated debate from Thucydides onwards. This was first the case during their period of subjection, when the Messenian exiles’ involvement in the Peloponnesian War raised questions about the identity of the remaining inhabitants of Messenia as slaves or as Greeks. Thucydides provides detailed information on the damages that the Messenians inflicted on the Spartans, even though Peter Hunt has argued that he deliberately downplayed their role out of a reluctance to acknowledge the fighting skills of former slaves.6 After the refoundation of Messene in 370 BC, the identity of the new Messenians as either former helots or former exiles was tied into the legitimisation of Messene as an independent polis. Dinarchus, Against Demosthenes praises Thebes’ restoration of Messenia, whereas the pro-Spartan Isocrates’ Archidamus insists that the liberated ‘Messenians’ are not truly Messenians, but merely ex-helots.7 In his recent book on The Ancient Messenians, Nino Luraghi argues that Messenian identity continued to be a source of anxiety well into imperial times since the 3 Paus. 4.5.8; 4.6.2-5; 4.13.7; 4.15.3; 4.23.4. 4 Paus. 4.14.6. 5 Paus..4.6.3. 6 P. Hunt, Slaves, warfare and ideology in the Greek historians (Cambridge 1998) 63. In a similar vein he comments (182-3) on Xenophon’s avoidance of mentioning the foundation of Messene in his Hellenica. 7 Dinarchus, Against Demosthenes 73; Isocrates, Archidamus 28.1 and 88. Cf. Plato, Laws 776 C on the controversy concerning the Helots as Greeks. I discuss Athenaeus’ use of this passage at Ath. 6.264 d-e in chapter 3, 106-109. 2 Messenians’ ancestry could always be called into question.8 I will provide below a more detailed overview of the use of Pausanias’ text in the current scholarly debate on Messenian identity.9 Pausanias makes it no secret that the Messenians’ rebellion originated from harsh treatment, equivalent to slavery, received from the Spartans.10 His careful avoidance of calling them slaves could at first sight be understood as an indication of sympathy for their revolt.