, PLUTARCH, AND THE VOICE OF THE Carlos Schrader, Vicente Ramón, José Vela OTHER Kenneth Mayer Plutarco y la historia: Language plays a substantial role in the Themistocles legend. In this paper I will discuss three incidents of language interaction and acquisition in the Life of Themistocles and read Plutarch’s account against the earlier Actas del V Simposio Espanol sobre Plutarco, tradition. Zaragoza, 20-22 de junio de 1996 I will argue that by Plutarch’s time the Themistocles legend had become a battleground for questions of language and self-definition. We Area de Filologia Griega, Departamento de Ciencias de la Antiguedad, Universidad will also see how this trend is continued by authors after Plutarch, who de Zaragoza emphasize and invent incidents in Themistocles’ life which demonstrate the

Sociedad Espanola de Plutarquistas primacy of the Hellenic language and culture. Seccion de la International Plutarch Society PART I: LANGUAGE BARRIERS AT ARTEMISIUM

The first incident that I will discuss is the message Themistocles allegedly inscribed on the shores of after Artemisium. The inscriptions ask the Ionian Greeks serving with the Persians to defect, and Herodotus (8.22.3) deduces that Themistocles had two plans. Either the Kenneth Mayer Persians would not be able to read the message, and the Ionians would THEMISTOCLES, PLUTARCH, AND THE VOICE OF THE choose to defect, or the Persians would read it and consequently distrust the OTHER Ionians. It is extremely unlikely that such a message was ever inscribed, and

Herodotus’ inclusion of that detail has called into question the historicity of Monografias de filologia griega 8 the entire anecdote. Even Pritchett, in his rebuttal of the “liar school,” has to concede that such

a message, although it may well have been Zaragoza 1997

This essay has benefited greatly from the comments and criticisms of Jacqueline Long, Gwyn Morgan, and Peter Green. My thanks to them, as well as to Carlos Schrader and the other organizers of the Simposio Internacional sobre Plutarco. D. LATEINER, The Historical Methods of Herodotus, Toronto, 1989, p. 20.

written, could hardly have been inscribed. learning Persian, and for the trust and power that this knowledge gave him. Nonetheless Herodotus found the anecdote worth telling, regardless of its inherent Herodotus’ audience could understand Themistocles’ famous exile in Persia as the implausibility, because it sets up an implicit contrast with Themistocles’ later unnarrated antistrophe to the scene after Artemisium. career. After Herodotus the inscriptions at Artemisium are only reported by Herodotus stops his narrative without telling of Themistocles’ exile and Trogus, Plutarch, Polyaenus, and Aelius Aristides. time in Persia. I agree with Fornara’s argument that Herodotus’ history is pointed Of these only Plutarch and Polyaenus include Themistocles’ double ruse of towards these unnarrated incidents, and that his portraits of both the Athenian exploiting bilingual misunderstanding and suspicion as found in Herodotus. But for politician and the Spartan Pausanias are clearly played against his audience’s Plutarch, unlike Herodotus, there is no other side of the coin. He knows awareness of their future careers. Themistocles as a hero of Greek culture, not an ambivalent figure who slips This is especially true of their Medism, as I will show by the example of between Persians and Greeks. Pausanias, and then demonstrate how these concerns apply to the inscriptions at Artemisium. PART II: KILLING THE INTERPRETER Pausanias was condemned for his collaboration with the Persians, but the Themistocles’ role as a defender of Greek culture is particularly clear in offense that is emphasized in all the sources after Herodotus is his adoption of their the second incident, the story of the execution of the interpreter of Xerxes’ offer of clothing and customs. Herodotus does not depict Pausanias decked out in Persian land and earth in 491 BC. Our earliest source for the incident is Plutarch, who garb, but instead shows him refusing to stoop to barbarian customs like defacing a includes it in a series of anecdotes leading up to the events of 480: corpse: ta; prevpei µa'llon barbavroisi poievein h[ per {Ellhsi, ka;i ejpainei'tai d_ aujtou' kai; to; peri; to;n divglwsson e[rgon ejn toi'" peµfqei'sin uJpo; basilevw" ejpi; gh'" kai; u{dato" ai[thsin. eJrµhneva ga;r o[nta ejkeivnoisi de; ejpifqonevoµen (9.79). Herodotus then shows Pausanias sullabw;n dia; yhfivsµato" ajpevkteinen, o{ti fwnh;n ïEllhnivda barbavroi" resisting if not mocking Persian luxury (9.82), by contrasting the Persian food and prostavgµasin ejtovlµhse crh'sai. Themistocles 6.1 splendor with simple Spartan fare. Instead of portraying him as a cross-cultural There are several problems here. It is doubtful that Xerxes sent heralds to Athens at collaborator, Herodotus makes him a defender of traditional Greek values. He is not all. being revisionist--he is being dramatic, by heightening the contrast between what Herodotus (7.32) explicitly says that they were sent everywhere but Athens and Pausanias was and should have been and what he eventually became. Sparta, because Darius’ heralds had been killed there in 491 (H. 6.48, 7.133). Something similar seems to be happening in his depiction of Themistocles, particularly in the field of language and language acquisition. Ever since Thucydides, all our Aelius Aristides is the only source besides Plutarch for the death of the interpreter sources have commented on Themistocles’ impressive feat of mastering the Persian and he gives two conflicting accounts: language. He is shown acquiring a foreign language to communicate with another culture. tw'/ d_ eJrµhneuvsanti ta; gravµµata diaceirotonivan µe;n ajpevdosan, i{n_, Herodotus, on the other hand, depicts Themistocles exploiting linguistic difference to create ejpeidhvper “Ellhn h\n, e[coi plevon th;n th'" krivsew" eijkovna, barriers between Greeks and barbarians. His ruse at Artemisium relies on the assumption that ajpevkteinan de; kai; tou'ton, wJ" oujd_ a[cri fwnh'" diakonh'sai prosh'kon toi'" cross-cultural renegades like the Ionians, despite their best efforts, are never completely barbavroi". kai; to; ijscuro;n perih'lqen aujtw'/: to;n ga;r th'" povlew" trusted. a[poikon oujk hjxivoun kata; th'" povlew" kai; tw'n ïEllhvnwn eJrµhneva tw'/ Either the message will be confined to the Greeks alone, or, if passed on to the Persians, it fuvsei poleµivw/ givgnesqai. kai; ou{tw dh; rJivptousin eij" to; bavraqron will serve to incite suspicion. As was the case with Pausanias, here too Herodotus seems to Or. 13, Panathenaia (I.198 Dindorf, 122 Jebb, 80 Oliver). be playing with his audience’s awareness of the later life of Themistocles. As we can deduce from other sources at least as early as Thucydides, Themistocles soon became legendary for This tradition is discussed in detail in the third section of this paper. his skill in Justin 2.12, Plu. Them. 9.2 tau'ta d_ h[lpizen h] metasthvsein tou;" “Iwna" h] taravxein W. K. PRITCHETT, The Liar School of Herodotus, Amsterdam, 1993, p. 159-160. He finds Justin’s uJpoptotevrou" tou;" barbavrou" genomevnou". Polyaen. 1.30.7, Aristid. Or. 46 Pro quattuor uninscribed symboles proponi et saxis proscribi (2.12.3) a more plausible account . II.255 Dindorf, Or. 13, Panathenaia I.228 Dindorf. See A. BAUER and F. FROST, C. W. FORNARA, Herodotus, Oxford, 1971, p. 62-74. Fornara argues that Herodotus’ silence on the Themistokles, Chicago, 1967, p. 32-33. later activities of Pausanias and Themistocles is designed to heighten the contrast in their fortunes rather See R. SEALEY, “The Pit and the Well: the Persian Heralds of 491 BC” CJ 72, 1976, p. 13- than to sweep them aside. 20, and F. FROST, Plutarch’s Themistocles: A Historical Commentary, Princeton, 1980, Witness the suspicions that fell upon the Ionians during the (8.85-90). p.95-6.

ajlla; kai; to;n eJrµhneuvsanta ajpevkteine, kathgorw'n o{ti th;n the king. fwnh;n w{sper a[llo ti tw'/ Pevrsh/ kata; tw'n ïEllhvnwn e[crhse. He died before the king could call in that promise, and Thucydides mentions a Or. 46 Pro quattuor (II.247 Dindorf, 184 Jebb) rumor that Themistocles committed suicide because he was unable to make good on The first account is set in the time of Darius, in the second account, the heralds are his promise. Nepos follows Thucydides’ account very closely, but he adds the claim killed at Themistocles’ instigation. By Plutarch’s day the tradition seems to have that Themistocles could speak Persian better than the Persians, a claim which is not been thoroughly confused. necessarily an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the three accounts have one thing in common: an insistence on the Diodorus presents a different account. There are no promises made by purity of the Greek language. According to Plutarch Themistocles was praised for Themistocles and no discussions of attacks against . The king and arranging that Xerxes’ interpreter should be killed “on the grounds that he dared to Themistocles are somehow reconciled without a hint of betrayal. But all is not use the Greek language in the service of barbarian overlords.” Aelius’ comments peaceful in the Persian court. A faction of noble Persians holds a grudge and wants are, first: “They killed him, because it was not right to serve barbarians, even just Themistocles executed for Salamis. Themistocles learns Persian, not to help the with one’s voice,” and second: “Themistocles accused him of using his speech for Persians or to adapt to their ways, but to do that most Athenian of all things: to go the Persian against the Greeks, just as if it were any other weapon.” The Greek to court. He wins and for speaking Persian so persuasively he is awarded a Persian military victory over the Persians is now recast as a triumph of Greek culture as wife, a place in the court, and the respect of the king. well. Themistocles is praised, not for his adaptable language skills, but rather for At this point Diodorus reports that some writers have the Great King ask his rejection of such opportunistic bilingualism. He is shown keeping the language Themistocles to prepare the invasion of Greece. Themistocles kills himself instead barrier intact, thereby preventing Greeks from acceding to the barbarian. and is accorded this praise: to;n de; Qeµistokleva dia; th'" ijdiva" teleuth'" In the Alexander, Plutarch states that he is on the lookout for significant ajpologivan ajpolipei'n kallivsthn o{ti kalw'" ejpoliteuvqh ta; pro;" tou;" “Ellhna". details that reveal a man’s character. While the interpreter incident in the (11.58.3) Diodorus distances himself from this account, but does not offer an Themistocles does not receive any drawn-out dramatic emphasis, Plutarch did alternative and raises the patriotism issue in his own evaluation of Themistocles remember it and think it worthy of inclusion. It suited Themistocles as Plutarch which immediately follows. wanted to portray him, and this picture had some resonance among later Greeks, as A summary will show how Diodorus has recast the final act of shown by quotes from Aristides. Both authors are happy to represent Themistocles Themistocles’ life differently from Thucydides’ version. as a hero resisting other cultures and preserving the primacy of Greek culture. This 1. He makes no promise of an invasion of Greece. resistance is in marked contrast to earlier accounts of Themistocles’ acquisition of 2. He is not working against the Greeks, but against some Persians. the Persian language. 3. He does not learn Persian to converse with the king, but to defend himself PART III: LEARNING PERSIAN against other Persians. All of our sources agree on the following: Themistocles went to Persia and 4. He commits suicide rather than fight against Greece. was received by the king; he asked for one year’s time, in which he studied the Th. 1.138 oJ d_ ejn tw'/ crovnw/ o}n ejpevsce th'" te Persivdo" glwvssh" o{sa ejduvnato katenovhse kai; tw'n ejpithdeumavtwn th'" cwvra": ajfikovmeno" de; meta; to;n ejniauto;n givgnetai par_ aujtw'/ mevga" Persian language; and he died before he could or would aid the king in conquering kai; o{so" oujdeiv" pw ïEllhvnwn diav te th;n prou>pavrcousan ajxivwsin kai; tou' ïEllhnikou' ejlpivda, Greece. There are differing accounts of his journey to Persia, his promises to the h}n uJpetivqei aujtw'/ doulwvsein, mavlista de; ajpo; tou' pei'ran didou;" xuneto;" faivnesqai. king, and the manner of his death. Right now I am concerned with how each author Themistocles 10: ille omne illud tempus litteris sermonique Persarum se dedidit: quibus adeo eruditus offers a different portrayal of Themistocles’ motivation for learning Persian and his est, ut multo commodius dicatur apud regem uerba fecisse, quam ii poterant, qui in Perside erant nati. See the note on Rolfe’s Loeb translation ad loc. An educated foreigner often has a surer command of success in doing so. antiquated grammatical niceties than native speakers, and Persian was undergoing considerable change Thucydides mentions that Themistocles learned all he could of Persian at the time, as shown by the inscriptions of Artaxerxes I and II: “Apparently Old Persian had by this time language and customs, and then promised to subjugate Greece for become virtually a dead language employed only in writing ceremonial official records, its spoken form having suffered a wearing down of the endings (seen very clearly in Pahlavi).” R. G. KENT, Old Persian, New Haven, 1961, p.98-99. Diodorus 11.57.5: oJ me;n Qemistoklh'" maqw;n th;n Persivda diavlekton, kai; tauvth/ crhsavmeno" F. FROST (note 8) p.96. kata; th;n ajpologivan, ajpeluvqh tw'n ejgklhmavtwn. povteron ou|to" ajdikhvsa" th;n patrivda kai; tou;" a[llou" “Ellhna" e[fugen eij" Pevrsa", h] toujnantivon h{ te povli" kai; pavnte" oiJ “Ellhne" eujergethqevnte" megavla th'" me;n cavrito" ejpelavqonto. (11.58.4) p. Plutarch’s portrayal is similar in several respects. Again there is no promise of an consider the letter romance, the Letters of Themistocles, believed to be from the first invasion of Greece. Again Persian nobles plot against Themistocles: first the threats or second century of this era. of Roxanes the Chiliarch (Them. 29), then the assassination attempt by the satrap of Here “Themistocles” takes every chance to distance himself from the Medizing Upper Phrygia (Them. 30). Plutarch reports that the main grievance that these Pausanias (16.4, 16.6). He writes a letter to him, warning him of the hazards of Persians had was not the events of Salamis (as in Diodorus) but the fact that becoming Persian (14.2, 14.4). In this version Themistocles is not a student of the Themistocles was promoting reform within the Persian court: Persian language, he just happens to pick it up on the way (20.3). In even stronger ejniauto;n aijthsavµeno" kai; th;n Persivda glw'ttan ajpocrwvntw" terms than in Plutarch Themistocles is portrayed as a Greek culture hero and not a ejkµaqw;n ejnetuvgcane basilei' di_ auJtou', toi'" µe;n ejkto;" dovxan political traitor or cultural renegade. parevsce peri; tw'n ïEllhnikw'n pragµavtwn dieilevcqai, pollw'n de; Philostratus’ Imagines shows just how far this revision of history can go. A kainotoµouµevnwn peri; th;n aujlh;n kai; tou;" fivlou" uJpo; tou' painting of Themistocles at the Persian court is the only painting in the collection basilevw" ejn ejkeivnw/ tw'/ crovnw/, fqovnon e[sce para; toi'" with a historical subject. Philostratus’ description opens by contrasting his Athenian dunatoi'", wJ" kai; kat_ ejkeivnwn parrhsiva/ crh'sqai pro;" aujto;n appearance with that of the surrounding barbarians: ajpotetolµhkwv". Them. 29.5 “Ellhn ejn barbavroi", ajnh;r ejn oujk ajndravsin ‹a{teÌ ajpolwlovsi kai; This passage presents the concerns of Persian nobles and Plutarch makes no trufw'sin ajttikw'" e[cwn µavla tou' trivbwno" ajgoreuvei sofo;n oi\µaiv ti µetapoiw'n aujtou;" kai; µeqista;" tou' qruvptesqai. Mh'doi tau'ta kai; Babulw;n statement as to their validity. However, he neither questions this account nor presents µevsh kai; to; shµei'on to; basivleion oJ crusou'" ejpi; th'" pevlth" ajeto;" kai; alternatives (as he does in, e.g., Them. 2.6, 25.1). Plutarch is content to leave us with oJ basileu;" ejpi; crusou' qrovnou stikto;" oi|on tawv". the impression that Themistocles was not talking to the king about Greek affairs (as Imagines 2.31.1 others thought), but he was actually telling the king how to arrange his own court. He Themistocles is dressed like a Cynic philosopher and he is preaching in Persian, has learned Persian not to harm Greece, but to change the Persians. He is not trying to get the barbarians to renounce luxury. This is a far cry from the humbling himself and acceding to the king’s wishes, but rather holding forth in the Themistocles found in Herodotus, Thucydides, or even in Plutarch. The whole scene manner of a Greek philosopher. In Plutarch’s time all the major philosophical schools is designed to stress Themistocles’ Greekness, as if he were speaking at the Stoa at praised parrhesia. Athens: ejkplhvttei de; aujto;n oujde;n tw'n Mhdikw'n, ajlla; teqavrshken oi|on It is clear from every anecdote and from occasional real life examples that no self- kaqestw;" ejpi; tou' livqou Here Themistocles is not speaking Persian as a Medizing respecting Greek philosopher could stand before a tyrant without using parrhesia to traitor, but rather using the language of the barbarian to import Greek culture to them. tell him things he doesn’t want to hear. Parrhesia is of course meaningless unless one He has become a missionary of Greek culture. is saying things that are unwelcome, and that is what Plutarch invites us to imagine This is the culmination of the civilizing mission that was already apparent in Themistocles as saying. Plutarch’s account--only Plutarch has more respect for his sources than other writers. By including this material, Plutarch has subtly recast the story. Themistocles Plutarch’s manipulation of the Alexander legend is more familiar to scholars: instead is now seen in an adversarial relationship with the Persians. He is not proposing to of being under the influence of barbarian cultures, Alexander becomes an emissary of lead the King to Greece but to make the King himself more Greek. He is not adapting Greek culture and a civilizing force. Plutarch tells us how he got his barbarous to Persian ways, but getting the Persians to adopt his. Plutarch thereby clears his subjects to stop offensive practices like having sex with their mothers, eating their hero, not just of the charge of political Medism, but of cultural Medism as well. dead, or murdering their fathers (Mor. 328C). There are language concerns here too. According to Plutarch, Alexander teaches the Persians to worship Greek gods and to PART IV: NACHLEBEN read Homer, Euripides, and Sophocles (Mor. 328D). No one except Plutarch tells us Thus far I have documented subtle alterations of the Themistocles legend in about Alexander’s promotion of Greek literature. Similarly the literate Parthians Plutarch’s text. In the final section I want to point out how the same trend continued performing Euripides and using Crassus’ head as a prop are again only found in in later writings of the Second Sophistic. I will first Plutarch (Crass. 33). For Plutarch hellenized Parthians serve as the proof that Alexander’s goals were cultural rather than military, and that these goals ultimately See R. MACMULLEN, Enemies of the Roman order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire, Cambridge, 1966, p. 309-10 and the bibliography there cited, e.g., D. L. 6.69 jErwthqei;" [Diogevnh"] tiv met with kavlliston ejn ajnqrwvpoi", e[fh, ®parrhsiva®. N. DOENGES, The Letters of Themistocles, New York, 1981, p. 59.

success. Plutarch has made Alexander, like Themistocles, a missionary of Greek language and literature. We see the missionary theme developed further by the earlier, more famous Philostratus in the novelistic Life of Apollonius of Tyana. In many respects the protagonist incorporates both the Alexander and Themistocles legends. Like Alexander, Apollonius travels to the Eastern ends of the earth, stopping among the Parthian kings and continuing into India. He neither studies Persian, nor casually acquires it--from the beginning he is blessed with the ability to understand all languages (1.19). When he gets to the Parthian border, he explains his civilizing mission, “I gave myself the task to see whether I can make men of you, whether you like it or not” (1.21). Thereupon he visits the Parthian king, who has just dreamed that he was Artaxerxes (1.29). When Apollonius’ presence is announced, he realizes that he is being visited by a reborn equivalent of Themistocles. And true to form, Apollonius belittles the king’s palace and wealth (1.38) and then boldly goes on to find other people he can talk into being more like himself. This account stretches the Themistocles legend to Alexandrian proportions. Instead of conquering the world with his might, this Alexandristocles goes about converting the world to his culture.

CONCLUSION

This essay has strayed a long way from Plutarch--and it is time to return to him and to Greece. In the first three sections I think that I have documented that Plutarch has created a Themistocles subtly but significantly different from earlier representations. In the final section I have shown that later authors further manipulated the tradition along the same lines. I find this later material useful because it suggests that something more than a personal idiosyncrasy lay behind Plutarch’s reinvention of Themistocles the missionary. In Plutarch’s day Greece could no longer lay claim to political, military, or economic supremacy. The doors for civic participation in the Roman Empire were opening, but this only problematized the issue of Greek ethnicity. As Greeks became generals, governors, and senators by virtue of their Roman citizenship, they were forced to create a new national identity, grounded in their language, their culture, and their past. They purified their language. They looked for cultural heroes. Plutarch has the honesty to acknowledge that his heroes adopted foreign ways, but he also has the desire to defend this by invoking the greater good. Thus we have an Alexander wearing foreign garb as a ruse to get the barbarians to support him, and a Themistocles speaking Persian to convince the king of the errors of his ways.