PanheLLenisM and the BarBarian in Archaic and

Lynette Mitchell Panhellenism and the Barbarian in Archaic and Classical Greece

Lynette Mitchell

The Classical Press of Wales First published in 2007 by The Classical Press of Wales 15 rosehill terrace, swansea sa1 6Jn tel: +44 (0)1792 458397 Fax: +44 (0)1792 464067 www.classicalpressofwales.co.uk distributor in the United states of america: ISD, LLC 70 Enterprise Dr., Suite 2, Bristol, CT 06010 tel: +1 (860) 584–6546 www.isdistribution.com

© 2007 the author all rights reserved. no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. isBn 978-1-910589-47-2 a catalogue record for this book is available from the British library typeset by ernest and andrew Buckley, Clunton, shropshire Printed and bound in the UK by Gomer Press, llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales

The Classical Press of Wales, an independent venture, was founded in 1993, initially to support the work of classicists and ancient historians in Wales and their collaborators from further afield. More recently it has published work initiated by scholars internationally . While retaining a special loyalty to Wales and the Celtic countries, the Press welcomes scholarly contributions from all parts of the world. The symbol of the Press is the Red Kite. This bird, once widespread in Britain, was reduced by 1905 to some five individuals confined to a small area known as ‘The Desert of Wales’ – the upper Tywi valley. Geneticists report that the stock was saved from terminal inbreeding by the arrival of one stray female bird from Germany. After much careful protection, the Red Kite now thrives – in Wales and beyond. For Stephen and James CONTENTS

Page acknowledgements ix abbreviations xi list of figures xiii introduction: Panhellenism and the barbarian xv

1. Panhellenism and the community of the hellenes 1

2. defining the boundaries of the hellenic community 39

3. the symbolic community: utopia and dystopia 77

4. Cultural contestation 113

5. Time, space and war against the barbarian 169 epilogue 203

Bibliography 215

General index 249 index locorum 255

vii Acknowledgements

This project was started during my BritishA cademy Post-doctoral Fellowship hosted by Oriel College, Oxford, and both the British Academy and Oriel College have continued to support it, particularly through the hospitality and kindness of Professor Ernst Nicholson of Oriel, and a British Academy small research grant which allowed me to travel regularly to Oxford, and to visit the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, and so to complete the monograph. The bulk of the book, however, was written in Exeter, and I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to colleagues for friendship and encouragement, and espe- cially to Stephen Mitchell, John Wilkins, Richard Seaford and David Braund, who read and commented on drafts. Peter Rhodes, Robin Osborne, Robert Parker and especially Chris Pelling also read the whole for me at various stages, and were generous with their time and their comments. In addition to all these, there are the many friends without whose kindness and support this book would not have seen the light of day, in particular Wendy Maull, Jenny Hocking, Caroline Huxtable and Shane Coombs. Especial thanks, however, must go to my family, to Stephen and to James. This book repre- sents a poor return for the way in which they have cherished and cared for me, but I dedicate it to them, with thanks.

LGM May 2006 University of Exeter

ix Abbreviations

The following abbreviations for ancient authors and their works should be noted: [Apoll.] [Apollodorus], Bibliotheca Q.C. Quintus Curtius, History of Alexander Serv. Dan. Servius Danielis

Periodicals are abbreviated as in L’Année Philologique, with the usual English divergences (e.g. AJP for AJPh). Note also the following abbreviations for modern sources (for full publishing details of items listed here, except standard collections of texts and reference works, refer to the bibliography): ARV 2 J.D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters, 2nd edn Buck C.D. Buck, The Greek Dialects, revised CAH Cambridge Ancient History Campbell d.A. Campbell, Greek Lyric: Sappho and Alcaeus, revised edition Davies EGF M. Davies, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Davies PMGF M. Davies, Poetarum Melicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Der neue Pauly h. Cancik and H. Schneider (eds.) Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike DK H. Diels and W. Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker6 Fornara C.W. Fornara, Archaic Times to the End of the Pelopon- nesian War FGrHist Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker HCT A.W. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K.J. Dover, A Histor- ical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols. HW W.W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, 2 vols. IG Inscriptiones Graecae, 14 vols. InvM O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander IPriene F. Hiller, Inschriften von Priene ISE L. Moretti, Iscrizioni Storiche Ellenistiche Jouan/van Looy EF F. Jouan and H. van Looy, Euripide, vol. 8 (4 vols.):Fragments Kassel/Austin PCG R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.) Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 vols. xi Abbreviations

Kock Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, 3 vols. LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae Lobel/Page e. Lobel and D.L. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta ml r. Meiggs and D.M. Lewis, A Collection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century, revised edn nam national Archaeological Museum, Athens Nauck TrGF A. Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 2nd edn. OCD3 S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (eds.) The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn OCT Oxford Classical Texts Page FGE D.L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams Page PMG D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci Page SLG D.L. Page, Supplementum Lyricis Graecis Radt TrGF S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta RE Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft RO P.J. Rhodes and R. Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, 479–323 bc Staatsverträge h. Bengtson, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, 3 vols., 2nd edn Syll.3 W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecorum, 3rd edn Tod m. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, 2 vols. West m.L. West, Greek Lyric Poetry West IE/IE2 M.L. West, Iambi et Elegi Graeci I/II , 2nd edn West ThPhF M.L. West, Theognidis et Phocylidis Fragmenta et Adespota Quaedam Gnomica

When referring to epigraphical sources, ‘=’ does not always mean direct equivalence, but that the section of the inscription discussed can be found in both places.

Note on transliteration and translation I have used the Latinized equivalents for most Greek names, and, in the interests of accessibility, have used a transliterated form (with the nearest English equivalents) of a few more specialised terms and individual Greek words; in most cases, however, I have kept phrases and longer quotations in Greek. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.

xii List of figures

Page Fig. 1 red-figured pelike, depicting Heracles slaying Bousiris, c. 470 bc. 56 Fig. 2 ‘Macmillan’ aryballos, Protocorinthian; pottery aryballos decorated in miniature with eighteen warriors, a hare- hunt and horse-race. 120 Fig. 3 red-figured cup, depicting Greeks and Persians fighting, c. 490 bc. 127 Figs. 4a–c moulded cantharus representing the heads of two females, one Greek and the other Negroid, janiform arrangement, c. 490 bc. 127 Figs. 5a–c moulded cantharus depicting two heads, one female (European), one male (Negroid), janiform arrangement; inscribed: ‘I am Timyllus, as handsome as this face’, ‘I am Eronassa, very beautiful’. 133 Fig. 6 Pygmy rhyton, representing pygmy and crane, c. 460 bc. 133 Fig. 7 Pygmy rhyton, representing boy being eaten by crocodile, c. 460 bc. 134 Fig. 8 moulded aryballos representing Negroid male (inscribed: ‘Leagrus is handsome’), 6th century. 134 Figs. 9a–b attic red-figured oinochoe depicting naked Greek holding erect phallus and clothed Persian archer; inscribed: ‘I am Eurymedon. I stand bent over’, c. 460 bc. 135 Fig. 10 (and front cover) The Chicago Painter, pitcher (oinochoe) with Greek hoplite attacking Persian archer, Greek, classical period, c. 450 bc. 136 Figs. 11a–b The law against tyranny SEG( 12.87), thought to represent Demos being crowned by Democratia, 337/6 bc. 153 Fig. 12 iran: Persepolis – Treasury. S portico of courtyard 17, depicting King with Crown Prince and attendants behind him. 155

xiii List of figures

Fig. 13 iran: Persepolis – Throne Hall, audience scene and guards of E doorway, N wall, W jamb. 155 Fig. 14 iran: Persepolis – Throne Hall, enthroned King and attendant on E jamb, W doorway in S wall. 156 Fig. 15 relief on IG ii2 112, the alliance between Athens, Arcadia, Achaea, Elis and Phlius. 156 Fig. 16 iran: Persepolis, Harem of Xerxes, King and attendants on N doorway of the main hall, E jamb. 156

Poems by C.P. Cavafy ‘Waiting for the barbarians’ and ‘Returning from Greece’ from C.P. Cavafy: Collected Poems, translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard, published Chatto and Windus. Reprinted by permission of the Random House Group. Copyright © from Collected Poems by C.P. Cavafy first published The Hogarth Press. Translation copyright © Edmund Keely and Philip Sherrard 1975 and 1984. Reproduced by permission of the estate of C.P. Cavafy c/o Rogers, Coleridge & White Ltd, 20 Powis Mews, London W11 1JN.

xiv Introduction

Panhellenism and the barbarian

Panhellenism: defining a phenomenon How we represent ourselves, both to ourselves and to others, informs the way that we act, the things that we do, and the choices that we make. From at least the mid-sixth century, the Hellenes imagined themselves as a community united by cult and kinship, and possibly language as well. They characterized themselves as a people who valued freedom, law and justice. Non-Greeks, on the other hand, did not share the same language or the same values as the Greeks and lived lives of luxury, as a consequence of which they were both enervated and enslaved to tyrannical rule. From the early-fifth century, resistance to the barbarian invader became an important statement of unity, and, in carrying on the tradition of the Trojan Wars, the latter was idealized as the fulfilment of a shared destiny to fight wars against the barbarian which would carry the Greeks forward into a greater and more illustrious future. These expressions of community based on a shared past, a shared present, and a shared future were the ways in which the Hellenes represented themselves to themselves, and form the body of ideas, themes, visual representations and stories given the name of Panhellenism. The word Panhellenism, however, is a modern coinage. Although we know the name Panhellenes from as early as Archilochus, Hesiod, and probably Homer, no ancient ever used the term Panhellenismos or any term for the phenomenon or phenomena usually held to be embodied in Panhellenism. In modern scholarship, one thing that has generally been agreed, however, is that there was in antiquity a sense of Panhellenism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Panhellenism both as ‘[t]he idea or a plan of a political union of all Greeks’ and as ‘the Panhellenic spirit and aims’, and cites the first use of the term in 1860 as ‘[r]emembered in spoken use in Oxford’. In 1874, it was used in a specifically political sense by Fiske who (in trying to define patriotism) said that: Greek history, after the expulsion of the Persians, is the history of the struggle between the higher and lower patriotism – between the two feelings known to the Greeks as PanHellenism and Autonomism, represented respectively by Athens and by the Dorian communities. The mournful history of Thukydides

xv Introduction

tells us autonomism won the day entailing the moral and political failure of Greek civilization.1 Grote, on the other hand, also in the nineteenth century, used the adjective ‘Pan-Hellenic’ to refer in a general (though sometimes political) way to a ro- mantic, and relatively undefined, ideal of political and cultural community, so that (for example) he says: Admitting the injustice of Athens – an injustice common to both parties in that city, not less to Kimon than to Perikles – in acting as despot instead of chief, and in discontinuing all appeal to the active and hearty concurrence of her numerous allies, we shall find that the schemes of Perikles were nevertheless eminently Pan-Hellenic. In strengthening and ornamenting Athens, in devel- oping the full activity of her citizens, in providing temples, religious offerings, works of art, solemn festivals, all of surpassing attraction, – he intended to exalt her into something greater than an imperial city with numerous dependent allies. He wished to make her the centre of Grecian feeling, the stimulus of Grecian intellect, and the type of strong democratical patriotism combined with full liberty of individual taste and aspiration.2 For most modern commentators (as for Fiske) confrontation with the barbarian was intrinsic to Panhellenism and the Persian Wars were crucial in its formation. Perlman, a hundred years after Fiske, asks the question: What is Panhellenism? There is considerable difficulty in defining the term … Not only is there no ancient word for “Panhellenism”, but the history of the names Panhellenes, Hellenes and the use of the word Hellas show that the Panhellenic ideal is basically negative. It is not the component of common unity which is paramount in the history of these terms, but the antithesis between the Greeks and the other nations, especially between the Greeks and the Persians, between the Greeks and the barbarians.3 Likewise, Peter Rhodes in defining Panhellenism in the Oxford Classical Dictionary3 says: The beginnings of the idea [of Panhellenism] should be sought in the Greeks’ resistance to the Persian invasions of 490 and 480–479 bc, and in the as a Greek alliance formed to continue the war against Persia.4 Emphasizing the part of unity, Peter Green has defined Panhellenism as ‘an ideal policy of unity and collaboration between all Greek states, having as one of its major goals a retributive campaign against the Persian Empire’,5 and Simon Hornblower, in discussing the effect of the Persian Wars on Greece in the first revision of hisThe Greek World, claims that they were important for inaugurating neither cultural, political, nor social change, but were ‘decisive for Greek morale’ [his italics], and that it is ‘panhellenism, which deserves, if anything does, to be called Xerxes’ legacy’.6

xvi Panhellenism and the barbarian

For Perlman, however, Panhellenism was not in any real sense connected with unity or community, but rather was used by individual poleis against the broader community, arguing that: (1) The Panhellenic ideal did not have a great influence on political relations among the Greek states … (2) the Panhellenic ideal, based on the awareness of common national characteristics, was debated in some Greek intellectual circles; not only was the concept vague, but it never really penetrated the conscious- ness of the Greek ; moreover, even in those limited circles Panhellenism was never considered as a substitute for the polis. (3) Finally, what seems to me to be the most important conclusion: In practical politics, during the classical period, the Panhellenic ideal served as a tool of propaganda for the hegemonial or imperial rule of a polis; it served to justify the hegemony and the mastery of one polis over other states by proposing a common aim, war against the barbar- ians. It was the transformation of the Panhellenic ideal into a political concept after the Persian wars which made this use of it possible.7 For Perlman, then, Panhellenism became explicitly political (rather than just cultural), but operated only at the level of propaganda and was used by the Greek states, and particularly the Athenians, in their conflicts against each other to drive forward and legitimate imperialist policies. Because of the focus on the war against Persia, discussions of Hellenic identity and its relationship to the Other have also become fundamental to discussions of Panhellenism. Edith Hall argues that after the Persian Wars: The invariable corollary of Panhellenism from this time onwards [the production of Aeschylus’ Persians in 472 bc] is the maintenance of the image of an enemy common to all Hellenes, the ethnically other, the anti-Greek, the barbarian.8 Indeed, Perlman already seems to have correlated his version of Panhellenism and Hellenic identity when he says: We have seen that consciousness of a common Greek nation was born in the Persian Wars. Panhellenism was first and foremost directed against the barbarian enemy and based on the difference between Greeks and barbarians.9 Flower, for his part, distinguishes between expressions of identity and the barbarian war: In modern usage “panhellenism” has two distinct, but related, meanings. In one sense it refers to the notion of Hellenic identity and the concomitant polariza- tion of Greek and barbarian as generic opposites which rapidly developed as a result of the Persian invasions. In its other sense, panhellenism is the idea that the various Greek city-states could solve their political disputes and simultane- ously enrich themselves by uniting in common cause and conquering all or part of the Persian empire. The justification for such an enterprise was revenge for the Persian invasions of Greece in 490 and 480–79 bc.10

xvii Introduction

Still others have emphasized the cultural rather than the political nature of Panhellenism. Nagy looks back to the archaic period for the beginnings of Panhellenism and defines it as a ‘strong trend of intercommunication among the elite of the city-states.’11 Jonathan Hall, in Hellenicity, thinks ‘[i]t is possible that the doctrine of Panhellenism dates back to the middle of the fifth century’, and, limiting the phenomenon to Athens, sees Panhellenism as a ‘culturally-based Athenocentric notion of Hellenicity’.12 In all these various discussions of Panhellenism there are areas of consensus. It seems to be agreed, for example, that the idea of Panhellenism is closely associated with Greek identity, and so also with notions of barbarism. There are also certain points which are beyond doubt: the activities of Athens, and Alexander the Great testify to the fact that Panhellenism was used by individual city-states for imperialist gain. Beyond this, there is also much that is not agreed: for example, whether Panhellenism was essentially cultural or political, whether the origins of Panhellenism pre-date or post-date the Persian Wars, or whether Panhel- lenism represented a positive force in the interests of Hellenic unity or a negative justification for autonomism and imperialism. In fact, given the variety of understandings for what constitutes Panhellenism, one might even doubt its cohesiveness as a set of ideas, or even the existence of Panhellenism as a single phenomenon at all. The multi-valent adjective ‘panhellenic’ suffers from a similar ambiguity, and has been used both in a generalized sense to refer either to a shared culture or sense of geographical region, as well as in a more political or rhetorical way to refer to the body of ideas and themes comprising Panhellenism, so that the relationship between the weak and the strong sense has often been obscured.13 Panhellenic themes of unity, barbarism and war seem to sprawl across Hellenic consciousness, history and culture. Their apparent diversity and their many manifestations make Panhellenism difficult to pin down. The ‘war against the barbarian’, for example, which for many is the essence of Panhel- lenism, is picked up again and again in Greek art and literature, though used in a variety of different ways. On the one hand, the war against the barbarian creates a sense of continuous time and history for the Hellenic community, and on the other it paradoxically appears both protreptically to support Greek unity and community, and, as a tool of imperialist propaganda, to drive wedges through it. In the same way, the representation of the ‘barbarian’ is employed both as a self-defining ‘Other’ and critically and ironically as ‘Other- in-Self ’. Panhellenic idiom of ‘fear’, ‘sacrifice’ and ‘freedom’ are used and abused to support liberation, encourage disaffection, and assert supremacy and the primacy of one Greek state over the others. It is the very complexity and flexibility of Panhellenism that makes it so difficult, on the one hand, to define, and, on the other, to control. xviii Panhellenism and the barbarian

In fact, for many the fourth century, and particularly the work of Isocrates, represents the culmination of the Panhellenic programme. For example, George Cawkwell, in his recent book on political relations between Greeks and Persians, says that the ‘doctrines of Panhellenism … reached their finished form in the writings of Isocrates, particularly in the Panegyricus of 380 bc, where he appeals to Sparta to join Athens in leading the war against Persia; in this way Greece would rid itself of internal wars and join in the profits of the great crusade.’14 Isocrates certainly does draw heavily on Panhellenic themes. He urges a joint war under the leadership (at least initially) of Athens and Sparta against the barbarians in order to put an end to internal strife and engender Hellenic unity, and to alleviate Greek poverty through the acquisition of Asian wealth. But just as Isocrates was not the first to advocate a Panhellenic programme (and Cawkwell rightly warns that we need to be careful in looking for a beginning),15 he was also not the last. In the second century ad, the Roman emperor , while he did not advocate a war against the barbarian, did either establish or encourage the Panhellenion in Athens for all who could ‘prove’ their Hellenic descent. Many have seen behind Hadrian’s Panhellenion Isocrates’ programme (it is generally said that Hadrian was familiar with Isocrates’ writing). But there are clear similarities and significant differences between what Isocrates wanted (and what he claimed to want) and what Hadrian was hoping to achieve (or to be achieved by others). What is important here is not that Hadrian was trying to emulate Isocratean ideals (which may or may not be true); rather, it is significant that both Isocrates and Hadrian were drawing on a common pool of ideas, and that these ideas were flexible enough to be used in a variety of ways. Indeed, that is what Panhellenism is and provides: a supple and integrated set of themes, stories and representations, which together have an internal coherence and create a thematic unity. It is the boundaries of the ‘pool’ which are important. This book is not, and will not provide, a comprehensive coverage of panhellenism in its most generalized or cultural sense. It does in fact distinguish between a general cultural and geographical panhellenism and the particular and political phenomenon, although it argues that political Panhellenism grew out of a more general shared culture. One of the central tenets of the book is that Panhellenism was not only a unified and complex set of ideas, but also that it was political, in the sense that it created the ‘political’ community of the Hellenes, that it critiqued it, and that it provided a mechanism through which the Hellenes could develop culturally and politically. In fact, one of the functions of Panhellenism was to bridge and obscure the gap between the cultural and the political unities and disunities in the Greek world. Another function was to explore the gap created by cultural disparity, or at least

xix