sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dorians

DIMITRA CALLIGERI

THE DORIAN-IONIAN DISTINCTION IN ' BOOKS VI AND VII

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dorian-Ionian distinction in Thucydides' Books VI-VII and the extent up to which the historian regards it as a matter of extreme importance and as a factor that might be an influence upon men's attitude by determining the motives of their actions. The Dorians and the are the two most numerous and politically important ethnic divisions of the Greek race in classical times. Thucydides rarely provides his readers with further information about this area, the background of which is not only of political, racial or linguistic importance, but also —if not basically— of a religious one. The above mentioned assessment makes it particularly necessary to shed further light upon this issue, in order to clarify the problem. Due to Thucydides' systematic policy of silence about religion, which was — contrary to the impression of his narrative— "extensively used by the Athenians as a propaganda device inside their empire"' it seems firstly that there is not good evidence for the importance of ethnic feeling during the and secondly that it is difficult to determine the ways in which religion and politics interact. But is it indeed plausible to support such an assessment? Before we go on to the charification of this issue, we find it necessary to analyze the meaning of the phrase "ethnic feeling". According to John Alty2, "it is feelings (or opinions) arising from someone's membership of one of the two ethnic groups with which we are concerned. These could be feelings felt by the member of the group himself or they could be feelings felt by those outside a group towards those within it". At this point and previous to the study of the way in which Thucydides deals with the Dorian-Ionian distinction, we should talk briefly about the historical background of the Dorians and the Ionians.

1. See Simon Hornblower, «The religious dimension to the Peloponnesian war, or, what Thucydides does not tell us», Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 94 (1992), 168-197. 2. See John Alty, Dorians and Ionians, The Journal of Hellenic Studies CII, (1982) 1. 256 Dimitra Calligeri

Dorians drew their origins from and came with the Heraclidae from . According to Thucydides3, they were newcomers who subjected the when they arrived in and especially in Péloponnèse c. 80 years after Troy fell, an event put not long before 1200 BC. Ionians, on the other hand, according to (VII 94, VIII 44) had as their eponymous ancestor and were displaced by the Dorian invasion of 1200 BC. Settled in Attica as refugees, they later formed the core of the Ionian population of Asia Minor, where they were exposed to attack from the Lydian and Persian monarchies. It was natural that the Ionians of Asia saw in the powerful of the fifth century the mother city of their own cities4. The literary output of ancient times —as John Alty notes in his article "Dorians and Ionians"— is quite rich in references to the Dorians and the Ionians which reflect the sense of a natural enmity between the two έθνη, the idea that there is a common kinship made by the members of each έθνος and contain slighting comments by Dorians about Ionians' bravery. More particularly, the Ionians' supposed effeminacy, luxuriousness or luck of resolution is a locus communis —which is usually related to the kindly climate of Asia or to the contact with the βάρβαροι— whereas the Dorians' military superiority is often emphasised5. Let us now discuss thoroughly the relevant Thucydidean extracts from VI and VII which contain references to kinship arguments and ethnic antipathy on both sides in the Peloponnesian war, in order to draw safe conclusions regarding the point of view through which the historian dealt with the issue of the Dorian-Ionian distinction. From the very opening of Book VI Thucydides gives us an excursus (digression) on barbarian and Greek settlements in , which at first sight may seem quite irrelevant to his main subject of narrative, but it proves to be of extreme importance, as it provides us with all the necessary information which justifies the Athenians' decision to invade Sicily, as a decision partly based on the natural enmity between Dorians-Ionians and on kinship rights. Apart from this, the envoys from seek to convince the Athenians of the danger that, if Syracuse is allowed to dominate Sicily by crushing the Athenian allies there, the Dorians of the west may lend to the Dorians of the Péloponnèse the support of formidable resources in a combined effort to destroy Athenian power: «ει Συρακόσιοι... την άπασαν δύναμιν της Σικελίας σχήσονσι, κίνδυνον είναι μη ποτέ μεγάλη παρασκευή Δωριής τε Λω-

3. Thucydides Book I. 12: «Δωριής τε όγδοηκοστφ ετει ξύν Ήρακλείδαις Πελοπόννησον εσχον, μόλις τε εν πολλφ χρόνω ήσνχάσασα ή 'Ελλάς βεβαίως και ούκέτι ανισταμενη αποικίας εξέπεμπε, "Ιωνας μέν 'Αθηναίοι και νησιωτών τους πολλούς ωκισαν, Ιταλίας δε και Σικελίας το πλείστον Πελοποννήσιοι της τε άλλης Ελλάδος εστίν α χωρία». 4. For further information see The Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition, edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 495, 764, 5. See , Pyth I. 118 ff., Herodotus I. 56. The Dorian - Ionian Distinction in Thucydides 257

ριεϋσί κατά το ξυγγενές και άμα άποικοι τοις εκπέμψασι Πελοποννησίοις βοηθή- σαντες και την εκείνων δύναμιν ξυγκαθέλωσιν» (VI. 6.2). Let us now comment briefly on the subject of ξυγγένεια (kinship). "The idea of racial kinship was connected in minds with myth and religion. There were two reasons for this. First, the peoples who were thought to be connected by kinship traced their origins to common mythical, or sometimes heroic, ancestors. And second, they had cults in common... a metropolis, or founding city of a colony, often passed on its cults to that colony or daughter city... 'this mother-daughter' relationship was a common type of kinship between cities and involved religious and other kinds of reciprocity"6. According to Gomme in his Historical Commentary on Thucydides, "the sentiments attached to community of ancestry and dialect were normally taken into account in the language of diplomacy, as were traditional enmities between Ionians and Dorians". At this point we should also briefly refer to other relevant examples, where the argument of kinship is repeatedly used so as to become obvious that it gives rise to action at the political and military level: the Ionians after the Persian war (I. 95), the Corinthians at (I. 68-71), the Melians (V. 112.2), the men of both Leontinoi and Egesta at Athens and the Athenians themselves at Rhegium (III. 86). In the assembly at Camarina —where the issue was whether Camarina should join the Athenians against Syracuse— the Sicilian Hermocrates repeatedly appeals to the Dorian origins of the people of Camarina, to the racial pride of the Dorian states and to the kinship with Syracuse that should affect their final decision: «βουλόμεθα προθνμότερον δεΐξαι αύτοΐς οτι ουκ Ίωνες τάδε είσίν... οϊ αίεί δονλοϋνται... άλλα Δωριής ελεύθεροι απ' αυτονόμου της Πελοποννήσου την Σικελίαν οίκοϋντες» (VI. 77.1). Later on he emphasises the inveterate enmity between Ionians and Dorians and the necessity for unity between all the latter: «δεόμεθα δέ και μαρτυ- ρόμεθα άμα, ει μη πείσομεν, οτι έπιβουλευόμεθα μεν υπό Ιώνων αίεί πολεμίων, προδιδόμεθα δέ υπό υμών Δωριής Δωριών...» (VI. 80.3). As a reply, Euphemus, the Athenians' ambassador, argued that Athens was justified in dominating her subjects, represented Athenian policy in Greece as a defence of Ionians against Dorians, and emphasised too the natural enmity between Dorians and Ionians, but, wisely enough, did not base his whole speech on the kinship argument, as the people of Camarina were Dorians: «το μεν οϋν μέγιστον μαρτύριον αυτός εϊπεν, οτι οί Ίωνες αίεί ποτέ πολέμιοι τοις Δωριεϋσιν είσίν. έχει δέ και οϋτως· ημείς γαρ Ίωνες οντες Πελοποννησίοις Δωριεϋσι, και πλέο- σιν οϋσι και παροικοϋσιν, εσκεψάμεθα οτω τρόπω ήκιστα αυτών ύπακουσόμε- θα» (VI. 82.2).

6. See Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, volume II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1996), p. 62. 17 258 Dimitra Calligeri

It is worth noting that the most emphatic ethnic references are spotted not in the passages of the narrator, but in the speeches of different characters. This ascertainment automatically raises a series of questions, such as if these speeches were actually delivered, if the speakers did use the arguments attributed to them or if they are among τα δέοντα supplied by Thucydides. An assessment almost universally accepted is that, even if we accept that the speeches are not verbatim reports and that they belong to a later stage —since the History passed through several stages of development— we have to agree that Thucydides' arguments are representative of the types of arguments used by contemporary speakers. Therefore, they reflect to a great extent the mentality and the beliefs of his contemporaries regarding the issue of the Dorian-Ionian distinction. Nevertheless, according to Ed. Will7, these are just mere sophisms and rhetorical argumentation that the orators of the time exploited as an oratorical trick without any appeal to real ethnic feeling. Besides it is the same Hermocrates who claims in VI. 76 that the Athenians have no Ionian strategy in mind regarding their relationship with Leontinoi, colony of («ου γαρ δη εϋλογον... Λεοντίνων μεν Χαλκιδέ- ων όντων κατά το ξυγγενές κήδεσθαι, Χαλκιδέας δε τους εν Εύβοια ών οΐδε άποι­ κοι είσι, δουλωσαμένους εχειν»). Hermocrates' total lack in the existence of ethnic feeling becomes obvious also in IV. 61.2, where he claims that it is Athenian im­ perialism who attacks all cities regardless of race: «παρεστάναι δέ μηδενί ως oí μεν Δωριης ημών πολέμιοι τοις Άθηναίοις, το δέ Χαλκιδικον τη Ίάδι ξυγγενεία ασφα­ λές, ου γαρ τοις εθνεσι, δτι δίχα πέφυκε, του ετέρου εχθει έπίασιν, άλλα των εν τη Σικελία αγαθών έφιέμενοι, α κοινή κεκτήμεθα». In addition to that Euphemus himself also points out that only self - interest can govern the system of alliances and enmities adopted by a city at the head of an empire: «άνδρί δέ τυραννώ ή πόλει αρχήν έχούση ουδέν αλογον δτι ξυμφέρον ούό' οίκεΐον δτι μη πιστόν, προς έκα­ στα δέ δει ή έχθρον ή φίλον μετά καιροϋ γίγνεσθαι» (VI. 85.1). Apart from Ed. Will's objections, the fact that such a Dorian-Ionian distinction was indeed a reality may also be supported by another ascertainment, namely by the fact that Thucydides —in constrast with Herodotus— shows a remarkable respect for the Dorian forms8. As it has been stressed from the beginning of this paper, the background of such a distinction was also linguistic, but basically political and religious, and such was the fundamental dimension of the Peloponnesian war. It would therefore be plausible to assume that the Thucydidean respect of the Dorian

7. See Ed. Will, Doriens et Ionians. Essai sur la valeur du critère ethnique applique a l'étude de historie et de la civilisation grecques, Paris BL 1956. Generally he is against any ethical, political, or aesthetic valuation of the Greek populations when they are based only on preconceptions and modern ideologies instead of scientific criteria. 8. Book IV. 43: Παγώνδας, Book VII. 30: Σκιρφώνδαν. The Dorian - Ionian Distinction in Thucydides 259

forms is a way of underlining further the linguistic and subsequently the ethnic division. Of course, this respect could also be interpreted as an indication of Thucydides' panhellenic attitude, but such an opinion seems to be rather invalid, since he kept out a particularly important panhellenic theme, namely the one of Θούριους in Book I. In addition to that, Thucydides' constant silence regarding religious matters is another argument against this panhellenic attitude, since —according to the Herodotian definition of «TO έλληνικον»— religion was one of the three factors which defined the Greek nation. Taking into consideration all the above mentioned arguments, we conclude that in the years of the Peloponnesian war ethnic feeling between Dorians and Ionians was not only an existing phenomenon, but also highly considered as an influence upon men's actions. Obviously Thucydides was well aware of this, since generally, according to Andrews' commentary on V. 80, "considerations of race and origins are often advanced by ancient writers as motives for political actions and they have been more effective than we are inclined to imagine". Nevertheless, there are some passages, the study of which suggests that it may not be that plausible after all to support such an ascertainment. As Ed. Will notes9, even if the were divided in different έθνη, they did not actually have the consciousness of being so. He also stresses that it would be wrong to make conclusions and generalise about the Dorians' or the Ionians' character, since we know these έθνη only at historical age and, in fact, we know nothing about them at the age of migrations. That means that it is impossible to find out the generic traits of what should be called "an authentic Greekness", strictly defined as a race. He also draws attention to the fact that in the first speech of the Corinthians at Sparta (I. 68-71) Thucydides did not speak at all about any ethnic terms, since Athens and Sparta were presented completely opposed, but only as two different Greek cities. He therefore considers it legitimate to reduce the difference between Dorians and Ionians to an absolute conventional minimum. Particular caution needs to be given to J. D. Romilly's opinion, who suggests in her Thucydide et l'impérialisme Athénien that "every Thucydidean reference to either ethnic hostility or common ethnic origin is just an explanation for the Athenian imperialism. She is therefore reluctant to accept all those theories that have tried to present Athenian policy as resting on alliance of Ionians against Dorians, or democracies against oligarchies... Thus the vital conflict produced in Greece by the development of Athenian imperialism causes all other problems to fade into the backgrount..."10.

9. See Herodotus, Book VIII. 144. 10. See Ed. Will, Doriens et Ionians. Essai sur la valeur du critère ethnique appliqué à l'étude de l'histoire et de la civilisation grecques, chapter 2, Paris BL, 1956. 260 Dimitra Calligeri

Thucydides' desire to show that racial opposition is insignificant by the side of the real relationship founded on self-interest becomes quite evident in the catalogue of allies fighting on each side in the final struggle at Syracuse (VII. 57). Although he considers none of the criteria of his classification (location, race, political status) as particularly fundamental, he does not hesitate to admit that one of these criteria was chance (ξυντνχία) —which essentially determined the alignment— or purely compulsion (ανάγκη) and self-interest (ξνμφέρον): «επί Συ- ρακονσας έπολέμησαν, ου κατά δίκην τι μάλλον ουδέ κατά ξυγγένειαν μετ' αλλή­ λων στάντες, αλλ' ως έκάστοις της ξνντυχίας ή κατά το ξνμφέρον ή ανάγκη εσχεν» (VII. 57.1). In spite of the fact that the criterion of kinship is repeatedly mentioned not only directly, but also indirectly (in the form of polyptoton: Λίολής Αίολενσι, Βοιωτοί Βοιωτοΐς, by phrases such as τοις κτίσασι - which is another way of saying metropolis - and ró γένος - which is an indirect reference to the criterion of race), the criterion of ξνμφέρον and ανάγκη seems to be the most prominent of all, as it is highlighted from the beginning of the paragraph and is mentioned more than once. At this point'we find it necessary to draw our attention, once more, to J. de Romilly's comment" that "in fact Thucydides does use an ethnic framework, but in each instance he points out how inadequate it is... bringing out at the same time the real reasons for the conflict between the two sides. Thus, in Athens' allies in 57.6 «'Ρόδιοι δε και Κνθήριοι Δωριης αμφότεροι..., in 57.7 ΚερκνραΙοι δε ου μόνον Δωριης, αλλά και Κορίνθιοι σαφώς επί Κορινθίονς τε και Σνρακοσί- ονς..., in 57.9 Άργεΐοι μεν ον της ξνμμαχίας ένεκα μάλλον ή της Λακεδαιμονίων τε έχθρας και της παραυτίκα έκαστοι ιδίας ώφελίας Δωριής επί Δωριάς μετά 'Αθηναίων Ιώνων ήκολούθουν». We may add that the barbarians who join the list help to invalidate the idea that race can be considered as being in any way a determining factor". Thucydides' reluctance to support the importance of ethnic feeling at the time of the Peloponnesian war is also related to his views about motivation generally. An assessment universally accepted is that the purpose of his History was by no means confined to study the historical events superficially, but to approach the historical events by making a thorough investigation to their deeper causes and interpret them for the reader through a purely rationalistic point of view. This tendency auto­ matically makes him suspicious of all kind of popular beliefs, such as the existence

11. See J. D. Romilly, Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism, pages 82, 83, 85, translated by Philip Thody, Oxford Basil Blackwell 1963. Other relevant extracts (from books VI and VII) that highlight the Athenian imperialistic mentality are: VI. 18.3 «ανάγκη, έπειδήπερ εν τωδε καθέστα- μεν, τοϊς μεν έπιβουλενειν, τους δε μή άνιέναι», VII. 56.2 «roiç μεν έλευθεροϋσθαι, τους δέ φό­ βου άπολύεσθαι», VI. 77.2 «και οιόμεθα τοϋ απωθεν ξυνοίκου προαπολλνμένου ου και ες αυτόν τίνα ήξειν το δεινόν». The Dorian - Ionian Distinction in Thucydides 261

of ethnic feeling as a motivation of men's actions. For him the only factor that motivates men's actions is self-interest12. Accordingly it would be valid to conclude that for Thucydides the antagonism between Dorians and Ionians was just a rhetorical device used by different politicians in his times, but never a deeply felt principle in the conscience of the Greeks. As Ed. Will notes"13, the latter had no idea of ethnic conscience, as they always judged themselves in terms of two directions simultaneously: on the one hand their unity against the barbarian world14, and on the other their specificity as different πόλεις". Thucydides' attitude towards the subject of the above mentioned distinction is apparently related to his general reticence regarding the religious matters. According to S. Hornblower15, "Thucydides in his narrative tends to confine religion to people's conscious or announced motives, but does not think that, in the language of I. 23, provides the "truest cause" or αληθέστατη πρόφασις for their actions; to that extent he neglects the importance of the religious factor which he nevertheless documents for us so valuably... and takes for granted a lot of knowledge of Greek religion and its rituals". Therefore, given the fact that the background of the Dorian-Ionian distinction was basically religious, his reluctance to bring out adequately or even comment on its significance needs no further explanation. Edouard Will and John Alty approached the issue of the Dorian-Ionian distinction in Thucydides through a different point of view and contributed to the formation of useful conclusions by clarifying further the whole issue. The thorough consideration of their studies suggests that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, since such a distinction was certainly a reality which was often exploited by the politicians and a locus communis in , but by no means a factor of extreme influence upon men's actions.

12. See also Thucydides' Book I. 20: «ούτως άταλαίπωρος τοίς πολλοίς ή ζήτησις της αλη­ θείας, και επί τα έτοιμα μάλλον τρέπονται... χαλεπά δντα παντί έξης τεκμηρίφ πιστεϋσαι... οι γαρ άνθρωποι τάς άκοάς των προγεγενημένων, και ην έπιχώρια σφίσιν ή, ομοίως άβασανίστως παρ' αλλήλων δέχονται». 13. See Ed. Will, Doriens et Ionians. Essai sur la valeur du critère ethnique appliqué à l'étude de l'histoire et la civilisation grecques, chapter 4, Paris BL 1956. 14. For further information about the Greek-Barbarian distinction see Ed. Hall, Inventing the Barbarians, Oxford 1991. 15. See Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides, volume II, page 62, Carendon Press, Oxford, 1996. Some Thucydidean omissions regarding religious matters are: the Olympic Games of 432, the epitaphios agon or funeral contest in the Funeral Oration, the briel reference to the foundation of the , the Delphic amphictiony, the building programme on the of which the Nike temple was part, the myth that the festival of the Delia was founded by Theseus etc. For further analysis see Simon Hornblower, «The Religious Dimension of the Peloponnesian War», Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 94 (1992). 262 Dimitra Calligeri

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adcock F. E., Thucydides and his History, Cambridge 1963. Alty J., «Dorians and Ionians», The Journal of Hellenic Studies, CU (1982). Cawkwell G., Thucydides and the Peloponnesian war, London 1997. Connor W. R., Thucydides, Princeton University Press, 1984. Crame G., The Blinded Eye, Thucydides and the New Written World, 1996. Dover K. J., Greek Popular Morality, Oxford 1974. Finley J. Η., Θουκυδίδης, μετ./αναλ. βιβλ. Τ. Κουκουλιός, Αθήνα 19853. Gomme Α. W., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1956. Hornblower S., «The religious dimension to the Peloponnesian War, or, what Thucydides does not tell us», Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 94, London 1992. Hornblower S., A Commentary on Thucydides, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996. Hornblower S., Thucydides, London 1997. Jarde Α., The Formation of the Greek People, London 1926. Jeffery L. H., , London 1976. Rawlings H. R., The Structure of Thucydides' History, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Romilly J., Thucydides and Athenian Imperialism, Oxford 1963. Romilly J., 'Ιστορία και λόγος στον Θουκυδίδη, published by MIET, Athens 1988. Romilly J., Ή οικοδόμηση της αλήθειας στον Θουκυδίδη, translated by Σ. Βλοντάκης, published by Papademas, Athens 1994. Will Ed., Doriens et Ionians. Essai sur la valeur du critère ethnique appliqué à l'étude de l'histoire et de la civilisation grecques, Paris 1956. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition, edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, Oxford University Press, 1996.