DIMITRA CALLIGERI THE DORIAN-IONIAN DISTINCTION IN THUCYDIDES' 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 Ionians 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 Peloponnesian war 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 Heracles and came with the Heraclidae from Doris. According to Thucydides3, they were newcomers who subjected the Achaeans when they arrived in Greece 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 Herodotus (VII 94, VIII 44) had Ion 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 Athens 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 Sicily, 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 Segesta 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 Pindar, 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 ancient Greek 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 Sparta (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 Chalcis («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».