Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:04:07.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Medism of Pausanias: Two Versions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

J.A.S. Evans
J.A.S. Evans*
Affiliation:
The University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The medism and death of Pausanias, the son of Kleombrotos, is an old problem that is still with us. The chief source is Thucydides, who devotes a digression (1.128-38) to the parallel lives of Pausanias and Themistokles. Thucydides generally repressed his interest in biography, as Gomme once observed, remarking that in this, more than anything else, he showed his determination not to write like Herodotus, and not to beguile his readers with what was merely attractive. But at 1.128-38, he writes in a Herodotean vein, employing a style which shows marked differences with the rest of the History, and some lack of critical judgement in evaluating his evidence. There is much truth in Meiggs’ remark that ‘had Thucydides’ account been written by any other Greek historian, it would not have been taken seriously.’

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 22 , 1988 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gomme, A.W.A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 1 (Oxford 1945: henceforth HCT), p. 27.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Westlake, H.D. ‘Thucydides on Pausadas and Themistocles — a written source?’ CQ 27 (1977), 95–110,CrossRefGoogle Scholar who argues that Charon of Lampsakos may have been Thucydides’ source. Charon’s importance for the Themistokles tradition seems clear at least cf. Meritt, B.D., Wade-Gery, H.T., McGregor, M.F.The Athenian Tribute Lists 3 (Princeton, N.J. 1950: henceforth ATL), 112–13.Google ScholarPouncey, PeterThe Necessities of War. A Study of Thucydides’ Pessimism (New York 1980), 70–71,Google Scholar suggests a ‘deliberate if gentle parody’ of Herodotus’ style here. I fail to see the parody, but the Herodotean influence is clear.

3 Gomme, , Andrewes, , Dover, HCT 5.381–2;Google Scholar cf. Podlecki, A.J. ‘Themistocles and Pausanias’, Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione classica 104 (1976), 293–311.Google Scholar

4 The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972), 465. The literature is extensive. See Bengston, H.Griechische Geschichte2, (München 1960), 185 n.l;Google ScholarLang, Mabel ‘Scapegoat Pausanias’, CJ 63 (1967), 79–85;Google ScholarLazenby, J.F. ‘Pausanias, son of Kleombrotos’, Hermes 103 (1975), 235–51;Google ScholarFornara, C.W. ‘Some Aspects of the Career of Pausanias of Sparta’, Historia 15 (1966), 257–71;Google ScholarBlamire, A. ‘Pausanias and Persia’, GRBS 11 (1970), 295–305;Google ScholarBalcer, J.M. ‘The Medizing of the Regent Pausanias’, Actes du premier Congrès international des ètudes balkaniques et sudest europèens 1 (Sofia 1969), 105–14;Google ScholarRhodes, P.J. ‘Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles’, Historia 19 (1970), 387–400;Google ScholarLippold, A. ‘Pausanias von Sparta und die Perser’, RhMus. 108 (1965), 320–41;Google ScholarCroix, G.E.M. de Ste.The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972), 171–2;Google ScholarSchieber, A.S. ‘Thucydides and Pausanias’, Athenaeum n.s. 58 (1980), 396–405.Google Scholar

5 Cf. Thuc. 1.95.5–6.

6 Thuc. 1.128.3. Only here is the war with Persia called the ‘Hellenic War’: cf. Westlake (at n.2), 102; HCT 1.431, ad loc. The translation we would expect is ‘the war against the Greeks’. It would, however, be unwise to base theories about Pausanias’ motives on evidence as slender as this.

7 Cf. 1.95.5; 1.128.3. Schieber (at n.4), 401–02, remarks that Pausanias’ medism was ‘very clear’ at 1.95.5, and yet later (1.132.5) the ephors are still searching for indisputable proof. However, at 1.95.5, Thucydides seems to be expressing a personal opinion; the ephors were clearly less convinced.

8 Hell. 3.1.6; cf. Anab. 7.8.8; Julius Beloch, K.Griechische Geschichte2 (Strasbourg 1916) 2.2.156;Google ScholarFrost, F.J.Plutarch’s Themistocles. A Historical Commentary (Princeton N.J. 1980), 220–21;Google ScholarFogazza, G. ‘Sui Gongilidi di Eretria’, Parola del Passato 27 (1972), 129–30;Google ScholarBurn, A.R.Persia and the Greeks2 (London 1984), 324.Google Scholar

9 Pausanias probably received some of these captives as his portion of the booty: cf. Hdt. 9.81 for his portion after Plataea.

10 Cf. Cook, J.M.The Persian Empire (London 1983), 96.Google Scholar

11 For his earlier career, see Evans, J.A.S.AJPh 84(1963), 96.Google Scholar

12 Cook, op. cit., 166.

13 Olmstead, A.T. ‘A Persian Letter in Thucydides’, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 49 (1932), 154–61,CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes four parallels from Persian documents: cf. Luschnat, O.RE Suppl. 12 (Stuttgart 1970), col. 1123.Google Scholar But Persian letters in Aramaic were known in fifth–century Greece and apparently could be translated without difficulty in both Athens and Sparta: cf. Thuc. 4.50.

14 HCT 1.394; Andrewes, A. ‘Sparta and Arcadia’, Phoenix 6 (1952), 1–5,CrossRefGoogle Scholar ATL 3.179, dates the recall to summer 478, leaving even less time for the exchange of letters.

15 Cf. Fornara, op. cit. (at n.4), 264–65; Blamire, op. cit. (at n.4), 465–68. The King’s mail could move between Sardis and Susa inside a week (Cook, op. cit. [at n.10], 168) though the journey at the more usual pace took three months (Hdt. 5.54). Thus Fornara’s objection that a message could not get to Susa and back at the speed which Thucydides’ story demands cannot hold, but in general his arguments are well–taken. Pausanias could not have committed all the sins ascribed to him in Thuc. 1.128–30 in the few months available to him in 478.

16 ATL 3.175; HCT 1.394; White, MaryJHS 84 (1964), 144;CrossRefGoogle Scholar J.F. Lazenby, op. cit. (at n.4), 239.

17 Justin 9.1.3.

18 Beloch, op. cit. (at n.8), 185–88.

19 Fornara, op.cit. (at n.4), 268; Rhodes, op. cit. (at n.4), 397; Meiggs, op. cit. (at n.4), 465–68; cf. Gomme, , Andrewes, , Dover, HCT 5.381–82.Google Scholar

20 Cf. White, JHS 84 (1964), 144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGomme, HCT 1.397,Google Scholar dates the second return to 473 at the latest.

21 Robert Connor, W.Thucydides (Princeton, N.J. 1984), 130 n.52;Google Scholar 139 n.70; cf. Gomme, JHS 71 (1951), 72–73.Google Scholar

22 M. Lang, op. cit. (at n.4), is particularly thorough in her criticism, although most scholars have failed to follow her attempt to resurrect Kahrstedt’s, U. view (‘Sparta und Persien in der Pentekontaetie’, Hermes 56 [1921], 320–25)Google Scholar that Pausanias acted as Sparta’s agent in negotiating peace with Persia in behalf of the Peloponnesian League.

23 Cf. Bruns, IvoDas literarische Porträt der Griechen in fünften und vierten Jahrhundert vor Christi Geburt (Berlin 1896, repr. Hildesheim 1961), 81–82.Google Scholar

24 Finley, J.H.Thucydides (Cambridge, Mass. 1942, repr. Ann Arbor 1963), 139,CrossRefGoogle Scholar points out that Thucydides uses the contrasting lives of Pausanias and Themistokles as paradeigmata of their respective states, and although I cannot go as far as Konishi, H. (‘Thucydides’ Method in the Episodes of Pausanias and Themistocles’, AJPh 91 [1970] 52–69)Google Scholar in arguing for structural parallels, I believe that I am justified in calling them ‘parallel lives’. Thus if, as Grundy, G.B. suggested (Thucydides and the History of His Age [London 1911], 450–51)Google Scholar Thucydides wanted to correct Herodotus’ picture of Themistokles, he may also, pace Grundy, have wanted to modify the picture of Pausanias as well.

25 FGrH 432 F 9, ap. Athenaeus 12, p.536 a–b.

26 1.95.3; 95.5; cf. How, W.W. and Wells, J.A Commentary on Herodotus (Oxford 1928; henceforth HW) 2.12, ad 5.32.Google Scholar

27 Pearson, L. ‘Prophasis and Aitia’, TAPA 83 (1952), 205–23;Google ScholarSealey, R. ‘Thucydides, Herodotus and the Causes of War’, CQ 7 (1957), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Herodotus (9.108) believed that Xerxes went directly from Sardis to Susa. The implication of Hdt. 9.107–108 may be that Xerxes was still in Sardis when the fugitives from the battle of Mykale reached it, but this cannot be pressed. Babylon may have been in revolt in 479 or 478, but it need not have required the King’s personal attention. Thus Artabazos probably rejoined Xerxes at Susa.

29 Cf. Hammond, N.G.L. ‘The Extent of Persian Occupation in Thrace’, Chiron 10 (1980), 53–61.Google Scholar

30 HCT 1.433.

31 Frost, op. cit. (at. n.8), 190–91; Andrewes, op. cit. (at n.14), 1–5; Forrest, W.G. ‘Pausanias and Themistocles Again’, Lakonikai Spoudai 2 (1975), 115–19.Google Scholar

32 ‘Some Agiad Dates: Pausanias and his Sons’, JHS 84 (1964), 140–52.

33 1.101.1–2. Lazenby, op. cit (at n.4), suggests that Pausanias may have lived on long enough to have urged Sparta to support Thasos’ appeal for help in her insurrection, but that after the start of the helot revolt, he was removed as an embarrassment.

34 Thuc. 1.134.1.

35 Cf. A. Lippold, op. cit. (at n.4), 329–30.

36 Cf. Jacoby, F.RE Suppl. 2 (Stuttgart 1913), col. 23;Google Scholar HW 1.9. See also Todd, O.J. ‘On the Date of Herodotus’ Death’, CQ 16 (1922), 35–36;Google ScholarFomara, C.W. ‘Evidence for the Date of Herodotus’ Publication’, JHS 91 (1971), 25–34;Google ScholarCobet, J. ‘Wann wurde Herodots Darstellung der Perserkriege publiziert?’, Hermes 105 (1977), 2–27,Google ScholarEvans, J.A.S. ‘Herodotus’ Publication Date’, Athenaeum 57 (1979), 245–49;Google Scholar id., Herodotus (Boston 1982), 15–18.

37 Evans, J.A.S. ‘Herodotus 9.73.3 and the Publication Date of the Histories’, CP 82 (1987), 226–228.Google Scholar

38 Thuc. 2.23.11; cf. HCT 2.79, ad loc.

39 Thuc. 3.26.3; cf. Adcock, F.E.CR 61 (1947), 2–7.Google Scholar

40 See, inter alia, Finley, J.H. Jr. ‘The Unity of Thucydides’ History’, HSCP Suppl. 1 (1940), 255–98,Google Scholar repr. in Three Essays on Thucydides (Cambridge, Mass. 1967), 118–69; Ziegler, K. ‘Der Ursprung des Exkurses im Thukydides’, RhMus. 78 (1929), 58–67;Google ScholarAdcock, F.E. ‘Thucydides in Book 1’,JHS 71 (1951), 2–12;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWestlake, H.D. ‘Thucydides and the Pentekontaetia’, CQ 5 (1955), 53–67;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGomme, , Andrewes, , Dover, HCT 5.384–444;Google ScholarProctor, D.The Experience of Thucydides (Warminster 1980), 8–33.Google Scholar

41 op. cit. (at n.40), 66 n.2.

42 Thuc. 1.20; cf. Finley, M.I.Introduction to the History of the Peloponnesian War2 (Penguin Classics, Harmondsworth 1972), 15–16.Google ScholarGomme, HCT 1.137–38,Google Scholar inserts a cautionary note.

43 Finley, ‘Euripides and Thucydides’, HSCP 49 (1938), 23–68;Google Scholar id., ‘The Origins of Thucydides’ Style’, HSCP 50 (1939), 35–84, both repr. in Three Essays (at n.40).

44 Cf. Thuc. 1.95.7, where fear of Spartiate corruptibility abroad is said to have contributed to Sparta’s decision to withdraw from the war. Archidamus’ description of Spartan character (Thuc. 1.83–85) appears to be an effort to counter this reputation.

45 Cf. Kiechle, F. ‘Ursprung und Wirken den machtpolitische Theorien bei Thukydides’, Gymnasium 70 (1963), 289–312.Google ScholarRawlings, Hunter R. III ‘Thucydides on the Delian League’, Phoenix 31 (1977), 10–18.Google Scholar

46 Hdt. 7.139; cf. Evans, J.A.S. ‘Herodotus and Athens: The Evidence of the Encomium’, AntCl 48 (1979), 112–18.Google Scholar

47 This is a serious objection to Schieber’s suggestion (op. cit. [at n.4]) that the letters were found at the end of the fifth century by Lysander and used by him to denigrate the regent’s grandson, Pausanias. By that time, Lysander had himself helped to make collaboration with the Persians respectable. Momigliano, A. on the other hand, has pointed to the beginning of the Peloponnesian War as the time when the circulation of these letters would be in Sparta’s interest (Mem. dell’ Accademia delle scienze di Torino, ser. 2,67 [1930], 32–34),Google Scholar because they served to vindicate Sparta’s action on Pausanias. It is true that Athens seized upon the curse of the Brazen House as a propaganda weapon in 432. However, the letters would have been more useful to Sparta earlier, when the sacrilege was referred to Delphi. In 432, it was in Athens’ interest to emphasize Sparta’s treachery in the aftermath of the Persian War, and the two incriminating letters demonstrated Sparta’s lack of concern for the Ionians and her treachery in the aftermath of the Persian War.

48 It should be kept in mind how closely the kings in Sparta controlled access to the Delphic oracle: Hdt. 6.57.2; 4; cf. Georges, Pericles B.Classical Antiquity 5 (1986), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In a quarrel between kings and ephors, it is likely that any pronouncements from Delphi that the Pythioi brought to Sparta would favour the kings, unless the royal families were divided on the issue. Thus the verdict that Pausanias’ murder was a sacrilege was what we might expect, and the letters that Thucydides says were ‘found later’ may have been the attempt of the ephorate to respond.