Graphic Art

Kinship in Thucydides: Intercommunal Ties and Historical Narrative, Oxford University Press, 2013 ('Thera and Melos', pp. 159-79)

Kinship in Thucydides: Intercommunal Ties and Historical Narrative, Oxford University Press, 2013 ('Thera and Melos', pp. 159-79)
of 22
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  2 KINSHIP   in  THUCYDIDES MARIA FRAGOULAKI 2 Intercommunal Ties & Historical Narrative   08:33:20:09:13Page 159Page 159 words (in the speech of Hermokrates at Kamarina), and it is also used afew times for the ravaging of places: Euboia, Lakonike, Athens, Attika,Dekeleia, and the cities of Sicily. 127   κακουργ  is a morally andemotionally loaded word, and its use in military contexts is an indica-tion, I suggest, that the angle of the narrative (focalization) is that of the su ff  erer. On the contrary, whenever δω  is used in Thucydides, thefocalizer is the party that in fl icts the damage. Therefore, in passageswhere we have the use of both terms ( δω  and κακουργ ) in succes-sion, a subtle shift of focalization has taken place from the su ff  erer to theperpetrator, or vice versa. Such an example is the passage on the invasionof Attika by King Agis and the forti fi cation of Dekeleia in 413. For thestandard damage in fl icted by the usual Peloponnesian invasion the word δωσαν  is used, 128  but soon afterwards κακουργεν  crops up for thedevastation at which the forti fi cation of Dekeleia aimed. 129  Likewise, inthe passage mentioning the forti fi cation of Atalante by the Atheniansin the summer of 431, we are told that this was done with a view to preventing ‘the ravaging of Euboia’ κακουργεν   τν   Ε  βοιαν , thefocalization here being clearly Athenian. 130  Euboia was a kin island toAthens, and very close in emotional and material terms (sect. 6.1). In thelight of this analysis, κακουργεσθαι  in the fi rst mention of Kythera inthe work, for the description of the harm the Lakonike would su ff  erfrom the loss of Kythera, speaks for itself: 131  the choice of a Spartan/Dorian angle in this part of the narrative underscores the metropolis  ’scloseness to its island apoikia   and the anxiety that this notorious anddangerous closeness generated for the metropolis  . The Cyclades: Thera and Melos  The Cyclades are introduced in the Archaeology   with special attentionto their colonial background. Minos, the pre-historic founder of theCyclades and most of the islands ( τν   Κ  υκλα ´  δων   νσων   ρξ    τε   κα 127 The verb (including in fi nitives and participles) occurs ten times: 2. 22. 2, 32. 1, 67. 4,3. 1. 2, 4. 53. 3, 5. 16. 1, 6. 7. 3, 77. 2, 7. 4. 6, 19. Then κακοργο : 1. 8. 2, 134. 4, 3. 45. 3, 82.7; κακουργτερο : 6. 38. 2 (corruptive e ff  ect of words), κακουργα : 1. 37. 2, 6. 38. 5. 128 7. 19. 1. 129 7. 19. 2. 130 2. 32. Observe that a few lines above (2. 31. 3) the word δσαντε  is chosen todescribe the Athenians’ ravaging of the Megarid. The focalization is Athenian in themajority of the κακουργεν  passages, unsurprisingly for an Athenian author: 2. 22. 2(Athens); 2. 32. 1 (Euboia); 3. 1. 2 (Athens; with δουν  used in 3. 1. 1), 7. 19. 2 (Dekeleia).Syracusan focalization: 6. 77. 2 (Hermokrates’ speech); 7. 4. 6, a sudden shift of focus fromNikias’ reasoning to the Syracusan angle. 131 4. 53. 3. But see 7. 26. 2, where δωσαν  is used for the ravaging of Epidauros Limeraand the coast of Lakonike, from an Athenian narrative angle. Sparta’s Kinship Ties  159 In Fragoulaki, M. (2013) Kinship in Thucydides, Oxford, 159-79  08:33:20:09:13Page 160Page 160 οκιστ   πρτο   τν   πλεστων   γνετο 132 ) is succeeded, a few chapterslater, by the Athenians, who allegedly had colonised Ionia and ‘mostof the islanders’ ( τν   νησιωτν   το   πολλο ). 133  Half-way betweenthese two passages Thucydides refers again to Minos as colonizer of ‘the majority of the islands’ ( κ   τν   νσων   ... τα `    πολλα `    ατνκατκιζε ), implicitly identifying the term nesiotai   with the Cyclades. 134 Geography has its own way to suggest relations. The Aegean, thisAthenian and Ionian sea, is, with three exceptions, embraced by Doriancoastlines. These exceptions are Karia on the south-eastern coast of AsiaMinor and the adjacent Dorian areas (who were Athenian tributaries, weare told 135 ), the Peloponnese in the west, and Krete in the south.The southern and favourable positions of Thera and Melos towardsKrete and the Peloponnese o ff  er a geographical image of the kinshipdynamics of this area, and physically represent the di ff  erentiation of these islands from the rest of the Ionian Cyclades. The Melians them-selves refer to their relation to the Peloponnese ( πρ  µ ν   τα ` ργατ   Π  ελοποννσου   γγ   κε  µ εθα ) and the Kretan sea ( πολ   δ   τ Κ  ρητικν   πλαγο ). 136  The line of Dorian connectivity in the southernand south-eastern Aegean is also suggested by the sea route and themovements of twenty-seven ships sailing from Sparta to Ionia in 412/11.On their way to Miletos a clash took place between this Spartansquadron and ten Athenian ships o ff  , or perhaps at, Melos, which, as itcan be inferred from Thucydides’ description, was used as a base for theAthenians, since the island was then an Athenian apoikia  . After thisskirmish, the Spartans, out of fear that they might be detected, decidedto take a longer but safer route to Miletos by sailing south fi rst to Kreteand then to Karian Kaunos, both Dorian and friendly coasts embracingthe south-eastern corner of the Aegean. 137 Herodotus (and Pindar) provide rich material on Thera (modernSantorini) and its daughter-city Kyrene, as we saw with respect to theBoiotian connections of Lichas son of Arkesilas, who also appears in theSpartan expedition to Ionia of 412/11. 138  But unlike Thera, its Dorianpair Melos, is given only a brief mention by Herodotus, albeit a remark-able one. In the catalogue of Greek forces at Salamis it is represented as 132 1. 4. 133 1. 12. 4. 134 1. 8. 2. 135 2. 9. 4. 136 5. 108 and 5. 110. 1. 137 8. 39. For the textual preferences ( προσβαλλον  and Κ  ανο   τ   Κ  αρα , 8. 39. 3) see CT   iii. 863, 864). Andrewes (HCT v. 85, 86) agrees with the fi rst, but disagrees with thesecond and reads τ    σα . Cf. 1. 116. 3 π   Κ  ανου   κα   Κ  αρα . The Kaunians spokeKarian and believed themselves to be of Kretan descent, but Herodotus wants themautochthonous, Hdt. 1. 172. 1. 138 In Hdt. 4. 145–67. Sparta’s Kinship Ties  160  08:33:20:09:13Page 161Page 161 an exception: among a small list of islanders who did not give earth andwater to the Persians ( µ ονοι   νησιωτων ), the Melians stand out forhaving contributed with two pentekonters and for being of Spartandescent ( Μ  λιοι  µ ν , γνο   ντε   απ   Λ ακεδα  µ ονο ). 139 In the case of Thera and Melos, the complementarity of materialbetween Thucydides and Herodotus is striking. Thucydides mentionsThera only once, whereas Melos has an extraordinarily importantpresence in his work, disproportionate to the power attributed to it, 140  asthe Spartan and Dorian island par excellence. However, Thucydidesremains silent about the role of the Melians in the Persian Wars, whilethis is the only point Herodotus raises about the island. Thucydides’silence, I will argue, is relevant to the very form of the Melian Dialogue.In the History  , Melos appears for the fi rst time in the fi rst catalogue of allies in book 2, together with Thera (the island’s sole appearance), andboth are referred to as the only Cycladic islands (the second mention of the Cyclades in the work) which did not belong to the Athenian allianceat the start of the war: πα  ˜ σαι   α    Κ  υκλα ´  δε   πλν   Μ  λου   κα   Θ ρα . 141 No ethnic or colonial quali fi cation is o ff  ered here. Yet the exclusionclause hints at Melos’ and Thera’s Dorian otherness in this Ionian andAthenian group of islanders, and looks forward to Melos’ emphaticstatement of Dorian and Spartan xyngeneia   later in the work. 142 The Melians appear next in the brief report of the Athenian expeditionagainst the island in the summer of 426 under Nikias. Again their 139 Hdt. 8. 46. 4, 48. They are also inscribed on the Serpent Column (ML 27, l. 7). Cf.dedication at Olympia, Hdt. 9. 81. 1, Paus. 5. 23. 2. The Melians’ loyalty to the mother-city is also con fi rmed by the fi nancial help they are recorded to have supplied in the course of the war, IG   V I. 1 (face B), ll. 1–7, 13–17 (ML 67). Date: Loomis (1992: 74–6) has arguedcompellingly for 427   as the year of the donation; cf. PHI online database (<>, accessed Jan. 2013): 428–1  . ML’s (p.184) oldersuggestion is 396–5. Reger’s ( IACP   p.759) alternative suggestion for 410–405, based onPiérart 1995, is certainly implausible. On the Melian loyalty to Sparta, cf. Diod. 12. 65. 2 ατη  [sc. Μ  λο ] γα ` ρ  µ νη   τν   Κ  υκλα ´  δων   νσων   διεφλαττε   τν   πρ   Λ ακεδαι µ ονουσυ µµ αχαν , αποικο   οσα   τ   Σ  πα ´  ρτη , although Ste Croix 2008: 246 n.104 believes thisstatement to be ‘technically incorrect’. 140 The Athenian assessment of 15 talents ( = 390 kg. silver) was far from small by comparison to other city-states, and is consistent with the image of Melos as an urbancentre, with high levels of literacy, its own coinage, and craftsmen specializing in exquisite jewellery and fi ne ceramic products; Renfrew and Wagsta ff   1982: 277–80. ‘[T]he down-playing of Melos’ resources must be deliberate’, Kallet 2001: 17. 141 2. 9. 4. Thera’s disappearance from the narrative thereafter suggests that it was soonbrought into the empire, surely by 426/5 (ML 68 with commentary; cf. Lewis in CAH  2  v.409 n.110; Renfrew and Wagsta ff   1982: 49), that is, by the time of the fi rst Athenianexpedition against Melos under Nikias and Prokles (3. 91. 1–3, 94. 1). 142 See pp.162–79. Sparta’s Kinship Ties  161  08:33:20:09:13Page 162Page 162 colonial identity remains hidden, but their stern resistance to theAthenians is adumbrated, since we are told that they refused to submit( οκ   θλοντα   πακοειν ), despite the ravaging of their land. 143  It isin the famous episode of the second Athenian assault on Melos in 416that the Dorian Melians dwell on their colonial tie ( ξυγγνεια ) with theSpartans, and on their commitment to, and faith in, the strength of thistie. 144  The Melian episode is rounded o ff   with a brief, almost formulaic,description of the end of the city: the slaughter of all men of military age, the enslavement of the children and women, and the settlement of the island by fi ve hundred Athenian αποικοι . 145  Thus the Melians, thesecommitted Spartan apoikoi  , are turned into an Athenian apoikia  , andbook 5 closes with the xyngeneia  /colonization theme, ‘an example of “false closure”, in view of the massive importance of the colonizationtheme in the Sicilian narrative which now begins’. 146  In its lastappearance in the existing work, in book 8, in the context of the collisionbetween the Spartan and the Athenian ships o ff   Melos in 412/11, we geta compressed reminder of both the Spartan and Dorian background of the island and of its latest tie with Athens. 147 The Melian Dialogue (5. 85–113): dialogue form and kinship The Melos episode cannot but have a central place in a discussion of kinship in Thucydides. After the fi rst close-up of intercommunal xyngeneia   in the Kerkyraika  , it is in the Melian material in the fi nal partof book 5 that the theme of xyngeneia   and its ethical dimension areexplored not only in great concentration and depth, but also with anastonishing emotional detachment. These features are linked with thedialogue form of the exchanges between the Athenian representativesand the Melian o ffi cials, which is unique of its kind in the History   andholds pride of place in all scholarly discussions. 148 143 3. 91. 1–3. Cf. Constantakopoulou 2007: 81 for the islands, and Melos in particular,as symbols of the Athenian empire. 144 5. 84. 2–116. 145 5. 116. 4 τ   δ   χωρον   ατο   κισαν , αποκου   στερον   πεντακοσου   π  µ ψαντε .See Appendix I. 146 CT   iii. 256. 147 8. 39; see pp.327–8. 148 de Romilly 1963 [1947]: 273–310; Hudson-Williams 1950; Stahl 2003 [1966]:159–72; Macleod 1983: 52–67; Connor 1984: 147–57; Bauslaugh 1991: 142–6; Bosworth2009 [1993]; Crane 1998: 237–57; Morrison 2000; Price 2001: 195–204; Kallet 2001: 9–20;Morrison 2006 a  : 81–99; Tritle 2006: 485–7; Greenwood 2008: 15–28; Mara 2008: 46–54;Barker 2009: 219–21; Pothou 2011: 270–2; Boyarin 2012. See more bibliography in CT  iii. 216–25. Sparta’s Kinship Ties  162
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!