Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:00:43.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tissaphernes in Thucydides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

H. D. Westlake
H. D. Westlake
Affiliation:
St. John's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the leading personalities who left their imprint on the history of the Peloponnesian war Tissaphernes was to Thucydides the most enigmatic. Although judgements on the ability and character of individuals occur more frequently in the eighth book of the History than in other parts, Thucydides apparently did not feel himself to be in a position to include an explicit judgement on Tissaphernes. Nor does Tissaphernes, unlike many major and minor characters, receive even a brief descriptive introduction, though such introductions are also exceptionally plentiful in the eighth book. Thucydides has been successful in collecting an abundance of detailed information about the part played by Tissaphernes in the opening phase of the Ionian war and yet has failed to produce a satisfactory picture of him. In this paper attention will first be drawn to special problems arising in the case of Tissaphernes which do not arise in the presentation of other leading characters. My main purpose, however, is to attempt to establish that the account of him by Thucydides is basically inconsistent and that this inconsistency occurs because the material in the eighth book has not been fully integrated.

One source of difficulty for Thucydides in writing about Tissaphernes was that he seems to have had little opportunity to acquire knowledge of Persia and the Persians. There is no indication that he spent any part of his exile in or near Asia, and the notorious sparsity of his references to Greek relations with the Persians before the outbreak of the Ionian war suggests that his contacts with them were scanty. In this respect he was not exceptional. Before the end of the fifth century even the best educated Athenians seem to have possessed only a dim or distorted impression of Persia, as is illustrated in different ways by the Persae and the Acharnians.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , May 1985 , pp. 43 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1985

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 Adcock, F. E., Thucydides and his History (Cambridge, 1963), 85Google Scholar.

2 Cf. my Individuals in Thucydides (Cambridge, 1968), 5–15Google Scholar.

3 Griffith, G. T., Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. 7 (1961), 25–33Google Scholar.

4 His credulity in accepting the authenticity of a letter from Xerxes to Pausanias (1.129.3), which he probably found in the work of some predecessor, as I suggested in CQ 27 (1977), 102–3Google Scholar, points in the same direction. Cook, J. M., The Persian Empire (London, 1983), 233 n. 9Google Scholar, is also sceptical about the letter, of which Thucydides gives a summary (4.50.2), allegedly sent by Artaxerxes to the Spartans.

5 Brown, T. S., Historia 27 (1978), 6Google Scholar gives reasons for believing that 393/2 should be accepted as a terminus post quem for the publication of the Persica.

6 All the evidence relating to his career, especially his close links with the Persian court, suggests that he belonged to the limited circle of aristocrats who were largely responsible for the administration of the empire. The Lycian text of the Xanthus stele, Tituli Asiae Minoris (ed. Kalinka, E., Vienna, 1901) i. 44c11–12Google Scholar, names his father as Hydarnes. If this Hydarnes is the commander of the Immortals in the invasion of Xerxes, the grandfather of Tissaphernes was the even more celebrated Hydarnes who helped Darius to overthrow the Pseudo-Smerdis. This hypothesis is, however, questionable. Cook, op. cit. (above n. 4) 167, who points out that Hydarnes is a not uncommon name in the Persepolis tablets and elsewhere, is justifiably sceptical. Lewis, D. M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden, 1977), 83–5Google Scholar, accepts the hypothesis, maintaining that Tissaphernes had links with western Asia Minor before being appointed to his first command there. But, (1) though the oikos in Caria owned by him in the opening years of the fourth century (Xen. Hell. 3.2.12 and 4.12) might have been in his possession for a long time, it is far more likely to have been presented to him as a reward for his loyal service to the monarchy (it could have belonged to the rebel Amorges); (2) though the Hydarnes who was ‘general of the dwellers on the coast of Asia’ (Hdt. 7.135.1) at an unknown date may be identical with the commander of the Immortals, he is not necessarily identical with the father of Tissaphernes. If Tissaphernes had belonged to one of the most celebrated Persian families of the time, the strange fact that in no extant Greek text is he given a patronymic would be even stranger. Lewis rejects, rightly in my opinion, the view that he was the brother of a rebel named Teritouchmes. The attempts by König, F. W., Archiv für Orientforschung, 18 (1972), 88–100, especially 93Google Scholar, to find other relatives for him seem somewhat fanciful.

7 Among the many scholars holding this view are: Schwartz, E., Geschichtswerk des Thukydides 2 (Bonn, 1929), 88–91Google Scholar; Adcock, op. cit. (above n. 1), 83–9; Andrewes, A. in Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, and Dover, K. J., Historical Commentary on Thucydides v (Oxford, 1981)Google Scholar, especially 4, 251, 373–4, 382 (hereafter cited as Andrewes). In a recent paper Pouilloux, J. and Salviat, F., CRAI 1983, 376–403Google Scholar, maintain inter alia that Thucydides was alive and still writing after 397. Their far–reaching conclusions, which cannot be discussed here, are at least disputable: their claim that the presentation of Tissaphernes in the eighth book is influenced by acquaintance with his machinations after 400 (ibid. 396–7) is in my opinion unconvincing.

8 This well–known hypothesis cannot be proved but has much to recommend it, as I have attempted to show in Mnemosyne (forthcoming). In my opinion, however, it is unrealistic, to draw a neat distinction between passages derived from this source and passages derived from other sources.

9 Hereafter all references are to the eighth book unless otherwise stated.

10 This cautious phrase (cf. 56.3; 87.4) discloses that Thucydides was not always confident about the authenticity of the intentions and feelings attributed to Tissaphernes, though normally he does not express any doubts.

11 The difficulties are lucidly expounded by Andrewes 121–3. Doubts may, however, be felt whether the passage refers, as Andrewes maintains, to a conflict of views among the Peloponnesians: Tissaphernes would surely have welcomed such a conflict because it would have tended to impair the effectiveness of their fleet and to nullify any advantage arising from its numerical superiority, which is said to have alarmed him.

12 It is questionable whether Tissaphernes was ever at all eager to transfer Persian support from Sparta to Athens, but Thucydides was evidently led to believe that he was at this point. The Great King, whose consent would have had to be obtained, would doubtless have been surprised by the proposed transfer and probably reluctant to sanction it, as Lewis, op. cit. (above n. 6) 98, points out.

13 Andrewes 136–7 suggests that his action may have been prompted by instructions from the King, which is likely enough. Thucydides tends to represent him as largely free to determine his own relations with the Greeks.

14 On λογισμός see Huart, P., Le vocabulaire de l'analyse psychologique dans l'oeuvre de Thucydide (Paris, 1968), 330–1Google Scholar, and on λογίζεσθαι ibid. 328–30. In perilous situations generals may, not unreasonably, urge their soldiers to discard λογισμός (4.10.1 and 92.2), and the term may denote an undesirable activity if qualified by a derogatory adjective (4.108.4).

15 On πρόνοια ibid. 351–2 and on προνοεῖν ibid. 350–1. de Romilly, J., Entretiens Fondation Hardt 4 (Geneva, 1958), 42–8Google Scholar, shows that to Thucydides prevision was a most valuable element of statesmanship. In 1.138.3 προορ⋯ν is used of Themistocles and in 2.65.5 and 13 προγιγνώσκειν of Pericles. Other authors commonly regard the exercise of πρόνοια as salutary; cf. Andoc. 1.56; Lys. 26.19; Isocr. 8.83 and 93; Dem. 20.88, and as a characteristic of enlightened leaders, cf. Xen. Hell. 7.5.8 (Epaminondas) and Ages. 8.5 (Agesilaus); Isocr. 2.6 and Ep. 6.9 (needed by rulers) and 5.69 (Philip); Dem. 22.30 (Solon). λογισμός and πρόνοια are found in close association in Dem. 9.20 and 17.29.

16 Huart, op. cit. (above n. 14) 311, lists passages in which this term is applied to individuals.

17 The phrase ὡς ⋯δόκει δή does not denote uncertainty on the part of Thucydides, as some editors and translators have imagined. It is correctly interpreted by Tucker, n. ad loc., ‘as he would have them believe’.

18 At a later stage of his career he treated Pharnabazus with unscrupulous malice, as I have tried to show in Historia 30 (1981), 259–64Google Scholar, but Thucydides almost certainly wrote the eighth book long before these developments took place (see above p. 44 with n. 7).

19 Cf. 5.16.1 on the personal motives of Cleon, Brasidas, Pleistoanax and Nicias. The exception is Pericles; cf. 2.60.5 for his estimate of his own qualities and 2.65.6–10 for the view of Thucydides on his superiority to his self-centred successors.

20 It will not be necessary to discuss references to minor activities by Tissaphernes, such as his brief visit to Teos (20.2), which throw little or no light on the present investigation.

21 The question whether the Persians acknowledged the concept ‘Greeks of Asia’ is considered by Tuplin, C., JHS 100 (1980), 148–50Google Scholar. Whatever the attitude of Tissaphernes may have been, he evidently chose to claim for Persia as much territory and as many cities as possible occupied by Greeks whether on the Asiatic mainland or outside it. I have discussed the situation from the viewpoint of the Greeks, Asiatic in CQ 29 (1979), 35–7Google Scholar.

22 The difficulties are discussed by Andrewes 70; cf. 96–7.

23 In 45.6 Alcibiades is stated to have defended Tissaphernes, arguing that he was justifiably economical because he was defraying the war costs from his private resources. This testimony is not, however, above suspicion.

24 Andrewes 142 infers from κατ⋯ τ⋯ ξυγκείμενα in the third treaty (58.5) that the question had by then been settled, but Lewis, op. cit. (above n. 6) 104 n. 84, is more doubtful. Lévy, E., BCH 107 (1983), 221–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has recently discussed the three treaties.

25 Cf. Lewis, op. cit. 99–100; Andrewes 90–1.

26 According to Andrewes 90, ‘the quarrel seems a little artificial’. It is rather the deliberately provocative argument of Lichas that is artificial.

27 See above pp. 45–6.

28 Andrewes 92.

29 See above n. 24.

30 They could not have known that the claims of Alcibiades to be in a position to win the support of Tissaphernes for Athens (81.3) were extravagant and largely fraudulent.

31 I have tried to establish in Individuals (above n. 2), 304–7 and Mnemosyne 30 (1977), 348–9 with n. 7Google Scholar, that this accusation was false. Another reason for holding this view is that, if Astyochus had been bribed by Tissaphernes, he could surely, as nauarchos, have devised some means of preventing the dispatch of the forty ships to Pharnabazus (80.1), which has been mentioned above.

32 More or less anecdotic material is rare in the History, except in excursuses on early history, but see 5.50.4 and 8.84.5 on Lichas and 8.68.1–2 on Antiphon, where a certain amount of personal detail is given which is not entirely necessary. Cf. Momigliano, A., Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 34Google Scholar: ‘his disinclination to give biographical details is obvious’.

33 In Essays on the Greek Historians and Greek History (Manchester, 1969), 194 n. 38Google Scholar (originally Ryl. Bull. 41 [1958], 259 n. 1Google Scholar), I suggested that this accusation by Tissaphernes was a malicious distortion of the protests made by Hermocrates about the payment of the subsidy (29.2; 45.3). The chronological problems raised by 85.3 are fully discussed by Andrewes 281–5.

34 He states only that at Sparta Hermocrates was believed to be speaking the truth and was supported by Astyochus.

35 Lewis, op. cit. (above n. 6) 111.

36 See above p. 47.

37 See above p. 44 with n. 8. Some scholars believe that, where Thucydides attributes intentions and feelings, he bases them merely on inferences from his knowledge of the situation at the time and of subsequent developments and has no further evidence. This can hardly have been his normal practice: sometimes he claims acquaintance with intentions not put into operation (cf. 3.96.2) and with feelings kept secret (cf. 8.17.2) or found to be erroneous (cf. 5.21.3), while most passages on intentions and feelings relate to leading personalities about whom he evidently had full and confidential information. If in the case of Tissaphernes he had inferred his attributions of intentions and feelings solely from his information on the course of the war in Asia, it would indeed have been a formidable task to have explained why the passages discussed in (I) are mainly favourable whereas almost all the narrative discussed in (II) is unfavourable.

38 See above p. 44.

39 That Thucydides obtained information from Hermocrates has been suggested briefly by Holzapfel, L., Hermes 28 (1893), 439Google Scholar, by Hammond, N. G. L. in The Speeches in Thucydides (ed. Stadter, P. A., Chapel Hill, 1973), 53Google Scholar, and by Proctor, D., The Experience of Thucydides (Warminster, 1980), 126Google Scholar. This hypothesis is attractive for the following reasons: (1) The Syracusans are mentioned frequently (26.1; 28.2; 61.2; 78; 84.2, 4; 85.3; 104.3; 105.2–3; 106.3), although their contingent seems never to have exceeded twenty-one ships out of a total numbering at times more than one hundred; (2) as already noted, the personal feud between Hermocrates and Tissaphernes is recorded at some length in an almost anecdotic passage (85.2–3); (3) whatever the date may have been at which Hermocrates was banished, he remained until 408 in the Aegean area (Xen. Hell. 1.3.13), where Thucydides, also an exile, could well have met and questioned him.

40 Adcock, op. cit. (above n. 1)132–5; Dover, op. cit. (above n. 7) 423–6.

41 Individuals (above n. 2) 275–6.

42 Though not necessarily in both cases, certainly in one of them.

43 See above p. 44.

44 As I have attempted to establish in Historia 30 (1981), 257–79Google Scholar, for the closing phase of his career from 400 to 395. The evidence for the preceding decade points in the same direction.