Theramenes Via Xenophon

Philip Miller December 3, 2007 H411

Misrepresentation and Misinterpretation: Xenophon’s Depiction of Theramenes after Arginusae Theramenes was a controversial figure who lived during a controversial time. Though modern scholarship is currently in his favor, where a careful study of his entire career “reveals him to be a patriot and a true moderate”1, these studies tend to focus on his political influence and skip over one of the most criticized events he took part in, the trial of the generals after the Battle of Arginusae. It is thought that Xenophon, in his Hellenica, paints a particularly despicable picture of Theramenes’ actions at this time and, when reviewing his career, most scholars tend to gloss over this point. However, there are many reasons to be suspicious of Xenophon’s explanation of these events and while most people take this into account when they review the details of the trial itself, it is odd that many of them take Theramenes’ depiction at face value. If he really was a true Athenian patriot, and there is no substantial reason to doubt this, why would he have encouraged his government to commit such a grave injustice? The answer must be that there is something amiss either with Xenophon’s description or the way it has been interpreted. Though Theramenes’ true motives will likely never be known, it is only fair that one attempt to get as close to the truth as possible so that he is not judged prematurely. After the affair with the Four Hundred in 411 BC, Theramenes served as a general in the Aegean theater from 410 to 407 BC. If his reputation had suffered due to any supposed political flip-flopping in 411 BC, it certainly was not apparent at this point and 1

Kagan 379

1

he seems to have been out mainly collecting money until he met up with Alcibiades and the full Athenian fleet the day before the Battle of Cyzicus2. After this battle, Theramenes was left in charge of a garrison at Chrysopolis and he is not spoken of again until the Battle of Arginusae in 406 BC. For unknown reasons, Theramenes was not reelected to the generalship in 406 BC but he still sailed with the navy as a trierarch3, commanding at least one trireme at the Battle of Arginusae. This battle is described by Diodorus Siculus as “the greatest sea battle on record of Greeks against Greeks”4 and, though the battle was another huge victory for Athens, it is the events that took place directly afterwards that are infamously remembered in Athenian history. Normal custom at this time required that, immediately after any battle, the generals were supposed to organize the collection of all the dead who had been lost in the fighting. However, after Arginusae, the Athenians had the Peloponnesian fleet on the ropes and to occupy the entire fleet with a recovery mission meant missing the opportunity to capitalize on this success5 and pursue the scattered enemy’s retreat towards Chios. The eight Athenian generals at Arginusae, thus, met immediately after the battle and decided to sail with the majority of their fleet to Mytilene in hopes of hindering this retreat and left forty seven ships behind6, under the command of Theramenes and Thrasybulus, both trierarchs with extensive previous experience in the war, to collect the dead. This rescue effort, however, was made impossible because a storm arose7 that 2

Xenophon I.1.12 Donald Kagan is convinced that this was related to Alcibiades’ fall from grace after the Athenian defeat at Notium earlier that year. As he fell out of favor with the citizens, so did all those aristocrats who had been associated with him and his leadership in the Aegean, notably Theramenes and Thrasybulus (Kagan 447-8). 4 Diodorus Siculus 13.98.5 5 Had the generals actually been able to do this, the events after Arginusae could have been very different. 6 Xenophon I.6.35 7 It is interesting to note that a careful reading of Xenophon reveals that perhaps the storm arose before Theramenes and Thrasybulus’ contingent even split off from the main force. The narration makes it seem as if the storm occurred in the middle of the generals’ meeting and there is mention of a trophy being set up, presumably at Arginusae by the generals, after the storm had arisen. If this is true, the later accusation of 3

2

prevented the recovery of any survivors and it is estimated that as many as 1,000 Athenians8, still floating among the wreckage of their twenty five lost ships, may have perished because of this9. Needless to say, the Athenian people were not happy when they heard of this debacle and, though they had already made public praise to their generals for this great victory, they now recalled all eight to Athens to face trial. Two of them immediately fled into exile, correctly anticipating the wrath of the democracy, but the other six dutifully returned with the defense10 that they were not to blame for the disaster but rather Theramenes and Thrasybulus were, since they had been the ones in charge of the rescue mission, an accusation which both11 men obviously defended themselves against. In the end, it was the generals who were found guilty and all six were sentenced to death by one vote, an act which scholars dating all the way back to antiquity have criticized as one of the greatest injustices the Athenian democracy ever committed. This was not the first major controversy that Theramenes found himself smack in the middle of and many have wondered how extensive his role was in getting the generals convicted. Was he merely defending himself against their charges of a botched rescue attempt or did he accuse them first12 in an effort to preemptively save his own skin? It the trierarchs by the generals would look especially bad and misleading once the facts were revealed. Diodorus’ account (13.100.1-4) of the events immediately after the battle agree with this interpretation, saying straight out that the fleet was forced to stay at Arginusae after the battle because of the storm. 8 Kagan 459 9 Diodorus notes (13.100.1) that the “corpses and the wreckage” were spread out over quite a large area extending out into the ocean. This was atypical for Greek naval battles where most of the action took place near land and, thus, the dead would have been harder to collect after Arginusae regardless. For an explanation of how the battle got so spread out, refer to D. Kagan’s reconstruction (Kagan 454-8) 10 It is only fair to note that the generals may not have been in unanimous agreement over this plan. 11 It is interesting to note that Thrasybulus goes completely unmentioned during the events after Arginusae. It is implied that he and Theramenes shared leadership in the failed rescue attempt so it is odd that he seems to take no action worth mentioning in the aftermath of these events. It is possible that he was considered a political ally or supporter of Theramenes and so his involvement is implied whenever mention of Theramenes “and his party” is made. 12 All sources, including Xenophon, claim a man named Archedemus was the one who first began the prosecution against the generals once they returned to Athens.

3

does not help matters that Xenophon, our primary source for these events, gives a highly unsatisfactory account, plagued with constitutional ambiguities and omitting several details known to be significant13. Throughout his narrative, it seems as if he is appalled at the injustice of the whole ordeal and, being unable to account for how things got so out of hand, he perhaps blames Theramenes and portrays him in poor character. When the generals were made to stand trial before the Assembly, according to him, no one there attacked the generals “more vigorously”14 than Theramenes, and when the generals tried to defend themselves, their speeches were cut short and they “were not allowed to speak for the length of time permitted by law”15, though they apparently had time enough to call “many of the steersmen and others who had sailed with them”16 up to the podium in their defense. This caused the proceedings to last until it was too dark to count hands for a vote and the Council17 was ordered to review these proceedings and create a proposal as to “what sort of trial the [generals] should have”18. Unfortunately for the generals, the festival of the Apaturia19, which brought families together and painfully reminded everyone of all those who were missing because of recent events, took place before the next meeting of the Assembly could occur. According to Xenophon, Theramenes, now working in conjunction with “his party”20, came to this festival with the intention of persuading a large number of people to shave 13

It is believed that Xenophon was not in Athens, at least at the start of these events, and his story may be little more than what he could piece together from rumors upon his return. For an explanation of where he may have been at this time, refer to G. Cawkwell’s note to section II.3.35 of the edition of A History of My Times cited in this paper’s bibliography. 14 Xenophon I.7.4 15 Xenophon I.7.5 16 Xenophon I.7.6 17 Almost certainly the Council of the 500 18 Xenophon I.7.7 19 P. Hunt describes the festival of the Apaturia as being “centered on the admission of legitimate children of Athenian parents into phratries and thus into the citizen body” (Hunt 375) 20 Xenophon I.7.8

4

their heads and dress in mourning, pretending to be relatives of those who died at Arginusae, for the next meeting of the Assembly. He also is said to have bribed a man named Callixenus to condemn the generals at the meeting of the Council that was to decide on the type of trial the generals would receive. This is almost certainly slander on Xenophon’s part since these actions are not attested by any other source. If Theramenes was really going around at a public festival, especially one of this nature, asking large numbers of people to pretend to be relatives of the deceased, an act that would almost certainly be regarded as highly offensive to a people as concerned with honoring their dead as the ancient Greeks were, someone would have noticed. Also, the Greeks knew their family history well and would surely have noticed if men were pretending to be relatives when in fact they were not. While Theramenes certainly may have used this time to organize his supporters, there is no reason to believe that he would have had to stoop so low to find more supporters when he already had a significant political following behind him. Again, Xenophon seems to be blaming Theramenes for actions that were taken by the people, in general, and not by one specific man. In regards to Callixenus, his proposal in the Council to proceed straight to voting in the next Assembly and to try the generals with one vote is almost certainly genuine, since this proposals language, as related by Xenophon21, sounds distinctly official and he may have even copied it from an official source. However, Xenophon provides no evidence whatsoever supporting his claim that Callixenus was bribed by Theramenes and later, when the people, deeply regretting their rash decision, turned in anger on those who had persuaded them to execute the generals, Callixenus is specifically named as one of the men they were angry at while Theramenes is not. If Callixenus had acted at 21

Xenophon I.7.9-10

5

Theramenes instigation, he almost certainly would have tried to use this fact in his defense but Xenophon makes no mention of this happening. In fact, it is this account of the events immediately after the generals’ execution, when the Athenians desired retribution from those who had “deceived the people”22, that provides the best evidence that Theramenes was not as overly-aggressive in his prosecution of the generals as Xenophon would like people to believe. Otherwise, he surely would have suffered some punishment at the hands of the people as well23. Knowing that these flaws exist in Xenophon’s account should cause one to be extra skeptical of his portrayal of Theramenes at this time, especially since he is the only source that seems explicitly anti-Theramenes in its re-telling of these events. Lysias, who would certainly not have let any black mark against Theramenes go unnoticed, does not even mention this whole affair in his attempt24 to portray Theramenes as the most morally depraved man to have lived and Critias, in his speech in condemnation of Theramenes’ entire career says no more than that he “prosecuted the generals and had them condemned to death”25, which neither reveals nor explains anything. That Theramenes blamed the generals rather than accepting the blame himself is a fact, but no one can blame a man for defending his own life, especially if he thinks it is being endangered unjustly, as was certainly the case after Arginusae, both for Theramenes and the generals. What seems to be the case in the Arginusae trial is that things quickly escalated out of control as the Assembly got caught up in the moment and this would certainly not 22

Xenophon I.7.35 There are surely all sorts of arguments that could be raised claiming that Theramenes may have used shrewd political maneuvering or the support of his political following to somehow talk himself out of any trouble with the people but Xenophon would surely have only criticized him even more harshly if this was the case. In fact, Xenophon does not even say that the people SHOULD have been mad at Theramenes for masterminding the whole affair, which undermines his critical assessment of Theramenes actions. 24 Lysias Eratosthenes 62-78 and Lysias Agoratus 9-17 25 Xenophon II.3.32 23

6

be the first time the Athenian democracy could be accused of this. In Xenophon’s account of the trial, there are numerous instances of clearly unconstitutional measures being rushed through the Assembly simply by the will of the masses26. Theramenes was merely acting out of strict self- defense and there is no reason to assume that he was even the one who first started pointing fingers. In his defense speech against Critias’ claims, he states “as you are well aware, it was not I who started proceedings against them. In fact it was they who accused me.”27 Diodorus concurs28 that it was the generals who started the accusations by sending a letter to Athens, once they had heard of the outrage there, explicitly blaming the two trierarchs for the failed rescue attempt. They assumed it was Theramenes who had stirred up the resentment against them in Athens29 and it was this very action, Diodorus claims30, that was there undoing, since it automatically turned Theramenes and his numerous political allies against them when they desperately needed people with his skill in oratory to defend them before the Assembly. This was apparently the second letter that the generals had sent to Athens regarding the failed rescue attempt, the first one stating simply that efforts were thwarted by the storm that arose. The chronology of these two letters in relation to Theramenes’ actions in Athens, or even their proven existence, would do wonders to clarify this situation but, unfortunately, Xenophon makes only an indirect reference to the first of

26

Note especially Lysicus proposal to try those who accused Callixenus of an unconstitutional proposal with the same vote of the generals unless they withdrew it and the inexplicable way in which debate over Callixenus’ proposal continued despite the refusal of the current epistates (president) to put it to a vote due to its illegality. 27 Xenophon II.3.35 28 Diodorus Siculus 13.101.2 29 It is believed that Theramenes and Thrasybulus returned to Athens after Arginusae long before the generals did, since the generals had to remain at Mytilene and aid the Athenians forces there. 30 Diodorus 13.101.2-3

7

these letters31 and completely omits any mention of a second letter32. If both these letters really did exist, a possible reconstruction of the trial after Arginusae is as follows: The generals, spooked at having been re-called and knowing full well the rashness of the democracy, were the first to make accusations, either because they legitimately thought Theramenes and Thrasybulus had accused them first or because they wanted to get the first blow in before anyone could accuse them, as Theramenes’ detractors accuse him of doing33. During the first meeting of the Assembly, it was clear that somebody would have to take the fall to satiate the democracy’s blood-lust and, in an effort to ensure it would be the trierarchs, the generals, as their second letter had done, argued that it was these men who were to blame for being unable to carry out the mission assigned to them, implying that it was doable. Theramenes countered by saying that this mission was made impossible by the storm so it would be unfair to hold him and Thrasybulus responsible for not carrying it out and, as evidence of this, he showed the first letter from the generals stating this exact same belief. Thus, it appeared as if the generals were either changing their story to save their own skin or else they should have performed the rescue mission themselves, instead of sailing away34, since they thought it was possible while the trierarchs did not, and then lied about it in the letter Theramenes produced as evidence. This could explain the 31

Xenophon I.7.4 According to Xenophon’s account, it seems the generals first started blaming Theramenes and Thrasybulus only after they had been re-called to Athens. Here, especially, it is important to keep in mind that Xenophon’s report of these events, and particularly the start of the affair, is considered to be extremely unreliable. 33 Although a few of the generals are portrayed as possessing very noble spirits, notably Diomedon, there is no reason to believe they were all models of virtue and it is most unfair that while people think nothing of accusing Theramenes of trying to save his own skin, they never acknowledge that the generals may have been trying to do the same. The fact that the generals’ supporters were so insistent upon their being tried separately and the acknowledged guilt of Erasinides are evidence that not all the generals were of equal moral caliber. 34 It seems in Xenophon, though, that the generals did not sail away until after the storm had abated, though the relation of the series of events here is extremely ambiguous. See also note 7 32

8

reasoning behind Theramenes claim, in his defense speech against Critias, that “the state came to the conclusion that… it looked as though the generals were accusing themselves. For, after claiming that it was possible to save the men, they sailed away and left them to their fate.”35 Any appearance of duplicitous speech before the Assembly would surely have angered its members and, once again, it should be the impulsive and arbitrary character of the democracy that is blamed for the generals’ conviction, not Theramenes. Finally, it is important to note that while many scholars would like to claim that the entire trial of the generals hinges on Theramenes’ role in it, Theramenes completely drops out of Xenophon’s narrative after the first meeting of the Assembly. After his alleged actions at the festival of the Apaturia he does not appear to have done much and the notion that Xenophon meant to highlight Theramenes’ “poor” character by his role in these events may be a completely misguided reading, latched on to by scholars desperate to learn more of Theramenes’ elusive career. When Euryptolemus makes his long speech in the second36 meeting of the Assembly, begging the people not to ignore the injustice of what they are about to do, he refers to Theramenes as “the man who made a speech accusing the generals at the last meeting of the Assembly”37, suggesting that he had not done anything of note publicly since then. In fact, since this is the only act which Euryptolemus associates with Theramenes, it is possible to believe it is the only act he performed throughout the entirety of the trial. Though this is an argument based ex silentio, it should not be discounted. Xenophon’s failure to identify with Theramenes any other acts during the trial indicates that either Theramenes really did not do anything else worth mentioning or his role in these events was not one of Xenophon’s central concerns. 35

Xenophon II.3.35 It should be noted that there is some dispute over exactly how many days and, therefore, meetings of the Assembly this trial lasted. However, two meetings is the widely excepted belief. 37 Xenophon I.7.31 36

9

Theramenes was no fool and there is no way he could not have seen how terrible a decision it would be for Athens to execute all its top military leaders at such a crucial point in the war. For it did not take long for this sudden vacuum in leadership at Athens to take its effects in the most severe way possible. In 405 BC, at Aegospotami, the Athenians suffered the loss of their entire navy due simply to the strategic incompetence of their leaders and soon found themselves completely besieged by land and sea and were forced to negotiate terms of surrender with Sparta . Xenophon’s negative portrayal of Theramenes continues during his account of these events as well, though, once again, this interpretation is based on one completely unsupported comment he makes about Theramenes spending three months abroad with Lysander38. The rest of the narrative simply states what Theramenes did in a very sterile fashion and makes no sort of value judgment whatsoever. Thus, in light of all this, on must consider that Xenophon never meant to say much about Theramenes at all, at least at this point, in terms of character judgment, and it is only later interpreters who may have extrapolated that he was one of Theramenes’ harshest critics. If one takes this view into account, it becomes apparent that it is actually the immaturity of the democracy and its lack of concern for justice that Xenophon is blaming for the generals’ executions, not Theramenes. Euryptolemus, clearly Xenophon’s representative for all those who were opposed to what was happening, only accuses the democracy of acting contrary to their own laws and being impulsive. He says nothing about the people being falsely persuaded by good speakers, which, in actuality, is all Theramenes could have tried to do, nor does he say anything outright about Theramenes in general, other than that he accused the generals at the prior Assembly. Theramenes, 38

A detail that there is very strong evidence to believe is not even correct in of itself.

10

then, seems to have made one speech at the beginning of the affair in which he defended himself against the generals’ claim that he was to blame for failing the rescue attempt, which is something anyone would have done, and then drops out of the picture. The fact that the democracy did not seek retribution on him after they began to regret their action is sufficient proof that he was not seen as a major proponent of what happened and there is evidence suggesting that this is not even what Xenophon meant to imply. Theramenes acted only out of self defense and it is unfair to hold him accountable for the reckless spirit of the democracy. While it could be argued that, as a true patriot, he should have done more to try to save the generals once the pressure was off himself, this argument assumes that Theramenes had enough sway over the people to do this. While he certainly had his own group of political backers at this time, he was no Pericles and the democracy was notorious for being uncontrollable once they were in a frenzy. As Xenophon states, “it was an intolerable thing if the people was not allowed to do what it wanted to do”39 and it was this juvenile behavior that, ultimately, caused the generals’ unjust conviction.

Works Cited and Bibliography

Aristophanes. Frogs. Ed. Matthew Dillon. (Trans. from Perseus). www.perseus.tufts.edu . Diodorus Siculus. Library. Books XIII and XIV. (Trans. from Perseus). www.perseus.tufts.edu .

39

Xenophon I.7.12

11

Hunt, Peter. “The Slaves and the Generals of Arginusae.” The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 122, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 359-380. Kagan, Donald. The Peloponnesian War. Viking, 2003 (New York). Lysias. Lysias XIII: Against Agoratus: In Pursuance of a Writ. (Trans. by W.R.M. Lamb, M.A.). Harvard University Press, 1988 (Cambridge, Massachusetts). Lysias. Lysias XII; Against Eratosthenes. (Trans. by W.R.M. Lamb, M.A.). Harvard University Press, 1988 (Cambridge, Massachusetts). Xenophon. A History of My Times. (Trans. by Rex Warner). Penguin Books, 1966 (London).

12