2016 Immacolata Eramo, Mechanemata: Mind-machines in war

Mechanemata: Mind-machines in war by Immacolata Eramo Università di Bari

The future of a battle «The gods know everything, are everywhere and give signals to humans about all that regards human things»:1 for this reason, before each military campaign, men attempt to make the gods propitious consulting them through sacrifices and rites in order to know what they should and should not do.2 In the ancient Greek world, no battle began without consulting the gods beforehand, a task which was entrusted to the μάντις, who was the expert in divination.3 Indeed, the final decisions regarding war – whether to fight or not and when – were to be taken by the general.4 In Plato’s Laches, Nicias says: «the job of the seer is only to recognize the signs of what is yet to come, whether a man is to meet with his death or disease, to lose property, to be victorious or defeated in war».5 Plato himself, again in his Laches, states that there is no single knowledge of the past which will tell you to know how something hap1

Xen. Mem. I,1.19; see also Cyr. I,6.46; Eq. Mag. 9.9; Smp. 4.47. Xen. Oec. 5.19. See also Onas. 5: Περὶ τοῦ ἐξιλεοῦσθαι πρῶτον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὸ θεῖον ὁ στρατηγὸς ἐξάγων εἰς πόλεμον. Ἐξαγέτω δὲ τὰς δυνάμεις ὁ στρατηγὸς καθαρὰς ἢ οἷς νόμοι ἱεροὶ ἢ οἷς μάντεις ὑφηγοῦνται καθαρσίοις. 3 For general information about Greek divination see: W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War. III, Religion, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1979, pp. 47-90; M. H. Jameson, «Sacrifice Before Battle», in: V.D. Hanson (Ed.), Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London-New York 1991, pp. 197-227. 4 The subordination of the μάντις to the general is already evident in the Homeric poems. E.g. in Il. XII,195-250 Hector decides to cross a river, although Polydamas tries to dissuade him because of a bad omen. It is clear that the Homeric hero is a military chief who questions the will of the Gods if this goes against his plans (see A. Corcella, Erodoto e l’analogia, Palermo 1984, pp. 39-41). 5 Pl. Lach. 195e (see C. Bearzot, «Mantica e condotta di guerra: strateghi, soldati e indovini di fronte all’interpretazione dell’evento ‘prodigioso’», in: La profezia nel mondo antico, a c. di M. Sordi, Milano 1993, pp. 97-100, which gives value to this text in the debate concerning the relationship between divination and military uses). 2

1

pened, another knowledge of the present which will allow you to know how things are happening in the present, and another knowledge of the future which tells you how something which has not yet happened will happen; on the contrary, it is all the same knowledge. For this reason, strategy deals with everything regarding war. It does not use the seer’s art, but instead commands this art, because strategy knows military affairs better, what has happened and what will happen; and the law ordains not that the seer gives orders to the general, but the general gives orders to the seer.6 Plato records a real situation, where the general is the one who should decide what to do, often against the advice and the interpretation of the seers, clearly paying for the consequences of his decisions.7 Therefore, it is no surprise that according to Greek military thought, a general should also have an adequate knowledge of divination. Xenophon writes that Cambyses taught his son Cyrus divination, in order to interpret divine signs by himself and to forestall the seers if they tried to deceive him. 8 Xenophon is also the author who provides most information concerning military religious practices.9 These are διαβατήρια, or «sacrifices of crossing», which are typical of the Spartan way of war. 10 Xenophon describes these practices in detail in Lac. Pol. 13: when the Spartans decide to undertake a military expedition the king 6

Pl. Lach. 198d-199a. «The general must go to his experts, the seers, and when he has listened to their interpretation he must decide whether to trust them and act on their device, risking disaster if they turn out to be mistaken, or to defy and overrule them, trusting in his own judgement and risking punishment from gods and men if the seers prove to have understood the divine intention correctly»: K.J. Dover, «Some neglected Aspects of Agamemnon’s Dilemma», JHS 93, 1973, p. 64. A conspicuous survey of sources on the role of seers in war and their prestige is offered by Pritchett, The Greek State at War. cit., pp. 47-57. 8 Xen. Cyr. I,6.2. 9 In his Anabasis, Xenophon appears in first person and as a strategos on a number of occasions while making or recommending sacrifices to the gods (III,1.6-8; 2.9; 3.14; V,6.25; VII,2.14-15). For this reason, Parker defines military divination as the ‘Xenophontic system’ (R. Parker, «Sacrifice and battle», in: War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. by H. van Wees, London 2000, p. 300; see also L. Iapichino, «La “guerra psicologica” dell’Anabasi di Senofonte», Tyche 14, 1999, pp. 124-126). 10 Concerning these sacrifices and their description, see Pritchett, The Greek State, cit., pp. 68-71, and Jameson, «Sacrifice Before Battle», cit., pp. 202-205. 7

2

offers sacrifices to Zeus Ἀγήτωρ (“the Leader”); if the signs appear propitious, the seer πυρφόρος (“fire-bringer”) takes the sacred fire from the altar and leads the march to the borders of the land, where the king offers another sacrifice to Zeus and Athena; only when these second sacrifices are also propitious the king will cross the borders of the land. Each time he offers a sacrifice, the king begins before dawn, wishing to forestall the goodwill of the gods before the enemy can do the same. According to Xenophon, the king behaves as a seer in religious activities and as a general in matters which regard men. This suggests that religious rites are subject to the will of men, and in particular the will of the general: the interpretation of the sacrifices will always be positive if the general has already decided to begin the battle. 11 If the soldiers recognize that their general is an expert in tactics and is able to deploy the army in the best way to fight the enemy, and are sure that their general will not lead them into battle against the enemy without the approval of the gods or against augury, the soldiers will be more willing to obey the general’s orders.12 These concepts are described in Onasander’s Strategicus, a manual concerning strategy from the 1st A.C. Onasander states that the general should not begin the march or array the army without first making a sacrifice; sacrificers and diviners should accompany him. It is better if the general himself is able to read the divine signs (it is easy to learn this art in a short time). In fact, soldiers are braver when they believe they are facing danger with the gods on their side. 13 In particular, Onasander, 11

See the saying which Aristoteles quotes in Rhet. 1395a, citing Il. XII,243: «there is only one good omen: to fight for the homeland», which should be remembered when you ask soldiers to risk their lives, without having made sacrifices beforehand (the saying is deliberately changed in Plut. Pyrrh. 29.4, where the word ‘homeland’ is replaced by ‘Pyrrus’). 12 Xen. Eq. mag. 6.6. 13 Onas. 10.25-26.

3

underlining the psychagogic value of sacrifice, clearly states that it is the general who leads the will of his men, also using sacrifices, and decides what to do in view of the imminent battle.14 The ‘religious’ activity of the general is a part of his μηχανήματα, if we consider the reflections on command which Xenophon makes long before Onasander’s manual.15 In his Hipparchicus, the author focuses on the features of strategy, which is for the Greeks not ‘strategy’ tout court, as we intend today, but “the art of command”. Manuals can also give advice, but it is the general who thinks up expedients (μηχανᾶσθαι) to find the right trick (ἀπατᾶν) which is suitable for the circumstance, because in war nothing is more useful (κερδαλεώτερον) then deception. Accordingly, if you wish to be a general you should ask the gods to give you the means to do this and, at the same time, think up expedients (μηχανητέον). Ultimately, the στρατηγία, the art of command, is μηχανᾶσθαι. 16 Μηχανή and μηχανᾶσθαι: the Trojan Horse Therefore, the perfect general should be μηχανικός,17 which means having the ability to invent and to be able to adapt all which has been 14

The use of divination in order to boost the morale of the troops is a widespread practice in the Greek world, as can be seen through the examples in Xen. An. I,8.15; Plut. Alex. 33.2-3; Dio 24.1-4; Polyaen. II,3.12; IV,3.14 e IV,20 (stratagem which Front. Strat. I,11.14-15 attributes to Alexander and Eumenes: see the examples of collaboration and interaction between seers and generals in order to interpret the oracles in the best way in Parker, Sacrifice and battle, cit. p. 305). 15 See C. Petrocelli, Intr. Senofonte. Ipparchico. Manuale per il comandante di cavalleria, intr., trad. e note a c. di C. P., Bari 2001, pp. xxiii-xxxiv. Parker (Sacrifice and battle, cit., p. 311 n. 21) underlines that Onasander, citing Xenophontic motives, explains considerations which are rather anachronistic and unsuitable for his period. However, we should consider that the presence of principles which are not strictly connected to the years in which Onasander lived (1 AC), but which are timeless more then anachronistic, is a characteristic of his manual (see C. Petrocelli, Intr. Onasandro. Il generale. Manuale per l’esercizio del comando, Bari 2008, pp. 12-17). 16 Xen. Eq. mag. 5.9 e 5.11. 17 Being μηχανικός is one of the requirements which a general should have, according to Socrates in Xen. Mem. III,1.6 (τὸν στρατηγὸν εἶναι χρή, καὶ ποριστικὸν τῶν ἐπιτηδείων τοῖς στρατιώταις, καὶ μηχανικὸν καὶ ἐργαστικὸν).

4

learned to each situation: he should use μηχαναί. In Greek the noun μηχανή has a double meaning, which isdifficult to translate perfectly into modern languages. It means both machine and machination.18 In the proem of pseudo-Aristotelian Μηχανικά,19 the author says that among the things which happen in accordance with nature, κατὰ φύσιν, we are amazed by those things which have an unknown cause. However, also that which we produce contrary to nature, παρὰ φύσιν, through the τέχνη, arouses wonder. The τέχνη redeems from ἀπορία which hits us when we have to produce an effect contrary to nature: we call this particular ability μηχανή, which assists us for these ἀπορίαι. This Aristotelian explanation helps us to undertand how the two meanings20 μηχανή as machine and μηχανή as machination – have been strictly connected since the beginning of Greek literature. Μηχανή, in fact, suggests the result of an activity which amazes and is done in an

18

See Hsch. 1301 μ η χ α ν α ί · τέχναι. ἐπίνοιαι. βουλεύματα. ἅμαξαι. συμπεράσματα. καὶ ὄργανά τινα μηχανικά, ἐν οἷς προσδεσμούμενα τὰ κτήνη ἀλήθουσι. This ambiguity is clearly evident in the play on words which Aristophanes makes in Nub. 478-481, in the dialog between Socrates, who says ‘machinations’, and Strepsiades, who understands ‘siege machines’ (Σω. ἄγε δή, κάτειπέ μοι σὺ τὸν σαυτοῦ τρόπον, ἵν’ αὐτὸν εἰδὼς ὅστις ἐστὶ μηχανὰς ἤδη ’πὶ τούτοις πρός σε καινὰς προσφέρω. Στ. τί δέ; τειχομαχεῖν μοι διανοεῖ, πρὸς τῶν θεῶν; Σω. οὔκ, ἀλλὰ βραχέα σου πυθέσθαι βούλομαι, εἰ μνημονικὸς εἶ). 19 Arist. Mech. 847a. Concerning the authorship of this work see G. Micheli, Le origini del concetto di macchina, Firenze 1995, pp. 133-152. 20 This ambiguous or rather ‘flexible’ meaning makes the justification, with which van Cappelle defends the handed down μηχανὴν, against Monantheuil’s suggestion μηχανικὴν, useless: «vox autem μηχανὴ proprio et primario sensu non illud, quod Latini vocant machinam, sed consilium, artem, artificium significat» (Aristotelis Quaestiones Mechanicae, recens. et ill. J.P. van Cappelle, Amstelodami 1812, p. 129). This uncertain meaning proved problematic for the translators of this text: machinam (Vittore Fausto), mechanicam (Leonico Tomeo), mechanicem, artificium (Bussemaker), mechanical skill (Forster), a device (Hett), Erfindung (Gohlke), ein mechanisches Hilfsmittel (Krafft); see the status quaestionis in Aristotele. Meccanica, a c. di M.F. Ferrini, Milano 2010, p. 236 (who prefers not to translate μηχανή). Moreover, I believe that the distinction which Wheeler makes between the real and objective meaning of mechanical device or machine, which according to him should be the Aristotelian meaning stricto sensu, and its metaphorical interpretation is unfounded (E.L. Wheeler, Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery, Leiden [et al.] 1988, p. 23-24, 28-29).

5

effective way; this activity derives from a cunning intelligence, μῆτις,21 which uses unusual means, found using cleverness and intuition, in order to achieve an unexpected result. If we consider it as an object, μηχανή does not identify just any object useful for carrying out a task, but instead a complex object which has in itself the μῆτις of the one who invented it. 22 Ultimately, it is an instrument through which a technique (τέχνη) helps mankind to cross the boundaries imposed by nature, dominating nature and bending it towards defined or desired objectives; in this way, it allows the smallest to defeat the biggest.23 When, in his Cratilus, Plato explains the etymology of the noun μηχανή, he overshadows this idea: μηχανή derives from ἄνειν (to achieve a result) and μῆκος, in the meaning of ‘ἐπὶ πολύ’ or great extension.24 This is evident from the most ancient and famous example. Through the μηχαναί - the Pseudo-Aristotelian author says in the place of the above cited Mechanica– we are able to prevail where naturally we 21

See the famous definition which Detienne and Vernant give for μῆτις: «There is no doubt that metis is a type of intelligence and of thought, a way of knowing; it implies a complex but very coherent body of mental attitudes and intellectual behaviour which combine flair, wisdom, forethought, subtlety of mind, deception, resourcefulness, vigilance, opportunism, various skills, and experience acquired over the years. It is applied to situations which are transient, shifting, disconcerting and ambiguous, situations which do not lend themselves to precise measurement, exact calculation or rigorous logic»: M. Detienne – J.-P. Vernant, Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society, Chicago-London 1991, pp. 3-4 (Les ruses de l’intelligence, la mètis des Grecs, Paris 1974). 22 While the late lexicons mostly record the negative meaning of ‘trickery’ (see, e.g., Hsch. Lex. 1301), the first and ‘neutral’ meaning of μηχανή is “powerful device”, or rather, a complex device which is the product of the human brain and consists in making the operational activities of the human genre stronger (see Micheli, Le origini del concetto di macchina, cit., pp. 10-11 and 123-127, with W. Belardi, Origine e sviluppi della nozione linguistica di “macchina”, in: Machina, XI Colloquio Internazionale. Roma, 8-10 gennaio 2004, a c. di M. Veneziani, Firenze 2005, pp. 19-29). 23 Τοιαῦτα δέ ἐστιν ἐν οἷς τά τε ἐλάττονα κρατεῖ τῶν μειζόνων (Arist. Mech. 847a). I refer to the interpretation of the Aristotelian text given by L. Canfora, Μηχανή, in: Machina, cit., pp. 61-68 (this definition is on pp. 61-62), in the light of the comparison between the reference (which Aristoteles makes in the same passage) to Antiphon – the Antiphon of Thucydides, who was the creator of the coup d’état of 411 BC – and the echo of the Thucydidean debate between the Athenians and the Melians (espec. V,102-103). 24 Pl. Cra. 415a.

6

would have been overwhelmed. In fact, the Greeks put an end to a ten year war using a μηχανή, the famous Trojan horse. This, at the origins of the mytical heritage of western culture has in itself the two ambiguous meanings which we have underlined above: these are on the one hand stratagem, and on the other the expression of man at his best, the ability to solve a problem. The most ancient version of the myth of the Trojan horse is found in Hom. Od. VIII,492-495: Odysseus asks aoidos Demodocus to tell the story of the horse (ἵππου κόσμον), which was made by Epeius with Athena, or better to tell of the trickery which Odysseus brought to the Acropolis of Troy.

The Troyan Horse, Burial Pythos, ca. 670 B. C. Archaeological Museum Mykonos

In the Odyssey this episode is often mentioned: Menelaus (IV,271279) reminds Helen about Odysseus’ enterprise inside the smooth horse (ἵππῳ ἔνι ξεστῷ), with the best Greek warriors, and the κοῖλον λόχον, the ‘concave pitfall’, which saved all the Achaeans. In Od. XI,523-532, Odysseus reminds Achilles’ soul about the πυκινὸν λόχον, the “compact ambush” which he used to destroy Troy. As is evident from the lexicon, in all of these places the horse is mentioned as an object of deception and as a trick which Odysseus thinks up to conquer Troy, in accordance

7

with all the meanings which the verb μηχανάομαι has in Homeric poems, where it is accompanied by words of a negative meaning.25 Therefore, the sources do not neglect physical features. In the story told to the Phaeacians, Demodocus celebrates the size of the horse (μέγαν ἵππον): greatness is an attribute of the gods who show themselves to humans, a quality which derives from the gods, so much so that the Trojans think that it is a gift for the gods (ἄγαλμα θεῶν) or a propitious spell (θελκτήριον). 26 The subsequent poetic tradition describes it as a wonder, which evokes astonishment and fear, but which attracts because of its beauty.27 The poems of the epic cycle considered the horse literally, as a wooden machine in the shape of a horse. 28 Servius reached the same conclusion: «as Hyginus and Tubero say, it was a war machine whose name was ‘horse’, like ‘aries’ or ‘tortoise’, with which we break or damage walls».29 We also know that there are statues of the Trojan horse in the Acropolis of Athens, as Pausanias testifies: he thinks that it was a siege machine which was invented by the Greeks to break down the wall of Troy.30

25

See the review in Micheli, Le origini del concetto di macchina, cit., p. 10 and n. 6. It is no surprise that the noun is not found in the Homeric poems if we consider that the prosodic structure (a cretic) for every case, except in the plural nominative case, makes it impossible to insert the noun in an hexameter. 26 Od. VIII,505-509. 27 See, e.g., Eur. Tr. 515-530, but also Verg. Aen. II,14-267 passim; Q. Smirn. XII,145-159 (see particularly 154-155: θεὰ πολύμητις Ἀθήνη, καί ῥά οἱ ἔργον ἔτευξεν ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἀγητὸν πᾶσιν ὅσοι μιν ἴδοντο καὶ οἳ μετόπισθε πύθοντο). 28 Il. Parv. fr. 8 PEG; Il. Pers. fr. 2 PEG; see M.J. Anderson, The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art, Oxford 1997, pp. 18-26. 29 Serv. ad Aen. II,15: ut Hyginus et Tubero dicunt, machinamentum bellicum fuit, quod equus appellatur, sicut aries, sicut testudo, quibus muri vel discuti vel subrui solent. 30 «The so called wooden horse, which we see, is made of bronze; he who does not wish to attribute to the Phrygians total gullibility knows well that Epeius’ creation was a machine (μηχανή) for breaking down walls; however, the tradition regarding this horse says that the best warriors of Greece were hidden inside» (Paus. I,23.8). However, we do not find sieges performed by machines in the Homeric poems: when the Trojans attacked the Achaeans’ camp, Sarpedon broke down the wall with his hands (Il. XII,397-399); while Hector crushed a gate with a large boulder (XII,445-462); Patroclus tried to climb the wall of Troy, but Apollus prevented it (XVI,702-704).

8

The πολυμήχανος hero The μηχανή of the Trojan horse was no more than the product of the Odysseus’ μηχανή. Odysseus is the πολυμήχανος hero. 31 Odysseus is defined in this way both in the Iliad32 and in the Odyssey, where the epithet occurs as a formula on the lips of he who addresses him.33 As many scholars have often underlined, πολυμήχανος refers to the ability to think up μηχαναί, tricks to overcome any difficulty, ἀπορία. 34 Odysseus is taught by Athen, the god of the μῆτις, and Hephaestus, patron of craft; for this reason he shows his versatility, the πολυμηχανία, not only in practical but also in intellectual activities, as he is a master of technical knowledge and is “builder of everything which can be built”, so that he is able to perform activities which are very different from each other, as the Schol. Il. VIII,93 carefully lists: he is a farmer, carpenter, pilot, butcher, hunter, seer, magician, augur, doctor, musician, archer, javelin thrower, rhetorician and astrologer.35 31

It would be wise to remember that Odysseus’ epithets (πολύτροπος, πολύμητις, πολυμήχανος, πολύτροπος, πολύτλας, πολυτλήμων, πολύφρων, ποικιλόμητις πολύαινος) are composed with πολυ- and ποικιλο-, prefixes which explain well the complexity of the hero and his manifold approach to life (see, among the conspicous studies on this subject, W.B. Stanford, «Homer’s Use of Personal πολυ- Compounds», CPh 45, 1950, pp. 108-110; P. Pucci, Odysseus Polutropos. Intertextual Readings in the Odyssey and the Iliad, Ithaca-London 1987, pp. 14-17, 58-62; C. Scarcella, Odisseo uomo della μῆτις (Omero e Sofocle), «Rudiae» 1, 1988, pp. 171-186; S. Lo Bue, La storia della poesia. II, Il seme del fuoco. Achille e Odisseo, Milano 2001, pp. 135-158). 32 Il. II,173; IV,358; VIII,93; IX,308; IX,624; X,144; XXIII,723. 33 Calypso: V,203, Circe: X,401, 456, 488 and 504; Elpenor: XI,60; Tiresias: XI,92; Agamemnon: XI,405; Achilles: XI,473; Heracles: XI,617; Athena: XIII,375; XIV,486 and XVI,167; Eumaeus: XXII,164; the shadow of Agamemnon: XXIV,192 and 542; particular cases are Od. I,205, where Athena, in the guise of Mens, defines Odysseus in this way addressing Telemachus, and XIV,486, where it is Odysseus himself, disguised as a beggar, who tells pastor Eumaeus the false words with which he would have referred to himself. 34 Concerning the relationship between μηχανή and ἀπορία see Arist. Mech. 847a above cited. 35 Σ Il. VIII,93: ἔστι δὲ γεωργός, “ἐν ποίῃ, δρέπανον μέν” (σ 368)· κυβερνήτης, “αἰεὶ γὰρ πόδα νηός” (κ 32)· τέκτων ἀπὸ τῆς κλίνης (ψ 189) AT καὶ τοῦ δουρείου ἵππου (λ 523): T ναυπηγὸς ἀπὸ τῆς σχεδίας (ε 243 – 61)· κυνηγὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Παρνασοῦ (τ 428 – 54)· μάντις, “φήμην τίς μοι φάσθω” (υ 100)· μάγειρος, “δαιτρεῦσαί τε καὶ ὀπτῆσαι” (ο 323)· ἰατρός, “ὄφρα οἱ εἴη | ἰοὺς χρίεσθαι” (α 261 – 2)· μουσικός, “μῦθον

9

If the reader has any doubt concerning the reason why I cite Odysseus and his μηχαναί referring to war and to the future of war (which is, for the ancient world, the prediction of the events which will occur in war), he should consider, in the light of that which we have already said, the above cited text from the Hipparchus and the value which the verb μηχανάομαι has in this text.36 Then, the reader should connect these considerations to the thoughts which Xenophon explains almost at the end of his manual,37 where he afirms that the general needs to read the precepts of his manual few times in order to have a “theoretical” preparation, but in practice he should carefully evaluate each situation before embarking on new activities. However, it is impossible to give advice for every situation which a general might encounter in the future, just as it is impossible to know about everything that may happen in the future. For this reason, a general needs not only to be able to use each expedient which he knows of, but also to think up new ones.38 In other words, if it is impossible to give advice concerning what a general should do, it is however possible to write about how the general should be. According to Onasander, a general should be νοερός, or sharp and cunning, able to face critical situations, with a clear mind, ὡσεὶ πτερὸν ἠὲ νόημα, “like a wind or a thought”, because unexpected disruptions may befall him and force him to improvise: it is no accident that the author comments citing the Homer of the Odyssey.39 A single example is enough to clarify this connection. In September 480, the Greek navy left Artemision and stopped at Salamis, where the generals were uncertain concerning strategy, particularly where it would be better to fight the enemy ships. Themistocles was the one to convince δ' ὡς ὅτ' ἀοιδός” (λ 368)· πύκτης, “πὺξ μὲν ἐνίκησα Κλυτομήδεα” (Ψ 634)· παλαιστής, “Ἀγκαῖον δὲ πάλῃ Πλευρώνιον” (Ψ 635)· δισκευτὴς παρὰ Φαίαξι (θ 186 – 98)· τοξότης, “εὖ μὲν τόξον οἶδα” (θ 215)· ἀκοντιστής, “δουρὶ δ' ἀκοντίζω” (θ 229)· ῥήτωρ, “καὶ ἔπεα νιφάδεςιν ἐοικότα” (Γ 222)· ἀστρολόγος, “Πληϊάδας θ' ὁρόωντι” (ε 272). 36 Xen. Eq. mag. 5.9 and 5.11. 37 Xen. Eq. Mag. 9.1. 38 This principle returns, when considering only the Xenophontic texts, in Cambyses’ advice to his son Cyrus (Xen. Cyr. I,6.38 and 43), in which Cambyses advises his son to be ποιητὴς μηχανημάτων in matters regarding war. 39 Onas. 1.7; Od. VII,36. We should underline that Homer is the only author which Onasander explicitly cites (here and at 23.1: see: C. Petrocelli, Onasandro, cit., pp. 142-143 n. 32 e 236 n. 267).

10

first Eurybiades and then the other generals to fight the enemy in the narrow strait of the sea of Salamis, which was the place in which the Greeks consecrated their victory against the Persians. We also know that Themistocles was the architect of this victory, from the moment in which he bent the words of the Pythian oracle to fit his strategic aim and opposed the interpretation of the χρησμολόγοι through a precise and watertight logical and philological argument: if the profecy «Salamis, isle divine! you will bring death to the children of women, either when Demeter’s present disperses or when gathered» had been negative for Athens, the oracle would not have used a positive word, θείη, but rather a negative one, for example σχετλίη, in other words the Athenians would have died in the waters of Salamis. For this reason he considered that the prophecy was spoken not against the Athenians, but against their adversaries. 40 All sources underline that the victory at Salamis was made possible thanks to Themistocles’ strategy (it is no accident that Diodorus uses the verb ἐμηχανήσατο), 41 which was applied in two different directions: a 40

Hdt. VII,141-143 (see also Nep. Them. 2.6-8 and Plut. Them. 10.3). See D. Hamel, Military Authority in the Classical Period, Leidon-Boston-Köln 1998, pp. 172176 for an analysis of the Herodotean text; A. Corcella, Erodoto e l’analogia, cit., pp. 160-162 well underlines Themistocles’ ability to propose, compared to the χρησμολόγοι, a sharper interpretation which better understands the meaning of the oracle and bends it to his purpose (an aspect which also R. Lonis, Guerre et religion en Grèce à l’époque classique. Recherches sur les rites, les dieux, l’idéologie de la victoire, Paris 1979, pp. 79-80 considered). 41 Diod. XI,17.1; however, also Hdt. VIII,57.2 says εἴ τις ἔστι μηχανή when referring to Salamis (unfortunately this text escaped S. Saïd, «Guerre, intelligence et courage dans les Histoires d’Hérodote», AncSoc 11/12, 1980/81, pp. 105-108, who highlights the political more than military aspect of Themistocles’ intervention in Herodotean narration). On the role which Themistocles had in the defeat at Salamis according to sources see R.J. Lenardon, The saga of Themistocles, London 1978, pp. 7282.

11

stratagem and a cunning tactic. Themistocles, in fact, sent a false deserter42 who assured Xerxes that Athenian ships were withdrawing to Salamis. The king, trusting him, decided to block this stretch of water and to attack the Greeks. From a tactical point of view, the στενοχωρία, which Themistocles used to his advantage with a cunning manoeuvre of διέκπλους,43 saw the Athenian ships, small and light, defeating the massive Persian navy, composed of large and cumbersome ships.44 Themistocles’ μηχαναί won at Salamis,45 not only thanks to the stratagem of the false deserter46 and the naval tactic which he used, but also because in this battle the weaker defeated the stronger: this result, as we have already seen, was really possible thanks to μηχανή and he who uses it.47 Themistocles was a man of μῆτις:48 clever, skilful, unconventional, but also ambitious, dashing and unscrupulous, 49 he was always able to 42

This was Sicinnus, according to Hdt. VIII,75 and Plut. Them. 12.3-5 (Ae. Pers. 355-360; Diod. XI,17.1; Nep. Them. 4.3; Iust. II,12.19). Frontin. Strat. II,2.14 and also Plut. Apophth. 185B do not cite the name. On this episode and the identification of this character see F.J. Frost, Plutarch’s Themistocles. A Historical Commentary, Princeton 19982, pp. 129-131; J.L. Marr, Plutarch. Life of Themistocles, Warminster 1998, pp. 100-102. 43 Hdt. VIII,83-94, but see also Aesch. Pers. 4506-432. 44 N.G.L. Hammond, Studies in Greek History, Oxford 1973, pp. 251-304 and G. Roux, Eschyle, Hérodote, Diodore, Plutarque racontent la bataille de Salamine, «BCH» 98, 1974, pp. 51-94 remain landmarks in the reconstruction of the battle of Salamis; but see also C. Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, Oxford 1963, pp. 201239. 45 See L. Camerer, Praktische Klugheit bei Herodot. Untersuchungen zu den Begriffen μηχανή, τέχνη, σοφίη, Köln 1965, pp. 53-57 for a detailed analysis of the lexicon belonging to the semantic meaning of intelligence regarding Themistocles and what he did in Herodotus’ Histories. 46 It is justifiable to doubt the historical accuracy of this episode if we consider that the Persians could hardly trust an enemy without capturing him (see Hignett, Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece, cit., p. 407; his reconstruction is shared by L. Piccirilli, Plutarco. Le vite di Temistocle e di Camillo, a c. di C. Carena, M. Manfredini e L. Piccirilli, Milano 1983, p. 250, where he summarizes the principal positions of previous scholarship). 47 On another occasion I have analysed the relationship of forces at the battle of Salamis and which led to the famous propaganda of the Persians’ defeat at the hand of the Greeks (I. Eramo, Siriano. Discorsi di guerra, Bari 2010, pp. 180-181 n. 127). 48 See M. Detienne – P. Vidal-Naquet, The Masters of Truth in Archaic Greece, New York 1996, pp. 116-117 (Les Maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque, Paris

12

adapt himself to any circumstance. In short, he was a man of great strategic ability and outstanding political skill. His virtues were natural: thanks to his natural cunning he was a powerful “gnomon”, with a quick mind, who valued the situations to be faced instantly and was particularly good at foreseeing what was about happen. He was able to explain what he had experienced, but was not afraid to judge what he did not. «He was able to predict the best and the worst when these were not evident; in short, thanks to his natural resources and fast learning, he was without peer when it came to finding the best solution on any occasion».50 We should not be surprised that his contemporaries nicknamed him ‘Odysseus’. 51

1967); but also Detienne-Vernant, Cunning Intelligence, cit., pp. 313-314 and Piccirilli, Plutarco, cit., pp. ix-xxiv. 49 Τῇ μὲν φύσει συνετός, τῇ δὲ προαιρέσει μεγαλοπράγμων καὶ πολιτικός (Plut. Them. 2.1), παράφορος πρὸς δόξαν εἶναι καὶ πράξεων μεγάλων ὑπὸ φιλοτιμίας ἐραστής (3.4). 50 Thuc. I,138.3; a description which Plutarch adopts and assumes in describing Themistocles as τῇ μὲν φύσει συνετός, τῇ δὲ προαιρέσει μεγαλοπράγμων καὶ πολιτικός: see H. Jr. Martin, «The Character of Plutarch’s Themistocles», THPhA 92, 1961, pp. 326-331. 51 Ὅς Ὀδυσσεὺς ἐπωνομάσθη διὰ τὴν φρόνησιν (Plut. Herod. mal. 869F). This judgement is totally shared and amplified by modern scholarship. See, e.g.: Ch. W. Fornara, Herodotus. An Interpretative Essay, Oxford 1971, p. 72 («this fifth-century Odysseus») and Lenardon, The saga of Themistocles, cit., p. 207 («because of his duplicity, versatility and ingenuity Themistocles appears both legitimately and imaginatively as a veritable Odysseus»).

13