Chapter XLIV (3)

The escape of Themistoklês, and his adventures in Persia, appear to have formed a favorite theme for the fancy and exaggeration of authors a century afterwards: we have thus many anecdotes which contradict either directly or by implication the simple narrative of Thucydidês. Thus we are told that at the moment when he was running away from the Greeks, the Persian king also had proclaimed a reward of two hundred talents for his head, and that some Greeks on the coast of Asia were watching to take him for this reward: that he was forced to conceal himself strictly near the coast, until means were found to send him up to Susa in a closed litter, under pretence that it was a woman for the king’s harem: that Mandanê, sister of Xerxes, insisted upon having him delivered up to her as an expiation for the loss of her son at the battle of Salamis: that he learned Persian so well, and discoursed in it so eloquently, as to procure for himself an acquittal from the Persian judges, when put upon his trial through the importunity of Mandanê: that the officers of the king’s household at Susa, and the satraps in his way back, threatened him with still farther perils: that he was admitted to see the king in person, after having received a lecture from the chamberlain on the indispensable duty of falling down before him to do homage, etc., with several other uncertified details,[565] which make us value more highly the narrative of Thucydidês. Indeed, Ephorus, Deinô, Kleitarchus, and Herakleidês, from whom these anecdotes appear mostly to be derived, even affirmed that Themistoklês had found Xerxes himself alive and seen him: whereas, Thucydidês and Charon, the two contemporary authors, for the former is _nearly_ contemporary, asserted that he had found Xerxes recently dead, and his son Artaxerxes on the throne.

[565] Diodor. xi, 56; Plutarch, Themist. c. 24-30.

According to Thucydidês, the eminent exile does not seem to have been exposed to the least danger in Persia. He presented himself as a deserter from Greece, and was accepted as such: moreover,—what is more strange, though it seems true,—he was received as an actual benefactor of the Persian king, and a sufferer from the Greeks on account of such dispositions,—in consequence of his communications made to Xerxes respecting the intended retreat of the Greeks from Salamis, and respecting the contemplated destruction of the Hellespontine bridge. He was conducted by some Persians on the coast up to Susa, where he addressed a letter to the king couched in the following terms, such as probably no modern European king would tolerate except from a Quaker: “I, Themistoklês, am come to thee, having done to thy house more mischief than any other Greek, as long as I was compelled in my own defence to resist the attack of thy father,—but having also done him yet greater good, when I could do so with safety to myself, and when his retreat was endangered. Reward is yet owing to me for my past service: moreover, I am now here, chased away by the Greeks, in consequence of my attachment to thee,[566] but able still to serve thee with great effect. I wish to wait a year, and then to come before thee in person to explain my views.”

[566] “Proditionem _ultrò imputabant_ (says Tacitus, Hist. ii,
60, respecting Paullinus and Proculus, the generals of the army
of Otho, when they surrendered to Vitellius after the defeat at
Bebriacum), spatium longi ante prœlium itineris, fatigationem
Othonianorum, permixtum vehiculis agmen, ac _pleraque fortuita
fraudi suæ assignantes_.—Et Vitellius credidit de perfidiâ, et
fraudem absolvit.”

Whether the Persian interpreters, who read this letter to Artaxerxes Longimanus, exactly rendered its brief and direct expression, we cannot say. But it made a strong impression upon him, combined with the previous reputation of the writer, and he willingly granted the prayer for delay: though we shall not readily believe that he was so transported as to show his joy by immediate sacrifice to the gods, by an unusual measure of convivial indulgence, and by crying out thrice in his sleep, “I have got Themistoklês the Athenian,”—as some of Plutarch’s authors informed him.[567] In the course of the year granted, Themistoklês had learned so much of the Persian language and customs as to be able to communicate personally with the king, and acquire his confidence: no Greek, says Thucydidês, had ever before attained such a commanding influence and position at the Persian court. His ingenuity was now displayed in laying out schemes for the subjugation of Greece to Persia, which were eminently captivating to the monarch, who rewarded him with a Persian wife and large presents, sending him down to Magnesia, on the Mæander, not far from the coast of Ionia. The revenues of the district round that town, amounting to the large sum of fifty talents yearly, were assigned to him for bread: those of the neighboring seaport of Myus, for articles of condiment to his bread, which was always accounted the main nourishment: those of Lampsakus on the Hellespont, for wine.[568] Not knowing the amount of these two latter items, we cannot determine how much revenue Themistoklês received altogether: but there can be no doubt; judging from the revenues of Magnesia alone, that he was a great pecuniary gainer by his change of country. After having visited various parts of Asia,[569] he lived for a certain time at Magnesia, in which place his family joined him from Athens. How long his residence at Magnesia lasted we do not know, but seemingly long enough to acquire local estimation and leave mementos behind him. He at length died of sickness, when sixty-five years old, without having taken any step towards the accomplishment of those victorious campaigns which he had promised to Artaxerxes. That sickness was the real cause of his death, we may believe on the distinct statement of Thucydidês;[570] who at the same time notices a rumor partially current in his own time, of poison voluntarily taken, from painful consciousness on the part of Themistoklês himself that the promises made could never be performed,—a farther proof of the general tendency to surround the last years of this distinguished man with impressive adventures, and to dignify his last moments with a revived feeling, not unworthy of his earlier patriotism. The report may possibly have been designedly circulated by his friends and relatives, in order to conciliate some tenderness towards his memory (his sons still continued citizens at Athens, and his daughters were married there). These friends farther stated that they had brought back his bones to Attica, at his own express command, and buried them privately without the knowledge of the Athenians; no condemned traitor being permitted to be buried in Attic soil. If, however, we even suppose that this statement was true, no one could point out with certainty the spot wherein such interment had taken place: nor does it seem, when we mark the cautious expressions of Thucydidês,[571] that he himself was satisfied of the fact: moreover, we may affirm with confidence that the inhabitants of Magnesia, when they showed the splendid sepulchral monument erected in honor of Themistoklês in their own market-place, were persuaded that his bones were really inclosed within it.

[567] Plutarch, Themist. c. 28.

[568] Thucyd. i, 138; Diodor. xi, 57. Besides the three
above-named places, Neanthês and Phanias described the grant as
being still fuller and more specific: they stated that Perkôtê
was granted to Themistoklês for bedding, and Palæskêpsis for
clothing (Plutarch, Themist. c. 29; Athenæus, i, p. 29).

This seems to have been a frequent form of grants from the
Persian and Egyptian kings, to their queens, relatives, or
friends,—a grant nominally to supply some particular want or
taste: see Dr. Arnold’s note on the passage of Thucydidês. I
doubt his statement, however, about the land-tax, or rent; I do
not think that it was a tenth or a fifth of the produce of the
soil in these districts which was granted to Themistoklês, but
the portion of regal revenue, or tribute, levied in them. The
Persian kings did not take the trouble to assess and collect the
tribute: they probably left that to the inhabitants themselves,
provided the sum total were duly paid.

[569] Plutarch, Themistoklês, c. 31. πλανώμενος περὶ τὴν Ἀσίαν:
this statement seems probable enough, though Plutarch rejects it.

[570] Thucyd. i, 138. Νοσήσας δὲ τελευτᾷ τὸν βίον· λέγουσι δέ
τινες καὶ ἑκούσιον φαρμάκῳ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτὸν, ἀδύνατον νομίσαντα
εἶναι ἐπιτελέσαι βασιλεῖ ἃ ὑπέσχετο.

This current story, as old as Aristophanês (Equit. 83, compare
the Scholia), alleged that Themistoklês had poisoned himself by
drinking bull’s blood (see Diodor. xi, 58), who assigns to this
act of taking poison a still more sublime patriotic character
by making it part of a design on the part of Themistoklês to
restrain the Persian king from warring against Greece.

Plutarch (Themist. c. 31, and Kimon, c. 18) and Diodorus both
state, as an unquestionable fact, that Themistoklês died by
poisoning himself: omitting even to notice the statement of
Thucydidês, that he died of disease. Cornelius Nepos (Themist.
c. 10) follows Thucydidês. Cicero (Brutus, c. 11) refers the
story of the suicide by poison to Clitarchus and Stratoklês,
recognizing it as contrary to Thucydidês. He puts into the mouth
of his fellow dialogist, Atticus, a just rebuke of the facility
with which historical truth was sacrificed to rhetorical purpose.

[571] Thucyd. i, 138. τὰ δὲ ὀστᾶ ~φασὶ κομισθῆναι αὐτοῦ οἱ
προσήκοντες οἴκαδε κελεύσαντος ἐκείνου~, καὶ τεθῆναι κρύφα
Ἀθηναίων ἐν τῇ Ἀττικῇ· οὐ γὰρ ἐξῆν θάπτειν, ὡς ἐπὶ προδοσίᾳ
φεύγοντος.

Cornelius Nepos, who here copies Thucydidês, gives this statement
by mistake, as if Thucydidês had himself affirmed it: “Idem (sc.
Thucydidês) ossa ejus clam in Atticâ ab amicis sepulta, quoniam
legibus non concederetur, quod proditionis esset damnatus,
memoriæ prodidit.” This shows the haste or inaccuracy with which
these secondary authors so often cite: Thucydidês is certainly
not a witness _for_ the fact: if anything, he may be said to
count somewhat against it.

Plutarch (Themist. c. 32) shows that the burial-place of
Themistoklês, supposed to be in Attica, was yet never verified
before his time: the guides of Pausanias, however, in the
succeeding century, had become more confident (Pausanias, i, 1,
3).

Aristeidês died about three or four years after the ostracism of Themistoklês;[572] but respecting the place and manner of his death, there were several contradictions among the authors whom Plutarch had before him. Some affirmed that he perished on foreign service in the Euxine sea; others, that he died at home, amidst the universal esteem and grief of his fellow-citizens. A third story, confined to the single statement of Kraterus, and strenuously rejected by Plutarch, represents Aristeidês as having been falsely accused before the Athenian judicature and condemned to a fine of fifty minæ, on the allegation of having taken bribes during the assessment of the tribute upon the allies,—which fine he was unable to pay, and was therefore obliged to retire to Ionia, where he died. Dismissing this last story, we find nothing certain about his death except one fact,—but that fact at the same time the most honorable of all,—that he died very poor. It is even asserted that he did not leave enough to pay funeral expenses,—that a sepulchre was provided for him at Phalêrum at the public cost, besides a handsome donation to his son Lysimachus, and a dowry to each of his two daughters. In the two or three ensuing generations, however, his descendants still continued poor, and even at that remote day, some of them received aid out of the public purse, from the recollection of their incorruptible ancestor. Near a century and a half afterwards, a poor man, named Lysimachus, descendant of the just Aristeidês, was to be seen at Athens, near the chapel of Iacchus, carrying a mysterious tablet, and obtaining his scanty fee of two oboli for interpreting the dreams of the passers by: Demetrius the Phalerean procured from the people, for the mother and aunt of this poor man, a small daily allowance.[573] On all these points the contrast is marked when we compare Aristeidês with Themistoklês. The latter, having distinguished himself by ostentatious cost at Olympia, and by a choregic victory at Athens, with little scruple as to the means of acquisition,—ended his life at Magnesia in dishonorable affluence, greater than ever, and left an enriched posterity both at that place and at Athens. More than five centuries afterwards, his descendant, the Athenian Themistoklês, attended the lectures of the philosopher Ammonius at Athens, as the comrade and friend of Plutarch himself.[574]

[572] Respecting the probity of Aristeidês, see an interesting
fragment of Eupolis, the comic writer (Δῆμοι, Fragm, iv, p. 457,
ed. Meineke).

[573] Plutarch, Arist. c. 26, 27; Cornelius Nepos. Arist. c. 3:
compare Aristophan. Vesp. 53.

[574] Plutarch, Themist. c. 5-32.