Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Agathias on history and poetry Kaldellis, Anthony Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1997; 38, 3; ProQuest pg. 295 Agathias on History and Poetry Anthony Kaldellis ~ HE STUDY OF BYZANTINE HISTORIOGRAPHY has entered a phase of transformative debate, from which it will in­ evitably emerge with broadened intellectual horizons and an enriched understanding of its own aims and methods. The exclusive interest of past scholars in factual reliability, closely connected to the search for 'sources', or Quellenforschung, is gradually making room for the wider appreciation of Byzantine histories as works of literature and original thought, which possess value independently of the accuracy or veracity of their narratives.1 This shift of focus represents a partial emancipation from the traditional concerns of political history, and yet has thankfully been spared the inane extremes of postmodernist theory. It is hoped that future works of synthesis will em­ phasize the unique virtues and vices of each historian in his dual capacity as author and scholar, as well as the more philosophical aspects of his work. 2 A number of Byzantine historians, in­ cluding Agathias, are now emerging as subtle and imaginative authors, capable, in a manner almost worthy of Herodotus, of constructing highly nuanced images in the course of their 1 See in general the debate in J. N. Ljubarskij et at., "Quellenforschung and/ or Literary Criticism: Narrative Structures in Byzantine Historical Writings," SymbOsto 73 (1998) 5-73. 2 In his magisterial survey of Byzantine historiography, Herbert Hunger treats the following aspects of Agathias' work thematically: biography of the author, summary of the Histories, accuracy of information and sources, classi­ cizing vocabulary, and religious beliefs: Die hochsprachliche profane Litera­ tur der Byzantiner (Munich 1978) I 303-309; Apostolos Karpozelos' recent survey is more detailed and gives a better sense of the overall development of early Byzantine historiography, but essentially reproduces the same schema when discussing individual authors: Bv;avnvoi '/mopuwi Kai XpovoypaqxH I (Athens 1997) 432-41, with an appendix discussing Agathias' view of Justini­ an: 442-48. Warren Treadgold has also proposed to write a general survey of Byzantine historiography: Why Write a New History of Byzantium? (Cana­ dian Institute of Balkan Studies: Toronto 1997). 295 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 AGATHIAS ON HISTORY AND POETRY narratives,) and of cleverly using classical allusions in order to make innovative philosophical arguments. 4 Their works must be read and analyzed with patient care, for their central mes­ sages are almost never stated clearly and unambiguously, as in modern works of scholarship, which, partly for that reason, seldom possess any literary value. Yet considerable tensions exist between the search for the truth and the desire to tell a good or edifying story, as many ancient and Byzantine historians realized. Each devised a prac­ tical solution to this problem, based on the ultimate aims of his decision to compose a record of past or contemporary events. 5 Here I shall examine one aspect of Agathias' solution, focusing on his view of the relationship between history and poetry. His position on this as on other matters has been seriously mis­ represented in modern scholarship. According to his most influential modern interpreter, Aga­ thias was driven to write his Histories through "a strong literary enthusiasm."6 Furthermore, "when we find Agathias '" saying that history and poetry are intimately related, so much so indeed that they are divided only by meter, we may be sure that he was expressing his own personal view:'? This view is expressed in "a manifesto of his own on the closeness of history and poetry," which he "inserts" into the r.reface of his Histories. 8 When we turn to the preface itsel , however, we discover that Agathias gives a far more nuanced explanation for this decision to write history, and that the views ascribed to him by his modern interpreter are explicitly ascribed to someone 3 For Agathias' subtle, if negative, depiction of Persian culture, see C. Questa, "II morto e la madre: Romei e Persiani nelle 'Storie' de Agatia," Lares 55 (1989) 375-405. 4 See A. KALDELLIS, "The Historical and Religious Views of Agathias: A Reinterpretation," Byzantion 69 (1999: hereafter 'Kaldellis, Byzantion') forth­ coming), and The Argument of Psellos' Chronographia (Leiden 1999, forth­ coming. 5 I cannot do justice to this vast theme here. For some thoughtful studies of individual authors, see W. R. Connor, Thucydides (Princeton 1984); G. B. Miles, Livy. Reconstructing Early Rome (Ithaca 1995). 6 AVERIL CAMERON, Agathias (Oxford 1970: hereafter 'Cameron') 11. 7 Cameron 58; cf 31: "we have no reason to disbelieve him when he says that he was persuaded to write history only on the reflection that it was after all very like poetry." 8 Cameron 32; cf 9,37, 67f; Karpozelos (supra n.2) 438. The scarcity of my citations to modern scholars reflects the lack of attention to this aspect of Agathias' thought, which has not yet been recognized as problematic. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ANTHONY KALDELLIS 297 else in the text. As it turns out, Agathias was profoundly aware of the divergent natures of history and poetry. The major reason that Agathias gives for his decision to write history is linked to his views about its ultimate purpose, which also point to some of the differences that he perceived between it and poetry. The main justification for writing history in the preface (lff) is based on an analysis of human motivation. 9 Men perform great deeds chiefly in order to be praised and remem­ bered by others. As history can virtually immortalize their memory and transmit the praise of their glorious deeds to future generations, it is capable of inducing men to undertake even more magnificent achievements. 1o Its aim is therefore political in the strictest and highest sense. Yet if historians can incite others to perform great deeds, then they too are "bene­ factors of society" and should be "accorded the greatest admira­ tion" (praef 6.17f). Agathias says that he came to this conclusion before deciding to write history himself. Nevertheless, now that he has done so he intends to reap his fair share of praise. Accordingly, he tells his readers exactly who he is, at great length (praef 7-15). Therefore, Agathias' theory of human motivation is capable of explaining his own decision to write history, for the historian is also caught up in the circle of self-interest, benefaction, and praise that propels all great accomplishments. Whereas his aim is to create something "useful" (praef 11.16f), something that will have "a positive value for posterity" (praef 10.12f), his mo­ tivation is the love of honor or glory, as Agathias indirectly reveals later when he claims that his friend Eutychianus urged him to write history, "anxious to enhance my reputation and 9 I cite the most recent edition, R. Keydell, ed., Agathiae Myrinaei Histor­ iarum (=CFHB 2 [Berlin 1967]), and quote (with occasional modifications) the translation by]. D. Frendo, Agathias. The Histories (=CFHB 2A [Berlin 1976]). Citations to Agathias' preface consist of the section number, followed by the line numbers of the relevant page of the Keydell edition. For a fuller analysis of the two views of history in the preface, see Kaldellis, Byzantion (section I). to An episode at Hist. 1.1S.1ff illustrates the psychological basis of the his­ torian's power to influence behavior. After the forces of the Roman (Herul) general Fulkaris had been defeated, "he did not see fit to run away, but chose rather to meet a glorious end than to become an ignoble survivor." Although he could have escaped, he feared "the sting of Narses' tongue" and the "abuse" he would thereby incur. Cf 2.7.6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298 AGATHIAS ON HISTORY AND POETRY improve my status" (praef 12.22ff).11 A passage near the end of the Histories shows that in terms of their motives and effects on society, historians do not differ much from generals. After his last victory on the field of battle, Belisarius was denied praise by those who envied or feared him. By the very act of describ­ ing and celebrating his exploits, Agathias granted to Belisarius' memory what the man himself had been denied. 12 For initiative is blunted and all incentive to action destroyed when noble spirits are deprived of their rightful share of acclaim and in consequence those qualities that have been disparaged, whether they are associated with military success, literary achievement, or with some other matter of vital concern, cease, much to the detriment of society, to be properly cultivated (5.20.5ff). Therefore, the views expressed in the preface are not mere rhetoric, but are consistent with Agathias' outlook in the main body of the text, i.e., with his practice as a historian. Agathias' reasons for deciding to write history were entirely his own (praef 10-11). Nevertheless, a number of his friends, of whom only Eutychianus is named, "encouraged my initial en­ deavor" (praef 11.17f). In this context, Agathias praises Eutychi­ anus, who, in order to bolster Agathias' confidence, had claimed that" in his view history was not far removed from poetry, and both were kindred and related disciplines differing radically perhaps only in the matter of meter" (praef 12.1ff; my italics). Although Agathias says that "these promptings 13 found in me a ready and receptive listener" (praef 13.Sf), he never openly endorses this view of the relationship between history and poetry, which he attributes firmly and entirely to Eutychi­ anus. This hardly constitutes "a manifesto of his own." We may ask, however, to what extent did he agree with it, and, why did he include it in his preface? Let us compare Agathias' view of history with what he says about poetry in the preface (7-13) and elsewhere. "Poetry is a sacred and divinely-inspired activity. In it souls attain a state of ecstatic inspiration" (praef 9.30f). Yet this ecstasy requires no societal justification. "Seized by the Muse and possessed by this frenzy," the poet is compelled to create works of "surpassing 11 For the glory sought by historians, cf Hdn. 1.1.1; Quint. In st. 10.1.31; Agathias' friend: PLRE IlIA (1992) 475 S.7I. -Eutychianus 1." 12 For the problems with Agathias' account of the battle see Cameron 49f. 13 The precise antecedent of 'tOtUU'tu is unclear. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ANTHONY KALDELLIS 299 loveliness" (9.lf). Agathias says nothing of the poet's need to be praised by others,14 nor does he mention any benefits that poems confer upon society. In fact, he explicitly declares that, in contrast to history, poetry has no practical value (8.29f; 11.16f). Whereas history is useful, poetry is "delightful," "amo­ rous and enchanting," "amusing and entertaining," "surpassing­ ly lovely," and "pleasant" (7-10). This section of the preface, therefore, directly highlights an essential characteristic of poetry, namely its ability to move the reader, even if only about trivial subjects, through its use of beautiful language. Agathias then openly usurps for poetry a prime characteristic of Socratic philosophy, following the Delphic commandment to know oneself (10.4f). We may wonder whether he is confus­ ing poetry with philosophy. But had not Aristotle argued that poetry was more philosophical than history? And had not Plato, whom Agathias explicitly cites here, called poetic inspira­ tion a form of heaven-sent madness?15 History, on the other hand, is chiefly concerned with political events like wars, inva­ sions, and migrations (praef 10.6-10); it is by no means inspired by divine madness; and by the very act of publishing his work -by attempting, that is, to influence the ambitions of future leaders and heroes-the historian himself enters the political arena. The difference between history and poetry thus seems to evoke the classical distinction between the active and the con­ templative life. This could weB be the perspective of a poet, de­ voted to the timeless themes of eros (praeJ. 7.23f). But poets are notoriously deluded about their Muse, to the same degree, perhaps, that historians overestimate the influence of their works over posterity. However that may be, it is clear that according to Agathias historians and poets differ widely in their motivations, their proximate and ultimate goals, the subject matter, and the social value of their work. The Histories reveal yet another great dif­ ference between the two. In the second part of his preface, Agathias argues that history is above all concerned to reveal the truth, "whatever the consequences" (praef 20.12f). This view emerges from a contrast between history and rhetoric, i.e., panegyric, which in its attempt "to flatter and fawn upon" the 14 a~lbtalVov at praef 8.25 refers to activities that are scholarly, not poetic: in addition to composing verses, Agathias made a collection of contemporary epigrams, which he then arranged and classified. 15 Arist. Poet. 1451a38-bl1; PI. Ph dr. 245A; cf Cameron 58 n.9 for parallel citations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300 AGATHIAS ON HISTORY AND POETRY powerful ends up "disregarding the truth" (16.21ff). Yet in Book 4 Agathias also rejects the myth of the flautist Marsyas who was cruelly flayed by Apollo. He denies its historicity, calling it "a wildly improbable fabrication of the poets ... with­ out a shred of truth or likelihood about it," and advises his readers "not to be misled by the tales of the poets" (4.23.4ff; cf 3.5.4 for "the fabulous and incredible creations of the poetic im­ agination").16 Apparently, poetry is not concerned wih historical truth either. To this degree it differs from history in the treat­ ment of its subject matter. Its ability to please and entertain its readers derives largely from the inventiveness of the poet's imagination. For these reasons, it is extremely improbable that Agathias accepted the position of Eutychianus. We may not attribute to the author of the Histories the view that history and poetry differ only with respect to meter. Why then does he mention Eutychianus' view at all? I believe that he uses it as an extreme corrective to the entrenched no­ tion that history and poetry had to be kept apart, which Aga­ thias wants to revise in order to legitimate his own conversion of history into an instrument of philosophical edification. Let us examine the sequence of the arguments in the preface. Immediately after the account of history's moral purpose, with which his preface begins (1-3), and before the seemingly irrelevant excursus on poetry (7-13), Agathias inserts a compar­ ison between history and "political philosophy" (4-5). Whereas both seek to "instill virtue into men's hearts" (5.14f), political philosophy is less effective because it is stern and unyielding, while history "makes everything as attractive as possible ('t Ci> 8EAYOVtl ItAdO,tep XproJlEVll), rendering her message more pala­ table" (5.10f). Although it shares the aims of political philoso­ phy, it proceeds in a more pleasing and attractive manner 16 Elsewhere (Byzantion [section V) I have argued that Agathias was not a Christian. To those arguments can be added his curious discussion of this myth. Agathias dismisses it as a fabrication, not, like the Christians, because he rejects the absurdities of all Greek theology (sic S. Costanza, ·Orientamen­ ti cristiani della storiographia di Agathia," Helikon 2 [1962] 93f), but because he cannot believe that a god would behave in such a manner, in other words, because the story reflects poorly on Apollo! Whereas a Christian apologist would reject Apollo on the basis of the story, Agathias rejects the story for the sake of Apollo. The campaign to rescue the gods from the tales of the poets began early in Greek history (Xenophanes). and became a prominent theme of philosophical theology (cf PI. Euthphr. SE-6c; Resp. Book 2). Cf Agathias' peculiar use of a pagan legend as an example of divine Justice (2.l.2£). He does not openly accept the story, but does not 'refute' it either. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ANTHONY KALDELLIS 301 (S.lsf). At this point Agathias inserts his excursus on poetry, which, as we have seen, stresses its pleasant nature. The pur­ pose of this digression is probably to suggest that history can become more elegant by drawing closer to poetry, which can provide the enchantment that political philosophy lacks. Poetic compositions are by their nature S£AK'tijpUX (8.30), whereas his­ tory is essentially useful (10.13: xpijeHIl(x; 11.17: eXVCXYKCXI.OV ).It is only after he has made these distinctions, and hinted at the grounds of a possible alliance, that Agathias mentions the views of Eutychianus on the closeness of history and poetry (12.1ff). In the digression at the beginning of Book 3, Agathias reveals that he is contemplating some such alliance between poetry and history. He claims there that his narrative serves the "twin objects of amusement and utility ('to SEAYOV ~uv 'tip ro