Wandering Greeks (21 page)

It obviously helped if suppliants had rendered some service to their hosts in the past. A speech written by Isocrates, which purports to have been delivered before the Athenian Assembly when Plataean refugees appealed for immigrant status after the destruction of their city by the Thebans probably in 373, provides insight into the kind of arguments that asylum-seekers might use. After praising the Athenians for their exemplary record toward refugees in general, the speaker reminds the Assembly of Plataea's past services. He acknowledges that he faces an uphill battle since the Thebans have secured the assistance of Athens's ablest orators. After an extended piece of Theban-bashing, he describes the pitiful plight of his compatriots in the event that the Athenians reject
their appeal. “We will become the unhappiest of men,” he declares. “We will have been deprived of our city-state, our land, and our possessions in the space of a single day, and, lacking all the necessities of life, will have become
alêtai
[wanderers] and beggars, uncertain where to turn and miserable no matter where we happen to live” (14.46). The Assembly must have been used to hearing similar appeals whenever foreigners petitioned for refuge in Athens. Much must have depended on whether they could gain the support of powerful individuals.

If, however, suppliants were likely to expose their hosts to risk at the hands of a third party, particularly a foreign power, their chances of receiving asylum would have been negligible. When the Epidamnians beseeched the Corcyraeans “not to allow them to perish but to arrange peace between them and the exiles, and to bring about an end to the war with the barbarians … while seated as suppliants in the sanctuary of Hera,” the Corcyraeans rejected their appeal for fear of antagonizing the Corinthians (Thuc. 1.24.5–7; see earlier,
chapter 5
).

Asylum-seekers might resort to intimidation to get their way. In the 420s about 400 Corcyrean oligarchs, suspecting that they would be massacred by the democratic faction, took refuge in the sanctuary of Hera—probably the same Heraeum referred to a moment ago. The democrats, fearing that the asylum-seekers were sufficient in number to instigate an insurrection, persuaded them to retire to an offshore island and agreed to supply them with provisions (Thuc. 3.75.5).

Granting Asylum within a Sanctuary

Although Zeus was the general overseer of asylum, every Greek sanctuary, regardless of which deity it belonged to, could provide refuge to those in need. It was considered an act of sacrilege to remove a suppliant from a sanctuary by force, since to do so was tantamount to stealing divine property—the verb
sulan
(to steal) that gives us the word
asulia
. Well-frequented sanctuaries offered the best prospects for refugees, as it was all too easy to drive them away from a sanctuary that was rarely frequented. There was, however, a structural flaw in the system. Once
a suppliant had gained access to a sanctuary, he or she could use the threat of starvation to blackmail the temple authorities. For if a death occurred within the sanctuary precincts, this caused pollution, which would be certain to arouse divine anger. The temple authorities would therefore have to weigh their options carefully, taking into account the religious consequences of their decision. In practice, however, they probably allowed those with political authority to decide.

Some sanctuaries, like that at Taenarum in the Peloponnese, provided rudimentary accommodation for asylum-seekers (Thuc. 1.133). Long-term residency, however, other than in the case of those who were seeking a cure for a chronic illness or those who, like Ion, were brought up as temple servants, was highly exceptional. Even so, we cannot rule out the possibility that a handful of individuals remained at a sanctuary for an extended period of time, surviving on charitable donations from visitors. There is, however, little evidence to indicate that those who ran the sanctuary were under any obligation, sacred or otherwise, to provide sustenance to those whom they admitted into their precincts, though they may well have provided them with scraps of food in return for work. For the most part suppliants were probably expected to shift for themselves.

Some of the most popular sanctuaries for asylum-seekers were situated either on the coast or on an offshore island, no doubt because many of them arrived by boat, while others, using it as a way station, sought to escape by sea. They include the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus, the sanctuary of Hera at Perachora, and the sanctuaries of Poseidon at Geraestus (southernmost Euboea), Calauria (an island off the coast at Troezen), Sunium (on the south coast of Attica), and Taenarum (at the tip of the Mani peninsula).

Settling Asylum-Seekers Long-Term

Once asylum-seekers had successfully petitioned to become long-term residents within the state, what became of them? The only detailed discussion of this question occurs in Aeschylus's
Suppliants
. Following the passing of the decree permitting him and his daughters to reside permanently
in the land, Danaüs makes the following announcement (ll. 609–14):

We are to reside freely as permanent immigrants in the land. We cannot be seized as surety [?] and we are to enjoy
asulia
from all men. No resident or alien has the right to carry us off as slaves. If anyone uses force against us, any
gamoros
[landowner] who fails to render us assistance will be
atimos
[deprived of civic rights] and driven into exile by public decree.

Danaüs's words are obviously intended to reproduce the phrasing of the decree. Indeed they may well be a paraphrase of an actual decree granting immigrant status to asylum-seekers. Later in the play the Argive king Pelasgus deals with the practical question of how to accommodate the new residents in his community. He suggests that they should take up residence in what he calls
dômatia dêmia
(public dwellings). This presumably means either public hostels or, more plausibly, privately owned houses belonging to wealthy individuals that are capable of accommodating a large number of guests for an extended period. The Danaids, it seems, will be allowed to either cohabit as a group or live in separate houses. Pelasgus does not indicate whether the separate houses would constitute a ghetto of sorts or be scattered throughout the city. He makes much of these seemingly trivial details, which are repeated about a hundred lines later in the play, where he states that the Danaids will not be charged rent (ll. 1009–1011). He ends by announcing that he and the citizen body will act as their official
prostatês
(legal representative), the title, incidentally, of an Athenian who represented the interests of a metic (see later,
chapter 9
).

Mistreating Asylum-Seekers

Despite the belief that the gods punished those who violated
asulia
with extreme severity, the plight of suppliants was uncertain at best. Trickery, deception, and other forms of entrapment were used to entice them away from their place of refuge. In fact the earliest instance of asylum-seeking in the historical record also happens to be the earliest instance
when asylum was violated. In ca. 632 an Athenian named Cylon made an abortive attempt to establish a tyranny. When it failed, he and his supporters took refuge at an altar on the Acropolis. Just when they were on the point of starving to death, the suppliants were encouraged to leave the sanctuary under promise of safe conduct. But instead they were slaughtered. The instigator of these killings was Megacles, a member of the highly prestigious Athenian
genos
(noble kin group) known as the Alcmaeonids. As punishment for this sacrilege, the Athenians pronounced a curse on the
genos
and its descendants in perpetuity. In consequence, all its living members were driven into exile and the bones of their dead were disinterred and cast out of Attica, though the curse was later rescinded (Hdt. 5.71; Thuc. 1.126.3–12).

A similar instance occurred in Sparta in ca. 471 when the regent Pausanias took refuge in the sanctuary of Athena on the Spartan Acropolis to escape arrest by the ephors, who had charged him with offering citizenship to helot rebels. The ephors barricaded him inside the temple and when Pausanias was on the point of starvation they dragged him outside so that his corpse should not pollute the sanctuary (Thuc. 1.134). What made their action especially offensive was the fact that they had previously tricked him into making a confession by having a former servant of his pose as a suppliant. Again, when an unnamed Aeginetan, along with 700 others, was being led to his execution by the ruling oligarchical faction on Aegina, he managed to break his shackles and escape to the sanctuary of Demeter Thesmophorus. The Aeginetan grasped the door handles so tightly that his would be captors resorted to the desperate remedy of “chopping off his hands and leading him in that manner, with his hands still attached to the door handles” (Hdt. 6.91.2).

The weakness of the institution of
asulia
is further illustrated by examples of suppliants who narrowly escaped massacre. In 427 the oligarchic party in Corcyra, fearing that the democrats were going to draft them as rowers in the fleet and ship them off to Athens, sought asylum in the sanctuary of the Dioscuri. The democrats were barely restrained by the Athenians from using violence against “any whom they encountered” (Thuc. 3.75.2–4). Left to their own devices, they would evidently have put their enemies to the sword, including those inside the sanctuary
itself. Especially horrendous is what happened shortly afterward. Members of the oligarchic faction who had fled to the sanctuary of Hera, now realizing that they would be massacred by the democrats, “proceeded to slay one another within the sanctuary, while some hanged themselves on the trees and others took their own lives as best they were able” (3.81.3).

Whenever a city was taken by siege, it was common practice for noncombatants to seek refuge on sacred property in the hope that their lives would be spared. Rarely, however, do we hear of compassion being extended to them. On the contrary, both in literature and in vase paintings, it is the mistreatment of those seeking refuge at altars and other holy places that is insisted upon repeatedly. When, for instance, Alexander the Great took Thebes in 335, we are told that “women, children, and the elderly who had fled to the shrines were dragged off and subjected to the utmost outrage” (D.S. 17.13.6; cf. Arr.
Anab
. 1.8.8). Alexander's treatment of Thebes was perhaps exceptional only in the sheer number of suppliants who were treated in this way.

To conclude, it seems doubtful whether
asulia
and the attendant and related institution of
hikesia
served the interests of migrants and refugees to any appreciable degree. It has been suggested that by the end of the fifth century “supplication … was becoming increasingly a ritual whose binding force was weakening in face of the counter-strain of political realities” (Gould 1973, 101). Overall the evidence tends to indicate that this was true.
¹
Then as now, those whose request for sanctuary had failed were either deported or simply disappeared into an underground world, subject to various forms of exploitation.

Athens's Exceptionalism

When the Attic dramatists reshaped traditional Greek myths to foreground Athenian preoccupations and concerns, they created an idealized
image of their city that embodied the civic virtues that their countrymen professed to espouse. It was Athens, their plays proclaimed, that practices justice, opposes tyranny, demonstrates compassion for the weak, and provides sanctuary for the oppressed, not least by offering asylum in courageous defiance of threats from those communities from which the suppliants have fled. Aeschylus's
Eumenides
, Sophocles'
Oedipus at Colonus
, and Euripides'
Madness of Heracles, Descendants of Heracles, Suppliants
, and
Medea
all demonstrate (in varying nuanced ways) Athens standing up for the weak and oppressed.

The heated exchange between Demophon, king of Athens, and Copreus, herald of Eurystheus, king of Argos, in Euripides'
Descendants of Heracles
(possibly dated 430) reveals the pride that the Athenians took in their reputation for resisting attempts by foreigners to secure the handover of asylum-seekers. The dialogue takes place inside the sanctuary of Zeus at Marathon, where the refugees are currently sheltering (ll. 252–66):

DEMOPHON
: You will never take these men away with you.

HERALD
: What if my cause is just and my argument prevails?

DEMOPHON
: How can it be just to drag away a suppliant by force?

HERALD
: What if it brought no shame to me and no harm to you?

DEMOPHON
: But it would indeed harm me, if I let you drag them off.

HERALD
: Just leave them outside your borders. We'll handle them from that point.

DEMOPHON
: You're stupid if you think you can hoodwink the god.

HERALD
: This is obviously the place where outlaws find refuge.

DEMOPHON
: This holy spot affords protection to all …

HERALD
: I wouldn't like to see you having us as your enemy.

DEMOPHON
: Nor would I. But I'm not going to hand these men over.

Brave words indeed, though we should note that Euripides never presents things in black and white terms. Eurystheus, the villain of the piece, when caught, admits that he has mistreated the refugees, but Alcmene, Heracles' mother, is objectionable in the way that she bays for his blood. Demophon is not entirely principled either. He makes it clear that his
primary motive for providing asylum is concern for his honor, “which I chiefly have to think about” (l. 242). He later tells the Chorus: “Some say that it is right to help strangers, others claim that I am acting like a fool” (ll. 416–18). Public opinion, in other words, is very much to the fore in his calculation.