Brill's Companion to Herodotus

Brill's Companion to Herodotus

Edited by Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J.F. de Jong and Hans van Wees

EDITED BY

EGBERT J. BARKER IRENE J.F. DE JONG HANS VAN WEES

BRILL

LEIDEN · BOSTON · KÖLN 2002

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 90 04 12060 2 © Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

In memory of David Asheri and Heleen Sancisi

CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations

X 1

x 1 1 1

List of Contributors

x

List o f Maps Editors' Introduction Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong, Hans van Wees

v

*vii

HERODOTUS AND HIS WORK 1. The M a k i n g of History: Herodotus' Histories Apodexis

3

Egbert J. Bakker 2. Herodotus and Athens John Moles

33

3. Oral Strategies in the Language of Herodotus Simon R. Slings

53

4. The Histories and W r i t i n g Wolfgang Rosier

79

HERODOTUS AND HIS WORLD 5. Epic Heritage and Mythical Patterns in Herodotus Deborah Boedeker 6. Herodotus and Tragedy Suzanne Said 7. Philosophy, Science, Politics: Herodotus and the Intellectual Trends of his T i m e Kurt A. Raqflaub

97

117

149

viii

CONTENTS

8. Religion in Herodotus Jon D. Mikahon

187

9. Popular Morality in Herodotus Nick Fisher

199

10. Women in Herodotus' Histories Josine Bloh

225

T H E HISTORIES AS N A R R A T I V E 11. Narrative Unity and Units Irene J. F. de Jong 12. '1 didn't give my own genealogy': Herodotus and the authorial persona Carolyn Dewald 13. Short Stories in Herodotus' Histories Vivienne Gray

245

267

291

T H E HISTORICAL METHOD

14. Herodotus and the Past Hans van Wees

321

15. Herodotus as a Critic: T r u t h , Fiction, Polarity Paul Cartledge and Emily Greenwood

351

16. Herodotus and his Sources of Information Simon Homblower

373

17. The Organization of T i m e in the Histories

387

Justus Cobet

CONTENTS

I*

HISTORY A N D E T H N O G R A P H Y

18. Egypt Alan B. Lloyd

4

1

5

19. Scythians Stephanie West

437

20. The Ethnography o f the Fringes Klaus Karttunen

457

21. Babylon Amélie Kulut

475

22. Archaic Greek History Robin Osborne

497

23. Greek History, c. 525 480 BC Sara Forsdyke

521

24. The Persian Invasions Viomas Hanison

551

25. The Personality of Xerxes, K i n g o f Kings Heleen Sanaa- Weerdenburg

579

Bibliography

591

General Index

629

Index o f Passages

641

ABBREVIATIONS

AcliHisl D-K FGrll Fornara IG K-A KRS L-P LSJ ML

Achaemenid History H . Dicls and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 10th ed. (=VS) F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der giiechischen Historiker C. W. Fornara. Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War, 2nd ed. Inscriptiones Graecae R. Kassel and C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M . Schofield, Tlie Pesocratk Philosophers, 2nd. ed. E. Lobet and D.L. Page, Poetarum Ltsbiorum Fragmenta H . G. Eiddeü, R. Scott, and H . S.Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edition. R. Mciggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, revised ed Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum W. Dittenberger, Syiloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. M . N . Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions H . Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 10th ed. (= D-K). ;

SEG Syll./SIG Tod VS

LIST OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Professor EGBERT J. BARKER, Centre d ' É t u d e s Classiques, Université de M o n t r é a l , Canada Professor JOSINE Netherlands

BLOK,

Instituut Geschiedenis, R U Utrecht,

The

Professor DEBORAH BOEDEKER, Department o f Classics, B r o w n University, Providence, United States Professor Kingdom

PAUL CARTLEDGE,

Professor JUSTUS Essen, Germany

COBET,

Clare College, Cambridge, U n i t e d

Fachbereich Geschichte, Gesamthochschule

Professor IRENE J. F. DE JONG, Klassiek Seminarium, Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands Professor CAROLYN DEWALD, Classics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States Professor NICK FISHER, School of History and Archaeology, University, United Kingdom

Cardiff

Professor SARA FORSDYKE, Classical Studies, University of Michigan, A n n Arbor, United States Professor VIVIENNE GRAY, Classics and Ancient History, University o f Auckland, New Zealand D r EMILY Kingdom

GREENWOOD,

St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, United

D r THOMAS HARRISON, School of Greek, Latin and Ancient Histoiy, University of St. Andrews, United K i n g d o m

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Xiv Professor Kingdom

SIMON HORNBLOWER,

Professor

KLAUS KARTTUNEN,

Professor

AMELIE KUHRT,

History, U C L , L o n d o n ,

United

Heisingin Yliopisto, Helsinki, Finland

History, U C L , London, United K i n g d o m

Professor ALAN B. LLOYD, Classics and Ancient History, University o f Wales, Swansea, United Kingdom Professor JON D . MIKALSON, Classics, University o f Virginia, Charlottesville, United States Professor

JOHN MOLES,

Classics, University o f Newcastle, U n i t e d

Kingdom Professor Kingdom

ROBIN OSBORNE,

K i n g ' s College, C a m b r i d g e , U n i t e d

Professor KURT A . RAAFLAUB, D e p a r t m e n t o f Classics, B r o w n University, Providence, United States Professor W .

ROSIER,

Institut für Klassische Philologie,

Humboldt-

Universität zu Berlin, GermanyProfessor

SUZANNE SAID, Department

o f Classics, Columbia University,

New York, United States Professor HELFEN SANCISI | , Formerly o f Instituut voor Oude Geschiedene, R U Utrecht, T h e Netherlands Professor SIMON R. SLINGS, Vakgroep Grieks en Latijn, Vrije Univcrsiteit Amsterdam, T h e Netherlands Dr

HANS VAN WEES,

Professor

History, U C L , London, United Kingdom

STEPHANIE WEST, Hertford

College, Oxford, United Kingdom

LIST O F MAPS

Egypt

416

Scythia

438

T h e world according to Herodotus

458

Babylon

476

Greece

498

T h e Persian Empire

552

EDITORS' I N T R O D U C T I O N Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong, Hans van Wees

'As one must beware o f the beetle in the rosebush, so must one beware o f the slander and gossip lurking under its pleasant and gentle surface', said Plutarch o f Herodotus' Histories (On the Malice of Herodotus 43). Plutarch was not the first or the last to appreciate Herodotus' literary qualities but question his merits as a historian and ethnographer. I n a more sympathetic but no less critical spirit, this Companion to Herodotus seeks to illuminate both sides o f his work. T h e following chapters fully reflect the rich, complicated, and sometimes controversial nature o f the Histories. Sometimes they are i n disagreement with one another, testifying to Herodotus' ever enigmatic position at the beginning o f historiography, as well as to his own avowed intention not to provide easy solutions, but to let the reader choose from the alternatives he has assembled in his histonê. Often, chapters overlap, showing the extent to which many o f the issues which Herodotus raises are part o f an intricately woven network o f themes, reflecting a consistent view o f the world and its history. The opening chapters examine the nature of Herodotus' work and its place within the oral and literary traditions of the late fifth century BC. Egbert Bakker begins by addressing the questions raised by Herodotus' famous opening sentence, in particular the meaning o f the terms historié and apodexis. H e concludes that rather than referring to the publication o f the work, the term apodexis presents the work as a lasting achievement and at the same time as a potentially controversial statement. John Moles proceeds to modify the widespread idea that one purpose o f the Histories was to praise Athens. Herodotus acknowledged this city's important role when the freedom o f Greece was at stake, but he implicitly and subtly suggested that the Athenian empire o f his own day resembled the tyrannical and oriental empires o f the past, and i n doing so hoped to alert the Athenians to the dangers inherent i n their present behaviour. I n the next chapter, Simon Slings addresses the problem o f the style o f the Histories. He argues that Herodotus' language is characterized throughout by 'oral strategies', which can at times also be put to

XV111 EGBERT J. BAKKER. IRENE J. F. DE JONG, HANS VAN WEES rhetorical effect. The complementary thesis o f Wolfgang Rosier is that it was the spread o f written texts i n the second half o f the fifth century BC which inspired Herodotus to write down, at the end o f his life, all the material which he had collected. A n important sign that the Histories are directed at readers rather than listeners is Herodotus' frequent use o f the past tense when referring to his own time, thereby adopting the perspective o f future readers o f his book. The next six chapters broaden out into an investigation o f the range o f contemporary influences—literary, intellectual, religious, moral, and social—which helped shape Herodotus' work. Deborah Boedeker reviews the ways in which Herodotus' narrative is shaped by the legacy o f the epic past and by general patterns o f mythic storytelling. Such a shaping, she stresses, is never involuntary, and Herodotus is no less creating a voice for himself than he is following the story patterns from the past. Suzanne Said's contribution critically evaluates the claims made by scholars regarding the tragic nature o f the Histories. Working through the verbal echoes, literary techniques, themes, 'tragic' episodes (such as the stories o f Croesus, Polycrates, and Cypselus), and above all the account o f the battle of Salamis, she arrives at the conclusion that the differences between the Histories and tragedy are greater and more important than the similarities. K u r t Raaflaub proceeds w i t h an analysis o f the intellectual context in which the Histories were created. The Herodotus that emerges from his discussion not only participates fully in the contemporary debates on politics and science, but is also closer to Thucydides than is commonly supposed. Next, Jon Mikalson discusses the religious dimension o f the Histories, stressing the importance o f popular religion and local cult (rather than Olympian religion as presented in Panhellenic poetry) in Herodotus' dealing w i t h the divine. I n his chapter, Nick Fisher argues that Herodotus is clearly interested in exploring major moral issues, such as divine punishment for injustice, excessive revenge or overconfidence in prosperity, and the contrast between tyrannical and luxurious Eastern Empires and freedom-loving, modestly living Greeks. There is no worked-out system, however, but rather a flexible set o f interconnected themes, hints, and explanations, which are delivered in speeches, in narratorial comments, and by the thematic organization o f the material. The remarkably central role played by women in the Histories forms the subject of Josine Blok's chapter. Is their importance an echo o f historical reality or is it the result o f Herodotus' storytelling imagi-

EDITORS' INTRODUCTION

xix

nation? Both views have found their defenders. Blok offers the suggestion that it might be Herodotus' tendency to view the polls in terms o f an oikos which opened his eyes to the mutual dependence of men and women. Herodotus' much-admired skill as a storyteller is analysed i n the next three chapters. First, Irene de Jong discusses the many attempts to defend the unity o f the Histories, and suggests that the structure o f this text is best understood i n terms o f the narratological concept o f 'time': analysing 'digressions' i n terms o f analepses and prolepses helps to understand their place and function within the story as a whole. Some o f the conventional labels for the smaller units within the Histories—Exkurs, novella—arc best banned from Heroclotean scholarship. Carolyn Dewald continues the survey o f Herodotus' narrative by concentrating on the ways i n which Herodotus' authorial voice is expressed and represented; she proposes a distinction between two 'voices', dtat o f a narrator and o f a 'histo?, each with a specific function i n the text. One kind o f smaller unit within the Histories, the short story, is the subject of Vivienne Gray's contribution. She shows that these stories often display the same narrative patterns, and that, even i f the link between them and the main story is not always clear at first sight (hence the older idea o f Herodotus randomly inserting 'digressions'), there often is a connection i n the form of analogy. The second half of the volume tackles Herodotus as a researcher— historian, ethnographer, geographer, and general critic. Hans van Wees assesses Herodotus i n the role for which he is most famous, Father o f History, highlighting the ambitious scope o f his universal history and the sophistication and originality o f his treatment o f origins, the rise and fall o f empires, and the causes o f war. Emily Greenwood and Paul Cartledge then investigate Herodotus' critical methods and his remarkable self-presentation as a critic, which set him apart from most ancient historians, as well as one o f his guiding principles of interpretation, polarity. T w o key aspects o f the historical method are explored by Simon Hornblower, who discusses the nature o f Herodotus' sources and his handling o f them, long a controversial question, and by Justus Cobet, who investigates the no less vital and controversial issue o f Herodotus' interest i n , and handling of, matters of chronology. A l l these general themes are picked up again in a series o f detailed studies o f aspects o f the Histories, beginning with four chapters on

XX

EGBERT J. BARKER. IRENE J. F. DE JONG, HANS VAN WEES

the history and ethnography o f 'barbarian' peoples. Alan B. Lloyd and Stephanie West scrutinize the two major accounts o f non-Greek nations, covering Egyptians and Scythians, respectively, while Klaus Karttunen investigates Herodotus' ethnography o f the more remote parts o f the world, and Amélie K u h r t presents a particularly in-depth study o f Herodotus' account o f Babylon, a small but important part of the Histories. Each chapter explains the pattern and rationale o f Herodotus' ethnography w i t h the aid o f archaeological and other evidence which helps assess the reliability of his often sensational reports. The final four chapters turn to the history o f Greece and the Persian Wars. Robin Osborne deals with the earliest material concerning Greece, from the heroic age to the late sixth century BC, while Sara Forsdyke discusses the increasingly abundant information relating to the period from c. 525 B C to the Persian Wars, a time within living memory when Herodotus began his work. Both pay particular attention to the ways i n which the Histories shaped, and were shaped by, their sources. T h e structure, thematic significance, and historical accuracy o f the culminating account o f the Persian invasions o f Greece is analysed by Thomas Harrison, and just as the section on barbarian nations ends w i t h an especially detailed case-study, so this section concludes with a re-publication o f Heleen Sancisi's close investigation o f the main actor i n Herodotus' story of the Persian Wars, K i n g Xerxes. These last two chapters replace planned contributions by D a v i d Asheri o n the Persian Wars and by Heleen Sancisi o n the Persians. The untimely death o f these two great scholars sadly deprives us of their work, and this volume is dedicated to their memory.

* * * T h e editors wish to thank Ms Linda W o o d w a r d for her expert work on the editing o f the manuscript and M s M é l a n i e Fortin (Université de Montréal) for her help i n compiling the bibliography. Egbert Bakker gratefully acknowledges support for his part i n the project from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council o f Canada as well as from the Institute for Advanced Study i n Princeton and the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation i n Athens.

H E R O D O T U S A N D HIS W O R K

CHAPTER ONE

T H E M A K I N G OF HISTORY: H E R O D O T U S ' HISTORIES APODEXIS Egbert J . Bakker

Action, in so far as it engages in founding and preserving political bodies, creates the condition for remembrance, that is; for history. Hannah Arend, The Human Condition

Most readers o f Herodotus' work call it History, or the Histories. The name is doubly motivated. N o t only does it follow Herodotus h i m self i n the way i n which he refers to his own literary and intellectual achievement; it also views Herodotus through the tradition o f which we have made h i m the 'father'. As the term kistoria (or historié as Herodotus would have pronounced it) comes closer to us on its long way from the fifth century B C E through Greek Antiquity, it becomes more and more closely associated with writing, as appears from its j o i n i n g w i t h the verbal root graph, to form such composite concepts as histonographos or historiogmphia. Such 'writing of history', however, is quite alien to Herodotus' understanding of historié. 'History' for h i m is not an object o f study, something you write, or write about; it is an intellectual tool and a communicative activity. The essential link for h i m is not with graph but w i t h another verbal idea, as appears from the most famous mention o f histonê in history, i n the Proem to Herodotus' Histories: 1

Ηροδότου Άλικα ρνησσέος Ίστορίης άπόδεξκ; η δε. ώς μήτε τα γενόμενα έξ ανθρώπων τφ χρόνω έξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε εργα μεγάλα τε καΐ θωιιαστά. τα μεν "Ελλησι, τα δέ βάρβαροισι άπο^εχθεντα, άκλεα γένηται, τά τε άλλα και δι ή ν αίτίην έπολέμησαν άλλήλοισι. * This is the apodexis of the historié of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, put forth to prevent what has been made to happen by men from fading

Translations of passages from Herodotus in this chapter are my own.

EGBERT J. BARKER

I

with time, and (to prevent) great and marvellous deeds, some accomplished by Greeks, others by barbarians, from losing fame, and in particular through what aitiê they came to war with each other. There are blanks left i n the translation: this chapter, in dealing with Herodotus' historié as the prehistory o f our notion o f 'history', does not want to take too much for granted. So we will make the meaning not only o f historié, but also o f apodexis, the object o f investigation. T h e latter term is the action noun o f the verbal idea apo-deik, which will concern us in particular. O u r main source o f information will be the evidence that Herodotus' Histories provides itself as it has come down to us through the ages. A n d the first evidence we have to face is the interpretation o f the Proem as the primary context o f historiés apodexis. Herodotus' first sentence, to begin with, seems to lack precision in the way i n which it delimits the work's subject. While Thucydides tells us exacdy that his subject is the Peloponnesian War, and that he started working on it from its very beginning, Herodotus does not tell us that the subject o f his work is the Persian Wars. What he indicates is at the same time much broader than that subject— erga megala 'great accomplishments', for example, can be understood as including 'monuments', 'architectural achievements'—and narrower: according to the wording o f the Proem, his historié will concern not so much the war itself as its ailïé, another term, usually translated as 'cause', whose interpretation is at stake. Nor does the narrative itself seem to do much to remedy the problem. Its long 'digressions' and varied subject matter have prompted various hypotheses concerning the unity and publication o f the work, each betraying i n its own way the preconceptions o f the time. The lack o f a clear focus on a well-defined subject has been explained as due to genetic factors. The work as we have it was seen as showing signs o f an intellectual development by which Herodotus passed through various stages, from the travelling geographer and ethnographer who wrote the Egyptian logos that is now our Book T w o , to the historian who left us Books Seven through Nine, and who, it was thought, had made much progress toward the Thucydidean ideal of the objective historian.' The tension between history and geog2

2

Mösl authoiitatively Jacoby (1913) 275 ff.; cf. De Saudis (1926), Powell (1939), Latte {1958} 7 ('Er hat nicht als Historiker begonnen, sondern ist es geworden');

THE MAKING OF HISTORY: HERODOTUS"

HISTORIES

ARODKXIS

raphy, between the present and the past, was resolved through the history of the work itself. This 'analytic' standpoint provoked, on the analogy o f the Homeric Question, a 'Unitarian' reaction on the part o f scholars who viewed Herodotus' work as historical ab ovo: for them, geography and ethnography are part of the overall historiographical conception of the Histories* The ensuing 'unity' was not unproblematic, and often it was necessary to depict Herodotus as somehow incapable, or, rather, 'not yet' capable of making the distinctions and decisions that are normal for historiography as we understand it, or to impose on himself the kind of limitations we associate with purposeful writing. A variant version of this idea presents us a Herodotus who is capable of those things, but who is hampered by the constraints of an 'archaic', paratactic way of expression (Immerwahr (1966) 7). I n more recent times, 'archaic style' and its associated concepts has come to be replaced b\ 'oralityV arid the supposed lack of focus in Herodotus' choice o f subject matter is seen as simply due to the fact that the intellectual context in which he wrote was 'predisciplinary', unfamiliar with the modern boundaries between geography, anthropology, and history. 3

In all these cases, the implicit question seems to be whether Herodotus was the first historian, a good or bad historian, merely a historian (want la lettre, or a historian at all. Herodotus is set against some modern notion o f 'history*, a norm to which he either conforms only in the course of his intellectual development, or not (yet) quite, in some way or another. I n part, the modern reception of Herodotus has been the search for attenuating circumstances. It is only in the most recent research that the terms 'historian' or 'history' have come to be charged with cultural weight. The Herodotus that emerges is viewed in a way that entirely suppresses any modern notion o f 'history' not without new controversy, as we shall see.

I'ornara (1971a); an analvtk: reading of Herodotus' first sentence itself is offered in Hornmel (1981).' E.g., Regenbogen (19301)): Pohlenz (1937), Immerwahr (1966), Cobet (1971), Drexler (1972). For the problem of" unity in the Histories, sec de Jong, this volume (Ch. 11). E.g.. Lang (19845; on 'oral strategies' in Herodotus, sec also Slings, this volume (Ch. 3). Evans (1991) 3, Thomas (2000'; 161 ff. Sec also the problem of Herodotus* 'reliability* as discussed by Cartledge and Greenwood in this volume (Ch. 15). 3

1

3

EGBERT J. BARKER Interpreting the Proem Any attempt to understand Herodotus' notion of 'history' must start from Herodotus' own use o f the term historié in the Proem, to which we now return. A t stake is not only the term's lexical value, but also the way it functions i n the syntax of the Proem. This rich sentence is best taken as a tripartite structure, beginning" with a phrase characterizing the work as a whole, and inscribing the name of its author in it (1), followed by two negative purpose clauses of parallel structure in which the work's intended achievements are specified (2a and b), and rounded off with an indirect question that has at first sight an unclear relation to what precedes (3). Following the analysis of T i l m a n Krischer, we can present the construction as follows: 6

1. Ηροδότου Άλικαρνησσέος Ίστορίης απόδεξις ηδε, 2. ώς

a) μήτε

b) μήτε

(α) (β) (γ) (α) (β)

τα γενόμενα έξ ανθρώπων τω χρόνω έξίτηλα γένηται, εργα μεγάλα τε και θωμαστά, τα μεν "Ελλησι, τα δέ βαρβάροισι άποδεχθέντα, (γ) άκλεα γένηται,

3. τ ά τε ά λ λ α και δί ήν α.νΐίην έπολέμησαν άλλήλοισι. Krischer has pointed out that the problematic, final colon (3) is best explained when we assume that Herodotus' proem is modelled in its syntactic articulation on a typical epic Proem. The last clause, 3 in the presentation above, reaches back to the first clause, thus com­ plementing it and ensuring the coherence of the Proem.' Furthermore,

6

Krischer (1965) 159 60; cf. Nagy (1990) 217, the latter analysing colon 3 as an indirect question; cf. Erbse (1956) 215, who analyses it as a relative clause (see also Lang (1987) 204); critical grammatical discussion in Drexler (1972) 3-11. A different articulation of the sentence is presented in Hommel (1981) 277 ff. Erbse (1992) 123-5 reviews the scholarship on the Proem, rightly pointing out that any attempt to see the Proem as announcing the content of the Histories is likely to cre­ ate confusion. Compare the proem of the Iliad, where 1. 6 έξ ού δή τα πρώτα διαστήτην έρίσαντε 'from the moment at which they slood first apart in quarrel' picks up μήνιν αειδε. θεά of the first line. See Krischer (1965) 162; Nagy (1990) 220-1 n. 34; on Homer specifically, see Bakker (1997c) 293. Krischer notes that the indication of Herodotus' 7

THE MAKING OF HISTORY: HERODOTUS"

HISTORIES

APODEXIS

7

just as i n epic, the final clause o f the proem provides the link with the beginning o f the narrative proper: it contains the word aitiën 'cause', which is picked up i n the first sentence beyond the proem in the form o f aitious 'guilty', 'responsible':" Περσέων μεν νυν ο'ι λόγιοι Φοίνικας αιτίους φασί γενέσθαι της διάφορης· (1.1.1) Now the chroniclers o f the Persians claim that the Phoenicians have been responsible for the conflict (lit: 'difference').

Beyond syntax and stylistics, the important semantic and conceptual consequence o f Krischer's analysis is that the semantic nuclei o f the first and last clause, histories apodexis and aitiën, are connected with each other: Herodotus' project is the historié o f an aitïë, whatever sense we will attribute to these terms in the final analysis. A further Homeric echo can be detected in the cola (a) and (γ) o f 2b: great deeds and their connection w i t h kleos. This important detail will concern us later on. 9

But i f the Homeric reminiscence is unmistakable, so is the paral­ lel with more contemporary stylistics. T h e two purpose clauses i n the middle (2a~b), with their symmetrical internal structure (isocolon) and their identical closing sounds (homoioteleuton), conform to the style that had become popular i n sophistic contemporary rhetoric, mainly due to the Sicilian orator Gorgias. Herodotus' Proem, then, displays a curious mixture o f old and new. We may ask whether this co-existence o f epic and sophistic elements is confined to stylistics or extends into thought and menta­ lité as well. T h e latter possibility is rejected by Krischer ((1965) 165), 10

name and the characterization of his work functionally occupies the slot of the invocation of the Muse(s) in the traditional epic proem (on the relation between iCTTOpiTi and the Muses, see pages 27-28 below). Doubts as to the epic connotations of Herodotus' syntax in Hommel (1981) 281 n. 44, who analyses (pp. 284-7) the final colon as a later addition, an editorial intervention on Herodotus' part to make the Proem reflect the new historical turn the work has taken in the course of ils development. Krischer (1965) 160, Nagy (1987) 180; cf. Latciner (1989) 15. The first epic parallel is die proem of the Iliad, in which the phrase 8iao"cn,Tnv epiaavte 'the two of them stood away from each other quarrelling' in line 6 is picked up by epi5i 'in quarrel' (8) in the beginning of the narrative. '* For a different interpretation of the Proem, and of a k i n in particular, sec van Wees, this volume (Ch. 14) p. 321. Kennedy (1963) 64-5; on the influence of sophistic rhetoric on Herodotus' style, see.Jacoby (1913) 333; Aly (1921) 286-96; general remarks in Lateiner (1989) 19. a

111

EGBERT J. BARKER who holds that the epic parallel testifies to Herodotus' acknowledging epic as a stylistic and literary model, not his continuing the Homeric tradition o f conferring kleos to the heroes o f the past. Yet the position o f Herodotus between the poetic tradition of the past and the intellectual developments o f the present is by no means clear. I n particular the meaning o f the crucial phrase histories apodexis has recently become the center o f a controversy that fully confirms Herodotus' enigmatic status. Histories apodexis is usually rendered with such expressions as 'publication o f research' or 'public exposition o f an inquiry'. I t remains to be seen, however, whether these translations are o f much help. 'Publication' is no less a culturally determined concept than is 'history' or 'research', and we may ask what i t might have meant for Herodotus' work to have been 'published' i n its original intellectual context. The notion o f publication, i n fact, becomes increasingly important i n recent research, suggesting that the o l d controversy between the analytic and the unitarian approach has never been really resolved. Exactly what is being 'published' according to this phrase: an ethnographical core or the work as we have it? A n d what does 'published' mean? Does apodexis apply to the work as a whole or to the oral delivery o f its parts? Some scholars have recendy endorsed the latter possibility, arguing that 'publication' is an anachronistic concept that does not capture the reality o f the reception o f Herodotus' 'Inquiry* by its original public. Rather, they argue, we must think o f 'prcpublication' o f 'work i n progress' in the form o f lectures. 11

12

The idea o f Herodotus presenting his work orally, for which there

" E.g., 'performance [literally, 'display'] of the enquiries' (Gould (1989) 17); 'demonstration of his research' (Lateiner (1989) 7); 'public presentation' (Nagy (1990) 217); 'exposer son enquête' (Payen (1997) 82). 'AJIÔÔEÇK;, the Ionian form for aTroSei£iç, is just as éjuôeiçiç, (ÈTciSe^tç) a nomen aclionis derived from the verbal root ÔEIK'show', 'display', 'point . In Herodotus' Ionian, another verbal root, 5UK- (for Attic 'receive , 'accept', yields in principle the same form (cf. eicöe^iv (Hdt. 7.3.3)); aorist forms of either verb are also identical: (àicjeSéÇctTo from (ànoJoeÎKVuaSai and (éç)eÔÉ^axo from (éç)ôéxouat). Some scholars (most recently Rosen (1993)) actually go so far as to view ànôôe^iç as a form of àrco-Sérouai, which would turn Herodotus into a receiver of established tradition, rather than one who expounds original, individual research. See Erbse's (199.3) reaction. Nagy (1987) 176 n. 3 speaks of a 'conflation' of the two verbs. See also the comments by Lang (1987) 203 and Nagy's 9

1

replv ((1987) 209). 12

Evans ( 1 9 9 1 ) 9 0 , 9 9 100, Thomas ( 1 9 9 2 ) 125 6; ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; ( 2 0 0 0 ) 2 5 7 - 6 0 (see

further below).

THE MAKING OF HISTORY: HERODOTUS'

HISTORIES

Ai'ODEXIS

13

is some ancient anecdotal evidence, has been entertained in particular by Rosalind Thomas, who has sought to locate Herodotus' work in the world o f early scientific, discourse as is evidenced by the mode o f presentation o f many o f the treatises i n the Hippocratic corpus. Herodotus' work, especially the Egyptian logos, she argues, displays the same agonistic and combative tone that G. E. R. Lloyd signals in the early Hippocratic writers and that must go back to sessions at which knowledge was transmitted, and contested, orally. Thomas' notion o f the publication o f Herodotean historié envisages oral presentation and reception o f ideas, while explicitly allowing for the existence o f written texts. Such a blend o f the spoken and the written is the realm o f rhetorical epideixis. According to a recent account, this term denotes 'the displaying or revealing (orally) o f what was already i n existence beforehand'—that is, the discourse written. This idea of'display' is for Thomas very close to Herodotus' apode(i)xis, which she conceives o f as the kind o f proof characteristic o f the sophistic and rhetorical milieu o f the end o f the fifth century: the emphatic assertion and demonstration o f one's own historié 'research' conducted in competition with others. One of the treatises in the Hippocratic corpus opens i n fact in a particularly suggestive way from the point o f view o f Herodotus' Proem: 14

15

16

Είσί τίνες ο'ι τέχνην πεποίηνται τό τάς τέχνας αίσχροεπείν, ώς μεν οΐονται οι τοΰτο δ ι α π ρ η σ σ ό μ ε ν ο ι , ούχ Ô εγώ λέγω, ά λ λ ' Ιστορίης οίκείης έ π ί θ ε ι ς ι ν ποιεύμενοι. ( H i p p , De arte 1) Some there are w h o have made an art o f vilifying the arts, though they consider, not that they arc accomplishing the object I mention, but that they are making a display of their o w n knowledge.

For Thomas, the parallelism between historiés. . . epideixin here and Herodotus' own histories apodexis 'provides the most vivid suggestion that Herodotus' opening sentence had contemporary connotations within the contemporary quest for knowledge. It also implies that the ideas o f proof and demonstration might rapidly imply or shade into display, and then into the display lecture. Herodotus seems then, in his very first sentence, to be using the fashionable language o f

13

E.g., Lucian, Herodotus 1 (on Herodotus performing at the Olympic Games). Cf. Pohleir/ (1937) 208, Powell (1939) 32 ff.i critical discussion in Johnson (1994). "' Thomas (1993); (2000) 249 f l ; Lloyd (1979) 86-98: see also Homblower (1987) 20. Cole (1991) 89. T r . Jones (1923) 191. 15

l(i

Μ)

EGBERT J. BARKER

the time, language which had precise connotations in a period where, increasingly, any display o f erudition and knowledge could be made in an oral presentation, an epideixis . It remains to be seen, however, whether the preverbs apo- and epi- are so easily interchangeable; but before we turn to that ques­ tion, we need to address an alternative modern approach, rejected by Thomas, which seeks to situate Herodotus' project, not in con­ temporary scientific thought, but within the perspective o f the gen­ eral Greek preoccupation with the past. Herodotus in this perspective, put forward by Gregory Nagy in particular, is not so much a scientist as a logios, a master of prose narrative, whose function it is, along with the aoidos, the epic poet, to confer kleos. Nagy characterizes Herodotus' work as 'the product o f conventions in an oral tradition of prose'. I n this account, apodexis is not ' p r o o f or 'display', nor a one-time event, a display lecture or epideixis, but a 'public presenta­ tion', a performance, a link i n a chain o f transmission starting with the events i n the past and ending with the public exposition o f Herodotus' his tone. 1 11

18

T h e Proem, in fact, invites us to pay more attention to Herodotus' interest in the past than Thomas would allow. There is a concern w i t h kleos, expressed in the two parallel negative purpose clauses, whether or not we consider that concern to be epic in mentality. The second o f those two clauses (2b, P), furthermore, contains a sec­ ond occurrence o f the verbal idea apo-deik. T h e crucial attribute o f the 'great and wondrous deeds o f Greeks and barbarians', whose kleos should not be lost, is that they are apodekhlhenta, which Nagy translates as 'performed'. For Nagy, there is a relation between the achievements o f the past and Herodotus' apodexis in the present: 'per­ forming a deed is the equivalence o f publicly displaying a deed because it is ultimately being publicly displayed by the History o f Herodotus'. Apodexis, then, according to Nagy, is the proclamation o f kleos in an ongoing oral tradition, as against the insistence on 19

20

17

Thomas (2000) 262-3; cf. (1993) 242-43. Nagy (1987) 175; (1990) 224, arguing on the basis of a parallelism of λόγιος (glossed as 'masters of speech', ibid. 223) and αοιδός. See also Hartog (1991) 285 (English tr. p. 276), referring to Havelock (1963) 53-4 η. 8. Nagy (1987) 178. Ibid.; see also Erbse (1956) 211, who stresses the parallelism of Ίστορίης άπόδεξις and έργων άπόδεςις, on which, sec further below, pages 24-28. 18

18

2 0

THE MAKING OF HISTORY: HERODOTUS'

H1ST01UES

APODEXIS

11

proof, display, and personal achievement that is inherent in Thomas' account o f the term. Herodotus could hardly have been pulled in two more different directions. Against Thomas' modern scientific Herodotus, firmly rooted i n contemporary intellectual debate, we have Nagy's conception o f a prose storyteller who subsumes the preceding epic tradition. The term apodexis is crucial for either position, but neither 'proof/display' nor 'public performance' exhausts its semantics, as we will see. In fact, both positions leave aspects o f the term unexplored that make possible a more integrative interpretation, yielding a Herodotus whose ' p r o o f i n the present, is not incompatible w i t h his rendering o f the past. Yet in spite o f the apparent difference between Thomas' and Nagy's positions there is agreement in that both take apodexis to refer to the oral delivery of Herodotus' work, and i n this they are not alone among modern authors." As we begin to understand more o f the composition, publication, reception, and transmission o f discourses i n times other than our own, to say that there is an 'oral' component to prose works o f the fifth and fourth centuries comes close to being a truism. True, for Herodotus' work in particular we can be more specific and the case for at least an oral reception is easier than in the case o f Thucydides or Xenophon. As Thomas notes herself, Herodotus' own voice is abundantly present in the form o f the grammatical first person, most often i n the ethnographical passages, but not infrequently in the narrative sections as w e l l . There is a constant concern with the marking o f the beginning and end o f sections, and on numerous occasions Herodotus refers back to what precedes, using the 'real time' temporal adverbs prolei on 'earlier' and 1

22

23

21

E.g., Gould (1989) 17; Evans (199!) 3; Hartog (1991) 285; assessment of the 'oralily' of the term in Moles (1999) sect. 8. It is worth pointing out that this whole discussion (including the controversy between Nagy and Thomas) suffers from a fundamental and persistent ambiguity in the use of the term 'oral', in that it refers both to the 'mentality' or 'conception' of a discourse ('oral' vs. 'literate') and to its mode of presentation ('oral' vs. 'written'). For discussion, see Bakker (1999a) 29-37. See, e.g., Pohlenz (1937) 208 -10; Lang (1984); Munson (1993). - Thomas (1993) 240-1; Dewald (1987) 150 as well as Ch. 12 in this volume. Thomas uses the first-person verbs as an argument against the idea of the 'oral storyteller', who she thinks is much less present in the text. Signs of speaking in Homer, however, may be less straightforward, but they are unmistakable once noticed; see Bakker (1997a). Against Thomas' and Dewald's stance with regard to the first person hi the Histories, see Svenbro (1993) 150, who approaches the first person in Herodotus and other historians as a necessary 'fiction'. 2 2

:i

Ι:·>

EGBERT J . BARKER

kusteron 'later', the same adverbs that are also used for the temporal relationships between the events recounted in the narrative. We are surely entitled to infer from these apparent attempts at monitoring the information flow that Herodotus is working hard, noticeably, to facilitate the reception of his work to a listening public. But all this is not our point. The question is whether the idea o f the oral delivery o f logoi is expressed as such by the noun apodexis. Does Herodotus refer i n the opening words o f what must be the published, ostensibly written version o f his work, to its oral delivery? Or i f that work is, as an integrated whole, meant to be orally deliv­ ered after all, would not a reference to its own, oral, mode o f pre­ sentation be redundant? I f apodexis merely refers to the medium o f presentation, why is the term present at all, and did not Herodotus simply call his work 'historic? The second occurrence o f the verbal idea apodeik- i n the proem may help us realize that there is more to apodexis than what meets the eye at first sight, and that histories apodexis is a phrase consisting o f two key terms i n Herodotus' intellectual and conceptual vocabulary. It also invites us to study Herodotus' own use o f those terms i n some detail, and to bring that internal evidence to bear on the interpretation o f the proem. A survey o f Herodotus' own use o f the nouns historie and apodexis and the verbs historeein and apodexasthai reveals that histories apodexis, far from being a mere title or a characterization o f the 'medial' aspects o f the work, is a bold, even provocative, expression stating nothing less than the communicative purpose and ambition o f Herodotus' work. W h a t it says was apparently new and not obvious, and sufficiently marked for the subsequent historiographical tradition to avoid it studiously. In the following sections, we will first deal with historie and then with apodexis; a picture will emerge i n which these terms are not only two 24

23

2,1

On beginning and end of sections, see Imrnerwahr (1966) 52 8; Dcwald (1987) 164-5. The importance of the particles μεν δή . . . δέ in this process is demonstrated in Bakker (1993). On pointing backward and ahead, see also dc Jong, this volume (Ch. 11) pp. 259-263. - ' Three times a forward cross-reference remains unfulfilled. It is to be- noted that in these cases Herodotus docs not use ϋστερον (2.101.2, referring to 2.149.1), but an explicit mention of λόγοι (1.106.2 έν έτέροισι λόγοισι, on (he fall of Nineveh; 1.184 έν τοίσι Άσσυρίοισι λόγοισι, on the Babylonian kings; 7.213 έν τοίσι οπισθε λόγοισι, on the death of the traitor Ephialtes). Are these references to parts of the work that were never written or to lectures that were never incorporated in the final redaction? Cf. Nagy (1990) 235 n. 91. See also Rosier, this volume (Ch. 4, note 17) and Cobet (Ch. 17, note 40). ''" Hornblower (1987) 8 11. But sec pages 31 32 at the end of this chapter. >:

THE MAKING OF HISTORY: HERODOTUS'

UlSl(IRIIlS

M'UDEXIS

13

constituents of a famous syntagm, but also two interrelated concepts, whose semantics, and pragmatics, blend to form a unified whole.

Historié: Interrogation and Difference The abstract noun historié as well as the; verb historeô arc etymologically related to the verbal root wid-/weid-lmoid- 'see', 'know'. This might yield the idea o f gathering knowledge through actual perception, autopsy, as the central meaning o f historié}' Such a meaning would seem to be in concordance with the idea of Herodotus the critical researcher that has recently been proposed by Thomas, as we saw. Her understanding o f historié presents us with a Herodotus who is not sifting traditions and probing the past, but investigating natural phenomena in the present, such as the nature of the mysterious Nile. " Again we may contrast Thomas' views with those of Nagy, who sees in historié an essentially juridical concept: the investigation o f the cause o f the war between Greeks and barbarians. '' This highlights the relation between historié and ailië, which, as we saw, is something the syntactic articulation of the Proem invites us to do. 1

2

2

This relation is, in fact, more significant than is commonly supposed, since Herodotus is not the only contemporary writer to present his historié in this way. We can observe that in early medical and scientific writings there is a mutual expectancy between historia and aitia. The author of the Hippocratic treatise On Ancient Medicine, for example, states that knowledge about 'nature' (phusis) is impossible without knowledge of man, and that the latter involves 'historié to know (eidenai) what man is and through what cause [di hoias aiiias) he comes to be what he is' (ch. 20). Similarly, Socrates in the Phaedo (96a) tells that in his youth he had a passion for 'natural science* [peri phuseôs historian) which he specifies as "knowing (eidenai) the causes (aitias) o f each thing'. I n the scientific treatises o f Aristotle, especially those dealing w i t h 'natural history', the connection between historia and aitia is also well attested. Apparendy, historié is ?

50

'" Sndl (1924) 59 71, Nagy (1990; 250, Dcwald (1987) 153 n. 18; Darlxj-Pcschauski (1987; 184 (-recherche sur le terrain'); Thomas (2000) 161. * Thomas (2000) 161 -7. Nagy (1990) 259-62. w

E.g., De Caelo 29862; Hist. an. !91all 12; Incessu an. 70467 11: Pad. an. 6l6a8-12: 696614 17.

EGBERT J. BARKER

14

not for Herodotus alone the search for what 'causes' the subject of investigation. The difference between the natural historians and Herodotus the historian is that for the latter aide is not a matter o f nature or the human body but of human behaviour (we recall the la genomena ex anthrëpnn of the Proem). A n d so the 'cause' of the researcher's object of study does take on the sense of 'guilt' or 'responsibility'. I n fact, the agent noun from which historié morphologically derives, histor (or istor), is used in that very semantic sphere. The term does not occur in Herodotus, but is attested in archaic poetry and inscriptions in the sense o f 'judge', 'adjudicator', or 'witness (to an oath)'. - Even though Herodotus never uses the term, his work shows, as Robert Connor ((1993) 9) has noted, 'a remarkable similarity to the way histores functioned in early Greek society'. Just as apodexis, then, historié can and has been used to push Herodotus into two almost mutually exclusive directions: the search for a guilty, 'responsible' agent in the conflict between the Greeks and the barbarians, as Nagy would have it, and the critical geography and ethnography advocated by Thomas, notably in die Egyptian logos. For the assessment o f the difference between the two positions it is relevant to observe that Thomas' account obscures the fact that the direct object of Herodotus' historié of Egypt, both grammatically and notionally, is not the land or its mysterious river, but people interrogated, informants: it is the Egyptians themselves who tell Herodotus about the wonders o f their l a n d . This is not to denythat historié in contemporary medical writing may pertain to the authority o f the researcher having seen for himself, but from this it does not follow that Herodotus' project is identical to the natural 31

5

31

" On αΐτίη in Hippocratic and other contemporary texts, see also Sauge (1992) 257 ff, who stresses, even for scientific texts, the link with αίτεΐν (δίκην) 'demand satisfaction (from an accused party)'. See further below, p. 18. Attested usage of ϊστωρ/ϊστωρ: //. 18.501, 23.486; Hes. W&D 792; Soph. E . 850; Plat. Cral. 40663: Hipp. OaÜi 2 (it is ironic that the term should be used in the Hippocratic oath i n this juridical sense). See also Nagy (1990) 250-9. In Dewald (1987) 153 if. the notion of histor is used metaphorically, as a narratological function: the authorial persona of the Histories; i f . her more recent views in Ch. 12, pp. 271 2 below. See also Cartledgc and Greenwood, this volume (Ch. 15 note 21). E.g., the investigation of the Nile: Ίστορέων αυτούς ηντινα δύναμιν εχει ό Νείλος. 2.19.3; ελεγον . . . μοι . . . ιστορέοντι, 2.113.1. CT. already Pohlen/. (1937) 44 ('die eigentliche Ίστορίη, das Verhör von Augenzeugen, von dem, was nur durch Hörensagen überliefert ist'). 3 2

:ii

THE MAKING OF HISTORY: HERODOTUS' HISTORIES APODEXIS

15

and medical science of his day, as Thomas implies; rather, we have to allow for the possibility that Herodotus borrows contemporary terminology to establish the authority of an enterprise that is entirely his own: investigating the past, and scrutinizing the traditions that give access to it, instead of receiving and accepting them wholesale. Herodotus often stresses his 'having seen', most frequenll) and conspicuously in his account of his researches of the Egyptians and the Scythians, but the proper term in his vocabulary for autopsy and observation is not historie or its cognate expressions. That concept can actually be contrasted with autopsy, as a means to gain infor­ mation through heanng™ "Αλλου δέ ούδενός ουδέν έδυνάμην πυθέσθαι, ά λ λ α τοσόνδε μεν ά λ λ ο επί μακρότατον έπυθύ^ην, μέχρι μεν Έλεφαντίνης πόλιυς αυτόπτης έλθών, τό δ ' άπό τούτου άκοη ήδη Ίστορέων. (2.29.1)

I have not been able to learn anything from anyone else, but this much I have further been able to gather as far as I could, having come myself as far as the city of Elephantine as an eyewitness, and beyond that point making my researches through hearing. Yet historie is not merely a matter o f listening either. I n another wellknown passage, Herodotus contrasts historie as critical listening, along with opsis 'seeing' and gnome 'opinion', to the more passive reception of accounts (logoi) as he heard them: Μέχρι μεν τούτου οψις τε έμή και γνώμη και Ίστορίη ταύτα λέγουσα έστι, τό δέ άπο τούδε Αιγυπτίους έρχομαι λόγους έρέων κατά τά πκουον; προσέσται δέ τι αύτοΐσι και της έμής ϋψιος. (2.99.1)

Up to that point my own observation as well as my judgment and my inquiiy are at the basis of what is said, but from now on I will be presenting Egyptian accounts as I heard them; still, there will be an clement of personal observation in it. Historie, then, seems to be looking through the eyes o f one's infor­ mants and making up for their imperfect point o f view by the power of judgment and discrimination. Needless to say, historie is the inter­ rogation of specially selected informants, and aims at proving or dis­ proving their view of the truth. The concept is therefore obviously connected with knowing, but it does not necessarily involve actual seeing as source of knowledge. For this reason, another etymology

M

On this passage, see also Sauge (1992) 252: on the next passage (2.99.1), see Cartledgc and Greenwood, this volume (Ch. 15), p. 355.

EGBERT J. BARKER

16

has recently been proposed by Edwin Floyd, who derives historic (and hislor) not from the root wid- but from the verb hizein 'to seat'. This yields the idea o f convening two or more parties and listening to what they have to say. This would certainly suit, the earliest occurrence o f hislor at Iliad 18.501, in the description o f the juridical scene on the Shield o f Achilles, where the juridical sense of'judge', 'arbiter' is particularly clear. We do not have to decide whether or not the alternative etymology is linguistically correct to see that the semantic idea behind it provides a plausible interpretation o f Herodotus' own conception of historic. The core o f the concept is not so much seeing yourself as acquiring knowledge through the interrogation o f others who have seen, and who therefore know, or claim they know. This applies to the characters in the narrative no less than to the narrator: they, too, may be interested in what is beyond perception, remote in space or time. Croesus the Lydian king, for example, 'inquired' (historeon) which of the Greek states were the most powerful, and in doing so (hisloredn) found out that the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians were dominant at the lime (1.56.1-2). A n d the Egyptian priests claimed they had secure knowledge about Menelaus' stay in Egypt through their own 'investigations' (historieisi, 2.119.3). 51

The result o f Croesus' and the Egyptian priests' investigations is self-evident and incontrovertible, as in the case o f some o f Herodotus' own researches. Concerning the question as to the real nature o f Heracles, for example, Herodotus can report that 'the results o f the investigation (ta historemend) indicate clearly (deloi sapheds) that Heracles is an old god' (2.44.5). It remains, however, that historic is not firstdegree, absolute knowledge based on perception, but relative knowledge, an approximation o f the facts o f the matter, based on a judicious assessment of the pretended first-hand knowledge of others. Sometimes Herodotus states explicitly that his inquiries have yielded only partial and limited results: 'so far as I have been able to reach in m y investigation'. A n d the logoi resulting from an investigation may be 36

!

" Floyd (1990) 161. Floyd bases his objections to the traditional etymology primarily on the rough breathing on tcrrwp, icrtopta (which is not easy to harmonize with the verbal root fi5-). As Rosen (1993) 146 n. I points out, however, the collocation of" the suffix -xcop with a reduplicated present stem i^-Etv ( I n some passages this is surely the case, as for example the battle over the corpse o f Leonidas at Thermopylae (7.225) w i t h its unmistakable echo o f the long fight over Patroclus (Iliad 17). Interestingly, the 'new' fragments o f Simonides' elegy on the battle o f Plataea (see above) now show that the two wars were seen as analogous significantly before Herodotus. Simonides first recalls the destruction o f T r o y and the 'undying fame' which the Danaans received from that poet who learned the truth from the Muses; then he summons his own Muse to help him adorn his song to bring 'undying fame' to 'those who marched[?] out of Sparta to w a r d off the day o f slavery' from Greece (Simonides, fr. el. 11.13-28 West). T h e parallels are astonishingly clear. 3;

Along w i t h so many similarities, however, it is important to remember that Herodotus consciously differentiates his work from e p i c * A t several junctures he criticizes poets as untrustworthy sources. T h e most salient example o f this comes i n a discussion o f what really happened during the siege o f T r o y (2.116): Herodotus declares that H o m e r knew the more plausible story that Helen was not really at T r o y but i n Egypt—yet H o m e r d i d not consider that version suitable for an epic poem. Indeed, as a number o f scholars have recently argued from very different perspectives, i n clearly recalling epic themes and language (especially i n the proem), Herodotus is not only paying homage to H o m e r but challenging his primacy. 37

Nevertheless, Herodotus deserves his ancient epithet homërikôtatos: his text again and again recalls the language, style, structure, mimetic quality, and sometimes even metre o f H o m e r i c epic. I t may be

Vj

• Murray (1988) 463. Similarly van Effcnterre (1967) 19, cited by Giraudeau (1984b) 4: 'Son histoire des guerres médiques avait forcé ment pour les Grecs une allure d'épopée. Le style de l'écrivain s'en est souvent ressenti: l'ionien même d'Hérodote est quelque peu "homerise" . Cf. Vcrdin (1977) csp. 60 1, Boecleker (2000) 103 5. E.g., Hartog (1988) 276, 315; Nagy (1987); Thomas (2000) 267. 5

3 6

3 7

EPIC H E R I T A G E A N D M Y T H I C A L PATTERNS I N HERODOTUS

109

difficult to determine where Herodotus has deliberately adopted an epic model, i n contrast to where his language unconsciously resembles epic discourse. I t is no exaggeration, however, to say that without Homeric epic's sustained narrative o f great deeds behind i t , the Histories would not exist at all; and without its variegated reflections o f epic style, it would be a very different work.

Herodo tus M y th ologos? T h e text o f Herodotus interacts frequently not only w i t h epic narrative but with myths i n general by which I mean traditional, culturally significant stories, often involving gods or heroes. For a connoisseur o f rhetoric and style such as Hermogenes, Herodotus' ubiquitous mythic quality {to muthikon) is a delightful feature, the source o f much o f his characteristic 'sweetness' (giufates,Id. 330 1, 408 Rabe). Hermogenes judges those stories to be sweetest that are truly 'mythical' (muthodes), such as Pan's epiphany to Philippides (Hist. 6.105), and somewhat less pleasing the narratives that 'share a little of the mythic quality but are more credible than myths' (330 1 Rabe). I n a very different spirit, Aristotle disparagingly refers to Herodotus as ho muthologos 'the myth-teller' (Gen. an. 3.5.755b6). T h e epithet i n this context is not a comment on Herodotus' use o f supernatural stories, however, but on his inaccuracy. I n a discussion about how fish reproduce, the philosopher blames Herodotus for passing along the silly tale (ton euethe logon) that the females o f one species conceive by swallowing the milt emitted by the males (Hist. 2.93). Herodotus himself uses the w o r d muthos only twice,* both times as a label o f disapproval directed polemically against those ('the poets' in 2.23, 'the Greeks' i n 2.45) who perpetrate implausible information. '' f o r Herodotus as for Aristotle, muthos is someone else's fabulous and incredible story.' " 5

1

There are o f course many reports i n the Histories of objects, events, and customs that, would seem implausible to Herodotus and his

Nickau (1990) 84. ·" See Marincola (1987) 128-31, Darbo-Peschanski (3987) 112, and Dewald, this volume (Ch. 12, pp. 278 -79) on the competitive character of Book Two. *' On this use of muthos by Herodotus and the way the term is used against him by later critics, see Hartog (1988) 295 6.

110

D E B O R A H BOEDEKER

addressees. The historian takes care to distance himself from such logoi with the famous disclaimer that he tells what was said but doesn't necessarily believe it (7.152.3), or sometimes by overtly stating his disbelief (as in 8.8). Occasionally he reports a supernatural tale and offers an alternative rationalizing explanation, as with the tale that Poseidon caused a ravine to appear in Thessaly. This is a credible story, Herodotus remarks, for those who attribute earthquakes to Poseidon, since it appears to h i m that the ravine was made by an earthquake (7.129). I n this story, Herodotus applies the same standards o f credibility whether an event took place recently or in the distant past. Yet occasionally, as Justus Cobet discusses in Chapter 17 o f this volume (pp. 405 ff.), he seems to make a distinction between a spatium mytliicum and a spatium historicum—especially when he distinguishes the remote era o f Minos from 'the so-called human age {geneef o f Polycrates (3.122). Scholars disagree about the degree to which Herodotus conceives o f a 'mythical' time i n which the world operated differently from 'historical' time; as w i t h many issues in Herodotus, the text allows arguments on both sides. I n general, however, time and place enjoy continuity in the Histories, as do the operating conditions o f the world. 41

12

13

More problematic for Herodotus' standing as a historian than his recording o f unveriliable events distant in time is his use o f 'historical' stories that follow narrative patterns known from myths. A particularly rich example is the tale o f how Cyrus came to power (1.107-30), told in the narrator's own persona rather than identified as 'what they say', but nevertheless replete with elements familiar from myth and folklore. ' Prophetic dreams warn K i n g Astyages that his daughter's son will depose him; Astyages orders a trusted courtier, 44

1

" See also Bakker, this volume (Ch. 1, pp. 13 19), on Herodotus' kistorie. Sec also 2.54-7: how the priestesses of Zeus came to Dodona from Egypt, and why they are called 'doves'. On the phenomenon in general, cf. How and Wells (1912) 1:32-3. Scholars arguing that Herodotus observes such a distinction include Nessclradi (1996) 276, Vandiver (1991) passim, and Shimron (1973). Among those who disagree are Nickau (1990), and Hunter (1982) 103. Brillante (1990) 102 maintains that the heroic past was continuous with the historical period, and not confused with a 'time of origins' or 'age of the gods', which was very different from the age of human beings. See also Raaflaub (Ch. 7, n. 36) and Osborne (Ch. 22, p. 799). For a discussion of these (short) stories, see Gray, in this volume (Ch. 13). For a concise discussion, sec Alv (1969) 48-51; see also Said, this volume (Ch. 6, pp. 128-29). 4 3

I !

14

11

EPIC H E R I T A G E A N D M Y T H I C A L PATTERNS IN HERODOTUS

11 1

Harpagos, to kill the dangerous baby, but Harpagos has not the heart to do so; the royal foundling is 'rescued' rather than killed by a good-hearted herdsman and his wife (and a still more fabulous variant, that the child was fostered by an animal, hides behind the wife's name, 'Bitch', cf. 1.122.3); the true nature o f the child is revealed and eventually the prophetic dreams prove true. Intertwined with the widespread legend o f the royal foundling is a m o t i f well known from the Greek myth o f Atreus and Thyestes: Astyages punishes Harpagos for not killing Cyrus in the first place, by serving h i m the cooked flesh o f his own son (1.118 19). As i n the house o f Atreus, this trick o f cannibalism brings its own revenge, for Harpagos, remembering the fate o f his son, is the one who encourages Cyrus to rise up against Astyages (1.123-4). Herodotus' stoiy o f the Spartan king Demaratus provides a second example o f a historical character linked with mythical motifs."' Demaratus' co-king Cleomencs challenged his legitimacy, on the grounds that when he was born, the alleged father, K i n g Ariston, declared that the baby could not be his, because it was born only seven months after his wife came to him from her previous husband (6.63, 65). Soon after he was unfairly deposed from his kingship, Demaratus demanded to know the truth about his birth. His mother swore to h i m that he was the son either o f Ariston or o f a local Spartan hero, Astrabacus. Astrabacus, she said, had come to her i n the guise o f her new husband and slept with her soon after her marriage to Ariston; then on the same night the king himself came to her bed and that was the night she conceived her son (6.69). This talc o f the Heraclid king Demaratus closely parallels the birth story o f his ancestor Heracles, the son o f Alcmena who was loved by Zeus and Amphitryon on the same night; it seems very likely to have been passed along by pro-Dcmaratus sources at Sparta or elsewhere. I n this case, it appears, a mythical pattern applied to a 'historical' event probably originated with Herodotus' sources and was motivated by political or familial reasons. Perhaps because the legendary elements i n the birth stories o f Cyrus or Demaratus are so transparent, there has been little temptation for scholars to try to separate factual kernels from mythical

Sec further Burkert (1965); see again Said, this volume (Ch. 6, p. 126).

112

DEBORAH BOEDEKER

47

chaff in those tales, This has not been the case, however, with other stories i n which fabulous elements blend with what appear to be historical reports. " A disturbing question arises: can stories that include mythical patterns also incorporate real historical events? A story attached to Periander, who became tyrant o f Corinth a generation or two before the accession o f Cyrus i n Persia, can serve as a test case for this question.' Periander's son Lycophron, learning that his father killed his mother, refuses to have anything to do with his father—including inheriting the tyranny o f Corinth. A t length he agrees to go to Corcyra to rule the Corinthian colony there. T h e aging Periander, still anxious to secure his family's dynasty in Corinth, later persuades Lycophron to trade places w i t h h i m ; but before Periander can arrive in Corcyra and take over the rule, the Corcyreans kill Lycophron. In revenge, Periander orders three hundred Corcyrean youths to be sent to Lydia, made into eunuchs, and sold into slavery. O n their way to Lydia, however, the boys are given asylum by the Samians, who institute a festival i n their honour (3.48, 50-3). Although historians usually assume that at least, the outline o f this tale is true,-' Christianc Sourvinou-Inwood argues forcefully that it is so pervasively based on mythical and ideological constructs, such as the consequences o f opposition between fathers and sons, that a historical core cannot be reconstructed with any degree o f certainty. 4

19

0

51

Other scholars find mythical and ideological elements within the Periander story without addressing so directly the important cjuestion of its historicity. For Michael Stahl (1983) it is a moral-political tale about the depravity o f tyranny. For Jean-Pierre Vernant, the whole tale o f the Cypselid dynasty reflects the 'crookedness' o f the tyrant, from the lameness o f Periander's ancestor Labda to his outof-balance relationship w i t h Lycophron motifs found also i n the myth o f Oedipus: 'When the father o f history recounts as fact the

47

Brelich (1958) 59-60 and passim warns against trying to reconstruct history from myths. Brillantc (1990) 108 TO provides illuminating discussion. " See How and Wells (1912) 1:35. Aly (1969) 93-5 discusses the many folktale elements in Herodotus' stories of the Cypselids. As in OCIT s.v. Periander. Sourvinou-Inwood (1988); she would allow only that the Cypselid tyranny came to an end soon after Periander's death (p. 181). 48

19

5 0

51

EPIC H E R I T A G E A N D M Y T H I C A L PATTERNS I N HERODOTUS

113

events which installed a line o f tyrants at the head of Corinth, quite "naturally" he mythologizes' (Vernant (1.982) 33). Each o f these accounts is illuminating, yet to see how mythical patterns work i n a 'historical narrative, I agree w i t h Claude Calame that we must take into account the Herodotean context the discourse o f which it is a part and the community to which it was addressed—as well as the mythical schemata that give the story its Structure. A l o n g with elements reflecting Greek familial values and social ideologies, which Sourvinou-Inwood demonstrates so effectively, it seems to me quite plausible that political or philosophical concerns (on the part o f Herodotus himself or his sources) would inform a story. Depending on the circumstances in which the tale is told, story-tellers and their audiences are not necessarily concerned only w i t h the familial and social themes so prevalent i n myths, especially the myths o f Attic tragedy. 5

y2

T h e little Periander-Lycophron tragedy is recounted as background to Herodotus' story o f an attempted coup by disaffected Samians against their tyrant Polycrates, i n the time o f Cambyses (3.39-60). Polycrates' opponents solicit help from Sparta; Corinth too is happy to assist them i n attacking Samos, because somewhat earlier the Samians had rescued the youths o f Corcyra w h o m Periander was shipping to Lydia (3.48). Herodotus comments that C o r i n t h and Corcyra had been at odds ever since C o r i n t h founded its colony at Corcyra; without those hostilities, C o r i n t h would not have joined the expedition against Samos (3.49.1). T h e grudge between Lycophron and his father Periander is reflected i n that between Corcyra and its 'parent' city Corinth (obvious i n Herodotus' time: Thuc. 1.38, etc.), and indirectly causes the hostility between Corinth and Samos. This web o f resentments, w i t h parent/child hostility at its core, now plays into the hands o f the Samians looking for support i n their insurrection against Polycrates. ' I n Herodotus, the political is always (also) personal, and the two often stand in metonymic relationship to one another.' '' T h e story o f Periander and Lycophron is revealing 33

3 1

1

5 3

Calame (1990) 281, White (1978) carries this idea further, saying that the kind of discourse (or genre) itself greatly influences the shape of the story. See SourvinouInwood (1988) 168 on mythological 'schemata . On this story, see also Ch. 6, pp. 126-27. in this volume as well as Ch. 22, p. 503. For a different perspective on such webs, see 'the reciprocity model' discussed by Gould (1989) 82-5. '•' Benardete (1969) lakes a similar approach to the relationship between personal 1

3 i

11

114

DEBORAH BOEDEKER

not only for its connections to the themes o f other myths, as SourvinouInwood and Vernant emphasize, but also for its relationship to Herodotus' central historical themes o f tyranny and the causes o f war. The problem o f historicity in such 'mythologized' accounts remains acute.''' I t is indisputable that mythical and historical materials converge in the examples discussed. This is to be expected, especially since the stories were orally transmitted; they were orally formed as narratives, for that matter, and were most likely influenced by the shape o f myths or folktales from the very beginning, as well as by Homeric and other poetic models (see above). Still, I am a little less pessimistic than Sourvinou-lnwood about the historical core that remains, partly because elements o f the story seem to be conveyed in different places (Samos and Corinth, for example). I agree with Carol Dougherty's generalization in her analysis o f Greek foundation myths: 'Since Greek colonial legends, like all narratives, are not clear, untroubled reflections o f some historical truth but rather are literary representations o f that truth, they stand in a complicated relationship to the events they relate' (Dougherty (1993) 7). There is no way around it: that relationship must be analysed for each case, bringing to bear all the kinds o f evidence that exist. Besides presenting some stories that replicate mythical patterns, Herodotus also introduces certain well-known myths (understood by his audience, to be sure, as events that really happened in the past, see Brillante (1990) 101-2) as relevant background to events in his narrative. O f course there is the sequence o f rapes between Europe and Asia, culminating in the Trojan War, which Herodotus says the Persian logioi present as the cause o f hostility between Asia and Europe (1.1-5). I n this case, myth (as ancient history) motivates—or provides the alleged justification f o r - 'history'. I n several striking instances. however, a character from the heroic past (especially the Trojan W a r era) is said by Herodotus himself, or by his informants, to cause events that occur in the narrative line. Herodotus speaks in his own persona about Talthybius (7.133-4, 137). " The herald o f the Achaeans at T r o y , Talthybius was hon:

tales and historical themes. See further Boedeker (1987} on the themes connected with Demaratus. Sebeok and Brady (1979) 12-14, taking a view almost as extreme as SourvinouInwood's, warn against reading the story of Croesus and his sons as history; they see it as 'A Myth about Communication'. " Cf. Said, this volume (Ch. 6, p. 121).

EPIC H E R I T A G E A N D M Y T H I C A L PATTERNS I N HERODOTUS

1 15

oured at Sparta as a hero and as the ancestor o f the city's official heralds. W h e n Darius sent heralds to Sparta demanding earth and water as tokens o f submission, the Spartans threw the emissaries into a well; afterwards, their sacrificial omens kept turning out unfavourably. A t last, two Spartans volunteered to be executed by Darius' successor Xerxes to atone for the wrongful deaths; they made their way to Susa, but Xerxes spared them. Nevertheless, the wrath o f Talthybius worked itself out eventually, the narrator assures us, because the sons o f those volunteers ended up being betrayed to and executed by Sparta's later enemies, the Athenians, many years after the attempted atonement.'' A t the very end o f the Histories, the wrath o f another Achaean warrior is associated w i t h the capture and execution o f a Persian (9.116-20). Artayctes, w h o m Xerxes h a d p u t i n charge o f the Chersonnese, stole treasures from the hero shrine o f Protesilaus, the first Greek to die at T r o y , and otherwise abused the hero's sanctuary. After the Persian defeat i n mainland Greece, the Athenians came to claim the Chersonnese. Artayctes tried to escape but was apprehended and brought back to the town o f Sestus for execution. Herodotus reports a story told by the Chersonnesians: on the way back to Sestos, Artayctes observed the dried fish that were beingheated for dinner, j u m p i n g i n the pan as i f alive; he exclaimed that this was a sign that Protesilaus, 'even though dead and dried', demanded vengeance from h i m . I have discussed this story at length elsewhere, arguing that Herodotus alludes to the story o f Protesilaus in the assumption that his addressees (familiar at least w i t h his epic identity: Iliad 2.695 709) will understand even more of its significance than what is spelled out i n the text. 8

39

These two examples o f 'mythical heroes' who operate on the level o f the narrative remind us again o f the close relationships drawn between the Trojan and the Persian Wars. Artayctes is even said to refer to Protesilaus as 'a Greek man who invaded [Persian] territory' (9.116), repeating the idea o f continuity between the invasions o f Achaeans against T r o y and Persians against Greece. Gregory Nagy (1987) argues that Herodotus 'subsumes' the subject matter o f epic into his own magisterial account: the Trojan War becomes just an

5 8

See the comments o f Biraschi (1989) 119 20. See Boedeker (1988) for detailed discussion. See also Fisher, this volume (Ch. 9).

116

D E B O R A H BOEDEKER

early chapter in the universal history o f Europe versus Asia. This seems an accurate description o f Herodotus' (self-interested) perspective on 'universal history', yet even so Homeric epic and its heroes retain a special cachet, to be shared occasionally with later events. 110

The stories we have just considered, from their different perspectives, all illustrate that in Herodotus' text the boundary between myth and history is a permeable one. Even beyond the examples where characters are 'shared' between two discourses (such as happens w i t h Talthybius or Protesilaus, who drop in from epic to interact with historical fifth-century characters), or where allusions seem certain (as between the birth stories o f Demaratus and Heracles), narrative patterns and concerns may converge (as with Periandcr/ Lycophron and Laius/Oedipus). For more specific patterns, such as those we have examined i n this chapter, the narratives o f myth and history can well be expected to overlap, because both are generated in the same cultural climate and reflect its categories and concerns, whether psychological, social, or political. I f succession o f power and father-son relationships are of great concern in a culture, we should not be surprised to discover them i n both mythical and historical tales or as the Greeks would probably see it, in tales o f the distant or more recent past. Even more broadly, the narrative patterns in Herodotus, Homer, and indeed o f all stoiy-tellers may participate in a master narrative, one that Henk Versnel (wiyly?) suggests can be ultimately reduced to the biological imperative 'to get"' - b u t to explore this unsurpassably reductionist possibility would take us far beyond the parameters o f the Histories. 1

On Herodotus' uses of Homer for political purposes, sec Birasclii (1989) 114-15. Versnel (1990) 60 1, following (and going beyond) Burkert (1980) with its reliance on the narrative morphology of Propp.

CHAPTER SIX

HERODOTUS AND TRAGEDY Suzanne Said

I n the Poetics (1451bl--11), Aristotle drew a clear line between poetry and history, exemplified by Herodotus and Thucydides: poetry is more concerned with the universal, that is to say, 'what a certain type o f person on a certain occasion will do or say according to probability or necessity', whereas history is more concerned with the particular and 'what Alcibiades did or had done to h i m ' (an illus­ tration which suggests that he had also Thucydides i n mind, cf. de Ste Croix (1992) 27). Yet many critics, ancient and modern, found this opposition inadequate and emphasized the influence o f the poetic tradition on Herodotus' Histories. Ancient authors, from Thucydides to Themistius, paid much atten­ tion to the parallels between Herodotus, who was fond o f myths,' and Homer, but they never made a case for a 'tragic' Herodotus. The father o f history is never praised, like Thucydides or Xenoplion, for the dramatic quality and the vividness o f his narratives, which convert the listener into a spectator, as the tragedians did (Isoc. in Mcoclem 49). T h e only traces o f a link between Herodotus, 'who followed H o m e r " and Sophocles, 'the most Homeric' of the tragic poets are to be found in the biographical tradition and the scholia: Plutarch (Moralia 785b) alludes to an epigram written by Sophocles for Herodotus and the tragic poet is said to have paraphrased the words o f Solon at the beginning o f the Trachiniae as well as at the end o f the Oedipus Rex. 2

3

1

1

T h . 1.21.1; Arise. De generations animalium 756b, DID. som. 1.69.7; Lucianiis Philopseudes 2; Them. Oratio. 33, 376c; Cic. De tegibus. 1.1.5 and Gcll. I I I . 10.11. On Herodotus in ancient criticism, see Pernot (1995). 2

D. I i . Ad Pompeium 3.11 and Ps. I .origin. On Sublimity 13.3. See also Ch. 5 in

this volume. s

Plu. Moralia 347a and D. H . On Thucydides 15 on Thucydides; Plu. Arlaxerxes

8.1 on Xenophon. ' D. H . Ad Pompeium 3.11: Όμηρου ζηλωτής. Suid. s.v. 'Polemon'. See also Arist. Poetics 1448a26; D. L. 4.20; Vita Sophoclis 20. 5

118

SUZANNE SAID

Conversely, modern scholars, starting with H . Fohl who, i n 1913, wrote a dissertation entitled Tragische Kunst bei Herodot, are prone to associate words such as 'tragic' and 'tragedy' w i t h various aspects o f Herodotus' Histories. A t the most factual level, critics have compiled a list o f words and phrases borrowed from tragedy.'' For example 'the maxim o f Solon . . .—that no one should call a man happy before his death— is repeated i n all three tragedians', as is demonstrated by Evans.' Others have stressed 'the use o f comparable and often identical material' (Walbank (1960) 237) by Herodotus and tragic poets: the Capture of Miletus, the Phoenician Women o f Phrynichus, the Persians o f Aeschylus, and the much debated Gyges deal with historical events which are narrated also by Herodotus. Conversely, Herodotus' Histories contain myths, as is demonstrated inter alia by the preface. This is no surprise, for mythical characters and events were as historical for Herodotus and his contemporaries as those belonging to 'the time of men' (that is to say those about whom Herodotus' informants have first hand information).' I t is only later that the rhetoricians will introduce a polar opposition between 'myth' (muthos or fab aid), which is neither plausible nor true, and 'history' (historid). 8

1

10

Some have emphasized that Herodotus and the tragic poets used the past—either mythical or historical - i n the same way, to 'shed light on contemporary political issues . . ., address some o f the cen­ tral political concerns o f [their] audience and time' (Raaflaub (1987) 231-2) and 'give historical events and characters a paradigmatic value transcending the occasion' (Hunter (1982) 82). Others focussed on Herodotus' debt to the literary techniques o f Greek tragedy." They attempted to locate the impact o f tragedy on Herodotus' 'mimetic presentation', pointing out his 'dramatization o f history' through speeches and conversations among historical characters as well as the vividness o f his descriptions—a major component,

" Aly (1921) 281-6, Schmid and Staehlin (1934) 569, n. 7; Avery (1979) and Chiasson (1982) passim. ' Evans (1991) 4. who quotes Agamemnon 928 9: Oedipus Rex 1528-30 and Andromache 100-1. " See Nesselrath (1995 6) and Ch. 5 in this volume. •' Wiseman (1979) 145 arid Shimron (1973) passim. 10

Cic. Ad Herennium 1.12, Quint, 2.42; S. E. Adversus Matheinalicos 1. 263 4 etc.

On ιστορία, see Ch. 1 in this volume. " Myres (1914) passim and (1953) 78; Egermann (1957) 38.

1 19

HERODOTUS A N D TRAGEDY

together with sensationalism, o f the so-called 'tragic' history, according to Polybius. I n the last three books o f his Histories, Herodotus is said to create 'scenes o f greatest dramatic impact' (Fornara (1971a) 61), from which he separates himself carefully, allowing his audience to form their own conclusions. H e 'visualizes episodes as i f they formed scenes o f a play' and invents 'meaningful' speeches, which, as i n tragedy, 'encapsulate the meaning of an episode' (Fornara (1983) 171-2). He also reports facts in a way inspired by messenger-speeches. Taking issue with Aristotle and his view o f history as 'chronicle', some scholars also pointed out the existence o f 'dramatic logoi, which use all the structural elements o f a staged play and 'are arranged i n such a fashion as to produce a definite tragic development' (Immerwahr (1966) 69). Most o f all, critics have discovered tragic themes i n the Histories: inescapable fate and inexorable divine forces working on characters; the tragic cycle o f rise and fall (great prosperity and olbos 'wealth' leads to koros 'surfeit', hubris 'arrogance', which in turn blinds man to danger, causing his ultimate ate 'ruin'), 'the tragic perception that man is always and everywhere vulnerable to time and chance'. " They have also found tragic motives such as ancestral curses, ambiguous dreams a n d misleading oracles, fundamental incompatibility between intent and outcome, tragic reversal sometimes followed by tragic discovery, the 'tragic adviser' and tragic: irony. *' 12

15

14

1

1

In this paper I shall attempt to assess the true impact o f tragedy on Herodotus' vision o f the working o f human life an impact which has been taken for granted by too many scholars '—identifying as precisely as possible the borrowings o f Herodotus from tragedy and their function. This is not an easy task, for the date o f Herodotus' publication is still much debated: it is usually supposed to be just 1

'Mimetic presentation': Lateiner (1987) 106; 'dramatization of history': Waters (1966); 'tragic' history: Plb. 2.56; cf. Walbank (1938), (1955), and (I960). Immerwahr (1966) 276. " Stahl (1968), Rieks (1975), Lesky (1977). '·' 'Inescapable fate': Strasburger (1982) 887-8, Kvans (1991) 33; Tragic rise; and fall': Evans (1991) 71; atf: Lang (1967/8) 81; 'time and change": Gould (1989) 132. "' Curses, dreams, and oracles: Fornara (1971a) 90 1, Herington (1991b) 6 (see also Ch. 8, this volume); intent and outcome: Immerwahr (1954) 41, Ostwald (1991) 146; tragic discovery: Gould (1989) 76; tragic adviser: Bischoff (1932) 314 19, Lattimore (1939); tragic irony: Raaflaub (1987) 239-40. E.g., Aly (1921) 279 86, Schmid and Stachlin (1934) 569 fL, Pohleuz (1937) 16 19, 213, Fornara (1971a) 61 and (1983) 171. 14

l

17

120

SUZANNE SAID

prior to the production o f the Achamians in February 425, but Fornara ((1971b, cf. Cobet (1977)) suggested a much later date, close to 414 BC. Similarly, the date o f many tragedies—as exemplified by the 'Gyges' tragedy—is much discussed. Moreover, it is sometimes hard to tell who borrows from w h o m , for we have many undisputed instances o f Sophocles' indebtedness to Herodotus. Finally, many similarities between Herodotus and the tragic poets may be explained either by their belonging to the same period or their depending on what is, after all, the acknowledged common source o f tragedy and history, that is to say the Homeric epic (F. Solmsen rightly reacted against a 'tendency to discover an influence of Aeschylus and Sophocles even for ideas or motifs which are found in the epics'). 'I n order to answer these questions, I shall first point out some isolated motives, which are also prominent in early and middle Attic tragedy, excluding those also found in Homer, such as double determination. Secondly, I shall focus on 'the tragedy o f Croesus' (Stahl (1968)) and the other stories o f the rise and fall o f barbarian kings, Greek tyrants, or Spartan leaders, that have been dubbed 'dramatic' or 'tragic', because 'they orchestrate many o f these tragic motives into a tighdy constructed narrative'. Finally, I shall compare in detail Books Seven to Nine o f Herodotus with Aeschylus' Persians. 18

1

1

20

21

Tragic motives in the Histories I n the Histories, there are characters faced w i t h a 'tragic choice' like that o f Pelasgus in the Suppliants or Agamemnon or Orestes in the Oresteia. N o doubt the best example is the wife o f Intaphrenes (3.119), who has to choose among her closest kin the one she wants to spare, and decides in favor o f her brother with an argument later echoed by Sophocles' Antigone. But in some cases the tragic issue may be 18

See Pinto (1955), Finkelberg (1995), Zellner (1997), West (1999c). Solmsen (1959) 471-3 and (1974) 7 n. 15. See also Latte (1958) 19 and Herington (1991b) 7. I t is interesting to compare the lists of tragic logoi given by Schmid and Slaehlin (1934) 569 (Croesus, Cyrus, Periander/Lycophron, Polycrates), Myres (1953) 77 (Croesus, Cyrus, Cambyses, Polycrates, Darius, Clcomenes), Immervvahr (1966) 69-71 (Gyges, Alys, Cyrus, Periander/Lycophron, Polycrates), Strasburger (1982) (Croesus, Psammenitus, Intaphrenes), and Ashcri (1988) 17 (Croesus, Cambyses, Xerxes). Dramatic: Rosenmeyer (1982) 242; tragic: Immerwahr (1966) 69. m

21

HERODOTUS AND TRAGEDY

121

successfully evaded, a fact which prevents the Histories as a whole from being tragic, as is illustrated by the story o f Pactyes (1.157.2160.1). The inhabitants of Cyme, asked by the Persians to hand over Pactyes, are initially i n the same situation as the hero o f Aeschylus' Suppliants: they have to choose between a war against a powerful adversary or the betrayal o f a suppliant. What is more, they have been deceptively advised by an oracle to surrender the suppliant to his enemies. But in the end, 'unwilling either to surrender the suppliant and come to a bad end or to keep him and be besieged by the Persians' (1.160.1), they escape the dreadful consecjuences o f this tragic choice by sending Pactyes to Mytilene. Like Aeschylus, Herodotus sometimes pictured men who had to pay for the crimes o f their ancestors, as exemplified by the story o f the brutal murder o f Darius' envoys (7.133.1-137.1). Because o f this crime, the wrath o f Agamemnon's herald, Talthybius, fell upon the Spartans who 'were unable to obtain favourable signs for their sacrifices' (7.134.2). T h e curse was allayed for some time by the two Spartans who volunteered to offer their lives in atonement for Darius' envoys and were spared by Xerxes. But long afterwards it fell upon their sons, who were put to death by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian War, clear evidence o f divine intervention, according to Herodotus (7.137.1). Yet Herodotus also stresses that the Athenians, who were as guilty as the Spartans, apparently did not suffer any harm (7.133.2), thus demonstrating that he only partially shares the Aeschylean belief. 22

23

There are also traces o f the tragic conception o f revenge i n Herodotus: the retribution exacted restores the balance by mirroring the crime even in the slightest, details, as in the Oresleia (Ag. 1318-19; Ch. 556 7, 888, 930). The abductions i n the prologue are a case in point, as is die vengeance o f Hcrmotimus (he forced the man who castrated h i m to castrate all four o f his sons before compelling the sons to castrate their father, H d t . 8.105 6). But one may also point out the story o f Pausanias, who is praised for his refusal to 'repay the like for the like' (ten homoien. apodidous, 9.78.3) by cutting off the head o f Mardonius who, together with Xerxes, had cut off the head o f Leonidas at Thermopylae. As in the tragedies o f Sophocles, there are not only isolated instances 22

2 i

Schmid and Staehlin (1934) 569; de Sic Croix (1992) 24, (1977) 146. On Talthybius, sec also Bocdckcr, this volume (Ch. 5).

122

SUZANNE SAÏD

o f neglected or misunderstood oracles i n the Histories?* but also narratives combining them i n a tragic way, like the story o f the fall o f Arcesilaus o f Gyrene and that o f the twelve kings o f Egypt. Arcesiiaus was warned beforehand by the Pythia, first, i f he found a kiln full of amphoras, not to fire them, and second, i f he d i d fire the oven, not to enter the land surrounded by water (4.163). Yet he burnt alive his opponents and 'realized only after the deed was done that this was what the oracle had meant' (4.164.3). Then he kept away from Gyrene, 'because he was afraid o f the oracle and thought it might be the land surrounded by water' (4,164.3), but he 'missed its meaning' (4.164.4), as became clear from his death i n Barca. As for the twelve kings o f Egypt, they only remembered the oracle that 'had declared that the one who should pour a libation from a bronze cup i n the temple o f Hephaestus would become master o f all Egypt' (2.147.4) after it had been accidentally fulfilled by Psammetichus. Besides, as i n Oedipus Rex, their very attempt to outwit the oracle by banishing Psammetichus to the marsh-country brought about the fated outcome: enraged by this outrage, Psammetichus planned his revenge and succeeded i n deposing the other kings (2.151-2). But deceptive oracles do not always have a tragic outcome i n the Histories, as is exemplified by the story o f the last Ethiopian ruler o f Egypt, Sabacus. L o n g ago, he had been told by an oracle 'that he had to' (hos deoi, 2.139.3) rule over Egypt for fifty years. W h e n the end o f that period came, he was sent a deceptive dream advising h i m to gather all. the priests o f Egypt and cut them i n half. But he understood that the dream was but a way o f provoking h i m to comm i t sacrilege, so that he might be harmed by either gods or men, and decided to leave Egypt 'willingly' (2.1.39.3). T h e Histories also feature 'tragic war tiers' and 'wise advisers' such as Gale has i n Ajax or Teiresias i n Antigone and Oedipus Rex, who never succeed i n preventing the disaster, for example, Solon, Croesus, Amasis, and Artabanus. Their only role i n the narrative o f Herodotus, as i n Sophocles' tragedies, is to foreshadow what is going to happen and help the reader notice the blindness o f the rulers who did not pay attention to them. As i n Greek tragedy (e.g., Ag. 468-70, Ajax 758 61), they also give expression to major truths o f human 1:>

2 4

1

E.g., the Euboeans 'who did not pay attention to the oracle of Bads (8.20.2) or the Athenians who were mistaken about the meaning of the wooden wall (8.51.5). - ' Bischoff (1932), Lattimore (1939). r

HERODOTUS A N D T R A G E D Y

123

experience, that 'before his death no one can be said to be happy, but only lucky' (1.32)*' that 'divinity is envious' (1.32.1 and 3.40.2) and 'loves to smite the great' (7.10e). But Herodotus introduces significant changes: his wise adviser is no longer a seer. H e is 'not defined any longer by supernatural information and inspired predication . . . but by a modest assumption o f probability, which is established by empirical knowledge o f man's condition' (Stahl (1975) 7). T o these tragic advisers one may add the tragic seers whose ultimate archetype is Aeschylus' Cassandra. Aware that 'there is no escape' (Ag. 1299), she bravely enters the palace to be killed. Like her, the seer Megistias, knowing his imminent death at Thermopylae, decided to stay and ' d i d not find the heart to desert the Spartan leader' (7.228). But his sending back o f his only son mitigates the tragedy. T h e story o f the anonymous Persian who, on the eve o f Plataea, told his fellow Theban o f the defeat to come (9.16.3) and walked to his death 'with a clear knowledge o f what was i n store for h i m , entangled in the net o f necessity' (9.16.3) comes closer to tragedy: the conversation o f the Persian w i t h his Greek interlocutor is modelled on the dialogue between Cassandra and the chorus i n the Agamemnon ( w . 1296-8) and his conclusion: ' i t is the worst pain for men to know much and be impotent to act' (9.16.4) precisely echoes the Aeschylean lines that underscore the bliss o f ignorance and the pain o f wisdom (Supp. 4 5 3 - 4 : Ag. 1295). I n the Histories, as in tragedy, characters are also ironically taken at their word. T h e Babylonian who jeered at the Persians' unsuccessful attempt to capture Babylon and said 'you will capture our city when mules have foals' (3.151.2), offered it as something cjuite implausible. But it happened, and the Persian Zopyrus, now convinced that the capture o f the city was fated, succeeded in devising a stratagem and sacking Babylon. I n the same way, when the Spartans, urged by an oracle, demanded reparation from Xerxes for the killing of Leonidas, the king laughed at them, 'then, pointing to Mardonius, who happened to be standing by h i m , "they will get," he said, " a l l the satisfaction they deserve from Mardonius here"' (8.114.2). T h e death o f Mardonius at Plataea (9.64) makes clear that Xerxes had unknowingly pronounced a prophetic truth.

Ag. 929-30; Track. 1-3; OT 1528-30; Andr. 100-2.

124

SUZANNE SAÏD

Herodotus' irony may also develop from a tacit dialogue with the audience. Like Sophocles, the historian, taking for granted a familiarity with his material and playing on the atidicnce's knowledge as opposed to his characters' lack of foresight, builds upon this contrast. However, to identify accurately all the occurrences of this species of 'blind irony',' ' it is crucial to define correctly the knowledge and expectations o f Herodotus' intended audience. If, as is postulated by Fornara and Raaflaub, " the Histories are addressed to contemporaries well aware o f the fall of Themistocles, the lamentable end o f Pausanias, and the 'tyranny' of Athenian imperialism (which are not directly mentioned in the Histories), one can see as 'magnificently ironic and tragic' (Fornara (1971a) 65) not only his portrayal o f Pausanias in Book Nine, but also his picture of Themistocles and his praise o f Athens' decisive contribution to saving the freedom of Greece. 2

2

T o conclude, there are obviously motives borrowed from tragedy in Herodotus. Yet our examination demonstrates that they are often transformed and do not imply a tragic vision o f human life for the Histories as a whole.

Herodotean 1 ragedies? I f the label 'tragic' is applied to any complete reversal o f fortune which is doubly determined by human motivation and by 'what had to be' (cf. Erbse (1992) 98), it is also tempting to describe as tragedies the many narratives of the falls of rulers in the Histories. But at a closer look, this statement nearly always has to be qualified. Polycrates Let us look first at the downfall of Polycrates, tyrant of Samos, as narrated in Book Three. I t is certainly possible to construe a 'tragedy of Polycrates' " by combining elements borrowed from a narrative split into two parts (3.39 60 and 120-5) and relying on the inter2

Tl

As labelled bv Rosenmcyer (1996) 504. Fornara (1971a) 59-74 and Raaflaub (1987) passim. -" Immerwahr (1966) 101, Evans (1991) 71, Chs. 13, pp. 296-7, and 23, pp. 542 8, in this volume. 2 8

125

HERODOTUS AND T R A G E D Y

pretation o f the Saurian Maeandrius, who says that 'Polycrates has fulfilled his allotted destiny' (3.142.3). But the chain o f events leading to the death o f the tyrant and his murderer is never presented as developing according to necessity or probability, as i n a good tragic plot. Indeed, there are tragic motifs. T o become the only ruler o f Samos, Polycrates behaves like the sons o f Oedipus: he kills one o f his brothers and expels the other (3.39.2). T h e 'miraculous' (3.42.4) reappearance o f the ring which he threw into the sea i n the belly o f a fish brought to h i m by a fisherman demonstrates the gods' contrivance through a series o f coincidences, as i n Sophocles' Ajax, when Tcucer points out the extraordinary relationship between the fate o f Hector, dragged to death by the same belt which Ajax had given h i m , and Ajax, who dies by a sword which was a gift o f Hector [Ajax 1028-37). A tragic discovery follows, but it is not the 'tragic' hero, Polycrates, who realizes the truth, but a friend o f his, the Egyptian Pharaoh Amasis, who understands that 'it is impossible for one m a n to rescue another from what was going to happen' (3.43.1) and therefore formally renounces Polycrates' alliance, thus escaping any tragic consequences linked to the latter's downfall. But the fall o f the tyrant, which is announced by 'the warnings of his seers and the ominous dream o f his daughter' (3.124.1), has no link w i t h his crimes. For the desire o f the satrap o f Lydia to capture and kill Polycrates has nothing to do with any serious misdeed of the Samian tyrant and is at the end left unexplained, since Herodotus leaves open the choice between two explanations which emphasize either the absurdity o f the revenge or its disproportionate character (3.120.1-122.1)/ 30

T h e true conclusion o f the story o f Polycrates is the death o f Oroetes, which is clearly presented as a punishment for the death o f Polycrates. However, among all the crimes which explain why Darius is eager to punish Oroetes—he d i d not oppose the Median usurpers, killed two distinguished Persians, and got r i d o f one o f 31

3 0

According to Herodotus, 'Oroetes had not suffered any damage or been maligned by Polycrates and did not even laid eyes on him' (3.120.1). According to Diodorus (10.16.4), Polycrates was seriously guilty, having murdered some Lydians who came to him as suppliants. H d l . 3.126.1: 'but not long afterwards, Oroetes was overtaken by the powers that avenged Polycrates' and 3.128.5: 'that was how Oroetes the Samian was overtaken by the powers that avenged Polycrates of Samos'. 31

126

SUZANNE SAÏD

Darius' couriers (3.126.1-127.1)—there is no mention o f the death o f Polycrates. So the narrative o f Polycrates' fall is not to be assimilated to a true tragedy, where, according to Aristotle 'the reversal should arise from the interna! structure o f the plot, so that what follows should be the consequence o f what happened before according to necessity or probability' (Poetics 1452a 18-20); rather, the story o f Polycrates is what is considered i n the Poetics as the worst kind o f play, that is to say 'an episodic plot, where the various episodes succeed each other without probable or necessary sequence' (Poetics 1451b34—5). Demaratus, Cleomenes, and Leoty'chides I n Book Six, the deposition o f Demaratus is to be explained by the juxtaposition o f 'what had to be' (6.64.1) and human motivations, 'the grudge harboured by Cleomenes against a fellow king who spread malicious stories about h i m . . . out o f envy and spite' (6.61.1), and the resentment felt by Leotychides towards a man who deprived h i m o f the woman to w h o m he was engaged (6.65). I n agreement w i t h Cleomenes, Leotychides swore an oath against Demaratus, declaring he had no right to the throne, because he was not the son o f the former king Ariston (6.65.3-4). W h e n the Spartans decided, at his instigation, to refer the matter to Delphi, Cleomenes secured the support o f one o f the most influential Delphians, who persuaded the Pythia to give the appropriate answer (6.66.1-2). Later on, Leotychides became the cause o f the exile o f Demaratus w h o m he outraged publicly (6.67). I n the end, Leotychides 'had to pay for what he d i d to Demaratus' (6.72.1), and Cleomenes also came to a bad end. A close look at the text demonstrates, however, as i n the case o f Polycrates, that the misfortune o f the two Spartan kings is not directly connected to what they d i d to Demaratus. Leotychides was banished from Sparta and his house demolished, only because he had later accepted a bribe and was caught red-handed (6.72.1-2). As for Cleomenes, he went m a d and c o m m i t t e d suicide. A c c o r d i n g to Herodotus (6.75.3), most Greeks explained his madness as a p u n ishment for inducing the Pythia to tell lies about Demaratus' origin. But. the punishment does not mirror the crime, as it does i n tragedy. Moreover, this is only one among the four contradictory explanations given for the death o f Cleomenes. 32

s

- On Demaratus, see also Ch. 5, in this volume.

HERODOTUS A N D T R A G E D Y

127

Cypselus and Periander T h e stories o f the Corinthian tyrants Cypselus and his son Periander have also been interpreted as a tragedy. Vernant (1982) has drawn a convincing parallel between the Oedipus legend and the birthstory o f Cypselus, which begins w i t h an obscure oracle to be understood only later, when connected to a second one (5.92(3). As in the Oedipus story, a man who has no child comes to Delphi to ask about his chances o f conceiving an heir (5.92(3). H e receives a threatening answer, which is followed by a failed attempt to avert the disaster announced by the oracle by getting r i d o f the child. W h e n the child is grown up, he goes to Delphi and as a result seizes power i n his native city. But the dissimilarities are as obvious as the similarities. T h e child is to become a threat not to his father, but to his fellow-citizens and their rulers, the Bacchiadae; and the oracle, far from being menacing, foretells his prosperity. As a matter o f fact, Cypselus, i n sharp contrast to Oedipus, ruled over Corinth for more than thirty years and died at the height o f his power (5.92Q. 53

However, the oracle had its negative side. I t announced that the Cypselids would rule over Corinth, only for two generations. Viewed from this angle, the story o f the feud between Periander and his son Lycophron, which was told before (3.49-53), retrospectively appears as the consequence o f an ancestral curse. I t is also i n itself a tragedy reminiscent o f the Oresleia or Sophocles' Electa. Periander has killed his wife. As a consequence, his youngest son, who has been informed about the murder by his grandfather, refuses to talk to him. Periander retaliates by turning his son out o f his house and forbidding anyone to receive h i m or even speak to h i m . T h e son becomes destitute and, when offered by Periander to come back home, echoes the Sophoclean Electra by turning down a life o f luxury and privilege i n the palace with an ironic answer which is reported indirect speech. Later on, Periander attempts twice to make his peace with his son. His third attempt is about to succeed (he has agreed to leave Corinth and settle i n Corcyra), when the Corcyreans murder the son to prevent the coming o f the father, an ironical ending which introduces the 'too late' motif so familiar to the readers o f Sophocles.

:ii

See also Gh. 5, pp. 113—14, in this volume.

28

SUZANNE SAÏD

Astyages and Cyrus Herodotus' account o f the birth and upbringing o f Cyrus, which is given a strikingly dramatic f o r m , also incorporates motifs which, ' i f not directly borrowed from Athenian tragedy, at least have a cousinly relationship' (Evans (1991) 53). I t is indeed a tragedy for Astyages (he is overthrown by Cyrus) and for Harpagos (his son is killed because o f the very measure taken by his father to ensure his safety). Like Laius, ' who was warned by an oracle that his son would kill h i m , Astyages is sent two ominous dreams regarding his daughter's son. As a consecjuence, he marries his daughter to a man far below her (a reaction analogous to that o f the Euripidean Aegisthus, who marries Electra to a peasant, see Erbse (1992) 34) and attempts to kill her child, who is, however, like Oedipus, saved by a herdsman. T h e identity o f Cyrus is finally uncovered i n circumstances analogous to the anagnorisis o f Oedipus Rex (by threatening the herdsman with torture), and Astyages is overthrown because o f two 'tragic' mistakes (Pelling (1996) 75-6). First, he wrongly believed that the prophecy had been fulfilled, since Cyrus had become a play king. Second and worse, after punishing Harpagos, who disobeyed his orders by not killing the child himself, and serving h i m the flesh o f his own son, a punishment which duplicates the feast o f Thyestes which was also served 'under the pretence o f happily celebrating a feast day' (Aesch. Ag. 1595), he became a victim o f ate and, 'blinded as it were by the gods' (1.127.2), placed Harpagos i n command o f the army sent to fight, against Cyrus. This tragic m o t i f is developed with a typically tragic i r o n y . Astyages' speech is as ambiguous as Clytemnestra's address to Agamemnon i n the Oresteia: 'concealing his anger' (1.118.1), he asks Harpagos to send his son to the palace, announces his intention to offer a sacrifice as a thank-offering for 34

3 1

30

34

It includes a succession of dialogues reported in direct speech between Astyages and Harpagos (1.108.5-5), Harpagos and his wife (1.109.2-4), Harpagos and the herdsman (1.110.3), the herdsman and his wife (1.111.2-112.3), Artembares, the Persian noble whose son has been beaten up by Cyrus and Astyages (1.114.5), Cyrus and Astyages (1.1 15.1-3), Astyages and Artembares (1.116.2), Astyages and Harpagos (1.117.2-118.2), Astyages and the Magi (1.120.2-6), Astyages'and Cyrus (1.121). On the Cyrus story, see also Boedckcr (Ch. 5) and Gray (Ch. 13), this volume. O n this parallel, see Evans (1991) 52. According to Burkert (1983) 108 9, 'the details of the story were probably taken from the feast of Thyestes, for we know that Herodotus was preceded by the versions in the Alkmaionis, Pherecydes and Aeschylus 'Agamemnon' and may be by Euripides' Thyestes, which may be prior to 425, according to Erbse (1992) 33. 35

:m

129

HERODOTUS A N D T R A G E D Y

Cyrus' survival and invites h i m to the feast. Besides, the contrast between the delusion o f Harpagos, who went home thinking that ' i t was a great thing to have come off so lightly' (1.119.1) and his dreadful discovery that he has eaten the flesh o f his son would not be out o f place i n a Sophoclean tragedy. T h e dialogue between Harpagos and Astyages, which closes the episode, suggests that Harpagos was no less deluded i n his revenge: by helping Cyrus to become king and enslave the Medes, he was most foolish and most unjust, 'most foolish, because, when he might have been king himself, he gave another man the power, most unjust, because merely on account o f that supper, he brought the Medes into slavery' (1.129.3). But the conclusion o f the story—at least for Astyages—is not tragic: whereas Laius was killed by his son, 'Cyrus d i d not do Astyages any h a r m and kept h i m by his side' (1.130.3). Herodotus' account o f Cyrus' life also follows a tragic pattern. T h e Cyrus who overthrew Astyages and campaigned successfully against Croesus and Babylon was a wise king, aware o f the instability o f human life (1.86.6) and protected by the gods (1.124, 126). H e is succeeded by a Gyrus w h o , i n his campaign against the Massagetae, becomes foolish and does everything w r o n g . He considers himself more than human and has to be reminded by Croesus that he is only a man (1.204.2; 207.2). As a result, he misunderstands the dream which predicts his own death and the accession o f Darius to the throne as a manifestation o f divine care for his person (1.209.1-210.1). Like Croesus before h i m (1.13; 1.33.1), 'he pays no attention' to admonitions (1.213.1), becomes 'overconfident' (1.212.2; cf. M a r g (1965) 295-7) and 'insatiate' (1.212.2, 3) because o f the magnitude o f his successes, and, i n the end, experiences a reversal whose completeness is manifested through echoes between the beginning o f the narrative and its encV I n the dream o f Astyages, a vine, growing from the genitals o f his daughter and spreading over the whole o f Asia, presaged Cyrus' rule over Asia. Wine plays a major role i n his fatal campaign against the Massagetae as well. Tomyris' son was defeated by wine and the queen, who had sworn to make Gyrus pay for his treachery by 'satiating h i m with blood (1.213.1; 214.5), cut off his head and 'put it into a wineskin' (1.214.4) filled w i t h human blood. J/

8

5

17 3 8

Avery (1972) 536-41 and Stahl (1975) 19-35. Immerwahr (1966) 165-7.

130

SUZANNE SAÏD

Cambyses T h e story o f Gyrus' successor, Cambyses, is divided into two parts: his madness and his crimes (3.1-38) and his punishment (3.61.-6). T h e first part is tragic insofar as it is a picture o f a change for the worse. I n the beginning, Cambyses behaved as a humane king towards the defeated Psammenitus, as d i d his father Cyrus towards Croesus (3,14 15; cf. Erbse (1992) 49). T h e n , contrary to the nomoi o f the Persians and the Egyptians alike, he outraged and burnt the corpse o f the Egyptian king Amasis (3.16.1-4). Disregarding the warning o f the Ethiopian king, he launched an 'unjust' (3.21.2) campaign, which ended i n disaster. H e sinned against the gods and their priests, committed the worst crimes against his o w n kin (incest and murder, 3.30-2), and outraged his most faithful servant and the noblest among the Persians (3.34-5). A l l these were 'the acts o f a madman'. Only the murder o f his brother Smerdis can be assimilated to a tragic hamartia, since Cambyses put h i m to death because he misinterpreted a dream (3.30.2 3) and feared that his brother might kill h i m and rule. 39

40

As rightly emphasized by Erbse ((1992) 55), tragic motives come to the fore i n the second part o f Cambyses' stoiy, i n a narrative interrupted by dialogues and culminating i n the great speech addressed to the leading Persians by their dying king. Cambyses' mortal wound, located ' i n the place where he himself had stabbed the god o f the Egyptians, Apis' (3.64.3), is a perfect example o f tragic retribution," followed by 'what from Aristotle we have learned to think o f as "tragic discovery" and to associate to fifth century drama' (Gould (1989) 76). I n the end, Cambyses is 'brought back to his senses' (esophronese, 3.64.5). Like Heracles i n the Trachiniae, who understands too late the meaning o f the oracles given to h i m (vv. 1159 - 6 1 , 1164 71), he grasps only then the true meaning o f previous omens. T h e Smerdis o f his dream was not his brother but the Magus, and therefore 'the murder o f his brother had been all to no purpose' (3.64.2). T h e Ecbatana where he was due to die according to the oracle at Buto, was not—as he thought—the M e d i a n Ecbatana: 'as

3 9

He burns the oracle of Zeus Ammon (3.25.3), wounds the Apis-calf and orders the Egyptian priests to be whipped (3.29.1-2). •"' Hdt 3.25. 30. 33. 34, 35. 37, 38. 61. Reinhardt (1940) 347, Gould (1989) 75. 41

HERODOTUS A N D T R A G E D Y

131

it turned out the oracle meant Ecbatana o f Syria' (3.64.4). A n d his words 'this is the place where it is assigned that Cambyses, son o f Cyrus, should die' (3.64.5) echo the exclamation o f Heracles i n the Trachiniae: 'Alas, I understand i n what a plight I a m ' (1145). Cambyses also realizes that his behaviour was wrong: he had 'acted w i t h more haste than judgment' and 'wholly mistook what was going to be' (3.65.4). This moment o f realization also involves, as in tragedy, the discovery o f a general truth regarding the human condition. T h e hero o f the Trachiniae understands at last that 'only the dead are spared pain' (1.1.73); Cambyses discovers that 'it is not after all i n the nature o f man to avert what is going to happen' (3.65.3). T h e last speech o f Cambyses has a tragic ring as well. His command to the Persians that they should take revenge o n the M a g i and 'regain their dominion 'by cunning i f the M a g i have won it by cunning, or by force i f they have achieved their purpose by force' (3.65.6), echoes the oracle telling Orestes to hunt down the murderers o f his father 'after the same fashion' (that is 'by cunning') and to 'return murder for murder' (Ckoeph. 273-4, 555-9). Last but not least, the description o f Cambyses' death, which shows a king 'bitterly lamenting the cruelty o f his lot' and Persians 'tearing their clothes and showing their sympathy by a great deal o f crying and groaning' (3.65.6 67.1) suggests an ending similar to that o f the Persians o f Aeschylus, where the king's lament is echoed and amplified by the chorus o f Persian elders. Included i n the tragedy o f Cambyses is the tragedy o f Prexaspes (Reinhardt (1940) 345--7). I n a reverse way, it parallels the story o f Harpagos, which was part o f the Astyages drama. Like Harpagos, Prexaspes was 'the most trusted' (3.30.3) o f the king's friends. But, as opposed to Harpagos, when Prexaspes was given the order to kill the king's brother, he remained faithful and carried out his duty. Yet, like Harpagos, he had his son killed by the king (3.35.1-4). But instead o f the expected betrayal and revenge, he finally decided, after the death o f Cambyses, not to side w i t h the M a g i who had taken h i m into their confidence, 'since he had been cruelly treated by Cambyses' (3.66.3). After agreeing to make a declaration that Smerdis was still alive, he 'revealed the true state o f affairs' (3.75.2) before committing suicide.

132

SUZANNE SAÏD

Croesus T h e comparison o f these two stories within a story demonstrates on a small scale how skillfully Herodotus manipulates in different ways the motifs he borrowed from tragedy. T h e same conclusion is to be drawn from the analysis o f the Grocms-logos, which is, according to most scholars, the most 'dramatic, tragic and theatrical" logos and best demonstrates the influence o f tragedy on the Histories (Stahl (1968)). I n fact, many o f the tragic motifs that, are scattered in other narratives are here put together. Yet one may be reluctant to follow Myres and read the whole Lydian logos as 'the prose scenario for a tragic "Capture o f Sardis" like the Capture of Miletus. . . . T h e sketch o f the rise o f the M e r m n a d a e stands for the prologue; the scene between Croesus and Solon is the ironic counterpart to the scene between Creon and Tiresias i n Antigone, followed by the death o f Atys, as by that o f Haemon . . . When Croesus is on the pyre . . . Apollo (comes) as deus ex machina. Between these epeuodia the digressions on Athens and Sparta fall into place as antistrophic stasima' (Myres (1953) 76 7). I would rather distinguish, with Lesky and Herington, first, a tragedy o f Gyges (1.7-13), which determines the fate o f the dynasty, second, a tragedy which involves Croesus, his son and a man who i n the past has killed his brother unwillingly and ends with the death o f the son and the suicide o f his involuntary murderer (1.34-45). 2

43

44

15

Like an Aeschylean tragedy, the story o f Gyges involves, alongside human motivation, a supernatural strand o f causation, since 'disaster had to befall Candaules' (1.8.2). T h e hero, Gyges, is placed twice in a 'truly tragic situation'." First, he 'cannot find a way out' (1.10.1), when obliged by the king to see the queen naked in her own bedroom. Second, 'forced' (1.11.4) by the queen to choose between two roads, either to kill or to be killed, he is 'forced to become against his own will the murderer o f his master' (1.11.4), a 1

2

•' Evans (1991) 45 quotes Mvres (1914). Grene (1961). Page (1962), Immerwahr (1966) 97-101. See also Chs. 9 and 13 in this volume. Lesky (1977) passim, Herington (1991b) 6-7. * On the Gyges-tragedy, see Stahl (1968) passim and Ricks (1975) 32. ' For an analysis of the Atys-story as a tragedy, see Immerwahr (1966) 7 0 - 1 , Rieks (1975) 33-7, Fornara (1983) 171-2, Erbse'(1992) 16-7, Laurot (1995) 97 102! Lesky (1977) 227 is right in thinking that this does not imply a direct borrowing from an existing Atys tragedy. Snell (1973) 201; Stahl (1975) 2. ,:i

b

1,1

HERODOTUS AND TRAGEDY

133

choice which will have tragic consequences for his descendants. The similarities between this tragic choice and that o f Aeschylean heroes faced w i t h two equally grievous alternatives, such as Pelasgus in the Suppliants, Agamemnon at Aulis i n the Agamemnon, or Orestes in the Choeplwroi, are obvious. The circumstances o f the murder also deserve attention. Gyges is supposed to attack Gandaules 'starting from the very place from where he has been shown the queen naked' (1.11.5). I n the same way, Sophocles made clear in his Electra that Aegisthus would die at the place where he killed Agamemnon (El. 1495-6). According to a definition o f responsibility which is objective and collective, as in the tragedy o f Aeschylus (see Said (1978) 265 6), this murder, though committed under compulsion, by a man who 'followed a woman's treacherous instructions' (1.9.1), as acknowledged by Apollo himself, is nevertheless a crime, since. Gyges 'has killed his master and held his office, to which he had no claim' (1.91.1). It calls for a revenge, which will come in the fifth generation: Croesus will pay for the crime of Gyges (1.13.2, 91.1). Similarly in the Seven against Thebes (743-52), the third generation, that is, the two sons o f Oedipus, had to atone for the sin o f Laius, who, overcome in the same way by the will o f a woman, disobeyed the order of Apollo and begot a son. T h e transformation o f Gyges into a tragic hero seems to be due to Herodotus, as demonstrated by a comparison with the two other extant versions of Gyges' usurpation, handed down by Plato (Rep. 359c6~360b2) arid Xanthus (FGrHist 90, 44 11 47). I n the Republic, Gyges is a lucky shepherd, who cannot resist the temptation to get hold o f the throne without risk: having discovered by chance a golden ring which makes h i m invisible, he becomes the lover o f the queen and, together with her, kills the king and seizes the throne o f Lydia. I n the Ludiaka, Gyges kills the king to escape death, because he has fallen i n love with Gandaules' wife who has told her husband about Gyges' betrayal. The publication by Lobel o f a papyrus fragment preserving parts of the speech in which the wife of Gandaules tells o f Gyges' visit to her bedroom has opened new possibilities for the interpretation o f the Herodotean account. W i t h the exception o f Lloyd-Jones (1952),

Pohlcnz (1937) 6!, Stahl (1968) 393.

134

SUZANNE SAÏD

who suggests a different possibility ('the fragment would be a part of an iambus o f Archilochus, deliberately or accidentally translated into the Attic dialect') without, however, absolutely ruling out the possibility" that it is a fragment o f a tragedy, all the scholars who have written on the fragment have unanimously assigned it to a tragedy. But relying on arguments from the metre and the vocabulary, they have reached widely different conclusions regarding the date o f the play and its relation to the Histories. For some scholars (Lobel, Page, Cataudella, and Snell), this is an early tragedy, anterior to Herodotus and to be attributed either to Phrynichus, Ion o f Chios, or, more vaguely, a pupil o f Aeschylus. According to the majority, - it is a Hellenistic tragedy. It is therefore possible to suppose either that the play depended on Herodotus or that it is the source o f the Herodotean account (given that we haive only sixteen lines from this play, it is difficult- to say the least— to assess its impact on Herodotus; besides, the example o f Aeschylus' Persians'' impact on the last books o f the Histories—on which more will be said below—seems to exclude a priori the possibility of major borrowings).' As far as I am concerned, I would rather share the scepticism o f Raubitschek (1955) and Holzberg (1973), who, after a careful examination o f all the arguments pro and contra, leave open the question o f the date. The second tragedy (1.34-45) is much closer to Sophocles. Right from the beginning, Herodotus alludes to a predetermined fate: 'the righteous anger o f a god (nemesis) took hold o f Croesus because he thought himself the most blessed o f men' (1.34.1). Yet he carefully presents this interpretation as a mere guess (hos eikasai, 1.34.1). T h e episode follows immediately after Croesus' conversation with Solon (1.30-3), which makes clear that the king is unable to pay attention to the warning o f a wise man, w h o m he wrongly abuses as a fool, a tragic irony which Stahl accurately equates with the insults hurled 48

1

1

0

Lobel (1950), Page (1950), (1951), (1962), Cataudella (1957), Snell (1973). Relying on the fragments of a hydria from Corinth published by Beazley in Hesperia 25 (1955) 305-19 and dated in all probability between 470 and 460 or 450, which represents Croesus on his pyre, but also a Greek youth playing the Hute (which suggests an actual scene of a tragedy), and combining it with the evidence of the papyri, Page suggests that there existed a trilogy on the fall of the royal house of Lydia in the first half of the fifth century. * Latte (1950), Maas (1950), Galiano (1950/1), Kakridis (1951), Cantarella (1952), Gigantc (1952), Lesky (1953), Bickel (1957), Kassel (1974), Erbse (1992) 4 5. '"' This is the conclusion reached by Lesky (1977), Evans (1985), and Erbse (1992) 5.

135

HERODOTUS A N D TRAGEDY

1

by the Sophoclean Oedipus at the seer Teiresias. ' I n fact, there are many more echoes between Oedipus Rex and the tragedy o f Croesus. Like Oedipus, Croesus, warned by the gods o f a disaster to come, does his best to prevent the fatal outcome: told by an oracular dream that one o f his sons was to die struck by an iron weapon (1.34), 'he got h i m a wife, saw to it that he no longer took the field with the Lydian soldiers whom he used to command. He also removed all the weapons, javelins, spears and so on from the men's rooms' (1.34.3). When persuaded by his son to send him to a hunt, he again took every precaution by asking Adrastus, w h o m earlier he had received as a friend and ritually purified o f a murder, to pay back his obligation by 'watching over' - his son. Nevertheless, his son is ironically--killed by the spear o f the very man w h o m his father has appointed to watch over h i m . Besides, Atys, like Oedipus, plays an active part in the decision which ultimately causes his death: he is the one who convinces a reluctant Croesus to allow h i m to participate in the hunt, by demonstrating to h i m that the dream does not say anything about a boar's tusk. Last but not least, there is Adrastus, who accidentally becomes a murderer and commits suicide, like die heroine of Sophocles' Trachiniae. He first kills his brother 'unwillingly' (1.35.3). Then, also by accident (his spear misses the boar and hits Croesus' son) and during a hunt in which he becomes involved against his wishes (1.42.1) he kills his benefactor's son. Forgiven by Croesus, who 'pities h i m ' and agrees that 'he was not guilty o f this crime' (1.45)—as does Hyllus i n the Trachiniae, when he finds out the truth about his mother (Track. 934-5, 1134-42)- , he kills himself (see Said (1978) 267-8). 1

The way in which these two narratives are organized is also reminiscent o f tragedy, as many scholars from Myres to Laurot have pointed out. M o r e precisely, they have underlined 'the masterly interweaving o f direct and indirect speech'' in these two episodes, which both, like an Attic tragedy, stage three characters Candaules, his wife, and Gyges, and Croesus, Atys, and Adrastus. 53

4

y

- Stahl (1975 ) 6 quotes OR 375; see also OR 433-6. Hdl. 1.41 (putaxtcov; 42 · cpuXdoaeiv. . . . xov ipuAiioaovTo:;. • See Myres (1953) 76-8, Immerwahr (1966) 70 1, Stahl (1968) passim, Rieks (1975) passim, Lesky (1977) 225, Foniara (1983) 171-2, Evans (1991b) 45 7, Herington (1991) 6, Laurot (1995) passim. Gould (1989) 54 and Stahl (1975) 4. w

M

136

SUZANNE SAÏD

I n the major part o f the Croesus logos (1.46-92), the formal similarities with tragedy are less obvious. As opposed to the tragic action, which occupies only a short span o f time, the events which take place extend over a long period. Besides, there are only two dialogues between Cyrus and Croesus at the very end o f the narrative. Yet, the same tragic combination o f supernatural causation and human motivation is to be found there. T h e fall o f Croesus and the capture o f Sardis, which have been repeatedly announced by a portent (1.78.1), and a series o f oracles given right at the beginning o f the expedition (1.46-58) or even long before it (1.84, 85; see Stahl (1975) 10-11), demonstrate that 'it is impossible even for a god to escape the lot assigned' (1.91.1), an idea which is not specific to Attic tragedy and may well be found i n the Iliad. But there is at least one detail which may be a direct borrowing from tragedy. I n her answer to the complaint o f Croesus, the Pythia alludes to a partially successful bargaining by Apollo: 'unable to divert the Moirai from their course' (1.91), the god nevertheless gained for Croesus three extra years o f prosperity. One is reminded o f Aeschylus' Eumenides.™ where the Erinyes reproach Apollo for beguiling the Moirai i n order to help Admetus. But some responsibility is also laid on man. I n reaction to Croesus, who after his fall accused his evil daimon and the god o f the Greeks o f having 'encouraged' h i m to eampaign against Cyrus by means o f 'deceptive' oracles (1.87.3; 90.2), the Pythia points out the mistake o f the king, who did not 'understand' the meaning o f the two oracles given to h i m by Delphi (1.91.4, 5)—an interpretation finally accepted by Croesus (1.91.6) and confirmed by a narrative which describes Croesus as deluded by 'hope' (1.54.1; 56.1; 71.1; 75.1; 77.4), 'trusting. . . ambiguous oracles', whose meaning he 'misses' (1.71.1: hamarton tou khresmou; 73.1; 75.2), and unable to listen to the advice given to h i m by the 'wise' Sandanis (1.71.2-4). 50

57

But the conclusion o f the stoiy, as Herodotus chooses to tell i t , is not tragic, since Croesus escapes death (he is miraculously rescued by Apollo) and, after learning wisdom through suffering, 58

39

723 8. CI'. Rieb (1975) 31. On the blindness of Croesus during the campaign against Cvrns, see Marg (1965) 292-3 and Stahl (1975) 8-10. ' On the other versions of the fate of Croesus after the sack of Sardis, sec Burkert (1985) passim. FA-ans (1991) 48 points out that 'the fall of Croesus is a qualified one'. " Hdt. 1.207.1. On the limits of this wisdom, sec Stahl (1975) 19-36. 3 0

J

58

137

HERODOTUS AND T R A G E D Y

00

assumes towards Cyrus and later towards his son Cambyses the role played by Solon in his own life. Besides, one has to note that the tragedy o f Croesus is but one side o f the coin. The other is the success story o f Cyrus, a success that is not to be explained only by 'the good luck' (1.87.5) o f the Persian king, but also by careful plan­ ning, clever stratagems and accurate observation (1.79.1; 80.4; 84.4). 61

0

Herodotus' Histories and Aeschylus' Persians " Herodotus knew and used Aeschylus' Persians, as is demonstrated by a series o f verbal echoes particularly in reported or direct speeches. ' For instance, as Broadhead, and H o w and Wells have pointed out in their commentaries," Artabanus in the Histories, as well as Atossa in the Persians, portrays a king led astray by his 'consort with bad m e n ' . What is more, the prophecy o f Bacis quoted approvingly by Herodotus (8.77) and the speech delivered by Themistocles after Salamis (8.109.2-5) interpret Xerxes' defeat in the same way as Aeschylus. Like Darius in the Persians, the oracle, after emphasizing the 'madness' o f the aggressor, attributes the Persian setback to 'divine Dike', which quenches Koros, the son o f Hubris. W h e n Themistocles says: 1 3

1

65

Indeed we did not do it. It was God and heroes, who were jealous that one man in his godless pride should be king of Asia and of Europe t o o a man who is impious and reckless, who burns and destroys the statues of the gods and dared to lash the sea with whips and bind it with fetters (8.109.3) he precisely echoes the words of the Aeschylean Darius (Pers. 745-8, 809-12). But what in the Persians was the final message o f the play has become a mere argument in the Histories. For this grand speech serves a very personal purpose. As Herodotus says (8.109.5), Themistocles wanted to prevent the Athenians from pursuing the

R

" Hdt. 1.155 6: advises Cyrus to spare the Lydians and punish only Pactyes and his followers; 207: advises Cyrus to cross the river and fight the Massagetae on their own territory by tricking them (two examples of advice followed by Cyrus: 1.208, 211); when he accompanies Cambyses in his expedition against Egypt, he warns him against reckless behaviour (3.36). Marg (1965) 294, Stahl (1975) 13 4, 20. See also Ch. 24 in this volume. Immcrwahr (1954) 28, Herington (1991b) 6. Broadhead (I960) ad Pers. 753-5 and How and Wells (1928) ad Hdt. 7.16. Persians 753: κακοΐς ομιλών άνδράσιν, Hdt. 7.16 α: ανθρώπων κακών όμιλίαι. 61

63

m

65

138

SUZANNE SAÏD

Persians, thus laying the foundation for a future claim upon Xerxes, i f he happened to get into trouble w i t h the Athenians. Besides, a close examination o f these correspondences suggests that Herodotus more often than not displaced, adapted or even significantly altered the meaning o f the phrases he borrowed. His description o f the grief o f the Persians tearing their clothes, weeping and wailing (9.99.2), which is clearly derived from the end o f the Persians, does not take place after the king's arrival, but before it. I n the Histories. it is Xerxes who tells the leading Persians that he has been thinking how not to fall short o f his predecessors and how to add as much power as they d i d to the Persian empire, while i n the Persians he was blamed for not increasing the possessions inherited from his father (Hdt. 7.8; Pers. 754-6). When Artabanus, now i n favour o f the expedition, tells Xerxes to do his best to help the god who offers h i m such an opportunity, he ironically echoes the lesson drawn by Darius from the failure o f Xerxes: 'when a man is striving, god assists h i m ' ( H d t . 7.18; Pers. 742). Yet, the best illustration o f the gap between Herodotus and Aeschylus is their opposite use o f the famous sentence 'Remember Athens'. I n the Histories (5.1.05; 6.94), Darius orders a slave to remind h i m o f the Athenians, i n order to take his revenge on them for the sack o f Sardis; i n the Persians, he asked the chorus to remember the Athenians and their victory to prevent them from sending another expedition ( w . 823-6). Such differences may warn the reader against overestimating the influence o f the Persians on the narrative o f Herodotus. A close reading o f Books Seven to Nine shows i n fact, besides similarities, great discrepancies between the two interpretations o f the second Persian War. Given that the tragic poet and the historian both wanted to picture a major reversal o f fortune, * they contrasted sharply the beginn i n g and the end o f the expedition. Like the prologue and the parodos o f the Persians, Herodotus' two descriptions o f the Persian army, the catalogue o f the troops and the calculation o f their n u m ber before the first major battles o f the war i n Book Seven, ' provide a spectacular display o f the power o f Xerxes, which only serves to bring out better the magnitude o f his disaster. T h e exodos o f the Persians, w i t h the appearance o f a king i n rags and without men 1

1 7

fi,i

67

O n the reversal in the Persians, see Said (1988). Hdt. 7.41-2, 54-5, 60-99, 184-6 and Persians 16-59, 65-87.

HERODOTUS A N D TRAGEDY

139

escorting h i m , is matched by the account o f his arrival at the Hellespont 'with hardly a fraction o f his army' (8.115.1). In the Histories as i n the Persians, the ill-fated outcome o f the war is announced by a series o f signs sent by the gods. T h e dream o f Atossa, the omen o f the eagle and the hawk which follows it, and the oracle given i n the past to Darius and alluded to i n his dialogue with Atossa (176-211, 739-41) are paralleled i n the Histories not only by the words o f the wise Artabanus, who predicts the disaster right at the beginning o f the expedition, but also by a string o f dreams, oracles, and portents. But these divine signs are sometimes used by Herodotus i n a way which is more like Sophocles than like Aeschylus. Whereas i n the Persians the queen and the chorus were well aware of their threatening character (v. 211), i n the Histories they are either misinterpreted by the M a g i as foreshadowing a catastrophe for the Greeks '" or neglected by Xerxes (7.58.1). m

1

According to Herodotus and Aeschylus alike, the expedition was doomed to fail right from the start, because it was a manifestation o f hubris ( / t o / 8 0 8 , 821; H d t . 7.16oc2; 8. 77.1). Both writers see the conquest o f Greece as the first step towards an universal empire: the paroclos o f the Persians, which pictures a king leading his troops 'against the whole world' (74), is echoed i n the Histories by the first speech o f Xerxes, who plans to make the Persian empire 'coterminous with Zeus' heaven' (7.8y2). Both agree that Xerxes violated a natural order guaranteed by the gods by bringing together two lands, Europe and Asia, which were intended to remain separate, and by enslaving people who by nature are free. I n Aeschylus, the parallelism o f these two attempts is made manifest i n the emphasis laid on the 'bridging' (in Greek 'yoking': w . 72, 722) of the Bosphorus, which is powerful and assimilated to a god (723, 746), by means o f 'fetters' (745, 747), and the recurrent simile o f the yoke o f slavery (50, 191, 196, 594). What is more, the dream o f Atossa (181 99) clearly brings together the two themes o f uniting and enslaving (the two women who were allotted two separate domains, the Greek land /t)

The prophecies announcing a failure which arc omitted by Onomacritus: 7.6; the third dream of Xerxes: 7.19.1; the eclipse of the sun when the army leaves Sardis: 7.37; the two portents which occur at Sardis and after the crossing of the Hellespont: 7.57 8. On the dreams, see also below, p. 1-14. "·' Hdt. 7.19: the third dream of Xerxes and 37.3 the eclipse. See also 7.53.2 (Xerxes) and 7.209.4 (Demaratus). 7 0

140

SUZANNE SAÏD

and that of the barbarians, are put under the same yoke). Similarly, Herodotus pictures a Xerxes who transgresses natural boundaries, not only by bridging the Bosphorus and linking the two continents,' but also by cutting a canal through Athos (7.22.1-24.2). This turning land into sea is another way of interfering with nature, as is demonstrated by the oracle warning the Cnidians against digging a canal and transforming a peninsula into an island (1.174.3-6). Like Aeschylus, Herodotus also suggests a correspondence between the bridge ('yoke') over the Bosphorus and the 'yoke' of servitude in the first speech of Xerxes (7.8(31 61). Moreover, after the first bridge was destroyed by a storm, he pictures a king commanding that a pair o f 'fetters' (7.35.1) be thrown into the sea, but, i n contrast to Aeschylus, he suggests that Xerxes may later have repented (7.54.3). T h e Persians were also guilty o f sacking and burning the temples of the Greek gods. T h e i r impiety, which was vigorously condemned by the Aeschylean Darius (Persians 809 12), is illustrated on several occasions i n the Histories? But it is mitigated by Herodotus' allusion to Xerxes' possible remorse after the burning o f the Acropolis (8.54) and his reminder that this fire was set in retaliation for the burning of the temple of Cybele by the Greeks during the sack of Sardis (5 J 02.1). As a consequence, the defeat of the Persians is explained in a slightly different way by the tragic poet, who stresses the role o f the gods, and the historian, who puts more emphasis on the part played by natural forces i n the Persian defeat. According to Aeschylus, the hubris o f Xerxes and his sins brought on a downfall which has to be explained by a supernatural intervention either by a just Zeus, as suggested by Darius (739 40, 827-88), who is the mouthpiece of the poet, or by an envious and deceitful god, as suggested by the messenger (353-4, 454-5, 495-7, 513-14), the queen (472-3), the chorus (515-16, 532-4) and Xerxes himself (909-12). Herodotus' attitude is more complex. Like Aeschylus, he may sometimes take for granted a direct intervention of the divinity: the wrecking o f the Persian fleet sailing round Euboea is to be 1

a

1

73

71

H d t 7.8pl; I Op I ; 33; 34; 36; 8.20.2; 9.120.4. Hdt. 8.32.2, 33.1: the burning and pillaging of the temples in Phocis; 35.1 2: the attempt to plunder Apollo's temple at Delphi; 8.53.2: their stripping the temple of its treasures and burning everything on the Acropolis. For a different view, see Ch. 8, pp. 193 1, in this volume. 72

,:!

;

141

HERODOTUS A N D TRAGEDY

explained by a 'god' who was doing everything to make the Persian fleet equal to the Greek and prevent it from being much superior (8.13)—an explanation which may answer the words o f the messenger, who explained the defeat o f the Persians at Salamis as due to a god who tipped the scales against the Persians by allocating them an unequal share o f luck (Persians 345 7). But Herodotus usually qualifies this type o f explanation and distances himself from i t , by placing it into a speech or by putting it in quotation marks with formulas such as 'it is said' or ' X said', as in the case o f the storm at cape Sepias, the intervention o f the two giant warriors who routed the Persians at Delphi, the miracle o f T h r i a , or the appearance before Salamis o f a phantom i n the shape of a woman/' It is only for minor incidents—the drowning o f the Persians at Paliene or the fact that they did not enter the shrine o f Demeter at Plataea that Herodotus accepts or even suggests himself a supernatural explanation (8.129.3; 9.65.2). O n the contrary, he often draws attention to the decisive intervention o f natural forces. This theme was already adumbrated i n the Persians. According to Darius, who, like Artabanus i n the Histories, often speaks on behalf of the author, the land itself is the ally o f the Greeks, by killing through starvation the mass o f the Persians (792-4), a truth already demonstrated i n the play by the description of the Persian retreat by the messenger (488-91). Artabanus goes further. He tells Xerxes that the land and the sea 'the two mightiest powers i n the world are his worst enemies': the sea, because 'there is not a harbour anywhere big enough to receive your fleet' and the land, because it will not produce enough food for such a large army and 'will starve y o u ' (7.49.2-5). T h e narrative amply validates these predictions. Herodotus alludes to the ruin o f those who had to entertain the Persians (7.118). H e mentions rivers which failed to provide enough water for their needs (7.127.2; 187.1). He describes how the troops of Xerxes, during their retreat after Salamis, had to 'eat grass where they found no grain and strip the barks and leaves of trees of all. sorts cultivated and wild because o f hunger' (8.115.2). H e tells how many among the men o f Artabazus after Plataea 'succumbed to hunger and exhaustion' (9.89.4). H e also pictures their ships wrecked by the storms because there was not enough room on the short stretch o f beach (7.188.1-3). 1

" Hdt. 7.189.1, 189.3; 8.38, 39.1, 65.1, 84.2.

142

SUZANNE SAID

U n t i l now, wc have only pointed out changes o f emphasis from Aeschylus to Herodotus. T u r n i n g to the presentation o f Xerxes' deci­ sion and the analysis o f the causes o f the second Persian W a r which it supposes, we shall see major discrepancies o f form as well as o f content between the Persians and the Histories. First the form. Whereas the two sets o f causation, human and supernatural, are closely entwined i n the Persians, Herodotus keeps them apart. The human motives are expressed i n the reported speech o f Mardonius and the speeches delivered during the council o f the leading Persians which follows (7.5-11); the supernatural visitations, put i n quotation marks by the formula 'as it is said by the Persians' (7.12.1), occur i n the dreams which follow and play a decisive role in Xerxes' decision (7.12-18). Second the content. I n the tragedy o f Aeschylus, the decision o f Xerxes to take 'revenge'(vv. 473-5) on Athens for the defeat o f Marathon is consistently presented as the consequence o f a passionate desire of the king (233: Ί'μειρ', 826: άλλων έρασθείς), which betrays his ignorance, his lack o f understanding,' ' or even his madness (719: έμώρανεν), a 'disease' which is sometimes explained by his temper (he is young (13, 744, 782) and rash (718, 754: θούριος)), by the intervention o f bad advisers (753-8), or a deception sent by the gods (93, 472, 831). As is demonstrated by the long speech where Darius rewrites Persian history (765-81), this decision is totally at odds w i t h the policy o f Xerxes' predecessors, beginning with Meclus, the epony­ mous hero o f the Medes, and Cyrus, the founder o f the Persian empire. W i t h the exception o f the usurper Marclus, they knew how to 'control their passions' (767) and had a 'sound m i n d ' (772). Therefore, they were beloved by the gods and successful (768, 772). The Aeschylean Cyrus i n particular was a wise ruler who limited his conquests to Lydia, Phrygia, and Ionia (770-1), that is, to Asian territories included i n the domain allotted to the barbarians by the gods (186-7). T h e Aeschylean Xerxes is also totally opposed to a father whose advice he has forgotten (783). For the Aeschylean Darius is a king who did not transgress the limitations assigned to the Persian 73

1

Persians 361: ού ξύνεις, δόλον 373: ού γαρ τό μέλλον έκ θεών ήπίστατο., 454: κακώς τό μέλλον Ίστορών., 744: τ ά δ ' ού κατειδώς. "' Persians 552: δυσφρόνως 725: μή φρονεΐν καλώς, 749: ουκ ευβουλία, 829: σωφρονεΐν κεχρημένον.

143

HERODOTUS A N D T R A G E D Y

77

empire by the gods (he never crossed the river Halys) and never did any harm to the Persians. O n the contrary, die Herodotean Xerxes, at the beginning o f Book Seven, did not possess any great wish to invade Greece. It is only those around h i m , Mardonius and the Peisistratidae, as well as the Aleuadae i n Thessaly, who were anxious to campaign. Among the arguments put forward privately as well as publicly by Mardonius and repeated by Xerxes, the only one which may be an echo o f Aeschylus is revenge." But it is less a cause than a pretext, as is said not only by the Greek envoys to Gelon (7.157.2), but by Herodotus himself (7.138.1). The two political arguments that appear i n the two speeches of Xerxes and seem to influence his decision are absent from the Persians. This is no surprise, for the first one, that Greece has to be con­ quered because it is a fertile country (7.8.a2), turns on its head the commonplace contrast between Greek poverty (7.102.1) and Persian wealth, and the second one (7.11.2), which presents the expedition as a 'pre-emptive strike' (Evans (1991) 14) and introduces the idea o f a struggle for survival and the 'them or us' attitude, 'clearly points to the period around the outbreak o f the Peloponnesian War' (Raaflaub (1987) 228). 78

7,1

0

Moreover, the argument which carries the day and appears i n the first speech o f Xerxes as well as in the dreams which are sent first to Xerxes and then to Artabanus, the iron law o f imperialist expan­ sionism, is foreign to Aeschylus. I n Book Seven, Xerxes opens his speech by saying that by launching a campaign against Greece, he is not establishing a new nomos, but is only following the one he inherited from his predecessors: Ί learn from our elders that we have never remained inactive (oudama ko etremisamen), since we took the sovereign power from the Medes, when Gyrus deposed Astyages.' (7.8α 1). A t Abydus, before the crossing o f the Bosporus, he again praises the undertakings o f his predecessors: ' I t was by taking risks that m y

" Persians 864 6. In the Histories (1.72) the Halys is a boundary between the Persian and the Lydian dominions, but in Isocrates {Areopagiticus 80 and Panallwiaicus 59), it is presented as a limit which has not to be transgressed by the Persian land forces. Persians 555 άβλαβης and 663, 671 άκακος, 855 άκάκας. Hdt. 7.6: έπιθυμτής, προθυμίη, προσωρέγοντο. Hdt, 7.5.3; 8.α2,β1,2; 9αΙ; 11.2,3: 7 occurrences of τιμωρός, τιμωρίη, τιμωρέειν. 79

8 0

144

SUZANNE SAÏD

ancestors brought us to where we stand today. O n l y by great risks can great results be achieved. W e are therefore acting like them . . .' (7.50.3). According to Xerxes, this nomos is sanctioned by heaven: ' I t is a god who leads us on this way (7.8a 1). This is also demonstrated by the dreams which follow and play a decisive role in the final decision (cf. Said (1981) 22-5). The god who appears diere and represents, like the god alluded to by Xerxes, the genius of the Persians, also expresses the 'inevitability' (7.17. 2: to khreon geneslhai) o f the campaign (7.17.2). As opposed to the god o f Agamemnon's dream i n Book T w o o f the Iliad—a dream w i t h which Xerxes' dream has been too quickly identified (e.g., Regenbogen (1930b) 98-9)—, he is not deceitful. I n the Iliad, the Dream was plainly lying when telling Agamemnon that the time had come to sack the city and that the Trojans were doomed (2.11-15, 28 33 = 65-70). But in the Histories the god does not say that Xerxes will be victorious, only that he is wrong to change his m i n d (7.12.2), and he warns h i m o f the consequences: 'just as i n a moment you rose to greatness and power, so in a moment you will be brought low again' (7. 14), for it is dangerous for a young king, who has just come to power, to show some weakness by changing his m i n d . I t is only Artabanus who interprets this divine impulse as a promise of disaster: 'since it is God's will and since apparently (lids eoike) heaven itself is about to send ruin upon Greece' (7.18.3) and the 'apparently' emphasizes the subjective character o f this interpretation (Kohnken (1988) 28). 1

81

It is tempting to oppose this daimon, who embodies the character of the Persians, to their moira, as it is defined in Aeschylus' Persians. I n the tragedy, the moira, assigned to the Persians from old by the gods, commanded them to fight land battles only, besieging cities and using their cavalry, thus preventing them from overstepping the boundaries between Europe and Asia and limiting their empire to Asia (Persians 94-9). O n the contrary, in the Histories, the 'god' leads the Persians to extend their empire indefinitely. The Persians' drive to ever increase their conquests goes back to Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire. This restlessness is perceived, right at the beginning of the Histories, by the queen of Babylon and her subjects (1.185.1: auk alremizousan; 190.2: ouk atremizontd). A n d

81

As Evans (1991) 15 rightly points out, 'though Herodotus has borrowed from Homer the literary device, he has shifted the emphasis'. For the dreams, see also Ch. 5, p. 103, and Ch. 9, pp. 221-3, in this volume.

HERODOTUS A N D T R A G E D Y

145

the continuity o f Persian imperialism is brought out not only by the speeches o f Artabanus who, at the beginning o f Book Seven, compares the projected campaign against Greece with the expedition o f Darius against the Scythians (7.10a2-3, y l 2; 18.2) and other disastrous expeditions o f his predecessors, such as the campaign against the Massagetac o f Gyrus and the campaign against the Ethiopians of Cambyses (7.18.2), but also by the narrative o f Herodotus. For Cyrus never stopped enlarging his empire: after ''subduing' Croesus (1.130.3), 'enslaving' the Ionians (1.161, 169.2), 'laying waste' all the cities o f Asia M i n o r (1.177) and 'conquering' Babylon (1.201.1), 'he desired to have the Massagetae in his power' (1.201.1) and was only stopped in his conquests by death. His son and successor Cambyses was even more eager to enlarge the empire: after his campaign against Egypt, he wanted to attack the Carthaginians, the Ammonians and the long-lived Ethiopians (3.17.1), and it was only the lack of provisions and the threat o f cannibalism which put an end to this expedition. Last but not least, Darius in the Histories, far from being a wise king and the polar opposite o f his son, is similar to h i m . It would be easy to demonstrate—and it has already been done bymany scholars for the Scythian expedition —that Herodotus' narrative draws many parallels between the campaign o f Xerxes, the Scythian expedition, and the first Persian War. 02

Viewed from this angle, the campaign o f Xerxes is no longer an accident caused by the rashness o f a young king, as it was i n the Persians. It becomes the logical outcome o f the unlimited expansionism which characterized the rulers o f Asia right from the beginning. ' T h e tragedy o f Xerxes has been replaced by the tragedy of Persian imperialism, which may be read as a warning addressed by Herodotus to the contemporary representatives o f imperialism, that is the Athenians." 11 5

1

m

Evans (199!) 18 n. 34 mentions Bornitz (1968) 125-30, Wood (1972) 94-100, Hunter (1982) 206-25; Hartog (1988) 34-60. See also Said (1981) 25-7. " Fornara (1971a) 29 rightly points out that 'this theme becomes prominent and central' only in 7-9. Moles (1996) and Ch. 2 of this volume. ;l

1,1

146

SUZANNE SAÏD

Conclusion Clearly, tragedy should be numbered among the literary influences on Herodotus, I f we look for direct borrowings i n the Histories, we have to conclude, with Evans ((1991) 5), that 'it seems that Herodotus borrowed tragic elements when it suited his dramatic purposes, but they were literary devices designed to catch his audience; they d i d not inform his historical vision'. But i f we pose the question thus: Is Herodotus, like Thucydides, a 'tragic historian' (MacLeod (1983) 157)? Is there 'a tragic view o f history' (Fornara (1971a) 78) i n Herodotus? it becomes difficult to give a simple answer. I f we label as tragic a narrative which demonstrates die limitations and instability of human conditions (Stahl (1975) 1), we may say that the Histories, like Homeric epic, are a case i n point. I n the world o f Herodotus, as in the allegory o f the jars i n Book 24 o f the Iliad, there is no perfect happiness and complete self sufficiency: 'no man is able to lay his hands on everything any more than a country can produce everything it needs' (1.32.8). T h e concept o f divine jealousy, which prevents living beings from growing excessively, a concept endorsed by many Herodotean characters, is but a translation o f the same idea, into religious terms. This truth is exemplified not only by the destinies o f great kings and rulers, but also by anecdotes concerning ordinary individuals such as a certain Ameinocles: the tempest that destroyed four hundred ships i n the neighbourhood of Sepias 'made h i m a very rich man', but Herodotus adds: 'but i n other respects he proved less fortunate.For he met with a distressing disaster i n the form of the murder o f his son' (7.190). 85

A n even greater emphasis is put on the theme o f human instability i n the Histories. As Herodotus himself says i n the prologue, 'human prosperity never abides long in the same place' (1.5.4). ' This also holds good i n the case o f power: 'most of the cities which were great once are small today and those which used to be small were great i n m y own times' (1.5.4). I t is also valid for virtue. Before Plataea, the Athenians acknowledged in their speech that 'the very men who once were brave and helpful could today be cowards, and yesterday's cowards might be today's heroes' (9.27.4), a truth which 8 3

85

Hdt. 1.32.1: Solon; 3.40.2: Amasis; 7.10el, 46.4: Artabanus; 8.109.3: Themistocles. This is echoed by Solon (Hdt. 1.32.4), Croesus (1.207.2), and Artabanus (7.4). 8 6

HERODOTUS AND TRAGEDY

147

is illustrated in the Histories by the parallel transformations of Croesus, the fool who becomes wise, and Cyrus, the wise man who becomes a fool. It is precisely this pervasive instability which prevents the Herodotean world from being 'tragic', i f tragedy implies the belief i n an iron law o f history. Each fall o f a ruler is balanced by the rise o f another and all disasters have a bright side. What prevents Herodotus' Histories from being as tragic as Thucydides' History of the Peloponnes'ian war is perhaps the impartiality and the Panhellenic perspective (Fornara (1971a) 90) o f the father o f history, as opposed to the Thucydidean focus on Athens and the decline and fall o f its empire. Therefore I propose, as a paradoxical conclusion o f a paper devoted to 'Herodotus and Tragedy' that Cornford ((1907) 137-9) was right, after all, in opposing nearly a hundred years ago, an epic Herodotus to a tragic Thucydides. 87

7

Gomme (1954) 110-2 and Strasburgcr (1955) 579-80.

CHAPTER SEVEN

PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE, POLITICS: H E R O D O T U S A N D THE I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS TIME K u r t A . Raaflaub

T h e Greeks go about things i n the w r o n g way. (Mardonius, / .9(3.2)

Introduction T h e purpose o f this chapter is threefold: to survey the many ways in which Herodotus shares i n contemporary intellectual trends, that is, in ideas and theories developed by philosophers, sophists, and 'scientists' before and i n his time; to discuss his contribution to the advancement o f historical and political thought; and to explore the thesis that, despite major differences, Herodotus i n many respects is much closer to Thucydides than scholars usually allow. I thus begin, paradoxically, with Thucydides, an Athenian who spent twenty years i n exile (4.104-8; 5.26.5), presumably returned to Athens after the end o f the Peloponnesian War, and most likely died i n the m i d 3908. From the beginning o f the war he collected material for a history (1.1; 5.26) and probably composed drafts o f a narrative; large parts, however, must have been written or revised after the war. Thucydides thus traced and tried to understand one great war at 1

2

1

Translations (often with slight modifications); Waterlield (1998) for Herodotus, Strassler (1996) for Thucydides. I completed and submitted this chapter in 1999, well before the publication of Thomas (2000) which is crucial for the second section; unfortunately, at this late stage I can only acknowledge its contribution by adding references to the footnotes. I owe thanks for valuable comments to Deborah Boedeker, Carolyn Dewald, Irad Malkin, Rosaria Munson, Marek Wecovvski, and the Fellows of the Center for Hellenic Studies in 1999-2000, esp. Peter Hunt, Ted Lcndon, and John Marineola. On all this and the entire section on Thucydides. see esp. Hornblowcr (1987); (1994a) 17, 24-9; (1994b); (1996b) (with recent bibliog.); de Romilly (1963); Cawkwell (1997). Date of death: Hornblowcr (1987) 4, 151-3; see also Hunter (1977). 2

150

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

the very time when Herodotus was writing the history of another and presented some of his logoi i n 'lectures', perhaps even in Athens. Thucydides certainly knew the Histories and in his own work reacted to his most important predecessor. He shares w i t h him—long anticipated by H o m e r — a n 'overarching thematic conception, a great war', and a passion for war as the greatest challenge to human arete and most enduring source o f human glory. For my present purpose, some specific characteristics o f Thucydides' work are especially important. One is that he usually does not give us insight into the evidence or train o f thought underlying his narrative. Early on, he explains, in famous chapters (1.20 2), his methodology and then simply tells us the results o f his investigation. Second, Thucydides' writing o f history focuses almost exclusively on political events (of which warfare is a crucial part); hence it is to h i m , modern scholars conclude, that we owe 'the discovery o f political history'/ Third, his interpretation is often based on theoretical assumptions that were current i n his time, as attested by Euripides and the ' O l d Oligarch', among others, and on ideas developed by philosophers, sophists, and medical writers. ' Fourth, Thucydides offers his work as 'an everlasting possession (ktema es aid), rather than a prize composition which is heard and then forgotten' (1.22.4).' I n other words, familiarity with history is useful—presumably as a means to master future challenges. Clearly, however, history can serve this function only i f it contains a stable element i n its constant flow and infinite variety. Thucydides finds 3

4

7

1

3

In emphasizing the similarities between the two authors—an aspect still far too often ignored—I am aware of the obvious risk of making Herodotus look too much like Thucydides: this is not my intention (see below at n. 106). On Thucydides and Herodotus, see recently Stahl (1983) 219 n. 37 (end); Pelling (1991); Moles (1993) csp. 98 ff.; Scanlon (1994), and esp. Hunter (1982); Hornblower (1987) Ch. I ; (1992b); (1994a) 22 (quot), 25; (1996a) 19-38; (1996b) 1521; Rood (1999). On Herodotus and Homer, see Boedeker, this volume (Ch. 5, pp. 97-109). But see Gribble (1998) on authorial interventions in Thucydides. ' Strasburger (1954b); Momigliano (1958) 4-5 = (1966) 130-1. " Euripides: Finley (1942), (1967); de Romilly (1984). Pseudo-Xenophon: Frisch (1942) 79-87, but see de Romilly (1962). Theory: e.g., Hussey (1985); Hornblower (1987) Ch. 5; Rechenauer (1991); Price (2001) Ch. I (with bibliog.). ' Hornblower's formulation ((1991) 61). In agonisma es to parachrema akouein most scholars (e.g., Hornblower, ibid.; Fornara (1971a) 60; Gould (1989) 112) see an allusion to Herodotus' performances; cf. 1.21.1. Boedeker (1995) raises a different possibility (elegiac praise poetry on historical events, such as Simonides' elegy on Plataea: Sim. 10-8 in West (1992); see Boedeker and Sider (2001)); cf. Hornblower (1996a) 27-8, 39-40. 1

r

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

151

this in human nature which he considers essentially unchanging. Hence empirical data collected from history make it possible to analyse, categorize, understand, and anticipate human behaviour in comparable situations men will always act similarly—and, by extension, the course o f political developments. Thucydides' thinking here seems influenced by medical theory; his descriptions o f the plague in Athens (2.47 53) and the civil war in Corcyra (3.81-4) offer spectacular diagnoses o f socio-political illness. Logically, then, typical behaviour is attributed to communities as well: as the antithetical portrait o f Athens and Sparta illustrates (1.70-T), each has its own distinct character that prompts it to act in specific ways; yet in comparable situations they would act similarly (1.76).° Fifth, human nature is dominated by two antithetical desires for liberty and power -which determine individual and collective action; ideals or laws are unable to contain them (3.45). Hence they provide the primary categories o f historical explanation; where they fall short, individual decisions and incalculable chance (tuche) need to be taken into account. This view o f history as a constant struggle for power and domination (dunamis and arche), rooted in human nature, in which the strongest prevails without consideration for tradition, laws, or justice, originates in sophistic theories contrasting phusis and nomas, nature and human convention best known to us from Plato's Gorgias and Republic I . I t is applied most radically to historical explanation i n the Melian Dialogue (5.84-114), a set piece designed to analyse the nature o f imperialism, just as the piece on the stasis on Corcyra analyses the nature o f civil strife. I n such set pieces and i n carefully crafted speeches the historian reminds us o f his understanding o f the essential factors that drive human decisions and actions. 8

10

Sixth, Thucydides engages in a persistent effort at dcmythologizing and de-ideologizing history. Through selection, emphasis, and direct statement he reveals the truths that in everyday politics are

8

1.22.4; cf., e.g., 1.84.4; 3.82.2. See Reinhold (1985); Hornblower (1996a) 61 with bibliog. This is confirmed by Thucydides' demonstration of how Sparta too eventually turns from liberator to oppressor of the Greeks (Raallaub (1985) 248-57), an idea developed fully in Xenophon's Helknica: Tuplin (1993); Dillcry (1995); Sterling (1998). Stasis in Thucydides: Price (2001). '" Bibliog. on power and imperialism in Thucvdides is immense; it is cited in Raaflaub (1994) 105 n. 6; see also Ober (2001). Freedom: e.g., Oilier (1962). Phusis and nornos: Heinimann (1945); Guthrie (1962-9) 3, Ch. 4. Melian Dialogue: Andrewes in Gomme et al. (1970) esp. 182-8; Crane (1998) esp. Ch. 9 (links with Herodotus). !1

152

KURT A, RAAFLAUB

camouflaged by propaganda. For instance, i n the Melian Dialogue the Athenians declare that they will not use 'beautiful phrases saying, for example, that we have a right to our empire because we defeated the Persians . . ., a great mass o f words that nobody would believe' (5.89). I n reality, o f course, the Athenians d i d use such onomata kala, but the historian's intent is to show that, whatever they say, the true motives o f individuals and states are hunger for power and self-interest. Overall, then, the historian extricates from the mass o f historical data the basic forms o f political motives, actions and relations, within and between communities, that underlie all historical events and processes and that help us to cut through appearances and reach a deeper understanding. '" Keeping all this i n m i n d , we now turn to Herodotus. He was no Athenian, although he spent time i n Athens and was passionately concerned w i t h and about this city. He came from Halicarnassus, a Dorian polls w i t h strong Carian elements i n an area that was d o m inated by Ionian politics and thinking and had long served as a bridge between east and west, and he spent most o f his life away from home as an exile, traveller, and colonist. His specific background and experiences are often considered important in explaining his openness, unbiased and balanced outlook, and interest i n other cultures and in history. He is usually thought to have died around the m i d - to late-420s, a quarter-century before Thucydides, presumably shortly after his work was published. Because o f the likelihood o f extensive 'pre-publication' o f parts through recitation and other means, the concept o f 'publication' in this case now appears much more complicated and may no longer be useful as a dating device. Moreover, Charles Fornara and others have offered compelling arguments for the possibility that he was alive and still working on his Histories a few years later. However that may be, Herodotus 11

1

15

14

13

" Cf., e.g., 1.73.2, 75.3, 76.2; 6.83.2; Strasburger (1958); Raaflaub (1985) Ch. 5. Sec Hunter (1982) for Thucydides* (and Herodotus') focus on processes, especially the rise and fall of empires (arche). Strasburger (1955) (with Harvey (1966)); Ostwald (1991); Moles (1996) and this volume (Ch. 2). See also Rosier (Ch. 4). E.g., Gould (1989) 7-8; Thomas (2000) Ch. 1. See also Boedeker (1998) (on the status as critical outsider Herodotus shares with Thucydides); Symc (1962) 40 ('exile may be the making of an historian'); Hornblowcr (1987) 27-8. * Fornara (1971b), (1981); Sansone (1985). Traditional date: Jacobv (1913) 229 32: Cobet (1977); Evans (1979a); (1991) 89-90. Prepublication: below at n. 46. O n these issues, see also Moles, this volume (Ch. 2) and Rosier (Ch. 4). 12

13

14

1:

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

153

certainly experienced the early years o f the Peloponnesian W a r and much o f the intellectual ferment o f the Periclean and immediate post-Periclean years. We should expect these experiences to have left a mark i n his work. T h e common view holds, however, that Herodotus really belonged to an earlier generation, that he remained rooted, despite some overlaps w i t h ideas o f sophists and medical writers, i n traditional beliefs, and that he d i d not work with theoretical assumptions. ' Accordingly, until recently his relations to current intellectual trends were investigated much less thoroughly and w i t h less sophistication than is the case w i t h Thucydides. Titles one can cite i n this context are still relatively few. I t is perhaps symptomatic too that i n speaking o f 'Herodotus and his contemporaries', Robert Fowler thinks only o f historians and ethnographers; would he do the same when discussing Thucydides? ' Such assessment has, o f course, been facilitated by Herodotus' specific ways o f organizing and presenting his material, arguing his case and narrating his story. I n all these respects he is different from Thucydides, and 'different' has all too often been taken to mean not only 'earlier' but also 'more primitive'. [(

1

I n deliberate contrast to such views I propose here that Herodotus' interpretation o f history is no less influenced by theories and overarching concepts o f historical causation and dynamics than Thucyd i d e s ' - e v e n i f he does not overtly argue w i t h theory; that he is no less eager to work out the main forces that drive history and to debunk propaganda and ideologies—even i f he does this indirectly rather than directly; that he is no less concerned with political hist o r y e v e n i f he does not focus narrowly on politics; and that he offers us no less insight into his main concerns and principles—even

See the summary of this view in Thomas (2000) 6-8. Fowler (1996); by contrast, Hornblower (1987) .16 thinks, when mentioning Thucydides' contemporaries, first of 'the "pre-Socratic" thinkers... in the broadest sense (i.e., doctors and orators as well as philosophers)'. See also Hunter (1982) 274, and the di Here nee in the 'Wege der Forschung' volumes dedicated to Herodotus (Marg (1965)) and Thucydides (Heiter (1968)): theory figures prominently in the latter, not at all in the former. Recent changes: e.g., Müller (1981); Lateiner (1986), (1989); Hornblower (1987) Ch. 1 (esp. 16, referring to a statement by My res (1953) 43: 'In the collection of (acts about Man, and in the interpretation of them, Herodotus is the only "Pre-soeratic" writer who is preserved in full.'); Thomas (1993), (1997) (see 131 ~2 for the sharp contrast between Herodotus and Thucydides traditionally emphasized in scholarship), and esp. (2000). For the persistence of" traditional beliefs and explanations in Herodotus, see, e.g., Lloyd (1979) 29-32; Meier (1987) 47, 52. 17

154

KURT A. RAAFLAUB

18

i f he does not formulate them abstractly. I n this chapter, I shall discuss first correspondences between Herodotus and his intellectual predecessors and contemporaries among philosophers and scientists, then look more closely at the role o f historical and political thought i n his work, and at the end return to the question of similarities w i t h Thucyelides. I n principle, I suggest, we should think of Herodotus as interacting with rather than simply depending on contemporary intellectual trends or ideas found i n other works. T h e author o f the medical treatise on Airs, Waters, Places, preserved i n the Hippocratic corpus, probably d i d not invent the theories o f the influence of climate and environment on national character that both he and Herodotus, perhaps around the same time, applied i n characteristically different ways to their very different subjects. Just as analogies between Thucydides and Euripides, among others, indicate not that one depended on the other but that both drew on ideas and modes o f thinking that were current in their time, so too, I think, Herodotus, sophists, and medical writers, among others (including Thucydides), all drew on a large and vibrant pool o f ideas and methods that, although probably each originating w i t h one author and at one specific time, interacted w i t h one another, were advanced further by such interaction, and became part o f an intellectual koine in late fifthcentury Hellas. Such interaction probably was especially intense and productive i n Athens but certainly not limited to it. Moreover, for a Greek 'intellectual', whether thinker, writer, or artist, whether historically interested or not, Athenian or not, the domestic and imperial policies, the past and present role of Athens offered extraordinary opportunities and a special challenge which could not but deeply affect his outlook and thinking.19

0

18

I find support for these suggestions especially in the works of Hunter, Hornblower, and Thomas, cited earlier. Similarly Fowler (1996) 69. See Hunter (1982) 282-4 for the need to establish the intellectual and theoretical context in which Herodotus and Thucydides developed their interpretation and methodology of history—a need now largely met for Herodotus by Thomas (2000). Thucydides and Euripides: n. 6. Airs, Waters, Places: below n. 41. On the development of genres: Depew and Obbink (2000). Ostwald (1992); Sakellariou (1996); Boedeker and Raaflaub (1998). This is true even i f one tries to avoid Athenocentrism (see Thomas (2000) 9-16). 19

2ii

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

155

Philosophical and Scientific Thought I begin by mentioning some patterns o f thought or 'habits o f m i n d ' that Herodotus shares w i t h many authors. These include, most basically, an immense interest i n what is wondrous and astonishing (thômaston); such curiosity, although already visible in Homer's epics, was greatly enhanced by the expansion o f the Greek horizon especially i n the sixth and early fifth centuries. Another pattern might be labelled 'the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy', which dictates that what is older must be the cause or origin o f what is younger; it underlies much o f the popular belief that the Greeks imported many o f their gods, customs, and laws from Egypt. For example, 'the Egyptians were the first people i n the world to hold general festive assemblies, and religious processions and parades, and the Greeks learnt from the Egyptians. M y evidence for this suggestion is that these activities have obviously been going on i n Egypt for a very long time, whereas they have only recently started i n Greece' (2.58, cf. 104). Related w i t h this pattern is the Greek obsession w i t h the prôlos heuretes and the conviction that a specific thing or custom can have originated only in one place and at one t i m e . 21

22

23

Furthermore, Greek thought tends toward schematization: it emphasizes polarity between opposed things, antithetical patterns, symmetry and linear as well as cyclical developments. Hence, for example, the importance o f genealogies i n history as well as cosmogonie and théogonie speculation, or the symmetry in early world maps—a fallacy Herodotus fights (4.36) but succumbs to i n turn when discussing the course o f the Nile and its relation to the Danube (2.33-4), just as he over-schematizes the difference between Egyptian and foreign customs: 'almost all Egyptian customs and practices are the opposite o f those o f everywhere else' (2.35-6). Closely related is the custom o f 24

Lloyd (1975) 1.141-55; cf. 156 (quot). See below at n. 37. Barth (1968): Lloyd (1975) 1.141-7, 153-4; Bloomer (1993) (emphasizing 'Herodotus' peculiar vision . . . that sees not the average or the typical but the extreme as definitive and worthy of record' (33)). Other examples include 1.171 (Carta); 2.4, 43, 49-50, 177; 4.180 (Egypt); 4.189 (Libya): bv contrast, the Scythians do not import customs from elsewhere: 4.76-80. See Froidefond (1971); Hunter (1982) Ch. 2 and 102, 272 (Herodotus as a 'difiusionist'). Lloyd (1975) 1.49-60, 147-9 and in this volume (Ch. 18); Zhmud (1997) 57-60 discuss this fallacy and reject the historicity of many of these borrowing's and of the connected travels of famous personalities to Egypt. Prôtos fwuretês; Kleingunther (1933). Cf. 3.106-16; 4.5; 4.82 with 2.35. See generally G. Lloyd (1966); A. Lloyd n

156

KÜRT A . RAAFLAUR

thinking through comparison and analogy: they provide the means to explain and reconstruct, to progress from the known to the less known and draw inferences even on the unknown. -' Again related are two widely popular types o f argument: that from past experience (Xerxes' uncle, Artabanus, uses Darius' failure against the Scythians and the near-destruction o f the bridge over the Danube to advise against a campaign to conquer Greece (7.10)), and the argument from probability (Helen could not possibly have been in T r o y during the war because any sane ruler would have returned her to the Greeks immediately or at least after the Trojans incurred the first heavy losses (2.120.1-3))/-* A l l these patterns of thought were greatly advanced and enhanced by intellectual developments connected first with the emergence o f Ionian philosophy from the mid-sixth centuiy, then w i t h the emergence o f sophistic and scientific thinking from the mid-fifth centuiy. Although Herodotus rarely mentions them by name, it is abundantly clear that he was thoroughly familiar w i t h the ideas, theories, and modes o f thought and discourse o f the leading intellectuals, from Thales and Anaximander to his own contemporaries and that he not only applied such ideas and theories frequently, though selectively, i n his narrative and interpretation but also attempted i n various ways to participate in current debates among intellectuals or to correct and influence popular views. ' M u c h less clear, however, is whether he was inspired directly by their works or indirectly by a pool o f knowledge that had become generally available to the Greek intellectuals o f his generation. 2

2

From among many examples, I mention only a few, not least to illustrate the wide range o f issues involved. Anaximander's map o f 28

(1975) 1.149-53; Gould (1989) Ch. 5; Hartog (1988); Thomas (2000) Ch. 3. Genealogy: Fomara (1983) 4 1 2 ; théogonie poetry: West (1966) 1-16, esp. 12 ff; maps: Dilke (1985) Ch. 2. See also Greenwood and Cartledge, this volume (Ch. 15, p. 365). Analogy: explicitly stated in 2.33 ('since we may draw on the familiar to understand the unknown'); see Lloyd (1966); Hunter (1982) index s.v.; Corcella (1984). Comparison: examples abound; e.g. 2.103 5 on the Egyptian origin of the Colchians. * See Müller (1981) 307-11. ' ' For example, Herodotus is interested in some of the social, political, religious, and scientific ideas of the early philosophers but clearly not in their metaphysical speculations: Nestle (1908) 6-12; (1942) 505 8. On Herodotus' participation in current debates, see Thomas (2000) Ch. 2 and passim. For a detailed survey with full documentation, see Nestle (1908), summarized in id. 1942 503 14; see also Lloyd (1975) 141-70; Thomas (2000) (on natural philosophy, esp. Ch. 5). 2 5

2

2 8

HERODOTUS A N D THE I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

157

the earth, revised by Hecataeus, is used by Aristagoras o f Miletus in his quest to attract Spartan support for the Ionian revolt (5.49; cf. 4.36). Pythagoras' doctrine o f the transmigration o f souls is considered plagiarized from Egypt (2.123; cf. 4.95). Xenophanes' critique o f Homer's and Hesiod's stories about all too human gods and of the concept of anthropomorphic deities ( D - K 21 B l 1-16) is incorporated into the description o f Persian customs (1.131, cf. 2.53). T h e observation that much o f Egypt, now silted up, was once flooded by the sea (2.11-12) perhaps draws on Xenophancs' explanation o f fossils ( D - K 21 A33.5). Empedocles' natural explanation of dreams ( D K 31 B108) is employed in vain by Artabanus to dispell Xerxes' fear of nightly visions (7.16(3). More generally, Ionian philosophical thinking is characterized by rationalization or rationality. I t suffices to refer to Xenophanes or to the sentence with which Hecataeus opens his Genealogies: 'Thus proclaims Hecataeus o f Miletus: I write what I believe to be the truth; for many and ridiculous, so they seem to me, are the stories of the Greeks.' Rational explanation or interpretation o f myths, stories, or phenomena is prevalent in Herodotus, usually bolstered by empirical arguments. He has heard a report that the tyrant Polycrates was overthrown by a band o f Samian exiles. ' I do not think this can be r i g h t , since they w o u l d not have had to send for the Lacedaemonians, i f they were, capable of bringing Polycrates down on their own. Besides, it also does not make sense to think that someone w i t h vast numbers o f mercenaries and native archers at his disposal would have been beaten by the few returning Samians' (3.45). O r , to continue a previous example, he reasons that the Trojans would have returned Helen to the Greeks, Paris' resistance notwithstanding, not only to save their city, but also because Hector, older and more o f a man than Paris, was first in charge after Priam: 'It was Hector who would inherit the kingdom on Priam's death, and he was not the kind o f man to let his brother get away with wrongdoing. . . No, the fact is that they d i d not have Helen to give back' (2.120.4-5). This i n turn, Herodotus thinks, like so much else 20

30

51

-" Dilke (1985) 23-5. For these terms, see Hunter (1982) 107 15. On Ionian philosophy: Guthrie (1962-9) volume 1; Barnes (1979); KRS. and, for a brief survey, Hussey (1972). FCrll 1 F l (tr. Stambler (1982) 215); Fornara (1983) 5-6, however, warns against considering rationalization Hecataeus primary concern. Xenophanes: D - K 21 B l l 16, with the bibliog. cited in the previous note. 3 0

31

1

158

K U R T A . RAAFLAUB

is due to the divine (to daimonion), 'so that in their annihilation the Trojans might make it completely clear to others that the severity of a crime is matched by the severity o f the ensuing punishment at the god's hand. T h a t is m y view, at any rate' (ibid. 5 ) . T h e historian thus attributes reasonable and rational motives to divine will and human actors (both individuals and collectivities), based on arguments from experience and probability. I t is typical of such rationalization that the distant past (or different peoples) are judged from the perspective o f the here and now. As Hunter puts it, 'analogy like probability is based o n the perception o f similarities, the belief that individuals acted i n the past, or will act i n the future, much as they do i n the present, and so that behaviour i n the past can be reconstructed by using the analogy o f the present'. Hence the theory underlying Herodotus' argument, although never formulated as a principle or abstracdy by this historian, is the same as i n Thucydides: 'human nature being what i t is . . . Furthermore, Ionian philosophy is greatly concerned w i t h epistemology: the problem o f what we can know and how we can knowit. T h e extreme focus o f such concern, again, are the gods, as is attested by a wide range o f discussions and speculative theories from Xenophanes to Anaxagoras. Heraclitus, although postulating a duality o f appearance and reality, also emphasizes the importance o f empiricism, preferring things o f which opsis, akoe, mathesis are possible. Herodotus does not doubt but largely refuses to investigate the metaphysical w o r l d because i t is inaccessible to opsis, histoiie, and reason. As he explains, he does not intend to pursue ta theia, issues that 'belong to the trans-physical order o f things', because he believes 'that everyone is equal i n terms o f knowledge about divine matters', that is, no person knows or can know more about them than any other. But the anthropeia pregmata, 'all that belongs to the human sphere o f activity', are part o f the physical w o r l d and thus can be 32

33

m

32

Other examples include 1.75; 2.45, 54-7, 131, 135; 4.31, See also Fehling (1989) esp. 96-104, 109-12. On the role of the daimonion and Iheoi envisaged here, see Immerwahr (1966) 308-11; Hunter (1982) 207-9; Stambier (1982) 217-25; Lateiner (1989) 196-205. On religion in Herodotus: Huber (1965a); Gould (1994); Bichler and Rollinger (2000) 54-9, and Mikalson, this volume (Ch. 8). " See Müller (1981) 308; Hunter (1982) 111-3, on the difference between Ionian pure and Herodotus' empirical rationalism. • Thuc. 1.22.4. Hunter (1982) 112, referring tojacoby (1949) 133; cf., e.g., 3.72 which is based on a consistent and universal type of human nature. w

HERODOTUS AND T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

159

?;

the objects o f rational inquiry (2.3 4). ' Similarly, at the very begin­ ning o f his work, Herodotus distinguishes sharply between the sphere o f what we would call myth—unverifiable contradictory accounts about a distant past—and the sphere (which we call historical) that is accessible to precise investigation and thus to knowledge (1.5). This distinction, Felix Jacoby observed, "marks the creation o f a histori­ cal work i n our sense, in that it limits the historical narrative to his­ torical time'. I n the human sphere o f activity and in historical time, where things can be known, the methods o f how to acquire and ver­ ify such knowledge are crucial: Herodotus' careful establishment o f a 'hierarchy o f epistemological factors', ranking autopsy (opsu) above oral reports (preferably o f eyewitnesses) and rational argument based on empirical knowledge and probability, and his constant applica­ tion o f source criticism need to be seen i n the tradition o f Ionian theories o f knowledge?" Another side o f the great intellectual movement o f sixth and early fifth-century Ionia is represented by geographical and ethnographic exploration, and here Herodotus' dependence on and critical inter­ action with his predecessors, Hecataeus foremost among them, and his contemporaries is well k n o w n . I n this sphere he often applies scientific methods and theories and displays an impressive combina­ tion o f observation and analytical reasoning. I mention only his acute remarks on the physical geography o f lower Egypt, 'a gift from the river' (2.5, 10 12), his involvement in the controversy about the 37

3 5

Barth (1964); Lloyd (1975) 1.157 70 and, on 2 . 3 4 , Lloyd's comm. ad toe. (quot.). Herat! D - K 22 B55; KRS 188 n. 2: 'The things of which there is seeing and hearing and perception, these do I prefer'; but such perceptions need to be checked by understanding (nous, phronesis: Β107 with the comments by KRS. ibid.). " O n mythical time vs. historical time, see also 3.122 (but see 1.171 and Thuc. 1.4); Lateiner (1989; 63-7, and generally von Leyden (1949-50); Hunter (1982) Chs. 2-3; Calame (1996); Marincola (1997a) 117-27; Romm (1998) 1-6; contra: Nickau (1990). Jacoby (1913) 335, as quoted by Hornblower (1987) 18. See also Boedeker, this volume (Ch. 5, note 43) as well as Cobel (Ch. 17, note 55) and Osborne (Ch. 22). O n 'hierarchy of epistemology': Mailer (1981); Lateiner (1986), (1989) passing Hornblower (1987) 20 1; Hartog (1988) Ch. 7; Marincola (1997a) 67 (quot), 96; see also Cartledge and Greenwood (Ch. 15) as well as Hornblower (Ch. 16). this volume. " Trudinger (1918); on Hecataeus: Jacoby (1912); von Fritz (1967) 48 76; Fornara (1983) 12-6; sec also West (1991), this volume (Ch. 19) and Karttunen, this vol­ ume (Ch. 20). Contemporaries: Thomas (2000) 42-74, arguing against overesti­ mating Hecataeus' influence and for a wide range of information available to both Herodotus and the medical writers. On Herodotus' 'anthropology': Redfield (1985); Bichler (2000): Munson (2001), and see below at n. 101 ff. J

160

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

boundary between Africa and Asia (2.15-17), and his headstrong discussion o f the causes o f the Nile's flooding (2.19-25). T h e sophists were a diverse group o f thinkers and teachers; hence generalizations tend to be misleading.' Most o f them taught rhetorical skills and explored functions and theories o f language and communication. They greatly refined the use o f various types o f arguments from probability and honed the skills o f formulating generally accepted ideas or concepts precisely and i n artful gnomai. T h e influence o f these types o f thought and expression are palpable on almost every page in Herodotus. H e shows a marked interest i n antilogy, i n eristic speeches and debates which bristle w i t h concise gnomai and general truths, and i n the meaning o f names and other linguistic phenomena. Echoes o f specific problems known to have been discussed by individual thinkers are frequent as well: thus the belief i n a divinely ordained and maintained balance in nature is demonstrated here, as i n Protagoras' myth (Plato, Prot. 321b), by the distribution o f qualities i n the animal w o r l d (3.108); the problem o f involuntary murder, discussed by Protagoras (Plut. Per. 36) and Antiphon (Tetr. 2), is explored i n the Adrastus story (1.35-45) far beyond the rational and legal aspects important to the sophist and rhetorician; Gorgias' discussion o f justified deception (e.g., Hel. 10 — I I ) reflects ethical relativism and the importance attributed to the sumpheron (advantage, interest) and is perhaps echoed i n a speech given to Darius (3.72; cf. 1.138), while Hippias' condemnation o f slander ( D - K 86 B17) perhaps underlies Artabanus' words i n 7.10c, :i!!

m

T h e sophists, much more than the Ionian philosophers, focussed their attention on human society and interaction: they analysed and conceptualized various types o f human behaviour and studied humans not as individuals and a species but as social and political beings (z&ia koinonika or politika). They were interested i n political problems stich as the nature and organization o f power, constitutional theory, the contrast between nomas (convention, law) and phusis (nature), the

;iS

On Herodotus' physical and cultural geography, see Gould (1989), Gh. 5, balancing to some extent Hartog (1988); on the division of continents, Thomas (2000) 90-6. Guthrie (1962-69) 3: pt. 1; Kerfercl (1981a), (1981b); de Romilly (1992); Wallace (1998). O n the issues raised in this and the following paragraph, see Nestle (1908) 14-34; (1942) 509-13; Dihle (1962b); Thomas (2000) Chs; 6-8.'The judgment of Eduard Meyer (1892) 202 who denied any influence of the sophists and their rhetorical teachings remains astonishing. 3 9

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

161

mechanisms unleashed by pleonexia (greed, desire for more) or Ophelia (self-interest, advantage), and various aspects o f 'right based on might'. Echoes i n Herodotus abound; we might think o f the speeches i n Xerxes' crown council before the Greek expedition (including, e.g., a comment on euboulia (good counsel, 7.108.2)), o f a brief digression, i n a particularly dramatic episode, on speaking the truth or lying according to what is more profitable (kerdos, 3.72), or o f Demaratus' explanation to Xerxes o f why the Greeks, especially the Spartans, will light even against vastly superior numbers: Xerxes sees them as individuals and counts numbers, thinking i n terms o f phusis, while Demaratus sees them as members o f a community, held together, transformed and enhanced by nomos (7.102-4; cf. 5.78 on the Athenians after the fall o f tyranny). The most often cited case o f sophistic influence is the 'Constitutional Debate' i n 3.80 2, which some scholars think Herodotus lifted wholesale out o f a sophistic treatise, perhaps o f Protagoras. This is quite unlikely; rather, analogies i n the works o f several o f Herodotus' contemporaries (most conspicuously i n Euripides' Suppliants) suggest that discussions o f the advantages and disadvantages o f democracy, on a more or less theoretical level, were 'a hot topic' at the time. Although Herodotus' debate is the most complex to survive, the author's own comments (3.80; 6.43) place the emphasis on democracy as well; i n addition, it serves as one o f several 'set pieces' o n the nature o f autocracy. " 4

T u r n i n g to the medical writers, several early treatises i n the Hippocratic corpus are dated roughly to the last third o f the fifth century and thus to a time near the publication date traditionally assumed for Herodotus' work. As i n the case o f the sophists, i n some instances Herodotus' familiarity w i t h their ideas seems palpable. A m o n g other examples attesting to his interest i n exceptional anatomical and physiological phenomena (1.68; 9.83), I. single out the discussion (3.12) o f the markedly different bone thickness o f the Persian and Egyptian skulls still visible on an old battle site. Herodotus concludes that the Egyptians had their heads shorn, while the Persians habitually wore felt hats. This argument, related to others that explain the human constitution and character w i t h climatic factors or social customs is close to statements typically found i n the 'Hippocratic'

,,u

Stroheker (1953/54); Gschnitzcr (1977); Bleickcn (1979); Raaliaub (1989) esp. 41-6; Lateiner (1989) Ch. 8. 'Set piece': below at n. 81,

162

K U R T A . RAAFLAUB

1

treatise, Airs, Waters, Places.* Although with specific and clearly intentional differences, Herodotus frequently applies theories, known from this essay (esp. 12, 16, 24), that a balanced mixture of seasons or a stable climate are best for human health and success, while, conversely, radical changes in climate, temperatures or humidity are detrimental to human well-being (e.g., 2.77; cf. 2.35; 3.106; 1.142), or that the richness or poverty o f a country is directly connected with the softness or toughness of the people living on and from i t . Stich theories probably originated in ethnographic thought and i n what we would call 'anthropological or comparative psychology'; the overlap between ethnographic, sophistic, and medical theories is especially noticeable here. Knowledge of such theories can be used to manipulate people: when the Lydians, 'the most courageous and warlike race in Asia' (1.79), revolt against the Persians soon after their subjection, Croesus tries to save them from extinction by suggesting to Cyrus a method of treatment that will keep them from revolting again: 'Send a message that they are forbidden to own weapons o f war, that they are to wear tunics under their coats and slippers on their feet, that they are to take up the cithara and the harp, and that they are to raise their sons to be retailers. Before long, m y lord, you will see them become women instead o f men' (1.155). Cyrus follows this adviceand the Lydians j o i n the long list of Persian subjects preferring wealth in slavery over freedom in poverty. One exception are the Persians themselves who, upon Cyrus' warning, 'chose to live in a harsh land and rule rather than to cultivate fertile plains and be others' slaves' (9.122). * The other exception are the mainland Greeks, in particular the Spartans, who resist Persian aggression because—and here Herodotus' ethical perspective transcends sober scientific theory— 42

4

'" For a modern explanation of die skulls' difference: Aldiofï (1993) 1 10, and see Kchling (1989) 28-30; Pritchett (1993) 29-32: Thomas (2000) 31-2. Airs, date: e.g., Dillcr (1934) 114 (c. 400): Pohlenz (1938) 45 (430-415); Heinimann (1945) 209 (shortly before 430); Jouanna (1999) 375 (2nd half fifth cent.); interpretation: e.g., Diller (1934); Backhaus (1976); Thomas (2000) 86-98; relation to Herodotus: Heinimann (1945) 172-80; Jouanna (1981) 11-15. Generally on Herodotus' relations to the medical writers, see Thomas (2000) Ch. 2. For a good example of'applied psychology', see 1.173. Herodotean differences: Munson (2001). For detailed discussion, see Thomas (2000) 103-14 and, on science and natural philosophy. Ch. 5. On the problem of how this passage is compatible with 1.125-6 and Herodotus' overall schema of a stark contrast between poor but tough Greeks and luxurious and soft Persians (below at n. 77), see recently Moles (1996) 274-5. 42

48

HERODOTUS AND T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

163

tied into a close-knit community by a superior nomos, they overcome the restraints of poverty and the temptations o f individualism and rise to achieve indomitable arete which makes it impossible for them to accept autocracy and slavery (7.102, cf. 104). As suggested above, some scholars see such correspondences less as proof o f Herodotus' dependence on medical writers than as indication o f a 'a shared epistemological response' or o f profound familiarity w i t h ideas and theories that developed i n an atmosphere o f intense exchange and debate. Donald Lateiner, especially, argues that the comparison between the two writers can show 'that Herodotus and the medical writers shared certain ideas about methodology, what can be known, how it can be known, and the limits o f useful knowledge. They are fellows in the older, less specialized sense o f science: knowledge gained through experience. They share an attitude more than a specific subject, an ideal o f analysis rather than a specific method. They seek reliable conclusions from the available data, and from specific events (an epidemic or a war) try to discover more general patterns o f human behavior and experience'. ' 44

4

It is thus undeniable that Herodotus shares w i t h contemporary thinkers a wide range o f ideas, assumptions, and methods. Moreover, Rosalind Thomas demonstrates that he also shares with them the ways o f presenting such ideas in public: through performance and oral disputation rather than through writing. J . A . S. Evans concludes that the concept o f 'publication' in one single moment therefore seems anachronistic—although perhaps, since the work was undoubtedly published at some moment in the form in which we have it, and presumably revised or even rewritten for this purpose, one might rather say the concept seems insufficient to describe a more complex process of 'publication in stages', including readings or performances o f 'work in progress': sections, snippets, even parts that might eventually be left out. As Thomas sees it, these oral 46

M

See Dihle (1981) 59-63; Lateiner (1989) 160-1, and cf. Konstan (1987); specifically on nomos: Humphreys (1987). Sec also van Wees, this volume (Ch. 14). * Lateiner (1986); Althoff (1993); see also Rechenauer (1991); Thomas (2000). On the relation between Herodotus and the medical writers, as regards the concepts oï Historié and aide, see also Bakker, this volume (Ch. 1, p. 13). '"' Thuc. 1.21.1, 22.4 presupposes oral performances, not least by logograp/ioi; see above n. 7. See Momigliano (1978) 61-6; Hunter (1982) 294-5 ('it is an oral work committed to writing'); Lateiner (1989) 234 n. 15: Evans (1991) 89-90 and Ch. 3: Thomas (1992) 125-6, elaborated in id. (1993) esp. 228-30; (2000) 20 and Ch. 8; Hornblower (1996a) 26, while Flory (1980), Wecowski (2000) final chapter, argue 3

164

K U R T A . RAAFLAUB

performances were more stimulating, even antagonistic, than is generally envisaged. Here too, she finds many close similarities in style and mode of argument with the earliest essays o f the Hippocratic corpus; what they especially have in common 'is a mode of presentation and performance that belongs to the oral displays or contests of the early sophistic generation'. She considers such competitive oral displays an important means of intellectual inquiry and the transmission of knowledge. ' A l l this, however relevant in and by itself, is only the foundation for the next and more important task which is too large and complex to be tackled here: to determine how exactly Herodotus uses the ideas, arguments, debating techniques, rhetorical devices, and fact-finding methodologies which he shares w i t h his contemporaries, to what extent and w h y his uses differ from theirs, and what purpose they serve in each individual context and in the overall intention of his work. Great progress toward this goal has been achieved recently in Rosalind Thomas' important book (2000) which places Herodotus firmly in the context sketched here, of ethnography, science, philosophy, and rhetoric. 4

18

Historical and Political Thought Historical and political thought expresses itself in the selection of and emphasis placed upon specific historical data, their arrangement into a historical narrative, and their interpretation. I t also concerns the purpose o f writing history and the meaning the historian finds - a n d wants his audience to f i n d — i n history. Here Herodotus appears highly original, a real path breaker—none o f his predecessors' works seem to have come close i n scope, complexity, and depth of thoughtalthough he certainly did not develop his innovative view and use o f history in isolation; rather, I assume, these resulted from his close interaction with the ideas and concerns of other leading thinkers of his time.. 49

against seeing the Histories primarily as a work of oral performance. See also Bakker, this volume (Ch. 1, pp. 8-12). Thomas (1993), (1997), (2000) Ch. 8; cf. Hornblower (1987) 16, 20 1. Much should also be expected from Munson (2001) see id. (1991). Especially perhaps the Athenian tragedians (see Said this volume, Ch. 6) but the pool of 'intellectuals' was much larger and more diverse than the preserved !7

,i! i;i

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

165

Extreme views like that o f Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, that Herodotus had neither political understanding nor historical sense, have long been abandoned.' Still, few have recognized fully that the storyteller in fact has an acute sense for political issues and that his understanding o f history is informed by his political insight. I n an earlier publication, I argued that Herodotus' political thinking is closely comparable to that visible in Homeric epic and fifthcentury tragedy. Like these poetic works, Herodotus' Histories is complex, dealing with many issues and serving several purposes/' One component—in my view an especially important one—is political; it addresses immediately the author's contemporaries and indirectly, I believe, all future generations. T h r o u g h occasional explicit comments but mostly through dramatic narrative, discourse between actors, and by implication and association, 'the historian o f the past frequently interacts with the present and encourages his audience to do the same . . . [He] uses the history o f the past to shed light on contemporary political issues'. Hence the Histories aims at increasing the political awareness o f the audience, to educate them, to prepare them for the great challenges o f present and future. This, I suggest, is not greatly different from Thucydides' purpose in writing history.'" 0

1

T w o examples will illustrate how implied contemporary meaning can be read i n individual stories. T h e Corinthians' opposition to Sparta's plan to reinstate Hippias as tyrant o f Athens, and Hippias' warning that the Corinthians would regret this 'when the time came, as it surely would, for them to suffer at Athenian hands', recall the Corinthians' role in 432 in urging Sparta to take up the fight against Athens, now the tyrant city oppressing the Greeks. T h e unsuccessful attempt o f the Samian Maeandrius to become the most just o f men by stepping clown from tyranny (3.142) reminds us o f debates i n ,;i

works seem to suggest; see above at n. 19. Originality: e.g., Fornara (1971a): 25 6; Hunter (1982); Fowler (1996). See further esp. Meier {1978), (1980), (1986), (1987). "'" Waters (1972) 138, referring to Wilamowitz (1905) 56. Emphasized rightly bv Roinm (1998) 8. ~ Raaflaub (1987) quot.' 231; cf. esp. Strasburger (1955); Fornara (1971a) Ch. -1. See also Waters (1972); Stahl (1983) 218; Pelting (1991) 121; Stacker (1992) 782, 784, the bibliog. cited in n. 56 and, more generally, Stahl (1987) 19 42. For possible objections to this view, see below at n. 93 ff. Hdt. 5.93, cf. explicit references also in 90-1; Time 1.67-71, 118-24. Reference to an earlier time is unlikely: Thucydides confirms that by 440 the relations between Athens and Corinth were not yet permanently soured (1.40.5, 41.2; perhaps mentioned also in the opening lines of M L 56); see Hornblower (1991) 83. 51

3 8

166

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

Athens i n 429, immortalized i n Pericles' last speech in Thucydidcs (2.63), about the dangers involved in letting go o f tyranny. Other scholars have carried this type o f study further and shown that many more stories can be read i n this way and that Herodotus' overall concern aims beyond the particular at the general and topical. I n fact, the historian seems to have structured his work consciously so as to keep his audience constantly aware o f their present, troubled as it was by disunity and constant warfare among Hellenes, imperialism, tyrannical oppression, and enslavement o f cities. As seems natural for a contemporary o f the Athenian empire and the Peloponnesian War, such topicality focuses heavily, though far from exclusively, on the political and historical role o f Athens." Skillful foreshadowing on a large and small scale, the frequent repetition o f a set o f specific motifs, and the use o f highly charged terms or arguments familiar to Herodotus' contemporaries draw attention to themes the historian considers crucial and elicit associations with the continuing importance o f these same themes far beyond the chronological limits o f the Histories. Allusions to events o f the Pentecontaetia and the early phases o f the Peloponnesian W a r as well as explicit authorial comments confirm that Herodotus was thinking along these lines and that we are permitted to do so too. One famous example, made even more poignant because Thucydides contradicts it, is the reference to an earthquake on Delos in 490, while the Persians were crossing the Aegean, a unique event 'up to my day'. 'This was an omen sent by the god, surely, to warn people o f the trouble that was to come. After all, for three successive generations . . . Greece suffered more than it had for twenty generations before Darius, partly as a result o f Persian action there, but partly because o f power struggles between the leading Greek states' (6.98). ' 31

M

: 7

Other comments or speeches are formulated or stories told in ways that make it difficult not to think o f contrasts, analogies, or later devcl-

34

7.164 offers a positive contrast. Other examples in Raaflaub (1987) 226-9. See also Forsclyke, this volume (Ch. 23). Munson (1988); Shimron (1989); Stadter (1992); Moles (1996) as well as this volume (Ch. 2): Thompson (1996); see also Immerwahr (1966) Chs. 4, 5, and conclusion; Smart (1977) 251-2 (although marred by the assumption of a far too late publication date); Hunter (1982); Nicolai (1986).' E.g., 6.91, 109; 7.7, 106-7, 235; for a more complete list and discussion of such passages, see Cobet (1971) 59-78: for the latest references, Fornara (1971b), (1981). See Thuc. 2.8.3 with Homblower (1991) ad toe: Städter (1992) 788-90. 5 5

5 0

57

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

167

opments that must have been uppermost in the minds o f Herodotus' audiences. Famous examples include statements about the Athenians' role in the Persian Wars. When Mardonius offers them peace and a special position o f power in Greece i f they j o i n the Persian side, they decline: there is not enough gold or fertile land in the world to prompt them to collaborate with the enemy and enslave Greece, mostly because o f 'the fact that we are all Greeks one race speaking one language, with temples to the gods and religious rites in common, and with a common way o f life. I t would not be good for Athens to betray all this shared heritage' (8.144; cf. 9.4, 6-11). Here and elsewhere the implied reading is clear: the same Athenians who declined an advantageous alliance with Persia, who for the sake o f unity yielded to Spartan claims to leadership (8.3, but see 7.160 1), and whose decision to defend Greek liberty was decisive i n saving it (7.139), later turned enslavers of Greeks and became the polls tyrannos against which the Spartans eventually rallied with their own battle cry o f freedom (Thuc. 2.8). I consider it legitimate, therefore, to read the Histories inter alia as a commentary o n political trends and developments o f Herodotus' own t i m e . Moreover, the work provides general analyses o f important political phenomena and reveals insight into what we might call laws or lessons o f history'.'' This is an important and still undervalued aspect o f Herodotus' work and a substantial contribution to the development o f political and historical thought. Since Herodotus' text offers few explicit statements, this type of inquiry has to rely largely on suggestions and implications; its results cannot strictly be proved, and the plausibility o f such results rests on the cumulative power o f many arguments pointing in the same direction. Here I limit myself to discussing two extended passages: the Croesus logos i n Book One and the description o f the debates in Xerxes' crown council in Book Seven. M

50

0

T h a t the first book has a 'programmatic' or 'paradigmatic' function

5 8

See Fomara (1971a) 84-6; ibid. 62-74 on the treatment of Pausanias and Themistocles; on the latter also Munson (1988) 99 106. For this and the following, sec also Moles, this volume (Ch. 2, p. 51). Similarly, Rood (1999) 165. To avoid misunderstandings, I repeat that 1 mean neither that this is Herodotus' only purpose nor that this purpose is prominent everywhere and equally throughout the work. For an excellent reading that focuses on entirely different aspects, see Cobet (1971). Fornara (1971a) 78-9, 87-8. m

m

168

K U R T A . RAAFLAUB

has long been recognized. Within this book, I suggest, the Croesus logos (1.5-91) serves the same function in a more condensed way: it announces programmatically many important themes that resonate throughout the Histories and far beyond.'' I begin with a brief summary. I t is Croesus w h o m Herodotus knows himself (that is, for certain) to have been 'the first to commit unjust deeds against the Hellenes' by subjecting 'some o f them to the payment o f tribute' (5-6, 27). His ancestor, Gyges, gained the kingship (7 13) by violating social norms (seeing the king's wife naked) and committing a crime (killing the king), and Croesus is destined to suffer for it (13). Other ancestors wage war frequently against Greek poleis (14 16) among which Miletus, immune against land attacks because its fleet controls the sea, ends up concluding a peace treaty and alliance w i t h the Lydian king (17 22). Croesus himself pursues an aggressive policy of imperial expansion, subjecting almost all the peoples living west o f the Halys river (28). A t the height o f his power, he is visited, among others, by Solon of Athens whose statements (29-33) emphasize inter alia the fragility of human life and the need to await the end before passing final judgments. Having risen rapidly to success and power, Croesus now experiences abrupt reversals i n both his private and public life: his son is killed accidentally (34-46), and his war against the Persian king, Cyrus, ends in disaster. Before embarking on this campaign, Croesus enters into an alliance with Sparta which he discovers to be the more powerful of the two outstanding Greek states, Dorian Sparta and Ionian Athens, the latter at the time oppressed by Peisistratid tyranny (59-64), while the former has emerged as a well-ordered and prosperous state, predominant i n the Peloponnese (65-8). Ignoring the warnings o f a wise Lydian, Sandanis (71), Croesus crosses the Halys but eventually loses 1

62

ti;!

151

First book: Fomara (1971a) 18; Evans (1991) 19; Moles (1996) 259; Lateiner (1989) 259 n. 45 ('paradigmatic function'). On Herodotus' use of the figure of Croesus, see, e.g., Immervvahr (1966) 81-8, 154-61; White (1969); Bichlcr (2000) 244-55; Moles, this volume (Ch. 2). The 'Archaeology' serves a similar function in Thucydides' work: Hunter (1982) Ch. 1. On the Croesus logos, see also Fisher, this volume (Ch. 9, pp. 218 ff.). On the problem of the accuracy of this statement, see Hcuss (1973) 388 90; Lloyd (1984); Ashed (1988) ciii civ, both with earlier bibliog. Not by chance, Gyges is the first for whom the Greeks used the word lyrannos (Archil, fr. 19 West). Transgressions against women and their revenge frame the work (1.1-5, 8-12; 9.108 13) and are typical of the 'tyrannical template': Dewald (2002) and below at n. 81; see also Blok, this volume (Ch. 10, pp. 230-1). 0 8

6 3

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

169

the war, is captured, put on the pyre, and saved miraculously in the last moment—to become a wise, though mostly unheeded, advisor to Cyrus and Cambyses (85 IT.). I turn now to examining in more detail some o f the issues raised in this logos completeness naturally is impossible here—and first single out allusions to two specific issues that were discussed i n Herodotus' time. I n his response to Croesus, Solon denies the possibility o f selfsufficiency (autarkeia), be it o f an individual or a country (1.32), while the Athenians, says Thucydides, thought o f their polls as autarkestate and made analogous claims for their citizens. " A m o n g Croesus' motives for attacking Persia, three (revenge, greed, and faith in oracles: 1.46, 73) occur frequently in the Histories, the fourth only here: Croesus 'began to wonder whether there might be a way for h i m to restrain the growing power o f the Persian before it became too great' (1.46); such a consideration, according to Thucydides, was the true though unavowed cause o f the Peloponnesian War.'" 64

1

m

Croesus' injustice i n subjecting formerly free Greek cities to tribute-paying slavery (1.5—6, 27) and the resulting struggle for freedom announce one o f Herodotus' leitmotifs. T h e emphasis on tribute triggers thoughts o f Athenian imperial practices. '" I n addition, the historian pointedly registers the r h y t h m o f the Ionians' enslavement, liberation, and re-enslavement; liberty regained for the second time 1

bi

Like Solon's visit (Asheri (1988) 281-3; on its reference to contemporary Athens. see Moles (1996) 262 9) and probably much else, the ending of the logos is unhistorical: Croesus was almost certainly killed by Cyrus: Burkcrt (1985); Wieschofer (1987) 116-7. On the Croesus logos, see generally Regenbogen (1930a) Hellmann (1934); Hcuss (1973); Flower (1991). For the following discussion the problem of the historicity of anything mentioned by Herodotus is immaterial: all that matters is his presentation and interpretation of events and issues. Thus, for example, the story of Democedes, the physician from Croton (3.125, 129-37), is largely unhistorical (Griffiths (1987)); what interests us here is that Herodotus presents him as one of the Greeks at the Persian court who helped motivate the king to conquer Greece (below at n. 82). On the 'tragic' aspects of the Croesus logos, see Said, this volume (Ch. 6, pp. 132-37). Thuc. 2.36.3 and esp. 41.1 with 51.3: see Macleod (1983) 151-2; Raaflaub (1985) 237-41; Loraux (1986a) 153-4; Scanlon (1994) 143 64 (with detailed interpretation and bibliog.); Moles (1996) 267-9. * On revenge: dc Romilly (1971b): Gould (1989) esp. Ch. 4; see also Bcllen (1974); Gchrkc (1987): Burnett (1998); Lendon (2000). Generally on causation: Immerwahr (1956); Lateiner (1989) Ch. 9; on war: Cobet (1986). ' Thuc. 1.23.6: cf. 88.1; Hornblower (1991) 65; Immerwahr (1956) 255. See also Hdt. 7.1 1 (below at n. 85) with Said f 1981) 21. Tribute: Stacker (1992) 795-8. Liberty: von Fritz (1965); (1967) 243ff. passim; Havelock (1972) 46-52. 6 5

1,7

6 8

170

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

in 479 is protected by the Athenians who emerge as the leaders in the fight for the freedom o f all Greeks. The audience knows, o f course, that another enslavement o f the Ionians, by those very Athenians, is not long in coming and a new war will eventually be waged not least for their liberation. Anticipating this future conflict, the historian vastly overemphasizes the polarization between Sparta and Athens as the two outstanding states in Greece already in the mid-sixth century (1.56). I n fact, as he notes himself, Athens at that time was still greatly inferior to Sparta. Athens' rise to power, triggered, as in the cases o f Sparta (1.65-8) and Miletus (5.28-30), by successful reforms (5.55-78), begins only at the end o f the sixth century and will reach its peak long after the Persian Wars. That Miletus is a naval power and thus immune against land attacks (1.17) reminds us o f late fifth-century discussions about sea power, the 'insularization' o f Athens, and Pericles' strategy i n the Peloponnesian W a r . T h e association is intended: the Lydian king's futile annual ravaging of the Milesian countryside unmistakably alludes to Peloponnesian invasions in Attica i n the Archidamian War. - More generally, Miletus' reliance on its navy recalls the crucial importance of sea power in thwarting the expansion o f eastern empires and in Greek empire building: Polycratcs aspires to control the sea but aims at ruling over all o f Greece when a Persian satrap promises h i m enough money (3.122). Based on their fleet and the financial resources 69

70

71

7

73

m

Sec 1.6, 27, 169; 2.1; 6.31-3; 9.90-2, 98, 104, 106. Cf. 5.76 on four Dorian invasions of Attica, prompting the audience to think of similar events in their own time. Stahl (1987) 57; Asheri (1988) 297; cf. Schaefer (1932) 251 -60 on Sparta as prostates les Hettados. 1.68.6 on Sparta's 'rule' in the Peloponnese {katestrammenS) almost certainly points forward to conditions of Herodotus' own time (Raaflaub (1985) 89 n. 91, 159). Parallel between Sparta and Athens: Raaflaub (1988a) 213 n. 73; between Sparta and Miletus: Gorman (2001). The return of the bones of Orestes to Sparta (1.67-8; Boedeker (1993)), will have recalled the return of the bones of Theseus to Athens (Pint. Kim. 8.5-7; Vies. 36; see Ungern-Sternberg (1986)), an episode characteristically omitted by Thuc. 1.98.2; cf. Hornblower (1991) 150 (with bibliog.). Moles (1996) 260-1. 'Insularity and sea power: e.g., Thuc. 1.143.5; 2.6212-3; Ps.-Xen. Ath. Pol. 2.14-6; Starr (1978). Pericles' strategy: 1.141.2- 144.1. Cobet (1971) 148-51 emphasizes different aspects. Munson (1986) suggests that even the brief Arion story, inserted here (1.23-4), although 'the only purely episodic insertion in the Histories', is structurally and thematicallv 'analogous to the work as a whole' (95, 98); see also u. 91 below. '·' Cf. Pansanias' desire (eras) to use his Persian connections to become tyrant over Greece (5.32). On eras in this context, see Benardete (1969) 137-8; Dewald (2002); 7(1

71

n

1

HERODOTUS AND T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS TIME

171

of the allies, the Athenians will do just that, and it is the Persian alliance and money that both sides will seek early in the Peloponnesian War. ' Miletus' success in establishing a special relationship as a free and allied city with Alyattes (1.22), probably Croesus, and even Cyrus (1.141, 143), while the other poleis in Asia M i n o r fight and succumb individually (1.26, 141, 169), brings up two well-known key themes in the Histories disunity and collaboration with the Persians—that will continue to trouble the Greeks after 479. Unity in leadership and purpose, Herodotus insists, makes a populous and warlike people unbeatable. I n contrast to the Thracians (5.3), Scythians (4.118-19), and Ionians (1.169-70), i n 480 those 'who had the best interests o f Greece at heart' not only impose peace among themselves but also 'try to find a way to unite the whole o f the Greek world—to get everyone to think and act i n concert' (7.145). This goal remains elusive, then as later, but among a small number o f communities it is realized—briefly but with overwhelming results. I n contrast to the Argives and Gelon of Syracuse (7.148-52, 157-63, 165), the Athenians agree to yield to Sparta's claims to leadership: 'They were right, because internal dissension is worse than a united war effort to the same degree that war is worse than peace' (8.3; cf. 1.87). Ironically, a system of conflict resolution by negotiation and arbitration, recommended by Mardonius' scathing comments on the Greeks' habit of 'going about things i n the wrong way' (7.9(5), is imposed on the Ionians by the Persians (6.42), while the free Greeks will continue to ignore arbitration agreements and to escalate their fratricidal wars. 7 1

75

In attacking the Persians, Croesus disregards a wise man's warning not to provoke war against tough men living a poor life in a rugged land; nothing is to be gained but much is to be lost (1.71). Again, two leitmotifs are announced here. That o f the wise Warner is one o f Herodotus' most successful interpretative devices. '' T h e 7

on eras in lale fifth-century political discourse, see bibliog. in Raaflaub (1994) 129-30; Monoson (1994); Wohl (1999). " Thuc. 1.82.1; 2.7.1, 67.1; 4.50.2; see Lewis (1977) 62-70 and below at n. 82. See also 5.12 15; a positive counter-example: 3.138; cf. Hunter (1982; Ch. 5. Miletus is to be contrasted with Athens (8.144, but see 9.4, 6-11). Sec generally Gillis (1979). Immerwahr (1966) Ch. 5 emphasizes disunity as the motif that binds the Greek accounts together; see 187-8 on excess of unity as the 'basic condition of Persian greatness that also causes their downfall'; see further Konstan (1987). E.g., 4.83; 7.10; see BischotF (1932); Lattimorc (1939); Shapiro (forthcoming); Said, this volume (Ch. 6). 75

70

172

K U R T A. R A A F L A U B

other concerns the contrast between poor and rich countries breeding tough and soft men that recurs throughout the work in many variations and serves especially to set Persian luxury off against Greek simplicity. Herodotus' overall conception clearly is that initial Persian toughness had long been eroded by the wealth they had acquired from their far-flung empire. Hence they were no match for the freedom-loving, poor and hardy Hellenes to w h o m , as Croesus says o f the Massagetae (about to defeat Cyrus) 'a Persian-style good life and anything approaching real luxury' were unfamiliar (1.207).' Combining all this with Croesus' insight 'that human affairs are on a wheel, and that as the wheel turns around it does not permit the same people always to prosper' (1.207; cf. 1.5; 7.18, 203), we may again extrapolate. T h e Athenians, like all mainland Greeks living i n a poor land, have proved their valour and experienced a meteoric rise to great power and wealth. They too will be corrupted by their empire and eventually fall. The first crankings o f the wheel can be heard when Themistocles uses military force to extort monetary contributions from several islands (8.111-12). Croesus is the first empire builder in the Histories. He attacks and conquers his neighbours w i t h a variety o f justifications, some serious, some trivial (1.26, 46, 73), and proves insatiable in his aggressive policy o f expansion. Bolstered by success and believing in his good fortune, he crosses the Halys, attacks a more resourceful enemyand fails. This pattern o f conquest and success, prompting overconfidence and further aggression that leads to eventual disaster is applied, as a structuring and interpretative device, to all Persian kings. Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes fail at the end because they reach for the ends o f the earth, cross boundaries imposed by nature and divine order (great rivers, the Hellespont, or the desert) and are defeated by nature a n d / o r peoples that are culturally too different to be tamed by the methods with which the Persians suc7

7(i

77

E.g., 9.80-2; cf. 8.26 and 7.102, 104, 135; 8.144. The contrast (on which see above at nn. 42-4) is too schematic; see. e.g., 9.122; 9.63 with 71 and 1.136; Gould (1989) 58-60. vSee Gobet (1971) 174 6 with n. 704. Note the striking parallel between 8.111 and 9.82. Thucydides too chooses Athens' dealing with a little island, Melos, to exemplify the problem of imperialism (5.84 ff.). See also Miltiades' ill-fated expedition to Paros (6.1 32-6, also to extort money, among other reasons). On Athens and softness, see Thuc. 2.40.1 and Moles (1996) 265-6; on the Croesus logos and Athens, Moles, this volume (Ch. 2). 7 8

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

173

5

ceeded before/ ' M u c h o f this probably is Herodotus' free elaboration. As Aeschylus did before h i m , he stresses the boundaries between Asia and Europe, one to be ruled by the Persians, the other by the Greeks. Xerxes hubristically violates these limits, suffers defeat and loses a great army. Again we extrapolate: the Histories end with the Athenians' refusal to evacuate the Ionians from Asia M i n o r , their new alliance with some islands, and their capture o f Sestos on the Hellespont (9.106, 114-18). There will soon be a larger alliance, a change o f hegemony with a specious justification, and wars fought about the king's territory (8.3). If, however, Xerxes d i d wrong in crossing into Europe, what about the Athenians crossing into Asia?"" Finally, Herodotus introduces Croesus as tyrannos o f all the peoples west o f the Halys (1.6). This brings up the problem o f tyranny, another major topic that pervades the Histories. As Carolyn Dewald demonstrates, on various levels ranging from the use o f terminology and the development o f a 'despotic template' to the negative characterization o f most Greek tyrants and the identification o f despotic elements in Persian monarchy, Herodotus explores the nature o f autocracy and explains why it is fundamentally bad. The weaknesses he exposes, recurring repeatedly and concerning different persons, are not tied to individuals but structural: the results o f many case studies enable h i m to move from the specific to the general and to define the nature o f tyranny or despotism as such. This effort culminates in three 'set pieces', each illuminating a different aspect o f the phenomenon: the Deioces story (1.96-100), the Constitutional Debate (3.80-2), and the speech o f the Corinthian Socles (5.92)."'

'•' Such as the nomadic Scythians (esp. 4.46) or the Greeks with their love for liberty, respect for nomas, and passion for participatory government (e.g., 1.153; 7.135; 7.104). On typical and recurring patterns, see immerwahr (1966) Ch. 4; Hunter (1982) Ch. 5. See also Harrison, this volume (Ch. 24). Aesch. Persians 101-13, 739-86. Boundaries: e.g., L4; 9.116: Immerwahr (1954): Lateiner (1989) Ch. 6; Stacker (1992) 785-95, 798-801; Romm, forthcoming. Note at the end of 9.117 the hint at Athens on the move: Fornara (1971a) 81. The future change of hegemony (478/77) is announced in highly unfavourable terms (8.3); the formulation of the oath sworn by the allies reminds us of future oppression and revolts (9.106). Nor is the single reference to Pericles (6.13.1: Agariste's dream to give birth to a lion) unambiguous: Fornara (1971a) 52-6; see also ibid. 83-4 on 7462.1; Hornblowcr (1991) 346 on 3.82.4. Morrison (194!) 11-4; (1950) 76 7 on the Constitutional Debate as a critique of Pericles' monarchy goes too far: Gomme (1956) 194. On the broad range of associations elicited by the end of the Histories, see recently Boedeker (1988): Herington (1991a); Moles (1996) 27.1 -7; Dewald (1997). Dewald (2002); earlier discussions: Waters (1971), (1972); Ferrill (1978); Fiory m

174

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

Tyranny takes on an additional detrimental dimension, when Greek tyrants maintain themselves only w i t h Persian backing. Local despotism thus tends to draw i n Persian imperial despotism—just as Greeks in Persian service or Greek refugees i n Persia do not hesitate to subject fellow-Greeks to permanent Persian enslavement i n order to satisfy their individual aspirations: the list is long and will find a sad continuation much later when individuals and communities compete for Persian support not least to attain domination over Greece/' Moreover, many o f the traits which make up the 'despotic template' apply equally to Athens, the polls tymnnos that i n its rule over its allies succeeds to and i n several ways imitates the Persians. I t is ominous, therefore, that Croesus' fall from the height o f imperial power is explained by two necessities: he pays for the guilt o f his ancestor, Gyges, who assumed power (tyranny) by unjust means (1.7—13, 91) and he suffers because o f divine anger (nemesis), ' i n all likelihood for thinking that he was the most fortunate man (olbioMos) i n the w o r l d ' (1.34). Both issues, applied to Athens, were thoroughly familiar to Herodotus' contemporaries. 2

83

So much for foreshadowing of political issues i n the Croesus logos. T h e depth o f Herodotus' political thinking is perhaps gauged best in another passage. I n several scenes at the Persian court, where the crown council meets to advise Xerxes on his decision to conquer Greece, he explores the deeper motives o f Persian imperialism (7.5-18)." A m o n g other reasons brought up by various interested parties (7.5-6, 8(3, 9a), Xerxes emphasizes his obligation to prove himself and live up to the examples set by his ancestors (8a). H e presents the subjection o f Greece as merely the first step i n a sweeping conquest o f Europe that, 'will make all lands into a single land' and 'Persian territory end only at the sky. . . A n d so the innocent 4

(1987) Gh. 4; Barcelo (1993) 149-77; Christ (1994); see also Stahl (1983) 211: Socles' speech as a didactic 'Beispielrede'. See Raaflaub (1989) 41 6, for the origin of the Constitutional Debate in the context of critical analyses of democracy. See above n. 74. O n the treaties confirming the king's sovereignty over the Greeks in Asia, see Lewis (1977) 90 107. That this would be the price must have been clear to both sides much earlier than it appears from Thucydidcs. Hence Demaratus' categorical statement in 7.102.2 sounds hollow too. See also Alcibiades' cynical comments in Thuc. 8.46.3. Tyranny: Thuc. 2.63.2. Greatness and happiness: Hdt. 8.111: Thuc. 3.45.6; 7.69.2, and an allusion in 2.43.4; see also Raaflaub (1985) 241-4. See Kvans (1991) Ch. I ; Raaflaub (2002a) with further bibliog; on the differences between Herodotus and Aeschylus, see Said (1981) as well as this volume (Ch. 6). 83

m

herodotus

and

the

intellectual trends

1 75

o f his t i m e

will bear the yoke o f slavery along w i t h those who have wronged us' (8y). Mardonius carries this further: the Persians have enslaved many great peoples— not 'because they did us any wrong, but just because we wanted to increase our dominion' (9a). The Greeks will be no match for the Persians (9(3). 'Anyway, we should leave nothing untried (apeireton). Nothing comes o f its own accord (automaton); people invariably get things as a result o f their own efforts (apo pares)' (9y). Only Artabanus dares to dissent but his sane advice (10) provokes Xerxes' anger. He now sees his prestige at stake. Moreover, ' I am sure the Athenians will do something i f we do not; to judge by their past moves, they will certainly mount an expedition against our country . . . I t is impossible for either side to withdraw now . . . A n d in the end either all Persia will be i n Greek hands, or all Greece will be in Persian hands; there is no middle ground in this war' (11). Xerxes later reconsiders (13) but a repeated dream forces h i m to change his mind again and Artabanus to consent (12, 14 8). As the latter explains, o f the two options available, one 'would increase our hubris, while the other would curb it, by pointing out how wrong it is to train the mind to be constantly seeking more than it has at the moment'; he did not want the king 'to choose the more treacherous one' (16a). He has 'often seen mighty powers brought, low by inferior ones'. He knows 'what harm can come from excessive desire' (potion epithumeein) and is convinced that it would be best for the king to stay quiet (18, cf. 8a). But this does not seem to be the god's will. 83

A l l this is written from the hindsight o f Herodotus' mature years. It anticipates Athenian control o f the coast o f Asia M i n o r after 479 and strikingly echoes ideas current in the time o f the Histories' composition and highlighted in Thucydides.' I n putting the alternative %

8>

On this dream as 'une incarnation de la nécessité historique', see Said (1981) 22-5; as Herodotus' creation: Immerwahr (1954) 30-7; Bichler (1985) 140 7 (witli bibliog.). Some of the arguments mentioned above have been introduced earlier: e.g., 6.134 (proving oneself); 5.105; 6.48, 94 (revenge as pretence for large-scale conquest); 1.207 (all or nothing). Some figure already in Aeschylus' Peisians: e.g., conquest of the world (50. 65-7. 73 5, 85-92, 233-4); emulation of ancestors (753-8). ' ' ' E.g., always wanting more, being unable to stay quiet, leaving nothing untried: cf. Thuc. 1.70 with echoes in Euripides' Suppliants of the late 420s: Raaflaub (1989) 51-2; (1994). Pressure by ancestral example: e.g., Thuc. 2.36; Raaflaub (2001). Lack of knowledge about the target country, delusions, and false promises about an easy victory, use of a just pretext for an expedition that openly aims at large-scale conquest, and personal ambitions of the potential general: see Thuc. 6.1 26. Subjecting J1

176

K U R T A. R A A F L A U B

starkly as 'either them or us', Herodotus seems to think o f the polarization o f Greece and the perception, typical o f his time, that the great war between Sparta and Athens was a final contest in which the winner would take all. Moreover, all this contributes to a trenchant general characterization o f imperialism as a political phenomenon. It is nourished by pteonexia, an insatiable desire for more. Based on previous successes a n d / o r the achievements o f previous generations, it puts relentless pressure on the ruler, blinds reason, and develops its own dynamics. It knows no limit, transcends physical and mental barriers, and aims ever further, regardless o f profits or losses. Although sometimes using plausible justifications as pretexts, it is a justification in itself: conquest motivates further conquest. It is thoroughly unjust, the very essence o f hubris, because it harms guilty and innocent alike. I t ends only by overextension and strategic mistakes, engendered by the ruler's overconfidence and loss of critical judgment, which enable a weaker people to maximize their own specific resources and deal the conqueror a decisive blow. T h e entire passage is a set piece on imperialism, comparable in form and intent to similar pieces on tyranny (above at n. 81) and to much better known Thucydidean examples, such as the Mytilenian, Melian, and Sicilian debates. Just when the last and greatest Persian imperial venture is about to begin, it summarizes and deepens the analysis presented through narrative and speeches in previous books."' It is complemented, for example, by the description o f the Persian war council before the battle o f Salamis which reveals further crucial flaws in Persian decision making (8.67 9), and by a series o f discussions among the Greeks (most remarkably one at Gelon's court in Syracuse, dealing with the allies' request for assistance against the Persians) that illustrate the obstacles they face in pursuing a common purpose." 8

guilty and innocents alike: see esp. Thuc. 5.94-7. Such correspondences have been noticed, e.g., by Cornford (1907) Ch. 12; Smart (1977) 251-2 (the latter suggesting an extremely late date for the work's composition); Rood (1999). For full discussion, see Raaflaub (2002a). " See 7.20 on Xerxes' expedition as the greatest war ever; Dewald (2002) on the placement of such set pieces at moments of transition; Fornara (1971a) 87-8 on the generic nature of Xerxes' words in 7.8. * 7.153, 157-65 (cC 145, 148-52, 169-71); see Brunt (1993) 75-80. The real explanation of Gelon's unwillingness to help the Greeks (the Carthaginian threat) is mentioned as an alternative version (7.165), attributed to Sicilian sources, while no source is given for Gelon's alleged main reason: his refusal to share in the war

HERODOTUS A N D THE I N T E L L E C T U A L

TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

177

Persistent political foreshadowing and analysis, found in the two sections just examined and in many other passages, offer important clues to the reasons for Herodotus' interest in history and to his purpose in writing about it. Before he begins his historical narrative, he states programmatieally: ' I will cover m i n o r and major human cities equally, because most o f those which were important in the past have diminished in significance by now, and those which were great in my own time were small in times past. 1 will mention both equally because I know that human happiness never remains long in the same place' (1.5, cf. 207). Here we hear the Greek historian who deals equally with empires, monarchs, and cities, but addresses audiences o f Greek /wfo-citizens. He lets Solon emphasize that human life is fragile and one needs to await the end before passing final judgment on a person's happiness (1.32). Such comments define Herodotus' outlook: history consists o f a sequence o f rises and declines of great powers and powerful leaders; human happiness, success, and power are unstable and unlikely to last long; the higher a person or a state reach, the sooner will they fall; it is unjust and hubrislic to overstep one's bounds, to rob others of their land and liberty; tyrannyis innately bad and corrupts its holder; imperialism, because it is unjust and cannot be limited, will end in disaster." 0

These lessons from the past arc significant as lessons for the present and future. But which came first? Was it the past that sharpened Herodotus' awareness o f the present or vice versa? Some scholars have suggested plausibly that concerns about political conditions and developments in his own time were crucial in turning Herodotus into an historian." I f so, his historical thinking (about past history) 0

without having a share in the command; on this, see 1'ornara (1971a) 82-4. Further scenes illustrating Greek decision making and obstacles to unity: 8.49, 56 63, 74 5, 78-82, 140-4. The difficulties of establishing •defensive unity' among autonomous peoples are foreshadowed in the Scythian lotps (4.118-19); see Hunter (1982) 185-90, 197, 212-8. On the Persian war council: Munson (1988) 95-8. " See i i . 12 above. '"' Kornara (1971a) Ch. 3 (with discussion of earlier views), 86 91; Meier (1987) esp. 52 4. Meier (1978), (1980), (1986), (1987) discusses the origins of Herodotus' specific type of history. By contrast, Rood (1999) 166 acknowledges the validity of reading Herodotus' Persian War stories as political stories, but urges caution "about all easy constructions of the origins of history-writing*: 'what is not valid is to make Herodotus' story about Athenian imperialism his overriding message, the basis of his historical thought; that is, to make it central to our own stories about how he came to write history', It is not clear to me why this should not: be valid and why easy. H

178

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

was shaped a priori by his political reflection (about present conditions and problems); at the very least, both developed hand i n hand. In his final evaluation which guided the final composition o f his work, history o f the past and political developments of the present formed a continuum, unfolding under the force o f the same dynamics and propelled by the same basic human impulses: individual and communal self-interest prompting, o n the one hand, the search for power that results i n tyranny and imperialism and, on the other hand, a never-ending fight for liberty and self-assertion. Sadly, however, successful freedom fighters tend either to fall immediately under someone else's oppressive yoke (the Medes (1.95-6) or the lonians) or to turn into imperialist and tyrannical oppressors themselves (Persia, Athens)—only to be corrupted by power and luxury and destroyed by the consequences o f their pleonexia. Herodotus probably felt quite passionately about all this. Occasional remarks reveal his distaste for war and Greek disunity (1.87; 7.9(3; 8.3). We hear him speaking also through his warners, including Solon, and it seems likely that he describes his own predicament when he lets an anonymous Persian before the Battle o f Plataea say: ' A n event which has been decreed by the god cannot be averted by man, for no one is willing to believe even those who tell the truth . . . There's no more terrible pain a man can endure than to see clearly and be able to do nothing' (9.16). N o r was he alone i n being concerned about such issues. M a n y o f them were discussed by one or the other of the sophists. Athenian comedians made bitter fun o f them. Tyranny, never absent from comical satire even i n Pericles' days, re-emerged as a topic o f political polemic i n Cleon's time and o f public concern a decade later. I t pervades tragedy, and the tragedians worried immensely as well about Athens' role as a polls iyrannos?' Yet one did not need to be i n Athens to share such thoughts and worries. As suggested earlier, Herodotus drew on a large pool o f political ideas that were shared by and developed in interaction among many 91

1

91

C f Stambler (1982) 231. Solon; Chiasson (1986): Shapiro (1996) (with discussion of dissenting views); Moles (1996) 262 6, who also quotes (281 n. 26) a suggestion by Alan Griffiths that makes good sense of the story of Arion (1.23-24.6) 'as preparing the way for die wisdom figures who are to follow'. Tyranny: Berve (1967) 1.190-206. 2.625-30; McGlew (1993) Ch. 6; Henderson (2002); Seaford (2002); Raaflaub (2002b). Polls lyrannos: Raaflaub (1988c) 294-301; Rosenbloom (1995), (forthcoming). On Herodotus and tragedy: Said, this volume (Ch. 6). 9 2

HERODOTUS A N D THE I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

1 79

intellectuals throughout the Greek world. His originality lies less in these ideas themselves than i n his application of these ideas to history i n order to organize it, explain it, and make it meaningful to his present audiences and future readers. Naturally, objections can, and have been, raised against the type of interpretation presented here. I mention two o f them. One concerns Herodotus' thinking o f future readers. Charles Fornara emphasizes Thucydides' genius i n creating a self-explanatory history which by itself would suffice to secure 'perfect comprehension o f the important and universally relevant issues', while Herodotus constantly draws on the knowledge and expectations o f his audience to achieve his dramatic effects. Hence 'Thucydides wrote for the future, Herodotus for his contemporaries'. There is much truth i n this but, surely, in presenting his History as a ktema es aid, Thucydides lets the future begin with the present: his observations and insights would be important for audiences at any time, including not least his contemporaries. ' Unlike his importantly novel perspective o f offering a work o f timeless usefulness, however, concern with the present was familiar from performed poetiy since Homer's days and d i d not need to be explained; it was taken for granted. As for Herodotus, he too paid much attention to general truths that can be learned from history; hence future generations would profit as well. He need not have assumed that future audiences would lack familiarity with important events, posterior to those described i n the Histories, which would allow them to appreciate the specific interpretation and dramatic effects he was artfully presenting. He wrote for a Panhellenic audience anyway, and the purposes he mentions explicitly at the beginn i n g o f his w o r k are compatible w i t h b o t h present and future performance (or reading). Indeed, as Robert Connor suggests, we need to ask whether Herodotus 'does not treat his subject matter in a way that will make it contemporary not only to him but also to us, that is to readers o f a recurring and indeterminate present'. 93

91

05

Fornara (1971a) 59 61 and passim in chapter 4. '" This seems obvious, e.g., from 2.47.3, and all the more so i f Thucydides too presented highly polished sections in oral recitations (Hornblower (1996a) 26-7: cf. Thomas (1992)'103-4). See also Badian (1993) 128: 'Thucydides, although aiming to leave a work for eternity, was in the first instance writing for a public (and, in particular, an educated Athenian public) of his own dav.' See Raaflaub (1988b), (2000); lor tragedy id. (1988c); see also Stall! (1987) 21 and below at n. 98. ,,:>

180

K U R T A . RAAFLAUB

Connor sees as one o f the most, important challenges to Herodotean scholars the study of 'Herodotus' techniques o f breaking out o f the immediacy o f events and reaching an audience o f unknown dimensions and circumstances'.* The other objection concerns Herodotus' interaction w i t h his contemporaries. Where Fornara recognizes at least the beginnings o f a theory o f history or 'historical philosophy' and an explication o f 'laws o f history', John Gould sees no more than metaphors, 'refined common sense', 'generalizations which permit contradiction and conflicting interpretations, but at the same time . . . appeal to the comfort ol familiarity; i n some measure they serve to produce a map o f human experience. They are intelligible and they reassure'. Gould concludes that, the 'most pervasive strand o f explanation i n Herodotus' narrative . . . is the sense that historical experience is the result o f reciprocal action, the fulfilling o f debts o f gratitude and the taking o f revenge'." Here, I think, Gould, convinced that Herodotus remained rooted firmly i n the craft and horizon o f the storyteller, fails to perceive how far the historian ultimately transcends these traditional patterns o f explaining history and how frightening rather than comforting, even i f eerily familiar, the map o f human experience is which he draws up through his work. Moreover, in denying the possibility that Herodotus writes at least in part i n order to convey a message to his audiences, Gould seriously underestimates the importance o f this very aspect i n the centuries-old tradition o f Greek performed poetry with which he otherwise links Herodotus. '" Homer sings to preserve the kleos o f great heroes o f the past, but i n interpreting their actions he raises troubling social and political issues that were familiar and meaningful to his audiences. This didactic purpose, implicit in the poet's way o f shaping his narrative, is an indispensable part of the poet's craft and social function. Herodotus, I argue, extends this purpose, which perhaps lived in the tradition o f prose story7

1

%

Connor (1987) 258. Latciner (1989) 5 n. 8 (p. 230) chinks of Herodotus as addressing primarily the future. See, e.g., 1.20; 9.16 on the importance of foreknowledge for making the right decision in the present (proeidos pros to pareon (boukuesthai); reference by John Marincola). Here, too, Hunter's (1982) emphasis on Herodotus' focus on processes seems crucial. Gould (1989) 76-82; Fornara: see above n. 60. Gould (1989) 116-20 and passim esp. in Chs. 2 and 6: performed poetry: above n. 95. w

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

181

19

telling as well, to his prose epic.- T o put it in extreme terms: just as 'heroic epic is historical in appearance but contemporary in meaning', so too history is important less i n and o f itself than insofar as it is meaningful to the present. Herodotus differs from Thucydides i n the emphasis he places on preserving the memory o f the past but he agrees with Thucydides i n recognizing the historian's obligation to the present and future: to educate his audiences and readers through his presentation and interpretation o f history. I n all this Herodotus appears both traditional and highly original. His originality is visible also i n the relationship he establishes between history and ethnography. Scholars focussing on the mass o f geographic and ethnographic material incorporated especially in the first half o f his work have concluded that he began as a traditional Hecataeus-likc scholar and ended up being a historian; the Histories would thus reflect two or more phases i n his development, about which we know nothing but can derive much from carefully analysing his work. Yet i n its extant form this work does not contain an ethnographic first and a historical second part. Rather, the presentation of ethnographic material saves from oblivion many memorable deeds and monuments o f both Greeks and barbarians—one of the two intentions emphasized i n the preamble -and it serves an explicitly historical purpose. '' 100

10

Monuments document wealth and power; they are thus historically significant and justify extensive coverage (2.35, cf, 148-9; 3.60) although, as Thucydides (1.10; cf. H d t . 1.5) reminds us, perceptions can be deceptive. Comparison establishes contrasts and analogies which help bring out i n sharper profile both general historical patterns and specific characteristics, especially of the Greeks. Herodotus uses both sides o f this 'mirror' extensively. He understands that 102

w

A similar suggestion in Thomas (2000) 4. Quotation: Raaflaub (1997) 628. All this has, of course, considerable consequences for the question of truth and fiction in, and the historical source value of, this kind of historiography; see recently, e.g., Bichler (1985); Moles (1993), and the survey in Bichler and Rollinger (2000) 160 5. Thus, e.g., Stambler (1982) 212-7. See.Jacoby (1913) 341 11), esp. 353 ( I , for a developmental or analytical, and Pohlenz (1937) for a unitarian view, f o r surveys of the scholarship on this question, see Gobet (1971) 4 42, 188-98; Hommcl (1981) 272-7; for discussion, Fomara (1971a) Chs. 1 2 and passim. See Thomas (2000) 19-20 on the 'tyranny' of the idea of linear development, be it in literature or an author's intellectual progression. '"' Hartog (1988); Darbo-Peschansky (1987); cf Nippel (1990) 11 29: (1996) 170-2; 1110

101

182

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

people act and react i n specific ways not only because o f immediate experiences but because they are conditioned by customs, cultural traditions, environment, and previous history. Without taking these aspects seriously, their contemporaries will not know how to deal with them, and the historian and his audiences will not be able to understand historical events. Despite Artabanus' warning (4.83), Darius ignores essential facts about the Scythians who have 'come up w i t h the cleverest solution . . . to the single most important matter i n human life . . . how to prevent anyone who attacks them from escaping, and how to avoid being caught unless they want to be detected' (4.46). I n spite o f Demaratus' explanation, Xerxes disregards crucial information about the Greeks' arete and the role o f nomas i n Spartan society (7.101—5). Both kings fail not least because they are not interested i n the nomoi o f the peoples they try to conquer.' 03

Hence the more the audience knows about the lands, customs, cultures, and histories o f the peoples that ended up forming the mighty Persian empire, the better will they understand the Persian accomplishment and the more will they be able to appreciate the greatest tlioma o f all: the Greek victory over all that might—for reasons and despite great obstacles which the (naturally much shorter) presentation o f the history and customs o f the culturally and politically multi face ted Greek w o r l d illuminates. Herodotus' concept thus differs both from the peiiegesis, where history forms but one component o f the description o f foreign lands, and from later historiography, where ethnography is usually confined to relatively brief digressions. Faced with the daunting task o f making a war between two continents and two different worlds understandable, he finds ethnography, integrated into the structure o f a historical narrative, indispensable. Thucydides, writing about a war among Greeks, 104

on monuments as deeds, see Immerwahr (1960); Hornblower (1987) 30-3; (1991) 33-5. Cf. the Corinthians' efforts to explain to the Spartans what sorts of people the Athenians really are (Thuc. 1.70). I n Xerxes' case, the Persians are misled, in addition, by their experiences with the Iouians (Evans (1991) 13-14). Xerxes dismisses Demaratus with benign laughter (7.105): on the meaning of laughter in Herodotus, see Flory (1978b); Lateiner (1989) 28. See generally Lateiner (1989) Ch. 7 and the acute observations of Stambler (1982) 215-17; this seems true even i f Herodotus ethnography is unsystematic (Redfield (1985) 97) and focuses on superlatives and extremes (Bloomer (1993)). On Herodotus' ethnography and the function of nomasI nomoi in his work, see recently Thomas (2000) Ch. 4; Bichler (2000); Munson (2001). 103

1,14

1

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

183

excluded most o f these materials and created a purer genre o f history that focussed almost exclusively on war and politics—thereby perhaps losing as much as he gained. 10

1

Conclusion I return now to the thesis that in many important respects Herodotus is much closer to Thucydides than is usually assumed. O f course, I am far from ignoring fundamental differences: among many other aspects, religion as well as an ethical and moral perspective are prominent i n the former and almost suppressed in the latter; women play a much larger part i n Herodotus' than i n the single-sex world o f Thucydides; the authorial T is ubiquitous i n Herodotus, structuring and validating his narrative, but almost completely absorbed into Thucydides' narrative; the two authors differ radically i n dealing w i t h the difficulties posed by their sources, and Herodotus uses a complex system o f self-contained 'stories' {logoi) to construct his narrative i n writing dramatic and artistic history, while Thucydides mostly presents a smooth, strictly chronological narrative i n writingsober 'scientific history.""' Yet, despite these and other differences, the basic ideas and issues on which the two authors focus are similar. 5

For example, although Thucydides restricts his attention almost exclusively to politics and war, while Herodotus' conception o f history is much broader, he too is deeply interested in political history, and war obviously is central to his work. T o be sure, he recognizes the involvement o f forces that lie beyond human control—fate or the divine but these forces do not replace or override empirical and political causes. I n his view, history is determined largely by the decisions o f individuals; to us this seems woefully inadequate but it is perhaps not that inappropriate for archaic Greek history w i t h 107

Hornblower (1987) 30 2. '"" Religion: Horn blower (1987) 29 30; in Herodotus: see n. 32; in Thucydides: Marinatos (1981): Jordan (1986); Hornblower (1992a). Women: Hornblower (1987) 14; Gould (1989)' 129 32; cf'.' Dewald (1981); Wiedemann (1983); Bichler and Rollinger (2000) 47-50, 99-105; Blok, this volume (Ch. 10). Authorial T : Dewald (1987) and this volume (Ch. 12); Marincola (1987). Relation to sources: Fowler (1996) 78-80, cf. 84, 86; Hornblower, this volume (Ch. 16); see also Midler (1981). Narrative: Cobet (1971); Gould (1989) 111. Dramatic vs. 'scientific history: Fornara 1

(1971a) 61 and passim in Ch. 4, I W

Gould (1989) 67 81.

184

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

its multitude o f autocrats, adventurers, and ambitious individuals, it applies even to Thucydides' work to a surprising degree, and it remained an excruciatingly influential factor in later periods. "" Still, Herodotus' individuals and communities make political choices, duly i f sometimes sarcastically noted by the historian: the Athenian polemarch before Marathon and the allied admiral before Salamis have it in their hands to save or enslave those who have put them in charge (6.109; 8.60a); the Ionian tyrants at the Danube bridge choose power i n slavery (4.136-42) which the Spartan heralds refuse (7.135), and in rejecting their tyrant's offer o f equality and freedom the elite Samians 'apparently d i d not want to be free' (3.142-3). The processes by which Xerxes and the Greeks reach their decisions are complex, combining political and individual aspects. As discussed in the last section, Herodotus connects the history o f the past with the political issues troubling the present and strongly emphasizes the most important political phenomena he sees as constants i n history. He is aware o f the political debates and theories o f his time and uses some of them to interpret the past, embedding them in narrative and speeches rather than arguing with them overtly and abstractly. 1

1119

Herodotus no less than Thucydides sees history dominated by the antithetical desires for liberty and power. T h e nomos o f the Persian kings, always to expand and to leave nothing untried, clashes with the nomos o f the Spartans, never to submit. These desires determine the historic conllict between Persia and the Greeks. They are complemented by a third and equally potent force driving people's actions: self-interest. Individuals and communities constantly make decisions that serve their own ends but more often than not harm those o f their communities and peoples. Through repetition and emphasis the historian helps us recognize patterns o f typical behaviour, despite a high degree o f individualization. These patterns reflect the theory o f the sameness o f human nature, so prominent i n Thucydides, even i f Herodotus never mentions this theory explicitly. 110

Like Thucydides, Herodotus too is critical of ideologies and pro-

108

See, e.g., Strasburger (1954a); Herman (1987). Among the most troublesome consequences of this tendency is Herodotus' explanation of the Ionian Revolt: sec, e.g., Forrest (1979); Murray (1988) esp. 463 4, 474; Walter (1993); Georges (2000) (with a strong defence of the plausibility of Herodotus' presentation). Evans (1991) 35-6. A motif emphasized, as Marincola points out to me, by Gyges' choice in the very first story of the Histories. m

110

HERODOTUS A N D T H E I N T E L L E C T U A L TRENDS OF HIS T I M E

185

paganda. Again, he reveals this indirectly rather than directly, through juxtaposition, suggestion, and implication. Claims to fight a 'just war' are but useful pretexts; imperialism progresses with or without them. T h e Greek coalition spectacularly demonstrates its commitment to fighting for freedom but, i f the Persians had been smart, they might have subverted it entirely by bribing the leaders (9.2, 4 1 ; cf. 8.4-5). The Spartans, i f need be, would fight with axes for their liberty (7.135)—but mostly their own. The Athenians save Greece -as long as it serves their interests (8.3). Isonomia, 'the most beautiful w o r d ' (3.80), and demokratia are desirable—but one is imposed on the Tonians by a tyrant (5.37) and the Persians (6.43) to serve their own interests, and the other does not keep the Athenians from being fooled by a smart speaker (5.97). Isegoria (equality of speech) has enabled the Athenians to rise to a new level o f power (5.78)—but they stone to death one of their councillors who dares to dissent (9.5).' We meet a few truly admirable characters who act selflessly and justly (e.g., 3.138; 7.163-4); some rulers are not bent on expansion and are described positively," and the Athenians, after all. did save Greece; but the naked truth is that people, whatever they say, follow only one impulse: that o f self-interest. 11

2

The insights that guide Herodotus' interpretation could easily be (and occasionally almost are) formulated abstractly and theoretically. There is no equivalent to Thucydides' analysis of the stasis on Corcyra, but Herodotus uses speeches and dialogues to create analytical set pieces that highlight specific political issues (imperialism, tyranny, obstacles to Greek unity) and, although less dense and narrowly focussed, are cjuite comparable to those that have long been appreciated in Thucydides. T h e use o f political thought to interpret history and demonstrate its immediacy and relevance for present and future is one of Herodotus' crucial contributions to creating a new genre of, as Christian Meier puts i t , history as a 'multi-subjective, contingency-oriented' narrative of events that was—and remains universally meaningful. 113

111

Despite 3.80 and 5.78, Herodotus does not think highly of democracy: see 3.81-2, 5.97 (with t.59-60); see Strasburger (1955) 10--12; Fornara (1971a) 48-51; Edelmann (1975); Van der Veen (1996) Ch. 6. See also, more generally, Saxonhouse (1996). Forsdyke (1999) suggests, however, that the influence of democratic ideology might not be negligible. "-' E.g., Tomyris (1.206), the king of the Ethiopians (3.21), and even Croesus in his early years (Immerwahr (1966) 155-8). Meier (1987) 44; see above n. 49. , I J

186

KURT A . RAAFLAUB

Overall,

p e r h a p s , i t is n o t v e r y useful t o t h i n k o f H e r o d o t u s

as

the ' f a t h e r o f h i s t o r y ' w h o was q u i c k l y o v e r t a k e n a n d left f a r b e h i n d by Thucydides—although

n o one w i l l d e n y

t h a t the l a t t e r c r e a t e d

the m o d e l t h a t was t o d o m i n a t e w e s t e r n h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . A perspective seems m o r e p r o m i s i n g . D e s p i t e

the differences i n t h e i r

l i f e t i m e s a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , the dates b y w h i c h t h e i r w o r k s their

final

shape,114

different received

a n d despite u n d e n i a b l e differences w h i c h these

w o r k s reveal i n o u t l o o k , m e t h o d o l o g y , sible t h a t H e r o d o t u s

and Thucydides

a n d n a r r a t i v e , i t seems w e r e , as H o r n b l o w e r

pos-

puts i t ,

' i n a r e a l sense c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a n d r i v a l s ' . " - ' T h e y b o t h i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a l a r g e g r o u p o f intellectuals a m o n g t h e i r c o n t e m p o r a r i e s

who

w o r k e d i n a great v a r i e t y o f genres a n d disciplines; " f > like t h e m , t h e y b o t h d r e w o n a r i c h p o o l o f ideas, t h e o r i e s , a n d concerns t h a t w e r e w i d e l y shared a n d discussed i n t h e i r t i m e , a n d t h e y were b o t h d e e p l y i n t r i g u e d b y t h e challenge o f d i s c o v e r i n g a n d c o n v e y i n g t o t h e i r listeners a n d readers n o t o n l y the course b u t also the m e a n i n g

and

c o n t i n u i n g usefulness o f h i s t o r y . W h a t t h e y d i d w i t h this interest a n d w i t h those ideas, t h e o r i e s , a n d c o n c e r n s l e d t h e m i n d i f f e r e n t d i r e c tions b u t a l o n g s i m i l a r p a t h s :

a l t h o u g h they w r o t e about different

p e r i o d s i n d i f f e r e n t w a y s , t o b o t h o f t h e m h i s t o r y consisted l a r g e l y o f r e v o l v i n g p a t t e r n s a n d processes, a n d i t was essentially c o n t e m porary history.11' To

give H e r o d o t u s

the last w o r d , at a j u n c t u r e t h a t m i g h t h a v e

c h a n g e d t h e course o f h i s t o r y , he lets the C o r i n t h i a n Socles say:

'If

y o u h a d e x p e r i e n c e o f i t , as w e d o , y o u w o u l d be able t o offer b e t ter j u d g m e n t s about i t t h a n y o u do n o w '

1 1 4

(5.92a).

See above rm. 2 and 15. Correspondences between the debates at Xerxes' court and Thucydides' Sicilian Debate (6.1-26: above n. 86) need not be tied to 415; although Thucydides concentrates these arguments in this particular debate, they may have come up in earlier discussions about Athenian expeditions to Sicily, dating to 427-4 BC (see Raaflaub (2002a)). See also Moles (1996) 276 about why his (and my) view of Herodotus' purpose makes it difficult to date the Histories later than 415 or 414. Hornblower (1992b) 141; (1996a) 27. Hunter (1982) demonstrates this impressively, without ignoring differences (286-96). Lateiner (1989) Ch. 10 discusses 'The Failures and Success of Herodotus'. '"' Hunter (1982) 287: 'the two historians worked within the same theoretical framework, on the same epistemological terrain'. " ' Connor (1987) 257: Herodotus is 'writing contemporary history'. Efforts at comparing the two authors systematically need to be continued. 1 , 5

CHAPTER E I G H T RELIGION IN HERODOTUS Jon D. Mikalson

A l t h o u g h i t is r e g u l a r l y i g n o r e d , dismissed, o r d i s p a r a g e d b y b o t h a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n h i s t o r i a n s , H e r o d o t u s e x p l i c i t l y offers also a r e l i ­ gious e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e causes a n d o u t c o m e o f t h e Persian i n v a ­ sions. 1 I n 4 9 9 B C a s m a l l f o r c e o f G r e e k s , i n c l u d i n g A t h e n i a n s , a t t a c k e d Sardis, a p r i n c i p a l city o f t h e Persian e m p i r e , a n d i n t h e course o f the attack t h e y a c c i d e n t l y b u r n e d d o w n t h e s a n c t u a r y o f the goddess G y b e b e ( 5 . 1 0 1 - 1 0 2 . 1 ) . W h e n K i n g D a r i u s first h e a r d o f i t , ' h e t o o k a b o w , f i t t e d a n a r r o w t o i t , a n d shot t h e a r r o w i n t o the

sky. A s he d i d , he p r a y e d , " Z e u s , g r a n t m e t o take vengeance

o n t h e A t h e n i a n s . . . " ' (5.105). I t was t h e b u r n i n g o f C y b e b e ' s sanc­ t u a r y t h a t t h e Persians t h e n used as a n excuse f o r b u r n i n g s a n c t u ­ aries t h r o u g h o u t the lands o f hostile G r e e k cities f o r the n e x t eighteen years ( 5 . 1 0 2 . 1 ; cf. 6 . 1 0 1 . 3 a n d 7 . 8 . β ) .

2

These i n c l u d e d , after the

I o n i a n R e v o l t , A p o l l o ' s t e m p l e a n d oracle a t D i d y m a , a n d t h e sanc­ tuaries o f all t h e r e v o l t i n g I o n i a n cities a n d islands o f Asia

Minor

except Samos (6.19.3, 2 5 , a n d 32). L a t e r Datis o n his w a y t o M a r a t h o n i n 4 9 0 b u r n e d the sanctuaries o f N a x o s a n d E r e t r i a (6.96 a n d 101.3). A n d i n the second i n v a s i o n X e r x e s destroyed the sanctuaries i n twelve P h o c i a n cities, i n c l u d i n g A p o l l o ' s oracle at A b a e ( 8 . 3 2 . 2 ^ 3 3 ) . H a d he h a d his w a y , X e r x e s w o u l d have h a d D e l p h i destroyed too ( 8 . 3 5 - 9 ) . A n d , finally, w i t h their occupation o f Attica Xerxes a n d Mardonius fulfilled t h e vengeance

demanded by Darius.

T h e y levelled a n d

b u r n e d , so f a r as w e k n o w , a l l t h e sanctuaries o f A t h e n s a n d A t t i c a ( 7 . 8 . β a n d 140.3; 8 . 5 3 . 2 a n d 5 5 ; 9 . 1 3 . 2 ) .

1

Lateiner (1989) offers the most recent and systematic dismissal and disparage­ ment of religious and supernatural causation in Herodotus' Histories. For more bal­ anced treatments, see Harrison (2000b); Gould (1994); (1989); Lachenaud (1978): de Ste Croix (1977); de Romilly (1971b); and Immerwahr (1966). O n the discussion of the 'tragic' aspects of Xerxes' invasion, see Said, this volume (Ch. 6, pp. 137 ff.). Diodorus (10.25.1) somewhat reformulates this point: 'The Persians learned the burning of sanctuaries from the Greeks. They were repaying the same hubris to those who had first wronged them'. 2

188

JON D . MIKALSON

Herodotus

has his T h e m i s t o c l e s , surely n o t t h e least p e r c e p t i v e

observer o f X e r x e s ' i n v a s i o n , d i r e c t l y l i n k X e r x e s ' u l t i m a t e f a i l u r e to these sacrileges. I n t h e p l a n n i n g i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e v i c t o r y i n t h e Battle o f Salamis, T h e m i s t o c l e s tells his f e l l o w A t h e n i a n s ,

'Not

we

b u t the gods a n d heroes a c c o m p l i s h e d this. T h e y b e g r u d g e d

one

m a n w h o was u n h o l y a n d r a s h (atasthalori) to be k i n g o f A s i a

and

E u r o p e . H e t r e a t e d h o l y a n d p r o f a n e things alike, b u r n i n g a n d t h r o w i n g t o the g r o u n d t h e statues o f t h e gods. H e even w h i p p e d t h e sea a n d h u r l e d l e g i r o n s i n t o i t ' ( 8 . 1 0 9 . 3 ) . 3 A n d , a few m o n t h s l a t e r , the A t h e n i a n s e c h o e d these sentiments i n t h e i r response to M a r d o n i u s ' offer o f a l l i a n c e , ' W e w i l l a t t a c k h i m , t r u s t i n g i n the gods a n d heroes as o u r allies, t h e gods a n d heroes f o r w h o m X e r x e s h a d n o respect a n d w h o s e b u i l d i n g s a n d statues he b u r n e d ' ( 8 . 1 4 3 . 2 ) . T h e gods a n d heroes w h o m t h e A t h e n i a n s a n d o t h e r Greeks t r u s t e d a n d w h o b r o u g h t t h e m v i c t o r y over the Persians are those whose efforts a n d , i n p a r t i c u l a r , whose dedications after the victories Herodotus records i n his n a r r a t i v e o f the invasions: A p o l l o o f D e l p h i , Zeus o f Olympia,

Poseidon o f I s t h m i a , Zeus E l e u t h e r i o s o f Plataea,

Athena

o f A t h e n s , D e m e t e r Eleusinia o f Plataea, M y c a l e , a n d A t h e n s , A r t e m i s Agrotera and M o u n y c h i a of Athens, and Artemis of Artemision.

The

heroes i n c l u d e d t h e A t h e n i a n A j a x , the A e g i n e t a n A e a c i d a e , a n d t h e D e l p h i c Phylakos a n d A u t o n o o s . T h e s e specific gods a n d heroes a n d the gods i n g e n e r a l h e l p e d the Greeks defeat t h e i n v a d i n g Persians against o v e r w h e l m i n g odds. As H e r o d o t u s

tells i t , the ' d i v i n e ' a n d

some gods, even G r e e k gods, m a y have h e l p e d Persians a n d t h e i r predecessors i n e a r l i e r times (e.g., Croesus, Cyrus, became

1.124.1,

1.46—56.1, 8 5 - 9 1 ,

126.6, 209.4 a n d 9.122.2), b u t w h e n

s q u a r e l y b e t w e e n Persians

and

the c o n f l i c t

a n d Greeks, the Greek divine

w o r l d c o n c e i v e d o f as a w h o l e o r i n parts s t o o d c o m p l e t e l y

and

solely b e h i n d the G r e e k s . 4 T h e s e gods a n d heroes h e l p e d t h e Greeks o n l a n d a n d at sea, b y oracles a n d o m e n s , a n d b y p e r s o n a l a p p e a r ances a n d a p p a r i t i o n s . I t w a s , i n H e r o d o t u s '

own judgment,

the

A t h e n i a n s ' w h o g a t h e r e d together a l l t h e rest o f Greece a n d r e p u l s e d

3

See also Fisher, this volume (Ch. 9, p. 223). Mardonius' consultations of Trophonius, Apollo at Abae and Ptoon, and Amphiaraus at Thebes apparently proved fruitless (8.133—6), and at Plataea he eventually disregarded his Greek seer (9.33-41). The Persian sacrifices to Thetis and the Nereids at Cape Sepias may have stopped the storm off Artemision (7.191.2). For the role of the Delphic oracle in the invasion of 480 BCE, see below. 4

189

RELIGION I N HERODOTUS

King

X e r x e s ' , b u t t h e y d i d so o n l y 'second t o t h e gods' {meta ge

theous, 7 . 1 3 9 . 5 ) . T h e r e are some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y G r e e k features o f this d i v i n e h e l p . O n l y heroes, f o r e x a m p l e , a p p e a r themselves assisting the G r e e k soldiers i n b a t t l e , like Phylakos

a n d Autonoos

at D e l p h i

(8.38—39.1).

G r e e k gods d o n o t i n H o m e r i c f a s h i o n m a k e a n e p i p h a n y i n b a t t l e (or a n y w h e r e

else) i n H e r o d o t u s '

Histories, a n d t h e h i s t o r i a n labels

Pisistratus' self-serving a t t e m p t t o stage a d i v i n e e p i p h a n y n a i v e a n d silly a c t i o n ' ( 1 . 6 0 . 3 - 5 ) .

'a very

T h i s distinction—heroes occasion-

a l l y a n d p e r s o n a l l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n h i s t o r i c a l b a t t l e s , gods n e v e r — i s not peculiarly Herodotean.

I t is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f prose accounts o f

these w a r s i n a n d after t h e classical p e r i o d . 5 Secondly, Herodotus'

d i v i n e p a r t i c i p a t i o n is d e t e r m i n e d l a r g e l y b y l o c a l e . Athena,

Demeter, a n d Artemis became involved i n the

Persian W a r s because t h e i r o w n sanctuaries w e r e i n t h e field o f c o m b a t . T h e y are t h e A t h e n a o f A t h e n s , t h e D e m e t e r o f A t h e n s , and Mycale,

a n d the Artemis o f Artemision a n d Athens.

c o n f l i c t b e e n p l a y e d o u t elsewhere, i n t h e Peloponnesus

Plataea, H a d the

for exam-

p l e , w e w o u l d find q u i t e d i f f e r e n t deities i n v o l v e d , a n d a l l this is i n accord w i t h the local character o f Greek religious cult.

Recognition

o f t h e l o c a l concerns o f t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g deities raises t h e q u e s t i o n o f m o t i v a t i o n . W h y , i n H e r o d o t u s ' v i e w , d i d these gods s u p p o r t t h e Greeks a n d oppose t h e Persians? H e r o d o t u s , u n l i k e H o m e r , does n o t p r o b e d i v i n e m o t i v a t i o n a n d n o w h e r e gives a n e x p l i c i t answer, b u t , to j u d g e f r o m his n a r r a t i v e , i t seems t h a t these gods w e r e i n t e r e s t e d p r i m a r i l y i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r o w n sanctuaries a n d p u n i s h i n g the Persians f o r t h e v i o l a t i o n o f those places. T h e r e is n o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t they

'were protecting' devoted worshippers o r favouring

Greeks

because t h e y w e r e G r e e k . T h e heroes Phylakos a n d A u t o n o o s

chased

the Persians

from Delphi,

t o o k vengeance

the site o f t h e i r sanctuaries.

Protesilaus

o n t h e Persian A r t a y c t e s f o r t h e d e s e c r a t i o n o f his

s a n c t u a r y (9.116—20), a n d , i n H e r o d o t u s ' v i e w , D e m e t e r E l e u s i n i a o f Plataea d e n i e d

fighting

a n d d y i n g Persians a d m i t t a n c e t o h e r sanc-

t u a r y because t h e y h a d b u r n e d h e r s a n c t u a r y i n A t t i c a ( 9 . 6 5 . 2 ) . Only

t h e p a n h e l l e n i c deities, deities a l r e a d y p a n h e l l e n i c in cult,

p a r t i c i p a t e d b e y o n d l o c a l a n d state b o u n d a r i e s . F r o m t h e spoils o f t h e i r g r e a t v i c t o r y at Plataea t h e Greeks as a g r o u p 'set aside a t i t h e

See, e.g., Dietrich (1986) 94-101 and Mikalson (1991) 21, 30-1, and 65.

190

JON

D.

MIKALSON

f o r the g o d i n D e l p h i a n d f r o m this was d e d i c a t e d the g o l d t r i p o d o n the b r o n z e t h r e e - h e a d e d snake w h i c h stands near the a l t a r . T h e y set aside a p o r t i o n also f o r the g o d i n O l y m p i a , a n d f r o m i t t h e y d e d i c a t e d a b r o n z e Z e u s , f i f t e e n feet t a l l . A n d

there was a p o r t i o n

f o r the g o d at the I s t h m u s , a n d f r o m i t came a ten a n d f o o t b r o n z e Poseidon'

one-half

(9.81.1). D e l p h i c A p o l l o , Zeus O l y m p i o s ,

and

I s t h m i a n Poseidon thus each r e c e i v e d a m a j o r d e d i c a t i o n , b u t each h a d a d i s t i n c t role w h i c h reflects a c o m p l e x b l e n d i n g o f l o c a l a n d p a n h e l l e n i c cults a n d interests. F o r the storms at A r t e m i s i o n a n d o f f E u b o e a t h a t caused so m u c h d a m a g e to the Persian fleet i n 4 8 0 B C ,

the D e l p h i a n s

had

prayed

to a n d t h e n n o d o u b t c r e d i t e d the A n e m o i ( ' W i n d s ' ) o f T h y i a , as d i d the A t h e n i a n s

t h e i r Boreas a n d O r e i t h y i a .

B u t o n this occasion

the o t h e r Greeks as a g r o u p ' p r a y e d a n d p o u r e d libations to Poseidon Soter . . . A n d f r o m t h a t t i m e t i l l n o w have n a m e d Poseidon " S o t e r " ' (7.178,

189,

and

192).

Poseidon,

b y the v e r y n a t u r e o f his r e a l m ,

transcends state b o u n d a r i e s , a n d here the n o n - D e l p h i a n ,

non-Athenian

G r e e k s , engaged i n n a v a l w a r f a r e f a r f r o m t h e i r h o m e l a n d s ,

natu-

r a l l y i n v o k e d a n d u l t i m a t e l y as a g r o u p r e w a r d e d the one P o s e i d o n panhellenic i n cult, the Poseidon o f Isthmia. H e r o d o t u s offers n o clue i n his Histories w h y

Zeus o f

Olympia

s h o u l d be r e w a r d e d after the G r e e k v i c t o r y . F o r t h a t we m u s t piece t o g e t h e r accounts i n T h u c y d i d e s P l u t a r c h (Arist. 19—21). O n

(2.71-74), Diodorus

t h e i r w a y to Plataea, the

(11.29.1),

and

Peloponnesian

c o n t i n g e n t o f Greeks h a d v o w e d t h a t ' i f t h e y w o n , the Greeks w o u l d celebrate t o g e t h e r o n t h a t d a y each y e a r the E l e u t h e r i a h o l d t h e agonistic games

and would

o f F r e e d o m (eleutheria) i n Plataea'.

After

t h e i r v i c t o r y the Greeks f u l f i l l e d t h e i r v o w , f o u n d i n g a n e w p a n h e l l e n i c c u l t f o r Zeus E l e u t h e r i o s w i t h a n a l t a r , p r e c i n c t , sacrifice, fest i v a l , a n d games. 6 T h i s Zeus E l e u t h e r i o s was surely a b y f o r m o f Zeus Olympios,

a n aspect o f Zeus w h i c h H e r o d o t u s h i m s e l f

associates w i t h ' p o l i t i c a l ' f r e e d o m

(3.142). T h e

elsewhere

h i s t o r i c a l accounts,

d e d i c a t i o n s , a n d l a t e r h i s t o r y o f this n e w p a n h e l l e n i c c u l t suggest t h a t i t was p r i m a r i l y c o m m e m o r a t i v e , 7

a new cult o f a panhellenic

deity at t h e site o f a m a j o r v i c t o r y .

6

That a new cult of Zeus Eleutherios was founded at Plataea after the victory is widely accepted, but some see the panhellenic festival and games of the Eleutheria as a fourth or third century BC innovation. See Robertson (1986) 94-5 and Etienne and Pierart (1975) 55 and 63-8. ' See, e.g., Robertson (1986).

191

R E L I G I O N I N HERODOTUS

H e r o d o t u s gives D e l p h i c A p o l l o p r i d e o f place a m o n g the three p a n h e l l e n i c gods f o r the v i c t o r y o v e r the Persians, w i t h d e d i c a t i o n s f r o m the battles o f b o t h Salamis a n d Plataea ( 8 . 1 2 1 - 2 a n d 9 . 8 1 . 1 ) . 8 B u t A p o l l o ' s role i n the h i s t o r y o f the second i n v a s i o n was As

complex.

a l o c a l g o d he p o w e r f u l l y a n d m i r a c u l o u s l y d r o v e the

f r o m his o w n

sanctuary,

' p r o t e c t i n g his o w n p r o p e r t y '

Persians

as he

had

assured the D e l p h i a n s he c o u l d ( 8 . 3 5 - 9 ) . B u t d u r i n g the w a r his o r a cles d e t e r r e d the A r g i v e s ( 7 . 1 4 8 - 5 0 ) a n d the C r e t a n s ( 7 . 1 6 9 - 7 1 ) f r o m j o i n i n g the Greek effort, a n d his oracles nearly frightened the Athenians into abandoning

the cause ( 7 . 1 3 9 . 6 - 1 4 4 ) . T h e s e oracles raise occa-

sional c o m p l a i n t s f r o m m o d e r n scholars, b u t v i e w e d f r o m the p e r spective o f the cities w h i c h sought t h e m , t h e y m i g h t w e l l have been realistic assessments t h a t , h a d the w a r e n d e d i n the w a y m o s t l i k e l y , c o u l d have saved needless s u f f e r i n g o r even t o t a l d e s t r u c t i o n . O n p o s i t i v e side, b e f o r e A r t e m i s i o n

Herodotus'

Delphic

oracle

the

urged

prayers to various w i n d a n d sea gods, a n d these prayers were answered (7.178 a n d 189). T h e d e a t h o f L e o n i d a s f u l f i l l e d , i n a w a y to the G r e e k e f f o r t , a D e l p h i c oracle ( 7 . 2 2 0 . 3 - 4 ) . T h e

favourable

Delphic

ora-

cles to A t h e n s u r g e d the strategically wise e v a c u a t i o n o f A t t i c a a n d , p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d , suggested the strategy a n d place f o r the B a t t l e of Salamis

(7.139-44).

And

the oracle b r o u g h t

the l u c k y

T e i s a m e n u s to Plataea ( 9 . 3 3 - 5 ) a n d set u p M a r d o n i u s

seer

f o r disaster

t h e r e (8.114). 9 I n h i n d s i g h t w e m i g h t , t h o u g h H e r o d o t u s does n o t , f a u l t A p o l l o ' s d i s c o u r a g i n g oracles. H i s

defence

o f his o w n

sanctuary

might

be

i m a g i n e d as a p u r e l y p a r o c h i a l e f f o r t . B u t t h a t A p o l l o ' s role i n the defeat o f the Persians was m u c h g r e a t e r , t h a t he i n fact was t h e r e l i gious f o c a l p o i n t o f the G r e e k e f f o r t , is i n d i c a t e d b y the o a t h w h i c h the a l l i e d Greeks t o o k at a n early stage i n the i n v a s i o n o f 4 8 0 'Whichever

BC:

Greeks give themselves u p to the Persians, i f t h e y have

n o t been f o r c e d a n d t h e i r s i t u a t i o n is g o o d , are to p a y a t i t h e to the god i n Delphi'

(7.132.2). H e r e H e r o d o t u s singles o u t n o t Zeus

of

O l y m p i a o r Poseidon o f the I s t h m u s b u t A p o l l o o f D e l p h i as the deity t o represent the G r e e k side. O n l y l a t e r , after the v i c t o r i e s , d i d A p o l l o share this h o n o u r w i t h Zeus o f O l y m p i a a n d P o s e i d o n o f I s t h m i a .

8

For the dedications Delphic Apollo received after the Battle of Marathon, not recorded by Herodotus, see Paus. 10.10.1-2, 11.5, 18.1, 19.4 and IGV' 1463B. Plutarch (Arist. 11.3-8) has the Delphic oracle designate the site of Plataea for batde and tell of the necessary vows and sacrifices. 9

192

JON D . MIKALSON

S u c h are the g e n e r a l o u t l i n e s a n d the m a j o r d i v i n e players i n H e r o d o t u s ' a c c o u n t o f the Persian invasions. T h e y m a y be dismissed b y historians whose p r i m a r y interests t r a d i t i o n a l l y lie elsewhere, b u t t o d o so is t o neglect a facet o f the w a r H e r o d o t u s t h o u g h t w o r t h y of inclusion. A n d

to assume t h a t Greeks w o u l d i n a religious vac-

u u m face, p r e p a r e f o r , fight, w i n , a n d r e m e m b e r a w a r t h a t t h r e a t ened t h e i r v e r y existence m a y be to m i s u n d e r s t a n d a n d o v e r s i m p l i f y classical G r e e k society. The

texts o f d e d i c a t i o n s m a d e

to the gods b y the Greeks after

t h e i r v i c t o r y celebrate the b r a v e r y a n d a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f the Greeks themselves, saying v i r t u a l l y n o t h i n g o f the gods' roles a n d i n n o w a y c l a i m i n g t h a t the d i v i n i t i e s s i m p l y 'gave'

the Greeks v i c t o r y . 1 0

In

Herodotus'

v i e w the r o l e o f the gods w a s , i t seems, to m a k e i t a

'fair

I n the I o n i a n R e v o l t the P h o c a e a n general

fight'.

Dionysius

p r o m i s e d the I o n i a n s v i c t o r y b y d e f a u l t o r b a t t l e i f o n l y ' t h e gods make it a fair

fight'

t h a t the A t h e n i a n s

(6.11.3). A t M a r a t h o n M i l t i a d e s was c o n f i d e n t w o u l d w i n ' i f the gods m a d e

i t a fair

fight'

(6.109.5). T h e s t o r m at A r t e m i s i o n a n d later o f f the coast o f E u b o e a led Herodotus

h i m s e l f t o c o n c l u d e t h a t ' e v e r y t h i n g was b e i n g d o n e

b y the g o d to m a k e the Persian force e q u a l i n size to the

Greek

a n d n o t m u c h l a r g e r ' (8.13). G i v e n the massive s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e i r o p p o n e n t s i n n u m b e r s , w h a t Greeks n e e d e d f r o m t h e i r gods was a f a i r fight. T h e

Greeks themselves c o u l d h a n d l e the rest.

T h e Hutories, o f course, c o n t a i n failures as w e l l as successes, t h o u g h , g i v e n the o u t c o m e ,

m o r e failures f o r b a r b a r i a n s t h a n f o r

Greeks.

A c c o r d i n g to H e r o d o t u s , m a n y o f these failures s i m p l y ' h a d ' to h a p p e n . T h e y w e r e , i n some u n d e f i n e d w a y , ' d e s t i n e d ' . T h i n g s ' h a d ' t o t u r n o u t b a d l y f o r the L y d i a n C a n d a u l e s (1.8.2), f o r the

Egyptian

A p r i e s ( 2 . 1 6 1 . 3 ) , a n d f o r the T h r a c i a n Scyles (4.79.1). ' I t was essary' t h a t t h e N a x i a n s n o t be t a k e n b y M e g a b a t e s ' 499 B C

nec-

expedition i n

( 5 . 3 3 . 2 ) , a n d t h a t evils b e f a l l X e r x e s ' mistress a n d h e r f a m -

i l y after the w a r (9.109.2).

So too f o r Greeks. Evils ' h a d ' to s p r o u t

u p for C o r i n t h f r o m Eetion's f a m i l y (5.92.8.1),

Demaratus'

origins

h a d to be revealed a n d he lose his k i n g s h i p (6.64), M i l t i a d e s h a d t o 'die n o t w e l l ' ( 6 . 1 3 5 . 3 ) ,

a n d , m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the H e l l e s p o n t

'had

t o be y o k e d b y a Persian m a n ' (7.6.4) a n d a l l A t t i c a b e c o m e

sub-

10

E.g., Aeschines 3.116; Plut. Them. 8.2-3, Anst. 19.6, Mor. 870F and 873C; D. S. 11.14.4 and 33.2; and IG P 1463B.

193

R E L I G I O N I N HERODOTUS

j e c t to the Persians ( 8 . 5 3 . 1 ) . 1 1

Why

' i t was necessary' t h a t all these

things h a p p e n w e are n o t t o l d , b u t i t is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t each event i n its o w n c o n t e x t is a m i s f o r t u n e o r disaster. T h a t these evils ' h a d ' to h a p p e n does n o t m e a n , o f course, t h a t a l l evils i n the Histories ' h a d to h a p p e n ' .

Herodotus

shares the i n c l i n a t i o n o f m o s t

Greek

a u t h o r s t o i n t r o d u c e necessity i n some places a n d i g n o r e i t i n o t h ers. H e

uses 'necessity' to e x p l a i n evil i n m u c h the w a y t h a t l a t e r

Greeks used ' f o r t u n e ' {tuche).

12

B o t h reflect the Greeks' r e l u c t a n c e to

h o l d gods o f c u l t responsible f o r the v a r i o u s m a j o r a n d m i n o r m i s f o r t u n e s o f life. B u t m i s f o r t u n e a n d even d e a t h m i g h t also be the p u n i s h m e n t f o r i m p i e t y . I n the v i e w o f H e r o d o t u s '

T h e m i s t o c l e s , as w e have seen,

X e r x e s f a i l e d i n his e x p e d i t i o n because

he b u r n e d a n d

destroyed

sanctuaries a n d statues o f the gods. So t o o a g r o u p o f Persians d i e d for v i o l a t i n g Poseidon's sanctuary at Potidaea (8.129), as d i d Artayctes f o r desecrating the s a n c t u a r y o f Protesilaus, a n episode f e a t u r e d i n the c l o s i n g pages Herodotus

o f the Histories ( 9 . 1 1 6 - 2 1 ) .

O t h e r impieties that

has e x p l i c i t l y p u n i s h e d are the m a l t r e a t m e n t o f priests

(Cambyses, 3 . 2 9 . 2 ; C l e o m e n e s , 6.81); v i o l a t i o n o f a s y l u m 6.91; Cleomenes,

(Aeginetans,

6 . 7 5 . 3 a n d 7 9 - 8 0 ; cf. 1 . 1 5 7 - 6 0 ) ; p e r j u r y (Glaucos,

6.86); v i o l a t i o n o f xenia ( A l e x a n d e r , 2.114

a n d 120; Spartans,

5.63.2,

9 0 . 1 , a n d 9 1 . 2 - 3 ) ; k i l l i n g o f relatives (Cambyses, 3 . 6 5 . 5 ) ; a n d m a l t r e a t m e n t o f the d e a d (Cambyses, 3 . 1 6 . 2 a n d 37.1). T h e

multiple

i m p i e t i e s o f the n o t o r i o u s l y i m p i o u s such as C a m b y s e s ( 3 . 1 6 , 2 7 - 3 0 , a n d 37-38.1) a n d Cleomenes ( 5 . 7 4 - 5 ; 6.75, c a n be e x p l a i n e d o n l y as 'madness'.

The

25.3,

7 9 - 8 2 , a n d 84)

c r i m e s , the p u n i s h m e n t s ,

a n d the n a t u r e o f i m p i e t y i n H e r o d o t u s are all c o n v e n t i o n a l l y G r e e k . For

a f e w f e a t u r e d figures i n his a c c o u n t , i n p a r t i c u l a r

X e r x e s , a n d Polycrates,

Herodotus

gives a r i c h e r , m o r e

explanation o f their misfortunes.13 H e

Croesus, dramatic

describes t h e i r b e h a v i o u r

in

terms o f atasthalia, hubris, a n d d i v i n e phthonos, concepts w h i c h are c o m m o n l y f o u n d i n epic, l y r i c , a n d early t r a g e d y b u t are a l i e n t o the language o f p o p u l a r , cultic r e l i g i o n w h i c h H e r o d o t u s m o s t c o m m o n l y e m p l o y s e l s e w h e r e . 1 4 X e r x e s ' signature i m p i e t y , f o r e x a m p l e , was the

11

On these cases see Gould (1989) 68-74; Lloyd-Jones (1983) 67 8; and de Ste Croix (1977) 140-3. See Mikalson (1983) 59-62 and (1991) 18 and 22 8. See also the discussion of these stories by Said, this volume (Ch. 6). For the distinction between popular religion and 'poetic' religion as found in Athenian tragedy, see Mikalson (1991). See also Fisher, this volume (Ch. 9). 12

13

14

194

JON D . MIKALSON

w h i p p i n g , c h a i n i n g , b r a n d i n g , a n d v e r b a l abuse o f the

Hellespont

after a s t o r m d e s t r o y e d his first b r i d g e : A great storm came up and pounded to pieces and broke the bridge. W h e n Xerxes heard o f it, he thought it a terrible thing and ordered that the Hellespont receive 300 blows from a whip and that a pair o f leg irons be cast into the sea. I have heard that he also sent tattooers to b r a n d the Hellespont. A n d he ordered that, as they did the whipping, they were to say these barbaric and rash (atasthala) words: 'Bitter water, y o u r master imposes on you this punishment because you treated h i m unjustly when you have suffered no injustice from h i m . K i n g Xerxes w i l l cross you whether you wish it or not. A n d justly no human being sacrifices to you because you are a foul and brackish river.' (7.34-35.2) T h i s is n o t s i m p l y a n o t h e r order a n d presented

impiety, but an impiety of a different

i n a different manner

f r o m the impieties

of

b u r n i n g sanctuaries a n d v i o l a t i n g a s y l u m . A

key w o r d is ' r a s h ' ,

an

inadequate translation o f atasthala, w h i c h suggests links to Themistocles' l a t e r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f X e r x e s (atasthalon, 8 . 1 0 9 . 3 above) i n reference

to t h e same i n c i d e n t a n d ,

more

broadly,

to the S u i t o r s

H o m e r ' s Odyssey ( e . g . , 2 3 . 6 7 ) , to H e s i o d ' s T i t a n s (Tk. haps

more

Aeschylus'

immediately Persae w h o

relevant,

to the Xerxes a n d

are beset b y ate a n d hubris?

3

of

209), a n d , p e r Persians

of

Aeschylus'

and

H e r o d o t u s ' versions o f t h e i n c i d e n t at t h e H e l l e s p o n t d i f f e r i n i m p o r t a n t ways, b u t b o t h m a k e this c r i t i c a l event, the b r i d g i n g o f E u r o p e a n d A s i a a n d t h e first a t t e m p t b y o n e m a n t o r u l e b o t h c o n t i n e n t s , i n t o a c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the m a n . B o t h t r e a t m e n t s are p o w e r f u l i n d i c t m e n t s o f t h e i m p i e t y a n d i r r a t i o n a l i t y o f X e r x e s , a n d b o t h are f r a m e d in language

a n d concepts

o f poetic literature, not o f popular

reli-

gious t r a d i t i o n s . B u t for H e r o d o t u s atasthalia, hubris, a n d divine phthonos, like t h e 'necessity' discussed e a r l i e r , are n o t , as f o r Aeschylus,

a the-

o l o g i c a l m a t r i x t h a t structures t h e w h o l e . H e r o d o t u s i n t r o d u c e s t h e m o n l y f o r a f e w l a r g e r t h a n life i n d i v i d u a l s to w h o m

he w a n t e d

to

give special t r e a t m e n t . Herodotus'

Histories is filled w i t h oracles, o m e n s , manteis, a n d

dreams,

a n d is t h e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e a n d best single source for G r e e k d i v -

15

E.g., 96-100, 800-31, and 1005-7. For the link of atasthalia with hubris in Herodotus, see 3.80.3-4.

195

R E L I G I O N I N HERODOTUS

i n a t i o n i n the classical p e r i o d . 1 6 H i s

oracles, o m e n s ,

mantels, a n d

d r e a m s are s i m i l a r i n t h a t t h e y give m o r t a l s i n f o r m a t i o n o r at least indications o f w h a t lies i n the f u t u r e , b u t there are significant differences a m o n g t h e m . O n l y oracles have a n a m e d d i v i n e agent, like t h a t o f A p o l l o o f D e l p h i , w h o i n his sanctuary t h r o u g h his c u l t officials a n d rituals gives p r e d i c t i o n s i n his n a m e .

Prophecies

f r o m omens

and

d r e a m s m i g h t be c r e d i t e d to 'the gods' o r 'the d i v i n e ' (e.g., 6 . 2 7 . 1 - 3 , 7.12—18), b u t o f t e n i n v o l v e n o deity. For

omens

the l o c a t i o n

and

circumstances m i g h t offer a clue ( D e m e t e r near Eleusis? 8.65) as m i g h t the f o r m (Zeus f o r a l i g h t n i n g bolt? 4 . 7 9 . 2 ) , b u t even here we, not Herodotus,

m a k e the c o n n e c t i o n . T h e

different methods

of

d i v i n a t i o n also t r e a t d i f f e r e n t topics, w i t h o n l y rare o v e r l a p . O r a c l e s establish n e w

cults a n d r i t u a l s (e.g.,

H e r o d o t u s a t t r i b u t e s to o n l y one (2.49.2);

1 . 1 6 7 . 1 - 2 , 5.114), a n a c t i v i t y

mantis, the l e g e n d a r y

Melampus

oracles offer expiations a n d solutions f o r religious c r i m e s

(e.g., 1 . 1 9 - 2 2 , 6 . 1 3 2 - 6 ) , a n d o n l y t h e y c a n give d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t m i g h t shape a society o r g o v e r n m e n t (e.g., 1.65, 4.161). Mantels a n d omens give i n f o r m a t i o n p r i m a r i l y a b o u t results o f p l a n n e d

and

c u r r e n t activities (e.g., 8 . 6 4 ; 9 . 3 6 - 8 ) , b u t oracles c a n c o m m a n d

new

a c t i o n as w e l l (e.g., 4 . 1 5 5 . 3 - 1 5 7 , 7 . 1 3 9 . 6 - 1 4 4 ) . O r a c l e s , mantels, a n d omens

usually give t i m e l y w a r n i n g s t h a t , i f h e e d e d ,

escape disaster, 1 7 b u t H e r o d o t u s '

a l l o w one

d r e a m s seem r a t h e r to

to

announce,

literally o r s y m b o l i c a l l y , a n inescapable f u t u r e (e.g., 1 . 3 4 - 4 5 ; 3 . 1 2 4 - 5 ) . M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , v i r t u a l l y a l l oracles, o m e n s , mantels, a n d dreams prove accurate.18 Oracles i n particular m i g h t appear misleading a n d be so i n i t i a l l y , b u t i n the m o s t f l a g r a n t such cases H e r o d o t u s takes pains to have the recipients themselves u l t i m a t e l y a c k n o w l e d g e oracle's correctness (e.g., 1 . 9 1 . 4 - 6 , 6 . 7 6 . 1 a n d 80). M o d e r n

the

readers

a r e , o f course, d i s i n c l i n e d t o accept t h a t the m a j o r G r e e k i n s t r u m e n t s o f d i v i n a t i o n p r o v e d accurate o n a l l occasions, a n d to e x p l a i n t h e i r i n f a l l i b i l i t y i n t h e Histories m o s t assume t h a t H e r o d o t u s

16

chose

Harrison (2000b) 122-57, Crahay (1956), and Kirchberg (1965) treat specifically Herodotean oracles, and Frisch (1968) the dreams in the Histories. Individual Herodotean oracles are discussed in the fuller accounts of the Delphic oracle by Fontenrose (1978) and Parke and Wormell (1956). On the relationship of oracles to 'what has to happen' or 'what will happen' and on how individuals succeed or fail in their efforts in this regard, see Kirchberg (1965). Interpreters of oracles and dreams, whether Greek chresmologoi or Persian priests, however, are often in error. See, e.g., 1.128.2 and 7.142.3. 17

18

196

JON D . MIKALSON

to record only the successful instances or shaped or created occasions o f divination to make them appear successful. I myself do not accept that Herodotus created oracles or other instances o f divination out o f nothing, with no warrant from his sources. I rather think that the uniform success o f divination may be owed to two mutually supportive trends: the first, that the traditions from w h i c h Herodotus drew—some emanating from oracular sanctuaries—tended to 'remember' better the successful cases or to reinterpret problematic incidents retrospectively; and the second, that the poetic convention—most demonstrable in tragedy— that oracles, omens, mantels, and dreams always give the truth has affected Herodotus' narrative art. Both trends would lead to the same result. Since all oracles, omens, mantels, and dreams will prove true, those who ignore, forget, misinterpret, or reject them are, as i n tragedy, from that moment marked for destruction and suffering. A n d this fundamentally poetic feature is one o f Herodotus' favourite devices for foreshadowing and, i n some instances, for explaining the suffering of his historical figures, whether it be Croesus (1.34-45) or Xerxes (7.37 and 57-58.1), Polycrates (3.124-5) or Hipparchus (5.55-6). I t is then not surprising that in his account of the Greek victory over the Persians it is the Persians Xerxes and Mardonius who disregard or misinterpret 'signs' at critical moments (e.g., 7.37, 57—58.1; 8.114; 9.36-8, 41.4-43). 19

20

Herodotus occasionally delves into the early history of Greek religion, not systematically but i n response to parallels he finds i n foreign cultures. The details appear sporadically in the Histories but seem to derive from a single comprehensive and coherent view o f the beginnings o f Greek religion on mainland Greece. The pre-Greek Pelasgians there originally worshipped nameless gods through only sacrifice and prayer. These Pelasgians, with the encouragement of the oracle at Dodona, gave Egyptian names to their gods (2.50 and 52). O n their arrival the Greeks took over these Pelasgian gods with Egyptian names and themselves enriched their repertoire of worship by adopting the Egyptian practices o f giving to the gods altars, statues, temples, festivals, processions, and 'offering bringings' (prosago-

19 2

On the possible nature of these sources, see Evans (1991) 89-146. " Mikalson (1991) 87-114, 129, 207-8.

197

R E L I G I O N I N HERODOTUS

gias) (2.4.2 a n d 58). T h e Greeks also i m p o r t e d f r o m E g y p t the occasional n e w d e i t y o r names f o r n e w deities, n o t a b l y D i o n y s u s 145-6), Pan

(2.49,

( 2 . 1 4 5 - 6 ) , a n d H e r a c l e s ( 2 . 4 3 - 4 ) . A n d , j u s t 4 0 0 years

before Herodotus'

o w n t i m e , Hesiod and H o m e r 'created a divine

genealogy f o r G r e e k s , gave epithets t o t h e gods, d i s t r i b u t e d t h e i r "offices" a n d "crafts", and m a r k e d out their o u t w a r d

appearances'

(2.53). S u c h is o n l y the broadest o u t l i n e o f d e v e l o p m e n t s f o r w h i c h Herodotus

offers n u m e r o u s

and varied arguments and i m p o r t a n t

exceptions a n d nuances, b u t the outline shows that H e r o d o t u s accounts f o r , r i g h t l y o r w r o n g l y , m a j o r features o f G r e e k r e l i g i o n as i t was p r a c t i s e d i n his o w n t i m e . H e r o d o t u s ' interest i n r e l i g i o u s t o p i c s , o f course, ranges f a r b e y o n d G r e e k r e l i g i o n . S t a n d a r d features o f his m a n y e t h n o l o g i c a l surveys o f n o n - G r e e k peoples are descriptions o f the gods they w o r s h i p p e d , t h e i r m a j o r sanctuaries, a n d u n u s u a l cultic o r b u r i a l practices, a l l usually n o t e d because o f their variance f r o m the Greek. T h e

Ethiopians

at M e r o e , f o r e x a m p l e , w o r s h i p p e d o n l y Zeus a n d D i o n y s u s (2.29.7), the T h r a c i a n s

only Dionysus,

Artemis,

a n d A r e s (5.7).

Herodotus

lingers l o n g o n a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c o m p l e x s a n c t u a r y o f Zeus Belos at B a b y l o n

(1.181—3). H e

describes at some

length the

un-Greek

practices o f t h e Persians, t h a t t h e y ' d o n o t have t h e c u s t o m o f erecti n g statues a n d temples a n d altars. . . . T h e y d o n o t m a k e altars o r l i g h t fires w h e n t h e y i n t e n d to sacrifice, a n d t h e y d o n o t use l i b a tions, a flute, garlands, o r barley-corns' ( 1 . 1 3 1 - 1 3 2 . 1 ) . T h e

Massagetai,

he tells us, s a c r i f i c e d a n d ate t h e i r e l d e r l y ( 1 . 2 1 6 . 2 - 3 ) , a n d

the

Issedones ate a l l b u t the heads o f t h e i r d e a d m a l e relatives (4.26). For

the Persians a n d the E g y p t i a n s i t was u n h o l y to c r e m a t e the

dead. T o

t h e Persians

fire

was a g o d , a n d i t was n o t j u s t to give

the corpse o f a h u m a n b e i n g to a g o d . T o

the E g y p t i a n s fire was

a l i v i n g creature w h i c h w o u l d die i f i t c o n s u m e d h u m a n flesh (3.16.3). Herodotus

offers dozens o f such r e l i g i o u s practices o f

non-Greeks,

b u t o n l y r a r e l y , as i n o u r last e x a m p l e , puts t h e m i n t o the c o n t e x t o f t h a t society's system o f religious beliefs. 2 1 T h i s is p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p a r ent i n his l o n g a c c o u n t (nearly 3 0 chapters) o f the E g y p t i a n gods, w h e r e he w r i t e s m u c h o f t h e i r n a m e s , t h e i r sanctuaries, a n d t h e i r festivals, b u t a l m o s t n o t h i n g o f w h a t the E g y p t i a n s believed t h e i r

On this, see Gould (1994) and Burkert (1990).

198

JON D . MIKALSON

gods did (in a cultic sense) or had done (in mythological terms). Herodotus warns us that this will be so i n his account of Egypt (2.3.2 and 65.2), but i t seems his general inclination, no doubt increased by difficulties o f language and sources, when he deals with foreign peoples. Herodotus likewise does not describe, a la Homer, the Greek gods 'in action', but that certainly should not lead us to conclude that he therefore thought the gods did not contribute to Greek life or to the Greek effort against the Persians. I n his Histories Herodotus employed cultic rather than poetic thought, with prayers, vows, and sacrifices directed to the gods to achieve a given purpose, and, after that purpose was accomplished, with memorials and expressions o f gratitude through dedications. W i t h the exception o f the occasional storm or phantom, the Greek worshipper and historian could not determine what specific actions the divinity had taken, but the success itself was the answer to prayers and sacrifices, and that success was then to be marked by a gift to the gods. I t is this popular, cultic thought that can be traced throughout Herodotus' Histories, with, as we have seen, the occasional admixture o f elements from the poetic tradition.

CHAPTER N I N E POPULAR MORALITY IN Nick

HERODOTUS

Fisher

Introduction: footychides and Glaucus, Croesus and Solon I n Book Six, Herodotus

describes h o w , s h o r t l y before D a r i u s '

inva-

sion o f m a i n l a n d G r e e c e , K i n g L e o t y c h i d e s of" S p a r t a sought t o p e r suade t h e A t h e n i a n s t o s u r r e n d e r t e n A e g i n e t a n hostages w h o m he a n d t h e n o w disgraced K i n g

C l e o m e n e s h a d left w i t h t h e m . H i s

r h e t o r i c a l strategy was t o tell a s t o r y w i t h a s t r o n g m o r a l : 1 a S p a r t a n c a l l e d G l a u c u s , w i t h a n e x c e p t i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n f o r j u s t i c e , agreed t o h o l d o n t r u s t a large s u m o f m o n e y rized

from a Milesian, b u t tempo-

w h e n asked f o r its r e t u r n b y his sons, a n d e n q u i r e d o f A p o l l o ' s

oracle a t D e l p h i w h e t h e r he m i g h t p e r j u r e h i m s e l f i n o r d e r t o keep the m o n e y . T h e oracle responded t h a t even i f Glaucus h i m s e l f p r o f i t e d f r o m his p e r j u r y , his descendants w o u l d p a y i n t h e e n d . G l a u c u s i m m e d i a t e l y asked f o r forgiveness f o r even asking the q u e s t i o n o f the g o d , a n d r e t u r n e d the m o n e y ; b u t the priestess' p r o m i s e t h a t i t was t o o late w a s f u l f i l l e d . G l a u c u s h a d n o descendant o r h e a r t h left i n S p a r t a , a n d his f a m i l y was w i p e d o u t r o o t a n d b r a n c h , so t h a t t h e m o r a l was t h a t ' i t is g o o d n o t even t o c o n t e m p l a t e a n y o t h e r course c o n c e r n i n g a n e n t r u s t e d p r o p e r t y (paratheke) t h a n t o r e t u r n i t w h e n i t is d e m a n d e d ' A

number

Herodotean

(6.86).

o f p o i n t s arise f r o m this c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e x a m p l e

of

s t o r y t e l l i n g . C e n t r a l t o j u s t i c e a n d g o o d b e h a v i o u r are

k e e p i n g one's w o r d , r e t u r n i n g objects o n t r u s t , a n d n o t s w e a r i n g falsely b y t h e gods; a p r i m a r y s a n c t i o n f o r observance o f m o r a l p r i n ciples was t h e fear o f p u n i s h m e n t f r o m t h e gods, w h i c h m i g h t p r e serve its c r e d i b i l i t y b y t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t i t o f t e n o p e r a t e d over a

1

Herodotus is of course following Homeric models in employing this technique of argument by lengthy storytelling (see also de Jong, this volume, pp. 262-3). Its application to political debates would have already seemed archaic to Thucydides: see e.g., Gould (1989) 40-1. On Herodotus' moralizing use of Greek and Eastern folk-tale motifs, see esp. Aly (1921), Murray (1987), Pelling (1996), Griffiths (1999).

200

NICK FISHER

v e r y l o n g time-scale; a n d the D e l p h i c o r a c l e , as A p o l l o ' s m o u t h p i e c e , was t h o u g h t to have a role i n u p h o l d i n g such basic m o r a l tenets. 2 H o w e v e r , the i m p r e s s i o n the passage m a y give o f a s i m p l e m o r a l i z i n g designed t o have a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d effect o n its hearers readers is p a r t i a l l y u n d e r m i n e d b y the b r o a d e r context. T h e

or

Athenians

p a y the story n o a t t e n t i o n , a n d the i m p r e s s i o n is given t h a t t h e y a l r e a d y r e g a r d i t as a n o l d - f a s h i o n e d r h e t o r i c a l strategy.' does n o t c o m m e n t here t h a t the A t h e n i a n s

Herodotus

suffered later f o r t h e i r

refusal to c o m p l y o n g r o u n d s o f p o l i t i c a l e x p e d i e n c y i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r q u a r r e l w i t h A e g i n a ; b u t , as we shall see, h i n t s o f such f u t u r e p r o b l e m s f o r A t h e n s d o exist. 4 H e r o d o t u s

has also, n o t l o n g b e f o r e ,

revealed t h a t Leotychides was later to y i e l d to t e m p t a t i o n , m o r e d e c i sively t h a n G l a u c u s , a n d was exiled after b e i n g discovered s u r r o u n d e d b y b r i b e s ; his house was d e m o l i s h e d ( 6 . 7 2 ) . ° Herodotus'

text is f u l l o f events, speeches, a n d n a r r a t o r i a l c o m -

m e n t s w h i c h o f f e r j u d g m e n t s i n t e r m s o f g e n e r a l l y accepted G r e e k m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s , a n d o f r e t r i b u t i o n d e l i v e r e d to those w h o against t h e m .

6

The

offend

i n t e r n a l coherence o f these p r i n c i p l e s , h o w e v e r ,

the i n e v i t a b i l i t y w i t h w h i c h H e r o d o t u s

supposes t h e y are u p h e l d b y

d i v i n e p o w e r s , t h e extent to w h i c h h u m a n r e t a l i a t i o n i n response to m o r a l o u t r a g e c a n be p r o b l e m a t i c i n itself, a n d the i m p o r t a n c e

of

such m o r a l ideas i n his o v e r a l l p a t t e r n s o f e x p l a n a t i o n , are all the subject o f m u c h debate a m o n g his m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r s . T h i s

chap-

ter discusses a selection o f cases w h i c h raise such general p r o b l e m s . I

shall suggest t h a t the h i s t o r i a n is i n d e e d c e n t r a l l y c o n c e r n e d

to

e x p l o r e m a j o r issues such as d i v i n e p u n i s h m e n t f o r i n j u s t i c e , excessive revenge o r o v e r c o n f i d e n c e i n p r o s p e r i t y , o r the contrast b e t w e e n t y r a n n i c a l a n d l u x u r i o u s E a s t e r n E m p i r e s a n d leaner, f r e e d o m - l o v i n g G r e e k states; b u t t h a t w e d o n o t find simple o r consistent messages o r contrasts, b u t r a t h e r a subtle a n d

2

flexible

set o f i n t e r c o n n e c t e d

On which see the minimalist account of Davies (1997); on the Glaucus story, also Immerwahr (1966) 213-15, Harrison (2000b) 117-19. See also Missiou (1998), arguing that the Athenians are presented consistently in Herodotus and Thueydides as less responsive to arguments from reciprocity. See esp. Immerwahr (1966) 214-18, Fornara (1971a) 80-6, Momigliano (1979) 148-9, Konstan (1987) 72-3, Raaflaub (1987), Moles (1996), Harrison (2000b) 117-18. - On this further penalty, Connor (1985), esp. 199. Leotychides, like Cleomenes, is in Herodotus' view (6.84) paying the penalty for the manipulation of the deposition of Demaratus; see Boedeker (1987) 190-1. E.g., Pohlenz (1937) 91-5, Immerwahr (1966) 308-9. 3

4

1

6

201

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

themes,

h i n t s , a n d e x p l a n a t i o n s , w h i c h are d e l i v e r e d v a r i o u s l y i n

speeches, i n n a r r a t o r i a l c o m m e n t s , a n d b y the t h e m a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n o f his m a t e r i a l . ' I shall also occasionally consider the e q u a l l y fascin a t i n g q u e s t i o n o f h o w f a r H e r o d o t u s is d r a w n b y his e t h n o g r a p h i c analyses o f the m o r a l i t i e s o f o t h e r peoples to cast d o u b t o n those o f his

own. V e r y close to the start o f t h e Histories is p l a c e d the e n i g m a t i c c o n -

v e r s a t i o n b e t w e e n the L y d i a n K i n g Croesus a n d the A t h e n i a n legal r e f o r m e r a n d p o e t S o l o n (1.29—34).8 T h e

c o n v e r s a t i o n establishes a

n u m b e r o f basic values w h i c h resonate p o w e r f u l l y t h r o u g h the rest o f the w o r k . 9 T h e

issue b e t w e e n S o l o n a n d Croesus concerns w h a t

i t takes f o r h u m a n happiness; S o l o n rejects the i d e a t h a t great w e a l t h a n d p r o s p e r i t y (here c a l l e d eudaimonie) c a n be e n o u g h i n themselves to call a m a n ' h a p p y ' (olbios). H i s p r i m a r y reason is t h a t life is u n p r e d i c t a b l e a n d changeable

( ' e v e r y t h i n g is c h a n c e ' ) , a n d the d i v i n e is

a l t o g e t h e r j e a l o u s a n d d i s r u p t i v e (phthoneron a n d tarakhodes); hence one c a n n o t j u d g e a m a n h a p p y u n t i l he has d i e d a g o o d d e a t h , r e c o g n i z e d b y his c o m m u n i t y , This

w h i l e still e n j o y i n g m o d e r a t e

establishes at t h e s t a r t t w o f u n d a m e n t a l

prosperity.

themes w h i c h

t h r o u g h the w o r k . First there is a c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n the

run

over-valua-

t i o n o f w e a l t h , l u x u r y , a n d p o w e r , w h i c h is associated above a l l , b u t n o t exclusively, w i t h a succession o f Eastern kings, a n d the t o u g h ness a n d austerity o f o t h e r peoples, such as, f o r e x a m p l e , the Persians w e r e o r i g i n a l l y , a n d the Greeks s h o w e d themselves still to be at the t i m e o f the Persian W a r s .

Second,

there is a f u n d a m e n t a l

aware-

ness, w h i c h is f o u n d t h r o u g h o u t G r e e k literature f r o m H o m e r onwards, o f the u n c e r t a i n t y o f h u m a n

life a n d the u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y o f the

d i v i n e , a n d c o n c o m i t a n d y , a persistent c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n those whose

' For complexities of modes of suggestions and viewpoints in the Histories, see, e.g., Marincola (1987), Boedeker (1987), Dewald (1987), Gould (1989) 78-81. On the chronological problems and doubtful historicity of this conversation, see, e.g., Duplouy (1999). On Solon and Croesus, see also Chs. 6 and 7 in this volume. See also 1.27, 1.29 and 6.125 for other 'sophists' and aristocrats who allegedly visited the Lydian court, in these cases with an eye on its riches, thus subverting the contrast between Eastern wealth and Greek contentment with austerity: see, e.g., Konstan (1987) 70-2, Pelling (1997b) 4. On the Croesus-Solon meeting, and the figure of Solon as a 'Herodotean' wise man providing a philosophical and moral framework for much of the Histories, see e.g., Regenbogen (1961) 80-2, Lattimore (1939) 30-1, Immerwahr (1966) 154-61, Fornara (1971a) 18-21, Stahl (1975), Raaflaub (1987) 248, and the most recent discussions by Shapiro (1996) and Harrison (2000b) 38-41. 8

9

202

N I C K FISHER

acts reveal this awareness,

a n d those, especially the p o w e r f u l ,

who

c o m e to g r i e f i n p a r t t h r o u g h t h e i r f a i l u r e to take this i n t o a c c o u n t .

Principles of Community, Family and Sexual Morality The Herodotean

Solon's e l a b o r a t i o n o f lives to w h i c h he w i l l ascribe

the c o v e t e d l a b e l 'olbios' reveals f u r t h e r f u n d a m e n t a l m o r a l

values

l i n k e d closely to t r a d i t i o n a l G r e e k t h i n k i n g (not least, ideas t o be f o u n d i n w h a t r e m a i n s o f the r e a l Solon's p o e t r y ) . 1 0 First place goes to the A t h e n i a n

Tellus. He

d i e d g l o r i o u s l y i n the most t r a d i t i o n a l

sense, p l a y i n g a decisive r o l e i n r o u t i n g the e n e m y i n a b o r d e r w a r at Eleusis, a n d r e c e i v i n g a p u b l i c b u r i a l a n d great h o n o u r s . "

Warfare

f o r H e r o d o t u s , as f o r H o m e r , A e s c h y l u s , o r T h u c y d i d e s , is p r e s e n t e d a m b i v a l e n t l y . 1 2 I t o f t e n appears as a r e g r e t t a b l e fact o f life w h i c h n o sane p e r s o n w o u l d w e l c o m e .

I n his o w n v o i c e , he c o m m e n d s

the

A t h e n i a n d e t e r m i n a t i o n to value u n i t y a m o n g the allies over disputes over the h e g e m o n y ,

as l o n g as the m a i n Persian t h r e a t c o n t i n u e d ,

a n d adds the t r a d i t i o n a l m o r a l t h a t ' i n t e r n a l stasis is as m u c h w o r s e t h a n w a r w a g e d b y a h a r m o n i o u s g r o u p as w a r is worse t h a n peace' ( 8 . 2 - 3 ) ; 1 3 the start o f the I o n i a n R e v o l t is signalled w i t h the o m i n o u s , H o m e r i c , r e m a r k t h a t i t was 'the b e g i n n i n g o f evils f o r Greeks and barbarians' (5.97).14

Croesus h i m s e l f , after his defeat at G y r u s '

h a n d s , becomes m o r e a w a r e o f t h e h o r r o r s o f w a r , a n d denies, i m p l a u s i b l y , his o w n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s t a r t i n g one: o n l y fools start w a r s , i n w h i c h fathers b u r y t h e i r sons (1.87). B u t the o p e n i n g o f his Histories (1.1)

10

also recalls the epic w i t h the

See esp. Chiasson (1986). Most probably Herodotus was referring to a battle at Eleusis in the war between Athens and neighbouring Megara (see e.g., Asheri ad loc). Tellus' name seems to carry the implication of 'fulfilment', whether or not it was his real name; Immerwahr (1966) 156-7. On this, see Cobet (1986). On stasis in Herodotus, see also Fisher (2000) 103-6. Herodotus' next comment, on how the Athenians seized the opportunity to take the leadership of the Greek forces, which led directly to the Dehan League, on the excuse of the alleged outrageous behaviour (hubris) of Pausanias the Regent, suggests his awareness of the charges brought against Athens of serious disruption of the Greek world after 479 (cf. also 6.98.2). See esp. Konstan (1987) 72-3, Raaflaub (1987) 237-9, Moles (1996). Pelling (1997b), with modifications in Gould (1989) 117-20. '-' Homer, Iliad 5.63, 11.603, Cobet (1986)' 7-8. See also Ch. 14, note 58 and Ch. 24 in this volume. 11

12

13

203

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

emphasis o n the f a m e (kleos) t h r o u g h w h i c h the a c h i e v e m e n t s o f i n d i viduals a n d states deserve to be r e m e m b e r e d ; this f a m e f o r H e r o d o t u s as f o r H o m e r is w o n above a l l t h r o u g h w a r f a r e . I n H e r o d o t u s ' battle a c c o u n t s , as i n those i n the Iliad, b o t h h e r o i s m a n d b r u t a l i t y are strongly present.15 T h e

m o r e e g a l i t a r i a n ideologies o f h o p l i t e a n d

n a v a l w a r f a r e m a y have restricted the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l deeds o f exceptional valour, of dreadful h o r r o r , or other remarkable occurrences o n the b a t t l e f i e l d ; b u t they are b y n o means e x c l u d e d a l t o g e t h e r . 1 0 T h e readiness to f i g h t bravely a n d to die f o r one's c o m m u n i t y as p a r t o f G r e e k (male) i d e o l o g y is a constant t h e m e , as is H e r o d o t u s ' interest i n p r e s e n t i n g his o w n a n d o t h e r people's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f the collective c o u r a g e o r l a c k o f i t o f d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s , b o t h G r e e k a n d n o n - G r e e k . Arete, t h e m o s t g e n e r a l t e r m i n G r e e k f o r goodness

o r v i r t u e ( a n d used i n t h a t b r o a d sense e . g . , at

7 . 2 3 7 ) , " is used i n m a n y instances (16) b y H e r o d o t u s

(as b y

human 1.134, many

o t h e r authors) specifically o f the m i l i t a r y prowess o r the display o f bravery i n war.18 Especially n o t e w o r t h y is the c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t w o Persian debates: at 3 . 1 2 0 , t w o Persian satraps O r o e t e s a n d M i t r o b a t e s h a d a v i o l e n t a r g u m e n t ' c o n t e s t i n g over arete', i n w h i c h M i t r o b a t e s q u e s t i o n e d t h e o t h e r ' s c l a i m to be i n t h e lists o f ' m e n ' , because he h a d f a i l e d to a d d to t h e king's possessions, a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r h a d neglected to c o n q u e r t h e soft t o u c h o f the i s l a n d o f Samos. O n

the o t h e r h a n d after

the b a t t l e o f A r t e m i s i o n , t h e Persians l e a r n t t h a t t h e Greeks w e r e c e l e b r a t i n g the O l y m p i c games, w i t h t h e i r prizes o f olive-leaf w r e a t h s . T r i t a n t a e c h m e s , the son o f A r t a b a n u s ( X e r x e s ' c o u s i n a n d the m a n

13

For all this, see Gould (1989) 60 2, and Chs. 1 and 5 in this volume. See e.g., 6.114, 117 (Marathon), 7.180-2 (Artemision), 7.224 7 (Thermopylae), 8.92-5 (Salamis) and 9.64-75 (Plataea). In the last example, notice the minor details at 9.75 of the subsequent death ('proving himself a good man', andra genomenon agatlum) of the great Athenian warrior Sophanes of Decelea, fighting as joint commander with Leagrus against the Edonians in Thrace (in the mid 460s? cf. Thuc. 1.100.3); he died 'fighting over the gold mines at Daton', which seems to be a further typically brief yet pointed allusion to the greed which the Athenians displayed immediately after the Persian invasions. Or even more broadly, e.g., of quality of textiles at 3.106, or of land at 4.198, 7.5, 8.144. See Immerwahr (1966) 309-10. See 1.176 (Lydians of Xanthus), 5.49 (Spartans), 7.102 (attributed by Demaratus, to Greeks generally, and especially Spartans), 7.154 (Gelon), 7.181 (Aeginetans), 7.225-6 (Spartans and Thespians), 8.1 (Plataeans), 8.92, 9.21, 9.28 (Tegeates), 9.40 (Persian and Mede cavalry), 9.70 and 71 (the skill and courage of the Athenians and the Spartans at Plataea). 16

17

18

204

NICK FISHER

who had advised Xerxes against the expedition, as stated at 7.82) expressed his surprise at their enemies, men who competed in such games 'not for money . . . but for arete' (8.26). Arete here seems to indicate both the prize—a honorific crown—offered at the games for the exercise o f competitive skill and valour, and the valour itself, in that the implication o f the admiration is that Greek free citizens and warriors will risk danger and even death for the sake o f proving themselves real m e n . Elsewhere too there is a marked contrast between the Greeks' courage, stemming from their love o f freedom, and the Persians and their subjects, rewarded by money or material gifts, and compelled to fight rather through fear o f the K i n g and the whip (e.g., the debate between Xerxes and Demaratus). I n fact, however, despite this ideology, great financial rewards as well as honours from their own cities were often available to the victors at the Panhellenic games, and athletic victors at the local city games could enjoy substantial prizes (see Y o u n g (1984)). Herodotus may well expect readers to take this point, as i n many other instances he seems concerned to warn Greek readers by deconstructing over-easy contrasts between the peoples on these issues. M o r e serious recognition that individual Greeks and (democratic) states could be strongly influenced by desire for money rather than honour and virtue may be seen i n the consistent presentation of Themistocles (esp. 8.109-12, see also below p. 224), and the success Aristagoras achieved, i n part by emphasizing the wealth to be gained, i n inducing the Athenians to aid the Ionian revolt (5.95). 19

20

4'ellus deserved to be called happy also because the continuity o f his line was assured with flourishing sons and grandsons (as opposed to the uprooted hearth o f Glaucus); the achievement of those w h o m Solon placed second i n happiness, the Argive young men Cleobis and Biton, was to use their strength to satisfy their mother's wish to play her part i n the festival o f Hera, which led to their deaths. 21

19

See on this passage esp. Konstan (1987) 61-3, von Reden (1995) 98-9. On its connection with the third deceitful dream, of the olive crown, which encouraged Xerxes to take his decision, Köhnken (1988) 32-4. 7.101-4; 7.209-10, 7.234; on Persian use of the whip, also 3.16, 3.157, 7.22, 7.54, 7.56, 7.223. See e.g., Konstan (1987) 64-5, Lateiner (1987) 91-3. See on this example also Lloyd (1987) and Shapiro (1996) 351. They are placed second to Tellus, because their lives were less complete and they had no children; nonetheless they died a noble death just after demonstrating spectacularly an important element of aretê. 2,1

21

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

205

H o n o u r i n g one's close f a m i l y , a n d e x p e c t i n g g o o d a n d g r a t e f u l t r e a t m e n t i n r e t u r n , w e r e p r i n c i p l e s h e l d deeply b y the Greeks as b y m o s t peoples; they are f u l l y r e c o g n i z e d i n H e r o d o t u s ' h i s t o r y , b o t h i n o b s e r v i n g spectacular examples o f g o o d a n d ( m o r e usually) b a d p r a c t i c e i n stories o f G r e e k a n d Eastern f a m i l i e s , a n d i n n o t i n g v a r i ations o n these themes o f f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s , values, a n d structures i n his e t h n o g r a p h y . 2 2 T h e d e a t h o f one's first o r f a v o u r i t e son is thus one o f the w o r s t tragedies w h i c h c a n b e f a l l o n e . Croesus' first p u n i s h m e n t , a p p a r e n t l y because o f ' i n d i g n a t i o n ' (nemesis) o f the ' d i v i n e ' a t his c o n f i d e n c e i n his o w n p r o s p e r i t y (see b e l o w p . 218), was t h e loss o f his o n l y fit son A t y s , k i l l e d b y his f r i e n d A d r a s t u s i n the t e r r i b l e h u n t i n g a c c i d e n t (1.34—8). 23 T h e

story fits G r e e k tragic p a t t e r n s a l l too n e a t l y ,

a n d the names o f the characters are also a l l t o o a p p r o p r i a t e : A t y s is

first

a n a n c i e n t L y d i a n n a m e (1.7), second recalls t h e d o o m e d

y o u n g g o d o f the East, A t y s o r A t t i s , a n d t h i r d echoes the

Greek

c o n c e p t (ate) w h i c h spans d e l u s i o n , e r r o r , a n d disaster, w h i l e Adrastus recalls Adrasteia, a G r e e k t e r m for the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f Fate. 2 4 H e n c e it is generally agreed t h a t H e r o d o t u s o r his G r e e k sources have d e v e l o p e d a m o r a l tale a c c o r d i n g t o established G r e e k m y t h i c a l p a t t e r n s , t o emphasize the h o r r o r o f the loss o f Croesus' g o o d son, even before he lost his k i n g d o m . 2 5 A t t e m p t s b y grandees o f the Persian e m p i r e to p r o t e c t t h e i r sons

22

See also in general on the closeness and tensions of father and son relationships, Dover (1974) 273-8, Blundell (1989) 40-2, and see also Herodotus 3.50.2, with van der Veen (1996) 24-5. On the story see Stahl (1975) and Konstan (1987) 64; as Kxmstan observes, Croesus' over-protective fear for his son shows an over-valuation of life as opposed to the display of arete, contrary to the views of 'Solon'. This Adrastus was allegedly a descendant of Midas the famous king of Phrygia (1.35, 46); conceivably Herodotus hints at a long-standing guilt in this royal family, comparable to that begun in the Lydian house by Gyges (cf. also 1.14, another connection between Midas and Gyges), which might mitigate the apparent injustice somewhat here too. On the names, Immerwahr (1966) 157-8. On the theme of two sons, one fit, who is killed, and one defective, see also Harrison (2000b) 40-1. See also Fornara (1999) 34 6 and Ch. 6 in this volume. There is also the interesting case of Ameinocles of Magnesia (7.190); he became suddenly extremely rich by windfall discoveries of Persian treasure, but, like so many others in Herodotus, was not fortunate in all respects, because 'he too was affected by a distressing, unreciprocal, child-killing accident'. In this case at least, i f the disaster was the result of divine envy or nemesis, there is no sign of any specific fault, but rather the idea that no mortal can expect or deserve uninterrupted good fortune—the disaster was explicitly akharis, not in recompense for anything. Does the 'too' here (kai) mean 'like Croesus'? 23

24

25

206

NICK

FISHER

p r o d u c e d f u r t h e r disastrous consequences. T w o d o t i n g fathers i n successive g e n e r a t i o n s each t r i e d to save a son f r o m the against Scythia

campaigns

a n d Greece respectively, to f i n d each k i n g , p r e v i -

ously generous, r e s p o n d w i t h ruthless c r u e l t y : O e o b a z u s ' t h r e e sons h a d t h e i r t h r o a t s c u t o n D a r i u s ' o r d e r s , a n d X e r x e s h a d his a r m y m a r c h t h r o u g h the d i v i d e d halves o f the eldest son o f P y t h i u s , o f Atys, o f Lydia (4.84, 7 . 2 6 - 9 , 3 8 - 4 0 ) . t h e r associations, as this Pythius descendant,

a n d hence

26

The

son

second case has f u r -

m u s t be supposed to be

the f a m i l y was still g r i p p e d b y

Croesus' disaster.27

O t h e r stories b u i l t o n the closeness o f the f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d the h o r r o r s o f revenges w h i c h target i t are the s e r v i n g o f H a r p a g o s ' c h i l d r e n to h i m b y Astyages ( 1 . 1 1 7 - 1 9 ) a n d the e n f o r c e d emasculat i o n i m p o s e d o n the e u n u c h m a k e r P a n i o n i u s a n d his f o u r sons b y Hermotimus

(8.104—6; see also b e l o w p .

215).

E q u a l l y d r e a d f u l m i g h t be the b r e a k d o w n

o f relations

between

father a n d s o n . 2 8 W h a t e v e r h i s t o r i c a l basis m a y u n d e r l i e the stories c o n c e r n i n g the h o s t i l i t y b e t w e e n P e r i a n d e r

o f C o r i n t h a n d his son

has b e e n r a d i c a l l y t r a n s f o r m e d to fit m y t h i c a l p a t t e r n s a n d The

complex

sequence

themes.

o f events i n v o l v i n g these i n d i v i d u a l s ,

C o r i n t h ' s relations w i t h C o r c y r a

and

a n d S a m o s , was m o d e l l e d o n i n i -

t i a t o r y rites a n d c u l t practices; t h e y also d i s p l a y a n a p p r o p r i a t e p u n i s h m e n t f o r a b r u t a l G r e e k t y r a n t , w h o was supposedly g u i l t y o f the m u r d e r o f his w i f e a n d n e c r o p h i l i a w i t h h e r b o d y . H e lost the love a n d s u p p o r t o f his s o n , 2 9 a n d t h e n , w h e n he was a b o u t to be reco n c i l e d , saw h i m f o u l l y k i l l e d

(3.44-53).30

A s a n e t h n o g r a p h e r H e r o d o t u s is especially alive to the i m p o r t a n c e f o r social s t a b i l i t y o f a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d the c o n t r o l o f sexuality, a n d to the v a r i e t y o f means d i f f e r e n t c o m m u n i t i e s have a d o p t e d f o r a c h i e v i n g t h i s . 3 1 H i s sense o f w o n d e r at the alleged cust o m s o f the m o r e 'savage' peoples o f the Balkans, C e n t r a l A s i a ,

and

N o r t h A f r i c a , a n d his schematic e x a g g e r a t i o n o f such customs based

26

Underlying this treatment may be a Persian purification ritual tradition: Evans (1988). On these associations, see Lewis (1998). For such themes in tragedy, cf. Belfiore (2000) and Ch. 6 in this volume. As with Croesus, his other son was not an adequate replacement, being rather stupid (3.53). See Sourvinou-Inwood (1991) 244-84, Gould (1989) 51-3 and Chs. 5 and 6 in this volume. See esp. Hartog (1988), Rossellini and Said (1978), Redfield (1985), Cartledge (1990), and Ch. 20 in this volume. 27

23

29

30

31

207

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

o n g e o g r a p h i c a l distance f r o m the G r e e k w o r l d , are n a t u r a l l y m a p p e d against G r e e k n o r m s ; so is his p o r t r a y a l o f the exotic jealousies a n d b r u t a l i t i e s at t h e courts o f his Eastern kings. S u c h n o r m s i n c l u d e monogamy,

t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f c i t i z e n w o m e n , legal penalties f o r those

w h o d i s r u p t m a r r i a g e s , a n d m o d i f i e d t o l e r a n c e f o r the m a l e use o f p r o s t i t u t e s , courtesans, a n d , w i t h i n c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s , e n g a g e m e n t i n h o m o s e x u a l , especially p é d é r a s t i e , r e l a t i o n s h i p s . : w H e r o d o t u s ' presentation o f alternatives t o these n o r m s c a n n o n e t h e less be r e m a r k a b l y diverse a n d o p e n - m i n d e d . 3 3 Some m o r e cultures (at the g e o g r a p h i c a l extremities) are a p p a r e n t l y

extreme dismissed

f a i r l y r a p i d l y f o r p e r m i t t i n g (e.g.) r a n d o m c o p u l a t i o n i n p u b l i c like animals (1.203, 3 . 1 0 1 , 4.180), b u t t h r o u g h most o f the ethnographic sections, h e is as o f t e n c o n c e r n e d t o a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n t h e c o h e r ence a n d r e g u l a r i t y o f the practices a n d t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e o v e r a l l s t a b i l i t y o f t h e p e o p l e . 3 4 A g o o d e x a m p l e is p r o v i d e d b y his t r e a t m e n t o f a p p a r e n t l y b i z a r r e customs o f m a r r i a g e auctions a n d sacred p r o s t i t u t i o n a m o n g the B a b y l o n i a n s . 3 ' I t is also n o t a b l e h o w f a r H e r o d o t u s

is f r o m s i m p l e appeals to

t r a d i t i o n a l G r e e k m a l e fear o f p o w e r f u l w o m e n ,

individual or col-

lective. T h e t r a d i t i o n a l representatives o f female p o w e r , the A m a z o n s , a p p e a r , b u t t h e story w h i c h develops, t h e origins o f the S a u r o m a t a e f r o m the a m u s i n g l y described u n i o n s o f f u g i t i v e A m a z o n s a n d y o u n g Scythians, emphasizes

h o w t h e r e s u l t i n g society a c h i e v e d a h a r m o -

nious c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e t w o c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s , a n d allows f o r t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f some degree o f A m a z o n i a n female w a r r i o r customs ( w h i c h m a y reflect some g e n u i n e features o f S a r m a t i a n c u l t u r e ) . 3 b I n d i v i d u a l w o m e n , w h e t h e r a t t h e Persian c o u r t , i n t h e G r e e k w o r l d , o r even

i n 'savage'

c u l t u r e s , t y p i c a l l y d e f e n d , o f t e n i n devious o r

m a n i p u l a t i v e ways, the values o f t h e i r d i f f e r e n t societies; a n d o n occasions such p o w e r f u l w o m e n c a n m a t c h m e n i n b r u t a l acts o f sexual j e a l o u s y o r revenge. the Massagetai

32

P r i m e examples

(1.211-14), Pheretime

are t h e stories o f T o m y r i s

of

o f C y r e n e ( 4 . 2 0 5 , see b e l o w

See, e.g., Dover (1974) 205 16, (1978) passim, Winkler (1990), Cohen (1991). Rosselini and Said (1978), Dewald (1981), Gould (1989) 129 32. Well argued by Redfield (1985), and see also Gould (1989) 95-109. On his treatment of these practices, Pembroke (1967), Beard and Henderson (1997), Kurke (1999) 227-46, Harrison (2000b) 216-17, and Chs. 20 and 21 in this volume. See Dewald (1981) 99-101, Gould (1989) 131, Lateiner (1985) 93-6; for archaeological evidence, Gerschevitch (1985), 185-99; see also Chs. 10 and 19 in this volume. 33 M

b

36

208

N I C K FISHER

p. x x ) , a n d the passions a n d jealousies o f X e r x e s a n d his w i f e Amestris t o w a r d s his b r o t h e r Masistes, a n d his w i f e a n d d a u g h t e r ( 9 . 1 0 8 - 1 3 ) . 3 7 M a n y o t h e r E a s t e r n kings gave greater p r i o r i t y t o the seizure

of

p o w e r , o r a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f its absolute n a t u r e , t h a n to the d e m a n d s o f sexual m o r a l i t y a n d f a m i l y ties. T w o Candaules,

examples

may

be g i v e n .

the last H e r a c l i d k i n g o f L y d i a , ' w h o was destined to

e n d b a d l y ' (1.8), b r o u g h t a b o u t his d o w n f a l l t h r o u g h excessive sexu a l love f o r his o w n w i f e , a n d the i n a p p r o p r i a t e need to have

her

b e a u t y a p p r e c i a t e d b y his f a v o u r i t e Gyges (described as b e i n g c o n t r a r y to w h a t is p r o p e r , la kala, a n d t o nomos). H i s wife's s t r o n g sense o f shame (aidos, aiskhune) at b e i n g seen u n v e i l e d a n d n a k e d b y a n o t h e r m a n i m p e l l e d h e r to seek revenge t h r o u g h m u r d e r ; H e r o d o t u s

com-

m e n t s t h a t this sense o f disgrace was even m o r e t y p i c a l o f b a r b a r i a n peoples t h a n (by i m p l i c a t i o n ) Greeks, whose males at least exercised n a k e d . 3 8 Gyges' readiness to acceed t o the wife's desire f o r revenge a n d t h e i r j o i n t seizure o f p o w e r , w o u l d , a c c o r d i n g to t h e

Delphic

o r a c l e , l e a d to r e t r i b u t i o n f a l l i n g o n his descendants i n the fifth g e n e r a t i o n ( 1 . 1 3 , 91). Astyages' preparedness t o h a v e his d a u g h t e r m a r r i e d to a m a n o f a lesser e t h n i c g r o u p , a n d t h e n , m o r e d r e a d f u l l y , to have h e r s o n , his g r a n d s o n C y r u s k i l l e d r a t h e r t h a n see h i m succeed to his i m p e r i a l p o s i t i o n , has as its a p p a r e n t l y n a t u r a l consequence a yet f o u l e r d e e d against the values o f f a m i l y f e e l i n g a n d succession; a n d r e t r i b u t i o n f o l l o w e d , as his act o f revenge against H a r p a g u s

in

s e r v i n g u p his s o n t o h i m at a feast m e t w i t h r e t a l i a t i o n w h e n Harpagus

37

i n s p i r e d C y r u s t o l e a d t h e Persians i n r e v o l t (1.107—30). 3 9

On the Masistes story, see also Gould (1991) 10-11 and Chs. 10, pp. 230-1 and 13, pp. 310 13 in this volume; on the moral and political theme of the decline of the Persian monarchy, and its significant placing here, see Dewald ('1997), esp. 68-70. On aidas, see above all Cairns (1993), and on this passage Gould (1980) 53-4, Kilmer (1993) 161 2, and Cairns (1996). There is another case of women's shame in relation to exposure of their own bodies at 3.133. On the thematic connections linking the stories of Candaules' and Masistes' wives, and their contribution to the complex modes of closure of the work, see also Wolff (1964), Herington (1991a) 152-3, and below, pp. 215-16. Recent analyses of this episode in van der Veen (1996) Ch. 3 and Pelling (1996), though van der Veen undervalues the importance in such standard folktales of the failure to kill babies fated to become kings or leaders, because of the natural difficulty even tough men find in killing smiling babies; on these motifs (found in 5.92, as well as in many other traditions), see Binder (1964), Lewis (1980) and Asheri (1988) on 1.113. 38

39

209

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

Helping Friends and Harming Enemies: Reciprocity and Revenge I n a d d i t i o n to the o b l i g a t i o n s , e m o t i o n s ,

a n d conflicts i n h e r e n t i n

f a m i l y relations across cultures, H e r o d o t u s b u i l d s the r e c i p r o c a l o b l i g ations o f f r i e n d s a n d guest-friends

firmly

i n t o the s t r u c t u r e o f his

n a r r a t i v e , w h e r e s t r o n g values o f f r i e n d s h i p a n d e n m i t y are assumed throughout.40 A

s t a n d a r d v i e w o f m a n y G r e e k s , w h i c h appears

the s t a r t i n g p o i n t o f Plato's Republic, was t h a t j u s t i c e m e a n t friends a n d h a r m i n g enemies'.

The

t e r m ' f r i e n d s ' (philoi)

k i n , close p e r s o n a l friends (as i n o u r c o m m o n e s t

as

'helping included

sense o f the t e r m ) ,

a n d m o r e loosely perhaps f e l l o w - m e m b e r s o f social o r p o l i t i c a l groups (at t i m e s i n c l u d i n g one's c i t y o r c o u n t r y ) w i t h w h o m one feels c o m m o n i d e n t i t y a n d interests. Inside the c o m m u n i t y , philoi s h o u l d a i d a n d e n t e r t a i n each o t h e r , a c c o r d i n g to r e c i p r o c a l rules o f kharis, o f r e c i p r o c a l g i f t - g i v i n g a n d s u p p o r t . W h e r e e n m i t y exists, o r replaces f r i e n d s h i p , rules o f 'negative r e c i p r o c i t y ' o r revenge take over. O u t s i d e the c o m m u n i t y elaborate p r o t o c o l s o f h o s p i t a l i t y a n d m u t u a l g i f t - g i v i n g (Greek xenia, 'guest-' o r ' r i t u a l i z e d - f r i e n d s h i p ' ) w e r e available to f o r m lasting co-operative relationships; as is clear f r o m H o m e r onwards, a host w h o entertains a guest f r o m a b r o a d , a n d gives h i m presents, expects a l a s t i n g , possibly h e r e d i t a r y , r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o be established. 4 1 M a n y narratives i n H e r o d o t u s p l a y o n the

problems

such relationships can present, especially w h e r e they become

enmeshed

i n p o l i t i c s , w h e t h e r w h a t is i n v o l v e d is relations b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s , b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s a n d states, o r b e t w e e n states. 4 2 W h a t is o f p a r t i c u l a r interest to H e r o d o t u s , the unstable b o u n d a r y

as i n H o m e r a n d A t h e n i a n t r a g e d y , is

between

l e g i t i m a t e a n d excessive

forms

of

b o t h generosity a n d revenge; w h e r e the protocols o f such relationships

*" On the importance of this theme, see especially Gould (1989) 82 5, (1991). " See especially Blundell (1989), Mitchell (1997), Ch. 1. The story of Syloson and Darius is especially rich for the values and language of gifts and kharis; van der Veen (1995) 53-8, Kurke (1999) 122-5. On the political aspects of xenia or 'ritualized friendship', see above all Herman (1987). It is of course true that elites possess greater wealth than the rest, often in the form of splendid individual items such as bowls, goblets, or cloaks (which may be described as 'heirlooms', keimelia, or objects of shining/symbolic value, agalmata); hence they will be able to engage in splendid acts of gift-exchange on their own or their state's behalf. But both Herman (1987) and Kurke (1999) err, it seems to me, in presenting the underlying values of gift-exchange and reciprocity as inherently elitist or aristocratic, and individual instances of conflict between such values and other ideals such as justice or humane restraint as necessarily a clash between elitist and 'middling' or democratic ideologies. 42

210

NICK

are left u n c l e a r (in B r a u n d ' s

FISHER

t e r m , ' u n d e r n e g o t i a t e d ' ) , o r there are

clashes o f c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s , a gruesome i n t e n s i t y o f e m o t i o n s a n d actions r e s u l t s . 4 ' G r e e k tyrants regularly f o r m e d networks o f guest-friendship alliances w i t h f e l l o w - t y r a n t s a n d w i t h aristocrats; such relationships are p r e sented as e q u a l a n d m u t u a l l y s u p p o r t i v e , b u t o f t e n w i t h destructive consequences f o r t h e i r societies, t h o u g h there is o f t e n disagreement over the degree o f m o r a l d i s a p p r o v a l w h i c h m a y be f o u n d , e x p l i c i t l y o r i m p l i c i t l y , i n the accounts. T h e first G r e e k t y r a n t to be m e n tioned, Thrasybulus

of Miletus, when

u n d e r siege f r o m

o f L y d i a , b e n e f i t e d f r o m his close r e l a t i o n o f xenia w i t h

Alyattes Periander,

son o f Cypselus o f C o r i n t h (1.19-20); P e r i a n d e r passed o n v a l u a b l e inside i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a D e l p h i c oracle g i v e n to A l y a t t e s . 4 4

The

m o r e sinister side to the r e l a t i o n s h i p is revealed i n the C o r i n t h i a n spokesman's later a c c o u n t o f the t e r r i b l e deeds o f the dynasty (5.92). The

t r a n s i t i o n to a m u c h m o r e b r u t a l r e g i m e is t h e r e a t t r i b u t e d t o

Thrasybulus'

f a m o u s wordless advice to P e r i a n d e r ' s

messenger,

to

l o p o f f a l l the tallest ears o f w h e a t ; 4 ' the C o r i n t h i a n t y r a n t ' s b r u t a l i t y t h e n e x t e n d e d b e y o n d the killings a n d b a n i s h i n g o f the m o s t p o w e r f u l a n d t h r e a t e n i n g o f his f e l l o w - c i t i z e n s to e n f o r c e d c o n f i s c a t i o n o f the clothes o f a l l the city's w o m e n . 4 1 '

O t h e r examples

o f such

t y r a n n i c a l xeniai i n c l u d e Peisistratus' useful f r i e n d s h i p a n d alliance w i t h L y g d a m i s o f N a x o s (1.61-4), w h i c h h e l p e d b o t h t o get established i n p o w e r ; ' 1 7

the f r i e n d s h i p a n d m a r r i a g e c o n n e c t i o n s w h i c h

brought together Anaxilaos

43

of Rhegion,

Terillus of H i m e r a

and

Braund (1998). Gould (1989) 49, 55-6. Periander may be seen here as usurping the practice of the gods in attacking the highest trees etc., as described by Artabanus (7.lO.e), and this perhaps foreshadows his later troubles; van der Veen (1996) 8 2 3 , Harrison (2000b) 57, 163. Waters (1971) 13-15, 18-20 observes that the Corinthian speaker Soclees, apparently condemning Periander, spends more time on the more exotic tales of ghosts, necrophilia and confiscation of women's clothes, and suggests that his selection of the material reflects Herodotus' interests in telling varied tales, not in expressing his anti-tyrannical bias; but variation and even some humour is nonetheless compatible with a general hostility in principle to tyranny's normal acts. See also van der Veen (1996) 81-2, emphasizing that in the necrophilia story Periander is treating free people as slaves, and in general on Herodotus' attitudes to tyrants, see Ferrill (1978), Lateiner (1984). " Lygdamis supposedly also had a friendship with Polycrates (Polyaenus 1.23); similarly Theagenes the earlier tyrant of Megara had, according to Thuc. 1.126 (but not mentioned at Hdt. 5.71), encouraged his son-in-law Cylon in his attempt at a tyranny in Athens. 4 4

15

46

211

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

Hamilcar

o f Carthage and helped lead to t u r m o i l and

w a r f a r e (7.163—4); 4 H a n d m o s t f a m o u s l y the elaborate

large-scale

entertainments

a n d contests o f f e r e d b y the t y r a n t Cleisthenes o f S i c y o n f o r the suitors o f his d a u g h t e r A g a r i s t e As T h r a s y b u l u s '

(6.126—31).

advice suggests, relations o f tyrants w i t h the elite

m e m b e r s o f t h e i r o w n states are c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y tensions, l a t e n t o r active hostilities, a n d swift a n d v i o l e n t t r a n s i t i o n s . As O t a n e s puts i t i n the ' C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D e b a t e ' (3.80), the typical tyrant w i t h his u n c o n t r o l l e d p o w e r is d r i v e n above a l l b y hubris a n d phthonos

Vi

to 'possess

every wickedness'; he c o m m i t s the m o s t serious offences, the overt h r o w o f all ancestral laws a n d customs (nomaia), rapes o f a n d executions

w i t h o u t trial.''" Friendships

women,

and intermarriage

can

s w i f t l y be r e p l a c e d b y d i v o r c e , p l o t s , exiles, a n d k i l l i n g s ; this is excellently demonstrated

b y the c o m p l e x

relations b e t w e e n

Peisistratus

a n d his sons i n A t h e n s a n d o t h e r elite families such as the A l c m a e o n i d a e ( 1 . 5 9 - 6 4 , 5 . 6 6 - 7 , 6 9 - 7 3 , 6 . 1 2 1 - 3 1 ) a n d the l i n k e d families o f Miltiades and C i m o n ( 6 . 3 4 - 4 1 ,

6.103-4).

Similar motifs of hospitality, guest-friendship, power and conflict p e r v a d e the stories o f Polycrates o f Samos a n d the f u r t h e r catastrophes t h a t affected t h a t i s l a n d after his m u r d e r Herodotus'

(3.39-60,

120-7).

versions m a y reflect i n p a r t the n e e d f o r his S a m i a n f e l -

l o w - c i t i z e n s , elite a n d n o n - e l i t e , t o b l a c k e n the n a m e o f the

tyrant

after his fall a n d t o distance themselves; b u t t o g e t h e r t h e y f o r m c o m p l e x chains o f events w h e r e m a n y o f those w h o choose t o b r e a k the p a t t e r n s o f r e c i p r o c i t y a n d those w h o t r i e d to act j u s t l y came alike to grief, often i n u n e x p e c t e d ways. 5 1 A m b i v a l e n c e surrounds Polycrates f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the n a r r a t i v e . A f t e r seizing p o w e r , i n i t i a l l y he a t t e m p t e d to share p o w e r w i t h his t w o b r o t h e r s , b t i t t h e n , d e c i d i n g t h a t he p r e f e r r e d sole r u l e , he k i l l e d one b r o t h e r a n d e x i l e d the o t h e r , Syloson. H e r o d o t u s '

selection o f stories o f Polycrates i n p o w e r

48

Their opponents, other Sicilian tyrants, Gelon o f Gela and Syracuse and Theron of Acragas, also intermarried (see Asheri, CAH TV' , 786). On human phthonos as a constant feature leading to disunity and preventing stable absolutism in human societies, see also 3.52, 7.236-7, 8.124-5, and Immerwahr (1966) 313 4. See, e.g., Ferrill (1978), Lateiner (1984), Fisher (1992) 346 9. The role of the unexpected, and the importance of waiting to see how events turn out in the end, are emphasised by van der Veen (1996) Ch. 6. The importance of the juxtapositions and interconnections o f stories o f the Greek tyrant and the Persian king in this book are analysed by (e.g.,) Immerwahr (1956-57), Kurke (1999) 101-29. See also Ch. 6 in this volume/ 2

4 9

511

51

212

N I C K FISHER

balances the p r o p e r a n d advantageous guest-friendship alliance, secured w i t h lavish r e c i p r o c a l gifts, w i t h A m a s i s the k i n g o f E g y p t , 3 2 against the c a l c u l a t e d l y t y r a n n i c a l a n d self-interested ' e x t e n s i o n ' (or p e r h a p s i n a n o t h e r sense ' i n v e r s i o n ' ) o f the rules o f r e c i p r o c i t y w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d his successful career as a large-scale ' p i r a t e ' : he

plundered

f r o m everyone i n c l u d i n g his ' f r i e n d s ' , o n the a r g u m e n t t h a t he w o u l d create m o r e g r a t i t u d e (mallon kharidzesthai) i n a f r i e n d to w h o m

he

r e t u r n e d w h a t he h a d t a k e n t h a n i f he h a d never t a k e n i t i n the first place ( 3 . 3 9 . 4 ) . 5 3 The

s e n t i m e n t sets the tone f o r some o f the e x p l a n a t i o n s o f f e r e d

f o r the Spartans' a n d C o r i n t h i a n s ' decision to a i d the S a m i a n exiles, w h o m Polycrates h a d m a l i c i o u s l y sent to a i d Cambyses i n his i n v a sion o f E g y p t , a n d w h o

h a d escaped. T h e

Spartans

claimed that

t h e y w e r e a n x i o u s to avenge the t h e f t o f the m i x i n g - b o w l h a d b e e n s e n d i n g t o Croesus, sent to t h e m

(3.47). Despite

(/crater)

they

a n d the corselet w h i c h A m a s i s

had

the c h r o n o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s o f w h i c h

H e r o d o t u s seems at least p a r t l y a w a r e (3.148), the i m p l i c a t i o n seems to be t h a t the first t w o thefts at least reflect Polycrates'

plundering

f r o m his friends w i t h serious consequences f o r his r u l e i n the l o n g r u n . T h e C o r i n t h i a n g r i e v a n c e - - S a m i a n assistance to C o r c y r e a n

boys

b e i n g e x p o r t e d to Alyattes o f L y d i a — s e e m s m o r e distanced b y H e r o dotus f r o m a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Polycrates' d i s d a i n f o r r e c i p r o cal r u l e s . 3 4 I n o t h e r ways t o o , Polycrates displays the ruthless b r u t a l i t y o f the t y r a n t (e.g., 3.45); yet he is also seen i n places as the l a v i s h a n d generous r u l e r a n d h o l d e r o f a s p l e n d i d c o u r t (and p a t r o n poets such as A n a c r e o n ,

52

of

3.121), a n d one w h o k n o w s the e t i q u e t t e

See also Hdt. 2.182, where Amasis' xenia gifts to Polycrates, two wooden statues of himself, are mentioned. See Gould (1991) 7-8, 17-19, Kurke (1999) 102 4, though her claim is disputable that the emphasis on the breaches of the rules of kharis in these sequences suggest it was exclusively disgruntled Samian aristocrats who presented this picture of Polycrates' thalassocracy rather than a more general tradition. One should not take Theognis' word for it that non-elites (his kakoi and deiloi) had little understanding of or concern for the values of reciprocal favours: see van Wees (2000) especially 62 7. On this, see above, p. 211. Against Kurke (1999) 103, who sees this as another instance of 'violated exchange', one might observe that the sending of the boys was not a mere sending of a gift, but an act of savage revenge committed by Periander on the Corcyreans for their killing of his estranged son Lycophron, and that Herodotus feels the need for a further explanation for the Corinthians' continued resentment at the Samians. On the theme of the castration of Greek boys, see below, p. 215 on Hermotimus. 33

54

213

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

o f r e c i p r o c i t y {kharis).

33

I n the elaborate a c c o u n t o f the rediscovery

o f his j e t t i s o n e d r i n g i n the b o d y humble labouring

fisherman

o f the great fish, he treats the

w i t h p r o p e r g r a t i t u d e a n d respect (a

d o u b l e kharis is d u e f o r his gift a n d his w o r d s ) , a n d treats h i m to a d i n n e r ( i n c l u d i n g the

fish?).:*

A f t e r Polycrates' foreseen yet ' u n w o r t h y ' e n d at O r o e t e s ' (3.125),

:>/

hands

o t h e r actors i n relations b e t w e e n Samos a n d t h e Persians

saw a t t e m p t s to a d h e r e to the values o f the r e c i p r o c a l gift a n d

of

j u s t i c e f o u n d e r i n r e l a t i o n to the pressures o f p o w e r a n d the needs o f the m a j o r e m p i r e . Polycrates' e x i l e d b r o t h e r Syloson

first

found

t h a t a gratuitous a n d a p p a r e n t l y foolish act o f generosity led to o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h e r e c o v e r y o f his h o m e l a n d a n d p o w e r ; g i v i n g , r a t h e r t h a n selling, a fine r e d cloak to a m a n ( D a r i u s ) w h o at t h a t t i m e was m e r e l y a m e m b e r o f the Persian g u a r d i n E g y p t , b u t w h o later b e c a m e k i n g . O n b e i n g r e m i n d e d o f the gift t h e k i n g o f f e r e d Syloson as m u c h g o l d a n d silver as he w i s h e d , 5 " b u t instead he chose p o w e r i n Samos, o n c o n d i t i o n ( t r y i n g to a v o i d the c r i m e s o f his b r o t h e r ) t h a t n o S a m i a n was k i l l e d o r enslaved. B u t this p l a n f o u n d e r e d i n a c o m p l e x i n t e r p l a y w i t h t h e a t t e m p t o f Polycrates' s t e w a r d a n d successor i n S a m o s , M a e a n d r i u s , also a m a n w i t h t w o b r o t h e r s , to a v o i d Polycrates' t y r a n n i c a l r u l e . H i s a p p a r e n t l y g e n u i n e desire to be ' m o s t

On this complex portrait, see also Waters (1971) 28-9. * Herodotus' Amasis acts in this narrative as the voice of 'Solonian' concern for a long-term view of 'success' and fear of the gods' disruptiveness through jealousy (phthonos); he does not link this fear to a moral distaste for Polycrates methods of gaining wealth and power, but it is possible to hold that Amasis is to be supposed to be alarmed on both moral and prudential grounds—at the indiscriminate nature of Polycrates' greed (see also 3.122-3), likely to arouse opposition from gods and/or men, which it would not be appropriate to express to Polycrates in his letter. 1 would not follow Kurke (1999) 109 1 1 in seeing further reflections of aristocratic discourse, condemnatory of the tyrant, in Polycrates' readiness to acknowledge gratitude to the humble fisherman. Rather the scrupulously polite correctness of the tyrant's response underscored the irony of the alarming discovery of the gods' rejection of the voluntary sacrifice of the object of high value (which also helps to account for the high number of occurrences of terms of value and worth (axios/a). 'Unworthy of himself and his high thoughts' (phronemata) may come as a surprise after the enumeration of Polycrates' greed, unscrupulousness, and brutality; it seems above all a response to his 'megaloprepeia', that is the extent and greatness of his rule and its lasting memorials: see Fisher (1992) 361-3. " Despite his general reputation as a 'huckster' (kapelos), intent on establishing a coinage and maximizing his revenues, on which see Kurke (1999) 68-89, Herodotus' Darius like the other kings could also at times display extravagant generosity; though usually to those he hoped to bind to his service. 37

J

214

NICK FISHER

just' and to surrender power to some form o f democracy and isorwmup collapsed, when aristocrats objected to his position o f limited privilege, and he had them arrested. The apathetic people offered no effective support; one brother resorted to execution when Maeandrius fell i l l , the other brother urged resistance when Syloson and the Persians under Otanes turned up. Otanes (who himself, by another twist o f irony, had advocated 'democracy'; for the Persians at the 'Constitutional Debate', 3.80-2) took the city by ruthless force and made the Samians all 'equal' by the imposition o f a 'dragnet' policy o f extermination. So Syloson took control of an empty city until a genital disease and consequent dream persuaded Otanes to make amends for his ruthlessness by repopulating it. These stories, which may originate from varied types o f sources among the Samians, among w h o m Herodotus clearly had many contacts, have been recast into linked narratives which display many o f the historian's characteristic preoccupations: his perception that the powerful usually failed to keep their relationships based on moral reciprocity free from the more political drive for wealth, power, and fame; his recognition of the impossibility for Greek states or their rulers to form friendships or alliances with Persian kings or their satraps without losing their freedom and often coming to unpleasant and unworthy ends; and his preference for identifying 'causal' connections between chains of aggressive or hubristic acts, revenge and further retaliation. Herodotus is as alive as many other Greek writers to the danger that revenges frequently become morally excessive, and that precise judgments on the moment o f transition are very difficult. Three varied stories o f such terrible revenges, w i t h apparently contrasting morals, may be considered to conclude this section. A t the end o f Book Four (202-5), the Battiad queen Pheretime o f Cyrene showed no mercy to the people o f Barka for killing her son Arcesilaus I I I , when they were delivered into her hands by her allies the Persians. 60

61

s s

See, e.g., Mitchell (1975) 85-6, Shipley (1981) 103-5, Roisman (1985). " Against the view that all his sources were aristocrats, as argued by Mitchell (1975) 75 9, Kurke (1999) 122-9, seeks- but perhaps over-precisely to distinguish aristocratic and more middling versions, e.g., those which present Maeandrius and his attempt at isonomia with some favour. See also Ch. 23 in this volume. On the weight given by Herodotus to retaliation and revenge in his explanations of wars and conflicts, see the minimizing account in de Romilly (1971b), (1977) and, rightly taking them more seriously, Gould (1989) 43-4, 82 5 and Lendon (2000) esp. 1-3, 13 18. There are 69 instances of timoria- words in the text. See also Ch. 6, p. 121 in this volume. l>

61

215

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

She i m p a l e d the m e n m o s t i n v o l v e d i n the m u r d e r o n stakes r o u n d t h e w a l l , a d d e d the breasts o f t h e i r wives, a n d let the Persian a r m y pillage a n d enslave the rest. S u b s e q u e n t l y she d i e d f o u l l y , c o n s u m e d by worms, and Herodotus'

e x p l a n a t o r y c o m m e n t is that ' f o r m e n

excessively p o w e r f u l revenges are causes o f e n v y (epiphthonoi) a m o n g t h e g o d s ' , t h e o n l y case w h e r e he endorses i n his o w n voice t h e i d e a o f d i v i n e phthonos, a p p a r e n t l y i n a m o r a l i z e d f o r m . ' ' 2 N e x t , w h a t H e r o d o t u s calls the 'greatest revenge for a m a n w r o n g e d o f a l l those w e k n o w o f

was a c h i e v e d b y H e r m o t i m u s o f Pedasos

o n Panionius o f Chios (8.104-6). Panionius, a slave-trader w h o specialized i n castrating attractive boys a n d selling t h e m as eunuchs, eventually f e l l i n t o the p o w e r o f one o f his v i c t i m s , w h e n H e r m o t i m u s h a d risen t o the post o f X e r x e s ' c h i e f e u n u c h . T h e revenge was t h a t P a n i o n i u s was f o r c e d to c u t o f f the genitals o f his f o u r sons, w h o t h e n d i d the same to h i m . T h e

story is t o l d i n a w a y w h i c h invites us to agree

w i t h H e r m o t i m u s t h a t t h e gods have w o r k e d to d e l i v e r P a n i o n i u s i n t o his h a n d s , a n d t h a t this, like the result o f the T r o j a n W a r , is a case w h e r e (as H e r o d o t u s h i m s e l f emphasizes) the gods have e n g i n e e r e d i t t h a t 'great injustices m e e t great revenges' (2.120).

03

The

revenge itself, h o w e v e r , is described o n l y w i t h the m o r e a m b i g u o u s t e r m 'greatest' (megistos), a n d n o f u r t h e r recompense affects H e r m o t i m u s ; the r e a d e r is a p p a r e n t l y left free t o see this e i t h e r as an a p p r o p r i a t e , albeit h o r r i f y i n g , f o r m o f d i v i n e l y b a c k e d r e t r i b u t i o n , o r as a n o t h e r case w h e r e t h e revenge, a g a i n i n v o l v i n g m u t i l a t i o n , is itself 'excessive', a n d the q u e s t i o n o f subsequent p u n i s h m e n t is left o p e n . ' ' 4 F i n a l l y , the last event o f G r e e k - P e r s i a n c o n f l i c t i n the Histories (just after t h e story o f the excessive, also m u t i l a t o r y , revenges o f X e r x e s a n d his w i f e o n Masistes a n d his wife) is the c a p t u r e o f Sestus, a n d

02

On mutilations in Herodotus, see also Lateiner (1987) 92 3. It is possible that the point is that the gods feel phthonos here because they reserve excessive vengeance to themselves: so e.g., Mossman (1995) 174-6. But one might think that the emphasis on the brutality of the impalings suggests rather the gods too are here supposed to be applying a moral judgment on the excessive acts, as Immerwahr (1966) 313, Harrison (2000b) 111. « See e.g., Vandiver (1991) 130, 227, Harrison (2000b) 108-10; other cases include 1.118-29, 3.49 53, 7.137, and esp. 5.55, the dream which, fruitlessly, appeared to Hipparchus before his death, warning him that 'no mortal does not pay the retribution for his unjust deeds'. See e.g., Lateiner (1985) 99 (Herodotus 'does not disapprove'). Braund (1998) 166-7 and Lendon (2000) 18 see it as probably more problematic. Clearly excessive, yet not directly linked to retaliation, is the story of Xerxes' and Amestris' killings and mutilations, 9.108 13. 6 4

216

N I C K FISHER

the astonishingly r i c h a n d a m b i g u o u s c l o s i n g n a r r a t i v e here i n c l u d e s a p p r o p r i a t e p u n i s h m e n t s o r revenges m e t e d o u t to t w o (9.114-22).

One,

Persians

a n o t h e r O e o b a z u s , ' " w h o h a d s t o r e d the cables

used to b r i d g e the H e l l e s p o n t , escaped, o n l y to be r i t u a l l y sacrificed b y some T h r a c i a n s , a n d the cables w e r e r e c o v e r e d , to be d e d i c a t e d b a c k at A t h e n s .

The

other, the devious, greedy,

a n d sacrilegious

Persian g o v e r n o r o f the H e l l e s p o n t r e g i o n , A r t a y c t e s , h a d a p p r o p r i ated f o r h i m s e l f the w e a l t h o f the h e r o - s h r i n e at Elaious o f Protesilaus (the

first

G r e e k to die i n the T r o j a n W a r ) ,

t u r n e d the s a n c t u a r y

enclosure over to a g r i c u l t u r e , a n d h a d sex w i t h w o m e n i n t h e i n n e r s a n c t u a r y ; he was c a p t u r e d a n d p r o m i n e n t l y c r u c i f i e d o n a h e a d l a n d n e a r t h e s h r i n e , o n the o r d e r o f the A t h e n i a n

commander

X a n t h i p p u s (the f a t h e r o f Pericles), i n o r d e r to satisfy the desire f o r a p p r o p r i a t e revenge o f the p e o p l e o f Elaious. T h e s e offences e n c a p sulate m a n y o f t h e themes o f excess w h i c h p e r v a d e X e r x e s ' e x p e d i t i o n , t h e b r i d g i n g o f the H e l l e s p o n t , the desecration o f temples a n d sanctuaries, i m p a l i n g s o f defeated enemies, a n d its r e l a t i o n t o the Trojan War.

The

a p p a r e n t l y r a n d o m k i l l i n g o f O e o b a z u s gives a

sense o f a n a p p r o p r i a t e l y i r o n i c d i v i n e p u n i s h m e n t ; b u t the c r u c i f i x i o n o f A r t a y c t e s , * w h i l e i t is n o t e x p l i c i t l y c o n d e m n e d (as H e r m o t i m u s ' g e n i t a l m u t i l a t i o n s w e r e n o t ) , carries the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the G r e e k s , a n d specifically the n e w A t h e n i a n - l e d alliance, w e r e themselves b e g i n n i n g to behave 'excessively'. T h e

c o n t r a s t is t e l l i n g w i t h the rejec-

t i o n b y Pausanias after t h e battle o f Plataea o f t h e ' m o s t i m p i o u s ' proposal made b y L a m p o n , that Xerxes' uncharacteristic i m p a l i n g o f Leonidas' head be m a t c h e d b y the retaliatory i m p a l i n g o f M a r d o n i u s (7.238, 8.78-9).67

83

H e r e , as i n m a n y o t h e r instances, H e r o d o t u s uses

There seems no reason to suppose that this is the same Oeobazus whose sons were killed by Darius (4.83-4). '* The little story of the salt fish coming alive and jumping about on the coals, as interpreted by Artayctes (9.120), takes us back to Cyrus' fable, told to the lonians when rejecting their belated offer of a settlement, that they had lost their chance to dance freely to his tune (1.141), and offers yet another form of appropriate closure, as the lonians regained their freedom and took revenge: see Boedeker (1988) 40-1, Herington (1991a) 153, and Ceccarelli (1993). See esp. Bischoff (1932) 78-83, Boedeker (1988), Vandiver (1991) 223-7, Herington (1991a), Pelling (1998), Dewald (1998), Hartog (1999) 192. As Harrison points out, (2000b) 111, that the crucifixion was evidently a 'rational' decision taken by Xanthippus after consultation, need not exclude the idea that the gods had done their bit to bring this about, in a manner similar to Hermotimus' revenge, by delivering the wrongdoer to the victim. 67

217

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

traditional moral justifications and problematics concerning revenge both to bring out Persian and other barbarian cruelties and to question any easy confidence that Greeks were always their superiors. 1,8

Pride, hubris, aggression, and imperialism This brings us finally to the use o f moral language in the discussion of the causes o f these conflicts. Arguably the most debated area of 'popular morality' i n Herodotus concerns its role i n his analysis of the major decisions o f the leading states and his complex categories of historical explanation. I n his opening sentences Herodotus makes it clear that he sees it as his business to explain why major conflicts start, and to record how cities as well as individuals rise and fall, fall and rise, in changing patterns o f human mutability. The question for this final section is to assess the function, in his explanations o f these patterns, o f moral terms such as justice, reciprocity and truth-telling, revenge or retaliation (tisis, timoria), greed and graspingness (pleonexid), dishonouring aggression (hubris), and desire for empire, and finally over-confidence or pride (mega phroneein etc.). Many different categories or modes o f explanation (not mutually exclusive, but not necessarily easily compatible either) have been plausibly identified as operating i n his work;' while there is much disagreement, it is clear that in his text the moral, the religious and the political are constantly and inextricably intertwined.' 09

0

1

I have space to consider just two of the narratives o f the leadingEastern kings, through whose wars with various Greek peoples the development o f the main structure o f the Histories is articulated. A l l

m

Sec esp. Braund (1998). There are thus connections with these central themes of his work, considered in Chs. 7, 8, 14, 24 in this volume. Full and convenient discussions of Herodotean modes of explanation are provided by Laleiner (1989) Ch. 9, and Harrison (2000b) passim, though Lateiner is more concerned to argue that Herodotus does not need to, and does not in fact, choose between types of explanation, but is more interested in human modes, and Harrison that the religious explanations need to be taken very seriously (and see also Gould (1994)), but not seen as part of a coherent 'system' (as argued e.g., by Fornara (1999)). Many have seen parallels between the complexity of Herodotus' moral, religious, and political patterns and similar subtle patterns in Athenian tragedy, especially Sophocles: see. e.g., Lachenaud (1978) 498 500, Raaflaub (1987) 228, 247, Asheri Book I , xliv xlv, Ostwald (1991), Fisher (1992) 347-8, and Ch. 6 in this volume. 89

711

71

218

NICK FISHER

the leading kings make mistakes o f judgment, commit acts o f brutality at the level o f individual relationships, and engage in acts o f imperialistic aggression against other states; throughout, issues o f fate, and divine justice or jealousy, are prominent. Croesus, the first to commit injustice against Greek states (1.6), is appropriately the first complex case. His overvaluation o f his own prosperity, and failure to realize that, in Solon's words, the divine was a 'jealous and disruptive thing' (phihoneron and tarakhodes), aroused, Herodotus thinks it probable (hos eikasai), the 'indignation' (nemesis) o f 'a god' (1.34) which then apparently took the form o f the coincidental yet tragically appropriate circumstances o f the 'accidental' killing o f his son Atys by his suppliant and guest-friend Adrastus.' Croesus' failure to understand the changeable conditions o f human life should not, in my view, be seen as a serious religious offence (like, say, destroying temples or bridging the Hellespont), nor is there sufficient reason to label it, as so many have, hubris, as it did not involve either an intention to insult or shame, nor had that as its effect.' The 'divinity's' response hence seems, initially at least, disproportionate to any 'offence' the mortal may have given by expressing the view that he was the most fortunate o f men, however that is labelled. 12

3

4

75

The following narrative, however, presents Croesus' decision and preparations for a pre-emptive strike against Cyrus' new Persian empire. His motives were varied: originally the aim was to stop the growing power o f Persia (1.46), then expanded to imperialism, the 'desire for land, to acquire more i n addition to his own share', confidence in the Delphic oracle (based on a misunderstanding o f which 'empire' he would destroy), and a desire to avenge his brotherin-law and former ally Astyages (1.73). Here a similar overconfidence

72

On this phrase, see Gould (1994) 95. " O n die reciprocal gift-giving and its dangers in this story, see Gould (1991) 8-9. '* Those who call it hubris have included Regenbogen (1961) 80-2 (= 1962, 84-6), de Romilly (1971b) 315, Stahl (1975) 5; for the contrary view, see Gould (1989) 79—80, Fisher (1992) 357-60. Contrary to much received opinion explicit connections between nemesis and hubris are not in fact very frequent in Greek literature. ' Cairns' response to my book on Hybris (1992) suggests, rightly, that there is felt to be an offence to the gods in so thinking one's prosperity could be lasting, as this fails to observe mortal limits, concludes cautiously, but still incorrectly in my view, that in such an offence 'all the signs of hubris are there' ((1996) 18-19). But if it could be construed as a form of insult to the gods in general, it would be one committed in foolish ignorance rather than wilful insolence; thus in my view not 'all' the signs of hubris are present, as the offence lacks the necessary intent to insult. 7;

219

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

i n his success, his o v e r - v a l u a t i o n o f w e a l t h , a n d his r e l u c t a n c e to ask the m o r e cautious q u e s t i o n s , 7 6 c o m b i n e d w i t h the e x p l i c i t a m b i t i o n f o r m o r e e m p i r e , as w e l l as a (less c o n v i n c i n g ) case f o r revenge, l e d t o his s t a r t i n g the w a r ; the i n i t i a l l y successful moves i n c l u d e d a u n i l a t e r a l crossing o f the significant r i v e r - b o r d e r o f the H a l y s , 7 ' a n d the enslavement o f the Syrians (1.76). T h e

first

is thus s h o w n — i n m o r e abstract terms-

Eastern i m p e r i a l i s t k i n g

as c l e a r l y g u i l t y o f t e r r i t o -

r i a l g r e e d (pleonexia), a n d , at this stage, i f n o t b e f o r e , his desire f o r even m o r e w e a l t h a n d p o w e r c a n c e r t a i n l y be said t o have b e c o m e hubris, i n the f o r m o f t h e aggressive crossing o f b o u n d a r i e s a n d i m position o f political slavery.'8 T h e t h i r d e l e m e n t o f m o r a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f Croesus' fall is revealed w h e n Croesus, defeated a n d a b o u t to be b u r n e d o n a p y r e b y C y r u s , w o n his release b y s h o u t i n g o u t e n i g m a t i c a l l y ' S o l o n ' a n d p e r s u a d i n g C y r u s o f the A t h e n i a n sage's message o f w a i t i n g f o r d e a t h , a n d r e s p e c t i n g the m u t a b i l i t y o f a l l t h i n g s . A f t e r s w i f t l y d e m o n s t r a t i n g his value w i t h his n e w 'wise adviser' status' 9 b y c h e c k i n g the excessive l o o t i n g o f the c i t y o f Sardis, he was g r a n t e d the r e w a r d o f asking the D e l p h i c A p o l l o w h e t h e r he was n o t a s h a m e d to have deceived the m a n w h o h a d s h o w n h i m so m u c h h o n o u r , s h o w n h i m kharis i n r e t u r n . T h e

Pythia,

a n d n o t to have

the god's

representative,

carefully distinguished b e t w e e n the charges; she f o r b o r e f r o m b l a m i n g Croesus f o r his recent aggression, a n d instead i n t r o d u c e d the t r a d i t i o n a l idea o f i n h e r i t e d g u i l t over g e n e r a t i o n s , a n d thus j u s t i f i e d his loss o f the k i n g d o m b y the o r i g i n a l c r i m e o f Gyges. 8 " O n

the o t h e r

h a n d , she c l a i m e d t h a t the g o d h a d s h o w n g r a t i t u d e , w h i c h h a d c o n sisted i n his h a v i n g delayed the disaster f o r three years, a n d

Apollo

was absolved o f deceit b y the a m b i g u i t y o f the oracles; as b e f o r e ,

7

" On this, see esp. Christ (1994) 189-93. On the moral and religious significance of crossing rivers in Herodotus, see e.g., Immerwahr (1966) 162-7, 293-4, Flory (1987) 54 8, Fisher (1992) 352-60; excessive scepticism in Waters (1971) 51. The warnings given before the Battle of Plataea against crossing die Asopus river (9.36) seem to have been prominent in Simonides' elegy of the battle (el. 14), and something similar may be going on in Pind. Paean 2.73-5 in relation to a war between Abdera and the Paeonians. See esp. Stahl (1975), Raaflaub (1987) 241 4, Fisher (1992) 359 6. On this Herodotean role. Bischoff (1932), Lattimore (1939), Dewald (1985) 52-3, Raaflaub (1987) 242. On this idea elsewhere, cf. e.g., Solon 13 West, Theognis 731-52, Aesch. 750-81, and in Herodotus, see Fornara (1999) 40 2, Harrison'(2000b) 112-13. On the idea of kharis between gods and men, and the defence of a god on a charge of ingratitude, see Parker (1998) esp. 114-15. 11

78

79

8,1

220

N I C K FISHER

81

Croesus lacked the self-doubt to ask the right questions (1.86-91). As he has already indicated (1.13), Herodotus accepted that the Heraclids achieved revenge (tisis) for Gyges' offence by this loss o f the Lydian kingdom, but it may be left open whether he fully commits himself, or his audience, to the privileging o f this long-term explanation over the other two reasons offered, Croesus' overconfidence and aggression, or the military reasons for Cyrus' victory. M y second case is Xerxes' decision to invade mainland Greece, the most elaborately deployed, important, and over-determined decision i n the Histories. The invasion is seen first as retaliation, as the next escalation in the chain of retaliations between Persians (and before that Lydians) and Greeks. Darius had, i n the immediate anger on hearing o f M a r a t h o n , begun to plan his revenge, but delays because o f his death, the succession problem, and the Egyptian revolt meant the new K i n g had to take the decision afresh, and Herodotus built this up into a complex pattern o f motives and divine impulsion. The ideas o f revenge and retaliation (timmia and tisis) run strongly through Mardonius' and Xerxes' speeches (7.5, 7.8.b, 7.9.a), but overall a set o f imperialist motives concerned with the desire for conquest and wider empires predominates. Mardonius and Xerxes are presented as more concerned to increase power and rule other peoples, whether they have deserved 'revenge' or 'punishment' or not (7.8.a, 7.8.C, 7.9.a); Mardonios had also his own personal motives (7.6). A l l critics agree on the presence o f different elements i n the account, such as their associations o f political subjection, contempt for other peoples and their gods, and the overconfident refusal to 82

93

84

81

See Christ (1994) 189-93, and also Kurke (1999) 160-3, on a distinction between two types of discourse, to do with gift-exchange and with intellectual understanding. See Cobet (1986) 8-10, Gould (1989) 67 8, 121 2, Lateiner (1989) 208-9. On this passage, see also Ch. 7, pp. 174-6. Similar analyses are of course appropriate for the over-confidence, failure to take advice, aggressive acts, invasions, boundary-crossings, treacheries, and cruelties of other kings, especially Cyrus and Darius: see various accounts, e.g., for Cyrus, Lattimore (1939) 29, Immerwahr 11966) 165-7, Waters (1971), 51-2, Avers' (1972), Flory (1987) 95-6, Raaflaub (1987) 244-5, Paven (1991), Fisher (1992) 352-7, Pelling (1996); for Darius, Immerwahr (1966) 169-76, Waters (1971) 58-64, Lateiner (1984) 260, Hartog (1988) 32-9, Fisher (1992) 382 4. On the significance of this emphasis on Persian admission of their committing of injustice in the pursuit of empire (with the possibility of implications for fifthcentury Athenian imperialism), see e.g., Pohlenz (1937) 121-35, Raaflaub (1987) 228-9, 241-2. 8 2

83

84

221

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

recognize human limits, but there remain many disagreements on the appropriate use o f Greek terms to describe them, on whether the focus is on the King's individual faults or on broader cultural traditions, and on the role Herodotus attributes to the divine. The debated issue o f how the loaded value term hubris is used i n this prolonged debate takes in all these motifs. Elsewhere in Herodotus, the term is often used to denounce the intention behind individual verbal or physical insults, and most frequently it is used i n claims by states seeking revenge to denounce the acts o f aggression and humiliation o f other states; i n a more abstract political analysis, as we saw previously, it is one of the two main stimuli to the crimes committed by tyrants or kings (3.80). I t is used only twice in relation to Xerxes' expedition and only once i n this section, i n the second of Artabanus' explorations o f why he holds the invasion o f Greece to be dangerous. I n the first, i n the public debate, Artabanus responds to the ambitiously expansive and confident plans o f Mardonius and Xerxes with his fears o f a possible reverse, i n part based on past Greek successes, and then more generally on the tendency o f 'the god' to cut down the greatest buildings, the tallest trees and the greatest armies, because his envy (phthonos) does not allow anyone other than himself to show pride, mega phroneein (7.10e). Later, when alone with Xerxes, and agreeing to test out the allegedly divine dream, he said, referring back to the previous speech, 'what caused me pain was not so much hearing abuse from you, as that when there were two motions for action placed before the Persians, one of which was tending to increase hubris and the other to diminish it, by saying that it is a bad thing to teach the soul always to have more than what is i n front o f one, you chose the one likely to be more dangerous for yourself and the Persians' (7.16a—b). I t has commonly been argued that the hubris i n the second speech is essentially identical with the mega phroneein i n the first, the over-confident pride which ignores the limits set to mankind by the gods. ' I n my view, what is being described in general i n both these passages is the complex o f drives and conquests which link together the Persians' past advances and their present ambitions, and include Xerxes' own aims 85

81

8 5

See esp. Fisher (1992) 343-57 and (2000) 103-6; briefly Giraudeau (1984a) 73-7. E.g., Regenbogen (1961) 97-102. Pohlenz (1937) 125 9. Immerwahr (1966), 177-8, de Romilly (1977) 42-6, Dickie (1984) 104-9, Redfield (1985) 113. 8 6

222

N I C K FISHER

and feelings, responding to the pressures to gain honour, wealth, and empire. ' Mega phroneein, hubris and always wanting to have more than one has (evidently a periphrasis for pkonexiaf are all ways o f expressing aspects o f imperialist aggression which might be offensive to the gods as well as to their human victims. But the three terms or phrases differ significantly i n their rhetorical force, here as also in other comparable cases. I n the open debate, Artabanus' language offers only hints of moral offensiveness; terms like mega phronein are morally ambiguous, and the view that the gods i n their envy (phthonos) choose to bring low the highest trees and the greatest powers is compatible either with the view that the gods dislike moral excess, and with the view expressed by Solon that they will not permit any mortal to match their levels of power. These ambiguities seem designed to protect Artabanus against retaliation by a shamed and angry Xerxes (as we have seen, many stories of often savage punishments indicate the need for such caution). Alone later with the K i n g , he puts his argument more bluntly and uses the stronger terms hubris and (in effect) pleonexia, which carry the ideas o f serious moral outrage as well as that o f excessive overconfidence and pride. Hubris, I would argue, adds the idea o f enslaving other peoples, and 'pleonexia' that o f a relentless drive for imperial expansion, both placed i n the context o f the traditional patterns o f imperialism found i n all Persian reigns since that of Gyrus, and already acknowledged i n the speeches o f Mardonius and Xerxes. Thus these moral terms, and above all hubris, have as much to say about the effects o f Persian expansion as on the presence o f prosperity, pride and over-confidence i n the Persians or their kings; the full statement o f Artabanus' views suggest that the gods may object to b o t h . 8

a

89

90

The divinely sent dreams which forced the two to agree after all

87

Most fully expressed in Fisher (1992) 368-74; Cairns (1996), esp. 13-22, takes partial issue with my views. In some respects our views are closer than he realizes, but differences remain. See e.g., Pohlenz (1937) 123, Raaflaub (1987) 229. See also e.g., Lateiner (1987) 92-3; on the atmosphere of fear at the court, also Pelling (1991) 130-6. This emphasis on Persian traditions rather than on individual error is given strong, though perhaps excessive, weight by Evans (1961), and also by Immerwahr (1966) 321-2, Gould (1989) 114 16, and Fisher (1992) 369-74. It compels a qualification to Momigliano's otherwise penetrating critique (1979; esp. 146 8) of Herodotus' allegedly over-personalized presentation of" Persian motives. 88 89

911

223

POPULAR M O R A L I T Y I N HERODOTUS

t o go a h e a d w i t h the i n v a s i o n seem best i n t e r p r e t e d as a n o r i g i n a l Persian m o t i f w h i c h have b e e n p r o f o u n d l y m o d i f i e d to fit G r e e k p a t terns. T h e d r e a m s o f the n o b l e figure i n s i s t i n g o n the e x p e d i t i o n are m o d e l l e d above a l l o n Z e u s ' false d r e a m to A g a m e m n o n i n the seco n d b o o k o f the Iliad; i n v i e w o f the o u t c o m e , t h e y s h o u l d be r e a d as a deliberate d e c e p t i o n designed to c o m p e l the i n v a s i o n , a n d hence a sign t h a t the j e a l o u s ' d i v i n i t y ' h a d d e c i d e d t h a t Persian

expansion

a n d hubris s h o u l d suffer a n o t h e r m a j o r reverse. 9 1 I n this w a y ,

then,

t r a d i t i o n a l m o r a l beliefs c o n c e r n i n g the c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n

over-

c o n f i d e n c e a n d aggression are i n t e g r a t e d w i t h sophisticated p o l i t i c a l analysis o f i m p e r i a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n s a n d o f the pressures o n successive kings, a n d t h e n o v e r - d e t e r m i n e d b y the m o r a l l y - g r o u n d e d i n t e r v e n t i o n o f the d i v i n e ; 9 2 the reader m a y

thus c o n c l u d e t h a t

Herodotus

c o n t e m p l a t e s ' d i v i n e phtkonos' as o p e r a t i n g here i n a m o r e w a y t h a n he has A r t a b a n u s

use i t d u r i n g the d e b a t e .

moralized

93

T h e details o f the e x p e d i t i o n f u l l y r e i n f o r c e this p i c t u r e . T h e

moral

language a n d the idea t h a t d i v i n e assistance s i g n i f i c a n t l y h e l p e d the Greeks to w i n r e c u r o f t e n . X e r x e s ' changes o f m i n d , his occasional signs o f c a u t i o n , a n d his flashes o f generosity, p i t y a n d

humanity,

d o c o m p l i c a t e the p i c t u r e a n d present a m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g figure i n the f r a m e w o r k

of human

u n c e r t a i n t y (7.13, 2 8 - 9 , 4 4 - 7 ,

101

5).91

B u t g r e a t e r emphasis is p l a c e d o n the king's a r r o g a n c e , g r a t u i t o u s c r u e l t y a n d i m p i e t y . T h e n a r r a t i v e h i g h l i g h t s the t r e a t m e n t o f Pythius the L y d i a n ( 7 . 2 7 - 9 , 3 8 - 4 0 ) , the m a r k i n g o f the b o r d e r - c r o s s i n g b y the b r i d g i n g , a n d t h e n the

flogging,

o f the H e l l e s p o n t (7.33

the t a m i n g o f A t h o s b y means o f the c a n a l (7.22

6 , 53—6),

6 , 1 1 7 - 2 2 ) , the

b u r n i n g o f temples a n d shrines (8.32 9 , 5 4 - 5 ) , a n d the k i l l i n g a n d i m p a l i n g o f defeated Greeks, (e.g., 7 . 2 3 8 , 8 . 5 3 - 4 ) . H e n c e

Herodotus'

o w n q u i e t statement t h a t 'after the g o d ' i t was the A t h e n i a n s

who

d i d m o s t t o defeat the Persians (7.139) is p l a u s i b l y e x p a n d e d b y the t w o l a t e r passages,

91

the e x p l i c i t ' o r a c l e o f B a c i s ' ,

whose

t r u t h is

On these dreams, see van Lieshout (1970), Gärtner (1983), Fornara (1999) 36 7, 42 5, Harrison (2000b) 132 7, and especially on the third dream of the olive crown, Köhnken (1988). See also Chs. 5 and 6 in this volume. There is thus no need, as does e.g., de Romilly (1977) 42-6, to make a distinction between 'religious' (as here in Herodotus) and 'political' hubris (as in Thucydides). On this point 1 agree with Cairns (1996) 15, 18. See e.g., Immerwahr (1966) 181 3, Waters (1971), 75 9, Gould (1989) 133-4; and see also Sancisi, Ch. 25, in this volume. 92

93

91

224

NICK

endorsed

by

FISHER

the h i s t o r i a n (8.77), w h i c h p r e d i c t e d t h a t at

Salamis

'Justice w i l l q u e n c h m i g h t y Excess (Koros), the c h i l d o f Hubris',

and

9i

b y the m o r a l i z e d v e r s i o n o f the e n v y o f the gods w h i c h is p r e s e n t e d p o w e r f u l l y by

Themistocles,

when

discussing G r e e k strategy

after

Salamis (8.109): ' I t was n o t w e w h o a c h i e v e d this, b u t the gods a n d the heroes, w h o

were

envious

(phthonein) t h a t one m a n

k i n g over A s i a a n d E u r o p e , a m a n w h o is i m p i o u s a n d

should

be

outrageous

(atasthalos), w h o t r e a t e d sacred a n d p r i v a t e things i n the same

way,

b u r n i n g a n d c a s t i n g d o w n the statues o f the gods, a n d w h o a c t u a l l y lashed the sea a n d b o u n d i t w i t h c h a i n s . ' W e m a y w e l l suppose t h a t H e r o d o t u s does endorse these j u d g m e n t s a n d this m o r a l i z e d v e r s i o n o f d i v i n e phthonos, t h o u g h w i t h o u t e n d o r s i n g the p o l i t i c i a n ' s m o c k modest

understatement

o f the G r e e k s ' o w n

c o n t r i b u t i o n . I t is,

of

course, o n l y a n o t h e r o f this h i s t o r i a n ' s c u n n i n g i r o n i e s t h a t this neat s u m m i n g u p o f X e r x e s ' m o r a l p u n i s h m e n t is d e l i v e r e d by the cleverest a n d m o s t m o r a l l y a m b i g u o u s o f his G r e e k characters, w h o a c c o r d i n g to H e r o d o t u s was already p l a n n i n g a possible escape r o u t e t o the c o u r t o f this same i m p i o u s a n d outrageous

Xerxes, who

con-

stantly d i s p l a y e d his g r e e d , a n d w h o was s o o n to p l a y a l e a d i n g role i n the earliest stages o f A t h e n i a n this w a y ,

precisely w h e r e w e m a y

i m p e r i a l i s m (8.112; cf. 8 . 3 ) . %

In

be c o n f i d e n t t h a t H e r o d o t u s is

a p p r o v i n g a m o r a l i z i n g j u d g m e n t w h i c h explains the v i c t o r y o f the Greeks i n t e r m s o f the i m p e r i a l i s t aggression a n d b l a s p h e m y o f t h e i r enemies, h e offers the reader the h i n t t h a t such m o r a l a n d p o l i t i c a l contrasts are as subject t o constant, yet u n p r e d i c t a b l e , change as are the p r o s p e r i t y o r sufferings o f i n d i v i d u a l s a n d the rise a n d f a l l states (1.5,

95

of

1.32).'"

On which see Immerwahr (1966) 278-9, Darbo-Peschanski (1987) 79 83, Gould (1989) 122-5, Harrison (2000b) 130-2. See, e.g., Immerwahr (1966) 199-200, 223-5, Fornara (1971a) 66-74. Dewald (1985) 53, Konstan (1987) 70-3, Raailaub (1987) 242, Gould (1989) 117-18. See especially Gould (1989) 76 82, Dewald (1998) 80-2. 9 6

97

CHAPTER T E N W O M E N IN HERODOTUS'

HISTORIES

Josine B l o k

Introduction: the importance of women in the H i s t o r i e s Herodotus'

Histories offer the reader a v i e w o f a w i d e - r a n g i n g his-

t o r i c a l process w h i c h i n v o l v e d n e a r l y t h e w h o l e i n h a b i t e d w o r l d . B y s i t u a t i n g the G r e c o - P e r s i a n w a r i n this c o n t e x t , H e r o d o t u s c o n f e r r e d a special m e a n i n g o n the i m m e n s e c o n f l i c t t h a t still g o v e r n e d

the

a c t u a l p o l i t i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f the eastern M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d deeply i n f l u e n c e d t h e G r e e k s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f themselves a n d

the w o r l d .

W o m e n p l a y a salient role i n the h i s t o r i c a l w o r l d as H e r o d o t u s trays i t . T h e y p a r t a k e i n all activities t h a t f o r m the b o d y

por-

of the

Histories: t h e y rule k i n g d o m s , p r o d u c e o r n u r t u r e r o y a l c h i l d r e n , take v i t a l decisions, f o u n d oracles, serve i n s i m p l e j o b s , fall v i c t i m to w a r , take revenge, a n d p a r t i c i p a t e i n w a r f a r e . W o m e n p e r f o r m some

of

these activities o n a smaller scale t h a n m e n , n o t a b l y i n the fields o f politics a n d m i l i t a r y a c t i o n ; i n others t h e y o u t d o t h e m e n ' s

contri-

b u t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n t a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r r e l i g i o u s observance a n d t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f social stability. I n t h e w o r d s o f J o h n Gould, (. . .) what is most striking throughout is what I w o u l d call the visibility of women i n the w o r l d as Herodotus presents i t , and their often paramount role i n determining what happens; this is i n stark contrast to the way i n which the public w o r l d of political action appears elsewhere i n Greek literature. (Gould (1989) 130-1) W o m e n ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e n a r r a t e d h i s t o r i c a l events is t h o r o u g h l y i n t e r t w i n e d w i t h a l l o t h e r aspects o f t h e Histories. H e r o d o t u s '

work

strikes t h e m o d e r n reader as holistic i n the s t r o n g i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f its subject m a t t e r , sources, selection, synthesis, e x p l a n a t i o n ,

and

p r e s e n t a t i o n — t h e elements t h a t c o n s t i t u t e a n y m a j o r h i s t o r i c a l w o r k . A m o n g the m u c h - d e b a t e d questions evoked b y the Histories a n d the craft o f t h e i r a u t h o r , t h e r e are f e w themes t h a t are n o t i n some w a y

226

JOSINE BLÖK

c o n n e c t e d w i t h the role o f w o m e n as a g r o u p w i t h distinct f u n c t i o n s i n society, o r w i t h g e n d e r as a f u n d a m e n t a l c a t e g o r y o f h i s t o r i c a l understanding. T h e significance o f w o m e n i n the historical n a r r a t i v e o f the Histories is o f t e n d e m o n s t r a t e d b y e n u m e r a t i n g w h e n a n d h o w w o m e n

are

m e n t i o n e d , notably b y contrast to T h u c y d i d e s ' History of the Peloponnesian War. D e w a l d ( 1 9 8 1 : 92) notes 375 references to w o m e n i n H e r o d o t u s (Cartledge

(1993) 128

m e n t i o n s 381),

as against L a t e i n e r ' s

o n l y six i n T h u c y d i d e s ((1989) 2 6 5 ; cf. G o u l d (1989) 1 2 9 - 3 0 ) . six are t h e o n l y i n d i v i d u a l w o m e n

w h o are m e n t i o n e d b y

L o r a u x counts a b o u t t w e n t y instances w h e r e T h u c y d i d e s ' w o m e n a n d c h i l d r e n ' or other anonymous w o m e n ( L o r a u x (1995)). O f history here.

findingThese name;1

mentions

collectives t h a t i n c l u d e d

course, n u m b e r s reflect c o n c e p t i o n s o f

I n w r i t i n g the history o f the Peloponnesian

T h u c y d i d e s b e s t o w e d u p o n w a r the q u a l i t y o f b e i n g -

War,

o r revealing—

the essence o f h i s t o r y , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y p r e s e n t i n g this v i e w as the objective t r u t h ( L o r a u x (1986a);

Hornblower

(1991 2 ) 5 9 - 6 6 ) . As

a

consequence, he c o n s i d e r e d t h e m o r e o r less r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o u r a n d decisions o f those w h o w e r e p o l i t i c a l l y a n d strategically responsible to be t h e decisive factors i n the h i s t o r i c a l process a n d hence

the

t h i n g s really w o r t h k n o w i n g . H i s a p p r o a c h i n e v i t a b l y p r o d u c e d a hist o r i o g r a p h y i n w h i c h w o m e n c o u l d n o t be e x p e c t e d to figure as hist o r i c a l agents. I n s t e a d they w e r e c o n c e i v e d o f as b e i n g subject t o t h e i r f e m i n i n e n a t u r e (phusis) w h i c h , b y r e p r e s e n t i n g the v u l n e r a b l e oikos side o f the w a r r i n g states, c o u l d o n l y feature as a b a c k d r o p t o w h a t was historically significant ( L o r a u x (1995); cf. W i e d e m a n n H a r v e y (1985); C a r t l e d g e (1993)). M o r e o v e r ,

(1983);

i n dealing w i t h a war

t h a t was f o u g h t a m o n g t h e Greeks themselves, T h u c y d i d e s was n o t c o m p e l l e d to take i n t o a c c o u n t c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e - one o f the f o r m a t i v e factors i n H e r o d o t u s '

h i s t o r i o g r a p h y t h a t i n d u c e d the l a t t e r

to recognize w o m e n as i m p o r t a n t agents. H o w e v e r , t h e differences b e t w e e n t h e i r conceptions o f h i s t o r y o b v i ously c a n n o t be r e d u c e d to the d e m a n d s i n h e r e n t i n the subject m a t t e r o f t h e i r respective w o r k s . N e i t h e r

1

w i l l i t d o to assume

their

The priestess of Argos, Chrysis, and her successor Phaeinis (2.2.1 and 4.133.2-3, both serving chronological purposes): Archedice and Myrrhine, the daughter and wife of Hippias (6.59.3, 55.1); the mythical Procne (2.29.3), and the savage Thracian Brauro, who took part in killing her husband, the Edonian king (4.107.3); see Lateiner (1989) 265.

WOMEN I N HERODOTUS'

HISTORIES

227

thoroughly distinct social environments as an explanation o f these differences. Whatever the reasons for his particular standpoint, Herodotus presents a view of the world i n which women played a central role i n all cultural and social relations. Like Thucydides, he often mentions circumstances in which it was necessary for the men to bring 'the women and children' o f a community into a state o f safety, but the context o f the Histories gives a different meaning to the same kind of event. Herodotus never attributes the characteristics o f people as a group to nature (phusis). Instead, his emphasis on nomas (a custom o f such impact as to function as a natural law within a community) as the governing force i n people's behaviour is articulated i n an ethnography in which gender-relations, and women's activities i n particular, are among the cardinal criteria of description and evaluation (Rossellini and Said (1978)). For instance, Herodotus indicates the topsy-turvy nature of the Egyptian world by observations to the effect that i n Egypt the roles o f men and women were exactly the reverse o f those of the Greeks (2.35); and the successful resistance o f the Scythians against the Persian kings is set against the background o f their nomoi, a nomad way o f life, while in the case o f tribes such as the Massagetae and the Sauromatae the women are shown to be as valiant and independent as the men (1.205-16; 4.110-17). Although he can only use Greek practices as a norm, often implicitly, his aim is clearly to demonstrate that what is considered normal varies from one society to another. 2

3

4

W o m e n represent a kind o f seismograph o f the general condition of a civilization or society. They are essential indicators o f normality (Lateiner (1989) 135, 140) and, consequently, o f transgressions o f that normality. The notion of normality includes a moral aspect and an idea of tradition; it refers to nomas i n its practical and i n its prescriptive sense. I n the Histories, women who act in a positive way often defend the nomas against irresponsible transgressions by men,

2

Fehling (1989) 243-5 thinks that Herodotus was not at all the upper-class figure he is usually taken to have been. I do not think that this argument is of any help in understanding the structure of the Histories; a dependence on different kinds of literary genre seems to be more to the point. E.g., 1.164; 3.45; 3.97; 4.121; 4.145.2; 4.202; 5.15; 5.98; 6.16; 6.19; 6.32; 6.137; 7.114.1; 8.33; 8.36; 8.40; 8.142; cf. Dewald (1981) 121. * I have argued elsewhere that Herodotus uses the Greek myth of the Amazons to explain the nomoi of the Sauromatae, rather than to identify the Scythians as the origin of the Amazons, which is the usual interpretation of this passage (Blok (1995) 86-9). Sec also Ch. 9 in this volume. 3

228

JOSINE B L O K

as when Cyno the servant woman saves the royal child Cyrus from destruction by his own grandfather (1.110—13). Cyno's role in fact provides an example o f Herodotus' tendency to illuminate important people and events by focussing on small and apparently insignificant ones (van der Veen (1996) 23—52). Conversely, women whose agency is destructive, or who are cast in a negative light, indicate that something is rotten i n the society to which they belong (Pheretime fulfulling a long tradition o f strife and murder i n Cyrene and Barce, 4.160—2, 202-5, and the unpredictable power o f the Persian queens, a component o f dynastic autocracy; cf. Lateiner (1989) 139). The individuals who take fundamental decisions in the Histories are situated within this cultural context, moulded by Herodotus' understanding o f it. This assessment of the historical perspective created in the Histories forms one strand o f this essay. The published contributions that I shall discuss are mainly those that take this structural coherence o f Herodotus' historiography as a starting point. M y aim is to elucidate what the analysis o f women's role in Herodotus' work has contributed to our understanding of the Histories. The debate on the relationship between narrative and historical 'reality' in the Histories, which seems to have become the overarching question in Herodotean scholarship^ has been stimulated by discussions on the representations o f women. A m o n g the factors contributing to this interest are Herodotus' stories about the power and sexual freedom o f women in faraway societies. These stories have fanned the imagination of readers from antiquity to the present, but, simultaneously, they have recurrently evoked doubts, and hence questions, about the truth o f it all. Since Herodotus' account o f Babylon—the Babylonian queens Semiramis and Nitocris (1.184—5), and the practice in the same city of selling and prostituting the daughters o f citizens (1.196)—is clearly unreliable/' why should one believe his narrative about the battle o f Salamis? Another such factor is the discrepancy between Herodotus' 7

5

In the Arethusa volume on Herodotus (1987), the emphasis has shifted almost entirely towards the narrative side of the Histories. The contributors to the volume discuss specific episodes using cautionary phrases such as 'whatever may really have happened, Herodotus tells that. . .'. Yet any assessment of historical narrative is ultimately concerned with a narrative about something, an assumption which is implicitly taken for granted in much of the Arethusa volume. '' Rollinger (1993); Beard and Henderson (1997); from a different point of view Lloyd (1976) 289-91. ' See also Ch. 15 in this volume.

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

229

HISTORIES

views o n w o m e n ' s p r o m i n e n c e a n d w h a t is generally c o n s i d e r e d t o have b e e n the m o r e c o m m o n noted by

Gould.

What

p r a c t i c e i n Greece at t h e t i m e , as

made

Herodotus

d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ? A n d different? A n

describe the w o r l d

so

w h a t exactly is i t t h a t is

assessment o f the range o f positions t a k e n b y scholars

o n questions d e a l i n g w i t h n a r r a t i o n a n d h i s t o r i c a l process t h e r e f o r e f o r m s the second s t r a n d o f this c h a p t e r .

Approaching the theme: fact and fiction in the Histories Since t h e r e is ' n o single f o r m u l a w h i c h covers the role o f w o m e n i n H e r o d o t u s ' ( G o u l d (1989) 130), there is n o single i n t e r p r e t a t i v e f r a m e work w h i c h may accommodate subject. T h e

a l l , o r m o s t , s c h o l a r l y w o r k o n the

v a r i o u s approaches r a t h e r reflect the p r o b l e m s raised

b y the c h a r a c t e r o f H e r o d o t u s ' w o r k itself. T h e Histories seem to m e t o pose a n e x t r e m e case o f a generic q u e s t i o n a b o u t a l l h i s t o r i c a l w r i t i n g : h o w are w e to u n d e r s t a n d the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n h i s t o r i o g r a p h y as n a r r a t i o n a n d the events i t claims to describe a n d explain? This

q u e s t i o n is b o t h m o r e

intractable and more

m i g h t appear at first glance. F o r

important

than

instance, w h e n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the

elements t h a t t o g e t h e r m a k e u p the Histories, I m m e r w a h r

concludes

t h a t ' h i s t o r i c a l k n o w l e d g e i n H e r o d o t u s moves o n three levels: events, t r a d i t i o n s a b o u t events, a n d the h i s t o r i c a l w o r k w h i c h i n t e r p r e t s these traditions' ( I m m e r w a h r

(1966) 6). T h i s analysis gives a fine i n s i g h t

i n t o the w a y a r e a d e r experiences H e r o d o t u s '

t e x t , b u t the

under-

l y i n g p r o b l e m surfaces a g a i n i n the c h o i c e o f p r i o r i t y . E i t h e r proceeds f r o m the ' h i s t o r i c a l events a n d the t r a d i t i o n s a b o u t

one

them',

o r one ascribes the decisive role to ' t h e h i s t o r i c a l w o r k w h i c h i n t e r prets these t r a d i t i o n s ' . I n the first case, the i m p a c t o f the i n t e r p r e t a t i v e l e v e l is n o t b e l i t t l e d , b u t i t is r e g a r d e d

u l t i m a t e l y as t h e

kaleidoscope t h r o u g h w h i c h the reader is presented w i t h h i s t o r i c a l events, h o w e v e r c o l o u r e d a n d r e a r r a n g e d . C r i t i c s w h o adhere t o this position regard Herodotus

first

a n d last as a n h i s t o r i a n — p e r h a p s a

h i g h l y i m a g i n a t i v e a n d c e r t a i n l y a h i g h l y creative o n e , b u t n o n e t h e less one w h o is m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t h a d h a p pened i n the w o r l d a r o u n d h i m , w h e n a n d w h y . T h e y value H e r o d o t u s ' n a r r a t i v e qua r h e t o r i c a l d i s c o u r s e — f o r e x a m p l e q u o t a t i o n s a n d d i r e c t speech—as

his use o f source-

a l e g i t i m a t e vehicle f o r the c o n -

veyance o f a h i s t o r i a n ' s v i e w o f h i s t o r y . O f the critics discussed h e r e ,

230

JOSINE B L O K

Tourraix

(1976), D e w a l d (1981), a n d L a t e i n e r

(1989) fall i n t o this

category. I n t h e second case, t h e emphasis shifts t o w a r d s t h e t e x t t o t h e Histories as a n a c c o u n t ( p r o b a b l y o r a l i n o r i g i n , l a t e r c o m m i t t e d t o w r i t i n g ) t h a t is essentially t h e c r e a t i o n o f a G r e e k a u t h o r . Here, Herodotus

h i m s e l f is seen first a n d last as a w r i t e r — a story-

teller. F r o m this perspective, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n his t e x t a n d the h i s t o r i c a l , outside w o r l d is m o r e

o r less i n c i d e n t a l - - a m a t t e r

r e q u i r i n g a separate, altogether d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f j u d g m e n t .

Although

the critics b e l o n g i n g t o this l a t t e r g r o u p w i l l n o t d e n y t h a t some references to r e a l , h i s t o r i c a l events w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e Histories, they consider this h a r d l y relevant to w h a t they see as the core o f H e r o d o t u s ' c r e a t i o n . T h i s p o s i t i o n , t h o u g h based o n w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g t h e o r e t i c a l p o i n t s o f v i e w , is here represented b y P e m b r o k e (1967), R o s s e l l i n i a n d S a i d (1978), a n d G r a y (1995) o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d , o c c a s i o n a l l y , F e h l i n g (1989 ) o n t h e o t h e r . 2

The

t w o p o s i t i o n s , a t least i n t h e i r m o s t r a d i c a l v e r s i o n s , a r e

d i f f i c u l t t o r e c o n c i l e . T h e y seem each t o b e d e f e n d e d b y critics w h o focus p r e d o m i n a n t l y o n t h e e t h n o g r a p h y / c u l t u r a l h i s t o r y c o n t a i n e d i n t h e first five books o f t h e Histories, w i t h a n occasional reference to t h e last p a r t . Scholars focussing o n single episodes, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the last three books (here represented b y M u n s o n (1988)), appear t o be l i t t l e t r o u b l e d b y a p u l l t o w a r d s e i t h e r e x t r e m e . U l t i m a t e l y , t h e common

a i m o f m o s t critics is t o l o o k f o r a balance b e t w e e n

text

a n d e v e n t — f o r a means t o c o n n e c t H e r o d o t u s ' role as c r e a t o r o f his narrative w i t h the historical events t h a t he considered w o r t h r e c o r d i n g .

From narrative to historical agency The

recognition o f women's

central role i n the narrative structure

o f the Histories was m o r e o r less i n i t i a t e d b y E r w i n W o l f f (1964; M a r g (1965) 668^78). I n his a r t i c l e , he p o i n t s o u t t h a t H e r o d o t u s

marks

the b e g i n n i n g a n d t h e e n d o f his m a i n t h e m e — t h e c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n the G r e e k a n d N e a r - E a s t e r n w o r l d s — w i t h p a r a l l e l stories: the episode o f t h e L y d i a n k i n g G a n d a u l e s , w h o s h o w e d his w i f e n a k e d t o his advisor a n d later successor Gyges (1.8—13), a n d t h e episode o f X e r x e s ' i n f a t u a t i o n w i t h first t h e w i f e a n d t h e n t h e d a u g h t e r o f his b r o t h e r Masistes (9.108-13). I n b o t h stories, a queen's response t o h e r h u s 8

8

For the Masistes story, see also Chs. 9, pp. 207-8 and 13, pp. 310-13 i n this volume.

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

231

HISTORIES

b a n d ' s irresponsible b e h a v i o u r triggers o f f a series o f disastrous events. W h a t i n d u c e d H e r o d o t u s to select precisely these stories to flank his history? W o l f f i n fact w o n d e r e d h o w a n d w h y H e r o d o t u s h a d m a d e a choice b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t versions o f the same story. T h e

existence

o f v a r i a n t s was c e r t a i n i n the case o f the L y d i a n episode, b u t h i g h l y u n l i k e l y i n t h e case o f t h e M a s i s t e s Reinhardt's

observations

story.

Linking

his v i e w s

c o n c e r n i n g the Gyges story (1940;

to

1960;

1965), W o l f f argues t h a t the Masistes story p r o v i d e d the clue to the choice o f the Gyges v e r s i o n . I n the Persian episode, X e r x e s ' t r a n s gression o f m a r i t a l fidelity a n d the subsequent revenge o f the q u e e n o n the one w h o m

she c o n s i d e r e d the o r i g i n a l danger

to h e r

own

p o s i t i o n — M a s i s t e s ' i n n o c e n t w i f e — w o u l d u l t i m a t e l y lead to his o w n d o w n f a l l (465 BC), a finale n o t i n c l u d e d i n the Histories themselves b u t f o r e s h a d o w e d b y H e r o d o t u s a n d k n o w n t o the w h o l e w o r l d w h e n he was w r i t i n g . T h i s p a t t e r n o f events at the Persian directed Herodotus' He

royal court

selection f r o m a m o n g the v a r i o u s Gyges stories.

chose one w h i c h e n a b l e d h i m to represent the s i t u a t i o n a l o n g

s i m i l a r lines: the L y d i a n king's b e t r a y a l o f the t r u s t o f his w i f e p l a c i n g h e r i n a s i t u a t i o n close to e n f o r c e d i n f i d e l i t y , h e r

by

subsequent

insistence t h a t revenge be t a k e n against the r e a l offender a n d , after Gyges' decision t h a t C a n d a u l e s was t o b l a m e , the d o w n f a l l o f the latter a n d the succession o f Gyges. Since, a c c o r d i n g to

Herodotus.

Gyges' descendant Croesus was the first t o b e g i n ' b a r b a r i a n ' agression t o w a r d s the Greeks, the L y d i a n episode was the first i n a c h a i n o f conflicts t h a t w o u l d o n l y e n d w i t h the defeat o f X e r x e s . T h e canvas o f the G r e e k - b a r b a r i a n

vast

c o n f r o n t a t i o n thus becomes t h e c e n -

t r a l p a r t o f a t r i p t y c h , w i t h the w i n g s p o r t r a y i n g queens t a k i n g d e c i sions f a t a l to t h e i r r u l i n g b u t e r r i n g husbands. W o l f f i n t e r p r e t s these stories as narratives t h a t , as a series o f situ a t i o n s , lead to a m o r a l o f w i d e r significance: kings w h o

destroy

themselves a n d t h e i r k i n g d o m s b e g i n b y d e s t r o y i n g t h e i r o w n households. T h u s he breaks a w a y f r o m a l o n g - s t a n d i n g t r a d i t i o n w h i c h p e r c e i v e d w o m e n ' s agency i n H e r o d o t u s as s y m p t o m a t i c o f the hist o r i a n ' s f a t a l i n c l i n a t i o n t o w a r d the a n e c d o t a l . I n s t e a d he shows t h a t the l a r g e r p r o j e c t o f the Histories is represented even i n stories he h i m s e l f classifies as ' h a r e m - l o v e

stories' ( W o l f f (1965) 673).

Wolff

makes n o e x p l i c i t statements, h o w e v e r , a b o u t the c o n n e c t i o n o f these stories t o h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y . W h e t h e r and dramatized

H e r o d o t u s gives a H e l l e n i z e d

a c c o u n t o f s t r u c t u r a l tensions e x i s t i n g w i t h i n the

Persian r u l i n g f a m i l i e s , as a specialist o n Persian h i s t o r y has a r g u e d (Sancisi-Weerdenburg

(1983) 2 7 - 3 1 ) , o r j u s t passes o n a story t h a t

232

JOSINE B L O K

suited his fancies about Xerxes, is not a question W o l f f wants to discuss. His approach to the stories o f these royal women helps to reveal the structural coherence o f the Histories as a narrative; that is, to our understanding of Herodotus' views and the ways i n which he has moulded his material accordingly. Although Wolff's article was apparently unknown to h i m , Alexandre Tourraix (1976) was equally struck by the queen's agency i n the Candaules story, but he expanded the argument i n several ways. First, he connects the Lydian story not only to its counterpart concerning Xerxes and his queen, but also to about fifty other stories in the Histories which reveal a similar pattern. According to Tourraix, episodes such as those o f the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus marrying the daughter o f Megacles (1.60), the Corinthian tyrant Periander keeping alive the memory of his dead wife Melissa (5.92), the succession o f Cyrus to the royal throne through his mother (the Median princess Mandane, 1.107-8), Cambyses gaining power over Egypt through the daughter o f pharaoh Apries (3.1—3), and, negatively, the male Babylonians losing power through the killing o f the women o f their city (3.150), demonstrate that i n monarchical societies power exercised by men is only legitimate and lasting i f it includes the feminine and is transferred through it. The feminine may be represented by a goddess (see for instance Athena's protection o f Peisistratus at Pallene, 1.62) or another kind of feminine power, but most often it is incorporated in the wife, sister, or daughter o f the predecessor. There is a strong tie, implicit but effective, between the person o f the queen and royal power itself (Tourraix (1976) 370—1). By acting as the indispensable intercessors between men's generations, women were to perform a role that was at once dynamic and consolidating. Woman, or femininity, is the guarantee, mortal or immortal, of the solidity of Power, particularly in its monarchical forms: she thus fulfils two complementary and fundamental functions, by simultaneously assuring both the transmission and the permanence of Power. (Tourraix (1976) 369, tr. J. B.). Thus T o u r r a i x perceives not only a common structure i n the opening and closing scenes, as W o l f f had done, but also an intermittent series o f similarly structured events throughout the Histories. The recurrence o f this pattern again demonstrates the strong compositional coherence o f the Histories. Episodes such as the ones on royal succession should be understood, not as digressions, but as instances signifying the meaning of the whole.

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

The

second w a y i n w h i c h T o u r r a i x

233

HISTORIES

expanded the a r g u m e n t

was

b y a s c r i b i n g to this p a t t e r n a w i d e r m e a n i n g t h a n W o l f f , w h o

had

l i m i t e d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to the level o f n a r r a t i v e i n the strict sense. According

to T o u r r a i x ,

the r e c u r r e n c e o f the p a t t e r n i n b o t h

the

G r e e k a n d O r i e n t a l societies exemplifies H e r o d o t u s ' v i e w t h a t b e h i n d c u l t u r a l differences some h i s t o r i c a l c o n d i t i o n s c o m m o n to a l l m a n k i n d m a n i f e s t themselves. O n e between

monarchy

such feature is the f u n d a m e n t a l difference

and democracy

(or, i n a w e a k e r

sense, a r i s t o c -

racy). T h i s d i f f e r e n c e overrides the d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n , say, a n d G r e e k i n t h e i r effects o n t h e vicissitudes o f p o w e r . G r e e k t y r a n t s i n t h e same c a t e g o r y

9

Persian

Placing the

as t h e N e a r - E a s t e r n

kings,

classification b y the y a r d s t i c k o f m o n a r c h y puts ' b e i n g G r e e k ' as the alleged n o r m o f c i v i l i z a t i o n i n t o perspective. M o r e o v e r , t h e p a t t e r n i m p l i e s a n i d e a o f m a t r i l i n e a r succession as a p r e r e q u i s i t e to p a t r i l i n e a r succession, hence p r e c e d i n g i t e i t h e r i n t i m e o r i n f o r c e . M a n y generations o f a n c i e n t historians have a r g u e d t h a t the m a n i f e s t c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n (Eastern) m o n a r c h y a n d f e m i n i n e p o w e r i n the Histories was a clear sign, i n the eyes o f the a n c i e n t Greeks a n d weakness

of modern

scholars e q u a l l y ,

of that monarchy's

a n d inclination towards capricious tyranny;

see S a n c i s i - W e e r d e n b u r g that Herodotus'

(1983). I n c o n t r a s t , T o u r r a i x

for

fatal

examples,

now

argues

i d e a o f the f e m i n i n e basis o f m o n a r c h i c a l

represents a w i d e l y h e l d v i e w o n essential connections between

power women

a n d the h i s t o r i c a l change o f p o l i t i c a l systems. T o u r r a i x is c a r e f u l n o t to c o m m i t h i m s e l f to a j u d g m e n t

as t o w h a t r e a l l y h a p p e n e d ,

he insists t h a t H e r o d o t u s conveys a n o t i o n i n w h i c h n a t i o n s East a n d

West strongly believed,

and

which

thus h a d

but both

gradually

become part of the Greek perception of history. T h r o u g h o u t the Histories Herodotus applies a mythical scheme w i t h an aetiological value, which he derived from a common fund o f Greek ideas and w h i c h echoed a mental structure [that was partly related to] I n d o - I r a n i a n cosmologies. (Tourraix (1976) 380; tr. J. B.).

'•' In this context the Constitutional Debate (3.80 2) is a fine example of the notion that political patterns are universal; compare Herodotus' comment that those who would not believe that Otanes, a Persian, had advocated democracy in this Debate would be astonished to learn that Mardonius founded democracies in various cities on the Ionian coast (6.43).

234

JOSINE B L O K

T h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n m a t r i l i n e a r a n d p a t r i l i n e a r pressures i n the t r a n s m i s s i o n o f p o w e r , as T o u r r a i x

sees i t , recalls the o l d e r h y p o t h -

esis o f m a t r i a r c h y . Since the s c h o l a r l y e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n

o f its m o s t

i n f l u e n t i a l spokesman, J . J . B a c h o f e n (Das Mutterrecht, 1861), the t h e m e o f m a t r i a r c h y has b e e n c o n s i d e r e d a t r i c k y affair a m o n g a n c i e n t hist o r i a n s ( B l o k (1995) 6 3 - 1 1 2 ) . A t the t i m e o f T o u r r a i x ' s a r t i c l e , h o w ever, m a t r i a r c h y was b e c o m i n g fashionable a g a i n i n some f e m i n i s t circles, a n d this interest d i d n o t escape the n o t i c e o f professional hist o r i a n s . T o u r r a i x ' s p a p e r was p u b l i s h e d i n the Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, w h i c h , t r u e to its n a m e , i n c l u d e d a c r i t i c a l response, a n d Jacques Annequin,

who

responded

to T o u r r a i x ,

i m m e d i a t e l y raised o b j e c -

tions w h i c h clearly a i m e d at e r a d i c a t i n g a n y m a t r i a r c h a l i m p l i c a t i o n . Tourraix,

t h o u g h d e f e n d i n g his a r g u m e n t , hastened to

acknowledge

t h a t his use o f the terms ' m a t r i a r c h a l society' a n d ' m a t r i l i n e a r h a d been i m p r u d e n t ( T o u r r a i x

(1976) 3 8 9 ) .

brought f o r w a r d by A n n e q u i n

c o n c e r n e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p

10

One

filiation'

o f the objections

n a r r a t i v e a n d r e a l i t y . W h a t d i d H e r o d o t u s really k n o w

between

about

the

practices a n d t r a d i t i o n s w h i c h lay b e h i n d the stories t o l d h i m b y his Near-Eastern informants? H o w

c o u l d we k n o w t h a t the p a t t e r n

of

b e l i e f i n t h e f e m i n i n e basis o f m o n a r c h i c a l p o w e r was t r u l y as w i d e s p r e a d as T o u r r a i x

c l a i m e d i t to be? W a s

it not just a

H e r o d o t e a n i d e a p r o j e c t e d o n t o the outside w o r l d ? W a s

Greek/ not

the

s t o r y - p a t t e r n o f the p o w e r f u l q u e e n used t o conceal a social r e a l i t y in which w o m e n Tourraix

were

i n fact the objects o f m a r r i a g e

exchange?

r e p l i e d t h a t o n e s h o u l d l o o k at p o l i t i c a l relationships n o t

o n l y f r o m the outside, b u t also f r o m inside the society itself. M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h c u t t i n g l'histoire des mentalités o f f social h i s t o r y m i g h t be a risky step, i t was sometimes necessary to start w i t h a n analysis historical 'mentalities' ( T o u r r a i x An

of

(1976) 3 8 9 - 9 0 ) .

a d d i t i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n m i g h t be t h a t this i d e a o f the h i s t o r i c a l -

p o l i t i c a l role o f w o m e n represents a v i e w o f the w o r l d t h a t was n o t u n i q u e to H e r o d o t u s b u t one t h a t he shared w i t h the w h o l e o f the ancient w o r l d . Thus it w o u l d women's

n o t be H e r o d o t u s '

of

h i s t o r i c a l i m p o r t a n c e , b u t r a t h e r the h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l t r a -

dition beginning w i t h Thucydides

that needed explanation. Such an

i n f e r e n c e is close to the c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n

10

presentation

by

Carolyn

Dewald,

The use made of Tourraix's article is interesting: Dewald (1981) 114, Munson (1988) 92, and Lateiner (1989) mention it but use it less than would suit their respective arguments; Gray (1995) does not refer to it at all.

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

235

HISTORIES

d e f e n d i n g d i e most positive v i e w o f H e r o d o t u s ' description o f w o m e n ' s historical p r o m i n e n c e to date ( D e w a l d (1981)). O f course she a c k n o w l edges a difference b e t w e e n n a r r a t i v e a n d r e a l i t y , b u t t h e s t r u c t u r e o f h e r a r t i c l e d r a w s all o u r a t t e n t i o n to the w o r l d as i t m a y

have

existed b e y o n d H e r o d o t u s ' text: ' [ a ] real effort is m a d e . . . to describe w o m e n as t h e y w e r e , o r at least as H e r o d o t u s t h i n k s they m u s t have b e e n ' ( D e w a l d (1981) 92). D e w a l d classifies H e r o d o t u s '

descriptions

o f ' w o m e n as t h e y w e r e ' a c c o r d i n g to t h e k i n d s o f agency t h e y disp l a y i n the Histories, a d d i n g the n u m b e r o f occasions o n w h i c h each occurs. T h u s she argues t h a t ' w o m e n

who

d o n o t act' (128

occa-

sions) b u t passively p a r t i c i p a t e i n events (e.g., b e i n g u n a b l e to bear c h i l d r e n , b e i n g g i v e n a w a y i n m a r r i a g e , o r b e i n g w a r victims) 'become a m o t i f r e p e a t e d l y e m p h a s i z i n g the t h i n l i n e t h a t i n a n c i e n t societies separated c u l t u r a l s u r v i v a l f r o m c u l t u r a l e x t i n c t i o n . ' ( D e w a l d (1981) 9 3 ; cf. L a t e i n e r o n ' n o r m a l i t y ' above). ' W o m e n w h o act' (212

cases),

either i n groups o r i n d i v i d u a l l y , c a r r y o u t a l l k i n d s o f actions i n c o m p l e m e n t a r y balance w i t h t h e i r m e n ' s

a c t i o n s , c o n f o r m i n g w i t h the

expectations o f the same c u l t u r e , t h o u g h i n a d i f f e r e n t m o d e .

They

are, first a n d f o r e m o s t , the ones w h o m a i n t a i n the nomas; c h i l d r e n usually take after t h e i r m o t h e r s i n m a t t e r s o f c u l t u r e ( C a r i a n

women

m a r r i e d t o I o n i a n s , 1.146; A t t i c w o m e n m a r r i e d to L e m n i a n s , 6 . 1 3 8 ; the S a u r o m a t a e l i v i n g m o r e like A m a z o n s , 4.117). T h e

individual

w o m e n w h o act i n the p u b l i c sphere (22 cases) ' f r e q u e n t l y . . . a r t i c ulate the social values t h a t u n d e r l i e t h e i r actions' ( D e w a l d 108), thus r e i n f o r c i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l n o r m s w h i c h m a y have to be at risk at t h a t p a r t i c u l a r m o m e n t .

The

(1981) come

62 w o m e n w h o act as

priestesses a n d f o u n d e r s o f religious cults are representatives o f the d i v i n e o r d e r i m p o s e d o n m a n k i n d a n d are t h e r e f o r e n o t ble to the f o r m e r D e w a l d ((1981)

compara-

group. 111)

perceives

in Herodotus'

r e n d e r i n g o f exis-

tence d i s t i n c t b u t c o n n e c t e d spheres o f a c t i v i t y — n a t u r e , society a n d c u l t u r e , d i v i n i t y . She

does n o t relate these spheres to a

temporal

s t r u c t u r e , a l t h o u g h she recognizes t h a t the female c u l t - f o u n d e r s a n d priestesses recall m y t h i c a l times ( D e w a l d (1981) 118, n . 27; cf. V a n d i v e r (1991)). Y e t the reader o f the Histories senses t h a t the patterns o f c u l t u r e u n d e r l y i n g the events o n the surface o f h i s t o r y h a d b e e n c r e ated l o n g b e f o r e , 1 1 a n d are

1

firmly

f o u n d e d i n religious n o t i o n s t h a t

Cf. Lateiner (1989) 186: '. . . social structure determines a nation's political fate,

236

JOSINE BLOK

define the l i m i t s o f h u m a n b e h a v i o u r .

Women

g u a r d this t r a d i t i o n ( D e w a l d (1981) 119

n . 30), a n d L a t e i n e r

are the ones

who (1989)

does j u s t i c e t o these r e l a t i o n s h i p s b y p l a c i n g ' t h e subject o f w o m e n ' b e t w e e n ' l i m i t , transgression, a n d r e l a t e d m e t a p h o r s ' a n d ' m o r a l p r i n ciples i n h i s t o r y ' . T h e s e are i n fact G r e e k i d e a s ; 1 - i n this c o n t e x t i t is o n l y

fitting

that in Herodotus'

Egypt,

the alleged opposite

of

G r e e c e , ' w o m e n are n o t d e d i c a t e d t o the service o f a n y g o d o r g o d dess' ( 2 . 3 5 ) . 1 3 B u t H e r o d o t u s seems to have f o r g o t t e n a b o u t this w h e n a p p l y i n g the same scheme ( r e l i g i o n = v e r y a n c i e n t = w o m e n ' s first p r i o r i t y ) t o several G r e e k oracles a n d cults: t h e y o r i g i n a t e d i n v e r y ancient Egypt a n d w i t h Egyptian 2.51-8;

14

cf. L e t o ' s o r a c l e , 2 . 1 5 2 ,

w o m e n (e.g., D o d o n a a n d 155;

the T h e s m o p h o r i a e ,

Siwa, 2.171;

t e m p l e o f A t h e n a at L i n d u s , 2 . 1 8 2 ) . Nevertheless, w o m e n , b e i n g the e m b o d i m e n t o f social a n d r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n , t h u s transfer h i s t o r i c a l c u l t u r e i n t o the a c t u a l events. T h i s c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e past a n d t h e p r e s e n t is p a r t i c u l a r l y e x e m p l i f i e d b y ' w o m e n w h o act' t h r o u g h o u t the G r e e k a n d b a r b a r i a n w o r l d . H e r o d o t u s ' r e n d e r i n g o f w o m e n ' s h i s t o r i c a l agency, a c c o r d i n g t o D e w a l d ,

is due t o the f a c t t h a t his

descriptions are n o t yet d e f i n e d b y the conventions o f a genre ( D e w a l d (1981) 91). H o w e v e r , o t h e r critics o f H e r o d o t u s ' t e x t argue t h a t the v e r y o p p o s i t e is the c a s e — a n a r g u m e n t t o w h i c h I shall n o w

turn.

From historical agency to narrative W h i l e w o m e n p a r t i c i p a t e o n the l e v e l o f n a r r a t i v e p r o p e r , a c t i n g e i t h e r i n g r o u p s o r i n d i v i d u a l l y , t h i s n a r r a t i v e is s i t u a t e d w i t h i n Herodotus' Here,

w o r l d - v i e w , o f w h i c h his e t h n o g r a p h y is a m a j o r p a r t .

even m o r e t a n t a l i z i n g t h a n i n the case o f m o r e s t r i c t l y 'his-

t o r i c a l ' episodes, i t is o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o assess t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n H e r o d o t u s ' a c c o u n t a n d the w o r l d he describes. A r e ' t r u t h ' a n d its

although Herodotus has not yet found the theoretical and abstract terminology to express it so concisely'. On the Greekness of the idea of women's influence 'long ago', see Pembroke (1967) and below, pp. 237-9. As hiratai gym oudemia is translated by A. D. Goldey (Loeb-ed.). According to Lloyd (1976, ad toe), Herodotus means to say that in Egypt women could not perform the functions of a Greek hiereie: sacrifice and various tasks concerning the conditions of and around the temple. Cf. Zografou (1995); Lloyd (1976) ad be; compare Fehling (1989 ) 65-70, who points out the implausibility of this passage. 12

13

14

2

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

237

HISTORIES

opposite ' f i c t i o n ' adequate terms by w h i c h t o j u d g e H e r o d o t u s ' descriptions o f societies t h a t w e r e far r e m o v e d space?

O f t e n the b o r d e r l i n e b e t w e e n

f r o m his o w n i n t i m e

ethnography

events is h a r d l y d i s c e r n i b l e , as i n the case o f T o m y r i s ,

or

and historical the

Scythian

q u e e n w h o defeated C y r u s (1.205—16). W h a t m i g h t the a c t i o n o f this v a l i a n t q u e e n have to d o w i t h the p r o m i s c u i t y h e r society was r e p u t e d to practise? I n a n a r t i c l e t h a t s t i m u l a t e d a n e w a p p r o a c h to H e r o d o t e a n s t u d ies, S i m o n P e m b r o k e (1967) first makes a c a r e f u l d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n Bachofen's

theories a n d the evidence

o n w h i c h they were

based.

A l t h o u g h H e r o d o t u s h a d c e r t a i n l y n o t b e e n B a c h o f e n ' s o n l y source, the Histories o c c u p y the m o s t p r o m i n e n t place i n the e t h n o - h i s t o r i c a l c o r p u s , o f t e n c o m p r i s i n g the m o s t extensive a c c o u n t , the oldest c o m plete a c c o u n t o r even t h e o n l y e x t a n t a c c o u n t o f a g i v e n people o r event.

In a number

Herodotus'

o f representative

cases, P e m b r o k e

compares

v e r s i o n w i t h o t h e r descriptions o f the same s i t u a t i o n , f o r

instance the r e p u t e d m a t r i l i n y o f t h e L y c i a n s (1.173; f o r a f u l l assessment

o f this case, see P e m b r o k e (1965)). T h e

decisive

b e t w e e n his o w n v i e w a n d t h a t o f B a c h o f e n is t h a t , i n a

difference metaphor

f r o m b i o l o g i c a l research, B a c h o f e n t h o u g h t he h a d f o u n d fossils w h i l e P e m b r o k e sees the same evidence as descriptions o f fossils ( P e m b r o k e (1967) 8). T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n changes the n a t u r e o f the evidence

from

i n d i c a t i o n s o f a h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y i n t o elements b e l o n g i n g to a discourse. M a t r i a r c h y , m a t r i l i n y , p r o m i s c u i t y , a n d s i m i l a r p h e n o m e n a — ' a n c i e n t descriptions c a n n o t s i m p l y be s u b s u m e d u n d e r the categories of modern examples

anthropology'

( P e m b r o k e (1967) 2 3 ) — a l l a p p e a r to be

o f societies whose

r e p u t e d existence

served t o

represent

alternatives to G r e e k j&o&-life as H e r o d o t u s a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s k n e w i t . T h e s e alternatives i n c l u d e d situations b o t h i n Greece

and

outside i t — f o r instance w o m e n ' s p o l i t i c a l r i g h t s i n A t h e n s w h e n the strife b e t w e e n A t h e n a a n d P o s e i d o n for o v e r l o r d s h i p o f the c i t y was n o t yet d e c i d e d , o r m a t r i l i n y i n L y c i a . T h e value a t t r i b u t e d to these alternatives c o u l d be p o s i t i v e , r e c a l l i n g the g o l d e n times o f C r o n u s , o r negative, i n d i c a t i n g chaos u n d e r a r u l e o f w o m e n , b u t m o s t o f t e n consisted o f a m i x t u r e o f the t w o . As t o t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n t i m e , the alternatives w e r e usually h e l d to be deep i n the past i n the case o f G r e e c e , b u t still to be p a r t o f the present i n the case o f societies elsewhere i n the w o r l d . I n this respect some c o n g r u i t y seems t o have existed b e t w e e n H e r o d o t u s ' v i e w o f time a n d space a n d t h a t o f scholars o f the e i g h t e e n t h a n d n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s — i n c l u d i n g J .

Lafitau

238

JOSINE B L O K

and Lewis H .

Morgan,

a n d o t h e r evolutionists such as B a c h o f e n (see

also P e m b r o k e (1977)). C o m p a r i s o n between Pembroke's views a n d those o f T o u r r a i x (who does n o t refer t o h i m ) c l e a r l y shows

how

the a r g u m e n t s

d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n s . B o t h critics agree t h a t the alleged

point in

prominence

o f w o m e n i n k i n s h i p a n d p o l i t i c s — a n d Pembroke's discussion includes v a r i o u s kinds a n d degrees o f sexual licence as w e l l — i n the past a n d elsewhere exists first o f a l l i n the eye o f the b e h o l d e r ; t h a t is, i n the eye o f H e r o d o t u s a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r y Greeks. W h a t T o u r r a i x calls 'a m y t h i c a l s c h e m e

w i t h an

aetiological value'

is v e r y close

to

P e m b r o k e ' s ' s t r u c t u r e o f alternatives'. T h e n a r r a t e d relations b e t w e e n t h e sexes represent a n i m a g i n e d s o c i o - c u l t u r a l s t r u c t u r e , w h i c h the Greeks c o n s i d e r e d to be effective i n b o t h G r e e k a n d n o n - G r e e k societies. T h i s s t r u c t u r e is d e f i n e d b y T o u r r a i x as a religious e l e m e n t

of

politics a n d b y P e m b r o k e as a m a t r i x to give t i m e a n d space a p o l i t ical m e a n i n g . H o w e v e r , t h e i r ways p a r t i n the m e a n i n g they a t t r i b u t e to 'reality'; the difference m a y seem slight, b u t i t is i m p o r t a n t . T o u r r a i x argues t h a t H e r o d o t u s ' ' m y t h i c a l scheme' m a y derive u l t i m a t e l y f r o m a religious t r a d i t i o n c o m m o n Mediterranean practices. T h e comparable

to the N e a r East a n d t h e

w h i c h m u s t have b o r n e p a t t e r n revealed i n the

eastern

some r e l a t i o n to h i s t o r i c a l fifty-odd

stories reflects some

reality, however indirect, twisted and changed

have b e c o m e t h r o u g h the p r i s m o f m y t h .

it

P e m b r o k e , o n the

may other

h a n d , makes a n essential d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the m y t h i c a l p a t t e r n s o f m a t r i a r c h y a n d the r e a l i t y t h a t the stories c l a i m to reflect. points out that the models

o f ' a l t e r n a t i v e societies' are f a r

He

more

schematic t h a n the h i s t o r i c a l practices to w h i c h t h e y profess t o refer: ' [ n o ] c o h e r e n t r e l a t i o n c a n b e established b e t w e e n the p a t t e r n o f fact a n d the p a t t e r n o f t r a d i t i o n ' ( P e m b r o k e (1967) 35). So n o single type of reality may

be assumed t o be reflected i n a s i m i l a r instance

of

' m y t h i c a l ' r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , a n d ' i t is i n every case the precise n a t u r e o f the r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n

fact a n d d e s c r i p t i o n w h i c h m u s t be

ascer-

t a i n e d ' ( P e m b r o k e (1967) 23). I n s u m , P e m b r o k e is the first to call f u n d a m e n t a l l y i n t o question the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n H e r o d o t u s ' n a r r a t i v e a n d the w o r l d he claims to p o r t r a y , n o t because o f H e r o d o t u s ' alleged ' l y i n g ' a b o u t

the w o r l d (cf. F e h l i n g (1989 2 ) b u t because

of

the i n t e r n a l r e f e r e n t i a l i t y o f his text as p a r t o f w h a t a m o u n t e d

to

general G r e e k values. Relations

between

Herodotus' world-view

and historical reality

have dissolved a l m o s t e n t i r e l y i n a n u m b e r o f p u b l i c a t i o n s t h a t elab-

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

239

HISTORIES

orate t h e idea o f ' t h e a l t e r n a t i v e ' . 1 ' 1 M i c h è l e Rossellini a n d S u z a n n e S a i d (1978) analyse Herodotus' demonstrate monogamy,

t h e m o d e l o f a l t e r n a t i v e societies u n d e r l y i n g

ethnography

o n a w i d e r scale t h a n P e m b r o k e .

t h a t t h e 'uses o f w o m e n ' polygamy

They

( m e a n i n g t h e degrees

of

to promiscuity) were linked w i t h patterns o f

b e h a v i o u r i n o t h e r codes, n o t a b l y diet (vegetarian, m i l k - d r i n k i n g , c a n n i b a l i s m ) , sacrifice, a n d b u r i a l . M o r e o v e r ,

t h e f u r t h e r t h e society i n

q u e s t i o n was r e m o v e d f r o m t h e c i v i l i z e d c e n t r e , t h e m o r e t h e Greeks' u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e rules g o v e r n i n g such codes t e n d e d t o be c o n fused o r i n v e r s e d , o r t o disappear altogether. I n this w a y a m e n t a l m a p c o u l d be d r a w n t o designate t h e w a y i n w h i c h H e r o d o t u s

would

describe a n d estimate t h e c u l t u r e o f a p e o p l e , a c c o r d i n g t o its area o f residence. H e r o d o t u s '

d e s c r i p t i o n has a c e r t a i n l o g i c , a sense a n d

a m e a n i n g , b u t u l t i m a t e l y has n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h r e a l i t y (Rossellini a n d S a i d (1978) 1 0 0 3 - 4 ) . T h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t o f ' a l t e r i t y ' o r ' o t h erness', w h i c h holds t h a t t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the ' o t h e r ' is b o u n d b y necessity t o use o n l y t e r m s t h a t refer t o oneself—a t h e o r y w h i c h was to g a i n m o m e n t u m a f e w years after R o s s e l l i n i a n d Said's p u b l i c a t i o n 1 0 — i s o n l y h i n t e d at at t h e v e r y

end o f their article. T h e

a u t h o r s ' views are m o r e representative o f t h e Parisian a p p r o a c h t o m y t h (Rossellini a n d Said (1978) 9 5 0 - 3 ) . T h i s includes a n a w a r e ness o f m y t h ' s a b i l i t y t o subsume a great v a r i e t y o f p h e n o m e n a i n its structures, thus g i v i n g m e a n i n g t o t h e w o r l d , r a t h e r t h a n the o t h e r way

r o u n d , a n d a p p l y i n g this m e a n i n g t o a w i d e r area t h a n t h e

themes o f t h e m y t h i c a l n a r r a t i v e itself. A l t h o u g h they refer t o P e m b r o k e ' s views, Rossellini a n d S a i d m o v e in a somewhat

different direction. O n

the one h a n d ,

our under-

s t a n d i n g o f w o m e n ' s roles i n H e r o d o t u s ' e t h n o g r a p h y is e n r i c h e d b y t h e i r r e v e a l i n g t h e systematic c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h o t h e r c u l t u r a l codes. The

m e a n i n g o f gender i n the larger historiographical context c a n

thus be e x p l o r e d ; c o m p a r e f o r instance L a t e i n e r (1989) o n ' e t h n o g r a p h y as access t o h i s t o r y ' a n d ' h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p a t t e r n i n g ' . O n t h e other hand,

this w i d e r v i e w o f c u l t u r a l space goes h a n d i n h a n d

w i t h a d i m i n i s h i n g v i e w o f t h e d y n a m i c s o f t i m e ; i n t h e perspective o f R o s s e l l i n i a n d Said's a r g u m e n t , there seems t o be h a r d l y a n y h i s t o r y left i n t h e Histories. I n d e e d , H e r o d o t u s '

|D

w o r l d - v i e w appears also

See also Ch. 15, pp. 365-7, in this volume. "' The best-known example of this approach in the case of Herodotus, is Hartog (1980).

240

JOSINE

BLOK

to be e n t i r e l y H e l l e n o c e n t r i c , the opposite o f w h a t h a d been

sup-

posed b e f o r e . Because H e r o d o t u s defines all f o r m s o f ' b a r b a r i a n ' c u l t u r e b y the n a t u r e a n d extent o f t h e i r b e i n g n o n - G r e e k , t a k i n g the a d u l t , m a l e G r e e k c i t i z e n f o r a n o r m a n d t h e r e b y sustaining a G r e e k barbarian/male-female polarity, any similarities between Greek a n d n o n - G r e e k societies as represented i n the Histories have n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h any u n d e r l y i n g , h i s t o r i c a l c o n g r u e n c e , b u t are o n l y the result o f a n essentially H e l l e n o c e n t r i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the w o r l d . Although

a i d i n g impressively o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the ways

which Herodotus

in

was c o n s t r a i n e d b y the l i m i t a t i o n s o f his k n o w l -

edge w h e n a p p r o a c h i n g o t h e r s , the c o n c e p t o f ' a l t e r i t y ' as a m o d e l , a n d its c o n c o m i t a n t methods, also poses severe limitations. Theoretically, a n d taken to an e x t r e m e degree, t o insist o n the u l t i m a t e self-referentiality o f Herodotus'

w o r l d - v i e w — a charge t h a t c o u l d be l e v e l l e d

at a n y text-—renders the w h o l e enterprise o f w r i t i n g h i s t o r y r a t h e r pointless. O n

a m o r e p r a c t i c a l l e v e l , the 'discourse o n the O t h e r ' is

liable to be a p p l i e d t o o s c h e m a t i c a l l y . W i t h the overt p u r p o s e c r i t i c i z e such p r a c t i c e s , V i v i e n n e

G r a y analyses some o f the

to

more

f a m o u s stories ( i n c l u d i n g the story o f the w i f e o f C a n d a u l e s , a n d t h a t o f X e r x e s a n d Masistes' wife) i n o r d e r to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t the o p p o s i t i o n G r e e k - b a r b a r i a n , m a n - w o m a n was t o o simplistic ( G r a y (1995)). G r a y c o n c l u d e s t h a t the n a r r a t i v e m o d e l o f the ' v e n g e f u l

queen'

requires the i n c l u s i o n o f the ' v e n g e f u l k i n g ' a n d ' v e n g e f u l

servant'

as w e l l . T h i s

narrative m o d e l exemplifies an u n d e r l y i n g political

m o d e l w h i c h complicates a

Greek/democratic—barbarian/monar-

chic p o l a r i t y b y a d d i n g a b a r b a r i a n - m a s t e r / b a r b a r i a n - s u b j e c t p o l a r i t y ( G r a y (1995) 201). A l t h o u g h G r a y a t t e m p t s t o m i t i g a t e the discourse o n p o l a r i t y b y d r a w i n g D e w a l d ' s a p p r o a c h i n t o the discsussion, t h e o u t c o m e still strikes t h e reader as b e i n g q u i t e schematic. A

m o r e satisfactory w a y

o f u s i n g the p o l a r i t y - m o d e l f o r subtler

ends h a d been c r e a t e d a f e w years e a r l i e r b y R o s a r i a M u n s o n

(1988;

n o t m e n t i o n e d b y G r a y ) . I n a n a d m i r a b l e discussion o f A r t e m i s i a , the female t y r a n t o f Halicarnassus a n d h e r roles as X e r x e s ' a n d as c o m b a t t a n t i n the B a t t l e o f Salamis, M u n s o n

advisor

shows the r e -

c u r r e n t s h i f t i n g o f p o s i t i o n s , w h i c h destabilizes a n y fixed m e a n i n g o f ' s e l f a n d 'other', a n d definitely u n d e r m i n e s a polarized view. A r t e m i s i a is b o t h

female

and masculine,

Greek and

enemy,

cunning

and

victorious; she fights o n X e r x e s ' side b u t is almost a double o f T h e m i s tocles. I n d e e d ,

although Artemisia

tified w i t h a topsy-turvy

does e v e n t u a l l y b e c o m e

w o r l d , threatening to Hellas,

iden-

that w o r l d

W O M E N I N HERODOTUS'

241

HISTORIES

resembles Athens more than it does Persia (Munson (1988) 94). Arguing that Artemisia shows a remarkable similarity to Athens, Munson demonstrates that the Athenian political ideal o f isegoria encourages people to pursue their own interests, on the grounds that this is likely to benefit the whole community. I n problematic circumstances, however, individuals clearly give up the community to serve their own ends, as indeed 'fhemistocles considered doing i f the Greeks failed to resist Xerxes at Salamis. The very same attitude marks Athenian policy after Salamis and the city's subsequent pursuit of its own interests, ultimately at the cost of the community of allied cities. Artemisia also exemplifies the moral-political insight that the use of one's gnome (intelligence) brings greater benefits than enjoying tuche (good fortune). This view draws attention to possible connections between Herodotus and the sophists, and, with greater certainty, to critical judgments of the political attitude of Athens during the 430s and 420s (Munson (1988) 102-5). Munson thus infers that Herodotus' audience was expected to see the Artemisia story in the light of the later consequences of Salamis, just as W o l f f concluded that the story of Masistes and his wife (and the wife of Gandaules) were to be seen in the light of Xerxes' later death. It is impossible to say how much of Herodotus' account of Artemisia is his own invention. This remains true of anything he reports for which there is no other source available. Artemisia does not belong to the category of ethnography, but neither is she unequivocally historical. She must have been a famous figure, but obviously Herodotus could not know anything about her secret advice to Xerxes (8.68-9; 101-2), and Fehling gives little credit to the way in which the account of Artemisia's role at Salamis is introduced (Fehling (1989 ) 127). From this perspective, Munson's discussion remains firmly on the 'narrative' side. Yet it is her careful analysis of the wider political and philosophical issues at stake in the Artemisia episode that allows a connection to be made between Herodotus the creative story-teller and the historical world in which he lived. 2

Conclusion Quite early in Book Five, a small story is inserted on the situation in Miletus some time before the Ionian revolt. Ridden with stasis, the Milesians ask the Parians to create peace among them. The

242

JOSINE B L O K

P a r i a n envoys visit t h e w h o l e t e r r i t o r y o f M i l e t u s , h n c l i n g m o s t oikoi c o m p l e t e l y w a s t e d b u t c o l l e c t i n g the names o f those whose lands are w e l l t i l l e d . H a v i n g r e t u r n e d to the c i t y , the Parians a p p o i n t the o w n ers o f the w e l l - t i l l e d lands to be the n e w rulers o f M i l e t u s because, they say, these p e o p l e w o u l d p r o b a b l y take as m u c h care o f p u b l i c affairs as they d i d o f t h e i r o w n (5.29). T h i s v i e w seems to have been a c o m m o n one i n the G r e e k w o r l d ; i n A t h e n s i t was v o i c e d o n t h e stage b y C r e o n , speaking to his son H a e m o n , i n Sophocles' Antigone: ' T h e m a n w h o acts r i g h t l y i n f a m i l y m a t t e r s w i l l be seen to be r i g h t eous i n the city as w e l l ' ( 6 6 1 - 2 ) . "

T h e r e is h a r d l y a p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y

i n classical A t h e n s t h a t does n o t take t h e oikos as a p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e polis as a c o m m u n i t y a n d a state. I t seems t h a t H e r o d o t u s m o d e l f o r t h e polis w h e n

used this perspective o n the oikos as a s h a p i n g his h i s t o r y . T h e

n o v e l t y o f his

a p p r o a c h m a y be f o u n d i n his a p p l i c a t i o n t o h i s t o r y o f a m o d e l t h a t was b e i n g s c r u t i n i z e d , d e b a t e d , p a r o d i e d , a n d a p p l i e d i n m a n y o t h e r contexts a n d genres. T h e

m o d e l i n c l u d e d m u c h to guide his selec-

t i o n o f e t h n o g r a p h i c a l features: genealogy (of peoples a n d i n d i v i d u als), m a n n e r s

of livelihood, burial,

s a c r i f i c e , sexual c u s t o m s ,

and

g e n d e r e d d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r . I t e n a b l e d h i m to u n d e r s t a n d the r e l a tions b e t w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n as m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t , even t h o u g h each sex h a d p r i o r i t i e s a n d weaknesses

o f its o w n . I t l e d h i m

to

expect t h a t the m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l i n t e r v i e w s w o u l d take place b e h i n d closed d o o r s . I t even p r o v i d e d h i m w i t h a g o o d e n t r y i n t o t h e l a r g e r t h e m e o f the Persian W a r s w h i c h , because i t was i n s p i r e d b y H o m e r ' s epic tale o f T r o y , i n c l u d e d d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s . H e

a p p l i e d this

m o d e l w i d e l y i n his h i s t o r y , a n d t h e efforts o f m o d e r n critics to disc e r n w h e r e a n d h o w he d i d so b e a r t e s t i m o n y to his v e r s a t i l i t y . F e w historians f o l l o w e d his e x a m p l e i n a n t i q u i t y , b u t his audience p r o b a b l y f o u n d his w r i t i n g s n o t o n l y e x c i t i n g a n d e n j o y a b l e , b u t p e r f e c t l y comprehensible.

17

On the influence of dramatic styles in Herodotus, see Lateiner (1989) 20-34 and Ch. 6 in this volume.

T H E HISTORIES

AS

NARRATIVE

CHAPTER ELEVEN

NARRATIVE UNITY A N D UNITS Irene J. F. de Jong

Introduction: 'harmonious body' versus 'the work of scissors' I n the first century BC the literary critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus enthusiastically concludes that Herodotus τάς πολλάς και ουδέν έοικυίας υποθέσεις προελομένφ σύμφωνον έν σώμα πεποιηκέναι.

having chosen a number of subjects which are in no way alike has made them into one harmonious 'body'. 1

Some twenty centuries later the German scholar Jacoby reaches a totally different verdict: After he had taken up the plan to write the work and had devised the structure which he wanted to impose on the material he had gath­ ered, he apparently did not make major changes to his manuscripts, but tried to use his collection of lectures as much as possible as it stood . . . The distribution over the work of the Greek login which deal with the times before the Persian Wars also appears to be essentially the work of scissors.These quotations illustrate the two positions which divide the liter­ ary scholarship on Herodotus. According to some, Herodotus has managed to create a unified work regardless of the exact way in which his work came about, by piecing together old material or by gradually collecting and processing an ever-expanding body of material. 3

1

Letter to Gnaeus Pompeius, 3. (1913) 361: 'Offenbar hat er (Herodotus), nachdem er einmal den Gedanken an das Werk gefasst und den Plan gefunden hatte, dem er sein gesammeltes Material unterwerfen wollte, . . ., an seinen Manuskripten größere Veränderungen nicht vorgenommen, sondern sich bestrebt, seinen Bestand an Vorträgen möglichst in der vorhandenen Form zu verwerten . . . Auch die Verteilung der hellenischen Logoi, soweit sie vorpersische Geschichte gaben, über das Werk hin, erscheint wesentlich als Arbeit mit der Schere.' AH translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated. For an overview of the debate on the genesis of the text, see Fornara (1971a), 2

3

246

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

A c c o r d i n g to others, he has f a i l e d a n d the sheer q u a n t i t y o f his m a t e ­ r i a l has got the better o f h i m . A f t e r J a c o b y ' s fiercely negative assess­ m e n t at the b e g i n n i n g o f this c e n t u r y , the p e n d u l u m has s w u n g b a c k a g a i n , a n d scholars have d e m o n s t r a t e d H e r o d o t u s ' t h o u g h t f u l arrange­ m e n t o f his m a t e r i a l , w h i c h has r e s u l t e d i n , i f n o t 'one

harmonious

b o d y ' , at least some f o r m o f u n i t y . I n the first p a r t o f this c h a p t e r I w i l l give a h i s t o r i c a l o v e r v i e w o f the ways i n w h i c h scholars have defended Herodotus'

unity, concentrating o n f o r m a l rather than the­

m a t i c a r g u m e n t s . 4 I n the second p a r t I w i l l discuss the various devices w h i c h H e r o d o t u s e m p l o y s to create u n i t y . I n the last p a r t I w i l l s h o w the w o r k i n g o f such devices in a specific passage. B e f o r e e m b a r k i n g o n the discussion p r o p e r , I w a n t to m a k e one p o i n t . M a n y m o d e r n discussions o f a n c i e n t w o r k s i a b o u r u n d e r anachronistic, nineteenth-century,

concept o f unity. W h i l e I

an

would

n o t go as far as H e a t h (1989), w h o argues t h a t a n c i e n t poetics a n d poetical practice adopt a centrifugal rather than a centripetal con­ c e p t i o n o f u n i t y , I w o u l d stress t h a t a n c i e n t l i t e r a r y taste does

show

a greater tolerance t o w a r d s — i n d e e d a n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f — t h e episodic, ecphrastic, a n d d i g r e s s i o n a l . 3 I t is absolutely c r u c i a l to keep this i n m i n d w h e n discussing the u n i t y , o r lack o f i t , i n H e r o d o t u s '

Histories.

Herodotus' unity: the arguments T h i s section m u s t b e g i n w i t h J a c o b y , w h o has set the agenda f o r a l l scholars t o c o m e .

T h i s a g e n d a consists m a i n l y o f t w o i t e m s :

Histories lack (i) a u n i f y i n g subject a n d (ii) a u n i f y i n g s t r u c t u r e . (i). I n his p r o e m H e r o d o t u s announces c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Persians

the Ad

t h a t his subject w i l l be the

a n d G r e e k s , b u t this subject is v i r ­

t u a l l y absent i n the first f o u r b o o k s , w h i c h deal almost

exclusively

w i t h the c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n Persians a n d o t h e r b a r b a r i a n s ((1913) 3 3 3 - 4 1 ) . Ad (ii). I n the first five books the m a i n story (the g r o w t h

who rightly stresses (pp. 6-7) that the unity or 'coherence' of a work as we have it, need not say anything about the manner of its origin. Exponents of this second type of defence are Regenbogen (1930b) and Schadewaldt ((1934) 1960). See also Ch. 1 in this volume. A central notion, which recurs often in ancient discussions of Herodotus, is ποικιλία, 'variation'. Cf., e.g., Dionysius, LMkr to Pompeius, 3: ποικίλην έβουλήθη ποιήσαι την γραφήν. It is this variation which allows the author to insert a great deal of digressional material. 1

5

247

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

o f Persian p o w e r ) is c o n t i n u o u s l y i n t e r r u p t e d b y Exkurse. T h i s struct u r e is a weakness: the digressions 'slow d o w n ' o r ' d i s r u p t ' the m a i n story, p o p

u p at s u r p r i s i n g m o m e n t s ,

H e r o d o t u s was n o t able to present

and contain material w h i c h

at the ' r i g h t ' m o m e n t

((1913)

379-92). One

o f the first to d e f e n d H e r o d o t u s '

i n the folktale elements

u n i t y was A l y .

H i s interest

i n H e r o d o t u s l e d h i m to p u t f o r w a r d

o r i g i n a l suggestion as to the s t r u c t u r e o f the Histories: the

first

an five

books are a f r a m e n a r r a t i v e (Rahmenerzählung), a f o r m w h i c h H e r o d o t u s d e r i v e d f r o m o r i e n t a l , folktale l i t e r a t u r e . 6 T h i s idea even p r o m p t e d the p r o v o c a t i v e thesis t h a t , as u s u a l , the f r a m e d narratives (Jacoby's d i s r u p t i v e digressions) are m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n the f r a m e itself. The

i d e a o f t h e Histories as a f r a m e n a r r a t i v e was

independently

p r o p o s e d b y H o w a l d , w h o also f o u n d evidence o f this structure i n the later b o o k s . ' T h e r e the f r a m e is m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n (überwuchert) the f r a m e d n a r r a t i v e s . T h i s idea p u t f o r w a r d b y A l y a n d H o w a l d is n e i t h e r c o n v i n c i n g 8 - -tin a real f r a m e n a r r a t i v e , the f r a m e is sketchy a n d the f r a m e d narratives are i n d e p e n d e n t stories, peopled b y different characters t h a n those o f the f r a m e - n o r p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l . I n fact, t h e y consider i t a m e r e e x p e d i e n t f o r the h i s t o r i a n to i n c o r p o r a t e as m u c h m a t e r i a l as possible, o r , i n H o w a l d ' s w o r d s , as 'a loose, r a n d o m f r a m e , w h i c h is n o t o r g a n i c a l l y related to w h a t is r e c o u n t e d , i n w h i c h H e r o d o t u s c o u l d place 'his m a n i f o l d m a t e r i a l ' ((1923)

128).

W h e r e J a c o b y saw H e r o d o t u s as a hasty a n d n o t too p r o f i c i e n t e d i t o r o f his o w n w o r k , A l y a n d H o w a l d present h i m as a naive storyteller w h o is c a r r i e d a w a y b y his o w n stories. 5 A n o t h e r dubious Frankel.

He

defence

of Herodotus'

suggests t h a t H e r o d o t u s '

s t r u c t u r e comes

from

m a n y digressions s h o u l d

seen i n the l i g h t o f his t i m e : early G r e e k m a n

be

t e n d e d to l o o k at

things i n i s o l a t i o n , a n d was n o t interested in l a r g e r causal o r l o g i cal r e l a t i o n s , b u t o n l y i n d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n s ( ( 1 9 2 4 - 6 0 ) 82 3). T h i s m e n t a l i t y is reflected i n the ' s t r u n g - a l o n g style' o r Xefyq etpouevn, already Frankel,

described by A r i s t o t l e (Rhetoric I I I . 9 ) , w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g

to

d e t e r m i n e s n o t o n l y the s t r u c t u r e o f sentences b u t o f the

w o r k as a w h o l e :

" (1921) 260-2. 297 8; (1929) 66. (1923) 128-30; (1945) 42. 7

8

Cf. the criticism o f I m m e r w a h r (1966) 13.

9

See, in particular, Aly (1921) 262 and H o w a l d (1945) 41 3.

248

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

I f the people of this age really liked to see and represent things i n such a way, that every element counts as complete i n itself and, irrespective o f its place w i t h i n the structure, displays the independent value of its free and stable existence, . . . then the overall structure of the work of art must aim at the pleasure of fullness and colourfulness, quantity and variety . . . l u W h i l e this i n f l u e n t i a l thesis o f H e r o d o t u s ' p a r a t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e appears to be a step f o r w a r d , i n t h a t i t tries to u n d e r s t a n d the Histories i n t e r m s o f early G r e e k t h o u g h t a n d l i t e r a r y t a s t e , 1 1 i t still p a i n t s a p i c ture o f H e r o d o t u s

randomly

i n s e r t i n g digressions w h i c h are

s u p e r f i c i a l l y c o n n e c t e d to his m a i n

story.

only

12

A n a m b i g u o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n to the ' u n i t y ' debate comes f r o m Focke. He

v i g o r o u s l y denies t h a t H e r o d o t u s was j u s t a s t o r y - t e l l e r ,

whose

o n l y a i m was to keep his audience a m u s e d (the p o s i t i o n o f A l y Howald):

'he has p r i n c i p a l l y n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n

G r e e k n a r r a t o r s ' ((1927) 52).

He

and

w i t h o r i e n t a l or

is a n h i s t o r i a n , w h o

employs

the

succession o f five o r i e n t a l despots as t h e m a i n s t r u c t u r e o f his Histories. H o w e v e r , w h a t Focke gives w i t h one h a n d (structure), he takes w i t h the other: 'The

five

great o r i e n t a l kings h a v e b e c o m e the m a i n f o r -

m a l carriers o f all o f H e r o d o t u s '

m a t e r i a l , reservoirs, i n t o w h i c h the

s t u f f o f n a r r a t i v e has b e e n p o u r e d i n such q u a n t i t i e s t h a t i t spills o v e r o n a l l sides.' 1 3 A

new metaphor,

t u r e as d r a w n b y A l y

and H o w a l d and their frame

Not

b u t essentially the same p i c narrative.

u n t i l we c o m e to P o h l e n z d o we see a t u r n i n g p o i n t i n the

debate. H e

i d e n t i f i e s a u n i f y i n g subject (the c o n f r o n t a t i o n s

between

Greeks a n d b a r b a r i a n s ) , a n d argues t h a t t h e first f o u r books n o t o n l y serve this subject ( i n t h a t t h e y set o u t h o w

10

the m a i n o p p o n e n t

of

'Wenn wirklich die Menschen dieser Zeit die Dinge so zu sehen und darzustellen liebten, daß jedes für sich voll gilt und unabhängig von seiner Einordnung den eigenen Wert seines freien und festen Daseins ausstrahlt, . . . so muß der Gesamtaufbau eines Kunstwerks auf den Reiz von Fülle und Buntheit, von Masse und Wechsel gestellt sein . . .' " Fränkel's 'the pleasure of fullness and colourfulness, quantity and variety' reflects the concept of ποικιλία (see note 5). At times, Frankel does not entirely succeed in suppressing his own—modern—taste, e.g., on pp. 85, 88 ('Und doch hat auch der Herodot des grossen Perserkriegs die Darstellung gewaltiger Ereignisse mit klein­ lichen Anekdoten in einer Weise gespickt, die uns zuwider ist und zuwider sein darf', my italics), 95. Frankel ((1924) 1960) 86. I n this context the idea of the frame narrative pre­ sents itself again, see Frankel ((1924) 1960) 87. (1927) 25: 'Die fünf großen Asiaten sind jetzt die formalen Hauptträger des gesamten herodotischen Materials, Sammelbecken, in die der Stoff in solchen Massen hineingeschüttet ist, daß er nach allen Seiten über ihre Ränder quillt.' 12

13

249

NARATIVE UNITY A N D UNITS

the G r e e k s , the Persians, a t t a i n e d t h e i r p o s i t i o n o f p o w e r ) , b u t also c o n t a i n e n o u g h r e m i n d e r s t o keep t h a t subject i n the f o r e f r o n t the reader's m i n d ((1937) 9-21). H e

is also t h e first to stress t h a t

r a t h e r t h a n d r o w n i n g helplessly i n his m a t e r i a l , H e r o d o t u s selects i t , p a s s i n g o v e r w h a t

of

consciously

is n o t r e l e v a n t t o his subject ((1937)

2 9 , 31 ) . ' * As f o r the digressions, P o h l e n z argues t h a t t h e i r p u r p o s e is t o e x p l a i n t h e m a i n story ((1937) 39, 42), a n d t h a t t h e y are n o t i n s e r t e d at r a n d o m , b u t at p o i n t s w h e r e the m a i n story needs t h e m , i . e . , w h e n a n e w p e r s o n , p e o p l e , o r l o c a t i o n has t o be i n t r o d u c e d ((1937) 6 8 - 7 3 ) . An 5.55

example Herodotus

w i l l illustrate the progression made b y Pohlenz. i n t e r r u p t s his tale o f A r i s t a g o r a s '

visit t o

w h i c h t o o k place i n 4 9 9 a n d w h i c h was a i m e d at p e r s u a d i n g Athenians

to j o i n the I o n i a n r e v o l t , f o r a ' d i g r e s s i o n ' o n

h i s t o r y (chapters 55-96), w h i c h covers the years 5 1 0 - 4 9 9 B C . i n g t o J a c o b y ((1913) 383) typical example

a n d F r a n k e l (((1924) 1960)

o f the w a y H e r o d o t u s

Herodotus

Accord-

86), this is a

uses a w e a k m o t i v e ('a his-

Herodotus

mate-

contends t h a t this is one o f the places w h e r e

inserts a h i s t o r i c a l digression w h e n

' i n the fifth book

the

Athenian

torical meeting') i n order to include thematically independent rial. Pohlenz, however,

At

Athens,

the a c t i o n needs i t :

i t is l o g i c a l f r o m a h i s t o r i c a l p o i n t o f v i e w t h a t

i n f o r m s his readers a b o u t

the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n w h i c h

Aristagoras finds i n A t h e n s ' ((1937) 41). I n d e e d , b y the t i m e H e r o d o t u s picks u p his m a i n story, the digression has m a d e

i t clear w h y

the

A t h e n i a n s — i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e S p a r t a n s — w i l l be p r e p a r e d t o j o i n t h e I o n i a n s a n d fight the Persians ((1937) 38). P o h l e n z sums u p his i d e a o f H e r o d o t u s '

narrative procedure

as

follows: He is a traveller who knows exactly where he wants to go, who has exactly plotted the main stages of his voyage and keeps to them, but who also allows himself the time to look at all beautiful and interesti n g things w h i c h the road offers, and needs not even be afraid to make long detours to this end, because he knows that he will eventually rejoin the m a i n road at the right p o i n t . ' 1 11

This point is later worked out by Lateiner (1989) 59 75. (1937) 43: 'Er ist der Wanderer, der genau weiß, wohin er schließlich kommen will, auch genau die Hauptstationen seines Weges vorher festgelegt hat und innehält, der sich aber dabei Zeit laßt, um alles Schöne und Interessante, das die Gegend bietet, zu betrachten, und selbst lange Seitenwege zu diesem Zwecke nicht zu scheuen braucht, da er weiß, daß er die Hauptstraße am richtigen Punkte wieder erreichen wird.' 15

250

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

This metaphor of Herodotus the traveller seems to do him and the Histories more justice than any previous label (story-teller, frame narrative) or metaphor (reservoir). A somewhat curious interlude i n the 'unity' debate is the study by Myres. In his view, Herodotus' structure is not problematic at all. The plan of the whole work is 'simple', in that the Histories consist o f two parts: 'a narrative of the struggle between Persians and Greeks, from the Ionian Revolt to the defeat of Xerxes' invasion (5.28-9), preceded by a retrospect o f the origin o f the quarrel between East and West, and the Rise o f the Persian empire and the leadingGreek states, Athens and Sparta (1-5.27)' ((1953) 60). W i t h i n these parts two structural principles are at work: the 'antistrophic' principle, which means that we find two parallel narratives (e.g., the Athenian and Spartan histories at 1.59-64 and 65-8, or the longaccounts o f Scythia, 4.1-144, and Libya, 4.145-205), and the 'pedimental' principle, which means that we find a climax in the centre, preceded and followed by episodes which prepare for it and reveal its consequences (e.g., at 1.65-8, where Lycurgus' meeting with the Pythia is the prologue, the meeting between Lichas and the blacksmith o f Tegea the epilogue, and the military confrontation between Sparta and Tegea the centre)."' The problem with this kind of structural analysis is that it is highly subjective. Often the structure is there only i n the eye of the beholder; at 1.65-8 why not make the scene o f Lichas and the blacksmith the climax?" I t is also ultimately unhelpful; i n comparison with Pohlenz's analysis, the observation that 'the visits o f Aristagoras to Sparta, 5.39-54, and to Athens, 5.55-97, serve as the frame for explanatory retrospects of both cities' ((1953) 78) is a regression. T h e second turning point (after Pohlenz) is Immerwahr. He detects both a subject ('the history o f Persian power and aggressiveness i n a well-defined period in which aggression affected the Greeks') and a structure (the Histories consists o f a series o f logoi, narrative units which are usually demarcated by ring-composition, which vary i n

"' For the 'antistrophic' principle, see Myres (1953) 62, 78; for the 'pedimcntal' principle (1953) 62, 81-8. " The following remark by Myres is in fact revealing: 'This peclimental structure, deep-seated and all-embracing though it is, has escaped the notice even of literary critics, probably because the literary skill of Herodotus has so completely united the substance of history with its form' ((1953) 86-7, my italics).

251

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

l e n g t h a n d w h i c h m a y themselves consist o f smaller logoi).

18

The

over-

all s t r u c t u r e o f the logoi is p a r a t a c t i c , yet they d o f o r m a u n i t y i n t h a t t h e y share n a r r a t i v e patterns (there are d r a m a t i c a n d c i r c u l a r 19

logoi)

a n d t h o u g h t p a t t e r n s ( ' t h o u g h t a n d a c t i o n ' , 'rise a n d fall

a ruler', etc.).20 I n Immerwahr's

analysis,

the p a r a t a c t i c style

of has

g a i n e d i n p o w e r ; i t is n o t the p r o d u c t o f a n i n q u i s i t i v e b u t u n s t r u c t u r e d m e n t a l i t y (Franker), b u t r a t h e r a sophisticated l i t e r a r y a n d historiographical instrument. T h e years t h a t f o l l o w e d saw the p u b l i c a t i o n o f t w o studies o n the digressions, w h i c h b o t h e x p a n d a n d r e f i n e Pohlenz's defence o f these passages. T h e

first

is B o r n i t z , w h o sets o u t to s h o w t h a t the histor-

ical digressions ( n o t a b l y those o n G r e e k h i s t o r y i n Books O n e ,

Five,

a n d Six) are closely c o n n e c t e d t o one a n o t h e r a n d to the m a i n story. With

r e g a r d t o passage 5.55

seamlessly

97,

he notes ((1968)

106

9) h o w

it

c o n t i n u e s t h e h i s t o r y o f A t h e n s , w h i c h was s t a r t e d at

1 . 5 9 - 6 4 (there we h e a r d a b o u t A t h e n s b e c o m i n g a t y r a n n y Peisistratus, here H e r o d o t u s recounts h o w

under

this t y r a n n y was p u t to

a n end); h o w this episode m a r k s the b e g i n n i n g o f the r i v a l r y hostilities b e t w e e n

Athens and

Sparta,

w h i c h will determine

behaviour i n the ensuing Persian W a r s ; a n d h o w A t h e n s ' b r i e f

and their

flirtation

w i t h Persia (5.73) casts a d u b i o u s l i g h t o n t h e i r later pious o a t h t h a t t h e i r m e n t a l i t y is such t h a t they w o u l d never consider s i d i n g w i t h the Persians The

(8.144).

second study is by C o b e t , w h o argues t h a t the

(ethnograph-

ical a n d geographical) digressions n o t o n l y serve to e x p l a i n the m a i n story, b u t also e n r i c h i t , i n t h a t t h e y c o n t a i n m a t e r i a l w h i c h is itself o f interest. H e r o d o t u s s i m p l y cast his net w i d e , i n a n effort to i n c l u d e e v e r y t h i n g he c o u l d find a b o u t the k n o w n w o r l d : thus Herodotus introduces the large logoi not only i n order to make clear w h i c h people caused certain events, but m u c h more simply, because events draw attention to something that i n itself deserves our interest—because the context points to i t , not because the context demands i t . 2 1

"' For the structure, see Immerwahr (1966) 17-45 (quotation from p. 44). for the subject (1966) 14 15. Immerwahr (1966) 46-72. Immerwahr (1966) 72-8. (1971) 156 7: 'Und so führt Herodot die großen Logoi nicht allein dafür ein, um verständlich zu machen, welches Volk solches Geschehen möglich machte, sondern viel einfacher lenkt das Geschehen den Blick auf etwas, das selbst Aufmerksamkeit 19

20

21

252

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

A n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n was i n d i c a t e d b y W a t e r s . H e stresses t h a t t h e Histories is a n a r r a t i v e ( w h i c h means t h a t the historical digressions m a y be seen as

flashbacks;

a n i m p r o v e m e n t over Exkurse)

and

p o i n t s to the H o m e r i c epics as a n i m p o r t a n t m o d e l for H e r o d o t u s ' structure: [the Odyssey] presents a model o f ingenious construction w i t h its double thread and its elaborate flash-back technique. These structural methods, together w i t h the range o f the Odyssey, its time-span o f twenty years, its geographical extent, its ethnology (e.g., Cyclops!) and gallery of OwuaaTcc, make i t an obvious comparison with the history and certainly a source o f suggestions as to narrative structure. 22

A l t h o u g h H e r o d o t u s ' dependence o n H o m e r m e n t i o n e d i n passing b y s c h o l a r s ,

23

h a d previously been

this was t h e first t i m e i t was used

to get a b e t t e r g r i p o n H e r o d o t u s ' h a n d l i n g o f his m a t e r i a l .

Unfor-

t u n a t e l y , W a t e r s spoils t h e effect o f this n e w a p p r o a c h b y r e t a i n i n g the o l d i d e a o f H e r o d o t u s as the i n v e t e r a t e story-teller: [ T h e tales o f Tellus and Clcobis and Biton are inserted because] Herodotus perhaps thought he could tell [them] better than the current market-place retailers. Artists tend to do what they like doing, especially i f they get paid for it, and Herodotus likes to tell tales. ((1974) 6-7) A n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n is a small article by C a r b o n e l l , w h i c h has n o t r e c e i v e d t h e a t t e n t i o n i t deserves. H i s thesis is t h a t t h e struct u r i z i n g p r i n c i p l e i n H e r o d o t u s is t i m e : I t is not space w h i c h orders and organises the Histories. I t is time which turns it into a rigorously chronological work, even i f that rigour requires some apparent disorder. 24

At

first

g l a n c e , this is h a r d l y a r e v o l u t i o n a r y i d e a , 2 ' b u t w h e n we

r e v i e w t h e s c h o l a r s h i p s u m m a r i z e d so f a r , w e see t h a t i t h a d n o t

beansprucht, sicherlich weil der Zusammenhang darauf führt, aber nicht, weil der Zusammenhang es verlangt.' (1974) 3, and cf. (1985) 61-70. For example, Jacoby (1913) 377, 380, Aly (1921) 266, and Thomson (1935) 224-7. See also Ch. 5 in this volume. (1985) 145: 'Ce n'est pas l'espace qui ordonne et organise les Histoires. C'est le temps qui en fait une oeuvre rigoureusement chronologique, même si cette rigueur exige un apparent désordre.' Clearly, Carbonell, who does not place his own contribution within the context of the 'unity' debate, is himself unaware of the contentious nature of his thesis. 22

23

24

25

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

253

previously been proposed. Indeed, Frankel h a d emphatically rejected t i m e as a s t r u c t u r i z i n g p r i n c i p l e : As regards Herodotus, i n his w o r k time is completely lacking as a means of connecting the many things from many countries about which he has something to say. This is surprising in a historian, but as has

often been observed, he simply has no interest in chronology. One could even say that he and the archaic period to which he still partly

belongs has no sense at all of the ceaseless march of time . . . Herodotus does not hesitate to stop time: he reports on completely different things, describes, say, a country and its inhabitants in many, many pages, and only when he is quite finished w i l l he let time roll on. N o r is he afraid of reversing the chronological order. 2 6 Elsewhere (de J o n g (1999) 2 3 0 - 4 1 , (2001)) I suggest t h a t H e r o d o t u s ' r e l a t i v e disinterest i n r e a l , e x t r a - t e x t u a l c h r o n o l o g y m a y have caused scholars t o close t h e i r eyes to t i m e as a n i n t r a - t e x t u a l p r i n c i p l e . I n the case o f F r a n k e l , i t also seems t h a t his f i r m ideas a b o u t the m i n d o f a r c h a i c m a n have d e t e r m i n e d his p o s i t i o n . E x p a n d i n g the suggestions o f W a t e r s a n d C a r b o n e l l , I p r o p o s e to call H e r o d o t u s ' struct u r e ' a n a c h r o n i c a l ' : like H o m e r , he has r e s t r i c t e d the t i m e span

of

his m a i n story, b u t has i n c l u d e d a m u c h l a r g e r p e r i o d i n the f o r m o f a n a c h r o n i e s : analepses (flashbacks) a n d prolepses ( f l a s h f o r w a r d s ) . 2 7 H e has developed this technique b y c h a n g i n g its scale a n d c o m p l e x i t y . T h u s he includes m a n y m o r e a n d , above a l l , m u c h longer anachronies, a n d c o m p l i c a t e s t h e m b y p u t t i n g t h e m i n the m o u t h s o f b o t h n a r r a t o r a n d characters (whereas i n H o m e r t h e y t e n d to be v o i c e d o n l y b y the characters). T h i s Herodotus'

thesis c o n s i d e r a b l y m o d i f i e s t h e i d e a

of

s t r u c t u r e b e i n g p a r a t a c t i c ; the elements o f his story d o

n o t f o l l o w each o t h e r like beads o n a s t r i n g b u t are p l a c e d i n a

26

((1924) 1960) 85: 'Was zunächst Herodot betrifft, so fehlt bei ihm fast ganz, als Bindemittel zwischen den vielen Dingen die er aus vielen Ländern zu berichten weiß, die Zeit. Bei einem Historiker nimmt das wunder; aber er hat nun einmal für Chronologie, wie das schon oft ausgesprochen ist, kein Interesse. Man kann sogar sagen, daß ihm, und der archaischen Epoche zu der er halb nocht gehört, der Sinn für die rastlos fortschreitende Zeit überhaupt abgeht... Es kostet Herodot keine Überwindung die Zeit anzuhalten: er berichtet von ganz anderen Dingen, schildert z.B. ein Land und seine Geschichte auf vielen, vielen Seiten unserer Bücher, und erst wenn er damit fertig ist, läßt er sie weiterrollen. Und er kennt auch keine Scheu vor der Umkehrung der Zeitenfolge.' Cf. also Lateiner (1989) 114. The term 'anachronies' derives from Genette (1980) 35-6: 'the various types of discordance between the two orderings of story [= the events in their chronological order] and narrative [= the events in the order we read them in the text]'. 27

254

IRENE J, F. DE JONG

t e m p o r a l perspective, the past a n d f u t u r e i l l u m i n a t i n g the p r e s e n t . 2 8 T h e c o n c e p t o f ' a n a c h r o n i c a l s t r u c t u r e ' o n l y accounts f o r the hist o r i c a l digressions. W h a t a b o u t the e t h n o g r a p h i c a l a n d g e o g r a p h i c a l ones? O n c e a g a i n , the fact t h a t the Histories is a n a r r a t i v e a n d is m o d e l l e d o n the H o m e r i c

epics is o f p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e . A l l n a r r a -

tives c o n t a i n d e s c r i p t i o n s , even t h o u g h , as H a m o n ((1993) 9- 36) shows, l i t e r a r y critics have always h a d a p r o b l e m w i t h this 'strange' e l e m e n t . I n fact, H a m o n ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f the t y p i c a l descripteur, suits H e r o d o t u s

perfectly:

He is a voyager, a tourist, an explorer, someone w i t h a scientific mission or who travels i n order to learn or to fill i n a gap i n institutionalized knowledge. 2 9 Specifically, there is the p r e c e d e n t o f descriptions i n H o m e r

(e.g.,

A c h i l l e s ' shield i n II. 1 8 . 4 7 8 - 6 0 8 , o r Calypso's cave i n Od. 5 . 6 3 - 7 5 ) . Erbse (1992: 157 -79) suggests—convincingly—that H e r o d o t u s

'derived

f r o m the H o m e r i c ekphraseis the r i g h t t o discuss g e o g r a p h i c a l questions i n the c o n t e x t o f a n a r r a t i v e , t h a t is t o say o f a h i s t o r i c a l n a r rative' ((1992) 157). 3 ( l H e also shows h o w i n most cases the i n f o r m a t i o n o f a g e o g r a p h i c a l or e t h n o g r a p h i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n is relevant to w h a t follows. T h u s the l e n g t h y d e s c r i p t i o n o f S c y t h i a ( 4 . 5 - 3 1 ) w i l l a l l o w the narratees to u n d e r s t a n d w h y D a r i u s ' e x p e d i t i o n against this p e o ple fails. I c o n c l u d e t h a t a p p r o a c h i n g the Histories as a n a r r a t i v e a n d l o o k i n g at the H o m e r i c epics as a m o d e l has m u c h e n h a n c e d o u r a p p r e c i a t i o n o f its s t r u c t u r e . H e r o d o t u s has a d o p t e d the m o d e l o f a m a i n story e x p a n d e d b y analepses, prolepses, a n d descriptions, a n d enlarged its scale. T h e

analepses a n d prolepses i n t r o d u c e the necessary b a c k -

g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n o n people a n d places, w h i l e the descriptions set the stage o n w h i c h the events o f the m a i n story w i l l be p l a y e d o u t o r p r o v i d e the narratees w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h t h e y n e e d t o appreciate w h a t follows. Before t u r n i n g t o the next p a r t — a n d i n the spirit o f

Herodotus

h i m s e l f — I w o u l d like to insert a digression o n the terms a d o p t e d b y scholars w h e n t a l k i n g a b o u t n a r r a t i v e units w i t h i n the Histories.

2 8

For further examples, see Ch. 22, pp. 501-4 in this volume. (1993) 38: 'c'est un voyageur, un touriste, un explorateur, quelqu'un d'investi d'une mission scientifique ou qui voyage pour apprendre ou pour combler une case vide du savoir institutionnalisé.' See also Ch. 18, pp. 415-16 in this volume. 29

3(1

255

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

Narrative units: the terminology T h e r e are three t e r m s w h i c h are r e g u l a r l y used i n the scholarship o n H e r o d o t u s to refer to n a r r a t i v e u n i t s w i t h i n the Histories: logos, digression (Exkurs), a n d n o v e l l a . A n d

yet each o f the three terms is

problematic. I n the case o f logos, we m u s t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n the use o f the t e r m b y H e r o d o t u s (a section i n his w o r k w h i c h m a y be o f v a r y i n g length) a n d by scholars themselves, w h o o f t e n f a i l to m a r k the dis­ t i n c t i o n : the i n d e p e n d e n t texts w h i c h H e r o d o t u s pasted t o g e t h e r to f o r m the Histories ( J a c o b y (1913) 282), folktales i n prose (Aly

(1921)

18, T h o m s o n (1935) 32); prose texts w h i c h collect a n d c o m b i n e m a t e ­ r i a l a c c o r d i n g to r a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a ( P o h l e n z (1937) 5 4 - 5 ) ; 'prose texts w h i c h a t t e m p t to describe a n d e x p l a i n the n a t u r a l w o r l d o r some aspect o f i t . T h e y m a y b e r i t u a l o r religious m y t h s , h i s t o r i c a l l e g ­ ends a b o u t p a r t i c u l a r persons o r occasions, f a b l e s . . . o r m e r e f o l k ­ tales' ( M y r e s (1953) 7 0 - 3 ) ; 'a series o f i t e m s , w h i c h are

themselves

smaller logoi, h e l d t o g e t h e r b y c e r t a i n f o r m a l elements s i g n i f y i n g i n t u r n a selection (but never the t o t a l i t y ) o f u n i f y i n g themes w h i c h o t h e r elements are left i n t a c t ' ( I m m e r w a h r

(1966) 14

beside 15);

or

i n d i r e c t a n d d i r e c t speeches by characters (as o p p o s e d t o erga, the events as r e c o u n t e d b y the n a r r a t o r ) ( H u n t e r (1982) passim). 3 1 F a c e d w i t h this b e w i l d e r i n g series, I c a n o n l y c o n c l u d e t h a t a n

in-depth

study o f the t e r m logos, b o t h inside the Histories a n d i n the l i t e r a t u r e o f his t i m e is a d e s i d e r a t u m . A t first g l a n c e , the use o f the t e r m digressions o r Exkurse seems w a r r a n t e d b y the fact t h a t H e r o d o t u s h i m s e l f occasionally speaks

of

π ρ ο σ θ ή κ η , ' a d d i t i o n ' (4.30), a n d π α ρ ε ν θ ή κ η , ' i n s e r t i o n ' (7.171). B u t at least f r o m J a c o b y o n w a r d s ,

the c o n c e p t o f the H e r o d o t e a n

Exkurs

b e g a n to live a life o f its o w n . J a c o b y h i m s e l f lists n o fewer three types o f Exkurse: (1) n o t r e a l ones:

than

'those w h i c h c l e a r l y o n l y

serve to insert m a t e r i a l t h a t c o u l d n o t be p l a c e d s o m e w h e r e

i n the

m a i n story' ((1913) 381), (2) r e a l ones: 'short digressions, w h i c h c a n easily be missed a n d w h i c h cause n o o r h a r d l y any d i s r u p t i o n ' ((1913) 384), a n d those w h i c h (3) ' a f t e r w a r d s a d d i m p o r t a n t , v e r y i m p o r t a n t

31

Immerwahr explicitly states that his logoi do not necessarily coincide with those of Herodotus. For one thing, Herodotus does not systematically label parts of his work a logos, whereas Immerwahr's analysis of the Histories in logoi ((1966) 79 147) covers the whole text.

256

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

m a t e r i a l w h i c h H e r o d o t u s c o u l d n o t present i n t h e i r p r o p e r p l a c e ' (386). I t is clear f r o m his analysis o f the s t r u c t u r e o f the Histones ((1913) 2 8 3 - 3 2 6 ) t h a t , i n his v i e w , this w o r k consists m a i n l y o f Exkurse a n d Exkurse w i t h i n Exkurse. J a c o b y ' s great o p p o n e n t P o h l e n z , n o t o n l y demonstrates the e x p l a n a t o r y f u n c t i o n o f m a n y digressions (see the above section), b u t also contends t h a t c e r t a i n passages s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d digressions at a l l : [ T h e logoi on Greek history] were for h i m a necessary part of his sub­ ject matter, whether they paint the political situation of the motherland i n a certain period or recount events w h i c h are either relevant to the Asiatic situation of the moment or w i l l become important later on. : ' 2 Immerwahr

opts f o r a m o r e r a d i c a l a p p r o a c h , r e j e c t i n g the n o t i o n

o f digression altogether: '. . . c o n t r a r y t o m a n y scholars, I believe t h a t the few places w h e r e H e r o d o t u s speaks o f a d d i t i o n s to his w o r k are n o t o f a n y r e a l i m p o r t a n c e f o r the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f its s t r u c t u r e ' ((1966) 14, n . 34). As we have seen i n the p r e v i o u s section, he prefers to see the Histories as a series o f logoi. H i s suggestion t h a t i t w o u l d be b e t t e r to a b o l i s h the t e r m digression has n o t been f o l l o w e d Cobet, who

insists o n using the w o r d Exkurs,

by

a l t h o u g h he is w e l l

a w a r e t h a t i t is n o t exactly the same as H e r o d o t u s '

προσθήκη and

π α ρ ε ν θ ή κ η o r logoi: the term 'Exkurs' is entirely a construction of and for ourselves, w h i c h covers everything that i n our view seems to lead away f r o m the main context. ((1971) 82) He

distinguishes three types o f Exkurse: (1) e t h n o g r a p h i c a l a n d

g r a p h i c a l digressions, (2) novellas, a n d (3) places w h e r e

geo­

Herodotus

goes b e y o n d the t e m p o r a l b o u n d a r i e s o f his story by r e l a t i n g events w h i c h t o o k place after 479

BC.

As w e saw i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n ,

C o b e t i n fact manages to m a k e clear the f u n c t i o n o f m o s t o f these Exkurse, a n d f o r this reason i t is all the m o r e regrettable t h a t he d i d n o t choose a n o t h e r t e r m , w h i c h does n o t have the c o n n o t a t i o n

of

disconnectedness.

32

(1937) 42: '[Die logoi über die griechische Geschichte] gehören für ihn notwendig zur Sache, mögen sie nun die politische Lage des Mutterlandes in einer bestimmten Zeit schildern oder Ereignisse erzählen, die entweder gegenwärtig mit der asiatischen Handlung in Zusammenhang stehen oder für die spätere Entwicklung Bedeutung gewinnen.'

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

257

The suggestion to give up the notion of digression can also be read between the lines i n Hartog: What I would question are the grounds for making a separation between one Herodotus, who is the historian of the Persian wars, and another or, rather Herodotus' other self. I t is perfectly possible to see the 'ethnographic' part and the 'historical' part with the same eye and to read both with the same voice . . . To separate one from the other, making one come before the other, or hiding one behind the other, is after all to fall victim to Thucydides . . . ((1980) 319; I quote the translation by Janet Lloyd) After Immerwahr disposed o f the notion o f digression/Exkurs for the Anglo-Saxon scholars, Hartog for the French, it is a pity that Erbse did not do the same for the German one, especially since he comes so close. I n his introduction he speaks o f sogenannte Exkursen and at the opening of his section on Exkurse he states that the common term 'Exkurs' as a reservoir of random, not seldom fabulous notes is not of great use for the interpretation o f Herodotus, indeed perhaps misleading. ((1992) 121) As we have seen, Erbse rightly linked the ethnographical and geographical digressions to Homeric descriptions. I n his analyses he consistently speaks of Beschreibungen or Beobachtungen (instead o f Exkurse), yet he has not taken the final i n my view, necessary—step, o f dropping the word Exkurs altogether. Perhaps the most enigmatic type o f narrative unit is the novella. Here we are on even thinner ice than i n the previous two cases, since the word is not used by Herodotus. Indeed, it was only coined in fourteenth-century Italy. But even i f we accept the use o f such a modern term to refer to ancient texts—after all, we do the same i n the case o f the ancient novel--there remain two problems: (1) whether there were 'novellae' i n the time o f Herodotus, and (2) whether his Histories contain such 'novellae' (or i n any case the vestiges o f this genre). Most German Herodotusscholars agree that the answer to both questions is 'yes'. AJy, Regenbogen, Heni, Cobet, and Erbse all confidently refer passim to the typically Ionian genre o f novellae: short and entertaining stories about real people, situated in a certain place and at a certain time (in contrast to the folktale), and including a great deal o f direct speech. 33

There is one non-German adherent to the novella theory: Trenkner (1958) 24.

258 The

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

u l t i m a t e source o f this t h e o r y o n the I o n i a n n o v e l l a is Ercl-

m a n n s d o r f f e r (1870). I n a b r o c h u r e , e n t i t l e d ' D i e Zeitalter d e r N o v e l l e i n H e l l a s ' , this scholar claims t h a t i n m a n y respects the p e r i o d

of

the tyrants i n Greece resembles the f o u r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y

of

Italy

B o c c a c c i o (the i n v e n t o r o f the n o v e l l a ) , a n d t h a t hence w e m a y postulate the existence o f this genre i n Greece as w e l l .

Unfortunately,

n o one has yet been able to p r o d u c e a s p e c i m e n o f such a n o v e l l a . Aly's argument

t h a t we are d e a l i n g w i t h u n w r i t t e n l i t e r a t u r e a n d

t h a t hence by definition n o s p e c i m e n is left ((1921) 5 - 6 ) is clever b u t i n the e n d e silentio. O f course, there w i l l have b e e n short o r a l prose n a r r a t i v e s (alongside the l o n g p o e t i c ones o f epic), b u t I d o n o t t h i n k t h a t these w e r e a n exclusively I o n i a n a f f a i r , o r t h a t i n the

absence

o f a n y s p e c i m i n a , i t is s o u n d to p o s i t a specific genre o f novellae. So m u c h for p o i n t 1. E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t there w e r e such I o n i a n n o v e l l a e , there is still the p r o b l e m o f i d e n t i f y i n g t h e m i n t h e Histories. I f w e take C o b e t ((1971) 1 4 0 - 5 7 ) o r Erbse (1992), for e x a m p l e ,

we

see t h a t t h e y s i m p l y call every passage w i t h a n e c d o t a l o r folktale c o n t e n t a n d a great d e a l o f speech a n o v e l l a : n o t o n l y the 'Gyges a n d Candaules'

story at 1 . 8 - 1 3 , b u t also X e r x e s ' decision to attack

G r e e c e at 7 . 5 - 1 9 , essence, h o w e v e r ,

a n d the 'False S m e r d i s '

s t o r y at 3 . 3 0 - 6 6 .

In

these passages d o n o t d i f f e r f r o m the rest o f the

Histories; they are all examples o f the same n a r r a t i v e art. I n m y v i e w , w e w o u l d d o b e t t e r t o get r i d o f t h e t e r m n o v e l l a a n d i n s t e a d call the passages w h i c h have b e e n l a b e l l e d as such 'scenes' (in the n a r r a t o l o g i c a l sense o f the w o r d ) . 3 * L i k e a n y n a r r a t o r , H e r o d o t u s

has

the possibility to present his story as a series o f events a n d actions (e.g., A l y a t t e s ' w a r against T h r a s y b u l u s a n d the M i l e s i a n s at 1 . 1 7 - 2 2 ) o r as a scene, w h i c h means t h a t he slows d o w n the pace o f n a r r a t i o n , so as t o a p p r o a c h the l e n g t h o f t i m e o f the events a n d actions, g i v i n g us details a b o u t scenery o r the characters (their gestures, facial expressions, etc.) a n d q u o t i n g t h e i r w o r d s .

The fact that her book is based on a Polish dissertation may be relevant here. Thus the secondary literature listed by her is almost exclusively German. See Genette (1980) 95, 109 12 and Bal (1985) 71, 73 5. 34

259

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

Herodotus' unity: the means In this section I will discuss the narrative devices which the Herodotean narrator employs to create unity, on the level o f the parts o f his work as well as on that o f the work as a whole. I will proceed from small to large and from explicit to implicit. (1) Repetition of words. I n the course of a story or section the narrator repeats a word which is central to that story or section. A n example is the root συμφορ- i n the Adrastus' story at 1.34-45, which recurs i n 35.1.4, 41.1, 42.1, and 45.3. O f course, not every recur­ ring w o r d is an example o f significant word repetition. Long (1987), who pays much attention to w o r d repetition i n his analysis o f Herodotus' short stories, is, in my view, much too ready to desig­ nate a repetition as significant. Thus in that same Adrastus' story, I take issue with him for giving so much weight to the repetition of μεγάλη (34.1), μέγα (36.1), and μέγιστος (36.2). A detailed study o f w o r d repetition i n the Histories, including a thorough theoretical dis­ cussion o f what makes a repetition significant, is a desideratum. ' (2) Presentation markers o f the type 'as follows' (pointing forward) and 'thus' (pointing backward), for example: 35

36

3

38

39

Κατ' αυτόν δέ Κροΐσον τάδε έγίνετο. (1.85)

With Croesus himself the following happened, κατά μεν νυν τον κρητήρα οΰτω έσχε. (1.70.1)

This was what happened to the bowl. Presentation markers often occur as part of headlines (see below 3) or ring-compositions (see below 4). (3) Headlines and conclusions. The narrator announces before­ hand what a story or section will be about or concludes afterwards what it has been about, for example: 40

3

-' As in section 1, I concentrate on the formal devices, leaving out of account the motifs and story patterns, which on the level of the content lend unity. I also leave aside linguistic devices, such as the use of tenses, for which see Rijksbaron (1988). For other examples, see van der Veen (1996) 6-22. Fehling's study on figures of repetition (1969) contains a great deal of mater­ ial, but provides no interpretative evaluation of that material. See also Ch. 1, pp. 19-20 on hecle in the proem. Frankel ((1924) 1960) 65 6, Pohlenz (1937) 87, Immerwahr (1966) 52-3, and Muller (1980) 51-8, 69-70. Immerwahr (1966) 53 and Lang (1984) 2-5. 56

37

38

m

260

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

τ φ δή λ έ γ ο υ σ ι Κ ο ρ ί ν θ ι ο ι . . . θ ώ μ α μέγιστον π α ρ α σ τ ή ν α ι , Ά ρ ί ο ν α τον Μηθυμναΐον έπί δελφίνος έξενειχθέντα έπί Ταίναρον. (1.23) The Corinthians tell that there happened to h i m [Periander] a very great marvel, the transport of A r i o n o f M e t h y m n a to Taenarus o n a dolphin. H e a d l i n e s a n d conclusions

can also be e x p a n d e d i n t o

narratorial

i n t e r v e n t i o n s , i . e . , w i t h t h e n a r r a t o r r e f e r r i n g t o his o w n a c t i v i t y , f o r example: Έ π ι δ ί ζ η τ α ι δέ δή τό ένθεΰτεν ήμΐν 6 λόγος τόν τε Κϋρον δστις έών την Κροίσου αρχήν κατεΐλε, και τους Πέρσας δτεφ τρόπω ήγήσαντο της Ά σ ί η ς . (1.95) But it is next the business o f my history to set out who this Cyrus was who brought down the power o f Croesus and how the Persians came to be rulers o f Asia. (4) R i n g - c o m p o s i t i o n .

At

the e n d o f a section the n a r r a t o r

the w o r d s w i t h w h i c h he b e g a n , 4 1

repeats

for example:

. . . τό μεν Άττικόν κατεχόμενόν τε και διεσπασμένον έπυνθάνετο ό Κροίσος υπό Π ε ι σ ι σ τ ρ ά τ ο υ τοΰ Ί π π ο κ ρ ά τ ε ο ς τοΰτον τόν χρύνον τ υ ρ α ν ν ε ύ ο ν τ ο ς Α θ η ν α ί ω ν . (1.59) . . . Croesus learnt that the Attic people was held in subjection and divided into factions by Peisistratus, son of Hippocrates, who at that time was tyrant of Athens. Τούς μεν νυν Αθηναίους τοιαΰτα τόν χρόνον τοΰτον έπυνθάνετο ό Κροίσος κατέχοντα . . . (1.65) About the Athenians Croesus learnt that at that time such things were occupying them . . . T h i s device m a r k s o f f analepses, prolepses, a n d descriptions, b u t also sections o f the m a i n story. T h e

e l e m e n t w h i c h is repeated

signals

either the e n d o f t h e analepsis, etc., or the r e s u m p t i o n o f the m a i n story. I n the l a t t e r case, the r i n g - c o m p o s i t i o n can also be i n terms o f a n epanalepsis. R i n g - c o m p o s i t i o n s

described

often consist o f a c o m ­

bination o f headline a n d conclusion, a n d contain

presentation-mark­

ers, f o r e x a m p l e :

" Frankel ((1924)1960) 71-2. Immerwahr (1966) 12, 54 8, Pohlenz (1937) 63, Beck (1971), Lang (1984) 5-6, and Bakker (1997a) 115-21. See also Ch. 3, p. 000 (nu 16 ff.) in this volume.

261

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

Σάρδιες δέ ήλωσαν ώδε . . . οϋτω δή Σάρδιές τε ήλώκεσαν και παν τδ άστυ έπορθέετο. (1.84.1, 5) Sarcles was taken in the following way . . . Thus Sardes had been taken and the whole city was being destroyed. (5) G r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s . T h e n a r r a t o r recounted

something

remarks

earlier i n his w o r k

that

he has already-

o r w i l l d o so l a t e r , 4 2 f o r

example: Τοΰτον δή ών τον Άστυάγεα Κΰρος έόντα έωυτοΰ μητροπάτορα καταστρεψάμενος εσχε δ ι ' αίτίην τήν έγώ έν τοΐσι οπίσω λόγοισι σημανέω · (1.75.1, the narrator will fulfill his promise at 1.124) This Astyages then was Cyrus' mother's father, and was made subject to him for a reason which I will set out in a later section. . . . Κροΐσον ϋστερον τούτων ά ρ ξ α ν τ α άδικίης κατεστρέψατο, ώς- εϊρηται μοι πρότερον. (1.130.3, the narrator refers back to 1.79-85) . . . later he subdued Croesus, who had started being unjust, as I have already told before. (6) R e p e a t i n g prolepses a n d analepses. Instead o f m a k i n g an e x p l i c i t cross-reference

( as i n 5), t h e n a r r a t o r m e r e l y repeats s o m e t h i n g he

has already related o r reveals s o m e t h i n g h e w i l l later r e c o u n t i n f u l l , for example: . . . "Αρπαγος κατέβη διάδοχος της στρατηγίης, . . ., τον ό Μήδων βασιλεύς Αστυάγης άνόμω τραπέζη εδαισε, ό τω Κύρφ τήν βασιληίην συγκατεργασάμενος (1.162.1, analepsis of 119, 123-9) .. Harpagus came to succeed him as commander,. . ., the same whom Astyages, king of the Medes, had entertained with an unholy meal, and who had helped Cyrus to get the kingship. . . . τδ σκηπτόμενοι ot Πέρσαι ϋστερον άντενεπίμπρασαν τά έν "Ελλησι ίρά. Using this [the burning of Sardes by the Greeks] as a pretext, they later set fire to temples in Greece. (5.102.1, prolepsis of 6.19, 96, 101; 8.33, 53) (7) I n t e r a c t i o n o f speech a n d n a r r a t o r - t e x t . 4 3 take d i f f e r e n t f o r m s .

T h e narrator

This interaction can

can prepare

f o r a speech, f o r

e x a m p l e : Coes' speech a b o u t t h e Scythians (4.97), i n w h i c h he w a r n s D a r i u s t h a t h e is a b o u t t o ' m a r c h against a c o u n t r y w h e r e y o u w i l l 42 43

Jacoby (1913) 282, 327 and Pohlenz (1937) 87. For more examples, see de Jong (1999) 254-8.

262 find

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

n e i t h e r t i l l e d l a n d s n o r i n h a b i t e d c i t i e s ' , is p r e p a r e d

4.46.2-3,

w h e r e the n a r r a t o r tells the narratees t h a t the

f o r at

Scythians

'have n o established c i t i e s . . . a n d live n o t b y t i l l i n g the s o i l . . .'. The

n a r r a t o r c a n react to a speech, f o r e x a m p l e :

at

1.209.3-5

C y r u s sets o u t a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f his d r e a m , w h i c h is c o r r e c t e d by the n a r r a t o r at 2 1 0 . 1 . S o m e speeches c o n t a i n analepses o f events already r e c o u n t e d

by

the n a r r a t o r . T h u s at 7.10.a.2 A r t a b a n u s uses the example o f D a r i u s ' unsuccessful e x p e d i t i o n against the Scythians, r e c o u n t e d b y the n a r r a t o r at 4 . 8 3 - 1 4 4 , i n a n a t t e m p t to dissuade X e r x e s f r o m m a r c h i n g against the Greeks. T h e

f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h characters use

the

past as a n a r g u m e n t i n t h e i r speeches lends the device o f the a c t o r i a l analepsis 4 4 a n e x t r a , t h e m a t i c f u n c t i o n , i n a d d i t i o n to its f o r m a l , u n i f y i n g f u n c t i o n : i t shows the narratees t h a t h i s t o r y is n o t o n l y about p r e s e r v i n g the kleos o f great deeds a n d m e n f r o m the past, b u t also a b o u t d e a l i n g w i t h one's o w n present s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e are also speeches

t h a t c o n t a i n prolepses o f events to

later r e c o u n t e d b y the n a r r a t o r .

43

Croesus at 1.207

be

advises C y r u s t o

cross the A r a x e s , m a r c h i n t o the t e r r i t o r y o f the Massagetae,

pre-

p a r e a festive m e a l , a n d t h e n w i t h d r a w to the r i v e r a g a i n . H e a n t i c ipates t h a t t h e Massagetae w i l l start feasting a n d t h e r e b y

become

easy p r e y f o r the Persian a r m y . C y r u s follows his advice a n d t h i n g happens ever,

events

exactly as foreseen (1.211). M u c h evolve

very

differently from

the way

characters h a d foreseen, h o p e d , o r f e a r e d . O n e

every-

more often,

how-

in which

the

need o n l y t h i n k o f

D a r i u s ' a n d X e r x e s ' oft-expressed i n t e n t i o n s o f c o n q u e r i n g G r e e c e . A c t o r i a l prolepses, i n w h i c h the Histories a b o u n d , a c t o r i a l analepses,

t h e r e b y , like the

acquire an extra, thematic function: they

allow

t h e narratees to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n wise characters, w h o are able t o foresee the f u t u r e , a n d b l i n d characters (the m a j o r i t y ) , w h o

over-

estimate t h e i r o w n possibilities, forget t h e i r l i m i t s as m o r t a l s

and,

above a l l , d o n o t take to h e a r t the H e r o d o t e a n m o t t o t h a t

'human

p r o s p e r i t y is never stable' (1.5). (8) N a r r a t i v e i n t e g r a t i o n o f d e s c r i p t i o n s . T h i s c a n be a c h i e v e d by h a v i n g a c h a r a c t e r l o o k at scenery (e.g., 4 . 8 5 - 6 , w h e r e D a r i u s looks at the Pontus), visit sites (e.g., X e r x e s at 7.26,

4 4

3 0 , 4 3 , 5 9 , 108,

109,

A n actorial analepsis is one made by a character, while a narratorial analepsis is one made by the narrator. Cf. Hunter (1982) 190-6. 45

263

N A R A T I V E U N I T Y A N D UNITS

197), o r i n f o r m a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r a b o u t a c o u n t r y (e.g., 7 . 1 3 0 , w h e r e G r e e k guides i n f o r m X e r x e s a b o u t

Thessaly). 4 6

B y w a y o f c o n c l u s i o n I w o u l d like to note t h a t as regards t e c h niques 3, 4 , 6, 7, a n d 8 , H e r o d o t u s once a g a i n h a d H o m e r as his model.

Narrative unity: an example To

s h o w t h e w o r k i n g o f some o f the n a r r a t i v e devices listed i n t h e

p r e v i o u s section, I w i l l analyse i n d e t a i l the passage 5 . 5 5 - 9 7 , w h i c h has a l r e a d y f e a t u r e d several times i n the h i s t o r i c a l o v e r v i e w

pre-

sented i n the first p a r t o f this c h a p t e r . 55-96.2: a chunk of Athenian

history ( 5 1 4 - 4 9 9 BC).

This narrato-

r i a l analepsis as a w h o l e is enclosed b y r i n g - c o m p o s i t i o n : ' B e i n g c o m p e l l e d to leave S p a r t a , Aristagoras w e n t to A t h e n s ' (55) = . . . at this moment,

Aristagoras the M i l e s i a n , d r i v e n f r o m S p a r t a , . . . came to

A t h e n s ' (97.1). 55—65.5: A t h e n s frees itself f r o m its tyrants H i p p a r c h u s

(514

and Hippias

ring-com-

(510

BC).

T h i s section is m a r k e d o f f b y

BC)

p o s i t i o n , w h i c h is a c o m b i n a t i o n o f a h e a d l i n e a n d a c o n c l u s i o n , b o t h of w h i c h c o n t a i n p r e s e n t a t i o n m a r k e r s : '(Athens) w h i c h h a d b e e n f r e e d f r o m its r u l i n g despots i n the f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r ' ~ ' T h u s the A t h e n i a n s 56: H i p p a r c h u s

(55)

got r i d o f t h e i r t y r a n t s ' (65.5).

has a d r e a m b e f o r e he is m u r d e r e d (514

T h i s n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is t r i g g e r e d by ' W h e n H i p p a r c h u s

BC). had

been slain . . . after seeing in a dream a very clear picture of the evil that befell him" (55). I t is i n t r o d u c e d b y a h e a d l i n e , w h i c h c o n tains a p r e s e n t a t i o n m a r k e r : ' T h e

d r e a m o f H i p p a r c h u s was as

follows'. 57—61: the G e p h y r e a n c l a n comes f r o m P h o e n i c i a

to

Boeotia

t o A t h e n s (c. 1 2 0 0 - 1 1 0 0 B C ) . 4 ' T h i s n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is t r i g gered b y ' W h e n H i p p a r c h u s . . . h a d been s l a i n . . . b y Aristogeiton and Harmodius,

40

men of Gephyrean descent. . .' (55).

Jacoby (1913) 383, 390; he regards these forms of integration as 'artificial'. '' This date and the others which follow make no claims to exact accuracy; they will merely serve to place the analepses in some form of chronological order.

264

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

6 2 . 1 : a n a r r a t o r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n , w h i c h caps t h e analepses o f 5 6 a n d 5 7 - 6 1 a n d announces

i n the f o r m o f a renewed

headline

the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e section 5 5 - 6 5 : ' I have s h o w n w h a t was the v i s i o n o f H i p p a r c h u s '

dream

and what

t h e first o r i g i n o f

the G e p h y r e a n s , o f w h o m w e r e t h e slayers o f H i p p a r c h u s ; n o w I m u s t g o f u r t h e r a n d r e t u r n t o t h e story w h i c h I b e g a n t o t e l l , namely h o w the Athenians were freed f r o m their tyrants.' 6 2 . 2 ^ 6 5 . 5 : A t h e n s frees itself f r o m its tyrants ( c o n t . j . 6 5 . 5 - 9 6 . 2 : h i s t o r y o f A t h e n s after i t has f r e e d itself ( 5 1 0 - 4 9 9 B G ) . T h i s section is i n t r o d u c e d b y a h e a d l i n e i n t h e f o r m o f a n a r r a t o r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n : ' A l l the n o t e w o r t h y

things that they d i d o r

e n d u r e d , after t h e y w e r e f r e e d a n d before f o n i a r e v o l t e d against D a r i u s a n d Aristagoras o f M i l e t u s c a m e t o A t h e n s t o ask t h e h e l p o f its p e o p l e , these I w i l l n o w first relate' (65.5). 6 7 . 1 - 6 9 . 1 : Gleisthenes rules S i c y o n ( 6 0 0 - 5 7 0 B C ) . T h i s n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is m a r k e d o f f b y r i n g - c o m p o s i t i o n : ' I n this respect, i t seems t o m e , this Cleisthenes i m i t a t e d his o w n m o t h e r ' s father, Cleisthenes t h e despot o f S i c y o n . ' (67.1) ~ '. . . a n d t h e A t h e n i a n Cleisthenes, w h o w a s t h e son o f t h a t Sicyonian's d a u g h t e r a n d bore h i s n a m e ,

d i d to m y t h i n k i n g i m i t a t e his namesake . . . '

(69.1). 7 1 : t h e A c c u r s e d get t h e i r n a m e [c. 6 3 0 B C ) . T h i s n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is t r i g g e r e d b y ' C l e o m e n e s d e m a n d e d the b a n i s h m e n t o f Cleisthenes a n d m a n y o t h e r A t h e n i a n s , the Accursed, as he called therri (70), a n d is i n t r o d u c e d b y a h e a d l i n e , w h i c h contains a p r e s e n t a t i o n m a r k e r : ' T h e A c c u r s e d g o t t h e i r n a m e as f o l l o w s . ' 76: t h e f o u r D o r i a n invasions o f A t t i c a (c. 1 2 0 0 - 5 0 5 B C ) . T h i s n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is m a r k e d o f f b y

ring-composition,

which

c o m b i n e s a h e a d l i n e a n d c o n c l u s i o n , w h i c h contains a p r e s e n t a t i o n m a r k e r : ' T h i s was t h e f o u r t h t i m e t h a t D o r i a n s h a d c o m e into Attica'

~ ' t h u s this w a s t h e f o u r t h D o r i a n

invasion

of

Athens'. 8 2 . 1 - 8 9 . 1 : the o r i g i n o f t h e A e g i n e t a n s ' l o n g - s t a n d i n g h a t r e d o f the A t h e n i a n s (c. 7 0 0 - 5 0 0 B C ) . T h i s n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is t r i g g e r e d b y ' B u t t h e A e g i n e t a n s . . . h a d i n m i n d an ancient feud with Athens' (81.2) a n d is m a r k e d o f f b y a

ring-composition,

which

c o m b i n e s a h e a d l i n e , w h i c h contains a p r e s e n t a t i o n m a r k e r , a n d a c o n c l u s i o n , w h i c h takes t h e f o r m o f a n a r r a t o r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n : ' N o w this w a s t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e A e g i n e t a n s ' i n g e n m i t y against t h e A t h e n i a n s '

long-stand-

(82.1) = ' a n d t h e e n m i t y o f

265

NARATIVE UNITY A N D UNITS

t h e A t h e n i a n s against the Aeginetans began as I have t o l d ' (89.1). 92.(3.1—n.4: t y r a n t s r u l e C o r i n t h [c. 6 5 0 - 5 8 5 B C ) .

This actorial

analepsis is t r i g g e r e d b y ' y o u p r e p a r e t o i n t r o d u c e tyrannism i n the cities, t h e m o s t u n r i g h t e o u s a n d b l o o d y i n s t i t u t i o n t h e r e is' (92.o.l). 94.1—95.2; S i g e u m

comes u n d e r A t h e n i a n

r u l e (600 B C ) .

The

n a r r a t o r i a l analepsis is t r i g g e r e d b y ' H i p p i a s w i t h d r e w t o Sigeum'. I t is c a p p e d marker:

by

a conclusion, w h i c h contains a presentation

'thus then Sigeum

came

t o be u n d e r A t h e n i a n

rule'

(95.2). W h a t I h o p e this analysis has m a d e

clear is t h a t , yes, at first sight

H e r o d o t u s ' n a r r a t i v e , w i t h its r e p e a t e d i n t e r r u p t i o n s o f t h e story l i n e , seems t o be a m u d d l e . H o w e v e r , i f w e w o u l d place the analepses i n t h e i r c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r , the f o l l o w i n g p i c t u r e w o u l d emerge: four D o r i a n Phoenicia

invasions o f A t t i c a - - t h e G e p h y r e a n c l a n comes

to B o e o t i a to A t h e n s

the A e g i n e t a n s Accursed

and

-the o r i g i n o f the e n m i t y

the A t h e n i a n s — t h e

get t h e i r n a m e -

Cleisthenes rules S i c y o n -

Sigeum

the from

between

tyrants rule C o r i n t h - -the

comes

under

Athenian

rule -

H i p p a r c h u s has a d r e a m b e f o r e he is m u r -

d e r e d . I n o t h e r w o r d s , this w o u l d result i n the r a n d o m h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w h i c h A r i s t o t l e — d i s p a r a g i n g l y — d e s c r i b e s i n his Poetics: h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w h i c h l u m p s t o g e t h e r 'events t h a t have a m e r e l y casual r e l a t i o n t o each o t h e r ' ( 2 3 , cf. 9). W h e n w e r e t u r n t o H e r o d o t u s '

anachron-

i c a l s t r u c t u r e a n d e x a m i n e i t m o r e closely, we discover i t t o be h i g h l y effective. T h e

analepses are c l e a r l y m a r k e d off, t r i g g e r e d by a n ear-

l i e r e l e m e n t i n the t e x t , a n d are u s u a l l y r e l e v a n t t o the c o n t e x t . 4 8 I n some cases, t h e y m o t i v a t e a n a c t i o n b y characters (the h a t r e d o f the A t h e n i a n s

explains w h y

story a b o u t the t y r a n t s w h o

Aeginetans'

t h e y d o n o t help t h e m ;

r u l e d C o r i n t h is designed t o

the

dissuade

the A t h e n i a n s f r o m r e c a l l i n g H i p p i a s ; 4 9 the A t h e n i a n r u l e o f S i g e u m e x p l a i n s w h y H i p p i a s goes t h e r e i n s t e a d o f a c c e p t i n g the h o s p i t a l i t y offered to h i m i n M a c e d o n i a

18

o r Thessaly; the w h o l e analepsis

on

For a—largely convincing—analysis of 5.55-97 in these terms, see Legrand (1942) 43-9. Here 1 disagree with Legrand, who claims that the story of Gypselus' childhood has no argumentative function and is merely inserted by Herodotus here because he could find no better place and did not want to leave a good story untold ((1942) 48). For the relevance of the passage, see van der Veen (1996) 86-9. 4 9

266

IRENE J. F. DE JONG

A t h e n i a n h i s t o r y explains b o t h w h y the A t h e n i a n s are p r e p a r e d to j o i n the l o n i a n s against the Persians a n d w h y Aristagoras comes t o A t h e n s i n the first place). I n o t h e r cases, t h e y p r o v i d e the narratees w i t h b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h a m o d e r n t e x t w o u l d give i n a f o o t n o t e (the e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e n i c k n a m e ' A c c u r s e d ' , t h e f o u r i n v a sions o f the D o r i a n s ) . I n yet o t h e r cases, t h e y e n r i c h the c o n t e x t (Gleisthenes'

r e f o r m s i n C o r i n t h p r o v i d e a n i n t e r e s t i n g p a r a l l e l to

those o f Gleisthenes i n A t h e n s ; 5 0

t h e story o f H i p p a r c h u s '

dream

makes clear h o w H i p p a r c h u s chooses n o t to h e e d this w a r n i n g , a f a v o u r i t e H e r o d o t e a n m o t i f ) . 5 1 O n l y i n the case o f t h e analepsis o n the G e p h y r e a n c l a n , w h i c h is i n f a c t a vehicle f o r a section o n t h e P h o e n i c i a n a l p h a b e t , I a m f o r c e d to a d m i t t h a t I c a n find n o d i r e c t contextual relevance.02 I

c o n c l u d e t h a t , i n the hands o f H e r o d o t u s ,

teller's device o f t h e

flashback

t h e a g e - o l d story-

o r analepsis has b e c o m e a p o w e r f u l

instrument of historical n a r r a t i o n . ' 3

so j j I again disagree with Legrand, who finds the parallel superficial, introduced by Herodotus in order to make a transition to information he wanted to include ((1942) 47). Legrand's qualification of this analepsis as an 'hors-d'ceuvre' ((1942) 47) does not do justice to its relevance. For a suggestion, see Ch. 14, p. 326. I wish to thank the members of the Hellenistenclub for their comments, Mrs B. Fasting for her correction of my English, Hans van Wees for invaluable help with the- - last minute—translation of the many German quotations in my text. e r e

01

52

53

CHAPTER T W E L V E 'I D I D N ' T G I V E M Y O W N GENEALOGY': AND

THE AUTHORIAL Carolyn

HERODOTUS

PERSONA

Dewald

I n t h e course o f B o o k T w o , w h e r e

Herodotus

is s o m e w h a t

more

f o r t h c o m i n g t h a n usual a b o u t h i s o w n i n v e s t i g a t o r y p r a c t i c e s , he m e n t i o n s t h a t he r e p e a t e d t h e visit t h a t H e c a t a e u s h a d m a d e

sev-

e r a l generations e a r l i e r , t o see t h e priests l i n e d u p i n t h e i r austere r o w s i n t h e t e m p l e o f A m o n - r e a t K a r n a k (Thebes). H e c o m m e n t s t h a t H e c a t a e u s h a d t o l d t h e E g y p t i a n s t h a t he w a s t h e s i x t e e n t h g e n e r a t i o n descendant o f a g o d , a n d t h a t t h e priests i n response h a d s h o w n H e c a t a e u s 345 statues, l i n e d u p i n a r o w , o f priests descended f r o m earlier p r i e s t s — e a c h o f t h e m a piromis, E g y p t i a n f o r s o m e t h i n g like n o b l e m a n , b u t h a r d l y a g o d . T h e n H e r o d o t u s ,

i n one o f the

m o s t spontaneous m o m e n t s o f self-expression i n t h e w h o l e Histories, says, ' a n d t h e y s h o w e d t h e same t h i n g t o m e , emoi ou geneelogesanti emeouton, a l t h o u g h I d i d n ' t give m y o w n genealogy'

(2.143.1).

I n d e e d , h e does n o t . A l t h o u g h his a u t h o r i a l , first-person voice plays a p r o m i n e n t p a r t i n t h e Histories, H e r o d o t u s

does n o t tell us a n y -

t h i n g a b o u t his f a m i l y o r his e t h n i c a f f i l i a t i o n s . 1 A r m e d w i t h scraps o f ancient gossip, w e c a n choose t o i n t e r p r e t as significant o u r i m p r e s sion that H e r o d o t u s

h i m s e l f is less t h a n d a z z l e d b y m o s t o f t h e

I o n i a n s (except possibly t h e Samians),

t h a t he is interested i n a n d

respectful o f C a r i a n a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , t h a t he has a soft spot f o r t h e v a l i a n t H a l i c a r n a s s i a n q u e e n A r t e m i s i a , a n d t h a t h e c e r t a i n l y seems to k n o w

a l o t o f l o c a l details f r o m t h e area o f t h e A e g e a n coast

a r o u n d Halicarnassus.' 2 B u t he does n o t encourage us t o d r a w c o n -

1

I f Jacoby (1956) 225 is right, that Herodotus wrote 'Herodotus of Thurii' in his first sentence (Aristode's version of the proem, Rhet. 1409a), nothing in the text would make explicit that he was a Dorian from Halicarnassus. For a discussion of 2.143 in terms of Herodotus' possible dependence on Hecataeus, see Lloyd (1988a) 107-8; cf. the scepticism of West (1991) 147-51. E.g., Ionians: 1.143, 4.142, 5.69, 5.97, 6.13; Samians: 3.60, but see 6.13; Carians and Pedasa: 1.171.1, 1.175-6, 2.152, 5.118-19, 6.20, 8.104-5; Artemisia: 7.99, 8.68, 2

268

CAROLYN DEWALD

elusions from these impressions; quite the contrary, the narrator or T o f the narrative who tells the Histories tacitly situates himself as a professional outsider, someone who knows many things about many peoples, not just Greeks but barbarians as well. Although many times he interjects himself as an T into the narrative, he does so in what is at base a profoundly non-autobiographical voice that does not depict the author himself as a person with local ties and an insider's attachment to the immediate context under consideration. It is instead an early version o f the 'Expert's Persona'—a voice that owes much of its credibility to the fact that it is detached, austere, non-personal in its intellectual engagement with the material it narrates. This fact has both bad and good consequences for us. Unfortunately, it means that Herodotus leaves us guessing at much about the inception o f the genre he began that we would very much like to know. What d i d he have in m i n d to do, when he started to write? What literary antecedents or ethnic traditions shaped his attitudes to the world, and to the text he wanted to produce? I f we knew some o f these answers, we could begin to formulate answers to the more basic questions they raise i n turn: did he intend his work to be at base a constructed and thus implicitly persuasive form o f narrative, with all the (rhetorical) possibilities for invention that entails? O r was it instead his intent to produce a neutral, impartial, and, as much as possible, transparent account of past human social realities? Unlike Thucydides (1.21—2), Herodotus does not tell us. 3

4

8.87, 8.93, 8.101; Halicarnassus: 1.144, 3.7, 9.107. Cf. his references to Pedasa (above); Cnidus: 1.174; Cos: 7.163-4, 9.76; Labraunda: 5.119. On Artemisia, see also Blok, this volume (Ch. 10, pp. 240-41). For possible generic antecedents and connections for this authorial voice, see de Jong (1987) 97, and (1999) 223. 227-9, Détienne (1967) 81-143, Nagy (1990) 224-35, Calame (1995) 77-96, Fowler (1996), Boedeker (2000). For some of the fifth-century intellectual and political contexts possibly relevant to Herodotus' biography, see e.g., Forrest (1984), Raaflaub (1987), Ostwald (1991), Stadter (1992), Thomas (1993), Moles (1996). Thomas (2000) appeared after this article was largely complete; she explores what I have here called Herodotus' 'expert's persona' in the context of the intellectual presuppositions and epideictic stylistic conventions of the first sophistic and contemporary scientific debate. See also Fowler (1996) 79 n. 118 and Cartledge and Greenwood, this volume (Ch. 15). These issues continue to occupy historiographers today. For what might be entailed by a 'serious, impartial and responsible account,' see, e.g., Veyne (1971), Mink (1987), White (1978), (1987), Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob (1994), Berkhofer (1995), and the scholarly exchange about historical narrative in the journal Past and Present in 1991 and 1992 by P.Joyce, C. Kelly, L. Stone, and G. Spiegel. Berkhofer (p. 3) sums up the form of the question as it is posed in contemporary postmod3

4

s

' I D I D N ' T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

269

O n the other hand, on the positive side, i f we look closely at his persona, the presentation i n the text o f the authorial, expert T , we see elements i n it suggesting that both strategies—the Histories as an overtly constructed account, the Histories as the transmission o f relatively neutral and trustworthy information—are present and even necessarily commingled i n this first historical text. Each is necessary to the implicit narrative contract that Herodotus establishes with us, his readers, from the outset. H o w the tension between them is established and sustained—even, why it is necessary—is something we can investigate by looking at how the authorial T i n Herodotus' text works in action. T o begin at the beginning: i n the first sentence, an impersonal (unidentified) voice states that hede (a deictic, pointing to the work before us) is the apodexis ('demonstration', 'publication') o f the historic ('investigation') o f Herodotus. This initial declarative statement is immediately followed by a couple o f purpose clauses setting out the aims o f this work: the preservation and celebration o f the human past and its astounding achievements, including i n particular why Greeks and barbarians went to war with one another (1.1). What follows is not, however, what we or even Thucydides might call a conventionally historical, straightforward, and avowedly trustworthy version o f past events. Instead, the narrator (presumably Herodotus, but still unidentified i n the second sentence as an T ) sets up a division between what he knows and says i n his own voice because he knows it, and the logoi or stories o f others. First he recounts what Persian logioi or 'experts' say about the origins o f Greco-barbarian conflict i n the very distant past, concerning the abduction o f four mythic heroines, Io, Europa, Medea, and Helen, Greek women by barbarians and barbarian women by Greeks; after this, he adds an alternative, Phoenician, version o f the abduction o f Io. Only after recounting what Persian logioi and Phoenicians have said about these distant and dubious doings does he conclude his proem with its first overtly first-person statement: 3

ernist criticism: 'To what extent can historians combine the two meanings of history as actual past and modern representation when all we know of language seemingly subverts that very goal?' For Herodotus as the fashioner of a rhetoric of history, see Hartog (1980/88), and a helpful overview of the larger debate begun by Fehling (1971) in Boedeker (2000). On these terms, the deictic, and on the Proem in general, see Bakker, this volume (Ch. 1), esp. pp. 29-30. 5

270

CAROLYN D E W A L D

But I am not going to say about these matters that they occurred one way or the other, but the man I know (oidd) first began unjust deeds against the Greeks, indicating h i m I w i l l proceed farther into the logos, going alike through small and big communities of humankind. For what was before big has mostly become small, and what was big i n my time was earlier small. So knowing that human happiness never stays i n the same place, I will recount both alike.' 1 T h i s i n i t i a l n a r r a t i v e strategy has o f t e n b e e n r e a d as an i m p l i c i t reassurance to the reader t h a t here at the b e g i n n i n g o f the w o r k

the

a u t h o r is t h i n k i n g h i s t o r i c a l l y , because i t t a c i t l y declares t h a t he dismisses o l d m y t h s o f d u b i o u s value a n d i n t e n d s t o start his a c c o u n t i n s t e a d i n the spatium historicum, the t i m e i n the relatively recent past for w h i c h one c a n say o n e k n o w s things w i t h c e r t a i n t y . ' C e r t a i n l y , i f the T

o f the n a r r a t i v e h a d

of rhetorical praeterition

firmly

firmly

gone o n f r o m this first m o v e

t o a b j u r e all a n c i e n t , m y t h i c logol

a n d to i n d i c a t e t h a t the n a r r a t i v e to f o l l o w w o u l d have m a g n i t u d e , a n d comprehensiveness

accuracy,

as its goals, H e r o d o t u s '

as i t stands w o u l d be u n e x c e p t i o n a b l y

proem

h i s t o r i c a l . 8 B u t t h a t is n o t

w h a t he does, e i t h e r i n t h e o r y o r i n p r a c t i c e . W h a t seems to m a k e the Persian

and Phoenician

stories suspect i n c o n t e x t is n o t t h e i r

e x t r e m e a n t i q u i t y , the oddness o f t h e i r causal e x p l a n a t i o n s , o r t h e i r d u b i o u s h i s t o r i c a l status as r a t i o n a l i z e d m y t h s . W h a t

the n a r r a t i v e

h i g h l i g h t s b y l a b e l l i n g t h e m v a r i a n t versions o f the same story, w i t h the (unspoken) G r e e k m y t h s l o o m i n g f a i n t l y visible b e h i n d t h e m , is r a t h e r t h a t they are o v e r t l y b o t h p a r t i a l a n d p a r t i s a n : Persians

tell

a v e r s i o n o f the d i s t a n t past designed to e x o n e r a t e Persians f r o m the responsibility for b e g i n n i n g the e n m i t y between Phoenicians a d d o n l y a d e t a i l t h a t exonerates Thus what

emerges

Fiast a n d

West;

Phoenicians."

as t h e first n a r r a t i v e m o v e i n

Herodotus'

Histories is less the a r t i c u l a t i o n o f a c o n v e n t i o n a l l y ' h i s t o r i c a l ' t i m e

6

1.5; translations of Herodotus throughout this chapter are my own. Von Leyden (1949-50) 95 cites Jacoby (1956) 99 for this idea; cf. Dewald (1999) 229 n. 16 and Marincola (1999) 285 n. 13. See also Boedeker, this volume (Ch. 5 n. 43) as well as Raaflaub (Ch. 7, n. 36), Cobet (Ch. 17, n. 55), and Osborne (Ch. 22). Berkhofer (1995) 50-1 cites Cronon's (1992) 1371 list: depth, breadth, elegance, inclusiveness, coherence, and, most important, accuracy. Cf. what Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob (1994) 247—61 call the objectivity of a 'practical realism'. Moreover, Herodotus begins his next narrative not with Croesus himself but with another romantic story from the distant past, this time about Croesus' distant ancestor Gyges. The narratological implications are developed more fully in Dewald (1999) 224-33; cf. Fowler (1996) 84-6 for the possibility that Herodotus was reporting real sources. 7

8

9

271

' I D I D N ' T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

or subject matter than the creation o f an initial binary division between two different voices. The first is the narrator himself, someone who knows things and in (re)telling stories tacitly notes but stands apart from partisanship. Also present, constituting a second and quite different kind of voice, is the series o f tacitly focalized logoi of his informants, retold by Herodotus i n all their vivid and perhaps partisan particularity. Even as he retells the stories from the distant past told by foreign experts, the first move o f Herodotus as the authorial T o f the text indicates to us that he will not necessarily believe that such logoi tell the truth, because they are quite likely to be tendentious and self-serving. This is a rhetorical stance implicitly sustained throughout the narrative to come. Herodotus will go to some lengths to tell the best version possible o f the logoi he has heard (or read; he does not distinguish the two), but he will not abandon the initial rhetorical distinction drawn between his own voice and that o f the material he retells from others." This strong demarcation o f his own voice as qualitatively different from what he has got from others lay behind my decision, i n the mid-1980s, to investigate the authorial T in Herodotus. I began by trying to see the range o f the expressions Herodotus uses to articulate his own authorial presence i n the narrative, cataloguing 1,086 first-person comments according to four different ways i n which I saw Herodotus interacting with his material: as a bystander, as a investigator, as a critic, and as a narrator. The basic image I used in 1987 was o f Herodotus as a Menelaus-like figure struggling with the 'Protean' logoi, forcing them to reveal what truths they contained. The four ways i n which he engaged with the logoi I discussed as four different kinds o f handholds used to subdue the logoi to his will. This approach still has something to recommend it, especially i n its recognition o f the sharp distinction that Herodotus often makes separating his own voice from that o f his sources, and the variety of different 10

12

111

Dewald (1999) 229-33 discusses the difficulty of knowing in any passage precisely where the voice of Herodotus as narrator gives way to the localization of a narrated logos. See Lateiner (1989) 101-2 for Herodotus' (possible) written sources and West (1985) for his use of epigraphy; for his own statements about writing, see Hartog (1988) 277-89 and Edmunds (1993) 835 (comparing him to Thucydides). De Jong (1999) points out that, although writing is referred to (e.g., 2.123), most of Herodotus' comments as a narrator are those of 'un narrateur qui parle plutôt qu'un narrateur qui écrit'. Dewald (1987) 147-70. 11

12

272

CAROLYN D E W A L D

j u d g m e n t s he makes as a n a u t h o r i a l p e r s o n a i n the text.

However,

i t n o l o n g e r seems to m e adequately to s u m u p H e r o d o t u s ' engagem e n t as a n T

w i t h his t e x t , precisely because i t takes at face value

the b i n a r y division between n a r r a t o r a n d n a r r a t e d logoi that H e r o d o t u s as n a r r a t o r o f t e n insists u p o n . " B u t i f one i n s t e a d b r o a d e n s the n o t i o n o f a u t h o r i a l presence t o i n c l u d e n o t o n l y the o v e r t

first-person

p r o n o u n s a n d verbs b u t also

all o f the places w h e r e the a u t h o r i a l T

is effectively present as a

tacit register o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r w h a t is b e i n g r e c o u n t e d , as n a r r a t o l o g y has t a u g h t us n o w to d o , the p i c t u r e one f o r m s o f H e r o d o t u s ' a u t h o r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s is m o r e c o m p l e x t h a n this i n i t i a l b i n a r y s e p a r a t i o n i n t o n a r r a t o r a n d f o c a l i z e d logoi suggests. 1 4

For

a l t h o u g h H e r o d o t u s goes t o c o n s i d e r a b l e pains to establish t h e i d e a t h a t the text s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d l y alternates b e t w e e n his o w n v o i c e a n d j u d g m e n t a n d t h e n a r r a t i o n o f stories he has h e a r d , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a d i f f e r e n t a n d m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d set o f n a r r a t i v e relations b e t w e e n a u t h o r a n d t e x t is also present. I f w e l o o k closely, H e r o d o t u s engages w i t h t h e text n o t o n l y as a n a r r a t o r a n d c r i t i c o f t h e logoi o f o t h e r s , b u t also as a n a u t h o r , c o n s t r u c t i n g a n a r r a t i v e o f his o w n o f a n e w a n d different k i n d . I n this chapter I w i l l (at the risk o f some a n a c h r o n ism) reserve the use o f t h e t e r m histor f o r this second k i n d o f a u t h o r i a l e n g a g e m e n t as a n T B o t h registers, the T

i n the text.13 o f t h e n a r r a t o r a n d the ' I ' o f the histor, are

c r u c i a l to t h e w a y t h e genre o f h i s t o r y itself l a t e r develops, a l t h o u g h

13

It is much clearer to me now than it was a decade ago that this material is highly labile and will order itself in any number of different legitimate configurations, depending on the scholarly questions uppermost in the investigator's mind. Other important studies of Herodotus' authorial first person include Hartog (1980), DarboPeschanski (1987), Lateiner (1989), Marincola (1987) and (1999), Fowler (1996), de Jong (1999), Thomas (2000), and Munson (2001). For some of the more important narratological studies, including in particular those analysing ancient historical narratives, see Dewald (1999) 223 n. 4. Calame (1995) 78 96, Bakker (1997d), Gribble (1998), and de Jong (1999) should be added to the list of authors cited there. In Dewald (1987) 153 I used the term histor to signify the whole of Herodotus' authorial persona. I use it here more narrowly, to signify the register of the authorial voice that conveys and tests information about the world; this is the part of Herodotus' authorial ' I ' that Thucydides and other historians after him will adopt as the basis of their own authorial personas as historians (cf. n. 28 below). Cf. Evans (1990) 94-5, who doubts the usefulness of the term histor altogether, but see also Nagy (1990) 250-73, Connor (1993) 3 n. 5, and Darbo-Peschanski (1995) 179-81. The term is technically anachronistic for Herodotus, but useful in that it points toward (but is not identical to) the later more developed persona of the 'historian'. Further discussion of histor in Bakker, this volume (Ch. 1, pp. 14-16). 14

15

' I D I D N ' T GIVE MY O W N GENEALOGY'

273

i n quite different ways. Both establish quite far-reaching interpretive connections within the ongoing text o f the Histories, affecting our readerly understanding o f the third-person narrative, and together they anticipate the epistemological and ethical complexities raised by the status o f history as a human science discussed above. As we have already seen in considering the Histories' proem, the narrator's initial T on the one hand articulates the narrative structure to come as a binary one: material initially received from others is told and to a certain extent arranged and critiqued by Herodotus himself. The histor's ' 1 , ' however, engages us as readers with a quite different set o f concerns: it criticizes bits o f information as data, but it also communicates, supplements, and ultimately interprets the narrated content o f the logoi as a responsible, straightforward, and ongoingrepresentation o f ta anthropeia pregmata, the human world (2.4.1). When Herodotus uses this second authorial register, he treats the contents of the Histories not as a set o f stories drawn from a variety o f different and contestable sources, but rather as parts o f a continuous narrative that has become in effect Herodotus' own account o f a real, lived human past. The two modes or authorial registers overlap to some degree, of course, but they are also fairly easy to distinguish from each other conceptually. Herodotus asks us as readers to attend simultaneously to both registers: to confront the contents o f the Histories as narrated logoi taken from outside sources, arranged and critiqued by Herodotus himself, but at the same time to read the text as a whole as his own ongoing, seriously investigated account o f the cultures and events that produced the Persian Wars. Here we shall briefly explore each register o f the authorial T i n turn (for the sake o f simplicity I will call them two voices, narrator and histor) and then attempt to put them back together, acknowledging that, after all, the same ' I ' speaks for them both. As we shall see, paradoxically it is the voice o f the narrator, overtly distancing himself from the logoi he has gathered, that makes possible the responsible authority o f the histor, it is the histor's voice, on the other hand, that makes us see the narrator's efforts as ultimately more than mere entertainment, because the logoi he retells also become, within the ongoing framework established by the histor, important data that together comprise an ongoing account about real human communities told by Herodotus himself.

274

CAROLYN

DEWALD

Herodotus as .Narrator: Managing the Logoi Herodotus' basic move as a first-person presence i n his text is to articulate for the reader the rudiments o f how he sees his role as a narrator o f logoi gathered from others. I n hundreds o f metanarrative statements scattered throughout the Histories he confirms what we have already gathered from the proem, that he has heard many logoi from others and that he is i n charge o f deciding which logoi to include and how to retell them. A n almost random sample drawn from all nine books gives some idea of the range o f expressions that affirm one or both o f these functions: ' [n] ow as some of the Persians say, those not wanting to glorify the Cyrus account but to tell the real story, this is the version I will write, although I also know how to say three other paths o f story concerning Cyrus' (1.95); 'but o f the other Heracles, w h o m the Greeks know, I was unable to hear anywhere from an Egyptian' (2.43.1); 'but this logos too is told, to me not trustworthy, that some one o f the Persian women came visiting the wives o f C y r u s . . .' (3.3); '[t]he vision o f the dream of Hipparchus and the origins o f the Gephuraei, the family o f the slayers o f Hipparchus, have been told by me. But it is necessary in addition to these things still to return to the logos I set out to tell at the outset, how the Athenians were freed from tyranny' (5.62); ' I write according to what the rest o f the Greeks say' (6.53); 'although I have to say what is said, I am not at all obliged to believe it, and this declaration on my part is to hold for the whole narrative (es panta logon)' (7.152.3), ' [ h ] o w Artabazus was aided by Timoxenus the Scionian g e n e r a l . . . I can't say (for it is not reported), but finally such things happened' (8.128). Such comments indicate how Herodotus wants us to understand his own fundamental function i n the text: he retells logoi he has heard. He acknowledges the existence o f sources and both their strengths and their limitations as purveyors o f information throughout the text, although admittedly on a sporadic basis (e.g., 1.214.5, 4.16.2, 8.135.1, 9.16.1). He also informs us i n passing about various kinds o f editorial control he exerts upon what he recounts. He tells us that he chooses to end one logos and begin another, he cuts 16

lb

Fowler (1996) 77 suggests that the citation of sources may be an innovation of Herodotus' own, judging from the surviving fragments of other early writers like Hecataeus, Acusilaus, and Pherecydes.

1 DIDN'T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY

275

logoi short, or lengthens them, sometimes telling us why (2.117, 2.135.6, 3.60.1, 4.14.1, 7.100). He briefly and usually quite generally judges the quality of what he retells as information, sometimes stating that something must be said or, on the contrary, can be bypassed (2.86.2, 5.62.1, 7.96.1, 7.187, 8.85.3). He includes variant versions of the same story (3.9.2, 4.11.1, 8.119, 9.74), and acknowledges cross-references, places in his text where something being narrated is relevant to an earlier or later passage (2.161.3, 5.36, 9.32.2), or states that he is returning to an earlier topic (4.82, 5.62, 7.137, 7.171). ' Occasionally he views the logoi he retells as having a m i n d of their own, that heads the ongoing narrative off in a particular direction (1.95, 4.30). However, he pointedly omits heuresis, invention, from this repertoire o f narrative moves but rather emphasizes again and again that what follows has been told to h i m by others (9.84). He expresses this idea not only in the overt first-person comments, but also through other, less obtrusive metanarrative expressions as well. There is an enormous additional amount of metanarrative comment spread throughout all nine books that is not explicitly added by the first-person narrator per se, but nonetheless confirms and extends the idea that his principal function is to act as a hearer and reteller of the logoi o f others. 200 times a narrative segment begins or is allowed to continue by the simple expedient o f announcing that someone says something ('the Athenians say . . .', 'the Corinthians say . . .', 'the Ammonians say . . .', 'the Carthaginians say . . .'). Another 111 times the passive legetai, 'it is said' is similarly used, generally to extend or amplify an ongoing narrative. Each time this metanarrative move occurs, the reader has again tacitly encountered Herodotus as narrator, although here in a self-effacing mode, implicitly reminding us that he retells logoi gathered from elsewhere. 1

18

For the future of the genre he begins, it is important to see that this is not just a move exonerating Herodotus from responsibility (although this is apparently how Plutarch later reads it i n the de Herodoti malignitate, Mor. 856c). For Herodotus makes clear his belief

" Alternate or variant versions of the same account often involve the authorial voice as a narrator of logoi but simultaneously as a histdr assessing (logoi as) data as well; cf. n. 25 below and esp. Lateiner (1989) 82-90. Thus de Jong (1999) 220-3 describes this narrator as heterodiegetic (following the terminology of Genette and Bal). Cf. Dcwald (1999) 224 n. 7. See also Ch. 11 of this volume. On the question of sources, see also Hornblower (Ch. 16), this volume. 18

276

CAROLYN DEWALD

t h a t there are l i m i t s to w h a t he c a n say, l i m i t s t h a t the logoi t h e m selves define. T h a t is, the logoi o f others t h a t p r o v i d e the basic n a r r a t i v e c o n t e n t o f the Histories are p r e s e n t e d b y t h e i r n a r r a t o r - a u t h o r , Herodotus,

as things o u t i n the w o r l d . T o

use B a k h t i n ' s t e r m , this

is a p r o f o u n d l y d i a l o g i c m o v e : i t makes c e n t r a l t o the Histories the otherness o f H e r o d o t u s '

m u l t i p l e i n f o r m a n t s as voices he has listened

to a n d is t r a n s m i t t i n g i n t u r n to us. I n H e r o d o t u s '

n a r r a t i v e w e are

a p p a r e n t l y e n c o u n t e r i n g the p o l y v o c a l i s m o f the w o r l d itself. 1 '' T h e s e r a t h e r simple r h e t o r i c a l m o v e s r e p e a t e d l y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the n a r r a t o r f r o m w h a t he claims to r e t e l l also c u m u l a t i v e l y a r t i c u l a t e h o w H e r o d o t u s w a n t s us as readers t o perceive the Histories' f u n d a m e n t a l n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e . As

Immerwahr

s h o w e d us almost

years ago, the Histories is o v e r t l y a r t i c u l a t e d as a c o n t i n u o u s

forty parat-

actic sequence o f n a r r a t i v e u n i t s , each i n t r o d u c e d a n d c o n c l u d e d b y a quasi-formular

sentence whose

c h i e f f u n c t i o n is to m a r k t h a t

a

n e w u n i t (or s u b - u n i t w i t h i n a u n i t ) is b e g i n n i n g o r e n d i n g ; R o s a r i a M u n s o n has d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t e a c h n a r r a t i v e u n i t contains a f o r m u l a i c i n t r o d u c t o r y o r c o n c l u d i n g sentence t h a t acts as a

metanar-

r a t i v e gloss r e c o n f i r m i n g the b i n a r y d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n the voice

of

the n a r r a t o r a n d t h a t o f the logoi t h a t w e have b e e n e x p l o r i n g h e r e . 2 0 By

announcing

to us t h a t yet a n o t h e r

n a r r a t i v e segment

is e i t h e r

b e g i n n i n g o r e n d i n g , the f o r m u l a r i n t r o d u c t o r y a n d c o n c l u d i n g sentences o f the v a r i o u s n a r r a t i v e u n i t s also t a c i t l y c o n f i r m the presence o f H e r o d o t u s as a h e l p f u l guide to the o n g o i n g chain o f narratives he retells. H e i n t r u d e s at the e n d o f one segment a n d the b e g i n n i n g o f the n e x t w i t h c o m m e n t s to help us as readers to m a k e sense

of

w h a t w e r e a d , as w e p r o c e e d a l o n g the logon hodos (1.95.1), a n d t o trust t h a t there is a discursive shape i n w h a t m i g h t otherwise be a p u z z l i n g , a m o r p h o u s j u m b l e o f disparate stories. T h u s the n a r r a t o r ' s T

has t w o i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n s . First, i t allows

the n o t i o n to emerge o f the logoi o f others as objects, themselves p a r t

19

Dewald (1999) 247. For the importance of this move to the invention of history as a genre, see Meier's (1987) 45 description of the Histories as a 'multi-subjective account'. Cf. Berkhofer (1995) 28-31, 36-40 on the related problem of 'reconstructing the plenitude of the Great Story'. On 'dialogism' in Herodotus' historié, see also Bakker, this volume (Ch. 1, p. 18). Immerwahr (1966); Munson (1983) and (2001). See also de Jong (Ch. 11, this volume). Herodotus, however, rarely specifies that the logoi demarcated by formular beginning and ending sentences are precisely the same thing as the logoi he has heard from others and is narrating in his text. Presumably the nature of logos itself, in an oral world, discourages clear attribution of ownership. See also n. 10 above. 20

277

' I DIDN'T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

o f the p h e n o m e n a l w o r l d , t h a t c a n be r e t o l d b u t also e x a m i n e d

and

c o m m e n t e d u p o n as objects w o r t h y o f a t t e n t i o n . S e c o n d , i t p r o v i d e s us w i t h a w a y t o u n d e r s t a n d the w i l d l y heterogeneous

collection of

m a t e r i a l i n t h e Histories as a r o u g h l y s e q u e n t i a l c h a i n o f c o n t i n u o u s logoi, a r r a n g e d f o r us b y H e r o d o t u s h i m s e l f , b u t n o t i n v e n t e d b y h i m .

Herodotus as H i s t 5 r : Representation of Data Herodotus'

voice as a histm- has a f u n c t i o n i n the t e x t q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

f r o m t h a t o f t h e n a r r a t o r . I n 1987 ial T

I d i v i d e d t h e cluster o f a u t h o r -

c o m m e n t s I a m n o w c a l l i n g t h e histor i n t o t h r e e separate

and

d i s t i n c t categories (the i n v e s t i g a t o r , the c r i t i c , the b y s t a n d e r ) ; n a r r a t o l o g i c a l tools i n w i d e use t o d a y , h o w e v e r ,

h e l p us see a l l o f these

f u n c t i o n s i n s t e a d as i n t e r l i n k e d a n d m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t

parts o f a

single a u t h o r i a l register o r v o i c e . W h e n he uses i t , H e r o d o t u s

is n o t

a c t i n g as a n a r r a t o r , t h a t is, a r r a n g e r , c r i t i c , a n d reteller o f logoi o t h ers have g i v e n h i m , b u t is r a t h e r a h e l p f u l assessor/expositor o f facts a b o u t the w o r l d t h a t , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e logoi he retells, g r i d f o r the reader the p h e n o m e n a t h a t are b e i n g d e s c r i b e d i n the o n g o i n g n a r r a t i v e as d i f f e r e n t aspects o f a single i n t e r l o c k i n g w h o l e . 2 1 At

its simplest, this is a p e r s o n a t h a t is w e l l k n o w n i n the genre

o f o r a l storytelling. T o cite a c o n t e m p o r a r y e x a m p l e , R i c h a r d B a u m a n , the A m e r i c a n

ethnographer

a n d f o l k l o r i s t , describes t h e

extensive

changes t h a t o c c u r r e d i n one w e l l k n o w n A m e r i c a n story-teller's p e r f o r m a n c e s b e t w e e n 1967 a n d 1 9 8 2 . 2 2 D u r i n g this t i m e the story-teller i n question, Ed

B e l l , c o n t i n u e d t o tell t h e l o c a l l y - b a s e d t a l l tales he

h a d i n i t i a l l y t o l d t o his clients a n d n e i g h b o u r s at his

fishing

camp

at I n d i a n o l a , b u t i n the l a t e r versions t e l l i n g t h e m at substantially g r e a t e r l e n g t h . W h e n B a u m a n c a u g h t u p w i t h h i m after m o r e t h a n fifteen

years as a n o t e d p e r f o r m e r at u r b a n f o l k festivals, a n d f o u n d

t h e stories m u c h

longer t h a n they

had

originally been,

e x p l a i n e d , ' j c f j o w n o n the coast, e v e r y b o d y

Ed

Bell

k n e w a l l this stuff, so I

d i d n ' t h a v e t o describe i t i n d e t a i l . I go i n t o m o r e d e t a i l , n o w ,

21

to

Good descriptions of this integrating authorial imagination are found in Immerwahr (1966) 306 26; Hartog (1988) 341-60; Gould (1989). Bauman (1986) 78 I l l , esp. 103. See also Städter (1997) 7, who very suggestively compares the Jack tales of the North Carolina oral narrative tradition to Herodotus' 'pan-Hellenic account which could speak to a variety of persons'. 22

278

CAROLYN D E W A L D

be sure'. Bauman consequently entitled one o f his chapters, describing a narratorial mode much like a simplified form of Herodotus' histofs persona, ' I go into more detail now, to be sure.' Stripped to its essentials, this voice can be characterized as one of helpful supplementation of the narrative, fleshing it out, making it more comprehensible to the reader. Herodotus' quasi-autobiographical comments about his own efforts as an investigator provide his most explicitly personal and engaged expressions as a histor. I n Book T w o especially, Herodotus presents himself i n his own text almost as an actor, certainly as the initiator, guide, and discoverer o f information. He expressly tells us in 2.99 that his general procedure is to rely on sight (apsis), reasoning (gnome) and inquiry (historié). As John Marincola comments, in Book T w o , '[h]e has gone to great pains to find the sources o f the Nile (2.19), checked to see i f the various reports o f priests agree with one another (2.3), asked about the origin of the god Heracles (2.44) and heard from the priests themselves of the antiquity o f Egypt and her rulers (2.99). I n Book T w o Herodotus explicitly states and places before our eyes his participation i n the process o f inquiry. The impression of a conversation is at times further achieved by the quotation o f long passages o f the stories o f the priests in indirect discourse'. 23

Marincola argues that this very personal, assertive, quasi-autobiographical persona is heavily polemical, often or even usually in evidence where Herodotus is correcting or improving a specific prior account. T h a t may well be right; it is certainly true that this particular version o f the investigating, supplemental histoYs voice occurs most frequently i n Book T w o , where Herodotus seems frequently to abandon structuring his account as a sequence o f logoi, providing instead his own enormous ethnographic survey of the land, flora, fauna, and customs o f the Egyptians. I would add only to Marincola's observations about the controversial, combative flavour o f Herodotus' quasi-autobiographical investigatory observations that there is also something o f an air o f paradox about many of them. Frequently Herodotus says that he himself went somewhere, or saw something, in order to provide us the assurance that something odd or unexpected is nonetheless to be taken seriously, because he himself has

23

Marincola (1987) 127-8; see also Fornara (1971a) 18-23, Dewald (1987) 155-9, and n. 25 below.

279

' I DIDN'T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

seen it. Sometimes opsis and interview are used together to destroy an inadequate set o f previous assumptions, without themselves generating a correct answer i n its place (2.131, 2.143). The quasi-autobiographical T that appears i n the early parts of Book T w o is often found linked w i t h a second and much more pervasive aspect o f Herodotus' voice as a histor- -one i n which he discusses data and arguments critically. O f all the kinds o f authorial intervention we are looking at here, this one is closest to and perhaps even responsible for the later development o f the generically conventional historian's persona: the investigator who tests data before including it i n his or her own historical account. We should note that this part o f Herodotus' authorial voice, the critical histor, often cannot be completely separated from his voice as a narrator, editing and assessing logoi. The critical histor, however, emphasizes facts and arguments about data rather than his own engagement in the reporting and assessing o f logoi, and the construction o f his own account out of logoif 24

1

A t least superficially, Herodotus' critical comments about the truth or likelihood o f some phenomenon provide an authorial rhetoric of assurance, authority, and control over data. O n a handful of occasions he says he knows something. But much more common than expressions o f certainty are various forms o f opinion, ranging from qualified belief to outright disbelief. As a histor Herodotus does not assess or argue the probability o f large stretches of narrative (as we have seen, these he fundamentally defines as material he is reporting, and he controls them as a narrator), but he does speculate about and provisionally judge individual details: the Persian conspirators really did debate establishing a democratic government (3.80.1, 6.43.3), a silver bowl at Delphi might well have been made by Theodoras (1.51), Scyllias probably did not swim to Artemisium (8.8.2); Anacharsis definitely did not praise the moderation of Spartan speech (4.77). M a n y o f the longer discussions o f this type occur i n Books T w o and Four and concern details of natural history or ethnography. Beyond Book Four, he more frequently questions the motive an individual

2 4

Dcwald (1987) 158. Cf. Dewald (1993) 59, 67-70. See Lateiner (1989) 78-90 for Herodotean source criticism. When undertaking 'source criticism' Herodotus is often expressing himself as both narrator and histor simultaneously. See Fowler (1996) 80 6 for a good assessment of Fehling's (1989) analysis of Herodotus' sources and source criticism as largely invented. See also Hornblower, this volume (Ch. 16). 23

280

CAROLYN DEWALD

m i g h t have h a d t o d o s o m e t h i n g , t h e c o r r e c t c a l c u l a t i o n o f n u m bers, o r m a t t e r s o f r e l i g i o n o r g n o m i c j u d g m e n t . 2 6 B o t h D o n a l d L a t e i n e r a n d C a t h e r i n e D a r b o - P e s c h a n s k i have s t u d i e d the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this aspect o f H e r o d o t u s ' a u t h o r i a l T

i n some

d e t a i l , b u t t h e y place d i f f e r e n t emphases o n w h a t t h e y have seen. L a t e i n e r has c o n s i d e r e d i n p a r t i c u l a r the passages w h e r e H e r o d o t u s says he c a n n o t ascertain s o m e t h i n g , o r has to c o n j e c t u r e because h a r d d a t a was m i s s i n g , o r is d i s i n c l i n e d t o treat s o m e t h i n g t r i v i a l o r o f a religious n a t u r e . A s we have seen, he also focuses o n a l t e r n a tive versions o f t h e same story, i n p a r t i c u l a r w h e r e H e r o d o t u s discusses the v a l i d i t y o f v a r i o u s sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n , some o f t h e m probably w r i t t e n . 2 ' For

L a t e i n e r , such statements m a k e

Herodotus

t h e q u i n t e s s e n t i a l h i s t o r i a n , because t h e y p r o v i d e t h e e t h i c a l reassurance t h a t allows the r e a d e r to trust t h a t w h a t has b e e n n a r r a t e d was a r r i v e d at b y serious, sober research a n d n o t d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n o r novelistic flights o f f a n c y . 2 8 Catherine Darbo-Peschanski,

o n the other h a n d , builds o n the

w o r k o f H a r t o g b u t expands the scope o f his structuralist i n q u i r y i n t o H e r o d o t u s ' l a n g u a g e b y i n t e r p r e t i n g i t as the language o f a q u a s i - p h i l o s o p h i c a l , even sophistic, r h e t o r i c . She uses v i r t u a l l y t h e same m a t e r i a l as L a t e i n e r t o emphasize t h a t w i t h his c r i t i c a l c o m m e n t s as a histor H e r o d o t u s is d e s i g n i n g a p e r s o n a t h a t eschews cert i t u d e as s o m e t h i n g n o t available i n the h u m a n w o r l d . She discusses h o w H e r o d o t u s uses a r g u m e n t s f r o m signs, a r g u m e n t s f r o m a n a l o g y , a n d d e d u c t i v e a r g u m e n t s f r o m h y p o t h e t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s t o get a t w h a t is, i n his o p i n i o n , m o s t l i k e l y i n a n y g i v e n i n s t a n c e . 2 9 B u t she

26

Lateiner (1989) 55-75. Cf. Verdin (1971), Weber (1976), Strasburger (1982a) 838-81, Packman (1991) 359-408, Thomas (1997) and (2000) 168-212. Connor (1993) 9 argues that Herodotus' critical authorial role is comparable to that of the archaic histor or legal arbitrator. For statements of knowledge, see Lateiner (1989) 71. Cf. Darbo-Peschanski (1987) 165-84, Dewald (1989) 160-1. Lateiner (1989) 69 75; cf. n. 17 above. 'For historians the ethical core of their professional commitment has always been a belief that their arduous, often tedious labour yields some authentic knowledge of the dead "other", a knowledge admittedly shaped by the historian's own perceptions and biases, but nonetheless retaining a degree of autonomy, in the sense that it cannot (putatively) be made entirely to bend to the historian's will,' Spiegel (1992) 196. Cf. Berkhofer (1995) 66-70, but see also Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob (1994) 254-61. For the importance of the historian's character in the ancient world, see Marincola (1997) 128-74. Darbo-Peschanski (1987) 137-53; the category of 'refutations' is also interesting in this context, p. 154. 27

28

29

281

' I DIDN'T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

stresses t h a t this l a t t e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n is c r u c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t . T h a t is, H e r o d o t u s constructs a n a r r a t i v e i n w h i c h his c o n c l u s i o n w i l l r e m a i n , in

each p a r t i c u l a r passage,

one,

moreover,

t h a t holds o n l y f o r t h e i m m e d i a t e discussion at h a n d . N o

individual

argument

is e x t e n d e d

Thucydides

o n l y his o p i n i o n — a n d

to become

more

broadly

applicable,

c l a i m s w i l l be the case f o r his o w n t h o u g h t

Herodotus

as

processes.

refuses a u n i v e r s a l system o f r e a s o n i n g , a p p l i c a b l e i n a l l

cases, a n d , m o r e b r o a d l y , he r e n o u n c e s , i n his c r i t i c a l p e r s o n a as a histor, a h o l d o n t r u t h , a n c h o r i n g his w o r k i n s t e a d i n t h e ' r e a l m o f opinion'.30 So f a r , w e have c o n s i d e r e d t w o o f H e r o d o t u s ' o f data,

stances as a histor

those I e a r l i e r l a b e l l e d ' i n v e s t i g a t o r ' a n d

Peschanski's

take o n the histor's c o m m e n t s

'critic'.

t h i n k i n i n t e r e s t i n g ways a b o u t a t h i r d a n d m o r e a m o r p h o u s of

first-person

Darbo-

as a c r i t i c allows us t o group

a u t h o r i a l c o m m e n t s , those w h e r e he reacts as a n i n t e r -

ested a n d v a g u e l y responsive b y s t a n d e r t o s o m e t h i n g t h e t h i r d - p e r son n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t s . I f D a r b o - P e s c h a n s k i is r i g h t , a n d comments

as a histor o f d a t a are n o t m e a n t

Herodotus'

p r i m a r i l y t o increase

a c c u r a c y a n d p r e c i s i o n , a n d hence o u r t r u s t i n the f a c t u a l t r u t h

of

w h a t he r e c o u n t s , b u t r a t h e r to r e m i n d us t h a t he is p u t t i n g his o w n j u d g m e n t o u t es meson, a l o n g w i t h those o f his i n f o r m a n t s a n d his readers, t h e n this g r o u p o f r e l a t i v e l y u n o b t r u s i v e c o m m e n t s ,

respon-

sive r a t h e r t h a n c r i t i c a l , are some o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f a l l ; t h e y serve t o a n c h o r H e r o d o t u s '

first-person

generalized a n d modest alert-

ness as a histor f a r d o w n w i t h i n t h e f a b r i c o f t h e o n g o i n g n a r r a t e d text. F o u r groups o f spontaneous a u t h o r i a l c o m m e n t o c c u r w i t h some frequency:

ton hemeis iclmen w i t h a c o r r e l a t i v e o r s u p e r l a t i v e , es erne,

statements o f w o n d e r , Herodotus

a n d statements o f praise a n d b l a m e . 3 1

uses a c o r r e l a t i v e o r a superlative w i t h ton hemeis idmen

i n o r d e r t o say t h a t s o m e t h i n g is e x t r a o r d i n a r y , the first o r best o r m o s t e x t r e m e i n some w a y : Croesus is 'the first b a r b a r i a n o f w h o m we know'

to subdue

G r e e k cities (1.5); t h e E t h i o p i a n

Troglodytes,

whose language sounds like the squeak o f a b a t , are the fastest m e n

3 0

Darbo-Peschanski (1987) 164 88, esp. 184-8. Thomas (1993, 2000) stresses the similarities between Herodotus and the early Hippocratic writers and suggests that their eristic discourse represented the way serious scientific inquiry worked in the fifth century BC. To the bibliography in Dewald (1987) 155 nn. 20-1 add Hartog (1988) 230-7, Redfield (1985), Bloomer (1993) 30 50 (on superlatives), Rosier (1991), Thomas (2000) 138-53. 31

282

CAROLYN D E W A L D

in the world 'of w h o m we have heard by report' (4.183); Themistocles was the only man ' o f w h o m we know' to receive an honorary escort from the Spartans (8.124); the crocodile of all animals we know o f grows from the smallest beginnings into the largest size (2.68.2). Such comments, although relatively insignificant individually, have a cumulative effect that is important. They again show that the authorial judgment i n play is one that is secular and social, not obtained as part of an unshakable tradition or by divine fiat. These superlatives express i n an abbreviated form the diffidence that Herodotus insists on as a critic, in passages like 2.34, 4.192, or 4.197: 'to the greatest extent to which we in our investigations have been able to come'. The same points can be made o f his expressions o f praise and blame, wonder, and 'to my time'. Praise and blame are, as Plutarch later complains, liberally bestowed on people for their actions i n the Histories, but in the context o f the ongoing narrative, not usually in Herodotus' own voice as a histor}' When Herodotus overtly praises or blames something in the narrative i n his own voice, it almost always concerns an intellectual accomplishment. Twelve of the fifteen most striking instances o f praise concern intellectual or cultural achievement: particularly worthy laws, Egyptian judgment, Scythian cleverness i n their modes of self-defence. Sixteen of the eighteen overt instances o f authorial blame also concern an intellectual or cultural exploit: the Lacedaemonians are w r o n g to claim the bowl inscribed for them at Delphi (1.51). Ionians think inaccurately about Egypt (2.16), or want to become known for their cleverness (2.20, 24); the Greeks tell a silly logos about Heracles (2.45), an inaccurate one about Rhodopis (2.134) and about. Polycrates (3.45). Herodotus laughs outright at the absurd efforts o f map makers (4.36). 1

Herodotus promises i n his proem to report things that are thometsta, wonderful. He uses expressions o f wonder to discuss things he himself believes exceptional; he justifies the length o f his accounts o f Egypt and Polycrates' Samos by pointing to the numbers o f wonders these countries contain (2.35, 3.60); he notes the absence of wonders worth mentioning in Lydia and Scythia (1.93, 4.82). Wonder itself, however, includes a variety o f different authorial attitudes within

32

Plutarch, Mm. 856c-863; see Marincola (1994) 201-3. Thomas (2000) 242 8 rightly stresses that when one does not look specifically for the first person, but rather for the authorial register of the histor, his polemical reach becomes much more extensive and combative in a way that resembles early Hippocratic texts.

283

' I DIDN'T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY

it; Herodotus wonders at spectacular achievements, at things he considers real but probably cannot explain, at portents and other supernatural manifestations, and, finally, at reports or logoi that he flatly disbelieves. Finally, over one hundred times Herodotus remarks that some phenomenon mentioned in the narrative survives ep'eme or es erne, 'to my own day', or that something exists nun, now. His mentions of his own time both connect Herodotus' own narrative present, the present o f the onlooker, to the past that forms the subject matter of the Histories, and sharply distinguish it as separate. Traces o f the past continue to exist i n the present: statues, tombs, temples, temple dedications, forts, and roads survive to Herodotus' own day, giving implicit testimony about the reality of the past events i n which they were created. Similarly, festivals, habits of dress, and details o f sacrifice, tribute, law, language, and culture survive i n the present as the ritualized or formalized commemoration o f some event i n the past that gave them b i r t h . But Herodotus also recognizes that such traces of the past i n the present can prove deceptive: the lurid story of paternal rape told of Mycerinus, king o f Egypt, was the work o f phluereontes, babblers, because the statues lacking hands that were supposedly evidence o f this ancient monstrosity were still to be seen i n Herodotus' own day, with their hands merely broken off, lying i n the sand at the statues' feet (2.131). 33

34

35

We have seen that as a narrator Herodotus eschews any claim of heuresis, invention o f material. But i f we really look closely at almost any extended passage in the Histories, a tacit extension o f his histoYs voice can be found on almost every page, that throws this basic claim o f his narrator's voice into doubt. For i f we acknowledge the extent and quality of helpful, sometimes critical, authorial supplementation to the narrative, it begins to look at many points as though the narrative itself is no longer definable as a series o f logoi that

In his wonder at incredible login, we are again venturing rjuite close to the register of his voice as narrator. See Munson (2001) for wonder as a basic Herodotean historiographic principle. Rosier (1991) argues that Herodotus locates his own time as that of a 'historical' past in relation to the time of his readers, and thus tacitly makes some of the claims for the permanence of his work that Thucydides after him does. See also Ch. 4, this volume, pp. 91-2. Kurt Raaflaub rightly points out to me that in this way they do implicitly testify to the fact that the events of which they are traces are still important and meaningful in shaping both the present and our understanding of it. 34

33

284

CAROLYN DEWALD

H e r o d o t u s narrates a n d looks at; i t also, s o m e h o w , has b e c o m e his o w n l a r g e r o n g o i n g a c c o u n t . T h i s is because, as a histor, H e r o d o t u s presides over l e t t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l h e narrates t o us m a k e sense. T h i s voice appears m o s t p r o m i n e n t l y as a n T

i n the ethnogra-

p h i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y at t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f Books T w o o r F o u r , b u t n o t o n l y t h e r e . L a t e r i n t h e t e x t , i n p a r t b u i l d i n g o n its earlier p r o m i nence i n t h e e t h n o g r a p h i e s , a n i m p l i c i t a u t h o r i a l register o f this sort also suggests its presence, at least as a ' d e v i a n t f o c a l i z a t i o n ' ,

when-

ever t h e o n g o i n g n a r r a t i v e includes t h i r d - p e r s o n statements o f declarative helpfulness whose filling

a u t h o r i t y is n o t i n t e n d e d t o be contested,

i n t h e blanks a n d h e l p i n g us as readers u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is

g o i n g o n a n d h o w to t h i n k a b o u t

it.36

C o n s i d e r , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e f o l l o w i n g t w o passages, d r a w n at r a n d o m f r o m t h e n a r r a t i v e o f events.

Neither

of them

almost contains

a n e x t e n d e d expression o f a u t h o r i a l i n t r u s i o n as a n T , b u t each o f t h e m c o n t a i n s t h e t o n e o f c o m m u n i c a t i v e expansiveness t h a t is f o u n d i n the register o f the author-as-fe/or, s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h e t h i r d - p e r s o n n a r r a t i v e o f events w i t h a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e first passage occurs i n B o o k F o u r ; t h e list-like i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t begins a n d ends the passage is d i r e c t e d b y t h e histor

to the reader

as p a r t o f a n

e x t e n d e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l a n d a n d people o f L i b y a , p r i o r t o t h e n a r r a t i o n o f t h e logos a b o u t t h e Persian a t t e m p t e d conquest o f t h a t r e g i o n d u r i n g t h e r e i g n o f D a r i u s . T h e i t a l i c i z e d parts are those t h a t m o s t clearly ( t h o u g h tacitly) c o n t a i n t h e h e l p f u l voice o f t h e histor, w i t h i n the third-person account. The Psylloi are the neighbours of the Nasamones. These died out in the following way: the south w i n d blowing dried up their water reservoirs, and their whole land, lying within the Syrtis, was without water. But they taking counsel i n a joint discussion marched on the south w i n d ( I say what the Libyans say), and when they got to the sand, the south wind blowing buried them. Since they have all perished the Nasamones hold their land. And below these to the south in the country of the wild animals live the Garamantes, who flee humankind and the acquaintance of anybody. . . . (4.173—4)

36

This part of the argument initially profited greatly from discussion with D. Fowler. See Fowler's (1990) discussion of deviant focalization, as well as la 'voix off' of Darbo-Peschanski (1987) 114-15; cf. Gribble (1998) 58 61 for Thucydidean 'deviant focalization'. f. de Jong, however, has pointed out to me that strictly speaking focalization should not be used of the authorial voice at all; that is why 1 have described it here in terms of 'register'. The subject clearly requires further discussion; cf. Rood (1998) 294-6.

285

' I D I D N ' T G I V E M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

L a t e r i n t h e Histories, such m a t e r i a l tends t o o c c u r i n passing, inside the n a r r a t i v e o f events: But when Megabazus had taken the Paeonians, he sent seven Persian men as messengers to Macedonia, who after himself were the most respected i n the army. A n d these were sent to Amyntas to request earth and water for Darius the king. There is from the Prasiad lake a very

direct way into Macedonia; for first right near the lake is the mine from which later- came a talent of silver each day for Alexander, and after the mine [it is possible for] one crossing the mountain called Dusoron to be in Macedonia. So when these Persians arrived, coming into the sight o f Amyntas, they requested earth and water for Darius the king. (5.17-18) E a r l i e r w e saw t h a t w h e n he is u s i n g his n a r r a t o r ' s v o i c e ,

Herodotus

persuades us t o t h i n k o f t h e Histories as m a t e r i a l r e t o l d f r o m others (as i n t h e c o m m e n t ' I say w h a t t h e L i b y a n s say', i n 4.173). A n d y e t , i n b o t h t h e above passages, t h e actual c o n t e n t o f t h e o n g o i n g n a r r a t i v e i n c l u d e s a great d e a l o f i m p l i c i t m a t e r i a l a d d e d b y H e r o d o t u s as histm, so extensively s u p p l e m e n t i n g t h e bones o f t h e stories (the fate o f the Psylloi; the entry o f the Persian ambassadors i n t o Macedonia) t h a t i t becomes a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f t h i n g a l t o g e t h e r — a n a r r a t i v e n o w w r i t t e n , i n effect, b y H e r o d o t u s

himself. T h e

com-

ments t h a t he adds o f this sort, n o t obviously m a r k e d w i t h the a u t h o r ial T

b u t i m p a r t i n g its h e l p f u l , s u p p l e m e n t a l a n d fact-based

flavour

to t h e o n g o i n g n a r r a t i v e nonetheless, severely m o d i f i e s t h e n a r r a t o r ' s insistence t h a t H e r o d o t u s - t h e - a u t h o r

is m e r e l y at base r e t e l l i n g the

hgoi o f others. I t is n o t clear t h a t H e r o d o t u s

a n d his i m m e d i a t e

contemporaries

(his o r i g i n a l audiences, f o r instance) w o u l d have h e a r d t w o distinct registers i n his a u t h o r i a l voice. Perhaps i n H e r o d o t u s '

o w n d a y his

c o m m e n t s as a histor w i t h i n t h e n a r r a t i v e w e r e seen o n l y as a set o f h e l p f u l p a r e n t h e t i c a l r e m a r k s - - m a k i n g t h e n a r r a t i v e , like E d

Bell's

t a l l stories, 'a little l o n g e r ' , i n o r d e r t o fill o u t f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r a u d i ence details a b o u t t h e events a n d people n a r r a t e d t h a t w o u l d have r e m a i n e d i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e w i t h o u t these a d d e n d a . 3 7 O n e c o u l d i m a g ine H e r o d o t u s t r a v e l l i n g a r o u n d t h e G r e e k w o r l d , audience as he w e n t i n his histofs

filling

i n f o r each

voice t h e m a t e r i a l t h a t

would

enable t h e m to u n d e r s t a n d a n d i n t e g r a t e i n t o t h e i r l o c a l k n o w l e d g e the parts o f his logoi f o r e i g n t o t h e i r o w n experience. T h i s is c e r t a i n l y

37

Cf. n. 21 and Nagy (1990) 306-7 on the Panhellenism of the huidr. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, de Thuc. 5.

286

CAROLYN DEWALD

i m p o r t a n t ; the c o m m u n i c a t i v e s u p p l e m e n t a r i t y o f this voice has m a d e m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n available to us, his later readers, t h a t m i g h t h a v e r e m a i n e d i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e , h a d H e r o d o t u s w r i t t e n o n l y f o r insiders w h o k n e w w h a t he was t a l k i n g a b o u t . I t m a y w e l l be a large p a r t of why,

o u t o f a l l o f the o l d I o n i a n w r i t e r s , H e r o d o t u s alone

has

been preserved f o r us. B u t its m a j o r i m p o r t a n c e was f o r the genre he b e g a n ,

since the f a s h i o n i n g o f a n a r r a t i v e t h a t

unobtrusively

explains the b a c k g r o u n d details a n d causal connections u n d e r l y i n g events as i t goes a l o n g lies at the h e a r t o f w h a t T h u c y d i d e s a n d o t h ers after H e r o d o t u s w e n t o n to develop as the a u t h o r i a l voice o f h i s torical narrative. T h i s chapter began b y n o t i n g Herodotus' genealogy, a n d w i t h t h e i d e a t h a t i n his

refusal to tell his

first-person

own

authorial voice

he f a s h i o n e d a n 'expert's p e r s o n a ' t h a t o w e d its a u t h o r i t y to the fact t h a t the a u t h o r / n a r r a t o r r e m a i n s a n o u t s i d e r to the text p r o p e r - — i n i m p o r t a n t w a y s , he insists i t is n o t 'his' b u t his r e - e d i t i n g o f logoi he has h e a r d . T h i s is a m o v e a b a n d o n e d

by Thucydides

and

nar-

r a t i v e historians t h e r e a f t e r , w h o c o n s t r u c t instead one a u t h o r i t a t i v e voice t h a t presents the a u t h o r s i m u l t a n e o u s l y as c r i t i c a l n a r r a t o r a n d histor o f his o w n n a r r a t i v e . Herodotus'

authorial persona remains an anomaly, therefore, but

one w i t h a c e r t a i n o d d spaciousness a n d i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n t e g r i t y . H e r o d o t u s ' p r o c e d u r e s as a n T

For

i n his o w n t e x t show t h a t the ques-

t i o n c e n t r a l to h i s t o r i o g r a p h y raised at the b e g i n n i n g o f the c h a p t e r — h i s t o r y as r h e t o r i c , h i s t o r y as h u m a n science—has been there f r o m the v e r y b e g i n n i n g o f the g e n r e , since i t is i m p l i c i t i n b o t h k i n d s o f f o c a l i z a t i o n t h a t H e r o d o t u s uses his a u t h o r i a l ' I ' to c o m m u n i c a t e . I have t r i e d to show t h a t b o t h the ' n a r r a t o r ' a n d the 'Airfor' are c r u c i a l to the w a y the later genre o f h i s t o r y w r i t i n g develops, b u t perhaps i n ways n o t obvious f r o m one's i n i t i a l c o n c e p t i o n these roles. T h e

of

obvious d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n the t w o voices o f course

w o u l d place the n a r r a t o r ' s voice as the r h e t o r i c a l o n e , a n d the histdYs, voice as the one t h a t p a t i e n t l y collects a n d supplements i t w i t h d a t a a n d also w i t h a c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f details c o n t a i n e d i n the n a r r a t i v e . B u t w e have seen t h a t i n one q u i t e i m p o r t a n t respect the roles o f the t w o voices are reversed. F o r

i t is w h e n he is speaking

as a n a r r a t o r t h a t H e r o d o t u s encodes i n t o his t e x t the sense o f d i a l o g i s m t h a t is essential to the i n v e n t i o n o f h i s t o r y as a h u m a n

sci-

e n c e — i n s i s t i n g t h a t the stories he recounts h a v e been l e a r n e d f r o m

287

' I D I D N ' T G I V E M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

others a n d t h a t t h e i r c o n t e n t is n o t a m a t t e r o f his o w n i n v e n t i o n , b u t o n e t h a t c a n be e x a m i n e d c r i t i c a l l y b y h i m s e l f , a n d b y us t o o . A n d a l t h o u g h T h u c y d i d e s , X e n o p h o n , a n d others a b a n d o n this n a r rator's p e r s o n a , c o l l a p s i n g the o v e r t d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i r o w n voices a n d those o f t h e i r sources, the t a c i t assurance

nonetheless

r e m a i n s t h a t w h a t w e are r e a d i n g i n the Histories is n o t a single story but

a composite account d r a w n f r o m m a n y previous narrators o f

events t h a t have b e e n c o m m u n a l l y l i v e d t h r o u g h a n d r e m e m b e r e d ; i t c o n t i n u e s t o be the n a r r a t o r ' s T t h a t has t a c i t l y selected the parts o f t h e i r c o m p o s i t e story w o r t h r e t e l l i n g . The

voice o f the n a r r a t o r is also w h a t makes possible the sup-

p l e m e n t a l helpfulness o f H e r o d o t u s ' times he intervenes as a n T

histo/s v o i c e - - t h e h u n d r e d s o f

n o t t o talk a b o u t the c o m p o s i t i o n o f

the n a r r a t i v e as a c o l l e c t i o n o f r e t o l d logoi b u t t o r e s p o n d as i f some p a r t o f the c o n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r logos u n d e r w a y has serious claims to o u r a t t e n t i o n as a reasonably v e r i d i c a l a c c o u n t , a n d o n e t h a t is i m p l i c i t l y p a r t o f a l a r g e r , o n g o i n g story t h a t H e r o d o t u s h i m s e l f p r e sents. H e r e , t o b o r r o w a l e a f f r o m H e r o d o t u s ' o w n n o t e b o o k , 1 a m n o t g o i n g t o choose b e t w e e n t h e a r g u m e n t s o f L a t e i n e r a n d D a r b o Peschanski, b u t t o r e g a r d t h e m instead as v a r i a n t versions, each o f w h i c h has a g o o d deal t o r e c o m m e n d i t . D a r b o - P e s c h a n s k i gets r i g h t , I

t h i n k , the n o t i o n t h a t H e r o d o t u s

has f a s h i o n e d a histor's persona

for h i m s e l f m u c h o f whose a u t h o r i t y consists i n the fact that i t remains modest:

secular, p r o v i s i o n a l , c a u t i o u s i n its t r u t h c l a i m s . W e are

i n c l i n e d t o trust this voice because i t is so o p e n i n its o w n f i r m decl a r a t i o n o f tentative p r o v i s i o n a l i t y — a n d b o t h halves o f this o x y m o r o n are necessary, f o r us t o a c c o r d i t o u r t r u s t . 3 8 O n the o t h e r h a n d , w h a t L a t e i n e r ' s analysis captures is, u l t i m a t e l y , even m o r e i m p o r t a n t . I have a r g u e d t h a t t h e preface o f the Histories does n o t necessarily create a c o n v e n t i o n a l spatium historicum—a c h r o n o logical t i m e , say the r e i g n o f Croesus, at w h i c h serious H i s t o r i e s , as opposed to m y t h o r l e g e n d , begins. B u t w h a t H e r o d o t u s

has u l t i -

m a t e l y d o n e w i t h his a u t h o r i a l v o i c e , both c r i t i c a l l y r e t e l l i n g logoi and assessing, i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l he recounts as d a t a , is t o create for us w i t h i n the text the presence o f his o w n alert a n d c r i t i c a l a u t h o r i a l consciousness as a spatium historicum i n itself. T h e sense i t makes

3a

Momigliano (1966) argues that it was not trusted until the era of European exploration, in the early modern period; see also Bowersock (1989).

288

CAROLYN DEWALD

does n o t y e t lie as i t does for T h u c y d i d e s

i n patterns o f quasi-

p r e d i c t a b l e h u m a n b e h a v i o u r t o be i m p e r s o n a l l y d e d u c e d f r o m d a t a at h a n d . I n s t e a d , i n h u n d r e d s o f a u t h o r i a l gestures—themselves supported by a body o f third-person supplemental information brought b y the histor t o t h e logoi—Herodotus

allows his o w n alert a u t h o r i a l

p e r s o n a t o act as the i n t e r p r e t i v e f r a m e w i t h i n w h i c h the logoi, c o l l e c t e d f r o m a l l o v e r t h e E a s t e r n M e d i t e r r a n e a n w o r l d , f r o m t h e early sixth c e n t u r y d o w n t o his o w n d a y , fall i n t o a m e a n i n g f u l a n d c o h e r ent set o f relationships w i t h one a n o t h e r , so t h a t significant causal c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n o n e set o f events a n d a n o t h e r c a n be d r a w n . U l t i m a t e l y , as T h u c y d i d e s

a n d l a t e r h i s t o r i a n s after h i m saw, this

p e r m i t s t h e histor h i m s e l f t o b e c o m e n a r r a t o r o f a n a c c o u n t t h a t in toto is p r o f o u n d l y d i f f e r e n t i n q u a l i t y f r o m the m a t e r i a l f r o m w h i c h it o r i g i n a l l y has b e e n f a s h i o n e d , w h e t h e r w e t h i n k o f i t as r e t o l d logoi, as i n d i v i d u a l pieces o f m o r e o r less believable d a t a , o r as a b l e n d o f the t w o , as H e r o d o t u s

h i m s e l f seems t o have d o n e .

T h u s h i s t o r y , i n t h e hands o f H e r o d o t u s

its first p r a c t i t i o n e r , is

resolutely b i n o c u l a r : b o t h n a r r a t i v e a n d c r i t i q u e o f n a r r a t i v e , b o t h the voice o f m a n y others a n d the v o i c e o f t h e histor h i m s e l f i n h e l p f u l s u p p l e m e n t a t i o n . T h i s i n t u r n reveals a m o r e basic t r u t h h i s t o r y w r i t i n g as a g e n r e , at least as H e r o d o t u s

about

p e r c e i v e d i t . I t is

clear f r o m t h e w a y he handles t h e m , b o t h as a n a r r a t o r a n d as a histor, t h a t H e r o d o t u s t h i n k s logoi m a t t e r , because t h e y are one o f the best tools w e have b e e n g i v e n f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g the w o r l d o f ta anthropaa pregmata. A n d despite the c h a r m , t h e s p o n t a n e i t y a n d a p p a r ent delightfulness o f m u c h o f t h e c o n t e n t o f the Histories, the u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e o f its a u t h o r ,

this expert's p e r s o n a w i t h w h i c h w e

b e g a n , is serious: to u n d e r s t a n d the h u m a n w o r l d , i n a l l its d i m e n sions. T h r o u g h o u t

the Histories, p e o p l e w h o take the t r o u b l e t o be

a l e r t to t h e i r s u r r o u n d i n g s , t o find t h i n g s o u t , a n d t o listen c a r e f u l l y t o t h e logoi o f o t h e r s , fare b e t t e r t h a n those w h o go a b o u t t h e w o r l d n o t n o t i c i n g w h a t i t is l i k e , o r t h e realities o f t h e i r o w n place i n i t . Herodotus' authorial T

models a s i m i l a r l y i n t e l l i g e n t b e h a v i o u r ; w h a t

he has g i v e n us finally is a n o n g o i n g a c c o u n t i n w h i c h his o w n c o n sciousness as a n alert a n d secular T

constructs f o r us a f i e l d w i t h i n

w h i c h logoi m o r e o r less m a k e sense, causal c o n n e c t i o n s w o r k , i n f o r m a t i o n is u s e f u l , a n d c r i t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e c o u n t s , b o t h his o w n a n d t h a t o f actors inside t h e n a r r a t i v e . 3 9 A s a n a u t h o r i a l T

Christ (1994) 169-82.

i n his t e x t ,

' I D I D N ' T GIVE M Y O W N GENEALOGY'

289

b o t h n a r r a t o r a n d histor, he persuades us t h a t t h e doubleness o f his overt a u t h o r i a l persona reflects his o w n efforts i n the service o f k n o w l edge; i n d o i n g so he also models f o r us t h e doubleness o f w h a t t h i n k i n g historically m i g h t m e a n . 4 0

4 0

This chapter was written and initially delivered at the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington D.C., in the fall of 1999; I would like to thank the Center's fellows and its directors, Deborah Boedeker and Kurt Raaflaub, for their generous and incisive comments, f would like to thank as well the departments of Classics at Columbia University and Barnard College, the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California at Berkeley, for opportunities to further sharpen my ideas. Special thanks are due to Egbert Bakker, Nancy Felson, Helene Foley, Irene de Jong, John Marincola, Susanne Said, Seth Schein, and Laura Slatkin.

CHAPTER T H I R T E E N

S H O R T STORIES I N H E R O D O T U S ' Vivienne

HISTORIES

Gray

Problems of Definition To

survey s h o r t stories i n H e r o d o t u s is to survey his entire n a r r a -

t i v e , since s h o r t stories e x h i b i t its m o r e g e n e r a l features a n d are p a r t o f its s t r u c t u r e . 1 T h e r e is a n e e d t h e r e f o r e to focus o n t h e i r m o r e d i s t i n c t i v e qualities. Y e t

t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n is p r o b l e m a t i c . 2 H e r o d o t u s

does n o t have a specialized w o r d f o r his s h o r t e r n a r r a t i v e s , b u t c o m m o n l y describes t h e m i n t e r m s o f t h e i r a c t i o n s . 3 N o r d o scholars use a systematic t e r m i n o l o g y . 4 S o m e call t h e m logoi, b u t these i n c l u d e m a n y o t h e r types o f n a r r a t i v e . ' O t h e r s call t h e m ' s h o r t stories', o r 'novellas' after E u r o p e a n

practice.6 T h e

a n c i e n t n o v e l l a has been

d e f i n e d as a c h a n g e o f f o r t u n e o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c b e h a v i o u r , i n r e a l life a n d

fixed

i n t i m e , a n d o f a l e n g t h sufficient to r o u n d o u t the

a c t i o n . 7 B u t r e m a r k s o n the m o d e r n s h o r t story p r o v i d e a b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n t h a n these. H e r o d o t u s '

1

examples indeed make a m o r e

Many scholars use the short story to exemplify general features, but Thomson (1935), Long (1987), Cobet (1971), Erbse (1981, 1991, 1992) alone focus on it. Long (1987) 7 demurs. But Trenkner (1958) xiii defines 'novella' (below). 'A very great wonder': 1.23.1; 'the greatest revenge for injustice of those we know': 8.105.1; 'the man who won the tyranny in the following way': 8.137.1; 'the lust of Xerxes and the death of Masistes': 9.113.2; 'what happened about a deposit in Sparta' 6.86a. 1. See also Ch. 11, pp. 255-8. •' Many refer to them as 'passages', 'episodes'. Thomson (1935) uses logos for the short story as well as other types of narrative. Immerwahr (1966) uses logoi for all types, calling short stories 'minor' logoi. Herodotus calls both stories and arguments logoi in reference to subject matter, as Immerwahr (1966), 14 n. 34 indicates. He sometimes calls a short story a 'logos', in addition to the description of its action: 6.86a. 1, d; or an epos for a story of a wise saying: 7.226.1 2. For more specialized ancient terms, which Herodotus does not use: Trenkner (1958) 5. '' Trenkner (1958): 'novella'. Long (1987): 'short story' as well as 'novella'. Erbse (1991, 1992): 'Novellen' for longer and 'Anekdoten' for shorter stories. ' Trenkner (1958) xiii-xiv, 11, 24. But Herodotus' reliance on oral traditions means that his stories are not 'imaginary' in Trenkner's fictitious sense. 2 3

1

292

V I V I E N N E GRAY

8

coherent corpus for definition than the still-evolving modern form. The one major difference is that the modern short story stands in isolation, whereas Herodotus incorporates his short stories into a larger narrative. This raises the question o f their organization within the work and their thematic relationships to their immediate contexts and the larger narrative. Some seem to 'drift free' o f their contexts, while others seem to comment directly on them. Some seem to interact with other parts o f the work. The three short stories that come at the end o f the work have seemed to achieve thematic as well as structural closure. I leave their organization and relationships in the meantime and first focus on their definition. The short story is rather obviously defined by its length. T i m e limits on ancient oral performance or w o r d limits on modern publication in print could explain this. But the construction o f a modern short story also differs from that o f a longer one in that the writer grasps the totality before writing a single line o f it: 'a distinctive form with its own methods o f construction'. There is an art which strives for concentration, singleness and wroughtness, a powerful and exacting form in which every w o r d counts toward closure. The modern short story amasses its whole weight toward the ending, and the closure or denouement is more concentrated than the anticipation or dilemma that precedes it. This distinctive narrative 'shape' makes a short story distinct from a story that happens to be short. '' 9

10

11

12

1

This shape also defines Herodotus' short stories. Herodotus' moment u m toward closure usually involves a crisis. Relevant to the notion of crisis is the concept o f the 'functional' event which involves confrontation, opens a choice between two possibilities and produces changes involving either improvement or deterioration for the main character. The famous musician A r i o n is the main character o f a 14

8

See Reid (1977) 1-4, 10-14, 16; Shaw (1983) 20-1, who concludes: 'a firm definition of the (modern) short story is impossible'. Shaw substitutes die question: 'What can a short story do particularly well because it is short?'. For a range of views: Gould (1989) 50-8; and on the closure n. 54 below. Shaw (1983) 7. But some of Herodotus' shorter stories are less than 300 words. It is hard to imagine an oral performance as restrictive as this. Shaw (1983) 3. Shaw (1983) 3, quoting Chekov; May (1995) 116. Shaw (1983) 9. Bal (1997) 182-93, esp. 182, 184, 185 f., 192 f., in relation to the fabuk. 9

10

11

12

13

14

SHORT STORIES I N HERODOTUS'

293

HISTORIES

t i g h t l y - f o c u s s e d d o u b l e crisis short story ( 1 . 2 3 - 4 ) . T h e

c r e w o f the

ship t h a t carries h i m b a c k t o the c o u r t o f his p a t r o n P e r i a n d e r

the

t y r a n t o f C o r i n t h t u r n p i r a t e , take the w e a l t h he has e a r n e d i n the W e s t , a n d force h i m t o m a k e a c h o i c e t h a t appears to be n o c h o i c e , b e t w e e n d e a t h o n b o a r d the ship a n d b u r i a l , o r d e a t h

overboard

a n d a w a t e r y grave. I n this crisis he p r o m i s e s t o k i l l h i m s e l f , asking o n l y f o r p e r m i s s i o n to give a w h i c h he is f a m o u s . H e

final

performance

o f the m u s i c

then throws himself overboard,

for

apparently

m a k i n g the worse c h o i c e , b u t a d o l p h i n picks h i m u p a n d carries him

t o l a n d at T a e n a r u m .

This

denouement

occupies a b r i e f l i n e

o r t w o , c o n t r a s t i n g w i t h the c o m p a r a t i v e l y d e t a i l e d a n t i c i p a t i o n o f it. T h e

m i r a c u l o u s rescue t h e n leads t o the second crisis, i n w h i c h

A r i o n reaches C o r i n t h a n d tells P e r i a n d e r his story. P e r i a n d e r disbelieves h i m , detains h i m a n d waits to i n t e r r o g a t e the c r e w o n t h e i r r e t u r n . T h e y assert t h a t t h e y left h i m safe a n d s o u n d i n T a r a s , b u t A r i o n appears, to refute t h e i r story. T h e

d e n o u e m e n t is a g a i n b r i e f

a n d r a p i d i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the a n t i c i p a t i o n . C a n d a u l e s , i n a n o t h e r short story o f tightly-focussed d o u b l e crisis ( 1 . 8 - 1 2 ) , wants Gyges to see his w i f e n a k e d i n o r d e r to m a k e h i m a p p r e c i a t e h e r b e a u t y ,

and

c o n f r o n t s h i m w i t h a choice t h a t is n o choice (as A r i o n ) : to disobey his k i n g o r c o m m i t the i n d i s c r e t i o n . Gyges chooses the i n d i s c r e t i o n a n d resolves the first crisis. T h e consequence o f this r e s o l u t i o n is t h a t the w i f e w a n t s to resoive h e r shame a n d offers Gyges a n o t h e r choice t h a t is n o choice: to disobey his q u e e n o r k i l l the k i n g (second c r i sis). Gyges kills the k i n g a n d takes his q u e e n . A g a i n a n t i c i p a t i o n is m u c h m o r e extensive t h a n o u t c o m e i n b o t h parts o f the story. The

a c t i o n o f the s h o r t story n e e d n o t be as p h y s i c a l as i n the

stories o f A r i o n a n d C a n d a u l e s .

Croesus'

refusal o f the wise advice

t h a t S o l o n gives h i m is also a s h o r t story ( 1 . 2 9 - 3 3 ) . 1 5 S o l o n

comes

to Croesus' c o u r t a n d three times answers the question a b o u t h a p piness t h a t Croesus puts to h i m , each t i m e m o r e e x p l i c i t l y t h a n the last. Croesus b r i e f l y rejects h i m three times, each t i m e s h o w i n g greater ignorance.

Solon's

advice is a f u n c t i o n a l event t h a t offers c h o i c e ,

there is c o n f r o n t a t i o n , the d e f i c i e n c y is the i g n o r a n c e o f

Croesus,

a n d his c h o i c e leads to i m m e d i a t e d e t e r i o r a t i o n (the loss o f his son). Croesus' r e a c t i o n to the advice he receives f r o m oracles ( 1 . 5 3 - 6 ) a n d d r e a m s ( 1 . 1 0 7 - 8 ) i n v o l v e the same f u n c t i o n a l event. T r i p l i c a t i o n is

15

This is a well-recognized pattern: Dewald (1987) 20: on Bischoff (1932), Lattimore (1939).

294

VIVIENNE GRAY

a basic m o t i f o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l tale, b u t also o f the m o d e r n story, w h e r e

short

i t has b e e n r e l a t e d t o t h e story shape, w h i c h has a

beginning, middle, and end.16 T h i s f o r m a l , artistic d e f i n i t i o n o f s h o r t stories distinguishes t h e m f r o m H e r o d o t u s ' o t h e r shorter n a r r a t i v e s , such as his g e o g r a p h i c a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c excursuses, his descriptions o f d e d i c a t i o n s , etc. (except w h e r e t h e y themselves c o n t a i n stories). B u t t h e r e has also b e e n a desire t o define s h o r t stories f r o m t h e i r c o n t e n t . T h e y are n o t u n i q u e i n t h e i r focus o n h u m a n

achievement,"

or their 'spirit',18 o r their

sensational subject m a t t e r (lust, p i r a c y , c a s t r a t i o n c o m e t o m i n d ) w h i c h are w i d e s p r e a d t h r o u g h o u t t h e rest o f the n a r r a t i v e . H o w e v e r , t h e y d o e x h i b i t stereotyped characters a n d patterns o f a c t i o n . P r o p p classified t h e p a t t e r n s o f stories i n f o l k l o r e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r d o m i n a n t actions as expressed t h r o u g h t h e f u n c t i o n s o f t h e i r dramatis personae. S u c h classification is p r o m i s i n g f o r H e r o d o t u s a n d comes close 19

to d e f i n i n g c o n t e n t . 2 0 Patterns

c a n be i d e n t i f i e d w h e n

they

occur

m o r e t h a n o n c e , a n d t h e i r c o m p a r i s o n o f t e n reveals t h e i r sometimes less t h a n t r a n s p a r e n t m e a n i n g s . 2 1 T h e p a t t e r n s seem t o c o m e

from

the o r a l t r a d i t i o n w h i c h H e r o d o t u s c o n s t a n t l y acknowledges, p a r t o f w h i c h seems t o have b e e n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l short s t o r y . 2 2 T h e r e are f e w w r i t t e n precedents e x t a n t , 2 3 b u t H o m e r uses patterns t h a t sometimes constitute stories (the m e e t i n g w i t h t h e king's d a u g h t e r , etc.) 2 ' 1 a n d his techniques c o u l d usefully be c o m p a r e d w i t h those o f H e r o d o t u s .

Shaw (1983) 217. The proem's promise to deliver the 'achievements of mankind' applies to the whole narrative. Erbse (1981) 268-9 sees two themes (the restoration of order and the celebration of human talent) and two spirits: the tragic condition and the positive achievement of men. Both 'spirits' are found in the careers of eastern kings. Amasis is exceptionally free of the disaster that most others meet: 2.172 82, 3.10. Aly ((1921) 1969 was a landmark in the identification of traditional patterns in Herodotus. Propp ((1928) 1968) ch. 2 categorized them according to their dominant patterns, rejecting previous categorizations: 5-11. -" For work on patterns i n Herodotus, see Stern (1991), who identifies 'scapegoat narratives' in stories of exiled tyrants, and Flory (t978a), who identifies Arion's leap with other brave gestures in Herodotus. Great care needs to be taken in establishing parallels that are tight enough to convince. Dewald (1987) 10 rightly sees archaic oral thought as 'largely inaccessible to our ways of thinking and feeling'. Aly ((1929) 1987) 63-9 defines the style of the Ionian 'Volkserzahlung'. Dewald (1987) 14 refers to Trenkner (1958). Hecataeus FGH 1. fr. 1 may refer to the traditional short story when he calls the lospi of the Greeks 'many and laughable'. See Bowra (1972) 124-5. 17

18

19

21

22

23

24

SHORT STORIES I N HERODOTUS'

295

HISTORIES

I t has been h e l d t h a t m o d e r n s h o r t stories are also a d a p t a t i o n s

of

t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n n e w c r e a t i o n s , a n d t h a t t h e i r c o m p r e s s i o n lends itself p a r t i c u l a r l y to f o r m u l a i c t r e a t m e n t . 2 : > T h e Herodotus'

oral background

of

Histories perhaps just makes this f o r m u l a i c i m p e r a t i v e

of

the f o r m m o r e pressing. Herodotus'

use o f stereotyped elements creates r e c u r r e n t plots i n

his stories. T h i s is also t r u e o f the m o d e r n s h o r t story: T h e

same

f e w p l o t s , I a m s o r r y to say, h a v e p u r s u e d m e d o w n t h r o u g h

the

y e a r s . ' * T h e p a t t e r n , f o r e x a m p l e , i n w h i c h a r u l e r expresses

exces-

sive a n d inconsistent kindness a n d c r u e l t y t o w a r d a subject,

shapes

t w o s h o r t stories a b o u t X e r x e s t h a t f r a m e

his e x p e d i t i o n

against

Greece. T h e first is the story o f Pythius the L y d i a n . X e r x e s r e w a r d e d Pythius h a n d s o m e l y

f o r v o l u n t a r i l y s u p p o r t i n g his large a r m y o n its

m a r c h against Greece ( 7 . 2 7 - 9 ) . B u t w h e n Pythius asked f o r his eldest son to r e m a i n at h o m e , X e r x e s split h i m i n t w o a n d p u t the halves o n e i t h e r side o f the m a r c h i n g r o u t e ( 7 . 3 8 - 9 ) . T h e s t o r y is also split, p l a c e d o n e i t h e r side o f the i n t e r v e n i n g n a r r a t i v e , w i t h the excessive kindness after X e r x e s ' crossing i n t o P h r y g i a a n d excessive c r u e l t y at Sardis before the m a r c h to the Hellespont a n d the crossing to E u r o p e . The

same p a t t e r n is used i n the story o f h o w the c a p t a i n o f the

ship c a r r y i n g X e r x e s back to A s i a f r o m Greece after his defeat at Salamis, who

recommended,

crowded

i n a t h r e a t e n i n g s t o r m , t h a t the

the deck be t h r o w n o v e r b o a r d

Persians

to ensure the k i n g ' s

safety (8.118). X e r x e s asked f o r v o l u n t e e r s ; they leaped to t h e i r d e a t h , a n d he l a n d e d safely. W h e r e u p o n

he r e w a r d e d the c a p t a i n

gener-

ously f o r saving his l i f e , a n d c u t o f f his h e a d f o r causing the d e a t h o f so m a n y Persians: characteristic b e h a v i o u r ,

a n d a change o f f o r -

t u n e , even i f n o t f o r the m a i n character! T h e

story o f D a r i u s '

t i o n t o a s i m i l a r request t o leave

t h r e e sons o u t o f his

reac-

Scythian

e x p e d i t i o n shows o n l y the u n k i n d p a r t o f the p a t t e r n (4.84)-

he left

t h e m a l l b e h i n d , d e a d , b u t the k i n d p a r t is expressed i n the father's e x p e c t a t i o n o f f r i e n d l y t r e a t m e n t . T h e s e p a t t e r n s c a n be r e d u c e d f u r t h e r i n t o m o t i f s , b u t this c h a p t e r is c o n s i d e r i n g actions t h a t c o n s t i tute a story r a t h e r t h a n j u s t p a r t o f one. The

f o r m u l a i c s h o u l d n o t be confused w i t h the t r i t e a n d

ingless, since patterns are l i k e l y to c o n v e y m e a n i n g o f human

2 5

26

importance.

X e r x e s ' p a t t e r n a b o v e conveys

Shaw (1983) 19. Shaw (1983) 19, quoting Borges.

mean-

momentous

the w h i m s i c a l

296

VIVIENNE G R A Y

n a t u r e o f absolute p o w e r — n o

t r i t e r e v e l a t i o n . I t seems n o a c c i d e n t

t h a t the t w o stories f o r m a f r a m e at the b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d o f X e r x e s ' expedition. The

reader w h o notices this c a n enhance t h e i r i n d i v i d -

ual meaning w i t h interpretation of their placement. The

d i f f i c u l t y i n the d e f i n i t i o n based e n t i r e l y o n patterns is t h a t

the m a i n story develops the patterns o f s h o r t stories i n t o m u c h l o n g e r o n e s . 2 7 E v e n a m o d e r n short story c a n be a condensed v e r s i o n o f a longer one.28 T h e even m o r e

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature o f the short story

clearly its a v o i d a n c e

penchant for concentration and

o f unfocussed

becomes

complexity

a n d its

compression.

T h r e e examples o f stories o f rise a n d f a l l , w h i c h is the

common-

est p a t t e r n i n t h e Histories, d e m o n s t r a t e this. T h e p a t t e r n shows t h a t the r a p i d a c c u m u l a t i o n o f w e a l t h leads d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y to disaster. A m i n o c l e s o f M a g n e s i a (7.190) acquires w e a l t h f r o m the s h i p wrecks a r o u n d A r t e m i s i o n , b u t t h o u g h r i c h , was ' u n l u c k y ' i n the rest o f his l i f e : ' T h e r e was i n this case t o o a c e r t a i n unpleasant

child-

k i l l i n g disaster t h a t g r i e v e d h i m . ' T h i s v e r y s h o r t a c c o u n t has bare f r a m e w o r k

o f the first phase

the

o f the rise a n d fall o f C r o e s u s ,

w h o loses his c h i l d after r e j e c t i n g Solon's advice t h a t the w e a l t h he h a d a c q u i r e d was n o g u a r a n t e e o f p e r m a n e n t happiness. Its a v o i d ance o f d e t a i l a n d o f c o m p l e x i t y a l m o s t b r i n g s its status as a s h o r t story i n t o question.

I t has nevertheless

w e i g h t t o w a r d t h e e n d i n g . Polycrates'

the r e q u i r e d a m a s s i n g rise ( 3 . 3 9 - 4 3 )

of

a n d his f a l l

( 3 . 1 2 0 - 5 ) is a l o n g e r v e r s i o n o f the p a t t e r n , separated o u t i n t o its t w o phases t o accentuate its p o l a r i t y , w i t h w e i g h t o n the e n d i n g b o t h p a r t s , b u t p a r t i c u l a r l y the l a t t e r . 2 9 I n the first p a r t

of

Polycrates'

rise t o w e a l t h a n d f a m e is r a p i d (3.39). H i s story is t h e n e x p a n d e d b y the i n s e r t i o n o f wise advice f r o m A m a s i s a b o u t the dangers i n h e r e n t i n his great ' l u c k ' , w h i c h he is u n a b l e to h e e d ( 3 . 4 0 - 3 ) . I n the second p a r t , a m i d s t f u r t h e r w a r n i n g s , he meets his death (3.124—5). Croesus offers a f u l l d e v e l o p m e n t

o f the p a t t e r n . 3 " H e

experiences

t w o phases

first

rapid

27

o f rise a n d f a l l . H i s

rise is n o m o r e

than

See Immerwahr (1966) eh. 4 for the patterns of rise and fall behind the careers of the eastern kings. Herodotus also uses patterned campaign narratives not found in his short stories: Immerwahr (1966) ch. 6. Immerwahr also refers to general patterns in what he calls minor logoi: 73-5 'thought and action', 75-8 'rise and fall', and 244: 'the old epic and folklore story of the duel'. Shaw (1983) 21. See also Ch. 6, pp. 124-6 and 23, pp. 156-7 in this volume. See also Ch. 6, pp. 132-7 in this volume. 2 8

29

SHORT STORIES I N HERODOTUS' Polycrates'

297

HISTORIES

( 1 . 2 6 - 8 ) , b u t gains early c o m p l e x i t y

t h r o u g h the inser-

t i o n o f the story o f the wise a d v i c e o f B i a s / P i t t a c u s i n t o t h e m i d d l e o f i t (1.27; a story i n its o w n r i g h t ) . Solon's advice to C r o e s u s , w h i c h f o l l o w s , is also m o r e elaborate t h a n A m a s i s ' to Polycrates

(1.29-33).

Croesus' i n a b i l i t y to h e e d i t leads to his first disaster i n the loss o f his son (1.34—46). H e t h e n plans a second phase o f rise against C y r u s (1.46—85). T h i s is m u c h e x p a n d e d b y his c o u r t i n g a n d m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the wise advice o f the o r a c l e , the a c q u i s i t i o n o f G r e e k allies a n d so o n . T h e final

w h o l e c u l m i n a t e s i n his final disaster, a n

elaborate

scene, a s h o r t story i n its o w n r i g h t , i n w h i c h he is m a d e wise

t h r o u g h suffering (1.86-91). The

d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the s h o r t e r a n d t h e l o n g e r v e r s i o n o f t h e

p a t t e r n lies i n the presence o r absence o f a d d i t i o n s , w h i c h c a n t h e m selves take the f o r m o f s h o r t stories, such as t h a t o f t h e wise a d v i sor. H e r o d o t u s sometimes tells stories i n fewer t h a n 3 0 0 w o r d s . is nevertheless f o n d o f c o m p l e x i t y .

He

He

achieves i t t h r o u g h the c o n -

nected a n d u n i f i e d d o u b l e crisis i n A r i o n ' s s t o r y , w h i c h connects the m i r a c l e a n d the i n q u i r y i n t o i t ( 1 . 2 3 - 4 ) , a n d a g a i n i n t h e tion of crime and punishment

in Hermotimus'

connec-

and Artayctes'

sto-

ries, b e l o w p p . 3 0 8 - 1 0 , 3 1 3 - 1 4 . H e likes the i n c r e m e n t a l t r i p l e , w h i c h repeats t h e basic p a t t e r n f o r i n c r e a s i n g i m p a c t , as i n Croesus' t r i p l e r e j e c t i o n o f Solon's advice o r X e r x e s ' t r i p l e reversal, b e l o w p p . 3 1 0 ™ 13. H e c a n d i v i d e a single p a t t e r n o f rise a n d fall i n t o its t w o phases, as i n the story o f Polycrates, o r insert one p a t t e r n (the wise advisor) into another

one

(rise a n d fall). H e

produces

even m o r e

complex

stories o u t o f a b a l a n c e d i n t e r w e a v i n g o f separate p a t t e r n s . T h e

stoiy

o f the rise o f C y r u s c o m b i n e s the revenge p a t t e r n as e x e m p l i f i e d b y Alexander (5.18-20), Hermotimus 120),

( 8 . 1 0 4 - 7 ) , and Artayctes

(9.116,

w i t h the p a t t e r n o f t h e rise o f the t y r a n t as e x e m p l i f i e d

Peisistratus ( 1 . 5 9 - 6 4 ) , D e i o c e s ( 1 . 9 6 - 1 0 0 ) , a n d Perdiccas

by

(8.137-9),

a n d is replete w i t h insertions o f v a r i o u s types w h i c h e x p a n d i t o u t to o v e r 3 , 0 0 0 w o r d s . 3 1 T h i s reaches t h e l o w e r l i m i t o f the

modern

s t o r y , w h i c h is o f t e n 2 , 0 0 0 t o 1 0 , 0 0 0 w o r d s o r l o n g e r . 3 2 T h e

point

at w h i c h such a n a r r a t i v e forfeits t h e d i s t i n c t i v e qualities o f t h e s h o r t story is a m a t t e r o f artistic j u d g m e n t . C y r u s ' story does seem to possess t h a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d m o m e n t u m

31

32

t o w a r d closure t h a t defines

Long (1987) 126-75 for Cyrus; Gray (1997) for the rise of the tyrant. Shaw (1983) 7, 8, 11.

298

VIVIENNE GRAY

the s h o r t story. I t is m o r e d i f f i c u l t to d e f i n e the difference

between

this n a r r a t i v e a n d the rise a n d f a l l o f Croesus. I t c o u l d o n l y rest i n the less o r g a n i c c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t some o f the insertions i n Croesus' story m a k e to the d e v e l o p m e n t The

reasons w h y

o f the w h o l e .

H e r o d o t u s chooses

t o present m a t e r i a l i n the

f o r m o f a shorter r a t h e r t h a n a l o n g e r n a r r a t i v e c o n c e r n the w h o l e design o f the w o r k a n d c a n n o t be d o n e j u s t i c e to here. I t is t r u e t h a t w h i l e the m a i n story addresses the e x p a n s i o n o f eastern p o w e r , Greeks o f t e n a p p e a r i n 'short stories' ( A r i o n ,

Bias/Pittacus,

Peisistratus o f A t h e n s a n d S p a r t a , Polycrates, H e r m o t i m u s ) ,

Solon, but that

w h e n the tide t u r n s n e a r the e n d o f the Histories, Persians o f t e n take over this role (Artayctes, X e r x e s a n d Masistes, Cyrus). A m i n o c l e s ' story is also a n i n s e r t i o n i n t o a n a c c o u n t m a i n l y d e v o t e d t o a s t o r m b r i n g i n g h a v o c to the Persian fleet. Y e t this r u l e is n o t w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n . Short

stories are c r e d i t e d w i t h c l a r i t y , s i m p l i c i t y , e c o n o m y ,

and

v i v i d n e s s . 5 3 T h i s i m p r e s s i o n is a result o f t h e i r n a r r a t i v e a r t , b u t also o f their context. T h e

advice o f Bias/Pittacus

looks v i v i d because i t

is set i n t o a n annalistic a c c o u n t o f Croesus' rise d e v o i d o f such features ( 1 . 2 6 - 8 ) , a n d even w i t h i n the story o f Solon's advice, his p h i l o sophical lecture on the c o m p u t a t i o n comparison Cleobis

of a man's

life is d u l l

w i t h his clear, v i v i d , s i m p l e a n d e c o n o m i c a l story

and Biton. Nor

byof

is the alleged m a i n story d e v o i d o f these

effects; thus the story o f Z o p y r u s ' c a p t u r e o f B a b y l o n shows a l l these features (3.150—60).

Arion's

story possesses t h e m , b u t n o t i n m u c h

greater degree t h a n the story o f A l y a t t e s ' escape f r o m illness (1.19: Alyattes'

d i l e m m a a n d p r o p o s e d r e s o l u t i o n ; 1 . 2 0 - 1 : he is deceived

i n t o f a i l i n g his first a t t e m p t a t a r e s o l u t i o n , b u t 1.22: his second s o l u t i o n w o r k s ) . N e i t h e r has d i r e c t speech, b o t h are clear, s i m p l e , e c o n o m i c a l accounts o f A l y a t t e s ' f r o m death. T h e

escape f r o m disease, a n d

and

Arion's

deceptive sight o f t h e M i l e s i a n s d r i n k i n g a n d eat-

i n g f r o m t h e i r large heap o f stores is p a r t i c u l a r l y v i v i d . T h e r e is n o u n i f o r m n a r r a t i v e m o d e t h a t c a n define short stories. B o n h e i m (1982) distinguishes f o u r n a r r a t i v e modes: description, r e p o r t , speech, a n d c o m m e n t .

H e r o d o t u s w r i t e s s h o r t stories i n the

third

p e r s o n o f n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t except w h e r e speech intervenes, b u t this is characteristic o f m u c h o f his n a r r a t i v e . T h e balance o f r e p o r t a n d speech is n o t u n i f o r m , even i n short stories o f c o m m o n

Thomson (1935).

t y p e , such

SHORT STORIES I N HERODOTUS'

299

HISTORIES

as those o f X e r x e s ' excessive kindness a n d c r u e l t y (7.27-9, 38-9

and

8.118, above p. 000), w h e r e his i n t e r v i e w w i t h Pythius uses d i r e c t speech almost exclusively, w h i l e his sea voyage is a r e p o r t , w i t h d i r e c t speech o n l y to h i g h l i g h t the captain's advice a n d X e r x e s '

request.

S i m i l a r l y , t h o u g h the wise advisor stories are usually i n speech, some v a r i a t i o n s are reports (3.14, 119: b e l o w p. 000). A r i o n ' s s t o i y is even a n e x c e p t i o n to the a p p a r e n t r u l e t h a t stories m a i n l y i n n a r r a t i v e m a r k t h e i r crises i n d i r e c t speech (the revenge o f H e r m o t i m u s ,

the

revenge o n A r t a y c t e s , a n d m a n y others). T h o s e few descriptions t h a t o c c u r c o n f o r m to the artistic r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the short story, w h i c h o n l y a d m i t s m a t e r i a l t h a t c o n t r i b u t e s to i n t e r p r e t i n g the a c t i o n (e.g., the wildernesses i n t o w h i c h p o t e n t i a l t y r a n t s retreat: C y r u s 1.110.2, Perdiccas 8.138.2-3). T h e r e are f r e q u e n t n a r r a t o r i a l c o m m e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y o n the sources o r the c r e d i b i l i t y o f the stories ( A r i o n

1.23,

X e r x e s 8.119; i n t r u s i o n s also m a k e o t h e r p o i n t s at 1.119.7, 8.137.2), b u t such c o m m e n t s also grace the m a i n story. I n c o n c l u s i o n , short stories i n H e r o d o t u s

c a n be best d e f i n e d b y

t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f stereotyped patterns o f a c t i o n o f l i m i t e d comp l e x i t y w h i c h are c o n c e n t r a t e d a n d h i g h l y w r o u g h t ,

amass

their

w e i g h t t o w a r d t h e i r endings i n a r e s o l u t i o n o f crisis, a n d can

be

grasped w h o l e .

Pattern and Variation T h e t r a d i t i o n a l tale has a t w o f o l d q u a l i t y : 'its a m a z i n g m u l t i f o r m i t y , picturesqueness a n d c o l o r a n d o n the o t h e r h a n d its n o less s t r i k i n g u n i f o r m i t y , its r e p e t i t i o n ' . 3 4 H e r o d o t u s

i n fact varies his p a t t e r n s i n

v e r y sophisticated ways. I h a v e a l r e a d y b r i e f l y described v a r i a t i o n s i n the stories o f kindness a n d c r u e l t y , rise a n d f a l l , a n d the wise advisor. T h e p a t t e r n o f the wise advisor merits a closer l o o k , i n o r d e r to appreciate its t y p i c a l f u l l range o f v a r i a t i o n s . T h e characters f o r a start are n o t always the p l a i n wise m a n

and

r u l e r . Bias/Pittacus (1.27), S o l o n ( 1 . 2 9 - 3 3 ) , d r e a m s (1.34), A p o l l o of D e l p h i (1.47-56) a n d p o r t e n t s (1.78) v a r i o u s l y advise Croesus. characters c a n also change places. A

34

deposed Croesus, m a d e

The wise

Propp ((1928) 1968) 21. Schwabl (1969), working on analogies, though not exclusively on short stories, concluded, 272: 'Geschichte führt bei Herodot immer wieder zum selben'; but variety is also essential.

300

V I V I E N N E GRAY

t h r o u g h s u f f e r i n g the loss o f his r u l e , advises G y r u s ( 1 . 8 8 - 9 ,

207)

a n d , u n d e r constant threat o f menaces, Cambyses ( 3 . 3 4 - 6 ) . D e m a r a t u s , a n o t h e r deposed k i n g m a d e wise t h r o u g h s u f f e r i n g a n d e x i l e , advises X e r x e s , once i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h A c h a e m e n e s ( 7 . 1 0 1 - 4 , 2 0 9 , 234—7). E v e n those still i n possession o f p o w e r p r o v e wiser t h a n t h e i r subj e c t s i n t i m e s o f success (Pausanias'

refusal o f L a m p o n ' s

advice:

9 . 7 8 - 9 ; G y r u s ' refusal o f A r t e m b a r e s ' : 9.122). T h e r e are n o b a r r i e r s o f age o r sex. T h e c h i l d G o r g o competes w i t h ambassador Aristagoras i n a d v i s i n g h e r f a t h e r Cleomenes (5.49—51). X e r x e s favours t h e advice o f a n a d u l t w o m a n A r t e m i s i a over t h e m o r e c a l c u l a t i n g M a r d o n i u s even t h o u g h he does n o t always act o n i t ( 8 . 6 8 - 9 , 1 0 1 - 3 ) . T h e r u l e r c a n take the i n i t i a t i v e i n seeking a d v i c e , pro forma or o t h e r w i s e , o r c a n receive i t u n a s k e d ; he c a n h a v e the w i t to see i t o r n o t , act o n it o r n o t , take offence at i t o r l a u g h at i t . H e

c a n even test i t

first,

as Croesus tests t h e oracles o f A p o l l o a n d A m p h i a r a u s (1.47—9).

The

advisor is usually i n d i r e c t h o w e v e r (the oracles are a n e x t r e m e case, b u t even r u l i n g kings d o n o t f o r c e t h e i r advice o n t h e i r p e o p l e : 9 . 1 2 2 ) , a n d w a r y o f a hostile response ( 1 . 8 8 , 7 . 1 0 1 ; A r t e m i s i a is an exception). T h e f o r m o f t h e advice c a n also be v a r i e d . B i a s ' / P i t t a c u s '

advice

t o Croesus (1.27) p r o d u c e s a b r i e f d i a l o g u e , A m a s i s gives his advice to Polycrates ( 3 . 4 0 - 3 ) i n a letter. Solon's advice ( 1 . 2 9 - 3 3 ) is e x p a n d e d i n t o the i n c r e m e n t a l t r i p l e t h a t u n d e r l i n e s Croesus' greater resistance to w i s d o m ; the advice itself consists o f t w o s h o r t stories ( 1 . 3 0 . 4 - 5 , 31)

and a long lecture (1.32-3). Demaratus,

i n another variation,

advises X e r x e s o n three separate occasions, a n d each o f these is f o r m a l l y v a r i e d . T h e first develops t h e i n c r e m e n t a l t r i p l e : t h r e e requests f o r advice f r o m X e r x e s a n d three responses f r o m D e m a r a t u s ,

each

one l o n g e r t h a n the last, w i t h final dismissal ( 7 . 1 0 1 - 4 , i n c l u d i n g the m o t i f i n w h i c h t h e wise m a n w a r i l y asks w h e t h e r he s h o u l d speak to please o r t r u l y advise: 7.101). T h e second consists o f t w o requests a n d t w o responses, t h e first s h o r t e r t h a n t h e second, w i t h

final

dis-

missal (7.209). T h e t h i r d also has t w o pairs o f request a n d response, b u t i n c l u d e s the advice o f A c h a e m e n e s ,

who

opposes

Demaratus,

a n d is answered b y X e r x e s ( 7 . 2 3 4 - 7 ) . B y means o f this k i n d o f e x p a n sion the p a t t e r n even generates w h o l e debates. T w o

wise advisors,

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p o l a r i t i e s o f speaking to please a n d s p e a k i n g the t r u t h , a r e a g a i n i n c o m p e t i t i o n i n t h e debate o f 7.8—18. X e r x e s deconstructs the p a t t e r n even w h i l e p e r f o r m i n g w i t h i n i t , w h e n

he

calls his advisors to assent to his schemes r a t h e r t h a n give t r u e advice

SHORT STORIES I N HERODOTUS'

(7.8d). M a r d o n i u s

flatters

301

HISTORIES

unvvisely w h i l e A r t a b a n u s

tells the

truth,

w i t h X e r x e s h a v i n g a series o f r e a c t i o n s t o w h a t h e hears.

The

speeches o f 8 . 1 4 0 - 4 also i n v o l v e t h r e e speakers, w i t h the

Spartans

a n d A l e x a n d e r o f f e r i n g o p p o s i n g advice to t h e A t h e n i a n s

and

the

A t h e n i a n s r e s p o n d i n g t o e a c h . T h e s e speeches also e x h i b i t r e p e a t e d m o t i f s , such as t h e c o u r t e o u s b u t f i r m dismissal o f a d v i c e cf. 9 . 7 9 . 2 ) .

(8.143.3,

35

Sometimes

t h e p a t t e r n is n o t easy to detect at first r e a d i n g . I n a

v a r i a t i o n o f the wise a d v i s o r s t o r y , t h e Persian K i n g C a m b y s e s 'tries the soul' o f the E g y p t i a n K i n g Psammetichus, w h o turns out to have g a i n e d w i s d o m t h r o u g h s u f f e r i n g (3.14). C a m b y s e s parades i n f r o n t o f t h e i r defeated f a t h e r first the enslaved princess, h u m i l i a t e d a l o n g w i t h the o t h e r n o b l e g i r l s , t h e n t h e d o o m e d p r i n c e , a b r i d l e o n his m o u t h , a rope around

his n e c k , i n the m i d s t o f his f e l l o w s .

The

E g y p t i a n shows n o e m o t i o n . B u t t h e n a t h i r d a n d a c c i d e n t a l spectacle p r o v o k e s ion,

his m o s t severe distress; a n o l d e r

drinking-compan-

u n r e l a t e d t o h i m , b u t f a l l e n f r o m p r o s p e r i t y , w h o is b e g g i n g f o r

w h a t he c a n get f r o m t h e soldiers. C a m b y s e s fails t o

understand.

T h e E g y p t i a n explains t h a t his o w n f a m i l y ' s s u f f e r i n g surpasses tears, b u t n o t his o l d f r i e n d ' s . C a m b y s e s recognizes

t h a t his e n e m y

has

w i s d o m i n s u f f e r i n g . H e even feels p i t y . C r o e s u s , present at the testing

o f t h e E g y p t i a n , cries also at t h e o l d f r i e n d ' s f a l l f r o m f o r t u n e ,

so like his o w n . T h e

t h r e e c l i m a c t i c tests o f the E g y p t i a n ' s soul (the

d a u g h t e r , the son, the f r i e n d ) m a t c h Solon's t r i p l e advice t o Croesus i n speech, b u t are presented m a i n l y i n n a r r a t i v e f o r m . Speeches m a r k o n l y the crisis, w h i c h is t h e exchange

o f messengers,

t w o k i n g s , i n w h i c h t r u t h is r e v e a l e d (3.14.9—10). T h e

between

the

use o f c o n -

trast is a n a d d i t i o n a l f e a t u r e , w e l l suited t o b r i n g a n e x t r a

dimen-

sion o f m e a n i n g t o the compressed f o r m . C a m b y s e s ' c o u r t i e r s reveal t h e i r o w n l a c k o f w i s d o m w h e n t h e y w e e p f o r t h e i r o w n sons

and

daughters, paraded along w i t h the royal c h i l d r e n , b u t n o t for their old friend. The

story o f the w i f e o f I n t a p h e r n e s

(3.119) is a v a r i a t i o n i n a

s i m i l a r v e i n , a g a i n m a i n l y p r e s e n t e d as n a r r a t i v e r e p o r t w i t h the c l i m a x i n speech. H a v i n g a r r e s t e d h e r h u s b a n d f o r d i s l o y a l t y a n d b e i n g

35

According to Lang (1984) 36, these patterns are of an oral rather than a rhetorical origin; for one exception, see Lang (1984) 138 ff. For arguments against the influence of formal tragedy: Long (1987) 1 7 9 - 9 2 , Evans ( 1 9 9 1 ) 4 - 5 , and

6 in this volume.

see

Ch.

302

V I V I E N N E GRAY

a b o u t to e l i m i n a t e t h e rest o f h e r k i n as w e l l , D a r i u s offers h e r t h e c h o i c e o f saving just o n e r e l a t i v e . She reveals u n e x p e c t e d w i s d o m b y c h o o s i n g her b r o t h e r r a t h e r t h a n h e r h u s b a n d o r sons, e x p l a i n i n g t o D a r i u s t h a t she c a n n o t get a n o t h e r b r o t h e r , b u t m i g h t get another husband and children. T h e s e stories characterize the early parts o f Cambyses' a n d D a r i u s ' reigns. T h e

p a t t e r n o f t e n i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e m o t i f o f kings a d m i r i n g

the w i s d o m they receive; t h e n c e f o r t h , C a m b y s e s keeps the defeated Egyptian Croesus

k i n g at his side (3.15.1), i n the same w a y as C y r u s (1.88.1) a n d C y r u s

k e p t t h e d e f e a t e d Astyages

when

kept he

s h o w e d p o l i t i c a l w i s d o m (1.130.3). The

final

w o r d belongs to a n a n o n y m o u s

Persian, w h o

decon-

structs the p a t t e r n f r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w o f the wise m a n , as X e r x e s d e c o n s t r u c t e d i t f r o m the ruler's p o i n t o f v i e w . H e advises the G r e e k Thersander

a b o u t the disaster c o m i n g to the Persians. H i s

reason

f o r i n f o r m i n g the G r e e k r a t h e r t h a n his o w n h i g h c o m m a n d ,

who

are alone i n a p o s i t i o n to d o s o m e t h i n g a b o u t i t , is, as he says, t h a t disaster c a n n o t be a v o i d e d , the wise advisor is never h e e d e d ,

and

he is u n d e r o r d e r s to f o l l o w ; the w o r s t p a i n is to k n o w m u c h

and

c o n t r o l n o t h i n g (9.16). S o m e o f these v a r i a t i o n s s i m p l y reflect t h e characters i n v o l v e d , b u t others m a y have greater s i g n i f i c a n c e , just as v a r i a t i o n i n H o m e r is sometimes the key to his m e a n i n g . T h i s makes H e r o d o t u s ' v a r i a tions as w o r t h y o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n as t h e patterns themselves.

Organization and Function The

Histories as a w h o l e are s t r u c t u r e d as a series o f u n i t s m a r k e d

b y f r a m i n g sentences o r t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t , set i n sequence, one g i v i n g rise to the n e x t . 3 6 These are said to i m i t a t e the units o f H e r o d o t u s ' p a r e n t h e t i c kai- sentence s t r u c t u r e s . 3 7 H i s c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e i n a b i l -

* Immerwahr (1966) 7, 11-16 on general structure, 52-8 on framed units. These units (15), are of'every conceivable length' and there is 'no hierarchy of major and minor'; (61): nothing should be labelled 'digression' since this implies lack of importance; it is impossible to say that the alleged digression is more or less important than other units; only 'From the purely formal point of view, we can make a distinction between shorter and larger units.' See also Ch. 11 in this volume. " Immerwahr (1966) 47-51: kai- elements enhance the autonomy and separateness of each unit. Long (1987) 11-14: all ideas are presented as equally important, there is little subordination and a lot of conjunction. :

*

SHORT STORIES I N HERODOTUS'

HISTORIES

303

ity to breed mules in Elis (4.30), which he calls an 'addition', actually describes his sequential habit. The comment arises as an exception to his previous comment that mules generally tolerate temperate climes. This makes the structure o f the work as a whole completely different from that o f the short story, even though short stories are one o f the many forms o f unit found in the sequence. The short story is organic, like Aristotelian poiesis, with a clear beginning, middle, and end, short enough to be focussed on the ending, and grasped in one view. I n contrast, the work as a whole has an inorganic, archaic structure, a series of units o f more or less equal weight, which cannot be grasped all at once. The ending is merely the last i n the series. A form of ring composition could link it to the beginning, but it would be difficult to say that it carries the weight of the whole. Short stories are nevertheless organized within the larger narrative according to this sequential habit. They usually have an obvious mechanical connection to the preceding narrative. They can involve a character o f the main story (e.g., stories o f advice). The connection is often personal i n other cases as w e l l . Perdiccas' story (8.137-9), Euenius' story (9.92.2), and Artembares' story (9.122) arise out of the stories o f their descendants: Alexander, Deiphonus, and Artayctes respectively. Arion's story (1.23-4) arises out o f the mendon o f Periander, his patron, i n the previous story o f the siege o f Alyattes (1.20, 23-4). Hermotimus is mentioned in the main story only in order to tell his own story (8.104-7). 38

39

The sequential impulse is strong. Even those stories out o f chronological sequence are i n structural sequence. Herodotus says that he is returning to an earlier point i n his narrative when, after completing the campaign o f Thermopylae, he tells how Demaratus first warned the Greeks o f the invasion and how the wife of Leonidas interpreted his message (7.239). Yet it is linked to the previous unit through the immediately preceding reference to Demaratus as advisor o f Xerxes (7.237) and to the dead Leonidas (7.238). Stories structure the main story i n various ways. They mark the completion o f stages i n the larger careers o f the eastern rulers,

38

Cobet (1971) 45-59 discusses 'additions', which Immerwahr (1966) 14 n. 34 would see merely as further logoi in sequence. Immerwahr (1966) 40 sees action and counter-action as the link between major units. Gould (1989) 42 points to the importance of personal connections in relating one unit to the next. See also the way in which Homer introduces characters: Richardson (1990) 36-50. 39

304

V I V I E N N E GRAY

operating in a similar fashion to sections on ethnography and customs. Hermotimus' story marks the end of the campaign o f Salamis (8.104-7). Perdiccas' story marks the Persian offer of terms to the Athenians (8.137-9). Stories about diviners mark pauses before battles (8.33-7, 9.93—4). Stories o f aristeia cluster after battles (9.71-83). Artembares' story marks the work's final pause (9.122). Short stories also frame larger units o f narrative. The two stories o f Xerxes' excessive kindness and cruelty link the beginning and end of his invasion (7.27-8, 38-9, 8.118). Demaratus' story (7.239) marks the end o f the campaign of Thermopylae and refers back to its beginning. T h e three stories o f Xerxes and Masistes, Artayctes and Protesilaus, and Artembares and Cyrus at the end o f the Histories echo stories from the beginning (below pp. 310—15). The thematic relation o f short stories to their contexts is more controversial. Stories are often thematic 'digressions' in that they do not directly advance the chronological progress o f the mainstream narrative, but the removal o f the stories from Croesus' career would leave the merest skeleton o f a narrative— no longer the full-fleshed and organic account o f the human condition that the short stories make it. There are other ways besides i n which short stories relate thematically to the main story. Those that arise directly from the subject matter often comment on it as a result o f their placement. The advice o f Bias/Pittacus (1.27) divides Croesus' conquest o f the Greeks i n Asia from those Greeks and other nations within the River Halys. It is placed here to explain Croesus' friendship with the Ionian islands, the one area o f relations with Greeks i n which he departs from the war-like conquest that surrounds it, and it thus confirms by exception his identity as 'the first who harmed the Greeks'. Solon's advice, which marks the completion of Croesus' rise to power and heralds the loss o f his son, his first disaster i n his unbroken happiness, is also o f immediate as well as far-reaching thematic relevance because Solon focusses on sons as an ingredient o f happiness (the sons and grandsons o f Tellos, Cleobis and Biton, the sons o f the priestess). Similarly, the twin logoi of Athens and Sparta (1.59-68) that herald Croesus' aggression against Cyrus and explain why Croesus chose to make alliance with Sparta as the most powerful o f the Greeks, develop political thought about the constitutional sources o f the m i l 10

Immerwahr (1966) 61 f.