CHAPTER NINE
POPULAR MORALITY IN HERODOTUS
Nick Fisher
Introduction: Leotychides and Glaucus, Croesus and Solon
In Book Six, Herodotus describes how, shortly before Darius' Inva sion of mainland Greece, King Leotychides of Sparta sought to per suade the Athenians to surrender ten Aeginetan hostages whom he and the now disgraced King Cleomenes had left with them. His rhetorical strategy was to tell a story with a strong moral: I a Spartan called Glaucus, with an exceptional reputation for justice, agreed to hold on trust a large sum of money from a Milesian, but tempo rized when asked for its return by his sons, and enquired of Apollo's oracle at Delphi whether he might perjure himself in order to keep the money. The oracle responded that even if Glaucus himself profited from his perjury, his descendants would pay in the end. Glaucus immediately asked for forgiveness for even asking the question of the god, and returned the money; but the priestess' promise that it was too late was fulfilled. Glaucus had no descendant or hearth left in Sparta, and his family was wiped out root and branch, so that the moral was that 'it is good not even to contemplate any other course concerning an entrusted property (paratheke) than to return it when it is demanded' (6.86). A number of points arise from this characteristic example of Herodotean storytelling. Central to justice and good behaviour are keeping one's word, returning objects on trust, and not swearing falsely by the gods; a primary sanction for observance of moral prin ciples was the fear of punishment from the gods, which might pre serve its credibility by the argument that it often operated over a
I 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 very long time-scale; and the Delphic oracle, as Apollo's mouthpiece, was thought to have a role in upholding such basic moral tenets. 2 However, the impression the passage may give of a simple mor alizing designed to have a straightforward effect on its hearers or readers is partially undermined by the broader context. The Athenians pay the story no attention, and the impression is given that they already regard it as an old-fashioned rhetorical strategy.3 Herodotus does not comment here that the Athenians suffered later for their refusal to comply on grounds of political expediency in relation to their quarrel with Aegina; but, as we shall see, hints of such future problems for Athens do exist. 4 Herodotus has also, not long before, revealed that Leotychides was later to yield to temptation, more deci sively than Glaucus, and was exiled after being discovered surrounded by bribes; his house was demolished (6. 72).5 Herodotus' text is full of events, speeches, and narratorial com ments which offer judgments in terms of generally accepted Greek moral principles, and of retribution delivered to those who offend against them. 6 The internal coherence of these principles, however, the inevitability with which Herodotus supposes they are upheld by divine powers, the extent to which human retaliation in response to moral outrage can be problematic in itself, and the importance of such moral ideas in his overall patterns of explanation, are all the subject of much debate among his modern interpreters. This chap ter discusses a selection of cases which raise such general problems. I shall suggest that the historian is indeed centrally concerned to explore major issues such as divine punishment for injustice, exces sive revenge or overconfidence in prosperity, or the contrast between tyrannical and luxurious Eastern Empires and leaner, freedom-loving Greek states; but that we do not find simple or consistent messages or contrasts, but rather a subtle and flexible set of interconnected
2 On which see the minimalist account of Davies (1997); on the Glaucus story, also Immerwahr (1966) 213- 15, Harrison (2000b) 117- 19. 3 See also Missiou (1998), arguing that the Athenians are presented consistently in Herodotus and Thucydides as less responsive to arguments from reciprocity. 4 See esp. Immerwahr (1966) 214- 18, Fornara (l97Ia) 80-6, Momigliano (1979) 148- 9, Konstan (1987) 72- 3, Raaflaub (1987), Moles (1996), Harrison (2000b) 117- 18. S 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 depo sition of Demaratus; see Boedeker (1987) 190-1. 6 E.g., Pohlenz (1937) 91 - 5, Immerwahr (1966) 308- 9.