Political Relativism: Implicit Political Theory in Herodotus' Histories
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
POLITICAL RELATIVISM: IMPLICIT POLITICAL THEORY IN HERODOTUS’ HISTORIES Cornelia Sydnor Roy A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics Chapel Hill 2010 Approved By: Phiroze Vasunia Rosaria Munson Emily Baragwanath Brendan Boyle William Race ©2010 Cornelia Sydnor Roy ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT CORNELIA SYDNOR ROY: Political Relativism: Implicit Political Theory in Herodotus’ Histories. (Under the direction of Phiroze Vasunia) This dissertation argues that Herodotus presents political institutions in a manner similar to the way he presents customs and cultural institutions. That is, he promotes a position of political relativism parallel to his cultural relativism. The dissertation first explores the Constitutional Debate and establishes that Herodotus’ political thought is primarily applied thinking that is dependent upon temporal and social context. The second and third chapters establish the close relationship between cultural description and political description. Chapter Two examines this relationship in two ways: semantically and developmentally. Herodotus uses similar vocabulary and syntax in order to talk about political and cultural behavior. The developmental approach examines societies in their early stages of existence. I determine that, at the most basic level, societies seek justice, stability, and cultural representation from their governments. Political practices and institutions closely mirror the customs of the societies that practice the, Chapter Three extends this developmental examination to six more advanced and better defined societies in the Histories: Lydia, Egypt, Scythia, Sparta, Persia, and Athens. I show that even these societies have political structures that develop from and are limited by their cultural background. Chapter Four brings together the arguments of the prior chapters by focusing first on the idea of freedom as it is presented in the Histories. The text supports freedom in the abstract, but iii recognizes that freedom is a subjective experience within the societies presented in the Histories. I examine models of political relativism found in the text that are related to this conception of freedom. I conclude by exploring the impact of this kind of thinking on later Greek history and, in particular, the Peloponnesian War. I suggest that Herodotus’ political relativism is, in part, a belief that political ideology is a complex issue and not a reason to go to war. iv To Mom and Dad v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my director, Phiroze Vasunia, for his consistent support and direction. Thanks also for the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. My readers, Rosaria Munson, Emily Baragwanath, Brendan Boyle, and William Race, have my thanks for their challenging comments and willingness to help over a long period of time and, often, over great distances. Jim O’Hara provided guidance, support, and multiple reading s of my drafts. My entire family has supported me and persevered with me throughout the whole process. And, finally, my husband Bill offered advice, read multiple drafts, eased my worries, and kept me firmly footed as I reached the final stages. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter I. Defining the Debates ………………………………………………………………..10 The Constitutional Debate …………………………………………………………..31 II. The Relationship Between Culture and Politics …………………………………….53 The Semantic Approach ……………………………………………………………..55 The Developmental Approach ………………………………………………………75 III. Nomos and Politics: Case Studies of Societies in the Histories ……………………. 88 Lydia and Egypt ……………………………………………………………………..90 Scythia and Sparta ………………………………………………………………….111 Persia and Athens …………………………………………………………………..129 IV. Political Relativism as an Ideological Position …………………………………….149 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………...…173 Bibliography ……… ……………………………………………………………………….177 vii Introduction Book One of Herodotus’ Histories contains a number of important elements and episodes that are meaningful for understanding the Histories as a whole. The first sentence indicates the nature and purpose of the work. The next five paragraphs reveal Herodotus’ attitude towards mythology and, through the historicizing of myths, suggest that Herodotus is wary of using mythology as a source for history. The Croesus logos, including the story of his ancestor Gyges, sets the tone for analyzing future eastern despots and serves as the first interaction between Greeks and barbarians about which Herodotus claims historical knowledge (1.6). The meeting between Croesus and Solon, which has been extensively examined by many students of Herodotus, illuminates many of Herodotus’ guiding principles in his text.1 The story is well known: Solon comes to Croesus’ court during his ten years of wandering exile from Athens. Croesus shows Solon his riches and expects him to be impressed with his wealth and to judge him a happy man. When Solon does not do so, Croesus becomes angry with him and demands an explanation. Solon responds with an explanation that contains a number of maxims that are applicable to the entire Histories: “look to the end,” “happiness does not stay in the same place,” and “beware of divine 1 There is general scholarly consensus that the interaction of Solon and Croesus is programmatic. How and Wells (1912, 49 n. 1), Jacoby (1913, 487‐488), Lattimore (1939, 30‐31), Immerwahr (1966, 313), Fornara (1971, 18‐21), Redfield (1985, 102), Munson (1988, 105), Lateiner (1989, 21), Shapiro (1996, 348‐ 364). A few people argue that Solon’s views are not Herodotus’ views (Lang [1984, 61], Waters [1985, 104]); they base their position on the fact that not all of Solon’s views, and most importantly his concept of divine jealousy, are reflected in the text. jealousy.” Raaflaub argues that these basic messages are moral, but also political – that is, that they apply to both individuals and societies.2 Solon’s comparison between the life of an individual and the life of a society reinforces Raaflaub’s argument: “no country is completely self-sufficient; any country has some things, but lacks others, and the best country is the one which has the most. By the same token, no one person is self-sufficient” (1.32). This comparison between the individual and the society offers an insight into how Herodotus creates a space for analyzing community and political action in the Histories while maintaining his focus upon the individual,3 for in Herodotus the community acts in ways similar to the individual.4 Also, as Thompson points out, Herodotus “recognizes that particular manifestations of the human spirit take their form according to the distinctive nomoi of the community.”5 The community, through the influence of common cultural traits, plays a role in determining the actions of the individuals within it. Likewise, an individual can influence a society by changing how it perceives and acts out its own cultural traits. For example, Themistocles radically influences Athenian self-identity during the conference before the battle of Salamis (8.59-63). Adeimantus, the Corinthian commander, tries to 2 Raaflaub (1987, 246). 3 Flory (1987, 153): “Although his canvas in gigantic, Herodotus is essentially a miniaturist.” Gould (1984) also emphasizes the multitude of individuals and the importance of the individual and personal motivations. Dewald (2003, 26) suggests that Herodotus’ work reflects a tension between large thematic elements and individual logoi. 4 Romm (1998, 77) rightly suggests that Solon’s explanation shows how geography and the lands of the earth are analogues for individuals. He interprets the passage as presenting one of many examples of the interconnectedness of the macro‐ and microcosmic world. The relationship between geography, culture, and individuals has been explored by both Romm and Thomas (2000) and is not the primary focus of this dissertation. 5 Thompson (1996, 13). 2 silence Themistocles by suggesting that he is stateless, since the Persians occupy Athens. Themistocles responds that the Athenians still have a city as long as they have two hundred ships ready for war (8.61).6 He claims that Athens is defined by its men and ships rather than by a territory. The Athenian fleet is the vehicle through which Athens is able to realize its democracy.7 Themistocles’ argument, and his creation of the fleet, shaped the formation of the Athenian democratic ethos that citizen strength is more important than geographic location. The influence is bi-directional – Athenian democratic ideology allows Themistocles to make his argument at a critical moment in the war. The two elements of consideration, society and the individual, can mutually define and influence each other to the extent that it is difficult to sort out the motivation of particular events. Solon’s comments function on two further levels. The macro-systemic level encompasses the universal rules that govern the lives of all individuals and societies. The micro-systemic level incorporates the specific narratives and character of an individual or society that affect how they act within the macro-systemic world.8 The tension between these 6 Themistocles is paraphrasing a maxim attributed to Alcaeus (frag. 476 L.‐P.): “cities are not stones or timbers or craft of builders, but wherever there are men who know how to defend themselves, there are walls and cities.” By talking