The Truth Is in the Telling: Perikopes in Herodotus' Histories

University of Alberta

The Truth is in the Telling: Perikopes in Herodotus' Histories

by

Erin Edward Garvin

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in History

Department of History and Cla -sics

©Erin Edward Garvin Fall 2011 Edmonton, Alberta

Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta 1 ibranes t<< 'eproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or selenitic rese.r :h purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form. ;he Umw.;"ty of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms

The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission. Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-81261-7 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-81261-7

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1+1 Canada Abstract

Our earliest extant prose narrative about past events, The Histories of

Herodotus, is the foundational text of the historical genre and Herodotus himself is often called the 'Father of History'. But despite being the oldest, this text remains one of the least well understood historical narratives of the Ancient

World. After centuries of analysis and interpretation, scholarly debate continues unabated. This dissertation proposes to contribute a directional adjustment to that debate by suggesting that the Histories be looked at outside of the context of the historical genre but within the context of the time and place of composition. When published, the Histories was something of an anomaly and it should, I suggest, be evaluated as such.

The Truth is in the Telling offers an analysis of the Histories from the bottom up, so to speak. It begins by suggesting an explanation for Herodotus' inclusion of those apparently irrelevant and almost certainly fictitious stories that have often been called 'digressions', 'novelae' or 'anecdotes'. Having accepted that these elements may indeed have been deliberately placed with purpose, we can then examine both placement (a structural analysis) and content (an analysis of message).

The conclusion is that these elements, defined as perikopes, are key to both the structure and the message of Herodotus' composition and reveal the discourse between the author and his intended audience. Contents

Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus 1-40

Chapter Two: The Status Quaes tionis 41-76

Chapter Three: The Form of the Content 77 - 124

Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol 125 - 195 Introduction 125- 142 The Gyges Microlog 143- 149 The Arion Perikope 150- 155 Croesus, Atys and Adrastus 156- 160 The Ring of Polycrates 161- 163 The Death of Pheritime 164- 165 The Agariste Perikope 166-• 175 Hermotimus Perikope 176- 187 The Cyrus Epilogue 188--195

Chapter Five: Telos 196 - 210

Bibliography 211-220 Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus

...6 8s [Cyrus] OIKOUGGK; OUTCBV [the Ionians] xd 7rpoicxovxo sA,s^e aqn Xoyov, dvSpa (paq auA,rixf|v iSovxa ixOug sv xfj 8aA.doar| auXeeiv,

8OK£OVTCC aS' s|a.so auXsovxot; fiGsA^xs SKPaivsiv 6pxs6u£voi.» [3] Ki3po<; |j,sv xouxov xov A,6yov... (Herodotus i. 141.1-3)

The passage from Herodotus reproduced above is purported to be part of a conversation between Cyrus of Persia and unnamed Ionian and Aeolian envoys after the fall of Lydia to Cyrus in 547 BC.1 It is almost certainly a fiction. It is a blatant plagiarism of a fable by Aesop and it is highly likely that most members of Herodotus' intended audience would have known that fact.2 It poses some important questions: What is the likelihood that Cyrus would relate a Greek fable to these envoys? Had Cyrus said these things it does seem plausible that the account would have been repeated and that Herodotus would have known it or had access to someone who did. But if Cyrus did not say such a thing and Herodotus has invented the scene, why did Herodotus feel it was necessary? What has any of this got to do with the invasions of Hellas by Darius and Xerxes in 490 and 480 BC, or with the context of the publication of the Histories ca. 430 BC? Most importantly, what, if anything, does this narrative section and others like it tell us about Herodotus the author and the Histories as an artefact of his time and as the genesis text of the historical genre?

1 The date is controversial and I agree with the minority of scholars who adhere to 547 as the date of the Lydo-Persian War. Dates as late as 540 have been suggested. There was, for a time, more revisionist history than historical debate. The main players were Balcer (1994, 1991); Cargill (1977); But Young (1988) sees no reason to reject 547. 2 Aesop Fabulae 1 It. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 2

The study of Herodotus brings us to the very origins of historical narrative, of history itself in many ways, and at this place we meet an expatriate Halicarnassian who says simply, iaxopinc; a;t68e^t<; f|8s. Those three words are the historiographical Big Bang. There exists, now, a cosmology of historical texts and constellations of historical writers but any who wish to understand history itself must return here to the beginning of historical time and to Herodotus. Not because Herodotus was the first to write a text that could be called, in current terms, historical and not because Herodotus defined or even exemplified what that word has come to mean today, but because people liked it. Popularity spawned imitation; imitation, refinement; refinement, definition and eventually a new literary genre called History. The epithet was never Herodotus' idea, nor even his title: it was a word plucked from the opening line of the opus by later interpreters.4 Nevertheless, it was because of Herodotus' text that the word iaiopia came to denote both the activity of writing about the past and the product of that activity.5 Over the centuries the meaning of 'history' has come to include the object as well: a lamentable linguistic situation, an historian writes a history about history.6 This seems to beg three questions. What is an historian? What is a history (text)? And, what is history (the past)? The last question is most troublesome because the logical conclusion is that history, the past, isn't.7 Nevertheless, it has a noun and anything signified by a noun can be materialised in the imagination - we give

3 "The results of [my] inquiry are herein made public" Proem. 4 As was the case with manuscripts of the time. The "title" was usually a word or phrase from the opening line. 5 The earliest use of historia in the sense of historical writing is Aristotle {Poetics 1451a36ff.). "...Aristotle was indeed coining a term, not describing established usage" Hornblower(1991: 9-10 & 12). 6 Linda Orr (1986:12). Stanford's solution (1994) is to apply sub-category labels: 'history (e)' and 'history (n)' ('e' for event and 'n' for narrative) or 'history (1)' and '(2).' But this solution is even more awkward than the problem. 7 Zeno of Elea, Plato, Aristotle and others all grappled with the ontology of time and found no satisfactory exit from the logical conundrum that the past does not exist. See for example Aristotle, Contemplations on Time (217b 333ff) and St. Augustine, Confessions XI.26. The Truth is in the Telling - 3 shape and substance, ontology, to anything we can name and on that substance we o apply ownership. It is all, perhaps, psychological necessity.9 Anxieties cause us to speculate about the future and to permit the invention of means to know it in advance and the concept of the future expressed in the present automatically requires a past to complete the sequence. If the future can be knowable, then the present must be a future known at a past time.10 Having established these cognitive patterns, we can employ them as evidence towards explanations, understandings, even points of departure.11 The historian's task is to create the second knowable value, the past, and in so doing create at least the impression of a pattern lest the present of human existence be an inexplicable limbo. But this task is not exclusive to the historian: All communally shared expressions or representations of the past fall into this single paradigm including but not especially the ancient examples like the Egyptian and Assyrian king lists, the Nabunaid Chronicles, ad hoc declarations like the Cyrus Cylinder or the Carnarvon Tablet, the Behistun Inscription and narrative traditions like the Gilgamesh and Ilium Epics.12 They are each history of a sort because they each explain the past to the present.13 Some convey the remembrance through A,6yo<;14

On the importance of naming an object in Herodotus see R. Thomas (2000: 83). A study of those left unnamed in Herodotus might also be useful. 9 See Berger and Luckman, (1966: 120-21): Geertz (1973: 99 - 110 & 1983: 79 - 80). 10 "We wretched mortals! Lost in doubts below, but guess by rumor, and but boast we know" Alexander Pope, Iliad ii.484-6. Prophesies abound in Herodotus and the unstated logic is that the past of his Histories was a present known in a plu-past, therefore the present of his audience was a future known in another past. What better reason to write history? 11 The idea that a study of past conduct will provide a guide for future actors is expressed almost unanimously by ancient writers beginning with Thucydides (i.22). See Diodorus (xviii.59) for an excellent articulation. R.G. Collingwood openly professes such idealism in his Autobiography (2002 (1938): see especially 102 -114). Isaac Azimov's Foundation Trilogy explores the possibility that prediction can lead to manipulation. 12 The earliest written secular narratives may seem to be explaining power to the powerless. But this could not be the case: the powerless, at that time, couldn't read. These are actualized power explaining itself to potential power. 13 Employing the past to legitimate the present is a practice that Butterfield (1965) objects to in his introduction and opening chapter. He later (p.98) admits that the present is the only audience an historian has. Hartog (2000: 385) takes this point a bit too far. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 4 and some through ui30o<; depending to some degree on the type of information available but to a much greater degree on the mood and tolerances of the intended audience and the purpose of the remembrance. MuOoc; is the elder of the two and certainly the more popular because it seems more efficient at allaying anxieties. 15 Annals, chronicles, king lists and other such collections of data are very important to the historian of the academy but a really good story is what grabs and holds people' s attention.! 6 Regardless of the recent preoccupations of the academy, expressions of the past have always and originally been about capturing and controling the public perception. Historiographers usually overlook the Cyrus Cylinder and the Behistun Inscription when tracing the origins of historical narrative but these two documents clearly show the relative deployment of ui30o<; and A,6yo<; in consideration of audience and expectation and the latter qualifies as our oldest extant historical narrative. The Cyrus Cylinder is presented in two columns, one uvGoc; and the other 1 n Xoyoc;. The first column explains how the gods of Babylon were displeased with Nabunidus and searched the world to find a worthy king. They approached Cyrus and asked him to march to Babylon, even accompanied him on the journey, and situated Cyrus on the throne of Babylon. In column one the gods are the active agents. In the second column Cyrus is the active agent with only the blessing of gods who are nowhere active or even present. In the second column it is the people of Babylon who are displeased with Nabunidus and the people of Babylon

"I can only conclude that an in-depth study of the term logos, both inside the Histories and in the literature of his time is a desideratum" (de Jong, 2002: 255). I will attempt to fulfill this task in the third chapter. The collection, From Myth to Reason; studies in the development of Greek thought. Richard Buxton ed. (Oxford UP: 2002) contributes greatly to this effort. 15 See Morgan (1998) on "charter myths" and cultural identity. 16 While critical of the use of story structure in historical narrative, White at least recognizes that story is the necessary vehicle for a causal analysis (1987: 5). 17 It was discovered in excavations at Babylon and explains the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC. The Truth is in the Telling - 5 who accept and ratify the kingship of Cyrus. Clearly, the Cylinder was designed to reach two audiences - those more likely to expect a divine explanation for the recent changes and those more likely to expect a pragmatic explanation, which is to say; those who might accept the will of the gods and the actualization of that will and those who assert human self determination. What both presentations share is the assignation of praise and blame: Nabunidus was a bad king and deserved to be dethroned, Cyrus is a good king and deserves to rule Babylon. Even more importantly, Babylon deserves a good king. The Cyrus Cylinder shows us our earliest extant example of the step from ui30oc; to A,6yoc;. The Behistun Inscription is free to forgo the step and present its tale of praise and blame in X,6yo<; only. Darius is king "by the grace of Ahura Mazda" but not by god's agency.19 He has discovered the lie of Smerdis through an informer, not by divine inspiration or invitation, and he acts, as did the usurper Smerdis, on his own volition. The shift just described was not likely any plan or program. It was simply expedient. Nabunidus had indeed angered the priest class and the devout in Babylon and Cyrus was a good enough politician to take advantage of that anger. Darius, perhaps restricted by his monotheism, felt that he could do without divine intervention - that for his case he could formulate the facts to speak for themselves. The point of this digression is that both texts are history as text. In both cases the text describes not only what happened but why, in both cases causation, culpability and resolution are offered through a narration of pertinent events positioned clearly in time and space. But neither the Cyrus Cylinder nor the Behistun Inscription is history for the sake of history. Neither reconstructs a past for the benefit of some grand pool of knowledge into which future generations can dip for edification. Both texts speak to, inform and in part create the present of their authors. Both texts are a part of a conversation, a mediation, even negotiation, between author and audience,

18 Rather than the first history, the Cyrus Cylinder has often been called the first declaration of human rights. This is purely analeptic (a la Q. Skinner). It could be said that Cyrus was the first politician in that he understood that governance was far easier with the consent of the governed. 19 Darius Behistun Col 1.5.11. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 6 between creator of a communal memmory and the community to which that memory is being presented. Before the academy there was only the community. A story, a remembrance of a past, must be ratified by the community and accepted as communal memory or it will not survive.20 A remembrance belongs to the community not as a gift or acquisition but as the commemoration of a shared experience, as something they have always owned.21 Unlike the academy, the community does not test or scrutinize, it does not impose qualifications or rules, it simply accepts what is convenient and discards what is not, oblivious to contradictions or dichotomies. It is this open opportunism that either allows, or is itself a product of, ui30o<;; either way, the two are inextricably interdependent and together they produce their own reality. Because it is a reality that permits contradictions and dichotomies, it is a reality that cannot permit quantification; it is a reality that cannot permit time.24 Before historical time, which is a function of A,6yo<;, there was divine time, which is a function of ui39o<;, and the former has never fully succeeded the

See Kenny (1999: 421). The collective memory is politically charged. 21 On community and memory specific to Classical Greece see Shrimpton 2001; 1987 and Castriota, 1992. For more general theories see Kenny (1999) and Appadurai (1981) where Bloch and Malinowski are clarified. All of these discussions owe much to Durkheim, 1965. See especially pp 474-6 on communal memory. An institution is defined as a "system of ideas whose object is to explain the world" (Durkheim, 1965: 476). Myth, religion and History are all institutions. More specific to Herodotus see Thompson (1996: 2-3): "groups exist, defined by their group story." Thomas (2000: 121) argues that the purpose of myth was to create the impression of stability. 22 Loraux asks that we "reconstruct the operation by which Athens purges history..." (2006: 73) but Herodotus has done it for us: Phrynicus' Fall of Miletus (Hdt. vi.21) is the paradigm and the politically dangerous "you have danced yourself out of a wedding..." (vi.130) is the application. See Chapter 4 below, The Marriage of Agariste for a more detailed discussion. "Ontological sophistication is a luxury when the life of the tribe is at stake" (Feyerabend, 1981: 2). 23 Appadurai (1981) argues that the past is rule based and therefore finite but this is a non sequitor; rule based things can be infinite. Berger and Luckman (1966) are better on this explaining that the only rule for the past is that it legitimates the current institutions. Any dichotomies can then be handled by "Nihilation" or "Therapy." Examples of both abound in ancient historiography. Finley (1965: 297-8) is thinking along much the same lines. 24 On dichotomies and the Greek imagination see Ober (1989: 300 et al.). The Truth is in the Telling - 7 latter. Greek culture enjoyed a long and continuing tradition wherein the past was composed in verse to be sung and it was explained in terms of the unpredictable agency of anthropomorphic gods. Divine time is not time-within- which; it is neither lineal nor even sequential but purely demonstrative time, circumstantial time. MuGoc;, memory expressed in divine-time, demonstrates the fragility and uncertainty of human existence, the incomprehensible superiority of Fate and the prerogative of the gods. It deals with man's relationship with the immortal and because immortal, timeless. Divine time is also explained by the gods: The first line of the Iliad reads Mfjviv aei5s Bed... because the ability to know the past and to understand its significance rests with the gods and is expressed by the Muse through the poet as conduit. The natural corollary is that whatever follows such an introduction cannot but be 'true' even if not factual - an apparent contradiction but a cognitive category that ancients and moderns alike were and are quite accustomed to.28 In the proem to Theogony (26-28), the Muses declare that they know how to speak \|/ei38sa JtoAM... STUUOIOTV ouoia.29 This is not so much boasting indulgence as declaring necessity: No more than Semele can behold the true

A nice discussion of these concepts can be found in Olender (1994). Appadurai (1981: 218) recognizes that time is a different dimension in mythical remembrances. Centuries after the invention of historical time the Romans could still accept that Aeneas visited Dido while the simplest comparison of traditions puts Aeneas four hundred years before the founding of Carthage. Fornara also recognized the separation between "heroic time" and historical time and credits Hecataeus with the demarcation of "spatium historicum" (Fornara 1983: 5). Finley, (1965: 287-8) gives credit for the "invention of time" to Herodotus. Does the Annates School not return to this type of mythology? Agency for the social historian is a mystery of socio-economic forces not unlike gods with the same goal as any myth: to remove direct culpability from human actors. Fernand Braudel says that humans are but "flotsam and jetsam on the waves of history..." Would his 'history' be a 'wine dark sea? Hesiod's Theogony begins with Moucdcov 'EA.IKG)VI&8

'God works in mysterious ways...' is still a favorite rationalization of the irrational employed by Christians. Insha'Alah is a slightly more dismissive but similar rationalization for Muslims. Hesiod (Theogony and Works and Days) paints a very dim picture. See Geertz (1973: 104): in religious thinking "the problem of suffering is, paradoxically, not how to avoid suffering but how to suffer..." The only thing forbidden to Adam and Eve was the 'Tree of Knowledge.' 32 "Herodotus presents sophie as something very much connected to the understanding of patterns, larger contexts" (Dewald, 1987: 169). 33 Hunter (1982: 265-6) makes the observation that while Herodotus is essentially optimistic — good nomoi will compliment a healthy physis and produce arche — Thucydides is essentially pessimistic - in spite of good nomoi, physis will prevail and bring down arche. The Truth is in the Telling - 9 isn't the point: it is always the underlying hermeneutic that bears truth, the story is merely the vehicle within which it is conveyed.34 The 'falsehoods with verisimilitude' that Hesiod's Muses are so skilled at conveying are stories, narratives, the superficial details of which are fantasy but the underlying message of which conveys, but not clearly, not overtly, the nature of the divine, the character of man and the difference between the two. It may not be a 'true story' but there is truth in the telling. Before the Classical Period of Greek history the communal memory was expressed only in divine time and no separation existed between ui30o<; and Xoyoc;. It was much later than 776 BC, the first Olympiad, that "a small number of antiquarian-minded intellectuals" began to use that quadrennial to track lineal time.36 These Ionian intellectuals had imported the practice of measure-and- compare from Babylon and from Egypt and they found that many aspects of nature could be explained, even understood, through a pragmatic rationalization of observed data. Their success was so dramatic that their knowledge - wisdom it was called at the time because the two concepts had not yet been clearly defined - became itself the stuff of legend.37

Aoyog can be 'story' or 'argument.' By translating the verse narrative of uu9o<; to the prose narrative of Xoyoq they converted narrative from divine statement to reasoned argument. "For members of an historical tradition an argument is a story with a point" Feyerabend (1981: 6). The translation is "a difference in the mode and currency of such discourse, and not a difference in principle" (Apadurai, 1981: 204). 35 Finley (1965: 299). The Greek uuGeouai originally meant 'to say, to tell a story, to give an account' but by the end of the Classical Period the connotations had come to include falsehood. There might be a developmental relationship between the spread of literacy and the shift in meaning. Palamedes claims that he invented the cure for forgetfulness when he invented writing (in both Euripides Palamedes Fr.578 and Gorgias Palamedes 30 the association is made between writing and memory): is dA.fj6sia, the unforgotten, true because it is written? Ibid (294). Herodotus does not refer to the Olympiad system but that fact alone is inconclusive. Thucydides, however, deliberately sought a chronological framework for his account but even he does not use Olympiads. The first historian we know of to use the system was Diodorus of Sicily. Herodotus never refers to the 'Seven Sages' as a group but does mention Solon of Athens (i.29-33; ii.177), Thales of Miletus (i.74-5, 171), Bias of Prienne (i.27, 171), Pittacus of Mitylene (i.27), Chilon of Sparta (vi.65; vii.234) and Periander of Corinth (i.20; iii.50; v.92 et al). For a discussion of the list of the Seven see Diodorus ix.7. The Seven Sages are not a representative sample of Ionian rationalist intellectuals but rather the populist expression of the phenomenon. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 10

When the Ionian intellectuals applied their methods to communal memory they came up with a new way to explain the past. They borrowed narrative and topos from epic and folklore,39 they appropriated the implicit truth-claims of the chronicle and king list, and they adopted prose from the intellectual literature of the time to create the historical narrative; a story that discusses the past but with a new methodology: Rational inquiry, objective observation and critical comparison would rival divine inspiration as a new, secular, ratification of authority.40 As always, the hermeneutic was the end goal but in the fifth century 'truth' would be measured by man.41 Even as they were processing new information toward new conclusions, they set about debating the very nature of knowledge, of 'truth' as a concept: Parmenides authored a treatise entitled The Way of Truth (Aletheia); Gorgias responded with his On Not Being, Protagoras responded with Truth, Plato attacked Protagoras in Theaetetus, and Antiphon produced his own treatise, Truth42 This new discourse about the past was not novelty for the sake of novelty nor was it merely pandering to new literary styles; this discourse was actually capable of accomplishing a task, of doing a job, that had never yet been done but was necessary to the realities of the new intellectual and socio-political discourse that had gripped Athens and a few other democratic city states. That job was to translate the discourse about the past, a discourse necessary to self definition, even self realization, from the language of ui30o<; to the language of Xojoq, the

For a full exegesis on the influence of the Ionian intellectuals on Herodotus see Thomas (2001). Marincola makes the point earler (1997:7) and with Dewald (1987: 35 - 6) but Thomas makes a study of it. History owes to Epic its basic structure and content: third person narrative, great deeds, cause and effect. Marincola (1997: 6). "...history was born to epic in union with the spirit of the Ionian enlightenment" (Pritchett 1993: 6). See Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thucydides 23. Part of the sophistic movement was the task of organizing and codifying information. Lists and chronologies were part of this program and Fornara thinks "antiquities were studied and arranged for their own sake" (Fornara 1983: 22). This view is challenged, however, by Herington (1991: 5). 41 This is, of course, Protagoras. Herodotus does much to support Protagoras' relativism theory, see iii.38 and vii.152 as well as the discussion of these passages in Thomas (2000: 126 - 9). Hecataeus, Herodotus' predecessor, is said to have been a student of Protagoras (Suda E360). 42 Gagarin (2001: 172). The Truth is in the Telling - 11 language of 8r|uoKpaTia and of iaovouia, without damaging the content. "The Muse never became the discarded mistress of Greece. She learned to write and read while continuing to sing."44 Self determination is not only expressed in the ballot, but in the past as well. The past as an object against which to deploy the methodology of Ionian rationalism posed certain unique problems. When Herodotus presented his narrative, a story - but A-oyoc; rather than [ivQoq - on an epic scale both in content and length, he was entering the domain of poets and of gods and the dimension of divine-time where his intended audience was inured even if no longer comfortable.45 He was asking his audience to remember the past in a new way and he was wise, or careful, enough not to ask too much.46 It was already radical enough for his audience to engage the new past in Ionic prose, the dialect of the conquered in the empire of the unconquerable, and the very modern and somewhat subversive dialect of those who claim wisdom independent of the

Herodotus' biggest challenge may well have been presented by his predecessors. Dionysius of Halicamassus (Thuc. 5) says that there were many

Finley, (1965: 300) and Shrimpton (1997: 95) suggest that History was made necessary by the new secular politics of the Athenian democracy. See also Meier (1990: 72); "...the homogeneity of knowledge - and hence the reliability of expectations - had been seriously impaired during the great crisis of the archaic period" and this contributed to the advent of historical prose literature. Naddaf (2001) links this to the advent of literacy. Ober (1989: 259) sees historical prose as a primarily aristocratic reaction to the political changes. 44 Havelock(1988). 45 Challenges to traditional orthodoxy had been going on for some time before the mid- fifth century and the script of the debate would have been well known to most educated Greeks even before Socrates (see Euthyphro 8a.but more importantly Symposium). See Nadaf (2001:5). Herodotus, "like many of the philosophers and sophists, is both uncomfortable and comfortable with Greek polytheism as a matter of nomos, but is really only comfortable with 'the divine' conceptually" (Scullion, 2006: 202). Herodotus rarely mentions his audience, but see iii.103: "EXkr\ai on ouyypdcpo). 46 Malinowski held that the past was a "charter" and Appadurai adds that the charter is "collectively held, publically expressed and ideologically charged..." (Appadurai, 1981: 202). That charter cannot be altered without the permission of the collective. Shrimpton (1997) is perhaps the best work on the subject of communal memory in Ancient Greece, but see more recently the work of Nicole Loraux. 47 The point here is debatable: Ionic dialect was the Lingua Franca of the intellectualism of the time, but was also common in Halicamassus (see Dionysius of Halicamassus) (Thomas 2000: 9). It may simply be the case that Herodotus was not comfortable writing in Attic dialect. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 12 historical writers prior to Thucydides and Herodotus but he does not give us a list. A Persika was likely composed by Dionysius of Miletus but we have little that could even be called fragments.48 Hecataeus of Miletus seems to have been better known in ancient times and is the only predecessor named by Herodotus (ii. 143: v. 36; 125-6: vi. 137). Herodotus calls him a Xoyorcokx; and it seems reasonable to assume that the choice of that term, implying the creation of stories from the author's imagination, rather than Xoyoypcwpoq, which only implies the recording of a story, was meant to be pejorative.49 It may also be the case that Herodotus established a paradigm for his successors when he deployed the term: throughout ancient historiography the habit for writers is to name only those predecessors they want to chastise and to borrow unapologetically and without citation from those they admire.50 Even without anything more than a few fragments of Hecataeus we can deduce much from two important facts: Herodotus' text proliferated and survived; Hecataeus' did not. Because of the popularity and survival of the Histories as our oldest extant prose narrative there are those who want to credit Herodotus with the creation of the genre but it seems more accurate to say merely that Herodotus was the first to be successful at it.51 Hecataeus may be more deserving of the term 'Father of History' than Herodotus but his Periodos Ges, apparently a combination sightseer's guide and narrative about past events, was less than popular. The opening line at least is preserved, and it alone may have been

FGrHist 687 T2. Dionysius of Miletus floruit ca 500 BC. and is said to have composed, among other works, a history of Persia to the death of Darius I (Suda CI 180). See also Drews (1973: 20-23). See also the OCD entry of Klaus Meister where the accuracy of these claims is doubted. Fornara (1971:25 & 1983: 14) accepts the historicity. 49 Ctesias (i.5 = Photios Bibliotheke 72.35b.35) would later call Herodotus a ^.oyoTtoioi; with clearly pejorative intent. In Herodotus' time there were few options, Aristotle's Ypacpovxcav ioxopiai {Rhetoric 1360a.34-6 = 1.4.12) is a later descriptive as is the more common ouyypacpeig (Polybius 1.2 et al.) 50 A very good commentary on this practice can be found in Bosworth (2000). 51 See, for example, Crane (1996: 1; 3). The Suda ( E 360) credits Hecataeus with writing the first full length prose narrative about the past. Galileo did not invent the telescope, Edison did not invent the light bulb and the Wright brothers did not invent the fixed-wing airplane: but such is communal memory. These sightseer's guides were something of a genre in their own right. Scylax of Caryanda is credited with a Periodos Ges about the same time {FGrHist 709 Tl = Suda S710) but he is also credited with an Avxiypa(pf|v npbq xf)v noXupiou iaxopiav which is, of course, impossible. The Truth is in the Telling - 13 sufficient to turn his intended audience away: 'HKaxatoq Mikf\awq &8e uuGeixai: xd5e Ypotcpo, &q uoi 8OKET dA,r|9sa eivai: oi ydp 'EXkr\va)v Xoyoi noXkoi xe Kai yeXoioi, Attica: "...the Pelasgians were cast out of Attica by the Athenians, whether justly or unjustly - as to that I can say nothing beyond what is recorded..." (vi.137) and Herodotus goes on to tell an account found in Hecataeus charging that the Athenians had acted unjustly. Herodotus gives both sides of the story but refuses to comment on his own preference; he refuses to associate himself with the assignation of praise and blame. It was likely the nature of Hecataeus' work as predecessor to Herodotus that prompted Felix Jacoby to speculate that Herodotus began as a geographer following Hecataeus, that he originally began to write a Persikoi Logoi and that this work evolved into a history.56 Fornara later agrees that Herodotus originally intended, as Jacoby suggests, a periodos ges after the fashion of Hecataeus. Herodotus would have seen, as he collected material on each nation, that the expansion of the Persian Empire to the inclusion of each of these nations formed a sort of a terminus in each individual history. He then realised that the Persian

"Hecataeus of Miletus says the following: I write what follows as it seems to me to be true; for the stories of the Greeks are varied, and, as it seems to me, ludicrous..." FGrHist lFla. The use of UUOETTOU here needn't be 'read into.' At the time its primary meaning was primarily "to say or speak." Because the mythic traditions were passed down orally and performed rather than published, the meaning expanded. 54 The best discussion of Hecataeus' error is to be found in Shrimpton (1997: 169-70). See also Marincola (1997: 5) and Fornara (1983: 13 - 14) where he speculates that the historical genre developed out of ethnography and dynastic lists; a departure from his 1971 position. See note below. See also Thomas (2000: 76-7). 55 Rather than panegyric, Herodotus has been charged with composing an encomium to Athens. See Demand (1987); De Selincourt, (1962: 43), But it will be suggested below that the encomium was a ruse. 56 Jacoby (1913: 330ff) as discussed in Fornara (1971: 4). Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus -14

Empire itself could be used as a unifying theme, the string on which to hang each ethnography. "His 'theme' was not the Persian conquest: his subject was the ethnographies, the Persian conquest a device."57 The first problem with this theory is that the ethnographies do not make up the core or even the majority of the Histories and, as will be discussed in the next chapter, they are, structurally and thematically, addenda to the main narrative. The second problem with this theory is that it is not informed by an original question. If Herodotus set out to write an ethnographic compendium, why did he do so? What question was on the mind of his intended audience that would require such an answer? If Dionysius and Hecataeus each wrote histories of Persia late in the sixth or early in the fifth centuries BC the question would seem obvious enough: Persian influence, even direct control, had come to include the Greeks of Asia Minor and both of these men would have lived either as exiles from or as subjects of the Great King. These 'histories' as well as the Persae of Aeschylus answer the very simple question: How were we able to defeat so great a host of invaders and just who were these people who marched so far to attack us? By the time Herodotus wrote the Histories the events were two generations past and the state of war between Athens and Persia had come to an end.59 The far more pressing questions of the day would have centred on the war between Athens and the Peloponnesian League. The geo-political context of the publication of the Histories begs a theory on intent and theme closer to home than Persia.60 It is also the geo-political context that suggests an audience with little patience for unpopular or radical ideas. At the outbreak of a major war

Fornara (1971b: 15; 33) where the thesis seems a bit confused: Fornara seems to reject and accept the geographer theory depending on the context of his argument. 58 Cyrus of Persia defeated Croesus of Lydia in 547 BC and those Ionian Greeks who had been subjects of Lydia fell to Cyrus' dominion. That Herodotus begins his Histories with this event is no accident. 59 A publication date after 430 BC has the general consent of current scholarship. The Battle of the Eurymedon was likely fought in 469/8 BC after which Persian policy was to abandon the coast of Asia Minor to the Athenians. The Peace of Callias, ending the state of war between Athens and Perisa, was negotiated in 449/8 BC. 601 understand Kenny (1999: 430 - 31) to be saying that histories, individual stories about past events, are told only with the permission of the political climate dominant at the time, and that the telling of these stories reflects that political climate more than the actual past. The Truth is in the Telling - 15 populations tend to be inward looking, protective and suspicious. l Herodotus was presenting something new in a prose narrative about the past but he was careful not to alienate his audience. The method might have been new but the content and the conclusions, at least for the most part, had to be such that his audience could accept them with as little discomfort as possible. So Herodotus chose, as his medium, narrative, and that was something his audience could engage easily and comfortably. The trouble with narrative is that it is the very embodiment of uvGoc;.63 Narrative employs, sine qua non, characterization, including protagonists and antagonists; plot, complete with beginning, middle and end, developed through a gradual increase of tension and culminating in the resolution of that tension through the agency of the protagonist. Narrative is lineal and teleological, it moves along the plot-line in a series of cause and effect, action and reaction events and because of that linearity narrative speaks to causation. One thing leads to another. The audience cannot engage the narrative without knowing the circumstances, the character of the person(s) who finds themselves in those circumstances and how the combination of circumstance and character result in a crisis.64 Without these components there is only data without meaning - chronicle, and there is no evidence to suggest that chronicle has ever appealed to a wide audience.65 We return, here, to psychological necessity: people want, need it

61 A quick review of the American media and public tolerances after September 11th, 2001 will demonstrate this point. 62 Herodotus "knowingly chooses to fashion his narrative after a literary model familiar to his audience-one that would engage their emotions and guide their understanding of the story..." (Chaison, 2003: 5-19). See also Crane (1996: 5), Ayo, (1984: 35). 63 I choose to glance off rather than enter a limitless field of academic discussion here. A nice summary, with specific reference to points made herein, can be found in D'Angelo (1987). See also White (1987: especially 2-3). 64 The ancient historians focused on character and that "is not surprising given the importance in antiquity of character in rhetoric and real life." Marincola (1997: 6). 65 "History is not the event but the explanations given to the event." (Thompson 1996: 19). Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus -16 seems, to know why and they come to that knowledge through narrative. The hermeneutic, the moral of the story, is in the structure of the story itself. One of the most pervasive tropes in ancient Greek abstract thought, be it in the area of artistic expression, in the metaphysical, political, religious, even military sphere, is that all things unfold in sequences, that those sequences require a catalyst and that once the catalyst is deployed the sequence, through to the outcome, is inevitable.67 When Herodotus has Artabanus warn that "according to the ancient saying, the end of every matter is not evident at the beginning"68 he is neither expressing his own views nor a Greek view but an anti-Greek view. It is Artabanus, a Persian, speaking and in this phrase fulfilling his role as 'truth-teller' in the Histories:69 Persians don't get it. The end of every sequence is revealed in its beginning otherwise it could not be a sequence. Artabanus' statement would have appeared as a flag to a member of Herodotus' intended audience who might have known well the "old proverb" referred to by Plato,70 Aristotle,71 and Polybius.72 So would they have known many of a large number of stories within the Trojan and Theban cycles that illustrate the point. In the Histories itself, the Greek view has been given long before Artabanus' statement: Solon of Athens, while attempting to help Croesus see the correctness of the Greek way, says, "We

White (1987) admits the universality of narrative but suggests that narrative is a vessel the structural necessities of which control and fictionalize whatever content it is given. According to White, 'real' events do not play out as stories, but he is mistaken. This is the art of the storyteller: to glean the story from the events. 67 "it was the position of observer of an unchanging and predictable set of rules and outcomes that so fascinated the Greeks" Crane (1998: 43-4). See also Humphreys (1987: 218) who argues that, for both Herodotus and Democritus, "Sequence, connectedness, turned out to be a startlingly powerful tool for organizing information one a large scale." Munson (2001b: 32) identifies the inevitable outcome sequence as; "if/when/since x happens, y will necessarily happen." vii. 51: TO UT] aua dpxfj nav ii"ko>Q, KaTOKpaiveaGai. The more common descriptor is 'wise advisor' but I prefer 'truth-teller' because this character is not always wise or always giving advice. On this character in Herodotus see Lattimore (1958: 2); Flory (1987: 13-14 et al.); Lateiner (1977: 178-9); Thomas (2000: 109). From Cassandra in Iliad to Parmenion in Arrian's Anabasis - including several characters in Herodotus - the 'truth-teller' always reveals the truth either in a positive statement of truth or in an overtly negative untruth. Laws 753e.6: ap%x\ ydp A-eyerai n&v f\[iiav navTOC,. See also Menexenus as discussed in Oliver (1968:11). Politics 1303b.29: f| 8' dp%n Xtyziai fj(xmu Eivai. navxoq, and Nicomachean Ethicsl098b: 5oiceT ydp TI^EIOV r\ fiuiau TOU rcavToi;eiva i fj dp^t)... 72 At v. 31.1 the phrase is Tt|v apxr|v T]UKJU TOT) Jiavtog. The Truth is in the Telling - 17 must look to the conclusion of every matter, and see how it shall end, for there are many to whom heaven has given a vision of blessedness, and yet afterwards brought them to utter ruin" (Hdt.i.32.9). How can we look to a conclusion before the events have played themselves out? Solon, and by extension Herodotus, is here asserting the consistency of the sequences. Whatever situation a person might find themselves in there has been a precedent set, the sequencing has been revealed, it is only for that person to learn the precedent to glean what end lies in store for them.74 This is the 'truth' of the new narrative not only in the Greek mind but in the human psyche. We count, we categorize, we arrange, we quantify, qualify and compare and all of these fundamentally human activities are based on a belief, a faith, in sequences, regularity of repetition and, therefore, prediction. Because the sequences are repetitive the narration of the sequence is familiar and the reiteration of the narration, regardless of how many times the names have been changed, is recognizable to the audience.76 In historical writing, the main narrative stream is a story fixed in memory and tradition such that it could be called 'the Facts.' Neither Herodotus nor any other author writing about the past has the luxury of changing or even

Gerald Press rehearses the argument that the ancients were not 'historically minded' and that teleology is a later, even Christian import. He is correct to say that "the Graeco- Roman mind was devoted to realities and truths outside time, to abstractions and ideas..." (1982:6) but teleology is not temporal. Press then offers a nice survey of the scholarship on this theory (7 - 9) and concludes with his own scepticism (21). 74 See also Plutarch Sertorius 1.1: Polybius v.32.1; Diodorus xviii.59.6, all of whom articulate some theory of the patterns of human behaviour and how historical writing depends on them. I will argue here that Herodotus sought to emphasise sequencing: Gregory Crane {op. cit.) and Tim Rood (1998: 80 - 82 specifically but these pages are the culmination of an argument carefully constructed in the pages before) have made the argument for Thucydides - Rood simply states that Herodotus also employed and sought sequences but a definitive study is a desideratum. 75 Stephen (1961 (1861)) is a wonderfully composed essay which includes a discussion of regularity and predictability as the cornerstones of science and history. Behavioral norms in any given social system are based on the necessity to predict, or at least not be surprised by, another person's actions. On "action according to rule" see Collingwood (2002: 102-6). But see also Foucault (1970: 52) who quotes Bacon in support of the argument that these patterns are illusions of our own creation. 76 Hunter (1982: 234) sees a similarity here between Herodotus and Thucydides: Where Herodotus saw the despotes as the instigator of the process and, because of that, was interested in the psychology of the individual, Thucydides replaced despotes with polls and was interested in social psychology. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus -18 dramatically altering the Facts: Xerxes was king of Persia, there was a battle at Salamis. Once the 'motific structure' of the Facts has been identified (selected?) the author does have the luxury of establishing a pattern of repeating motifs that do, quite deliberately, establish and enforce the main motif such that these narrative elements that bear the repeated motif form the plot structure. It is nothing to be problematized, it is just history, narrative history at least. Even though Hay den White rejects this process, it seems fair to exploit his thesis selectively and agree that narrative contains "a patterning" of the "rhythms and repetitions of motific structures that aggregate into themes and of themes that 77 • • ... aggregate into plot structures." Where the current thesis differs from White is in his assertion that the author, Herodotus or any other, is controlled by rather than 7S in control of the process. Herodotus, like any good storyteller, knows two things with certainty before he begins to tell his story: First, the moral he wants to impart, the lesson he intends to teach, the effect he wants to have on his intended audience and, second; the overall bare bones story he will employ to accomplish his moralizing goal. All that remains is to weave into that bare bones story narrative elements that allow the story to progress while at the same time enforcing, illuminating and conveying the moral message.79 A storyteller must be, above all else, selective.80 Herodotus is rarely declarative where method is concerned, he would rather his audience

Pace White (1987: 43). The argument is developed in some detail in the preceding pages. His objection to the method employed in this dissertation can be found on pp. 201- 2. I counter that the text is a product of a mind with a purpose and both purpose and mind should be discernable from the text. 78 "History is no epic, history is no novel, history is not propaganda because in the literary genres control of the evidence is optional, not compulsory..." Momigliano (1985:2) 79 "... the 'events' historians select (or construct) depend not on any criterion but on the plots they want to tell" (Rood 1998: 135). See also p.55 where Rood asserts that the "sequentiality itself generates meaning..." by triggering the recognition of patterns in the minds of the audience. "An historian is like a sculptor, chipping away the bits that do not belong" (De Selincourt, 1962: 53). 80 Butterfield (1965: 24) uses the term "abridgement" but selectivity seems more widely accepted. Immerwahr (1966: 28) sees the structure of the Histories revealed through Herodotus' selectivity but doesn't develop the idea. The hindsight of the historian, the knowledge of how things did turn out, effects the process of selectivity and produces the illusion, in the completed narrative, that "occurrences are the inevitable consequences of prior circumstances" (Shrimpton 1997: 49). On selectivity and memory in general see Kenny (1999: 423-25). The Truth is in the Telling - 19 glean the method as much as the message and he does offer enough methodological kernels for the careful reader. Much of Book Two is, I believe, method and apology on display and the long past of Egypt is merely a convenient ni canvas on which to lay out the program. Where selectivity is the issue, Herodotus points to Homer. In the Iliad Homer tells his story with Helen personally in Troy. Herodotus not only claims to have evidence that Helen was held in Egypt, but also offers proofs that Homer knew that was the case and chose to ignore it, "since it was not so suitable to the composition of his poem as the other [version] which he followed" (ii. 116.1). The issue, of course, is blame. By Herodotus' version the Persians are correct when they say that the conflicts between Europe and Asia are the fault of the Greeks because they crossed the Aegean to invade Ilium not to recover Helen but to exact revenge for the elopement. By Homer's version the Greeks had every right to pursue the siege of Troy since the Trojans refused to give Helen back. The selection of the version depends on the message. Herodotus, understood the need for the cause and effect sequence and he knew that it resides within the narrative. He maintained the use of narrative not only to help his audience feel at home in the new genre but also to preserve the hermeneutic. He did not translate the past at the expense of the narrative, but translated ui30o<; to Xoyog while maintaining the narrative intact. The translation from the divine to the historical is, in the Histories, immediate and overt: Rather than the Homeric, Mfjviv asi8e 9ed, the Histories begins: 'HpoSoxou AXtKapvnacsoc; iaTopvnc; anodefyq f|8s... With that, Herodotus usurps the authority of the poets and of the Muses and posits investigative method as the font of authority.82 Thucydides will later make an even more overt assertion: 0ouKou8i8r|c; AGnvaioq £i)vsypa\|/e xov KokzyLOv... (Thuc.i.l) is often translated 'Thucydides, an Athenian, has written the history of the war...' but this requires the insertion of an object that cannot be assumed in the original. It says, 'Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote (composed?) the war...' and this is as much a

81 For a detailed analysis of Herodotus' revelations of method in Book Two see Hunter (1982:95-6). 82 Hartog (2000: 392 - 3). Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 20

powerful, even confrontational, assertion of authority as Herodotus' iaxopirn;. The three categories of activity are informative: Hecataeus "spoke" the past (uuGeixou), Herodotus "enquired" (ioTopir|<;) into the past, and Thucydides "composed" (§uvsypai|/e) the past.84 The translation required some modifications: There are gods and there is

Of divine will in the Histories, but agency is wholly human. Where Illiad and Odyssey are stories of hapless humans struggling against the maschinations of jealous and egocentric gods, the Histories are stories of free will excersized by ambitious and egocentric humans.86 Where references to time, either in terms of 0*7 , duration or location, are few in Homer, Herodotus establishes a starting point for historical time, makes an attempt to reconcile historical and divine time, and then counts down his narrative in regnal years.90 He even inadvertently (perhaps) gives us an absolute date against which to measure time when he mentions the

831 use the word 'authority' in the sense of auctoritas, an origin or source. This works not only for knowledge of the past, but for the past itself. Herodotus, Thucydides, every historian, is the origin of a new past that comes to life only because it is written. See Edmunds (1993). 84 See Loraux (1986), and Edmonds' response (1993) for detailed discussions of Thucydides' choice of the verb. This conversation could be supplemented by similar analysis of Herodotus and Hecataeus. I think Hornblower (1987: 8) goes too far when he says that Thucydides avoided the term historia as a slight to Herodotus. 85 Chaisson (2003: 24). Gould (2003) argues that Herodotus saw divine influence in most things. Sewell-Rutter (2007: 8) offers a very nice comparison of agency and fate in tragedy and Herodotus. 86 See Collingwood (1946: 41). Despite a promising title, Ayo (1984) is rather disappointing on the topic of myth and history. 87 Even though Homer likely composed the work in the eighth century BC there are no relative references to time except for ii.288 where we are told, with divine authority, that the war was in its ninth year. 88 The date is 560 BC and the point is made with 018a (1.5.3), see Dewald (2006: 147). But Hunter (1982: 97) sees the Egyptian logos as an attempt to extend historical time into a more distant past. See Hdt ii.3-4 where he establishes that Egyptian knowledge of the past is both older and more accurate than Greek or any other. 89 The attempt is more a demonstration of the futility. In a wonderful methodology set piece Herodotus shows how the Greeks had to re-invent a Heracles myth that included a birth centuries after his cult had been well established in Egypt and the Levant (ii.43 & 143). 90 By giving regnal years for every monarch mentioned in the Histories, Herodotus establishes a relative chronology. This is a technique borrowed from the Babylonians. See, for example, the Nabunaid Chronicle. The Truth is in the Telling - 21 eclipse of the sun, predicted by Thales, which we know to have been visible from Anatolia on the 28th of May, 584 BC (i.74).91 Not only is the narrative mantained but so is most of the content. Herodotus had no need to change the stories themselves but had rather a need to preserve the story and change only the catalytic agent. Yes, says Herodotus, there were abductions and they did lead to a war at Troy but the causation was human not divine (i. 1-5); yes there was a Lydian king named Gyges but he had no magic ring (i.8-12); and, yes, Arion was rescued by a dolphin (i; 23-24). This first sequence of translations in the Histories is Herodotus' first embedded hermeneutic: The Abduction Cycle and the story of Gyges are both explained using the already popular ax^yyox moreic;, or 'argument from probability,' formula: What is more likely, that Paris was rewarded and Helen swayed by Aphrodite; or that two young people fell in love and ran away together? And what is more likely, that Gyges had a magic ring that made him invisible; or that he was not seen because he was hiding in a dark corner (i.9.2)? These accounts are Herodotus' way to assure his audience that the truth of their cherished past will not be abandoned or altered, that even in a translation the essential qualities remain the same.94 How, then, is ui30o<; created? How does an event wholly explicable in terms of human motivations and actions become so imbued with the fantastic? This is, perhaps, one of the most fascinating but overlooked aspects of Herodotus' genius: Not only does Herodotus translate the narrative from m30o<; to A,6yo<;, he also proves his formula by reversing it and showing how the A,6yo<; narrative is

But see the very good arguments in Hunter (1982: 249 - 54). Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides were interested in chronology because an event is not an isolated occurrence but rather a point in a sequence. "Thus they did not isolate events but left them embedded within a process" NASA's Five Millennium Eclipse Table (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Maps-04.pdf) confirms the 584 date but most modern commentators have 585: see for example How and Wells (1928). The Gyges legend was, according to Herodotus, written up by Archilochus, but nothing remains of this work. Our only other source for the Gyges legend is Plato {Rep. 359d.lff; 612b.4). Justin (i.7.14-18) is derived from Herodotus. 93Hdt. i.4.2: §fjX,a yap 8f| OTI, ei \ir\ auxai s^otXovio, OUK av fipnd^ovxo. "Obviously, these girls wouldn't have gone if they hadn't wanted to..." This suggestion angered Plutarch, at least (Moralia 856d-e). 94 See How and Wells (1928: Intr. §26) 'Rationalization of Myths.' Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 22 translated, through human agency rather than divine inspiration, to the uuGoc; narrative. In so doing, Herodotus demonstrates the natural and original priority of Xoyoq: If one deconstructs the ui39o<; one finds A,6yo<;, and you must augment A,6yo<; to get ui30o<;, therefore A,6yo<; is the original, fundamental, and true narrative.95 Here, Herodotus risks impiety by denying the claims of divine inspiration made by the poets but at the same time defends the new methodology from charges of impiety by showing the causal elements and the fundamental truths to be consistent and divine. The Abduction Cycle and the story of Gyges are both shown to have a likely and pragmatic origin but the third mythic narrative that Herodotus chooses to include is left without explanation. With 'Arion and the Dolphin' Herodotus has either to leave it out or to include it and accept that a strange and wonderful thing happened that is beyond the reach of the new explanatory paradigm. If it were, as it seems at the onset, Herodotus' goal to completely debunk myth and to compose a secular narrative he would have been wiser to omit the Arion story altogether. One would also expect that Herodotus, true to his task of translating the past to A,6yo<;, would introduce chance into the narrative: We cannot explain how the dolphin happened to be at the right place at the right time or what motivated the dolphin to rescue Arion - but stuff happens. Herodotus chooses instead to ratify the divine within the Xoyoc; narrative. Arion was rescued by some god.96 Amidst these three translated myths Herodotus offers a fourth paradigm that is pure A,6yo<; with an unstated but overt conclusion: Alyattes of Lydia inherited from his father a long and bitter war against Miletus and in the course of that war the temple of Athena near Miletus was burned accidentally. Alyattes later suffered

The deconstruction begins with the opening chapters: The myths of Io, Europa and Helen are reduced to the conclusion that some girls ran away with foreigners. Book II, apparently an overly long history of Egypt, is actually a deconstruction of all Greek religious and cultural ideology and an explanation of the process through reconstruction. See, as examples, the legend of the Black Doves (ii.54-7) and the Heracles Cults (ii.43). Reconstruction is demonstrated as a political tool in the biography of Cyrus (see i.122). 96 Herodotus may be deliberately vague here. See Gray (2001) who thinks it was Poseidon; Griffiths (1999) thinks it must have been Zeus. The Arion story will be discussed in much greater detail in the fourth Chapter. The Truth is in the Telling - 23 an illness and he was told that his illness was the wrath of Athena over the destruction of the temple. Alyattes made a truce with Miletus and used the peace to construct two temples to Athena in place of the one that burned, after which he recoverd from his illness (Hdt. i. 16-22). The audience knows that this story is Xoyoq rather than uuGoc; because Athena herself is never an active catalytic agent and because the story is neither inspired nor invented but is a compilation of reports from sources in Delphi and Miletus (i.20.1).97 But the audience also knows, without requiring an overt satement to the effect, that both the illness and the cure are Athena's doing. From this sequence of stories we learn one of the basic messages of the Histories: The past can be known as a function of Xoyoc; and the gods need not be dismissed but can themselves be part of the new explanatory paradigm, and; the relationship between man and the divine should not be sought on the cause but

OS rather on the effect side of the human action-reaction cycle. Most importantly, Herodotus sends a message of reassurance to his audience. Regardless of the presentation, be it jxuGoc; or A,6yo<;, the outcome does not change, the moral element is unaltered, and the gods still have the final say." The new methodology takes control of the content but leaves judgement and retribution to the gods. Even though the role of the gods in the narrative has changed, the gods themselves remain constant.10 Where the gods of Homer are motivated by pride and the baser emotions and they act according to the rules of blood-feud, divine will in the Histories is guided by vouoq and exhibits a calculated patience divorced from

97 Aefopwv oi5a sycb OUTCO ctKouoac; ysvsaOar MiAfjoun 8E T&SS TtpoaTiGsTai TOUTOIOI... Mi^fjoun uev vuv OUTGO tejovoi yeveaGcu. That Herodotus does not cite Lydian sources only adds a third level of credibility. 98 Many scholars have seen Herodotus as fundamentally secular: See Myers (1953) Ayo (1984:32). 99 Herodotus believed that "whatever happens is governed by an underlying law. This law ensures that the political world as a whole remain constant..." "Time was the dimension in which changelessness constantly reasserted itself in the midst of change..." (Meier, 1990: 135). See also Munson (2001a: 165): "As an enquirer of the past, Herodotus is able to identify actions that appear attributable to something other than human planning or random contingencies...the divine" 100 But with the important and very Socratic corollary that the gods do not disagree or contend with each other. See Plato, Euthyphro 8a; Symposium 201 a - c et al. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 24 emotion. Where Homer could be employed to explain why fate and the world around us appear chaotic, unpredictable and without reason, Herodotus explains the opposite; how divine order permeates the apparent diversity of humanity and how, regardless of minor regional idiosyncracies, a divine law governs all human activity.102 Throughout Books One and Two Herodotus repeatedly establishes paradigms by offering smaller episodic narrative units that serve primarily as background to the grand narrative of the Persian invasions themselves but secondarily as proofs of the patterns, the sequences, that will later form the underlying message of the grand narrative. The paradigmatic themes are simple: no crime goes unpunished, vfipiq always leads to ruin, profanation of the divine will bring down divine punishment, luxury makes men weak and weakness causes them to fall into hubristic behaviours. All of these gnomoi could be, and were, expressed ex cathedra in the mythic traditions that Herodotus was challenging and if an axe%vot 7rio"T£ic; translation was all that Herodotus had to offer his text might not have proliferated and survived as it did.104 What Herodotus brought to the existing narrative was an assertive confidence in the strength of observation and investigation over inspiration leading to the conclusion that agency is a human prerogative, that man can be the creator of his own future. He did believe in a divine order to the universe and he

101 First, the suggestion is made that the Greeks 'started the fight' (TO 8E 01716 TOUTOU "EXkr\vaq, 5f| \isydXo)q amouc; yevEoGai) when they invaded Ilium unjustly and the invasion of Hellas by Xerxes was just tit-for-tat, albeit long term (i.4.1). Second, it is overtly demonstrated in the Lydian Logos where the 'original guilt' of Croesus is the usurpation of the throne by his ancestor, Gyges. The gods are patient. See also Munson (2001a: 192). 102 De Selincourt, (1962: 44). See the story of Mykerinos son of Cheops (ii.l29ff) who was punished by the gods for being a just king in a time when the gods had predicted injustice. Nevertheless, "...the divinity that prunes excessive growth is a rational principle of balance" (Munson, 2001a: 185). 103 On hubris in Greek society in general see Cartledge (2000) & Cohen (1991). On the Persian Wars as a Classical paradigm for hubris see Hall (1991). On Hubris as a thematic guide to Herodotus see De Selincourt, (1962: 60). It is now well enough established that Brill's contributors can write: "Despite occasional rationalism a religious world view predominates..." with hubris and divine retribution the overriding theme (The New Pauly: 269:f). 104 For example, Hesiod Works and Days 5-7 and later, AiKt^ 8' wtep "Yppioq loxei iq xzkoq e&XQovaa (217-8). Euripides Medea, (387-8) "When presumptuous arrogance swells above mortal measure, Zeus will punish it." The Truth is in the Telling - 25 did believe that the order could be known and had to be discovered through an investigative process. This was the new methodology of the Ionian intellectuals and it was called iaxopia. That word, ioxopia, plucked from the opening line of an originally untitled manuscript may well be the summation of all of Herodotus' intent and the source of all misunderstanding about Herodotus to this day. Trained historians and curious amateurs alike tend to read the word 'history' and be captivated, intoxicated even, by that word as signifier with all of the signifieds that have been attached since Herodotus deployed it in his opening sentence. 5 But having succumbed to these pitfalls the reader today approaches Herodotus with a set of conditioned expectations that Herodotus could never have imagined and, inevitably, fails to fulfil.106 These false expectations may be contributing to the divisions within Herodotean scholarship that have only widened and multiplied since Felix Jacoby's paradigm setting essay (1913) in which Herodotus' failings as an historian were systematically revealed. Scholars on the one extreme of the debate seem to be trying to understand how Herodotus wrote such a lamentable history and scholars on the other extreme to understand how he wrote such a wonderful story neither side apparently able to understand that the debate is all apples and oranges. If the goal is to understand Herodotus it seems best to take Herodotus at his own word and he says only that the 'results of my enquiries are on display herein.' With that line Herodotus initiated a literary genre and because of that line the word ioxopia would change, even in Greek, to signify that genre. There is no reason to believe, however, that Herodotus intended that result.

We cannot begin to discuss the concept of historical narrative today without taking into account the work of the literary critics, epistemologists and socio-anthropological theorists. Saussure's 'theory of the sign' has become the paradigm of discourse in this area (and the word 'signifier' a sign in its own right) but Latour's 'black box theory' (1987) is equally useful to apply to words like 'history' as we understand it. 106 The opening line is, of course, translated by all as 'inquiries' or 'researches' but the title Histories is universal. Alan Griffiths (2006: 132) advocates a change in title because the current meaning of the word does not translate Herodotus' intentions. 107 Skinner (1969: 22-4) but see 6-14 for his discussion of the "reading-in of doctrines." Skinner's comments, though not directed at Herodotus specifically, reveal the absurdity of claiming that Herodotus was writing 'history.' Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 26

More often than not the Histories is looked at in the context of the mid-sixth to early-fifth centuries BC largely because of current expectations and presumptions about history and its role. The 'action' in Herodotus' Histories takes 1 (IS place between 560 (roughly) and 478 BC and Herodotus' "thick description" makes this text our most valuable resource for data relating to that time and place. When looking at archaic Greek history, professional historians tend to look past Herodotus the author and through the text, The Histories, as a window to that period. This is certainly a legitimate and profitable undertaking where reconstruction is the goal. Following the prescription of Leopold von Ranke, the modern historian seeks to narrate only "what actually happened" but to accomplish that end through Herodotus has caused more than a little consternation and debate amongst those in the field.110 Herodotus does not always anticipate Ranke's methodological views and can, to a large extent, be held accountable for initiating the practices that Ranke sought to end: Where Ranke says that his work is unconcerned with praise and blame, Herodotus posits these things as the very purpose of his work:111 Where Ranke insists on telling only what happened, revealing only the forces of change and their results, Herodotus sees fit to narrate the hypothetical alongside the actual.112 Herodotus knowingly deployed a signifier, just not the one we are familiar with: iaxopia at that time pointed to, was literally a signpost for, Ionian rational intellectualism and that endeavour was populated by the Natural Philosophers who were interested in geometry, geography, astronomy, medicine and other

The term was coined by Geertz (1973). See especially Chapter One in which he outlines the "thick description" program. Herodotus, especially where his ethnographies provide a cultural context in which to explain events, was a practitioner of "thick description." 109 The phrase "wie es eigentlich gewesen" occurs in the preface to the introduction of Ranke's Geschichten de Romanischen un Germanischen Vblker von 1494 bis 1514 (1824). 110 Fornara (1971b: 41) argues that Herodotus should be evaluated in the context of the time he wrote. "But Herodotus is interpreted as if he were motivated directly by the subject of his choice. The fallacy could not be more distortive of his intent and aims." 111 Von Ranke's prescription is actually in two parts: he says first that he will not "presume" to assign praise or blame and then that he will tell it like it was. 1,2 In the Preface to his History of England (x) he repeats the two part prescription with the initial negative - I will neither praise nor blame - followed by a positive - I will reveal "the great motive powers and their results." For a detailed analysis of Ranke's method see Grafton (1994). The Truth is in the Telling - 27 things empirical. Herodotus' innovation - or, at least, the innovation he participated in - was to deploy that term as a starting point for, as an entrance to, a discourse about the past. 'Ioxopia, in its pre-Herodotean sense, is an enquiry in that information is sought, but more importantly it is an act of discernment, of gathering information, yes, but more of processing and arriving at conclusions based on that information. 114 The root is lamp, a wise man, one who knows, a judge, and its application covers a range of activities and objects that constitute a process rather than a single action or thing.1 5 The deployment of the term so early in the manuscript is a statement on the part of the author that a process of investigation toward the solution of a question has been undertaken and that a solution will be presented. Neither is overtly stated. It is the responsibility of the intended audience to know the former and glean the latter. Herodotus deploys the term twenty-one times after the opening line.116 Of the twenty one uses nineteen occur in Books I - III. Book I uses it five times, Book II nine times (nearly half of all occurrences) and Book III three times but all in the same passage. The closer Herodotus gets to living memory, the less enquiry is employed. More than half of the instances occur in the first two books, none after vii.195.7.117 The more remote the past, the more difficult is the task of discovering with accuracy the sequence of events as they occurred. If Herodotus is following sophistic methodology, then his goal must be to compile data,

Herodotus' employment of the methodology of Natural Philosophy has now been well established by Thomas (2000). Her contribution will be discussed more below. The use of the term in that context predates Herodotus by more than a century: Anaximander of Miletus wrote a Historia about the order of the cosmos ca. 575 BC. See Naddaf (2001: 5). Dewald wants to call the authorial persona of the Histories the histor but she uses this word to denote four personas: observer, reporter, critic and writer, but not judge (Dewald, 1987: 154). See also Thomas (2000: 161-67). Liddell and Scott. Discussions of ioTopia and its deployment by H. can be found in How and Wells (1928); Wardman (1961); Flory (1987: 183); Bakker (2002: 3).When Aeschylus deploys the term in: KaKcog T6 \itXkov iotopcbv (Persae 454), he is describing poor judgement, a bad decision, but Euripides is more likely to use it in the sense of enquiry or even a questioning as in f|ucov 8' epyov ioTopeiv raSe (Heraclidae 666), and |3oai 8E Astapcov 7tai8a<; io-ropcov xaSs (Andromache 1124). For an etymology see Press (1982:23-34). 116 i.24.7; 56.5; 56.6; 61.7; 122.4; ii.19.14; 19.17; 29.4; 34.6; 44.17; 99.1; 113.1; 118.3; 119.13; iii. 50.14; 51.1; 51.6; 77.7 (twice); iv. 192.19; vii. 96.6; and 195.7. 117 For a more detailed treatment see Jacoby (1913: 396); Powell (1949: 174). Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 28 evidence, toward the solution to his question and it is a logical necessity that the iic more accurate the data the better, or more sure, the answer will be. It also seems reasonable to assume that the less our author is questioning and investigating, the more he must be reporting. That is to say that information about the distant past has to be reconstructed through the process of investigation, but the more recent past can be passed on through informants who have more direct knowledge.119 This process of question and answer as a prescription for the analysis of an historical text is an idea that precedes us by nearly a century. R. G. Collingwood assumes that any historical narrative is a proposition: an answer to a question. Because the intended audience already knows the question the author sees no need to repeat it and sees no need to state the answer overtly. We, the unintended audience, have only to discover the question if we want to understand the answer. The method of inquiry in this study will be to follow Collingwood's prescription and test if the text of the Histories reveals, in the answer(s) it proposes, what question Herodotus may have been addressing. To accomplish this, to understand the Histories, to discover Herodotus' purpose and method, requires that the Histories be approached in terms germane to the time and place of composition and to the signijier krcopirn; as it was understood in that context. It requires that we conceive of the Histories as a dialogue between an audience that had asked a question and Herodotus attempting to answer it.121 The proem continues:

Because Herodotus uses the histori- verbs to describe interrogations, Bakker concludes that "historie is not first-degree, absolute knowledge based on perception, but relative knowledge, an approximation of the facts of the matter, based on a judicious assessment of the pretended first-hand knowledge of others." (Bakker, 2002: 16). "... historie proceeds through judgment and discrimination, as an implicit dialogue between the opinions of the researcher and those of his informants" (Bakker, 2002: 18). 119 "Herodotus is neither bard nor even his tor. he historei (investigates)" (Hartog, 2000: 394). 120 Collingwood, (2002: 31-2). Collingwood's corollary is that the 'truth' or validity of any proposition is relative to the question it answers (33 - 4). 121 "Until recently, classicists have not seen writing as a social phenomenon significant enough for careful study" (Shrimpton 2001: 59). But see now Munson 2001, where this very approach produces a valuable analysis of Herodotus the speaker. The Truth is in the Telling - 29

...a>q UTITS xd yevoueva e£ dvGparacov xro xpovco e^txr|A,a yevnxai,

UTJXS spya |a,sydA,a xe Kai Gcouaaxd, xd usv "EAAnai xd 8e PapPdpoiai d7to8s%0evxa, dicX^a yevnxai... "... so that the actions of these men are not eradicated by time and the great and wonderful accomplishments made famous by both Greeks and barbarians do not lose their luster..." The generally accepted interpretation of these lines is that Herodotus has written to preserve memory, to record the past for the sake of the past and that seems to be supported by the proem. Herodotus repeats the key goal-defining phrase: (be, urjxe... x© xpovcp s^ixnAxx yevnxai (lest time eradicates the event) and again d;to8ex0£vxa, dieted yevnxai (lest the public awareness of these events

• 199 • diminish). Even embedded within the repetition of the idea of preservation is a repetition of the motivation: using d7i68e^ic; and d7io8ex9evxa was no mistake.123 The point here is to keep these events alive in the public mind, to keep them current in the public discourse, and to preserve them through a pragmatic and rational investigation so as to prevent their mythification. For the modern scholar, knowing is an end in itself.124 But Herodotus probably had a different agenda. It seems more likely that the forensic nature of his method had more to do with keeping the lessons of the past current, with keeping the public, his intended audience, cogniscant of the events of the Persian 19^ Wars as they considered the issues of the day.

Egbert Bakker (2002) offers an excellent analysis of the proem that emphasises the aspect of public display. See Also Dewald (1987: 169). 123 On the iaTopin<; anods^ic, phrase specifically the Proem in general see Munson (2001: 32). Also Bakker (2002: 12).: "A survey of Herodotus' own use of the nouns historie and apodexis and the verbs historeein and apodexasthai reveals that histories apodexis, far from being a mere title or a characterization of the 'medial' aspects of the work, is a bold, even provocative, expression stating nothing less than the communicative purpose and ambition of Herodotus' work." 124 Hence our modern preference for Science over Natural Philosophy. Stephen Hawking, in the introduction to A Brief History of Time, can say that "humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest." But the ancient Greek mind may not have been idealistic about knowledge. 125 "All genuine historical records... express the views and interests of their time, and do not come a single step to meet us" (Meier, 1990: 82 italics in original). See also Flower (2000: 73-6) where this argument is taken too far with the suggestion that Herodotus was advocating a panhellenic invasion of Persia. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 30

Another, related motive for the 'public display' of the results of enquiry may have to do with the goal, the very purpose of the enquiry itself. For these reasons Herodotus did not end his proem with these terms left hanging; this iaxopinc; owtoSs^ic; and the ysvojieva and epya that make up the substance of the work, but he concludes the proem with the assertion that the point of it all is to discover, indeed to reveal, orixia. A war took place, on that everyone agrees, but Herodotus wants to revisit the war between the Greeks and the Persians to reveal, to make public, cause and culpability. In a succinct but complex analysis of scientific and rhetorical arguments of cause and effect, Nancy Demand demonstrates both that Herodotus knew the difference between the two and that he employed the tools of rhetorical argumentation.126 The main difference between the scientific and the rhetorical is that a scientific argument weighs all of the causal factors equally while a rhetorical argument allows for judgments of error and assigns praise or blame. This last concept introduced in the proem, aixia, is not merely blame but cause, responsibility, culpability and its assignation is an activity wholly Homeric. It deals with questions of behaviour right and wrong and it looks to result: What are the results of transgressions and what are the rules that define transgression? These are the questions that dominate most of the Greek mythic and tragic traditions. If Menelaus and Agamemnon have the right to pursue Helen across the Aegean, and Agamemnon sacrifices his own daughter, is the right to cross the Aegean nullified or can Agamemnon still exercise the right to cross? Clytemnestra has then the right to seek vengeance on her husband for the slaying, but does she still have that right when she has been unfaithful in his absence, did his crime free her to choose another mate? Orestes is bound by honour, and divine law to slay the slayer of his father, but that meant slaying his mother. Is he blessed

Demand (1987) offers an analysis specific to Herodotus' treatment of Athens but her arguments are applicable to the work as a whole. 127 Aeschylus' Oresteia covers most of these events. See also Sophocles' Iphigenia at Aulus. The Truth is in the Telling -31 for slaying his father's slayer and then cursed for matricide, or is there some way to balance them off?128 Ethical questions of a general - if deliberately convoluted - nature were replaced in the 430's BC by questions of a more pressing geo-political nature. The tragedies of Aeschylus or Euripides for example, dealt with timely questions but they were most often set in the context of ymQoc,. It was not until the Peloponnesian War was well underway that we see the emergence of comedy, Aristophanes in particular, and plays set in the here and now. The primary topic of debate was whether or not Athens had the right to assert her hegemony, her dpxr), over other Greek city-states.129 Because of the fundamentally Greek method of question resolution the debate focussed on the origins of Athenian rule, her dominance of the Delian League and the Greeks of the Aegean and Asia Minor. Given the importance of Herodotus' declared method, his deliberate self- alignment with Ionian intellectualism, it is no surprise to find that Thucydides and others, Polybius most notably, culminating in Ranke, would move ever further in

ill the direction of pragmatism. It is also possible that Herodotus' apparent abandonment of the very principles he invokes in the proem is the cause of the censure he has endured over the millennia. What Herodotus actually puts on display is the accumulated, occasionally contradictory and often incredible, local traditions about the past. The most troublesome aspect of the Histories for most analysts over the centuries has been Herodotus' inclusion of stories that appear to

Aeschylus' Eumenides takes this basic conundrum and uses it to create a foundation myth for the Athenian judicial system, especially the Court of the Areopagus: See Meir (1990: 84) "Herodotus sought to remind the Hellenes of Athens' glorious past at a time when she was becoming an unpopular tyrannos polls" (Flory, 2000: 310). See Thucydides i.67.ff. "Herodotus is reflecting contemporary concerns and a contemporary debate as to the proper goals of Greek imperialism" (Flower, 2000: 76). Konstan (1987: 72) agrees with Fornara (1971: 66, 86-7) that Herodotus wrote, at least the last three books, in consideration of the outbreak of war in 431. 131 Neither Thucydides nor Polybius use the term iaxopia to denote their method or their activity but that does not necessarily imply a deliberate distancing from Herodotus. See Thuc. i.20.1 where iotopia might have been used but Thuc. Chose nupov instead. The progression from Herodotus to Ranke, though not smooth, is toward an ever greater objective pragmatism. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 32 be fictions.132 The story of Arion and the Dolphin has already been touched on above but that account is only the first of many apparently irrelevant and patently imaginary tales distributed throughout the grand narrative. Thucydides, writing very shortly after Herodotus, and Xenophon, who clearly intends to complete Thucydides, wrote cause and effect treatises about recent events without feeling the need, or compulsion, to include the fantastic. The Peloponnesian War, says Thucydides, starts with Spartan fear of Athenian power and the growth of Athenian power begins with the end of the Persian Wars. Thucydides gives only a cursory background exegesis to that growth of power, his Archaeology from Chapter 1 to 20 of Book One and the Pentecontaetia, from Chapter 89 to 119, also in Book One. The Persian Wars, says Herodotus, begins with the Ionian Revolt and the Ionian Revolt begins with Croesus, who was the first Barbarian to enslave Greeks. It is there, then, that Herodotus begins his long explanation of cause and effect that leads Athens to her current condition. Odd though it may seem, argues Herodotus, Athens' current state begins with the enslavement of the Greeks of Asia Minor by a barbarian despot, Croesus of Lydia. "This Croesus, first of all the Barbarians of whom we have knowledge, subdued certain of the Hellenes and forced them to pay tribute, while others he gained over and made them his friends. Those whom he subdued were the Ionians, the Aiolians, and the Dorians who dwell in Asia; and those whom he made his friends were the Lacedaemonians. But before the reign of Croesus all the Hellenes were free" (i.6.2-3 rcpd 8s xfjg Kpoiaou &pxn<; rcavisc; "EXkr\veq fjaav 8A£i36spov).134 Herodotus establishes very early that the Greeks of Asia Minor will feature prominently in his work. He foreshadows this point at i.5.3 where he states that he

132 The historiography of Herodotean studies will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. 133 Thucydides i.23.5-6. 134 One can't read too much into this line. Herodotus means 'free' in that no Greek was subject to a non-Greek. Herodotus will later speak much of 'freedom from despotism' in his many discussions on tyranny and he is well aware that tyranny in Greek poleis pre­ dated Croesus. The Truth is in the Telling - 33 knows auxoc; 7rpc5xov u^dp^avxa &8IKO)V epycov s<; xouc; "EXkryvaq -" who was the first to initiate wrongs against Greeks" but he goes no further in explanation at that point.135 He keeps the audience in some suspense before revealing that Kaxsaxpsv|/axo 'EA,A,f|va>v (i.6.2) is the "wrong" to which he refers. The condition of the Greeks of Asia Minor then becomes a signpost for the structure of the Histories as a whole. With the conquest of Lydia they fall under Persian control (i.94.7 - 96.2); when Cambyses inherits the throne he inherits the Greeks of Asia Minor as well (ii.1.1 & iii.1.1), Darius, having consolidated his tenure on the throne, immediately acquires Samos (iii.38.4; 39 - 49), the first Persian encroachment on Hellas proper. The Ionian Revolt of 499 BC then begins a new section (v.96.2, 97.3) that culminates in the Persian invasion of Hellas and brings the Histories to a close with the final emancipation of the Ionians by the Athenians (ix.104). To ensure that his audience is following, Herodotus recapitulates at the end of the Ionian Revolt narrative: "Thus three times had the Ionians been enslaved, first by the Lydians, and then once and now yet again by the Persians" (vi.32). Henry Immerwahr, in his very influential 1966 monograph, wonders why the Lydian Logos appears at the beginning of the work rather than in its proper chronological position. He concludes that "Herodotus begins with the part of Asia situated nearest the West, because the Western expansion of Persia is his main concern from the start." But Herodotus nowhere says that he is concerned with the expansion of Persia per se. He does overtly and repeatedly tell his audience that his main concern is the subjugation of Greeks by others. It is a strange irony that Immerwahr, so famous in Herodotean scholarship for his contributions on ring-composition and word repetition, seems to have completely missed the most emphatically repeated theme in all of the Histories.

135 The occurrence of oi8a here is the first verb of cognition Herodotus deploys. Before i.5.3 there are only noncommittal references to the beliefs of others: Aiyoucn appears four times in 5.1-3. 136 See Brock (2003) who notices the sequence but fails to reveal it fully. 137 Immerwahr, (1966: 41). Fornara (1971: 28-31) dismisses the both notions that the work is a history of Persian imperialism or a history of the Persian Empire. Neither can adequately explain the entire composition. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 34

Where the subject of Thucydides is made obvious by his intense focus, Herodotus' apparent subject is either obscured by his lack of focus or the apparent subject is not the real subject at all. The Histories is, however, a complex enough text that if one wishes to approach it looking for a history of the Persian invasion of Hellas (as most have) then that is exactly what will be found. I am here suggesting another approach - and one that is better supported by Herodotus' own words - that the Histories is an enquiry into the nature of despotism and freedom, that it is the story of the enslavement of the Greeks of Ionia. If that can be supported we can then imagine the mind of a Greek audience as the text was presented. The Peloponnesian War was just beginning and the issue of that war, Athenian hegemony over other Greeks, would have preoccupied the awareness of anyone listening to or reading Herodotus. The War and the politics of the 430's must have been like a text running parallel to, overlapping with, anything else entering their cognitive sphere and through these parallel texts, the War and the Histories, the contemporary could not have but seen the message. The structure of the Histories is so arranged because there is no need to ask who was to blame or to discover the causes of the Persian Wars themselves. Aeschylus had, long before Herodotus - when the question was timely - already answered that question and Herodotus does nothing in the Histories if not agree: The blame lay squarely and soley on the shoulders of Xerxes and his downfall is divine punishment for his vfipiq. Comparison between Aeschylus and Herodotus on the basis of content is a futile exercise. But this very futility of comparison gives us the clue we need to understand not only Aeschylus and Herodotus, but the Greek temporal mind writ large. Aeschylus' Persae is, historically, a disaster on a scale equalled only by the disaster Xerxes suffered at Salamis. When the Persae is held in comparison with all other historical resources available on that topic today, it stands out only for its

138 That fiPpu; is the fundamental quality of Xerxes' downfall and the overriding theme of the Histories is well established in the scholarship. For the best articulation of the arguments see Immerwahr (1966: 177-8). Griffiths (1991) points to the theme in tragedy with comparisons to Herodotus. Hall (1991:66) does not accept uPpiq as an adequate explanation but sees rather an undertone of racism. Her opinion is in the minority. This is an ancient, rather than modern, assessment: see the speech of the Corinthians in Thucydides (1.69.5). The Truth is in the Telling - 35 inability to be reconciled with the rest. There is not a shred of historically useful information contained therein. How could such a drama be composed by an eye­ witness, an actual participant, in the events themselves? How could such a drama survive the criticism of an audience composed largely of eye-witnesses? The tendency amongst scholars is to attempt to explain the dichotomy.139 It is possible, however, that no dichotomy existed, that the Greek audience had no trouble with the conflicting details because there was a consistency that was much more important. Indeed the conflict may actually prove the consistency.14 The 'truth' of the Persian failure at Salamis, and in the war against Hellas in general, cannot be discovered in the event because the event is the past and the past does not exist.141 The ontological status of the past precludes any 'scientific' approach in the modern sense and Herodotus, trying as he does to apply the techniques of his intellectual community to a new presentation of communal memory, must have grappled with the problem with no little consternation. Truth, in the Greek mind, was a concept suitable only for what was constant and unchanging but there are no elements of the perceived world, including the narrative, which fit those criteria.142 Herodotus knew that his audience would see no truth in the yevofxeva and spya because, as he demonstrates with wearisome frequency, there is usually more than one version of a given story, even a story created through iaropia and presented as Xoyoc;.143 For Herodotus, Aeschylus and their audience the only truths were those unchanging and universal concepts like dpsxfi, a©(ppocn3vr| and 8iicr|, and their opposites, &Tn, vfipxq and advda. Narratives that demonstrate the truths of these

Castriota (1992: 20) argues that the Persae was never meant to be 'history' but rather "...a shared communal experience intended to reaffirm the religious, moral, and political bonds that united the polis." 140 On the structural consistencies between Aeschylus and Herodotus see Forskyde (2001: 353). 141 A more detailed discussion can be found in Collingwood (1946: 5). 142 Shrimpton, (2003: 150), echoing Collingwood (1946: 20 - 30). "In Herodotus... history repeats itself in this sense: behind the multifariousness and variability of particular events, which never repeat themselves, there exist archetypal models which remain and recur and which can be detected by means of analogy" (Shrimpton, 2003: 156 quoting David Asheri (Milan, 1988) Erodoto Le storie I). 143 Herodotus' habit of offering contradictory versions of events will be discussed in greater detail in the following chapter. Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 36 concepts needn't have verisimilitude on any other level.144 The fact that divergent Greek cities or regions could have divergent accounts of the same past was not, then, a problem so long as the fundamental truths of the stories remained 145 consistent. This value comparison is the only effective method of presenting cause and effect relationships to the general public, and both Aeschylus and Herodotus had that public in mind as their intended audience. The Persian Wars had to be explained in terms of ethos and pathos because those are the only terms of reference applicable to outcomes in a world were chance, probability or even calculation are concepts made moot by the will, and omnipresence, of the gods.146 Even the apparently secular democracy of Athens included the gods in the voting process by selecting eligible candidates by lot.1 7 Warfare was always the decision of the gods.148 The program is no less overt today than it was in the Greek World of Herodotus. The "enemy" needs to be vilified before, during and especially after a victory in order that the victor can rest comfortably with the knowledge that

144 "Is it not possible that the question of narrative in any discussion of historical theory is always finally about the function of imagination in the production of a specifically human truth?" (White, 1987: 57). 145 "Truth is found in the points of agreement amidst disagreement" Shrimpton, (1997: 52; 104 et al.). See also Wheeldon (1989: 38). Munson (2001: Chapter One) presents an excellent argument for and author-audience relationship where the audience is expected to see the "reality of the text" regardless of content. 146 "Herodotus, like the generation that preceded him, saw a fundamental relation between culture and ethos as the decisive issue of the Persian Wars" Castriota (1992: 28). See now Munson (2005: 77): "Cultural subjectivity is a sure thing, and it is both subjective and universal. As such, it indicates the objective validity and worth of all nomoi. Consequently, a higher principle of Nomos must exist from which these different but equally compelling nomoi all derive. An Nomos, unlike the different nomoi, unifies rather than separates men." 147 Hansen (1991: 51) offers a balanced discussion of this interpretation but is, in the end, doubtful. 1481 am not aware of a thorough treatment of divine sanction of battle in the Greek world, but an outstanding treatise on this topic in the Roman world is available in Rosenstein, Nathan. 1990. Imperatores Victi, Military Defeat and Aristocratic Competition in the Middle and Late Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. The Truth is in the Telling - 37 brute and murderous force has been deployed by the pious and just in accordance with a divine right.149 The process of applying icrropia to the construction of the narrative was not, therefore, to overtake ux>6o<; but to test it, to discover if the absolute truths of divine-time presentations of communal memory were still valid in historical- time.150 Or, perhaps, the opposite: to test if a narrative created from living memory, from comparison, from observation and critical evaluation, was still a true narrative according to the values of the Greek belief structure. If there is truth, then Aeschylus and Herodotus, UIJOOC; and A,6yoq, are both true, the only task left is to find the "truth coincidence."151 Presenting the truth coincidences to his intended audience meant keeping their expectations and tolerances in mind. Herodotus could not compete with myth as Hecataeus seems to have tried to do, but rather to compliment, even prove, myth in order for his audience to accept the new method. This is why Herodotus begins his Persian War narrative with the Trojan War era Abduction Cycle and why he digresses so far into the pasts of Egypt, Persia and many other peoples and places. It is not merely historical background; it is not merely an exercise in translation, but rather a search for, a revelation of, truth coincidence over the long duration. This truth coincidence for Herodotus - always the cultural relativist - must transcend not only time but place and circumstance as well. If the Abduction narrative is true when told by Greeks, it must be equally true when told

149 See Hall (1991; 1993; 1996). Edith Hall takes her 'Orientalism' arguments too far in ascribing the origins of European racism to Aeschylus, but her arguments on vilification are valid. A detailed examination of the image of the 'Mohamedean' in Early Modern Christendom in comparison to images of Muslims presented in America today would be valuable. Consider, for example, the Persians depicted in the movie, The 300. 150 Loraux (1993: 6) suggests that myth was so interwoven with the consciousness of the polis that it could not be challenged or removed. The task of the historian today "entails gambling in favour of myth precisely at the point where it seems to fade away, appearing to retreat into the texture of literary forms or into civic institutions..." 151 In selecting the stories to relate Herodotus was looking for "artistic and historical truth coincidence" (Flory, 1987: 67). Early Greek historians were interested in the same things the mythographers were: the universal truths of human action, the fundamental causes of all things (Finley, 1965: 301). See also Shrimpton (1997: 104). 152 The public control of the contents of any presentation of the communal memory was, especially in Athens in the fifth century, absolute. See Loraux (2006: 148); Isocrates' Panathenaicus 121-23 actually prescribes direct control. See also Shrimpton (1997: 26-9). Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 38 by a Persian.153 If there are differences in the versions that are true, then the proof of truth is in the consistency rather than the proof of error being found in the diversity. It is a simple enough task to remove the inconsistencies, to distil the story, and find the underlying truth in what remains. It is the same program that allows for, even encourages, the deployment of narrative episodes like the Fable of the Dancing Fish which opens this chapter. Herodotus' audience were more accustomed to expressions of universal truths in the form of fabulae and Herodotus was not anxious to incur their wrath by denying his audience either the content or the medium.154 What is more, Herodotus understood his audience's distrust of the past as an ontological category. They were willing to humour, even if not wholly accept, the Natural Philosophers because earth, water and air were tangible realities. The ephemeral nature of the past, however, meant that a rehearsal of its events alone had no hermeneutic value. The digressions, both historical and fabulous, that Herodotus embarks upon throughout the Histories are the means by which he demonstrates that the truth of the main events are consistent with the truths of other events and of other expressions of the past be they fictive or otherwise.155 Herodotus comes by the technique honestly: he is employing the digressive discourse much like Homer wherein very often the narrative event is introduced only so that the digression can be told.156 Herodotus' audience was, therefore, well prepared to recognize these devices for what they were. Unencumbered by Rankean expectations, even by Thucydidean expectations, Herodotus' audience could probably discern the difference between a narrative account of actual events

Griffiths (1999: 169) notes that the narrative shits from "wie-es-eigentlich-gewesen (WEEG)" to fabulous and that "both modes apparently make the same claim to our acceptance." 154 "The fundamental codes of a culture - those governing its language, its schemas of perception, its exchanges, its techniques, its values, the hierarchy of its practices - establish for every man, the very first, the empirical orders with which he will be dealing and within which he will be at home" (Foucault, 1970: xx). 155 The employment of the deliberate fictions as literary devices is now well accepted amongst some Herodotean scholars. See de Selincourt, (1962: 55); (Flory, 1987: 69); Lateiner (1987: 105 & 1989: 32 where he questionably cites Immerwahr, 1966) ; Marincola, (1997: 6). But there is also opposition to this view. Both will be discussed more fully in the following chapter. 156 Lang (1984: 5); Griffiths (2006: 135) and Gray (2007: 208). The Truth is in the Telling -39 and a witty story inserted to point up some moral quality or anecdotal parallel. More recent audiences seem less accepting. If Herodotus' fabulous digressions are strategically placed to emphasize or clarify the meaning, the truth, behind the main narrative events, then the intent and purpose of the work as a whole should be discernable through a systematic study of the occurrences, nature and moral content of those digressions relative to the surrounding narrative. If, as I have posited above, the Persian Wars is not really the subject of Histories and there is a moral agenda aimed at an audience of Greeks in the 430's BC, then the real subject can, I believe, be revealed through an identification of message consistency and patterning in those digressions. We are not well served, however, to apply the single label 'digression' to all of the narrative material in the Histories that does not conform to the category of the 'main narrative.' The stories discussed earlier in this chapter, the Abduction Cycle, Arion and the Dolphin, the Ring of Gyges and the Dancing Fish are all digressive to be sure, but they are not digressive in the same way that the Lydo- Milesian War is digressive or in the same way that the whole Lydian narrative is digressive. But a simple examination of these narrative units relative to each other and relative to the narrative as a whole does reveal some interesting patterning. In the chapters that follow, I hope to demonstrate that these narrative units and others of a similar nature, are structurally and thematically essential to Herodotus' purpose, and in so doing offer proofs that Herodotus did have both a plan and a purpose in composing his Histories. The assertion is not an easy one to make given the canon of current scholarship devoted to the opposite conclusion. But there is an equally substantial canon of scholarship arguing for a unified and purpose driven composition. The Histories is a complex and often frustrating text to engage on an analytical level. It seems reasonable, even if risky, to enter the current debate at the point of greatest contention and that point is the issue of the fabulous digressions. Stuart Flory, a scholar I see as awkwardly straddling the two sides of the debate, is perhaps expressing some frustration with this issue: "For explaining the anecdotal element in the Histories there seemed only two options: either Chapter One: Approaching Herodotus - 40

Herodotus is an undiscriminating nai'f, or he is actually a serious historian who 1 57 feels compelled to tell anecdotes to keep a restless audience amused..." I am, here, proposing a third option: Herodotus' fabulous digressions, what Flory calls "anecdotes" are the beacons with which Herodotus illuminates meaning, transcends yevousva and epya, and reveals the universal. I justify this undertaking with two simple facts: One; Sharp divisions amongst Herodotean scholars only indicate that neither side of the debate has arrived at a useful analytical paradigm and the failure to arrive at consensus begs novelty of approach. Two; this will be, to my knowledge, the only detailed study of these particular narrative units as a group. The scholarship gap in this area is large enough that an adequate terminology has not yet emerged. I have employed 'fabulous digressions' in this chapter but that term is no more useful than others currently in use. In the following chapters I will review the scholarship and more clearly define the problems and barriers, the stasis if you will, and suggest a new terminology of reference that avoids value judgment and allows a fresh approach, unencumbered by expectations and mindful of the author in the context of composition. I will be guided by the Collingwood prescription (p. 24 above) and David Bloor's "Strong Programme" which requires that truth and falsity, uuGoc; and A,6yoc; be treated with the same criteria.158 To do so is to approach the Histories as Herodotus may well have intended.

15/ Flory (1987: 14) 158 See Bloor (1976) the "Strong Programme" is laid out in the first chapters. See also the comments on Bloor in Latour (1993: 92-3) Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis

Veri amantissimus paritur et fictorum cupidus narrator1

Nearly a century past, Felix Jacoby, in his paradigm setting essay 'Herodotos' for Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyclopddie said that "Man kann wohl ohne fjbertreibung sagen: H.s ganze Kunst, seinen Stoff zu disponieren, besteht in der Art, wie und wo er Exkurse anbringen kann"2 Although the statement may appear to recognize the importance of digressions as critical to Herodotus' "Art" the opposite is the case; the suggestion is that Herodotus is, actually, artless. Jacoby is referring to narrative units such as those discussed in the previous chapter and he would have agreed with Flory's assumption that Herodotus indiscriminately drops these units into the main narrative only for the sake of amusement, either his own or his audience's.3 Jacoby was, in 1913, attempting just what this dissertation attempts: to understand Herodotus' method and intent by way of a structural analysis of the text. Our results will differ greatly only because of our different approaches. Felix Jacoby approached the Histories looking for History and for the most part he found what he was looking for. In Herodotus, die Hauptlinie der Erzdhlung is a reasonably straightforward and somewhat chronological account of the lead up to and battles of the Persian Wars. The Hauptlinie at least classifies as geschichtswissenschaftlich in that it can be, and has been, employed by historians focussing on the 6th c. BC toward a reconstruction of "what actually happened."

1 Wolf (1795). There is a translation by Grafton et al. (1985: 79). "...in that phrase [Wolf] neatly caged for display the literary centaur that is Herodotus" (Herington, 1991: 8). 2 "One can almost say with certainty that Herodotus' art, as far as the arrangement of his material is concerned, consists of where and how he can introduce digressions." Jacoby (1913: 380). 3 Opcit p.39, n. 157. Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 42

Jacoby could, because of the Hauptlinie, present a schematic analysis of the Histories that traces the development of the narrative through king lists: Croesus and Cyrus (Book I); Cambyses (Books II and III); Darius (Books IV to VI); and Xerxes (Books VII to IX).4 This structural analysis is attractive for two reasons: it agrees with the Book divisions assigned by the Alexandrian scholiasts; and it conforms to the theoretical expectations of Jacoby's day.5 But Jacoby was not entirely satisfied with what he found in the Histories and his evaluation of Herodotus is, in the end, critical and harsh. What annoyed Jacoby the most, it seems to me, is that not all of Herodotus' narrative units conform to Jacoby's expectations. Jacoby could not conclude that Herodotus met the criteria of good history prescribed at the Paris Congress of 1909 where Henri Houssaye said the goal of history should be "La verite, toute la verite, rien que la verite."6 The Histories, as we have discussed above, is not exclusively 'historical'.7 Jacoby's solution was separation: Using columns, he crafted a schema in which the historical material was traced through a progressive and chronological sequence labelled as 'H" for Hauptlinie in the first column - based on the succession of Persian kings. Everything else, all of the content of the Histories that did not conform to the expectations of Geschichtwissenschaft, was distributed in columns to the right and all classified under the single descriptor "Exkurse." In Jacoby's structural schema size matters more than content: He places the larger digressive units under the heading "E" for Exkurse and the smaller under "e," but still for Exkurse: digressions within digressions, and this section includes some of the samples we have already introduced such as Arion

4 Jacoby is emending Macan (1895: x - xvi), who sees the nine books as a trilogy: Croesus, Cyrus and Cambyses forming a Part One - with its own antiquarian style and focus - the career of Darius Part Two; and that of Xerxes Part Three, with each of these parts neatly sub-divided by three again. 5 For a sound rebuttal see Cagnazzi (1975: 387) who says that Jacoby's divisions into three sections (col 282. 21-54) does not conform to the data as presented in Herodotus' own references to logoi. 6 As discussed in Fuchs, 2002: 209 n.18. 7 "It is as if history awakes in the nineteenth century surprised and even horrified to see how closely it is coupled with fiction." History then attempted "to inaugurate a tradition by rewriting the history of history, and in so doing to institute that difference as science" Orr, (1986: 3). Orr is neither historian nor scientist so her summation is not quite right - the process began much earlier - but it is amusing. The Truth is in the Telling - 43 and the Dolphin. He then describes the last section as a distinct group only classified by their lack of value.9 This final group, the little e digressions, are further categorized and there are only three types: "1 -not real and of no value; 2- real but brief; 3- real ones that do add value."10 For Jacoby and others of the Rankean school, value consists in the amount of data devoted to the reconstruction of a series of events. The question, 'to what end?' is left out of, has indeed been removed from, the equation by Ranke and by

Jacoby. The WEEG method is now so pervasive that historians and classicists cannot imagine History without it and we apply it as if the word of God - an assumed infinite truth - with anachronistic fervour.11 Michael Postan wants to qualify this habit by reminding us that our current method is a misinterpretation of Ranke's prescription, that Ranke asked only for a suspension of generalizations "until more was known about facts."12 Tracing the origins of the idea that the past should or even could be reconstructed, and for its own sake, is not the task here but it cannot be asserted too strongly that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that Herodotus or any other historian in the ancient world conceived of his undertaking in WEEG terms. It is easy enough to pluck lines from their context in the ancient sources and interpret them according to the WEEG ideal, to imagine that the author of those lines 'intended' a reference to a method that was not yet defined, but that is a methodological error that Quentin Skinner attempted to address in 1969 - unsuccessfully it seems. Too many scholars want to see cbc;

"der Hauptlinie der Erzahlung" is heading H in Jacoby's schema (1913: 281). The distinction is, for Jacoby, a matter of descent. The columnar schema Jacoby presents is based on degree of separation from a linear account of actual events. As Herodotus moves away from 'historical' material and from his core narrative Jacoby moves those narratives into columns to the right. 9 A good discussion of the problems associated with this "dismissive" approach can be found in A. Griffiths (2006: 134). 10 This is a summary of Jacoby (1913: 381-6) by de Jong, (2002: 255-6), who says that the terms digression (Exkurse) and novella are all problematic. 11 I am adopting the acronym for "wie es eigentlich gewesen" pace A. Griffiths (1999: 169). 12 Postan, (1971: 16). But the correction has gone largely unheeded. 13 "The perpetual danger... is thus that our expectations about what someone must be saying or doing will themselves determine that we understand the agent to be doing something which he would not - or even could not - himself have accepted as an account of what he was doing" Skinner (1969: 6. See also 7-14 where Skinner defines the "Mythology of Doctrines"). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 44 ufjxE xd yevojieva et, dvGpcOTcov xd) XPOVfP £§ixr|A,a yevnxai (Hdt. Proem) or ...01^ xe auxoc; 7tapfjv Kai rcapd xcov aXtaov oaov 5uvaxov dicpiPeig jrspi SKdaxou ETts^ekQaw (Thuc. i.22.2) and read wie es eigentlich gewesen. Jacoby's theorem is, in my view, correct, it just needs to be refined: The placement of the "digressions" does indeed betray Herodotus' art, and his genius, but these narrative units are much more than "seinen Stoff zu disponieren." Suggesting that Felix Jacoby has erred is not something an historian can do lightly - certainly not without proofs and explanations. The proofs will follow but by way of explanation I would suggest that Jacoby, despite his erudition, was constrained, directed even, by his own place and time.14 German scholars were, at the turn of this last century, preoccupied with the preservation of Ranke, as much as the preservation of the past, and gripped with the fear that 'history' would be rejected in her application for membership in the 'academy of sciences.' 5 When Jacoby set about writing the definitive monograph on Herodotus he must have found that the Father of History would be little help in the historical discipline's current crisis. If the Father of History is not objective, pragmatic and rational enough to be called scientific then he must be rejected and a more suitable patriarch found.16 Jacoby was trained and worked in a professional milieu where the chronological, no-nonsense and apparently dispassionate account of Thucydides served much better as a founding paradigm for historical science than the

1 7 occasionally whimsical Histories. It is no coincidence that the father of modern

We tend, I think to have a contextual perception of a primary source and yet treat every text of secondary scholarship as timeless and extra-contextual. It is a mythology by convention in our business: 'Jacoby says' rather than said. An article or book on the subject of Herodotus can easily appear to speak of Jacoby (1913), Immerwahr (1966) and Thomas (2000) as though they exist intellectually the same way they exist on the library shelf: contemporary, parallel. But they represent three divergent intellectual worlds. 15 The historiography of historicity and objectivity is itself an object of study no less interesting and politically charged than any other in our field. Major works on the subject include Iggers (1997) and No vie (1999). 16 All ideas, not just nations, seem to need some 'founder myth.' The Persians created Cyrus, the Romans Aeneas, the English Arthur, the Americans Washington, and we historians have attempted to create Herodotus but he stubbornly refuses to be created in our own image. 17 On paradigms and research methodology - especially on their constrictive nature, see Kuhn 1970, especially 108-10). The Truth is in the Telling - 45 historical method, Ranke, wrote his doctoral dissertation on Thucydides.18 To make his candidacy even more appealing, Thucydides wrote in Attic Greek and in a style that challenges and excites those ardent philologists who, understandably, find more joy there than in Herodotus' less demanding Ionian.19 In a discipline where language is the end, rather than the means, Herodotus will never be celebrated.20 Few, however, have gone so far as to suggest that the 'Father' epithet actually be transferred:21 Charles Fornara displays an unusual courage when he suggests that Herodotus' title is "dubious" because "he created a genre which he did not entirely succeed in perfecting." The epithet, Fornara suggests, truly belongs to Thucydides who developed "history's full flower."22 The judgement is, I think, a bit harsh.23 What is most confusing about statements such as Fornara's is that Thucydides himself would hardly pass the litmus test of modern historical methodology. He did, after all, invent the contents of his famous speeches and admits as much: "I wrote what I considered appropriate" (Thuc. i.22.1) is not a phrase that would help a dissertation today. That same passage contains Thucydides' methodological statement in which he promises that he has, the speeches notwithstanding, attempted to gain the most accurate information possible. Herodotus nowhere admits invention but he doesn't need to. Herodotus posits himself as the 'rational inquirer' and, much like the American tabloid the National Inquirer, claims T only report what I have been told, you can decide for

18 Iggers (1997: 25). 19 The denigration did not begin with Jacoby: Baehr (1824: 84) comments, "Constat inter viros doctos, quantopere haec cum a Xenophontea turn ab Herodotea naratione abhorreant." 20 "[I]t is only by false and exaggerated application of the comparative method that Herodotus had been judged by Thucydides' standards and characterized by what he lacks in the comparison." (Lesky, 1966: 318). On the problems associated with the "lexical approach" see Herman (2007: 102). 21 It was Cicero (de Legg.1.5) who first called Herodotus pater historiae. For a discussion see Lesky (1966: 308). 22 Fornara (1990: 26) 23 Do the Wright brothers lose their title because they didn't serve coffee; does Bell lose his because he didn't offer call forwarding? 24 Hornblower (1991: 60) asserts that dKpipsig is not so much 'accurate' as "in conformity with reality", in other words, verisimilitude, "the meaning is objective rather than the subjective 'with care.'" Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 46 yourself what you are willing to believe' (Hdt.ii. 123.1 et al.). Perhaps a better analogy would be to Studs Terkel, the celebrated American Historian who did much the same - he presented verbatim the contents of his interviews without critical evaluation. Terkel's history is a history of collected memories.26 Herodotus' frequent reminders that he is only passing on local traditions exempts him from any responsibility to verisimilitude. By Herodotus' own definition the Histories is not a History as we understand the term, but a collection of traditions and perceptions expressed as stories.28 We shouldn't be distracted by the battles (but we are); the Histories is a cultural history. Perhaps because of their chronological and geographic proximity - and certainly because Hellanicus and others named by Dionysius of Halicarnassus are lost - many scholars would see Herodotus and Thucydides as competitors - an historians' Dionysiac agon. Scholars often, nearly as a topos, invoke the methodological claims made by Thucydides and imagine that they were made in deliberate opposition to Herodotus. So when Thucydides says that he wrote 'a treasure to last for all time rather than something to please the ear' he meant to invoke a comparison to Herodotus, according to this view.30 Thucydides nowhere mentions Herodotus but he does mention, and berate, Hellanicus (i.97.2).31 Even without the Hellanicus reference, the methodological statement at Thucydides i.22 would, in my view, suggest a veiled reference to the poets rather than Herodotus

Causing more than a little consternation: "what kind of historian expressly rejects his own data, without going on to put something better in its place? What kind of historian warns us that much of what we read in his history is simply untrue?" (Dewald, 1987: 151). 26 See, for example, Hard Times (1970) and The Good War (1984) for which Terkel won the Pulitzer. 27 Hartog (2000: 386) does well to point out that the Greeks themselves never claimed to be "first in historiography" and "Herodotus never proclaimed himself the inventor of history." Herodotus' task is "less invention than the preservation of existing traditions." Shrimpton, (1997: 97). 29 For example, Adcock, (1973: 23-4); "...Thucydides was motivated by a mistaken desire to show that what Herodotus could do he could do better." 30 The 'rivalry' theory is advanced by Connor (1984: 21;31; 249) and Hornblower (1987: 8). The famous line is at Thuc. i.22.4: KTfjua TE ec, aisi n&Xov f) dycbvioua eq TO jrapaxpfjua (XKOUEIV. If Herodotus is intended, the this line if proof that Herodotus did read sections of the Histories aloud in a drama-like competition. Unfortunately, it is no proof because Herodotus is not named. 31 Shrimpton (1998: 72) supports this view. The Truth is in the Telling - 47 if only because veiled references, lest the veil be a shroud, are usually directed at the most obvious rather than the more obscure and despite the prominence of Herodotus in the mind of historiographers, it was the tragedians who dominated the Athenian literary landscape and the awareness of the average Athenian at the time. Simon Hornblower, perhaps the most prominent Thucydidean scholar of our day, maintains that Thucydides was influenced by, even based much of his work on, Herodotus. But Hornblower also says that Thucydides began to write his history in 431 BC, and that Herodotus' work reflects "knowledge of events of the 420s." Something must be wrong. If Herodotus did not publish the Histories until the 420s how could Thucydides, writing from 431, be influenced by it let alone be critical? It is certain that Thucydides wrote or at least re-wrote all of the extant books after 404 - otherwise how could he have commented that the war lasted twenty-seven years - and he could have taken a rival stance at that time, but all of this stretches the rules of argumentation-from-probability too far. Gordon Shrimpton agrees that Thucydides could have solidified his ideas about method by 431, and because of that date he sees a methodological rivalry between Herodotus and Thucydides as unlikely. Shrimpton's conclusion, that "the safest interpretive context for 1.22 is internal to Thucydides" seems a reasonable solution to the rivalry issue.34 Regardless, questions of comparison between Herodotus and Thucydides are inevitable given the multi-layered relationship between the two: Both are Greek writing to Greek audiences; Herodotus is the earliest extant prose narrative about the past in the Western world; Thucydides is the next earliest (but only because Hellanicus and others unnamed are non-extant); Herodotus wrote about Greek history up to the beginning of the re-conquest of the Aegean from Persia; Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War but began with the Delian

32 Hornblower (1991: 13). See also p. 29 where he suggests a date as late as 414 for the publication of the Histories following How and Wells (1928: i.4.2) 33 Thucydides twice writes the phrase ...ec, -rnv xe>.euTf|v tou5e TOU KO\£\IOV (i. 13.3 & 18.1) which he could not have written until after 404 BC. See also v.26.1 where the twenty-seven year duration is mentioned in the context of 421. Clearly, the text as we have it was composed after 404. 34 Shrimpton, (1998: 73-4). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 48

League; Herodotus' major premise is the rise and fall of nations; Thucydides' major premise is antithesis and inversion; both seek to establish sequential time, time within which events can be traced with accuracy; both reject Homer and other mythographers and both claim methodological rigour.37 Many scholars would say that Thucydides and Herodotus differ mostly in style and that proposition goes without argument. But style is deterministic of, even deliberately precursory to, audience and it is in audience where the most important differences can be seen. Thucydides employs what Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his essay on Lysias, calls an "archaic" dialect similar to that employed by Plato and Demosthenes but made current by Gorgias of Leontini. This style, he elaborates, is brilliant, "but much of what they say is enigmatic and obscure, and requires an interpreter" (Dion. Hal. Lys. 2 - 4). In his essay devoted to Thucydides specifically, Dionysius is more emphatic: Thucydides' style is "generally tortuous, involved, difficult to unravel..." (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 24).39 The difficulty is, of course, deliberate. Dionysius, and others unnamed (op cit. 11), agree that Thucydides was writing to a learned audience who would not find his style unusual (Dion. Hal. Thuc.50). Dionysius' objection to this method is that by limiting his audience Thucydides has made his work "the property of a few, like government under an oligarchy or a tyrant (Dion. Hal. Thuc.51). Again, that may have been deliberate and is, I think, important for interpreting Thucydides' work: If the language is elitist, then wouldn't the message also be elitist? Does the

And Xenophon picks up where Thucydides leaves off. There is a gap and one suspects a major work that covered the Pentecontaetia is lost. Perhaps Hellanicus, perhaps one of those named by Dionysius. But there are also historians named by Diodorus who preceded both Herodotus and Thucydides. 36 They both use their sources, tradition and poetry, toward arguments from probability to arrive a conclusions about human nature. Hunter (1982: 93). 37 Or a methodology at least, and at that time it could be called rigour. 38 "The only useful way of studying style is audience-oriented..." Slings (2002: 77). On the relative relationship between the fact and the audience see Irwin and Greenwood, (2007: 36). Did Herodotus intend to convey 'truth' or to agree with the preconceptions of his intended audience? 39 "I ask, What is the matter with the man, that he writes like that? I answer: he has a bad conscience" Collingwood (1946: 29). See also Cicero: "those famous speeches contain so many dark and obscure sentences as to be scarcely intelligible, which is a prime fault in public oration." (Cicero, de Orat. 9.30) The Truth is in the Telling - 49 language itself not suggest that Thucydides is less than sympathetic to democracy and democratic ideals? In this case, it seems, the medium may be the message. Herodotus, on the other hand, embraces the commons with his prose. Dionysius of Halicarnassus - understandably biased - suggests that Herodotus was "far superior [to his predecessors] in his choice of words, his composition and his varied use of figures of speech," but admits that Herodotus lacked the distinctive qualities of practical oratory "for which he either had no natural aptitude, or which he avoided as a matter of policy because he considered them unsuitable for history" (Dion. Hal. Thuc.23).41 Unsuitable, perhaps, for a wider audience or an audience suspicious of overly adorned prose. Antiphon comes to mind, who made it a trope to apologize to the jury for a lack or oratorical skill - an apology that was merely a way of saying 'I am not one of those sophists that you all distrust.'43 One school of thought amongst modern scholars contradicts Dionysius and claims that Herodotus does indeed resemble the rhetoricians of the time. Mabel Lang, for example, argues that Herodotus displays a "proto-rhetoric" and that the logoi of the Histories are structured as if lectures, as if designed not only for public presentation but for public debate.44 The most comprehensive argument for Herodotus the rhetorician, Herodotus as a product of fifth-century intellectual and literary trends, is Rosalind Thomas' Herodotus in Context (2000). Thomas engages the question of orality from the outset and argues that Herodotus is neither naive nor archaic, nor is he a mere logoios. "Herodotus' 'orality' - a

Flory (1980: 26), however, thinks that Herodotus knew that there were few who had the ability or the leisure to read his book and because of that was writing to an elite audience. 41 Dionysius also says that Herodotus imitated Homer in many ways {Pomp. 3). For a discussion see Sewell-Rutter (2007: 4 - 9). 42 While controversy in the esoteric circle requires ever increasing levels of specialized, technical and minute augmentation, communication in popular publication requires the reverse. "If one wishes to increase the number of readers again, one has to decrease the intensity of the controversy and reduce the resources" (Latour, 1987: 52). 43 Antiphon 1.1; 3.2.2; 5.1: Also Lysias 17.1: Plato Apology 17b. On distrust of sophists; Plato Protagoras 312a. It seems that anti-intellectualism is often an aspect of a democratic polity - but that is the stuff of another study. 44 Lang (1984:68-9). See also Lateiner (1984: 14); Demand (1987); Munson (2001). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 50 slippery term at the best of times - is not sufficient to divorce him from the mid to late fifth-century world."45 Perhaps, then, the solution to the apparent contradiction between Dionysius and these modern analysts is that Herodotus sought to align himself with the Ionian intellectual movement but not with the sophistic sycophants or demagogues who were beginning to plague the Athenian courts and ecclesia in the mid-fifth century.46 The issue does not fully mature until after Herodotus' time, but the roots are there in the 430's. Perhaps Herodotus is as much a bridge between orality and literature as between \vbQoq and X,6yo<;, as discussed in the previous chapter. And perhaps the bridge is endemic to the process: Carol Thomas and Edward Kent Webb, looking at the "intellectual transformation" from orality to rhetoric suggest that "orality is the first component of rhetoric."47 Some middle-ground interpretation is desirable because even if there was a deliberate alignment with the rhetoricians - and the arguments seem convincing that there was - any holistic approach to the Histories will have to take into account an apparently contrary view of Herodotus' roots and methods, one which is more prevalent and equally convincing. This view suggests that Herodotus was mimicking the presentation techniques if not the actual literary style of the poets and playwrights of the time and merely translating those methods into a prose presentation. John Herington, taking an extreme position on this side of the debate, suggests that the impression, the discussion, of Herodotus as a rhetorician is all an illusion caused by the employment of prose which "arouses in us from the start all the expectations that we have acquired from twenty-four subsequent centuries of historical prose." But the Histories Herington argues, is, in composition, content and structure, a poem.49 More recently, Egbert Bakker's

45 R. Thomas (2000: 5). 46 Edwards (2000) suggests for an earlier for the professional emergence of Antiphon. 47 C. Thomas and Webb (1994: 16). 48 The scholarship on the orality of Herodotus is extensive. Flower and Marincola (2002) is the best of late but for a manageable overview see Slings (2002) who includes a convincing analysis of sentence structure in Herodotus concluding that his language, syntax and structure resemble spoken language more than written. See also Lang (1984) who includes a comprehensive bibliography on the subject. 49 Herington, (1991: 5). For a more comprehensive survey of the scholarship on Herodotus' debt to the poets see Dewald and Marincola (1987: 13 - 28). The Truth is in the Telling - 51 brilliant examination of the Proem concludes a deliberate and well-crafted bridge: As much as the first and last lines of the proem are fashioned on poetic norms, the middle sections, according to Bakker, "with their symmetrical internal structure" are modeled on "sophistic contemporary rhetoric."50 None of the suggested solutions above preclude orality. It may even be the case that Herodotus presented sections of the Histories at public readings. The only ancient reference to such an event is in Lucian {Herodotus 1) and few scholars have chosen to grapple with the question of oral presentation even though many have given attention to the orality of the text.51 Stuart Flory is, however, dismissive of the claim: At over thirty scrolls requiring fifty hours to read aloud, it is unlikely that the Histories was ever presented orally in total.52 But Lucian does not say "in total," only that there were readings and his frequent references to public readings of histories suggest that Herodotus was not unusual {How to Write History 5 et al.). The Iliad is equally impossible to recite in total as one event, yet there is no doubt that it was recited, and often, but in manageable sections, set pieces, that were composed for oral presentation and then compiled, but not until the late sixth century, into a single text. Despite the possibility that Herodotus wrote for oral presentation, the fact remains, as Virginia Hunter points out, that he wrote. The very process of committing the information to the permanence of text allowed Herodotus to scrutinize the material and refine its precision.54 It may also have allowed him to edit and revise based on feedback he received from audiences at his oral presentations - a process we can only imagine and speculate on, but one that is tantalisingly familiar to those of us in the academy today. The issue of Herodotus' textuality, as opposed to or in combination with orality has not, unfortunately, received the same kind of attention that Thucydides' has and the issue is

50 Bakker, (2002: 7). 51 Ibid; 11, where Bakker says that the orality of Herodotus is now a "truism." 52 Flory (1980: 13-14) 53 Those manageable sections in the Iliad are defined by opening and closing phrases which, through repetition, become 'sign-posts' for both the rhapsode and his audience. Herodotus uses a similar technique the study of which was pioneered by Immerwahr (1966). 54 Hunter, (1982:99). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 52

occasionally employed to separate the two. Gregory Crane, for example, adopts the argument that Herodotus wrote to an aural audience and for oral presentation and then juxtaposes that proposition to Thucydides who wrote an "independent artefact" to be read.56 It is a proposition based solidly on Herodotean scholarship - at least a faction therein - where Herodotus is seen as firmly Archaic and Thucydides wholly Classical.57 Nevertheless, theoretical ventures into Thucydidean text can serve as a useful heuristic for the text of Herodotus, or any other for that matter. Lowell Edmunds ('Thucydides in the Act of Writing'(1993)) inspired by and building on the work of Nicole Loraux (Thucydide ecrit La Guerre du Peloponnese' (1986)), would not agree, I think, that the text of Thucydides is an "independent artefact" and sees within the text a variety of clues as to the context, method and intent of the author. The approach taken by Loraux and Edmunds posits a direct relationship between the author and his intended audience, a constant communication that is dependent upon a shared understanding of the relationship between text and event, between the present of the author-audience conversation and the imagined (imagined because it has no ontological status) past. Gordon Shrimpton (1997) is then able to expand on the idea of the ontology of the text and the imagined past while focussing on the author-audience relationship and the importance of communal memory - a study expanded beyond Thucydides alone and encompassing early historiography in general. This is not an isolated stream of scholarship: Rosaria Munson's Telling Wonders (2001) could easily be seen as a direct continuation, even a maturation, of the Loraux - Edmunds - Shrimpton conversation yet she seems to have arrived there by a different route. But all of these scholars owe a debt to Virginia Hunter (1982) whose Past and Process does

For an informed commentary on orality and rhetoric in general see Thomas and Webb (1994). 56 Crane (1998:3, 7). Fornara (1971: 60) uses the same argument to restrict Herodotus in time and place. But Fornara's reasoning ends up in the right place: "Herodotus directed himself exclusively to his own generation. Only by reading him as if we were his contemporaries can his intentions be fully understood." (1971: 61). 57 Slippery terms at best. We recall above that what we call classical Dionysius called archaic. 58 "Thucydides as a writer can also be studied in terms of his own view of what he was doing, i.e. from a view of writing internal to the text" (Edmunds, 1993: 834). The Truth is in the Telling - 53 much to open questions of context, perception and intent by positing the event, the subject of the text, as a vehicle for larger and more universal issues in both Herodotus and Thucydides. Rather than juxtaposing these two in a qualitative analysis, Hunter presents a parallel study based on perceptions of processes - perceptions shared not only by each author but also within the socio-political context of fifth-century Greece. The Hunter prescription is to employ an epistemological framework, a study of the body of knowledge within which Herodotus and Thucydides worked, to determine their methodological paradigm.59 One of Hunter's conclusions allows Herodotus and Thucydides to emerge as partners in a project-analysis of power: "...what both see in the past, as well as in the present, is a total process..."60 Both Herodotus and Thucydides see a cyclical progression in which a unification (Persia, Hellas, Sicily) leads to empire, and empire "with its inherent tendency to expansion" cannot but pit the empire against the innocent 'other', those outside the boundaries.61 It is the aggression that leads to injustice, or perhaps contains injustice as part of its character and prevents the empire from being "deterred by rational calculations or warnings." These aggressive undertakings are always not only attempts to extend arche but also a display of the arche itself. Vast armies and navies are created and when these are applied against the 'other' their very size and confidence becomes their weakness and they are defeated. In defeating the aggressor despot, the 'other' becomes the focus and wins its own arche and the whole process begins again.62 From Hunter's overview, we can argue that Thucydides' presentation of the Sicilian Expedition was expected to be seen as the ratification of Herodotus' presentation of the failure of Xerxes. It also prepares the way for the more radical theory amongst Herodotean scholars that the Histories was designed as a warning to Athens, the tyrannos polis, that her fate would mirror that of the Persians.

59 Hunter (1982: 283). 60 We are in a philosophical conundrum here: Are we now able to see relations of power more clearly because we are informed by Foucault, or does the prominence of Foucault cause us to transport our current discussion onto a past in which it might have had no meaning? If all history really is current history, then the question is moot. 61 This is also the major premise of Polybius. 62 Hunter (1982: 229-30). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 54

What has resulted of late is a scholarship of early historiography in which Herodotean specialists and Thucydidean specialists each refer to the work of the other, both scholars and sources, toward a blended, comparative and far more balanced understanding of the process of historical narrative in its infancy. Out of this cooperative endeavour a new picture has emerged in which Herodotus and Thucydides are seen as more similar than different; more as contributors than as rivals.63 Tim Rood's analysis of Thucydidean narrative method, for example, reveals similarities between Herodotus and Thucydides down to the smallest of details like the use of "project verbs" or narrative devices like "tragic warners" (truth-tellers).64 More importantly, Rood reminds us that the audience in both cases already knew how the story ended; that neither Herodotus nor Thucydides were offering a novel and that both wrote in consideration of the fact, perhaps even exploiting the fact, that the telos was known and that it had already acquired a baggage of preconceptions for the audience. As such, Rood sees it as common to both Herodotus and Thucydides that "endings make perceptions narratable."65 The consistent theme in Rood's Narrative and Explanation (1998) is that Thucydides' employment of various narrative techniques reveals a purpose and message that transcends the events being narrated, that telling the war was merely a vehicle for a more profound and current message. One important conclusion that can be drawn from this canon of scholarship is that the idea of Thucydides as a rival of Herodotus has to be rejected. A new paradigm has emerged in which Greek concepts of the past and the reception of discussions about the past by the Greek audiences relative to the two texts shows a larger and more philosophical major premise in both. Neither author, it can now be said with some conviction, was really interested in reporting the event as much as they were interested in finding larger truths about the human condition within

63 Shrimpton (2003: 149 et al.). See also Hornblower (1994; 1991: 1987) where a progression of ideas along these lines is evident even between 1987 and 1994. 64 Rood (1998: 113-4 & 167). 65 Ibid, 82. The beauty of this rule is that it works just as well in reverse: Perceptions make endings narratable. This is a problem for History from which there is no escape. Where an accused at Law has received so much local media attention that an unbiased jury cannot be convened, an application can be made to relocate the trial. Could we metaphorically relocate the trial as historians? The Truth is in the Telling - 55 repeated patterns of human activity. That is to say that both Herodotus and Thucydides were philosophical in that they sought to find onta in genomena.6 These are, of course, very modern analytical constructs. Herodotus' early critics were less complicated. The first to offer a critical evaluation of Herodotus, regardless of how brief, was Aristotle. As part of his obsessive desire to categorize the universe, Aristotle turned to literature and was the first that we know of to define 'historical' writing as distinct from other styles, especially poetry: The poet and the historian (iaxopiKoq KOU 6 7roir|Tf|c;) differ not by writing in verse or in prose. The work of Herodotus might be put into verse, and it would still be a species of history (iaxopia), with metre no less than without it. The true difference is that one relates what has happened (tec yevofxsva), the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal (TO Ka06A,ou), history the

particular (KOI6' sKotaiov). Aristotle Poetics 1451a. 35 - b.5.67 Aristotle's evaluation, that history was merely the event, the unique occurrence, and that the event could not reveal anything general about the human condition was not generally accepted - by ancient historians at least - and there is nothing in any other ancient sources to suggest that history as an activity or as a product of

66Shrimpton(2003: 152; 156) 67 Op cit p.2 n5. S. H. Butcher trans. (1902). Accessed from the Internet Sacred Text Archive: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/poe/index.htm. Objections to Aristotle were initiated by Gomme (1954. The Greek Attitude to Poetry and History). See Dewald and Marincola, (1987: 13). But the notion persists in unexpected places: Moses Finley (1965: 283) supports Aristotle's opinion. In 1888 Emile Durkheim published Cours de science sociale in which he denied that history could be a science since it "was concerned with the particular and therefore did not aim at general statements capable of empirical validation..." Cited in Iggers (1997: 34). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 56 that activity suffered a qualitative denigration in comparison to poetry. Herodotus is mentioned here apparently by way of example only, but Aristotle's selection of exemplars was probably more careful that it might seem: even in Aristotle's time anyone well read might have questioned Aristotle on the basis of Thucydides' own claim that his work could serve as a hermeneutic tool for future generations (i.22, see above n. 18). Thucydides could not, of course, have made such a claim if he did not believe that his endeavour did reveal something of the universal within the discussion of the particular. Herodotus, on the other hand, only claimed that he would preserve the event in the public awareness but makes no claim as to the applicability of his experimental undertaking. That much has to be gleaned from the text. In one of the few sophisticated set pieces on historical method extant in our ancient sources, Polybius appears to be writing in direct contradiction to Aristotle, with veiled (not shrouded) references to both Herodotus and Thucydides: Surely an historian's object should not be to amaze his readers by a series of thrilling anecdotes [a reference to Herodotus?]; nor should he aim at producing speeches which might have been delivered [a reference to Thucydides?], nor study dramatic propriety in details like a writer of tragedy [Aristotle?]: but his function is above all to record with fidelity what was actually said or done, however commonplace it may be. For the purposes of drama and of history are not the same, but widely opposed to each other. In the former the object is to strike and delight by words as true to nature as possible; in the latter to instruct and convince by genuine words and deeds; in the former the effect is meant to be temporary, in the latter permanent. In the former, again, the power of carrying an audience is the chief excellence

68 It remains a possibility that Aristotle did not mean krropia in the sense of narratives about the past, but was referring rather to the activity and making a contrast between inspiration and investigation. The reference, then, is to a method rather than a newly defined literary genre. See FGrHist 72 F2 & 9 for Anaximenes First Histories. If that is the case then Hornblower (1991: 11) is correct to say that the earliest sure use of historiai as the modern sense of histories is OGIS 13 - a letter from Lysimachus to Samos, dated to the 280s BC. UTjte ...T

because the object is to create illusion; but in the latter the thing of primary importance is truth, because the object is to benefit the learner. ... And so in everything our final judgment does not depend upon the mere things done, but upon their causes and the views of the actors, according as these differ. Polybius ii.56.70 This last line, is, I think, a tip-of-the-hat to Herodotus who presents not only causes and motivations, but also alternative versions of both as they are reported by various interest groups. But, of course, by Polybius' time there were countless histories and historians to which Polybius might have been referring.71 The main interest of this excerpt is that Polybius reverses Aristotle and denies poetry what Aristotle denied to history. Diodorus Siculus, also in the minority of ancient sources who speculate on his activity, also sees a hermeneutic value in contradiction to Aristotle: "...for who, taking thought of the inconsistencies of human life, would not be astonished at the alternating ebb and flow of fortune? Or who, putting his trust in the predominance he enjoys when Fortune favours him, would adopt a bearing too high for mortal weakness? For human life, as if some god were at the helm, moves in a cycle through good and evil alternately for all time. It is not strange, then, that some unforeseen event has taken place, but rather, that all that happens is not unexpected. This too is a good reason for admitting the claims of history, for in the inconstancy and irregularity of events, history furnishes a corrective for both the arrogance of the fortunate and the despair of the destitute."

This is the Evelyn S. Shuckburgh translation (1962) as reproduced in the Perseus Project web site (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu). I have made only one correction as Shuckburgh has the "former" and "latter" reversed. The bracketed insertions are my own. 71 "...the study of History is in the truest sense an education, and a training for political life; and that the most instructive, or rather the only, method of learning to bear with dignity the vicissitudes of fortune is to recall the catastrophes of others. It is evident, therefore, that no one need think it his duty to repeat what has been said by many, and said well." Polybius, {Introduction). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 58

Diodorus xviii.59.6. Nevertheless, Aristotle is to this day invoked to rebut any claims to sophistication on the part of Herodotus.73 The passage most cited is from Rhetoric (1409a) in which Aristotle charges that "Herodotus the Thurian" used the "free- running style" which "has no natural stopping-places, and comes to a stop only because there is no more to say of that subject." Thomson is certainly correct to say that "Aristotle grants no philosophic dignity to the style of The History, and for the most part the Western tradition has followed suit."75 Several Herodotean scholars, now collectively referred to as the "Unitarian Faction," have employed Aristotle's evaluation to formulate a view of the Histories that not only dismisses but also limits, even denies any value to further research.76 This school of thought is attributed to Max Pohlenz (Herodot, der erste Geschichtschreiber des Abendlandes, 1937) but finds its fullest articulation in the article by Richmond Lattimore, 'The Composition of the History of Herodotus' (1958).77 To this group we have to add, but only partially, Henry Immerwahr's 'Form and Thought in Herodotus' (1966). In combination, these seminal works advance the 'one-write' (hence "Unitarian") theory which claims that the Histories is an unedited first draft, an example of stream-of-consciousness writing. According to this view, the difference between Herodotus and Thucydides arises from the fact that the former

See Plutarch {Sertorius.iA) for a similar statement. 73 Leaving aside Plutarch's Herodoti Malignitate. Otherwise an interesting and valuable contributor to our understanding of the ancient world, in this case Plutarch is on a vitriolic rant objecting mostly to Herodotus' portrayals of various Greek city states. But see Munson (2001: 7) for a clever flip of Plutarch's argument. 74 Herodotus retired to the Athenian colony of Thurii in Italy and is said to have died and been buried there. On Aristotle's comments see Lateiner (1989: 19) and Thompson (1996: 5) to name but two of many. How and Wells conclude that here were two manuscripts -an earlier reading 'HpoSotou AX,iKapvn0O£og iaTop(n<; and a later reading 'HpoSotou ©oupiou ioTopin<;... The Alexandrine librarians, they assume, restored their text to the original. See Plutarch Mor. 605. 75 Thompson (1996: 12). But see Gomme 1954 who argues that Aristotle has misunderstood Herodotus. 76 A brief but succinct overview of the various "factions" (their term) can be found in Brill's New Pauly (2005, vol. 6: 266; B). Research is closed in this view because it denies the value of further inquiry and attempts to close debate rather than open opportunities for further research. 77 Lattimore's more specific arguments have convinced many, the problem is that all of the data he employs to prove the 'first-draft' theory can equally be employed to show signs of editing. It is, then, a rationalization rather than an argument. The Truth is in the Telling - 59 represents the last of the archaic, paratactic, writers while Thucydides shows the development of the antithetical, classical style of prose composition. In the paratactic style, "short individual items are placed in a row to build up larger compositions."78 Herodotus started with Croesus and ended with Xerxes' flight from Salamis but everything in between is said to be haphazard and purely opportunistic. Any connecting links between the individual narrative units are clumsy devices that "reach out only so far as the immediately preceding and following narrative, and this is hardly enough to establish a substantial connection between major units of narrative."79 This line of reasoning appears to support a teleology in Herodotus, but Immerwahr dismisses this conclusion reminding us that the ancient Greek mind was not interested in the progress of history but rather in cycles. Herodotus used the fortunes of individual characters and states to illustrate the cyclical patterns of human affairs. Immerwahr might contribute to the Unitarian thesis but he is not responsible for the extremes of the Unitarian view: Despite his ratification of Jacoby and Aristotle {Rhetoric), Immerwahr does grant some philosophical dignity to the Histories. He disagrees with Aristotle's analysis in the Poetics and says that Herodotus did see the universal in historical events.81 The proof, revealed in detail by Immerwahr such that he has become the standard reference on the subject, is in Herodotus' patterning. Immerwahr recognizes that "in Herodotus Man and Situation are closely tied to each other by means of a pattern that represents the typical and recurrent aspects of events."82 The most extreme interpretation is that of Detlev Fehling, whose Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot. Studien zur Erzahlkunst Herodots (1971), reprinted in English as Herodotus and His 'Sources'; Citation, Invention and Narrative Art (1989), establishes a sub-group of the Unitarians known now as the 'Liar School.' Fehling's basic thesis asserts that Herodotus fabricated most if not all of the

78 Immerwahr, (1966: 7; 47ff.). Usually included on the 'Analytical list, I have included Immerwahr in this faction because the Unitarians are, I think, dependent on his 'paratactic' arguments. 79 Ibid; 51. Immerwahr, like Jacoby, thought the digressions unimportant (256). 80 Ibid; 149-50. 81 Ibid; 5. 82 Ibid; 184. Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 60

Histories. The argument runs that Herodotus' information on Egypt is flawed - that much goes without challenge because Herodotus can be checked in every detail against data that survives in Egypt itself. Therefore, reasons Fehling, Herodotus must have fabricated his Egyptian material and if so he must have made up the rest as well. The proof of Fehling's 'fabrication' theory is that most if not all of the 'foreign' material in the Histories displays elements that are patently Greek in flavour. Herodotus might claim that he is only re-producing material given to him by Egyptian sources, but the material is so Greek that the sources themselves must also be fabricated: "Bluntly speaking, Herodotus' statements as to his sources are just too reasonable to be true." Fehling's logic is, I think, troublesome. We can say, at least, that Fehling's contribution was to motivate Herodotean scholars to think about stories, sources, mimesis and likelihood. We are all now looking much deeper into the text and asking the important question; 'what is this really?' The 'liar' aspect of Fehling's thesis needn't trouble us but the issue of the 'Greekness' of the narrative units is important and should be addressed. Methodologically, one of the most important articles written, in my view, is Anna Missiou's 'AOYAOE TOY BASIAEQS' (1993) because it reveals the difficulties of translation and interpretation. Regardless of our philological sophistication we have to recognize that language in and of itself is not communication, that communication is an exchange of culturally imbued signifiers that employ language as a vehicle. When we, the modern academy, look to Herodotus we are looking at Persian, Egyptian and other narratives refracted through the lens of a conversation in Ionian Greek. We know that Herodotus could not read or speak Persian and we might assume the same for Egyptian. His information had to come to him through

"Fehling (1989: 8). 84 Ibid; 13. For a more detailed discussion of Fehling see Dewald and Marincola (1987: 26 -32). The Truth is in the Telling - 61 an interpreter(s). It comes to Herodotus through an interpreter who had to reconstitute his own historical traditions for the consumption of a foreigner and in so doing must have made subtle changes and selections based on his (the interpreter-source's) expectations of what Herodotus could or would understand and accept. Herodotus then had to select and reconstitute those same stories for his Greek audience, based on the same criteria. It should not be a surprise, then, that Persian or Egyptian stories in the Histories sound Greek and would be a surprise indeed if those stories didn't. The Persian material at least, is authentic in origin: Herodotus names over two hundred and sixty Achaemenids (either by birth or by marriage) and most are given some sort of associative characteristic - so-and-so is a nephew of Darius and so-and-so is married the daughter of so-and- so - and from that information an Achaemenid family tree can be constructed without contradiction or emendation. There are only six named Achaemenids in the Histories who do not fit on the tree and then only for lack of information. What is more, most of the Satraps and Achaemenids named in Herodotus have been corroborated from Persian archaeological data. But the real proof, for me at least, is that Herodotus' account of the accession of Darius I fits with the Behistun Inscription, a document that Herodotus could not have read. So when Herodotus' interpreter-source recounts the events described at

ozr Behistun and says that 'Darius the King sent his man (man-a-badakd) to quell the revolts' Herodotus could only have heard 'the king sent a slave' because in Greek there is no other way to hear the words 'his man' without inferring possession. But that 'man' who was sent by the king was actually a Satrap, a grandee, a nobleman who was then and forever reduced to 5or3A,oc; xou PaoiAioog in Greek historiography and popular culture.87

85 Herodotus thought that all Persian names end with a sigma (i.139.1). This is an error that could only come from the fact that many Greek names end with a sigma, so Herodotus' Persian source, when transliterating names into Greek, sought to give them a Greek flavour by using the sigma ending. So Cambyses in Anglo/Latinized Greek comes from Kaupuarn; which comes from Kambujaya in Old Persian or Kambujet in Akkadian. See Kent (1953). But more recently see Munson (2005: 26 - 7). 86 Darius Behistun ii. 19-20. See Kent, Old Persian (1953). 87 See Missiou (1993) for the full, erudite, explanation of the phenomenon. In Darius Behistun the term often refers to one of the Seven Paladins who, according to Herodotus, enjoyed Peer status. Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 62

Fehling's observation that the Egyptian and Persian stories in the Histories sound too Greek to be authentic has, I think, an explanation in the problems faced when translating traditions across cultural borders. But Fehling will ever be remembered for calling the Father of History a 'liar', even though he was not the first to do so. His work tends to evoke strong reaction such that the editors of the New Pauly call his work and the 'Faction' who adhere to the ideas therein "an aberration." They include, as members of the 'Liar School', Stephanie West ('Herodotus' Epigraphical Interests', 1985); Edith Hall (Inventing the Barbarian, 1991); O. Kimball Armayor ('Herodotus' Catalogues of the Persian Empire', 1978); and Francois Hartog (The Mirror of Herodotus, 1988), a list extracted without critical evaluation from W. Kendrick Pritchard's The Liar School of Herodotus (1993).88 Pritchard's goal, it seems, is to debunk the debunkers and while his main target is Fehling he also takes on Hartog and Hall who are unfairly grouped under the Fehling banner. Hartog created controversy within Herodotean scholarship by bringing theories current in Literary Criticism and Anthropology to the table, allowing for a more theoretically sophisticated discussion. Hartog's language may be difficult, enigmatic and mimetic of Foucault, but we shouldn't let that distract us from the fact that his work refocuses attention away from sources and historical accuracy to the more important (in my view) questions of world view, both the author's and his audiences, and to that of identity.8 It is Hartog's thesis that Herodotus presents his digressive ethnographic material as mirrors (hence the title) deployed to establish similarity and, more importantly, difference between Greeks and 'Others,' between cultured civilization and barbarism. Hartog is, of course, employing a discussion begun by Edward Said (Orientalism, 1978) in which self definition is described in terms of negative definitions of the 'Other' with specific focus on the processes by which Eurocentrism defines and marginalizes the 'Oriental.' Hartog is not as radical as Said and even if an extreme interpretation can be gleaned from Mirror it is softened by Hartog's

New Pauly, 2005 vol. 6: 267. Dewald and Marincola, (1987: 22-3). The Truth is in the Telling - 63 article 'The Invention of History' (2000) in which he qualifies that "the word 'Barbarian' came to signify not primarily, or necessarily, barbarism (cruelty, excess, laxity), but political difference." Hartog nowhere suggests that Herodotus lied, only that he manipulated his presentation to juxtapose Greeks and Barbarians. Hartog's thesis (Said's really) is then taken to the extreme by Edith Hall. Like Hartog, Hall should be distanced from Fehling but she was targeted by Pritchard for her suggestion that in Greek literature, Aeschylus and Herodotus specifically, we can find the origins of European racism and misogyny. Hall's Inventing the Barbarian (1991) is supported by 'Asia Unmanned' (1991) and her translation of Aeschylus' Persae (1993) and together they form a corpus that could be used as an example of the forced application of current political agendas onto ancient cultures.91 According to Hall, Greek writers denigrate the Asian man by making him appear effeminate, and in so doing reveal their contempt for women. Hall admits that her arguments are not overtly supportable in the text, so she talks, instead, about "Aeschylus' mythopoetic subconscious" and argues that "the text uses an imagistic and metaphorical substratum combining numerous implications of the bereft, the erotic, the soft, and the threnodic, which work cumulatively and on an almost subliminal psychological level...." The problem with Hall's theory is that the 'subliminal' messaging she identifies directly contradicts the text itself. Throughout the Persae the Persian soldier is depicted as brave and capable while denigration and blame are reserved for Xerxes alone. In Herodotus the depiction of the Persian people is similarly positive and Herodotus' women are anything but the possessions of men. Quite the contrary;

90 Hartog (2000: 393). 91 Several of Skinner's 'Mythologies' (1969) are apparent here. Anyone who believes that our discipline is sufficiently introspective where method is at stake should consider Fehling and Hall with some caution. "The Greeks' use of the possession of women, and of victory over them, as metaphors for the defeat of Asia is typical of the way in which the male-female polarity informs and shapes the representation and interpretation of experience in patriarchal societies" (Hall, 1993: 110). 93 Ibid; 117. I will, however, make a similar argument about subtext in Herodotus. The difference is that drama is written to be performed and in performance there is no time for a subtext that is not obvious, overt. The Histories, regardless of oral presentation, was written to be read and in that communicative medium the writer can be more subtle. Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 64 while there are a few female victims in Herodotus (the daughters of Rhampsinitus and Cheops for example, who are forced into prostitution ii.l21e; 126) nearly all of Herodotus' women are powerful, self-determining, champions (the wife of Candaules, Semiramis, Tomyris and Artemisia as examples). Whether victim or victor, one conclusion that can be drawn from Herodotus is that anyone who slights a woman will be punished - either by the woman or by the gods. A better argument can be made that Herodotus celebrates women and another argument can be made, strongly supported by the text of the Histories without recourse to the subliminal, that Herodotus worked to point out similarities between Greek and Barbarian, even to the point of reminding the Greeks of their Barbarian origins. 4 In contrast to the Unitarian and Liar Schools, the 'Analytical School' of Herodotean scholarship sees methodological sophistication, deliberation and a well planned agenda in Herodotus' composition which, of course, contradicts the 'unedited-first-draft' theory. But the Analytical School is no easier to define in terms of membership than the Unitarian. While the Unitarians employ Jacoby and Immerwahr, Bakker asserts that these are foundational texts in the Analytical School. According to Bakker, the Analytical School explores "signs of 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 Two, 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."95 This sounds, of course, like Jacoby, whom Bakker credits as the founder of the Analytical School, and to this group Bakker adds Pohlenz (1937); Immerwahr (1966); Cobet (1971); and Fornara (1971).96

For full and convincing studies of Herodotus' treatment of the Greek/Barbarian antithesis see Munson 2001a & 2005. While Munson suggests that the "divine retribution for hubris" in Aeschylus' Persae is something that "happened to "them" and not to "us."" (2005: 58), she also concludes that "...the notion of the linguistic handicap of non-Greeks is invalid and that the barbarian/ non-barbarian antithesis is relative" (2005: 66). 95 Bakker (2002: 4). An otherwise excellent scholar who has produced a brilliant article - yet fully infected with WEEG assumptions. See above p. 41. 96 Ibid; 5, n..2-3. The Truth is in the Telling - 65

Justus von Cobet certainly belongs on the list; he is, after all, the originator of the Unitarian/ Analytical distinction. But rather than a supporter of Jacoby, Cobet was the first to issue a strong challenge to Jacoby's structural analysis. His study of the geographic and ethnographic digressions (Herodots Exkurse und die Frage der Einheit seines Werkes: 1971) suggests that there is a unity of composition and that it can only be discovered when the digressive material is viewed as part-and-parcel with, rather than separated from and denigrated in relation to, the main narrative as was Jacoby's schema. Charles Fornara's work could be seen as the continuation of Cobet but Fornara is elusive when it comes to factional identification. His opposition to the 'first-draft' theory of the Unitarians seems to qualify him for the Analytical School and his Interpretative Essay (1971) does much to correct the text-out-of- context interpretations and to reposition evaluations of Herodotus the author, and the Histories as a text, to the time and place of composition." Fornara also challenges Pohlenz on the notion that Herodotus' main theme is the conflict between East and West, suggesting rather that the conflict was a device and the ethnographies the main theme.100 It is in Fornara - though perhaps it is

unintentional - that we see the beginning of a movement away from WEEG assumptions: the germination of the possibility that Herodotus never intended to 'reconstruct' the past. However, Fornara's harsh comparison of Herodotus to Thucydides relative to the development of the historical discipline ( 1990: op cit. p. 42 & n. 16) seems to fit more with Jacoby or Fehling and is echoed, although with softer tones, by Bakker. Also, Fornara's apparently angry review of Stuart Flory (1987) places him more with the Unitarians because his main objection is to

97 For a discussion of this contribution see Dewald and Marincola (1987: 18). 98 "Die Einheit des Werkes laBt sich aber doch nur so verstehen, dal3 wir unter Bezug auf die Eigenart des einzelnen Teils dieses in Zusammenhang bringen dilrfen mit anderen Teilen und schlieBlich der ,Hauptlinie' der Erzahlung selbst" (Cobet, 1971:43). 99 Fornara (1971b: 21) argues that Book I at least shows signs of a re-write. His contextual arguments are cited throughout the current volume. The specific context is, however, exaggerated in 1971a: Fornara suggests a date of publication as late as 415 but with more conviction ca. 421 BC. The 421 date is compelling but lacks hard evidence. 100 Fornara (1971b: 28-33). Munson (2001a: 8 et al.) agrees that the East-West antithesis is a device: "Drawing from a generalized perception partially disseminated through poetic texts and owned, as it were, by his audience, Herodotus lures his modern readers into a false sense of recognition, only to undermine it." Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 66

Flory's major premise, that the Histories has a "grand design" and the thesis that the 'anecdotes' are subservient to that design.101 J. A. S. Evans (1982), Virginia Hunter (1982) Stewart Flory (1987) Donald Lateiner (1989) and Rosaria Munson (2001) are scholars who do seem to fit with - even define - the Analytical School largely because they all credit Herodotus with deliberate method and compositional sophistication. Combined, their works go a long way to debunking the Jacoby/Pohlenz stream of thought and opening analytical questions and avenues for research that have driven Herodotean studies since the 1980s. Hunter's Past and Process looks at Herodotus and Thucydides and attempts, although without complete success, to step away from the assumption of WEEG intent on the part of these authors and to consider the possibility that, for both of them, the past was merely a medium within which to explore larger issues of behaviour, morality mdphysis.1 2 More importantly, at least as it informs my work, Hunter identifies that the event, in both Herodotus and Thucydides, is merely the unfolding, the revelation, of the sequence and the sequence a formula to determine arche. Hunter's work amounts to a detailed and erudite rebuttal of Aristotle's claim to the isolated specificity of History. In the same year (1982), Evans published his analysis, and had Evans published a decade earlier, he might have taken an important place in the progression of ideas about Herodotus and about ancient prose writing in general. But his Herodotus (1982) only hints at, only looks down the path that others are already walking. Carolyn Dewald, in her charitable review of Evans, says that Evans "misses a serious discussion of Herodotus' relationship to his contemporaries in the first sophistic" and while that might be the case, Dewald's challenge will not be taken up until R. Thomas (2000).104 Nevertheless, Evans

Fornara (1989). It can be confusing: Flory (1987: 15) says that the Histories is an un­ edited first draft but with grand design; Fornara that is was edited by has no design. 102 See especially pp. 176-7: Herodotus "did not see the world as a sequence of events with causes, but rather saw the permanent in a variety of times, place, and changing circumstances..." The theme is well developed in later pages. 103 Ibid; 228-31. 104 Dewald (1984: 108). The Truth is in the Telling - 67 contributes much to the movement away from the Fehling school of thought while maintaining a loyal adherence to the middle ground established by Immerwahr. Stewart Flory's Archaic Smile, however, boldly takes on the heart of the issue and stands as a seminal work in the Analytical School. While the focus of the WEEG School is on the Hauptlinie in Jacoby's schema, the real issue, as I see it, is not with the material that fits the expectations of all but with the material that seems to annoy all equally; the digressive material that was rejected by Jacoby as valueless. With Flory, we return to the issue that launched this discussion of the scholarship, those short, irrelevant and apparently Active stories that Herodotus is so fond of telling: Those sections that Flory labels "anecdotes" and describes as "...brief, vivid human dramas encountered on virtually every page."105 Flory adds that the anecdotes often exemplify literary 'motifs' such as the 'wise adviser' the 'vengeful queen' and the 'brave gesture' etc. and it is on this point, and at this point where he promises a definition of 'anecdote' but fails to provide one, that Flory gets distracted from his apparent subject. Substantially Flory moves only in small tentative steps away from Jacoby such that we could say that Flory does not really open the door to a new explanatory paradigm but certainly leaves his foot solidly in a door that remains otherwise closed. The link between the Hauptlinie and the Exkurse is, for Flory, the motif; the moral or message bearing device that binds the Histories together. Not unlike Jacoby's three columns, Flory identifies three patterns (although Flory's do not conform to Jacoby's): 1). "... if Herodotus finds a version of a story that contains themes and ideas [the motifs] he believes significant and if he believes this version is also historically accurate or at least uncontradicted by factual evidence, he suppresses all other versions. 2) When Herodotus finds two versions of a story that both fit the criteria he includes them both, as at 3.122.

Flory (1987: 12-13). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 68

3). ... when the true facts, usually confirmed by material evidence, do not contain significant motifs, Herodotus knows of or invents untrue stories that do contain them."106 Even though Flory admits that "this third category is remarkable and is the cause of both criticism and puzzlement among Herodotus' readers...." he neglects to define it precisely, to identify more than a couple of examples, or to delve further into the purpose. In the end, Archaic Smile is the most important work to date on anecdotes and motifs, but it does little to address the most troublesome of the short Active narratives. Nevertheless, Flory's contribution is as he predicts: "...we can now firmly reject the traditional, unflattering picture of Herodotus as earnest but artless.. ."107 The ethnographic and geographic digressions have received considerable attention (Cobet especially but also Lateiner (1989), R. Thomas (2000) and Munson (2001)) but aside from Flory no one has, to my knowledge, devoted a study specifically to the short fictive narrative units that are either called digressions (following Jacoby) or anecdotes (following Flory). This despite the fact that they are the source of so much censure: Because of these digressions the Roman geographer Strabo (xi.6.2-3) thought that he could "more easily believe Hesiod and Homer in their stories of the heroes, or the tragic poets, than Ctesias, Herodotus, Hellanicus, and other writers of this kind." Modern scholars have, as we have seen, simply dismissed them as unimportant at best, superfluous at worst. Charles Fornara, whose dismissal of Herodotus as the Father of History opened this chapter, adds to that challenge the critique that Herodotus "had a propensity for digression that can fatigue the reader and complicate the narrative argument. He also likes to tell wonderful stories, sometimes apparently for their own sake."108 The rejection is not, however, universal. W. Martin Bloomer argues that Herodotus' digressive style was perfectly in keeping with the style of the times and that we should not be surprised to see short fictive elements nor to censure

106 Ibid: 67-8). 107 Ibid; 15). 108 Fornara, (1990: 26). The Truth is in the Telling - 69

Herodotus for their inclusion. Far from superfluous, some scholars have recognized that these elements may be part of a narrative pattern and serve a deliberate purpose.110 Mabel Lang, for example, sees those digressions which she calls "probative" as proof of the influence of oral narrative. She points out that those digressions which are "more incidental" come at that point where suspense is sufficient to keep the audience involved."111 Donald Lateiner reaches the same conclusion, observing that the "[degressions are often linked to the main narrative by a causal guideword that seems suddenly to arrest our attention, and to plunge the reader into a sometimes distant account, that only returns at its end to the point

119 of departure, the leading subject." To what end? Gordon Shrimpton suggests that the job of the historian was to entertain, to provide information (which accredited doxa) and to "offer instruction, warnings and advice." The problem for the historian is that lessons are better learned from failures than successes, but failures were not the stuff of successful histories. The solution to the dilemma was to present the 'truth' in exempla, "...but the risk is oracular: the message is lost on any who cannot solve the riddle by grasping the implication" of the analogy. 113 In the chapters that follow, I intend to explore this thesis with greater detail: If the fictive digressions are placed with deliberate intent and dramatic effect, then it seems reasonable to look for structural consistency in their placement and also reasonable to assume that some understanding of their purpose might be gleaned from that structure. The exploration will depend on a methodology and an approach not typical to Herodotean studies but gaining acceptance of late with the work of scholars such as Mabel Lang, Donald Lateiner, Carolyn Dewald, Stewart Flory and others who would accept, and have accepted, the challenge presented

lw Bloomer (1993: 32). 110 "...Herodotus writes in narrative patterns that need careful handling and shows how stories that lie outside the main storyline enhance our understanding of its significance" Gray, (2007: 225). 111 Lang (1984: 7) 112 Lateiner (1989: 31). This is an issue that Lateiner has been pondering for some time. In a much earlier piece (1977: 177) he states that "Herodotus' ...fictive forms can vividly present our author's most important analyses..." 113 Shrimpton (1997: 210). Herodotus uses analogy to bring cosmic truth into the logos as a witness itself (Hunter (1982: 259-61 though inspired by rather than summarizing Hunter). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 70 by Josiah Ober. Classicists, Ober suggests, need to embrace more theoretical approaches to the study of ancient history in the way that he has "combined a central tenet of Annates-school social history - the importance of understanding the "mentality" of ordinary people - with a major insight of modern literary theory: viewing texts as symbol-systems that must be understood in relationship to their receptors."114 Any foray into narrative structure all but defines the undertaking as 'Analytical' and enters a field populated with casualties. Irene de Jong's essay on Herodotus' narrative units in the recent Brill's Companion edition clearly identifies the current problems within Herodotean scholarship on structure even if her summation sounds a bit defeatist. Despite the many efforts, she declares, no one has yet come up with any satisfactory explanatory paradigm. The first part of her essay is a summary of the scholarship on narrative units in Herodotus which basically restates what Lateiner notices, that "no two scholar's schematic summaries are even encouragingly similar" when it comes to Herodotus' structure.115 The temptation is to build on the work that has already been done but the lack of elements that could be harmonized in the structural theories of Jacoby et al. makes that a futile methodology. Nor can we simply return to Jacoby as a basis point and try to refine his schema. Jacoby's columns (H for main narrative; E for digressions from the main narrative and; e for digressions within digressions) all function on the a priori that Herodotus intended, or should have intended, to write a progressive and successive account a la Thucydides. Jacoby's evaluation is based on the degree to which a narrative unit conformed with or digressed from that one-thing-after-another model: Anything else Jacoby dismisses as irrelevant.116 I am tempted to borrow Jacoby's own phrase and suggest that

114 Ober (1989: xiii) 115 de Jong (2002: 245-58) and Lateiner (1989: 13). I am merely letting two of the leading scholars state what all agree on - that there is no agreement. 116 „Weitere Exkurse, an denen es nicht fehlt, konnten meist ubergangen werden, weil ihnen diese kompositionelle Bedeutung fehlt (doch s. Zu VI 48ff)." Jacoby, (1913: 281, section 17). The Truth is in the Telling - 71

Jacoby's art, in so far as he employed it to interpret Herodotus, consists in which parts of the text he chose to dispose of- at Herodotus' expense. Irene de Jong makes an important contribution by pointing to the very terminology of analysis as contributory to the stasis. She makes insightful objections to the use of logos, digression, Exkurse and novella (op cit. n. 10 above) but I find it interesting that she found no reason to object to Stuart Flory's use of "anecdote" as a blanket term covering not only the digressions but other literary devices as well. As noted above, Flory did much to isolate and define narrative motifs but his stated goal was to explain the 'anecdotes', something that he never so much as defines, let alone explains. Flory's best attempt at a definition comes in his conclusion: "Short, focused on a single, brief event, the anecdote reaches a definite conclusion and may center entirely on a climactic point" and he adds that they are "self contained entities."117 The definition seems sound, but it doesn't properly describe, or tightly enough define, the more troublesome narrative units in the Histories. The problem becomes evident as Flory's conclusions progress: "A good example is the anecdote of the "clever, vengeful woman" and that of "excessive vengeance."118 Flory is clearly confusing 'anecdote' with 'motif.' To be fair, he later clarifies the issue a bit by saying that an anecdote is something that contains motifs but it still leaves us without a working definition or even a concise identification of the thing in question.119 An anecdote, according to the OED, is "the narrative of an interesting or striking event" and in general usage the criteria includes that it is biographical, about real people, and actual. By this definition, then, there are many anecdotal stories in the Histories and the category is far too large and too general to limit our study.120

117 Flory (1987: 151 - 153). 118 Ibid; 153. 119 Ibid; 158. 120 For example, Jacoby (1913: 286) defines i.27, where Croesus is tricked by Bias (or Pittacus) into abandoning plans for the invasion of the Greek islands, as a digressive anecdote (beweist den Exkurscharakter der Anekdote). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 72

Susan Shapiro, building on the work of Mabel Lang, in the area of wisdom sayings, or gnomai, within the Histories adopted the broader descriptor "proverbial wisdom" and her definition is sufficient to establish the parameters of her study: "Scholars agree that a proverb is a short and witty general statement, cast in poetic (or heightened) speech, whose form is more or less fixed. A proverb expresses practical wisdom (often a comment on the human condition or moral or practical advice) that is based on experience and is widely accepted by the society in which the proverb circulates." The OED defines a proverb as a "short, pithy saying in common use" and that, while it works well for Shapiro and Lang, does not describe the narrative units in question in this study. My first choice for a new descriptor that would properly limit and define the parameters of the research was 'parable' but that term comes loaded with baggage from Biblical Studies. Nor was 'parable' a term that would have met Herodotus' approval. The Greek 7iapaPoA,f| was used in the fifth century but only in its more literal and direct meaning: 'example.' It does seem desirable, if one is to coin a term, to choose one that is applicable and suitable on as many levels as possible. One might use the term aivo<;, a story, saying or proverb, but it is used only rarely in fifth and fourth-century prose and never by Herodotus. He does use the term cpdxiq (i.60.5; i.122 & vii.3.6) but only to label a story as false with the condition that it was designed to deceive. A more suitable term might be 7ipoo8r|Kr| and Herodotus uses this term with specific reference to his own text (7ipoa8f|Ka<; yap 8r\ uoi 6 Xoyoq zt, dpxfj<; e5it/r|TO iv.30.1) but it appears only here and the context is the Scythian periodos, mule breeding in Elis the specific 'digression.' One of Herodotus' favourite terms, aside from A,6yo<; of course, is

SKOC, but Herodotus' use of the term is nearly as general as Xoyoq: while it can mean 'proverb', in the Histories it is more likely to mean simply 'an answer' (i. 126.4); 'a statement' or 'word' (ii.2.4); or some piece of advice or declaration (v.92. f.3) but never a 'story' or a narrative unit.

121 Shapiro, (2000: 92-3). In this article Shapiro engages Lang (1984: especially the middle chapters on maxims and gnomai. 122 This term is preferred by Munson (2001; 2005 following Nagy 1990). 123 I do intend to borrow the term and employ it towards a category of Herodotean narrative units, but not those currently in question. The Truth is in the Telling - 73

We encounter similar problems with 7iapoiuia in that it fits more with 'proverb.' It is never used by Herodotus, but was common in fragments attributed to Aeschylus. In Plato Cratylus 368a.8 we find rQ rati 'ITITIOVXKOM, ndkaia raipoiuia ("Son of Hipponicus, there is an old saying..."): The usage is the same for Plato in Symposium (222.b 7) where uf| Kara TPV raipoiuiav refers to a gnome from the Iliad (xvii.33). This kind of usage puts paroimia more into the category of gnome, wisdom sayings and, again, disqualifies it for use in describing stories. Aside from the typical and limited treatments of the Gyges/ Candaules story or that of Arion and the Dolphin, only two scholars have, to my knowledge, tackled the kind of narrative unit that is the subject of this study (and both within the last few years).124 Simon Hornblower, better known as a Thucydidean scholar, published an insightful analysis of the Hemotimus/ Panionius episode (viii. 104 - 6) in which he calls the story a "digression." But Hornblower goes no further in categorising the story with any others or in defining a category type. Alan Griffiths, on the other hand, looked at the story of Euenius (ix. 92 - 6) and noticed first of all that it contained a "diptych" structure with a definite theme.126 Griffiths also noticed that the theme was one often repeated in the Histories and that made him suspect that this story might be but one of a type. Griffiths' theory on reflexive references between these narrative units in the Histories will be discussed in the fourth chapter herein, what is important at this juncture is that Griffiths saw fit to label the type: Griffiths refers to the story as; "the embedded Euenius pericope" and his choice of referent is interesting: A 7r.£piK07rr| is literally a narrative unit, a short story, that is 'cut out', distinct from the narrative that precedes and follows. As a loan word in English it is more commonly (today) a passage or isolated narrative unit in the Bible and, like 'parable', we might choose to reject its use in Herodotean studies on those grounds.128 But the term is

124 It would be too much to list every scholar who has commented on these two stories. Many will be employed in the fourth chapter. 125 Hornblower (2003: 38). 126 A. Griffiths, (1999: 174). 127 Ibid; 172. 128 Griffiths chooses to use the Anglo-Latin spelling with the 'c'. I will employ a transliterated Greek spelling, with a 'k', in order to separate the term in Herodotean usage from the term in more modern Biblical references. Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 74 not unique to that discipline and has some fifth-century currency. The first definition offered by Liddell-Scott is a cutting-up or mutilation and in Thucydides (vi.28.1; 2) that is the specific meaning referring to the mutilation of the Herms: r\ Twv 'Ep\i&v 7tepiKo;rf). The only other fifth-century author to use the term is Andocides (Myst. 15.5; 34.1) and in the same context. Demosthenes uses a verbal form and also to refer to destruction {Oration 8 9.2 and Philipic 3, 22.5). The only author to use the term with any frequency is Polybius. (v.81.3; vi.53.7; x.22.5; xi.10.3; xxxi.26.6,7; xxxii. 10.2,5) but in every instance the term is used to denote some outward appearance, a visage, or, as an old English usage goes, the 'cut of a man.' It appears that the usage changed somewhat over the centuries but its meaning relative to narrative units returns with the New Testament. The term is less than ideal but a search for a Greek term used in the fifth century to describe a short and unexpected narration (because odd or out of place) within a larger narrative eludes us. The adoption oi'perikope' seems desirable, however, because it is an accurate descriptor and because it can be deployed without bringing along prejudicial baggage the way terms like 'digression' do. We can accept, then, pace Griffiths, that a perikope is "an embedded, discrete episodic unit..." that is different enough from the main narrative that it seems to arrest the reader's attention. We can add that the perikopes can be but are not necessarily 'historical' or even about real people since they are set apart from and do not conform to the Hauptlinie. They are not, however, fables in that they do sound plausible and involve human actors and realistic situations. We can also adopt, as part of our defining paradigm, an observation made by Bloomer: "Material that seems digressive or seems to have a tenuous or an arbitrary thematic connection to the whole can be better understood as the instance of a certain superlative."130 That is to say that Herodotus has a habit of exploring the extremes of human behaviour and these perikopes often exemplify an extremity of behavioural norms (or abnormality).131

yA. Griffiths, (2006: 132). 0 Bloomer (1993: 31). 1 See notes 111 and 112 above. The Truth is in the Telling - 75

As such, the perikopes can be seen as exemplars and here we can return to Aristotle and in so doing find that he and Herodotus do not disagree so much after all. Aristotle prescribes a just-the-facts approach but he admits that this is not the most popular, and therefore not the most effective, compositional method. People, Aristotle laments {Problems 916b.26), seem to prefer examples to enthymemes. Recognizing the inevitable, Aristotle also suggests that when examples are employed they should be only in support of a syllogistic argument and only in consideration of those members of the audience too simple to appreciate the facts themselves (Rhetoric 1394a - 1395b). In the following chapter, I hope to demonstrate that this is precisely what Herodotus is up to: he presents the events in the form of a narrative sequence but in case there are members of his audience who miss the point, who fail to glean the hermeneutic from the fact, Herodotus follows the syllogism with an example. Where an example from actual events cannot be found, Herodotus provides one from folklore and/or myth and where this too fails he makes one up. These, I suggest, are the perikopes. Herodotus alone is a challenging enough text - but the commentary, the scholarship on Herodotus is daunting. L 'Annee philologique lists thousands of publications in the last century, more than half of those since 1980 (albeit there are many redundancies in their list). But such a canon has prompted Pritchett to comment that "[n]o one can claim to have mastered the bibliography on Herodotus" and I am offering no contradiction.132 The point of this digression was simply to summarize the evaluations of Herodotus that have found expression over the centuries and to locate the current study within that canon. Because of Jacoby's immense stature in the community of classicists his analysis not only certified and accredited the more vitriolic of Herodotus' critics but also planted the terminology of distraction within the academic community as a whole. The "digressions" have been treated by many talented scholars before my foray and the only commonality that justifies yet one more treatise is their own lack of consensus. By prejudicing these narrative units as digressive, as tangential to rather than supportive of the main narrative, analysts are then

Pritchett (1993: 229). Chapter Two: The Status Quaestionis - 76 constrained by that terminology and the constraints they accept color their explanations. For our purposes, the most striking aspect of the Unitarian School is their dismissal of the perikopes, the 'digressions' or 'anecdotes' in their vocabularies, as valueless; and the most striking aspect of the Analytical School is their acceptance of the importance of the perikopes without any unifying theory as to their structural function. The perikopes speak to the hermeneutic, that much we can find agreement on throughout the Analytical School, but is the hermeneutic consistent throughout the Histories'! Is there a repeated or developed hermeneutic? If there is, it seems reasonable to look for the thread of development or the pattern of repetition in the location, the placement, of'the perikopes relative to the main narrative, and that requires a structural analysis that includes, even privileges the perikopes. We return, then, to Jacoby: "Man kann wohl ohne Ubertreibung sagen: H.s ganze Kunst, seinen Stoff zu disponieren, besteht in der Art, wie und wo er Exkurse anbringen kann."134

133 David Bloor's "Strong Programme" (1976) not only explains the phenomena but provides a prescriptive methodology that can help us avoid the constraints of terminology and expectations. 134 Op. Cit. note 1 above. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content

„Man kann wohl ohne Ubertreibung sagen: H.s ganze Kunst, seinen Stoff zu disponieren, besteht in der Art, wie und wo er Exkurse anbringen kann." Jacoby, 1913: 380 "For the explaining the anecdotal element in the Histories there seemed only two options: either Herodotus is an undiscriminating naif, or he is actually a serious historian who feels compelled to tell anecdotes to keep a restless audience amused..." Flory, 1987: 14 Herodotus "had a propensity for digression that can fatigue the reader and complicate the narrative argument. He also likes to tell wonderful stories, sometimes apparently for their own sake." Fornara, 1990: 26

I return to the three key statements quoted above: Jacoby's dismissal, Flory's frustration and Fornara's condemnation. On these three statements, it seems to me, the Unitarians can rest secure in their assertion that the Histories is an unedited first draft in the paratactic style. Any theory, call it Analytical or otherwise, that purports to explain the Histories as a well crafted and polished work that was executed according to a pre-set plan with purpose and intent, simply must address these three statements by explaining the perikopes that lay at the heart of the issue. A theory is required that demonstrates that the perikopes, indeed all of the digressive material, are not merely stories disposed of at random, that Herodotus is neither an "undiscriminating nai'f' nor bent on amusing his audience, and that these narrative elements, regardless of their effectiveness, were intended to support rather than complicate the "narrative argument." Herodotus distracts, befuddles, confuses and frustrates any analyst who attempts to unravel his composition. His constant shifts of time, place and even topic keep the reader off balance and, like the proverb of the handful of sand, whenever one believes that one has a grasp is exactly when it all slips through the fingers. It is the complexity of the Histories that is both Herodotus' greatest Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 78 achievement and his most profound failure because writing is nothing if not communication and if an author is incomprehensible then s/he has failed. Herodotus is not incomprehensible, but nearly so, and because of that he has caused many to throw it all in the air and declare 'this is nonsense.' The problem in Herodotean studies is that current structural theorists cannot account for the digressive material and none of the thematic theorists even attempt to link their observations with any of the structural paradigms currently on offer. At the heart of the problem is that sub-category of the digressions, the perikopes and other such apparently digressive material that may or may not be thematic but appear anti-structural in that they tend to belie all and any structural schema. Perhaps the solution is to reverse the approach: Rather than finding a means by which theme can be attached to structure we should look for structure subservient to theme? Rather than trying to place the perikopes into a structural scheme, we might change the position of the observer and look for structure relative to the perikopes?1 If we are looking for a consistency of presentation, for the employment of a paradigmatic program within the structure, we might look first to the very beginning of the Histories for the earliest deployment of the paradigm. The proem itself, often ignored when narrative structure is the topic of debate, may actually reveal nearly all we need to know about Herodotus and his method.2 As we have seen the proem contains five essential elements: iaxopia, ysvojisva, spya, Goouaord and aixla. So, the essential elements of the proem are: 1, The investigation of the past, ie: origins. 2, The narrative of events in general. 3, deeds done by specific individuals. 4, some discussion of what is marvelous or worthy

1 This was my first question. I was looking at a perikope and asked, 'what is it doing there?' That raised two more questions; 'what is it?' and 'where is there?' All that follows came from these questions. I am, essentially, taking a 'bottom-up' view where Jacoby takes a 'top-down' view. We might be two blind men on opposite ends of the elephant. 2 "It is a topos nowadays that an author does not just construct his text but also encodes into it a narrative contract: he writes into the text the rules by which his audience is to read it, how we are to understand his performance as author and our own responsibilities and legitimate pleasures as readers." Dewald, (1987: 147). 3 Where akia is the key (Shrimpton, 2003:152). The Truth is in the Telling - 79 of praise and 5, causation, even blame: all subsumed under the process of revelation, aKodefyq.4 Each of these categories could be more easily discussed with the application of some descriptive terms of reference: 1. iaxopia: Herodotus' depoloyment of that term has already been discussed (c.p. pp. 24 - 27) and it was observed that Herodotus uses the term most often in the first three Books of the Histories and most often where the distant past is being investigated. The subject of the Histories, the Persian Wars, was in living memory when Herodotus wrote so his investigations of the distant past are not central to but in support of his subject. The investigations provide background. This element is found in both Herodotus and Thucydides and in the latter the relevant sections are called the Archaeology.5 For Thucydides, The point of the Archaeology was not merely to offer a mini-history of early Greece or even to 'set the stage' but to "establish the first two theses set out at the beginning."6 As much as Thucydides' Archaeology is a "display of reasoning from evidence and probability"7 the same can be, and has been, said of Herodotus. The only difference between the two on this subject is that Thucydides has almost all of his archaeological material at the beginning and Herodotus places some at the beginning but peppers the rest throughout the text. The content and purpose is the same in both. It seems perfectly reasonable then to employ the same term when we find the same activity in Herodotus and label sections like the Abduction Cycle, Archaeologies. 2. and 3. ysv6|o,sva and epya: Events and deeds are the meat and potatoes of the WEEG historical method. Events and deeds are all that is left after authorial

"In all these cases it is obvious that no accomplishement or achievement whatsoever precedes (italics in original) the apodexis. The apodexis of great deeds is their accomplishment, their enactment, not their display or showing." (Bakker, 2002: 25, Italics in original). Baker is suggesting that the display is not the event, but the text. 5 On background information in Herodotus see Lateiner (1989: 36-7) and Griffiths (2006: 133) amongst others. 6 (Hornblower, (1991: 8, 9) sees a similarity between the Archaeology in Thucydides and Herodotus i.59ff. See also Luraghi (2000). Hunter (1982: 17) called for a comparison of method between Thucydides' Archaeology and "large sections of Herodotus." Herodotus' Hellenic Archaeology actually begins at i.56.2. 7 Edmunds (1993: 851). Crane (1998:128) has much the same to offer. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 80

bias and agenda are removed, after the delicate surgery of separating cause and blame is performed.8 This is not the stuff of fable or perikope but in ancient literature it is not really the stuff of Gewesen in the vocabulary of modern historical methodology either.9 In Gordon Shrimpton's view, the ancients "talked about things that happened, often using a form of the verb gignomai such as genomena" and those happenings occupied an ontological category not easily accessed by moderns because it seems to reside somewhere between the concrete and the abstract.10 Shrimpton laments the lack of an English term such as "genomenological" but argues that such a term could "...fill a major gap in the verbal panoply that we need to assault and dissect the enterprise of historical writing as understood and practiced by the ancients."11 Genomena were things that happened in the past and because the past does not exist, those things are not real. A phrase like 'the facts of the past' would have been ridiculous to the ancient mind. That is why Herodotus separates yevou.eva and epya. There is the category of those things that may have a story, a memory, attached to them but are themselves unreal, the yevousva; and that of the things that are real in the present even though they took place in the past because their effects are felt in the present, the Spya. It is, perhaps, Herodotus who began the destruction of the distinction. The writing of History creates an artefact and gives an ontology to the content. In anodsfyc, the yevousva become spya. That, perhaps, necessitated the methodological change from Herodotus to Thucydides. But our "just-the-facts" method that gained acceptance with Thucydides and expression with Polybius' 7tpayuaTiKfjc; iaxopiag (i.2.8; xii.25el) culminating in Ranke's 'Gewesen' is all,

8 The Annates School has removed even the event. With nothing left but statistics, Herodotus would hardly recognize the descendants of his creation. 9 Op cit. p. 23 n. 97. But for a contrary interpretation see Wecowski (2004) who argues that the proem sets up a sophistic debate contrasting belief and knowledge and that yevousva is the key. 10 Shrimpton (2003: 150 & 2001: 59). A similar argument is articulated by Press (1982: 124; 139): "In modern thought there is history independent of any knower or writer as an aspect or dimension of the subject thing, person, or nation whose history it is. History thus has become a category of reality, and in that sense a subsistent entity" See also Fornara (1983: 10). We recall from the discussion on Aristotle in the previous chapter that TO. ysvousva (Poetics 145lb.5) was given no philosophical dignity - to Aristotle the event is particular and reveals nothing of the general. 11 Ibid 150-51. On Greek theoretical concepts of nature see Feyerabend (1981: 11 - 12). The Truth is in the Telling - 81 really, pragma after the distinction between yevousva and epya has vanished. It is pragma in the sense of Lysias' arcavxa Sinyfjaoum 7rp6c; v\iaq xd 7tS7ipay|ieva (iii.1.3) in that it is the narration of events, of happenings, separated from the interpretation.13 Although Herodotus uses the term in its more common form referring to a 'business' or an 'undertaking' as in dvBpconrniarv rcpriyudxrov at i.32.1; he also uses it to refer simply to events: xi xoiov8e ysveoGai 7tpfjyua at i.19.1 refers to an incident; 7r.pfjyuxx at i.32.4 is in the line "in all of the days a person lives the same events never occur on two days..." just before the line ouxco ©v KpoTas 7tav eaxi avGpomoc; auuxpopfj, and at i.68.5 anskQav eq Z^dpxnv ecppa^e AaKs8ai(xovioaai 7tav xo 7tpfjyua it is a story, or at least the events of the narration.14 Herodotus' yevoueva, then, are happenings that may or may not be important and his epya are accomplishments that are important.15 The attachment of meaning was, for Herodotus, the storyteller's prerogative and until it is exercised, until data have been converted to evidence for the purpose of argument, both can be combined under the heading, Pragma.16 4. Gcouaaxd; The marvelous, the interesting and unusual in the Histories are Herodotus' discussions of aspects of the Other (primarily).17 These include sections that have already been termed ethnographies.,18 But Herodotus does not

The difference between yevoueva and epya may be simply that the former is a function of chance and the latter of agency but my point here is that both contain versimilitude when faithfully recorded. See also Aristotle {Rhetoric 1.1.4) where rcpayuaxoc; translates best as "the facts of the case." ' Shrimpton (1997: 45-6) makes a distinction arguing that, in Thucydides at least, erga are produced from pragmata and prachthenton through deductive reasoning. "In creating logos from erga, the narrator must provide the connectives between past events that are by their very nature often irretrievable and for the most part unverifiable by his audiences. It is Herodotus' logos that has the power to mould those events into a chain of causation which has meaning for his audiences." (Irwin and Greenwood, 2007: 36). We can confidently reject the idea that by epya Herodotus means architecture pace How and Wells (1928). "La proposta di intendere epya = Bauwerke nasceva dalla esigenza di distinguere epya dal subito precedentera yevoueva" Cagnazzi (1975: 419). See also Bloomer (1993: 33). On epya ueydA,a and its repetitive links to apodexis throughout the Hisotries see Bakker, (2002: 23-4). Aristotle {Rhetoric i.1.9) where this data is the only thing justifiably converted to evidence. He thought little of emotional appeals or reasoning from probability in forensic speeches. Aristotle was very much alone with this view. The most notable treatise on the Other in Herodotus is Hartog 1988 {op cit.). ' "Horography was the Hellenic side of ethnography, a product of the same urge to codify the collective lives of disparate groups" (Fornara, 1987: 22). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 82

only talk about peoples and their characteristics but also about architecture, geography, economy, anthropology etc. Hecataeus has already provided us with a term that sums up the whole lot quite nicely: It all amounts to a tour, a periodos ges. One expects the phrase to be applied only to geographical works but I am suggesting this more general usage for several reasons: The idea, advanced by Jacoby, that Herodotus owes his inspiration to Hecataeus is impossible to prove but easy to believe.19 I cannot accept the notion that the geographical and ethnographical elements in the Histories are the core of the work onto which the pragma is grafted but I can see the process by which the tourist guide format could evolve into the history format: it is simply a matter of primacy: one focusses on place with accompanying stories, the other on the story with some commentary on place. It seems less likely that geography was actually the focus of Hecataeus' work but, more a precursor to Pausanias than Herodotus, it seems the Periodos Ges was first a guide for travelers. When one travels one encouters geography, yes, but equally people and the 'stuff that goes with human habitation. A Periodos is an inclusive description of place and as a term, I think, more descriptive of Herodotus' people-and-place digressions than Ocouaaxd. Herodotus chose that word for his proem, I think, because he sought to reveal the marvelous and wonderful in the world outside the Greek oecumene. Herodotus appears to suggest a contextual understanding of peoples wherein geography, environment, and character all contribute to a social, a cultural construction of nomoi as behaviours. Donald Lateiner's analysis is important: "Ethnographic information in the Histories is neither shapeless nor only there to charm; rather it is documentation deployed to assert an historical thesis, namely that mankind has

iy Jacoby (1913: 330 et al.). 20 Fornara (1971: 2- 15), also sceptical, opens with this discussion. The theory is traced to Kurt von Fritz (Die Griechische Geschichtschreibung, 1967) a work that I have not seen. Immerwahr (1966: 49) embarks on a comparison of style between Hecataeus and Herodotus to prove the connection. Of course, commentary on Hecataeus' style, based on the fragments that remain is ridiculous. This is an act of desperation that only highlights the lack of evidence for the 'archaic' argument. On Hecataeus and geography as part of the Natural Philosophy movement see R. Thomas (2000: 76 - 7). 21 Thomas (2000) devotes an entire chapter (4) to this theory and I couldn't hope to offer more or do better. The Truth is in the Telling - 83 benefited from ethnic and political separation and self-determinism." But this process is not a one way street; there is the aspect of divergence through separation and of self-determinism but there is also, especially in Book Two, the Egyptian Logos, a sense of shared development. Herodotus never misses an opportunity to point to Greek customs and practices, and even Greeks themselves, that originate in Egypt, Phoenicia, Persia and elsewhere. Herodotus tours the known world as he narrates the Histories as if he is standing in Hellas and pivoting in a circle and pointing to the horizon like a compass needle. Each time he moves along the compass points he not only tells what is 'out there' but what Hellas owes to her fellow man. Far from establishing ethnic differences and divisions, Herodotus is intent on breaking them down.24 It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that we call those sections where Herodotus is explaining the Other to his intended audience, (the) Periodoi.25 5. avria: causation and blame can be called nothing other than Aitia. This is not to say that Herodotus will pass judgement against those whom he investigates, despite the apparent inference to that effect in the proem. Throughout the Histories Herodotus avoids authorial pronouncements of censure but enjoins his audience to make up their own minds.27 If the indented audience is like a grand Athenian jury, then Herodotus takes the dual role of plaintif and defendant: he presents the available arguments in appeals to the reader's sensitivity, as calculations of probability, as interpretations of laws or accepted

Lateiner (1989: 16). Nicole Loraux (2006: 16 - 18) sees Herodotus the anthropologist when describing barbarians and the historian when the narrative returned to Greece but that seems to me an obvious and inescapable condition: There is no reason for Herodotus to describe Greek culture to his Greek audience It may be that the human race originated in Phrygia (ii.2). The Athenians are Pelasgian (i57), the Macedonians are Argive (v.22), the Boeotians and some Athenians are Phoenician (v.57-8) and the Spartan royal house is Egyptian (vi.53). Heracles (ii.43), Hermes (ii.51), Dionysius (ii.81) and Perseus (ii.91) are all Egyptian deities, Aphrodite is Syrian (i. 105), Athena is Libyan (iv.180) and the oracle of Dodona came from Libya (ii.54-5). Thomas (2000: 134). 1 Cobet (1971) op cit. is the seminal work on the structural purpose of the ethnographies. Hornblower (1991: 31) refers to these sections as Herodotus' "ethnographic logos" and under that heading combines the four elements of "geography, customs, marvels and political history." ' The absence of any comment on this term in How and Wells (1928) is disappointing. ' Scullion (2006: 203 et al.). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 84 standards of behaviour, and he plays all of these forensic devices against the most accurate presentation of pragma that he can manage - even to the point of presenting two versions (or more) of the same story just as must often have been the case in an Athenian court. As presenter of both sides of the question, Herodotus had to invent himself as the impartial third-party narrator: "I am bound to tell what I have been told, but I am not at all bound to be persuaded by it, and as far as I am concerned that statement holds true for the whole book" (vii 152.3). This is, at least, the image that Herodotus creates. It is all smoke and mirrors. Herodotus has an agenda, he is anything but impartial, and he has selected a series of narratives - of outcomes really - intended to function as a syllogism and create, subversively if necessary, a specific proposition in the minds of his readers. Herodotus practices the very kind of selective manipulation that prompted Ranke to call for a suspension of value judgements in the historical discipline. The arts of selection, rationalization and interpretation easily make history the tool of the apologist and propagandist and for these reasons the historical discipline was quickly marginalized with the rise of scientism - which of course claims that science is immune to these pitfalls. It was against these abuses of history that Rank moved toward a methodology of wissenschaftliche Objektivitat in which subjective praise and blame were removed and only the event facts and the catalytic agents were included in his idea of history. The continued movement away from praise and blame can even be traced in the translations of the Histories. The critically important last line of Herodotus' proem: xa xe aXka

281 am not aware of a study that compares Herodotus' logic to that of the forensic writers. A detailed examination on these lines would seem a natural progression to the stream of analysis undertaken by Thomas (2000). It has, perhaps, been avoided only because forensic oratory matures much later than Herodotus. But Herodotus presented in the socio-political context where Antiphon and Lysias arose. For a good study on forensic influence in Thucydides see Plant (1999). 29 Flory (1987: 65) calls these disclaimers a "traditional raconteur's trick." A good discussion of the third person narrator can be found in Wheeldon (1989: 47 - 9). 30 Marincola agrees that the historian "explicitly directs the reader to think in a certain manner" (Marincola 1997: 6-7). 31 See previous, p. 23 notes 97-99. Novick (1999: 24-29) offers a concise history of Ranke's method and its interpretation and adoption by American historians, but Novick charges that Ranke was anything by objective. The Truth is in the Telling - 85

Kort 81' fjv aixvnv s7ioX,s|a,r|oav akXr\koi(5i was translated by Macaulay in 1890 as "especially that the causes may be remembered..." In the next generation, Godley (1920) offered "especially the reason why..." and a generation once more removed de Selincourt prefers "especially to show why..." The most obvious progression - that each successive generation seems to downplay nuances of blame has taken a turn: It is interesting that the latest offering from Andrea Purvis (2007) has returned to "causes" but replaces "especially" with "as well as." This might appear to be reading-in too much but the translation, the interpretation, of that word is critical to Herodotus' method and message.32 If it were not, he would not have employed it to conclude the proem. Ultimately, of course, blame in the Histories falls on a Persian: Xerxes himself. But the detailed introduction to the main events which includes an invaluable history of the Persian Empire has tended to muddy the issue somewhat: Is it a Persian or is it Persians who are to blame? Immerwahr and Flory see a general Persian advance Westward initiated by Cyrus and continued by Cambyses, Darius and Xerxes as Herodotus' "Persian aitia" but this interpretation can only be made by ignoring the Greek tyrants who also share in Herodotus' discussions of blameworthy activity.34 Mabel Lang is likely closer to the mark in seeing the aitia clause in the proem as a "statement of direction" promising only that the first books of the Histories will show how the Persians and the Greeks came to be in the position where conflict was a possibility. Lang has cleverly paired this phrase with another "statement of direction" at v.96-7 where Herodotus says that the donation of 20 ships by Athens to the Ionian Revolt was

On this aitia clause see Munson (2001: 31). On translation see Pearson (1952: 206). : the active meaning is 'accusation' 'complaint' or 'grievance' and the passive meaning is 'blame' or 'cause'. "The adjective amoc; is always passive in meaning, denoting the person or thing held responsible. Hence the neuter TO amov is quite naturally used in the sense of cause'..." Powell (1956: 244 - 5) lists 51 occurrences and says that it means "reason why" 22 times, "charge, fault, blame" 22 times and "alleged reason" once. Immerwahr observes that every time aitie is used it is associated with a human action. He says that for Herodotus aitie means "guilt." Flory see the "Persian aitia" as "an alternate version of the Greek epic tradition" and as a demonstration of authorial method (Flory 1987: 24-5) Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 86 the "beginning of troubles..." We will discuss, in the final chapter, the evidence to suggest that Herodotus was diffusing, or even redirecting, curia. The proem, then, can be explained as; 1) Archaeology, 2) Pragma, 3) Periodos, and 4) Aitia. The proem is one of the shortest identifiable narrative units in the Histories and it might seem fanciful to extract so much from so little. Indeed it would be fanciful and even futile unless the definitions extracted above do not apply with some certain clarity to other small narrative units and to larger units even up to the opus as a whole. In the first chapter we encountered five narrative units that occur in the opening chapters of the Histories: The Abduction Cycle (i. 1.1 - 5.2); Gyges and Candaules (i.8 - 13); the Lydo-Milesian War (i.17.1 - 22.4); the story of Arion and the Dolphin (i.23.1 - 24.8); and the Fable of the Dancing Fish (1.141.1-3). It was suggested that four of these units bear such resemblance to auBoq that they are not likely historical - in the sense that they could be accounts of actual events - and not one of the five contributes directly to the main narrative in any way necessary to the WEEG method. The only unit that bears verisimilitude is the Lydo-Milesian War episode but its relevance to the Persian War narrative is not immediately clear. Three, however, do point to a cause-and-effect sequence leading to the conquest of Ionia by Croesus of Lydia: the Abduction Cycle posits that the Greeks were to blame for the enmity between the Barbarians of Asia and the Greeks in general but especially of Hellas; the Gyges/ Candaules episode establishes the reign of the Mermnadae in Lydia of whom Croesus is a member, and the Lydo-Milesian War episode describes the first conflict between the Ionian Greeks and Lydia. All of these units fit the observation, also made in the first chapter, that Herodotus' focus, at least his structural anchor, seems to be the Ionians and their status relative to enslavement or freedom, and this theme easily includes the Dancing Fish episode that concludes the second conquest of Ionia by Cyrus of Persia.36

Lang (1984: 3). The subject of Herodotus and the Ionians will be treated in the concluding chapter. The Truth is in the Telling - 87

The least explicable unit is Arion and the Dolphin. Not only does it seem to contribute nothing to the narrative as a whole, it fails even to make an apparent contribution to or have any contextual relationship with the Lydian history. It is, by all appearances, one of those units that Jacoby dismisses as meaningless, that Flory calls anecdotes and that we have agreed to label perikopes following Griffiths.37 Our specific employment of the term requires that a narrative unit, in order to be called a perikope, makes or illuminates a moral point and as such clarifies the hermeneutic of the main narrative.38 In order for such a claim to be made, the relationship between the main narrative and the perikope would have to be overt. If there is nothing in the context or content of the Arion Perikope that links it to the Lydian Logos, the relationship must be thematic and the identification of a hermeneutic pause would have to come from the very fact of its apparent isolation, from the main narrative. The key is to be found not only in the style and content of the perikope, but in its location. Despite the common complaint that Herodotus' digressions distract the reader, it may be the case that distraction, arrested attention, was the author's goal. Stepping away from the Arion Perikope and the other four narrative units to view them in context we can see, firstly, that they are all part of the larger narrative unit traditionally referred to as Book I. These divisions were not Herodotus' and although we have no choice but to employ the book and chapter divisions for reference they tell us nothing about Herodotus' own concept of the divisions of the opus.40 Some of Herodotus' divisions were, however, obvious enough that they were incorporated into the Alexandrian divisions: Book I does, for example, appear to contain complete Herodotean units: The proem; the Abduction Cycle

37 Op. cit. See p. 71, note 122 in Chapter 2. 38 Chapter 2, p.73. 39 "Placing is not just done for effect, placing helps to determine effect" (A. Griffiths, 2006: 142). 40 A discussion of the current divisions by Alexandrians can be found in Cagnazzi (1975). "La divisione alessandrina in 9 libri non e necessariamente d'autore. Ci si chiede allora quale e quella erodotea" (Cagnazzi, 1975: 386). The earliest attestation of the division into nine books is Diodorus ii.37.6. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 88

(i.1-5.2); a brief methodological bridge (i.5.2-4) ; The Lydian Logos (i.6 - 94); a second proem (i.95.1)42; and the Persian Logos (i.95.2 - 216).43 The word 'logos' has become a fixture in Herodotean scholarship in reference to many of the larger discreet episodic narrative units within the Histories:** It is problematic only in that it is hardly specific as Greek terms go and Herodotus himself employs the term in most of its varied nuances: At i.5.3 we find 7rpopfjaoum sq TO 7tpoo"© TOU A,6you and this could be interpreted as a resumption of the narrative in general with the use of logos in keeping with ii.123 and vii.152 where Herodotus refers to the "whole of the Histories" as 7idvTa TOV A,6yov. We can, therefore, refer to an opus in total as a Grand Logos.45 The prefix 'Grand' is a requirement because Herodotus also uses logos to refer to divisions within: There are references to specific units at i.75.1 foreshadowing the Medikos Logos (ev ToTai ojtiaoo Xoyoiai) and to previous units as in aveifAi 8s 87ci TOV 7tpoT8pov A,6yov i.140.3, a phrase re-employed at vii.137.46 But the most overt Herodotean usages of the term specifying divisions within the Grand Logos come at v.36.4 with

section he calls the Libyan Logos (ev TOIOI AiPwoIcn, A,6yoiai): A promise he fulfills at iv.145 - 201. He also makes reference to an Assyrian History at i. 106.2 (ev eTspoiai Xoyoiai) and at i.184 (ev xoiai Aooupioiai A,6yoioi uvfjur|v 7toif|Gouxxi). It is often assumed that he is referring to a separate work,

41 Fornara (1987: 7) 42 "In I, 95 la frase eniC,r\xai ...e una netta cesura formale EVOEUTEV mostra che con queste parole si inizia un nuovo logos" (Cagnazzi, 1975: 387). 43 Immerwahr (1966: 88) sees that the Persian Logos is structurally similar to the Lydian Logos but does not elaborate. 44 From at least Jacoby (1913: col 327. 11 - 13). 45 But Cagnazzi (1975: 387) oversimplifies the issue in saying that "L'uso di logos = libro appare costante." 46 An important section because here (vii. 137.1) Herodotus makes an overt reference to the Peloponnesian War establishing a date of composition after 431 BC. Fornara (1971a) would push the date to 415 but the argument is less than convincing. 47 It has been correctly argued that a formal use of the term by Herodotus cannot be established: Immerhahr (1966: 14); Irwin and Greenwood (2007: 6). The Truth is in the Telling - 89 independent of the Histories itself, that was never published. But when the Assyrian Logos reference is compared to the Libyan Logos reference it seems more likely that the Assyrian Logos was a section of the Histories that was left out of the final publication. Logos also refers to smaller narrative units and it might be possible to discern some specificity, or at least nuance, of meaning in these uses.49 When, for example, the young Cyrus has been revealed a prince rather than a cowherd's son, he is escorted home to Persia and is told xov 7idvxa Ax3yov by his attendant (i.122). That is to say that the truth of his past is made known to him. However, the version of Cyrus' youth that was 'reported' by his parents was that he was suckled by a she-wolf. Herodotus uses cpaxic; twice (i.122 & 123.1) to emphasise the difference. There was a story - Xoyoq - that Cyrus was raised by a cow-heard and his wife. The wife's name was Cyno - the Median word for she-wolf. So the story - X,6yoc; - became a fable - cpaxic; - in which Cyrus was raised by wolves. A distinction like this seems to suggest that Xoyoq is a factual or at least accurate account while some other descriptor, like

' How and Wells (1928: Mr. §14; i.106; app. ii, §5). An outstanding essay on logoi in Herodotus is offered by Dewald (1987). See also Munson(2001:33). ' Immerwahr does not see subordination or hierarchy in the logoi. But on this he is a bit confusing: while he says that "A logos is... basically a series of items, which are themselves smaller logoi" (1966: 15). So, there is no subordination of "major and minor units" but a logos is a string of smaller logoi...? Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 90

is divided without looking for deeper levels. But Cagnazzi is, perhaps, hampered by Immerwahr's claim that "the work of Herodotus is arranged as a chain of logoi, with the individual items strung along in a single row and usually framed by introductory and concluding sentences." And Immerwahr is, as we have seen, hampered by Jacoby's assertion that Herodotus was a paratactic writer. Carolyn Dewald, in her insightful essay on these narrative units, agrees that the logoi appear "stitched together, uneven, a construction that gives every sign of having been laboriously assembled" and Dewald then resorts to the 'chain of units' model and calls these units "extraordinarily different both in form and in content from one another."52 In order to maintain the paradigm, these analysts force their data to conform to a structure that might appear to work but does not. The failure comes not only in the identification of logos structure - Cagnazzi was mostly correct in constructing her chain of twenty-eight - but in the content. An analysis of content based on Cagnazzis' structure reveals problems from the outset. "Logos I" in her system begins at i.l and concludes at i.94; but, as we have seen, 1.1.1 - 5.2 is the Abduction Cycle and cannot really be seen as an introduction to the Lydian Logos, or even part of it in any contextual way. The first logos is the Abduction Cycle. It stands on its own and mirrors and builds on the paradigm established in the proem. It opens with a declaration of source, nepaecov asv vuv oi Xoyioi, and a repetition of aitia, only nine words after the first instance: "The Persians who tell these stories say that the Phoenicians were to blame..." Before we learn what they are to blame for, or even how they come to be blamed, Herodotus gives a one line description of the origins, location, and activities of the Phoenicians, an Archaeology (i.1.1). The next several lines (1.2-4.1) narrate the events - the pragma - beginning with the abduction of Io from Argos by the Phoenicians. There is a slight methodological bridge (2.1) where Herodotus clarifies his employment of Persian sources, admits that there are alternative versions (Hellenic) and reasserts the point of the logos,

51/6/rf(1966:40). 52 Dewald, (1987: 148). Dewald sees Herodotus as a both a "warrior' battling the complexity of the logoi and at the same time a "raconteur" manipulating both the logoi and his audiences experience of them. The Truth is in the Telling - 91 xcov dSncnudxcov Ttpcoxov, before he continues with the reciprocal abduction of Europa from Tyre (2.1).53 Abduction has been requited by abduction and the ledger is closed. However, uexd 8s xaDxa "EAXnvac; aixiouc; xfjc; Seuxspnc; aSucinc; ysvsaGav and Greeks carried off Medea from Colchis followed by the reciprocal abduction of Helen from Sparta by Paris of Troy. Again, the ledger is closed and the narrative, the logos is concluded (2.1-4.1). But "EAXnvac; 8f| ueydA,co<; aixiotx; yevsaGai when they launched an invasion of Ilium with the abduction of Helen as a pretext. This is the second aitia clause and it clearly diffuses blame - Phoenicians and Greeks now share culpability.54 The narrative then continues with a type of discussion that does not fit any of the analytical terminology employed so far and certainly nothing that was foreshadowed in the proem: The section i. 4.2 - 5.2 is an analysis of the pragma in which the degree and relativity of aitia are discussed. This section concludes with an alternative version - Io had an affair of her own free will and left with the ship's captain when she discovered that she was pregnant - but the important message here is not the alternative but the ending.55 Regardless of interpretation, version or variant details, the cause and effect relationship of the sequence is the same: tit-for-tat leads to amplification. The alternative Io story seems there to re- enforce the suggestion, made only a few lines above, that none of the women said to have been abducted would have gone except by free will but, again, this is not the point. What Herodotus is focussing on in this whole section is blame, responsibility, and he seems to be supporting the Persian claim that the invasion of Ilium by Agamemnon was an excessive response to a benign situation.5

The Greek account is unsatisfactory to the requirements of ioxopia because it involves the infatuation of Zeus and some business about a wandering cow. Only the Persian account bears versimilitude. See How and Wells (1928: i.2) 1 "The settling of historical credits and debts is part of Herodotus' task" (Lateiner 1989: 35). Nevertheless, Herodotus' inclusion of this alternate version caused some resentment amongst his Greek audience. See How and Wells (1928: i.4) for a summary of the reactions. ' "Herodotus may be attempting to show that justice... may in turn be disproportionate to the initial crime, and constitute a further crime" (Desmond 2004: 28). See also Wardman (1961: 135). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 92

Blame seems to be the focus of the discussion, but there can be no blame without a transgression and no transgression without a rule. The point of i.4.2 - 5.2 is not so much the culpability itself but the means by which culpability can be determined; it is an analysis of nomos and it introduces one of the critical elements of Herodotus' theoretical and thematic treatises; that nomos is relative to the background of the interpreter. Yes, Paris sailed away with Helen, but so what? The Persians say that the event was Xoyov ot>5eva rcoif|o-aa0ai (i.4.3). The Greeks thought rather differently.57 A proper interpretation of the event is revealed only later in the Histories. The Helen logos had less to do with abduction or elopement than with the violation of the international nomos of guest/host conduct.58 The alternative Helen story has it that Paris and Helen landed in Egypt from Sparta and that Proteus, the King of Egypt passed judgement upon Paris: co KctKiaxs dvSpcov, ^etvicov TV%G)V spyov dvoaicoxaxov epydcao- (ii.115.4). Helen and the treasure were impounded but Paris was sent away - his life spared only because Proteus sought to avoid the Orestean dilemma of violating a guest for the crime of violating a host.59 In the long run the question, once again, comes down to appropriate response.60 Herodotus' division of the Helen story between Books One and Two is a wonderful example of historical selectivity and it reveals much about intent.61 Regardless of the displacement of the conclusion to another section of the grand narrative, the Abduction Cycle follows and builds on the paradigm established in theproem: Archaeology, Aitia and Periodos (i.1.1); Pragma (1.2 - 4.1); Nomos (a

The point of the Abduction Microlog: "Greeks, Persians, and Phoenicians all tell version of the Io story designed to reflect well on their own national images" (Dewald, 1987: 168). A logos is told by someone who has a vested interest in the perception of a given set of events. 58 "For Herodotus the point would perhaps be, then, that keeping within the bounds of nomos is what matters, regardless of the variation of nomoi from one society to the next" Humphreys (1987: 214). 59 A fundamental principle of jurisprudence from time out of time: you cannot break the law you are enforcing. See vii.136 where Xerxes also refuses to break xd rcdvTrov dvGpomcov vouijaa. For commentary on this passage and its meaning see Munson (2001: 192). 60 It is likely that Herodotus removed the conclusion to another section because the conclusion may have angered some members of his audience and he was careful to avoid such a response so early. 61 What Hornblower (1994: 139) calls "narrative displacement." The Truth is in the Telling - 93 new element 4.2 - 5.1); Alternative Pragma (another new element 5.2). So that the whole is wrapped up nicely for presentation it is framed in introductory and concluding statements, 1.1: rispascov uev vuv oi A,6ytoi... 5.2: xouka usv vuv Ilspaai TE Kai OoiviKeg ^eyoucn. The Abduction Cycle is, by definitions established by others and by the paradigm introduced herein, a Logos in its own right. Its purpose is to introduce the subject and the methodological program that will be employed throughout the Histories. But the subject is not, as so many have wanted to read, East versus West, Europe in conflict with Asia, or even Greeks in conflict with Barbarians; the subject is First Wrong, 7ipc6xov iraap^avxa aSiKow spycov, initial transgressions and the difficulty of determining a just response to a perceived transgression when two or more cultural systems, each with their own nomoi, are in dispute. What might have prevented structural analysts like Cagnazzi from seeing it as an independent Logos is its size; it seems simply too small to be called a logos especially when compared to the Lydian Logos which stretches from i. 6 - 94 or the the Persian Logos, i. 95 - 216. But it is a Logos and for clarity we might call it a microlog. 5 Between the Abduction Microlog and the Lydian Logos is Chapter Five, a section largely overlooked in the scholarship but of critical importance to the structure, composition and interpretation of the Histories. I am calling it a Bridge because it spans a gap closing one logos, segueing into another. This chapter and others like it also reset time and place, clarify the position of the author and offer both methodological and interpretative clues. This section is worth reproducing: 5. [1] ouxoo jxsv Tlspaai Xeyovai ysveaGai, Kai 8id xf)v 'lXiox> dXcoaiv stipiaKouoi acpiai eouoav xf|v dpxnv xf\q syfipriq xf\q sq xovq ,rEXkr\vaq. [2] 7i8pi 8e xf\q lovq OUK ojioXoyeouai nspanai

The order of the elements within a logos does not seem to matter. Although there is some consistency there seems no fast rule. 63 Dewald, (2006: 146-7) sees the Abduction Cycle as a "playful and humorous" device to establish motifs. 64 On Lydia as the 'first' to wrong the Greeks see Lateiner, (1989: 39). 65 Pace A. Griffiths (2006: 131) who calls it a "micro-narrative." Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 94

ouxco OoiviKS<;- ov ydp dprcayfj acpeac; ffi^acmevovq Aiyoum dyaysiv auxf|v sc; Avyimxov, aW q av uf| KaxaSnA-og ysvnxai. [3] xauxa \isv vuv TI spaai xs Kai

(DOIVIKSC; ^syoDav sycb 5s jrspi \iev xouxcov OTJK epxouai spscov aq ouxco fj aXkcaq K(oq xauxa sysvsxo, xov 8s oi8a ambq rcpcoxov imdp^avxa dSiKcov spycov sq iox>q "EXArrvag, xouxov crnurjvai; 7rpoPf|ooum sc; xo 7rpoaco xov ^oyou, ouoicocj auiKpd Kai |4,sydA,a doxsa dv9pd)7icov E7is^icbv. [4] xd yap xo 7idA,ai (j,sydA,a rjv, xd 7toA,A,d ajiiKpd auxcov ysyovs- xd 8s en e\xex> rjv p,sydA,a, rcpoxspov rjv auiKpd. xf|v dv0pco7rnir|V cov S7n,oxd|4,svoc; eu8ai(j,ovinv ouSaud sv xcoDxcp nsvouaav, e7iiuvrjaou.ai duxpoxspcov ojxotcocj. i.5 [1] That is how the Persians say it happened; and they say that the sack of Troy was the beginning of their enmity towards the Greeks. [2] But as far as Io is concerned, the Phoenicians do not agree with the Persian account... [3] These things, then, are what the Persians and the Phoenicians say: I won't say if things happened this way or that, but I do know who was the first to commit an unprovoked injustice against the Greeks and having revealed this person I will proceed with my narrative giving equal treatment to the cities of men both humble and powerful. [4] For those that were powerful cities of ancient times have become humble, and those that are powerful in my time were previously humble. Knowing, then, that human prosperity is subject to reversal, I will discuss both equally." This section does much:66 It establishes first that perceptions are relative to the perceiver, that the same event can have more than one interpretation even more than one version of the details and, because of the uncertainty of the event details, only the end matters. It also asserts that the distant past cannot be known

66 Sewell-Rutter (2007: 4) recognizes the importance of i.5 but without much exegesis. The Truth is in the Telling - 95 with accuracy but knowledge, a reliable database of evidence, can be established for the past where the event is within reach of living memory. For Herodotus, living memory begins with the time of Croesus, the 560's BC. Born in 484, Herodotus would have grown up under the generation who fought in the Persian Wars and their fathers who knew the height of Lydian power and could remember "when the Mede came."6 In these two generations, Herodotus' father's and grandfather's, Sardis rose to greatness and fell to the Persians, Ecbatana and Babylon fell from supremacy and Susa and Pasargadae rose to domination, and on the other side of the Aegean, Athens and Sparta rose from the shadows of Argos and Corinth to dominate the Greek world. They lived in interesting times. More importantly, this section projects for the reader, as an addendum to the Proem, the scope, the purpose and the object of study of the Histories: The work is about tracing responsibility to initial acts of injustice to determine if the justice or injustice of men's actions have a bearing on the subsequent fortunes of states. This section, the Bridge, is Herodotus' thesis statement. The first word, placed with craft and purpose, that follows the thesis statement is: KpoTaoc; (i.6.1). Cities rise and fall, but men are the cause. The suspense of holding the name until the opening line of the next chapter only heightens the importance of i.5.3 but Croesus is not the only name Herodotus has held in suspense: "I do know who was the first to commit an unprovoked injustice against the Greeks" and that person was Croesus, the Greeks are the Ionians, Aeolians and Dorians who live on the eastern shores of the Aegean, omoq 6 KpoTaoc; PapPdpcov 7tpcoxoc; xcov f|jj,eic; i8{xsv xoxx; jxsv Kaxeaxpsv|/axo 'EXA,f|vcov ec; (popou a7taycoyriv, xovq 8e (piAouc; 7rpoas7toif|o'axo (i.6.2). Having established his parameters Herodotus then enters his first major logos. The Lydian Logos is well defined not only by its content but by its structure. It forms an episodic unit with an introduction, a plot line focussing on

Although many Thucydidean scholars assert that Thucydides i. 22 contains veiled criticism of Herodotus, I have yet to encounter one who sees the obvious: that Thucydides i.22 is in direct mimesis of Herodotus i.5. '"How old were you when the Mede came?' was a familiar question..." in the mid-fifth century. Hornblower (1987: 21). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 96

Croesus and a conclusion. It is even wrapped in the "signposts" identified by Immerwahr in that the introduction and conclusion contain sentences that mirror each other.69 Three of the other narrative units now in question, including the Arion perikope, occur in the Lydian Logos and for that reason, in addition to the fact that the Lydian Logos was Herodotus' choice to begin the narrative proper; we can look to these chapters for further development and employment of the structural precedent. The Lydian Logos is structured according to the paradigm suggested above, even though the order is slightly different: Proem: 6 Archaeology: 7-25 Aitia: 26-33 Nomos: 34 - 45 Pragma: 46-91 (but with a digression) Periodos: 92 - 94 The first issue with this narrative unit is that it is not so discreet, not so homogenous, as one might expect if we want to see it as a singularity. The Lydian Logos is a history of Lydia from earliest times to the conquest by Cyrus, but it includes long and apparently unnecessary stories about a meeting between Croesus and Solon; the death of one of Croesus' sons; discussions of Athens and Sparta; as well as the Arion Perikope. In order to understand the Lydian Logos we need to dissect these elements; in order to argue that Herodotus is understandable, rather than a rambling storyteller, we need establish the relevance of all of these elements. We must also accept Herodotus' own parameters and interpret these elements in relation to first wrongs, the mutability of fortune and the Greeks of Asia Minor. The Lydian Logos begins with an introduction (i.6.1-3) that somewhat resembles a proem. The following chapters (7 - 25) trace the history of Lydia

69 i.6.2: ot>xo<; 6 KpoTooc; (3ap(3dpcov rcpcoxo; xc5v i\\iEiq i5[isv xoug uev Kaxeoxpe\|/axo 'EM.f|v<»v eq cpopou dTiaycoyfiv, TOIX; 8e cpiloix; jipoaeTtovfjaaxo. - i.92.1: Kaxa uev 5f| xf|v Kpoioou xs dpxf]V icai 'Irovvnc; xf|v 7ipcbxr|v Kaxaoxpocpffv eoxe ofixco. 70 How and Wells (1928) agree that i.6 - 94 is a discreet unit. The Truth is in the Telling - 97 from the dynasty of the Heraclidae through the Mermnadae. The focus of the Lydian Logos is not Lydia per se but Croesus specifically. So much is established in the Lydian proem (6.1-2). The career of Croesus takes up the majority of the Logos (26 - 90) and ends with the conquest of Lydia by Cyrus, rather than the death of Croesus.71 The last four chapters, (91 - 94) form a conclusion. The break, the separation, between the Lydian Logos and the Persian Logos is well defined: 79 ADSOI |XEV 5f| wo rispoT|0"i s8e8oi3Xcovxo (i. 94.7).

smSi^nxai 8s 8f| TO SVGSWSV f|urv 6 Xoyoq xov xe Kupov OOTK; ecbv xf|v Kpoiaou dpxf|v KaxsiXe, Kai xouc; ITepaag oxscp xporcco f|yfjoavxo xfj<; Ao-in<;(i. 95.1). A new Xoyoq has begun and everything before 95.1 can be seen, is defined by the author, as a single narrative unit. But there are constituent parts that still require explanation. If Croesus is the subject of the Lydian Logos then those chapters leading up to but not including the reign of Croesus constitute the Lydian Archaeology. They include the Heraclid origins of the Lydian kingdom (7.1-4), one of those narrative units that caught our attention earlier, that of Gyges and Candaules (8.1 - 13.2), and the reigns of the Mermnadae (14.1 - 25.2) including another of the problematic units; the Arion Perikope (23-24). It also includes the Lydo-Milesian war episode, the fourth of our five narrative units. Each of these can be easily explained and understood by applying the paradigm of the Abduction Microlog to the content of the narrative. In the Abduction Microlog we saw that the Aitia section, or declaration, is attached to the Archaeology and the same is seen in the Lydian Logos. Chapters 23 - 33 are the story of Solon's visit to Sardis and are apparently the opening chapters of a biography of Croesus. But these chapters are concluded with a segue

statement: usxa 8e S6A,cova oixojxsvov sXaPe SK 0soi5 VE(J,80K; u£y&A.r) Kpotaov (i. 34.1) and this alone is enough to separate them from the narration of events and 71 Herodotus does not write a birth-career-death of Croesus, he does not write a biography here, because, once again, the deeper theme is the subjugation of the Ionians. 72 A very usefull analysis fo i.94 can be found in Munson (2001: 28). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 98 define an Aitia section.73 The somewhat sophistic (even Socratic) conversation is intended to establish the rj[3pic; of Croesus with his refusal to see any but himself as the most blessed of men despite the well articulated lesson offered by Solon.74 The story of the conversation between Croesus and Solon has suffered the intense gaze of analysts since ancient times and is one of the bedrocks of the 'Liar School' argument. The criticism begins with the fact that Solon was very old by the time Croesus came to the throne of Lydia in 561 BC and his famous travels took place in the decade after 592/1.75 Croesus was just a boy at the time. The conclusion is that Herodotus has knowingly included a lie. But it was likely a lie that he transmitted rather than invented and a lie like that is also called a tradition.76 Diodorus offers the same story but with less detail specific to Solon and more information about other sages. Diodorus used Herodotus as a source, of that there is no doubt, but according to Diodorus Croesus sent for Solon, as well as Anacharsis, Bias and Pittacus (Diod. ix. 2.1; 26ff) and the story differs enough from Herodotus that it suggests an additional source. The line nav scxi avGpcorax; crouxpopfi that appears in Herodouts (i.32.4) and is repeated in Diodorus (ix. 27; 33.3; 36.4) is more indicative of common Greek ideology than direct author- author influence.77 It seems safe enough to assume that what Herodotus included

73 De Selincourt (1962: 57) says: "It was Fate, not the Gods, which brought retribution, and the crime which more than any other called retribution down was Pride..." But Fate is a god and Herodotus makes the connection between retribution and the divine very clear. On divine justice see Desmond 2004: 29-30. See also Hdts viii.77. 74 It is typical of an Herodotean tragic figure that he fails to listen to good advice but takes bad advice, usually from a eunuch. 75 Solon died in the archonship of Hegestratus (558 BC) according to Phanias (Plut. Sol. 32.3). 76 The meeting is not impossible as some have suggested. See How and Wells (1928: i.29). If it was Alyattes who hosted the Sages and Croesus was merely a young attendee at the meetings, it would not be surprising to see the whole event transferred to Croesus when his fame surpassed his father's. This kind of transference is common in popular histories. 77 Marincola (2007:106) does well to point out that the Histories was not the only version of these events in circulation at the time and the Histories itself is likely a synthesis of traditions. The Truth is in the Telling - 99 was a well known anecdote about Croesus, the archetypal hybristic monarch, and used Solon, the master of the hybris-ate-nemesis cycle, as a character foil.78 Herodotus' first vitriolic critic, Plutarch, is not, however, one of those critics who challenges the chronology or the veracity of the event.79 The reason is that Plutarch is willing to accept an event as true more on the basis of its conformity with the character of the actors than on the empirical data.80 The story

01 is 'true' so long as it relates a truth. The Croesus Aitia is Herodotus' first comprehensive morality digression and its purpose is layered: first, it establishes the character of the hybristic monarch more as a character-type than Croesus specific; second, it sets up the fall of Lydia to Cyrus emphasizing that the blame was on Croesus, not Cyrus. Cyrus of Persia was, after all, remembered by the Greeks (and many others) as a benevolent monarch and Herodotus will use Cyrus as an example against which the likes of Croesus, Polycrates, Cambyses and Xerxes can be judged. Early in his narrative Herodotus wanted to make his main thesis clear and emphatic without breaking the third-person-narrator illusion, without appearing to be speaking ex cathedra. The Croesus Aitia is, therefore, followed by another anecdotal narrative that is intended to highlight the thesis. The opening line of Chapter 34 both concludes the Croesus Aitia and introduces the story of Atys and Adrastus (34.2 - 45.3). Atys, the son of Croesus and heir apparent is fated to die by a spear point and Croesus goes to some length to protect his son from any such

The sequence is one of the main repetitive themes in Solon's poems. See the very nice translations by John Porter at http://homepage.usask.ca/~jrp638/DeptTransls/Solon.html (2006 posting accessed December 13th 2010). J. G. Griffiths (1991: 62) unfortunately misunderstands the poems and concludes that ate is the punishment, rather than the symptom. But Griffiths is correct to dismiss the common conclusion that the sequence is a fatalistic philosophy. Herodotus will show that the sequence can be broken. 9 Plutarch's Herodoti Malignitate = Moralia XI 0 Ingenkamp, (2004: 74). See also Immerwahr (1966: 80); Konstan (1983: 15-16); Gray (1986: 120); Pedley (1968: 83) et al. Shrimpton (1997: 113-5) talks about a reciprocal relationship between logos and ethos in ancient method as opposed to the modern relationship between story and event. 1 Moles (23002: 36) goes too far when he imagines the meeting is fictional because it represents a meeting between Herodotus and Pericles! 2 Crane, (1998: 47). See also Ayo (1984: 32). Cyrus, of course, becomes the semi-fictional main character of Xenophon's Cyropaidaea. 3 On narrative voices in Herodotus see Marincola (1987); Wheeldon (1989); Hornblower (1994). The subject has been dealt with by many others too numerous to mention. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content -100 opportunity but, in the end, allows the situation to develop wherein Adrastus, a guest-friend, accidentally kills Atys in a hunting accident. Neither Atys nor Adrastus are historically verifiable figures and even the names themselves are rare. Herodotus offers no source for the story, not even a X,sysxai, and the whole thing reads so much like uuGoc; that we should be instantly suspicious. It is almost certainly a fiction and by all points of our working definition, a perikope. The Atys Perikope will be dealt with in detail in the following chapter but it is important at this stage to identify its structural location. It follows the aitia and precedes the pragma to lend weight to and inform the hermeneutic of the aitia: the Atys Perikope is, as we will see in the following chapter, all about the hybris- ate-nemesis sequence and can, on those grounds, be regarded as a nomos section because it exemplifies the rule. This Nomos-Perikope is followed by the Pragma: The chapters from 46 to 89 narrate the events of the Lydo-Persian war in which Croesus attempted to forestall the expansion of Cyrus by launching a pre-emptive attack but was himself defeated resulting in the fall of Lydia to the Persians. The Lydian Pragma is itself divided into three sections. Chapters 45 - 56 recount Croesus' preparations for war as he attempts to find the most reliable oracle and the strongest ally. The narrative is then interrupted by a long digression on the origins of the Athenians and Spartans, Chapters 56 - 68. This is an innovation, a new element introduced to the logos paradigm and one that we can, I think, properly call a Prostheke. At Chapter 69 the Pragma resumes with the repetition of the introductory line and Chapters 70 - 90 then recount the war with Cyrus itself. Chapter 91 not only constitutes a conclusion to the preceding narrative but offers further explanation of the fault and resultant retribution. As such, this chapter forms the Epilogue. The main theme of the Lydian Logos is declared at 91.1 with: "No one, not even a god, can escape his destiny." The point is made carefully and at length; Herodotus recaps the fault of Gyges and explains the fault of Croesus resulting in his downfall. The Mermnadae, and Croesus most notably,

xf)v 7i£7tpcflnevT|v notpav d8i3vaxa eoti cwiocpuyetv Kai Qe& The Truth is in the Telling - 101 had made lavish donations to Delphi, but even with the patronage of Apollo the inevitable outcome of a sequence had to be realized. Chapters 92 to 94 form the Periodos including the dedications from Lydian monarchs at Delphi (92); the tomb of Alyattes in Lydia (93) and Lydian customs with a focus on Greek customs that originated in Lydia such as coined money and games. To sum up, then, the Lydian Logos is: Proem i.6 Archaeology 7-25 Aitia 26-33 Nomos (perikope) 34-45 Pragma 46-56 Prostheke 57-70 Pragma 71-90 Epilogue 91 Periodos 92 - 94.

While this analysis has identified another perikope but done nothing to solve our original question; that of the placement and purpose of the Arion Perikope. In order to accomplish that we will need to look deeper into the Lydian Logos and into logos structure. The Histories is a grand Logos composed of smaller Logoi to be sure, but in this preliminary dissection we asked if the divisions continued. Having seen that the basic structure of the rather large Lydian Logos resembles the structure of the very small Abduction microlog it now seems a simple enough task to look for that same structure in between Logos and microlog; to look for macrolog. The Lydian Archaeology, as it turns out, does display the same structural formula as the Lydian Logos of which it is a constituent part: It begins with its own Archaeology (i. 7.1-4) wherein the Heraclid origins of the Lydian monarchy are explained. The Aitia section follows with the story of Gyges and Candaules (8.1 - 12.2). The list of Mermnadae kings and their various accomplishments Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 102 forms the Pragma (13.1 -22.4). According to our paradigm we expect to see a Nomos section here and what we find is the story of Arion and the Dolphin (23.1 - 24.8). The whole section is then concluded with an epilogue with the closure of the reign of Alyattes and a few lines about his dedications to Delphi (25), which we have already seen are the types of things included by Herodotus in his periodoi. The Lydian Archaeology is, then, a logos in its own right: longer than the Abduction Microlog but shorter than, indeed a part of, the Lydian Logos, and we can justifiably call it a Macrolog: The Mermnadae Macrolog. The importance of the minor archaeology within the Mermnadae Macrolog is not immediately clear because it is the beginning of an argument that will be developed piece-meal throughout the Histories. Suffice it to point out here that with the Heraclid origins Herodotus is telling his audience that Lydians are as Greek as Heracles. The Mermnadae Macrolog continues with the narration of the deeds of the Mermnadae to the time of Croesus and in this, the Pragma section (14 - 22) Herodotus passes quickly through most of the kings but allows significant space for the narration of the war between Lydia and Miletus begun by Sadyattes but prosecuted with vigour by Alyattes (16 - 22). It was stated above that the only problem with this section is relevance. The reason to highlight this narrative is simply to show how Herodotus is constantly, even in the pragma sections, making reference to events germane to the time of publication rather than the time-frame of the Histories. The Lydo-Milesian War narrative begins by explaining that a predominantly land based power - Lydia - could do little more than carry on seasonal raiding parties to burn crops and buildings because the predominantly naval power - Miletus - was easily supplied from the sea. Chapter Seventeen reads like a summary of Thucydides Book One.85 In the past, Herodotus reminds his audience, such a war was won by convincing the land power of the futility of

Fornara (1971a: 35) concludes that Herodotus' "silence" about the Peloponnesian War is "not quite as absolute as is generally supposed" citing his own Herodotus (1971b: 75-91). The Truth is in the Telling -103 their endeavours through an overt display of wealth and happiness. He also reminds his audience that it was not won with the help of Ionians (18.3). But this narrative unit is also consistent with the parameters established in the proem - Bridge combination where we are told to look for events, great deeds, marvels and acts of injustice that constitute first wrongs. We are told in the Bridge that Croesus was the first to commit wrongs against the Greeks, but what of Alyattes' attack on Miletus and the burning of the temple? First, we can assume the unstated proposition that the war between Lydia and Miletus was not the fault of the Lydians and Herodotus has good reason not to make much of any fault that might lay with the Milesians: the poet Phrynicus was punished by the Athenians for reminding them of the fall of Miletus to the Persians in 492 BC (vi.21). The Arion Perikope follows the Lydo-Milesian War narrative. As we have discussed above, the Arion Perikope stands out because it is a digression out of context both thematically and temporally: it has nothing to do with Lydia and the link to the Mermnadae, to Alyattes through Thrasybulus and Periander, is a stretch to say the least. It appears, structurally, in the same place as the evaluation of tit-for-tat responses- the nomos - in the Abduction Microlog and in the same structural location as the nomos section of the Lydian Logos; It follows the pragma closely and is itself followed by aperiodos (25) so we can, following the proposed paradigm, call it a nomos section. As such its purpose must be to arrest attention and clarify the hermeneutic. Like the Gyges and Atys episodes, the Arion Perikope will be explained in detail in the following chapter, the purpose here being to identify its location and in so doing define its purpose.

1 According to Plutarch (Pericles. 34), Sparta would have admitted defeat that first year had the plague not come to Athens. Eventually, of course, Athens' Ionian subjects would rebel and so contribute to the defeat of Athens in 404. Loraux (2006: 147ff) has a very nice analysis of the power of the public sentiment and the effect that had on Phrynicus. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 104

The Lydian Logos expanded is structured as follows:

Proem 6-3 Croesus Introduced Archaeology 7-25 Mermnadae Macrolog 7-4 Archaeology 8-13 Aitia Gyges/Candaules 14-22 Pragma 13-14 Reign of Gyges 15-22 Lydo-Milesian War 23-24 Nomos Arion 25 Periodos Gifts to Delphi Aitia 26-33 Croesus-Solon Microlog Nomos 34-45 Atys and Adrastus Microlog Pragma 46-56 Croesus Prepares for War Prostheke 57-70 The Hellenic Origins Macrolog Pragma 71-90 Croesus and Cyrus Epilogue 91 "None may escape his destiny, not even a god.' Periodos 92-94 Lydian customs and marvels

It appears that Herodotus employs the macrolog as subservient to the logos, and the microlog subservient to the macrolog in a successive, albeit digressive, descent into meaning, to moral value. Where the moralizing value of the logos is less than apparent, the macrolog provides a paradigmatic example wherein the hermeneutic is more easily and obviously determined. Should doubt or uncertainty remain, Herodotus provides the microlog, almost like a punch-line, a final proof of the unstated thesis. Where a microlog with verisimilitude is unavailable, Herodotus provides the perikope.*8 This suggests an entirely new paradigm for logos construction in Herodotus and posits the Lydian Logos as the first instance in the Histories of the paradigm fully developed by the author. The presentation of the paradigm is new, but the idea, the realisation that the Lydian Logos must somehow be paradigmatic

8 "It is a basic feature of early prose that the principles underlying large units of composition are equally applicable to smaller entities down to a short phrase, a sentence, a brief remark, or a story." (Immerwahr 1966: 47) The Truth is in the Telling - 105 has been a guiding principle in the researches of many scholars in this field. Donald Lateiner, for example, thinks the entire section from i.2 - 94 is a "prolegomena" that contains four internal logoi: the dismissal of myth (2-5), the rise of Lydia (6-45), the fall of Lydia to Persia (46-92), and "the first ethnographic survey" (1.93-4).90 Immerwahr sees in the Lydian Logos the establishment of the 'rise-and-fall' motif in keeping with Herodotus' promise at i.5.4.91 Immerwahr was certainly correct to see the sequence of rise-and-fall "...so basic to Herodotus' philosophy of history that he sometimes seems to report on the complete life story of an individual merely to give emphasis to a change of fortune."92 The current interpretation gives a more formal structure to both Lateiner and Immerwahr without compromising their conclusions: the 'prolegomena' is an archaeology and it describes the rise; the aitia establishes the initiation of the sequence, the original wrongdoing; the pragma relates the actual events in which the sequence is realized and the nomos reveals the universal principles that explain, give meaning to, the pragma. How, then, does periodos fit with the rise-and-fall sequence? It works with the archaeology to give temporal and spatial context but more importantly these two sections define the parameters within which aitia and nomos function.9 The archaeology/ periodos combination, bookending all else is, perhaps, the most brilliant of Herodotus' modalities because it pre-empts the question of cultural relativity. How does the investigator, the iaxcop, determine the truth of the nomos

' See Wardman (1961: 134); Ayo (1984: 32); Herington (1991: 13 - 14); Chaisson (2003: 6); Moles (2002: 36). This is not a list of the major contributors, but rather of those who could assume the Lydia-as-paradigm theory as a priori and then leap to more controversial conclusions. 'Lateiner (1989: 42) xa y&p TO naXax ueycAa rjv, xa noXka cuiKpa auxcov yeyovs- xa 5e in eueu r\v usya^a, rcpoxepov fjv auiKpct. xnv avGpco7ir|vnv a>v Emcxa\ievoc, £u8ai(iovir|v ovSauA sv xcbuxcp Hevouaav, 87UUVTJao|iai ajxcpoxepcov 6(ioicog. (i. 5.4) Immerwahr (1966: 76). He revisits and emphasizes the conclusion at 154 & 161 stating that the Croesus character is not only paradigmatic to the Histories but may be, for Herodotus, representative of "the whole fate of man." Lateiner (1989: 39) is alone amongst the leading scholars in the field in discounting the Lydian Logos as paradigmatic. He does, however, argue that it forms a second preface introducing a new method (ibid: 42). Geographic circumstances "set the scene" in which nomos plays out but "are not determinants in any absolute sense" (Thomas, 2000: 112). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content -106 when divergent cultures cherish conflicting nomoil In the periodoi Herodotus is able to discard the conflicts and contradictions and to prioritize the points of agreement, of similarity in dissimilarity, and in so doing employ the Greek, the sophistic, concept of the dissoi logoi toward the new historical methodology. 5 It is in the comparison of the nomoi understood by men that the divine nomos surfaces and only through the divine - or universal - nomos can the aitia be properly and truly determined.96 And while the Histories is about the actions of individuals rather than peoples, Herodotus seems to anticipate Durkheim who sees difficulties in cognitive theory coming from the tendency to concentrate on the individual, to see the individual as the finis naturae. "But from the moment when it is recognized that above the individual there is society, and that this is not a nominal being created by reason, but a system of active forces, a new manner of 07 explaining men becomes possible." So while the Histories might focus on the individual as the agent, as the executor of the choices that set the sequences in motion, Herodotus recognizes the relativity of evaluation of those choices. The main points of the Lydian Periodos are that Lydians honour Apollo and make dedications to Delphi just like Greeks do (92.1 - 4): Lydians bury their kings in large tombs just like Egyptians do (93.1 - 3); and Lydians prostitute their daughters even though Greeks find the practice deplorable (93.4 - 94.1). the rest of Ch. 94 is a list of similarities between Greeks and Lydians focussing on those things the Greeks have borrowed from Lydia like coinage and games and closing with a short tale of Lydian colonization (94.5 - 7). This last section of the Lydian Periodos is, perhaps, the most important because it refers to a running theme in the Histories that has been completely

95 A detailed study of how the periodoi demonstrate the locality of the particular and the universality of the general in human and divine law is beyond the scope of this dissertation. But such a study can build on the work already done by Rosalind Thomas (2000), especially Chapter 2 where Thomsa shows how Herodotus' ethnography is informed by the Hippocratic speculations into a cultural relativity of health and well being (Thomas, 2000: 42 - 5). 96 Flory (1987: 47) says that "dissimilarity, dissonance, and contradiction are essential features of the Histories." These contradictions form "profound irony ... surrounding truth and fiction." This is, for Flory, the 'archaic smile,' that Herodotus not only admits the contradiction but emphasises and sees the humour of it (78 - 79). 97 Durkheim, (1965:495). The Truth is in the Telling - 107 overlooked in the scholarship largely because it makes an argument contrary to the standard interpretation. In a carelessly composed but nonetheless popular summary of historiography, Donald Kelly can assert that the purpose of the Lydian Logos is to establish Herodotus' main theme: the conflict between East and West.98 Kelly could have taken that interpretation from Immerwahr who employs that assumption to explain the extemporal placement of the Lydian Logos. He concludes that "Herodotus begins with the part of Asia situated nearest the West, because the Western expansion of Persia is his main concern from the start."99 Mabel Lang, an otherwise steadfast scholar, wants to explain Herodotus in Roman terms and argues that Croesus is "the Janus-figure between East and West" and as such is the starting point of a history of East West conflict.1 ° An East-West antithesis is never Herodotus' theme. The entire argument is based first on Herodotus' statement that the Persians consider Asia and its peoples as the domain of the Persians and that they consider Europe and the Hellenes as separate.101 This line was not meant to establish an ethno-geographic theme but to introduce the all important theme of the crossing of boundaries, the knowledge of limits, and the consistency between the human and the divine enforcement of limits. The obvious, overt and thematic reason to begin the Histories with Lydia is that Croesus was the first to do unprovoked wrong to the Greeks of Asia Minor, and the reason to preface this with the Abduction Microlog was to remind

Kelly (1998: 21). The errors in this textbook are too numerous to list here but, as example: "In Croesus' time Athens was emerging from tyranny and beginning to enjoy good government as well as military success as a result of the reforms of Lycurgus" (21). My main objections to Kelly are, however, philosophical. "The historians behind the words, like the thoughts between the lines, are truly beyond our grasp..." (6). This dissertation hopes to debunk the notion of history-out-of-context as a viable interpretative method. ' Immerwahr (1966: 41). Pohlenz (1937) saw the overriding theme as the conflict between East and West (Dewald and Marincola, 1987: 19). Pohlenz may be following Rawlinson (1858 - 60). David Konstan (1987: 60) suggests that "the abiding disposition to classify and contrast societies in terms of reason versus passion, or love of freedom versus innate servility, which in fact is even more evident in Rawlinson than it is in the Greek historian who preceded him..." 10 Lang (1984: 3). See now Munson (2001: 8-9) who argues that Herodotus only used the East v. West, us and them, motif as a vehicle which Herodotus himself will derail. 11 Tf]v yap Acrinv KCU TMedes (i. 55 repeated at 56.1) and I think it fair to assume that Herodotus was having a bit of fun in suggesting that the Hellenes were a collection of mules since the Hellenes have

Herodotus is careful to highlight Greek hybris and Greek despotism as much as barbarian. The fault is personal, not cultural or ethnic. Desmond (2004: 25-6). 4 According to Thomas, (2000: 122) Herodotus demostrates that "the boundaries between Greek and barbarian are permeable." 15 Aristotle anticipates Polybius when he says that "books of geography (xfjc; yfjq jrepioSot) are useful aids to legislation, since from these we may learn the laws and customs of different races. The political speaker will also find the researches of the historians (ypcupovxcoov ioxop(ai) useful." {Rhetoric 1360a.34-6) 6 The Spartan royal house, on the other hand, were Assyrian and Egyptian by descent (vi.53 - 5.) 7 This conclusion is not exclusively Herodotean. See Michael Gagarin (2001: 179) who believes that Antiphon's argument was that the difference between Greek and barbarian was not a matter of phusis but only of nomos. In Munson (2001) this point is the central thesis. See also Munson (2005: 13). The Truth is in the Telling - 109 only grown in population and diversity through the additions of barbarian peoples (i.58).108 The comparisons continue with the second Spartan and Athenian prosthekes (v.39 - 96).109 In the logoi between we are told of Persian kings both good and bad - of the madness of Cambyses and the succession questions surrounding Darius. In the second Spartan prostheke we are told of the succession problems in Sparta, questions of birth-right, and the madness of Cleomenes. Both Spartan prosthekes mirror each other: the first is introduced as Croesus, the "first who did wrong to the Greeks" (i.v.4) seeks allies against Cyrus.; the second is introduced as Aristagoras, the author of the second round of wrong done to Greeks (v.28.1), when he seeks allies against Darius. This segues into the Athenian prostheke where Herodotus revisits the issue of Athenian origins and this time asserts that the most cherished of Athenians, the Tyrannicides, were actually Phoenician (v.57) as was Amphitryon (v.59). The archaeology/periodos combination is, for Herodotus, context and perspective and together they set up the argument that the determination of aitia and nomos have to be based on a comparison of apparently divergent traditions and beliefs that are human and therefore flawed. The search for consistency within the variety was, for Herodotus, the search for divine justice and he conducted that search in his analysis of result: Look to the end of all things is the advice from Solon (and Herodotus would have been well aware of the power of the name of Solon for an Athenian audience). If someone or some state has come to a bad end it is simply a matter of tracing events back to an original crime, an aitia, to demonstrate the realization of the punishment through the narration of

Thomas (2000: 117 - 20) also sees this passage as humour and offers a detailed analysis. See v. 57 - 60, the digression on the Gephyrean clan. This "analepsis" caused de Jong to concede that she "can find no direct contextual relevance" (2002: 266). The relevance is that the Tyrannicides, celebrated as the liberators of Athens, were in fact Phoenician. )9 Herodotus' Hellenic histories are disconnected, spread throughout the opus as these prosthekes. Hornblower (1994: 139) calls this "narrative displacement" (although he is talking about the practice in Thucydides) and says that history writers use it to minimize the impact of specific revelations. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 110 events, the pragma, and then to explain both in terms of the laws, human and divine, that were transgressed as a result of the aitia, the nomos. In this system, aitia and nomos sections work together as explanations of the pragma and are inextricably linked. Without formulating a structural thesis to accompany the observation, Stewart Flory articulates the suspicion that the "anecdotes" are what bind the Histories into a united whole "both in practical terms by repeating the same themes in sections of the book that at first appear unrelated, and in philosophical terms because the repeated themes illuminate the whole historical narrative and the mind of the author."110 Culpability is often balanced in the long term. There seems to be a ledger of wrongdoing in Herodotus' mind and deposits and withdrawals can be made on account. So, the Phoenicians were wrong to take Io (TIspascDV fxsv vuv oi A,6yioi Ooivucac; aixioix; (paai yeveaGai xfj<; 5iacpopfj<; i.1.1) and Paris was wrong to take Helen (more wrong, perhaps, because he not only eloped with a married woman, but he technically stole from his host).111 The Trojans were then due to be punished but the sack of Troy was excessive for the crime so blame then fell upon the Greeks (TXkr\vaq Sfj uey&A,co<; araotx; yeveaGai- i.4.1) - blame for unprovoked invasion and destruction less the blame owed for theft and elopement. The same sort of ledger seems to be at work in Lydia. Gyges came to the throne unjustly and should have been punished for it, but Candaules has also committed an injustice so Gyges' crime is tempered - the punishment of Gyges is set off five generations to compensate for the crime of Candaules. There is no mitigation for Croesus, however, who attempted to purchase the favour of Apollo through lavish gifts to Delphi. He is blamed for being the first to do unprovoked wrong to Greeks (oi8a avxbq jtpcoxov vnap^avxa a8tKcov spycov ec; xoix; "EAlnvac; i.5.3). The hybris of Croesus and the subsequent loss of his son and his kingdom are not so much the aitia as the explanation of aitia. What kind of person commits these crimes? The hybristic person because vfipiq

110 Flory (1987: 16). 111 "... for, as I am convinced and declare, the powers above ordained that the utter destruction of Troy should prove in the sight of all men that the gods do greatly punish great wrongdoing. This is my own belief and thus I declare it" (ii. 120). The Truth is in the Telling -111 leads to axr| and when afflicted with axn a person cannot act reasonably or think clearly. He therefore commits errors that constitute crimes and for these crimes he is visited by vsusaic;. In the aitia sections Herodotus establishes and then elaborates and proves the thesis that will culminate in the defeat of Xerxes at Salamis. The crimes of those afflicted with &Tr| are not always clear, however, and so Herodotus includes the nomos sections, occasionally in the form of perikopes, so that the transgression is always put in the context of the rule transgressed. For each of Croesus, Cambyses, Polycrates, Darius and Xerxes there is an aitia section that highlights the 'first wrong' or fundamental flaw that will, eventually, lead to their downfall. Besides these pivotal characters, Herodotus includes a host of Egyptian, Scythian, Greek and Persian examples all following the same pattern.112 But the rule is not proven only in the negative; there are positive examples

/1 -? as well. In the Persian Archaeology (The Medikos Logos i.96.1 - 106) the story of Deioces constitutes an internal aitia but the opposite of what we often expect: aitia is not just negative as in 'blame' but can also be positive as in 'credit'. The Medes are introduced, in the secondary archaeology (i.95) as a people who shook off the despotism of the Assyrians.114 Deioces, despite being a despot, was a just man (uaA,A,6v xi Kai 7ipo0uuoxepov 8iKaioawnv S7n0£(i£vo<; fjaices i.96.2; si' xiva

7ruv0dvoixo uPpi^ovxa, xouxov OKCOC; usxoOTSu\|/aixo Kax' a^vnv EK&OTOU &8ncrj|j,axo<; s5iKaisu i. 100.2). His reward is the peaceful enjoyment of his rule and the establishment of a great nation. As much as Herodotus focuses on the tragic figures, he juxtaposes them to positive models that prove the rule in reverse. The Deioces Microlog is a strange narrative indeed. It reads like a textbook lesson on how to create a monarchy. Clifford Geertz' explanation of

112 Immerwahr (1966: 176) also discusses this pattern and sees Xerxes as a composite character with elements of each monarch who precedes him in the narrative. 1131 would call this the Media Macrolog but the term Medikos Logos is already accepted in the scholarship for this section. See Helm (1980); Brown (1988) and Sancisi- Weerdenburg (1988) for the debate on the historicity of the logos. 114 Kai KGX; ouxoi nepi xfjc; e^euGepinc; uaxeoauevot xotoi Aaoupiotoi eysvovto av5psq ayaGol, Kai duieoaanEVOi TT)V SoiAoouvnv e^EuGspcoGnoav (i.95.2). The wars that culminated in the fall of Niniveh in 612 be saw the Assyrian Empire devolve into the independent states of Media, Elam, Babylon etc Chapter Three: The Form of the Content -112 how the focus of the community, the creation of the 'exemplary centre', on the monarch could apply to Herodotus' Deioces as much as the Negara: "The driving aim of higher politics was to construct a state by constructing a king. The more consummate the king, the more exemplary the center. The more exemplary the center, the more actual the realm." 5 But the Greek polis had to construct an anti- king, to construct the exemplary centre in contrast to the king, in contrast to the very idea of monarchy as fundamental to, as the embodiment of, slavery and oppression. They very epithet 'King' became an anathema to the ideologies of Athens and other post-monarchic city states, including Rome. Tracing the construction and deconstruction of the concept of monarchy is an interesting historical exercise: In the eighth century Hesiod (Theogony 79) constructs the image of the monarch blessed by the gods such that they are incapable of issuing unjust judgements but in the fifth Euripides complains about the instability of hybristic princes (Euripides Medea 119-21). Sophocles' Oedipus Trilogy presents a study in depth on the pros but mostly cons of monarchy. In that socio-political climate where monarchy has been deconstructed Herodotus present this tiny narrative that reconstructs, but briefly that ancient ethos. He devotes most of the Histories to the opposite. Not long after, Xenophon attempts to reconstruct the king in his Cyropaedaea and later yet, with the rise of Macedon and the triumphs of Alexander and the Diodochoi the king is reconstructed again. It is an odd irony of history that the Athenians, who invented democracy, were the first to offer a crown to one of Alexander's successors.117 But I digress. We can conclude, safely I think, that there is an identifiable structural program at work and that Herodotus is leading his audience through a thematic, more than a chronological, display of reasoned argumentation based on the

3 Geertz (1984: 124). 6 It was a sensitive issue as Julius Caesar attempted to redefine Rome in the aftermath of the Civil Wars and in the aftermath of Caesar's assassination his successors, Augustus and Tiberius especially, were careful to maintain the illusion of the Republic. 7 Demetrius Poliorketes. See Plutarch, Demetrius 18.1. The Truth is in the Telling - 113 investigation of past events. The events themselves, however, are given background and context which speaks to sequence which informs meaning. The interpretation is not, for Herodotus, immediately evident in the presentation of archaeology and pragma and so he inserts aitia and nomos (often in the form of a perikope) so that the audience can determine relevance and meaning. By this method, the background to the event and the event itself are mere data, meaningless records, remembrances and artefacts that require an interpretative modality to reveal the hermeneutic. Although the paradigm suggested above is new it should not be surprising. If indeed Herodotus wanted to associate himself with the Ionian intellectual movement that was sweeping the Greek world at the time he composed the Histories, and Rosalind Thomas leads a field of scholarship that advances arguments convincingly in that direction, then we should expect to see sophistic categorization, organization, and structure within his composition. We should also expect that the composition is, as Collingwood suggests, a reasoned argument intended to establish a proposition. Despite Aristotle's objections to Herodotus' style, it appears that Herodotus was in agreement with much of what Aristotle says about argumentative composition. Any good argument, Aristotle prescribes, must be formed of a syllogism, a conclusion drawn from a computation of facts. He goes on to explain that there are two modes of persuasion, one belongs to the art of rhetoric and one does not. The latter consists of the things that are already evident: evidence, witnesses etc. The latter needs to be employed, the former invented. 120 What Aristotle is suggesting is that rhetoric, forensic oratory especially, should concern itself only with the facts, the pragmata and that this second element, the invented, should not be a part of rhetoric. But Aristotle is

118 Brock (2003: 14) argues that Herodotus displays a "concern to maintain constant contact with his audience and to ensure that they follow him with full comprehension every step of the way." 119 Gerald Press (1982: 129) suggests that parallel levels of meaning within a historical text, a literal and allegorical or figurative meaning, is a Christian development. This is, I think, an error. I have argued in Chapter One that muthos develops out of just such a duality and the return to logos does not discard the allegory. 120 Aristotle Rhetoric 1355a - b. See also Antiphon (v.84) TOtg epyoic; TOV Aoyov sAiy^couev. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content -114 arguing ideals and knows full well that his ideal, pragmatic rhetoric, is not what is practiced in reality.121 Orators employ various devices in combination with, and lending weight to, the pragmatic details and very often it is the secondary devices that convince the jury or the ecclesia. It is, after all, a mass of people that the orator is attempting to sway and Aristotle admits that the intelligence of the audience makes it necessary to use maxims to make a point offering as a rule only that these maxims, or examples, should always follow enthymeme (syllogism). 1 99 This, I argue, is exactly what Herodotus is doing. By placing his perikopes, his exemplary tales, at the beginning and/or the ending of the pragma he is emphasising the syllogism, revealing the hermeneutic, and helping his audience, his jury, come to a conclusion using methods they are more accustomed to. He cannot be blamed if the modality most suited to his audience's tastes are fictions, and he was not alone amongst historians of the age in employing such devices. Thucydides, often juxtaposed to Herodotus on the basis of veracity, admits that his famous speeches are his own creations.124 Plutarch, no fan of Herodotus, chose to avoid criticism of the Solon-Croesus meeting because the story, albeit fiction, does tell a truth about both characters and Plutarch himself, in composing his biographies, was not above fabrication. About the same time Plutarch was active Arrian, wrote his Anabasis Alexandri. When came to the point in his narrative where Alexander met the Persian royal women he chose to insert a rare authorial comment: "I have written this down without asserting its truth or total incredibility (&A,r|9fj oike d>q Jidvrn d7tiaxa)... If the historians of Alexander think it plausible that he would have acted and spoken in

"Why is it that men prefer examples in speeches and tales rather than enthymemes?" (Aristotle Problems 916b.26) 21 am following Lang here. For the syllogistic nature of discourse in Herodotus see Lang (1984: 18-36). For examples of Herodotus answering challenges as though responding to an opponent (39-40). 3 Fornara sees this structure at work from Herodotus through the Alexander historians to Ammianus Marcellinus. "Whether something was true or likely to be true was secondary to the fact that was a logos told by an informant" (Fornara, 1987: 15). 14 Thucydides i.22.1 The Truth is in the Telling - 115

this way, I approve of Alexander on that ground too" (Arrian ii.12.8).125 The point is, of course, that a fiction is permissible so long as it reveals a truth. The reason, perhaps, that Herodotus and other early historians were tolerant of these fictions is because of the general lack of trust, on the part of the historians and their audiences, in the pragma. Early in this chapter I mentioned that a consistent element of the pragma sections in the Histories is the narration of alternative versions. Although much has been written about Herodotus' methods of establishing credibility, no scholar has yet, to my knowledge, seen alternative, even competing, logoi as such a device.127 But the Greek mind was suspicious of information especially when it was one-sided and the Athenian political, judicial and philosophical programs were all based on the idea that truth could only be found in the agona of ideas, in the dissoi logoi. The forensic analogy above speaks directly to this philosophy.128 Michael Gagarin, one of the leading scholars in the field of Greek forensic oratory, especially Antiphon, recognizes a constant struggle between logoi and observes that "any final truth must incorporate this struggle." Herodotus presented competing versions as a demonstration of his integrity, of his respect for contemporary expectations, and in so doing was able to distance himself from the position of judge. Herodotus enjoins his audience to participate in judgement by offering them alternatives and inviting them to decide which to chose.

In Arrian (and others) "the material is not chosen with an eye solely for historical veracity. It is selected because it gives the most vivid illustration of his theme, and allows him to express his judgements both implicitly and explicitly. One cannot use his exposition as a primary source without taking account of his narrative perspective and indeed the tastes and expectations of his audience in the second century AD" (Bosworth, 2000: 5). 6 Much of what follows is informed by Flory (1987: 65 - 77). Mabel Lang at least approaches the issue in her analysis of alternative questions (1984: 54 - 6). 8 Hornblower, (1987: 40) concedes the influence of forensic oratory on Thucydides. See also Press (1982: 31; 121) who argues that the word historein presupposes the comparison of divergent accounts. 9 Gagarin (2001: 175). The real truth lies "in a dialectical tension between the two arguments" (178). See, for example, Antiphon iii.4.1-2. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 116

The Abduction Microlog, as we saw above, offers two versions of the same pragma - either Io and Helen were abducted or they eloped but this is ancient history and Herodotus is dismissive of the whole business (i.5.3). Nevertheless, he later 'enquires' of the Egyptian priests who offer their opinion that the version offered by Homer is u&xcuov ^oyov lAyovoi oi "EAXnvsc; (ii.118.1). But the Egyptian 'storytellers' are not, for Herodotus, any final authority any more than anyone else. Throughout the Histories, sprinkled as if constant reminders, Herodotus distances himself and his sources from pronouncements of finality and leaves that to his audience. Herodotus is the reporter, the conveyor of information: "These Egyptian stories are for the use of whosoever believes such tales: for myself, it is my rule throughout this history that I record whatever is told me as I have heard it" (ii.123.1).130 The whole purpose of the alternative versions of pragma is to highlight the unreliability of 'things past' and to set up the necessity of a greater truth, a more reliable hermeneutic modality and that, for Herodotus and his audience, can only be found where it has always been: in ui30o<;, in Hieperikope.131 Every identifiable Logos in the Histories is made up of the elements defined herein: Archaeology, Aitia, Pragma, Nomos and Periodos. What makes this structure both complex and beautiful is that a Logos can also be made up of Macrologoi and Micrologoi and that an Archaeology or any other element of a larger Logos can itself be a Logos complete with its own elements. What is clear from this structure, and made definite by the perikopes, is that all else are the anvil and nomos is the hammer. The final question that has to be addressed is whether or not we can go in the other direction; to look at larger units for the same paradigm. Jacoby is, I think, on the right track when he suggests that the Histories be divided by reigns of Barbarian kings but his four divisions seems a bit awkward. Macan is closer to the pole, I think, to see a trilogy in which Part One covers the reigns of Croesus,

130 The sentiment is repeated at i.95.1; ii. 122.1 131 "Herodotus does not ever state at the beginning of his book or anywhere else that he will tell only the truth about the past, for the father of history does not always accept the superiority of truth to fiction" (Flory 1987: 50). The Truth is in the Telling - 117

Cyrus and Cambyses (i.6 - iii.66); Part Two the reign of Darius (iii.67 - vi.140 ); and Part Three the reign of Xerxes (vii.l - ix.122).132 But the reigns of Persian kings themselves may be coincidences and therefore distractions. Perhaps the key to understanding Herodotus' method for the work as a whole is more in keeping with his method for individual logoi; perhaps the key is in the theme rather than the chronology. The method I have employed is to look for repetition, especially since it might signal a ring composition. At the Logos level it is easy enough to recognize the repetition simply because the ring isn't that large. The Lydian Logos is, for example, a ring formed by i.6.2: "This Croesus, first of the Barbarians of whom we have knowledge, conquered some of the Greeks of Asia and made them pay tribute, and with others he made friendship alliances" - and i.91.6: "...that is how

111 it happened in regards to the empire of Croesus and the first conquest of Ionia." The Persian Logos has similar ring components: i.95.1 says that there are several versions of the birth of Cyrus but Herodotus says he will relate the most credible; and at i.214.5 Herodotus says that there a several versions of the death of Cyrus and again he has related the most credible.134 The Persian Logos contains an Hellenic prostheke just like the Lydian Logos and in this case it is the Ionian Macrolog (i.141 - 76). This narrative opens with a plea from the lonians to be subjects of Cyrus under the same terms they were subjects of Croesus (i. 141.1) and closes with the line; "thus for a second time had the lonians been reduced to slavery" (i.169.2).135 It is in the Ionian Macrolog that we encounter the last of the original five narratives that we

c.p. Chapter Two, p.42. 3 omoq 6 KpoTooi; papp&poov np&xoq x&v f||i£!<; iSnev xoix; nev Kax£Cxpsi|/axo 'EM.fjv(flv £q (popou &7tayG)yfjv, xovq 8e (piXoug jrpoaejioifjaaxo (i.6.2) - Kaxa usv 8f| xf|v Kpoiaou xe dpxf]v Kai 'leaving xf]v rcpcbxnvKaxaaxpo(pf| v ec%£ ouxra (i.91.6). 4 cog aw ITspoecov (lexs^sxspoi Xsyovai, oi nt\ pouA.6|j,evoi ae\ivovv xa nspl Kupov &M.a xov eovxa Xsyew W>yov, Korea xauxa ypa\|/a>, sjucx&jievoc; Tiepi Kupou Kai xpupaoiai; aXk.aq A,6ycov 68oi>q cpfjvai (i.95.1): xa \isv 8f| Kaxa xfiv Kupou xeA.£uxf)v xou pioi), noXk&v \6yav X,eyonevcov, 68s fioi 6 jn0avcbxaxo<; eipr|xai (i.214.5). 5 This is not a ring composition, merely a thematic reminder; oikco 5f| xo Seuxspov Tcovin e8e8oijlc)xo (i.169.2). Chapter Three: The Form of the Content -118 identified as problematic; the Fable of the Dancing Fish (i. 141.1 - 4). This brief but vivid reproach from Cyrus is the Ionian aitia. The much larger Egyptian Logos is ringed by phrases that return to the original theme, the Greeks of Asia: It opens with, "Cambyses considered the Ionians and Aeolians as slaves inherited from his father" (ii.1.2).137 Herodotus then segues into the long Egyptian Logos and at iii.1.2 he returns to the invasion by Cambyses restating that Cambyses took Ionians and Aeolians to Egypt with

i -jo him. The ringing phrases are not always within the logos they define but can, as in this case, also be segue phrases used to launch a new logos. The Cambyses Logos (iii.l - 66) contains, as its prostheke, the Samos Macrolog (iii. 39 - 60) which concludes with a statement that is clearly intended to mirror the Croesus statement at i.6.2: "Polycrates is the first Greek that we know of... who expected to become ruler of Ionia..." (eoxi 7ipa>xoc; xcov ruxeic; i8u£v 'EAXqvcov at iii. 122.2 mirrors PapP&pcov rcpcoxoc; xcov fjjastc; i'Sjaev at i.6.2). The Darius Logos (iii.67 - 160) is the second of Book Three and it has, in the nomos position, the narrative of the conquest of Samos (iii. 139 - 49), the last of the Ionian cities still free and, according to Herodotus, the first city, either Hellenic or Barbarian, that Darius captured. Larger rings are more difficult to identify simply because the repetitions occur so far apart. But Herodotus has made it a bit easier for us by using a recurring theme to construct his larger rings. This theme is, for Herodotus, Like a home base, the point to which he returns regardless of how far he seems to have wandered, and the point of departure each time he wanders again. It should be no

Is this not the antithetical style that Immerwahr and others say is absent from Herodotus? The structure is built on the antitheses of rise and fall; freedom and slavery and even in the Persian Logos, birth and death. 7 xauxnc; 5fi xfjq yuvaucoi; ecbv naxq Kai Kupou KanPuoni; Icovac; uev icai Aio^.sa<; ax; 8oi3^.oug rcaxparioix; eovxaq svoux^e (ii.1.2). 8 aycov Kai aXkoMq xcov fjpxe Kai H\\i\\®v ^vac; xs Kai Axokzaq (iii. 1.1) 9 The complete line reads: nofo)Kpaxr|(; yap eoxi rcpcoxoi; xcov i\\izlq iSuev TiM.fjvcov 6<; 9a^aocoKpaxe£tv 87t£vof|6r|, 7tapsi; Mivcooq xe xou Kvcoaoiou Kai ei 5r) xiq 6iM.o<; rcpoxepog xouxov f^p^s xfjq 0aX,doon<;- xfjg 5s &v9pcojir|iT](; X-syouevnc; ysvefjc; rioA-UKpaxnc; rcpcoxoi;, eXnidaq noXkac, e%

Halicarnassus is, of course, not Ionian but Dorian (i.144; ii. 178). But see 144.1 - 3 and then 145.1 - 147.2. Herodotus is presenting the argument for the inclusion of Halicarnassus into the Panionion. The Halicarnassians had even adopted the Ionian dialect. Often 'Ionian' is a term used to describe all of the Greeks of Asia Minor. See also Brill's New Pauly (266; B): "injustice against Greeks is the "leitmotif established in the Croesus logos and carried throughout. 1 Herodotus' presentation of the Ionians is complex, detailed and fascinating. I will attempt to unravel some aspects of the Ionian question in Chapter Five but a full exegesis will require a separate treatise. Suffice it to say that when Herodotus is speaking about Ionia every word is selected and placed with care and precision and packed with meaning. This is as it should be: The status of the Ionians was the final point of (non)negotiation before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. 2 Herodotus does not directly tell us when Chios came under Persian control, but the Chians fought with the Milesians against the Lydians (i. 18.3) and when Pactyes fled to Chios he was arrested and handed over to Cyrus, for which the Chians were given Atarneus (i.160). We can assume, I think, that Chios became a 'friend' of Croesus (i.27.5; KCU ouxco TOICI xac; vrjoouc; olKnuivoiai "Icooi ^etvfnv GDV£0f|Kaxo). After the revolt of the Ionians from Cyrus all of the mainland cities were captured by Harpagus and the Islanders capitulated: &q 5e xovq EV xfj r\neip($ "Icovai; exstpcoaaxo 'ApTiayog, oi Tag vrjaouc; e'xovxeg "Icoveg Kaxappo)5f|oavTeq xaOxa ocpsac; auxoug e'Sooav KiSpro i. 169.2. Herodotus must, in this passage, be referring to Chios. How and Wells (1928: vi.32) agree that Sesbos and Chios must have capitulated before 513 BC, Darius' Scythian expedition, because they both contributed. From the time of Cyrus, then, of the Ionians only Samos was free. According to the Suda, Herodotus lived on Samos for some time. 3 opQ&c, uoi 5oKeev niv8apog Jiovfjoai vouov Ttdvxcov fiaaikea

These two interpretative narratives are grouped with the narratives of Polycrates of Samos and Periander of Corinth who, with Croesus of course, constitute Herodotus' principle precedents for the demonstration of the hubristic monarch, all in preparation for the presentation of Xerxes. Books One to Three, forming Part One, are thematically the Archaeology section of the Histories. It sets the stage geographically and thematically. As far as the overall plot-line goes, Part One can be understood in terms of the first proposition of the Histories: "...Asia and the Barbarian peoples who live there belong to the Persians but Europe and the Hellenic people are separate" (i.4.4).144 The key, of course, is eOvsa |3dpJ3apa, Herodotus never concedes that Egypt, nor the Greeks of Asia Minor or of the Aegean islands, belongs to the Persian sphere. Part One of the Histories defines the limits of Persia's expansion and describes the first two steps in over-expansion, Ionia and Egypt.145 Part One, interestingly, asserts the terms of the Peace of Callias of 448 BC. From 478 to 448 the professed goal of Athens and the Delian League was to free the Greeks of the Aegean and Asia Minor from Persian rule. It seems to have been a three pronged strategy: to attack the Persians in the Greek city states themselves, and to attack the Persians in Egypt and to remove the Phoenician fleet from the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. When Inarus of Libya led an Egyptian revolt in 463/2 BC Athens sent a fleet of two hundred warships to assist. Inarus was defeated in 454 but Amyrtaeus continued the resistance from the 'Marshes' and in 450 Cimon sent sixty Athenian ships to help him. The Athenians continued their naval campaign and in 449 Cimon defeated the Persian fleet off Cyprus and from that date Athens enjoyed maritime supremacy which forced Artaxerxes I to negotiate the Peace of Callias in which the Greek areas of the coast of Asia Minor

xfiv yap Aair|v Kai T

were conceded by Persia. The Persians still held Egypt, but that was never conceded to them by Athens. Athenian involvement in Egyptian rebellions have often confounded historians because Athens was, at the same time, involved in the First Peloponnesian War and the Egyptian distraction seems to be an unnecessary division of resources.147 But all the while Sparta was being courted by Artaxerxes and the threat always loomed that Athens and the Delian League could face a two pronged attack from Sparta and Persia. Egypt was, according to Aristotle, the cornerstone: "We must prepare for war against the king of Persia and not let him subdue Egypt. For Darius of old did not cross the Aegean until he had seized Egypt; but once he had seized it, he did cross. And Xerxes, again, did not attack us until he had seized Egypt, but once he had seized it, he did cross. If, therefore the present king seizes Egypt, he also will cross, and therefore we must not let him." {Rhetoric 1393a.32-1393b.4) The Ionian theme is only strengthened in Part Two. Book Four is, like Book One, made up of two logoi, the Scythian and Libyan. In the Scythian Logos (iv.2 - 144) Herodotus makes it very clear that the Persian invasion of Scythia was entirely dependent on Ionian assistance, and loyalty. Herodotus uses Ionia as a literary 'home base' but he is far from sympathetic. Rarely does he have a word of praise for Ionians and sometimes his condemnations are harsh and carefully constructed. In the Cambyses Macrolog (iii.l - 37) we are told that Cambyses intended to launch an invasion of Carthage. But such an invasion would have required the cooperation of the Phoenician fleet and the Phoenicians, though subjects of Cambyses, refused to sail against their kin (iii.l9). This might seem

Thucydides i.104.1 - 2; 110.3 - 4 & 12: Diodorus xi.71 - xii.26. These events are referred to by Herodotus at ii. 14; iii.12, 15 & vii.151. The actual coastal was, for all practical purposes, conceded after the Battle of the Eurymedon River in 469 (or 466). See Flower (2000: 76 & 77-8). His analysis is useful even if the conclusion, that Cimon was planning an invasion of Persia, is weak. l7Kagan (1969: 81 - 3) calls Athens' involvement "reckless." Miller (1997: 15 - 22) uses epigraphic evidence to suggest that Athens was far more active in the area of Egypt and Phoenicia at the time. Shrimpton (1997: 174 - 5) suggests that the length of the Egyptian Logos is due to Athenian policy on Egypt at the time of publication. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content - 122 like an irrelevant aside but it is actually the continuation of the case against the lonians. The seed that Herodotus wants to plant in the back of the reader's mind is that the lonians could have refused service to Darius in Scythia.148 Rather than refuse, a Samian named Mandrocles oversaw the construction of the bridge across the Bosphorus (iv.87 where Herodotus twice gives the name and origin of the engineer and 88 where Mandroles' reward and memorial of the deed are narrated). It was a Mytilenian, Coes, who advised Darius to leave the bridge over the Ister intact, advice that saved Darius and his army, and Darius charged the lonians to guard the bridge (iv.97 - 98).149 When Darius had moved inland the Scythians came to the Ister and asked the lonians to cut the bridge and go home but the Ionian and other Greek tyrants all agreed that they owed their power and position to Darius and should, therefore, protect him (iv.133; 137). When Darius used the bridge to escape, the Scythians declared that the lonians, " if they are regarded as free men, are the most worthless and cowardly of all men, but on the other hand, if regarded as slaves, they are the most attached to their master and the least disposed to run away of all slaves" (iv.142). The Ionian theme is then brought to a climax, if you will, in Book Five, with the Ionian Revolt Logos (v.23 - vi.33). Book Five opens with the Thracian (v.l - 16) and Macedonian (v. 17 - 22) Macrologs and I suspect that these two are meant to be combined into a Europe Logos. The Ionian Revolt Logos begins in Book Five but is concluded in Book Six and the book division here seems artificial because it severs the Logos. The point that has to be made here, and suspended here lest we digress too far from our original topic, is that the Ionian Revolt is the turning point. Just as we saw in the Abduction Microlog, all that has gone before is just tit-for-tat and no real harm has been done. But under Persian rule Miletus rose to great power and prosperity and that was the cause of the

1 Herodotus later says that the crews of forty Samian ships sent by Polycrates to assist Cambyses in the invasion of Egypt refused and became an opposition force (iii.44-5) but that bit is left out of the current story because it doesn't fit with Herodotus' message. 19 In case anyone is uncertain about the danger of having a river at an army's back, Herodotus chose to carefully narrate the story of the death of Cyrus on the East side of the Araxes River, advice given to him by Croesus. The Truth is in the Telling - 123 second round of "great evils" for the Ionians (v.28).150 When Aristagoras convinced the Athenians ("fooled" them is Herodotus' word151) to send twenty ships to join in the revolt it was "the beginning of evils for the Greeks and the Barbarians" (v.97.3). With the conclusion of the Ionian Revolt Herodotus gives his readers a repeat of the phrase that set the tone and measured the construction of the first two logoi: "Thus for the third time had the Ionians been reduced to slavery, first by the Lydians and then twice in succession by the Persians." (vi.32.1). This repetition is Herodotus' signal to his readers to pause and recall what has transpired, what has led to this juncture, and to see it all as an organic whole.152 Part Three is all about the excessive vengeance of the Persians for the crimes of the Ionians (including Athens) and the Greek struggle to rid themselves of the evils brought on by the Ionian Revolt. It was never, however, the intention of this dissertation to offer a complete structural analysis of the Histories and I must offer a rider at this point. The paradigm I have suggested above is just that, a suggestion, and I concede that much more work needs to be done to define and clarify each of these constituent parts in each narrative section of the Histories. Does each Part follow the same archaeology - aitia - pragma - nomos structure with periodos and prostheke woven in? Does each of the three Parts represent one of those elements? It is easy enough to say that Part One is the Archaeology but what of the other two? To offer an incomplete thesis as the background to yet another, albeit related, thesis might seem a methodological problem but I have here put the cart in front of the horse so to speak. The realization of the structural paradigm was a result of researches into the perikopes originating with that one simple question that opened this chapter: 'what are they doing there?' and the corollary questions; 'what are they?' and 'where is thereV The answer seems to be that each and every

OUTO<; 8E Toaaora e^epyaaato aTpaTnyfjaai;. \vzza 5E OU nolXbv xpovov avsoig KOKC&V r\v, Kai TJPXSTO TO 8euT8pov EK Nd^ou TE Kai MiXfJTOu "Icoai yivEcGai K(XK& (V.28.1). 151 noXkovq yap OIKE stvai ewiExeoiepov 8iap&M.£tv f\ eva (v.97.2) 152 Munson (2001a: 50) suggests that a fourth conquest is implied. 153 Fornara (1971: 38) sees Books Seven to Nine as a "second half but I don't think that works on any level. Chapter Three: The Form of the Content -124

one of the perikopes is structurally related to a narrative section that conforms to

WEEG expectations and yet the perikopes themselves contradict, even appear to mock, what we in the academic profession can now call WEEG methodology. The presentation of this theoretical paradigm is intended to establish the position of the perikopes relative to other narrative units and narrative devices in the Histories. The task now is to look at the perikopes themselves. The following chapter will proceed on the assumption that each perikope can be indentified in part by the criteria set out in the previous chapter and in part by the structural criteria identified in this chapter. Where we find apparent fictions that seem dislocated, cut off from the main narrative, and where these fictions follow closely on a more pragmatic narration of events, we can dissect the fiction, the perikopes, expecting that it contains an explanation, either overt or covert, of the events into which it has been inserted. A Perikope is, for the purposes of this study, a short, discreet episodic narrative unit that follows on and seems to interrupt the main narrative thread. It appears as an Aitia element following an Archaeology or as a Nomos element following a Pragma narrative. Aitia and nomos are, throughout the Histories, linked and often mutually supportive. So much is necessary to Herodotus' program because aitia and nomos inform each other in a hermeneutic relationship. The Perikope deals with situations that appear to be realistic but not necessarily real; it deals with people who do not feature in the main narrative and who are, most often, not otherwise attested in Herodotus or any other extant primary source and could be fictitious. It has, as its subject, a situation that exemplifies an extreme of human behavior or an unusual human characteristic and the combination of the situation and the characters involved seem to point, as would a fable or parable, to some hermeneutic. Because it can be either aitia or nomos, it deals with causation, responsibility and blame and/or the established social, religious or political behavioral norms, the rules, that guide the interpretation of responsibility and blame (or praise). Perikopes are morality lessons and because of their location they must be reflexive; they must look back to the preceding narrative and offer clarification, explanation. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril, those who read the symbol do so at their peril. Oscar Wilde, Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray

Artists, ancient and modern, historical or otherwise, amuse and/or protect themselves and some members of their audiences by embedding covert opinion and propositions within text the meaning of which is apparently overt. This is not to say that artists 'hide' meaning in their work because that word creates a logical error from which there is no escape: one hides a thing so that it will not be found by others. No author, or any other artist for that matter, would hide a message because the whole point of art, especially literary, is to communicate. To be clear, then, I assert that authors embed propositions. They intend for specific members, but not all members, of an intended audience to recognise the embedded elements and understand their meaning.2 In this way the author can create a duality of the text: one text for an exoteric and another, with a deeper or even contradictory meaning, for an esoteric audience. Historians are selective when it comes to data and they are selective when it comes to audience as well. Oscar Wilde, in his preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray was kind enough to extend an invitation to the exoteric audience, to signal at the outset that we should be wary of authorial trickery, sleight-of-text if you will. Few authors are so kind. Closer to our subject, Plutarch, most notably in his biography of

1 By 'text' I mean that painting, sculpture, music and literature are all created for interpretation and that requires a 'reading,' an evaluation of the content. 2 Anna Missiou (1992: 4) points out that words and phrases can evoke, in the audience, "a certain cluster of factual assertions, as well as value judgments... Moreover, given the variety of decoding processes at work in the audience, the orator's messages may recommend divergent resolutions to the different groups within it." Munson (2001a: especially 16) calls this the "metanarrative." 3 The comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides in Chapter Two argues that the medium is deliberately determinate of audience. I am here expanding that idea to include content. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 126

Alexander the Great, reveals his love of the double entendre in his reproduction of the letters between Alexander and Aristotle concerning the latter's publication of the Metaphysics\ Alexander was, apparently, upset that Aristotle would make public the secret knowledge that the two shared. Aristotle clarifies that the secrets are published and yet not published because as written they are only useful as a "memorandum" for those who are already initiated but the uninitiated would never be able to glean the real meaning.5 In Plutarch's explanation, Aristotle has created a duality of the text communicating, thereby, to two audiences. Plutarch is not, himself, revealing any secrets but rather, I think, pointing to a literary device already well established by his time. Herodotus also speaks to a dual audience but those places where an overt division is made, where the audiences are separated by the narrative, are few: that is to say, there are few that I am able to see but then, that is the point. One such overt example comes in Book Two which is, on the surface, the Egyptian Logos but Herodotus devotes as many lines to the Egyptian origins of Greek religious customs as he does to Egyptian political history. It is not surprising that Herodotus is seen at his most cautious where religion is the topic and also not surprising that he chooses to segregate his audience on that topic as well. In his discussion of the Pelasgian origins of the phallic element of the Hermes cult Herodotus says: "Anyone who has been initiated into the mysteries of the Cabeiroi, which the Samothracians perform having received them from the

4 The references in chapter 7 are highly suspect: no other Alexander biographer mentions these letters. Throughout the Life of Alexander, Plutarch toys with language and interpretation. See especially 4.8.1-5 where a cluster of adjectives are employed all of which have double meanings, and 23.1 - 10 where the assertion that Alexander was a moderate drinker could also be interpreted to mean that Alexander was a drunk. 5 I am tantalized by the suspicion that references to the Eleusian Mysteries abound in ancient literature but, being uninitiated, we cannot recognize them. Herodotus specifically refuses to discuss the rites of any mystery cults. See ii.171.2 where he claims to be an initiate of the Eleusian Mysteries. See also ii.3.2; 46.2; 47.2; 61.1. Clearly, Book II is not a history of Egypt, it is a history of Greek religion. 6 Plutarch was a priest at Delphi and "In Plutarch's writings Delphi serves as a monumental evocation of cultural memory, a place reverberating with multiple meanings" (Mclnerney 2004: 44). The Truth is in the Telling - 127

Pelasgians, knows the meaning of what I am saying." Only an initiate would know if Herodotus is merely displaying respect for the mystery cult or communicating some message to the initiates of that cult. Generally, the former seems to be the case: In his declaration of method in the Egyptian Logos Herodotus says that he will reluctantly relate stories of the gods only when he is "compelled by the course of the story" (ii.3.2). But even the compulsion of the story does not force him to reveal mystery religions; ou jioi ooiov saxi Aiysiv is his excuse (ii.61.1; 65.3). Piety and respect would seem to be the motivation but the question remains, why utter the rider at all? It would certainly have been easy enough for Herodotus to avoid mystery cult topics and never tell his audience that he was doing so but in saying 'I am keeping things from you the non-initiated' he is also saying 'you, the initiated, pay attention because I am speaking directly to you.' Even if there is no 'secret message' the separation of the initiated and the uninitiated in these sections of the Histories divides the audience into exoteric and esoteric circles. The problem for the modern analyst of an ancient text is that we are not members of the selected esoteric audience but rather twice removed because we are not even members of the intended exoteric audience.9 Nino Luraghi identifies two problems that this creates for the modern reader: we lack the knowledge that the ancient author "tacitly assumes" in his intended audience and; for us, the information is primary but for the intended audience it is not.10 I would suggest that the interaction is more complex yet: As with tragedy, the author of an historical text presents a narrative with which his audience is already familiar and that familiarity is what licenses the author to test the boundaries of his subject

60T15 8s T

11 And History, like Tragedy, is a political activity: Raaflaub (1990: 49). 12 On public performance rituals see Rapport and Overing (2004, esp. 251 - 3). Irving Goffman made a career of studying social presentation and performance. Herodotus maintains that being Greek is a matter of language, religion and customs more than a matter of blood so the social identification of Greekness must be a matter of the performance. On 'codes' and 'Greekness' in Herodotus see Munson (1991: 10ff; 2005). 13 Kai rcspi (xsv TOUTOJV Toaaura f|ulv cireoiJoi Kai 7tapa x&v 9e

When Galileo arrived at the Vatican to defend Copernicus he was told, by Guiccardini, 'Rome is no place to come to argue about the moon.' (Drake, Stillman. 1978. Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography. University of Chicago Press: 250). Herodotus knew better than to argue about religion when his audience was at home, so he argued about religion when he had his audience in Egypt. 11 am now using the term in its sense of an image, a visage or outward manifestation. That is the poetic beauty of using perikope for the nomistic, interpretative narratives in Herodotus: They are not only little sections 'cut apart' from the main narrative, but they are also contributory to the phantom that Herodotus is attempting to construct. ' Geertz (1984: 13); Foucault (1984: 73). See also Berger and Luckmann (1966) op cit. A community is "a constellation of enshrined ideas" and "Ideas are not, and have not been for some time, unobservable mental stuff. They are envehicled meanings, the vehicles being symbols... And anything that somehow or other signifies is intersubjective, thus public, thus accessible to overt and corrigible plein air explication. Arguments, melodies, formulas, maps, and pictures are not idealities to be stared at but texts to be read; so are rituals, palaces, technologies, and social formations" (Geertz 1984: 135. sic). See also Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture (1973) where these ideas are developed on a more theoretical level and where he coins his 'Thick Description' phrase for which he is famous. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -130

Iliad defines the Greek, but both would be simplifications. It is enough, however, to say that anyone foolish enough to challenge the Homeric narrative or the Persian War narrative in fifth-century Hellas would find himself in some difficulty with his audience. Again, we return to Phrynicus: His play The Fall of Miletus angered the Athenian audience enough that he was fined, exiled and his play banned (Hdt. vi.21); Hecataeus seems to have suffered a similar if milder fate;19 and if Plutarch had had his way Herodotus, too, would have been stricken from the public consciousness.20 Perhaps this was Theopompus' problem as well; he attempted to deconstruct the Athenian 'exemplary centre' in his Philippica but all that remains of Theopompus are fragments.21 One of the more sensitive issues of self-definition that Herodotus does take on in a frontal assault is the myth of the Tyrannicides. In 514 BC Hippias, son of Peisistratus, was tyrant of Athens and his younger brother, Hipparchus, was murdered by Harmodius and Aristogeiton, two members of the Gephyraian clan (v.55ff). Although Herodotus twice uses the word cpovssg to describe Harmodius and Aristogeiton (v.62.1) he never actually relates the details of the event.22 Instead he explains at length that the Gephyraian clan were Phoenician in origin and came to Athens by way of Thebes and Eretria. Harmodius and Aristogeiton were, by Herodotus' time, remembered with reverence in Athens and were called the 'Tyrannicides' and often referred to as the liberators of Athens. Other versions

So, for example, the Amazonomachy depicted on the West metopes of the Parthenon are generally regarded to be representational of the Persian Wars. So why not just portray the Persian Wars? Because they were carved and placed when Athens was not only at peace with Persia but anxious to prevent Persian disaffection. A Persian ambassador, then, could be shown the metope without ever knowing that he was the Amazon: duality of text, duality of audience (Shrimpton, 1997: 92 - 3). 19 Rather than banned he was ignored. For a writer, which is worse? And what of Hellanicus? The Suda (E 739) says that he led the attack on Hecataeus and yet he too has disappeared. Perhaps the influence of Thucydides is powerful enough to compose a war and decompose an historian. 20 In the Herodoti Malignitate (Moralia 8) Plutarch takes exception to the Abduction Microlog for the suggestion that the women were not 'abducted'; to Herodotus' account of the Egyptian origins of Greek religion and to any portrayal of any Greek as less than steadfast. For Plutarch, the real issue is identity. 21 An excellent discussion in Marincola (2007: 108-10). On Theopompus see also Pownall (2004). 22 Murderer or slayer. At i.44.2 the same word is used for Adrastus and that killing was accidental but at i. 109.4; 124.1 & iii.50.3 et al. it means 'murderer.' The Truth is in the Telling -131 of the story, with more details about the actual killing, point less to political idealism or self-sacrifice for cause, motivation and outcome than to personal revenge and an all-but-botched plot. Herodotus' point, one which I derive simply from the weight he gives to origins rather than actions, is that two of Athens' greatest heroes were not Greek by origin and, I think, forms part of Herodotus' diverse but syllogistic argument that Athenians have no grounds on which to be ethnically isolationist (a topic I will deal with more in the next chapter). That the hero status and even the epithet are myths Herodotus all but avoids, saying only that "for four more years the Athenians suffered despotism no less but rather more harsh" (v.55.1). Thucydides, speaking to an audience less favourable to democracy and, therefore, insensitive to democratic idealizing mythology, can say that "the Athenians are not more accurate than the rest of the world in their accounts of their own tyrants and of the facts of their own history" (vi.54). What is more important than the details Thucydides gives us is the fact that he chose to narrate the story and correct the democratic myth of the Tyrannicides by way of introduction to the affair of the profanation of the Mysteries and the mutilation of the Herms, an event which took place in 415 BC. The two events are a century removed and thematically linked only by Thucydides' observation that a community can become irrational and destructive when its ideology is challenged - whether informed by fact or fiction (vi.60.1).24 When an artist, therefore, wants to speak to that defining truth, s/he will do so with caution because the community will reject any statements that contradict or challenge the truths of their 'exemplary centre' and they will, if threatened, also reject the producer of the statement.25 For the poet, the politician and the writer of a prose commentary on the past, caution is always the best policy.

1 Thucydides i.20 & vi.54; Aristotle AP 18.2ff; Diodorus ix.1.4 & x.17.2-3; Plutarch Moralia 505E et al. ; How and Wells (1928: v.55). "Truth is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation, and operation of statements" (Foucault, 1984:74. Excerpt from Power/Knowledge, 1980: 133). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 132

We have already broached the subject of Herodotus' implicit references to

Oft the Peloponnesian War. It seems well enough established that Herodotus published after 431 BC and if Lucian is correct and Herodotus recited excerpts from the Histories at the Olympic games that recital must have taken place in the summer of 428. Mid-summer 432 was the occasion of the previous Olympic Games and the beginning of the 87th Olympiad: too early for Herodotus to make mention of a war that began in February of 431. Publication dates and recital dates need not coincide, but enough data places both between 431 and 428 that we can assertively place Herodotus and the Histories well within the politically charged atmosphere of the early years of the Peloponnesian War. I find it difficult to imagine that anyone writing in Athens at that time would not be writing about, or at least be influenced by, the political climate of the War. Within this climate Herodotus had to be careful not only of what he wrote but of how he wrote it. Like Thucydides, Herodotus chose to avoid ex cathedra statements or first person commentary of a political nature and also like Thucydides, Herodotus is carefully selective in his narratives. In both cases, I assert, the Peloponnesian War and war sensitivity were determinant factors. The political climate of Athens throughout the Peloponnesian War was far from homogenous: the relative simplicity of the Plains, Coast and Hills Factions that describes the rivalries of the late sixth and early fifth centuries had long ago dissolved. By 431 BC we can identify sympathies or leanings more than factions despite the absence of clearly articulated ideologies or anything like party organization.27 There are radical democrats who seem to dominate the arena and who aggressively promote war with Sparta and the ruthless suppression of the allies; there are moderate democrats who are uneasy with the energy and

' Fornara (1971a) argues that Herodotus embedded references to the Peloponnesian War in the text of the Histories but he makes the case only to use it as evidence for a later publication date. We really shouldn't use conjecture to construct further conjecture, but such is often the practice. While I am inclined to recruit Fornara for support on the issue of embedded messages, I am reluctant to do so because of the direction he takes. I do not dispute the possibility that the Histories were published as late as the period between 421 and 413, I quite like the idea, but I am not yet satisfied with the evidence. This is, at least, accepted doxa. I suspect that a more careful study of the 'clubs' and 'friends' in Athens would define these rivalries more clearly. The Truth is in the Telling -133 ambitions of the radicals; there are moderate oligarchs who like the idea of democracy but would rather see suffrage limited to the hoplite class and there are radical oligarchs who strongly oppose war with Sparta and would like to see democracy eliminated altogether. If this seems too simple, there are men like Theramenes who could, at one time or another, be called any one of the above.28 There is hardly a political statement that could be made that would not find opposition from one group or another. Adding religious sensitivities and class distinctions only heightens the audience's sensitivity. The socio-political context of the publication of the Histories is the most likely explanation for embedded messaging, but to make the case that Herodotus did embed messages we also need to establish a pattern of behaviour that shows he was inclined to employ such a device. The best evidence, I think, comes from Herodotus' playfulness. Enoch Powell's 1937 article on puns in Herodotus reveals a few examples and appears to be only an initial foray into the topic. Lateiner's 1977 study of laughter in the Histories demonstrates convincingly that Herodotus' own sense of humour tends to the ironic since the pattern is that any character who laughs does so out of ignorance or disregard for others and rarely gets the last laugh. Carolyn Dewald's 2006 study of the relationship between humour and danger in the Histories only adds to the picture of Herodotus as a lover of irony and together these three articles help to show a playful and creative Herodotus, a writer eager for word-play and subtle, back-handed - and occasionally black - humour. It was this image of Herodotus that prompted Stewart Flory's title The Archaic Smile: Flory sees a work wherein "...humor is not a light veneer of jokes and sly remarks gilding the Histories. It is a profound irony about the contradictions surrounding truth and fiction."30

' For the career of Theramenes see Thucydides vii.68.4ff; Xenophon Hell. 2.3ff.; Aristotle AP 34.3; Diodorus xiv.3. He was nick-named 'Tubesock' because he fit either foot. ' These three articles have all been cited earlier. A careful study of word-games and jokes in the Histories is a desideratum. For example, in the Scythian Periodos Herodotus says that the Scythians blind their slaves and also that these blind slaves are required to insert a tube into a mare's anus and blow on it to assist in milking the horse (iv.2.1). Aristophanes could have done no better. ' Flory (1987: 78). See also Flory's 'Laughter, Tears and Wisdom' (1978). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 134

This image of Herodotus the playful punster, the lover of irony, is only enhanced by his obvious pre-occupation with symbols and signs, especially but not exclusively oracular. Perhaps the most pervasive hermeneutic in Herodotus is that human failure results from the inability to properly interpret divine guidance. The Pythia rarely gives commands but almost always ambiguous directions that require interpretation and choice. The relationship between humans and the divine, especially Apollo and his oracle at Delphi, is exemplified in the person of Croesus. When told that his attack on Cyrus would result in the fall of a great empire he had the choice if that empire would be his or Cyrus' and, of course, he chose ambition over caution and that, in the Histories, is always the wrong choice. When told that his empire would be safe until a mule was the ruler of the Medes Croesus thought his dynasty would last forever since a mule could never rule the Medes. He was wrong, of course: Cyrus was half Persian and half Mede and, therefore, a mule of sorts. The choice that Croesus made was to ignore the much older prophecy given to Gyges: that the Mermnadae would rule Lydia for five generations only. Croesus was the fifth. Rather than hoping to extend his reign and his dynasty, he should have been preparing for a dignified exit and asking just

•5 1 what was meant by a 'mule'. Advice and direction from the gods does not only come in the form of oracles but often in dreams and signs as well: Croesus, for example, is warned in a dream that his only able son, Atys, would die by a 32 spear. Perhaps mimicking the gods, humans in Herodotus also employ symbolism to test each other's interpretative skills and also to make a truth knowable without revealing it. When Darius invaded Scythia in 513 the Scythians, being without permanent settlements or farms, simply withdrew. After a protracted chase the Scythians sent Darius a bird, a mouse, a frog and five arrows. Darius wanted to see this as symbolic submission, a substitute for earth

31 We will see, in the Ring of Polycrates Microlog below, that the theme is repeated by Herodotus. 32 This section (i.34) is introduced: (isxa Ss Eo^cova oixouevov eXaPe SK GEOU vefiEau; usy&A.n Kpotoov. Dream warnings are frequent throughout the Histories with nearly every major and several minor characters experiencing the phenomenon. The Truth is in the Telling -135 and water, but the interpretation of Gobryas was that the Persians would have to become birds and fly away, mice and hide underground, or frogs and jump into the rivers if they hoped to escape the Scythian archers (iv. 131-32). We needn't make any assumptions about the historical veracity of this anecdote; it may be true, it may not be, either way Herodotus included it because it was fun - not because it adds anything to the narrative. Again, when Croesus ordered the Lampsacenes to free Miltiades he threatened to destroy them like a pine tree if they did not comply. Interpreting the meaning correctly, the Lampsacenes understood that of all trees only the pine tree does not grow back when once cut down (vi.37).33 Again, truth or fiction is not the point. These kinds of devices permeate the Histories and demonstrate Herodotus' fondness for the double entendre and the hidden message. They suggest that Herodotus was telling his readers to prepare themselves to engage in similar interpretative exercises. They function as paradigmatic devices to show patterning: Herodotus' gods and characters all use ambiguity, innuendo, symbolism and trickery to convey information, to reveal truth, and Herodotus the author does exactly the same thing. We can see Herodotus' skill most clearly in his manipulation of personal names. The prosopography of Herodotus' text is a useful tool for both the WEEG historian and the literary critic. Rosalind Thomas recognises that Herodotus was preoccupied with names because "naming something gave it definition, identity..."35 Thomas here is talking about the names of the continents, Herodotus' discussion on the origins and definitions of Asia and Europe (ii.16; iii.l 15 -16; iv.36ff) but it applies to all identities, geographic or personal.

33 Easy enough for a modern reader to pass without notice, but imagine making a trip from Acharnae to Athens in the autumn of 427 to do some shopping. On the road you pass burnt barley fields, chopped-down olive trees and burned farm houses, the damage left by Archidamus and his Peloponnesians. In Athens you pick up one more scroll of Herodotus and read this line. On your way home you think, 'barley, olives and houses... well Spartan do your worst because all of these things do come back.' See, of course, any of Victor Davis Hansen's early works where he makes the argument ad nauseam that olive trees are nearly indestructible. 34 Moles (2002: 44) calls Herodotus the "nomenlomen specialist." See also Munson (2005: 36ff). 35 R. Thomas (2000: 83). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 136

Herodotus' deployment of personal names is a topic too complex for a full exegesis here but a few examples might suffice to make the point: During the fictional conversation between Solon and Croesus the latter asks "who is the most fortunate36 man", and Solon replies "Tellus of Athens" (i.30.3).37 The name is as fictional as the meeting. Tellus as a name shows up nowhere else in Greek literature and is clearly a pun on the moral lesson that Solon wants to teach but Croesus does not want to learn. Before we can say that anyone is truly blessed, Solon will explain to Croesus, we have to look to the end of their life and 'Tellus' is simply a pun on that theme.39 We will see, below, a similar employment in the Hermotimus perikope. It is also logically sound to reverse Thomas' equation and see that by withholding a name, Herodotus withholds identity, controlling the release of information and, therefore, audience perception. Detractors, especially those of the Unitarian School, might dismiss the unnamed as an indication of Herodotus' hasty composition - if he couldn't remember someone's name he simply passed over the issue. But this argument doesn't hold: when one considers Herodotus' use of names and titles in total it becomes clear that Herodotus is careful, precise and deliberate as to where, how and why he deploys identifying tags. One of the best examples is the word 'democracy.' When the Paladins debate what form of government they should chose for Persia, Otanes suggested the 'rule of the many' and says that such a form of government has a name and that name is 'Equality.'40 Otanes doesn't use the word 'democracy' because, as Herodotus knows, this debate is located sixteen years before Cleisthenes coins the term. Having Otanes speak the word 'democracy' would be an error of prolepsis that Herodotus rarely commits.

The word is b'kfu&xaxov, most fortunate, blessed, wealthy, happy etc. 37 «(o PaoiX,ei), TilXov A0nvaTov.» 38 Based on a TLG search. 39 The conversation ends with TeXsuTfjon and TTJV TE^EDTTIV (i.22.9) wrapping up Solon's 'look to the end of all things' speech. See Immerwahr (1966: 156-7). The repetition forms a ring-composition of sorts. 40 Ji^fjOoc; 86 apxov np&xa \isv ouvoua Kdvxcov K&XXIOTOV E%SI, iaovouinv (iii.80.6). See Humphreys (1987: 215) who says that isonomia has nothing to do with democracy, but rather denotes the equal right to compete for honours in the state and is a fundamentally timocratic concept. The Truth is in the Telling - 137

There are instances where Herodotus overtly withholds a name by telling us that he has done so. The reason can be piety (or so he claims): as at ii.132, where Herodotus refuses to name a certain god in a certain context.41 Or the reason can be political expediency: One of the golden bowls dedicated to Delphi by Croesus was inscribed with the words "from the Lacedaemonians" but the inscription was a forgery, "...someone from Delphi wrote the inscription, wanting to ingratiate himself to the Spartans, and I know his name but I won't mention it" (i.51.4).42 I suspect that the unnamed Delphian, or his descendants, were prominent enough that such an accusation, even so many years after the fact, would have been awkward for Herodotus: 'If you already know who he is, fine. If not, I'm not going to tell you.' The same explanation may apply to the mystery tyrant of Samos. Sataspes, a Persian grandee, was condemned to death by Xerxes and after his execution one of his eunuchs (possibly a Greek) made off to Samos with a substantial amount of his money and was able to use the money to become tyrant of the Island. Herodotus says that he knows his name but refuses to tell it (iv.43.7). Only prosopography can solve this riddle because there is no primary source narrative, Herodotus or otherwise, that tells us who this person was or exactly when he ruled Samos. The event itself must be later than 478 and earlier than 441 BC. I suspect that there was an event of political sensitivity involving this mystery despot of Samos and, given the dates, the Delian League. But due to the silence of Herodotus and Thucydides on this topic, it remains a mystery.43 In other instances Herodotus withholds a name without any apparent reason but I say 'apparent' because my inability to see a reason is likely an aspect of my third-degree removal from his esoteric audience. Most notable are the wife of Candaules and the son of Croesus, younger brother of Atys. The Gyges/ Candaules Microlog is certainly of great importance to the structural,

41 How and Wells (1928: ii.3) offer a list of Herodotus' silences and make the observation that most of them seem to have association with Osiris. 42 See How and Wells (1928: i.51) for the theory that the forgery had to do with the Sacred War (448 BC). 43 A separate examination of Herodotus' treatment of the Ionians and a study of Miletus and Samos as pivots in Greek-world geo-politics is a desideratum. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -138 methodological and thematic progress of the Histories and yet, with only three characters, one is left unnamed. Perhaps the name was simply lost from memory (TCQ xpovco s^irnXa ysvnTou proem); Plato doesn't name her either. It may well be a custom of respect to withhold the name of a shamed woman: the third wife of Ariston and mother of Demaratus, king of Sparta, is also unnamed (vi.61 - 4). The Croesus Macrolog is of even greater importance and within that unit an interesting microlog is devoted to Atys (see below) and an anecdote at a climactic narrative moment features the mute son, but he remains unnamed.44 It is less surprising when Herodotus omits the names of lesser characters such as the daughters of Rhampsinitus and Cheops (iil21e; 126), or the daughter of Hegetorides of Cos (ix.78), even though they too feature in micrologs. It is, however, of some interest that Herodotus chose not to name Pythagoras at a sensitive juncture: the Egyptians, Herodotus reports (ii.123) were the first to promote the idea of the immortality of the soul and reincarnation. Some Greeks have adopted this doctrine "and I know their names but will not write them down."45 It is safe to say, however, that Herodotus takes every opportunity to have a bit of fun with a name: He certainly seems to enjoy telling the story of how the infant Cyrus was cast out in the wilderness and raised by Mitradates and Cyno. The woman's name was Kuvd) Kara xf|v 'EA,A,f|va)v yX,roaaav but in her own language, Median, her name was Z^aicd) (i. 110.1), meaning 'she wolf in each language. Barbarian names are usually transliterated rather than translated. The Latin 'Cyrus' that is the standard form in English, for example, derives from the Greek Kupoc; which is a transliteration of the Old Persian Kuru, or perhaps the Elamite Ku-rash or Akkadian Ku-ra-ash. The Hebrew 'Kush' and Kores also seem

The boy was mute and Croesus' plea to Delphi was answered with a warning: 'don't ask to hear your son's voice because when you do it will be an evil day for you'. The boy did speak: when a Persian soldier was about to slay Croesus during the battle for Sardis the boy suddenly yelled: «rav0pct)7ts, uf| KTSIVE KpoToov.» (i.85.4). 45... &q l6{o» ecoiraov eovxr TCOV eyd) siSdx; TThemistocles is given personal honours by Sparta for his role in the Battle of Salamis and a certain Timodemus (Tiuo8r]uoc;) complains that, as a member, and an officer, of a democracy, Themistocles should not accept personal honours (viii. 125.1). The concepts of equality inherent in the democracy preclude such behaviour and Themistocles, by accepting the honours personally rather than on behalf of the people, insulted the Tiuo - 8r|uoc;, the 'people's pride.'49 Further study is required but these few examples are enough, I trust, to establish the point. This is not, however, the topic of this chapter. I have made the above digressions only to establish a pattern of behaviour, to show that Herodotus

' Kent 1953:180. For an etymological study of the name see Eilers, Wilhelm. 1974. 'The Name of Cyrus' in Acta Iranica 3; 3 - 9. Eilers believes the origins to be Sanskrit. See also Justi( 1963: 167) The name of Cyno's husband, Mixpa8dTT|<;, means "sent by Mithra," the goddess of cattle, the Persian equivalent to Aphroditie (i. 131.3) in her aspect as mother goddess. If Herodotus didn't invent the name Mitradates, he would have wished he had. Of course, the name Mi8pi8dT8<; (Mi0pa8dxe<;) is common in the Near East but it shows up only later than Herodotus in our Greek texts and this cowheard is the only Mitradates in Herodotus. Munson (2005: 40 - 41) offers a better, philological, analysis. «rj8n vuv Kaxaxa^Kou a icpie td Kspea, Astyages, on the approach of Cyrus to Ecbatana, hid in the Criocranion/os (Ctesias 2.4). 1 How and Wells (1928) understand the message but not the pun. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -140 was conscious of interpretations, playful with language and information and occasionally a bit tricky. It is this pattern of behaviour that licenses the interpretation of the perikopes as narrative units containing embedded messages. Adding to the definition of the perikope from the final page of the previous chapter, we will caution that the moral of the morality tale is not always clear, especially to an interloper. Be that as it may, the discovery of these embedded meanings requires two things: first, one has to look for them; second, one has to interpret them. The problem with looking for meanings is that one tends to find them wherever one looks, such that it seems that the act of looking is what creates the thing hidden. This is similar to a process Quentin Skinner calls the "mythology of parochialism" where an historian applies his or her own "familiar criteria of classification and discrimination" to an alien culture and sees something recognizable that may not actually be there.5 If we want to understand what Herodotus might have been saying to his intended audience, either exoteric or esoteric, we have to perform a thought experiment and attempt to employ our knowledge of his culture towards the imagination of an alter-self, a self that is an Athenian rather than a modern, and base our evaluations on the experience of the alter-self. In other words, we as analysts have to imagine ourselves in context.5 Skinner is at first dismissive of a contextual methodology, but, finally prescriptive, Skinner says that "The understanding of texts... presupposes the grasp both of what they were intended to mean, and how this meaning was intended to be taken.52" The only way to approach Herodotus' perikopes is to adhere to the Skinner prescription always guarding against parochialism and always attempting to read, to listen, as would a member of the intended audience. This has been an overly long introduction to the perikopes themselves, but it seemed expedient to preclude Skinner's criticism by carefully establishing the cohabitation of mythos and logos in the Greek imaginary, to show that these

50 Skinner, (1969: 24ff) 51This is the "Crocean-Collingwoodian empathy" which Kelly (1998: 13) dismisses as futile. 52 Ibid, 43-9. The Truth is in the Telling - 141 literary devices are not random insertions but can be identified as part of a structural pattern and, in that structure, to show that they reflect upon specific narratives as interpretative devices. That the interpretation is a moral one needs no argument; one of the few things that Herodotean scholars seem to agree on is that Herodotus is a deeply moral writer and that he sees indications of the vindication of right over wrong playing out all around him in events both human and natural. Only the connection was missing. Interpretation has been, for the most part, an analysis of Herodotus' attempt to accurately reconstruct a series of events in a narrative form and his moralizing has been seen as an unwelcome appendage to, perhaps a by-product of, his narration of events. Perhaps the formula might be reversed, that the moralizing might be seen as the main goal of the composition and the narration of the events the mill in which epya and yevofxeva are refined into yvcoaiq. Herodotus investigated the Logos of each of the several nations that either contributed to and/or actually participated in the attempted invasion of Hellas by Xerxes. He arranged these logoi in such a way as to show a confluence of conditions and circumstances, all actuated by human agents, toward the culmination of the event. Herodotus believed in patterns, sequences of cause and effect, so he structured each of the individual logoi to demonstrate that as circumstances develop (archaeology), within a certain environment (periodos), decisions made by specific individuals (aitia), will set in motion a series of events (pragma), that will result in a predictable outcome determined by a set of divine laws (nomos). Herodotus logically concluded that the proof of the rule is in the outcome, aK07iS£iv 8s xpil rcavtoc; xpfiuaxog xf|v xsA,si>Tr|v (i.32.9). The whole focus of the Histories, then, the point of the narrative, is to observe the outcome such that the rule can be discovered and made known (djr68s^i<;). But he saw, as he collected and processed his logoi, that the rule was not always evident in the narrative so in addition to his pragmatic revelations of nomoi, Herodotus presented the perikopes. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 142

Each perikope presented below has been identified according to the parameters and definition established above. Each will be explained according to location and according to function as an aitia or nomos element. Not all the perikopes in the Histories are included, nor are all the logoi, macrologs and micrologs identified. My purpose here is to establish the thesis, to present a basic argument in support of a theory, within manageable limits. But ardent students of Herodotus will notice that the single most common identifying characteristic of an Herodotean Logos, ring composition, is missing from the discussion of the perikopes. Far from being overlooked in my research, ring composition actually distracted and delayed the findings presented herein because I was, for years, convinced that it must be a determining factor. Alas, it is not. None of the aitia, nomos or perikope elements that I have identified are formed in ring composition and yet every one of them can easily be seen as a distinct narrative unit based on theme and content.54 This is not to say that ring composition is absent from the Histories. It is a device that Herodotus employs but only for larger units, as discussed in the previous chapter.

53 The full development and refinement of the theories proposed herein will, I think, require academic debate. I am nowhere suggesting that I have come up with the 'last word' on the subject, but rather that I am attempting to open a new line of discussion and a fresh exchange of ideas. If this version survives the scrutiny of the Herodotean community, a full and exhaustive treatment might ensue. 54 Immerwahr (1966: 83), observes that the Solon and Atys stories are not in "framing sentences" but he does not come to any conclusions about this anomaly. The Truth is in the Telling - 143

The Gyges Microlog i.8 - 13 The Lydian Logos: i.6 - 94 Proem: 6 Archaeology: 7-25 Mermnadae Macrolog Archaeology (internal): 7 Aitia: 8-12 Gyges Microlog Pragma 13-22 Nomos 23-24 Periodos 25 Aitia 26-33

The story of Gyges and Candaules is an Aitia element in that it follows an Archaeology and reveals causation and blame. It is not a perikope as we have defined the term for the purposes of this study because it is historical, involves primary rather than secondary characters, and does contribute to the development of the main narrative, but we can call it a microlog because it can be extracted as a discrete story, an episodic unit. It might seem odd to begin a list of the perikopes with a negative example but we begin with the Gyges Microlog because Herodotus did. The Gyges Microlog is the first case in which Herodotus establishes the paradigm of narrative units as interpretative devices, exemplars, threads in the moral tapestry he will weave as the Histories progresses. The Gyges story was well known to Herodotus' audience but in the form of \ivQoq rather than ^6yo<;.55 Flory argues that Herodotus begins by rejecting uuOoc; with the Abduction Microlog but then accepting it in the Gyges story.56 But it seems more reasonable to say that Herodotus rejects the Gyges story as told

55 Herodotus rarely mentions specific sources - other writers - but in this case he says that the Gyges legend was recorded by Archilochus a contemporary of Gyges (i. 12.2). How and Wells (1928: i.8) offer a very good summary of alternative sources. 56 Flory (1987: 38). On the tragedic presentation see Chaisson (2003: 19ff). Herodotus could not have rejected the myths because "No one, not even Thucydides nor Plato, challenged the validity of myth" (Finley, 1965: 284). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -144 by Plato, which is probably the older version, and treats it the same way he treats the Abduction Microlog by narrating an account of human activity devoid of the fantastic.57 Because of this we can also see the Gyges Microlog as a continuation of Herodotus' display of the method of iaxopia since it represents a pragmatic

CO investigation into the actual (or at least probable) past. The story may have mythical qualities and may be narrated in tragic style, but the existence of Gyges the King of Lydia is no myth.59 The Archaeology of the Lydian Logos runs from i.7 to 25 and is Macrolog in its own right because, despite being much shorter than a Logos, it contains all of the elements of an Herodotean logos. It has its own archaeology (i.7); the Gyges Microlog forming an aitia section (i. 8 - 12); the pragma of the Mermnadae dynasty (i. 13 - 22); a nomos element in the Arion Perikope (i.23 - 24); and aperiodos (albeit a weak one, i.25). As a discrete unit on its own it can be called the Mermnadae Macrolog. All together the whole unit flows quite nicely as a brief and transparently selective history of Lydia to the time of Croesus beginning with the transition from the Heraclidae to the Mermnadae as royal house - the story of the last Heraclid, Candaules and the first Mermnadid, Gyges. But the Gyges Microlog does much more than explain the end of Heraclid rule and the origins of the Mermnadae: It introduces a number of Herodotean motifs and themes and it also describes an Orestean dilemma: Candaules is first described as having developed a passion for his own wife (fipdcGri -rfjc; SCODTOU yuvouKoc; i.8.1) and that alone is not so much the problem as that his passion became irrational and he sought confirmation of her beauty from Gyges. The

Plato Rep. 359.dlff & 612.b4 which must represent an earlier version. It reads TTOXE cpacnv Suvajxtv TU [Tuyow] TOU AUSOU Trpoyovw yivzaQa.\ (359 d.l) The insertion of the name of Gyges in the genetive is, here, likely an error. Gyges is intended but need not be named. The line should read, "the power possessed by the ancestor of the Lydian." Croesus was so well known in the Greek imaginary that he was called, simply, "the Lydian" and Gyges is the ancestor. Justin 1.7.14-18 is obviously derived from Herodotus as is the same story in Eusebius. "This syllogistic logic with unexpressed major premise is a typical historical device" (Shrimpton, 1997: 38) 1 The Rassam Cylinder represents independent corroboration and offers a chronology that fits Herodotus' version: See Pedley (1968: 44-5). "Everyone accepted that epic tradition was grounded in fact" (Finley, 1965: 284). The Truth is in the Telling -145 passion, then, becomes unnatural, corrupt, and this is a theme that Herodotus will return to often throughout the Histories. Passion, when it is in control of rather than controlled by the individual, constitutes uBptc; and the Gyges Microlog introduces Herodotus' construction of the uBpic; - axn - veu£at<; sequence.60 Because of Candaules' irrational passion (oBpic;) he makes a foolish decision (axn) and that sets in motion a series of events, what I call an 'inevitable outcome sequence' all culminating in retribution (veueaic;).61 Candaules chooses to involve Gyges in his irrational passion; Gyges chooses to accept but only by compulsion: 6 u£v 8f| ox; OUK s8uvaxo SuxcpuyeTv, rjv exotuoc; (i.10.1). But I do not think that the compulsion, that OUK e8i3vaxo 8ux((n)yeiv is the interpretative key here. Herodotus is building an argument, or at least developing a pattern, and each of the moralistic elements in the Histories connect, somehow, as successive links in that progress. In the Abduction Microlog, Herodotus focuses on perceptions of wrongdoing and he makes it clear that none of the abductors, and possibly none of the abductees, saw their own actions as culpable, nor did the Persians. The interpretation of the Abduction Microlog presented above is that the Greek invasion of Ilium was an unreasonable reaction to a benign situation.62 The interpretative key to the Gyges Microlog is the fact that Gyges knew that he was agreeing to do wrong: He attempted to argue his way out of the situation with the knowledge of wrongdoing as his argument: ajxa 5s KIGCCIVI SKSUOUSVCQ ODveicSuexai mi xf|v ai8a> yuvf|. [4] rc&Am8 s xd KaA,d avGpdmoiai E^si3pr)xca, SK XCOV uavGdvsiv 8er sv xoiot sv x68s saxi, OKorcesiv xivd xd scouxcu (i.8.3 - 4). Gyges was aware that 'just following orders' was not an excuse and that agreeing with the King's request might put him in jeopardy: 6

(asv 8f| Aiycov xoiauxa d7tsudxexo, dpproSecov uf| xi oi st, avz&v ysvnxai KXXKOV (i.9.1). The king countered by assuring Gyges that he would not be found out, that

See Cohen (1991) op. cit. I will expand on inevitable outcome sequencing and the hybris-ate-nemesis variety in Chapter Five. Although it is necessary to touch on the concept here, I think a digression on the topic will only distract from the current topic. See above pp. 90 - 92. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -146 the plot was safe, and Gyges acquiesced: 8 (xev 8f| obg OUK s8waxo SiacpuysTv, nv exoiuoc; (i.9.1). What we have here is a non sequitur: 1: Do an evil act with me. 2: I fear the consequences of an evil act. 3: You won't get caught so you needn't fear. 4: Well, since I have no other choice, I agree. Clearly 4 does not follow logically from 3 because 3 does not limit choices, it merely rebuts 2. What are you afraid of, doing wrong or being caught doing wrong? Will you agree to do wrong if I can assure you that you will not be caught? Gyges' answer, 4, is a rationalization of guilt. It is easier to say, 'I did it because I had no other choice' than to say 'I did it because I thought I would get away with it.' The first statement attempts to maintain the pretence of innocence while the second statement, albeit more honest, is an admission of guilt. Gyges makes the same choice twice. Once the Queen discovers the crime she presents Gyges with her dilemma: She must punish someone for shaming her and she is wise enough to know that Candaules bears the greater guilt so Gyges must either kill the King or himself be killed (i.l 1.1 - 3). She could, of course, kill them both, but in the 'vengeful queen' motif that Herodotus revisits later, the wife of Candaules is the wise and temperate example, her response, her revenge, is balanced and considered and she is careful to avoid excessive revenge.64 In another interpretation, A. Griffiths suggests that the wife of Candaules can be seen as the opening end of a ring composition that is concluded with the parallel story of Xerxes and the wife of Masistes, but as a thesis this is not well developed. We are safer to stay with Flory's proposition and see this as an example of a motif that will be revisited in the stories of Tomyris (i.201 - 214), Pheritime (iv.205) and others. Gyges is, again, aware that he is being asked to commit a crime (©pa dvayKalnv aA,r|0sooc; 7tpoKei|xevr|v f\ xov 8ea7i6xsa a7toAA,i3vca f| auxov wr' aA,X,cov d7t6A,A,D00ai 11.4) but this time the choice is even more compelling: Gyges dies and Candaules remains king, or Gyges kills Candaules and himself becomes

63This is a question fundamental to philosophical debates on ethics, morality and behaviour. Do people avoid wrongdoing because it is wrong or because they fear punishment? 64 For his analysis of the "clever vengeful queen" motif see Flory (1987: 42-3). 65 A. Griffiths (2006: 141). The Truth is in the Telling -147 king. The choice seems easy and both Gyges and the Queen know that Candaules bears the greater guilt. Can we see this, then, as a reasonable reaction to an unreasonable situation? Gordon Shrimpton, in agreement with the majority of scholars who have commented on this narrative, sees the Gyges Microlog as a simple choice. The message, the premise, is that all people will logically chose life over death. Gyges cannot be blamed for abiding by his master's wishes in the first instance nor can he be blamed for killing his master in the second because in each separate circumstance the alternative did not seem viable. Chaisson sees the greater complexity in that the real choice was between a death with a clean soul or life with a polluted soul, and yet Chaisson still maintains that for Gyges death would have been a welcome but unsatisfactory solution.681 would argue here that a very modern value set is being applied to an ancient narrative. In Herodotus' Histories and in any other ancient example, honour is always given to those who choose piety over life, who choose right over wrong regardless of the consequences. Herodotus will make the case for self-sacrifice later when Solon presents the stories of Tellus and of Cleobis and Biton (i.30.4 - 31.5).69 He will also revisit the question of choice, an issue made more clear in the story of Polycrates' ring, which will be treated in detail below. The argument presented by Flory, Shrimpton, Danzig and Chaisson is that Herodotus has taken a mythical story in which Gyges is an opportunistic usurper and reversed it such that Gyges becomes an innocent victim of circumstances. What they fail to see is that Gyges is guilty in both Herodotus' and Plato's versions. Plato might present a guilt that involved forethought while Herodotus presents a guilt that involves choices made under duress, but the point, especially

66 Usurpation might be a crime, but taking the former king's wife is standard procedure. Smerdis takes the surviving wives of Cambyses and Darius takes the wives of Smerdis. Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, was wife to all three and mother of Xerxes (Hdt. iii.69; vii.2). Phaedime, the daughter of Otanes, was also wed to all three (iii. 68 -9, 88). 67 Note 46 above. Shrimpton and Danzig (2008: 172 - 3) follow Flory (1987: 31-2). For a more detailed and informative study of compulsion in Herodotus in general see Munson 2001b. 68 Chaisson (2003: 19 & 22). 69 This isn't the place, only because of restrictions of scope, but a detailed survey of other genres might support the point. Antigone comes to mind and, of course, Plato's Phaedo. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 148 for Herodotus, is that regardless of the details, the outcome is the same: Gyges dishonoured a woman, killed his master, and usurped the throne.70 Apparently the Lydians themselves saw it as an usurpation and strife arose between those who wanted Gyges removed from the throne and those who supported him. To avert a civil war, the Pythia was asked to arbitrate and Delphi ruled that Gyges would remain king but that the Heraclidae would have vengeance on the fifth generation of his descendants (13.2).71 Gyges is at the same time rewarded for avenging the queen and punished for murdering his master. With this explanation, Herodotus establishes his theory of divine retribution: that punishment will come to all offenders but it might be conditioned and/or delayed depending on the circumstances. The reason Herodotus chose, or concocted, the version he presents has less to do with the act, the crime itself, than with the punishment. What is unsatisfactory in the mythical version is that Gyges is solely, directly and wilfully guilty and that does not fit with Herodotus' theory of divine retribution because the facts of the historical Gyges offer no suggestion of punishment. In Herodotus' version, Candaules bears the greater guilt because he committed the first wrong and initiated the sequence.72 His punishment is, therefore, immediate. Gyges is also to blame but his punishment falls on the fifth generation of his dynasty - a diluted punishment to say the least. In the Histories, in Herodotus' moral world, the punishment fits the crime and the gods are never wrong. Therefore, if the punishment of Gyges was attenuated by the gods, it must be true that his guilt was also diluted by circumstances. Because of a logical necessity, Herodotus presents a version of the story in which the guilt of Gyges comes unwillingly, or at least reluctantly. The oracle in the Gyges Microlog points directly to Croesus and this oracle does not so much predict the future as define it: It answers the question that

This is the point made by Schubert (1997). According to Apollodorus (ii. 7.8) Croesus and the Mermnadae were descendants of Agelaus, son of Heracles and Omphale but Herodotus was either unaware of this tradition or chose to ignore it. Pearson, (1952: 220). The Truth is in the Telling - 149 could not yet have been asked by the reader: 'must Lydia fall?' The answer is, 'doubly.' Croesus, as the fifth generation of the Mermnadae, will be called upon to pay for the sins of his ancestor but he will also earn his downfall and that of his kingdom on his own merits. It is this double culpability that justifies the downfall of Lydia and the house of the Mermnadae along with Croesus. As an Aitia element, the Gyges Microlog foreshadows (in the literary sense) or offers analeptic exegesis (in the historical sense) to a known outcome. The Gyges Microlog looks forward to Croesus but it also looks forward more immediately to the Arion Perikope by introducing the question of natural, or divine, law. The violation of the Queen was a violation of nomos. Herodotus emphasises at 8.3 and again 10.2-3 that there are universals being violated and this is the beginning of another, more central, program in the Histories. Gyges and Candaules are both monarchs who are punished for violations of universal nomoiJ "Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, Cambyses, Pisistratus, Periander, Cleomenes, and others display their monarchic characters by transgressing accepted norms and being punished accordingly."75 But the exemplars are not all monarchs and not all negative. For a positive exemplar, Herodotus offers Arion. The hermeneutic of the Gyges Microlog is that all transgressions will be punished but the punishment may be delayed or mitigated by circumstances. This aspect of delayed retribution is what links the Gyges Microlog to the Abduction Microlog: Herodotus' version of the abduction cycle ends with the Greeks committing the greater wrong in the invasion of Ilium: "EAlnvac; 8f\ usyaAxoc; aixioix; yeveoGai- npoxspovq yap ap^ai axpaxsusaGai eq xf]v Aainv fj acpsac; ec, xf|v Ex>pd);rr|v (i.4.1). This is the only instance of wrongdoing left unpunished in the Histories.

The analepses in Herodotus are like the modern footnote (de Jong, 2002: 266). The best analysis is offered by Konstan (1983: 12). Focussing on the line: Sua 8e KIGCOVI 8K8uo(a.evq) CUVSKSUSTOU. KCU TT|V al5co yuvT] (i.8.3) Konstan takes exception to de Selincourt's translation "off with her skirt, off with her shame." Konstan says that the Greek aidos is not shame but respect for nomos. Danzig (2008: 176). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 150

The Arion Perikope (i.23-4) The Lydian Logos: i.6 - 94 Proem: 6-3 Archaeology: 7-25 Archaeology (internal): 7.1 - 4 Aitia: 8-12 Gyges Microlog Pragma 13 - 22 Nomos/Perikope 23-24 Arion Perikope Periodos 25

The story of Arion and the Dolphin is the first of the proper perikopes according to our working definition. Like the Gyges Microlog, it forms part of the Mermnadae Macrolog. It follows the pragma chapters (13 - 22) and as such must be a nomos section. But because it does not really belong to the narrative, because it seems cut apart, and because it is a certain fiction, it can be called a perikope. Its isolation and mythical characteristics have caused many scholars to look at the Arion perikope with both fascination and frustration. For Jacoby it simply fell under the 'e' heading for a 'digression within a digression' and Long agrees that it is "an insertion inside an excursus, an excursus on Periander the tyrant of Corinth."76 Even A. Griffiths, to whom we owe the term 'perikope', saw it as structurally problematic, merely a story "hung precariously on the chronological hook of the reign of the Corinthian dictator Periander."77 The Arion Perikope is actually a sudden break from the pragmatic narrative of the reign of Alyattes, King of Lydia. It seems that Gyges was engaged in a war with the Ionian Greeks that was unresolved when he died. His son and successor, Ardys, continued the war and had taken Priene and was marching on Miletus when he was distracted by the invasion of the Cimmerians (i.14 - 15). Alyattes, the grandson of Ardys, was able to drive the Cimmerians out of Lydia and continued the Ionian War until he accidentally burned the Temple of Athena

Jacoby (1913: 285): Long (1987: 51). A. Griffiths (2006: 133). The Truth is in the Telling - 151 outside Miletus. Alyattes then fell deathly ill and Periander of Corinth advised Thrasybulus, the tyrant of Miletus, on how to use the illness of Alyattes and the subsequent truce to his advantage (i.16 - 22). This narrative then breaks suddenly into the Arion Perikope with only "I mentioned Periander, well, in his life a strange thing happened..." (i.23.1)79 The Arion Perikope has little to do with Periander and there is certainly no Periander excursus. He is merely a convenient segue. Arion, a famous musician living in Corinth, undertook a tour of engagements in Italy and Sicily. While on his return voyage, loaded with cash, on board a Corinthian commercial vessel, he was robbed by the sailors. Arion was given a choice: either he should take his own life on ship-board and they would bury him on dry land; or he should jump ship and die in the sea. Arion chose the sea. He made and was granted the last request that he go to the waves dressed in his performance garb singing and playing his Cithara. The song he played was the "Orthian measure" (Macauley, 1890), or the "Shrill Strain" (Godley, 1920),80 or a "lively tune" (de Selincourt, 1954) or the "high-toned hymn" (Purvis, 2007). If ever there was a time for a direct translation this is it. The Greek reads vouov xov opGiov (i.24.5) and I think David Konstan has it right in arguing that this is a pun on the phrase 6p06<; vouoc;.81 The audience is expected to understand that Arion is taking the 'righteous course' or adhering to the 'proper way.' By killing himself he risks committing an impiety - even if by compulsion - but by jumping into the sea he puts his life in the hands of the gods.83

See Chapter One, p.22 where I discuss this very narrative in relation to Herodotus' interpretation of divine activity in the mundane world. 9 sv T<3) pica Gfflua ueyurrov napaoxfjvai (i.23.1). See Munson (2001a: on Ocoua in general and specifically pp. 252 - 4) on this particular line. 0 Godley adds that this was a popular song in honour of Apollo. 1 Konstan (1983: 13-14 citing Seth Benardete, Herodotean Inquiries, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 1969) Konstan also points out that in Hesiod (Hymn to Apollo) the god assumes the shape of a dolphin and guides the priests to Delphi. For a more detailed examination of orthos in the Histories see Munson (2005: 43 - 4). 2 By 'direct translation' I do not mean a lexical translation, but one that preserves the intent and import of the text. 3 "Arion trusts in divine power to save him, and he is vindicated. He has no chance of surviving if he stays on board the ship; in the sea he has some" Gray, (2007: 13). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 152

Arion's reward came in the form of a dolphin that carried Arion to shore, landing him at Tainarus (24.7). Periander, hearing the story from Arion, was incredulous, of course. To determine the truth of Arion's account, Periander summoned the sailors and asked them if they had a report to make of Arion's whereabouts (icxopseaGai si' xi Xsyoisv 7tspi Apiovo<; 24.7). They said that they left Arion in Italy and, by Arion's presence, were caught in the lie. As a nomos element the Arion Perikope is simple, obvious and overt. There is little to interpret because Herodotus wanted to make a point and he wanted the point to be clear: Staying on the straight-and-narrow, adhering to the rules, the nomoi, will always be rewarded by the gods and violations of nomos will always be punished. We cannot take the literal meaning of perikope too far, however, in our analysis of this or any other perikope because while it appears 'cut apart' from the main narrative, it is not isolated in terms of the hermeneutic. Following the pattern, then, we see that boys will be boys and girls will be girls but invading another country because of an abduction/elopement is committing a greater sin - an excessive vengeance; Candaules shamed his own wife and for that crime he lost not only his life but also the inheritance of his royal line; Gyges killed his own master but in circumstances not of his own making so his life was spared but his legacy would be limited; Arion did everything right and he was saved by divine intervention. The Arion Perikope follows directly on the narrative of the Lydo-Milesian War and for interpretative purposes we should add the hermeneutic of that account, even though it was not an aitia or a nomos section: Alyattes was engaged in a war with Miletus but for that he is blameless. Herodotus opens the Lydian Logos with the statement that Croesus was the first Barbarian to commit an act of unprovoked aggression against the Greeks (xov Ss oi8a auxoc; 7rp<»xov

Immerwahr (1966: 35; 41) agrees that the message must be connected to the Lydo- Milesian war but he sees it as a 'search for allies' motif, an idea not easily defended. The Truth is in the Telling -153 wtdp^avxa dSiKcov epycov eq xovq "EAXnva<; i.5.3), and we can assume from that statement that the war begun in the reign of Gyges (14.4) was justified. The war continued through the reigns of Ardys and Sadyattes. Alyattes - still attacking Miletus but blameless because he 7capa8s^au.evoc; xov 7t6A,euov 7tapa xoi5 naxpoq (17.1)87 - accidentally burned the temple of Athena near Miletus and he atoned for this crime by building two in its place. Can we assume that the linking message is "divine rescue"? Vivienne Gray comes to that conclusion based on the rescue of Arion by some god and then working back: Alyattes was rescued from his illness by Athena after he built her

QQ two temples. The hermeneutic continues, according to Gray's theory, to the rescue of Croesus from the pyre. The link seems weak. Alyattes wasn't really rescued, he atoned and was forgiven. There is nothing of the rescue motif in the Gyges Microlog and equally nothing of the sort in the Abduction Microlog. If a hermeneutic is being constructed, it must be along other lines. Rosaria Munson is correct, I think, to look at the bigger picture: "...the agency of the dolphin points again to the participation of nature in a divine plan that is ethically rational according to the standards of men." Regardless, some god did rescue Arion and the debate in the scholarship seems to focus on the question of 'which god?' rather than the more important issue of 'what does this all mean?' Gray, for example, believes that it must have been Poseidon because the whole episode takes place at sea; Arion departed from Taras, a town named for Poseideon's son; he cast himself into the sea, the domain of Poseidon; the dolphin is the agent of Poseidon in mythology; and Arion arrived

85 McNeal (1986: 110) sees this as an error on Herodotus' part: how could Croesus be the first to subdue the Greeks of Asia Minor when Gyges and Ardys each did so previously. The point is d5kcov (i.5.3). See Latimore (1958: 10, n.5). 86 I return ad nauseam to i.5.3 only because I do not think the importance of this line can be overstated. Prior to this Herodotus uses only nEposcov... oi koyioi... cpaoi (1.1.1); "EMa|vsc; Xeyovoi (1.3); A.eyouoi nspoai, OUK &q "EXXr\ve<; (2.1' 3.1; 4.3; 5.1); $oiviK£g... Xiyouai (5.2) and then syd)... OUK epxoucu about all that but olSa... (5.3). It is an emphatic and dramatic shift in episteme. 87 Miletus founded a colony in the Troad, at Abydus and since that was Lydian territory (Pedley, 1968: 44) the war may have had something to do with that event, but Strabo (xiii.1.22) says they founded Abydus with Gyges' permission. 88 Gray (2007: 16-17). 89 Munson (2001a: 253). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 154 safe at Taenarum, the home of the sanctuary of Poseidon. Alan Griffiths agrees that Herodotus' motive in placing the Arion Perikope so early in the Histories is to introduce the motif of divine intervention but for Griffiths it is Zeus, the protector of strangers and travelers, who rescued Arion. I suspect that we should be looking to Apollo more than any other god as the benefactor here. Not only is Apollo Arion's patron, but the pun on the name of the song he performed is based on a hymn to Apollo. The dolphin is equally, if not more so, associated with Apollo.92 It was Athena who forgave Alyattes, but it was Apollo, through the oracle at Delphi, who arbitrated in favour of Gyges, and Herodotus himself seems, even at this early stage of the Histories, to be somewhat focussed on Delphi. Neither Apollo nor Delphi are mentioned in the Arion Perikope, but in the Gyges Pragma only two events in his reign are mentioned: Gyges was the first Barbarian to send offerings to Delphi, and Gyges was engaged in a war with Miletus. The focus will intensify in the succeeding narratives. Another aspect of the Arion Perikope that is worthy of discussion is that this is the only perikope in which Herodotus cites his sources. He begins (i.23.1) by saying that both the Corinthians and Lesbians tell the same story: TO) 8f) Aiyouoi KopivGioi (ouoXoyeouai 5s acpi Aea|3ioi) and he concludes with both sources reiterated: mma usv vuv KopivGiot xs icai AsaPioi Aiyouai. Herodotus also adds observed evidence: a bronze statue at Tainaron: Kai Apiovoq ecu avaGnua xdAxeov ov> |xeya S7ii Taivdpcp, £711 SeXcptvoc; SJISCOV av0pa>;to<; (24.8). Gray is partially correct, I think, to point to these passages as proofs that the Arion Perikope is also a methodological statement. It demonstrates the ability of autopsy and inquiry to reveal truths. Periander saw Arion, heard Arion's story, and saw and heard first the lie of the sailors then their confession. The story is confirmed by the Corinthians and Lesbians who heard the story passed down from the eye witnesses. Herodotus himself then saw the statue and all of this suggests,

Griffiths (2006: 142 & 1999: 181). Homeric Hymn to Apollo 399. At 1.13 Delphi arbitrates for Gyges; i. 14 Gyges sends offerings to Delphi. The Truth is in the Telling - 155 according to Gray, that Herodotus is attempting to argue that the story of Arion and the Dolphin is true.94 Another interpretation might suggest that Herodotus is indeed revealing a lesson in historical method but something quite different than a proof of the Arion story. We recall that the interpretation of the events leading up to the Trojan War changes depending on whether a Phoenician, a Persian or a Greek is telling the story (Abduction Microlog), and that there are two versions of the Gyges story, one that involves a magic ring and the other a simple deception. The point, however, is that both stories are true. There was a Trojan War and, we can accept that there were abductions/elopements on both sides before the war. There was a Lydian king named Gyges. We can assume, as well, that there was an attempt to rob and murder Arion. In every case, in every one of these early micrologs the point, it seems to me, is that the outcome remains the same regardless of how the story is told. It is certainly too early in our survey of the perikopes to come to any well founded conclusions about Herodotus' message(s), but initially there appear to be two: People are rewarded for good conduct and punished for bad conduct; and since the details of the event are often conflicting, the only way to arrive at conclusions about an event is to look to the end. This, as it happens, is the narrative that follows the Arion Perikope, Solon's advice to Croesus: "we must look at the end of every thing and consider how it might turn out, because to many God shows but a glimpse of happiness before he casts them down again"95

Gray (2007: 11-12; 14ff.). OKOTteeiv 8e xpri rcavtoq jpi\\iaxo(; TT|V T£X.£iniiv, KTJ drcoPTiaeTar 7ioX,A,oTai yap 5f| imoh£.tp.c, oA.pov 6 Osoq rcpoppt^ouc; dvexp£\|/s (i.32.9). A wonderful and enigmatic line. Literally "overturned by the roots" but 7ipopp{t,o<; is an odd metaphor here and suspiciously similary to Jipoppnou;. The same word is used at iii.40.3 when Amasis warns Polycrates and the same sentiment with different wording at vii.46.4 (How and Wells i.32.9) Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 156

Croesus, Atys and Adrastus (i.35-44)

The Lydian Logos: i.6 - 94 Proem: 6-3 Archaeology: 7-25 Aitia: 26-33 Croesus and Solon Nomos 34-35 Atys - Adrastus Perikope

The Atys-Adrastus Perikope forms the nomos element of the Lydian Logos even though its placement is somewhat different than our paradigm suggests. Rather than following, it precedes the pragma but still functions as an interpretative hermeneutic. This change of order needn't concern us; the function of Herodotean elements is much like that of grammatical elements in a Greek sentence; it is not the order but the relationship that matters. The Atys-Adrastus Perikope segues directly from the Croesus-Solon Aitia section and we can assume, I think, that it is intended to inform that section. But once deciphered, it becomes clear that this narrative is a statement of much grander scope and may well be Herodotus' principal programmatic marker for the whole of the Histories. Herodotus presents the Gyges Microlog in a pragmatic fashion deliberately omitting the mythical elements of which his audience was probably aware; his credulity as far as the Arion Perikope is concerned is a matter of debate but I suspect that Herodotus has used source references with a wink-and-a-nod expecting his audience to doubt the verisimilitude of the dolphin rescue. The Atys-Adrastus Perikope, on the other hand, contains little of the fantastic in the content but the presentation, the structure, is so easily recognizable to his audience as tragedy that he must have expected them to recognize the fiction and, with or without a wink-and-a-nod, to take it for what it is.96 The opening line, the segue, points to a theme well rehearsed in Greek tragedy: "After Solon departed, a

See Chaisson (2003: 18) where this argument is made with greater force and the necessary analytical details. Chaisson is building on Immerwahr, (1966: 70), who made the observation without developing the argument fully. Jacoby (1913:283), however, included both the Croesus Solon meeting and the Atys-Adrastus tales in his Hauptlinie. The Truth is in the Telling -157 great retribution came upon Croesus from the gods, probably because he thought 07 that he was the most fortunate of all men" (i.34.1). An inflated sense of self is, of course, uPpic; and, lest there be any doubt, Herodotus uses the word veumic; in that opening line. Nemesis, associated with, as a natural result of, hybris, is a signifier in Greek as profound as any other. The associations that his line would have evoked in the minds of any reasonably aware Greek, most especially an Athenian, are complex and deep. By the 430s BC, when Herodotus published this line, Solon had already gained nearly mythical status as the law-giver, the Athenian Sage and the founder, at least on an emotional level for most Athenians, of democracy." The laws that were displayed on axles in the Agora bore Solon's name and his poetry was popular and widely circulated. In these, the theme is often the u(3pt<; - axn - vsusaic; cycle and divine retribution.100 Herodotus' two narratives, the Croesus-Solon Aitia and the Atys-Adrastus Perikope, could be seen as prose narrative versions of one of Solon's moralizing poems. Those two words, Solon and veusoic;, deployed in the opening line cue the reader, in case the Solon- Croesus conversation hasn't already done so.101 The point of the Croesus-Solon Aitia that precedes the Atys-Adrastus Perikope is 'look to the end of things' and in this hermeneutic the moral is tied to the Greek concepts of substantialism wherein truth can be found only in permanence; but mutability verily defines uncertainty. Life is mutable, says Solon, so life cannot be defined nor can any absolute statements about its

UETOI 8e Eotaova OI%6\IEVOV shafts ex GEOU vspsoiq \isyaXi] KpoToov, &q elKaoai, on EVOUICTE SCOUTOV etvai avOpawirov dmavrcov o^Puotaxov (i.34.1) I See Shrimpton, (1997: 114). Frost (1987) offers a sound analysis of Solon's contribution to the concept, and the practice, of public law. See also Hammond (1940). The phrase, 'the law of Solon' came, in the fourth century, to mean any law currently in force: See Hansen, (1991: 164; 299) (1990). But see also Markianos (1980) who argues that the mythical Solon did not emerge until after 411 BC. 10 Fragment 13.1-32 (West) explains the process and 65-76 (West) speaks of divine retribution and how it often comes slowly, even to 'their children or the family line thereafter.' The Gyges Microlog couldn't be better suited to accompany this poem. II Immerwahr (1966: 154-5) warns that all of the current interpretations of the Croesus logos are controversial. But I think we are safe, agreeing with Immerwahr, to state that the point of the Croesus-Solon section is "look to the end" and equally safe to add that the 'end' is often nemesis. 12 Collingwood (1946) op. cit. I refer also to the discussion on the ontology of genomena in Chapter Three (pp.78-80). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 158 condition be 'true' statements. Death, however, is permanent, unchanging and, therefore, part of the realm of the known. We can offer evaluative statements, propositions, about a life lived but only once it has been relegated to permanence by death.103 Our first portrait of Croesus comes when he is at his height of prosperity, which he displays in property and power. 'Look at all my wealth,' says Croesus (i.30.2), and Solon tells him the story of Tellus the Athenian who had sons and grandchildren all living when he died gloriously fighting for Athens (against the Megarians at Eleusis, 30.3 - 5).104 Unable to make his point to Croesus, Solon also tells the story of Cleobis and Biton, famous for their devotion to their mother (i.31). Croesus never does see that Solon was trying to tell him that his wealth was not the extent of his positions, his power as king, or his armies, but his two sons. The Atys-Adrastus Perikope picks up immediately on that and introduces Atys, the son of Croesus and heir to the Lydian kingdom. At least Croesus thinks his son will inherit the throne; Croesus does not listen to a Sage's advice and, as we will see, he either doesn't listen or doesn't understand oracles or signs, so we can also assume that he knows of the oracle given to Gyges and has chosen to ignore it.105 Another son is also mentioned but is never named. We are told that he was dumb (rjv yap 5f| Kcocpoq i.34.1), and that Croesus did not consider him an appropriate heir, or even a real son, because he was "deficient in hearing" (8i£(p9apu€vov xf|v aKofrv i.38.2). A small problem should be cleared up here: Macaulay (1890) has offered "he was deaf and dumb" for rjv ydp 5f| Kctxpoq, and Godley (1920) says "wholly undone, for he was deaf and dumb"; de Selincourt (1954) has "with a physical disability being deaf and dumb"; and Purvis (2007)

We could call this the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of philosophy: We cannot simultaneously measure a person's current condition and their future happiness, therefore we cannot make any absolute statements about a life until it is over, until we have only an historical pattern of conditions lived. 4 Imagine a recitation in 431/30 BC when Athens has just entered a war brought on, as the final straw, by the Megarian Decree. In 430 Pericles led a raid and then a full invasion of the Megarid. Does a cheer go up from the audience? 5 TOUTOI) TOU sneoq Au8o{ xe KOII oi PacnAieg auxcov Xoyov ouSsva SJIOIEUVTO, rcpiv 8r| fbieTeUo-en i.13.2. See Sewell-Rutter (2007: 5-9). The Truth is in the Telling - 159 has "disabled by muteness..." Only Purvis is correct. The line is: naav 8s xco Kpoia© 8i3o 7raT5sc;, xrov ofixepoc; usv 8i£

106 Every writer from Thucydides to Diodorus agrees that Pericles was pre-eminent in Athens because of his ability to speak so well. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -160

Croesus is, as every Greek knows, the archetypal hubristic Oriental monarch such that the name Croesus is synonymous with hubris and with wealth. There are many mentions of Croesus in the sources but no other reference to his son Atys. The name Atys (ATUC;) is a masculine version of Ate (Axf)), the goddess who leads men to recklessness. Adrastus, the unwilling slayer of Atys, was an exiled prince from Phrygia. That name too is a pun. Adrastus is the masculine version of Adrasteia (A8pdax8ia), the Phrygian name for the goddess Nemesis

1 OR whose temple is the principle cult site in Phrygia. The message could not have been more clear to a Greek audience: Croesus - iSPptq; Atys - axn; Adrastus - vsuscnc; .109 Herodotus is emphatically yet playfully establishing the principal hermeneutic of the Histories. It is a proposition well known to his audience, and Herodotus is applying it to the Persian War narrative. The conclusion, that the hubris of Xerxes was the cause of the Persian loss, had already been presented by Aeschylus. Herodotus is expanding the proofs.

107 Daughter of Eris (Theog. 230). How and Wells (1928) would rather see a connection to the Phrygio-Lydian deity Attes, the son and lover of Cybele who was also killed by a boar. I rather think that this is a coincidence and the single 't' spelling, along with all of the other aspects of this narrative, point more conclusively to Ate. Henry Immerwahr sees the reference to Ate even suggesting that the name of Croesus' son can be read as "man of misfortune" and he makes the connection between nemesis and ate adding that Croesus lost Atys due to divine anger.107 But Immerwahr stops there, at the mid-point of Herodotus' construction. 108 Strabo (13.1.13) cites Antimachus who said that a temple of Nemesis sat beside the Aesepus R. in Hellespontine Phrygia built by king Adrestus and there Nemesis is worshiped as Adresteia. 109 Konstan (1983: 18) sees the connection between Adrastus and Nemesis. Long (1987: 76; 101-2) mentions "retribution" repeatedly in his analysis but never makes the connection. The Truth is in the Telling - 161

The Ring of Polycrates (iii.40.1-43.2)

Cambyses Macrolog: iii.l -37 110 Bridge iii.38 Nomos is ing of all. Samos Macrolog: 39- 60 Archaeology: 39 Origins of Polycrates Aitia: 40-43 Ring of Polycrates Pragma; 44-47 Sparta attacks Samos Prostheke: 48-53 Periander Microlog Pragma: 54-56 Sparta vs. Samos111 Nomos 57-59 Samian refugees Periodos 60 Wonders of Samos

Book Two is unlike Book One in that it contains only one Logos, the Egyptian. Book Three, however, returns to the paradigm established in Book One in that it contains two distinct logoi: the Cambyses Logos (iii.l - 66) and the Darius Logos (iii.67 - 160). The Samos Macrolog is the prostheke section of

in the Cambyses Logos and is, itself straightforward: It follows our paradigm and includes a story about Polycrates of Samos and an emerald ring in the aitia position although the message, or the moral, of the story would hardly be clear out of the context of the Histories. Herodotus is far enough into the opus at this point that he can begin to deploy individual narratives reflexively. The Samos Macrolog appears to be a mirror of the Lydian Logos. Polycrates, like Croesus, is a despotic ruler who uses unprovoked force to increase his wealth and power only to be brought down by his own greed. Croesus

110 Pace Munson (2001a: 8). There is an odd line here: Tauxnv Tipro-rnv OTpaTnvnv ec, TTTV Aainv AaK£8aux6vun Acoptseq enoir\oavzo (iii.56.2). Herodotus specifies "Dorian" because the Achaean Spartans had gone to Troy (How and Wells). But why "first"? Was there a second? 112 It is also like Book One in that the 'bad' kings and 'good' kings mirror each other. Croesus and Cambyses are wholly without merit; Cyrus and Darius are good kings who still do bad things. 113 This is Logos VIII in Cagnazzi (1975); the first instance where I am in agreement with her system. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -162 had to overcome his rival brother to become king of Lydia (i.92.3); Polycrates was also at odds with his brothers and killed Pantagnotus and exiled Sylosson (iii.39.2). Croesus has Solon for his 'truth-teller' and Polycrates has Amasis of Egypt. Both are given good advice by their truth-tellers and both fail to understand the advice. In case his readers miss these parallels, Herodotus reminds us by adding that "Polycrates was the first of the Hellenes of whom we have any knowledge, who set his mind upon having command of the sea... and he had great expectation of becoming ruler of Ionia and of the islands" (iii. 122.2) which directly mirrors the statement made about Croesus at i.6. To be absolutely certain that the audience gets the connection Herodotus includes the detail that a Lydian named Myrsus the son of Gyges was sent as ambassador of Oroetes to Polycrates (iii. 122.1). Myrsus was the name of the father of Candaules (i.7.2) and, of course, Gyges was the ancestor of Croesus.114 The detail about the ambassador is superfluous: it is included only to remind us of the Lydian Logos. Certainly Herodotus could have told the story of the Persian Wars without much mention, let alone a long macrolog, of Samos and Polycrates but the heuristic opportunities were too tempting to ignore. The theme is nemesis but he issue is 'know your limits' and it is a continuation of a motif Herodotus has been developing since the Gyges Microlog.115 Gyges, as discussed above, chose life over honour twice and in so doing overstepped his limits. For that, he was punished but not until the fifth generation of his descendants. The 'know your limits' theme is then repeated in Croesus' failure to heed the Gyges oracle and accept the fact that he would be the last king of Lydia. When he was told that war would bring down a great empire, he should have known that the limits of the Lydian empire had already been reached, or at the very least should have understood that he was testing those limits. The 'know your limits' motif is then given a positive paradigm in the story of Sabacus.

op. cit. p. 118. How and Wells, oddly, miss the connection saying only that the name suggests a noble ancestry. 115 "The story of the ring of Polycrates is one of the best illustrations of the doctrine of Nemesis..." How and Wells (1928: iii.40 - 43). The Truth is in the Telling - 163

Sabacus was an Ethiopian king who invaded and took over Egypt (ii. 137.1-2). Typically, Ethiopians in the Histories are portrayed positively and Sabacus is no exception. His fifty-year reign is marked by his sense of justice, especially in giving judgement, as he was always careful that the punishment fit the crime (ii.137.3).116 But this anecdotal information is given by Herodotus only to establish his character. Before Sabacus invaded Egypt he was told by the Ethiopian oracles that he would rule for fifty years. In his fiftieth year on the Egyptian throne he was given a dream in which he was told to kill all of the priests of Egypt. Wisely perceiving the message, that if he did not heed the first prophecy he would commit an impious deed, Sabacus withdrew from Egypt of his own free will (ii.139). Essentially, he gave up that which was dearest to him to 117 preserve his own life and his soul. He respected the limits set by the gods. Polycrates, at the height of his power and prosperity, received a letter from his friend Amasis, King of Egypt. The contents of the letter are purely Solonian: 'take care lest your prosperity anger the gods; I have never seen anyone who enjoyed continued good luck who did not end badly.118 My advice is that you give up the thing you cherish the most.' (a paraphrase of iii.40.2-4). Polycrates tried to heed the advice and he threw his favourite ring into the ocean but a few days later a fisherman found the ring in the belly of a fish and returned it to Polycrates (iii.41 - 42).119 Learning about the ring, Amasis immediately broke off his friendship with Polycrates (iii.43).120 The point, of course, is that Polycrates, like Sabacus, should have seen that the thing he cherished the most was his power and the only way he could have saved his own life would have been to give that up. Instead, he tried to extend the limits of his domains to the mainland, and for that he died. We recall that this appears to be an underlying message in the Gyges Microlog. There is a nice joke in the Sabacus story: Sabacus punished wrongdoers by having them work on protective embankments and each criminal was set to work on the embankments of his own city. Bubastis, of all the Egyptian cities, had the highest fortifications. In Bubastis there was a temple of Artemis (ii. 137). 118 We are reminded, of course, of the advice from Solon to Croesus at i.32. 119 How and Wells say only that "the whole story is a folk tale." Most scholars agree that it was Polycrates who broke the alliance. Cyprus had gone to the Persians and Cambyses had just acquired Phoenicia. Polycrates, now an isolated naval power, decided Egypt was a lost cause and chose to side with the Persians. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -164

The Death of Pheritime (iv.200 - 205)

The Scythian Logos: iv.l - 144 byan Logos: iv.l 45i-205 : Archaeology: 145-61 Greek Colonists in Libya Aitia: 162 Archesilaus disobeys the oracle Pragma: 163-67 Archesilaus and Pheritime Periodos: 168-99 Libyan tribes etc. Nomos: 200-205 Death of Pheretime

Book Four, like One and Three, contains two distinct logoi, the Scythian Logos (iv.l - 144) and the Libyan or Cyrene Logos (145 - 205). The ringing phrases of the Scythian Logos, like those of the Cambyses Logos, have to do with subjects of the king, but this time Persian subjects: At hi. 160, after Zopyrus had mutilated himself in a plot to deceive and capture the rebellious Babylonians, Darius says that he would rather have a healthy Zopyrus than twenty Babylons, and at iv.l43 Darius says that he would rather have many men like Megabazus than all of the Hellenes as his subjects. The Libyan Logos is framed more simply. At 145.1 Herodotus says that the Persians, at the same time Megabazus was subduing the Hellespontine region, were launching an invasion of Libya, and the results of that invasion are narrated at 204. The intervening narrative is not about the Persian invasion of Libya but rather about the last king of Cyrene and his mother Pheretime.122 The story of Pheretime, the dowager queen of Cyrene, is not aperikope in the strictest sense because it is probably an historical account. It is a nomos section, however, because it is quite deliberately separated from its direct context and because it reinforces the motif of excessive vengeance and the punishment of the gods. The story is simple and the message overt: Pheretime was the wife of Battos the Lame, King of Cyrene. To put an end to civil strife, Battos had agreed

Barca (iv.163 - 64). Pheretime, wanting revenge on Barca, sought and gained an army from Aryandes, the Persian governor of Egypt (165 - 67). After aperiodos (168 - 199) the story continues and the Persian forces capture the city. Pheretime has those most guilty of the death of her son impaled around the city walls and has their wives mutilated. The rest of the men of Barca were taken into slavery by the Persians (202). Pheretime thereupon became ill and "died a horrible death" infected by worms "for, as it seems, too severe punishments inflicted by men prove displeasing to the gods" (iv.205). The first theme here is not, however, revenge, but limits and is a continuation of the motif established in the Sabacus story. Archesilaus knew that the diffusion of powers was part of a divine prescription and yet he chose to ignore the limits set by arbitration. Asking the Pythia if he could return from exile to Cyrene, he was told that he could go back to Cyrene but not as king, because the family line had reached its fated limit (iv.163). Twice ignoring limits set by the gods, Archesilaus came to a bad end. The Peretime Microlog revisits the 'know your limits' motif but also introduces the first overt declaration of the 'excessive revenge' motif. This too will be revisited, most dramatically in the Hermotimus Perikope below. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 166

The Agariste Perikope (vi.126-30)

The Ionian Revolt Logos: v.23 - vi.33 The Marathon Logos vi.34 - 133 Archaeology: 34-41 The Miltiades Macrolog Pragma: 41-47 The 492 Invasion Attempt Prostheke 48 - 93 3rd Hellenic Digression Pragma: 94-120 Battle Macrolog Nomos: 121-131 Alcmaonid Macrolog Proem 121-4 Nobility of the Family Archaeology 125-6 Treasure of Alcmaon Nomos (aitia?) 126-30 Agariste Perikope 131 Cleisthenes Epilogue: 132-40 Paros Microlog

So far as we have encountered in this study, the book divisions in our current manuscripts seem to correspond well with identifiable logos definitions all working rather nicely with the proposed structural paradigm. The Alexandrine divisions seem to run into trouble, however, with the Book Five/Six division, although the proposed paradigm seems to continue to explain the structure. The Book Four/Five division is a reasonable break: the Libyan Logos comes to an end with the Libyan Periodos (iv.168 - 99) and the Pheretime Microlog (iv.200 - 205 a nomos section with the 'excessive revenge' motif). Book Five then begins a new section with the Thracian Macrolog (v. 1-16) and the Macedonian Macrolog (v. 17 - 22) forming a Northern Europe Logos. The problem comes with the Ionian Revolt Logos which begins at v.23. Certainly this is an important narrative and to say that it is central to the Histories is literally and figuratively true.123 We are told, after all, that the Ionian Revolt and Athens' contribution of twenty ships was the beginning of troubles for Greeks and

123 With three Parts each divided by three Books, the structural centre must be the mid-point of Book Five, the Ionian Revolt. Counting lines or pages is futile; if there is a mathematical symmetry it must survive in logoi. The Truth is in the Telling -167

Barbarians alike (v.97.3) and that statement, at the mid-point of the middle logos, must certainly be a turning point in the Histories. All that has come before is background: with the Ionian Revolt the Persian Wars begin. We have seen that Book One contains two logoi, Book Two only one but with an apology (ii.35.1), Book Three and Book Four each contain two logoi. It is reasonable to expect that Herodotus would continue with some consistency and have two complete logoi in the fifth book. But the Ionian Revolt Logos does not end until vi.33. It seems to me that Book Five, rather than ending at v. 126, should continue to v. 159 (vi.33 in the current MS). At one hundred twenty six chapters, Book Five is the shortest but one and Book Six the third shortest at one hundred and forty chapters. Book Seven, however, is the longest by far at two hundred thirty nine chapters. The temptation is to suggest shifting the book divisions by a few chapters so that Book Five ends with what is now vi.33. That would, however, make Book Six unusually short and it would contain only the Marathon Logos. Shifting Book Six into the current Book Seven does not seem a reasonable solution because Book Seven opens with the death of Darius, the accession of Xerxes and, if the tripartite theory is correct, Book Seven is the first part of the third triad.124 Books Seven, Eight and Nine, Part Three, are all Xerxes. Regardless of the structural consistency, the Marathon Logos (vi.34 - 133) is an identifiably discrete logos containing the story of the betrothal of Agariste. Again we have one of those 'cut-off narratives that seems not only out of place and out of context but superfluous. The story of the betrothal of Agariste to Megacles appears, by virtue of place, to be a nomos element in the Alcmaonid Macrolog (vi. 121 - 131) which itself is positioned as the nomos element of the Marathon Logos. But this is not supposed to be an Alcmaonid story. The Marathon Logos could easily be called the Miltiades Logos since he is certainly the central, and defining, character. Miltiades, Tyrant of the Chersonese, was all at once a subject of the King of Persia, a sovereign and autocratic tyrant

124 In determining the divisions of the logoi "we must make it where Herodotus shows us a pause, whether or not this corresponds to our own notions of the unity of subject matter" (Immerwahr 1966: 62) who then suggests that vii.20 - 21 is Herodotus' "second proem" (63-4). See also Fornara (1971: 38). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 168 and a citizen of Athens, a democracy. Even after leaving his tyranny, he was, in 492 BC, the head of the Philaidae, one of Athens' most prestigious families; leader of the aristocratic faction, the kaloi k'agathoi; and, having been elected to the board of ten generals in 490, the commander of Athenian forces and architect of the victory at Marathon. We could easily say that in the aftermath of the battle, in 490/89 BC, there was never a man so popular and so politically powerful in Athens. The opening Macrolog of the Marathon Logos (34 - 47) is an archaeology to the battle itself, but it can be extracted from its context and read as an encomium to Miltiades and the Philaid clan. Herodotus' segue is quite nice: the Persians have been mopping up after the Ionian Revolt and since the fall of Miletus in 494 BC they have been moving North and West picking up the islands and securing the Greek cities of the Hellespont to re-establish secure connections with their newest satrapy in Thrace. By 491 the Phoenician fleet was taking the Persian army to the west bank of the Hellespont and a Hellespontine Periodos is introduced at this point in the narrative (vi.33) to bring the Ionian Revolt Logos to an end. Arriving in the Chersonese, the Persian army has encroached on the territory of Miltiades. Herodotus can then segue into the Philaid tyranny in that region and the family in general (34). We are told that in the time of Pisistratus, Miltiades the son of Cimon and grandson of Stesagoras was the first tyrant of the Chersonese, having been invited there by the locals, who were not able to resolve military conflicts. (34.1 - 35.3). We are also told that the family kept four-horse chariots and that this

125 The ability to name your successor defines sovereign autocracy but it was a limited sovereignty to be sure. Miltiades' foreign and trade policies would have been set by Darius. 126 Herodotus signals the close of the narrative with an authorial aside in which he says that the threat issued by the Persians to the Ionians at the beginning of the revolt had, indeed, been carried out. The threat to reduce the Ionians to slavery (vi.9.4) came just before the Battle of Lade. It is a typical device. See Shakespeare's Henry V: After a gruesome narration of the victor's possible vengeance, Henry says "will you yield and this avoid, or guilty in defense be thus destroyed." 127 The Thracian ambassadors to Delphi were travelling on the Royal Road when they passed the house of, and met, Militiades. See How and Wells who point out that the Philaid house was at Laciadae, between Athens and Eleusis - not quite on the way to or from Delphi. Something is being hidden here. The Truth is in the Telling -169

Miltiades had been an Olympic victor (36.1). Four-horse chariot teams were the playthings of the very wealthy aristocratic elite and an Olympic victory of any kind brought tremendous prestige to the victor and to his city of origin - even more so than today. Rich, powerful and important at Athens, Miltiades was also important internationally; He was a friend of Croesus of Lydia and a close enough friend that Croesus was willing to attack Lampsacus to help Miltiades (37).128 At this point the narrative gets a bit confusing. Miltiades son of Cypselus died childless. He had a half brother named Cimon and Cimon had a son named Stesagoras. It was to Stesagoras that Miltiades passed on the tyranny of the Chersonese. Stesagoras also died childless and the tyranny passed to his brother, Miltiades son of Cimon (38). This Miltiades married Hegesipyle, a daughter of Olorus, king of Thrace (39).I29 All of this Herodotus tells us as background to the Battle of Marathon. To be sure we remember that this is a Philaid story, Herodotus gives even more detail about the family's accomplishments at vi.103, just as Miltiades is elected general. The battle narrative complete, the Marathon Logos is then followed immediately by the Alcmaonid Macrolog that includes the Agariste Perikope (vi. 127 - 30). The story itself is simple, the details as complex as a political statement could be: Agariste was the daughter of Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon. Cleisthenes held a contest for her hand in marriage, which attracted elite bachelors from all over the Greek world. From Athens came Megacles the son of Alcmaon and Hippocleides the son of Tisander (127). Hippocleides was the early favourite because he was the wealthiest man in Athens and had family

The story of the oracle and the Dolonci choosing Miltiades almost by chance is designed to distract: Gaining Hellespontine holdings was Athenian foreign policy from the time of Peisistratus. Herodotus says that Peisistratus was ruler but that Miltiades (hap sSuvdaxsuE ye Kal... 'Dynasty' means then pretty much what it means now. Miltiades was simply carrying out Peisistratid foreign policy in the Chersonese and Lampsacus. 9 It is often assumed that this Hegesipyle is the sister of the historian Thucydides, son of Olorus. But the historian was born ca. 472 BC (Aulus Gellius N.A. 15.23) and Hegesipyle would have been from a generation earlier at least. It is more likely that Thucydides is the nephew or grand-nephew of Hegesipyle. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -170 connections to Cypselus, Tyrant of Corinth (127.4). But at the banquet during which the winner was to be announced, Hippocleides got drunk and made quite a scene dancing on the tables. Disgusted, Cleisthenes yelled "you have danced yourself out of a wedding, son of Tisander!" (129.4). Megacles was given the hand of Agariste (130) and their son was named Cleisthenes after his maternal grandfather and it was this Cleisthenes who reformed the Athenian constitution and created democracy (131). We recall that the Marathon Logos is a Philaid story. Herodotus returns to Miltiades after the strange tale of the marriage of Agariste and, as an epilogue to the Logos, narrates Miltiades' failure to capture Paros. The hero of Marathon was not fated to end well (vi. 135.3): he used state funds to launch the invasion and, failing, was tried and fined by the Athenians. Unable to pay the fine, he died in prison and his son, another Cimon, paid the fine (vi.136). The issue that could not have been missed by any member of Herodotus' intended audience is that at the time of publication, Athens was effectively being ruled by Pericles, an Alcmaonid. For a long time his political rival had been Cimon, successor to Miltiades and head of the Philaid family. To unpack the Agariste Microlog, and Herodotus' construction of the Marathon Logos, we will have to go back, in the memory of his intended audience, over a century. After the reforms of Solon (592 BC) failed, Athens became embroiled in a rivalry for control of the city between two factions: one led by Megacles the son of Alcmaon and the other by Lycurgus son of Aristolaides (i.59.3).134 Peisistratus was able to outdo them both and become tyrant of Athens. After the expulsion of the Peisistratid tyrants the old rivalry resumed with Cleisthenes, the son of

130 A family alliance between Sicyon and Corinth would have been to the advantage of both. Cleisthenes of Sicyon was probably pandering to Corinthian distrust of Argos when he expunged the cult of Adrastus and tried to rid Sicyon of all Argive connections. 131 His answer was, "Hippocleides doesn't care." 132 aXka SsTv yap Mi/UidSsa xzkzmav ur| eu (vi.135.3). For commentary see Munson (2001b: 34). 133 And before that, the rival of Miltiades had been Xanthippus, the father of Pericles (Arist. Ath. Pol. 28.2). 134 See also Aristotle (AP. 13.4); Plutarch (Solon 29.1). Davies (1971: 348 ff.) finds no contemporary or early connections to the family of Lycurgus, but in the latter half of the fifth century, and certainly in the fourth, they are politically active again. The Truth is in the Telling - 171

Megacles and Agariste, vying against Isagoras, Tiadv8porj obanc; UEV scbv

8OKIUOD, dxdp xd dveKaOev OVJK S^CO cppdaat (v.66.1). This line is critical: Macauley (1890) translates "Isagoras, the son of Tisander, of a family which was highly reputed, but of his original descent I am not able to declare." Godley (LCL 1928) agrees with "son of Tisander" as does de Selincourt (1954). Purvis (2007) offers "son of Teisandros" inexplicably preferring a variant spelling. But the line is not so clear. It could just as well mean "Isagoras, of the noble family of 1 3S Tisander, the original descent of which I won't say." Cleisthenes, of course, won this battle and formed the democracy but the key to the Agariste Perikope is not Cleisthenes, but rather Isagoras. The victory of Cleisthenes over Isagoras, of democracy over oligarchy, is accepted as a given by most political and classical historians but we really know very little about what actually happened. Herodotus tells us only that Cleisthenes and Isagoras were in stasis (ouxoi oi dv8ps<; saxaalaaav rapi Suvdiaiog) and that Cleisthenes xov 8fjuov 7ipoaexaipi^sxat (v.66.2). Just what that line means is difficult to say. Literally it says that he "made the people his friends" but the Greek for 'friendship' that is employed here is much more complicated. The hetaireiai, or 'friendships', were secretive clubs in Athens and the suggestion is that Cleisthenes formed the people, the commons, into their own club. Aristotle (AP.20.1) says that these clubs, populated by the wealthy aristocrats, were supporters of Isagoras and opposed to Cleisthenes so it would not be correct to suppose that Cleisthenes included the people in the hetaireiai but rather that some i -i *r new association was formed. Speaking about either Isagoras or Cleisthenes in the later fifth century and thereafter is generally avoided by our sources. One would expect that Cleisthenes, the founder of democracy, would be heralded as an Athenian hero but he is not. Isocrates, for example (Areop.) says that Cleisthenes merely restored the

Actually, Herodotus will say, just not yet. 6 Munson (2001a: 53 - 6) says that the story is constructed to force analogy between Cleisthenes and despotic rule. Hansen (1991:282 - 7) downplays the political role of these clubs objecting mostly to descriptions of them as ' political parties.' See also Humphreys (2004) and Sealy (1960). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -172 democratic constitution of Solon, and Aristotle (AP 21) that he made the Solonian constitution more democratic. Both are anachronistic; 'Democracy' was a term coined by Cleisthenes and there was nothing democratic about the constitutional reforms of Solon. Even Plutarch (Cimon 15.3) talks about the "aristocratic government of Cleisthenes." His later life is shrouded in mystery.137 Even less is said about Isagoras. What we do know is enough, however, to decipher Herodotus' line "you have danced yourself out of a wedding, son of Tisander." The clues come from a lineage reproduced by Marcellinus (Thuc. 3), who is quoting Didimus who was quoting Hellanicus: a certain Teisander was a descendant of Philaius the son of Ajax, ten generations removed. This Tisander, in the Marcellinus source, was the father of Miltiades, father of Hippocleides, father of Cypselus, father of that Militiades who became tyrant of the Chersonese. Herodotus (vi.35) tells us that Philaius the son of Ajax was the first of his family to migrate from Aegina to Athens and gives the patronym to the Philaid clan in Athens. We recall that the rival of Megacles for the hand of Agariste was a certain Hippocleides, son of Tisander, and that he was related to the family of Cypselus.138 We also recall that Isagoras, the rival of Cleisthenes, son of Megacles, is also related to Tisander (v.66 but Herodotus never overtly mentions a connection). The repetition of these names and the occurrence of the same sets of names in the Philaid family tree strongly suggest that both Hippocleides and Isagoras were Philaids.140 I suspect that Isagoras, of the house of Tisander,

Leveque and Vidal-Naquet (1996) offer an interesting interpretation of the career of Cleisthenes. On the Solon myth: Markianos (1980); Gagarin (1981: 125 - 7); Hansen (1990 & 1991: 164); Starr (1990) et al. 8 At vi. 127.4 Herodotus uses the same formula for Hippocleides as he used for Isagoras: fl7t7ioK^e{5r|g TmdvSpoi) (v.66.1). But at vi.129.4 he is clear: ro Ttav Tiodv8pou. The repetition of Tisander several hundred chapters apart is a very good example of 'narratvie displacement' (Hornblower 1994: 139 op. cit). 9 I am tempted to digress into a discussion of the genitive of origins in Herodotus, but I am reluctant to complicate this any further. Suffice it to say that Herodotus usually includes the definite article when he means 'son of as in AA.Kuia)v 6 MsyaK^eoi; (vi.125.1) and the next generation, MeyaKA-snc; xe 6 AA,K(xecovo<; (vi.127.4). 0 The argument is made by Sealy (I960: 168). How and Wells (1928: vi.128.2) assert that Hippocleides was the brother of the Philaid, Cypselus. Davies (1971: 296) rejects this suggestion but his argument is not convincing. The Truth is in the Telling - 173 was either the son or the brother of Hippocleides, who danced himself out of a wedding. We are also told by Herodotus that Hippocleides was the wealthiest man in Athens at the time of the marriage of Agariste, and that the Philaidae were an extremely wealthy family, and that Isagoras was supported by the Hetaireiai and that too implies wealth. But when Miltiades returned from his failed attempt to capture Paros and was fined by the people of Athens he was unable to pay the fine and died in prison. Cimon, his son, was then imprisoned as surety against the fine, which became a family debt on the death of Miltiades. The family troubles were many: Cimon son of Militiades had married his half sister, Elpinice, and was fined by the Athenians for so doing. Unable to pay the fine, he gave up his wife to Callias the son of Hipponicus and Callias paid the fine for Cimon.141 Cimon was rescued a second time when he married Isodice, the daughter of Euryptolemus, and her dowry (or inheritance?) replenished the Philaid fortunes and Cimon was able to pay the Miltiades fine, free himself from prison, and take his place as the leader of the Philaid clan.142 The point is that sometime before the late 480s BC, the Philaid clan lost their wealth. It could be that Miltiades had all of the family money in the Chersonese and it was lost when the Persians pushed him out, but Herodotus (vi.41.1) says that Miltiades returned to Athens with 4/5 of his material goods. I suspect that the family fortune in Attica was already lost and the fortune that Miltiades brought from the Chersonese was lost in the attack on Paros. Can we look back as far as 509? It seems possible that the family fortune in Attica was lost when Isagoras lost the battle for control of the City to Cleisthenes, but there is no evidence to support such a supposition. It is, actually, a guess based on the suspicion that Isagoras was, in 509, while his cousins (?) were in the Chersonese, head of the Philaidae and leader of the aristocratic faction in Athens. The guess is

Diodorus (x.30-31) who confuses Callias son of Cimon with Callias son of Hipponicus who actually married Elpinice and paid the fine. 2 Euryptolemus was the son of Megacles, brother of Cliesthenes (Plut. Cim.4.9 & 16.1-2). Sealy (1960: 169) says that Cimon was not a Philaid but only related to the family by marriage. I am in agreement with Davies (1971: 295), who has Cimon in the gens Philaid. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -174 motivated only by the line, "you have danced yourself out of a wedding, son of Tisander." The Agariste Perikope, in my opinion and based on this overly long and complicated exegesis, is a slight that points to the failure of Isagoras in his battle with Cleisthenes. It was Isagoras, not Hippocleides, who 'danced himself out of a wedding' and the wedding Herodotus is referring to is that between Isagoras and the people of Athens. We may never know the details, the real story, and Herodotus told the story by way of this perikope because in the 430s the issue was still politically sensitive. By that time Pericles, a descendant of Cleisthenes, was all powerful in Athens and since the death of Cimon in 449 BC he really had no rival. Thucycides son of Melesias became the leader of the aristocratic faction but Thucydides was only related to Cimon by marriage (Arist. Ath. Pol. 28.2; Plut. Per. 6), the details of which are lost to us. Nevertheless, there seem to be issues of political sensitivity that caused Herodotus to shroud his story in mystery. There are other levels yet: when Hippocleides says that he doesn't care, it may be more a statement of fact than meets the eye. This marriage was political and intended to be so from the beginning. We can't know anything about the motives of Cleisthenes of Sicyon, but we do know that Peisistratus carried on a policy of befriending his neighbours to avoid conflict and promote trade. Peisistratus himself had divorced his Athenian wife to marry Timonassa, the daughter of Gorgilus of Argos (Arist. AP. \1A; Plut. Cato M. 24). The Philaidae were already associated by marriage with the Cypselids of Corinth. This union was intended to add an Alcmaonid alliance with Sicyon. Perhaps Hippocleides didn't care because he was told to lose. As much as the Agariste Perikope may be about the Philaidae more that the Alcmaonidae, there are aspects specific to Cleisthenes that need to be addressed. In yet another example of 'narrative displacement', Herodotus tells us in Book Five that Cleisthenes son of Megacles imitated his maternal grandfather, Cleisthenes of Sicyon. In the Histories, the Second Hellenic Prostheke (v. 39 - 69) comes in the middle of the Ionian Revolt Logos (v.23 - vi.33). Like the first Hellenic The Truth is in the Telling - 175

Prostheke, the segue is that someone comes from the East to seek allies in Hellas. The first was Croesus who made an alliance with Sparta, the second was Aristagoras who made an alliance with Athens. Both efforts were futile; Sparta failed to give Croesus aid in time and Athens withdrew her support early in the revolt without contributing much if anything. Also like the first Hellenic Prostheke, the second is formed in two discrete macrologs. The first Prostheke (i. 56 - 68) has an Athenian macrolog (i. 59 - 64) and a Spartan macrolog (65 - 68). The second Prostheke is the reverse, beginning with a Spartan macrolog (v. 39 - 54) followed by an Athenian macrolog (55 - 96). In this second half of the second Prostheke, Herodotus narrates the fall of the Peisistratid tyranny, the rivalry between Cleisthenes and Isagoras and finally the reforms of Cleisthenes (v.66.2). Attica was, at the time, divided into four tribes named for the sons of Io, a constant reminder that the Athenians were Ionians. Cleisthenes re-divided Attica into ten tribes and abandoned the Ionian names for names of nine Athenian heroes, and one foreigner: Ajax.143 "Now in these things it seems to me that this Cleisthenes was imitating his mother's father Cleisthenes the despot of Sicyon" (v.67.1). Motivated by a feud with Argos, Cleisthenes of Sicyon had expunged the cult of Adrastus (an Argive hero) from Sicyon and changed the names of the tribes from Dorian to Achaean names (67 - 68). Cleisthenes of Athens, Herodotus continues, did the same when he changed the tribal names in Attica. We are returned to Cleisthenes of Sicyon again in Book Six with the Agariste Perikope and we are, I think, expected to recall the previous narrative and when Herodotus offers his punch line; "you have danced yourself out of a marriage" he may be offering a slight to Cleisthenes and to Athens, for in alienating the Ionians he may have encouraged their participation with the Persians in the invasion of Marathon in 490 and Hellas in 480 BC.144

Further evidence, I think, that Isagoras was a Philaid. This was political deal-making, compromise, conciliation. The Philaidae were descendents of Ajax of Aegina. 4 On this point see Gray (2007: 219 - 20). Leveque and Vidal-Naquet, (1996: 19; 44) see this as a contemporary reference, that Herodotus is pointing to Pericles' treatment of the Ionian subjects of Athens. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -176

The Hermotimus Perikope (viii.104-6)

Salamis Logos: viii. 40-144 Archaeology 40-42 Evacuation of Athens Periodos 43-49 Catalogue of the Greek Fleet Aitia 50-55 Acropolis Burned Pragma: 56-65 The Discussions at Salamis Prostheke 66-70 The Persian fleet at Phalerum Pragma: 71-83 Resolution to fight at Salamis 84-103 The Battle microlog Nomos: 104-106 The Hermotimus Perikope Epilogue 107-25 Flight of Xerxes Themistocles' aitia

There should be little doubt that the Battle of Salamis is the climactic point of the Histories. Herodotus has fastened each of his logoi, constructed his opus, on the hub of Persian expansion, or attempted expansion, and Salamis is that point, geographically and otherwise, where Persian ambition reaches its zenith. It is after Salamis that Xerxes turns to flee and that flight, that very moment, when an Athenian-dominated fleet has turned the might of the Persian empire away, is the moment of birth of the Athenian Empire and every person in Athens knew that. Plataea is the epilogue, Mycale the exclamation point, but Salamis is the moment of Greek victory. The emotion that must have been attached to this event, when the most intense fear and apprehension, the most oppressive pessimism and doubt, turned to shocked elation, must have been profound. Every member of Herodotus' intended audience would have been raised with the stories of the veterans just as those of us born a generation after WWII were raised with the constant reminder of Normandy and VE Day. But the effect must be multiplied by a factor unimaginable because this event, the Battle of Salamis, is being remembered to The Truth is in the Telling - 177

Herodotus' audience as they themselves are experiencing war and invasion, but this time from the Peloponnesian League rather than the Persians.145 There could not be a moment in the Histories more important than the conclusion to the Battle of Salamis. Xerxes has just realized the impact of the loss of his fleet; without the fleet and without command of the sea Xerxes cannot supply his army, cannot maintain expedient contact with his home base and cannot continue his campaign.146 After consulting with his staff, he has decided that he will withdraw with the remnants of the fleet and send the bulk of the army back home the way they came, overland. A force of three-hundred thousand will withdraw to Boeotia and attempt a more conservative campaign the next year (viii. 101-3).147 Yet, at this very moment, Herodotus breaks into a strangely anticlimactic story about one of Xerxes' eunuchs.148 A certain Hermotimus ('Epucmuoc;) the most trusted of Xerxes' eunuchs, was given charge of the King's illegitimate sons and ordered to accompany them aboard Artemisia's ships back to Asia.149 Even this much information would have seemed superfluous but Herodotus goes on: Hermotimus, we are told, was from Pedasa, a town in Caria just to the North-east of Halicarnassus. He was captured as a boy and came into the possession of one Panionius of Chios. Panionius, a specialist in eunuch slaves, castrated Hermotimus and sold him at Ephesus. Hermotimus was given as a gift to Xerxes and became the king's most trusted eunuch. While on official business for Xerxes

If we are confident about our 431 date for the publication of the Histories then we must look at every battle in Herodotus in terms of the Peloponnesian War. For example, did H. write about the 20 ships sent from Athens to the Ionian Revolt as thirty ships sailed for Sybota in 433BC? (Thuc. i.44; 47). 6 In military terms, this is called, after Clausewitz, the Culminating Point of Attack. Xerxes in Athens is just like Napoleon in Moscow; he has achieved his objective but has extended his lines too far and is now vulnerable. Both Mardonius and Artemisia assure Xerxes that he has achieved his objective - to punish the Athenians for their participation in the Ionian Revolt (viii.68.a.2; 100.3 & 102.2). The two speeches by Artemisia 'ring' the Battle Macrolog. 8 The story "is placed at a crucial hinge in the whole nine-book narrative" Hornblower, (2003:41). 9 Not that these boys were of less than noble birth. These would have been sons of Xerxes' concubines or 'secondary wives.' All of the king's concubines were of noble lineage themselves but there was only one 'queen mother', Amestris. One of these boys was likely Tithraustes. He latter became the admiral of the Persian fleet and was defeated at the Eurymedon River by Cimon in 466 BC. (Diod. xi.60.5-6; Plut. Cimon 12.4) Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -178 in Atarneus, probably in early 480 BC, he came upon Panionius. Hermotimus lured Panionius and his whole family from Chios to Atarneus and there he forced Panionius to castrate his four sons and the sons to castrate their father (viii.104 - 6). Herodotus opens the vignette by saying that Hermotimus, of all men known to that time, had gained the greatest vengeance for a wrong done to him (xcp nsyicrrn tunc; fj8r| dSncnGevxi syevsxo 7idvxcov xcov f\[ielq i'8uev viii.105.1) and he concludes by repeating that Panionius had indeed been overcome by the vengeance of Hermotimus (navicoviov |j,sv vuv ouxco 7iepifjX08 fj xs xiatc; Kai 'Epuoxiuoc; vii. 106.4).150 Clearly, this is a vengeance tale and that seems to be the link to the Salamis Logos.151 We have already commented on Herodotus' proposition that the Ionian Revolt and Athens' participation in it was the "beginning of troubles for Greeks and Barbarians alike" (v.97.3). Darius, we are told, was more vexed by the Athenian contribution than the Ionians themselves and he promised that he would punish Athens (v.105).152 The desire for vengeance becomes a recurring theme as Herodotus narrates the events that follow: The botched expedition of 492 BC was directed specifically at Athens and Eritrea (vi.43.4) and the Marathon invasion motivated by the same desire (vi.94.1). With the fall of Eritrea in 490 BC, Herodotus reminds us again that the temples there were burned dTcoxvvtJusvoi xcov sv Edp8icn KaxciKauGevxcov ipcbv (vi.101.3) and the Eritrean captives from that campaign were kept in Asia because they had done unprovoked wrong to Darius. Book Seven opens with yet another re-assertion of Darius'

150 Lateiner (1989: 143) picks up on the repetition of xiaiq. This rhetorical repetition not only defines the theme of the story but also frames it off from the rest of the narrative. The story is, however, much more complex. 151 Braund (1998: 166 - 7) sees the Hermotimus story as an example of "remarkable reciprocity" in keeping with the theme of the "reversal of fortunes" both of which recur frequently in the Histories. "... from the very beginning of the work Herodotos has presented the reciprocal process of vengeance as generating conflict between the Greeks and Persians...". See also Dewald (2006: 145) who sees black humour associated with the "...theme of transgressive violence and danger." 152 «co ZEU, 8Kyev£a0cu urn XGnvcuoix; x{oaa9ai,» eucavxa 5e xauxa Jipoaxd^ai evi xcov 0£pajt6vTG)v 5e{7tvou 7tpoK8ij4.Evou auxco sq xpk; eicdaxoTS ekeiv «8£o;toxa, UEUVEO XCOV A0nva{(ov.» (v. 105.2). 153 ota dp^dvxcov d8iidn<; rcpoxspcov xcov 'Epexpiscov (vi.l 19.1). The Truth is in the Telling - 179 commitment, claiming that the loss at Marathon only strengthened his resolve (vii. 1.1). In the epitaph to Darius, Herodotus says only that he died unsuccessful in his desire to take vengeance against Athens (vii.4). Xerxes, more troubled by a rebellion in Egypt than anything else, had to be convinced by Mardonius, who employed the vengeance argument first but to no avail (vii.5). Eventually Xerxes is convinced, although by greed rather than vengeance, yet when he gives his speech to the Persians explaining his plans to invade Hellas and conquer Athens, justifiable vengeance is the pretext he holds up (vii. 8b). Within this very speech, however, is the beginning of the Xerxes aitia: He promises the Persians that if successful "...the land of Persia will rival the boundaries of Zeus" (viii. 8.C.1).154 But what has all of this to do with Hermotimus? Simon Hornblower argues for an unstated proposition that the revenge of Hermotimus was excessive and his arguments are convincing: Panionius castrated Hermotimus and at viii. 105 the word is SKT&UVCOV, the correct word, according to Hornblower, for castrate. But at 106 Herodotus uses xa al8oia ajtoxauvetv to describe what Hermotimus compelled Panionius to do to his sons, and again &7T£xauvov for what the sons did to their father. Hornblower reads this to mean that Hermotimus lost his testicles, but his revenge was the removal of testicles and penis. "If I am right, this will not be qualitative reciprocity by dramatic escalation."155 It seems to me that Hornblower is exactly right. Panionius is described as a man 6c; xf|v Cpr\v Kaxsoxf|aaxo arc' spycov dvoaicoxdxcov (viii. 105.1) so punishment on some order is appropriate but is there justice in answering an impious act with another impious act? We seem to have returned to the question of the Orestean dilemma or the more modern 'two wrongs don't make a right.' The only problem with this interpretation - although I do not see it as a serious problem - is that Herodotus seems to be praising Hermotimus and the story is left without a real conclusion. What became of Hermotimus? If he was indeed guilty of a new crime how was he

154 yfjv xfiv Il£poi8a ano5s^o\iev x& Aide; aiOepi ououpeouaav. We know well, of course, remembering Solon, that such a statement only garners the anger of the gods. Hence the fippioc; uiov oracle at viii.77. The warning from Artabanus, that God will strike down anyone who vaunts himself too high (vii. 10.e) goes unheeded. 155 Hornblower (2003: 41 - 3), making reference to the Pheretime Perikope (iv.205) for proof. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -180 punished? Perhaps we are to understand that continuing life as a eunuch is punishment enough. The question of vengeance in Xerxes' invasion of Hellas relative to the Hermotimus Perikope speaks to the issue of excessive revenge with which Herodotus opens the Histories. We recall that in the Abduction Microlog (i.l - 4) Herodotus proposes that the abduction of Helen was a crime, but not sufficient to justify the invasion of Ilium, and with this excessive response they became

IISY&AXOC; amove; (i.4.1).156 We have already seen that Herodotus is constructing a syllogism of sorts. The Abduction Microlog and the Pheretime Microlog contribute to the construction of the 'excessive revenge' motif. If the Battle of Salamis is the climax of the Histories, then the Hermotimus Perikope must be the climax of the 'excessive revenge' motif, the final proof in the syllogism. But so what? If Herodotus wanted to point to excess on the part of Xerxes why would he choose such a story to made his point? There is no reason to accept that the story is 'historical' in any way.159 It bears verisimilitude in that the Persians did have a practice of employing eunuch slaves especially as harem attendants.160 Hermotimus may well have been captured and made a eunuch in 492/1 BC when the Persians were punishing the Greek cities of Asia Minor for the Ionian Revolt (Hdt. vi.32).161 But after the Hermotimus Perikope, Herodotus

On the excessive revenge motif in Herodotus see Scullion (2006: 204), A. Griffiths (1999: 174) and Immerwahr (1966: 163). 7 There is actually another side to this topic. I have included the highlights of this motif but there are many minor occurrences as well. Herodotus also includes many examples of appropriate revenge. The queen in the Gyges Microlog is an example. A full exegesis would overly burden this dissertation. 8 The position of this story and its ability to arrest the narrative, to blunt the climax, makes it difficult to understand why it has been all but ignored in the scholarship. A few have commented, but only Simon Hornblower has produced a full study (2003). Hornblower surmises that the "grimness may explain its neglect in most modern books..." (37) but he too wonders at the lack of attention is has received (39). 9 "The story is not literally true" {Ibid: 40). 0 Periander of Corinth attempted to send three hundred sons of the Corcyrean nobility to Sardis to be made eunuchs (iii.48); Darius and the Paladins had to kill the court eunuchs before gaining access to Smerdis (iii.77); Babylon gave five hundred eunuchs a year to the King as part of their tax (iii.92). Hornblower includes a long discussion of eunuchs in Persia and Greek sources. Much may be attributed to transliteration problems and "much of the evidence for eunuchs... is anecdotal, novelistic, and bad" (Hornblower, 2003: 49). 11 This was the threat, issued before the Battle of Lade and fulfilled after, that the sons of the Ionians would be made eunuchs (vi.9.4; 32.1). The Truth is in the Telling - 181 returns to the narrative and says "When Xerxes had entrusted his sons to Artemisia..." (viii. 107.1). There is no more talk of Hermotimus. I suspect that the story, and Hermotimus, are fictions. The key to the Hermotimus Perikope, as in the Atys-Adrastus Perikope, is in the names themselves. Although Hornblower suggests that the name 'Hpurjxiuoc; "is not a particularly rare name" and "derives from the Hermos River" I would suggest that it is rare indeed. Macan is correct, I think, conclude that Hermotimus is "...formed in honour of the god Hermes..." but he, too, thinks it not unusual: Macan lists Aspasia's father (Plut. Per. 24.7), among others, who share the name. This is, however, an error. Hermotimus of Phocaea is named as the father of Milto, who was a concubine of Cyrus the Younger. She was taken by Artaxerxes and later given the name Aspasia in honour of the famous concubine of Pericles but this reference is post-Herodotean and suspiciously anecdotal.163 Literally the name means 'in honour of Hermes.' The significance is not Ionian - at least not Eastern Ionian. The most important religious shrine in Attica, aside from the Acropolis of course, is the temple of Demeter and Core at Eleusis. The town of Eleusis is named after the hero, Eleusis, son of Hermes and Daeira (Pausanias i.38.8). Just before the battle of Salamis, a certain Dicaius, son of

Theocydes (AIKOUOC; 6 ©SOKUSSOC;), an Athenian exile who was aiding and travelling with the Persians, saw a cloud of dust and heard the cry "lacchus" coming from the direction of Eleusis (viii.65).164 lacchus is the formal name of Dionysius, the son of Demeter and Zeus, who is often omitted from discussions of the Eleusian Mysteries but there were, according to Pausanias (i.2) and Sophocles {Antigone 1121), three gods involved, Demeter and her two children, Core and lacchus, and Hermes is inextricably linked to this group.165 The cry "lacchus" was actually a song that initiates sang on the sixth day of the Mysteries, 20

162 Hornblower, (2003:45). 163 Macan (1947: 519). The most famous Hermotimus is the character in Lucian's dialogue of the same name. Another Hermotimus is a philosopher but the stories in Pliny (NH vii.42); Aristotle {Metaph. i.3) et al. are more fictional in nature, and all later, than Herodotus. Compare these to the story of Salmoxis (iv.94 - 6). 164 The story is repeated by Plutarch {Them. 15) but How and Wells (1928) suggest that he has taken the whole thing from Herodotus. This is not the Dionysius, son of Semele and Zeus, but another version of the same god. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 182

Boedromion, roughly mid to late October, the date, Herodotus implies, of the Battle of Salamis. There couldn't have been anyone celebrating the Mysteries that year: all the citizens of Athens had either been evacuated or killed, so the sound of the festival must have been a warning from the gods and Dicaius interpreted it to mean that the Persians would be defeated. There is, of course, no Dicaius and no Theocydes - the names are the story: Justice, exalted by the gods, (Aucaiot; 6 ®eoicu8eo<;) will prevail over the injustice. On another level, the connection between castration and Hermes is of deep significance. Hermes is associated with outward displays of manhood in the phalloi attached to the Herms that could be seen throughout Athens. The reference also hints at Herodotus' motif, 'know your limits', since Hermes is the god of boundaries and of the transgression of bounds. It is Hermes who determines limits and borders and, therefore, Hermes who decides that Xerxes has gone beyond what the gods will tolerate as his domain. Also, Hermes is the conveyer of souls to the underworld and the relationship of Hermotimus as the conveyer of the sons of Xerxes back to Asia seems linked to this function. Herodotus had a good deal of fun in the construction of the name Hermotimus. Hermotimus was not, however, from Eleusis, or even from Hellas. Herodotus tells us that he was from Pedasa, a small town near Halicanassus and because Pedasa is originally a Carian town Hornblower suggests that, although Hermotimus is a Greek name, "we should not then assume Hermotimos to be more than part-Greek." Pedasa is significant and Herodotus has embedded a contemporary reference which is not easy to decipher. Much earlier (i.175) Herodotus reported that the priestess of Athena at Pedasa grew a beard whenever Pedasa or its neighbors were in imminent peril. At that point Herodotus tells us that xpic; oqn

TOUTO sysvsxo. In the proem to the Hermotimus story the anecdote is repeated (viii.104). Macan says that the passage occurs "almost totidem verbis" and cites recent scholarship which seems in agreement that the second occurrence is

For the origins of the ithyphallic Hermes see ii.51. Hornblower (2003: 47) The Truth is in the Telling - 183 probably an interpolation with an error. All current editions of the manuscript place this whole section of viii. 1 in brackets and agree that it does not belong in the eighth book. The critical difference between the two passages is wholly ignored. The repetition of the anecdote at viii. 104 reads xouxo 8' a

' Macan, How and Wells, Loeb and TLG. Purvis (2007) includes the line but with a footnote, de Selincourt (1954) deletes it. '9 This passage is part of the section that the editors would have removed. 0 Miletus also joined the Athenian subjects who defected to Sparta in 412 BC, but this is long after Herodotus wrote. Aspasia, the controversial mistress of Pericles, was from Miletus. 1 Consistent with his discussion of the second subjection of Ionia (i.169.2). The "second time" was also two events; Cyrus' defeat of Lydia, which then included Ionia, and the suppression of the first Ionian Revolt from Cyrus. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -184

Indeed there were three events in which misfortune overtook the people of the area, and in 480 BC, two of these events fj5r| eyevexo.172 Pedasa was Carian; on that point Hornblower is correct, but Herodotus' references to Pedasa suggest that it was a city with a dual population, Carian and Greek. The first mention of Pedasa comes when Harpagus is subduing the Ionian cities for Cyrus (i. 175) and it is referred to in the context of Cnidos and described as among ouxoi xcov 7tepi Kapir|v dv8pa>v, those near Caria, but not specifically Carian. The second reference to Pedasa puts it in the context of the Carian Revolt in conjunction with the Ionian Revolt of 499 - 94 BC (v. 121), but shortly after this Herodotus specifies that after the fall of Miletus, their lands were given, by Darius, to the Carians of Pedasa (Kapoi nnSaaeuai vi.20). If Pedasa had participated in the Ionian Revolt why were they rewarded afterwards? This suggests, I think, that the Ionians of Pedasa participated, but the Carians of Pedasa did not. Where the name Panionius is concerned there is no ambiguity and no debate. This occurrence in Herodotus is the only occurrence in our extant sources. The meaning of the name is clear: navubvioc; means 'all of the Ionians.' Panionius was from Chios and was punished in Atarneus and these, combined with the 'Carian' origins of Hermotimus, are the foundations of Hornblower's interpretation of this perikope: For Hornblower, it is cultural and Atarneus represents the cusp between Greek and Barbarian cultures. In the first part of the story Panionius represents the Greek settlers enslaving the indigenous peoples of Asia Minor; in the second half of the story Hermotimus represents the Persians doing injustice to the Ionians, invoking the Persian treatment of Chians in494BC.174

While Hornblower recognizes the significance of Pedasa in this story, he focuses on Atarneus, the site of the event, and in a bit of trickery (I think) leaves Miletus off of the map he uses to illustrate his geographical arguments (2003: 42. Fig. 1). 3 I have conducted my own search using various means, and the result is confirmed by Hornblower (2003: 51). 4 "...Panionius and his sons stand both for Ionia as a whole, defeated in the Ionian Revolt, and also and especially for Chios in particular..." (Hornblower, 2003: 55, the argument is constructed throughout). The Truth is in the Telling - 185

While Hornblower's thesis is compelling he is, I think, too distracted by the East vs. West antithesis and the locations mentioned in the story. His thesis, therefore, fails to explain the location of the perikope in the Histories and fails to relate it to the Battle of Salamis. But Hornblower is certainly correct, I think, to see the issue of relationships between cultural groups, the transgression of boundaries, and reciprocity at the centre of the story. He is equally right to see this story as a "signifier for some very large issues to do with the relations between Greeks and other ethnic groups."175 But, I suggest, the signifier has to do with contemporary issues and the relations between Athenians and other Greek groups. The meaning of the Hermotimus Perikope is that the Ionians - and all of them are to blame - have come to Hellas and taken part of the manhood (part of a generation) of those who honour Hermes (the Athenians at Eleusis). But those who honour Hermes have had their revenge and they have taken all of the manhood of two generations of the Ionians. We have to keep in mind that most of the ships that were sunk at Salamis, most of the sailors who died, were Ionians rather than Persians. One could argue that the Ionian fleet was not so important because the Phoenician fleet was equally large. Herodotus, however, makes it very clear that one Ionian ship is equal to two Phoenician ships, or thereabouts, and that the Persians knew this. In his narration of the last days of the Ionian Revolt, specifically the Battle of Lade, Herodotus says that the Persians arrived with over six hundred Phoenician warships but were alarmed and thought themselves unequal to the foe when they discovered that the Ionians had three hundred and fifty-three (vi.8 - 9). We should also keep in mind the aitia that Herodotus has carefully constructed leading up to this event: the Ionians brought on a war with Lydia and were subjects of Croesus when Cyrus besieged Sardis. But they abandoned Croesus at the last minute and then danced like beached fish for Cyrus (i.141);

But the 'two generations' aspect of the Hermotimus story might refer to the two generations of the Ionian Revolt and the campaign of Xerxes. One generation lost trying to gain freedom, another lost trying to take it away from someone else. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -186 they served Cambyses by providing a fleet for the invasion of Egypt and, while serving there alongside the Phoenicians, learned nothing from the ethnic loyalty the Phoenicians showed to the Carthaginians (iii.19). The Ionians also served Darius in his Scythian campaign and their loyalty in that event garnered the Scythian condemnation that they were the best slaves a master could hope for because they didn't understand what freedom meant (iv.142). In 500/499 they participated in the failed conquest of Naxos, conveying their Persian masters against their kin (v. 28ff). Fearing retribution for their failure at Naxos, the Ionians rebelled against their king.177 Their failed rebellion caused the Persians to look to the West and then the Ionians provided the fleet with which Xerxes invaded Hellas. Their one last opportunity to redeem themselves was passed up: As the Greek fleet withdrew from Artemisium, knowing that the Ionian ships of the Persian fleet were not far behind, Themistocles left engravings on the cliff walls:

«dv8ps<; 'Icovsq, ot> TCOISSTSShcat a em. xoix; raxxspac;axpaxsuousvo t Kai xfrv 'EAXdSa Kaxa8ouA,oi3usvoi. [2] aXkd \iaXiaxa usv npbq r\\iea>v yivsaGs- si 8s uulv saxi xouxo uf| 8uvaxov rcovfjaai, i>usl<; 8e sxi Kai vuv EK xou usaou f|uxv s^saGe Kai auxoi Kai xrov Kapcov SssaGs xa auxa uulv 7ioisstv. si 8s uT|8sxspov xouxcov oiov xs yivsaGai, all' VK dvayKairn; \ieCpvoq Kaxs^ED^Os f] (bare dmaxaaOai, x>\ielq 8s sv xro spyco, S7isdv ODjj,ij,iaycoiJ,EV, sGs^oKaKssxs )a,E|ivrmsvoi oxi an fijascov ysyovaxs Kai oxi dpxfiOsv r\ sxOpri 7ip6<; xov pdpPapov djc' uusoov f|(xiv ysyovs.» (viii.22). Themistocles first charges that the Ionians are acting without justice in sailing against their motherland and then asks the Ionians to either revolt from the Persians on the spot or, if they feel this is not possible, to hold back when the next battle begins. He was not asking anything they had not done before. At the Battle of Lade, during the Ionian Revolt, most of the Ionians withdrew at the last minute abandoning the Chians to the Phoenician fleet (vi. 9; 14).

"The Ionian Revolt, to Herodotus, was a slave revolt, and he had little sympathy for it." Immerwahr (1966: 266) and he too cites the Scythian reaction to the Ionians (Hdt. 6.11- 12) as proof of Herodotus' views. The Truth is in the Telling - 187

The content of the inscription is a simple message, but the force of the message is not in the content but in the text itself. Themistocles could leave a message in plain view because he knew that the Persians would not be able to read Greek. Even without the content, the text says, 'if you can read this, you are of us, why then are you sailing with the Barbarian?' It is clear, I think, that Herodotus has constructed an Ionian aitia throughout the Histories and equally clear that the climactic point of that construction is the Battle of Salamis with the Hermotimus Perikope acting as the conclusion. The temptation is to see this construction as an argument, advanced by Herodotus, justifying Athenian aggression against their Ionian subjects. Athenian treatment of the subject states, Athenian tyranny over other Greeks, was one of the main factors leading to the Peloponnesian War and Thucydides twice insists that the Ionians deserve whatever they get because they sailed with Xerxes (Thuc. i.99.2; vi.82.4). But that temptation is quickly cooled when we reconsider the motif of 'excessive revenge' that Herodotus has also carefully constructed throughout the Histories and has emphasised in the Hermotimus Perikope. What Herodotus is really suggesting is that Athens has already had her revenge on the Ionians at the Battle of Salamis and that any further retribution could be seen as excessive. There is one more possible link in all of this: I have never thought that the Agariste Perikope has anything to do with the Histories, that is, with the story of the Persian Wars and Herodotus' embedded interpretations of that event. Rather, I think the Agariste Perikope is an editorial aside, a poke at Athenian politics quite independent of the wars with Persia. The connection may, however, come with the Hermotimus Perikope because of the Panionius reference. Would 'all the Ionians' have contributed so willingly to the invasion of Hellas had they not felt alienated by the reforms of Cleisthenes? Perhaps some of the blame lies with Athens herself.

178 The 'temptation' actually had me convinced for some time. It was Gordon Shrimpton, in private conversation, who explained my error and pointed me in the direction that would allow this thesis to take full shape. I cannot say that Dr. Shrimpton accepts all of my arguments herein, but for this specific argument I must give him credit. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 188

The Cyrus Epilogue (ix.122). The Protesilaus Microlog ix. 114-21: Archaeology: 114-5. Greek fleet at Sestus Aitia: 116 Crimes of Artayctes Pragma: 117-119 Siege and capture of Artayctes Nomos: 120 Execution of Artayctes Epilogue: 121 Greeks return home

Kori Kara TO sxoq TOUTO ou8ev em. 7tA,sov xowcov syevsxo. The Cyrus Epilogue ix. 122

Herodotus wrote two conclusions to the Histories. The first, the Protesilaus Microlog (ix.114 - 21), seems perfectly reasonable: it brings the Histories to a suitable conclusion as far as historical events are concerned; it rings the whole composition while also revisiting some of the major themes; and it ends with a beautifully chosen line: 'in that year, nothing else happened." But there is one more chapter appended to the Protesilaus Microlog that is certainly the oddest chapter in the Histories, the Cyrus Epilogue.17 After the Battle of Mykale in the summer of 479 BC, the Greek fleet sailed to the Hellespont, to Abydos, intending to destroy anything that was left of the floating bridge that Xerxes had constructed. When they found that the bridge was already destroyed Leotychides, the Spartan commander of the fleet, decided to sail home.180 But the Athenian contingent, under Xanthippus, decided to stay and attack Sestos (ix.114). Sestos and Abydos face each other across the narrowest passage of the Hellespont, the former on the western and the latter on the eastern shore. Control of both of these towns is necessary for control of the waterway. Herodotus doesn't tell us much about either of these towns. He mentions only that the Sestos-Abydos

179 Jacoby (1913) and Pohlenz (1937) both thought the ending unsatisfactory. See (Boedeker 1988: 30) 180 The bridge had been destroyed by a storm in the winter of 480/79 even before the Persian land army arrived at the Hellespont in their retreat. The troops had to be ferried across by ship (viii.l 17). The Truth is in the Telling - 189 crossing was used by Darius in his retreat from his Scythian campaign (iv.143) and that Abydos participated in the Ionian Revolt and was re-captured by the Persians (v. 117). But his intended audience wouldn't have required any exegesis: control of the Hellespont had been fundamental to Athenian foreign policy since at least the time of Peisistratus and possibly earlier. Attica is a small and infertile region but when Athens began to function as a commercial centre, and as the population therefore increased, food production in Attica quickly became insufficient. Blocked from reliable sources of food from other regions of Hellas, Athens became dependent upon a fleet of transports that brought grain from the 101 Black Sea region, through the Hellespont. Control of the Hellespont was, then, • 1 HO critical to Athenian internal security. Although Herodotus never says so, the Athenian tyrants of the Chersonese, the Philaidae, were probably only enacting Peisistratid policy (vi.34 - 41). It is interesting that the region was recaptured for Athens by Xanthippus; an Alcmaonid; the father of Pericles; the leader of the popular faction after Cleisthenes (Arist. Ath. Pol. 28.2) and the man who had prosecuted Miltiades for the failed expedition against Paros (Hdt. vi.136). Xanthippus had been ostracized in 483 for having too much personal power (Arist. ^4P.22.6) but was recalled some time before the Battle of Salamis.184 He replaced Themistocles as commander of the Athenian fleet and was made Archon in 479 (Hdt. viii.131: Diod. xi.27.1). Having been established as the principal fortress of the region, the Persians were using Sestos as their administrative centre where Artayctes sat as governor. We can glean from what Herodotus does tell us that Persian forces in the area had concentrated at Sestos after Salamis and were, apparently, attempting to defend Persian holdings in Thrace from that location (viii. 115). But Herodotus Thebes controlled Boeotia and all of the Northern access, Corinth controlled the West- central rout and Sparta controlled most of the Peloponnese. All of these states were rivals of Athens. On this see the landmark essay by Garnsey (1985). On the grain fleet and Athenian Grand Strategy during the Peloponnesian War see Davies, 1993: 128). Sestos and Abydos later became the scene of the final battle of the war and the Athenian fleet was destroyed at Aegospotami, just to the north of Sestos, in 404 BC. 183 Which would explain Miltiades' attempt to capture Lamspsacus (vi.37). 184 His rival, Aristides, leader of the aristocratic faction after Miltiades, was also ostracized and recalled in roughly the same time frame (Arist. Ath. Pol. 27 - 28). Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol - 190 gives us much more detail about the impious activity of Artayctes himself than he does about geo-politics. Artayctes, it seems, had taken the shrine of Protesilaus as his house and had stolen the treasures stored at the tomb, as well as amusing himself with women on the sacred site (116). The Athenians attacked Sestos in the fall of 479 BC and the siege dragged into, or perhaps through, the winter before the town fell and Artayctes was captured (117-9). While being held, one of his guards was frying fish for a meal when the fish began to jump in the pan. Artayctes interpreted this omen to mean that Protesilaus was coming to life again to punish Artayctes for his impiety. Artayctes then offered a ransom for his release but instead the Athenians crucified him and, while he was dying, stoned his son to death before his eyes (120). After the execution, the Athenians went home and "in that year nothing else happened" (120). The story revisits, and is perhaps intended to review, many of the motifs that Herodotus had employed throughout the Histories. There is the profanation of a shrine, a motif introduced with the burning of the temple of Athena by Alyattes (i.19) and developed in several narratives including the impiety of Cambyses (iii.27 et al.) and Herodotus' editorial aside on respect for religion (iii.38) as well as the pivotal burning of the temple at Sardis (v. 102). There is also the motif of despotic rule with Artayctes acting with vppic; toward the people of the Chersonese, introduced with Croesus and developed throughout. We are tempted, of course, to see come correlation between Cyrus, Hippocleides and Artayctes because of the dancing, especially dancing fish in the two, but if there is a correlation it escapes me.187 The scene, the Sestos-Abydos crossing, is the dividing line between Europe and Asia and in Herodotus' opening microlog he says that the Persians

This story is foreshadowed at vii.33 just as Xerxes is about to cross into Europe. 6 "The logos of Artayktes and Protesilaus exemplifies a delicate and I believe typically Herodotean metonymy, in which lesser characters act out more clearly the moral or cosmological paradigms which Herodotus is far more hesitant to draw for greater figures or historical movements" (Boedeker 1988: 47). 71 refer to the Fable of the Dancing fish (i. 141) and Hippocleides dancing himself out of a wedding (vi.130). The Truth is in the Telling - 191 had always considered Asia and the Barbarian people therein to be their own

1 RR sphere, but Europe and the Hellenic peoples to be separate (i.1.4). The 'know your limits' motif, expressed in several variations is a favourite for Herodotus and he may have chosen this scene to end the Histories because the Hellespont, and the Sestos-Abydos crossing, marks the limits of the Greek and Persian spheres.189 But there are two aspects of all of this that make the 'natural limits' argument problematic: first, Herodotus says in the Abduction Microlog that "Asia and the Barbarian peoples therein" are the sphere of the Persians and I think the wording is specifically chosen to exclude the Greeks of Asia.190 Second, in this final scene, the Athenian fleet have already retaken Abydos, a town on the Asian side, and they cross from Asia to Europe to attack the Persians in Sestos. There is an inversion at play here. There is also something of a grand ring composition: the Abduction Microlog explained the prelude to, and reasons for, the Trojan War and the beginning of enmity between Greeks and Asians (i.5.1). Protesilaus was the first to die when the Greek forces landed at Ilium.191 Artayctes is the last Persian to die in the Histories and his death, perhaps, marks an end of sorts.192 I say of sorts because this is not the end. Herodotus says that nothing else happened in that year, but in the next year a great deal happened indeed: 478/7 BC sees the downfall of Pausanias and the withdrawal of Sparta from the Greek alliance and from all interest in the Aegean. It also sees Athens' ascendancy to the primacy of the Hellenic World, the formation of the Delian League and the prosecution of the war to rid the Aegean

188 xf)v yap Aair|v Kai id Evouceovxa eGvea |3dp(3apa oiKT|ieuvTcu oi Ilepoai, rnv 8E Eupamnv Kai TO TsXAnviKov fjyirvTai KsxcopioOai (i.1.4). See Immerwahr (1966: 43). 189 This is the interpretation of Fornara (1971: 37). 190 But see Munson (2005: 65) who argues that this statement might be written from the Persian perspective in which case all non-Persians are barbarians. "By bracketing his own war story with references to his great predecessor, Herodotus accomplishes two things: he identifies a major source of his literary inspiration, and he uses Homer's authority to locate the front line of Greco-barbarian conflict not in the Balkan peninsula but in Asia..." (Shrimpton, 1997: 121). See also Ayo (1984: 34) 192 The observation made by Boedeker (1988: 32). Boedeker ( ibid 34) sees a similar logos in the Herodotean version of the siege of Sestos and Homer's siege of Troy. She asserts, correctly, that the mention of a Homeric hero would have made the analogy clear to his Athenian audience. Chapter Four: Surface and Symbol -192 and the Greek regions of Asia Minor of the Persians: in short, all that is covered in the Archaeology to Thucydides' History. But the Histories isn't about war, it is, I think, about &p%n in all of its meanings and connotations: First wrongs and initial causes as well as dominance, power and empire, with rule over the lonians a recurring and primary point of reference. The Histories is a syllogistic demonstration of the dangers of hubristic dpxn and the power of nemesis. Writing in Athens to Athenians, Herodotus chose a wonderful 'cliff-hanger' ending that comes loaded with a question: 'Here you are, Greeks of Hellas, on the verge of the re-conquest of the Aegean and Ionia, what kind of rulers will you choose to be? What dpxn is this?' Herodotus then provides an answer to the implicit question in the form, as is his wont, ofaperikope. That last line of ix.21: icai Kara TO STO<; TOUTO OU8SV STII rcXeov TOUTCOV sysvsxo, is, I think, an ideal ending but Herodotus adds the story of a conversation between Artayctes' grandfather(?) and Cyrus that took place just after Cyrus had overthrown Astyages and become king of Persia and Media. 'Look how strong we are', says Artembares, 'yet we live in a rugged and unprofitable land. We should attack and conquer our weak neighbours and become the rulers of rich and luxuriant lands.' But Cyrus says, 'no, because if we have wealth and luxury we too will become weak and become the prey of some other rugged and strong people.' Agreeing that Cyrus' words were wise, the Persians decided to stay in Persis and be truly free rather than becoming slaves to wealth and possessions (my very liberal paraphrase). So ends the Histories. But what a strange ending indeed. It is a contra-factual story even contradicting Herodotus' own earlier accounts. Of course the Persians under Cyrus did attack and conquer their neighbours and they kept doing so until stopped by the Greeks. One of the motifs used most frequently by Herodotus, but one that I have rarely touched on in this study, is that of the 'wise advisor' or, as I prefer, 'truth teller.' The first such instance in the Histories is that of the advice given to Croesus by Sandanis and that warning is the same but opposite to the one given in the Cyrus Epilogue: Croesus is considering attacking the Persians and Sandanis explains to Croesus that while he is rich the Persians are poor and by The Truth is in the Telling -193 attacking them would put himself in the position of having more to lose than to gain (i.71.2 - 4). Perhaps the Cyrus Epilogue is meant to form a ring composition with the Croesus-Sandanis passage but the location of the former, already seventy-one chapters into Book One, makes this seem unlikely. Perhaps the Croesus-Sandanis passage is, itself, a development of a theme we are expected to have gleaned from the Abduction Micrologl Is the question of the Trojan War one of considering the balance of cause and effect? Was it worth it to invade and destroy Ilium over a woman - was it worth it for Croesus to attack Cyrus, was it worth it for Darius and Xerxes to attack Hellas - and would the Persians not have been better off to stay in Persis? Perhaps, but I think this stretches interpretative reasonability too far. There is, nevertheless, a luxury/austerity antithesis established in Herodotus' choice of war narratives. Luxuriant Croesus attacks and loses to austere Cyrus (the most creative of the contrasts: Herodotus makes much of the wealth of Croesus but doesn't mention just how rich Cyrus would have been at the time, having taken control of Media); a richer Cyrus attacks and loses to the austere Massagetai; Cambyses defeats the wealthy Egyptians but loses to the austere Ethiopians; luxuriant Darius attacks and loses to the austere Scythians - where Herodotus makes the point that their austerity was their defence193 - and, finally; luxuriant Xerxes attacks and loses to the austere Greeks.194 The luxury/austerity antithesis can be seen as a construction of the geographical and ethnographical periodoi.195 Rosalind Thomas suggest that the Epilogue offers "an interpretation of the events within the Histories..." and by that she means a geo-ethnic interpretation: the point is that climate, land, affects wealth, way of life and success inversely: that is to say that rich lands produce

Herodotus, speaking in his own voice, says that: TH> 8E EKUGIKCO yevei §v usv TO usyicrov Trav dv0pra;rr]{cov 7ipny(xdT(ov oo(pc&Taxa ndvxcov 8^£Upr|Tai T

Thomas (2000: 106) for a specific summation but this is an argument developed throughout Thomas' study which links the Histories to Natural Philosophy. '7 "I think the prologue and the epilogue function as unifying book-ends, principles of solidity, binding the Histories together with a symbolic paradigm..." Ayo (1984: 31-2). ,8 The obvious objection here is that had Herodotus meant 'states' he would have used poleis instead. Yet, most of the rise and fall stories in Herodotus are not about cities but states. The content, I think, defines the vocabulary. '9 See, for example, Demaratus telling Xerxes that "Greece is a poor land where virtue (dpe-ny is acquired on the basis of wisdom and tradition (vouou ioxupou)" (vii.102). This and other passages like it become the core of Konstan's interpretation of the Epilogue (1987: 66etal.) The Truth is in the Telling -195

"the 'ghost' of Cyrus appears and there discloses the final revelation of the inner impoverished core of Xerxes' imperial court government."200 We needn't dwell on the origins of those conditions that lead to uPpiq but can accept the conclusion that wealth and power are primary amongst them and that this combination sets in motion a divine sequence that results in vefxsaic;. We also, I think, return to the beginning of this study where I suggested that Herodotus as an author and the Histories as an artefact should be evaluated in terms of the context of production and publication - the mid to late 430s or even the early 420s BC. Without that context the Histories leaves the reader asking, 'that was a nice story - despite the strange ending - but so what?' The answer for the student of history imbued in later traditions is that we now know what happened as far as the great war between Persia and Greece is concerned. But Herodotus could not have anticipated that later tradition so the answer, the proposition, that he intended must have been different and more in keeping with the attitudes and expectations of his intended audience. That audience wasn't interested in the reconstruction of the event, but only in the hermeneutic. So what could be the hermeneutic of the Histories as expressed in the final statement, the Cyrus Epilogue? John Moles offers a thesis that is, I think, compelling but also controversial and not without serious detractors. Moles points out that the contra- factual nature of the Epilogue is the signal to the audience that the moral, the hermeneutic, isn't about Cyrus, Xerxes or even the Persian Empire... "so, implicitly, the warning is Herodotus' and includes Athens..."201 Writing as the Peloponnesian War approached, perhaps even finishing the composition as it broke out, Herodotus may well have intended to warn luxuriant Athens that war with austere Sparta may not go so well, and that by her treatment of her subject states in the Aegean and Ionia, Athens has become the new tyrannos polis.

Ayo (1984: 31). Cyrus appears here just as the ghost of Darius appears to Xerxes in Aeschylus' Persae (ibid AT). Shrimpton (1997: 209) arrives at the same conclusion. 11 Moles (2002: 49-50). This is a thesis fist presented in his 1996 article 'Herodotus Warns the Athenians.' Rosaria Munson (2001a and b) expounds upon this interpretation with some success. Chapter Five: Telos

Nouoc; 6 7idvxo)v fiaaiXEvq Ovaxcov TS Kai dGavdxcov dyei 8iKaicov TO Piaioxaxov wiepxdxcu x£lpi Pindar; Fr. 169.1-4 SM

This dissertation began with a discussion of the relationship between divine time and historical time in the presentation of a prose narrative to an ancient Greek audience. It looked at Herodotus' Histories from the perspective of the audience's expectations in an attempt to locate the author-audience relationship within contexts both internal and external to the text: specifically, shared understandings relative to the [ivQoq - A,6yo<; dialectic, and the socio­ political context of the Peloponnesian War. It is an underlying proposition herein that a text like the Histories can only be understood through a contextual analysis with authorial intent and audience reception as evaluative parameters. The Histories especially requires such a disciplined approach because it stood alone: when Herodotus composed the text there was no paradigm - at least not that we know of - and although it is clear that Herodotus borrowed from other literary genres and took inspiration, even some method, from other intellectual pursuits, it is also clear that Herodotus produced something unique. The Histories has to be evaluated according to its location in place and time and its isolation in style and format, keeping in mind that it is an experimental text. To study a text qua text has not, normally, been the activity of the Historian but rather the domain of the Literary Critics. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable for an historian to look at a text like the Histories as an artefact itself,

1 "Law the king of all, of mortals and immortals, guides and justifies the violent act with its supreme hand." Humphreys (1987) trans. The Truth is in the Telling -197 an artefact of its time and place of composition, as well as a receptacle of artefacts from the times and places of the subjects within the text. This approach requires, of course, that we accept the possibility that the Histories is not a reconstruction of past events so much as a proposition concerning circumstances current to author and audience. It also requires that we abandon the notion that Herodotus wrote to or for posterity and that we assume a specific intended audience. Gordon Shrimpton argues that in such an interaction the audience, being the final arbiter, is the "dominant partner." The practical requirements of winning audience acceptance conditions the author's choices such that a range of propositions that might be advanced in a given text are limited. The audience knows what to expect - even in an experimental text - because the meta-narrative encompasses a pre­ determined set of values, perceptions and beliefs that are so closely tied to identity that to challenge or contradict the meta-narrative would be to alienate the intended audience.3 Linda Orr (a literary critic) calls this process a "focalization" which produces an automatic internal teleology, the "optical illusion" of history."4 Because of this interaction between author and audience and because any proposition that hopes to refine or define the past of a given community speaks to communal identity, History is essentially a political activity. This dissertation assumes that Herodotus wrote a proposition to a specific audience and that even though the content dealt with events of the past, the purpose and message spoke to the present of the intended audience/community. The process herein has been to attempt to separate past-narrative and present-proposition and to identify and unpack the latter. This is a work of history in that I am attempting to eavesdrop on a political and social conversation, the presentation of a proposition, that took place in Athens probably in 430 BC.

2 Shrimpton (1997: 50; 214). This is the major premise in Munson (2001a). See also Brock (2003: 4). According to Aristotle (Rhetoric\356a. 1-2) there are three elements to persuasion: the character of the speaker, the opinion of the audience, and the argument itself. In this formula, it is clear that audience opinion is the dominant element. Luraghi (2000: 233 - 35) suggests that the Archaeology in Thucydides is not 'education' but rather the rehearsal of known and accepted arguments. It ratifies the author with his audience. I suggest that the Hellenic Prosthekes in Herodotus serve much the same purpose. Bruno Latour (1987: 3; 21) calls this "Black Box" methodology and says that to understand an historical text we have to open the Black Boxes. 4 Orr (1986: 15-6). Chapter Five: Conclusion - 198

This evaluative basis for Herodotus' text contradicts the expectations of historical methodology as established in the academy, an establishment that the academy itself has pre-dated to Thucydides and in so doing has set a chronological and cultural context within which Herodotus has been found comparatively lacking. It is, I think, this unfair application of expectations that has motivated the Unitarian School of Herodotean scholars, and its most extreme representatives - the Liar School, to denigrate Herodotus for the Active elements in the Histories and, more generally, for his willingness to transmit narratives the 'truth' of which even he doubts. But the Analytical School, to which this dissertation aspires to contribute, takes a more sympathetic approach and while there are few in this group who would lay claim to a value neutral analysis they would, I think, claim an approach that attempts to interpret Herodotus by his own values (in so far as we can). The value system within which Herodotus and his audience functioned was tolerant of uuGoc; as an explanatory vehicle and, knowing that, Herodotus was simply conforming to standards and expectations when he included these Active elements.5 Despite areas of contention, both the Analytical School and the Unitarian School agree that Herodotus works with repetitive themes.6 On this point of agreement - both between the apparently

irreconcilable narrative traditions of JJ,U6O<; and Ax5yo<;, and between the divergent academic schools of the Unitarians and Analysts - it seems reasonable to build a

footing for reconciliation, to find the bridge between the WEEG narrative and the Active narrative units we are now calling perikopes. Because Rosalind Thomas (2000) has so clearly demonstrated that Herodotus follows several of the arguments and methods of the Ionian Intellectual movement, a methodology for deciphering Herodotus might follow the prescription of the First Sophistic, to allow apparent dichotomies and contradictions to stand while searching for and focussing on elements of similarity; a common denominator: apxn- It was argued above that the common

5 The task of the poet is partly to "evaluate the ancient stories, to seek in them patterns applicable to human life at any date" (Herington, 1991: 8). 6 "Herodotus frequently uses a more subtle type of historical explanation, that of repeating patterns of action and result. Literary in form but historical in content, these narrative patterns gain authority with each repetition." Shapiro (2000: 91). The Truth is in the Telling - 199 denominator that allows Aeschylus' Persae and Herodotus' Histories to share an audience without any apparent negative comparison is to be found in the moral conclusion rather than the event details. While this comparison requires that uu0o<; and A,6yo<; be evaluated by the same criteria and that in so doing some of the principles of modern historical ideology be abandoned, it allows an analysis of Herodotus the author more in keeping with the expectations and limitations of the author/audience relationship at the time of composition. The common denominator between Herodotus and Aeschylus is the interpretative paradigm suggesting that Xerxes lost the war against Hellas because of his fiPpic;.7 The Histories is a complexity within which we find a compilation of themes that includes a number of religious, political and social expressions, beliefs and behaviours that have been analyzed in terms of wisdom sayings, gnomoi, anecdotes, fables, topoi, tropes, and any other literary tag scholars have pinned on Herodotus in an effort to make the suit fit.8 While it can easily be demonstrated that i)(3pi<; is the dominant theme, all of these things can be grouped more generally as expressions of conduct, of behaviour.9 Frances Pownall's important study of morality expressions in Greek prose literature demonstrates quite effectively that the historians of the time were preoccupied with the behaviour and character of individuals and if Herodotus contributed to the establishment of a literary paradigm we could argue that his contribution is just that: moral evaluations of the character of historical actors with uPpi<; as the central theme.10

7 See p. 34 above. 8 I do not mean to imply futility here. The paroemiology of Herodotus has led to greater understanding of his method and meaning and studies such as Lang (1984) and Shapiro (2000) are of critical importance to the work I have done. Munson (2001) does much to tighten the definitions of these types of terms as they apply to Herodotus. See, for example, her employment of gnome (178-9). 9 "Behaviour, in Herodotus, is a function of norms which are constitutive of the social categories of being. The locus of value is in action that realizes those norms" (Konstan 1983: 19). But 'acts' are only the manifestation of character, see Pearson (1952: 217). 10 I disagree with Pownall, however, when she says that Xenophon was "the first historian to make the moral paradigm the central focus of his work" (2004: 85). Both Herodotus and Thucydides were moralists. Greek historiography seems to progress from a broad discussion of behavioural morality in Herodotus and Thucydides to the more specific focus on leadership in Xenophon culminating in the Alexander histories and Plutarch's collection of biographies. Chapter Five: Conclusion - 200

As a character flaw vfipic, is not an isolated condition but rather part of a process so common in the construction of [ivQoq that it is often referred to as the 'Tragic Trilogy.' As a process it has a determinate structure and, pace Hayden White, structure and content are inextricably interdependent.11 The Tragic Trilogy is the archetypal example of the Greek concept of inevitable outcome sequencing:12 The word Trilogy is, however, a bit misleading because there are actually four elements: the often unstated initiating element is 7TA,OI>TOC;, 6X,po<;, euTuxia or any other circumstance of good fortune. The initiating agent is unpredictable and often involves both circumstance and choice, but once the two combine, once bad choices have been applied to good fortune, the 'fate' of the actor is sealed, inevitable, and predictable.14 Those who see their good fortune as resulting from their own talents and undertakings, and fail to see their good fortune as a gift, or at least indulgence, of the gods which is both temporary and limited, develop a pathology of empowerment and entitlement that can be described simply as uPpic;. Donald Lateiner astutely observes that very often this state of mind manifests itself in irreverent or self-indulgent laughter.15 From this foolish and selfish mental state it is then innevitable that foolish and reckless decisions and choices will be made and this is the second stage of the sequence:

11 Herrington (1991:7) offers a more detailed analysis of the similarity between the tragedians and Herodotus in the employment of the "psychological sequence of prosperity, infatuation, and calamity." See also Finley (1965: 284). 12 Inevitable does not necessarily mean that we are dealing with 'fatalism.' Powell (1949: xxi) is mistaken to conclude that "Fatalism, indeed, is the deepest substratum of Herodotus' philosophy, and shows that the drama of pride and fall, sin and retribution, has for him no ultimate moral significance." A Greek audience, reading Croesus's line: vuv cov CTeipeoGai us fyiepog ejrfjA.06 ox ei' tiva f]8n 7idvTcov ei8e<; oipicoTatov (i.30.2) would know immediately that a tragic sequence is about to unfold. In case anyone misses the point, Herodotus uses the word 6^.po<; three times in the lines that follow. Another section with much the same theme is introduced with: Kai KQX; TOV Auaoiv EUTUXECOV ueycdooc; 6 noXuKpatnc; OUK £^.dv9ave (iii.40.1) wherein suxuxia is repeated eight times in the four lines of iii.40. Munson (2001a: 199 - 200) offers a succinct explanation of the sequence. 14 Predicted, in fact, by a Delphic oracle: See viii.77 where Herodotus asserts the "truth" of the Pythia based on a quoted prediction of divine retribution for the i5(3pi<; of Xerxes at Salamis. Lateiner, (1977:174 - 9); In Herodotus, those who laugh are often displaying their lack of understanding, or appreciation, for their own forthcoming demise. "Laughter in Greek literature is rarely pleasant, but here - while revealing character - it is, so to speak, fatal" (174). The Truth is in the Telling - 201 avt\. The foolish choices then set in motion a series of events that lead to negative outcomes and these outcomes, the results of the bad choices, bring down the vengeance of the gods, veueaic;. As a sequence it might be expressed as 1 7 'crime, consequence and punishment.' In Chapter Four I have suggested that Herodotus establishes the Tragic Trilogy as his guiding principle in the contstruction of the Croesus Macrolog, more specifically in the Atys-Adrastus Perikope. How and Wells (1928: 71) comment that Herodotus "has introduced a cult-myth into history; it has received a Greek colouring, for the steps taken to avert calamity are the means of bringing it to pass." But I think they understate the importance, the prevalence, of the Tragic Trilogy in Greek religious thought. This is no mere "cult-myth" but a creed as fundamental to ancient Greek religion as the Holy Trinity is to Christian religion. Hesiod begins his Works and Days (5-7), for example, with an invocation to Zeus who, "easily makes a man strong and easily brings the strong man low; easily he humbles the proud and raises the obscure, and easily he straightens the crooked and blasts the proud..." and in Euripides' Heraclidae (387-8) it is declared: "When presumptuous arrogance swells above mortal measure, Zeus will punish it." The Tragic Trilogy is not, then, about arrogance 1 R alone, but an explanation of how people fall from power and prosperity. The modern reader may not, but the ancient reader will, I believe, understand that the Tragic Trilogy is being introduced even as early as i.5.4. when Herodotus promises to write about the rise and fall of cities.

J. G. Griffiths (1991: 60) discusses, and rejects, the possibility that ate represented an actual psychic possession by a god - that those afflicted were no longer in control of their own actions and, therefore, no longer responsible. But ate is not the crime that results from hubris, hubris is itself a crime. See Herington (1991: 12). 17 This process is wonderfully articulated by Solon (Fragment 13.1-32, 65-76 West. John Porter trans. 2006). Herodotus' Solon offers Croesus a full explanation (i.29-33). See also Aesop's Two Game Cocks: Hesiod Works and Days 217-18, Alien 8' wiep "YPpiog tax£l £? xeXoq 8^eX,9ouoa: Diodorus xv.33.3 and Plutarch Demetrius 1.7. The point of this random and limited selection is simply to emphasise the consistency and permeance of the idea. 18 Immerwahr (1966:77) points out that Herodotus too is more interested in the descent from, rather than the rise to, power. Munson (2001a: 188) is emphatic when she says; "Punishment from the gods is a fundamental historical cause of human reversal in the Histories and is the only cause at any level that the narrator proclaims in general terms" Chapter Five: Conclusion - 202

As an overarching motif the i)Ppi<; theme seems to work for the Histories. The Tragic Trilogy is not, however, the theme that determines the structure; it is the a priori, it is the knowledge that Herodotus could assume on the part of his audience that licenses him to expand, to extrapolate and to explore the details of the past and to reveal, to make public, those details that contribute to, that define, the Tragic Trilogy. The structure of the Histories is built around the issue of definition: just what constitutes i>ppiq? What acts count as transgessions? In order to answer that question Herodotus had to focus on two specific elements: vouoq, the actual rule, and avria, the transgession. He also had to look for - to select really - outcomes that prove the sequence. The logic of the methodology is sound: if the vouoc; says that gods punish o5Ppi<; then the proof is in the punishment.1 Despite the general agreement amongst Herodotean scholars that uPpic; is a dominant theme in the Histories, none, to my knowledge, have undertaken an evaluation of the text based on the structure of the Tragic Trilogy - or any such moral paradigm - as a framework for the construction of the narrative. In the third chapter herein I attempt to present a structural schema determined by theme rather than subject content. The Histories is composed of three parts, that much is demonstrable even if there is reason to doubt and debate exactly where the divisions of those parts should occur. Each of those parts is composed of discreet Logoi (occasionally referred to as such by Herodotus himself) and through a thematic analysis I have shown, I think, that these logoi are structually consistent enough to show deliberation and intent on Herodotus' part. The structural consistency also reveals that each of these Logoi are composed of elements that can be described as Macrologs and Micrologs and that these elements display a structure, again thematic, that resembles the structure of the

19 "...the hand of a supernatural power at work can only be discerned by the close inspection of what happens" Gould (2003: 300). 20 I have toyed with the theory that the three parts of the Histories are uPpiq, axr| and veusaig, but, despite the uPpig of Croesus in Book One, the foolishness of Darius in Book Four and the defeat of Xerxes in Book Nine, this doesn't work. The theory I am now testing - although I think it unnecessary to develop here, is that the three parts are the three maxims at Delphi: Part One is 'know yourself, Part Two is 'nothing is excess' and Part Three is 'make a vow and seal your fate' (the vow, of course, being the vow by Xerxes, not to conquer Hellas, but to rival the gods in his domains). It is also possible that the three parts are Archaeology, Aitia and Nomos. The Truth is in the Telling - 203

Logos within which they reside. This structure, regardless of the size of the narrative unit, follows the pattern to which I have assigned the headings Archaeology, Aitia, Pragma, Nomos and Periodos with yet a further classification within the Aitia and Nomos elements; the Perikope. The way in which Herodotus links these elements to the Tragic Trilogy is not immediately clear and I think the reason is simple enough: If every logos was simply uppig - axn - veusaic;, the whole thing would become too mechanical, too much like a collection of fables a la Aesop or the paratactic writers to whom Herodotus has been (unfairly) compared. Herodotus undertook a deeper inquiry and that required a more complex presentational structure. Herodotus uses the Archaeologies to explain the origins, the development of the circumstances that lead to good fortune within which the hubristic character emerges and Herodotus nearly always follows the Archaeology with an Aitia section. The Periodoi work in conjunction with the Archaeologies - often 'bookending' the logos, because the factors leading to good fortune are not always to be explained merely in past events but often in cultural and geographical circumstances. Egypt, for example, is a product of the Nile and Herodotus begins the Egyptian Logos with a Geographical Periodos (ii. 5 - 34) before adding an ethnographic Periodos (35 - 99), both prior to the Archaeology (99 - 112) and Pragma (99 - 182). In the Scythian Logos (iv. 2-144) the Archaeology (5-16) is followed by the Periodos (7 - 118). In both of these Logoi a clear Aitia section is missing because each of these cultures are victims of Persian aggression rather than aggressors themselves. But wherever there is a fall from grace, there is the Aitia, where the character in question, enjoying his good fortune and thinking himself somehow blessed or even gifted, makes a bad decision or commits an unjust act either or both of which reveal the underlying uPpic;. Like dominos falling, the events consequential to the aitia play themselves out in the Pragma sections where axn only accelerates the process until a climactic moment is reached and VEUSOK; falls upon the character. There, at the point of greatest narrative tension, Herodotus

21 See Chapter Two, p.59. Chapter Five: Conclusion - 204 inserts his Nomos sections often chosing an apparent fiction, a Perikope, to draw attention to and make plain the rule. In Chapter Four I have presented analyses of what I believe to be the major Perikopes in the Histories. Minor perikopes that have been omitted for the sake of brevity but most of these minor perikopes are positioned at just such a point of narrative tension and each bears a similar moral tone to those discussed in Chapter Four. The Fable of the Dancing Fish (i.141) follows the subjection of Ionia by Cyrus following the defeat of Croesus: the Sage's Advice (i.170) follows the second conquest of Ionia: the Silver Thief of Egypt (ii.121) and Ladike the wife of Amasis (ii. 181) are certainly perikopes but their positions are more complex: the Blindness of Epizelus (vi.117) follows the Battle of Marathon: the Blindness of Eurytus and Aristodemus (vii.229) follows the Battle of Thermopylae: the Lady of Cos (ix. 76) and Lampon of Aegina (ix.78) follow the Battle of Plataea: and the Blindness of Euenius (ix.92 - 6) comes with the first Hellenic campaign to re-conquer the Aegean. The Histories, I think, is a study in vouoi, in the rules that condition the outcomes of the Tragic Trilogy sequence and Herototus' structural presentation of those rules forms something of a grand syllogism with multiple supporting arguments and the logoi themselves acting as witnesses. In this way I think the Histories is more a 'sociology' than a 'history' or, perhaps, a geneology of nomos - a phrase that immediately conjurs a Herodotus - Nietzsche - Foucault association that is really too abstract to develop here. Nevertheless, the point can be made that Herodotus, as much as Nietzsche and Foucault, was exploring relationships of power - both between men and between men and gods - and he sought to reveal the vouxx; of those relationships. Understanding behaviour relative to rules is not something Historians of the modern era have done well but there is, it seems, a Sociology of History now underway. I would suggest that Michel Foucault stands as the methodological guide - if not the founder - of this new approach and despite very different

For an erudite analysis of this last perikope, and for the point at which this defining term is coined, see A. Griffiths (1999). The Truth is in the Telling - 205 articulations I am not sure that Herodotus and Foucault wouldn't understand each other even if they didn't agree on every point. Foucault, for example, says that the "principle that explains history" is "bodies, passions, and accidents" and the contentious word here is "accidents." Much of the Annales School ideology is packed into that one word and Herodotus, I think, would object.24 Because of the Tragic Trilogy, Herodotus would argue that the principle is 'passions, choices and bodies.' There are few accidents in the Histories and very little is written off to Chance.25 But Herodotus and Foucault would agree on the 'passions' and the 'bodies.' By 'passions' I think Foucault is referring to the potentially irrational, apparently unpredictable and often predatory human psyche. In the Histories these same passions conspire with circumstances to create the event: the word, the concept, in Greek thinking that encompasses all that can be said about irrational and often destructive passions is uppic;. Can we suggest, then, that Foucault's 'bodies' is Herodotus' axr|? That certainly seems to be the point in Herodotus' presentation of Croesus' war with Cyrus, Cyrus' war with the Massagetai, Darius' invasion of Scythia and Xerxes' invasion of Hellas. Foolish decisions based mostly on reckless ambition led tens of thousands to their deaths. What will separate Herodotus and Foucault without the possibility of reconciliation, however, is vejxsoic;. For Herodotus the final outcome, the correction for destructive capacity of uPpic; and axr] requires a divine hand and in the consistent application of that divine hand divinity itself is demonstrated, even proven. Explanations including divine intervention are, of course, not tolerated in the academy today. It is a much more useful exercise for current historians to work towards more pragmatic explanations of the Persian loss in 480/79 BC. The

23 Foucault (2003: 54). 24 Otherwise, and more famously, articulated by Fernand Braudel {The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Vol 1.: University of California Press. 1966) who says that the great events are mere "surface disturbances, crests of foam that the tides of history carry on their strong backs" (21) - tides that are propelled by economies, climates and populations rather than individuals or the singularities they produce. 25 Immerwahr (1966: 164-5 et al) argues that Herodotus reduces divine intervention to matters of mere chance but I do not think his arguments could or would be defended by many scholars today. Scullion (2006: 203), for example, states that "Herodotus' divinity is real and active but remote, intelligible primarily as a set of principles governing the universe." Chapter Five: Conclusion - 206

War is analyzed now in terms of logistics, displacements and tactics and, thanks to Carl von Clausewitz' On War and the many military theorists who have continued his work we can quite rationally dissect the event by applying theories of the 'Culminating Point of Attack' or the 'Centre of Gravity', 'Economy of Force' and a host of other very pragmatic and even 'scientific' formulae. We can better understand the War, but can we understand Herodotus and his audience with this type of approach? I think not. We need two histories: the one in which we subject the past to our disciplined investigative methods and the other in which we try to see a past in terms germane to those who made it their past through the application of uuOoc; and/or Xoyoc;. With two histories we then create, or at least define, two pasts because the Persian War in the minds of the people of Athens in 430 BC is not the same as the Persian War in the minds and publications of the academy of today.26 Their past is an object that can be defined and studied because it survives for us in the literature and, although I quote her somewhat out of context, I think that Linda Orr is correct to ask if we need "both a history of our belief in our own historical and linguistic representations" and a "sociology of literature."27 Perhaps this programme is already underway: Gabriel Herman's Morality and Behaviour (2007) sets in motion a field of study too long overlooked in the field of Ancient History. Herman asks how we as historians can claim to know what someone did without an understanding of the "motivational complex" driving the action and the behavioural and cognitive norms, made up of familial, social, religious, statute and even fashionable vojxoi, which inform the evaluation of those actions.28 Our understanding of ancient historical writing will benefit greatly from Herman and others who undertake this kind of work. It really

26 Of the Western Academy, that is. Yet a third history exists in the Iranian Academy. This is not the place to explore alternative histories, suffice it to point the reader to the publications of Shapur Shahbazi who, even after leaving Iran, maintained a pro-Iranian flavour in his work, especially relative to the Alexander histories. What is lamentably lacking is the 'Hellenic War' narrative that might have been produced in Persia at the time and would certainly have given a different flavour to the campaign of Xerxes. 27 Orr (1986: 14). 28 For a translation of nomos, Herman would prefer "observance" to 'law' or even 'custom' (16-19). On behavior and community in general Feyerabend, (1981: 27) has some very good observations where empiricism is the issue. The Truth is in the Telling - 207 constitutes the completion of a circle, a coming home, if you will: Our ancient sources never intended to preserve or reconstruct 'the past' but rather to construct an episteme of the human experience. The contents of the Histories, and most Greek historical literature, are demonstrations, examples that combine to form a study of the behavioural norms that license or restrict human actions.29 The problem that Herodotus encountered in conducting a study of vouoi based on recent events was that an effective and informative study required accurate information about the actors and the events and on this side of the equation Herodotus looked to the Natural Philosophers and forensic orators for method. Having done his best to determine with accuracy who did what and why, Herodotus had then to find a judgement modality, a codex if you will, of vouoi against which those actions and events could be evaluated and there he found the marriage between ui>0o<; and A,6yog where the former provides the rule and the latter the proofs. The 'truth coincidence' between the two could be seen not in the content as a whole or in detail, but only in the outcome, the xzkoc,. Herodotus conducted an inquiry into processes rather than pasts; an inquiry into sequences and their outcomes and he sought to establish 'truth coincidences' not only between outcomes of known and verifiable sequences of events but also between those events and entrenched mythic traditions. It is not only in the xsA,oc; where Herodotus finds the greatest coincidence between \ivQoc, and A,6yoc;, but xeA,o<; is also the only reconciliation between competing or apparently contradictory A.6yoi. It is the very unreliability of the past that directs Herodotus to the only constant he can identify. The one element of the Abduction Microlog that was identified in Chapter Three but never discussed or developed was the 'other version', the alter- narrative. This and other studies of Herodotus devote considerable attention to the opening line of the proem: 'HpoSoiou AXiKapvrioosoq laTopinc; an68s£,ic, f|5s, and not without justification, but the opening line of the narrative proper is often

29 The Histories opens with a discussion of nomos: is it okay to kidnap women? The Persians say it is not such a great crime but the Greeks think otherwise. Is it okay to destroy Ilium over the kidnapping of a woman? The Greeks say it is a justified response but the Persians say it is criminally excessive. Nomos is relative. See Thomas (2000: 103). 30 Cp 90 -91. Chapter Five: Conclusion - 208

ignored and is, I think, equally interesting: nepasrov uiv vuv ol Xoyioi Ooivucac; airiotx;

31 Munson (2001: 35) says that employing an alternative source here "introduces a verbal quarrel that remains unresolved." 32 5oKE6i 5s uoi Kai "Ounpog xov A.6yov TOUTOV Jtu0£a6ar dXk' ox> yap o^oicoq sq xf|v £7IOJIOUr|V £U7Ip£7lf|<; ?|V TCp ETEpCp TCp 7t£p EXpfjaaTO (ii.l 16.1). 33 And this, I think, should always be considered in comparison to Thucydides i.22.4 34 C. P. Chapter iv, pp. 138 - 9 where we discussed the manipulation of the name 'Cyno' into a divine rescue myth. The Truth is in the Telling - 209

This is, I think, a suitable explanation for the otherwise inexcusable selectivity in the Histories?5 Past narratives can never be thorough regardless of the methods or discipline employed; we do not know, for example, what Xerxes had for breakfast on the morning of the Battle of Salamis but we don't need to know.36 It can be argued that unless we know a specific detail we are incapable of deciding on its relevance, so proper historical method should be to gather and verify as many details as possible. That is certainly true where 'we', the modern academy, are the primary investigators. But the Xoyoypdcpoc;, as Herodotus reconstituted that actor, is as familiar to Hesiod as to Hippocrates and he retains the right to control the content and the message, to determine for his audience the relevance of a given piece of data.37 It does not interest Herodotus so much if a story is true or untrue in terms of an narrative of an event that actually occurred, but how the story effects belief and informs decisions. Again I imagine a conversation between Herodotus and Foucault were either could say, T am interested in "how effects of truth are produced within discourses which in themselves are neither true nor false." Because Herodotus understands that the logos can contain "effects of truth" even when the logos itself cannot be verified he is unconcerned with the truth content. What interests Herodotus is that contradictory logoi can both exist "as real logoi, and as logoi they shape the beliefs and actions of others." The Histories, then, can be seen as a collection of logoi as artefacts and as such "he preserves the integrity of the logoi as objects in the world - complex objects that may or may not be true but are in any case genuine logoi.,,4°

"...each authorial interruption again reminds us that Herodotus' narrative is not an unmediated transcription of res gestae but a set of authorial choices" (Dewald 1987: 150). 36 On the other hand, we can easily find out what Neil Armstrong had for breakfast the day he stepped on the moon, not because history is more accurate today, but because the technology of the breakfast itself is part of the story and, therefore, relevant. 37 Liddell-Scott suggests that X,oyoypacpog and Xoyorcoioc; are equivalent and this is, I think, a gross oversimplification. When Herodotus calls Hecataeus a A.oyo;toi6<; (ii. 143.1; v.36.2) he specifically means "maker of stories" and when Herodotus says ypcupw (ii. 123.1 especially) he means "I record the story." 38 It is Foucault (1984: 60) who actually says it - and Herodotus would agree. 39 Dewald, (1987: 166). 40 Ibid 168. Chapter Five: Conclusion - 210

What remains is to determine Herodotus' point. What do all of these moral propositions amount to? Do the individual messages of the perikopes form a critical mass of sorts - a grand syllogism with a single conclusion? I believe they do, but advancing any theory to explain the grand message would, I think, be premature. This dissertation hopes to make a contribution to Herodotean studies by way of opening a debate rather than closing one and, I suggest, despite a somewhat declarative tone in what has preceded, I have intended to ask questions rather than give answers. The structural schema I have suggested in Chapter Three represents a preliminary theory the very novelty of which means that refinement and revision are necessary. I am confident that a theme based structure offers better explanations that a content based structure. That is to say that much of Book Three is not about Cambyses and Polycrates but rather employs those characters in a narrative about despotism. The career of Cambyses forms the content, but the theme transcends the individual person. The whole notion of the perikope and its defining characteristics is also something in need of further refinement. My greatest ambition for this undertaking is to gain admission to that circle of scholarship where these questions and issues can be shared an discussed, to participate in an academic debate that would, in a rather Popperian fashion, test the theory through 'falsification.' I have made my case, but as with all literature, its value will be determined by others. Bibliography

Adcock, F.E. 1973 (1963) Thucydides and His History. Hamden Conn.: Archon Books (originally Cambridge UP). Aly, Wolf. 1921. Volksmarchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodots und seinen Zeitgenossen: Eine Untersuchen iiber dei volkstumlichen Elemente der altgriechischen Prosaerzdhlung. Gottingen. Appadurai, Arjun. 1981. 'The Past as a Scarce Resource' Man 16, no. 2: 201-19. Armayor, O. Kimball. 1985. Herodotus' Autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth of Egypt. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Atkinson, John. 2000. 'Originality and its Limits in the Alexander Sources of the Early Empire' in Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. B. Bosworth and E. Baynham eds. Oxford: Clarendon; 307-325. Ayo, Nicholas. 1984. 'Prolog and Epilog: Mythical History in Herodotus' in Ramus 13; 31-47. Baehr, Joannes Christianus Felix, trans. 1824. Ctesiae Cnidii Operum Reliquiae. Frankfurt a. Main. Bakker, Egbert J. 2002. 'The Making of History: Herodotus' Histories Apodexis' in Brill's Companion to Herodotus. Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong and Hans van Wees edts. Brill: Leiden, Boston, Koln; 3 - 32. Balcer, Jack Martin. 1994. 'Herodotus, the 'Early State' and Lydia' Historia 43.2; 246ff. — 1991. 'The East Greeks Under Persian Rule: A Reassessment,' in Achaemenid History VI. Asia Minor and Egypt: Old Cultures in a New Empire. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten; 57-65. Berger and Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday. Bloomer, W. Martin. 1993. 'The Superlative "Nomoi" of Herodotus' "Histories" in Classical Antiquity 12.1: 30 - 50. Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Routledge. Boedeker, Deborah. 1988. 'Protesilaos and the End of Herodotus' Histories' Classical Antiquity 7; 30-48. Bosworth, A.B. (Brian). 2000. Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction. A.B. Bosworth and E.J. Baynham edts. Oxford: Clarendon Press. —1996. Alexander and the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press. —1988. From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Braund, David. 1998. 'Herodotus on the Problems of Reciprocity' in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite and Richard Seaford edts. Oxford UP.; 159-180. Bibliography-212

Brown, Stuart C. 1988. 'The Medikos Logos of Herodotus and the Evolution of the Median State' in Achaemenid History III, Method and Theory. Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop. Amelie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi- Weerdenburg eds. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor Het Nabije Oosten; 71-86. Cancik, Hubert, Schneider, Helmuth and Orton, David E. edts. 2005. Brill's New Pauly. Vol 6 of 15. Originally published as Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopadie der Antike. 1996. 15 vols. Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider edts. Brock, Roger. 2003. 'Authorial Voice and Narrative Management in Herodotus' in Herodotus and His World; Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest. Peter Derow and Robert Parker edts. Oxford UP; 3-16. Burke, Peter. 1993. History and Social Theory. Cornell UP. Butterfield, H. 1965 (1931). The Whig Interpretation of History. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co. Cagnazzi, Silvana. 1975. 'Tavola dei 28 Logoi di Erodoto' Hermes 103: 385 - 423. Cargill, Jack. 1977. 'The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Fall of Lydia, consensus with feet of clay.' AJAH 2; 97-116. Cartledge, Paul. 2000. 'Greek Political Thought: the historical context.' The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. Cambridge University Press; 11-22. Castriota, David. 1992. Myth, Ethos, and Actuality. Official Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens. University of Wisconsin Press. Chaisson, Charles. 2003. 'Herodotus' Use of Attic Tragedy in the Lydian "Logos" ' in Classical Antiquity 22.1; 5 - 35. Cobet, Justus von. 1971. Herodots Exkurse und die Frage der Einheit seines Werkes. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH. Cohen, David. 1991. 'Sexuality, Violence, and the Athenian Law of Hubris.' Greece & Rome 38.2. 171-188. Collingwood, R.G. 1946. The Idea of History. Oxford: Clarendon. — 2002 (1938). An Autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon. Connor, W. Robert. 1984. Thucydides. Princeton UP. Crane, Gregory. 1998. Thucydides and the Ancient Simplicity: The Limits of Political Realism. University of California Press. —1996. The Blinded Eye: Thucydides and the New Written Word. Lanham Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Pulbishers, Inc. D'Angelo, Frank J. 1987. "Prolegomena to a Rhetoric of Tropes" in Rhetoric Review 6.1; 32-40. Danzig, Gabriel. 2008. 'Rhetoric and the Ring: Herodotus and Plato on the Story of Gyges as a Politically Expedient Tale' in Greece and Rome 55.2; 169 - 192. Davies, J. K. 1993 (1978) Democracy and Classical Greece. Second Edition. Harvard UP. —1971. Athenian Propertied Families, 600 - 300 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bibliography-213

De Jong, Irene J. F. 2002. 'Narrative Unity and Units' in Brill's Companion to Herodotus. Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong and Hans van Wees edts. Brill: Leiden, Boston, Koln; 245-66. Demand, Nancy. 1987. 'Herodotus' Encomium of Athens: Science or Rhetoric?' in American Journal of Philology 108.4; 746 - 58. De Selincourt, Aubrey. 1962. The World of Herodotus. Seeker and Warburg: London. Desmond, William. 2004. "Punishment and the Conclusion of Herodotus' Histories\ GRBS 44. 19-40. Dewald, Carolyn. 2006. 'Humour and Danger in Herodotus' in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Carolyn Dewald and John Marincola eds. Cambridge UP; 145-64. —And John Marincola 1987. 'A 'Selective Introduction to Herodotean Studies' in Arethusa 20: Herodotus and the Invention of History; 9 - 40. —1984. Untitled Review of Evans, J.A.S. Herodotus (1982). in American Journal of Philology 105.1; 107-8. —1987. 'Narrative Surface and Authorial Voice in Herodotus' Histories'' in Arethusa 20: Herodotus and the Invention of History; 147 - 70. Drews, Robert. 1973. The Greek Accounts of Eastern History. Harvard UP. Driver, G. R.. 1965 (1971). Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford UP. Durkheim, Emile. 1965 (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Joseph Ward Swain trans. New York: The Free Press. Edmunds, Lowell. 1993. 'Thucydides in the Act of Writing' Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all 'eta ellenistica: scriti in onore di Bruno Gentili. a cura di Roberto Pretagostini. Rome: Gruppo editoriale internazionale. Vol 1.; 831 - 52. Edwards, Michael J. 2000. ' Antiphon and the Beginnings of Athenian Literary Oratory' in Rehetorica 18; 227-242. Evans, J. A. S. 1982. Herodotus. Twayne Publishers: Boston. Fehling, D. 1989 (1971 in German). Herodotus and His 'Sources'; Citation, Invention and Narrative Art.. J. G. Howie trans. University of Leeds. Feyerabend Paul. 1981. Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical Papers Volume II. Cambridge UP. Finley, Moses I. 1965. 'Myth, Memory and History' in History and Theory vol. 4.3; 281- 302. Flory Stewart. 2000. Review of James Romm. Herodotus. Yale University Press. 1998. In American Journal of Philology 121.2; 309-13. —1997. 'Herodotus' in Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 176. Ward W. Briggs ed. Detroit: Gale Research; 182-190. —1987. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.. —1980 'Who Read Herodotus' Histories' in American Journal of Philology. 101.1; 12- 28. Bibliography - 214

Flower, Michael. 2000. From Simonides to Isocrates: The Fifthy-Century Origins of Fourth-Century Panhellenism' in Classical Antiquity 19.1; 65 - 101. Fornara, Charles William. 1990. 'Human History and the Constraint of Fate in Herodotus' in; Conflict, Antithesis, and the Ancient Historian. June W. Allison ed. Ohio State UP; 25-45. —1989. Untitled review of Flory, S. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus in JHS 109; 217-8. —1983. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome. University of California Press. —1971.(A) 'Evidence for the Date of Herodotus' Publication.' JHS 91; 25-34. —1971. (B) Herodotus; An Interpretative Essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Forsdyke, Sara. 2001. 'Athenian Democratic Ideology and Herodotus' Histories' AJPh 122. 329-358. Foucault, Michel. 2003 (1997). Society Must be Defended. Lectures at the College De France, 1975-1976. Arnold I. Davidson ed. David Macey trans. New York: Picador. —1984. The Foucault Reader. Paul Rabinow ed. New York: Pantheon Books. —1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972 - 1977. Colin Gordon ed.: Colin Gordon et al. trans. New York: Pantheon. —1970. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock Pulbications. Frost, Frank J. 1987. 'Attic Literacy and the Solonian Seisachtheid' Ancient World 15. 51-8. Fuchs, Eckhardt. 2002. 'The Politics of the Republic of Learning' in Across Cultural Borders: Historiography in Global Perspective. Eckhard Fuchs and Benedikt Stuchty eds. New York: Rowman & Littlefield; 205 - 44. Gagarin, Michael. 2001. 'The Truth of Antiphon's Truth? in Before Plato, Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI. Anthony Preus ed. State University of New York Press.; 171-85. —1981. Drakon and Early Athenian Homicide Law. New Haven: Yale University Press. Garnsey, Peter. 1985. 'Grain for Athens' in Essays in Greek History Presented to G.E.M. de Ste.Croix on his 75fth. Birthday. P. A. Cartledge ed. London: Duckworth; 62 - 75. Geertz, Clifford. 1984: Negara; The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali. Princeton University Press. —1983. Local Knowledge; further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books. —1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gould, John. 2003. 'Herodotus and the 'Resurrection" in Herodotus and His World: Essays from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest. Peter Derow and Robert Parker eds. Oxford UP.; 297 - 304. Grafton, Anthony. 1994. 'The Footnote from De Thou to Ranke' in History and Theory Studies in the Philosophy of History; Proof and Persuasion in History, Theme Issue 33. Anthony Grafton and Suzanne L. Marchand eds. Wesleyan UP; 53 - 76. Bibliography - 215

Gray, Vivienne J. 2007. 'Structure and Significance (5.55-69)' in Reading Herodotus; A Study in the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus' Histories. Cambridge UP. 202 - 25. —2001. 'Herodotus' Literary and Historical Method: Arion's Story (1.23-24)' in AJPh 122.1 11-28. —1986. 'Xenophons Hiero and the Meeting of the Wise Man and Tyrant in Greek Literature' CQ 36. 115-123. Griffiths, Alan. 2006. 'Stories and storytelling in the Histories' in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Carolyn Dewald and John Marincola eds. Cambridge UP; 130-144. —1999. 'Euenius the Negligent Nightwatchman (Herodotus 9.92-6)' in From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought. Richard Buxton ed. Oxford UP; 169-82. Griffiths, John Gwyn. 1991. The Divine Verdict: A study of divine justice in the ancient religions. Brill. Hammond, Nicholas G. L. 1940. 'The Seisachtheia and the Nomothesia of Solon' JHS 60; 71-83. Havelock, E. A. 1988. The Muse Learns to Write: Reflections on Orality and Literacy from Antiquity to the Present. Yale UP. Hall, Edith. 1996. Aeschylus, Persians. Warminster: Aris and Phillips. —1993. 'Asia unmanned: Images of victory in classical Athens' in, War and Society in the Greek World. John Rich and Graham Shipley eds. London: Routledge. 108-19. —1991. Inventing the Barbarian, Greek Self Definition Through Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon. Hansen, Mogens Herman. 1991. The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Ideology. J. A. Crook trans. Oxford UK, Cambridge USA: Blackwell. —1990. 'Solonian Democracy in Fourth-Century Athens' in Aspects of Athenian Democracy: Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes XI. W. R. Connor et al. edts. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press; 71-99. Hartog, Francois. 2000. 'The Invention of History: The Pre-History of a Concept from Homer to Herodotus' History and Theory, 39.3; 384-95. —1988. The Mirror of Herodotus. University of California Press. Helm, Peyton R. 1980. 'Herodotus' Medikos Logos and Median History.' Iran 19; 85-90. Henderson, John. 2007. 'The Fourth Dorian Invasion' and 'The Ionian Revolt' in Reading Herodotus: A Study in the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus' Histories. Cambridge UP. 289-31. Herington, John. 1991. 'The Poem of Herodotus' mArion, Third Series 1.3: 5 - 16. Herman, Gabriel. 2007. Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens: A Social History. Cambridge University Press. Hornblower, Simon. 2003. 'Panionios of Chios and Hermotimos of Pedasa (Hdt. 8.104- 6)' in Herodotus and His World; Essays from a Conference in Memmory of Geoge Forrest. Peter Derow and Robert Parker edts. Oxford UP; 37 - 57. Bibliography-216

—1994. 'Narratology and Narrative Techniques in Thucydides' in Greek Historiography. Simon Hornblower, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 131-66. —1991. A Commentary on Thucydides. 2 vol. Oxford: Clarendon Press. —1987. Thucydides. London: Duckworth How, W. W. and Wells, J. 1928 (1912). A Commentary on Herodotus. 2vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Humphreys, Sally. 1987. 'Law, Custom and Culture in Herodotus' in Arethusa 20; 211 - 220. Hunter, Virginia. 1982. Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides. Princeton University Press. Iggers, Georg G. 1997. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge. Middletown Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press. Imrnerwahr, Henry R. 1966. 'Form and Thought in Herodotus'. Philological Monographs 23. Walton Morris ed. American Philological Association, Cleveland, Press of Western Reserve University. —1956. 'Aspects of Historical Causation in Herodotus' TAP A 87. 241-80 Ingenkamp, H. G. 2004. 'How to Present a Statesman?' in, The Statesman in Plutarch's Works, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society. Vol. I. Lukas de Blois et al. eds. Leiden, Boston: Brill. 67 - 86. Irwin, Elizabeth and Greenwood, Emily. 2007. Introduction to, Reading Herodotus; A Study in the Logoi in Book 5 of Herodotus' Histories. Cambridge UP. Jacoby, Felix. 1913. 'Herodotus' in RE, Supplementband 2. Stuttgard; 205 - 520 (=Griechische Historiker. Stuttgard. 1956; 7 - 164). Johnston, A.M. 1996. 'Time as a Psalm In St. Augustine' in Animus 1. www.swgc.mun.ca/animus. Justi, Ferdinand. 1963 (1895). Iranisches Namenbuch. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Kagan, Donald. 1969. The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Cornell UP. Kelly, Donald. 1998. Faces of History: Historical Inquiry from Herodotus to Herder. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kenny, Michael G. 1999. 'A Place for Memory: The Interface between Individual and Collective History" Comparative Studies in Society and History 41.3; 420 - 437 Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. Yale University Press. Konstan, David. 1987. 'Persians, Greeks and Empire' Arethusa 20. 59-73 —1983. 'The Stories in Herodotus' Histories: Book I' Helios 10. 1-22. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970 (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science Vol. II.2. Otto Nuerath ed. Lang, Mabel L. 1984. 'Herodotean Narrative and Discourse' in, Martin Classical Lectures 28. Harvard University Press. —1992. 'Prexaspes and Usurper Smerdis.' JNES. 51.3; 201-7. Bibliography - 217

Lateiner, Donald. 1990. 'Deceptions and Delusions in Herodotus' in Classical Antiquity 9.2: 230-46. —1989. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. —1987. 'Nonverbal Communication in the Histories of Herodotus' Arethusa 20.83-107 —1977. 'No Laughing Matter: A Literary Tactic in Herodotus' TAP A 107: 173-82 Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science In Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press. —1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Catherine Porter trans. Harvard University Press. Lattimore, Richmond. 1958. 'The Composition of the History of Herodotus' in Classical Philology 53:9-21. —1939. 'The Wise Advisor in Herodotus' in Classical Philology 34.1; 24 - 35. Lesky, Albin. 1966 (1957/8) A History of Greek Literature. James Willis and Cornells de Heer trans. London: Methuen &b Co. First published as Geschischte de Griechischen Literatur. Bern: Francke Verlag. Leveque, Pierre, and Vidal-Naquet, Pierre. 1996 (1964). Cleisthenes the Athenian: An Essay on the Representation of Space and Time in Greek Political Thought from the End of the Sixth Century to the Death of Plato. David Ames Curtis trans. New Jersey: Humanities Press. Long, Timothy. 1987. Repetition and Variation in the Short Stories of Herodotus. Frankfurt am Main: Athenaum. Loraux, Nicole. 2006. The Divided City: On Memory and Forgetting in Ancient Athens. Corine Pache and Jeff Fort trans. New York: Zone Books. —1993. The Children of Athena: Athenian Ideas about Citizenship & the Division Between the Sexes. Caroline Levine trans. Princeton UP. —1986. 'Thucydide ecrit La Guerre du Peloponnese' in Metis. Anthropologic des mondes grecs anciens vol. 1.1: 139-161. Luraghi, Nino. 2000. 'Author and Audience in Thucydides' Archaeology, Some Reflections' in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 100: 226 - 39. Macan, Reginald Walter. 1895. Herodotus. The Fourth Fifth and Sixth Books. MacMillan and Co: London and New York. —1973. 'Herodotus, the Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books.' 2 vols. Reprinted in Greek History. New York: Arno Press. Markianos, S. S. 1980. 'The Democratic Version of the Solonian Constitution' Hellenika 32;255-66. Marincola, John 2007. 'The Persian Wars in Fourth-Century Oratory and Historiography', in E. Bridges, E. Hall, and P. J. Rhodes, eds., Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars 472 BCE-2003 CE. Oxford; 105-125. —1997. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge UP. —1987. 'Herodotean Narrative and the Narrator's Presence' Arethusa 20. 121-137. Markianos, S. S. 1980. 'The Democratic Version of the Solonian Constitution' Hellenika 32; 255-66. Bibliography-218

Mclnerney, Jeremy. 2004. '"Do You See What I See?" Plutarch and Pausanias at Delphi' in, The Statesman in Plutarch's Works, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society. Vol. I. Lukas de Blois et al. eds. Leiden, Boston: Brill; 43-55. McNeal, R. A. ed. 1986. Herodotus Book I. Lanham, New York, London: University Press of America. Meier, Christian. 1990 (1980). The Greek Discovery of Politics. David McLintock trans. Cambridge MA, London: Miller, Margaret C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the fifth century BC. Cambridge University Press. Missiou, Anna. 1992. The Subversive Oratory of Andokides; politics, ideology and decision making in democratic Athens. Cambridge University Press. —1998. 'Reciprocal Generosity in the Foreign Affairs of Fifth-Century Athens and Sparta' in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite and Richard Seaford edts. Oxford UP.; 181 - 97. —1993. AOYAOE TOY BASIAEQZ: The Politics of Translation. Classical Quarterly 43.2; 377-391. Moles, John. 2002. 'Herodotus and Athens' in Brill's Companion to Herodotus. Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong and Hans van Wees edts. Brill: Leiden, Boston, Koln; 33 -52. —1996. 'Herodotus Warns the Athenians' In Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar, vol. 9. Leeds; 259-84.. Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1985. 'Herodotus Today' SStor.l; 1-3. Morgan, Kathryn A. 1998. 'Designer History: Plato's Atlantis Story and Fourth-Century Ideology' JHS 118; 101-118.. Munson, Rosaria Vignolo. 2005. Black Doves Speak; Herodotus and the Languages of Barbarians. Center for Hellenic Studies. Harvard UP. —2001a. Telling Wonders: Ethnographic and Political Discourse in the Work of Herodotus. University of Michigan Press. —2001b. 'Ananke in Herodotus' in JHS 121: 30 - 50. Myers, John. 1953. Herodotus the Father of History. Oxford UP. Naddaf, Gerard. 2001. 'Anaximander's Measurements Revisited' Before Plato; Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI. Anthony Preus ed. State University of New York Press; 5 - 22. Naiden, F. S. 1999. 'The Prospective Imperfect in Herodotus' Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 99; 135 - 49. Novick, Peter. 1999 (1988) That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge University Press. Ober, Josiah. 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens: Rhretoric, Ideology and the Power of the People. Princeton University Press. Bibliography-219

Olender, Maurice. 1994. 'Europe, or How to Escape Babel', in History and Theory Studies in the Philosophy of History; Proof and Persuasion in History, No. 33. Anthony Grafton and Suzanne L. Marchand eds. Wesleyan University Press; 5 - 25. Oliver, James H. 1968. 'The Civilizing Power: A Study of the Panathenaic Discourse of Aelius Aristides Against the Background of Literature and Cultural Conflict, with Text, Translation, and Commentary', in Transactions of the American Philological Society, New Series 58.1. Orr, Linda. 1986. 'The Revenge of Literature: A History of History' New Literary History 18; 1-22. Pearson, Lionel. 1952. 'Prophasis and Aitia' Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 83; 205 - 23. Pedley, John Griffiths. 1968. Sardis in the Age of Croesus. University of Oklahoma Press. Plant, Ian M. 1999. 'The Influence of Forensic Oratory on Thucydides' Principles of Method' in Classical Quarterly, New Series 49.1; 62 -73. Pohlenz, Max. 1937. Herodot, der erste Geschichtschreiber des Abendlandes. Teubner. Popper, Karl. 1963. 'Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge' in, Conjectures & Refutations; 215-50. Postan, Michael M. 1971. Fact and Relevance, Essays on Historical Method. Cambridge University Press. Powell, J. Enoch. 1949. Herodotus. 2 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. —1937. 'Puns in Herodotus' in The Classical Review 51.3: 103-105. Pownall, Frances. 2004. Lessons From the Past: The Moral Use of History in Fourth- Century Prose. University of Michigan Press. Press, Gerald A. 1982. The Development of the Idea of History. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press. Pritchard, David M. 1998. 'The Fractured Imaginary. Popular Thinking on Military Matters in Fifth Century Athens.' Ancient History 28.1 Pritchett, W. Kendrick. 1993. The Liar School ofHerodotos. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben Raaflaub, Kurt. 1990. 'Contemporary Perceptions of Democracy in Fifth-Century Athens' in Aspects of Athenian Democracy: Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes XL W. R. Connor et al. edts. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press; 31-70. Ranke, Leopold von. 1887. History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514. Philip A. Ashworth trans. Originally published as Geschichten de Romanischen und Germanischen Volker von 1494 bis 1514 (1824). —1875. A History of England Principally in the Seventeenth Century, vol 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rapport, Nigel and Overing, Joanna. 2004. Social and Cultural Anthropology, The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge. Rood, Tim. 1998. Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bibliography - 220

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen. 1988. 'Was there Ever a Median Empire?' in Achaemenid History III, Method and Theory. Proceedings of the London 1985 Achaemenid History Workshop. Amelie Kuhrt and Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg eds. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor HetNabije Oosten; 197-212. Scaife, Ross. 1996. 'Protagorean Frames of Reference in Thucydides' AHB 10.1; 31-37. Schubert. P. 1997. 'L'anneau de Gyges: Reponse de Platon a Herodote', L'Antiquite Classique 66; 255 - 60. Scullion, Scott. 2006. 'Herodotus and Greek Religion' in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus. Carolyn Dewald and John Marincola eds. Cambridge UP; 192 - 208 Sewell-Rutter, N. J. 2007. Guilt by Descent: Moral Inheritance and Decision Making in Greek Tragedy. Oxford UP. Shapin, Steven. 1994. A Social History of Truth: civility and science in seventeenth- century England. University of Chicago Press. Shapiro, S. O. 2000. 'Proverbial Wisdom in Herodotus' in TAPAS 130; 89-118. Shrimpton, Gordon. 2003. 'Herodotus' Intellectual Context - A Review Article' in AHB 17.3-4; 149-57. —2001. "Beyond the Limits. New Thoughts on the Origin and Development of Ancient Historical Writing." AHB 15.2 (2001) 50-62. —1998. 'Accuracy in Thucydides' AHB 12.3; 71-82 —1997. History and Memory in Ancient Greece. Montreal, London, Buffalo: McGill- Queen's University Press. Skinner, Quentin. 1969. 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.' History and Theory 8: 3-53. Slings, Simon R. 2002. 'Oral Strategies in the Language of Herodotus' in Brill's Companion to Herodotus. Egbert J. Bakker, Irene J. F. de Jong and Hans van Wees edts. Brill: Leiden, Boston, Koln; 53 - 77. Stanford, Michael. 1994. A Companion to the Study of History. Cambridge: Blackwell. Starr, Chester G. 1990. The Birth of Athenian Democracy: The Assembly in the Fifth Century B. C. New York, Oxford University Press. Stephen, James Fitzjames. 1961 (1861). 'The Study of History' in History and Theory vol 1.2; 186-201. Thomas, Carol G. and Edward Kent Webb. 1994. 'From Orality to Rhetoric: an intellectual transformation' in Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action. Ian Worthington ed. London and New York: Routledge; 3-25 Thomas, Rosalind. 2000. Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge University Press. Thompson, Norma. 1996. Herodotus and the Origins of the Political Community. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Wardman, A. E. 1961. 'Herodotus on the Cause of the Greco-Persian Wars' AJPh 82; 133-150. Wecowski, Marek. 2004. 'The Hedgehog and the Fox: Form and Meaning in the Prologue of Herodotus' in JHS vol. 124: 143 - 64. Bibliography - 221

Wheeldon, M.J. 1989. 'True Stories: the reception of historiography in antiquity' in History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History. Averil Cameron ed. London: Duckworth; 33-63. White, Hayden. 1987. The Content of the Form, Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Johns Hopkins University Press. Wolf, F. A. 1985 (1795). Prolegomena to Homer. Anthony Grafton, Glenn W. Most and James E. G. Zetzel trans. Princeton UP. Wood, Henry. 1972. The Histories of Herodotus; an analysis of the formal structures. Mouton. Young, T. Cuyler, Jr. 1988. 'The Rise of the Persians to Imperial Power Under Cyrus the Great,' The Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition Vol. IV, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean. Cambridge University Press. 24-47.