INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9219027 Herodotus’ use of animals: A literary, ethnographic, and zoological study Smith, Stephen Michael, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1992 Copyright ©1992 by Smith, Stephen Michael. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 HERODOTUS’ USE OF ANIMALS: A LITERARY, ETHNOGRAPHIC, AND ZOOLOGICAL STUDY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Stephen Michael Smith, B.A., M.A. * # * # * The Ohio State University 1992 Dissertation Committee: pprovc J.W. Allison J.M. Balcer /( S- / / J.R. Tebben Adviser Department of Classics Copyright by Stephen Michael Smith 1992 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My greatest thanks go to Professor June W. Allison who provided continual guidance and encouragement throughout my research. I would also like to thank Professors Joseph R. Tebben and Jack M. Balcer for their helpful input. Gratitude is expressed to the faculty and staff of OSU’s Classics Department for their financial and administrative support which enabled the completion of this work. Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends who have been so understanding of my infrequent visits and vacillating moods. VITA March 12,1959 ...... Bora - Enid, Oklahoma 1982 ........................ B.A. in Classics, University of Nebraska at Lincoln 1984 ........................ M.A. in Classics, The Ohio State University 1982-1988 .............. Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Classics, The Ohio State University 1988-198 9 .............. Regular Member, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece 1989-199 0 .............. Conference Coordinator and Editor of Nouvelles Nouvelles. Newsletter of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, The Ohio State University 1990-Presen t Lecturer in Classics, The Ohio State University, Lima Branch Campus FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Classics Studies in Greek Literature (especially Herodotus and Epic/Dramatic Poetry), Latin Literature, Classical Mythology, New Testament. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................................ii VITA.........................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................v CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................. 1 Notes to Chapter I ................................................................ 16 II. DISTRIBUTION, FREQUENCY, AND CLASSIFICATION ... 18 Notes to Chapter II ...............................................................47 III. ANIMALS AND THE GODS.................................. 49 Notes to Chapter III .............................................................89 IV. ANIMALS AND PEOPLE...............................................................96 Notes to Chapter IV ........................................................... 141 V. THE LEGACY OF HERODOTUS ....................................149 Notes to Chapter V ............................................................ 197 SUMMARY...........................................................................................................203 APPENDICES A. Complete Alphabetical Listing of Animals and Animal Terms ..................................................... 206 B. Proper Nouns with Animal Cognates ............................................ 210 Notes to Appendix B ..........................................................211 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................. 212 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Animal Frequency and Distribution ....................................................... 20 2. Breakdown of 'frmoq ................................................................................ 34 v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introduction Most studies devoted to animals in Herodotus, and in the ancient historians in general, are concerned primarily with the zoological aspects and the scientific identification of species, whereas those devoted to animals that occur in poetry deal more with literary imagery-similes, metaphors, and the like. Thus when scholarship turns its attention to the many animals in Herodotus’ Histories. examinations are largely confined to analytical investigations of exotic wildlife and attempt to identify specific species. The Libyan boa, the Egyptian hippopotamus, the Indian ant, and the Arabian snake, for example, have been individually discussed, scientifically examined, and-successfully or not- zoologically categorized.1 But beyond the scientific investigation of animals in the Histories, a study of them provides a means of slipping behind the eyes of Herodotus to see the world as he saw it and to understand better what motivated him to include in his history of the Persian/Greek conflict the seemingly irrelevant descriptions of animals, peoples, and customs. Although animals represent but one aspect of this world of Herodotus, since they pervade his history and occur conspicuously in the lengthy ethnographic digressions (as will be shown), an examination of these specific occurrences is useful in determining, at least on a small scale, Herodotus’ motives for inclusion of such material. 1 Scholars have noted which animals have been recorded by Herodotus, and tried to determine what they were, but have not asked why Herodotus chose to record the ones he did, or how the inclusion of animals (or animal imagery) in a given passage changes its tone or meaning. Even though Herodotus at times is relating simple facts acquired through autopsy, an examination of the patterns of Herodotus’ types of entries and how he deals with each reveals certain characteristics of his thinking and purpose of composition. Compositional Technique Herodotus, writing in the last half of the 5th century B.C., asserts that he records events exactly as he received them through autopsy or from oral accounts (vid. e.g., 2.123 and 7.152). For us this seems quite objective because it removes one variable or link in the transfer of information from the original source to us. When the historian attempts to pass on information as he received it without conflation or rationalization we are on firmer ground for historical reconstruction because the task of sorting and sifting the data and evaluating its reliability falls into our hands, and as scholarship progresses, historical methods improve, and new evidence comes to light, the material can be examined afresh. Yet even the most careful historian cannot record a totally accurate, much less comprehensive, account of any period. In order to make a record of events an historian must select which events to retain and which to exclude, and in doing so moves from what may be considered empirical, first-hand observation, to a subjective condensation. The only true "scientific" history would then be a photograph or film of the occurrences as they happened. The historian is, therefore, forced to 3 pick and choose from the flood of information inundating him/her and must have some method to follow in order to give his/her work unity and meaning. The history of a single country, therefore, can be written from several different viewpoints (for example, an economic history, a military histoiy, or a political history). Simply to label Herodotus as an "historian" and to try to judge the successes and failures of his work by comparison with Thucydides or with a modern historian without taking into account his own methodology would be misleading and would of course put Herodotus at a disadvantage. It is my view that Herodotus purposefully included a wide variety of research and observations, and that no analysis of the chronological layers of composition or other formative features of his work will ever reveal this purpose until we recognize that the disparate elements within his