We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
It is no longer the fashion to imagine Herodotos a liar when he tells marvellous stories, for some of his most extraordinary statements have long since been shown to contain at least a substantial measure of truth. It is perhaps not sufficiently realized, however, that on occasion he misleads his readers and himself by too much critical unbelief in his materials and consequent application of the crude methods of mythological investigation then current. In other words, he often rationalizes in the only way then possible, superficially altering the story so as to rid himself of the incredible details, or at all events, as I think, attributing to the actors motives which a somewhat drily rational mind could understand and approve or condemn. It is of course well known that at least the former method was a commonplace of the sophists, whose influence on Herodotos is manifest and widespread; it has been said, indeed, that it is much older than they and characteristically Ionic. L. Radermacher finds traces of it in the Odyssey itself and adds that, although we can sometimes catch the rationalizer (or Fälscher, as he impolitely calls him) at work, we cannot be sure of always doing so and ‘müssen annehmen, dass der Glaube an die Geschichtlichkeit ihrer Sage manche griechischen Autoren früh verführt hat, sie geschichtlicher zu erzählen als eigentlich erlaubt war’. This is a true and useful statement. Modern criticism has long learned to set aside ancient allegorizations of myths, about which I need say nothing, for the subject has been repeatedly and well handled by my colleague, Dr. J. Tate; it has often, however, confused ancient interpretation of myth with ancient criticism of saga. Euhemerism indeed is usually recognized for what it is, although even this is not always so; but uixere inepti ante Euhemerum multi, and their efforts are by no means always distinguished either from allegorizing or from real sagas. For an example of the former confusion I may refer to Stallbaum's note on Plato, Phaedrus, 29 C-D, where the reader is referred to the account given by Lobeck of the rise and growth of allegorization. But Plato says nothing at all of allegories in this passage. He quotes, with ironical admiration of its ‘wisdom’, a version of the story of Boreas and Oreithyia according to which she. was knocked off the Areiopagos, or some other place, by a strong north wind, and so was killed and consequently said to have been carried away by Boreas. He adds that it would be a laborious and dismal business to go through all the tales of wonder in that way, rationalizing the Hippocentaurs, Gorgons, Chimaira, Pegasos, and the rest out of existence; a wise saying which was uttered in vain for Palaiphatos and his kind. However, most moderns know a myth from a saga and an allegory from a crude rationalization which accepts the story as true except for the incredibilities and is quite ready to believe, for instance, in Romulus if we will but postulate that he was not snatched up to heaven but murdered and his body hidden. There is a much more subtle snare, consisting of a story which, although rationalized, is well told, and Herodotos in this respect can be a notable offender, for he never tells a story ill.
1 Mythos und Sage bei den Griechen, Wien-Leipzig, Baden bei, Rohrer, , 1939 (?), p. 21 f.Google Scholar
2 Lobeck, , Aglaophamus, i, pp. 133 ff.Google Scholar
3 See Livy, , i. 16. 4Google Scholar, a version of the death of Romulus which has, incredibly, misled SirFrazer, J. G., G.B. 3 ix. 258.Google Scholar
4 Herod, , vii. 152. 3.Google Scholar
5 vii. 214. 1.
1 e.g. iii. 32. 1.
2 i. 1 f.
3 Plato, , Rep. 359 C ff.Google Scholar; see Adam, , Republic of Plato, i, p. 126 f.Google Scholar, where to his citations of later authors who copy Plato add Nazianzen, Gregory, Orat. iv. 94.Google Scholar
4 Rep. 612Google Scholar B 4; the reading at 359 B 1 is doubtful, but apparently no ancient reader of earlier date than Proclus fails to identify this Gyges with the historical king.
5 Herodotos, , i. 8–13.Google Scholar
6 Adam, loc. cit.
7 Quoted by How and Wells on Herod, , i. 7. 2.Google Scholar
1 Herod. i. 11. i; the incident is rightly called ‘purely Greek’ by How and Wells, ad loc.
2 This matter will be discussed in Bidez, J.'s Gifford lectures, Platon et l'OrientGoogle Scholar, shortly to appear; see meanwhile Bidez, J. and Cumont, F., Les Mages hellénisés (Paris, 1938), i, pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar, where Eudoxos of Knidos, Hermodoros of Syracuse, and Herakleides of Pontos are suggested as the intermediaries.
3 Gyges, says Plato (360 B 1–2), set upon the king with the queen's help and so (οὕτω implying ‘without more ado’) got the throne, τὴν ἀρχὴν κατασχε
ν
4 Frag. 49 Müller (F.H.G. iii, p. 384 f.).Google Scholar
1 χρ
ν γὰ Κανδαύλῃ γενὲσθαι κακ
ς, Herod. i. 8. 2, i.e. he was in that condition of ἄτη which makes the evil appear good, according to the κλεινὸν ἔπος in Soph. Ant. 621.Google Scholar
2 Herod, , i. 60. 3 ff.Google Scholar
3 The words μηχαννται … πργμα εὐηθέστατον … εἰ καὶ τότε γε, κτἑ (ibid.) do not cast any doubt on the truth of the story, being merely the common use of εἰ after any word or phrase expressing surprise.
4 Herod, , i. 59. 6.Google Scholar
5 Άθηναίων πολιτεία, 16. 6–7.
6 Plutarch, , Thes. 35.Google Scholar
7 Άθην. πολιτ. 14.4; Athenaios, 609 C-B, quoting Kleidemos.
1 Herod, , vii. 35.Google Scholar
2 Livy, , xxxix. 18. 6Google Scholar: ‘mulieres damnatas [of being implicated in the Bacchanalian affair] cognatis aut in quorum manu essent tradebant, ut ipsi in priuato animaduerterent in eas; si nemo erat idoneus supplicii exactor [these must have been cases of women who, being non-citizens, had no gentiles and whose patroni, if they were freedwomen, were not to be found or had themselves been condemned already] in publico animaduertebatur’.
3 Gaius, , i. 25Google Scholar, with the notes of Poste-Whittuck. Gaius is of course mistaken in saying that the patria potestas in this respect is ‘proprium ciuium Romanorum, fere enim nulli alii sunt homines qui talem in filios suos habent potestatem qualem nos habemus’, at least from the historical point of view, however right it may be as a statement of the then existing facts in the civilized world (he admits that something like it existed in Gaul). The truth is that the Romans in this respect were very conservative and the ancient patriarchal institutions, as they used picturesquely to be called, were less broken down among them than among more progressive peoples.
1 Eurip. Bacch. 266 ff.Google Scholar Fond though Euripides is on occasion of etymological speculations and plays on words, I cannot think that he seriously accepted the nonsensical explanation of Dionysos in the thigh of Zeus (291 ff.), which is worthy of Palaiphatos at his worst. See Additional Note.
2 Eurip. Electr. 774 ff.Google Scholar I have elsewhere (Handb. Gk. Lit., p. 194)Google Scholar mentioned the remarkable legal anachronisms which the Orestes contains.
3 The reference is to the entirely Homeric portrait of Orestes' character and actions in the Electra of Sophokles. Attempts to read into the play doubt, remorse, or the like on the part of the hero or his sister strike me as absurdly fanciful.
4 Aeschylus, , Pers. 745 ff.Google ScholarGroeneboom, (Aeschylus' Persae, den Haag, 1930)Google Scholar in his note interprets the Herodotean story correctly, but supposes that the notion that Xerxes treated the Hellespont like a slave ‘vond nieuw voedsel' in Aeschylus’ lines. That it is all an invention based on Aeschylus was the opinion of Gaisford in his note on Herod., loc. cit. (vol. iv, p. 795 of his ed., Oxford, 1824). He cites a note of Stanley on the Aeschylean passage, which I have not been able to find; it seems not to occur in his London ed. of Aeschylus, 1663.
5 Pliny, , N.H. xxx. 16Google Scholar: ‘magus ad eum (Nero-nem) Tiridates uenerat… nauigare noluerat, quoniam exspuere in maria aliisque mortalium necessitatibus uiolare naturam eam fas non putant’.
6 Quoted in SirFrazer, J. G., Anthologia Anthropologica, iv (Native Races of America), p. 28.Google Scholar
1 Juvenal, , Sat. x. 180.Google Scholar
2 Frazer, , op. cit. iii, p. 376.Google Scholar
3 Arist. Eth. Eudem., 1229b28Google Scholar, among examples of foolhardy rage, which is to be distinguished from true courage: οἵον οἱ Κελτοὶ πρὸς τὰ κύματα ὅπλα ἀπαντσι λαβόντες.
4 See Fiedler, W., Antiker Wetterzauber (Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1931), pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar
5 Herod. vii. 54, 3.Google Scholar
6 Plut. Moralin, 455Google Scholar D. For other accounts of Xerxes, mostly rhetorical, see Mayor on Juvenal loc. cit.
