Function of Wealth in Aeschylus’ Persae and Herodotus’ Historiē
Fonction de la richesse dans les Perses d’Eschyle et l’Historiē d’Hérodote
p. 219-242
Résumés
My present contribution investigates and compares the function of wealth both in the Persae and Historiē. It also examines the relation of Historiē with tragedy as a literary genre. Herodotus interprets historical events in terms of philosophy of tragedy. Historiē is a development of mythology, i.e. an invention of new tragic myths. Wealth is a tragic motif. People in power with wealth pursue more power and wealth: the pursuit eventually results in war or disaster; this constitutes a reversal (περιπέτεια), a change of the action to its opposite. A person of good reputation and good fortune, or distinguished men from great families (rulers, kings and tyrants), undergoes a change to misfortune because of some error: this constitutes the best kind of tragedy in Aristotle’s Poetics. The process of this change is described in the mesode of the Persae and in the ‘council of the best’ in the Historiē, which is an application ‘on stage’ of the mesode.
La présente contribution étudie et compare la fonction de la richesse dans les Perses et l’Historiē. Elle examine également la relation de l’Historiē avec la tragédie en tant que genre littéraire. Hérodote interprète les événements historiques dans des termes qui sont ceux de la philosophie de la tragédie. L’Historiē est un développement de la mythologie, c'est-à-dire une invention de nouveaux mythes tragiques. La richesse est un motif tragique. Ceux qui sont au pouvoir dans la richesse recherchent plus de pouvoir et de richesse : cette quête aboutit finalement à la guerre ou au désastre ; cela constitue un renversement (περιπέτεια), un changement de l’action vers son contraire. Des hommes distingués issus de grandes familles (souverains, rois et tyrans) connaissent un changement vers le malheur à cause de quelques erreurs : cela constitue le meilleur type de tragédie dans la Poétique d’Aristote. Le processus de ce changement est décrit dans la mesôidos des Perses et dans le « conseil des meilleurs » de l’Historiē, qui apparaît comme « une mise en scène » de la mesôidos.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Historie, Histories apodexis, ate, dike, faux rêve
Keywords : dike, ate, Historie, Histories apodexis, false dream
Texte intégral
Literary Introduction
1My present contribution investigates and compares the function of wealth both in the Persae and Historiē. It also examines the relation of Historiē with tragedy as a literary genre.1 Herodotus interprets historical events in terms of philosophy of tragedy. Historiē is a development of mythology, i.e. an invention of new tragic myths. Wealth is a tragic motif. People with power and wealth pursue further power and wealth: this pursuit results eventually in war or disaster constituting a reversal (περιπέτεια), that is, a change of the action to its opposite. A person of good reputation and good fortune or distinguished men from great families (rulers, kings and tyrants), involves a change to misfortune because of some error (hamartia): this constitutes the best kind of tragedy (Arist. Poet. 1453a 7-17; 1452a22-3). The process of this change is described in the mesode of the Persae and in the ‘council of the best’ in the Historiē, an application ‘on stage’ of the mesode.2
2The tragedians make History tragic myth, or ‘mythicized history’. Aeschylus vested the rulers of History with the dress of tragic myths: “History when experienced becomes myth”; or “History is telescoped into myth”. By putting the particular to the myth of tragedy the poet generalizes it and makes it universal.3 After Aeschylus, Herodotus needed nothing more than receive the tragic myth of the Persae and apply it to his Historiē. He makes the tragic myth history.4 Historiē is a literary work; its author’s conscious production of his narrative.5 Herodotus exploited the universal (καθόλου) and the “philosophy” of tragedy in order to compose an interpretation of history and motivations of wars of his time. If you excuse my expression, Historiē is not less philosophical than poetry; Historiē, like poetry, tends to speak of universals. “What Alcibiades did or what he suffered” is not Herodotus’ main concern (Poet. 1451a36-b11), as it is clear in dialogues.6 Historiēs apodēxis prevents wisdom acquainted with true judgment from losing fame (cf. Heraclitus B41 Diels-Kranz), and in particular “through what aitiē the Greeks and barbarians came to war with each other”. This aitiē is expanded to the whole work, and so it receives a broader Presocratic meaning of ‘principle’ of the existing things in Anaximander’s apeiron: “the source of coming-to-be for existing things is that into which destruction, too, happens, ‘according to necessity; for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of Time’” (B1 Diels-Kranz; transl. Kirk-Raven-Schofield; cf. A10).7 Historiē is what the Muses know (ἴστε), while poets have heard only rumour and know nothing in the second invocation of the Muse in the Iliad (2.484-86): what the Muses know is the result of both autopsy and research (πάρεστε, ἴστε, 485); ἱστορίη comes from ἵστωρ (Fιδ-) which is related more with οἶδα but derives not less from ἰδεῖν (ὁρῶ), thus wid-/weid-/woid- see, know.8 Besides, Μοῦσα derives from μῶσθαι (cf. μαίομαι) ἐπιζητεῖν. Historiē secures the fame of great and marvelous deeds.
Aeschylus’ Persae
3Most of the critics agree that Persae is the only work among the extant plays of classical literature, which is genuinely and fully founded upon the theme of hubris of wealth and power (but denied by Garvie). In Persae the full dramatization of koros–hubris–atē motif is unique. With the opening words of the play the theme of wealth and luxury becomes dominant (3-4, 9, 45, 53, 80, 159). The second theme is the multitude of the Persians; Xerxes has emptied the whole expanse of the continent (40, 718, 730; 235): the emptiness of Asia. The gathering of vast numbers of army troupes is a recurrent theme in Historie and dominant in the two reviews of the army (7.9.2α, 48, 101.2). Already from the beginning, the prosperity of Persia appears to belong only to the past. By passing from prosperity to adversity, the entire focus falls on the condition of adversity.9
The Mesode (epode)
4Regardless of its proper place, the mesode (μεσωιδός) says: “But what mortal man can escape the guileful deception of a god? Who is so light of foot that he has power to leap easily away? For Ate begins by fawning on a man in a friendly way and leads him astray into net, from which it is impossible for a mortal to escape and flee” (93-100, Sommerstein). Winnington-Ingram has interpreted the Persae on the basis of the contradiction between Agamemnon 750 ff., where the chorus rejects the doctrine of divine envy, and the [alleged] fact that in the Persae we find the chorus singing of the crafty deceit of a god from which no mortal can escape, but also we find Darius speaking of the stern punishments of Zeus, and attributing the disasters of the Persians to their own acts of hubris (: a contradiction within the play).10
5The mesode does not in fact say that no man can escape the crafty-minded deceit of god or Infatuation (Ἄτη), but that it is hard for him to escape the onset of delusion and, once found in the snares of Infatuation, certainly, he cannot escape its consequences. The passage, as the scholia have already remarked, describes the way Infatuation works, just as Homer does (Il. 9.505 ff., 19.91 ff.). Certain conditions make an outstanding man vulnerable and prone to mistakes: and since it is known that wealth- and power- knows no limits, it is natural that mainly those men who possess great wealth are prone to commit a mistake. The background of atē is great power and wealth. ἀασάμην in the Iliad of the verb ἀάω means ‘satiate’ and therefore atē rightly is connected with koros (Wyatt). Every man in power is vulnerable by what Ate alluring offers to his mind- notice philophrōn and potisainousa. So the well-known triple doctrine (κόρος-ὕβρις-ἄτη) is modified and analyzed properly in four dialectical stages: κόρος-ἄτη-ὕβρις-ἄτη. Atē’s double presence is justified since it bears different meaning at the different stages of the process- the latter meaning being ruin or disaster. The mesode is the pattern, application of which is the plot of the play. The ‘council of the best’ in the Historiē, ‘the false dream’, the dialogue between Xerxes and Artabanus and Xerxes and Demaratus are an application ‘on stage’ of the mesode. Delusion is sent by a god (93) but this is indeed the normal way of saying that something unexpected or inexplicable happened: “the most characteristic feature of the Odyssey is the way in which its personages ascribe all sorts of mental (as well as physical) events to the intervention of a nameless and interminate daemon or god or gods”.11
6In saying that through the favour of the gods moira granted the Persians great achievement (101 ff.) Aeschylus does not simply present the gods or moira as givers of Persian prosperity, but that they have fulfilled their apportionment. The strophe describes the traditional, god-given talents and skills of the Persians, who are born warriors and sackers of cities. The antistrophe describes their newly acquired skills at crossing the sea by bridges or ships, for which they are presumably untalented. This goes straight to the main issue of the play that the Persians were portioned to govern Asia and should not intervene in Europe, as the bridging of the Hellespont suggests (71, 722, 736, 739-40, 745-8; Hdt. 7.54-5).12
7The campaign of Xerxes in the Persae is not an accident caused by the rashness of a young king, nor the law of imperialist expansionism is foreign to Aeschylus.13 The expedition is the logical outcome of the Persian unlimited expansionism, which is incorporated in the mechanism of the atē. And it was not doomed to fail right from the start, either, in the Persae and Historiē alike, because it was a manifestation of hubris.14 Hubris is the judgment from a retrospective point of view: the reason is that it has not been planned well, the conditions have been miscalculated, the decision is erroneous. Besides, in Aeschylus the hubris of Xerxes and his sins brought about a downfall has not to be explained by a supernatural intervention, either by a just Zeus, or by an envious and deceitful god.15 The explanation is the working of fawning and blinding atē and the erroneous decision.
The Episode between Atossa and the Chorus (159-248)
8In her first appearance the queen is afraid “lest wealth grown too great should raise dust on the ground (κονίσας οὖδας) and upset with its foot the prosperity exalted by Darius and some god” (161-64, Garvie). Her fears correspond directly to Darius’ fears (751-52) that his great wealth may be overturned and become the booty of the first comer.16
9In her conversation with the chorus of the Persian elders the Queen asks (i) if the Athenians had great numbers of men in their army (235), (ii) if there is sufficient wealth in their stores (239), and (iii) who is the shepherd and commander over their host (241). All these questions follow the catalogue of Persian forces and their wealth in the opening of the play, and are echoed in the council of the best, in the dialogue between Xerxes and Artabanus at Abydos and Xerxes and Demaratus at Doriscos.17
10To the question concerning the wealth of Athens the chorus replies: “They have a fountain of silver, a treasure in their soil” (240). Certainly the silver veins (240) are an allusion to the mines of Laurium and to Themistocles’ policy, who persuaded the Athenians (in 482 BC) to abandon the distribution of the sums from the mines and make instead two hundred ships, which finally saved Greece from the Persians at Salamis. Herodotus says that Themistocles’ judgment had proved the best (ἠρίστευσε) (7.144.1; cf. Arist. Ath. 22.7). The ‘best man’ motif has been stressed by the Historian in the ‘council of the best’, in the dialogue between Artabanus and Xerxes at Abydos, and other cases. Atossa’s question on Athenians’ wealth (239-40) corresponds to Darius’ judgement that “their country itself fights as their ally” “by starving to death a multitude that is too vastly numerous” (792, 794). And both of them have been exploited by Herodotus in many ways: by Mardonius in the council of the best: “what power of their wealth” (7.9.2α); by Artabanus in his conversation with Xerxes at Abydos: “the land is your enemy in this way” (7.49.4); by Demaratus in his conversation with Xerxes that “poverty has always been native in Greece” (7.102.1, Grene).18
The daimōn Doctrine or the Function of a daimōn
11The daimōn is part of the function of atē and expresses human error in the action. It was an alastōr or bad daimōn (345, 354) that destroyed the Persians. The ‘Greek man’ stratagem (and Xerxes’ lack in understanding the strategic disadvantage of his navy) is equated to a daimōn or alastōr to punish the Persians for their arrogance. That is: Aeschylus turns real history into tragic muthos to interpret reality in universals, in terms of philosophy and poetry. Clear development of this is Themistocles’ speech in Herodotus on the envy of the gods (8.109.3). The nosos phrenōn (750) is Xerxes’ proneness to wrong suggestions and his hamartia in weighing up the whole situation (as the ‘council of the best’ makes clear). That disease of mind (750)19 is described in different ways by Darius: ignorance, youthful pride (744), youth in age and sense (782) and the frequently used thourios (e.g. 718, 754). Xerxes appears as a victim of his counselors, who urged him to imitate his father (753-56). He performs “the son’s aggressive attempt to eclipse the stature of his father”. Xerxes’ bad company is repeated by Artabanus in the council of the best and the false dream (7.6.1, 10.η1, 10.θ3, 16.α1). Α daimōn may have influenced or helped Xerxes in his decision, not by taking away his wit, but by luring him with success and the acquisition of more power and wealth (724-5; 472-3, 911-2): “When a man is in a hurry, the god comes as an assistant” (742). “These are the passages in which Aeschylus comes closest to formulating the relationship between divine and human responsibility”.20
12The process of Atē is clearly described and explained in Ag. 385-86 and some fragments: fr. adesp. 296 Nauck2, Aeschylus’ Niobe (154a 15-6 Radt), an unattributed fr. 395 Radt of Aeschylus. And neither does Aeschylus, nor does this anonymous author, have any intention of saying at the moment of decision taking that he was not the master of his mind. No-one had any doubt at the moment of judgment that it was his own decision. Agamemnon confesses: “I was blind after I yielded to my miserable passion” (Il. 9.119).
The Ghost of Darius
13Darius’ scene has been placed in the middle of the play and dominates it, analysing and moralizing on the past, and conveying the author’s own message. The hubris motif finds its classical expression in the Persae. The message of the scene is an application of the mesode: One ought not to be conceited when one is a mortal. “For hubris, blossoming, has produced a crop of atē, and from it reaped a harvest full of sorrow” (821-2, Fisher).21
14In this passage the ‘crop of atē’ is identical in thought to the ‘harvest of sorrow’ when atē means disaster (many editors) corresponding to the fourth stage of the Atē-pattern, or hubris ripens the already blossoming crop/ear of ate (so Broadhead 1960, and Garvie 2009 with slight differ.), when it corresponds to the second stage, the fawning and blinding ate. Solon’s Eunomia dries up these blooming flowers of atē (4W.35). Accordingly: “Behold the punishment of these […]lest you disdain your present fortune, and lust after more, squandering great prosperity. Zeus is the chastener of over-boastful minds, a grievous corrector (εὔθυνος)” (823-828, Benardete).22 All these verses (820-828) constitute an application of the mesode, and are the keynote of the play; they also recall Solon 13W.71-3, that wealth knows no limits.
15But the danger of wealth seeking more wealth is not automatically bequeathed. Aeschylus here gives the cause of disaster: it is not merely wealth, but to lust after more wealth, belonging to others, to have more than mortal thoughts, and the acts of hubris and impiety to which they lead; and if one overlooks or despises his present daimōn. The implication here is that wealth contains a potential danger, the danger that it may make one prone to seek more and more wealth until at last one loses all. The course of events is not determined by causes regarded as external to the will; human action may have been undertaken by a wrong calculation of events (hamartia). The situation is that of Anaximander’s fr. 1 (Diels- Kranz): “The existing things pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of time”. Both Atossa and Darius speak of payment and punishment (ἀντίποινα, ἄποινα, ἐπιτίμια 476, 808, 823).23
16In Darius’ warning of the Persians, Athens is in the place of the ‘chastiser’: “Look on the price that is being paid for these actions, and remember Athens” (823-824). And the messenger says “how I groan when I remember Athens” (285), where the emphasis is on the pain. After the burning of Sardis, Darius prayed to Zeus grant him the chance of punishing the Athenians, and ordered a slave to say to him thrice every day before dinner “Master, remember the Athenians” (5.105.2); here the emphasis is on vengeance. It seems that the tale was current.24 And if Aeschylus knew of the story in Herodotus there is irony in Darius’ change of mind.25 Probably Herodotus does not use Athens in the place of corrector, because Athens herself is now in the position of the Persians.
17Addressing the ghost of Darius Atossa says: “You whose fortunate fate surpassed all mortals in bliss, how enviable (zēlōtos ōn) you were when you saw the light of the sun and led a life of such happiness that Persians looked on as a god! And now too I envy you (zēlō) [: deemed happy], because you died before seeing the depths of our present suffering” (709-712, Sommerstein; cf. the praise of chorus 852ff.). This is an answer to the alleged inconsistency of the envy on the whole play. Darius was not envied but admired. The Queen’s ‘envy’ of Darius is due exactly to that ‘un-envied’ prosperity. If Xerxes, whose power and wealth were never more than those of his father, was destroyed by divine envy, then why was not Darius destroyed? Because (in the plot of the play) he restrained himself from pursuing more power whereas Xerxes sought to increase what he had inherited. Just at that point of transgressing the apportioned, due measure of wealth and power, for which man is responsible, by letting the fawning, kindly infatuation enter into him, divine retribution is generated and through human agents (mainly the wronged themselves) the disturbed order is restored. When phthonos is explicitly mentioned (362) it is explicitly coupled with the dolos of a Greek man (361; 353ff.) and it is the personification of ate: so it becomes apparent that dolos works for the divine envy. The alastōr or bad daimōn (345, 354) is not outside of human action and free will. Xerxes in ignorance of the guile of a Greek ordered the attack. Jealousy is not determined; it is the way for the author to say in anthropomorphic terms that the Persians were defeated. “The phthonos not only gives satisfaction to the injured honour of the gods but consistently works for realization of dikē”, dikē being understood in the sense of something due to someone. The atē of the mesode is the same throughout the play.26
Herodotus’ Historiē
The Pattern/Stages of hubris in the Historiē
18The fourfold pattern of hubris which is described in the mesode of the Persae is exemplified in the council of the best (7.8-11).27 The council is an episode of a tragedy on stage, a debate of some actors with opposite opinions, or a contest within Xerxes’ mind. This is historiēs apodexis in progress. The decision of the expedition is a dramatic representation, the importance of which Herodotus no doubt wants to show. It is the critical moment of the entire history. “Speeches and dialogues are generally recognized as free invention”. Modifying Thucydides’ words (1.22.1) we might say (after Fehling) that Herodotus composes the scene, as things must have been in the light of the situation, with the closest possible adherence to the ‘actual event’. In other words, he invented, because he needed it.28 This is close to “the function of a poet to describe the kind of things that might happen, and what is possible according to probability or necessity” (Arist. Poet. 1451a36-8).
19Initially, Herodotus narrates in third person that Xerxes was at first by no means eager to march against Greece. But Mardonius who was with the king and had more influence with him argued (i) that the Athenians should pay penalty for their evil deeds against the Persians (7.5.2). And (ii) flatters Xerxes that he alone of mortals, deserves to own Europe (5.3). Herodotus comments that “Mardonius said this because he desired adventures and wanted to be governor of Greece. Finally he worked on Xerxes and persuaded him to this” (7.6.1, Godley). This νεώτερα ἔργα is a feature of the Athenian foreign policy in the fifth century. Mardonius’ arguments have a twofold literary function: (i) that Xerxes “was taught this way of thinking by associating with wicked men” (Pers. 97-9; 753), and (ii) he plays the role of the fawning and blinding atē who in friendly way leads a man into her net.29
The Council of the Best (7.8-11)
20The expressive way by which Herodotus declares Xerxes’ initial unwillingness intends to make more intensive the decision and to dramatise the debate. Xerxes speaks first and his primary argument is (i) the nomos of μὴ ἀτρεμίζειν (‘never at rest’, 8α.1), introduced by Atossa (3.134). The bridging of the Hellespont, which is a meaningful imagery in the Persae (71, 722, 736, 739-40, 745-8), and pictured in the Historie (7.54-5, 34-5), is said emphatically: “I will bridge the Hellespont” (8.β1). (ii) Xerxes repeats what Mardonius said about the punishment of the Athenians (7.8b2; Pers. 476 ἀντίποινα). (iii) He ‘answers’ to what the Queen says in the Persae: “he from unmanliness, was being a stay-at-home warrior and doing nothing to increase the riches he had inherited” (754-756). Xerxes is at the state of satiety (koros) and the fawning and blinding ate inside himself undervalues the enemy’s power and overestimates his own.30
21Mardonius, who speaks next, tries to excite Xerxes’ sense of honour and revenge against the Greeks: “What should we fear? What gathering of vast numbers of their people? What power of their wealth? We know these people’s fighting” (9.2α1). The power of wealth refers no doubt to Atossa’s question to the Persian elders (239), and the gathering of vast numbers to “the great numbers of men in Athenian army” (235). Also, the power of wealth anticipates Demaratus’ words on the poverty of Greece (cf. Persae 792, 794). He underestimates the Greek army for the way they fight (9.β1). Mardonius plays once again the role of the fawning and blinding ate, flattering the King (“smoothing Xerxes’ opinion”) and undervaluing the opponent. Mardonius’ strategy “leave nothing untried” (9γ) is again an application of the law of ‘never at rest’ and sounds the voice of the same blinding ate.31
22Artabanus introduces the debate (ἀντιλογίαι) before a council of the nobles in Persia and the need of good counsel (εὖ βουλεύεσθαι, 10.δ2). Themistocles is wise and euboulos (8.110.1). Xerxes lacks euboulia (Pers. 749).32 And asks Mardonius to stop saying to the king foolish things about the Greeks and not to excite him to run an expedition against Greece (7.10η1, 16α1; Pers. 753-756). He uses the poetic verb ἐπαίρω (stir up, excite), used for a character in tragedy when he is about to make the tragic error.33 Artabanus himself recapitulates the situation: Xerxes choose the proposition increasing violent insolence and teaching the soul always to seek to have more than it has (16.a2; cf. 18.2). Artabanus in fact describes the way atē works. The phrase ‘to seek to have more’ recalls Themistocles’ policy of πλεονεκτέων (8.112.1). Artabanus’ two propositions seem to use both Solon’s 4.32-9 West on the effects of eunomia, and 13.71-3 West on wealth having no limit.34
“The False Dream” (7.12-18)
23On stage, Artabanus is the character who acts against the fawning and blinding ἄτη. It is for this reason that Herodotus created the wise adviser. His name itself is a speaking name (that who speaks ἄρτια, in accordance with aretē, ‘euboulos’).35 Initially Artabanus refused to sit on the royal throne and underlines the importance of euboulia (εὖ φρονεῖν), which recalls strongly Hesiod’s advice on the ‘best man’ (panaristos) (Opera 293-5) and Solon’s fr. 12 West on the evenest sea (16α1; cf. also 7.49.5, 157.3, 8.60γ).
24The same vision appears in Xerxes’ sleep for a second time dictating to him: “just as a short while raised you to be great and mighty, so with speed again shall you become humble” (7.14). In Artabanus’ sleep the same dream vision came to him saying: “neither hereafter nor for the present will you escape scot free for trying to reverse fate (χρεὸν γενέσθαι)” (17.2). The dream in fact threatens with the law of ‘never at rest’, which Xerxes has invoked: “the dreams are for the most the thoughts of the day” (16β2). One could note the ambiguity of the expedition: with speed he became humble. And as in the second book of the Iliad (1-34) the οὖλος ὄνειρος fulfills Zeus’ will, the plot of the Iliad and Achilles’ honour, by being false and destructive, so is the dream in the Historiē is false and destructive, fulfilling the plot of Historiē and (one could say) bringing honour to Greece. The dream is not a historical event; it is a literary device. And it is a counter-dream of Atossa’s, but placed at an earlier stage of process. In the Persae the decision of the expedition is out of the play.
25In the case of Xerxes’ dream it seems that the divine intervenes extracting a decision, and so restricting the ‘free will’ of the agent. It has been argued that Herodotus believed in the literal interposition of fate.36 Xerxes is free to decide as the tragic hero does; but he is not liberated from the law ‘never at rest’, the longing for new land and from the probability of making error. The χρεὸν γενέσθαι of the dream (17.2) has not the meaning of fate or determinism, that Xerxes’ decision was preordained and the campaign was fated to happen, nor emphasizes the inevitability of the action, the disaster for the Persians, nor just tyrannical irrationality.37 The expedition is the causal result of the nomos Xerxes invoked; another instance of the fawning and blinding ate. Whoever is sitting on the Persian throne has to apply the ‘never at rest’ law. Artabanus’ decision to be dressed as king and sit on Xerxes’ throne is equivalent to Gyges’ decision to see Candaules’ wife naked; χρῆν γὰρ Κανδαύλῃ γενέσθαι κακῶς (1.8.2) does not mean that “it was fated for Candaules to end badly”, but that his actions were natural to bring about his death; i.e. there is a causal relation between his actions and their results. From Parmenides, as Lloyd has shown, words such as ἀνάγκη, χρή, δεῖ (cf. B 6.1-2, 3 Diels-Kranz) express rational necessity, conclusions that follow necessarily the conditions of a syllogism. That Gyges saw Candaules’ wife naked (1.8-10) is a violation of the law, which is valid in Persia even for men and violates dikē, which constitutes hubris; Gyges himself in his attempt to make Candaules abandon his plan says that “each should look upon his own only” (1.8.4), an expression very close to Platonic view of dikē, justice. That Candaules conceived and organized this plan is a violation of dikē, which constitutes hubris, and for this reason he χρῆν γενέσθαι κακῶς. Artabanus is in the place of Gyges, and he has to be punished because he violated dikē, and committed hubris. Both Gyges and Artabanus are hesitant whether they should do what they are asked for by Candaules and Xerxes respectively. The wise Artabanus is another example of the limited and precarious human knowledge. The participle ἐλπίζων (17.1) denotes an erroneous expectation. Croesus was convinced (ἐλπίσας) that he would destroy Cyrus and the power of Persians (1.71.1; cf.10α.2). The dream is interpreted by Artabanus as a divine impulse (ὁρμή); this ὁρμἠ accords with the ὁρμημένῳ Ξέρξῃ, “was intent on the expedition” (19.1), which is completely opposite to wisdom; it is the ἀλάστωρ or the κακὸς δαίμων of the Persae (345, 354).38 But Artabanus is never in favour of the expedition;39 ὡς οἶκε (‘as it seems’), means from a retrospective point of view.
Review of the Army at Abydos: Dialogue between Xerxes and Artabanus (7.44-52)
26Both reviews of the army are literary imitation of the Catalogue of the ships (second book) and the Teichoscopia (Book 3) of the Iliad, and a development of the parodos of the Persae. Both dialogues illustrate the great numbers of men in the army and the Persian power (9.2α, 101.2; Pers. 235). Artabanus passed Xerxes’ question on the dream vision by without comment; this silence, no doubt, is literary: it is Herodotus’ silence. But his fears still persist: the two greatest things in the world are Xerxes’ bitterest enemies (47.2), and these two most hostile are land and sea (49.1; alluded to in 10β1).
27The sea is examined first: “Since there are no harbors for you, you must understand that it is the event (συμφοραί) that will be master of men rather than the other way round” (49.3). The ambiguity here is so intense that it gives to the Greek word its common meaning, ‘disaster’; its neutral meaning becomes passive. In his dialogue with Croesus, Solon would agree: “man is entirely what befalls him” (1.32.4). Artabanus’ strategy could be close to ‘contingency of chance’, but he is more skeptical. As for the land: “the land becomes more your enemy the further you advance… no man is ever satisfied with success” (Godley); “more land becoming yours, and more time spent in getting it, will breed famine” (49.4). This certainly recalls strongly Darius’ words in the Persae that “their country itself fights as their ally” (792, 794). Artabanus concludes: “The best man is who is timid while making plans because he takes into account all that may happen to him, but is bold in action” (49.5, Godley; cf. also 7. 10.δ2, 16.α1, 157.3, 8.60γ).40
28The observation of the anonymous Greek, when Xerxes had crossed into Europe that Zeus likened himself to Xerxes because he wished to destroy Greece (56.2), a well-known Homeric technique of the ‘objective observer’, is the best comment on Xerxes’ power and great numbers of men, verifies his declaration on the limit of Persian empire, and (in ambiguity) that the country itself fights as ally of Greeks.41
Review of the Army at Doriscos: Xerxes and Demaratus (7.101-105)
29After the review of the army, confident of his great number of men, Xerxes questioned whether “the Greeks offer battle and oppose him” (101.2, Godley), and how it is possible, if all the Greeks are free and are not commanded by one, to want to resist (he tries to calculate virtue in numbers) (103.1-4). Demaratus answers: “poverty has always been native in Greece, but the courage (aretē) they have comes imported, and it is achieved by a compound of wisdom and the strength of their laws; by use of this courage Greece fights off poverty and despotism” (102.1).42
30Xerxes does not know the nomos and its multiple power it contains when it fights slavery and tries to calculate virtue in numbers (103.1-4). Demaratus continues in a climax that the Greeks “have as the despot over them Law (nomos), and they fear him much more than your men fear you. At least, they do whatever he bids them do; and he bids them always the same thing: not to flee from the fight before any multitude of men whatever but to stand firm in their ranks and either conquer or die” (104.4-5). The Persians have the king as despotēs (cf. 3.89.3). Xerxes, like the fawning and blinding atē, undervalues virtue and overestimates great numbers. Atossa makes the same assumption as Xerxes about the military superiority of a numerous people ruled by a monarch (Pers. 235, 241-242). What the distinguished anonymous Persian told Thersander in the Attaginus’ banquet “that this is the bitterest pain to human beings: to know much and control nothing” (9.16.5), is not a transcendent necessity but the Persian despotism and sounds as a warning conclusion of the Historiē.43
31The scene with Tritantaichmes defines this arête (8.26.3-4). His appearance here is purely literary. His passionate complaint seems to comment on Mardonius’ arrogance on wealth (7.9.α1, Pers. 239). Those compared are money and freedom. This is the uppermost point of comparison and confrontation between Persians and Greeks. On the one side the value of money is posed, which teaches “the soul always to seek to have more” (7.18.2), and on the other is the value of virtue, which stirs up the contest for freedom. Herodotus agrees with Tritantaichmes; he characterizes his opinion as brave.44
32Xerxes ‘turned the whole thing into a joke and showed no anger at all’ (7.105; cf. 103.1); Croesus held in contempt Solon (1.33). This laughter epitomizes Xerxes’ hubris and anticipates (prolēpsis) the forthcoming punishment. The laughter is an important literary device in Herodotus, which shows contempt for the interlocutor and informs the reader that the hero in the supreme point of his power and prosperity is unaware of human vulnerability and foreshadows his final fall. 45 The suitors, just before their slaughter, “laughed with jaws that were no longer their own” (Od. 18. 347, Latt.).
Divine Envy
33Envy is a stage in the process of ate, as it appears in the mesode, and in the pattern of the rise and fall of a ruler. But it has been argued that divine retribution is a model in the Historiē and that the envy of the gods plays a major role; envy is arguably for Herodotus the primary motor of historical action; divine power is an envious force jealous of individuals who enjoy good fortune. Divine jealousy prevents living beings from growing excessively, puts limits to human free will, or functions as a component of determinism.46
34The most I can see in all the cases of divine envy is the scheme of the double motivation of the action, a combination of human (or pragmatic) and divine causes (from a retrospective point of view). It is the way of the archaic man (but not only of him) to describe the events. This is probably the most Homeric characteristic of Herodotus. Such is ‘Agamemnon’s Apology’ in the Iliad (19.86 ff.): Atē deludes all; her feet are delicate and she walks the air above men’s heads and leads them astray (cf. Il. 9.119, 505-507). In the Persae it is the Atē, daimōn or alastōr, which is held responsible post eventum. The typical situation for envy in Herodotus is that which describes Mark Edwards on Agamemnon: “Aeschylus is in fact presenting, not a Zeus who forces an innocent man to make a decision and then destroys him for it, but a real world like that of Solon where a man in a high position is liable to fall into arrogance, especially if he has overmuch wealth... And he is, of course, held responsible for his actions, which is what Aeschylus understood by free will”.47
35In human actions, envy puts in motion the “penalty and retribution of the existing things to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of time” (Anaximander fr. 1 Diels-Kranz, transl. Kirk-Raven-Schofield; cf. Heraclitus fr. B94, 80 Diels-Kranz). The aitiē through which the Greeks and the barbarians came to war with each other may be one “retribution of the existing things to each other for their injustice”. In the mythic explanation of the causes of the war, Herodotus himself uses the same expression δίκας διδόναι (1.3.1, 2). But there is not a cosmic system of justice or a divine retribution: it is a matter of human reaction, as in the heroes of tragedy and in real life.48
36In the council of the best e.g. Artabanus in a ‘prophecy from the event’ connects in causal relation divine envy and hubris: “The god hurls his bolts upon the greatest houses and the tallest trees. For the god loves to thwart whatever is greater than the rest… The god does not suffer pride (φρονεῖν μέγα) in anyone but himself” (7.10.ε, Grene, with alter.). The φρονεῖν μέγα [having excessive thoughts] describes hubris. On human level Arabanus is in agreement with Thrasybulus’ lesson to Periander (5.92ζ.2-η1; cf. 3.80.3-4).49
37Divine envy has nothing to do with Croesus’ story and Polycrates’ death. Croesus possessed power and wealth. He made the expedition against the Persians because “He longed for additional territory to that which was his portion but, mostly, because he trusted in the oracle and because he wanted”, if he might “forestall the increase in power before the Persians had grown really great” (1.73.1, 1.46.1; cf. 87.3). He interpreted the oracle according to his wishes: the fawning and blinding ἄτη is speaking to him. After the explanations given from Pythia about the oracles, Croesus “acknowledged (συνέγνω) that the fault had been none of the god’s but his own” (91.6); the fault was his own, as with the tragic hero- not divine envy.50 In his discussion with Croesus, Solon confirms: “The divine is entirely grudging and troublesome to us” (1.32.1, Godley). In his discussion with Xerxes at Abydos Artabanus says in a Homeric way “the god is discovered to be envious; for he gives us but a taste of the sweetness of life” (7.46.4; cf. Il. 24. 525-526). But this does not mean that envy is self-acting, without visible cause: it is generated by an outrageous action of the agent and human reaction. That “nemesis from god took Croesus, as one may suppose (hōs eikasai), because he thought himself to be the most fortunate of men” (34.1) must not be taken literally (even in the case it refers only to his son’s death): not merely because he thought himself olbiotaton, but because all his decisions were taken at the stage of koros, i.e. under the influence of the fawning and blinding atē. Croesus’ overall policy (and not only his attack on Cyrus) is based on the four-dialectical-stages of Ate-motif. The phrase hōs eikasai means from a retrospective point of view. After all nemesis (from the verb νέμω) is related to eunomia, which “conveys ideas of ‘good order’, ‘good laws’ and ‘having the laws well obeyed’, together with that of an appropriate distribution (nemesthai, ‘assign’) of wealth, power and resources within society”. Croesus’ story functions as a general pattern of the rise and fall of a ruler in the Historiē.51
38Polycrates possessed power, but he had no money to match his plans. Oroetes lends his voice to the fawning and blinding ἄτη: “I find that you aim at great things, but that you have not sufficient money for your purpose... you may take some [of my money]; thus you shall have wealth enough to rule all Greece” (122.3-4, Godley). Polycrates was the first in historical times who laid plans for mastery of the sea and he had high hopes of mastering Ionia and the islands (122.2). He ‘paid no regard to the counsel’ (to the advice of priests, his friends and his daughter) he went to Magnesia and met his death: “he was, you see, very fond of money” (123.1). All the actors of the four dialectical stages of hubris are here. “When a man is in hurry himself, the god will lend him a hand” (Pers. 742). In Polycrates’ story what follows is the consequence of what happened before according to necessity (cf. Arist. Poetics 1452a18-20).52
39Themistocles’ explanation of Greek victory is an invention of tragic myth: “It was not we who achieved this, but the gods and the heroes, who were envious (phthonein) that one man should be king over Asia and Europe, a man who is impious and outrageous (atasthalos)” (8.109.3, Fisher). The ‘outrageous’ goes back to Xerxes’ punishment of Hellespont (7.35.2) and his recklessness. The gods were envious from a retrospective point of view. “This is not to say that Herodotus excludes from his account, or that he consequently downplays, the achievements or plans of men. As Themistocles also asserts (8.60γ), divinity is more likely to promote human plans if they are reasonable”.53
Nomos and phusis for Greeks and Persians
40Native feature of Persians is that they “are by nature arrogant- and they are poor” (1.89.2; cf. Sandanis’ words, 1.71.2-3). The freedom, Cyrus promised (1.125-26), means for the Persians power and empire and constitutes the Persian nomos of ‘never at rest’. By their ruling over other people, they obtained wealth, which generated their hubris. And in Cyrus’ second anecdote in the final chapter, the Persians “chose to rule, living in a wretched land, rather than to sow the level plains and be slaves to others” (122.3-4). Natural feature of Greeks is that “Poverty has always been native (phusis) in Greece… By virtue of this, Greece fights off poverty and despotism” (7.102.1). Virtue is the result of nomos for the Greeks; the respective result of the nomos ‘never at rest’ is wealth for the Persians. The wealth of the Persians is contrasted with the poverty of Greece, illustrated in the Pausanias’ banquet (9.82). So, these two respective features (by nature arrogant and by nomos wealthy and by nature poor and by nomos courageous) oppose the Persians and the Greeks and constitute the two poles of the Historiē; they, also, articulate a “reason why they fought one another”.54 We may infer: (i) that the victory over Persians was not against soft but brave men and (ii) “the Persians, once a tough people in a rugged land, had risen to power and domination, and eventually been softened by their wealth; they had then suffered a crushing defeat by the Greeks, a poor people in a rugged country”.55
41The final chapter stands as an epilogue of the Historiē (a closure similar to that of the Iliad) as on the one hand it seems to highlight the opposition between ruling and being ruled, and on the other hand to refer to some particular points of it. The Persians ‘will be more admired’ goes back in a circle to the proemion to ‘great and wonderful deeds’. The meaning of rule, of course, reminds of the nomos ‘never at rest’ and deciphers to an extent the “reason why they fought one another” of the proemion, as well as the cause of the particular result of the conflict. The openig theme of the Historiē that the Persians consider all of Asia as their own, assimilating this land to a ‘house’, is repeated at its end, in both cases in present tense (1.4.4 οἰκηιεῦνται, 9.116.3 νομίζουσιν). A circle both in composition and in events has been fulfilled.56
Herodotus Warner
42The Greeks sailed to Andros with the purpose of taking it, for the Andrians, the first of the islanders to be asked for money by Themistocles, had refused him (8.111.2); such ἀργυρολογία was a common practice in the Peloponnesian war (2.69, 3.19, 4.50, 75; How, Wells [1912] 1979-1980). Themistocles proposed that the Athenians have come with two great gods to aid them, Persuasion and Necessity. But the Andrians replied that they “have a most plentiful poverty of land and two useless gods, who never quit their island but love to dwell in it without interuption, Penury and Helplessness” (8.111), which strongly reminds Demaratus’ words that poverty has always been native in Greece (7.102.1) and Alcaeus’ 364 Lobel-Page: Themistocles and the Athenians are now in Xerxes’ position. Themistocles’ greed for money was insatiable; and making Andros his base he got money from the rest of the islanders (8.112.2). This πλεονεκτέων is “to teach the soul always to seek to have more” (7.16α 2; 18.2), which is a stage of hubris. These correspondences must warn the Athenians of their empire.57
43The well-known poverty of Greece makes vulnerable her virtue by means of bribery. The Thebans counselled Mardonius: “Send money to the leading men in the cities, and in so sending you will slpit Greece apart” (9.2.3; cf. Artabazus’ proposal 9.41.3).58 However, the Athenians strongly repudiated wealth and bribery from Mardonius: they said to the Spartan envoys that “there was not enough gold in the world anywhere, not territory beautiful and fertile enough, that we should take it in return for turning to the Persian interest and enslaving Greece” (8.144.1).
44This is in fact an implicit praise of Athens. (i) Part of such praise is the increase of Athens, which Herodotus describes in retrospect of the Athenian history (5.55-96). Athens had increased in greatness: in everything equality and free speech are clearly good; “when the Athenians were freed, each one was eager to achieve for himself” (5.78, Godley; cf. 5.91, 97). Other occasions of such praise are (ii) when the Athenians gave way from their claim to be leaders of the navy (8.3.1). (iii) when Herodotus himself evaluates Athens’ contribution in the war against the Persians thus: “a man who declares that the Athenians were the saviors of Greece would hit the very truth. For to whichever side they inclined, that was where the scale would come down” (7.139.5). This is a more emphatic version of the well-known Homeric technique of the ‘objective observer’. Herodotus introduces this judgment with the methodological statement: “At this point I am forced to declare an opinion that most people will find offensive” (7.139.1, Grene), but he will not refrain from saying what seems to him to be true.59
45The increase of Athens cannot but recall the programmatic statement of Herodotus, οne of his great leitmotifs, the mutability of fortune and the fragility of human life; he states it explicitly at the outset: “Most of the cities that were great in earlier times have now become small, and those that were great in my times were small in the time before. Since, then, I know that man’s good fortune never abides in the same place, I will make mention of both alike” (1.5.4, Grene alter.). Wealth and power in a long time are included in the rise and fall of rulers and cities. This motif is developed on stage in historiēs apodexis and is incorporated in the rise and fall of a ruler: atē, hubris and envy are virtually contained in this process. By the Persians’ ruling over other people, they obtained wealth, which generated their hubris. Historiēs apodexis begins with Croesus who began unjust acts against the Greeks: he subdued some of them to the payment of tribute (1.5.3, 6.2). The importance of this tribute is clear from the fear of chorus of the Persae “nor continue to pay tribute” (585). On the other hand, the Athenians might have “learn[ed] this first of all: that all human matters are a wheel, and, as it turns, it never suffers the same men to be happy forever” (1.207.2). Every city may be found in the place of paying penalty and retribution to each other for its injustice according to the dikē. The Athenians could seek the point of the circle they are. Historiē itself is fulfilled in this circle.60
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Adkins 1960: Arthur W.H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility, Oxford.
— 1972: Arthur W.H. Adkins, Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece, London.
Anderson 1972: Michael Anderson, “The Imagery of the Persians”, G&R 19, p. 166-174.
10.1017/S0017383500019835 :Balot 2001: Ryan K. Balot, Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens, Princeton- Oxford.
10.1515/9780691220154 :Bakker 2002: Egbert J. Bakker, “The Making of History: Herodotus’ Historiês Apodexis”, in Bakker et.al. 2002, p. 3-32.
Bakker et al. 2002: Egbert J. Bakker, I.J.F. de Jong, Hans van Wees (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Herodotus, Leiden-Boston-Köln.
Baragwanath 2008: Emily Baragwanath, Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus, Oxford.
— 2012: Emily Baragwanath, “Returning to Troy: Herodotus and the Mythic Discourse of his own Time”, in Baragwanath, Bakker 2012, p. 287-312.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693979.001.0001 :Baragwanath, Bakker 2012: Emily Baragwanath, Mathieu de Bakker (ed.), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus, Oxford.
Blösel 2007: Wolfgang Blösel, “The Herodotean picture of Themistocles: a mirror of fifth-century Athens”, in Nino Luraghi, The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus, Oxford, p. 179-197.
10.1093/oso/9780199240500.001.0001 :Boedeker 1988: Deborah Boedeker, “Protesilaos and the End of Herodotus Histories”, CA 7, p. 30-48.
10.2307/25010877 :— 2002: Deborah Boedeker, “Epic Heritage and Mythical Patterns in Herodotus”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 97-116.
10.1163/9789004217584 :Boedeker, Peradotto 1987: Deborah Boedeker, John Peradotto (ed.), Herodotus and the Invention of History, Arethusa 20, New York.
den Boer 1968: Wan den Boer, “Graeco-Roman Historiography in its relation to Biblical and Modern Thinking”, History and Theory 7, p 60-75.
Broadhead 1960: Henry D. Broadhead, The Persae of Aeschylus, Cambridge.
Chiasson 1980: Charles C. Chiasson, The Question of Tragic Influence on Herodotus, Yale University Diss. (DA 40 1980 5849 A)., New Haven.
— 2012: Charles C. Chiasson, “Myth and Truth in Herodotus’ Cyrus Logos”, in Baragwanath, Bakker 2012, p. 213-232.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693979.001.0001 :Collingwood 1994: Robin G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Oxford (revised edition, repr. 2005).
Connor 1993: W.R. Connor, “The Histor in History”, in Ralph M. Rosen, Joseph Farrell (ed.), Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor, p. 3-15.
De Sainte Croix 1992: Geoffrey E. M. De Sainte Croix, “Aristotle on History and Poetry”, in Amélie O. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics, Princeton, p. 23-32.
Dewald 2006: Carolyn Dewald, “Humour and danger in Herodotus”, in Dewald, Marincola 2006, p. 145-164.
10.1017/CCOL052183001X.XML :— 2012: Carolyn Dewald, “Myth and Legend in Herodotus’ First Book”, in Baragwanath, Bakker 2012, p. 59-85.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199693979.001.0001 :Dewald, Marincola 2006: Dewald Carolyn, John Marincola (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, Cambridge-New York.
Dodds 1951: Eric R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley-Los Angeles.
10.1525/9780520931275 :Edwards 1977: Mark W. Edwards, “Agamemnon’s Decision. Freedom and Folly in Aeschylus”, CSCA 10, p. 17-38.
10.2307/25010711 :Evans 1991: James A. Evans, Herodotus, Explorer of the Past: Three Essays, Princeton.
Fehling 1989: Detlev Fehling, Herodotus and His ‘Sources’: Citation, Invention, and Narrative Art (trad. J. G. Howie), Leeds.
Fisher 1992: Nick R. Fisher, Hybris: A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece, Warminster.
— 2002: Nick R. Fisher, “Popular Morality in Herodotus”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 199-224.
10.1163/9789004217584 :Flower, Marincola 2008: Michael A. Flower, John Marincola, Herodotus Histories Book IX, Cambridge.
Floyd 1990: Edwin Floyd, “The Sources of Greek Ἵστωρ ‘Judge, Witness’”, Glotta 68, p. 157-166.
Fornara 1971: Charles W. Fornara, Herodotus. An Interpretative Essay, Oxford.
10.1093/cr/51.2.238 :— 1990: Charles W. Fornara, “Human History and the Constraint of Fate in Herodotus”, in J. Allison (ed.), Conflict, Antithesis, and the Ancient Historian, Columbus, p. 25-45.
Forsdyke 2001: Sara Forsdyke, “Athenian Democratic Ideology and Herodotus’ Histories”, AJPh 122, p. 329-358.
10.1353/ajp.2001.0038 :— 2006: Sara Forsdyke, “Herodotus, Political History, and Political Thought”, in Dewald, Marincola 2006, p. 224-237.
10.1017/CCOL052183001X.XML :Fraenkel [1950] 1978: Eduard Fraenkel, Aeschylus Agamemnon vols i-iii, Oxford.
Gagarin 1976: Michael Gagarin, Aeschylean Drama, Berkeley-London.
10.1525/9780520400092 :Gantz 1981: Timothy Gantz, “Divine guilt in Aischylos”, CQ 31, p. 18-32.
10.1017/S0009838800021042 :Garvie 2009: Alexander F. Garvie, Aeschylus Persae, Oxford.
Gould 1991: John Gould, Give and take in Herodotus, (The Fifteenth J.L. Myres Memorial Lecture), Oxford.
— 1989: John Gould, Herodotus, London.
Graham 2003: Daniel W. Graham, “Philosophy on the Nile: Herodotus and Ionian research”, Apeiron 36, p. 291-310.
10.1515/APEIRON.2003.36.4.291 :Greene [1944] 1968: William C. Greene, Moira, Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought, [Gloucester, Mass.] New York.
Grethlein 2010: Jonas Grethlein, The Greeks and Their Past: Poetry, Orator and History in the Fifth Century BCE, Cambridge-New York.
Griffin 2006: Griffin Jasper, “Herodotus and Tragedy”, in Dewald, Marincola 2006, p. 46-58.
Griffith 2007: Mark Griffith, “The King and Eye: The Rule of the Father in Aeschylos’ Persians”, in Lloyd 2007, p. 93-140 (repr. PCPhS 44, 1988, p. 20-84).
Hall 1989: Edith Hall, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy, Oxford.
Harrison 1997: Thomas Harrison, “Herodotus and the certainty of divine retribution”, in Alan B. Lloyd (ed.), What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, London, p. 101-122.
10.2307/j.ctvvn9hh :— 2000a: Thomas Harrison, The Emptiness of Asia: Aeschylus Persians and the History of the Fifth Century, London.
— 2000b: Thomas Harrison, Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus, Oxford.
— 2002: Thomas Harrison, “The Persian Invasions”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 551-578.
— 2003: Thomas Harrison, “The Cause of Things: Envy and the Emotions in Herodotus’ Histories”, in David Konstan, N. Keith Rutter (ed.), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh, p. 143–163.
— 2015: Thomas Harrison, “Herodotus on the Character of Persian Imperialism (7.5-11)”, in Anne Fitzpatrick-McKiney (ed.), Assessing Biblical and Classical Sources for the Reconstruction of Persian Influence, History and Culure. Classica et Orientalia, Wiesbaden, p. 9-48 [= 1-40].
Harvey 1985: David Harvey, “Dona ferentes: Some Aspects of Bribery in Greek Politics”, in Paul A. Cartledge, David Harvey (ed.), Crux: Essays in Greek History Presented to G.E.M. De Ste. Croix on his 75th Birthday, London, p. 76-117.
Herington 1991a: John Herington, “The Closure of Herodotus’ Histories”, ICS 16, p. 149-160.
— 1991b: John Herington, “The Poem of Herodotus”, Arion 1, p. 5-16.
How, Wells [1912] 1979-1980: Walter W. How, Joseph Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus with Introduction and Apendixes, 2 vols., Oxford.
Humphreys 1987: Sarah Humphreys, “Law, Custom, and Culture in Herodotus”, in Boedeker, Peradotto 1987, p. 211-220.
Immerwahr 1966: Henry R. Immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus, Cleveland (Ohio).
Jones 1980: John Jones, On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy, London.
Kantzios 2004: Ippokratis Kantzios, “The politics of fear in Aeschylus’ Persians”, CW 98, p. 3-19.
KIRK et al. [1983] 1990: Geoffrey S. Kirk, John E. Raven, Malcom Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Cambridge-New York.
10.1017/CBO9780511813375 :KONSTAN 1987: David Konstan, “Persians, Greeks, and Empire”, Arethusa 20, p. 59-74.
— 2003: David Konstan, “Nemesis and Phthonos”, in Geoffrey W. Bakewell, James P. Sickinger (ed.), Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy, Oxford, p. 74-87.
10.2307/j.ctv13nb8zd :Lateiner 1980: Donald Lateiner, “A Note on δίκας διδόναι in Herodotus”, CQ 30, p. 30-32.
Lattimore 1939: Richmond Lattimore, “The wise adviser in Herodotus”, CPh 34, p. 24-35.
Lloyd 1966: Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy. Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought, Cambridge.
Lloyd 2007: Michael A. Lloyd (ed.), Aeschylus, Oxford.
Michellini 1982: Ann N. Michellini, Tradition and Dramatic form in the Persians of Aeschylus, Leiden.
10.1163/9789004668881 :Mikalson 2002: John D. Mikalson, “Religion in Herodotus”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 187-198.
10.1163/9789004217584 :Moles 2002: John Moles, “Herodotus and Athens”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 33-52.
10.1163/9789004217584 :Munson 2001: Rosaria Vignolo Munson, “Ananke in Herodotus”, JHS 121, p. 30-50.
Munz 1956: Peter Munz, “History and Myth”, Phil.Quart. 6, p. 1-16.
10.2307/2217333 :Pelling 2006: Christopher B. R. Pelling, “Speech and narrative in the Histories”, in Dewald, Marincola 2006, p. 103-121.
10.1017/CCOL052183001X.XML :Perysinakis 1982: Ioannis N. Perysinakis, Wealth and Society in Early Greek Literature, Diss. King’s College London, London.
— 1987: Ioannis N. Perysinakis, Ἡ ἔννοια τοῦ πλούτου στὴν Ἱστορίη τοῦ Ἡροδότου Ἰωάννινα, [repr. 1998].
— 2012: Ioannis N. Perysinakis, Ἀρχαϊκὴ Λυρικὴ Ποίηση, Ἀνθολογία μὲ βάση τὸν ἀγαθὸ καὶ τὴν ἀρετή, Κείμενο- μετάφραση- ἑρμηνεία, Εκδ. Δημ. Παπαδήμας, Αθήνα.
Raaflaub 1987: Kurt A. Raaflaub, “Herodotus, Political Thought, and the Meaning of History”, Arethusa 20, p. 221-248.
Rhodes 1981: Peter J. Rhodes, A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia, Oxford.
Rosenbloom 2006: David S. Rosenbloom, Aeschylus: Persians, London.
Said 2002: Suzanne Said, “Herodotus and Tragedy”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 117-147.
10.1163/9789004217584 :— 2012: Suzanne Said, “Herodotus and the ‘Myth’ of the Trojan War”, in Baragwanath, Bakker 2012, p. 87-105.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2002: Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, “The Personality of Xerxes, King of Kings”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 579-590.
Scullion 2006: Scott Scullion, “Herodotus and Greek religion”, in Dewald, Marincola 2006, p. 192-208.
10.1017/CCOL052183001X.XML :Shapiro 1994: Susan O. Shapiro, “Learning through Suffering: Human Wisdom in Herodotus”, CJ 89, p. 349-355.
Sinclair 1967: Thomas A. Sinclair, A History of Greek Political Thought, London.
Stadter 1992: Philip A. Stadter, “Herodotus and the Athenian Archê”, ASNP 22-3, p. 781-809.
Stahl 1975: Hans-Peter Stahl, “Learning through suffering? Croesus Conversations in the History of Herodotus”, YCS 34, p. 1-36.
Taplin 2006: Oliver Taplin, “Aeschylus’ Persai: The Entry of Tragedy into the Celebration Culture of the 470s?”, in Douglas Cairns, Vayos Liapis (ed.), Dionysalexandros: Essays on Aeschylus and his Fellow Tragedians in Honour of Alexander F. Garvie, Swansea, p. 1-10.
10.2307/j.ctvvn9b8 :Thomas 2006: Rosalind Thomas, “The intellectual milieu of Herodotus”, in Dewald, Marincola 2006, p. 60-75.
van Wees 2002: Hans van Wees, “Herodotus and the Past”, in Bakker et al. 2002, p. 321-349.
Walcot 1978: Peter Walcot, Envy and the Greeks, Warminster.
Wilson 1979: John Wilson, “Καί κέ τις ὧδ᾽ἐρέει: An Homeric Device in Greek Literature”, ICS, p. 1-15.
— 1986: John Wilson, “Territoriality and its violation in the Persians of Aeschylus”, in Martin Cropp, Elaine Fantham, S.E. Scully (ed.), Greek Tragedy and Its Legacy. Essays Presented to D.J. Conacher, Calgary, p. 51-57.
Winnington-Ingram 1973: Reginald P. Winnington-Ingram, “Zeus in the Persae”, JHS 93, p. 210-219.
Wyatt 1982: William F. Wyatt, “Homeric Ἄτη”, AJP 103, p. 247-276.
Notes de bas de page
1 Said 2002; Griffin 2006. Cf. also Chiasson 1980; Perysinakis 1987: “Tragedy and Historie”, p. 107-155.
Texts used: for the Persae D. Page (OCT, 1975); for the Historiē C. Hude (OCT, 1975); for other authors the OCT are used. Translations: for the Persae translation used is that of A. H. SOMMERSTEIN (Loeb 2008) or S.G. Benardete (in D. Grene, R. Lattimore (ed.), The Complete Greek Tragedies: Aeschylus II, Univ. of Chicago Press 1956), for the Historiē that of D. Grene (Chicago and London 1988) or, as indicated, that of A.D. Godley (Loeb: i 1975, ii 1928, iii 1938, iv 1969). I am grateful to Dr Anna Fyta who read a previous draft of this paper and improved the English; for whatever blemishes remaining the responsibility is mine. Stella Georgoudi’s cooperation in the editing of the paper was decisive.
2 Wealth also constitutes an important part of the tragedy’s imagery, excluded for reasons of space. Sources and components of wealth and attitudes to wealth in Herodotus’ Historie, as well as ‘Tragedy and Historie’, ‘Historical causation and plot’, ‘Divine and man’ and ‘Herodotus’ political thoughts’ in Historie have been studied exhaustively in Perysinakis 1987.
3 den Boer 1968, p. 62. Munz 1956, p. 9. Perysinakis 1982, p. 668-669 and 1987, p. 110-111. Taplin 2006, p. 1-10.
4 PERYSINAKIS 1987, 110. GRIFFIN 2006, p. 50-51: the choice of Gyges, the interplay of free will and compulsion, is influenced itself by tragedy. Said 2012, p. 90: Herodotus draws the myths of the Trojan War into history. Cf. also DEWALD 2012, CHIASSON 2012 and BARAGWANATH 2012.
5 Fornara 1971, p. 88: Herodotus interprets the past by the present. Sinclair 1967, p. 39: Historiē and Persae would be a much better introduction to Greek political thought than Plato’s Rep. Raaflaub 1987, p. 232-233. Connor 1993.
6 De Ste Croix 1992, p. 23, 28-29. Fehling 1989, p. 175. Pelling 2006, p. 117. Evans 1991, p. 5: Herodotus borrowed tragic elements to catch his audience. Herington 1991b.
7 Kirk et al. 1990, p. 117-119, 120-121.
8 Cf. Bakker 2002, p. 13-22.
9 Perysinakis 1982, p. 669, 681, 671. Jones 1980, p. 72. Gagarin 1976, p. 38-39. Hall 1989, p. 80-81. Michelini 1982, p. 86-88. Fisher 1992, p. 256-257. Kantzios 2004. Rosenbloom 2006, p. 39-61 on fear. ‘The emptiness of Asia’ is the title of Harrison’s book 2000a and the title of ch. 7, p. 66-75.
10 Perysinakis 1982, p. 671-673 with note 14, 686. Winnington-Ingram 1973, p. 210, 213-214. Walcot 1978, p. 50-51. Garvie 2009, p. 186: envy underlines the whole of the first half of the play (Intr. xxvii-xxix).
11 Dodds 1951, p. 10-11. Cf. Perysinakis 1982, p. 672-673, 665 and 1987, p. 142. Wyatt 1982, p. 268-276. Griffith 2007, p. 114: Atē and Apatē, Folly and Delusion seduce Xerxes.
12 Perysinakis 1982, p. 673. Wilson 1986, p. 53-54.
13 So Said 2002, p. 143, 145.
14 So ibid., p. 139.
15 So ibid., p. 140. Grethlein 2010, p. 85: contingency of chance is at the core of Persae, but the envy of the gods plays a major role.
16 Perysinakis 1982, p. 677. Garvie 2009, p. 107-109.
17 Lines 230-245 form the central section of Harrison 2000a chs 4-8. Forsdyke 2001, p. 342-343, 346. Garvie 2009, p. 102-104.
18 Perysinakis 1982, p. 678 and 1987, p. 39, 221. Rhodes 1981, p. 277-279. Garvie 2009, p. 137. Moles 2002, p. 44.
19 Perysinakis 1982, p. 674-675. The theme of disease as part of the imagery in the Persae has been stressed by Anderson 1972.
20 Winnington-Ingram 1973, p. 216 and note 28. Perysinakis 1982, p. 674-675 with notes 17 and 18. Griffith 2007, p. 112-118, 129-135.
21 Perysinakis 1982, p. 682. Garvie 2009, p. xxii-xxxii and 314-315: the play is not ‘simply’ the punishment of hubris.
22 Perysinakis 1982, p. 683-684. Adkins 1972, p. 85-86. Fisher 1992, p. 258-262. Michelini 1982, p. 95-96, 148-150. Dikē is always itheia or eutheia in Hesiod, Theognis, Solon and Aeschylus. Euthuna means setting straight, and especially in Athens “public examination of the conduct of officials” (LSJ9) (: euthunas hupechein). In Indo-European languages euthunein is the metaphor for administration of justice, still saved in the Latin rex and the English right: cf. Perysinakis 2012, p. 397-398, 410-12, 445-446 (with note 50); Rhodes 1981, p. 155.
23 Perysinakis 1982, p 685 and 1987, p. 163-164, 206-207. Gagarin 1976, p. 45. Kirk et al. 1990, p. 118-119, 120-121.
24 Said 2002, p. 138 uses this sentence as the best illustration of the gap between Herodotus and Aeschylus.
25 Garvie 2009, p. 824.
26 Perysinakis 1982, p. 686, 687. Daube in Fraenkel [1950] 1978 ii, p. 350. In Herodotus, however, Atossa advised Darius that the right thing for a man who is both young and master of great wealth is to achieve more (3.134.1; cf. 1.185.1, 190.2). Darius made the expedition against the Scythians, described in the fourth book. Atossa introduces the law of μὴ ἀτρεμίζειν (‘never at rest’), which invokes later Xerxes and Mardonius in the council of the best (7.8α1, 9γ).
27 Immerwahr 1966: “The pattern of History: The East”, p. 148-188, “…The West”, p. 189-237, “the rise of the pattern of the rise and fall”, p. 76-78. CHIASSON 2012, p. 225 speaks of ‘patterns of meaning’.
28 Fehling 1989, p. 175, 214-215.
29 Perysinakis 1987, p. 137. Pelling 2006, p. 108-110.
30 Perysinakis 1987, p. 137-138. Baragwanath 2008, p. 244-249. Harrison 2015, the section 7. 5-11 reveals the character of Persian imperialism.
31 Perysinakis 1987, p. 138-139, 142.
32 Ibid., p. 139-141. Raaflaub 1987, p. 229. Thomas 2006, p. 68.
33 On tragic diction in Herodotus, cf. Perysinakis 1987, p. 108 (note 4), 120, 131, 196, 226, 227, 154 and note 1.
34 Perysinakis 1987, p. 141-143. Fisher 1992, p. 369, 371.
35 Perysinakis 1987, p. 139-140 and n. 1. Lattimore 1939, p. 24-25, 26. Stahl 1975. Shapiro 1994. Fehling 1989, p. 203.
36 Harrison 1997, p. 111, 114. Fornara 1990, p. 36-39. But cf. Collinwood 1994, p. 41: “The gods have no plan of their own for the development of human affairs”.
37 So Harrison 2002, p. 559 and Said 2002, p. 144. Mikalson 2002, p. 192-193. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2002, p. 587-588. Baragwanath 2008, p. 249-250. Munson 2001, p. 34-6, 43. Fornara 1990, p. 30-31, 42-45; 1983, p. 78-79. But see Perysinakis 1987, p. 156-157, 160, 161; Lloyd 1966, p. 422.
38 Perysinakis 1987, p. 143-144; 161; 121-122.
39 So Said 2002, p. 138, 144. Cf. below and the dialogue in Abydos.
40 Perysinakis 1987, p. 146-147, 117-118, 157, 175, 232. ‘Contingency of chance’ is the core of Grethlein’s method 2010, p. 7-15 and passim. Pericles’ or Themistocles’ policy would agree with Artabanus’ principle (Thuc. 1.138.3, 2.65).
41 WILSON 1979; Perysinakis 1987, p. 150-151, 138.
42 Perysinakis 1987, p. 151-152, 200-201, 229-230. The way in which virtue fights poverty is inventiveness and efficiency in work in the land or the sea (cf. Ar. Pl. 510 ff.)
43 Perysinakis 1987, p. 152, 159, 163, 200-202. Humphreys 1987. Cf also Forsdyke 2001, p. 353-354. Munson 2001, p. 33. Harrison 2003, p. 161. Thomas 2006, p. 69.
44 Perysinakis 1987, p. 153-154. Cf. Konstan 1987, p. 61-62.
45 Perysinakis 1987, p. 154-155 and note 1; cf. above note 32. Balot 2001, p. 122. Konstan 1987, p. 66 and n. 15. Grethlein 2010, p. 201-202. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 2002, p. 587. Dewald 2006.
46 Harrison 1997 and 2003, p. 157; Harrison 2000b: the Histories are founded on the Solonian principle of the instability of human fortune (ch. 2, p. 31-63), p. 62-63. Said 2002, p. 146. Mikalson 2002, p. 193. Grethlein 2010, p. 194-195. Fisher 1992, p. 374. Fornara 1990, p. 39-40. On human level the servant and messenger of the Muses ought no to begrudge others his exceptional knowledge (Thgn. 769-70); cf. the almost formulaic expression in Plato “please don’t grudge us your proof, but proceed” (Prt. 320c1). Envy is a standard theme of praise in Pindar’s odes.
47 Edwards 1977, p. 31; Perysinakis 1987, p. 165.
48 Perysinakis 1987, p. 206-208, 163-14, 119: διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ (τὰ ὄντα) δίκην καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν. Lateiner 1980. Gould 1991, p. 18: reciprocal action is the most pervasive pattern of historical causation in Herodotus. Graham 2003. Cf. Harrison 1997, p. 111-112.
49 Perysinakis 1987, p. 163-164, 145-146. On co-operative terms cf. 3.142.1 and 7.237.2-3: Perysinakis 1987, p. 169, 172-173. Cf. Adkins 1960, p 178, 191-192 and 1972, p. 14-15, 69-70. Gantz 1981, p. 18. Baragwanath 2008, p. 174-177 (with n. 34).
50 Perysinakis 1987, p. 119-124, 160-161, 165-166, 188-189, 236. Raaflaub 1987, p. 241-244. Harrison 2003, p. 147-148, 151-152, 157-158. Adkins 1972, p. 19, 22. Greene 1968, p. 13-16, 124-125. Dewald 2012, p. 82, 84. Grethlein 2010, p. 199-200. Fisher 1992, p. 357-360. Gould 1989, p. 121-125. Griffin 2006, p. 50-51. Pelling 2006, p. 104-106. Scullion 2006, p. 196. Konstan 2003, p. 80-81 and 2006, p. 122, 127-128: nemesis became an archaism in the classical period; in fourth century phthonos, like nemesis, denotes resentment toward underserving recipients of good fortune.
51 Fisher 1992, p. 359-360 and 2002, p. 218. Adkins 1972, p. 51.
52 Perysinakis 1987, p. 166-169, 194. Said 2002, p. 126 does not find in Polycrates’ story probable or necessary sequence of episodes. Harrison 2003, p. 158-159: Harrison takes envy as a cause of things in Herodotus. FISHER 1992, p. 361-364.
53 Harrison 2002, p. 561. Cf. Said 2002, p. 137, 146. Fisher 2002, p. 224. Mikalson 2002, p. 188, 194. Griffin 2006, p. 48. Perysinakis 1987, p. 164.
54 Perysinakis 1987, p. 129, 202-204; Cf. ch. 24 of the Hippocratic work on Aer.
55 Raaflaub 1987, p. 245; cf. van Wees 2002, p. 336; cf. Harrison 2002, p. 565-566, 572.
56 Perysinakis 1987, p. 203, 180-181, 205-206. Boedeker 1988, p. 47-48 and 2002, p. 115. Grethlein 2010, p. 156-158. Harrison 1997, p. 105 and 2002, p. 553. Forsdyke 2006, p. 232. Thomas 2006, p. 65. Baragwanath 2012, p. 311. Said 2012, p. 104. Flower, Marincola 2008, ad 9.122. On the closure of the Historiē as a whole Herington 1991. On the proemion, historiē cf. Bakker 2002, p. 3-32; Connor 1993; Dewald 2012, p. 61-67. Scullion 2006, p. 204.
57 Perysinakis 1987, p. 227-231. Fornara 1971, p. 66. Raaflaub 1987, p. 239. Cf. Moles 2002, p. 47. Fisher 1992, p. 371, 374 and 2002, p. 224. Munson 2001, p. 38. Baragwanath 2008, p. 317-318, 321-322. Blösel 2007, p. 197. Balot 2001, p. 117-118.
58 Perysinakis 1987, p. 94-96, 201. Harvey 1985, p. 87, 111-112. On the poverty of Greece cf. Odysseas Elytes, To Axion Esti (Athēna, Ikaros 1970) p. 34, 52.
59 Perysinakis 1987, p. 222-226. Baragwanath 2008, p. 227-231 (ch. 7: “to medize or not to medize”). Raaflaub 1987, p. 238-239.
60 Perysinakis 1987, p. 218-222 with notes 181-182, 206-208, 232. Cf. also Forsdyke 2001 and 2007, p. 233. Stadter 1992: Athens had succeeded Persia in aggression across continental boundaries, exaction of tribute, and enslavement of subject peoples. Fornara 1990, p. 30. Baragwanath 2008, p. 227-231. Moles 2002, p. 42-43.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Des femmes en action
L'individu et la fonction en Grèce antique
Sandra Boehringer et Violaine Sebillotte Cuchet (dir.)
2013