 | Pindar's Homer The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past a machine readable edition Gregory Nagy | |
Copyright © 1980, 1997 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights reserved. This document may be used, with this notice included, for noncommercial purposes within a subscribed institution. No copies of this work may be distributed electronically outside of the subscribed institution, in whole or in part, without written permission from the JHU Press. | ||
§1. The juridical aspect of Herodotean narrative--that it can establish who is aitios 'responsible' for the ultimate struggle between Hellenes and Persians--is articulated already in the prooemium of the Histories, in that the purpose of the entire narrative is said to be an inquiry into the aitiâ 'cause' of that struggle. 1 Moreover, the word for 'inquiry' in the prooemium, historiâ, 2 is a juridical concept, semantically distinct from later uses of the word and from the current use of history. As we can see clearly from Bruno Snell's doctoral dissertation, historiâ is connected with the juridical words histôr 'witness, arbitrator' and historeô 'witness; inquire; conduct an inquiry'. 3 The noun histôr, derived from the verb represented by the aorist *[usubcirc]id- of idein 'see' and the perfect *[usubcirc]eid- / *[usubcirc]oid- of eidenai / oida 'know' (= "I have seen: therefore I know"), 4 is still attested in the sense of 'witness' in some contexts, 5 but in others the word has undergone semantic specialization, acquiring the sense of 'arbitrator'. A similar semantic specialization takes place in the Latin word arbiter 'arbitrator'. 6
§2. Snell draws our attention to one particular example of
histôr in this sense of 'arbitrator': it occurs at
Iliad XVIII 501, in the context of the description of the Shield of
Achilles.
1
On the Shield is depicted a scene of litigation (XVIII 497-508),
2
specifically a neikos 'conflict'
a)/mfw d' i(e/sqhn e)pi\ i)/stori pei=rar e(le/sqai
...and both were strising to come to terms in the presence of an arbitrator [histôr].
The process of arbitration is presented as a contest among a group of elders, where each takes his turn in offering, with skêptron 'scepter' in hand (XVIII 506), 8 a formula for resolution of the litigation (502-506); whoever pronounces the most equitable formula is to be awarded a given measure of gold (507-508). 9
§3. The pertinence of the neikos 'conflict' depicted on the Shield of Achilles goes far beyond the juridical issues of the litigation and subsequent arbitration narrated by the artifact. The narration has a dramatic as well as juridical dimension, and as such it has a bearing on the Iliad as a whole. 1 The refusal of the plaintiff to accept compensation is parallel to the refusal of Achilles to accept compensation (called apoina 2 at Iliad IX 20) from Agamemnon for the grievances that he suffered. 3 When Agamemnon, through his ambassadors, announces to Achilles an offer of compensation, one of these ambassadors, Ajax, actually contrasts the refusal on the part of Achilles with the acceptance on the part of a hypothetical plaintiff who is being offered compensation, poinê, for the death of his brother or son (Iliad IX 632-636). 4
§4. The point made by Ajax is that the heart of a man can be
assuaged by compensation even if he has lost someone as close as a
brother or father, whereas Achilles is supposedly heartless in
refusing compensation for the loss of someone who is surely far less
close, the girl Briseis (Iliad IX 636-638).
1
Ajax is in effect accusing Achilles of ranking Briseis ahead of his own
hetairoi 'comrades-in-arms' by failing to be swayed by the
comrades' philotês--the mutual state of being
philoi 'near and dear' to each other (XVIII 628-632).
2
From the vantage point of the ambassadors, they as
comrades-in-arms of Achilles should be closest to him--that is, most
philoi 'near and dear' to him (so says Phoenix at IX 522).
3
From the superior vantage point of the overall narrative, however,
someone is more philos 'near and dear' to Achilles than Briseis or the
hetairoi--someone who is in fact so close to him as to be his other self, Patroklos.
4
For Achilles, Patroklos is
§5. Which brings us back to the litigation depicted on the Shield of Achilles, a scene that reflects in microcosm the vantage point of the overall narrative. 1 By the time this scene is unveiled, Patroklos is already dead and Achilles has just been mourned by his mother as if he too were dead (at XVIII 54-60). 2 The anonymous little plaintiff pictured on the Shield is frozen in his inflexible position of refusing compensation for the death of a victim--a victim who is none other than the plaintiff himself from the overarching standpoint of the Iliad. 3 Soon after this scene, however, Achilles in the end accepts compensation from Agamemnon, who declares publicly that he was not aitios 'responsible' for causing the anger of Achilles-- that it was really Zeus who inflicted atê 'aberration, derangement' ( Iliad XIX 86-88, 134-136). 4 If Agamemnon really was aitios, of course, he would also be aitios for the death of Patroklos, which had resulted from the withdrawal of Achilles from his comrades-in-arms on account of his anger. But the situation is more complicated. Achilles too had incurred atê by refusing the entreaties of those who were near and dear to him. 5 As a reflection then of the neikos between Achilles and Agamemnon, the neikos between the anonymous plaintiff and the anonymous defendant on the Shield of Achilles presents the ultimate juridical problem. Who in the end is aitios 'responsible': is it one of the two heroes, or both, or, as one of them claims, the god himself, who is explicitly accused of inflicting atê?
§6. The Iliad does not address such a problem directly; instead it refers the case to a histôr 'arbitrator' (XVIII 501). In the separate world of the Shield of Achilles, a group of arbitrators must compete with each other in rendering justice, until one winning solution can at last be found. Such a winning solution is also needed for the Iliad as a whole, which does not formally take a position on who is aitios in its narrative. The question is left up to a figure who is beyond the Iliad, that is, to the histôr, whose function it is to render dikê 'judgment'. 1
§7. At this juncture we may shift our emphasis from a preoccupation with the Homeric
stance of Herodotus. It is time to consider his Hesiodic stance, as reflected in the concept of
historiâ. As one who pronounces dikê 'judgment', the histôr 'arbitrator' of
the Shield of Achilles fits a pattern that is clearly visible in the portrait of the ideal king in the Hesiodic
Theogony (80-93). The ideal king is one who has the moral authority to arbitrate and thus bring
to an end 'even a great neikos [= conflict]'
nu=n d' ai)=non basileu=sin e)re/w 4 frone/ousi kai\ au)toi=s
Now I will tell the kings a fable [ainos] --sound of mind [phroneontes] as they are.
Hesiod's presupposition of the kings' soundness of mind is really a
condition here: if the kings do not understand the ainos, then
they are not sound of mind.
5
These same kings have so far in the Works and Days displayed
just the opposite of soundness, in that they have earlier been
described as ready to pronounce a dikê 'judgment' that is
unsound (
§8. In fact the Works and Days claims an authority of its own, not
dependent on that of any earthly king. It is founded on the higher
authority of Zeus as a model for kings. When a king
pronounces dikê 'judgment' (as at Theogony86), he
is in effect 'sorting out' (= verb dia-krînô:
§9. Thus the Works and Days of Hesiod, a poem founded on the authority of Zeus as king, can teach the citizens of cities that are no longer ruled by kings. In fact it can teach all citizens of all cities. The structure of the poem, which a comparative study can relate to the cognate juridical traditions of India as embedded in the body of wise sayings known the Law Code of Manu, reflects a moral authority that could in theory serve as foundation for a law code. 1 But the laws of Greek cities in the Archaic and Classical periods are a local affair, with each law code reflecting the idiosyncratic history and politics of each city. Thus the Works and Days, by stopping short of formulating laws, can communicate a Panhellenic authority for the diverse law codes of all cities--whether the city's government be an oligarchy, a tyranny, or even a democracy. Even in a democracy, the ideological basis of authority is the dikê 'justice' of Zeus, just as it is elaborated in the Works and Days: thus, for example, the laws of Athens, as the poetry of the city's lawgiver Solon proclaims, are founded on the authority of Zeus as king (Solon F 31W). 2
§10. The juridical authority of earthly kings is eliminated not only in the Works and Days. Even in the Iliad, an epic about warriors who are simultaneously represented as kings, 1 the scene of litigation on the Shield of Achilles leaves out any mention of kings; the group of men taking turns at standing with skêptron 'scepter' in hand and arbitrating the litigation by pronouncing dikê (XVIII 503-508) are described not as kings, but merely as gerontes 'elders' (503). This omission is remarkable in view of the fact that the skêptron is the visible sign of a king's authority in the Iliad (e.g., IX 97-99). 2 Another such omission in the Hesiodic Theogony is even more remarkable in view of the fact that a theogony is by nature a formal confirmation of royal authority. 3 In the Theogony we find a significant omission in the detailed portrait of the ideal king (80-93), that man who can arbitrate the ultimate neikos 'conflict' (87): the ideal king is not pictured as wielding a skêptron. Instead the man who is given a skêptron is Hesiod himself, who gets it from the Muses (Theogony30). Thus the man who tells the ainos in the Works and Days is the same man who holds the symbol of ultimate juridical authority in the Theogony. 4
§11. Let us try to sum up what we know about the histôr 'arbitrator'. From the comparative evidence to be found in Homeric and Hesiodic poetry, we see that a histôr is a man who has the authority, derived from the kingship of Zeus, to solve conflicts, even by deciding who is aitios 'responsible' for what. His mode of discourse, based on privileged information, is that of the ainos.
§12. In the mode of a histôr, the historiâ 'inquiry' of Herodotus likewise takes a position on who is aitios. When Croesus, like Agamemnon, declares publicly that a god was aitios for the misfortunes that have been narrated, the historiâ represents the god Apollo as having the last word: Croesus himself is manifestly aitios (Herodotus 1.91.4). 1 Moreover, the man who conducts the historiâ, Herodotus, publicly takes the same position, and the word that he uses in this context to designate his privileged mode of communication is sêmainô (1.5.3) 2 --a word that is characteristic of the discourse of the ainos. 3
§13. By now we see more clearly how the historiâ of Herodotus, in seeking to establish who was responsible for the ultimate conflict between Hellenes and barbarians, is analogous to the task of the histôr depicted on the Shield of Achilles. In the microcosm of the Shield, an ideal histôr must seek the most equitable solution of a conflict between two litigants; in the macrocosm of the Iliad this same conflict recapitulates the ultimate conflict that leads off the entire narrative, the neikos of Achilles and Agamemnon.
§14. But the question still remains: what is the semantic relationship of the word histôr in the sense of 'arbitrator' with the verb historeô 'inquire, conduct an inquiry' and the noun historiâ 'inquiry' as used in Herodotus? The derivation of histôr from oida ("I have seen: therefore I know") 1 and its primary sense of 'witness' 2 can be misleading as we examine the usages of historeô and historiâ: although the process of inquiry conveyed by these two words is primarily on the level of seeing (e.g., Herodotus 2.99.1), 3 it can also be on the level of hearing but not seeing (e.g., 2.29.1). 4 So also with the word oida itself: after all, knowledge may at times be founded on hearing only (cf., e.g., Herodotus 1.5). The semantic evolution of histôr from 'one who sees' = 'eyewitness' 5 to something like 'he who sees beyond what others see' (where the vision may be figurative as well as real) is comparable to what we find in the French word voyant: literally this word means 'one who is endowed with sight', but the voyant is in fact endowed not with normal sight but "something that goes beyond it, 'second sight'." 6 It seems to me no accident that the first word of the first oracle directly quoted by Herodotus, where the voice of Apollo declares that it knows the number of every grain of sand and the full dimensions of the sea, is oida 'I know' (1.47.3).
§15. In this light we may also consider the semantic specialization of Latin arbiter. From the survey by Emile Benveniste of this word's usage in the diction of Plautus, 1 it becomes clear that the arbiter, unlike the testis, is a 'witness' only in a special sense: whereas the testis is known to the parties in a given case or situation, the arbiter may or may not be known and may or may not even be seen:
secede huc nunciam si videtur, procul,
ne arbitri dicta nostra arbitrari queant
Come over here, please, a way off,
so that arbitrî may not arbitrârî what we say.
eamus intro, non utibilest hic locus factis tuis
dum memoramus, arbitri ut sint qui praetereant per vias
Let's go inside. This is not a suitable place for us to talk about what you've done.
Those who pass by on the streets may be arbitrî.
mihi quidem iam arbitri vicini sunt, meae quid fiat domi,
ita per impluvium intro spectant
The neighbors are now arbitrî of whatever happens in my house:
they peer through the impluvium.
In explaining how such a "clandestine witness" as an arbiter evolves into an arbitrator, a judge, Benveniste adduces the semantics of iûdex: 2
We must recall that in the most ancient sense of the word the name iûdex was given to every authoritative person charged with passing judgment in a disputed case. In principle it was the king, the consul, the holder of all powers. But for practical reasons this power was delegated to a private judge who, according to the nature of the cases, was called iûdex or iûdex privâtus, or iûdex selectus or arbiter. The last was empowered to decide in all cases which were not foreseen by the law. [...] In effect, the arbiter makes his decision not according to formulae and the laws but by a personal assessment and in the name of equity. The arbiter is in fact a iûdex who acts as an arbiter; he judges by coming between the two parties from outside like someone who has been present at the affair without being seen, who can therefore give judgment on the facts freely and with authority, regardless of all precedent in the light of the circumstances.Although Benveniste does not directly adduce histôr or historiâ in this connection, we can see that his working definition of arbiter is pertinent to the meanings of both these Greek words. 3 The histôr, whose authority is derived from Zeus as king, can be understood as thereby having the privileged vantage point of the gods themselves, who can see without being seen. 4 The same goes for the historiâ 'inquiry' of Herodotus: when he sêmainei 'indicates' that Croesus is aitios 'responsible' for the ultimate conflict between Hellenes and barbarians (Herodotus 1.5.3), 5 he is in effect speaking from a privileged vantage point similar to that of the god Apollo himself, who sêmainei 'indicates' by way of his Oracle (Heraclitus 22 B 93 DK) 6 --and who likewise declares that Croesus is aitios (Herodotus 1.91.4). 7
§16. In this connection, now that we are reaching the end of our
inquiry into both the Homeric and the Hesiodic stances of Herodotus,
it is fitting to reiterate what Herodotus had said about the
Panhellenic contributions of Homer and Hesiod: these are the
poets 'who indicated the visible forms [eidos plural]
1
of the gods'. Again the word translated by 'indicate' here is
sêmainô (
§17. Such parallelism between Herodotus and Pindar has been our concern since the beginning of Chapter 8, with the assertion that the historiâ 'inquiry' of Herodotus, like the ainos of epinician poets like Pindar, is a form of discourse that claims the authority to possess and control the epic of heroes. 1 I had then proposed to support this assertion by arguing that the traditions underlying the historiâ are akin to those underlying the ainos of epinician lyric poetry. It is time to take stock of all that we have observed so far about the historiâ of Herodotus.
§18. The very word historiâ, as used by Herodotus in his prooemium, indicates the juridical aspect of what Herodotus has to say. In finding Croesus guilty or aitios 'responsible' for the ultimate conflict between Hellenes and barbarians, Herodotus is taking a stance similar to that of the histôr on the Shield of Achilles. Earlier we saw that Croesus proves himself to be guilty even by way of his behavior, which the narrative of Herodotus represents as a paradigm of atê 'derangement'. This representation is achieved in a quasi-juridical framework insofar as atê is defined through the teachings of the lawgiver Solon. But the atê of Croesus, as we have noticed, is not confronted directly by Solon in the encounter dramatized by Herodotus. 1 Moreover, Solon in Herodotus' Histories does not tell Croesus directly what we find him teaching in his own poetry, that atê is brought about by hubris. 2 This indirectness is not just a matter of diplomacy on Solon's part. Rather it can best be explained by considering the medium of Herodotus, historiâ. With his privileged position of knowledge, the master of historiâ is implicitly narrating divine actions as he explicitly narrates human actions. 3 The divine pattern of atê as brought about by hubris is for Herodotus an implicit message as he sêmainei 'indicates' that Croesus was in the wrong. The task still at hand is to show how the implicitness of Herodotus, and even his dramatization of Solon as a sage who formulates implicit messages about the dangers of hubris and atê, is akin to the communication of Pindar through the ainos.
§19. The implicit hubris of Croesus the Lydian is
indicated by the context of the story of Croesus and Solon in
the Histories of Herodotus. This story makes it clear that the
Persians acquired the characteristic of being habroi 'luxuriant',
which as we shall see is a basic feature of hubris,
from the Lydians, whom they had conquered: before the conquest,
in the words of Herodotus, the Persians had nothing that was
habron 'luxuriant' (
§20. In order to understand the traditional theme that being habros 'luxuriant' is a basic feature of hubris, let us turn to the traditions about the ktisis 'foundation' of the Greek city of Colophon, as reported by Phylarchus: in the beginning the colonizers of Colophon led a harsh life (Phylarchus FGH 81 F 66 in Athenaeus 526a), but eventually they turned to truphê 'luxuriance' when they came into contact with the Lydians (ibid.). 1 At this point Phylarchus (F 66 in Athenaeus 526a-b) quotes the following words of Xenophanes about the Colophonians:
a(brosu/nas de\ maqo/ntes a)nwfele/as para\ *ludw=n,
o)/fra turanni/hs h)=san a)/neu stugerh=s...
Learning the useless ways of luxuriance [= being habros] from the Lydians,
while they [= the Colophonians] were still free of hateful tyranny... 2
The Colophonians are ultimately ruined by their own hubris:
u(/bris kai\ *ma/gnhtas a)pw/lese kai\ *kolofw=na
kai\ *smu/rnhn: pa/ntws *ku/rne kai\ u)/mm' a)polei=
hubris ruined the Magnesians, and Colophon
and Smyrna; and it will assuredly ruin you [plural] too, Kyrnos!
The expression
§21. In the passage just quoted from Xenophanes, the ruin of Colophon is linked with turanniê 'tyranny', and we get further thematic details from Theopompus (FGH 115 F 117 in Athenaeus 526c): the luxuriance of the Colophonians resulted in turannis 'tyranny' and stasis [plural] 'discord', so that the city and its people were 'destroyed'. In this case 'tyranny' is probably to be understood as some form of political domination by Lydia: Herodotus, for example, refers to the capture of the lower city of Colophon by Gyges the Lydian (1.14.4), parallel to the capture of Smyrna by Alyattes, the great-grandson of Gyges (1.16.2). 1 But the point of this traditional story about Colophon seems to be that the misfortune of tyranny was caused primarily from within, not from without: the luxuriance of the Colophonians brought about their defeat at the hands of their external enemies. A parallel point is made in the story about the ruin of the Magnesians, whose luxuriance brought about their defeat at the hands of the Ephesians (Callinus F 3 W; Archilochus F 20 W; cf. Theognis603-604). 2 The ruin of the Magnesians is mentioned alongside that of the Colophonians and that of the Smyrnaeans in the poem of Theognis quoted above (1103-1104).
§22. For Theognis, such stories are made applicable to the
hubris that the poet finds in his own city of Megara
(ibid.; also Theognis603-604). In another poem, Theognis
1081-1082b, the voice of the poet goes so far as to say that Megara
is pregnant with a future tyrant, a man of hubris.
1
From this image of the pregnant city we see most clearly that
tyranny can be generated from within. That the man of
hubris in this poem is indeed a tyrant becomes evident from
another poem, Theognis39-52, a variant in which the emphasis
shifts from the hubris represented by the future tyrant to
the hubris that could bring forth the tyrant in the first place.
Again the poet says that his city is pregnant (Theognis 39), but this
time he fears that it will give birth to a man who will be 'a
corrector of our base hubris' (
§23. The point of this traditional topic is that whether tyranny afflicts a community from without or from within, its causes are from within. Granted, the Hellenes apparently learned the word turannos from the Lydians, as we may infer from its early attestation, applied to Gyges the Lydian, in Archilochus F 19 F (cf. Hippias of Elis FGH 6 F 6). 1 Still the experience of tyranny and of its causes is a native Hellenic tradition. While it is a matter of history that Colophon was culturally influenced and then politically subjugated by the Lydians, it is a matter of myth making that the stories of what happened in Colophon and elsewhere became paradigms for analogous patterns of happenings in other Hellenic city-states. The analogies vary considerably, but the language that expresses the analogous patterns follow closely the language of the paradigms. For example, whatever happened in Colophon or Smyrna or Magnesia is surely different from the ongoing events in mainland Megara, seemingly far beyond the reach of luxuriant Lydians or savage Cimmerians. 2 And yet, for Theognis, the same hubris that destroyed those three luxuriating cities from within 'now' threatens to destroy Megara as well (Theognis 1103-1104; cf. 603-604). This kind of warning by the figure of Theognis is typical of the mode of discourse that we have already identified as the ainos. 3
§24. In the Croesus story of Herodotus, a similar warning is
ostensibly being made--not about any Hellenic city but about
the Lydians themselves. Their ultimate luxuriance, manifested in
the material over-acquisitiveness of their
king Croesus as he tries
to conquer the Persian Empire, leads to their own defeat. In this
case, however, the conquerors learn the ways of
luxuriance from the defeated, and not the other way around: the Persians, who had previously led a harsh
life, acquire the quality of being habros 'luxuriant' from the Lydians (Herodotus 1.71.2).
1
Ominously, however, the harsh life of the Persians before Croesus is
different from that of men like the early settlers of Colophon. As
the captured king Croesus observes, in reaction to the sight
of Persians looting the captured Lydian city of Sardis, the Persians
are 'by nature men of hubris' (
§25. The two aspects of hubris, luxuriance and
savagery, tend to alternate in poetic treatments. In the poetry of
Theognis, for example, the hubris that threatens to destroy
Megara is either the same hubris that destroyed the
luxuriant Hellenes, as we have read in the passages cited, or the same hubris that
destroyed the Centaurs, 'eaters of raw flesh' (Theognis 541-542;
§26. For Herodotus, the ultimate exponent of the luxuriance
and savagery of hubris is Xerxes, the Great King of the
Persians, leader of the "Asian" hordes massed against Hellas. Even
more interesting for my present purposes, however, is another
Persian exponent of hubris, whose story pointedly brings to a
close the Histories of Herodotus. He is Artauktes, descendant
of a man who had advised Cyrus, founder of the Persian Empire, to
move from the 'harsh' land of Persia (
§27. Described as an underling of Xerxes, Artauktes was put in charge of
administering a region on the "Greek" side of the Hellespont, which
he ruled in the style of a turannos 'tyrant' (
de/spota, e)/sti oi)=kos a)ndro\s *(e/llhnos e)nqau=ta, o(\s e)pi\ gh=n th\n sh\n strateusa/menos di/khs kurh/sas a)pe/qane, tou/tou moi do\s to\n oi)=kon, i(/na kai/ tis ma/qh| e)pi\ gh=n th\n sh\n mh\ strateu/esqai
Master, there is here a house [oikos] belonging to a Greek man who had made war against your land. Getting his just deserts, he had died. Give me this man's house [oikos], so that everyone may learn not to make war against your land.
What Artauktes had said actually conveys an ulterior meaning: in
Greek epic tradition Protesilaos was the first Achaean to die fighting the
Trojans (Iliad II 698-702). Moreover, oikos
is a word that can designate the sacred precinct of a hero (e.g.,
Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 627).
4
For Xerxes, the oikos requested by Artauktes is the 'house'
of a Greek; for Artauktes, it is the precinct of Protesilaos. Once he is
granted ownership of the precinct, Artauktes proceeds to rob it of
its riches, to which the narrative refers as the khrêmata of
Protesilaos (9.116.1, 3; 9.120.3). The personalized tone reminds us
of the same word khrêmata in a poem of Theognis (667, 677),
describing the loss of possessions on the part of a figure who is
presented as an exponent of dikê 'righteousness' and
who speaks in the mode of the ainos
(
§28. Sometime after the Greek victories over the Persians at Salamis and Plataea, Artauktes is captured by the advancing Greeks as they push the Persians back to Asia, and a miracle supposedly happens just as Artauktes is about to be executed in retribution for the wrongs that he had committed. As one of his Greek captors is roasting tarîkhoi 'preserved fish' for a meal (Herodotus 9.120.1), 1 the dead fish suddenly come alive. Artauktes reacts as follows:
cei=ne *)aqhnai=e, mhde\n fobe/o to\ te/ras tou=to. ou) ga\r soi\ pe/fhne, a)ll' e)moi\ shmai/nei o( e)n *)elaiou=nti *prwtesi/lews o(/ti kai\ ta/rixos e)w\n du/namin pro\s qew=n e)/xei to\n a)dike/onta ti/nesqai.
Athenian stranger, do not be frightened of this portent. For it was manifested not for you. Rather, the Protesilaos who abides in Elaious is indicating [= verb sêmainô] to me that, even though he is dead --and a tarîkhos--he has the power from the gods to exact retribution from the one who commits wrongdoing [= does deeds without dikê].
§29. The word tarîkhos, possibly of Anatolian provenience, 1 has two meanings: either 'preserved fish', as from the standpoint of the man who was roasting the preserved fish, or 'mummy', as from the standpoint of Herodotus in describing the funerary practices of the Egyptians. 2 What the two meanings seem to have in common is the idea of preservation. In an everyday sense, rotting is negated by preservation through the drying or salting of fish; in a hieratic sense, rotting and death itself are negated by preservation through mummification, which is from the standpoint of Egyptian religion the ritual phase of the mystical process of immortalization. 3
§30. In the Egyptian ritual of mummification, the ideology of immortalization is evident in the relationship between the corpse and the wt 'bandager', which is made analogous to the relationship between Osiris, the first person to be mummified, and Anubis, the inventor of mummification. It has been observed that "each ritual was a re-enactment of the prototype, the deceased, as throughout the cult, being regarded as Osiris while the wt could be addressed as Anubis, take his epithets and occasionally, from the New Kingdom onwards, even wear the Anubis-mask." 1 When Herodotus discusses the most expensive procedure of mummification, he remarks ostentatiously that he does not wish to give away the name of the procedure (2.86.2), and his stance here is typical of his general stance toward mysteries. 2
§31. In the image of a dead fish that mystically comes back to life, we see a convergence of the everyday and the hieratic senses of preservation. This image in the story of Herodotus, where Protesilaos sêmainei 'indicates' (9.120.2) the power that he has from the gods to exact retribution from the wrongdoer, amounts to a sêma or 'sign' of the revenant, the spirit that returns from the dead. 1 The hero Protesilaos himself is represented as giving the sêma, the 'sign' of his power as a revenant from the heroic past.
§32. This theme recurs in the anonymous Alexander Romance,
conventionally dated to the third century A.D.
1
After conquering the Persian Empire, Alexander pushes on further
east till he reaches the edge of the world (
§33. Let us return to the story of Herodotus. The hapless Artauktes attempts to offer compensation for the wrongs that he had committed (9.120.3), but his offer is refused by his captors; he is executed at a spot near the place, as Herodotus emphasizes, where Xerxes had committed the ultimate outrage of bridging the Hellespont (9.120.4). On the surface Artauktes is paying retribution that is being exacted by human agency, that is, by his Athenian captors. Under the surface, however, retribution is being exacted by divine agency, through the hero Protesilaos.
§34. The role of Protesilaos is significant. By virtue of being the first Achaean to die in the Trojan War (Iliad II 698-702), he is described by Artauktes as a prominent Hellene who dared to attack Asians (again Herodotus 9.116.3). The narrative makes a point of drawing attention to the Persian assumption that underlies this description: the Persians take it for granted that all Asia belongs to them (9.116.3). With this theme the historiâ of Herodotus comes full circle in that the same assumption is cited at the beginning of the narrative (1.4.4) in the context of explaining why the logioi of the Persians find the Hellenes aitioi 'responsible' for the ultimate conflict (1.4.1): that the Hellenes were in the wrong when they attacked Troy (ibid.). Even if this Persian assumption--that all Asia is theirs--were valid, the Persians would have been in the wrong when Xerxes bridged the Hellespont separating Asia from Europe in that even the assumption of the Persians implicitly cedes Europe to the Hellenes. Besides, the historiâ of Herodotus had already established at the beginning who is aitios for the present conflict as Herodotus sêmainei 'indicates' that Croesus had initiated the wrongdoing (1.5.3). Now, at the end of the historiâ, the first of the Hellenes whom the Persians hold responsible for the present conflict is vindicated: he is really the party wronged by the Persians, just as all Hellenes are wronged when the Persians cross over to Europe, and it is he who exacts retribution from the offending Persians. As he does so, he sêmainei 'indicates' his power, which is equated here with the efficacy of the gods (again Herodotus 9.120.2).
§35. Protesilaos is thus giving a sêma 'sign'. The 'sign' is intended not only for Artauktes but also for those to whom Herodotus is offering his narrative. At the same time that the hero Protesilaos sêmainei 'indicates' to Artauktes the power of the divine apparatus in bringing about justice (Herodotus 9.120.2), the narrative of Herodotus is conveying the same message, a message that is saying to the Hellenes that they were in the right. Thus not only Protesilaos gives a sêma here. So too does Herodotus, the narrator of this sêma, who at the beginning of his historiâ 'indicates', sêmainei, that the Asians started it all (again Herodotus 1.5.3). 1 When Herodotus 'indicates', sêmainei, he is indirectly narrating the actions of the gods by directly narrating the actions of men. The most powerful 'indication' is the sêma of the hero, whose message is also his medium, the tomb. The double meaning of sêma as both 'tomb' and 'indication, sign' 2 is itself a monument to the power of the ideology inherent in the ancient Greek institution of hero cults--an ideology that appropriated the very concept of meaning to the tomb of the hero. Moreover, this ideology is inherent in the poetic form that can both celebrate the institution of hero cults and make it apply to a given situation in the present. That poetic form is the ainos. 3
§1n3. Snell 1924.59-71. On the word histôr see also Dewald 1987, especially p. 153n18, with further bibliography.
§1n4. For the semantics of histôr as 'he who knows',
Snell, p. 60n3, cites eidotes 'they who know' in the sense
of 'witnesses' at Demosthenes 55.9, 11ff, 35, and at Isocrates 17.44. He
also adduces (ibid.) the rare and apparently Solonian word
idûos / eidûos, cited by Eustathius as a synonym
of histôr in the context of Iliad XVIII 501. As an
agent noun, histôr is not to be linked with
eidenai 'know' only, to the exclusion of idein 'see':
see Snell, p. 61, on the expression
§1n5. In Boeotian inscriptions histôr seems to be
used in contexts where other dialects would feature
martûs 'witness' (e.g., DGE 491.18, 492.7, 503a.28, 511.7,
512.6, 523.64). In line with such oath-expressions as
§1n6. Snell, p. 60n4, who also adduces the entry ep-êkooi in Hesychius s.v.
§2n1. Snell, p. 60. The only other attestation of histôr in the Iliad / Odyssey is at XXIII 486, where Idomeneus suggests to Ajax that they call on Agamemnon as histôr to settle a dispute that they are having.
§2n2. In my interpretation of this scene, I am guided primarily by the analysis of L. Muellner (1976.100-106).
§2n3. The setting of the litigation is an agorâ 'assembly'.
§2n4. See Muellner, pp. 100-106 on the juridical sense of
eukheto here, for which there is a striking parallel in the use
of e-u-ke-to = eukhetoi 'makes a claim' in the Linear B
texts (Pylos tablets Ep 704 and Eb 297). Muellner also points out
(ibid.) that the defendant in the Iliad passage is
addressing his claim to an entity called the dêmos
(
§2n5. Here I am following the interpretation of Muellner 1976.105-106 ('but he said that he would accept nothing'), who notes the modal implication of negative mêden as opposed to ouden.
§2n6. This passage figures prominently in the discussion that follows.
Note the expression
§2n7. Another sign that it is inconclusive: the defendant rather than the plaintiff is represented as speaking first.
§2n8. For a parallel collocation of skêptron with the verb aissô, see Iliad III 216.
§2n9. The process whereby a formula is offered for resolution is designated
by the verb dikazô 'render judgment' (
§3n1. Muellner 1976.101, following the grammatical analysis of
Iliad XVIII 500 by Corlu 1966.331-336, remarks that the interpretation
of
§3n2. On the formulaic parallelism of apoina and poinê, see Muellner, p. 102n11.
§4n1. On the definition of the identity of a person by way of identifying with others, that is, by way of measuring the relative closeness of this person to others in a group, where the notion of closeness is expressed by way of the word philos 'near and dear', see N 1979.102-111.
§4n2. This argument is undercut by the par-ainesis of Phoenix (on which see Ch.6§89), as understood by Achilles: see N 1979.105-111.
§4n3. The argument of Phoenix is in turn undercut by his own story: see ibid.
§4n4. The topic of Patroklos as the ritual substitute and thereby the other self of Achilles has been examined extensively in N 1979.32-34, 292- 294; also Sinos 1980 and Lowenstam 1981.
§4n5. Cf. also Iliad XXIV 137, 139, 276, 502, 555, 579, 594, 686.
§5n1. In this connection I draw attention to the use of the word sêma to denote the device on a shield, that is, the images on a warrior's shield that convey his identity: see Euripides Electra 456, with reference to the Shield of Achilles. On the various sêmata in the Seven against Thebes of Aeschylus (e.g., 643), see Zeitlin 1982.
§5n3. Cf. Muellner 1976.105-106; also N, pp. 109-110, 312.
§5n4. See Ch.8§41. That the dishonoring of Achilles by Agamemnon is a matter of Agamemnon's atê is already indicated by Achilles at Iliad I 412. That this atê was inflicted by Zeus is admitted by Achilles at XIX 270-274. In this same passage it is also made clear that the atê of Agamemnon caused the anger of Achilles.
§5n5. The atê that is to befall Achilles is indicated at Iliad IX 502-512, where Phoenix tells of the atê that is to befall those who reject the Litai, goddesses of supplication personified (502-512). See Ch.8§42n1. The Litai are said to heal the atê committed by wrongdoers when these wrongdoers offer compensation for such atê (502- 507)--a reference to the atê that Agamemnon admits having committed and for which he stands ready to offer apoina 'compensation' (115-120, apoina at 120). In rejecting the Litai, one is rejecting the process whereby compensation can be awarded for damage suffered--and the word for 'damage' here is Atê personified (504, 505); compare the juridical attestations of atê in this sense, as discussed at Ch.8§42n1. The punishment for such refusal is another round of atê--this time suffered by the one who rejects the Litai (510-512). For Achilles, this atê would be the death of Patroklos, who personally experiences atê, at the moment of his death, in the form of an aberration of the senses (XVI 685-687; 804-806; atê at 805). At XIX 270-274, Achilles seems to realize that both he and Agamemnon have been afflicted with atê. On this passage Michel 1983.298-299 comments: "Achilles now realizes to his horror that what had seemed to be his own intention and resolve was really the mysterious will of the god working through him. That sickening sense of the temporary alienation of one's will is what the realization of one's own atê always involves."
§6n1. Iliad XVIII 506:
§7n1. The ideal king is described as 'sorting out the divine laws [=
themis in the plural]' (
§7n3. Note the wording of Theogony88-90:
§7n4. I have not followed the reading
§7n6. This unsound dikê at Works and Days39, pronounced by kings who are described as dôrophagoi 'those who devour gifts' (ibid.; also 264), is mentioned again at Works and Days249 and 269 (cf. also 264); cf. N 1982.58-60.
§7n7. The ainos 'fable' of "The Hawk and the Nightingale" is told at Works and Days202-212. The hawk seizes the nightingale, described as an aoidos 'singer' (that is, 'poet': see Works and Days208), on the premise that might makes right (I paraphrase 206, 207, 210), and he boasts of having the ultimate power of either releasing or devouring his victim (209). On the importance of this ainos, as a bird omen, in the overall structure of the Works and Days, see Ch.2§27n1.
§7n8. The "moral" of the fable becomes clear at Works and Days 274-285: Perses is urged to espouse dikê in the ultimate sense of 'justice' (275, 278, 279, 283), for those without it will devour each other like wild beasts (276-278). The parallel with the hawk, whose stance of might makes right corresponds to the stance of kings ( Ch.9§7n6), imposes itself. As for dikê in the ultimate sense of 'justice', I argue in N 1982.57-61 that dikê is 'judgment' in an immediate sense, as at Works and Days39, 249, 269( Ch.9§7n5), and that this 'judgment' becomes 'justice' (personified as the goddess Dikê, Works and Days256) only with the passage of time, under the supervision of the gods (Works and Days 217-218; cf. Solon F 4.14-16 W). Further, I argue (ibid.) that the Works and Days dramatizes the actual passage of time required for the workings of Dikê to take effect, so that the faulty 'judgment' of the kings (dikê at Works and Days 39, 249, 269) may be transformed eventually into the 'justice' of Zeus (dikê at Works and Days256, 275, etc.).
§8n4. This time the verb dia-krînô is in the middle voice,
whence the translation 'let us sort out for ourselves'; contrast
the active voice of dia-krînô at Theogony85
(
§8n5. Cf. N, p. 60; this view differs from that of West 1978.151, who tentatively retrojects to the life and times of Hesiod the testimony of Diodorus Siculus 4.29.4 about the rulers of Thespiai.
§9n1. On the correlation of ritual and ethical correctness, see N, p. 61.
§9n2. N, p. 60. For a comparative study of the theme of "ruler's truth," see Watkins 1979; cf. also Martin 1984.
§10n1. On this subject, cf. N 1983.198-203; cf. N 1979.120 §3n3.
§10n2. Further details in N 1982.52-53.
§10n3. This point about the nature of any theogony is argued in N, p. 56. A survey of theogonic traditions native to diverse societies of the world reveals that a basic function of a theogony is to confirm the authority that regulates a given social group. The authority figure of the king symbolically incorporates society in that the king embodies the community through his status as the very incarnation of the body politic. Cf. Ch.6§23.
§10n4. On the Panhellenism of the Hesiodic Theogony: N 1982.51-57.
§12n2. Cf. Ch.8§21, Ch.8§27 and following.
§14n3. The wording of Herodotus 2.99.1 is worth scrutiny:
§14n4. Note again the wording of this passage, Herodotus 2.29.1:
§14n5. Cf. Ch.9§1 and following,.
§14n6. Benveniste 1973.527 = 1969 II 278; this example is cited in the context of Benveniste's discussion of Latin superstes as a witness "who has his being beyond," one "who stands over the matter" (p. 526 = 1969 II 276).
§15n1. Benveniste, pp. 396-397 = 1969 II 119-122.
§15n2. Benveniste 1973.397-398 = 1969 II 121-122. See also
Benveniste, pp. 389-392 = 1969 II 111-113 on this same word
iûdex, a compound built from iûs in the sense
of 'juridical formula' and from the root *deik- / *dik- as in
dîcô 'say' (note the collocation iûs dîcere)
or in the dic- of dicis causâ 'for the sake of proper
form'. I should draw special attention to a derivative of dic-,
in-dic-âre, the English borrowing of which, indicate, I
have been using to translate Greek sêmainô. The Latin
dîcô is cognate with Greek deik-nu-mi 'show,
indicate, make manifest'; moreover, Latin dic- as in
dicis causâ and
in-dic-âre is cognate with Greek
dikê 'judgment, justice'.
In this light
§15n3. The pertinence of arbiter to histôr is brought up at a later point in Benveniste's discussion, 1973.442 = 1969 II 174-175, in another connection.
§15n4. I have in mind the oath expressions cited at Ch.9§1n5. We may also compare the invisible phulakes 'guardians' of Dikê 'justice' at Hesiod Works and Days124-126, as discussed in N 1979.153; also the theme of the Eye of Zeus at Works and Days267-269, as discussed in N 1983.42-43.
§15n5. Cf. Ch.8§21, Ch.8§27 and following.
§16n1. The derivation of eidos 'visible form' from the verb represented by the aorist *[usubcirc]id- of idein 'see' is pertinent to the semantics of historiâ as discussed at Ch.9§1 and following.
§16n2. The passage is quoted at Ch.8§2. Note again the etymological pertinence of Latin in-dic-âre, as discussed at Ch.9§15n2.
§17n1. Cf. Ch.8§1 and following.
§18n3. Cf. Ch.8§36 and following.
§19n1. That the Lydians are characterized by what is
habron 'luxuriant' is a theme also reflected in the epithet
pod-(h)abros 'with a footstep that is luxuriant [habros]'
applied to Croesus the Lydian in the oracular pronouncement at
Delphi as quoted at Herodotus 1.55.2 (
§19n2. To quote from Herodotus 1.71.2:
§20n1. Phylarchus uses the expression
§20n2. The whole passage of Xenophanes as quoted by Phylarchus FGH 81 F 66 should be compared with a passage about the luxuriance of the Samians, ascribed to Asius and quoted by Duris of Samos FGH 76 F 60 in Athenaeus 525e-f.
§20n3. That this theme is linked ultimately with the
ktisis 'foundation' / 'colonization' of Colophon is suggested by another
text, Mimnermus F 9.3-4 W, where the actual colonizers of
Colophon, the speaker included, are characterized as
§21n1. On the eventual domination of Colophon and Smyrna by Lydia, see Jeffery 1976.224-225. In his own narrative Herodotus chooses not to present these instances of the domination of Hellenes by previous tyrants of Lydia as equivalent to the later domination by Croesus. The effect is to sharpen the parallelism between the Lydian Empire of Croesus and the Athenian Empire, on which theme see Ch.8§22 and Ch.10§50 and following.
§21n2. The sources that make this story explicit are Strabo 14.1.10 C647 and Athenaeus 525c. The disasters befalling Magnesia are compounded: apparently after their capture by the Ephesians, Magnesia was destroyed by the invading Cimmerians (Strabo ibid.). On the grounds that Callinus (F 3 W) mentions the Magnesians as still flourishing while Archilochus (F 20 W) refers to their misfortunes at the hands of their enemies, Strabo (ibid.) and Clement (Stromateis 1.131.7-8) reason that Callinus is an earlier poet than Archilochus. Such reasoning, perpetuated in latter-day scholarship on the Greek lyric poets, should be subject to doubt in view of the poetic device where the poet is presented as foreseeing a disaster that is yet to befall a community (on this theme see, for example, Solon F 9 W and the commentary in N 1985.45; also Theognis 39-52 and 1081-1082b, to be discussed immediately below).
§22n1. An important variant, Theognis39-52, is taken up in the discussion that immediately follows.
§22n2. On euthunô 'straighten, correct' in the sense of 'check the growth a plant, prune' as a metaphor for dikê 'justice', see N 1985.61; cf. Michelini 1978.
§22n3. See Ch.6§63, Ch.6§64; Ch.12§56.
§22n5. The elite behave as follows: each of them strives eagerly for aretê 'excellence', and great hatreds break out as a result (again Herodotus 3.83.3). Compare Theognis401-406: the man who is too eager for aretê and seeks kerdos 'personal gain' commits a grave error: his divine punishment is that he thinks that kaka 'bad things' are agatha 'good' and the other way around. On kerdos as a potential aspect of hubris, see Theognis46 and 50; also 835, discussed at Ch.10§3n1.
§22n6. See Ch.6§63 and following.
§23n1. Cf. the testimonia collected at Archilochus F 19 W, most
notably Etymologicum Gudianum s.v.
§23n2. I say seemingly because we have to reckon with the political relations of Megara as mother city with its daughter cities, on which subject see Ch.2§37n1.
§23n3. In the context of Theognis681-682: Ch.6§6 and following; also Ch.6§63, Ch.6§66 and following.
§24n2. This other aspect has already emerged in the discussion at Ch.9§20n1 of Phylarchus 81 F 45, where the savagery of the people of Sybaris is parallel to their luxuriance.
§25n1. Cf. Apollodorus 2.5.4 (Pholos the Centaur eats his own portions of meat raw) and the comments at N 1985.51 §39n2.
§25n3. This image of savages seems to be a reflex of poetic traditions describing colonization, where the polis of transplanted Hellenes is surrounded by local barbarians: see Ch.2§37n1. In Theognis 53-68, the equation of ethically inferior citizens with sociopolitically inferior savages who threaten the polis from the outside (cf. N 1985.44 §29n4, 51 §39n2, 54) may convey a colonial point of view adopted from a daughter city on the coast of the Black Sea: see Figueira 1985.129.
§25n4. The luxuriance of the Persians is a dominant theme in the Persians of Aeschylus; cf. the use of habros and its derivatives at lines 41, 135, 1072.
§27n1. A survey of passages in N 1979:163. Cf. also, for example, Herodotus 3.80.4.
§27n2. On the ainos as a discourse with one code that bears at least two messages: Ch.6§6.
§27n3. For a detailed discussion of the hero cult of Protesilaos, see Boedeker 1988; some of her conclusions, reached independently, concerning the deployment of the Protesilaos story in the narrative of Herodotus coincide with those presented in N 1987c; the main points of the latter article are recast in what follows.
§27n4. See N 1985.76-77, 81 §79n1, especially with reference to the riddle in Theognis1209-1210; see also Edmunds 1981, especially p. 223n8, with reference to Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 627 and other related passages involving oikos and its derivatives.
§27n5. Cf. Ch.6§6, Ch.6§66 and following. Cf. N 1985.22-24, 76-78. On ainigma 'riddle' as a derivative of ainos: N 1979.240-241.
§28n1. I translate tarîkhos generally as 'preserved' rather than specifically as 'dried', 'smoked', 'salted', or 'pickled'; that brine or salt is used for the process of tarîkheusis 'preservation' is evident from Herodotus 4.53.3 (also 2.77.4).
§29n1. Chantraine DELG 1094 s.v. tarîkhos allows for the possibility that this word is connected with tarkhuô. At p. 1095 s.v. tarkhuô, where he follows the evidence presented by Laroche 1958.98-99 and Heubeck 1959.32-35, Chantraine concedes that tarkhuô was a borrowing from an Indo-European language of Anatolia--whether that language be Hittite, Luvian, or Lycian. But here (p. 1095) he goes on to deny the connection that he mentioned as a possibility at p. 1094. On the meaning of tarkhuô, see N 1983b and Schein 1984.48. Cf. also Boedeker 1988.40-41.
§29n2. For tarîkhos/tarîkheuô as 'mummy/mummify', see especially Herodotus 2.85.2.89, with a detailed description of the process of mummification. Cf. also Plato Phaedo 80c.
§29n3. We may compare the everyday and the hieratic or mystical sense of olbios, as discussed at Ch.8§45.
§30n2. Lloyd, p. 18, cites Herodotus 2.61, 2.86, 2.132, 2.170 , and 2.171. It seems that this mystical procedure was named after Osiris, the prototype of immortalization (ibid.).
§31n1. For more on this theme, see N 1985.68-81; also 1983.54n55. Again we may compare the everyday and the mystical meanings of olbios as discussed at Ch.8§45.
§32n1. I follow the edition of van Thiel 1974. In using this source, I have benefited from the advice of M. N. Nagler.
§32n2. See van Thiel 1974.178.
§32n3. On the mummy of Alexander, see Pfister II 422n33; also I 178, 192, 296; II 434-436, and 584. The tomb of Alexander at Alexandria was officially known as the Sêma 'Tomb': Strabo 17.1.8 C794. Also as Sôma 'Body': Alexander Romance 3.34.5. On the relationship of sêma 'tomb' and sôma 'body' in the context of Alexander's place of entombment in Alexandria, see van Thiel 1074.195.
§32n4. See N 1979.189-192 for documentation; note too that both of these names are associated with the mystical theme of being struck by lightning. On the association, at Hesiod Works and Days172, of the word olbioi with the heroes who inhabit the Islands of the Blessed, see N 1979.170 §30n2.
§35n1. Yet even if the Hellenes were in the right, the way in which the Asians were in the wrong corresponds to the way in which the Athenian Empire was in the wrong: on this point see Ch.10§50 and following.
§35n2. For more on this double meaning, see Sinos 1980:48-49 on Iliad XXIII 326 / 331; also N 1983:45-48.
§35n3. For the intervention of the hero into the present, through the medium of the ainos, see Ch.6§87 and following.