Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Folks, we will be adjusting the dates for the reading of the first 50 pages to accomodate those who need to catch up because we needed to move the forum.

Hello Everyone,

For the week of September 4th through September 21st, we are reading approximately the first 50 pages of Herodotus - The Histories .

This thread will discuss the following book and sections:

(Book I - Sections 1-110)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did during MY EARLY LIFE.

Oldesq and I are sharing in the board tasks and we will kick everything off on September 4th. We look forward to your participation. Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, on your Kindle or free on line.

Since we will not be starting this book until September 4th, there is a great deal of advance time still remaining to obtain the book and get started.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley

Week of� September 4 (Start)

BOOK ONE - SECTIONS 1 -110 only

Note: Regarding Penguin Edition

PAGES 3 - 95 (I will be posting an extended syllabus)


We are off to a good beginning.

TO SEE ALL WEEK'S THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Let us see how things go; but I think I am going to tweak the syllabus a bit to allow folks enough time to get started. I know that I am playing catch up myself.

We have the luxury of extending the time. I also have set up a supplemental thread to discuss the definition of history as it pertains to Herodotus and his work.

I will get back to the question above. Great beginning question and comments, Oldesq.

Bentley

Bentley, I can see why you need to extend the time for reading this book and I'm glad I'm starting long before my course begins in October! I have read the first 2 pages about 3 times now.

I still have some questions.

l. According to the map in the Landmark Herodotus Persia is far east of Greece. Assyria, Medea, and Phoenicia are in between. But H says that Persia considered all of Asia "theirs". I'm not sure how that happened. I wonder if H is confusing his time with the ancient times. Persia HAD conquered all of Asia, I think, by the time H was writing.

2. The Phoenicians abducted Io and Colchis abducted someone else (I forget the name). Colchis and Phoenica are far apart, yet the Greeks seem to treat them as one country. I'll have to check this out. Were Phoenicans in charge of Colchis?

3. The attitude toward the abduction of women is a measure, I think, of the difference between the Hellenes and the "others". I thought he was saying that the Persian attitude was that the women wanted to run off, they were not truly abducted. This is a lot like the attitude toward rape in modern times. How do we really know what happened? Just because a woman says she didn't want it doesn't mean it's true. So most charges of rape are treated suspiciously. But I think H is saying that the Hellenes were more concerned with the value of the woman. Now, knowing the Greek attitude toward women, I'm not sure that they're concerned with the feelings and worth of the woman herself, or that she's the property of a man and justice requires retribution.

4. I did not really get the feeling that the women were "looking for it".

I think it's very hard to sort through my own POV, H's POV and the POV of the Helenes, Phoencians and Persians! But that's what's so brilliant about this work! He's trying to do just that. He's trying to understand their motivations and POV's. Even today that's almost impossible to do!

I just checked out Colchis. H considered the people to be Egyptian.
It's modern day Georgia. In H time it WAS Persia. I think he may have been confusing his time with the time he was describing.

Vanessa, I have not forgotten you; just trying to catch up; will get there though. Also, I am updating the syllabus to give us some more up front time.

Don't worry, we all have lives to live!

Regarding Question One:

Vanessa wrote as follows:

l. According to the map in the Landmark Herodotus Persia is far east of Greece. Assyria, Medea, and Phoenicia are in between. But H says that Persia considered all of Asia "theirs". I'm not sure how that happened. I wonder if H is confusing his time with the ancient times. Persia HAD conquered all of Asia, I think, by the time H was writing.

Herodotus was born in 484 thereabouts. The first Persion War was in 490. the Second 480, publication date of The Histories was approximately 425. The Peloponnesian War was 431-405. Herodotus was not yet born during the Battle of Marathon but was around although a toddler during the second one.

Book One which is what we are discussing here only outlines the beginnings of the East West conflict. We are only discussing here the first 50 pages of Herodotus so it is hard to digress too much.

I will set up a supplemental thread to discuss this in depth. All of Book One outlines the East-West conflict beginning with the Trojan War and to the conquering of Ionia by Croesus who was the King of Lydia. Book One describes the rise of Cyrus the Great; he ascended the throne in 550 and died in 530 (all before the time of Herodotus); Book One also describes the rise of the Persian Empire; this Book is extremely complex and remember that this thread only goes through section 110 of Book One.

It isn't even until Book VI that Herodotus begins the discussion of the narrative of the Persian Wars. So your question is quite all encompassing; and deserves I think a thread of its own; so that we can add and respond to your question without spoilers on the weekly thread here (which only covers Book One through section 110) and does not cover the other Eight Books or even all of this one.

The Histories moves from remote antiquity to the recent past. This work will give a panoramic viewpoint of foreign lands and peoples and even focus on specific locations in Greece and other locales.

Herodotus covers a lot of ground in nine books from culture and religion to the finest details of battle. However, since I think you are further along than we are (although this might be one of those questions which needs the entire book to figure out); all nine books deal in some way with a detailed description of the Persian Wars; it is clear that what Asia constituted then and now and even by the time of the publication of The Histories is most likely interpreted differently from translation to translation and from one point in time to another.

Remember from the overviews that I have read; Herodotus is still talking about Cyrus (its Persian King) at the end of Book Nine (so we have time to answer this question which is fairly broadreaching for sections 1 - 110 of Book One).

Remember too at the beginning of Book One, Herodotus is also encapsulating mythic accounts into the so called real descriptions of the Greek-Asian enmity and then covers the Greek offense against Asians (Greeks sailing in Colchis and taking Medea) and allegedly presents the rationale that this act claimed responsibility for the Trojan War.

Of course, the distorted logic of the Persians was that the Greeks raised an army and attacked Troy and they hated the Greeks ever since. That is the preface for the statement you repeated about the Persians considering all of Asia to be theirs (that statement is right smack at the beginning of the book and is very relevant to this section). However, to answer this fully we probably need to look at Herodotus' work as a whole.

I think the backdrop for this was that the Greek aggression against Troy was interpreted by the Persians as aggression against them.

I am not sure if the above helps; but I will copy it to its own supplemental thread so that we can build upon it as we read all of The Histories . It is a "big question" which I think will lead to a lot of discussion. And remember Book One is supposed to be one of the most complex in the entire work

Bentley

I'm glad you said it's a complex book. I read the first two pages 3 times and still had these questions. At the time of the Trojan war Troy was a vassel state of the Hittite Empire so I can't see how it was an attack against Persia. I suppose it makes sense that he'd refer to Asia as Persia if that's what it was in his time. We would call Alaska the U.S. and not Russia, right? Are you using the Landmark Herodotus? It may be that their maps are confusing me as they are probably historically accurate while Herodotus is not. I'll have to read it a fourth time! LOL!

There's also some question as to the nature of the Trojans. Were they once Greeks? I think that's the way the story is told as they speak Greek and worship the same gods but the Iliad and the Odyssey are Greek stories.

BTW, I'm not sure if anyone is interested but my prof sent me a copy of his dissertation, on-line. It's about the languages and peoples of this area. There's discussion of who were the Trojans, really? No conclusions, not enough evidence either way.

No, I am using Penquin and the Teaching Company.

Yes, I would be interested in seeing his dissertation. Send it to me via email and I will open a supplemental thread for it.

Vanessa,

I am also in the middle of answering your second question and will get it posted later tonight.

I have been using other supplementary resources as well. It has been said that Book One is the toughest because there is such a blending of myth with allegedly factual accounts.

Bentley

My professor's name is Ilya Yakubovich. His dissertation is on-line at
diss 2008.pdf

if that doesn't work google the title
"Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language"

It is a 500 page dissertation but the part on the Iliad is 3.6 and 3.7. I haven't gotten through all of it but in small doses it's interesting.

It's linguistic archaelogy, tracing movements and cultures though the changes in language. He'll be teaching the course I'm taking in October "When East meets West". Herodotus is the required reading for that course. I'm really looking forward to discovering the interaction between the near east and the Greeks.

I found it Vanessa and I will move it to its own thread.

Thank you,

Bentley

REGARDING QUESTION FOUR:

Vanessa wrote as follows:

4. I did not really get the feeling that the women were "looking for it".

Response:

My feeling is that this is a classic male point of view when faced with abuse of women (she had it coming, she was asking for it, she made the first moves, she dressed and looked the part so it was her fault). Look at what is still occurring in fundamentalist Islamic countries (their behavior, their dress, etc. are all blamed for man's behaviors). The victim is put to death in some cases for what the man has perpetrated. So I think these accounts are the same old, same old and I do not put much stock in them regarding the abducted women. However, some of the analyses that I have read have indicated that Herodotus was using these stories for humorous purposes (if so, humor in 450 was most likely different than humor is today, or is it?) Look at the sexism that Clinton and Paiin have faced. Maybe it is still with us.

I just find it hard to believe Herodotus here because he is blending myth with rationalistic discourses and reports. This in of itself causes me to put on my thinking cap when reading some of these accounts.

Bentley

REGARDING QUESTION TWO (I WILL POST SOME INFORMATION IN SEGMENTS):

Vanessa wrote as follows:

2. The Phoenicians abducted Io and Colchis abducted someone else (I forget the name). Colchis and Phoenica are far apart, yet the Greeks seem to treat them as one country. I'll have to check this out. Were Phoenicans in charge of Colchis?

I am not sure if this url will help you; but I believe it answers some questions regarding Colchis and Phoenicia.



I hope it does help.

Bentley

Vanessa,

It is my understanding that the Phoenicians were located and from present day Lebanon.

This url might help with some of the questions you had in question two. It also might give you some information in terms of your questions: 1, 3, 4.

Check out the notes at bottom: 6, 7, 8.

#

Vanessa in your question (2) you seem to feel that the Greeks seem to treat Colchis and Phoenica as one country.

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

What you are really observing is how Herodotus is dealing with what he wants to convey. This work has been called a universal history or a portrayal of a history of the Greeks and the foreigners they lumped together termed barbarians. Or a struggle between the Greeks and the Persians. Herodotus omits the history of three of the most important states of the day:Phoenicia, Carthage and
Etruria (so he was not conveying a univeral history at all). He speaks as if he is trying to convey and report about the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians; but he omits the Trojan War, the exedition of the Teucrians and the Myceans against Thrace and Thessaly, and the wars connected with the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor. He really just wants to focus primarily on the great Persian War of invasion.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica

Vanessa stated:

I think it's very hard to sort through my own POV, H's POV and the POV of the Helenes, Phoencians and Persians! But that's what's so brilliant about this work! He's trying to do just that. He's trying to understand their motivations and POV's. Even today that's almost impossible to do!

Agree totally; but many question if Herodotus is trustworthy as an historian; that is something we will have to judge as we read this great classic.

Bentley

Response to Oldesq,

I wonder about women going unescorted anywhere during that time period; it seems far fetched for a woman worried about her reputation.

There is a great deal of mixing of myth with rationalized explanation here. I already explained the viewpoint on this above. But will go into it further based upon what I have read and viewed. Book One I think will be the most challenging because of the mixing of myth and so called factualized accounts. According to the Cambridge Book on Herodotus, Aristophanes in Acharnians claims that Herodotus was being humorous in the accounts concerning the women (some were mythological figures like lo).

I think these abductions and the explanations for them are just cover-ups on the part of the male perpetrators.

Bentley

You made me laugh, Bentley. I said the same thing almost word for word to my husband tonight.

Now the humor thing is interesting. Is he mocking the Persians? You know how THEY are, they think women are asking to be abducted! But of course there's the issue of Helen, which all of this is really about, right? Was she stolen or seduced? In the Odyssey she says she went willingly. But as you say, separating myth from fact is pretty much impossible here. He's really just reporting the various myths, isn't he.

OTH, that divide between East and West that you mention, how the Asian countries still treat women differently exists today. I think Greek woman, while poorly treated, seem to have great importance. They are strong figures in the theatre (Antigone, Medea) and of course if the mythology is any indication of what went on in Greece, women were strong figures. Hera stands up to Zeus, Athena is all powerful and wise, etc.

It was THAT Io? I missed that. Thanks Oldesq.

The real question I think, is whether or not Helen went willingly. In the Odyssey she says she did but of course it was the excuse for the Trojan war. If she did go willingly then the war had no rationale.

Isn't it hard to understand how these people were thinking? After all, they had slaves. They were pirates. They stole material goods and human beings on a daily basis. But I think the point he's making is that the Greeks valued and respected women in a different way than the Asians.

In the light of the morning I couldn't wait to show my husband this url. He doesn't buy it. Says the author has an agenda. My husband works on the south side of Chicago and tells me unbelievable stories about what is taught in the name of African-American studies. For instance, the helicopter was invented and used in Africa l000 years ago. Many of his students believe this kind of thing as they were raised on it. I'm not saying that what this author says is untrue but it does sound a bit like that kind of Afro-centrism.

Looks like this book, like MEL, is going to open up a lot of lines of study!

Vanessa stated: It was THAT Io? I missed that. Thanks Oldesq.

The real question I think, is whether or not Helen went willingly. In the Odyssey she says she did but of course it was the excuse for the Trojan war. If she did go willingly then the war had no rationale.

Isn't it hard to understand how these people were thinking? After all, they had slaves. They were pirates. They stole material goods and human beings on a daily basis. But I think the point he's making is that the Greeks valued and respected women in a different way than the Asians.

Bentley responds:

It was actually me again Vanessa. That is one thing that is confusing about goodreads. The quotes etc. It was the mythological lo that Herodotus was blending with so called historic details. Now remember too that Helen was considered the daughter of Zeus and Leda, sister of Clytemnestra, wife of Menelaus (so she is a blend of the mythic and the so called earthly realm). She was also considered the most beautiful woman in the world (hard to figure out how they knew that when they really did not get around much (lol) and more than likely thought the world was flat or something.

Elizabeth Travers in The Teaching Company raises the question of whether Helen represented a seduction (a willing partner) or was it really a kidnapping. But whatever was going on with Paris caused the Trojan War. Suppposedly, according to Herodotus - Alexander (Paris) heard about all of the kidnappings and counter kidnappings and decided why not take Helen. If that is the motivation then that according to Travers runs counter to the mythological reason for what his motivation was. And of course the Trojans refused to pay compensation citing the Greeks' abduction of Medea.

Somehow this (all of the above) was distorted by the Persians for their own purposes and the Persian learned men (logioi) told Herodotus that the Greeks somehow were the most culpable because they raised an army and actually attacked Troy. Hello! what would any country do if that happened. If Russia and Putin while visiting the White House abducted allegedly Laura Bush; don't you think old George would do something about it.

The Persian viewpoint is that sensible people would make no great fuss about such matters, because the women would not have been abducted if they had not been willing to go (hogwash).

The Persians therefore saw the Greeks as the aggressors of the Trojan War (or wanted to make them that for their own warlike purposes) and their enmity with the Greeks allegedly started with that war; but I do not think they ever liked them.

The Persians decided in their own minds that the Greeks should not be treading into their arena and that their terrritory and the lands around them were most likely their domain and not these Greeks.

That is what I think they meant when Herodotus made that statement that the Persians considered all of Asia to be "rightfully theirs". Maybe in terms of how they viewed their world and all of the myths too that was their imposed reality.

Also what is confusing is that Herodotus takes the myth and tried to demythologize it and omits the reference to the Gods that the myths eulogized. For example, according to Herodotus, the Phoenicians deny that they took to Egypt lo by force. In this versian which Herodotus states is the Phoenician versian lo went to bed with the Phoenician captain and did not want to tell her parents and left of her own accord. However, this flies in the face of all of the old oral myths. In the myth, the lover of Io was Zeus, the version about Paris and Helen was also changed from the myth by Herodotus and Herodotus has Paris thinking about stealing a wife from Greece because of pay back time (not the version in the myths).

Herodotus is referring according to Travers to some of the most important legends of heroic myth; but all of the stories Travers finds hard to believe because Herodotus also omits the so called heroes in them and most of the males; he only mentions Paris.

And this is the part that Travers states is the most confusing and also the most confusing about Book One right from the get go: Travers states the following:

a) "What Herodotus has done with these stories is to completely omit any sense that events of the remote past are in any way different from events of the recent past; she states that he has removed the marvels or wonders of the myths and Gods.

b) Herodotus by doing this right at the beginning collapses long stretches of mythic time into a few generations (very confusing for us the readers).

c) In standard mythic genealogies, Io was allegedly Europa's great-grandmother

d) Probably the most scathing if you lived during the times of Herodotus is that Herodotus was writing a satire here or trying to be humorous (maybe like Twain); that maybe he intended a satire of what Travers called rationalizing accounts by early so called witnesses like Hecataeus and other logographers of that time. Pay back time.

Here are the three myths alongwith Herodotus' twists:

Europa:

Europa was a Phoenician princess, kidnapped by Zeus in the form of a bull. Zeus took her to Crete, where she bore him three sons, including the legendary King Minos. Europa supposedly gave her name to the continent of Europe. Now according to Herodotus, here come the Greeks to start trouble by landing in Tyre and kidnapping her. But Herodotus ignores the myth with his interpretations and calls the Greeks who kidnapped Europa more than likely Cretans.

Io:

Io was a young woman whom Zeus seduced. He turned her into a cow to try to hide the affair from the jealous Hera. Hera sent a gadfly to torment Io, and it drove her from country to country trying to escape its torments; she finally reached Egypt, where she was turned back into a woman and gave birth to Epaphus. In the mythic account, Io in her cow like form was often associated with the Egyptian goddess Isis We do not hear anything about a ship's captain, a love affair, or a pregnancy accept from the Herodotus version or maybe how the Phoenicians want to interpret what they had allegedly done.

Medea:

Princess of Colchis, who fell in love with Jason and helped him obtain the Golden Fleece. Now Herodotus' version is that the Greeks sailed into Colchis and took Medea (reference without mentioning Jason and the Argonauts in search of the Golden Fleece). According to the Herodotos account, Medea's father, the King sent to Greece to demand her return and reparations. The Greeks justified their refusal by saying that "you" meaning foreigners I think or people not from Europe have never paid any reparations for Io. Another East versus West thing (Europe versus Asia) created by Herodotus.

Hope this helps.
Bentley

Vanessa stated: In the light of the morning I couldn't wait to show my husband this url. He doesn't buy it. Says the author has an agenda. My husband works on the south side of Chicago and tells me unbelievable stories about what is taught in the name of African-American studies. For instance, the helicopter was invented and used in Africa l000 years ago. Many of his students believe this kind of thing as they were raised on it. I'm not saying that what this author says is untrue but it does sound a bit like that kind of Afro-centrism.

Looks like this book, like MEL, is going to open up a lot of lines of study!

Bentley responded:

Yes, Vanessa this is true; like MEL a great many parallel paths. What I was trying to point out was the blending of myth with rationalized accounts like the url that I showed you actually did. Look at the myths that the Greeks and others believed and how they themselves turned them into rationalized accounts. If you look even to modern times to how countries (the Communist countries and the Islamic countries come to mind to me or even China); look how they teach history of the world and their peoples to their children...all of the accounts are slanted and distorted for their purposes. I think some things never change; these countries and sects are today still creating their version of what they want their people to believe maybe just like the ancients for some form of power and control or even to make themselves feel better. I think that is exactly what Travers was trying to point out too. Where does the truth lie? Is Herodotus to be trusted?

Bentley

Wow! Bentley, you took my breath away! I'm going to print this out and read it again, there's so much there. I've listened to
the teaching co tape ( Elizabeth Vandivere) a couple of times but it's a lot to absorb.
I re-read (again) the section on Io and got the impression that she was not at all mythological, he says she's the daughter of someone.
There's also the issue of what we call "myth". They really believed these stories. I don't think they thought of them as fairy tales.

I do think it's impressive that he's giving all of the different points of view, not just the politically correct line of thought. That's the real accomplishment, I think. I see him as the first reporter.

I was trying to figure out if today we could say why Russia invaded Georgia. Putin is saying that we engineered the whole thing so we could have a short victorious war before the election. The oil-line had nothing to do with it!
Someone once told me that when things don't make sense the reason is usually money. I've applied that thinking many times and it hold up pretty well.

I tend to think of Thucydides, they invaded because they could. Troy was prime property for a sea-faring nation to own. This story may be the ancient version of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution! But we have to try to see the situation through H eyes.

I'll get back to you when I've had some time to process all of this better! Thanks for all of your hard work. Are you a history professor?

Thank you Vanessa; I am learning along with all of you. I am not a history professor; but I believe one may be joining us in the near future.

You are right about the Teaching Company tapes; there is a lot to absorb; I have also been reading a great deal of reference material as well to get re-introduced to my Greek mythology as well as to get up to snuff on Ancient History.

I will be back to chew on some of your other comments soon. Great Job.

Bentley

Re-reading Greek myths is a good idea. I have only a superficial knowledge of them. I hadn't thought of the these stories as myths, the way he describes them they sound "historical".
I think I get it now. He seems to think of "Persia" as "Asia" and that Colchis and Phoencia are like city states of "Persia". I was confused that he would think that because Phoencia abducted Io it gave the Greeks the right to abduct Medea from Colchis. They're so far apart and since they each have their own kings it didn't make sense that the Phoenician king would have anything to do with the Colchis king.

I think I understand the idea of "abduction" now. If a daughter wants to run off with someone the father does not approuve of, it is a kind of abduction, even if she is willing. A daughter is a father's property and he has to "give" her away in marriage. Even if she runs willingly, the man who took her is abducting her if he hasn't gotten permission from the girls father. Even with Helen, she doesn't really "own" herself. She may love Paris but she "belongs" to Menelaus. So, if you think of it from the mens POV, these women have been stolen from them by other men.

Vanessa wrote: I think I understand the idea of "abduction" now. If a daughter wants to run off with someone the father does not approuve of, it is a kind of abduction, even if she is willing. A daughter is a father's property and he has to "give" her away in marriage. Even if she runs willingly, the man who took her is abducting her if he hasn't gotten permission from the girls father. Even with Helen, she doesn't really "own" herself. She may love Paris but she "belongs" to Menelaus. So, if you think of it from the mens POV, these women have been stolen from them by other men.

Bentley responded:

I guess I have to read further on the rights of women during this period of time; but I can only imagine that the plight of women must have been vastly different and maybe they were viewed in even more of an insignificant manner. I imagine if women were only thought of as "chattel" that your assessment is on point. Sad isn't it.

Odd though that Herodotus focuses on the women and leaves out the male heroes.

Bentley

That is odd, his emphasis on women, now that you mention it.

What I was describing, however, wasn't just a historical take on it. A father still "gives" his daughter away when he walks her down the aisle. Some men still ask the father for his daughter's hand in marriage.

As a mother, myself, if a man came and eloped with my daughter without my knowledge and consent, I could imagine feeling as though I was "robbed" of her in a way. Even today, it makes some psychological sense to me and who knows how old these "women" were? I wouldn't be surprised if they were young teen-agers.

Two thoughts popped into my head.

l. I like how Herodotus eliminates the supernatural from the myths and treats them as history. That's a great leap forward in rational thinking, isn't it? Like reading the bible as history. He's treating the events of history as consequences of individual people. That opens the door to examining cause and effect.

2. Herodotus treats Phoencia and Cochis as "the others" which I found odd... until I thought of the war in Iraq! We were attacked by Saudis living in Afganastan but attacked Iraq! The more things change the more things stay the same. I know many people see it as totally irrational. I do believe, however that there is an alliance between the Arab states. They see us as "the other" as much as we do. And they don't like us. So, I can understand what Herodotus is saying now. It's the eternal struggle between East and West that has not really changed in mellenia. Amazing!

Very true Oldesq.

Vanessa, I thought of the same thing; we learn from history that we do not learn from history.

Source: : Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Bentley

Reading the Landmark Herodotus is really wonderful. The first time I read H I was so lost. I could not picture who was who and where was where. This time I can follow so much better, although it's slow going.

I'm thinking.... H WAS Asian. He was in a very interesting position, being a Greek, living in Asia. It must have given him a heightened awareness of the differences.

Here are a couple of bits I posted to the B&N site:

Another woman appears early in The Histories who is much more interesting than the ones who are abducted -- the wife of Kandaules. She is never named, which is consistent with the assumption that women are not as important as men. She is beautiful, as women are supposed to be who would please their men. She is exposed to the male gaze, which objectifies her further, and would seem to confirm her vulnerability and powerlessness. But she immediately turns the tables on the men. She tells Gyges, who has seen her naked, that he must either kill the king who had permitted that to happen, or else be killed himself. Gyges tries to avoid such a choice, but cannot. The Queen has him in her power. He kills Kandaules and takes his place. The Queen stays in her place, and this is the last we hear of her; but she has had a decisive effect on the course of events.



I think that Herodotus is highlighting a bit of cultural difference here. He explains that "among the Lydians, as well as nearly all other barbarians, it is a great disgrace for even a male to be seem naked" (1.10.3). Nakedness was not nearly as big a deal among the Greeks. But yes, this was a cultural value that even the King ought to have adhered to.



As for Gyges' choice -- I think that the dilemma forced him back upon his natural instinct to survive. What I find interesting about what follows is that Gyges' rule in Lydia is confirmed by the Greek oracle at Delphi. Gyges is not punished, but his descendant in the fifth generation will be. That in part explains what happens to Croesus, and also serves to show that people tend to hear from oracles what they want to hear, and to disregard what they don't want to hear.

A lot of good questions Oldesq! The way I interpreted the problem with Kandules love for his wife was that he'd lost his head and his reason. He was too proud, always a deadly sin for the Greeks (although he wasn't Greek!) He wanted to show her off and be admired and envied for her so he was willing to debase her and himself. I always feel that the Greeks are warning us not to be too happy, too proud, or bad things will happen to balance out our good fortune.

Two thoughts:

re-reading the description of what happened to Gyges, I couldn't help thinking it sounded like something that would have happened on Olympus. Athena or Hera, turning the tables on a male god or mortal.

also, it sounds as though Gyges fate was predetermined. This is always the struggle, with the Greeks and with ourselves. How much control do we really have? Might there have been something Gyges could have done? To me it almost feels like a riddle, it makes me try to think of alternative behaviors. Or is it a demonstration of a man who must accept his fate?

She controls the situation by being calm. By using her head. Like Odysseus, she doesn't lose her composure. Maybe that's one of the lessons? Penelope, too, never lost self-control and always used her wiles to get what she wanted.

NO! I missed that! Thanks for pointing it out.

I wonder if the moral is that the "winner" is the one who doesn't give in to emotion? Kandules was weak in his passion for his wife. That's what led to his undoing. The Greeks always seem to value reason over emotion, right?

thanks, that was some painting! But it wasn't at all the way I pictured it. It reminds me of how, in the Iliad, Helen is never described. Everyone can invent their own image of "the most beautiful woman in the world".

the funny thing is as BC mentioned, Gyges wasn't punished. In my mind he somehow was. But he winds up married to the beauty and being king. It's almost as though the whole scenerio was a wish fulfillment dream or an excuse for killing the king and usurping the throne and the queen. Fate is always seen in retrospect. It's an explanation for why things happened as they did. Wouldn't this be a good alibi?

i wonder why that was, that somehow we both thought he was punished?

You're right, the situation was like a punishment.

I asked my husband if he thought Gyges had been punished. He thought awhile and then said "yes, he was forced to kill his king and then marry that woman, who was basically a murderer." I hadn't thought of that!

Well, the story of Croesus seems to continue the theme of pride and arrogance before the fall. It's a little weird, again, because it was because of Gyge's that Croesus had his fate, right?

But the contrast between wise old (Greek) Solon's values and Croesus' (barbaric, eastern) values is interesting. These values are still with us. I wonder if it's just common sense. Boastfulness will lead to envy and envy incites revenge. Everyone dislikes Trump!

I sense that pride was the downfall of a lot of the ancient characters, along with falling in love with the inappropriate woman (i.e. Paris and Helen).
Another downfall for all of them was if they were ever on the wrong side of the ruling god. This is where I sometimes have trouble separating real history from myth.

First, welcome Virginia (va-BBoomer); glad to have you here. Their oral tradition was really part of what they believed.

Secondly, Oldesq..when visiting China on business and pleasure; in many places, they have the very same belief TODAY about making sure that their parents, etc. have the proper send off; and it seems to be even more important in other Asian countries to have the proper burial and to have folks show up to honor you. They seem to still measure the success of your life by the number of people who show up and it would be dishonorable not to. Sometimes in reading Herodotus; I wonder how in some cultures, many things have remained the same. Iconic worship is still prevalent there.

Third, Solon's quote to Croseus gives an interesting peek into Herodotus' own view on God and religion, I suspect.

Fourth, most of Americans are focused on having the good life; spiritually we want to be prepared for our maker but I do not feel that most of us dwell on these thoughts in our daily lives. It might be depressing otherwise. Also, the manner of death spooks me. If somebody is accidentally hit by a car on their way to work; yet their life is successful in every possible way (family who loves them, solid marriage, spiritually sound); does this make this person's life worth less. less happy or less successful than somebody else's? There is a spookiness which is reminiscent of the ideas that the hereafter is more important than this life that the martyrs have/had in places like the Middle East and that you score extra points when you sacrifice yourself in some way.

Fifth, some say that Croesus was a victim of his own hubris which might be what Solon is alluding to. You were too happy, too successful, too wealthy and something had to even out the score in relationship to the rest of us and in the eyes of God. However, personally I cannot understand how his wife's suicide and his son's accidental murder should mar "how happy or how successful one had been"; of course I think if Croesus were talking with us now he would say that his life was changed by these two events. Would he now consider himself happy or that his life was overall a blessed one? Also we subscribe nowadays to the fact that bad things can happen to good people. The end does not wipe out the beginning and the middle of one's life or a lifetime of good deeds and happiness. Nor in reverse does a miserable life, long unhappiness and desperation become overturned in a single act of heroism. I guess you could say it helped.

Bentley

This is an interesting take:

The Virtue of Poverty (implying the opposite for the wealthy)



This was a review of The Greek Praise of Poverty: Origins of Ancient Cynicism by William D. Desmond University of Notre Dame Press, 240 pages, and of course Croesus is even mentioned in the review.

Vanessa, very true; your statement refers to Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." (New International Version) and it is interesting that the ancients regarded wealth as hubris.

In Ancient Greek Democracy by Robinson; Robinson quotes Solon as saying that "excess breeds hubris when great wealth follows men who do not have a complete mind."

Bentley

Herodotus has his own version of history (he is sort of a reporter who tells you the last story he was told). Sounds a little like MSNBC.

Also, I pointed out that this tells us a lot about Herodotus and his views on religion but I will also say that it states a lot about the view of women in those days too. (women's treachery)...the old Eve tempting poor Adam again story. Always the women in the thick of it and always being blamed.

Same old, same old.

Bentley

Just as when he comes to Croesus Herodotus goes back to Kandaules, so when he begins his inquiries into Cyrus he goes back to Deiokes. The Persians have just conquered the Medes, but some time before that the Medes won their freedom from the Assyrians. The story of Deiokes, the first king of the Medes, has several points of politically philosophical interest.

Herodotus tells us that "The Assyrians ruled inland Asia for 520 years, and the Medes were the first to revolt from them" (1.95.2). Kingly rule would seem to be primordial, but revolt from that rule seems natural. To be ruled is to be a slave; to fight for the cause of freedom is courageous. Once the Medes had done it, other peoples followed their example.

And yet, once the Medes were free, "they returned once again to the rule of tyrants" (1.96.1). Here we come to Deiokes. It may be that by nature people desire to be free, but it also seems that some at least desire to rule.

"The Medes at that time dwelled in villages" (1.96.2); and at that time civilizations were associated with cities. The story of how Deiokes came to be King of the Medes is a story, then, of how a kind of civil society arises out of something like a state of nature. When the Medes lived in villages, "anarchy prevailed in Media" (1.96.2). But there was such a thing as righteousness, and it was opposed to injustice. Locke thought that there was such a thing as justice and injustice even in a state of nature; Hobbes did not. And if Deiokes desired power, he went about getting it by performing his duties with integrity and fairness (1.96.2). That did effectively counteract the anarchy, until Deiokes refused his duties. He has a plausible reason, but he also has an ulterior motive. When anarchy again prevails, the Medes say that "'since we cannot live in this country under the present conditions, let us appoint a king to rule over us'" (1.97.3). This is very like the way Hobbes and Locke describe the setting up of a sovereign.

Very interesting connection BC (Hobbe and Locke); also do you believe that there is such a thing as justice and injustice even in a state of nature like Locke? Or do you prescribe to Hobbe's viewpoint? So once the Medes were ruled effectively they realized that they did not want to go back to the old ways of anarchy; and that is why they wanted to appoint a king even though they had revolted earlier from the rule of the Assyrians and felt that that revolt was natural? Did the Medes come to their decision to want to appoint their own king; because they had now experienced a civil society and now knew better and appreciated the difference more? What lessons are we supposed to learn from Herodotus here or from the Medes?

I think that goes back to the Greek idea of "kleos", how people remember you after you're gone. I kind of do understand this. I once read somewhere that people should live their lives in such a way that they will be proud of what is said of them at their funeral. From the sublime to the ridiculous, I just heard Madonna talking about how she is going to give a lot of her money to Africa from now on and use her fame in such a way as to help other people. She said if she does that then "she's done what she's been put here for". I've noticed again and again, after people have indulged every appetite, they start to look for meaning and purpose in their lives. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and Ted Turner spent their lives accumulating wealth and now are giving it away. Why? I think it's that drive for "kleos".

Also, I read an interesting thing about two kinds of ethics. Warm climates like Greece and India are outdoor societies. They live in fear of shame. England and other northern societies are indoor societies and live in fear of guilt. I thought that was an interesting divide and I've actually been observing the difference in people that I know. Anyway, just an idea....