Literature Humanities 07-08

Xerxes's war with the Greeks in the Histories

As readers of *the Histories *know, Xerxes, the ruler of the Persian Empire, rallied hundreds of thousands of men into his army to fight a war with Greeks. Xerxes asks Demaratus, the one who was originally from Greece, on how the Greeks would respond to his massive army. Demaratus responds with "My lord, you have asked me to tell the whole truth-the kind of truth that you will not be able to prove false at a later date […] If there are in fact only a thousand men to march out against you[…], then a thousand men will fight you"(VII, 102). The fact that Xerxes asks for the truth has happened once before with his uncle when discussing whether to go to war or not. While the gesture seems nice, readers know how poorly Xerxes reacts when hearing the truth. First of all, when talking with his uncle, Xerxes fumes over his words, despite asking Artabanus for the truth. Now, Xerxes reacts to Demaratus's words by completely disregarding them. Xerxes does not believe that the Lacedaemonians would sacrifice all their men just to fight his massive army off. Yet, when that does happen, Xerxes once again flies off into a rage.

There is the aspect that Xerxes' failure is due to his own personality. He goes into a fit whenever he receives ideas that go against his own and refuses to acknowledge them. There are moments when Xerxes seems beneficial and reconciliatory, such as acknowledging his uncle's words about the consequences of war and giving a supporter gold to round off the supporter's wealth. Yet, these brief moments are plagued by seemingly immature actions, such as killing the same supporter's son and spearing Leonidas's skull onto a pole.

Then there also is the point of view that maybe all of these actions are caused so much by Xerxes but due years to Persian rule. After all, Xerxes only knows of Persian rule as time to conquer, like his father did and the ruler before him. Even before the war with the Greeks, Xerxes had fought a war with the Egyptians. So Xerxes is enraged when the Lacedaemonians refuse to surrender because most people simply yield to him due to his superior numbers. After all that is what happened with many of the Greeks who did surrender and what his father experienced. To see such stubborn resistance seems to not have appeared much in Persian's recent history.

1) Thus how much of the war and his eventual failure due to Persian tradition and experience and how much is due to his own personality?

2) Also what kind of person is Xerxes anyway? Although I discredit them earlier in my post, he does have his shining, benevolent moments.

-Sean Kim

"Constructive imagination" in "The Histories"

       "The Histories" of Herodotus are an inquiry (histoi) of the world that surrounded him and its past, rather than History as we know it. At the birth of History and being acclaimed as Its Father, Herodotus collects stories he's heard, looks for different views on the same matters, selects the information he'll provide the reader with, creates his explanations and, at certain points, he'll openly admit there is no way he can know something.

       In an article called "The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact", the author says that "in their efforts to make sense of the historical record, which is fragmentary and always incomplete, historians have to make use of [..] "the constructive imagination," which told the historian—as it tells the competent detective—what "must have been the case" given the available evidence…" (White 397)

       An example of Herodotus making use of this resource can be found in Book I, Chapter 75:
     "When Croesus reached the Halys he next used existing bridges to get his army across. At least, that is what I think, but the usual account of the Greeks is that Thales of Miletus got the army across […] There are those who go so far as to claim that the original riverbed completely dried up, but I find this implausible because if it were true, how would they have crossed the river on their way back?"

     The first explanation given (about the use of bridges) is completely Herodotus's account of it; it has nothing to do with the reasons people gave him, thus it openly is "what he thinks". Also, when talking about the other explanation being "implausible", Herodotus, as "a competent detective", exposes his reasoning for disregarding it.

     If both Herodotus and historians nowadays use the resource of "constructive imagination" (personal reasoning to match the puzzle-pieces of history) to make sense of historical records,

• How do you think their use of it is similar? How do you think their use of it is different? In other words, what other literary artifacts and resources differentiate Herodotus from modern historians?

• How trustable is Herodotus of what he is narrating and of the explanations he is giving the reader?

White, Hayden. The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact. U.S.: Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle Editorial, 1928.

-Karen

Prexaspes of The Histories

Herodotus depicts Prexaspes as the servant who was well-respected, as least in the public, who followed his ruler's last word. When confronted by Smerdis the Magus and his brother, Prexaspes is given the opportunity to determine the truth of whether the current Smerdis was truly the Smerdis who was the Cyrus's son. Prexaspes suffered from the loss of his son, who Cambyses had killed to supposedly determine his sanity, and the murder of the royal Smerdis, Cambyses's brother. Furthermore, the magi seem much more humane in that the current Smerdis "acted very generously towards all his subjects"(III, 198). Yet, despite it all, in the end Prexaspes double-crossed the magi and revealed the truth. However, for what reason did Prexaspes have in committing suicide in the end? He did not reveal the truth earlier because "it would previously have been dangerous for him to reveal" and thus threatened his life(III, 202). But he ended up killing himself anyway.

Also up to question Prexaspes's true loyalty. His speech to the public relays Cambyses's final wishes by stating how "he laid many curses on the Persians if they failed to regain power and take vengeance on the Magi", exactly what Cambyses said on his deathbed(III, 202). However, in the same speech, Prexaspes states how Cambyses "forced" him to kill Smerdis, which seems to reveal some negative tension he has to his former master. Also, for most of his speech, he seems to talk, not about Cambyses, but rather Cyrus. Although certainly not necessary, Prexaspes "went through Cyrus' ancestry, from Achaemenes […] to Cyrus himself, at which point he described all the benefits which Cyrus had achieved for the Persians"(III, 202). Perhaps his loyalty is not for Cambyses but rather for Cyrus, the old ruler.

1) What is Prexaspes's motivation for revealing the magi? What is he trying to accomplish?

2) Why did he commit suicide by falling head first when previously he was afraid for his life in revealing the truth to the men that was with him at Cambyses's death?

-Sean Kim

Aesthetic Fallacy in The Histories

Herodotus's *The Histories* is the first historical text written with the objective to understand the past and to assign rational reason to previous occurrences.  In this regard, Herodotus is rightly labeled the "Father of History."  Nevertheless, he lets some of his prejudices and subjectivities slip through the text and reach the reader.  Thus, it is reasonable to say that he did not place before himself the standard of objectivity that modern day historians do.  Nevertheless, he attempts to relay this historical text to the reader with as much accuracy as he can.

The prejudices that slip through the text may help reveal who Herodotus was, what he believed, etc.  However, these subjectivities may also show underlying messages in the text.  For example, when Herodotus wrote of how the Lacedaemonians attempted to overthrow the Athenian democratic form of government and install a tyrant, Socleas of Corinth spoke against this action.  He said, "Whatever next?  Will the heavens be under the earth and the earth up in the sky on top of the heavens...It's a topsy-turvy world if you Lacedaemonians are really planning to abolish equal rights and restore tyrants to their states, when there is nothing known to man that is more unjust or bloodthirsty than tyranny… [I]f you had the firsthand experience of tyranny that we have, your proposals on this issue would be better than they are now (5.92)."

This appears to be an aesthetic fallacy in which it feels like the words of Herodotus are being spoken through Socleas's mouth.  Is this a prescription for democracy?  Is it a criticism of tyranny?  Is Herodotus trying to show anything through his examples of abuses in power (i.e. Cambyses's insanity)?

Consider the following:

1. Is Herodotus objective in his recount of historical events?

2. Is Herodotus trying to say anything about different forms of government ( i.e. democracy, tyranny, etc.)?

3. Does Herodotus employ the technique of aesthetic fallacy to present certain opinions he may have?

-Mike M.

History or Commentary?

These are the very first opening lines to Herodotus' *The Histories*:

"Here are presented the results of the enquiry carried out by Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The purpose is to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements produced by both Greeks and non-Greeks; among the matters covered is, in particular, the cause of the hostilities between Greeks and non-Greeks" (I.1-6).

This is the mission statement of Herodotus in writing *The Histories*. It says that this work of his was written to make sure that human events and achievements are not erased by time. Essentially, then, he says his work is a record of history to be passed down to later generations--and what they do with this information is *their* business. Herodotus' mission statement implies that his job is ONLY to record what big events happened in history.

But is that really all he is doing through the work? Imagine, Herodotus, one man, took on the task of recording centuries of history of the Greek and non-Greek world. Can he be a fair recorder in doing so? We notice that Herodotus does strive to be fair and accurate in his data-collecting--in addition to including multiple accounts of the same affair, he even cites his sources, telling us which people claimed what.

But is his work an objective record of history? Can a single man's endeavor at recording history ever be truly objective anyway? Jeff introduced to us the concept of counter-penalty, that one WILL eventually pay for one's crime, with the magnitude of the punishment and the crime being proportional. Curiously, this seems to be the moral to be obtained from many, if not most, of Herodotus' stories. Was Herodotus merely logging into his record book all the big warfares and events that happened in his time, or was he recording the LESSONS to be learned from events in his time?

For example, Herodotus, as we have seen, seems to be talking through his characters at times. An example is Solon giving the truth of life lesson to Croesus. It is way too convenient for Herodotus to instill his values, judgments, and thoughts into his "account of history" this way.

In light of this, to what extent is *The Histories* by Herodotus a record of history, and to what extent is it a subjective commentary? Disregarding what scholars know about the Greeks and non-Greeks through archaeological evidence, etc, what do YOU personally make of this work through reading it--do you regard it more as a history book or a literary commentary on human life? Was Herodotus perfectly consistently with his mission statement pasted above?

- Bryan Chiou