When Women Interfere: Studies in the Role of Women in Herodotus' Histories (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology, 12) 9050634494, 9789050634496

Citation preview

WHEN WOMEN INTERFERE

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY EDITORS

ALBERT RIJKSBARON IRENE J.F. DE JONG

HARM PINKSTER

VOLUME TWELVE

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED

1. Rijksbaron, A., Grammatical Observations on Euripides' Bacchae. 1990. 2. Risselada, R., Imperatives and other directive expressions in Latin. A study in the pragmatics of a dead language. 1993. 3. Wakker, G.C., Conditions and Conditionals. An Investigation of Ancient Greek. 1994. 4. Kroon, C., Discourse Particles in Latin. A Study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. 1995.

5. Dik, H., Word Order in Ancient Greek. A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus. 1995. 6. Veen, J.E. v.d., The Significant and the Insignificant. Five Studies in Herodotus' View of History. 1996. 7. Rijksbaron, Albert, New Approaches to Greek Particles. 1997. 8. Risselada, Rodie (Ed.), Latin in Use. 1998. 9. Claes, Paul, Concatenatio Catulliana. A New Reading of the Carmina. 2002. 10. Bolkestein, M. - C.H.M. Kroon - H. Pinkster - H.W Remmelink - R. Risselada (eds.), Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 11th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. 2002. 11. Allan, Rutger, The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek. A Study of Polysemy. 2003.

MINKE W. HAZEWINDUS

WHEN WOMEN INTERFERE STUDIES IN THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN HERODOTUS' HISTORIES

J.C. GIEBEN, PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 2004

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. ©

by Minke W Hazewindus, 2004 / Printed in The Netherlands / ISBN 90 5063 449 4

To my children: Hanneke Corneel Fedja

Contents

Preface

1

Introduction

3

1. On method: Reconfiguring Herodotus' women

15

2. The story of Candaules' wife: a story of (not-) seeing

43

(1.6 - 14)

3. About fatal gifts and gruesome mutilations,

83

the story of Amestris' revenge (9.107 - 114)

4. Women who made Cyrus live and die

129

(1.107-114, 1.201-215)

5. The Amazons, or about presuppositions

181

(4.110-118)

6. Pheretime, a 'gender bender'?

217

(4.(145-)162-168, 200-205)

7. Conclusion

237

Bibliography

245

Index

251

Preface

T

his book is a revision of a doctoral dissertation that was submitted to the University of Amsterdam in September 2001. When I started this project I worked under the inspiring supervision of Mieke Bal, professor of the Theory of Literature at the University of Amsterdam. She gave me the confidence and the tools to read Herodotus' Histories in my own, subjective way. Irene de Jong, professor of Classical Greek Literature at the University of Amsterdam, who in an innovative way studied the narratological presentation of Homer's Iliad, made me clearly aware of the risks of my enterprise and more specifically, of the risky field between objectivity and subjectivity. When Jan van Luxemburg, former associate professor of General and Comparative Literature at the University of Amsterdam, became my co-promotor, his always relaxed, cheerful and positive comments soon became essential for the progress of my work. He spent an enormous amount of time and energy on my dissertation and afterwards on this book. I am extremely grateful for his constant support and for his belief in my abilities. Peter Stork, assistant professor of Ancient Greek at the University of Leiden, offered to examine my interpretations of the Greek texts. This study has very much profited from his thorough scrutiny. Peter proved to be a great help and a very thoughtful, utterly patient and kind teacher and supporter. I have learnt a great deal, in many respects, from both Jan and Peter. When I was finishing my dissertation, Albert Rijksbaron, professor of Ancient Greek Linguistics at the University of Amsterdam, kindly offered to help me to revise my study in order to publish it as volume XII of the Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology. It soon became clear that this revision had to be more thorough than we had foreseen, but Albert's severe judgement and

1

Preface his innumerable lucid comments turned out to be emendations that were necessary to make this a readable book. Without his patient examination of the whole text this book would not have been published in this series. Therefore I should like to express my thanks to him here for the enormous amount of work he has done and for his belief in the good result. I want to thank J.C. Gieben for publishing this book, and my children for their help: Fedja often showed his cheerful interest, Corneel proved to be an always patient, indispensable computer specialist and Hanneke was a very positive, stimulating help with her critical remarks, questions and suggestions. I am so glad that she, although she was already ill, could still attend my dissertation ceremony. She would have greatly enjoyed the publication of this book. The same is true for my parents, especially for my father. He enthusiastically encouraged me when I started this enterprise. Finally, I would like to thank my friends who supported me during these years with their lasting, loyal and warm friendship.

2

Introduction

A

lmost a century ago Felix Jacoby asked how we should judge Herodotus: Wie soil man das erklaren? Diesen Ianuskopf, der zuriicksieht auf die geographisch-ethnographische Erdbeschreibung eines Hekataios und vorwarts auf das erste reine Geschichtswerk eines Thukydides? (1956:353, repr. of 1913)

The fact that the Histories finds itself on the threshold between the works of the logographers and the new way of writing history leads to many various and contradictory opinions on almost every aspect of this work. As a result, the amount of literature on the Histories is immense. Even within the limited scope of my study I had to make choices of topics, controversies and critical approaches, for the Histories is since many decades a source of inspiration for hundreds of writings a year. The first question the work raises concerns the lack of a title. Henry lmmerwahr calls this a major difficulty and says that "in searching for a title, we are in fact looking for unity of subject matter on the simplest level, for an overall plan or pattern, in whatever form" (1966:17). The commentator Stein considers the first words of the proem, the short preface, a kind of title. 1 However, this does not solve the problem, for even the words of the proem are a subject of controversy. Although Herodotus himself uses the word "history" in the beginning of his proem and despite the fact that Cicero calls him "pater historiae': the father of history (De Legibus 1.1,5), this 1. Stein ad loc.: "Die Worte 'Hpo661:ou-... -fj& bilden einen in sich abgeschlossenen Satz einfachster Form, 'hier ist des Halikarnasseers Herodotos Darlegung opfii; (responsible for the quarrel), see my Introduction, p. 2. Then he begins explaining this Persian accusation by presenting the Persian version of several legendary abductions (1.1-5). In this version the first abduction is that of the Greek Io. Io had treacherously been carried off to Egypt by Phoenician sailors and the Greeks had taken revenge by carrying off the Phoenician princess Europa. Then the 1. Livy A. U.C. 1.57-58, Ovid, Fasti II. 721-852 2. Republic, 359c-360c.

43

Chapter 2 Greeks had abducted the Colchian princess Medea whereupon the Trojan prince Paris had abducted the Greek Helen. Subsequently the Greeks invaded Asia and captured Troy. According to the Persians this was the beginning of their enmity toward the Greeks. The Phoenicians in their turn denied any guilt and said that Io had voluntarily sailed with them when she found herself pregnant (5,2). Although I do not want to elaborate on these abductions, the presentation is too remarkable to just let them pass. Firstly, Herodotus starts his Histories with the Persian and Phoenician versions of stories about princesses who were legendary characters in Greece, without clearly presenting the well-known Greek version of their stories. 3 Secondly, apparently he thinks these stories important enough to present them, instead of just saying: there are some Persian and Phoenician legendary tales but I shall tell you the truth, etc. Thirdly, he explicitly cites the Persian argument for the Greeks' guilt because they began the Trojan war after Paris' abduction of Helen: 'tO µ£V VUV apmlsEtV 'Y'llVOtKOµa Maaa0m, ocooex:a oe 1tpo1tapot0E 1tupfic; a1to6etpot0µflCJEtv Tpcocov ay')...,aa 'tEKVa, CJ£0Ev Ktaµevoto xolco0Eic;. Be happy, Patroclus, even in the house of Hades, for I am accomplishing everything that I promised you: to give Hector to the dogs to devour him raw after I dragged him hither and to cut off the necks of twelve noble children of the Trojans before the pyre, out of anger because of your death (Il. 23.19-23).

Here we are told about Achilles' mistreatment of Hector's corpse after he killed him and about his killing twelve Trojan children. The reason was Achilles' great grief over Patroclus' death at the hands of Ameis-Hentze agree that 21.383-520 is a later, rather mediocre interpolation because of the unnecessary pause in the narration, the poor language and the unworthy way the gods are depicted. Needless to say, the latter argument is less artistic than ideological.

89

Chapter 3 Hector. When we turn to the Odyssey, we read that Odysseus after his long wanderings is finally home in Ithaca. There he assumes the guise of a beggar, so that the suitors who are feasting in his house cannot recognise him. There is another beggar who wants to drive him away and they decide to fight in order to see who is the best. Antinoiis, one of the most important suitors, speaks the following lines as a threat to the other beggar: a'i KEV a' omo unopYTJµtvrov· Amestris [.... ] gives to Xerxes. But he, delighted, throws it around him and goes to Artaynte. But delighted with her too he ordered her to ask for whatever she wants to receive in return for her favours to him (109,1-2).

The conjunction OE in 6 OE iicr0dA.1J yeveo0at 1ea1e&,o~6µevoi; OE "Aµ11cr'tptv, µTl Kat 1tptv Ka'tEtKal;oucru 't E~ 'tE Ea'ti.

(he said) that it was the child of Mandane, the daughter of Astyages and of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus and it is him that Astyages orders to kill; and now, here he is (111,5). According to the structure of Mithradates' words he waits till the end to show the (beautiful) baby. Only at the last moment does he reveal

140

Women who made Cyrus live and die

the identity of the baby with the elaborate naming, so that it is quite clear who the baby is and then he uses EV'tEAAf:'tat a1tOK't£tvat, asserting Astyages' lethal order. The whole speech has led up to this order, for that is the reason why he has been away and why he now gives Cyno this account. The combination of this lethal order in the HP and the emphasis on immediacy, worded by the following vuv 't£ and by the showing of the baby, produces pathos and asks for a direct reaction on the part of Cyno: OaKpucracra Kat Aa~oµiv11 't©V youva'tOOV 'tOU avopo~ exp,it~E µ11oeµiu 'tEXVIJ EK0e'ivai µtv

and after she had burst into tears and taken her man's knees she begged him on no account to expose him (112,1).

Expectations of "what will be his answer?" arise from the imperfect verb form EXPTJt~e, the more so because Cyno begged him after she had started crying and taken a suppliant attitude. Furthermore, µ11oeµtij 'tEXVlJ is much stronger than just µ,;i. 9 Her reaction differs in two ways from that of Harpagus' wife, who only asked one question. Firstly she cries; at this point of the story we do not yet know what she, as the only character in the story, knows, namely that her baby was stillborn. Secondly, she does not ask him what he is going to do but at once begs him not to expose the baby. Then, when her husband does not listen to her begging, she starts again and turns to ordering him what to do: ~ OE OUK E1t£t0e apa 'tOV avopa, 0£\l'tEpa Myet TJ yuvri 'taoe· 'E7t£t 'tOivuv OU ouvaµai cre 1tei8etv µiJ EK0etvat, COµEV (let us raise the child); now she indicates their joint activity. At this moment she tells her husband what we already know but what he does not know yet, namely that she has delivered her child. However, the information that the baby is dead is new and her speaking about it in the neuter forms 'tE0vE6acrt (they say)-clauses, about the people who live near the Massagetae. The people who live on the islands in the great river grow crops (probably like cannabis) which, when roasted on the fire, make them drunk with its smell, just as wine bemuses the Greeks (202,2). He also reports that the Caucasus contains all kinds of people. Most of them live from the fruit of wild trees and they copulate openly like cattle (203,5). We still do not know anything about the Massagetae, but the information about people near them enhances the remoteness, wildness and 'otherness' of these barbarians. Absolutely no connection with the western, civilized Greek world is possible, for to the west of the Caspian Sea (which has no connection with other seas on which the Greek sail) lies the barrier of the Caucasus and to the east there is an endless plain, whereof a very great part belongs to the Massagetae (204,1). On the other hand Cyrus' people, the Persians, are at least known to and are in contact with the civilized Greek world. The remoteness of the Massagetae is further illustrated by the fact that the narrator repeatedly tells us that he knows most of the information only from hearsay, Myi::mt. So, by depicting the river people as savage and involved in strange drugs- and sex-scenes, the narrator sets up expectations of even more strange, barbarian behaviour of people who live still further away. When he starts with the actual story the narrator uses two yapclauses to explain Cyrus' desire to subdue the Massagetae: [.... ] oi Macrcraye'tat, be' ouc; 6 Kupoc; ECJXE 1tpo0uµiT}v O'tpa'tEUcracr0at · 7COA.A. (by trickery) he advances EK wu eµavfo~ (openly, 205,2). He openly starts his campaign against the Massagetae by building bridges in order to cross the frontier river. Here in 205,1 we receive the first indication that Tomyris is more than a mere substitute for her dead husband. She is able to understand and to refuse someone, even if this someone is the great king of Persia. By calling Cyrus' wooing a trick the narrator colours this act, so that he puts emphasis on Tomyris' understanding. The third episode (206-214) is the episode of the speech(less) acts. Not only the contents of a speech but also answers to the questions "who speaks?" or "who acts by words?" clarify the position of the main characters. Therefore I want to pay special attention to the matter of speech acts here. As an answer to a speech act one can expect a speech re-act. 18 The fact that someone does not deliver speech (re-)acts is also a relevant narratological fact. Tomyris is the one who speaks, whereas Cyrus scarcely speaks and when he does speak his speech is not directed to Tomyris. She appears as an active personality, who takes the initiative to send messengers to the aggressor and who dares to take an independent stance different 17. The sense of the word 1tp6aoo0ep6µeva, to which both Stein and Abicht call attention. Both comment: sc. 11:a1eti, imminentia". Stein compares it to the Latin irruere, invehi, used "vom Gegner" . I follow them in my translation because ta em£p6µeva is not neutral, as Powell's translation suggests.

163

Chapter4

There is a subtle difference between ilv (if), used by Cyrus in 208, and e1t£av (as soon as), used here. His awareness of his situation, of the possibility of disaster, seems to be gone now, for in the clause introduced by e1teav he sounds full of confidence: he will come home after his victory. At this point the omniscient narrator interrupts the story and tells us what is going to happen: KupO(; µev OOKE(J)V oi ~apEtOV e1ttf3oUA.E'UEtV EA.EYE 'tU~ µev CJ«pEO>V E«pOVE'UCJav' 7t0~ 6' En 7tA.EUVa~ E~roypwav, Kat aAAf>u~ Kat tov tii~ ~acnAEill~ Toµupto~ 1tatOa, CJ'tPO'tll'YEOv'ta Maaaaye'tEoov, 'to) o'Uvoµa ~v L1tapya1tiCJ11~they killed many but took even far more as prisoner, other people as well as the son of the queen, Tomyris, who was general of the Massagetae, whose name was Spargapises31 (211,3).

This clause brings us back to the position of Tomyris, who now appears to have a son, a possible successor, although this is not mentioned. He is an adult, for he is old enough to be general of the Massagetae. Still, she is queen, her adult son is not king. By the 1cat ... Kat connection he is set apart from the other people. 32 Tomyris' second speech reveals her direct reaction to her son's imprisonment. The only identity bestowed on this son is his "son-ship': although the 31. Grene omits in his translation "even more'' the intensifier 1to).)..q>. However, by saying that they killed "even far more" Herodotus still enlarges the number. This is important for the analysis of Tomyris' words. 32. According to K&G, Il.249" 1eai. ... 1eai. wird gebraucht, wenn verschieden-artige oder entgegengesetzte Glieder verbunden werden sollen." The use of this construction emphasizes, then, the fact that the son is different from/opposite to the rest.

165

Chapter4 narrator told us his name and his function. In the presentation of their relationship as mother and son the son is called -cov Tfl~ f3acnA£iT1~ Toµupw~ 1ta1.oa (the son of the queen, Tomyris). Tomyris is only twice referred to in this way, by her function and her name, here and in 213, and both times she is named so in connection with her son (in 213 we read: o BE Tfl~ f3acnA£iT1~ Toµupw~ mit~ I:1tapya1tiori~). The other times she is only mentioned by her name. For Spargapises, in contrast, the fact that he is the prince is emphasized. Whenever Tomyris hears or speaks about him however, she makes clear, by a possessive pronoun or by the context, that he is primarily"her son". In 212,1 Tomyris hears what happened 1tEpt -cov 1tatoa (to her son); in 212,2 she uses 1tmM~ -cou eµou (my son); in 212,3 she says: anooou~ µot -cov mitoa (having returned my son to me), and in 214,5 she repeats the possessive pronoun and calls him again mitoa -cov eµov (my son). As the son has no direct speech we only know him through the focalization of the mother. As I mentioned before, Uspenskij (1975:29-41) pointed to the relevance of denomination. The denomination makes us realize the difference in point of view, of focalization, and thereby of emotional involvement. Now that we realize Tomyris' involvement in the fate of her son her words receive a specific weight. Preceded by 11 oe 1tu8oµev11 -ca -re nept 'tllV cr-cpaniiv yeyov6m Kat -ca nept -cov 1ta1.oa (and when she had heard what had happened to her army and her son) 33 Tomyris addresses Cyrus by means of the following speech, which I again divide in three parts: "A1tAT}O"'tE aiµmoc; Kupe, µT}oev e1tap0flc; 'tq> yeyov6n 'tq>OE 7tp,;yµan, El aµ7tEAi Vq> 1cap1tq>, 'tq> 7tEp OU'tOt eµm1tMµEVOt µat VEcr0E oihcoc; COO'tE lCO'tlOV'tO $apµa1Cq> OOMOOac;

33. Grene reverses the sequence by translating: "When his mother heard what had happened to her son and her army.. .': Herodotus first mentions the general and then the specific object. Grene's reversal sentimentalizes Tomyris' motherhood.

166

Women who made Cyrus live and die fa::pci't'llCJOA.Ecsru; both Stein and Abicht refer to c. 45,6, where the verb has the meaning of "perdere", "ungliicklich machen" , according to Stein. Powell translates "ruin, undo a person''. I prefer Powell's translation because it is stronger. This fits Tomyris, who is acting to express herself as strongly as possible.

175

Chapter4

Tomyris begins her speech with cr6 (you) as subject, directly followed by eµe (me) as object, while in the next clause this order is the same but the semantic roles are reversed: she starts again with cre (you) but now as object while the directly following tyro (I) is subject. When we compare this with the roles of I and you in her two previous speeches (see p. 155-6 and 166-7), we notice a shift. In her first speech (206) Tomyris explicitly summons Cyrus to act: O"lJ 6e ... O"lJ OE and O"lJ (but/and you). In her second speech she again summons him to act, but less emphatically (no use of the pronoun O"lJ in 212,2), while at the end they are closely connected as cre (you) and eyro (I), and she as subject predicts the future shift of roles. Here in her last speech Tomyris started again with cr6 (you), which gave the impression that Cyrus still could do something, but then there is the shift, the contrast with the beginning: now eyro (I) take the lead. 45 Furthermore, echoing her second speech, there is the opposition µax11 - 0011.q>. She won by fight, he by trickery. By the exact repetition of the last words of her former speech, 212,3: cre 6' eyro a'iµat0, O'tE 't' ~A.0ov 'Aµa1;6vE~ avnavnpat. for I too being their ally was numbered among them on the day that came the Amazons, peers of men (r 188-89)

'tO 'tpl.'tOV au K'.a'tE7tE«pVEV 'Aµa1;6va~ avnavEipa~. and thirdly he slew the Amazons, peers of men (Z 186).

Both times the qualification attributed to the Amazons is avnavetpat. Both times the combination occurs at the end of the line, be it nominative (r 190} or accusative (Z 186).2 We know that the so-called Cyclic Poets, who wrote about the things that had happened before and after the events told by Homer, have written about the Amazons. Their works are lost now, but later writers must have known at least certain parts. One of these works has been the Aethiopis, a poem that continued the story of the Iliad, for it dealt with the battle around Troy after the death of Hector. There is a brief summary in Proclus' Chrestomathia II. Proclus 2. Blok's conclusion (1991:130 ff) that this expression is formulaic, meant to explain the Amazons to be feminine (the ending -6vEc; suggests in epic collectives of men, the ending -t6Ec; women) is not convincing, for we only have these two places in Homer.

183

Chapter 5 mentions Achilles' love for the Amazon queen Penthesileia as a subject of mockery for Thersites. We find this same theme in the first book of Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica. This poet lived around 400 AD and wrote a long poem in hexameters. It is generally assumed that he was inspired by works of the Cyclic Poets and that the first book is based on the Aethiopis, but we do not know how much he derived from later versions. For example, like Aeschylus and Herodotus he mentions the river Thermodon as the dwelling-place of the Amazons, but that is no proof that the poet of the Aethiopis had situated them there (see also note 6): Kat 'tO'tE 0epµCOOOV't0~ a1t' eupu1t6poto pet0prov ~A.U0e Ilev0ecnkta 0erov emetµEVI') eioo~ and then came from the streams of the wide Thermodon Penthesileia, resembling the gods in beauty (Posthom.1,18-19)

Penthesileia had come to Troy with twelve Amazon princesses to help the Trojans fight the Greeks. Here the Amazons are not just a host of warrior women, they are individuals, mentioned by name. When Achilles has killed Penthesileia he is enthralled by her beauty. At the end of the first book Smyrnaeus describes Achilles' excessive grief when he has killed her: Meya o' axvmo IlTJA.EO~ uio~ lCO'UpTJ~ dcrop6rov epmov cr0evo~ EV lCOVt:UO"t · 'tO'UVElCa oi 1CpaOiTJV 6wal 1CO'tEOa7t'tOV av'iat 07t7tOO"OV aµcp' E'tapoto 1tapo~ Ilmp61CA.Ot0 oaµev'tO~. And Peleus' son was very sad when he looked at the lovely breast of the young woman in the dust because awful sorrows consumed his heart as much as before when his friend Patroclus had died (1,718-21).

184

The Amazons

Before the fight Achilles saw her just as a dangerous warrior who had to be slain, now he sees her as an extremely beautiful woman and his grief is even compared with his excessive grief for Patroclus. When Thersites, known from Homer as abusing Odysseus, is jeering at him that he has a woman-mad heart, yuvmµavec; ~'tOp, he is slain by Achilles. Pindar mentions the Amazons in three of his odes. 3 He uses different qualifiers. In 01. VIII. 62-3/47-8 we read how the god Apollo Eav0ov i\1tEtYEV Kat 'Aµas6vai; EU1.7t7tOUv r.aupoµatirov ai yuvatKE~, Kat E1tt 0itPTJV e1t' t1t1trov EKq>Ot'tCOOat iiµa 'tOtm av6pam Kat xropt~ 'tCOV av6pcov, Kat E~ 1tOAEµov q>Ot'tCOOat Kat O"'tOAllV 't'llV aU't'llV totm av6pam q,opfouom. and from then on the women of the Sauromatians have their old way of life, and go hunting on horseback together with the men and without the men, while they also go to war and wear the same dress as the men (116,2).

The narrator calls them "the women of the Sauromatians" now instead of Amazons and he calls the men Sauromatae instead of Scythians. Apparently they have entered a new phase. The Scythian men started a new life as a new tribe by leaving their country and their people while the Amazons lost at least part of their identity. Both lost their former names. The Amazons kept most of their habits, however, for despite the fact that they are somehow settled as wives and mothers they remain hunting, horseriding warrior women who dress like men, not like women. The next clause illustrates the narrator's opinion about the transmission of language, based on the idea that children learn their language from the mother 16:

q,rovij 6e oi r.aupoµatm voµil;ouot LKU0tKij, O"OAOtKi/;ovte~17 aut'ij (l7t() 'tOU apxaiou, E1t£t OU XPT\O"'t~ e~eµa0ov O'll'tllV ai 'Aµasove~. 16. In book 2.2,2-5 Herodotus tells us about the Egyptian king Psammetichos, who wanted to know which were the first people on earth. Therefore he did a languageexperiment He isolated two newborn children and forbade anyone to utter a word in their presence. After two years they clearly spoke their first word, the Phrygian word for bread, 'bekos: Hereby the Egyptians admitted that the Phrygians were older than themselves. 17. This is the only time this verb (form) CJOM>tJCi~ovte~ is used in the Histories, and according to Powell it is "not cited in the ninth edition of L&S from any author before Herodotus:• It clearly is a word with a negative impact, but how negative we do not know.

209

Chapter 5

and the Sauromatae use the Scythian language, speaking it incorrectly from the beginning, because the Amazons did not learn it properly (117). Now they are called Amazons again. The narrator does not mention the influence of the fathers nor the fact that their language probably also became less purely-Scythian through the years of living away from their homeland. Also as far as marriage rules are concerned we only hear about rules for girls: ou yaµeetat nap9ivo~ ouoeµia nplv av trov noAEµicov avopa V eyeveto. ~ApKecrl.AE~ yap 6 BattOU t€ tOU XO>AOU 1(01, epetiµT1c; OUK Eq>Tl ave~ea0m Kata ta 6 Mavttveuc; AT1µcova~ Eta~€, aUa a1tai t€€ ta tCOV 1tpoy6vrov yepea.

there was much disturbance about the state offices. For Arcesilaus the son of the lame Battus and Pheretime said that he would not endure the arrangements of the Mantinean Demonax, but he wanted back the privileges of his forefathers (162,1-2).

After civil struggle both son and mother flee, Arcesilaus to Samos, Pheretime to Cyprus. No mention is made of when or how the lame Battus had died nor of the reason why Pheretime also flees. These omissions may work as gaps, which are not easy to bridge, however, for not everything becomes clear at once. Apparently Pheretime now is unpopular as the mother of the new king who had lost the struggle about his rights. She clearly supports the requests of her son. This should mean that she switches from being a loyal wife of a democratically-inclined husband to a loyal mother of an undemocratically-inclined son. In other words, she would then be a woman who just supports her house, the dynasty she has married into and the power of this dynasty. We cannot yet fill in this gap. Iser sees this kind of gaps as a positive stimulus: The indeterminate sections, or gaps, of literary texts are in no way to be regarded as a defect; on the contrary, they are a basic element for the aesthetic response (1989:9). In saying that gaps ask for an 'aesthetic' response on the part of the reader, Iser may have a point but sometimes one has to wait some time for responses to come. The gap here triggers suspense of

222

Pheretime uncertainty (seep. 35). The curiosity about the figure of Pheretime is deepened when she begins to act. Her first action occurs at Cyprus where she takes refuge with the king, Euelthon: U7tl1C0µ£Vl'l 6e 1tapa 'tO'U'tOV it epetlµ11 e6&'t0 crtpanfi~ ft l(a't(l~Et 0«1>fo~ E~ 't'TlV KUPTJVl'lV. 3

and after her arrival Pheretime asked for an army to bring them back to Cyrene (162,3). None of the commentators elaborates on this explicit request for an army, while they did comment on Xerxes offering one to his concubine (9.109,3, see chapter 3, p. 104-5). This army has to bring Pheretime and her men back, obviously in order to restore the power of the house. The narrator only mentions the first part, the fact that she asked for an army to bring them back. When we assume that the narrator presents this part as Pheretime's focalization, it becomes understandable that the second part is not mentioned. Pheretime does not want to blow her chances. Her host, however, does not want to honour her request: 6 6e EM.)..0rov 1tciv µciUov

ft a'tpanitv o\. e6i6ou

but Euelthon gave her everything rather than an army (162,4). The imperfect verb form eoioou has an iterative reading here and indicates that Euelthon kept giving. 4 She answers by a second speech: 3. In 9.109,3 Xerxes offers his concubine a crtpm6 XPQ (the Pythia gives this oracle to Arcesilaus, 164,1) the narrator uses almost the same words (and again the HP XPQ) that he used in the 5. Macan and Van Groningen both call this oracle a vaticinium post eventum. However, this is the case with almost all the oracles in the Histories. Furthermore, Van Groningen contends that 'this oracle and the story connected with it, were therefore still rather recent when related to H. as history: (my tr.) This statement of Van Groningen proves again how much he sees the Histories as history and not as at least partly fiction.

225

Chapter 6 introducing clause. By this ring composition and by the repetition of the HP the narrator makes us aware of the importance he attaches to his information about the consultation and the contents of the oracle. Hereby he heightens the suspense arising from the uncertainty about Arcesilaus' reaction. As soon as Arcesilaus gains control of the government at Cyrene tou µav't'Tliou OUK EµEµ Vll'tO (he had forgotten the oracle, 164,1). He ships some of his opponents to Cyprus E1tt Otacj>0opij (for destruction), instead ofletting them go. Some of his Cyrenaean opponents hide in a tall tower. He orders his soldiers to pile wood around this tower and to burn it. In other words, he orders them to metaphorically bake pots. He shows a cruelty here that foreshadows that of his mother. By these actions Arcesilaus makes it clear that he has forgotten this part of the warnings of the oracle, so what about the rest with the ominous ending, his imminent death and that of the most beautiful bull? How & Wells only comment on this sending of opponents to Cyprus: "presumably to his mother", while Van Groningen comments "that she had enough influence to accomplish their destruction, despite what we have read in l 62:• we cannot be sure if How & Wells and Van Groningen are right, for we read that because of wind the ships never arrive at Cyprus (164,2). But if they are right, then this means that the son sees his mother as his loyal helper, capable of causing destruction, whereas king Euelthon wants to see her as a traditional woman weaving at the loom. At last, when Arcesilaus has understood (µa0rov, 164,3) that he has acted contrary to the warnings of the oracle, he voluntarily leaves Cyrene, for he thinks that Cyrene is the place surrounded by water. He flees to Barca, where he goes to (amKVEE'tat, an HP) his fatherin-law Alazir. However, inhabitants of Barca and some Cyrenaean refugees kill him (KtEivouc.n, an HP) on the market together with his father-in-law Alazir (164,4). The HPs indicate the importance the narrator attaches to Arcesilaus' arrival and subsequent death at Barca. The expression taupo~ o KaUt