Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T10:27:22.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CYRUS ANECDOTE IN HERODOTUS 9.122

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2020

Ruobing Xian
Ruobing Xian*
Affiliation:
Fudan University, Shanghai
*
ruobingxian@fudan.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Cyrus anecdote recounted in the final chapter of Herodotus’ Histories (9.122) has received the frequent notice of critics, with particular attention paid to the anecdote's relation to the work as a whole. Scholars have long since noted that the episode involves ‘the intersection of two basic narrative modes on which Herodotus has relied throughout the Histories: ethnographic description and detailed accounts of political activity and decision-making’. Thus scholars have illuminated the significance of the anecdote by comparing it to other thematically related passages in the Histories. Reading the closure of the Histories in terms of didactic enterprise, recent treatments of the anecdote tend to view Herodotus’ use of it as a moral lesson to his contemporary Athenians.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , May 2020 , pp. 16 - 26
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2020

The Cyrus anecdote recounted in the final chapter of Herodotus’ Histories (9.122) has received the frequent notice of critics, with particular attention paid to the anecdote's relation to the work as a whole. Scholars have long since noted that the episode involves ‘the intersection of two basic narrative modes on which Herodotus has relied throughout the Histories: ethnographic description and detailed accounts of political activity and decision-making’.Footnote 1 Thus scholars have illuminated the significance of the anecdote by comparing it to other thematically related passages in the Histories.Footnote 2 Reading the closure of the Histories in terms of didactic enterprise, recent treatments of the anecdote tend to view Herodotus’ use of it as a moral lesson to his contemporary Athenians.Footnote 3

While scholars have fruitfully explored the anecdote's thematic links to the relevant passages of the Histories in general, its specific relation to Herodotus’ presentation of Cyrus in particular has been largely neglected. The present article will begin with an outline of the form and content of 9.122 (I). On the basis of this analysis, it will be argued that the Cyrus anecdote at 9.122 contains two specific evocations of Herodotus’ presentation of Cyrus in Book 1: the episode at 1.125–6, which leads to Cyrus’ rise to power (II), and Croesus’ speech at 1.207, which signals Cyrus’ tragic end (III).

I

The following analysis of the form and content of the Cyrus anecdote at Hdt. 9.122 clarifies three interlocking issues: the narrative framework of the anecdote, its literary setting and the relationship between the Persians and Cyrus within the anecdote's narrative context.

The anecdote is unusual in that it is presented in the narrator's own voice.Footnote 4 The narrative proper of the Histories ends with the account of how Artayctes, the Persian governor of Sestos, is murdered by the Athenians on account of his mistreatment of Protesilaus’ sanctuary (9.116–20).Footnote 5 Through a relative clause, the narrative focus is shifted to Artayctes’ ancestor, Artembares, whose words the Persians once brought to Cyrus (τούτου δὲ τοῦ Ἀρταΰκτεω τοῦ ἀνακρεμασθέντος προπάτωρ Ἀρτεμβάρης ἐστὶ ὁ Πέρσῃσι ἐξηγησάμενος λόγον τὸν ἐκεῖνοι ὑπολαβόντες Κύρῳ προσήνεικαν λέγοντα τάδε· 9.122.1). The episode at 9.122 is conventionally named ‘the Proposal of Artembares’.Footnote 6 However, a closer look at the Greek text calls this formulation into question. This is because the final chapter represents a conversation between the Persians and Cyrus, and no further reference to Artembares is made apart from the beginning of the anecdote.Footnote 7 The Persians deliver their speech in front of Cyrus (9.122.2). After getting an answer from the king (9.122.3), the Persians take off and abandon their proposal (9.122.4). Two aorists used of the Persians frame the narrative: while the verbal form προσήνεικαν ‘they forwarded’ at 9.122.1 sets the scene into motion, the scene is rounded off by εἵλοντο ‘they chose’ at 9.122.4.

Having accounted for the anecdote's framework, I wish to address the anecdote's literary setting. In contrast to the earlier scholarly discussions, which have focussed on the historical context of the anecdote,Footnote 8 I understand it as a flashback to the basic storyline of Cyrus recounted in Book 1 of the Histories.Footnote 9 The text provides us with an unmistakable terminus post quem: the Persians address Cyrus as one who has overthrown Astyages (Κῦρε, κατελὼν Ἀστυάγην, 9.122.2). The overthrow of Astyages, and thus the Medes’ subjugation by the Persians, squares well with the word ἡγεμονίη ‘empire’ occurring in the opening speech of the proposal (ἐπεὶ Ζεὺς Πέρσῃσι ἡγεμονίην διδοῖ, 9.122.2). The same word is also attested in the first book, where Herodotus narrates that Croesus considers the Persians’ growing power to be a threat to him, since Cyrus has deprived Astyages of his sovereignty (μετὰ δὲ ἡ Ἀστυάγεος τοῦ Κυαξάρεω ἡγεμονίη καταιρεθεῖσα ὑπὸ Κύρου τοῦ Καμβύσεω, 1.46.1).Footnote 10 One notes the parallelism between κατελών at 9.122.2 and καταιρεθεῖσα at 1.46.1.

Apart from this explicit reference, the passage also entails an implicit one, which helps the reader to pinpoint the episode's literary setting: the Persians describe the moment they forward the proposal to Cyrus as ‘when we rule over so many peoples and the whole of Asia’ (ὅτε γε ἀνθρώπων τε πολλῶν ἄρχομεν πάσης τε τῆς Ἀσίης; 9.122.2). This phrase, as I shall argue, offers a subtle indication of the anecdote's dramatic date. In the historian's account, the Persians’ sovereignty over the whole of Asia is aligned with Cyrus’ defeat of Croesus. At 1.130.3, Herodotus makes a narratorial statement that he resumes his earlier narratives of how Cyrus defeats Croesus and ‘so gains control of the whole of Asia’ (τοῦτον δὲ καταστρεψάμενος οὕτω πάσης τῆς Ἀσίης ἦρξε). The correspondence between ἄρχομεν πάσης τε τῆς Ἀσίης at 9.122.2 and πάσης τῆς Ἀσίης ἦρξε at 1.130.3 is striking. Furthermore, the present tense included in the ὅτε-clause strongly hints at a temporal setting when ‘the Persians are envisioned as already having conquered Lydia and as currently ruling the whole of Asia’.Footnote 11 Moreover, Herodotus announces the Persians’ reign over the whole of Asia (πάσης τῆς Ἀσίης ἦρξε, 1.130.3) only after the fall of the Lydian empire; whereas in the same chapter he refers to the Persians’ rulership over Asia in the aftermath of Astyages’ overthrow by Cyrus (ἦρχον τὸ ἀπὸ τούτου τῆς Ἀσίης, 1.130.2). The slight difference inherent in the two expressions ἦρχον τὸ ἀπὸ τούτου τῆς Ἀσίης at 1.130.2, on the one hand, and πάσης τῆς Ἀσίης ἦρξε at 1.130.3, on the other, is significant in so far as the first marks the beginning (ἀπὸ τούτου) of the Persians’ and of Cyrus’ rulership over Asia, whereas the second points to its completion highlighted by the adjective πάσης. In addition, Herodotus might conceive of the anecdote happening when Cyrus ‘completed his journey to the Persians’ heartlands’ (ἀπήλαυνε ἐς ἤθεα τὰ Περσέων, 1.157.1) in the aftermath of his conquest of Sardis, a possibility which tallies well with the aforementioned literary setting.

The relationship between the Persians and Cyrus within the anecdote can be examined by paying close attention to the Persians’ proposal. Two points are at stake. First, the opening words of the proposal juxtapose the collective identity of the Persians with Cyrus as an individual: ‘Since Zeus gives power to the Persians and to you (as an individual), Cyrus, who has destroyed Astyages, come on’ (ἐπεὶ Ζεὺς Πέρσῃσι ἡγεμονίην διδοῖ, ἀνδρῶν δὲ σοί, Κῦρε, κατελὼν Ἀστυάγην, φέρε).Footnote 12 This juxtaposition has its ambivalence: though the role of Cyrus in overthrowing Astyages has been acknowledged, their address to Cyrus (Κῦρε) stands out from the other examples in the Histories, in which the Persian subjects call the king by his title rather than using the name directly.Footnote 13 Second, the Persians attempt to include Cyrus in their plan of conquest by utilizing the collective ‘we’-voice, which reinforces the common identity shared both by the speakers and the addressee. By adopting the perspective of ‘we’-identity, the Persians assert their connection to Cyrus, such that Astyages’ downfall becomes not just Cyrus’ past but the past of all the Persians.Footnote 14 Through such subtle indications, Herodotus alludes to a literary setting at the beginning of Cyrus’ kingship, who, after the fall of the Lydian empire, rules over the whole of Asia.

II

On the basis of the aforementioned observations, I would like to put forward the thesis that the Cyrus anecdote at 9.122 contains specific evocations of two passages of Herodotus’ Cyrus logos in Book 1. In this section, I explore the Cyrus anecdote's relation to the episode on his rise to power (1.125–6).

The thematic resemblance between 1.125–6 and 9.122 has long since been pointed out.Footnote 15 Scholars have considered this connection as one of the numerous examples in which the final chapter exhibits complex points of contact with the other passages in Herodotus’ Histories. My analysis is more specific than the previous approaches in that I focus on the two episodes, both belonging to Herodotus’ presentation of Cyrus, by taking the large-scale narrative interrelationship into account. The direct reference to Cyrus’ overthrow of Astyages at 9.122.2 renders the final chapter a narrative sequence of the episode at 1.125–6. Furthermore, the episode in 9.122 can be understood as a ‘narrative doublet’ of the narrative at 1.125–6. A ‘narrative doublet’ is one of the literary features prevalent in the Greek epics. I follow Sammons in defining the term ‘to indicate more specifically the repetition of a particular narrative sequence’ in early hexameter poetry, which means ‘the construction of two different episodes mirror[ing] each other, each including the same basic events but often featuring a different set of characters, along with any number of variations or expansions both great and small’.Footnote 16 It has been pointed out by Rutherford, who calls the aforementioned narrative device ‘Fenik's law’, that the large-scale link of ‘narrative doublets’ is one of the lessons ‘Herodotus learns from epic’.Footnote 17 Herodotus, as I shall argue, invites the reader to apprehend the connections between 1.125–6 and 9.122, which cast new light on our understanding of the latter episode.

Chapters 1.125–6 narrate that Cyrus, following the proposal of Harpagus, a noble Mede, plots to incite his fellow Persians against Astyages. Pretending to have received a letter from the Median king, Cyrus calls the Persians to a meeting where he reads out that Astyages has appointed him commander of the Persians. Acting as a commander, Cyrus orders his fellow men to experience a day of hard toil in cleaning out a thorny field with scythes. Then he contrasts it with a day of pleasant feast. Cyrus asks the Persians which one of their experiences they would prefer. After hearing their response, Cyrus promises his fellow men that, if they follow him to revolt against Astyages, they will not only possess innumerable goods but also gain freedom. The Persians choose to follow Cyrus. This leads to the deposition of Astyages and the transfer of rule from the Medes to the Persians.

The similarities between 1.125–6 and 9.122 are prevalent, extending from the narrative setting to the characters as well as the content. The Histories deploys the meeting between the Persians and Cyrus as a connecting point between the beginning (1.125–6) and the end (9.122) of the narrative. In the latter episode, the Persians reach out to Cyrus themselves. By contrast, the meeting of the former episode comes into being by the manipulation of Cyrus, who gathers the Persians by means of a forged letter allegedly sent from Astyages. The initiators of the meetings are also comparable. A secret letter sent from Harpagus, who wishes to take revenge on Astyages, is instrumental in the fruition of Cyrus’ political coup. Likewise, Artembares’ proposal moves the Persians to meet with Cyrus. Though Artembares plays no role in the meeting, that the proposal originates from him (9.122.1) does reinforce the similarities between 1.125–6 and 9.122. Herodotus likely triggers the identification of Artembares, an ancestor of Artayctes, with another person with the same name in 1.114–16.Footnote 18 The latter, also called Artembares, is a noble Mede, whose son is punished by the young Cyrus in a game that ultimately reveals Cyrus’ real identity to Astyages. In the whole Histories the name Artembares occurs only in these two passages (1.114–16, 9.122). Flower and Marincola comment on the ‘irony’ arisen by reading the two passages together: ‘The irony of the situation would, of course, be greatly increased if he [sc. Artembares] were a Mede.’Footnote 19 More convincing is Macan's interpretation,Footnote 20 who, identifying Artembares at 9.122.1 with the Artembares in the first book, perceives this identification as an element of the historian's Ringkomposition. This view has been followed by Asheri.Footnote 21 In addition, I contend that the identification of Artembares at 1.114–16 and 9.122 further underscores the resemblance between the two episodes: both are meetings between Cyrus and the Persians, initiated by a noble Mede.

To be sure, these two episodes display not only striking similarities but also significant differences. While in the first book Cyrus is the persuader, the final chapter presents a reversal in that the Persians take the active role, motivating the king to take their side of the argument. The outcomes of the two meetings also stand in stark contrast to each other. At 1.125–6, Cyrus successfully persuades his fellow men to march against Astyages; at 9.122, on the other hand, the Persians choose to give up their plan of emigration in acknowledgment of Cyrus’ wisdom.

The comparison of these two episodes raises an interpretative problem. Scholars have noticed that the wisdom expressed in the anecdote at the end of the Histories is nearly contradictory to Cyrus’ incitation of the Persians at 1.126. Cyrus’ promise to bestow the Persians with innumerable goods (μυρία ἀγαθά, 1.126.5) seems to mirror the Persians’ desire to possess a far better land than their current dwelling place (9.122.2). But the inciting promise at 1.126.5 is cast as an illusion by Cyrus’ advice at the end of the Histories: ‘the same land does not yield marvellous crops and good fighters’ (οὐ γάρ τι τῆς εἶναι καρπόν τε θωμαστὸν φύειν καὶ ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς τὰ πολέμια, 9.122.3).

Of the suggestions made to account for this alleged contradiction, two positions are influential. On the one hand, Immerwahr points out that ‘[i]t is a key idea of Athenian imperial democracy that freedom brings with it rule as well as leisure’; the two episodes—the first highlighting leisure and the second focussing on rule—thus ‘illuminate a single problem from two different points of view, a method altogether characteristic of Herodotus’.Footnote 22 But this interpretation, though duly emphasizing the theme of freedom that is important in both episodes, overemphasizes the significance of leisure in the first episode, which is used only as a pretext by Cyrus to incite his companions. On the other hand, following the reading of Bischoff, Dewald attempts to resolve this contradiction by arguing for the different points of view in Herodotus’ depiction of Cyrus: ‘Cyrus in Book 1 is portrayed as a typical conqueror, urging conquest of wealthy neighbours, while in Book 9 he is rather a “warner”, a wise man urging the Persians to retain their own primitive simplicity.’Footnote 23 This argument fails to account for the fact that Herodotus’ portrayal of Cyrus as a conqueror is elaborated in the second part of his Cyrus logos culminating in his tragic end (1.131–216), whereas the episode at 1.125–6 belongs to the first part of the Cyrus logos (1.95–130) and it focusses on the question of how Cyrus rises to power.Footnote 24

Scholars have overlooked the possibility that Herodotus deliberately invites the reader to compare the seemingly contradictory arguments made by Cyrus before and after the overthrow of Astyages. While Flower and Marincola interpret this seeming inconsistency by taking the reasoning of the Persians’ choice into account,Footnote 25 I lay emphasis, by contrast, on the shifting interest of Cyrus before and after his rise to power. More precisely, Cyrus draws upon the discourse of warfare to reach his rhetorical goal in the respective contexts. In the first episode, he encourages his fellow men to revolt against Astyages, calling them no less mighty fighters than the Medes (ἄνδρας Μήδων εἶναι οὐ φαυλοτέρους οὔτε τἆλλα οὔτε τὰ πολέμια, 1.126.6). The same phrase τὰ πολέμια is echoed in Cyrus’ answer to the Persians in the final chapter (ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς τὰ πολέμια, 9.122.3). Cyrus warns the Persians of the danger that their freedom and rule will be deprived of if they inhabit a soft land that cannot yield good fighters. Scholars have frequently drawn upon the passage from the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places (23–4), in an attempt to fit the final chapter of the Histories to a specific intellectual milieu. Without denying the ethnographic background of the final chapter argued by previous scholarship,Footnote 26 I argue for the significance of 9.122, which can only be fully understood in its relationship to 1.125–6.

The incompatibility of ‘marvellous crops and good fighters’ (καρπόν τε θωμαστὸν φύειν καὶ ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς τὰ πολέμια) at 9.122.3 presents a seeming contrast with Cyrus’ promise of μυρία ἀγαθά at 1.126.5. A comparison of these two passages, however, throws into relief how Cyrus’ rhetoric plays a decisive role in the decision-making procedure of the Persians. At 1.126 Cyrus uses the contrast between the hard toil in a rough field and the pleasant feast to incite the Persians to revolt. Similarly, Cyrus dissuades the same people from abandoning their rough land by highlighting the incompatibility of a soft land and good fighters, warning them of the danger to lose their freedom and rule.Footnote 27 Recent scholarship has shown ‘Herodotus’ technique of presenting readers with various and shifting perspectives on questions of motivation’.Footnote 28 Cyrus’ seemingly contradictory attitudes towards lifestyle and land as presented in 1.125–6 and 9.122 provide us with a further example of the complexity of Cyrus’ motivation in his rhetoric, which can well be understood as a strategy of persuasion.Footnote 29

III

In this section I shall read 9.122 from a fresh angle, namely in the light of the figure Croesus, whose story is closely related to Cyrus. Croesus’ absence in the final chapter of the Histories seems to be at odds with my argument that the anecdote implicitly refers to a literary setting after the fall of the Lydian empire. Equally remarkable is Cyrus’ unusual role as ‘wise warner’.Footnote 30 The reader of the Histories is well aware that Croesus serves as Cyrus’ ‘wise warner’ after he has been taken captive by the Persian king. Croesus’ absence, however, can be accounted for by surmising Herodotus’ intention not to mention two wise advisers in the same episode. Moreover, the explicit mention of Astyages’ overthrow does not necessarily contradict the anecdote's literary setting, which occurs after the fall of the Lydian empire. Rather, it serves to strenghen the link between 1.125–6 and 9.122 presented above. Even though Croesus is absent as a character, I shall argue that his story still looms large in the final chapter of the Histories.

As I have shown in the first section, the opening sentence of the Persians’ proposal at 9.122.2 brings out the juxtaposition between the Persian people as a collective group and Cyrus, the leader, as an individual. The Persians’ mention of Zeus in their opening speech deserves further scrutiny. Scholars have argued that this mention of Zeus simply denotes ‘the Persian high god, Ahura-Mazda, who was the special patron of the Persian King’, spoken ‘in terms that a Greek would understand’.Footnote 31 Contrary to this scholarly consensus, I argue that Herodotus triggers the reader to perceive the resemblances between the Persians’ opening speech at 9.122 and the speech of Croesus at 1.207, not least by evoking Zeus's role (1.207.1):

παρεὼν δὲ καὶ μεμφόμενος τὴν γνώμην ταύτην Κροῖσος ὁ Λυδὸς ἀπεδείκνυτο ἐναντίην τῇ προκειμένῃ γνώμῃ, λέγων τάδε⋅ Ὦ βασιλεῦ, εἶπον μὲν καὶ πρότερόν τοι [ὅτι] ἐπεί με Ζεὺς ἔδωκέ τοι, τὸ ἂν ὁρῶ σφάλμα ἐὸν οἴκῳ τῷ σῷ κατὰ δύναμιν ἀποτρέψειν.

However, Croesus of Lydia was at the meeting and he disapproved of this idea. He argued against the prevalent view. ‘My lord,’ he said, ‘I told you before, when Zeus gave me to you, that I would do all I could to avert any catastrophe I saw threatening your house.’

At the level of verbal evocation, one might note the similarities between ἐπεί με Ζεὺς ἔδωκέ τοι at 1.207.1 and ἐπεὶ Ζεὺς Πέρσῃσι ἡγεμονίην διδοῖ at 9.122.1, both of which address to Cyrus (ὦ βασιλεῦ 1.207.1; Κῦρε 9.122.1). There is also a number of thematic resemblances between 1.207.1 and 9.122.1, by which the verbal reminiscences proposed above can be further underscored.

First, both passages set the narrative in the Persian Council. At 1.206, Cyrus calls all the leading Persians to a meeting for advice, whereas at 9.122 his fellow men come to him. Concerning the former, Avery notes that ‘Cyrus no longer uses his own intelligence to solve the problems posed by the last march’ and that, ‘for the first time in Herodotus’ account of Cyrus’ life, Cyrus calls a council of Persian grandees to ask for advice (206, 3)’.Footnote 32 This stands in stark contrast to Cyrus’ wisdom at 9.122, which is acknowledged by the Persians, who accordingly abandon their plan of emigration.

Second, the theme of ‘wise warner’ is prominent in both passages.Footnote 33 The Cyrus anecdote at the end of the Histories is traditionally interpreted as the last example of a series of ‘wise warners’ in the Herodotean narrative. Understanding the Cyrus anecdote in relation to Herodotus’ overall presentation of the first Persian king, Cyrus at 9.122 seems to take over the role displayed by Croesus after the fall of the Lydian empire. The Lydian king starts his new career as ‘wise warner’, when he, as Cyrus’ bound captive, is placed upon the burning pyre. At that moment, Cyrus learns his lesson through Croesus’ suffering, which is partly told by the former Lydian king himself and partly seen by Cyrus with his own eyes (1.86.6):

καὶ τὸν Κῦρον ἀκούσαντα τῶν ἑρμηνέων τὰ Κροῖσος εἶπε, μεταγνόντα τε καὶ ἐννώσαντα ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐὼν ἄλλον ἄνθρωπον, γενόμενον ἑωυτοῦ εὐδαιμονίῃ οὐκ ἐλάσσω, ζῶντα πυρὶ διδοίη, πρός τε τούτοισι δείσαντα τὴν τίσιν καὶ ἐπιλεξάμενον ὡς οὐδὲν εἴη τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποισι ἀσφαλέως ἔχον.

But when the translators relayed the story to Cyrus, he had a change of heart. He saw he was burning alive a fellow human being, one who had been just as well off as he was; also, he was afraid of retribution, and reflected on the total lack of certainty in human life.

Cyrus’ recognition that he himself is also a man, quite similar to the man defeated and taken captive by him, anticipates an important theme, which plays a significant role in Herodotus’ account of Cyrus’ final campaign (1.204.1–2):

τοῦ ὦν δὴ πεδίου <τούτου> τοῦ μεγάλου οὐκ ἐλαχίστην μοῖραν μετέχουσι οἱ Μασσαγέται, ἐπ᾿ οὓς ὁ Κῦρος ἔσχε προθυμίην στρατεύσασθαι. πολλά τε γάρ μιν καὶ μεγάλα τὰ ἐπαείροντα καὶ ἐποτρύνοντα ἦν, πρῶτον μὲν ἡ γένεσις, τὸ δοκέειν πλέον τι εἶναι ἀνθρώπου, δευτέρα δὲ ἡ εὐτυχίη ἡ κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους γενομένη· ὅκῃ γὰρ ἰθύσειε στρατεύεσθαι Κῦρος, ἀμήχανον ἦν ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἔθνος διαφυγεῖν.

The Massagetae, whom Cyrus was eager to attack, occupy quite a sizable portion of this huge plain. There were a number of significant factors tempting and inducing him to undertake this campaign. The main two were the apparently miraculous nature of his birth, and the good fortune that attended him in war, in the sense that any race, which Cyrus sent his troops after, found it impossible to escape.

The narrator anticipates the failure of Cyrus’ last expedition by highlighting his false belief in his superhuman descent (ἡ γένεσις) and his successful conquest of many lands (ἡ κατὰ τοὺς πολέμους γενομένη). One notes the pun by the juxtaposition of γένεσις and γενομένη. The first reasoning evokes Cyrus’ then claim to his fellow men that he is destined by the providence to undertake the attack against Astyages (αὐτός τε γὰρ δοκέω θείῃ τύχῃ γεγονὼς τάδε ἐς χεῖρας ἄγεσθαι, 1.126.6). More importantly, as argued by Stahl, Cyrus is bereft of the wisdom he once has learned through the suffering of Croesus by his success in expedition: ‘although one may possess and start out with a humble awareness of man's basic insecurity (and feel a moral appeal originating from it), this possession can nevertheless be lost or may yield to those instincts one had decided to avoid’, since ‘nothing blinds more and preserves ignorance better than success itself.’Footnote 34 Thus Cyrus, by his success, becomes similar to Croesus before the fall of the Lydian empire. This interpretation is further backed up by Avery's observation that Herodotus uses the verb ἐπαίρω to signal that ‘the elation caused by some outside agent or felt by the individual himself has in it the seeds of disaster.’Footnote 35 The first attestation of the word occurs when Croesus responds to Cyrus’ question of who incited him to attack Persia. Croesus claims that Apollo motivated him to undertake the war by raising him on high (αἴτιος δὲ τούτων ἐγένετο ὁ Ἑλλήνων θεὸς ἐπαείρας ἐμὲ στρατεύεσθαι, 1.87.3). The same complaint is repeated at 1.90.3 with a special emphasis on the oracle from Apollo (καὶ ὡς ἐπαερθεὶς τῷ μαντηίῳ ἐστρατεύσατο ἐπὶ Πέρσας). Furthermore, Croesus sends his envoy to Delphi to ask the god if he was not ashamed that he had roused him to march against Cyrus (εἰ οὔ τι ἐπαισχύνεται τοῖσι μαντηίοισι ἐπαείρας Κροῖσον στρατεύεσθαι ἐπὶ Πέρσας, 1.90.4) and thus destroyed his empire. As we have seen in the passage cited above, Cyrus’ decision to attack the Massagetae is generated by ‘a number of significant factors tempting and inducing him’ (πολλά τε γάρ μιν καὶ μεγάλα τὰ ἐπαείροντα καὶ ἐποτρύνοντα ἦν, 1.204.2). More explicitly, Tomyris, the queen of the Massagetae, warns Cyrus not to be inflated by his previous success (μηδὲν ἐπαερθῇς τῷ γεγονότι τῷδε πρήγματι, 1.212.2). One notes that in Tomyris’ warning she addresses the Persian king by calling him ‘bloodthirsty man, Cyrus’ (ἄπληστε αἵματος Κῦρε), an address by name. At 9.122, where the Persians also address Cyrus by name, the reader is encouraged to perceive the contrast between ‘bloodthirsty man, Cyrus’ and ‘Cyrus, who has destroyed Astyages’.

As argued in this article, the literary setting of 9.122 is the beginning of the Persian empire after the fall of Croesus. In the anecdote Cyrus still maintains his wisdom learnt through Croesus’ suffering, since he has not yet been intoxicated by his conquest victories. Herodotus nevertheless hints at Cyrus’ future loss of wisdom by alluding to Croesus’ advice given to him at 1.207. In this reading, Cyrus at 9.122 is Cyrus before his successful expedition, whereas Herodotus’ narrative of Cyrus’ last expedition (1.204–14) presents a Cyrus who blindly trusts in his superhuman character after his conquest of many lands. This interpretation is analogous to my argument of the allusion in 9.122 to 1.125–6: while 9.122 presents a Cyrus after the overthrow of Astyages, 1.125–6 is a narrative immediately before it. More importantly, accepting the final chapter's allusion to Croesus’ advice at 1.207, it sheds new light on the interpretative problem that has puzzled Herodotean scholarship since Jacoby. Assuming that Herodotus must have intended an ending contrasting Persian failure with Greek success led by the power of Athens, Jacoby was baffled by the positive presentation of Cyrus and his fellow Persians at 9.122.Footnote 36 However, the apparent allusion in 9.122 to 1.207 casts a shadow on the seemingly positive anecdote. While admiring Cyrus’ rhetoric, the reader is also alert to his tragic end, which mirrors and reinforces Xerxes’ failure three generations later.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article, I have argued for a coherent reading of 9.122, which focusses on the anecdote's allusions to two earlier episodes in Book 1. On the one hand, 9.122 functions as a narrative sequence as well as a ‘narrative doublet’ of 1.125–6. On the other hand, it is also reminiscent of the Persian Council scene at 1.207 shortly before Cyrus’ tragic end. The former connection has to do with Cyrus’ rise to power, while the latter is linked to his fall. Accepting these two allusions, the natural conclusion is that in the final chapter Herodotus triggers his reader to reflect upon Cyrus’ story as a whole in terms of the recurrent pattern of the Histories, namely ‘the pattern of the rise and fall of a ruler’.Footnote 37

If this reading is accepted, it is legitimate to ask why Herodotus should decide to evoke ‘the pattern of the rise and fall of a ruler’ in the last paragraph of the Histories. The answer to this question, as I shall suggest, lies in Herodotus’ concern with the intra-Hellenic conflict in the second half of the fifth century b.c. Many scholars after Glaser have read the closure of the Histories as a warning to the Athenians, who at the end of the historian's narrative are about to become the leaders of the Delian League.Footnote 38 As Moles well puts it, ‘the end (for the time being) of the conflict between Greeks and Persians is the beginning of a new imperialist project.’Footnote 39 Moreover, Irwin has recently argued that the closure of the Histories offers ‘a criticism of Periclean policy and the ideology that led to Athens pursuing ambitions that could have led to its total destruction’.Footnote 40 My reading of the Cyrus anecdote works well with the aforementioned interpretations without accepting a radically late date of the Histories proposed by Irwin.Footnote 41 Cyrus’ warning against the danger of expansionism alerts the Athenian public of the danger inherent in the Periclean policy, with which the public must have been acquainted since the beginning of the Archidamian War.Footnote 42

References

1 Dewald, C., ‘Wanton kings, pickled heroes, and gnomic founding fathers: strategies of meaning at the end of Herodotus’ Histories’, in Roberts, D.H., Dunn, F.M. and Fowler, D.P. (edd.), Classical Closure. Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature (Princeton, 1997), 62–82, at 72Google Scholar; see already Pohlenz, M., Herodot der erste Geschichtschreiber des Abendlandes (Leipzig, 1937), 163–7Google Scholar. The thematic similarity between 9.122 and the Hippocratic Airs, Waters, Places 23–4 has been well known since Stein, H., Herodotos: erklärt von Heinrich Stein, fünfter Band, Buch VIII und IX (Berlin, 1882), 219Google Scholar; for a recent account of this issue, see Thomas, R., Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge, 2000), 107Google Scholar with n. 5. The Greek text quoted in this article is taken from the Oxford edition of Wilson, N.G., Herodoti Historiae (Oxford, 2015)Google Scholar, unless otherwise indicated. Translations are adopted from Waterfield, R., Herodotus: The Histories (Oxford, 2008)Google Scholar, with modifications.

2 Bischoff, H., Der Warner bei Herodot (Marburg, 1932), 78–83Google Scholar; Glaser, K., ‘Das Schlußwort des Herodot’, Commentationes Vindobonenses 1 (1935), 12–20Google Scholar; Cobet, J., Herodots Exkurse und die Frage der Einheit seines Werkes (Wiesbaden, 1971), 174–6Google Scholar; Herington, J., ‘The closure of Herodotus’ Histories’, ICS 16 (1991), 149–60Google Scholar; Pelling, C., ‘East is east and west is west—or are they? National stereotypes in Herodotus’, Histos 1 (1996), 51–66Google Scholar; Dewald (n. 1), 67–73. The scholarly works cited above stand in stark contrast to the earlier thesis that the final chapter of the Histories is not the intended closure by the author; see Lipsius, J.H., ‘Der Schluss des Herodotischen Werks’, Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie 20 (1902), 195–202; Pohlenz (n. 1), 163–7Google Scholar.

3 Glaser (n. 2), 12; Moles, J., ‘Herodotus warns the Athenians’, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 9 (1996), 259–84Google Scholar; Pelling (n. 2); Desmond, W., ‘Punishments and the conclusion of Herodotus’ Histories’, GRBS 44 (2004), 19–40Google Scholar; Welser, C., ‘Two didactic strategies at the end of Herodotus’ Histories (9.108–122)’, ClAnt 28 (2009), 359–85Google Scholar. However, Cobet (n. 2), 76 n. 705, criticizing Glaser (n. 2), 12, rightly argues: ‘Das letzte Kapitel und von da aus das ganze Werk “als eine einzige große ‘Warnrede’ an die Adresse Athens” zu verstehen, geht aber viel zu weit.’

4 Cf. Pelling (n. 2), 61: ‘Such elaborate and suggestive flashbacks are not unknown elsewhere, but we find them in speeches, not presented in the narrator's own voice. This is special, something (surely) held back for a very special position.’

5 On this episode, see Boedeker, D., ‘Protesilaos and the end of Herodotus’ Histories’, ClAnt 7 (1988), 30–48Google Scholar.

6 See e.g. Dewald (n. 1), 67–8; Ruffing, K., ‘Alloisi douleuein und der Rat des Artembares. Überlegungen zum Schlußkapitel in Herodots Historien’, in Binder, C. et al. (edd.), Diwan. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen Ostens und des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes im Altertum (Duisburg, 2016), 183–203Google Scholar.

7 Contra, Dewald (n. 1), 67–8, who speaks of ‘a conversation between Artembares, an ancestor of Artayctes the wicked governor of Sestos, and Cyrus the Great’; cf. also Erbse, H., Studien zum Verständnis Herodots (Berlin and New York, 1992), 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Cf. Burn, A.R., Persia and the Greeks (London, 1984), 61Google Scholar. I agree with Krischer, T., ‘Herodots Schlusskapitel, seine Topik und seine Quellen’, Eranos 72 (1974), 93–100Google Scholar and Erbse (n. 7), 43, who point out that the final chapter of the Histories informs us of the compositional intention of the historian rather than the historical Cyrus. But both Krischer and Erbse seem to have failed to recognize the large-scale links between 9.122 and the other short stories about Cyrus in the Histories.

9 Narratologically speaking, the Cyrus anecdote at 9.122 is an internal completing analepsis that takes us back to Herodotus’ Cyrus logos in Book 1. For a narratological account of the Histories, see Jong, I. de, ‘Aspects narratologiques des Histoires d'Hérodote’, Lalies 19 (1999), 217–74Google Scholar. On the Cyrus logos in general, see Avery, H.C., ‘Herodotus’ picture of Cyrus’, AJPh 93 (1972), 529–46Google Scholar; Chiasson, C.C., ‘Myth and truth in Herodotus’ Cyrus logos’, in Baragwanath, E. and de Bakker, M. (edd.), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford, 2012), 213–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 For the meaning of ἡγεμονίη as ‘empire’, see Wickersham, J., Hegemony and the Greek Historians (Lanham and London, 1994)Google Scholar. See also Stein (n. 1), 218; Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corcella, A., A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV (Oxford, 2007), 108Google Scholar.

11 Flower, M.A. and Marincola, J., Herodotus Histories Book IX (Cambridge, 2004), 313Google Scholar.

12 The cited text is C. Hude's Oxford edition (Oxford, 1935). In his critical apparatus ad loc. Hude suggests κατελόντι for the transmitted reading κατελών that he takes as referring back to the dative σοί in the preceding part of the sentence. By contrast, Powell, J.E., ‘Notes on Herodotus–II’, CQ 29 (1935), 150–63, at 163CrossRefGoogle Scholar considers the reading σύ from the MSS DS superior to the reading σοί in two regards: ‘Not only does it secure all that Hude wished by his suggestion of κατελόντι, but it first gives ἀνδρῶν a proper meaning, in opposition to Zeus (θεῶν μὲν Ζεύς). Were σοί correct, ἀνδρῶν would be pointless, and we should desiderate Περσέων in its stead.’ Powell obviously did not know Richards's conjecture, to which Wilson, N.G., Herodotea (Oxford, 2015), 195Google Scholar recently drew our attention: ‘transfer the comma that is usually printed after διδοῖ to follow ἀνδρῶν, and then supply <Περσέων>’. None of these three textual suggestions is convincing. The dative form κατελόντι suggested by Hude is not needed, since the participial construct κατελὼν Ἀστυάγην is better understood as grammatically connected to the vocative Κῦρε rather than to the phrase ἀνδρῶν δὲ σοί. Powell's preference of the reading σύ from the generally less valuable manuscript groups DS is based on his interpretation that the juxtaposition meant in the opening sentence of the proposal is that of gods and men (i.e. Zeus among the gods and Cyrus among the men). But the narrative framework of the anecdote speaks for another kind of juxtaposition that has been rightly understood by Richards: the juxtaposition of a collective group and the group's leader (i.e. the Persians and Cyrus). Most recently, accepting Richards's conjectural suggestions, Wilson printed in his edition ἐπεὶ Ζεὺς Πέρσῃσι ἡγεμονίην διδοῖ ἀνδρῶν, <Περσέων> δὲ σοί, adding the genitive form Περσέων into the text. However, Wilson's conjecture is not compelling either. The transmitted word ἀνδρῶν at 9.122.2 is less puzzling when we take it as an abbreviated form of ἀνδρῶν Περσέων; the abbreviation, it seems, serves to avoid the repetition of Πέρσῃσι in the preceding part of the sentence. One notes that at 1.126.5–6, a passage thematically relevant to the anecdote, Cyrus addresses his fellow Persians as ἄνδρες Πέρσαι.

13 As rightly pointed out by Pelling, C., ‘Educating Croesus: talking and learning in Herodotus’ Lydian logos’, ClAnt 25 (2006), 141–77, at 147Google Scholar, ‘“O king” is the regular mode of address at the court.’ Intimacy is implied in the address ‘O Cyrus’ here, in stark contrast to the emotional address ἄπληστε αἵματος Κῦρε ‘O you bloodthirsty man, Cyrus’ (1.212.2) by the Massagetan queen Dickey, Tomyris. E., Greek Forms of Address (Oxford, 1996)Google Scholar provides no comment on our passage.

14 For the interrelationship between the ‘we’-identity and the shared past in terms of ‘intentional history’, see Gehrke, H.-J., ‘Mythos, Geschichte, Politik: antik und modern’, Saeculum 45 (1994), 239–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Avery (n. 9), 532–3, who reads 1.125–6 and 9.122 together with special reference to the theme of freedom.

16 Sammons, B., ‘Narrative doublets in the epic cycle’, AJPh 134 (2013), 529–56, at 532–3Google Scholar. Important works on the theme include Otterlo, W.A.A. van, Untersuchungen über Begriff, Anwendung und Entstehung der griechischen Ringkomposition (Amsterdam, 1944)Google Scholar; Groningen, B.A. van, La composition littéraire archaïque grecque: Procédes et realisations (Amsterdam, 1958)Google Scholar; Schadewaldt, W., Iliasstudien (Berlin, 1966), 150–1Google Scholar; Fenik, B., Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad: Studies in the Narrative Techniques of Homeric Battle Description (Wiesbaden, 1968)Google Scholar; Fenik, B., Studies in the Odyssey (Wiesbaden, 1974)Google Scholar.

17 Rutherford, R.B., ‘Structure and meaning in epic and historiography’, in Foster, E. and Lateiner, D. (edd.), Thucydides and Herodotus (Oxford, 2012), 13–38, at 25Google Scholar. See already Reinhardt, K., ‘Herodots Persergeschichten’, Geistige Überlieferung. Ein Jahrbuch 1 (1940), 138–84Google Scholar.

18 This point has been made by Stein (n. 1), 218.

19 Flower and Marincola (n. 11), 312.

20 Macan, R.W., Herodotus: The Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Books (London, 1908), 828Google Scholar. Cf. also Demand, N.H., Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece (Norman and London, 1990), 184 n. 11Google Scholar.

21 Asheri, D., Erodoto, Le Storie Libro IX La battaglia di Platea (Milano, 2006), 343Google Scholar: ‘che si ricollegasse all'inizio dell'epopea achemenide, o che strutturasse l'intera opera come un'opera di Persika’.

22 Immerwahr, H.R., Form and Thought in Herodotus (Cleveland, 1966), 146 n. 190Google Scholar.

23 Dewald (n. 1), 72.

24 See Chiasson (n. 9).

25 Flower and Marincola (n. 11), 311–12: ‘There is something of disparity between the Persians’ choice in this story, and those they make elsewhere. In 1.126.5 H. portrays Cyrus as inciting the Persians to win their freedom so that they may have countless pleasures without the need for servile labour. This is not so much a contradiction with the present passage as a recognition that empire brings certain benefits.’

26 Summarized in Asheri (n. 21), 344.

27 Sandanis’ advice displays exact verbal parallelism (χώρην ἔχοντες τρηχέαν, 1.71.2; ὀλίγην καὶ ταύτην τρηχέαν, 9.122.2); see Pelling (n. 2), 62.

28 Baragwanath, E., Motivation and Narrative in Herodotus (Oxford, 2008), 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Pelling, C., ‘Speech and narrative’, in Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (edd.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge and New York, 2006), 103–21, at 113–14; Baragwanath (n. 28), 235–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 The use of the term is coined by Bischoff (n. 2) and Lattimore, R., ‘The wise adviser in Herodotus’, CPh 34 (1939), 24–35Google Scholar; the latter distinguishes between ‘The Tragic Warner’ and ‘The Practical Adviser’. Both Bischoff and Lattimore describe Cyrus in the final chapter of the Histories as a ‘warner’.

31 Flower and Marincola (n. 11), 313; Asheri (n. 21), 343.

32 Avery (n. 9), 541.

33 I do not claim that in Cyrus’ last expedition Croesus can be blamed for his downfall. On the interpretation of this episode, see Stahl, H.P., ‘Learning through suffering? Croesus’ conversations in the history of Herodotus’, YClS 24 (1975), 1–36Google Scholar; Shapiro, S., ‘Learning through suffering. Human wisdom in Herodotus’, CJ 89 (1994), 349–55Google Scholar; Pelling (n. 13).

34 Stahl (n. 33), 22.

35 Avery, H.C., ‘A poetic word in Herodotus’, Hermes 107 (1979), 1–9, at 4Google Scholar.

36 Jacoby, F., ‘Herodotos’, RE Suppl. 2 (1913), 205–520, at 376Google Scholar: ‘Am Schluss eines Werkes, das uns zeigen soll, wie die Macht dieses Reiches zerschellt ist an dem Nationalgefühl und der Macht Athens … wäre diese Anekdote nicht bloss unpassend, sondern unmöglich und eines denkenden Menschen unwürdig. Also ist das Werk unvollendet.’

37 The phrase is quoted from Immerwahr (n. 22), 76. This theme has been well demonstrated in Herodotean scholarship. Cf. Immerwahr, H.R., ‘Historical action in Herodotus’, TAPhA 85 (1954), 16–45Google Scholar; Immerwahr (n. 22), 76–8; Stahl, H.P., ‘Herodots Gyges-Tragödie’, Hermes 96 (1968), 385–400Google Scholar; Stahl (n. 33); Stadter, P.A., ‘Herodotus and the Athenian Arche’, ASNP 22 (1992), 781–809Google Scholar; and Saïd, S., ‘Herodotus and tragedy’, in Bakker, E.J., de Jong, I.J.F. and van Wees, H. (edd.), Brill's Companion to Herodotus (Leiden and Boston, 2002), 117–47Google Scholar.

38 Glaser (n. 2); cf. the scholarly works quoted in n. 3.

39 Moles (n. 3), 277; cf. Raaflaub, K., ‘Herodot und Thukydides: persischer Imperialismus im Lichte der athenischen Seebundpolitk’, in Ehrhardt, N. and Günther, L.-M. (edd.) Widerstand- Anpassung-Integration: die griechische Staatenwelt und Rom: Festschrift für Jürgen Deininger zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart, 2002), 11–40Google Scholar.

40 Irwin, E., ‘The end of the Histories and the end of the Atheno-Peloponnesian Wars’, in Harrison, T. and Irwin, E. (edd.), Interpreting Herodotus (Oxford, 2018), 279–334, at 280Google Scholar.

41 Irwin (n. 40), 279 suggests that ‘the last logoi of Herodotus’ Histories have been designed both to allude to the end of the Atheno-Peloponnesian Wars, that is, to Athens’ devastating defeat at Aegospotami, and to function as a retrospective on Pericles, the figure whose policies and ambitions were most responsible for the war's outbreak and also for Athens’ ultimate defeat owing to the Athenians’ commitment to them long after his death.’ While her first point entails a radically late date of the Histories which seems to me unlikely, her second point is enlightening. For the date of the Histories, cf. also Irwin, E., ‘The hybris of Theseus and the date of the Histories’, in Dunsch, B. and Ruffing, K. (edd.), Herodots Quellen—Die Quellen Herodots (Wiesbaden, 2013), 7–84Google Scholar, with a good bibliography on the theme.

42 I would like to thank the CQ anonymous reader and Professor Patrick Finglass for their constructive criticisms. I also thank Dr Lydia Lee for polishing my English. An earlier version was read in a lecture delivered at Peking University, in October 2017, and I thank all those who gave feedback on that occasion. I am grateful to Dr Wei Cheng for inviting me.