Customer Reviews

Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Jon D. Mikalson states that "[t]he purpose of this book is to collect and present the abundantly preserved religious aspects of these critical times [490 and 480-479 BCE] and thereby set Greek religion into historical context so as to understand better the role of Greek religion in the Persian invasions and in Greek life in general" (5). The author hopes to complement other works already published by weaving Herodotus' "accounts into a general picture of religion at the time" (6).

Mikalson begins his book by recounting numerous instances, most frequently from Herodotus' "Histories", but also from others such as: Pausanias, Aristotle, Plutarch, Simonides, etc., wherein the Greeks implored or honored the oracles, heroes, and gods. In this manner Mikalson establishes his premise that religion was a relevant factor in the course of important affairs among the ancient Greeks. During the course of his work Mikalson proffers alternative views on text interpretation based on other authors' modern studies. He discusses most such interpretations, especially Thomas Harrison's "Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus", in his ample footnotes.

Mikalson discusses Herodotus as an author and notes: "Herodotus was certainly no ordinary Greek. He was better traveled, more cosmopolitan, more curious, more innovative, and more learned than most Greeks . . ." (6). Mikalson also states: "[Herodotus] does not, as Thucydides and most later historians were to do, largely exclude religious considerations from the flow of historical events" (6-7). Mikalson states that Herodotus was writing a story about an event that had occurred at least one generation earlier, and his digressions frequently detailed events that purportedly occurred hundreds of years earlier. By the time Herodotus did compose his Histories (431- 430 BCE), much fact had metamorphosed into folklore and myth. More importantly, Mikalson believes Herodotus did not misrepresent religion in his Histories; thus, Herodotus is critical for understanding religion at that time because he is often the sole source. "If Herodotus does not give with complete accuracy the beliefs of the actual participants in these wars, he at least represents how Greeks of the following two generations imagined them, and that has considerable value itself" (11). To ignore him is vacuous.

Mikalson states: "Throughout the Persian wars the Greeks made dedications after victories in battle . . . . The tithe, one-tenth of the war booty, was the common form of offering, the 'first fruits' of the spoils of the 'victory', and one that the Greeks used regularly for dedications through out the Persian Wars" (19-20). A dedication--a spectacular bronze, four-horse war chariot--made by the Athenians to Athena for their victory over the Boeotians and Chalcidians was made with a tithe from the booty of that war. The author pointedly notes that most of the inscription, like ninety percent of the booty, was for the mortal, Greek effort in the war. There was no explicit attribution to any particular action taken by Athena.

Mikalson discusses burial rites and how important it was to inter the dead, even of the enemy. Only the impious, such as Xerxes, ignored this. Mikalson also notes that only mortals were seen on the battlefield: no gods. This was a marked difference between the Homeric sagas and Herodotus' "Histories".

The human element was an important factor in Greek religion. Mikalson discusses the role of the 'chresmologoi': those who collected and edited the oracles, and how over the years they fell into disfavor. Mikalson also discusses 'manteis': those who were interpreters of dreams and omens. The man or woman repeating an omen, or interpreting a dream, could be honest or biased--or he or she could simply be mistaken. Herodotus tells us that on the occasion of a solar eclipse, the 'magoi', Persian wise-men, explained to Xerxes that it was an omen portending that the Persians would similarly blot out the cities of the Greeks.

Mikalson contrasts the deliberation of the Athenians prior to Salamis to the haste of Croesus, king of Lydia, who attacked the Persians and destroyed a great kingdom. Croesus had not thought to ask again which empire would be destroyed, and it turned out to be his. Conversely, the Athenians, through determined debate and interpretation, followed by subsequent visits to the Pythoness, correctly interpreted the oracle prior to Salamis and put trust in their 'walls of wood'.

Mikalson notes there are modern historians who discount the authenticity of the oracles as presented in Herodotus. Never the less, Mikalson states that there is no evidence that the oracles were not accepted by Herodotus, or his contemporaries, regardless of whether the oracles were fact or fiction. Leonidas sacrificed himself and his loyal hetairoi at Thermopylae in accordance with an oracle that had pronounced: "Either your great and glorious city [Sparta] will be destroyed by Persian men, Or else not that, but the land of Lacedaemon will grieve For a dead king [Leonidas] of Heracles' race" (Herodotus, 7.220.2-4 quoted in Mikalson 65).

Mikalson introduces a Greek concept called 'hybris', "in this context, 'the failure to recognize one's place vis-a-vis the gods' or mental derangement" (47). To illustrate his point Mikalson employs the tale of how Artabanus, Darius¡¯ brother--Xerxes' uncle, argued against the Persian, Xerxes', invasion of Greece. Herein, Artabanus points to everyday phenomena in life to demonstrate how 'hybris' always leads to the fall of a man or his family. The gods always check those that try to stand above others. Mikalson argues that the Greeks understood their gods to have 'phthonos', a natural inclination to defend their divine prerogatives against mortal encroachment. When Xerxes has the Hellspont whipped and chained it was a sign of both his mental instability and his 'hybris'.

In the "Histories", the pious are properly rewarded and the impious are properly vanquished. Mikalson notes that Herodotus does not pass judgment on the religion and acts of the Persians, even in human sacrifice, as long as the Persians behave within the norms of their doctrine. He only criticizes them when they fail to act within the norms of their doctrine. "Herodotus employs from the very beginnings, of the contest between the Greeks and the barbarians, Greek religious language and concepts characteristics of his time to explain success (for the Greeks) and failure (for the barbarians)" (82). Herodotus explains the failure of the Persians as divine 'phthonos' (irritation: spitefulness) retribution for profane acts.

Furthermore, the religion of Herodotus was pragmatic. "If men plan reasonable things, they generally occur. If men plan unreasonable things, not even the god is willing to support their plans" (Herodotus, 8.60, quoted in Mikalson 77). The god(s) to whom the Greeks prayed were deemed pragmatic, legitimate, and deserving of honors. This is what Mikalson terms 'cultic logic'.

In chapter two Mikalson undertakes to illustrate the role of each divine personality that participated in the victories given to the Greeks against the Persians. He does this 'deity by deity'. In order to better understand these deities, Mikalson also offers "some background on their cults and on conceptions of them at the time of and just before these great wars" (111).

Mikalson maintains that according to the Greeks, Zeus 'Eleutherios' ('of Freedom') was the "paradigm of superlative prosperity and power" (111). However, it is Apollo, as evident in Herodotus, who was most rewarded. Among the pantheon, Apollo--god of the Delphian oracle¨Cwas the number one recipient of tithes from the victorious Greeks. "Apollo of Delphi, Zeus of Olympia, and Poseidon of the Isthmus were each, despite association with one major sanctuary, Pan-Hellenic deities whose festivals had long served a Pan-Hellenic audience. Athena's role in the Persian invasion, by contrast, local" (123). Mikalson also briefly discusses Demeter, Artemis, Hera and Aphrodite, to whom Herodotus allocated less significant roles, when compared with the afore mentioned deities, in defeating the Persians.

Mikalson also reviews the import of cultic heroes: dead mortals whose tombs served as talismans for local worshippers, e.g., Ajax of Salamis and the Delphian heroes Phylacus and Autonous (who had sanctuaries along the Persian route of march) who purportedly arose in defense of their homeland. Heroes were even more provincial than was Athena and were likewise rarely recognized in a Pan-Hellenic manner.

Mikalson discusses Herodotus' employment of the 'divine' in matters not obviously the product of any one god. "In Greek polytheism, especially from the Pan-Hellenic view point that Herodotus often assumes, any number of gods or heroes might be for a specific event, and it would be difficult to identify the correct deity and perhaps even dangerous to give credit to the wrong one" (131). Here, Mikalson cites the work of Ivan Linforth: "'[Herodotus] recognized the existence of numerous gods who may act as individuals on particular occasions, or . . . like a unified group with a racial solidarity contrasting them with the race of men'" (131). Mikalson understands that, according to Herodotus, the gods assisted the Greeks because they were selfishly protecting their own sanctuaries. To underscore this precept Mikalson recalls Themistocles speech as presented in "The Histories": "Not we but the gods and heroes accomplished this. They begrudge one man to be king of Asia and Europe. He treated holy and profane things alike, burning and throwing to the ground the statues of the gods. He even whipped the seas and hurled leg irons into it" (Herodotus, 8.109.3, quoted in Mikalson 80, 134).

In chapter three, Mikalson discusses Herodotus' religious beliefs. Mikalson maintains that one need only read a few pages of Herodotus to realize that he echoes sentiments explicitly stated by Plato: "'the gods exist . . .the gods pay attention to the affairs of men [and] there is reciprocity between men and gods'" (136). Accordingly, Mikalson argues that Herodotus pragmatically envisioned that each of the gods played a role based on events occurring in proximity to their sanctuaries. Herodotus tells the reader "what his gods do, not what they are" (139).

Herodotus' gods have "real and important powers: to bring rain, produce grain, cause earthquakes . . . and decide the outcome of world wars" (140). Herodotus believes in the divine origin of oracles, omens, and some dreams, but he is aware that these can be misconstrued or misunderstood and caution was always appropriate when taking them into consideration; "one must proceed thoughtfully, prudently and warily" (149).

Mikalson offers a compelling argument for the reader to accept Herodotus at his word. According to Mikalson, Herodotus is 'reporting' the world as it was viewed in his time. Mikalson recalls the numerous instances wherein Herodotus conspicuously states doubts or questions his sources: thus, 'reader beware'. Hence, unless otherwise stated, Mikalson believes that Herodotus should be taken as sincere in what he is reporting.

According to Mikalson, the tale of Croesus is clearly the most explicit tale in the literature delineating the Greek view of man's relationship to his gods. It details the actions of man in regards to supplication required to create a obligatory bond with a god, in this case Apollo. Of course, there is irony. In this most 'Greek' tale, the king is Lydian.

Mikalson concludes chapter three by noting that Herodotus employs two approaches in relating religion. One is a poetic style that is most evident in his stories about Croesus and Solon. The other is the more contemporary and identifiable, to Herodotus, cultic practices he describes occurring during the course of the Persian Wars. Mikalson accounts for this difference as one based on data. In the first instance, Herodotus has access to little or no data. This is not the case in the second instance.

Mikalson admits that Herodotus probably "never intended for his "Histories" to be treatise on the origins of Greek religion . . ." (167). Never-the-less, Mikalson concludes his book with an appendix wherein he seeks to illustrate how Herodotus attempted "to bring chronological, cultic, and even mythographical [sic] order to Egyptian, Phoenician, Libyan, and Greek accounts of the gods" (147). Mikalson cites the passages from "Histories" wherein Herodotus pairs Egyptian deities with Greek deities. Mikalson argues that there are inherent problems with Herodotus simplistic approach, but Mikalson reconciles these problems by suggesting that Herodotus was aware that "deities of his world were culturally determined, but the 'divine', in essence, is not" (173). Mikalson believes that Herodotus took on an enormous task dealing with sources that "described for him three continents and nearly eighteen millennia of history" (195). Mikalson concludes by again restating that Herodotus never intended to write a chronicle of Greek religion, but "[he] is our best single source--ancient or modern--for the religion of his time . . ." (195).

Overall, Jon Mikalson's successfully presents his subject in a very straightforward manner. His book is an excellent monograph, especially when read simultaneously with Herodotus' "Histories". Mikalson's presentation is easy to follow, and he provides novel insights into Herodotus' text. I heartily recommend it to anybody.