Homer’s Iliad and the Trojan War
Page 17
Clearly not satisfied with his scrutiny of the Homeric texts alone, however, Herodotus deploys a second strategy to convince the reader that his own version of the war is the authoritative one: the application of inquiry techniques. At the midpoint of Herodotus’ digression on Egyptian history, politics, and culture, he asserts:
μέχρι μὲν τούτου ὄψις τε ἐμὴ καὶ γνώμη καὶ ἱστορίη ταῦτα λέγουσά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦδε Αἰγυπτίους ἔρχομαι λόγους ἐρέων κατὰ τὰ ἤκουον· προσέσται δὲ αὐτοῖσι καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς ὄψιος.
Until now, all I have spoken of is the record of my own personal observation (opsis) and judgement (gnōmē) and inquiry (historiē). From here I will speak of Egyptian matters, according to what I have heard (kata ta ēkouon), though supplemented with something of what I myself have seen (tēs emēs opsios).53
Herodotus, Histories 2.99.1
This roster of general research principles regarding Herodotus’ Egyptian material (and perhaps his work more broadly?)54 will soon resurface in his account on ‘the matters concerning Helen’. Indeed, near the start of the logos, Herodotus notes that there is a temenos of Aphrodite the Stranger in the precinct of Proteus. He surmises (συμβάλλομαι) that it is actually a temple for Helen, (1) because it is said to be dedicated to foreign Aphrodite (a form of the goddess honoured in no other Egyptian temple) and (2) because of the story he had heard (ἀκηκοὼς) regarding Helen’s entreaty to Proteus (2.112.2). In the succeeding chapter, Herodotus repeats that his knowledge of Helen’s whereabouts derives from inquiry conducted with the priests (‘the priests told me, when I inquired [historeonti], that the events concerning Helen happened as follows’, ἔλεγον δέ μοι οἱ ἱρέες ἱστορέοντι τὰ περὶ Ἑλένην γενέσθαι ὧδε, 2.113.1).
Following the claims made against the Trojan prince, the Egyptian king Proteus is not content only with others’ reports (i.e. hearsay); Proteus submits him to an inquisition (2.115.2–6), bringing together the essential tools outlined in 2.99: observation, hearsay, and judgement. Seeking to verify what he had heard from Thonis (2.114),55 Proteus brings Alexander before his eyes and asks him about his background and how it was that he came to acquire Helen. Alexander, we are told, equivocated and did not convey ‘the truth’ (τὴν ἀληθείην, 2.115.3); at this very moment, a group of suppliants confute Alexander’s account, exposing his heinous crimes (‘recounting the entire story of the wrong done’, ἐξηγεύμενοι πάντα λόγον τοῦ ἀδικήματος, 2.115.3). Through inquiry, a process that distils truths and falsehoods, Proteus reveals his quasi-Herodotean judgement,56 setting out in detail Alexander’s moral turpitude, whilst reinforcing his own impeccable treatment of guest-friends. Hence, Herodotus’ Proteus scene reinforces how the inquiring techniques referred to in 2.99 can evince the truth – even concerning matters that, at least for Herodotus, are antique.
Yet again, once Herodotus has served to uncover the true account of Helen in Homer, along with the arcane authorship of the Cypria (a text that, Herodotus surmises, cannot be Homeric, given its narrative of Alexander and Helen’s favourable journey direct to Ilium, 2.117),57 Herodotus signals further research processes at work in his logos. Seeking to confirm all that has been reported, Herodotus narrates that he asked the priests whether or not the Greeks (i.e. Homer) told a foolish story about the matters concerning Troy (‘I asked the priests whether or not it is a foolish account which the Hellenes speak of concerning the events at Ilium’, εἰρομένου δέ μευ τοὺς ἱρέας εἰ μάταιον λόγον λέγουσι οἱ Ἕλληνες τὰ περὶ Ἴλιον γενέσθαι ἢ οὔ, 2.118.1). The priests confidently asserted their knowledge, ‘having made inquiries and acquired knowledge from Menelaus himself’ (ἱστορίῃσι φάμενοι εἰδέναι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ Μενέλεω, 2.118.1). Shortly after this, once the Greeks found no Helen at Troy, Menelaus was sent to Proteus – an important detail, further corroborating Menelaus’ status as a direct, hence authoritative, witness to the priests’ account. In Egypt, ‘the truth’ (τὴν ἀληθείην) was revealed to Menelaus, and he was subsequently reunited with his wife (2.119.1). Finally, after relating Menelaus’ most impious sacrifice of two Egyptian children (recalling Agamemnon’s sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia),58 Herodotus concludes that ‘[the priests] said that they knew some of these things from inquiry; the things which happened in their own country they knew precisely’ (τούτων δὲ τὰ μὲν ἱστορίῃσι ἔφασαν ἐπίστασθαι, τὰ δὲ παρ᾽ ἑωυτοῖσι γενόμενα ἀτρεκέως ἐπιστάμενοι λέγειν, 2.119.3). Throughout the Helen logos, therefore, Herodotus repeatedly indicates the forensic quality of his analysis and the bona fide quality of his information, which, rather than being fitting for an epic context, is suited to an account concerned with unadorned historical truths.59
The extent to which Herodotus’ analysis of competing Trojan War traditions wholly (or even partially) conveys the precise techniques that he applied in composing his Histories is, of course, forever unknowable.60 Yet this account reveals much about those methodologies that he wished his audience to perceive as being crucial in the publication of his work.61 Herodotus’ ultimate message is that, no less than the recent events of the Persian Wars, the much more ancient Trojan War must be subjected to the rules of historiographical inquiry. A demonstrably historical event is clearly recovered from such a process, even if the shape and texture of that event is not as the epic poet Homer would have it.
This particular medley of written texts, oral traditions, autoptic evidences, and logical deductions all lend authority to the Herodotean voiceprint. The narrator is then able to finish his analysis with a final flourish, judging that:
οὐ γὰρ δὴ οὕτω γε φρενοβλαβὴς ἦν ὁ Πρίαμος οὐδὲ οἱ ἄλλοι <οἱ> προσήκοντες αὐτῷ, ὥστε τοῖσι σφετέροισι σώμασι καὶ τοῖσι τέκνοισι καὶ τῇ πόλι κινδυνεύειν ἐβούλοντο, ὅκως Ἀλέξανδρος Ἑλένῃ συνοικέῃ.
surely Priam, or those others closest to him, were not so crazy that they would wish to endanger their own lives and their children and their city, just so that Alexander could live with Helen.
Herodotus, Histories 2.120.2
This logical deduction adds further proof for Herodotus that the war was ultimately a divinely ordained catastrophe, in which the gods sought to punish those that had committed great wrongs (2.120.5).62
Herodotus’ account by no means creates an irreparable gulf with that of Homer – he envisages the divine playing a no less substantive role than his epic predecessor did,63 but it nonetheless poses deeply troubling questions about the Homeric account. How does one square, for instance, Homer’s presentation of Helen and Priam at the walls of Troy in Iliad 3 (the so-called Teichoscopia) with Herodotus’ insistence that Helen was never there? And how to account for Herodotus’ assertion that Priam and his advisers would not be so crazy as to fight such a war merely for Helen and Alexander (2.120.1–3)64 with Homer’s Priam, who accedes that there is no shame in warring over a woman as beautiful as Helen (Il. 3.156–60)? Several Iliadic episodes and whole narrative strands (such as Helen’s status as an outsider amongst the women of Troy) are rendered implausible according to Herodotus’ interpretation,65 a gulf that reinforces his view that one of Homer’s principal concerns was to present an account that was fitting for his genre. Truth, Herodotus suggests, is the ultimate marker of historiography, distinguishing it from epic and other genres.
As has become clear from our reading of this passage, Herodotus is concerned with correcting currently held views – and not just on Helen’s whereabouts, but equally Greek attitudes towards foreigners, in this instance the Egyptians.66 As several scholars hav
e already recognized, Herodotus’ Proteus is an unimpeachable host throughout the Helen logos, indiscriminately welcoming all of his guests – a characterization that contrasts sharply with the scandalous behaviour of the Trojan Alexander and the impious Achaean Menelaus.67 To note just one more significant instance here, in another account that strives to overturn current views on Egyptian culture, Herodotus reports a misguided ‘story’ (μῦθος) concerning Heracles when he reached Egypt (2.45). Some Greeks state (λέγουσι) that, having arrived in Egypt and been crowned, Heracles slew all those Egyptians who subsequently attempted to offer him as a sacrifice to Zeus. Codswallop, declares Herodotus, ‘for how should [the Egyptians] sacrifice men when they are forbidden to sacrifice beasts except for swine and oxen and bull-calves, if they are uncontaminated, and geese?’ The Greeks’ Heracles logos is ultimately designated ‘ill-considered’ (ἀνεπισκέπτως), ‘naïve’ (εὐήθης), symptomatic of a blanket ignorance of the Egyptians’ nature and customs (‘Now it seems to me that when the Hellenes repeat this account they are altogether ignorant of nature of customs of the Egyptians’, ἐμοὶ μέν νυν δοκέουσι ταῦτα λέγοντες τῆς Αἰγυπτίων φύσιος καὶ τῶν νόμων πάμπαν ἀπείρως ἔχειν οἱ Ἕλληνες, 2.45.2). As this parallel case shows, Herodotus often draws upon characters and events from myth in order to reject contemporary Greek traditions and beliefs.68 Herodotus’ appeals to the Trojan War in the Helen logos thus contribute towards the polemical spirit that undergirds his narrative.
Antique vs. recent pasts
A final, brief look at the historian Thucydides, an author broadly contemporary with Herodotus,69 reveals a great deal of continuity between the two historians in terms of their approach towards the Trojan War. Just as Herodotus displays marked concern with Homer’s ability to convey what was already a 400-year-old conflict, so too Thucydides begins his History by observing, ‘For in the preceding time and in the period still more ancient, the amount of time that had passed made it impossible to discover clearly what occurred’ (τὰ γὰρ πρὸ αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα σαφῶς μὲν εὑρεῖν διὰ χρόνου πλῆθος ἀδύνατα ἦν, 1.1.3). Thucydides’ reticence towards the deep past is reinforced throughout his work, and on a number of occasions via explicit reference (either by the narrator or by one of his protagonists) to Homer:
ὡς Ὅμηρος τοῦτο δεδήλωκεν, εἴ τῳ ἱκανὸς τεκμηριῶσαι.
Homer has showed this [i.e. the power of Agamemnon], if one is to consider such testimony adequate.
Thucydides, History 1.9.4
τῇ Ὁμήρου αὖ ποιήσει εἴ τι χρὴ κἀνταῦθα πιστεύειν, ἣν εἰκὸς ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον μὲν ποιητὴν ὄντα κοσμῆσαι, ὅμως δὲ φαίνεται καὶ οὕτως ἐνδεεστέρα.
… if we may place trust in Homer’s poetry again here; for it is likely that as a poet he elaborated the expedition for effect, though it still appears to have been smaller than our own.
Thucydides, History 1.10.3
καὶ οὐδὲν προσδεόμενοι οὔτε Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτου οὔτε ὅστις ἔπεσι μὲν τὸ αὐτίκα τέρψει, τῶν δ᾽ ἔργων τὴν ὑπόνοιαν ἡ ἀλήθεια βλάψει.
[Pericles:] … and neither do we need a Homer to sing our praise nor another who pleases for the moment with his epic verses, but for whom the truth will dispel the conjecture of the deeds.
Thucydides, History 2.41.4
These passages signal a profound mistrust of things from the ancient past (cf. 1.20.1) – an age that is largely beyond the grasp of even the most credulous of inquirers, according to Thucydides. It is for this reason that in his opening section Thucydides rejects the exaggerations of the poets (as well as the λογογράφοι or ‘story-makers’), since they work with evidence that is ‘beyond disproof’ (ἀνεξέλεγκτος), a point that renders their works devoid of value and shrouded in ‘the legendary’ (τὸ μυθῶδες, 1.21.1).
Yet there is no indication that Thucydides ultimately rejected the idea of the Trojan War as an historical event. On the contrary, Thucydides remarks near the beginning of his History: ‘one must accept that [the Trojan War] was the greatest [conflict] up to now, though small by modern standards’ (νομίζειν δὲ τὴν στρατείαν ἐκείνην μεγίστην μὲν γενέσθαι τῶν πρὸ αὑτῆς, λειπομένην δὲ τῶν νῦν, 1.10.3).70 Such a position aligns Thucydides rather closely with his contemporary Herodotus. Both authors regard the Trojan War as a monumental conflict in its own historical context, and both appeal to that conflict in order to (1) underscore the magnitude of their own wars and (2) throw into sharp relief the difference between epic poetry (concerned with the creation of fitting stories) and historiography (concerned with the critique of authoritative evidence).
Thinking through Homer
This analysis of the Helen logos has revealed how Herodotus makes use of the Trojan War story in order to reinforce a number of principal themes that recur elsewhere in his Histories. The story enables him to reinforce: (1) the authoritative nature of his own inquiry, a radical form of discourse that constitutes elements which all feature explicitly in this account (‘observation’ [ὄψις], ‘judgement’ [γνώμη], ‘hearsay’ [ἀκοή]);71 (2) the ignorance of other Greeks concerning their traditional stories;72 (3) the importance of establishing a more relativist framework when approaching other cultures; (4) the inescapable place of the divine and δίκη (‘justice’) within any causal explanation of human affairs;73 and, finally, (5) the vital role played by the Egyptians in the commitment to writing ‘of great and wondrous deeds’ – the very stuff that make up his own historical record.74 Readers should not underestimate the especially controversial nature of that final point: Herodotus’ λόγιοι (‘learned’) priests even trump Greeks on their own ancient history.75
There is no indication in the Histories that Herodotus in any way questioned the historical reality of the Trojan campaign, nor indeed that he doubted the existence of the war’s chief protagonists; however, his engagement with the story of Troy exposes acutely the limits of Homer’s epic world from the vantage point of a fifth-century historian writing in prose. As Lloyd puts it, Herodotus is no ‘latter-day Homer’;76 his masterful synthesis of multiple accounts related to the Trojan War throws into sharp relief the Iliad’s (in)ability to function as a historical document, pointedly its ability to convey wie es eigentlich gewesen. So while Herodotus may have somewhat ironically acquired a reputation in later antiquity for his most-Homeric persona,77 his own examination of the Trojan War reveals the considerable gap between historical inquirer and epic poet.
Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that Herodotus’ analysis served to strengthen his contemporaries’ faith in the essential historicity of the Trojan War, a war that would even stand up to his idiosyncratically ‘meticulous enquiry’.78 And indeed, this faith in the war as an historical event transcends Herodotus’ immediate context. For as Naoíse demonstrates in the succeeding section, this admixture of faith and scepticism concerning Homer’s Iliad chimes rather closely with that of Schliemann, who hoped his archaeological excavations would serve as concrete proof of the historicity of a Trojan War.
Naoíse: Schliemann’s physical proofs
Hinter der letztern legte ich … stiess beim Weitergraben auf dieser Mauer und unmittelbar neben dem Hause des Priamos auf einen grossen kupfernen Gegenstand höchst merkwürdiger Form, der um so mehr meine Aufmerksamkeit auf sich zog, als ich hinter demselben Gold zu bemerken glaubte. … Um den Schatz der Habsucht meiner Arbeiter zu entziehen und ihn für die Wissenschaft zu retten, war die allergrösste Eile nöthig, und, obgleich es noch nicht Frühstückszeit war, so Hess ich doch sogleich ‘paidos’ … ausrufen, und währed meine Arbeiter assen un
d ausruhten, schnitt ich den Schatz mit einem grossen Messer heraus was nicht ohne die allergrösste Kraftanstrengung und die furchtbarste Lebensgefahr möglich war, den die grosse Festungsmauer, welche ich zu untergraben hatte, drohte jeden Augenblick auf mich einzustürzen. Aber der Anblick so vieler Gegenstände, von denen jeder einzelne ainen unermesslichen Werth für die Wissenschaft hat, machte mich tollkühn und ich dachte an keine Gefahr. Die Fortschaffung des Schatzes wäre mir aber unmöglich geworden ohne die Hülfe meiner lieben Frau, die immer bereit stand, die von mir herausgeschnittenen Gegenstände in ihren Shawl zu packen und fortzutragen.