Abstract. Herodotus and the Archaic Greek Idea of the Edges of the Earth. Gabriel Shapira

Transcription

1 Abstract Herodotus and the Archaic Greek Idea of the Edges of the Earth Gabriel Shapira This research work discusses the relationship between Herodotus' narrative of the expansion of the Persian Empire over "the whole earth" (pa=sa gh=) and the descriptions of the "edges of the earth" (e)/sxata gai/hj) included in the same account. Viewing the Herodotean geography of edges from such a perspective is a key, so this study claims, to understanding the representation of the Persian Empire's powerful expansion. Within this geographical context, the assumption is that Herodotus emphasizes the structural linkage between the perception of the wholeness of the earth's surface and the concept of its edges. In order to analyze this linkage and its articulation in the text my research applies a narratological examination to the "signs" in the narrative that represent the act of narrating, as well as its origin, destination, and context. Conducted on historiographical, geo-spatial, and narratological levels, this thesis brings together the disciplines of history, geography and literature. Two different opinions prevail in The Histories concerning the existence of the water boundary encircling the edges of the earth. The first, held by Herodotus' sources, is that the earth is bordered by the River Ocean. The second, that of Herodotus himself, claims that the earth is bounded by the sea. The historian claims that the concept of Ocean's water differs from that of the sea's water, since the river flows in a circle around the earth, while the sea does not. I

2 Herodotus rejects the idea of the Oceanic water border as an invention by Homer or other early poets. He emphasizes that the sources that accept the poets' words maintain that the earth takes the form of a circle divided into two equal parts. The continents of Asia and Libya are in the first, southern part; the continent of Europe is in the second, northern part. According to the historian, the continent of Europe is larger than both Asia and Libya together, and anything said about its farthermost territories, such as the river Eridanus flowing into the northern water boundary, is pure invention. One can surmise from Herodotus that, in the field of the geographic description of the earth, "invention" is based on claims that are not supported by autopsy. By this approach, not only Eridanus but also Ocean is merely a verbal entity, nothing more than a name (ou)/noma), given that none of those speaking of the river had come upon it, namely, seen it with their own eyes. Herodotus expresses this in arguing that those siding with the Oceanic idea use the "word" (lo/goj) Ocean, without accompanying it with the "act" (e)/rgon) of journey. Referring to Ocean as a name reflects a more general distinction made by Herodotus between concrete space and language space. Concrete space is based on autopsy and it embodies knowledge whereas language space is neither built on autopsy nor does it embody knowledge. Knowledge, as defined by Herodotus, requires the person saying I saw of a certain space to be acknowledged as having performed the act of journey and seen the place personally. II

3 Herodotus describes himself as an expert in hearing "eyewitness" (au)to/pqhj) accounts, capable of distinguishing whether a geographical claim contains "knowledge" or does not. Hence, he determines that Ocean belongs to the space of language and attributes it, as a verbal entity, to "hearsay" (a)koh//). Namely, this name was arrived at as a spoken or written word, by word of mouth, without its users having undertaken a journey to see with their own eyes the water boundary that supposedly encircles the earth. Furthermore, language space is closely linked with Herodotus' criticism of Greek cartographers who draw the earth on their maps as though made with a pair of compasses, the circle divided symmetrically into Asia (including Libya) and Europe. However, it is important to note that in the historian's account of Aristagoras' "map tablet" (pi/nac), cartography emerges as a complex system representing earth not only through drawing but also in what the cartographer says of the map. Thus, in this context, speech becomes both the verbal interpretation of the lines within the circle and the act of pointing at those lines. Considering the cartographers' definition of the circular perimeter line as the earth in its entirety, and their gesture of pointing at this line as the articulation of the boundary between Ocean and continents of similar size, Herodotus response is: "I laugh" (gelw=). It is, to him, a ridiculous performance; more so should its public be told by the cartographer that Ocean flows around the "whole earth". The historian insists that geographic truth can only be achieved when there is congruence between language space and concrete space, namely, when the cartographer's finger indicating the perimeter line is the same as that of the speaker who can say "I saw" Ocean. As an III

4 expert in hearing eye witness accounts, Herodotus is not familiar with such a speaker, and, as for himself, journeying around the "whole earth" is impossible, owing to the enormous size of Europe. Nevertheless, the historian acknowledges those who encircled the sea that he refers to as Red, which stretches around Asia and Libya (on the south), as well as those who traveled along the continuation of that sea, which he calls the Atlantic and which extends around Libya (on the west). These speakers belong to one of two groups: Scylax of Caryanda with a crew of sailors sent on behalf of King Darius I (6 th C. B.C.) to encircle Asia from the Indus to the Arab Gulf, and a crew of Phoenician sailors sent on behalf of the Egyptian King Necho II (7 th and 6 th C. B.C.) to navigate around Libya from the Red Sea to the Pillars of Heracles. According to Herodotus the former voyage took some two and a half years, the latter three years. The two research expeditions are introduced by Herodotus with reference to the strategic importance of the earth's water boundary. He calls the strips of land by the Red and Atlantic seas "edges" or "edges of the earth". The historian also describes them as edges of the inhabited earth" (oi)koume/nh), meaning strips of human settlements along the continents' water border. He claims that in these lands are contained the "very best things" (ta\ ka/llista) and they are typified by extraordinary wealth. This last point is highly significant, for the missions of Scylax and his crew, as well as Phoenician sailors', were launched, first and foremost, to obtain strategic knowledge. The men were essentially informants in the service of their kings, and their role was to IV

5 gather intelligence about the edges of the earth to aid the military and economic aims of their respective empires. Thus, and while also emphasizing the close connection between geography and strategy, the edges of the earth are put forward by Herodotus as a goal in the Persian kings' wars. In Herodotus' story, king Darius used the information presented to him by Scylax and his sailors to conquer the Indian peoples dwelling beside the eastern part of the Red Sea. This occupation formed part of the imperial expansion which was a guiding principle in the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses. In accordance with the principle of expanding empire (as we shall call it) and owing to meticulous geographic preparation engaged in prior to leading his army to war, Darius became king of "all Asia". Geographical knowledge and "empire" thus go hand in hand. Wishing to expand the Persian Empire into Europe, Darius launched a war against Scythia. His eventual retreat, with his soldiers, was not due to unfamiliarity with the terrain but to the Scythians, a nomadic shepherd people, who had developed fighting methods fit for the landless. By destroying their own land they were able to wear down Darius' army and undermine the expanding empire principle, which emphasizes the territorial character of the conquered people. The king's error was not a lack of geographic knowledge, but a failure to realize that he was fighting a non-territorial people and that this war would not lead to the expansion of his empire. Thwarted by the Scythians, Darius soon faced the Ionian revolt and turned his attention in Europe to suppressing the rebels and, subsequently, sent an army headed V

6 by the generals Datis and Artaphernes to attack Athens and Eretria in retribution for assisting the rebels. Following the Persians' failure in Marathon to conquer Attica, Darius' son and successor, Xerxes, decided to avenge his father by conquering Athens and the "whole of Greece". What is more, it is important to note that Xerxes, who is characterized in the narrative as having extreme hubris, was not content with taking revenge on Greece, but intended to lead the army into war over "all Europe" in order to conquer the whole earth. According to Herodotus, Xerxes planned to occupy "all Greece" and "all Europe". Once Asia and Europe were his and became Persian territory, he could easily subjugate the smaller Libya as well. The historian describes Europe as rich a continent as Asia, the majority of whose treasures are located beyond the threshold of the "far distant north", above the land of the Issedones. He opines that, just as in the southern part of the earth, in the northern part, too, the "very best things" in the universe are accumulated at the "edges". We are now able to see a special link between the geographic and strategic descriptions of the edges of the earth and the textual construction of the character of Xerxes as hubristic king. My argument is that Herodotus' criteria for the creation of geographical knowledge of continental water boundaries are regulated within his narrative and integrated into the systems that construct the character of Xerxes as a strategist whose military judgment is impaired by hubris. Special emphasis is placed on the fact that, before crossing the bridge from Asia to Europe over the Hellespont, Xerxes prayed to Helios in the presence of his followers to lead his army from Greece to the edges of Europe. Furthermore, speaking with his uncle Artabanus the king VI

7 claimed he could conquer all Europe in a single military journey in less than a year, his army encountering no supply problems that may cause hunger in the soldiers. This is the exact context in which we examine Herodotus' statement that there is no person who knows whether sea exists at the "edges" of Europe. The salient point is that Herodotus does not say that there is no sea at the edges of Europe, but that he does not know of any utterance based on autopsy about that sea. Thus, he emphasizes Xerxes' lack of judgment when speaking of conquering all Europe and planning a military operation without prior geographical preparation. In other words, the king did not send informants to verify as eyewitnesses the size of Europe and the distance between its edges and the border dividing it from Asia and Libya. The effect of hubris on Xerxes' impaired strategic thinking is expressed in a series of dreams which culminate in a "vision" (o)/yij) seen in the king's sleep in which he appears decorated with a garland whose branches extend throughout the whole earth. Following the Magi's interpretation of the dream to mean that Xerxes will rule "all" men, he goes on to use the adjective pa=ja (all) in relation both to the territory of Europe and the earth. He speaks of himself as one who will expand the Persian Empire to the Ether of Zeus, namely, beyond the edges of the earth on all sides. However, when speaking of the whole of Europe and the whole earth, Xerxes fails to grasp that, using such terms as leader of an army, he is required to examine the meaning of this "wholeness", that is, to ensure that the spoken word is indeed based on action. VII

8 Meticulous analysis of the link between the perception of wholeness and the concept of edges, therefore, anchors the problematic nature of the Oceanic circle (as an articulation of the whole earth) in the context of Xerxes' worldwide war. Herodotus' comment about Greek cartography "I laugh" is revealed to have been directed not only at those who draw Asia (including Libya) and Europe as equal in size and surrounded by Ocean, but as relating also to Xerxes, who thinks it possible to speak of overtaking the whole of Europe and expanding his empire beyond the water boundaries of all continents without possessing prior knowledge. Furthermore, the ridicule expressed by the "I" who laughs is indicative of Herodotus' approach, whereby Xerxes' geographic perception is testimony not only to his hubris and poor strategic judgment, but to his lack of intelligence, too. Yet, we should, at this point, consider the derisive Herodotean "I" more critically by investigating how it may contradict itself in his debate with the sources about the knowledge of Ocean and the size of the continents. For here the text betrays itself, since even this "I" as narrator has no knowledge, and cannot have any, about the earth's water boundaries according to his own criteria. This is because the "I", like the sources, is not based on autopsy but on the words of Scylax or the Phoenicians; in other words on "hearsay". In this respect, Herodotus is inconsistent when classifying the Red and Atlantic Seas as belonging to concrete space rather than, like Ocean, to language space. The issue of hearsay is expressed clearly in the historian's reference to stories by the poet Aristeas of Proconnesus and Scythian merchants of voyages to the threshold of the "far distant north". There, Herodotus clearly states the meaning of the expression "see for himself" and emphasizes that, when discussing the water boundary of Europe (Ocean), they do so on the basis of hearsay. VIII

9 I propose to focus on this inconsistency and read it by examining the geographical contexts in which Herodotus uses "I" in the narrative as a failing in the Herodotean conception of the edges of the earth. What becomes fascinating here is that a thorough analysis of the narratological term "narrative" reveals that the failing of "I" may be seen in the text by the "you" at whom the act of narrating is directed. Namely, the "you" constructed as the "narratee" around the signs connected with him. The most evident of these signs are pronouns and verbs expressed by Herodotus in the first person singular and plural, and second person singular. The key question is, how does the "you" listening to "I"'s debate with the sources, within the narrative learn to identify the failing in the Herodotean conception of the edges of the earth? An analysis of the changing narrative locations of the "I", "you" and sources reveals that we have here a narratee who is not obliged to accept the narrator's words as truth, in contrast to the narratees of poets. Furthermore, as a character possessing the same psychological depth and cultural codes as the narrator, the narratee is made present in the text as a traveler and experimenter, and as one who learns from Herodotus to be specialized in hearing eyewitness accounts. The historian emphasizes throughout the narrative the value attributed by the narratee to autopsy as a means for obtaining geographic knowledge and a basis for truth about the continents' water boundaries. In short, the narratee may not only disbelieve Herodotus, but also expose his lack of consistency as a geographer. As the possibility of distrust by the narratee of Herodotus becomes apparent during the historian's debate about Ocean and the size of continents, it is slowly revealed that IX

10 his opinion as a narrator which negates the river's existence has no supremacy over that of his sources. Thus, in this narrative, which creates a narratee as a force that undermines the narrator's authority, the sea of Herodotus and Ocean of the sources are presented as having equal truth. The text's betrayal of itself allows us a deeper understanding of Herodotus' efforts to apply his geography of edges to shaping the character of Xerxes as a hubristic and unintelligent king. Furthermore, as far as the relationship between "I", "you" and the sources is concerned, the same betrayal also offers an opportunity for a renewed examination of the vital place of Ocean in Herodotus' world. It becomes clear, given the sources' statements about Ocean and the possibility that the narratee could accept them as truth, that the assumption prevailing among scholars that the Oceanic idea is jettisoned by Herodotus, is incorrect. On the contrary, in the debate concerning the river's existence no resolution is reached about the water boundaries surrounding the continents and whether Europe is indeed larger than Asia. Figures such as Aristeas discover, on their voyages, the Ocean of the poets at the northern edges of the earth by hearing eyewitness accounts, just as Herodotus discovers the Red Sea and the Atlantic Sea, and the length of journey around them. The last point to be made about the Oceanic idea is therefore this: not only is it discarded by the narrator, it is reasserted anew by nature of the internal contradictions which characterize his teaching of the narratee about the earth's water boundaries and the criteria of knowledge by which it can be described. The historian's narrative arrives at contradictory conclusions that do not produce one fixed meaning. One must X

11 conclude, therefore, that Ocean is represented as a geographic entity that both does and does not exist. This textual inconsistency has geographic significance, for the persistence of the Oceanic idea in Herodotus' world is an expression not only of the narrator's failure to disprove Ocean but also of his sources' attempts to discover the river at the edges of the earth. These sources are an expression of powerful Greek opinion in the late archaic era eager to substantiate the words of the poets and reestablish their geographic truthfulness using the same empirical method employed by Herodotus, namely by traveling the earth and hearing eyewitness accounts. In summation, the study of the Herodotean geography of edges through its narratological aspects reveals the interrelationship between the debate about the earth's water boundaries and the representation of the expansion of the Persian Empire. In discounting the sources' Oceanic idea, Herodotus is able to illustrate that the apogee of this same process expressed in Xerexes' plans to conquer Greece, Europe and the entire earth coincided with the height of the king's hubris and strategic misjudgment. XI