The Herodotus Encyclopedia. Группа авторов

The Herodotus Encyclopedia

Rosalind. 2000. Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

AUGILA (Αὔγιλα, τά)

CHRISTOPHER BARON

University of Notre Dame

An oasis in North Africa (BA 38 C4), modern Awjila(h) in northeastern Libya. Herodotus names Augila (4.172.1) as the place the NASAMONES travel to in the summer, after leaving their flocks on the coast, for date cultivation. Later (4.182) he notes that Augila lies a ten‐day journey west of the Ammonians (the Sîwa Oasis; cf. Strabo 17.3.23/C838). Later authors refer to a people there, the Augilae (Plin. HN 5.45).

SEE ALSO: Agriculture; Ammon; Food; Measures; Travel

AURAS RIVER (ὁ Αὔρας ποταμός)

CHRISTOPHER BARON

University of Notre Dame

River in northern THRACE, tributary of the ISTER (Danube), flowing north from Mt. HAEMUS along with the ATLAS and TIBISIS (4.49.1). Its exact location and identification are unknown, though some connect the name Auras with the later Roman settlement of Abritus (BA 22 D5), modern Razgrad on the Beli Lom River in northeastern Bulgaria.

AUSCHISAE (Αὐσχίσαι, οἱ)

CHRISTOPHER BARON

University of Notre Dame

Nomadic Libyan (North African) tribe dwelling between BARCA and EUESPERIDES (BA 38 B1), west of CYRENE. Herodotus relates nothing else about them other than the fact that the BACALES live in the middle of their territory (4.171).

AUSEANS (Αὐσέες, οἱ)

CHRISTOPHER BARON

University of Notre Dame

Nomadic Libyan (North African) tribe dwelling on the shores of the ancient Lake TRITON (BA 35 B1), the Chott el Djerid in modern‐day Tunisia; their exact location is unknown, but Herodotus makes them the last of the nomad Libyans toward the west (4.191.1). He offers a brief ethnographic description of the Auseans (4.180), including the annual FESTIVAL for their ancestral goddess (ATHENA from the Greek viewpoint) at which two groups of Ausean maidens fight a battle. An Ausean origin has been proposed for an unusual statuette taken from Libya during World War II (Rovik 2002, 92–93).

SEE ALSO: Ethnography; Libya; Nomads; Women in the Histories

REFERENCE

1 Rovik, Patricia W. 2002. “A Libyan Athena with Ancient Greek Inscriptions.” MedArch 15: 81–94.

AUTESION (Αὐτεσίων, ὁ)

CHRISTOPHER BARON

University of Notre Dame

Autesion only appears in the Histories as a patronymic: father of the legendary Spartan queen ARGEIA (6.52.2) and of THERAS, founder of THERA (4.147.1). He was the great‐grandson of the mythical Theban POLYNEICES; a later source relates that Autesion was pursued by the Erinyes (FURIES) of LAÏUS and OEDIPUS (Paus. 9.5.14–15).

SEE ALSO: Cadmus son of Agenor; Genealogies; Teisamenus son of Thersander

AUTHORITY, NARRATIVE

ROGER BROCK

University of Leeds

Herodotus’ engagement with the issue of authority, a central concern in historiography (Marincola 1997), is an important facet of the foundations which he lays for the subsequent development of the genre (Luraghi 2006). Whereas HOMER appeals to the inspiration of a Muse, Herodotus relies for the validation of his account of past events on EVIDENCE accumulated through the process of HISTORIĒ, citing (though not systematically) both his own knowledge gained through AUTOPSY (e.g., 2.12, 29, 131; 4.195; 5.59; often implicit when he describes contemporary realities, e.g., 1.51, 66) and the information provided by informants (see SOURCE CITATIONS), sometimes endorsed by reference to personal contact (e.g., 1.20; 2.142–44; 4.76). In describing his researches, he emphasizes the pains he has taken, as when he travels to TYRE and then to THASOS to pursue his theory of the Egyptian origins of HERACLES (2.44).

He reinforces this by foregrounding his HISTORICAL METHOD (Dewald 2002): instead of prefacing his work with a general statement of principles, as THUCYDIDES was to do (1.21–22), Herodotus is constantly putting his control and handling of his material on DISPLAY, choosing between variant accounts (e.g., of the birth and death of CYRUS (II): 1.95, 212), overtly withholding information (e.g., 1.51, 2.123, or 4.43, all damning bad men to oblivion), or passing over things he knows as insufficiently important or out of religious scruple (Lateiner 1989, 64–69, 73–75), and extending or curtailing reports (e.g., 2.35; 3.60; 4.36; 6.55). Equally, he regularly acknowledges the limits of his own or possible KNOWLEDGE, including those imposed by space and TIME (e.g., 2.31, 3.115, 4.24–25; 3.122, 4.180; Lateiner 1989, 61–64). Alternative versions are commonly juxtaposed: he sometimes states or implies a preference (e.g., 8.94), but frequently leaves matters open (programmatically so at 1.5) or even invites readers to decide, thus co‐opting them into the historiographic process (3.122, 5.45; Lateiner 1989, 76–90). The critical judgment this implies becomes more overt in assessing the RELIABILITY of particular accounts: he may give an explicit endorsement (e.g., 6.53), but more often he declines to do so or overtly disagrees (e.g., 1.51, 75; 8.8), particularly with common Greek belief (e.g., 2.2, 45, both typically dismissive), and states as a general principle that his reporting something does not mean that he believes it (7.152; cf. 2.123, 4.195); hence he frequently qualifies an account with phrases such as “so it is said” (4.176; 5.42), or by presenting

Скачать книгу

The Herodotus Encyclopedia. Группа авторов