The Herodotus Encyclopedia. Группа авторов
from the Black River (7.199.1). Though these RIVERS at the time of Herodotus’ writing flowed separately into the MALIAN GULF, today the Dyras and Black rivers are tributaries of the Spercheius.
SEE ALSO: Black Gulf and River; Malians; Measures
FURTHER READING
1 Béquignon, Yves. 1937. La vallée du Spercheios des origines au IVe siècle. Études d'archéologie et de topographie, 63–66. Paris: de Boccard.
BLACK SEA, see EUXINE SEA
BLAME
HELMUT G. LOEFFLER
City University of New York–Queensborough
Herodotus begins the Histories with a PROLOGUE (1.1–5) that functions both as an introduction of the general theme and of the method he uses (Immerwahr 2013, 163–66). He writes that, among other tasks, he wants to show who or what is to blame for the beginning of the conflict between Greeks and BARBARIANS. The word Herodotus uses to indicate responsibility—aitiē—has a range of meanings that include “blame,” implying also guilt (Powell 1960 s.v. αἰτίη). In most cases Herodotus uses aitiē in the context of action to which blame is assigned (Immerwahr 2013, 160). Thus CAUSATION is important in the Histories from the start. Herodotus, for example, declares (1.5.3) that he himself knows of the man who started the unjust deeds against the Greeks (CROESUS) and that he is going to identify him as part of his inquiries. Herodotus throughout the Histories not only links events with each other by emphasizing cause and effect and the assignment of blame, but also employs a large variety of motives to explain human behavior (see Froehlich 2013). Thus the inquiry into the responsibility and blame for the beginning of the conflict, and for events in general, moves the narrative along.
In this connection Herodotus frequently identifies metaphysical factors. DREAMS, ORACLES, and signs, for example, influence the outcome of events. For modern readers the supernatural in the Histories provides probably the greatest challenge, since it is difficult if not impossible for us to understand the deep influence of religion in early classical Greece (Mikalson 2003, 194). For example, Herodotus not only assigns blame to XERXES for his decision to invade Greece—the most important decision portrayed in the Histories—but also finds some responsibility in divine preordination (dreams in this case). However, in most cases responsibility and blame for decisions and their outcomes can be found in the Histories by looking at the actions of the protagonists. They are often influenced by the desire for VENGEANCE, profit, or an expansion of their power. While the supernatural usually anticipates, supports, and validates the tendencies and predilections of individuals, Herodotus generally does not assign blame to the metaphysical as the single cause for events.
SEE ALSO: Decision‐making; Historical Method; historiē; Motivation; Religion, Greek; Symbols and Signs
REFERENCES
1 Froehlich, Susanne. 2013. Handlungsmotive bei Herodot. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
2 Immerwahr, Henry R. 2013. “Aspects of Historical Causation in Herodotus.” In ORCS Vol. 1, 157–93. (Originally published in TAPA 87 (1956), 241–80.)
3 Mikalson, Jon D. 2003. Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
4 Powell, J. Enoch. 1960 [1938]. A Lexicon to Herodotus. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
FURTHER READING
1 Pagel, Karl‐August. 1927. Die Bedeutung des aitiologischen Momentes für Herodots Geschichtsschreibung. Leipzig: Noske.
BODILY ADORNMENT
DONALD LATEINER
Ohio Wesleyan University
Different cultures denaturalize naked, unaltered bodies with modifications that vary by age, age‐class (pre‐pubertal), GENDER, and status. Adornment usually implies jewelry—objects added to the trunk, head, and limbs—but clothing itself is a powerful adornment and identifier. In addition, some alterations are invisible like unguents and perfumes. Variations in the treatment of constant extensions of the body such as HAIR and nails are unavoidable choices (hair‐styles and length, hair and nail colors). Permanent modifications (chosen or inflicted) such as CIRCUMCISION, cutting and scarification (including tattoos or stigmata), piercing/infibulation (tongue, ears, lips, nose, genitals), and organ amputation (1.117, 8.104–5) moderately or seriously modify appearance and self‐presentation. Temporary coloring, odorizing, shaved visages and depilation (head, crotch, chest, armpits, etc.) vary nature’s gifts and punishments. Cosmetic paints for the face, lips, and other visible body parts constitute possibilities of variation and adornment. Finally, adornment of corpses before inhumation or cremation for the journey and arrival in the land of the dead varies in treatment from MUMMIFICATION to cremation, ingestion, excarnation, and glorious “house, HORSES, CONCUBINES and attendants of the deceased” interment (2.85–90, EGYPT; 1.140, PERSIA; 3.38; 7.10.θ*; 4.71–75, Scythian royals).
Herodotus as anthropological observer records many details of body treatments, especially in his plentiful ethnographies. Persian DRESS has been adopted from the MEDES (1.135); Egyptians, JEWS, and Palestinians practice RITUAL circumcision (2.36, 104); the THRACIANS esteem tattooing (5.6, marks [stigmata] of nobility). Herodotus’ primitive royal, the fabulous Mede DEIOCES, produced a fanciful set of behavioral prohibitions to protect him (no laughing or spitting); chief among them, he made himself unseeable by anyone except his emissaries—unique (non‐)self‐presentation (1.99). The comparative ethnologist notes both the pomp produced for Persian rulers—such as tokens of authority, dress, palatial habitats (3.118–19)—and their executions and MUTILATIONS inflicted to punish, forever diminishing status, a kind of social death. These bodily modifications can be official or privately revengeful (3.69, 118, 156; 9.112; cf. Xen. An. 1.9: hands, feet, and eyes removed from malefactors). Thus, XERXES had the Thebans branded as slaves for their cowardly desertion to his cause after he gained control of the pass at THERMOPYLAE (7.233).
Clothing demonstrates ethnic identity as well as gender. The BABYLONIANS wear three tunics: linen, wool, and a white mantle. They have unusual shoes that resemble Boeotian slippers (1.195). They wear caps. The Ethiopian king laughs at aristocratic Persian customs: they wear purple cloaks made from crushed snail parts; they wear “FETTERS” of twisted GOLD on neck and arms (3.22). SCYTHIANS wear cups attached to their belts (4.10). The CATALOGUE of Xerxes’ infantry occupies many pages describing the different tribes and peoples’ clothing, headwear, armor, and weaponry (7.61–88). The Persian troops’ “ornaments” were most splendid: conspicuous for gold, concubines, attendants, and beasts of burden (7.83). The young, male Macedonian assassins dress in women’s garb before knifing their assigned Persian ambassador couch‐mates (5.20).
Herodotus comments on Ionian clothing styles and their adoption in Attica (5.87–88; cf. Thuc. 1.6). His wise SANDANIS tries to persuade CROESUS not to go to war against the Persians, men of rude clothing, a sign of tough warriors (1.71). Croesus advises CYRUS (II) about to attack the revolting LYDIANS (1.155): dress them in soft under‐tunics and loafers—and they will grow accustomed to luxury. PERIANDER burns women’s clothes to atone for his sexual violation of his dead wife (5.92). SYLOSON the beggar gains a TYRANT’s grand territory of SAMOS, because he once generously gave away his handsome cloak to the undistinguished spear‐carrier Darius, although Darius was ready to buy it (3.139–40). After Darius’ irregular accession to the throne, the good deed earned this Ionian the recompense of the title of royal benefactor and the reward of his choice—rule of Samos.
Babylonian men carry staffs with figured devices on top and a personal seal (1.195; cf. 6.75). SOPHANES the Athenian carried a shield at the Battle of PLATAEA with an anchor device (9.74), one of many HOPLITES to do so, we may suppose from Aeschylean descriptions (Sept.), Attic vases, and actual excavated shields.