Читать книгу The Herodotus Encyclopedia - Группа авторов - Страница 506

ANTHONY ELLIS

University of Bern

Herodotus does not use the Greek word ἐπιϕάνεια, a term with a broader sense than the English “epiphany” (see Pfister 1924, 277–79; Graf 2004, 113, 118–22, 127), but he often uses ϕαίνομαι, ἐπιϕαίνομαι, and related terms. These may refer to visible or physical manifestations of the divine (e.g., of APIS’ appearance in the form of a calf, 3.27.1), but in other cases the nature of a hero’s or god’s manifestation is not specified and may well not be visual (cf. PAN, 6.106; PERSEUS’ appearance in CHEMMIS, 2.91.3, 91.5; Versnel 1987). In some cases neither ϕάσμα (“apparition”), εἴδωλον (“phantom,” “ghost”) nor (ἐπι)ϕαίνομαι are used—instead the action of figures recognized to be divine is simply described (6.69.1–4; 8.38–39.1; on the diverse forms of Greek epiphany see Petridou 2015, 20–22). Apparitions which visit the sleeping and the waking are described in near‐identical terms: compare HIPPARCHUS’ “dream vision” (5.56.1) with the figure seen by EPIZELUS while fighting at MARATHON (6.117.2–3). Here, as often, the divine figures are identified as “tall” and/or “handsome.”

Reports of divine apparitions are not confined to the chronological or geographical fringes of the Histories—they occur most often on Greek soil, to Greek witnesses, and in the context of the PERSIAN WARS (epiphanies during battle are particularly common in the Greek world; cf. Pritchett 1979, 11–46). Herodotus records two stories of epiphanies during or after the Battle of Marathon: Pan’s appearance to PHILIPPIDES (6.105; Paus. 8.54.6) and the large HOPLITE who kills a Greek soldier and blinds Epizelus (6.117.2–3; retold with differences at Plut. Mor. 305c). He also transmits three reports of apparitions connected with XERXES’ campaign: the tall and handsome divine figure who (several times) appears in the DREAMS of Xerxes and ARTABANUS (7.12–18), the defense of DELPHI by two large figures identified by the Delphians as the heroes PHYLACUS (2) and (8.37–39), and a female apparition who, on one account, rebukes the Greeks for their cowardice at the beginning of the Battle of SALAMIS (8.84). Other manifestations of divine presence during Xerxes’ campaign include the dust cloud and Bacchic cry witnessed by DEMARATUS and DICAEUS during the Persian occupation of Attica (8.65; cf. Plut. Them. 15.1–2), and the mysterious boat of men which, on the Athenian account, reproached ADEIMANTUS and the Corinthians at Salamis (8.94).

While such events are clearly remarkable, they were perhaps not wholly unexpected by the combatants and in some cases may have been actively sought: before Salamis, Herodotus reports, the Greeks sent a ship to fetch AEACUS and his offspring from AEGINA (8.64; cf. 8.121). Nor are all divine apparitions one‐off events. Various traditions present the appearance of gods as recurring: the Egyptians of Chemmis say that Perseus often appears to them (2.91.3–5), Apis is believed to appear to the Egyptians periodically as a calf (2.153; 3.27), and finally Zeus BELUS and Theban ZEUS are claimed to sleep with mortal women in their TEMPLES, one of the few types of divine epiphany of which Herodotus expresses disbelief (1.182). A smaller number of “one‐off” epiphanies predate the Persian Wars: Herodotus describes two apparitions connected with the Spartan king ARISTON’s wife (which must be dated in the early‐ and mid‐sixth century: 6.61.3–5, 69.1–4), and the dream‐figure which appears to Hipparchus and predicts his DEATH in riddling hexameters (5.56, in 514 BCE). The εἴδωλον of the dead MELISSA, appearing to PERIANDER’s MESSENGERS, instructs her former husband to burn clothes to keep her warm (5.92.η.2 and 4). Finally, the Histories also recounts an epiphany set in the mythical past: TRITON’s appearance to JASON in LIBYA (4.179.2–3).

In Greek PROSE narratives, the appearance of gods and HEROES is most often associated with crisis situations (battles, illnesses, etc.) and with explanations for the origins of new cults and RITUALS. Many of Herodotus’ apparitions fall within these categories. The appearance of Pan caused the Athenians to establish a cult to him (6.105), and the appearance of Triton is associated with a lost cult object hidden by the Libyans (4.179.3; cf. the sanctuary built to BOREAS after he responded to Athenian PRAYERS and destroyed much of the Persian fleet, 7.189).

In addition to these accounts, which purport to describe genuine divine apparitions, Herodotus also describes fake epiphanies staged for personal advantage. The most infamous is the elaborate plot hatched by MEGACLES (II) and PEISISTRATUS to bring about the latter’s return from EXILE: they dress up PHYE, a tall woman, as ATHENA, and she rides into ATHENS in a CHARIOT alongside Peisistratus while messengers proclaim that the goddess is leading her favorite back to her temple at the ACROPOLIS (1.60.3–5; [Arist.] Ath. pol. 14.4). Herodotus wonders that the famously clever Athenians fell for such a simple trick, but it may be that he is astounded not by their belief that gods sometimes appear to men but rather by their inability to distinguish between a true epiphany and a tall woman dressed in armor. Another staged apparition is that of SALMOXIS, the former slave of PYTHAGORAS, who is said to have hidden underground for three years before “appearing” to his Thracian followers (who believed him dead) thereby convincing them of the truth of his promises about eternal life (4.95.3; cf. Hellanicus BNJ 4 F73, Diog. Laert. 8.41). Finally, TELLIAS, a seer from ELIS, devised a stratagem for the Phocians during a night battle with the Thessalians: he painted the 600 best Phocian soldiers white with chalk and told them to kill anyone they saw not painted white. The Thessalian sentries, thinking the white figures a prodigy (τέρας), took fright and fled (8.27.3; cf. Paus. 10.1.7, 10.13.6).

It is striking that, of the many reports of divine or heroic apparitions to waking witnesses, Herodotus is always careful to identify his SOURCES and never explicitly endorses them in his own voice. An apparition must, of course, be seen or recognized by someone, and any witnesses are thus an integral part of the story. Since the narrative comes at second hand, attention to sources is to be expected, especially given the possibility of staged epiphanies (cf. Xen. Hell. 6.4.7). Nevertheless, the fact that Herodotus never states his belief in an anthropomorphic appearance of heroes or gods has struck some as a sign of skepticism, compounded by the fact that the testimony for many episodes is in various ways tenuous, either because they rely on a single source (5.92; 6.105, 117.2–3; 6.61.3–5, 69.1–4), because they are one of several competing accounts (the woman at Salamis, 8.84), or because they are part of a story that is, on other grounds, suspect (8.94; see Graf 2004, 115–18). Further support for this view might be sought in Herodotus’ (approving?) report of the Persian view that the Greeks are foolish for thinking the gods to have human forms (1.131.1). Any skepticism, however, must be inferred from equivocal evidence. When Herodotus describes an apparition using the word θῶμα (“wonder”) and related terms, it is sometimes unclear whether he is describing his astonishment at something he accepts is miraculous or his skepticism at something he thinks implausible (further Harrison 2000, 76).

This cautious distance is notably absent in stories of dream apparitions. No sources are provided, for example, in the account of the dream which announces Hipparchus’ death (5.56). In the most infamous divine apparitions of the Histories—where a figure commands the unwilling Xerxes and Artabanus to proceed with the abandoned plan to attack Greece—the divinity of the dream is tested by the skeptical and rationalistic Artabanus. Not only is the dream proven divine, this version of events is taken for granted in the later dialogue at ABYDOS (7.47.1; the source attribution at 7.12.1, then, seems not to indicate that the narrator thinks the tale dubious). In this case Herodotus builds direct divine‐mortal communication mimetically into his Histories in a manner reminiscent of the omniscient epic narrator (cf. e.g., Hom. Il. 2.5–15, Od. 6.13–47). One reason for Herodotus’ more accommodating approach to dreams in general is perhaps that these form the dramatic hinge for some of his novellas, which, in turn, tend to be less source‐conscious than the rest of his narrative. Herodotus’ acceptance of dream‐apparitions may, however, simply be due to a greater familiarity with the phenomenon in Greek culture (today, too, dreams remain much more common than waking visions).

Ultimately, Herodotus gives us no reason to doubt his belief in the possibility that gods or heroes might appear in visible form to waking witnesses (further Harrison 2000, 91–92). He reports several stories of anthropomorphic epiphanies without a hint of skepticism (see esp. 8.37.2–38, witnessed by a host of Persian troops and accepted by the Delphians), clearly considers the direct intervention of an individual god in battle plausible (9.65.2; cf. 9.100.2), and never categorically dismisses anthropomorphic epiphanies, despite outspokenly rejecting other types of divine mortal interaction, for instance sex between mortals and gods (1.182; 4.5.1, 11.1; 6.53.1). Whatever our conclusions about Herodotus’ own beliefs, the Histories contains a wealth of evidence for the stories of epiphanies which circulated in classical Greece about relatively recent historical events, and shows that these were particularly connected with traumatic occurrences and warfare. This impression is further confirmed by epigraphic sources (see Pritchett 1979, 12–14; Graf 2004).

SEE ALSO: Fate; Helen; Gods and the Divine; Religion, Greek; Religion, Herodotus’ views on; thōmata