Artemisia within Herodotus’ Histories:
Herodotus' Histories are an
innovative and extraordinary collection of inquiries that lead Herodotus to be
called the "patrem historiae"
or "Father of History."[1]
This title is justly addressed as Herodotus is the first to compile such a
collection of “ἱστορίαι or inquiries." In the Histories' preface, Herodotus documents his purpose in writing this
work:
Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης
ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε
ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ
γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν
ἀλλήλοισι. (Preface) 1.1.0
The following is the exhibition of the
inquiries of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, in order that the things having been
done from mankind do not become faded from time, nor both the great deeds and
awe inspiring things, the things which having been displayed by both the Greeks
and Persians, become unsung, especially on account of which cause they waged a
war with one another.[2]
His cause in writing the Histories appears to be well motivated.
He claims to have written the work so that the deeds of mankind are not " ἀκλεᾶ
or wiped away" from time; especially the deeds of the Greek and Persians within
the context of the Persian War. While this may be his primary purpose: the
recording of deeds, stories, battles, and individuals; Herodotus, the father of
history, does not simply convey the most important deeds or write with a
"Greek" perspective or agenda. His agenda lies in conveying the
details from which the Persian War arose and how it came about (without a
hidden agenda). He conveys the Histories as a storyteller does informing the reader of all the
facts and characters no matter how different, controversial, or queer ; "Heir
to the Greek storytelling tradition, however, Herodotus regards the characters
of men- and not just the most important men- as a key to history just a the
storyteller does for his tale."[3]
Herodotus does not pass judgment on other cultures: the deeds of
foreigners or the sexes, but he simply conveys his observations and inquired
facts. As Dewald states, “Herodotus does not disapprove of sexual mores that
are quite different from rigidly controlled female sexuality of the Greek
model;"[4] this further
proves his acceptance and unbiased objectivity towards customs, traditions, or
even characteristics that are foreign. “In the Histories, women are not his chief focus of attention. He does not
write the Histories in order to prove
a thesis about them as social actors; they tend instead to occur incidentally,
as part of the background of his main narrative themes. His portrait is for
that reason likely to reveal aspects of feminine behavior and social values
that more aggressively argumentative accounts neglect;”[5] Dewald comments on the ability of Herodotus’
work to lend to insight on women. The presence of women within Herodotus' Histories is much different in contrast
to other and later Greek historians who are not as accepting of foreigners or
women. (As Dewald states that "Herodotus mentions women in the Histories 375 times"[6]
and comparatively, Thucydides only mentions women six times.[7])
It is for this reason that the Histories become
an useful tool for examining women within the fifth century B.C: "Herodotus'
comments about women preserve one well-traveled Hellenic man's observation and
assumptions about women's multiple and complex roles not just in Greece but
throughout the fifth-century eastern Mediterranean world.[8]"
Herodotus does not name several women by name nor does he grant to them
individual stories (without cause), but when he does; it is due to the fact
that their particular story is of importance, intrigue, or serves to explain characteristics
of other individuals that are pertinent to the narrative of the Persian War.
Herodotus writes to achieve his main purpose
and in doing so he recounts several stories and observations that present
common themes. Two prominent themes within his narrative are "Men"
versus "Women" and "Greek" versus the "Other."[9]
This is not to say that Herodotus purposely interjects these themes for his
Hellenic audience, as a tool to allude that Greeks are better than Persians or
men are better than women. Instead, these themes are common since they appear
in a wide array of stories, myths, and history[10];
they do not serve as a political agenda for Herodotus to cater to his Hellenic
audience. The themes are often common within the stories of Herodotus' women;
since the important women that Herodotus recounts are often female barbarians. These
female barbarian women’s stories illustrate the contested theme of “Men” versus
“Women” and “Greek” versus “Persians.”
There are several named women that Herodotus
discusses at length; all of which are foreigner who exhibit traits
contradicting accepted Hellenic values. However, this does not deter Herodotus
from relaying their story and their mark on the Persian War. The names of the
most memorable women are Tomyris, Pheretima,
Nitocris, Amestris, and Canduales' wife.
These women are all foreigners who all are in a position of power and
seek revenge upon a male character(s). Their stories of revenge are famous for
both their cunning vengeance and their ruthless actions.
Tomyris, Pheretima, and Nitocris are all female warrior queens[11]
who seek revenge for the death of a loved one (either a son or a brother).
Tomyris seeks revenge on Cyrus the Great for the death of her son Spargapises
even though he committed suicide. She defeats him in battle and fulfills her
promise of "ἦ μέν σε ἐγὼ καὶ ἄπληστον
ἐόντα αἵματος
κορέσω;
I will fill you with blood being insatiable[12]"
by sinking his decapitated head into a wineskin of blood(1.205-6 &
1.211-14). Pheretima
also seeks revenge for her murdered son, but she takes her vengeance out on an
entire city, Barke. She wars against them, succeeds in defeating all the
inhabitants, and stakes their bodies around the city (4.162, 165, 167, 201, and
205). Nitocris as another vengeful
queen seeks her revenge for the murder of her brother, in which she builds an
underground chamber, tricks the murderers to enter, and then she floods it and
drowns them all. She would later commit suicide; and therefore escaping any
retribution for her actions (2.100).
These three barbarian women all follow Flory’s "Clever Vengeful
Queen" motif. They are women of power who seek to correct the wrong that
has been done to their family. Their revenge could be looked upon as a noble
act, as it would be if they were men; [13]
however, due to the fact that they are women- their act is seen to be excessive
and ruthless. It is consider excessive by “the gods,” according to Herodotus,
as seen in Pheretima’s divinely inflicted death for excessive revenge. Nonetheless,
Herodotus does not pass judgment on these women directly from a first person
perspective. Therefore, as Dewald stated, Herodotus’ goal is not to comment on
women. It is merely to continue his narrative with them serving their purpose
as narrative devices. However, it would not be lost to him that his Greek
audience would pass judgment on these barbarian women and would begin to
stereotype them as such: clever, vengeful, excessively ruthless women.
Canduales' wife and Amestris are
vengeful queens who do not wish to avenge the death of loved one, but a
humiliation of themselves. Canduales' wife having been exposed by her husband's
pride to Gyges, she seeks to have her husband killed for this violation of her
privacy and propriety (1.8-12). While
Amestris also exacts her revenge on her husband Xerxes. She realizes that he
has taken secretly for his concubine Artaynte (who is his brother’s, Masistes,
daughter and his own son Darius' wife), after he could not ascertain the
affections of Masistes' wife.[14] Amestris
seeks vengeance not through the girl, but through the girl's mother believing
it to be the mother’s plot. It is the mother that has to answer for the crimes
of her daughter and Xerxes's disregard of human limitations: his hubris. Amestris
forces the mother to mutilate herself in public as a punishment to Xerxes’
secret infidelity (9.109-112).
These
two women further show the character of Persian women, and their care to
preserving themselves; as Dewald comments: “Women in Herodotus act to preserve
themselves and those in their care…They reflect the same social values as men
of their culture…[15]”
In this quote Dewald reveals a view that Herodotus does not explicitly
state. She is assessing that women, in
this case Persian women, act in the same manner that their male counterparts do.
Thus, it further reveals that “Women do not passively reflect the values of
their culture; they are actively responsible both for creating social
conventions and for maintaining them,” [16] and
had “full partnership with men in establishing and maintaining social order.” [17]
Thus, the actions of these clever vengeful women may be a portion of the Persian
culture revealing through them; and therefore, the Greek stereotype stated
above proves true that: Persian women are clever, vengeful, ruthless, and protectors
of their families and themselves. This would appear to be a polar opposite to
the accepted Hellenic view of women, and it would reinforce amongst the Greek audience
the unrestraint and imbalance nature associated with barbarian women.[18]
Herodotus is not in short supply of such stories where a Persian woman
avenges an injustice upon a male counterpart. Herodotus appears to be an author
with an appreciation and fascination with these types of stories as Dewald states:
"Herodotus enjoys reporting on the ease with people of inferior status of
either sex succeed in manipulating men in power, often by exploiting their
blindness to their own vulnerabilities; such stories also connect to Herodotus'
to report ‘ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά ' or ‘both great and awe inspiring deeds.’"[19] These "great and awe inspring deeds" for
Herodotus are undefinable. It is uncertain if these are great deeds are of
wealth, power, adversity, or if awe inpsiring deeds are acts of bravery,
heroism, or unusual and ironic ones. Regardless the mere mention of deeds
within the narrative qualifies them to be labeled as " ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ
θωμαστά" by Herodotus. Albeit, Herodotus
may have an "enjoyment" for these types of stories; it does not
change the underlying fact that the women within his narrative are presented to
serve both as a background and a narrative device for accomplishing his main
purpose: recounting the great and awe-inspiring deed of the Greeks and Persians
especially those which caused the Persian War.
However, keeping with his trend
of stories about women which allow him to report ‘ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά;'
perhaps the “ἔργα μέγιστα τε καὶ
θωμαστά λίην” would be
those of Artemisia. Herodotus' finds Artemisia's story worthy of recounting and
therefore it is considered a story of " ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά."
The reason that her story is worthy of recounting is because of its intrigue,
irony, curciliality to the war, and its revealing aspects of women. Artemisia
has a very interesting narrative that Herodotus recounts within Book VII and
VIII. She is the only barbarian woman about whom Herodotus presents his
personal opinion.
τῶν μέν νυν ἄλλων οὐ παραμέμνημαι
ταξιάρχων ὡς οὐκ ἀναγκαζόμενος, Ἀρτεμισίης δὲ τῆς μάλιστα θῶμα ποιεῦμαι ἐπὶ τὴν
Ἑλλάδα στρατευσαμένης γυναικός· ἥτις ἀποθανόντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτή τε ἔχουσα τὴν
τυραννίδα καὶ παιδὸς ὑπάρχοντος νεηνίεω ὑπὸ
λήματός τε καὶ ἀνδρηίης ἐστρατεύετο, οὐδεμιῆς οἱ ἐούσης ἀναγκαίης. (7.99.1)
On the one hand, now, I make no mention
of the other commanders since not being compelled (to do so), but on the other
hand, of Artemisia whom I make a marvel (awe) at especially; as a woman was marching
against the Greek: who, when her husband died, this woman having the power, although
her son becoming a young man, on account of both courage and manly spirit she was serving, since for her there
was no compulsion.
Artemisia proves to be an anomaly in respect
to the trend Herodotus has made for barbarian women: the “Clever Vengeful Ruthless
Queen.” Herodotus, unlike his previous stories of women, blatantly shows his
opinion of this woman: admiration and respect. He disregards the other male
commanders saying that he “οὐκ
ἀναγκαζόμενος”[20]
or “not being compelled.” Therefore, he deems their “ἔργα” unworthy of mention,
and therefore worthy to be “ἀκλεᾶ” from time. However, Artemisia’s deeds are
not unworthy, but awe-inspiring. He states that she is serving in the military,
although she had a grown son, on account of “λήματός τε καὶ ἀνδρηίης” and not by “ἀναγκαίης.”
Λῆμα (or λήματός in the
genitive) is a neuter noun which in its meaning comes to mean “good, courage,
resolution.”[21]
The second word is not so easily deciphered. There has been much debate and
interpretation of this, but the Liddell & Scott defines it as follows:
“ἀνδρεῖος (or ἀνδρηίης in the singular genitive feminine) as “of or for a man,
manly, masculine, or strong, vigorous.”[22]
However, the definitions provided by this lexicon do not fully capture what
Herodotus means by “ἀνδρεῖος.” Powell translates both λήμα and ἀνδρηίη as
“courage.” [23]
However, this would seem rather redundant for Herodotus and does
not fully capture the “ἀνδρ-” root. For
this reason, the most suited definition for this word would have to be
Hazewindus’ term “manly spirit.”[24]
Powell records the use of the ἀνδρεῖος seven times used mainly to describe men,
a man’s action, or a nation.[25]
There are no other references to women possessing “ἀνδρηίη”[26]
in Herodotus’ Histories. Furthermore,
it must be questioned on what is mean by a “manly spirit.” It must be
ascertained that Herodotus is complimenting Artemisia for being courageous and
above the feminine and weak spirit of a woman (γυναικεῖα )[27] by attributing to her “ἀνδρηίη.” Finally,
Herodotus praises Artemisia for serving in the Persian War not by “ἀναγκαίης,”
but on account of courage and a manly spirit. “Ἀναγκαίης” is related to the
verb “ἀναγκαζόμενος” which Herodotus uses earlier in this passage. It is
an interesting parallel that Herodotus draws between himself and Artemisia;
both being individuals who act not by compulsion, but by a difference force: perhaps
“ἀνδρεῖος.”
Herodotus states the following of Artemisia’s
origins: “οὔνομα μὲν δὴ ἦν αὐτῇ Ἀρτεμισίη, θυγάτηρ δὲ ἦν Λυγδάμιος, γένος δὲ ἐξ
Ἁλικαρνησσοῦ τὰ πρὸς πατρός, τὰ μητρόθεν δὲ Κρῆσσα. (7.99.2) The name was for
this woman; Artemisia, she was the daughter of Lygdamos, in respect to
ethnicity from Halicarnassus on her father side, on her mother side of Cretan[28];” thereby she was Cretan or Carian on her
mother side and of Halicarnassus on her fathers. Artemisia is considered a
Persian woman, but her lineage may suggest otherwise. Herodotus says the
following of his home country Halicarnassus Cnidus ,
Halicarnassus and Phaselis;” hence he
characterizes Halicarnassus
The complicated issue of
ethnicity arises in Herodotus several times, and in Artemisia case there is no exception.
The issue with ethnicity is how it is defined within Herodotus (which is a
paper topic or book all unto itself); ethnicity can either be defined by the
country of one’s lineage or by the “νομοί” or “customs or conventions” one practices. Therefore, while
Artemisia may be Greek in descent; she exhibits qualities that are too foreign or “Other” to be considered proper Greek “νομοί.” The fact that she is Persian (on
her mother’s side; at least) within the Herodotus’ Histories does not change the fact that Herodotus shows admiration
and pride for his fellow countrywoman. As Munson agrees, “Yet, on the whole, she receives more coverage in the
narrative of that expedition than any other individual fighting on the Persian
side, after Mardonius. Herodotus must have felt especially inclined to relate
interesting information about Halicarnassus and
was perhaps even proud of his countrywoman’s exploits”[30] Consequently, Herodotus’ interest in
Artemisia must not lie in her deeds alone, but he must be remarking on Halicarnassus Halicarnassus
In the 7.99.1-2, Herodotus introduces one
of the most complex and paradoxical characters in Book VIII. Artemisia is
unlike the previous barbarian women we have seen, as she does not possess those
attributes usually observed in barbarian women. She instead has admirable
attributes that compel Herodotus to write about her and not her male allied
commanders. As Munson states “Herodotus keeps her remarkably free of those barbaric traits
which in the Histories tend to
characterize the dominant females of the East. Foreign to bedroom politics and
to feminine issues, the Herodotean Artemisia belongs to the “outdoors” and by
virtue of her skill both in public council and in war.”[31] Furthermore,
Artemisia is an anomaly in the trend of women, and presents a woman who is
virtuous in her counseling and fighting. As an anomaly, Artemisia
characteristics and description must not be overlooked, but examined into
greater detail to fully understand Herodotus’ purpose in mentioning her beyond
simply admiration.
Artemisia is a woman possessing a “manly spirit;” she is not the normal
barbarian woman seen in Herodotus nor is she resembling a Greek portrait of a
woman. She is in an entirely different category of women. For these reasons,
she is often attributed to be “gender-bending,” because she rests on the
boundaries of what is feminine, masculine, and what is acceptable. She is
neither a passive woman nor is she an active man, but she is something in
between these two. This, in turn, resolves to label Artemisia as a liminal
character who is introduced as a character on threshold between two worlds: men
and women. It is ironic that one of the most prominent themes within the Histories “Men” versus “Women” would
encompass itself within a single character. (This irony later leads itself to
interesting and paradoxical situations that reveal more on Herodotus’
intentions with Artemisia.) Secondly, Artemisia also appears to be on the
threshold in respect to her ethnicity. While she may seem clearly Persian;
there is some liminality in her actual fatherland. Halicarnassus
She is a wise warrior queen who with Herodotus’ favor may not
simply be categorized into the “Clever Vengeful Ruthless Queens,” but perhaps
her actions, words, and portrayal may lead the audience to see a Greek after
all. A Greek warrior queen that may be admired instead of disdained.
Herodotus’
intention will never be known; Artemisia is clearly presented with several
qualities that are both respectable and enigmatic. She is liminal in her
introduction, since Herodotus presents his audience with many paradoxical
facts. However her presence within Book VIII, she begins to transgress this
liminality and her own boundaries. Before the Battle of Salamis, Xerxes has called
for opinions of his generals on whether or not he should wage a sea battle;
Artemisia has the following to say:
ὡς ἐγὼ τάδε λέγω, οὔτε κακίστη γενομένη ἐν τῇσι ναυμαχίῃσι τῇσι πρὸς Εὐβοίῃ οὔτε ἐλάχιστα ἀποδεξαμένη. δέσποτα, τὴν δὲ ἐοῦσαν γνώμην με δίκαιον ἐστὶ ἀποδείκνυσθαι,
τὰ τυγχάνω φρονέουσα ἄριστα ἐς πρήγματα τὰ σά. καὶ τοι τάδε λέγω, φείδεο τῶν νεῶν μηδὲ ναυμαχίην ποιέο. οἱ γὰρ ἄνδρες τῶν σῶν ἀνδρῶν κρέσσονες τοσοῦτο εἰσὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν ὅσον ἄνδρες γυναικῶν. 8.68.a1
That I say the following things: I, not
being worst in the naval battle which was at Euboea ,
nor displaying myself least well. Master, it is just that I reveal my
existing/real opinion: the things which I happen to think to be the best in your
matters. I say to you the following: Spare of the ships and do not wage a sea
battle. For the Greek men are so much stronger/better than your men at sea as
men are stronger/better than women.
There are obviously no records of Artemisia’s
speech (and he claims no source); it must be assumed that Artemisia was a warner
of the Battle of Salamis, but her direct words are unknown. She is a tragic warner, whose advice is
ignored. As Johnstone presents, "Artemisia argues against the naval battle
at Salamis Salamis
Therefore, the words recorded in
the Histories are a combination of
Ionian sources along with the author’s personal invention. It is critical to
remember that Herodotus is writing from his collected “ἱστορίαι or inquiries;”
however there must be reasons to why he chooses to have Artemisia present the
following speech. It is clear that Artemisia’s
words are cunning. On their face value, she gives herself worth to show her
importance and thereby the importance of her words, she advises not to fight at
Salamis
The contradiction of this speech leads the audience to deduce that
somehow Artemisia has transgressed the boundaries of “ἄνδρες κρέσσονες γυναικῶν,” but she has done so at
the expense of Persian men. Furthermore, she insults all the Persian navy quite
severely by calling them women. As Herodotus states “παρὰ δὲ τοῖσι Πέρσῃσι γυναικὸς κακίω ἀκοῦσαι δέννος μέγιστος ἐστι. (9.107.1)
It is the greatest reproach among the
Persians to be called worse than a woman;” while they were not called “worse
than a woman” the utterance of being called a woman is still an insult.[35]
It may be her clever, arrogant, and impertinent nature that has most of the
Persian generals (if not her gender)[36]
indignant towards her: “οἳ δὲ ἀγαιόμενοί τε καὶ φθονέοντες αὐτῇ (8.69.1) Those
indignant and jealous towards her.” On the other hand, it may be this clever
and arrogant behavior that is veiled in adulation that has the King holding her
in high esteem: “κάρτα τε ἥσθη τῇ γνώμῃ τῇ Ἀρτεμισίης, καὶ νομίζων ἔτι πρότερον
σπουδαίην εἶναι τότε πολλῷ μᾶλλον αἴνεε (8.69.2)" "Truly, he
delighted in Artemisia's opinon, and
he considering her still earlier to be worthy
of serious attention at that time he was praising her more by far.” Artemisia
,in this speech and throughout her presence within the Histories, exploits the themes of Greek versus Persian or Men
versus Women “which are the underlying themes
of Herodotus’ narrative history in which he uses stories with these themes to
further exploit his ‘investigations’ of how the Persian War came about.”[37]
She transgresses these themes beyond the boundaries of other Persian women,
which is the reason why her speeches, actions, and role within the Histories are significant.
While Artemisia’s speech may at
moments seem disparaging to the Persians; it is imperative to remember that she
alone is the one that recommends the proper course of action. Beyond attempting to convince Xerxes that his
forces are inferior, she attempts to reason with him personally. “Oὐκ ἔχεις μὲν τὰς Ἀθήνας,
τῶν περ εἵνεκα ὁρμήθης στρατεύεσθαι, ἔχεις δὲ τὴν ἄλλην Ἑλλάδα ;( 8.68.a2) "Do you not have Athens Greece
Regardless of Artemisia’ wise advice,
Xerxes does not heed her warning or logic. He praises her (8.69.2) for the
advice, but follows the opinions of the majority[39]:
to wage a sea battle. The Battle of Salamis occurs, but Herodotus does not
recount it in full detail, but merely says :
κατὰ μὲν δὴ τοὺς ἄλλους οὐκ ἔχω [μετεξετέρους]
εἰπεῖν ἀτρεκέως ὡς ἕκαστοι τῶν βαρβάρων ἢ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἠγωνίζοντο· κατὰ δὲ
Ἀρτεμισίην τάδε ἐγένετο, ἀπ᾽ ὧν εὐδοκίμησε μᾶλλον ἔτι παρὰ βασιλέι. (8.87.1)
Concerning the others, I cannot say
exactly how [certain one among] each of the Barbarians or each of the Greeks were
fighting, but concerning Artemisia the following things happened, from which
she earned honor still from the King.
Similar to her introduction at 7.99.1, Herodotus disregards all others
and focuses on Artemisia's actions at Salamis Salamis
ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐς θόρυβον πολλὸν ἀπίκετο τὰ βασιλέος πρήγματα, ἐν
τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἡ νηῦς ἡ Ἀρτεμισίης ἐδιώκετο ὑπὸ νεὸς Ἀττικῆς· καὶ ἣ οὐκ ἔχουσα
διαφυγεῖν, ἔμπροσθε γὰρ αὐτῆς ἦσαν ἄλλαι νέες φίλιαι, ἡ δὲ αὐτῆς πρὸς τῶν
πολεμίων μάλιστα ἐτύγχανε ἐοῦσα, ἔδοξέ οἱ τόδε ποιῆσαι, τὸ καὶ συνήνεικε
ποιησάσῃ. διωκομένη γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀττικῆς φέρουσα ἐνέβαλε νηὶ φιλίῃ ἀνδρῶν τε
Καλυνδέων καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπιπλέοντος τοῦ Καλυνδέων βασιλέος Δαμασιθύμου. (8.87.2)
When the affairs of the King were in chaos, in this time the ship
which was Artemisia’s was being chased by an Attic ship; and it was not able to
escape, for other friendly ships were also in front of it, but her ship
happened to be especially near the enemies, it seemed best to her to do the
following thing, which also was beneficial her doing it. For being pursued by
an Attic ship , driving she rammed a friendly ship, both the men of Calynda and
the king himself of the Calynda: Damasithymus.
This
incident has had much discussion of the reasons that lead Artemisia to do such
a thing. While, it may be understood on some level that no one wishes to die,
and she rammed Damasithymus’ ship for her own life. It seems unlikely for a
character that Herodotus describes, as “ἀνδρηίη.” Thus, Herodotus provides some theories on why
this incident may have occurred:
εἰ μὲν καί τι νεῖκος πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐγεγόνεε ἔτι περὶ Ἑλλήσποντον
ἐόντων, οὐ μέντοι ἔχω γε εἰπεῖν οὔτε εἰ ἐκ προνοίης αὐτὰ ἐποίησε, οὔτε εἰ
συνεκύρησε ἡ τῶν Καλυνδέων κατὰ τύχην παραπεσοῦσα νηῦς.(8..87.3)
If indeed some quarrel had happened against him when they were still
around the Hellenspont, however I cannot say, nor if she did these thing from
forethought/intention, nor if the ship having fallen along hit the Calyndas by
chance.
Herodotus offers the
explanation of “κατὰ τύχην;” for her destroying an allied ship. However, his
narrative in 8.87.2 portrays her more active in her choice: “ἔδοξέ οἱ τόδε
ποιῆσαι, τὸ καὶ συνήνεικε ποιησάσῃ.” Therefore, the reason of κατὰ τύχην” seem dubious. Herodotus, also, offers as an excuse that she was
intending to do this from the beginning: “ἐκ προνοίης.” However, it should be
questioned why she would have this premeditated thought. Strauss offers a
solution that “Artemisia had foreseen the Persian catastrophe at Salamis
Herodotus
does not tell us which reason he consider most probable; he only tells us the
result of her actions:
τοῦτο μὲν τοιοῦτο αὐτῇ συνήνεικε γενέσθαι διαφυγεῖν τε καὶ μὴ ἀπολέσθαι, τοῦτο δὲ συνέβη ὥστε κακὸν ἐργασαμένην ἀπὸ τούτων αὐτὴν μάλιστα εὐδοκιμῆσαι παρὰ Ξέρξῃ….Ξέρξην δὲ εἰπεῖν λέγεται πρὸς τὰ φραζόμενα «οἱ μὲν ἄνδρες γεγόνασί μοι γυναῖκες, αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ἄνδρες.» ταῦτα μὲν Ξέρξην φασὶ εἰπεῖν.(8.88.1-3)
On the one hand, such a thing happened
for her as an advantage that she both escaped and she did not die, but on the
other hand it happened so that she having performed a wicked thing from these
things she especially gained honor from the King…It is said that Xerxes said to
the things having been said “ On the
one hand my men have become women, and on the other hand my women men” They
say Xerxes said these things.
Artemisia,
according to Herodotus, has
made an advantageous decision in ramming Damasithymus :“εὐτυχίῃ χρησαμένη διπλᾶ ἑωυτὴν ἀγαθὰ ἐργάσατο(8.87.4), "Employing
for herself good fortune, she performed double good for herself.” She has both
escaped the Attic ship that was pursuing her, and she had gained good repute
from Xerxes: “ἀπὸ τούτων αὐτὴν μάλιστα εὐδοκιμῆσαι παρὰ Ξέρξῃ.”
Herodotus’ presentation of this incident is very paradoxical. He states that
she has “κακὸν ἐργασαμένην" or "performing
a bad thing,” but yet he began his introduction of her claiming her “λήμα τε καὶ ἀνδρηίη.” This bad deed fully
contradicts Herodotus’ comment; even more so that he is writing the Histories after already knowing all her
deeds and mishaps. Regardless of his foreknowledge, he still (ironically)
praises her as Xerxes is also (ironically) praising her. Perhaps the notion of “λήμα τε καὶ ἀνδρηίη” are present in the fact
that she does not desert her King nor retreat home, but she remains within the
Persian camp. However, it is not the actions of Artemisia that are the central
point anymore, but the words of Xerxes. Xerxes, in 8.88.3, utters one of the
most ironic phrases in Book VIII. He
says “«οἱ μὲν ἄνδρες γεγόνασί μοι γυναῖκες, αἱ δὲ γυναῖκες ἄνδρες.» On the one hand, my men
have become women, and on the other hand my women men;” it is this sentence
that may reveal the most on Artemisia’s role in the Histories.
Herodotus knows that Xerxes is incorrect in his praise for Artemisia,
but he includes the sentence within his Histories
with only a “φασὶ” as a
source. It is a curious statement that elevates Artemisia fully to the role of
a man, which would have been a compliment and honor, while at the same time it disgraces all the Persian men within
the army. Herodotus makes it apparent as in 9.107.1 and 9.20.1 that being called worse than
a woman or a woman is clearly an insult; yet this is an insult hurled by the
King to all his men. Accordingly, it is all the worse: “Xerxes , without
realizing it, confirms what Artemisia had said about his force (8.68.a1).From
the point of view of intellectual achievement, then, Xerxes ironically indicts
himself above all: he has been the major cause of the Persian defeat by proving
inferior to a woman in strategy.”[44]
Therefore, Artemisia serves as a narrative
device to show the failings of Xerxes: “Herodotus repeatedly calls attention to
Xerxes foolishness and lack of foresight. Though Xerxes preparations lack
nothing in terms of physical extravagance and even magnificence, he fails for
example, to realize specific warnings… Xerxes (and Candaules) are but two of
many "foolish men who always fail"… given the motif of female success
and male failure… he ought, more specifically, to encourage his men to think like women.”[45]
These failures of Xerxes do not infer that he is necessarily foolish, but
instead they are full indicators of his disregard of human limits.
Herodotus’ Histories present several strong barbarian characters whose stories
help to serve the narrative and preserve the underlying themes. Herodotus
presents several stories of barbarian queens who are very successful in their plans
and deeds. They are cunning characters who are not rash in their revenge; they
seek it carefully to attainment: “In Herodotus, therefore, we associate acts of
delayed but extravagant vengeance with women and we expect success. Xerxes'
vengeance fails because the intelligence- or rather the stupidity- that guides
it is male instead of female.”[46]
This is a harsh observation on Flory’s part, but perhaps there is something noteworthy
in his statement. Xerxes does lose the battle of Salamis
Beyond the complexity of ironies, Artemisia also
serves to continue a line of “Clever Warrior Queens” who are successful in
their actions due to their understanding of humanity’s limits. It is this
understanding that Xerxes lacks and which Artemisia attempts to advise him, but
he disregards it. Xerxes’ disregard of human limitation[48]
is a continuous theme in books VII-IX. It is the act of disregard,
indifference, and neglect for limitation that exhibit his vulnerability and weaknesses. It is Artemisia’s actions and words that make this
absence of human limitations reach an apex. Previously, Xerxes’ weakness (which some
would characterize as foolishness) was seen in situations dealing with other
men, omens, nature or even the divine; however, this time a woman is exposing
it. This is a turning point for Xerxes; his navy is devastated, his army given
to Mardonius, his eunuch unrestrained and causing havoc, and amongst all these:
he heeds the advice of a woman to return home. Xerxes has admitted defeat, he
has lost faith in his army, and he is fearful. The Battle of Salamis, the
actions of his men, and the deed of one woman have brought him to this road.
Xerxes, at this point, is not glorious, brave, or even commendable; he is weak
and has finally realized the limitations of being human. This is where
Herodotus’ portrayal of Artemisia has lead Xerxes. She serves, as Tomyris and
Amestris do, as a narrative device to exhibit the human limits of the Persian
King. The relevance of this function allows Herodotus to portray the Persian
King nearer to his actual character and not the idolized character that the
Persian sources may acclaim him to be.
Therefore Artemisia portrayal further serves to reflect the social
values of her culture; which at times appears very foreign and yet, has hints
and subtle allusions to the culture of strong Greek women (Oracle, Amazon,
Athena,etc.). These subtle allustions are seen in her appitude with warefare
and stragedy are reminence of the Amazons, her advising against Salamis Euboea . She is therefore transcending the standards of
gender by not including herself as a “weak woman;” nevertheless, she states her
culture’s view of women's inferiority to men, because she is part of Herodotus’
world: “Although Artemisia seems to break through them (the standard patterns
of gender) in her actions, she remains part of that world. This makes it
understandable that she herself utters statements according to the same
prejudices as men.”[49]
As Dewald stated, “Women do not passively
reflect the values of their culture; they are actively responsible both for
creating social conventions and for maintaining them.[50]”
Artemisia and the other barbarian women are no exception to this reflection of
values. They help serve Herodotus’ Histories
by supporting stories of “ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά;” as
he only mentions stories worthy of his Histories.
All the women in his narrative are marked; they are important, in the fact that
there are not many stories about women. Their purpose is complex and they each serve
a different function in Herodotus’ narrative.
There are many things that can be said about Artemisia. Concisely, Artemisia's purpose within the Histories is complicated. She has many
functions within narrative. She is a reflection of her society both Greek and
Persian, she is a narrative device that grants Xerxes' realization of human
limitations, and she is a unqiue figure who transgresses society's limits to
become an anomaly within the Histories. She
is an enigma of qualities and traits, it is her liminality that make neither
fully Greek, Persian, womanly or manly. She is none of these themes, but she
has trangressed them. It is this transgression that leads her to be enigmatic.
She has no clear ethnicity nor given a conventional sex; Artemisia is simply a
Halicarnassian individual who possessed a character of “λήμα and ἀνδρηίη.”This appears to be the manner that Herodotus
wrote her, as an anomaly of a woman being praised for her “active” role, words,
and actions within the Persian War.
She would be a individual that the audience
(Greek or Persian) could find some deed laudable. To the contemporary audience,
she was a woman not to praise (at least not aloud) for her mannerism. For the
Greeks, her ability to deceive the King and have him utter such an ironic
phrase “οἱ γὰρ ἄνδρες τῶν σῶν ἀνδρῶν κρέσσονες τοσοῦτο εἰσὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν ὅσον ἄνδρες γυναικῶν;” would be entertaining
and commendable. For the Persians, her ability to fight and her advice may have
been seen as a significant counsel that unfortunately Xerxes did not heed. To
modern readers, she appears to be one of the first women who are comparable to quotidian
women. She inspires hope that women innately are strong beings who can thrive
and excel in a male-centric world. For her deeds were not those of a weak,
scared, and foolish individual even if Herodotus fabricated some for his
narrative. So, Artemisia may be created character in many respects to
Herodotus’ free invention, but the
truth woven within still invokes the reader to consider Artemisia “λήμα and ἀνδρηίη” for a woman of her time.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bowie , A.M
,Herodotus’ Histories Book VIII (Cambridge University
Press, New York
Dewald, Carolyn, Women
and Culture in Herodotus’ Histories Women Studies. Volume 8. (Gordon
and Breach Science Publishers, Great
Britain
Dewald, Carolyn, Appendix U. New York
Hazewindus,
Minke, When Women Interfere: Studies in
the role of women in Herodotus’ Histories (Amsterdam
Herodotus, Histories
Book VII, VIII, IX
Johnstone,Steven, A History of Trust in Ancient
Lateiner, Donald ,The
Historical Method of Herodotus (Univ.
of Toronto Press, Toronto
Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert,
Macon
Munson, Rosaria Vignolo, Artemisia in Herodotus Classical Antiquity Vol. 7, No. 1(University of California Press) Apr., 1988.9,92,94,102
Powell, J. Enoch, A
Lexicon to Herodotus (Hildesheim [Ger.
Strauss, S. Barry, The
Battle of Salamis :
The Naval Encounter That Saved Greece-
and Western Civilizations (Simon
& Schuster ,
New York
[2] The translations
are my own, unless otherwise stated or cited.
[3] Flory,
1987, 52
[4] Dewald, 2007, 840
[5] Dewald,
1981, 94
[7] Lateiner,1989,140
[8] Dewald,
2007, 838
[9] It is
possible to argue that the "Women versus Men" theme is simply a subtype
of "Greek or the Familiar" versus the "Other/Unknown."
[10] If one
recalls the Odyssey, Iliad, Myths of Hesiod, and so on; these themes are common
within Greek literature.
[11]
Pheretima is not a queen, but she did hold power on a counsel for her son.
4.162
[12] This
notion of being insatiable is also seen in Xerxes's disregard of human and his
own limitations.
[13] I refer
to Book 22: Odysseus’ revenge upon the suitors for wronging his family and
home.
[14] Xerxes,
as King, is allowed mistresses- however as the queen, Amestris should be
informed.
[15]
Dewald,1981,112
[16] Dewald,
1981, 100
[17] Dewald,
1981, 94
[18]
Although, this perhaps not Herodotus' intention- he is merely relating a story
that serves the bigger purpose of narrating the Persian War
[19] Dewald.2007.840
[20] Liddell
& Scott . 53 (ἀναγκαζω- Meaning 1. To force, to compel.)
[21]
Liddlell & Scott . 471 (Λῆμα-
Meaning II.1)
[22] Liddell
& Scott. 65( All Meanings)
[23]
Powell.1960. 25
[24]
Hazewindus. 2004. 27
[25] Powell
1960. 25
[26] “The occurrence of
the word ἀνδρεία in Sohocles’ Electra, 983, also
shows that it is not exclusively used for men.(Hazewindus.2004. 31)
[27] “γυναικεῖα”
meaning of, belonging to a women, feminine, womanish, effeminate. Liddell &
Scott 170
[28] While
it is known that the Cretans are in fact Dorian; what Herodotus is referring to
here is the fact that Artemisia’s mother was from Caria
which was perhaps settled by Cretans (1.171.5).
[29] He also attributes Halicarnassus
[30] Munson,
1988 ,92
[31] Munson
, 1988, 9
[32] Munson,
1988,94
[33]
Johnstone, 2011, 119
[34] In this
case, the universal truth is that men are better than women.
[35] Refer
to the Persians insulting the Greeks by calling them women (9.20.1)
[36] Bowie
[37]
Munson,1988,92
[38]
Munson,1988, 94
[39] Perhaps
his insatiable want of victory, land, and death also factors into this
decision: this insatiable want is reminiscent of his great grandfather Cyrus
the Great.
[40] Strauss
182
[41] This
probably not the case, since in 8.68.a1: she praises her own skill at the sea
battle at Euboea ; along with Herodotus
crediting her to supplying the best ships only after the Sidonians (7. 99.3)
[42] Macan Perseus
8.87
[43]
Hazewindus, 2004, 29
[44]
Munson,1988,102
[45]
Flory,1987, 45
[46] Flory,
1987,44
[47] Dewald,
1981,111
[48]
Disregard of humanity’s limitation in not properly handling his insatiable
want, natural omens, and Artemisia's and Artabantus advice.
[49]
Hazewindus, 2004, 32
[50]
Dewald.,1981,100
No comments:
Post a Comment