-
7/29/2019 74 REVIEW
1/4
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2001.10.23
Reinhold Bichler,Herodots Welt. Der Aufbau der Historie am Bild
der
fremden Lnder und Vlker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer
Geschichte, Mit
Beilagen von Dieter Feil und Wido Sieberer. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag,2000. Pp. 425. ISBN 3-05-003429-7. DM 175,63.
Reviewed by Heinz-Gnther Nesselrath, Seminar fr Klassische
Philologie, Georg-August-
Universitt ([email protected])Word
count: 1738 words
Since 1984, Reinhold Bichler (henceforth B.) has been active in
Herodotean studies, and this book
may be regarded as a kind of sum of what he thinks about
Herodotus.1 His main intention--as he
claims in the preface--is "das Bild der fremden Welt als
Massstab der herodoteischen Historie zuwrdigen" (p. 12), i.e. to
show (if I understand B. correctly) that the non-Greek world and
its
structures as Herodotus perceives them are essential for his
understanding of his own world and the
development of his views about history. This reminds us, of
course, of the book written by F. Hartog
("Le miroir d'Hrodote) twenty years ago. While B. on one hand
stresses the great internal
consistency of Herodotus' work and the literary ambitions of its
author, on the other hand he also
claims that theHistories exhibit such a variety of aspects, of
playfulness and seriousness, of
theoretical remarks and multifarious narratives, as to render a
definite (and therefore "one-sided")
interpretation of the whole and a clear positioning of its
author within the Greek political situation
of his times impossible (p. 12f.).
This is about all the general outline of the book that we get
from B.; thence, he proceeds to the first
of the seven large chapters into which the book is divided. In
the first four of them, B. surveys the
geography of Herodotus' world and moves progressively "inward"
towards center of it and towards
the basic Herodotean story line, which he reaches in ch. 5 and
which (as we all know) follows the
great conflict between Greeks and barbarians that started--in
Herodotus' perception--with King
Croesus of Lydia. Before we get to that point, we first get a
chapter devoted to "The lands and
peoples at the rim of the world" (p. 15-60: here we encounter
such fabulous items as the long-lived
Ethiopians and the bald and pacific Argippaei), then one dealing
with "The peoples between
savagery and civilisation" (p. 61-109, comprising India and
Arabia, Libya and Thrace, but most of
all the Scythians); after that "The cultural world of the Near
East" (p. 111-143) with Carians and
Lycians in Asia Minor, Phoenicians and Carthaginians, Assyrians
and Babylonians. The fourth
chapter covers--expectably and inevitably--the wondrous world of
"Ancient Egypt" (p. 145-212),while the fifth--with the title "The
rulers of the centres of Asia: Lydians, Medes, Persians" (p.
213-
261)--depicts the first part of Herodotus' main story line from
Croesus to Cyrus' founding of the
Persian Empire, i.e. the greater part ofHistories book 1.
Chapter VI ("The expansion of the Persian
Empire up to the frontiers of Greece", p. 263-301) follows
theHistories from the latter part of book
1 (Cyrus' later conquests and death) until the beginning of book
5 (the Persian penetration of
Macedonia), while the last and longest chapter ("The failure of
the empire in its fight against the
free Hellenic world", p. 303-383) takes us from the Ionian
Revolt to the liberation of the Greek
cities of the coast of Asia Minor and concludes with a survey of
the glimpses Herodotus offers of
the subsequent history of the Pentekontaetia and the
Peloponnesian War. The book concludes with
an ample bibliography (p. 385-402), with very instructive tables
depicting the genealogies of the
rulers of Cyrene, of Egypt and of Mesopotamia, of the Lydian,
Median, Persian and Macedoniandynasties (and their connexions with
the family-tree of Heracles), of the Spartan royal houses and
of
the Scythian and Thracian kings (p. 403-406, all done by
Dietrich Feil); additionally there are useful
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n1http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n1
-
7/29/2019 74 REVIEW
2/4
maps of Asia, Egypt, Asia Minor, Libya, Scythia, Thrace and the
West of Europe as Herodotus
seems to have imagined them (p. 407-413, by Wido Sieberer); on
the Indices (p. 415-425) see
below.
The preceding overview of the book's contents shows that B. aims
at providing his readers with a
kind of companion to all of Herodotus' work. The text very often
paraphrases what Herodotus
himself says, though B. also comments on themes and literary
motifs of the work and tries to reveal
Herodotus' thoughts and ways of presentation as well as
something of the structures of theHistories, while the
footnotes--which B. himself regards as a kind of running commentary
(p. 13)--
mostly deal with questions of detail, providing factual
information and bibliography. It is not easy
to adequately convey the richness of insights and good remarks
one finds on many pages of this
book; I would like, however,--though this may seem churlish--to
draw attention as well to three
more general aspects of the book which one may consider
problematical.
1. In his preface B. states his belief that Herodotus' world as
depicted in the Histories is very much
pre-formed by traditions handed down in earlier Greek literature
("aus einer literarisch tradierten
Erwartung heraus gesehen", p. 11) and often perceived more
through a set of notions acquired by
theoretical thinking than through actual observation ("oft mehr
von theoretisch geleiteten
Vorstellungen geschaut als mit den Sinnen erfahren", ibid.).
What this means becomes progressivelyclearer as one reads through
the book: In his assumptions about Herodotus' working methods, B.
is
very close to the position of Detlef Fehling and others who
believe that Herodotus himself invented
a large part of the material which he presents, most of all his
source citations; Fehling in fact is the
one modern author most often cited, and this almost always
approvingly.2 Either by implicit hints
or by explicit statements B. makes it clear that he, too, is
prepared to see many parts of Herodotus'
work--even some of the 'facts' it claims to relate--as
inventions by its author.3It must be said,
though, that such assumptions seem very often open to debate;
such a debate, however, would
require at least a long article and cannot be provided by a
review like this. Suffice it to say here that
B.s claims very often do not seem to be to be backed up by real
arguments. Furthermore, it is often
not very helpful that B. refers to studies and dissertations
written at his own department but never
published so that no reader of his book can form an adequate
judgment of the quality of thearguments presented therein.
2. The fact that B. deals with the whole of Herodotus' work, the
ample footnotes and the numerous
maps and genealogical tables evoke the impression that this book
really is comprehensive, leaving
out no question and providing all the relevant references. Yet a
closer look shows that there are
some gaps: e.g. in his discussion of the difficulties
surrounding the two legends concerning the
origins of the oracle of Dodona as related by Herodotus in
2.54-57 (p. 175f.) he might at least have
cited my article on this question which came out in 1999.4 When
discussing the probability (or
improbability) of Egyptian priests relating Greek myths (p. 188
n. 166; the same applies to p. 377f.
n. 206), he might have looked into another article of mine,
which came out in 1997.5As for
Herodotus' remarks on the different thickness of Egyptian and
Persian skulls in 3.12, B. (p. 211)should have taken note of
Bebler's proposed solution of the problems here involved.6 Not to
take
account of R. L. Fowler's important article "Herodotos and his
contemporaries" (JHS 116, 1996, 62-
87) when discussing the relationship between Herodotus and
Charon of Lampsacus (p. 259 n. 161),
is a major oversight (see Fowler 67f.).
3. In many questions of detail, B. simply reports the status
quaestionis without clearly indicating
which side he prefers. On p. 128f. n. 73 he simply relates
Fehling's and Pritchett's contradictory
positions on Herodotus' autopsy of Tyre. On p. 239 n. 93 he
reports several opinions about the
authenticity of the statue dedicated by Arion after having been
saved by a dolphin (1.24.8) but gives
no opinion of his own. When discussing the various scholarly
opinions about the souces and
influences of Cambyses' picture in Herodotus (p. 277 n. 44), B.
mostly restricts himself toenumerating these opinions without
evaluating them. Again, no adjudication on the question
whether the first Persian subjugation of Macedonia is historical
or not (p. 299 n. 116). Similar
instances are p. 344 n. 99 (the Hermotimus story in 8.105f.); p.
353 n. 126 (Pausanias' behavior in
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n2http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n3http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n3http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n4http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n4http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n5http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n5http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n6http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n2http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n3http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n4http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n5http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n6
-
7/29/2019 74 REVIEW
3/4
9.46f.); p. 361 n. 147 (on the still on-going discussion whether
9.122 was intended by Herodotus as
his final chapter or not; here some clearer statement of B.'s
own position would have been very
welcome); p. 367 n.164 and p. 376 n. 202 (on the similarly
tenacious discussion, when Herodotus'
work was published)
Finally, there is a feature of this book which an attentive
reader notices most keenly once he has
come to the last page: the lack of an overall synthesis. After
B. has discussed in which ways the
post-Persian-Wars situation of Greece makes itself felt in
Herodotus' work (p. 366-377), and after ashort look back towards
theHistories' opening chapters and how they might be connected with
their
end and outlook into Herodotus' own time (p. 377-382), plus a
few more very readable sentences
(which might well have been expanded) about Herodotus'
ultimately disillusioned conviction about
the never-ceasing changeability of human fortunes and about the
very limited ability of human
beings to profit from past experience, the book stops. There is
no concluding chapter summarizing
the characteristics traits of Herodotus' work as B. sees them,
no effort to tell (or remind) the reader
what he may have learnt by reading this book. Nor are the
indexes very helpful in directing a user to
the riches this book (despite my criticisms) contains. Two
thirds of the 10 index pages are devoted
to the modern authors discussed in it--a well-nigh useless
compilation; if one is looking for
substance and content--then follow two pages listing ancient
authors (without, however, anyspecific references to their works)
and one lonely page enumerating "biblical sources", again
without detailed references. As a working tool, these indexes
are really worse than useless. All in all
one might get the impression that this book has arisen out of a
series of lectures on the world of
Herodotus and that the lecturer somehow at the end did not find
the time (or summon up enough
interest) to top off his many observations with a conclusion
that might have drawn together all the
loose ends. It is a pity that, not least because of the lack of
such a conclusion, the title of the book
promises more than the book itself delivers.7
Notes:
1. At about the same time as this book, he has also
published--together with Robert Rollinger--a
"Studienbuch" (introduction for students) on Herodotus
(Hildesheim et al. 2000).
2. The "index of modern authors" reveals (and this is the one
thing that this kind of index is useful
for) that Fehling's work on "Herodotus and his 'Sources'" (Leeds
1989) is cited 46 times (the rare
instances where this is done slightly disapprovingly: p. 39 n.
89; p. 180 n. 141; p. 305 n. 6);
additionally, Fehling's introduction to a German translation of
Herodotus (Munich 1991) is cited
seven times. B. even assigns research results to Fehling which
were made long before, e.g. p. 146 n.
6 the fact that very probably Hecataeus lurks behind the
"Ionians" Herodotus criticizes in 2.15-17.
3. It must suffice here to give a few examples: In a number of
places B. judges W. K. Pritchett's
(The Liar School of Herodotos, Amsterdam 1993) efforts to refute
Fehling to be methodically
deficient (p. 78 n. 69; p. 103 n. 160; p. 188 n. 166; p. 191 n.
181). There may be some substance to
this claim, but it is surely wrong to dismiss Pritchett's many
(and often very pertinent) observations
out of hand. For cases where B. himself at least hints that he
is very much in sympathy with the
view that Herodotus invented reports and their sources instead
of acquiring them from other
informants, see e.g. p. 21 n. 18 on the reports of great travel
expeditions (on p. 22 n. 28 B. himself
takes great pains to refute the argument that the Phoenicians'
observation of the midday sun
standing northward of them proves the authenticity of their
circumnavigation of Africa). On p. 37
he doubts the authenticity of reports Herodotus claims to have
gotten from the inhabitants of
southern Egypt regarding the origins of the Nile, and on p. 38
he insinuates that Herodotus drew up
reports of travel expeditions in such a way that they easily
fitted together. In n. 158 on p. 60 he
criticizes others who are more prepared to believe Herodotus'
claims of autopsy; on p. 108 hedoubts that Herodotus (in 4.76.6)
had authentic information from a servant of a Scythian king. On
p. 120 he cites all the difficulties that arise from Herodotus'
description of Babylon; ten pages later
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n7http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t1http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t1http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t2http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t2http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t3http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t3http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#n7http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t1http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t2http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t3
-
7/29/2019 74 REVIEW
4/4
(p. 130 n. 78), however, he adduces evidence which might be
taken as support for Herodotus'
description (for a view trying to reconcile Herodotus'
description of Babylon with the state of
archaeological research, see now my article "Herodot und
Babylon: Der Hauptort Mesopotamiens
in den Augen eines Griechen des 5. Jh.s v. Chr.", in: J. Renger
(Ed.),Babylon, Saarbrcken 1999
[publ. 2000], 189-206). On p. 133 B. regards the citation of a
Macedonian source of information as
invented; on p. 147 he doubts Herodotus' assertion that he
reached Elephantine in Egypt, and on p.
148 n.12 he questions the authenticity of Herodotus' Egyptian
source on the origins of the Nile. Onp. 175 n. 116 he quite
brazenly cites Herodotus' "method of fictional source references"
as
established fact; on p. 255 he asserts without any proof that
Cyrus's descent from Astyages is
Herodotus' own invention). And so on, and so on ...
4. H.-G. Nesselrath, Dodona, Siwa und Herodot--ein Testfall fr
den Vater der Geschichte, in:
Museum Helveticum 56, 1999, 1-14.
5. H.-G. Nesselrath, Herodot und der griechische Mythos, in:
Poetica 28, 1996 [publ. 1997], 275-
296.
6. B. Bbler, Eine archologische Anmerkung zu Herodot 3, 12, in:
Museum Helveticum 54, 1997,
204-210.
7. The execution of this volume must be called rather sloppy. I
counted well over 90 misprints in
all. A real inconvenience is the fact that cross-references
between footnotes are given by chapternumber (instead of page
number) and number of footnote within that chapter; hunting for
such a
cross-referenced footnote can be time-consuming, especially as
chapter numbers never appear in
column titles. Moreover the system has produced a number of
mistakes: p. 106 n. 169: for "unten
Anm. 69" read "V 69"; p. 107 n. 175: in "Anm. 83" delete "Anm."
(the page number is meant); p.
126 n. 61: insert "II" before "69"; p. 133 n. 88: insert "I"
before "89"; p. 150 n. 22 at the end: insert
"I" before "107"; p. 178 n. 131, last line: read "IV" instead of
"VI"; p. 210 n. 248: read "I" instad of
"III"; p. 211 n. 250: insert "VII" before "75"; p. 216 n. 14:
insert "IV" before "181"; p. 282 n. 60,
line 7: read "VII 20" instead of "VII 120". There are quite a
number of factual mistakes as well. P.
34: The Asmach (Hdt. 2.30.1) did notreach the long-lived
Ethiopians. P. 49 n.119: it is not Cheops
but Rhampsinitos who makes his daughter a prostitute to find out
the master thief. P. 108: Tymnes
(Hdt. 4.76.6) is surely the steward or administrator of the
Scythian king, not his guardian
("Vormund"); see Powell, Lexicon to Herodotus, s.v. . P. 137:
pace B., Hdt. 2.150.3
does not unequivocally state that Sardanapallos is son of the
king Ninos; B. rejects the possibility
that here may signify the city of the same name (which makes
much more sense as the city
has just been cited, while king Ninos plays absolutely no role
in this context), but he overlooks the
fact that the article in belongs to and not to
(thus the meaning of these words is "of Sardanapallos, the king
of Ninos"). On p. 162 n. 67 he
criticizes the number of 1000 years in Hdt. 2.145.4 as merely
conjectured, but nevertheless uses this
conjectured number in his text. P. 201: It is not a helmet of
iron but of bronze which the oracle in
2.147.4 predicts as the sign of the future Egyptian king who
will overthrow the rule of the
dodecarchs. P. 231 n. 69: Deioces ruled 53, not 36 years. In
1.86.2 it is not Croesus (thus B. on p.252), but Cyrus who wants to
test the divine powers by putting Croesus on the pyre. Cyrus is
not
the son of a "Mede of middle station" (p. 258 n. 157), but of
the Persian Cambyses. It was not the
Samians in general who treacherously massacred the Persian
nobles coming to their island (thus B.
p. 290, incorrectly summarizing Hdt. 3.144-6), rather the mad
brother of the regent Maeandrius
instigated this. The famous chapter where Darius contrasts the
conflicting funerary rites of Greeks
and Indians is 3.38, not 3.39 (thus B. on p. 297). P. 306
(bibliography): the Festschrift for C. W.
Mller is entitled "Lenaika", not "Athenaika".
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t4http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t4http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t5http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t5http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t6http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t6http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t7http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t7http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t4http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t5http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t6http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-10-23.html#t7
