






Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This paper explores the relationship between Solon's poetry and his speech in Herodotus' Histories, arguing that Herodotus adapted Solon's verses to convey both borrowed and original views on human prosperity, divine jealousy, and the fragility of happiness. The author provides evidence of Herodotus' knowledge of Solon's poetry and discusses their similarities and differences in terms of human happiness and the role of the gods.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 10
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
By Anne Rémillard
One of the most famous passages in Herodotus’ Histories is the encounter be- tween Solon and Croesus early in Book I. 1 It is generally agreed among scholars that Solon expresses Herodotus’ own ethical, religious and philosophical views, not only be- cause this episode is so prominently placed at the beginning of the work, but also be- cause the conceptions of divinity and human prosperity introduced in Solon’s lengthy speech recur throughout the Histories. 2 It is meaningful, then, to ask where these ideas come from, and in particular to inquire about the relationship between them and the extant fragments of Solon’s poetry. In this paper, I will compare Solon’s poetic frag- ments with his speech in Herodotus, and argue that the latter is not a free creation, but Herodotus’ cautious adaptation of his knowledge of Solon’s verses. Therefore it both contains views borrowed from Solon and distinct views that are original to Herodotus. First, there is clear evidence – without which this task would be much less relevant
2 S. Shapiro, “Herodotus and Solon,” Classical Antiquity vol. 89, (1996), 348. 3 Hdt.1.32.2. 4 Hdt. 5.113.2. 5 Hdt. 1.30.2. 6 C. De Heer, Makar, Eudaimon, Olbios, Eutuche: A Study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the 5th Century B.C. (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1969), 51.
Cleobis and Biton – gives a completely different and more complex connotation to the word olbios , which we would translate as “happy” or “blessed”, rather than “prosperous” in Croesus’ sense. 7 The olbiōtatos man is the Athenian Tellus: he lived in a flourishing city, was moderately well-off by Greek standards, had noble sons and surviving descendants, and, most importantly, had a most glorious death – he died bravely after routing Athens’ enemy in battle, and was granted the honor of a public burial. 8 Next, Solon declares the Ar- give brothers Cleobis and Biton as second in olbos : they had a sufficient livelihood and the physical strength of champion athletes, which enabled them to accomplish a glorious deed
7 J. A. Arieti, Discourses on the First Book of Herodotus (London: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), 45. 8 Hdt. 1.30.4-5. 9 Hdt. 1.31.1-2. 10 Hdt. 1.31.5. 11 Hdt. 1.31.3. 12 Hdt. 1.32.1-9. 13 The explanation of misfortunes as a manifestation of divine phthonos is repeated later in Amasis’ warning to Polycrates (3.40.2) and Artabanus’ advice to Xerxes (7.46.4). See Shapiro 1996, 352-355 for a detailed discus- sion of the recurrence of this notion throughout the Histories. 14 See Shapiro 1996, 355-357 for an analysis of the importance of Solon’s principle of the instability of human fortune in the Histories. Interestingly, this notion corresponds to Herodotus’ conception of the nature of human affairs stated in the proem: “I will speak of small and great cities of men alike, for many states that were once great have now become small; and those that were great in my time were small before. Knowing therefore that human prosperity never continues in the same place, I shall mention both alike.” (Hdt. 1.5.4) Some scholars argue that it is the main guiding principle of the Histories; Cf. Harrison 2000, 38 and Murray 2001, 32.
In the other instances of the word makar , it is used only to denote divine bliss. For in- stance, in the opening lines of the Hymn to the Muses, Solon prays to receive olbos from the makares gods ( fr .13.3). For Solon, there is a clear division between gods and men: while men can become olbioi , only gods can be called makares.^22 It is already plain, then, that human olbos is limited, and somewhat inferior to divine blessedness. We find here the same negative overtone that was present in the speech of the Herodotean So- lon, but at a different level: for Herodotus, no man can be called olbios while he lives, whereas for Solon, a man can actually become olbios – but not makar like a god. Before going any further in this comparison, one must understand what Solon means exactly by olbios. It is important to note that Solon is the first preserved Greek poet to depart form the traditional meaning of olbios , which used to connote merely material prosperity up to the late 5th century.^23 For Solon, sufficient material comfort is only one part of being olbios :
Equally rich is he who has abundancy of silver, gold, and acres under plough horses and mules, and he that only has the means to eat well, couch well, and go softly shod, and by and by enjoy a lad’s or a woman’s bloom with youth and strength still his to suit his need. This is a man’s true wealth: he cannot take all those possessions with him when he goes below. ( fr .24,1-8)
This poem does not compare wealth and poverty, but outstanding wealth and mod- erately sufficient wealth.^24 This conception of olbos as something other than mate- rial prosperity is very similar to the Herodotean view. Indeed, Herodotus uses very similar terms in Solon’s speech, when he asserts that: “The very rich man is not more fortunate than the one who has enough for his day.”^25 For both Herodotus and Solon, wealth – in moderate quantities – plays only a supporting or secondary role in human happiness. However, the last two verses of the same fragment ( fr .24.7-8) show that this belief is not based on the same reason in both cases: extraordinary wealth, for Herodo- tus, stirs the jealousy of the gods, but for Solon, excessive wealth is simply wasted. For Solon, therefore, wealth is not undesirable, but certain-
22 De Heer 1969, 51. 23 Chiasson 1986, p. 250. Cf. De Heer 1969 who goes in detail over usages of the word by early greek poets: 8, 12-14 (Homer); 16-19 (Homeric hymns); 20-31 (Hesiod) and 32-38 (archaic poets). Based on different observations from Homer, Hesiod and the Homeric hymns, Allen (1949, 52) also concludes that wealth was a crucial element of prosperity in Greek thought “until the revolution in values which came with the end of the fifth century.” 24 Chiasson 1986, 255. 25 Hdt. 1.32.5.
ly not the best of man’s possessions and only of secondary importance in a successful life. The other main component of olbos , for him, is aretē :
For many curs [ kakoi ] are rich, and men of class [ agathoi ] are poor, but we’ll not take their riches in exchange for our virtue [ aretē ], which always stays secure, while wealth belongs to different men in turn. ( fr .15)
This poem shows that wealth and virtue are separate qualities, which do not often come together. Moreover, virtue is more valuable than wealth, which confirms the previous idea that wealth is not the most important part of happiness. In addition, aretē , since it is an internal quality, is constant and long-lasting, whereas wealth, by contrast, is only contingent, ephemeral and beyond human control. By looking at the elements constitut- ing the ideal life throughout the Solonian corpus, it is possible to reconstruct a general idea of Solon’s notion of aretē : it presumably encompasses public service, involvement in the community as a citizen, health, friends, family and descendants.^26 This view is perfectly reflected by Herodotus’ story of Tellus, and also by some elements of the lives of Cleobis and Biton; both authors agree on the elements integral to the ideal life. In his prayer to the Muses, Solon also specifies that olbos (qualified by “ aiei echein ”, fr.13.4) is a permanent state: success should be long-lasting. This poem illustrates olbos as a state of general well-being and as a gift of the gods to mankind. 27 However, this gift is rarely obtained and hard to maintain: Solon, just like the Herodotean char- acter, insists on the fragility of human happiness and uncertainty of man’s hopes:
We mortals, good and bad alike, believe our expectations will be fulfilled, until we suffer. Then we weep. But up to then we take fond pleasure in our mindless hopes ( fr. 13,33-36).
These verses are strongly echoed by the last line Herodotus puts in Solon’s mouth: “For the god, having displayed fortune to many men, ruins them from the root.”^28 The prospect of sudden failure and the unpredictability of our lot are present in both. Therefore, Solon believes, like Herodotus, that human affairs are unstable and that ol- bos , by contrast, is a permanent state. Although he does not draw the distinction be- tween the words eutuchēs and olbios , Solon clearly adheres to the idea that there is an opposition between impermanent, unstable fortune and true, eternal happiness. In short, Herodotus and Solon’s notions of happiness bear striking similarities: the secondary role of material prosperity, the inferiority of our mortal condition, the long- lasting value of olbos , and necessary elements of virtue such as civic achievement and 26 See fragments 4, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 36. 27 De Heer 1969, 52. 28 Hdt. 1.32.9..
As such, injustice takes place when men trespass the proper limits of proper- ty and go beyond their due portion to step into what is rightly due to their neighbors. Many scholars agree that Herodotus and Solon have the same basic notion con- cerning the role of the gods in human prosperity, but that Herodotus has demoralized or a-moralized Solon’s views.^33 Both the Hymn to the Muses and the Histories contain the idea of a certain form divine retribution, and both agree that ruin comes from the transgression of boundaries, and that moderation is the key for success. However, for Herodotus, Zeus has become a nameless divine essence, and divine tisis for unjust ac- tions has become phthonos for any outstanding achievement, good or bad. Although the Histories contain countless very powerful and wealthy characters, Herodotus never has anything to say about the way in which they became rich: as Oswyn Murray puts it, “prosperity causes the envy of the gods, regardless of the hero’s moral status.”^34 In other words, for Solon, what the gods punish is injustice, whereas for Herodo- tus, what the gods envy is simply human success – and they destroy this success not for moral reasons, but in order to defend their position of supremacy in the cosmos. 35 There is one last Solonian idea which compares particularly well with the speech of Solon in Herodotus. In the Hymn to the Muses , Solon insists on the im- portance of looking at the end, a notion that is highly stressed by the Herodo- tean Solon as well, but, as I will show, with a completely different connotation. This idea appears in the explanation given by Solon for the instability of human af- fairs, namely that men are unable to foresee the final outcome of their undertakings:
Fate brings to mortal men both good and ill: the gifts the immortals give are inescapable. There is risk in every undertaking. No one knows, when something starts, how it will finish up. One man makes noble efforts, but despite them all 33 To name only the few I came upon who agree on this point: Harrison 2001, 38; Chiasson 1986, 259; Munson 2001, 33; De Ste-Croix 1997; 140. 34 O. Murray, “Herodotus and Oral History,” in The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus , ed. N. Luraghi,
falls into unforeseen calamity; ( fr .13,63-68)
The uncertainty of human expectations is a direct consequence of our lack of fore- sight. In contrast to the omniscient knowledge of the gods, men’s knowledge is limit- ed and based on illusions.^36 This idea is also found in another fragment:
It is difficult to see wisdom’s farthest boundary, where the ends of all things lie. ( fr .16)
Solon thus explains why the presumed innocent suffer misfortunes: even if someone wants to respect the laws of justice, his incapacity to foresee the consequence of actions can lead him to commit unjust deeds unwillingly and unknowingly. Because of the natural limita- tions of mankind, men both commit unjust acts deliberately and ignorantly. Therefore, man’s lack of foresight is the cause of the fluctuation of his fortune and of the instability of his lot. In this way, Herodotus and Solon both insist on the importance of looking at the end: for Solon, to look at the end means to look at the outcome of our actions, but for Herodotus, it is to look at the end of human life. It is plausible that Herodo- tus has borrowed this notion from Solon, but he has given a whole new meaning to the word telos. For Herodotus, the only way to secure happiness is death, but for the more optimistic Solon, wisdom is the remedy. In fact, what he prays for in the Hymn to the Muses when he asks for olbos is wisdom, by which proper boundaries are rec- ognized, injustice avoided, and retribution prevented – the key for becoming olbios.^37 To sum up, the similarities between Solon’s poetry and Solon’s speech in Herodo- tus are striking. Some of the most important elements are the following: they both offer a similar conception of the role of wealth and of other virtues in human happiness, the same notion that human affairs are fickle, a strong sense of differentiation between divine condition and human condition, and the idea that misfortunes are caused by a form of divine agency. What we can infer from these similarities is that Herodotus was clearly well acquainted with Solon’s poetry and that the speech of Solon at the beginning of the Histories is a careful adaptation of Herodotus’ knowledge of the poet. 38 According to T. Harrison, there are enough similarities to affirm that “Herodotus intended in some sense
36 Allen 1949, 54. 37 Allen 1949, 50. 38 M. Miller, “The Herodotus Croesus,” Klio vol. 41. (1963), 89: Herodotus “possessed […] a learned knowl- edge of Solon’s life and writings.” See also Chiasson 261: “Herodotus consciously and explicitly evokes the memory of Solon’s verse. […] The conceptual affinities between them are sufficiently striking to suggest that Herodotus knew Solon’s poetry well and attempted, with remarkable historical conscientiousness, to incorporate its most prominent themes into the speeches he composed for the Athenian.”
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
Early Greek Elegy. The Elegiac Fragments of Callinus, Archilochus, Mimnermus, Tyrtaeus, Solon, Xenophanes, & Others. Ed. Thomas Hudson Williams. Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1926. Greek Lyric Poetry. Trans. M.L. West. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993.
Secondary Sources:
Allen, A. “Solon’s Prayer to the Muses,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 80 (1949): 50-65. Arieti, J. A. Discourses on the First Book of Herodotus. London: Rowman & Littlefield,
Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corcella, A. A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Chiasson, C. “The Herodotean Solon,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27:3 (1986): 249-262. De Heer, C. Maker, Eudaimon, Olbios Eutuche: A study of the Semantic Field Denoting Happiness in Ancient Greek to the End of the 5th Century B.C. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1969. De Ste-Croix, G.E.M. “Herodotus,” Greece & Rome 24:2 (1977): 130-148. Harrison, T. Divinity and History. The Religion of Herodotus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lateiner, D. “A Note on the Perils of Prosperity in Herodotus,” Rheinisches Museum 125 (1982): 97-101. Lattimore, R. “The First Elegy of Solon,” In The American Journal of Philology 68: (1947): 161-179. Miller, M. “The Herodotean Croesus,” Klio 41 (1963): 58-94. Mulroy, D. Early Greek Lyric Poetry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992. Murray, O. “Herodotus and Oral History.” In The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus , edited by N. Luraghi, 16-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Munson, R. V. “Ananke in Herodotus,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 121 (2001): 30-50. Shapiro, S. O. “Herodotus and Solon,” In Classical Antiquity 89 (1996): 348-364.