Was Cambyses as bad as Herodotus would have liked us to believe PDF

Preview

Summary

This essay looks at the literary tropes of Herodotus' stories of King Cambyses in his Histories. The Essay examines the narrative on several levels, through critical historical analysis and through allegorical reading of Herodotus' histories. ...

Description

Was Cambyses as bad as Herodotus would have liked us to believe?

Herodotus’ account of Cambyses’ reign as king of the Persian Empire, can be split quite clearly into two accounts with different styles and evidently contrasting different intentions. Throughout this essay, I will use both personal and scholarly analysis of The Histories along with inscriptional and literary cross referencing in an attempt to profile what I believe to be a clear moral division in Herodotus’ story. This perspective of analysis will perhaps outline a framework in which the essay question can be addressed. Irrespective of either contradictive or supportive evidence to Herodotus’ account, the multiple anecdotes concerning Cambyses in Book 3 of The Histories are anything but consistent in constructing a clear and comprehensive character profile and narrative for Cambyses. Truesdell Brown agrees that Book 3 of The Histories is lacking a coherent structure, but also suggests that Cambyses’ sharp, almost unforeseen decline into demonisation is a result of Herodotus being heavily “influenced by Greek tragedy” (Brown, 1982: 388), a claim evidently entangled with the Greek concept of hubris (ὕβρις) – ‘defiance of the gods’. Although Brown’s suggestion contributes some context to the ‘larger than life’ character often seen in the latter chapters of Book 3, it must remain prima facie to further and perhaps less speculative analysis. Herodotus’ account of Cambyses’ reign has a promising start. There are numerous examples of Cambyses exercising restraint, demonstrating forgiveness and sometimes even sidestepping the blame for any wrongdoing. Herodotus seemingly pins the series of events that lead to the invasion of Egypt, not on Cambyses, but on an Egyptian: “Cambyses had sent a message to Egypt to ask Amasis for his daughter. It was an Egyptian man that suggested he make this request” (3.1). Herodotus’ indication of a diversion of responsibility is a common theme within The Histories (albeit usually in relation to actions carried out on behalf of oracles and the gods.) and therefore this quasi-anomaly could be unintentionally significant. What is more likely, however, is that the shift in responsibility did indeed carry a purposeful agenda in wavering any wrongdoing from Cambyses for this particular moment in time – a theme that obviously changes as the narrative progresses. Up until Chapter 16 of Book 3, Herodotus portrays Cambyses as a predominately thoughtful and reasonable king. When ‘bad’ actions are necessary, they usually fall in line with Greek ideals of negative reciprocity (conduct otherwise perceived as ‘bad’ in the Greek polis becoming tolerable as a solution to prior grievance). A prime example is the siege of Memphis in chapter 13. Following the initial battle between the Persian and Egyptian forces Cambyses, instead of pursuing the retreating army, is recorded as having: “sent a herald, a Persian, up river to Memphis on a Mytilenean ship, to suggest a truce” (3.13) It is only after the Egyptians: “tore the crew limb from limb” (3.13) - a somewhat unnecessarily unethical act of war that Cambyses reverts to besieging Memphis in order to obtain recognition of surrender. In conjunction with the political reality that, in the wake of the massacre of his heralds, Cambyses had little choice but to pursue the Egyptians for fear of looking weak, Herodotus records an equally, if not, more cruel act

Student ID: 200978921

1

performed by the Greeks and Carians. As punishment for the desertion of Phanes, a “disgruntled” (3.4) mercenary from Halicarnassus turned advisor for Cambyses, Herodotus recites: “The Greeks and Carians found a way to vent their anger at Phanes. Phanes’ sons had been left behind in Egypt, so the mercenaries brought them to the Egyptian camp. They set up a bowl between the two armies, in full view of the boys’ father, and then fetched the children one by one and cut their throats so that the blood spilled into the bowl. When they had finished with all the children, the mercenaries poured wine and water into the bowl, and when they had all drunk some of the blood they joined battle.” (3.11) If Herodotus’ persistent intention throughout book 3 was to portray Cambyses as bad and as dictatorial as possible, the inclusion of such barbarity does nothing but provide a wider perspective in the context of an unforgiving world, belittling Cambyses’ later incursions on humanity. When Cambyses is involved in excessively violent acts, the responsibility is often attributed to other authorities. This can be observed in the scenario in which the Persian royal judges, who in the aftermath of siege on Memphis: “decreed that for every death, ten leading Egyptians were to die” (3.14). This again shifts a proportion of the blame from Cambyses’s shoulders to other, more forgettable individuals in the narrative. If we are to assume that Herodotus’ intentions for Cambyses’ representation were negatively premeditated, the early brutality at the start of Book 3 is a strange paradox to this and certainly prohibits the reader’s judgment of Cambyses evolving to become more clearly defined. Alan Lloyd states: “the Persian occupation of Egypt elicited from its inhabitants a predictable range of reactions” (Lloyd, 1982: 166), however the general consensus from inscriptional sources, as Lloyd continues, points to a fairly smooth adoption of Cambyses as Egyptian Pharaoh: “The titles used of Cambyses clearly point to his assumption of Pharaonic status…an Egyptian reader would have understood …that, whatever Cambyses might be outside the Nile Valley, within it he was Pharaoh” (Lloyd, 1982: 177). In conjunction with accounts from The Histories, we must treat this line of argument as legitimate. Early in Book 3 Herodotus himself claims that: “the Egyptians…claim that Cambyses is one of them” (3.2). Contrasting Herodotus’ claim here to his later accounts of Cambyses’ defilement of Egyptian religion and culture in chapter 16, in which the king ordered “Amasis’ corpse to be taken from its coffin” and commanded his men to: “burn the corpse” (3.16), the seemingly widespread (and willing) devotion to Cambyses strikes the reader as counterintuitive. Even after this passage, Herodotus provides an ‘antidote’ anecdote courtesy of the Egyptians, but dismisses it as: “a story told by the Egyptians to make an impression” (3.16). Why, we must ask, does Herodotus evidently ignore what seems to be genuine support for Cambyses from the Egyptian populace? Here, examining Herodotus’ main sources for book 3 becomes necessary. It is clear, from chapter 16 onwards, that Herodotus’ main source for his information on Cambyses changes, or at least Herodotus’ interpretation of the narrative he is being told changes. Peter Briant provides some historical context to this claim: “at the time of Herodotus, relations between Egyptians and Persians were strained and difficult, the Egyptians had revolted several times after 525 B.C. … Herodotus also gathered information and opinion from Persian circles that were very hostile to Cambyses” (Briant, 2002: 59). We must remember that The Histories is a ‘logos’ – an inquiry, and thus the deviations,

Student ID: 200978921

2

contractions and representation of different perspectives can perhaps be forgiven. The maintenance of a fluid narrative is not a considerable priority. The phrasing of The Histories in book 3 contributes to a more subtly painted negative picture of Cambyses. Often, but particularly later in the narrative, when the Persian king is mentioned by Herodotus, the phrasing will be “Cambyses the son of Cyrus” (3.61). This is something also noted by Briant as a deliberate detail and the “primary reason” that “the figure of Cambyses is burdened with strongly negative judgments” (Briant, 2002: 50). Whilst I am sceptical that syntax so subtle is the primary cause of Cambyses’ reputation, (as the uxoricide at 3.32 must also contribute considerably to the king’s poor reputation), Briant is correct in that the additional nominal title should not be overlooked. The reference to Cambyses as ‘mad’ or ‘insane’ occurs up to eleven times (depending on the translation) throughout Herodotus’ account of his reign. However, the targeting of Cambyses’ mental health is restricted to distinct sections of the narrative. At no point before chapter 25 does Herodotus make reference to Cambyses’ mental illness, nor does he directly or indirectly call Cambyses ‘mad’. Between chapter 25 and 64 therefore, (in which the narrative takes a large diversion from Cambyses between chapter 39 and 60) Cambyses takes a turn for the worse, and is consistently attributed as ‘mad’ or ‘insane’ throughout what is actually only 18 chapters ([39-25] + [64-60]) of narrative (3.25, 3.29, 3.30, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34, 3.35, 3.37, 3.38, 3.38, 3.61, 3.64). If not for any other reason, this is significant as the framing of Cambyses as ‘mad’ is not evenly spread across Book 3, but is clustered within 30% of the narrative. Despite the introduction of Cambyses’ mental health as a facet of the account, Herodotus comes across as somewhat unsure of the cause. At (3.33), Herodotus writes: “Cambyses is said to have had a terrible sickness – the sacred disease - as it is called - ever since he was born”. Whilst Brown acknowledges that the ‘scared disease’ has “been identified with epilepsy” (Brown 1982: 398), the nature of Cambyses’ supposed sickness does not explain why it took Herodotus eight chapters, referring to him as ‘mad’ or ‘insane’ before identifying Cambyses’ actions with a genuine medical diagnosis. It seems as though Herodotus discovered the alleged cause of Cambyses’ sickness partway through his inquiries. It would be easy for the modern reader of The Histories to attribute this lapse in consistency from Herodotus, to a general widespread unawareness of mental health during this period in human history. Alan Greaves makes reference to the unfamiliarity of mental health within the Greek world during the 5th century B.C. He writes: “the symptoms that are currently used to diagnose it [PTSD] are of a type that is common to a number of conditions” (Greaves, 2013: 91), and therefore a lack of knowledge surrounding the subject area would inevitably lead Herodotus to such conclusions. The late inclusion of a diagnosis for Cambyses (or the failure to rectify earlier admissions) is not, I believe, an unforeseen error. The passage on Cambyses’ illness coincides directly before Herodotus’ story detailing the murder of Prexaspes’ son. Despite the unexplained contrast in likelihood between the precision of Cambyses shooting his cup bearer (Prexaspes’ son) through the heart “with an arrow” (3.34-35) to prove that he was not drunk (whilst most likely drunk) and Cambyses’ inaccuracy in stabbing the Apis bull in the thigh when aiming for the stomach (3.29), the relationship with alcohol that Herodotus places upon Cambyses in the murder of Prexaspes’ son should be interpreted as an

Student ID: 200978921

3

attempt to undermine the serious illness that the narrative accredits to Cambyses just a chapter or so previously. Furthermore, with Auguste Mariette’s 1850 discovery of two embalmed bulls dedicated by Cambyses in the ‘Serapeum’, the murder of the Apis bull itself is a point of contention amongst modern scholars. Depuydt writes that he “would rather believe that Cambyses is to be presumed guilty until proven innocent” (Depuydt, 1995: 126). Meanwhile, Lisbeth Fried suggests that: “it seems unlikely, that the same person who is portrayed so piously on two bulls’ sarcophagi would turn around and slay a third” (Fried, 2004: 69). The wide spanning disagreement amongst peer historians 1, who base their opinions on similar corpuses of text, typifies the scope for interpretation amongst the primary sources. Following the burning of religious statues at the Egyptian sanctuary of Cabiri (3.37), Herodotus again states that he is “certain that Cambyses was completely mad; otherwise he would not have gone in for mocking religion and tradition” (3.38). Peter Briant offers analysis on Herodotus’ assumptions. Briant writes: “Unable to offer a political explanation, Herodotus had no option but to resort to the ‘madness’ of the king…modern historians are obliged to show much greater rigor” (Briant, 2002: 56). I am inclined to agree with Briant here. With the inconsistencies already outlined in relation to the murder of both the Apis bull and Prexaspes’ son, primary inscriptions from an Egyptian source, Udjahorresnet, who managed to foster a “special relationship” (Briant, 2002: 58) with Cambyses, depict a very different relationship between the Persian king and Egyptian religion to the story we are shown in The Histories . In his inscribed hieroglyphic autobiography Udjahorresnet, Cambyses’ “chief physician” (Kuhrt, 2010: 117), proclaims the king’s understanding and patience with traditional Egyptian religion: “His majesty commanded to purify the temple of Neith… offerings should be given to Neith, the great one, the mother of god…” (Kuhrt, 2010: pp.118e). Leo Depuydt recognises the outstandingly unique testimony does not come without its flaws. He writes: “Cambyses’s piety was praised in glowing terms by Udjahorresnet. But Udjahorresnet was after all a ‘collaborator’” (Depuydt, 1995: 121). Working directly under Cambyses, we must assume that Udjahorresnet’s ‘collaboration’ with Persian powers signifies a bias in his beliefs. Thus, Depuydt’s analysis typifies the paradox when deciphering the truth behind the variety of accounts of Cambyses’ reign. In summary, I would put forward that in correlation with the style and plethora of sources provided during my analysis, the question of ‘was Cambyses as bad as Herodotus would have liked us to believe?’ is subjectively answerable to social context, time and evidently the contradictory primary sources. From The Histories alone, I propose that Herodotus’ initial intention for his portrayal of Cambyses was not that of a ‘bad’ king. The clear division in Cambyses’ character from chapter 25 onwards is, I believe, symptomatic of a change in the sources available to Herodotus. The change in character is then conveniently pinned upon the sacrilegious act of the Apis Bull murder in order to stich the narrative together. Implementing cross-referencing from the boundaries of the narrative, it is evident that the majority of Egyptian sources contemporaneous to Cambyses are generous in their accounts of the king. Those from the time of Herodotus (about 75 years later) are not. This again, leads us to question about the ‘pool’ of sources to which Herodotus exposed himself. Ultimately, when

1 During peer discussion on this topic, The Elamites concluded that putting more faith in the primary inscriptions of Udjahorresnet, an Egyptian, was the obvious answer. Meanwhile, the Medians and Babylonians focused on the chronological dating of the two bulls, found in Depuydt’s article, leading them to suggest that whilst difficult to prove, Cambyses himself did in fact murder the Apis bull.

Student ID: 200978921

4

considering the sources with which we suspect Herodotus did not interact, we must infer that Cambyses was not as bad are Herodotus would have liked us to believe.

Word count: 2293 (Excluding Bibliographies) Word Count: 2626 (Including Bibliographies)

Bibliography Briant, P. (2002), From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Translated by Peter T. Daniels, Eisenbrauns, Indiana

Student ID: 200978921

5

Brown, T.S (1982), ‘Herodotus’ portrait of Cambyses’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Altle Geschichte , Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, pp.387-403, Depuydt, L. (1995) ‘Murder in Memphis: The Story of Cambyses’ mortal wounding of the Apis Bull’ (Ca. 523 B.C.E), Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol 54 No.2 pp.119-126, University of Chicago Press, Fried, L.S. (2004), ‘The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire’, Biblical and Judaic Studies, Volume 10, Eisenbrauns, Indiana Greaves, A. M. (2013) ‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Ancient Greece: A Methodological Review’, In: Warfare and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, Archaeopress, Oxford Herodotus, The Histories, Translated by Robin Waterfield (2008), Oxford University Press, Oxford Kuhrt, A. (2010), The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, Routledge, London Lloyd, A.B. (1982), ‘The Inscription of Udjahorresnet: a Collaborator’s Testament’, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Volume 68 pp.166-180, Egypt Exploration Society.

Additional Bibliography Foucault, M. (2006), History of Madness, Routledge, London, pp.28 Griffith, D.R. (2009), ‘Honeymoon Salad: Cambyses’ Uxoricide according to the Egyptians’ (Hdt. 3.32.3-4), Historia: Zeitschrift für Altle Geschichte, Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, pp.131-140 Tritle, L. (2004). ‘Xenophon’s portrait of Clearchus: A study in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder’, In C. Tuplin (ed.), Xenophon and His World, Historia, Einzelschriften 172, 325-339. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner

Student ID: 200978921

6...