Constitutional debate with Herodotus

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The constitutional debate with Herodotus is in the Histories of Herodotus (3.80–82) a conversation between three noble Persians about the best constitution for their country. It supposedly took place after the death of the ruler Cambyses II (522 BC) and an occupation of the Persian throne by the neighboring Medes . Since the leaders of seven noble Persian families refused to accept the foreign king Smerdis on their own throne, they killed him and discussed his successor. After arguments for the legal equality of all and the rule of the best men by Otanes and Megabyzos I , Darius I was able to prevail with the plea for the continuation of the monarchy . Darius was able to decide the subsequent king election by a ruse for himself.

The debate is one of the most widely viewed ancient evidence of constitutional theories in research. In particular, the sources used by Herodotus and the contributions of the three speakers involved are sometimes controversial. For a long time it was disputed whether such speeches were possible in Persia at that time, and whether Herodotus reproduced the wording of the debate for this case. Any historical background is partly associated with the Behistun inscription that Darius I had made during his reign to commemorate his deeds. While older research was partly of the opinion that the debate was essentially authentic, the vast majority of today's ancient historians agree that Herodotus relies on Persian positions from a debate that was held in his time in Greece and Athens Hof des Jahres 522 published: If only because the concept and idea of ​​democracy did not emerge until 5th century Greece, it is absurd to assume that Herodotus is reproducing a discussion that actually took place in Persia.

Frame story according to Herodotus

The Persian Empire around 500 BC at the time of the constitutional debate

Herodotus offers a fairytale version of events. After the Persian king Cambyses II had committed a religious crime in Egypt (3.29), a dream overtook him: his brother Bardiya , named by Herodotus Smerdis, would take over his throne. To prevent this, Cambyses sent his servant Prexaspes back to Persia to kill his brother (3:30). After further outrages and murders in his family, he received the news that a Smerdis was now on the Persian throne (3.61). He suspected his servant was cheating, but the latter referred to a Meder Smerdis of the same name (inscribed Gaumata ), who also looked similar to Cambyses' brother. Together with his brother Patizeithes, he had initiated a conspiracy in Persia and occupied the Persian throne with the enemy Medes (3.62–63). Cambyses recognized his mistake, wanted to leave for his homeland and recapture the throne, but died of an accident in the same place: his own sword had come loose from its scabbard and his leg was fatally injured (3.64). Dying he ordered the most distinguished Persians to recapture their own throne from the Medes; but they did not believe him (3.65–66).

The false Smerdis ruled in secret to the satisfaction of all except the Persians (3.67). With a ruse Otanes was able to identify the wrong Smerdis as an erroneous king and then drew five Persians - Gobryas , Megabyzos , Intaphrenes , Hydarnes and Ardumaniš  - into their trust (3.68–70). These were joined by Dareios I , who had previously been in Susa , the Persian capital, according to Herodotus (3.70). He advised against Otanes 'recommendation to act immediately (3.71–73), whereupon they tried to get Cambyses' former servant Prexaspes on their side. He announced his former murder of the real Smerdis to the people and threw himself into his death (3.74–76). Warned by this, the seven penetrated the palace and killed all the Medes (3.76–79). Since then, according to Herodotus, September 29, 522 BC. Persian holiday.

After the tyrannical rule of Cambyses II and the betrayal of the Meder Smerdis, according to Herodotus, five days after this attack, the leaders of the seven most distinguished Persian families were faced with the question of what constitution they should put the Persian people under. After arguments for the legal equality of all (3.80) and for the rule of the best men (3.81) by Otanes and Megabyzos I, Darius I (3.82) was able to prevail with the plea for the monarchy , as the rest four representatives of Dareios' arguments followed: With this extremely narrow majority decision (four against three) it was decided that Persia should remain a monarchy. From the upcoming election as monarch Otanes resigned, but demanded the right to vote for the entire Persian people and for themselves special rights at the Persian court (3.83-84). The latter was approved, but a different procedure was used for the determination of the king: Whose horse neighs first after the sun has risen, he should become king (3.84). Dareios' stable master Oibares tricked his horse into neighing first. This was confirmed by a god-sent lightning bolt, whereupon Darius I became king (3.85-87).

debate

Otanes

As brother-in-law of Cyrus II and as uncle and father-in-law of Cambyses II, the Persian Otanes belonged to the former ruling family of the Achaemenids . He initially speaks out against the monarchy experienced by Cambyses II in the previous years, which was marked by his arrogance . In addition, the Persians suffered under the rule of the Mede Smerdis (3,80,2). Even the best monarch is ethically wrong, only acts according to his own will and takes precedence over the usual laws. The cause for this is the envy inherent in humans and the hubris caused by too much power and too many goods (3,80,3–4). Although the monarch should be without envy, since he himself has all the good things, he envy the other goodies in the country, grudges them with their lives and so prefers to surround himself with the worst people. For him, however, neither praise nor blame come into question, since one is flattery and the other an insult (3,80,4-5). After all, Otanes associates rape of women, offenses against the law and unpunished murder with the sole ruler (3,80,5).

After the detailed description of the change of even the best autocrat to an evil tyrant (3,80,2-5) Otanes speaks in just a few words for a constitution (3,80,6). He does not mention the concept of democracy , the rule of full citizens in a community, which was later coined by Herodotus (4,137,2; 6,43,3 and 6,131.1) . But he demands the political equality of all full citizens, isonomy , because this has the most beautiful name compared to all others. It resulted in equal opportunities through the elimination of offices, a prevention of arbitrary exercise of power due to the accountability of officials and the decision of all politically important things by the people.

Megabyzos I.

The second speaker, Megabyzos I , supports Otanes' arguments against the monarchy in just a few words (3,81,1) and refers to hubris. Megabyzos went on to say that the masses of the people also had this arrogance. One would thus switch from one evil to the other, the people being the worse of the two, since they are also unbridled, uneducated, ignorant, quick to mob and without understanding; it also has bad intentions in principle. So whoever advises this constitution is planning evil against the Persian people (3.81.1–3). The sole ruler still has at least the intelligence necessary for the government; but the best ideas come from the community of the best men, the aristocracy . And of course the nobles are ideally suited to choose such an organ (3,81,3).

Darius I.

Drawing of the Darius figure with inscription (ΔΑΡΕΙΟΣ, top right) from the “ Perservase ” by the Apulian Darius painter ; around 340/20 BC Chr.

Dareios I does not go into the detailed allegations of Otanes, but follows Megabyzos' argumentation. He sets the premise of only considering the best possible form of the respective variants of a constitution (3.82.1). Accordingly, in a monarchy, the sole ruler is actually the best man, has the best insight and is not subject to popular criticism; only one person could secrets be best kept (3,82,2). The best men, like the monarch, are interested in the common good, but are driven to intense rivalry, insurrection and murder by egoism, which can only be controlled by an autocratic ruler (3,82,3). With regard to the rule of the people, he postulates - contrary to his approach of considering the best variant in each case - that the masses are wicked. Their division into large and rival parts inevitably leads to a reorganization by a ruler, who thereby gains the admiration of the people (3,82,4). Dareios closes the debate as Otanes started it by referring to the instructive past. After all, one individual freed her at the time, Cyrus II , and besides, one had to follow the paternal laws. Therefore one must stick to the tried and tested rule of one man, the king (3.82.5). The argumentation strategy of Darius is as transparent as it is efficient: Under the premise that sole rule is actually the rule of the absolute best man, every participation of other people in power automatically means the participation of less suitable people.

Argument structure

Antilogical procedure

As a structural feature of the constitutional debate, the anti-logical procedure is seen in research, in which the one debating arguments against the arguments of the opponent. According to the Swiss ancient scholar Heinrich Ryffel , this procedure is the “most ruthless” when it comes to depicting the inconstancy and thus the decay of constitutions. The consequence here is an introduction with a personal reference to the given situation, an objective, substantiating middle section and a personal rounding off or a transition suitable for the successor. The transition is often not taken up by the successor, as the German philologist Helmut Apffel noted: Megabyzos only rejects Otanes' statements with reference to the natural arrogance of the people, in which Darius follows him, and already sees the bad in the people's rule themselves. He gives no arguments for this.

Megabyzos' arguments for the rule of the best would then hardly be attacked by Darius, he even used them for his own argument, since the ruler had the best opinion with him too. His further arguments for the monarchy - secrecy, best concern for the people and tradition - are either difficult to grasp factually or have already been interpreted in a different direction by Otanes: The direct predecessors of Cambyses II and the false Smerdis were terrible tyrants for the Persians. Dareios probably referred to tradition out of consideration for the noble Persians present. Even the possible slipping of the good monarch into the bad tyrant, as explained by Otanes, did not continue Darius; his argument ended at this point. In addition, Dareios was the only speaker to avoid the word "tyrant". In research it is controversial how Dareios' premise to consider good constitutions should be interpreted. After all, there would have to be a bad form of monarchy that Darius had ignored, as Otanes had described it. This is covered by the learned language and by the renunciation of the potential (case of possibility) that his opponents used.

Constitutional decay or circulation

Ryffel saw the constitutional debate as a cycle in which one constitutional form inevitably followed the other. In this way, tyrannical monarchies emerged from the rulers of the best and politically equal citizens. The German ancient historian Klaus Bringmann contradicts this, since with Dareios everything is only heading towards the monarchy, the people admire the monarch or the monarch himself ends the disputes of the best. Thus, there would be no change, but rather an expiry. This can also be found in Otanes' argumentation, since with him the good monarch becomes an evil tyrant because of his natural envy and because of the arrogance brought about by many possessions. Ryffel saw only the latter and therefore suspected a change from the theory of constitutional decay to that of a constitutional change. Altheim explained this problem differently: Herodotus was forced to bring the arguments into a linear structure.

In any case, Ryffel continued, all three interlocutors described the excellence of the constitution only from the point of view of the rulers. The speakers did not address the extent to which the respective constitution is best for the governed. Other influences such as money, wealth or external influences played no role either, even if Herodotus mentions them in other parts of his work.

Function and purpose

The function and purpose of the debate within the histories are controversial in research. On the one hand, Apffel and Gottwein see a desired contrast between Greeks and non-Greeks and thus a possible anticipation of the Persian Wars . Then the function of this debate in the work, according to Apffel, would be to criticize a Greek feeling of superiority over non-Greeks. The passage thus has an educational purpose, which is particularly evident in Otanes' isolated position in the debate and his later withdrawal from political functions.

Bringmann, on the other hand, sees Darius aptly characterized by his argumentation by Herodotus: He should be shown as a determined power man and seducer of the people who is not restrained by any scruples , who makes the worse thing with the goal of sole rule for the better and makes good use of a historical opportunity. He is also happy with lies, since Otanes ultimately brings the better arguments and Dareios can only convince the other Persians by introducing an additional premise. According to the ancient historian Alexander Demandt , the Persians follow Darius' words in Herodotus only because actual history necessarily required it, since Darius I became king of Persia.

Motivation and sources

Even more controversial than the purpose of the constitutional debate are its motivation and the sources used by Herodotus. Apffel believed that Darius 'accession to the throne was an opportune opportunity for such a debate and that Herodotus' sources really did provide him with material that he could, if not use, understand or use for a constitutional debate. Already Wüst awarded Herodotus a significant share of his own, since he had probably learned that a Persian had spoken against sole rule; then he shaped the debate.

The ideas of the debate are classified differently in terms of time: Gottwein fixes himself on 480 BC, since Otanes recommends a democracy such as was to be found in Athens during these years; according to Bringmann, however, it could not have been written before the middle of the 5th century BC. Arguments are that only after 462/1 BC with Pericles in the developed Attic democracy an individual presided over the people. Wüst also suspects that Herodotus must have known such a leader who had emerged from the people in order to be able to write the constitutional debate in this way. Apffel contradicts the reference to Pericles, since in Herodotus the leader developed into a tyrant, which would not apply to Pericles, but at most to Peisistratos .

Greek sources

For Ryffel, Herodotus' presentation is the “first explanation that betrays a developed theory and is still tangible for us today” of constitutional theories, even if the Athenian Solon had already mentioned the three forms. This division into three parts then became canonical and, according to Apffel, is already known in Pindar's second Pythian Ode (2.86 ff.). According to the Russian classical scholar Wassili Wassiljewitsch Struwe, Herodotus' predecessor Hecataeus of Miletus is not the model for this debate as a direct source ; Attic models are also improbable because of the few forms in Attic Greek, according to Schulz.

Schröder suspects that themes from epitaphic speeches ( funerary speeches ) are to be found among them, which are framed chronologically by Aeschylus '" The Persians " and Euripides ' "Die Hilfeeflehenden". And so, according to Ryffel, the speech at the tomb generally offers the opportunity to develop constitutional reflections. Apffel saw more medical writings processed by Herodotus, including above all the Hippocratic writing "About the Environment". Herodotus either involuntarily fell into the scientific style of his time or took content from finished formulations. These can be found mainly in Otanes' speech.

Sophistry:

A reference to sophistics, a spiritual movement of the 5th century BC, is suspected particularly frequently in research. According to Ryffel, the “spiritual home” for Herodotus' constitutional debate can be found with the sophist Protagoras . Since the written tradition for this is only sparsely and mainly to be found with the philosopher Plato, who wrote after Herodotus , it is questionable as a direct source according to Ryffel. In any case, Herodotus did not fully identify with the Sophists, but was only influenced by them. For Demandt it is also unclear whether Herodotus took over this “earliest document of sophistic state theory” from a sophist or wrote it himself in a sophistic way. Ryffel thinks that Herodotus incorporated the principles of a criticism of the constitution from sophists into his work. The mentioned regular changing of the constitutional forms soon became the subject of the advisory speech. Pohlenz and Howald, on the other hand, assume an already pronounced, sophistic influence resisting independence from Herodotus. In his dissertation on this topic, Apffel also dealt extensively with possible sophistic formulations in Herodotus, but found not much, and the little was limited to Darius' speech about the collapse of the constitution. But he interpreted this as an indirect criticism of the sophists. He also gave linguistic arguments against a sophistic influence.

Persian sources

The Behistun inscription , possibly a source for Herodotus' constitutional debate

Persian sources were also taken into consideration, particularly by older research that was less critical of Herodotus. In the context of the constitutional debate (3.87), Herodotus reports on Persian sources who told him different stories about Darius's acquisition of the Persian throne. This led the German classical philologist Felix Jacoby to consider Persian sources as possible, even if not too likely, for the constitutional debate itself. He sees arguments for this in the beginning of the constitutional debate and in a reference by Herodotus (6.43).

At the beginning of the debate, Herodotus points out that the following speeches might seem untrustworthy to some Greeks, but that they were nevertheless given that way. According to Demandt, Herodotus admits that he put the argument in Persian mouths, since nothing indicates that such a problem was discussed in Persia. Bringmann also warns against accepting Persian sources, since thoughts about inner social peace and about rule exercised by several people can only be found among the Greeks and the Persians have not adopted them. Apffel noted that, in contrast to many other passages, Herodotus does not hide behind anonymous sources, but explicitly names his sources in order to demonstrate trust in them. For the German philologist Heinrich Stein , this declaration could also speak against possible objections by the Athens public to Herodotus' lectures of his work; Apffel was thinking primarily of sophists.

In Herodotus 6:43 the author refers to the constitutional debate. There, too, he points out that some Greeks did not want to believe his statements about Otanes' arguments for equal rights for all Persian citizens. However, the Persian general Mardonios had deposed the tyrants in the Ionian cities and established democracies. According to Bringmann, however, this information is not relevant to the constitutional debate, since the Persians always used the constitutional form that best suited Persian domination. Apffel had already noted that Ionia was a Greek-influenced country, so that democracies were not impossible there. Herodotus' reference to the fact that one did not want to believe the apparently sophistic speeches in the constitutional debate, Apffel seems to have been an argument for the fact that they are not shaped by sophistication.

The second grave inscription by Naqsch-e Rostam shows Darius I on a horse on the right , including the defeated false Smerdis, Gaumata

In addition, a reference was made to the Persian Behistun inscription by some scholars , as this also contains some aspects of the constitutional debate. There, too, a false Smerdis is given on the Persian throne, who pretended to be the brother of Cambyses. The German classical scholar Hans Wilhelm Haussig suspects that the real Smerdis became king with the help of the Mager after Cambyses' death or already during his journey to Egypt. Dareios overpowered him at first and then tried to excuse this act of violence by saying that it was a wrong Smerdis. Herodotus used an embellished version as a source in this regard. For Struwe, the second grave inscription by Darius of Naqsch-e Rostam is also a main source for the constitutional debate. There, as with Herodotus, Dareios emphasizes that it is not his wish that the respected person should endure bad because of the common man. He is also satisfied with hardworking people and a well-managed order. According to Struwe, this would refute Otanes' theory of decay. Apffel also saw elements of Persian origin, especially in the speeches of Megabyzos and Dareios. For him there were three possibilities that Herodotus information partly corresponded with the Persian sources: Either he knew them directly; or he used another related Persian text; or the inscriptions are based on an actual debate to which Herodotus also referred.

swell

literature

Used literature

  • Helmut Apffel : The constitutional debate with Herodotus (3.80–82). Erlangen 1957 (Erlangen, University, dissertation, 1957; reprinted in: The Constitutional Debate with Herodotus. Helmut Apffel and Political Thinking with Herodotus. Arno Press, New York NY 1979, ISBN 0-405-11574-1 , separate count).
  • Klaus Bringmann : The constitutional debate in Herodotus 3, 80-82 and Darius' rise to the kingdom. In: Hermes . Vol. 104, Issue 3, 1976, pp. 266-279.
  • Alexander Demandt , The ideal state. The political theories of antiquity. 3rd, revised edition. Böhlau, Cologne et al. 2000, ISBN 3-412-09899-X , pp. 10 and 48–49.
  • Hans W. Haussig . In: Herodotus: Historien (= Kröner's pocket edition. Vol. 224). Translated by August Horneffer . Newly edited and explained by Hans W. Haussig. With an introduction by Walter F. Otto . German complete edition, 4th edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 1971, ISBN 3-520-22404-6 , pp. 674-677.
  • Alfons Huber: The constitutional debate with Herodotus (III 80-82) as a contribution to political education. In: suggestion. Vol. 23, No. 3, 1977, ISSN  0402-5563 , pp. 163-172.
  • Felix Jacoby : Herodotus . In: Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Antiquity Science (RE). Supplementary volume II, Stuttgart 1913, Col. 429 f.
  • Heinrich Ryffel : ΜΕΤΑΒΟΛΗ ΠΟΛΙΤΕΙΩΝ [Metabolē politeiōn]. The change in the state constitutions. Investigations into a problem of the Greek state theory. Paul Haupt, Bern 1949, especially pp. 34–35, 63–73 and 238–23 (Bern, University, dissertation, 1946; reprint. Arno Press, New York 1973, ISBN 0-405-04800-9 ).
  • Wolfgang Stammler . In: Herodotus: Nine Books of History. After the translation by Heinrich Stein, edited and supplemented by Wolfgang Stammler. Magnus-Verlag, Essen 2006, ISBN 3-88400-003-9 , pp. 568-572.
  • Heinrich Stein (Ed.): [Historiae] Herodotos. Volume 2. 4th, improved edition. Weidmann, Berlin 1893, pp. 89-95 ( 1869 edition available online ).

Further central literature

  • Fritz Gschnitzer : The Seven Persians and the Kingdom of Dareios. A contribution to the history of the Achaemenids and the analysis of Herodotus (= meeting reports of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences. Philosophical-Historical Class. Born 1977, Abh. 3). Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, Heidelberg 1977, ISBN 3-533-02598-5 .
  • Jacqueline de Romilly : Le classement des constitutions d'Hérodote à Aristote. In: Revue des Études Grecques. Vol. 72, 1959, ISSN  0035-2039 , pp. 81-99, digitized .
  • Jacqueline de Romilly: Histoire et philosophie: Naissance de la philosophie politique en Grèce. In: Diogène. Revue trimestrial. Publiée sous les auspices du Conseil International de la Philosophie et des Sciences Humaines et avec l'aide de l'Unesco. Vol. 88, 1974, ISSN  0419-1633 , pp. 66-85.
  • David Stockton : The classical Athenian democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford et al. 1990, ISBN 0-19-872136-6 , pp. 166 f.
  • Karl Wüst : Political thinking in Herodotus. Dissertation printing and publishing house Konrad Triltsch, Würzburg 1935, p. 47 ff. (Munich, University, dissertation, 1935; there, as well as in Apffel (1958), p. 6-7 and 9-23 and Bringmann (1976), notes 2 and 3 additional bibliographies).

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Compare Apffel (1958), p. 81; according to the Behistun inscription §§ 11 and 13, the real Smerdis tried to weaken the feudal nobility .
  2. ↑ The Behistun inscription made by Darius I says otherwise: “It was no one, neither a Persian, a Mede nor anyone from our family, who snatched the kingdom from the skinny Gaumâta [the false Smerdis]. The people feared him because of his cruelty; he could kill many people who had known the former Bardiya; therefore he would kill the people, 'so that one does not see that I am not Bardiya, the son of Kuru'. Nobody dared to talk about the Mager Gaumâta until I came. ”, Quoted from Apffel (1958).
  3. ↑ According to Ryffel (1949), p. 63, the remaining days are said to have ruled the lawlessness common in Persia.
  4. ↑ According to Bringmann (1976), pp. 269–271, this is a non-Greek behavior, which Apffel (1957), pp. 73 f., Interpreted as a reaction to the defeat in the debate. Otanes does not want to submit to Dareios entirely.
  5. ↑ Anders Polyainos Strategemata VII 10; Flavius ​​Josephus antiquitates Iudaicae XI, 31, speaking of an election of the king.
  6. ↑ Compare Apffel (1957), p. 73 f.
  7. ↑ According to Ryffel (1949), note 172, isonomy was also predominant in Athens; the idea of ​​equality before the law was already to be found in Protagoras, but was further developed by Herodotus, see Ryffel (1949), note 209.
  8. ↑ According to Bringmann (1976), pp. 270–272, Megabyzos argues not for an aristocracy, but for an oligarchy from the demos of the aristocratic nobles, into which the most excellent are elected. There are therefore also democratic features in this speech.
  9. ↑ According to Bringmann (1976), p. 274, there were such uprisings between different groups of nobles, but these were not only ended by good monarchs.
  10. ↑ Ryffel (1949), p. 64.
  11. ↑ According to Stein ( 4 1893) p. 95, he leaves the ground of otherwise Hellenic views and conditions.
  12. ↑ Compare Apffel (1957), p. 59 f. and more.
  13. ↑ Compare Ryffel (1949), p. 239.
  14. ↑ Ryffel (1949), p. 65 f.
  15. ↑ Ryffel (1949), p. 68 f. and more.
  16. ↑ Bringmann (1976), p. 273.
  17. ^ Franz Altheim , Literature and Society in the Late Antiquity, 1950.
  18. ↑ Compare Herodotus, Historien, 5,91–93; Aristotle first deals with external causes in his Politics 1307b19 ff.
  19. ↑ Apffel (1957), p. 274 and others; Gottwein: http://www.gottwein.de/Grie/herod/hdt03082.php (accessed on November 28, 2010).
  20. ↑ Bringmann (1976), p. 267 ff., See also Apffel (1957), p. 86, and Gottwein, http://www.gottwein.de/Grie/herod/hdt03082.php (accessed on November 28, 2010 ); the Behistun inscription is quite different : “King Dārejawōš announces: Only for that reason Ōmazda and all the gods of space helped me because I was no follower of evil, because I was no follower of deceit, because I have never done any violence, not me, nor my family ever. ", quoted after the German translation (1938) by LW King / RC Thompson, The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the rock of Behistûn in Persia , London 1907.
  21. ↑ Apffel (1957), p. 84 f.
  22. ↑ Demandt (2000), p. 49.
  23. ↑ Apffel (1957), p. 74.
  24. ↑ Wüst (1935), p. 50 ff.
  25. ↑ Gottwein: http://www.gottwein.de/Grie/herod/hdt03080_4.php (accessed on November 28, 2010); Bringmann (1976), pp. 267-269; compare Henning Ottmann , History of Political Thought. From the beginnings with the Greeks to our time, Volume 1: The Greeks, Part 1: From Homer to Sokrates , Stuttgart / Weimar 2001, p. 132.
  26. ↑ Bringmann (1976), pp. 274 f .; Wüst (1935), p. 55; Apffel (1957), p. 64 f.
  27. ↑ Ryffel (1949), note 71.
  28. ↑ Compare Pindar, Pythische Oden, 11.53 ff.
  29. ↑ Wassili Wassiljewitsch Struwe , Gerodot i političeskie tečenija v Persii epochi Darija I, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, Moscow 1928, p. 25 ff .; Erwin Schulz , Die Reden im Herodot , dissertation Greifswald 1933 against Wolf Aly , folk tales, sagas and novels in Herodotus and his contemporaries, 1921, p. 105 ff.
  30. ↑ Ryffel (1949), p. 4 f. with note 14; compare Apffel (1957), p. 10 and Leo Weber , Solon and the creation of the Attic funerary speech , Frankfurt am Main 1935, p. 54.
  31. ↑ Before that, Wilhelm Nestle , Vom Mythos zum Logos, the self-development of Greek thought from Homer to Sophistics and Socrates , Stuttgart 1940, pp. 508–509.513, showed that Herodotus was interested in medicine, even if it was only an accessory.
  32. ↑ Ryffel (1949), pp. 34-35.63-64.73
  33. ↑ Demandt (2001), p. 48 f.
  34. ↑ Ryffel (1949), p. 247; see Apffel (1957), pp. 9-23, and Bringmann (1976), note 2.
  35. ↑ Max Pohlenz , Herodotus. The first historian of the West. , Leipzig / Berlin 1937; Ernst Howald , On the Spirit of Ancient Historiography , Munich / Berlin 1944, p. 39 f.
  36. ↑ Apffel (1957), passim, especially pp. 47.89-90.
  37. ↑ Jacoby (1913), passim; for further literature see Bringmann (1976), note 3.
  38. ↑ Demandt (2000), p. 48; Bringmann (1976), pp. 266-268
  39. ↑ Apffel (1957), pp. 37-38.75; Stein ( 4 1893) p. 89.
  40. ↑ Bringmann (1976), p. 286; Apffel (1957), pp. 75-77.
  41. ^ Haussig in: Herodot (2006) p. 674; similar to Franz Altheim , Literature and Society in the Ending Antiquity I , Halle 1948.
  42. ↑ Wassili Wassiljewitsch Struwe, Gerodot i političeskie tečenija v Persii epochi Darija I, Vestnik Drevnej Istorii, Moscow 1928, p. 25 ff.
  43. ↑ Compare Herodotus 1,132.
This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on April 6, 2011 in this version .