How Cary spent his weekend round 2...
The role of destiny, gods, and omens in Agamemnon and The Histories
Does history shape great individuals, or do great individuals shape history? Can a single person have such great influence that he or she can change the way significant historical events unfold, or is the individual too small to change the course of the world’s events? These are important concepts keep in mind when considering the impact that important figures in society have upon history and the concept of destiny. In Agamemnon, the first of the Oresteia trilogy, Aeschylus ascribes the actions of great leaders to destiny, fate, interference from the gods and the presence of omens. He is of the opinion that forces beyond human control drive men to act. In Book III of The Histories, Herodotus takes the completely opposite perspective, giving little credence to the idea of “destiny” and putting emphasis upon the importance of human deeds and decisions. While it is not unusual for two different authors to take radically different viewpoints on a controversial issue, both Aeschylus and Herodotus wrote within a relatively short span of time and in a similar cultural context. Both wrote from a highly Athenian point of view, with the first performance of Aeschylus’ Oresteia in 458 BCE, and Herodotus writing The Histories between 450 and 430 BCE. The ways in which leaders make decisions in both texts are strikingly different: Agamemnon acts on omens, whereas the leaders in The Histories act, then see omens as telling them that they have chosen the proper course of action. Through the presentations of fate in Agamemnon and Book III of The Histories, the degree to which the divine interacts with mankind, and the way in which omens and prophecy are treated, Aeschylus and Herodotus give very different ideas of the importance of destiny, divine intervention, and omens.
There is a strong sense of destiny and divine interference in Agamemnon, whereas The Histories presents little, if any, putting emphasis instead on the deeds of the individual. Aeschylus’ idea of destiny is present from the very beginning of Agamemnon. When the Chorus is describing how Agamemnon and Menelaus were sent against the Trojans, the Chorus notes, “Zeus, whose power is over all … sends against Alexander the sons of Atreus, that for the sake of a woman with many husbands he may inflict many and wearying struggles,” lines 60-65 (Smyth 1926). Agamemnon and Menelaus themselves have not made the decision to go to war with the Trojans; rather, Zeus has decided to send them as a punishment. Whereas Smyth’s translation from the original Greek to “Zeus, whose power is over all” is interesting, as Browning translates it as “Zeus, the excelling one” line 60 (1889). This difference leads to some confusion over what exactly Aeschylus meant: Smyth’s translation reinforces the idea that men have little control over their own destinies, whereas Browning’s puts more emphasis on the excellence of Zeus. The overall idea that Zeus has sent Agamemnon and Menelaus against the Trojans is present in both texts.
This gives the impression that Agamemnon and Menelaus, the “mighty pair of Atreus’ sons,” line 43 (Smyth 1926) are attacking Troy only because Zeus is making them. This relationship with the Gods in Agamemnon is characteristic of Greek culture at the time. Agamemnon and Menelaus pay homage to Zeus by fulfilling his will so that they may receive the blessing of victory in battle over the Trojans (Martin 1996). Paris’ theft of Helen had angered Zeus, and if Agamemnon and Menelaus defied his instruction to go to war with Troy, they would bring ruin on the house of Atreus, and thus themselves (Smyth 1926). They are not only attacking Troy for reasons of honour, but also fulfilling the reciprocal relationship that existed between the Greeks and their gods (Martin 1996).
Not only is the idea that men are controlled by the gods present in Agamemnon, so is the idea that men act to fulfill their own destiny. Within the first moments of Agamemnon we are introduced to the idea of fate controlling men’s destinies, when the Chorus, describing the tale of Menelaus and Agamemnon, says, “The case now stands where it stands - it moves to fulfillment at its destined end,” lines 69-70 (Smyth 1926). It is Agamemnon and Menelaus’ destiny to conquer Troy. Browning’s translation is very similar, but makes a slight distinction between fate and destiny “All’s said:/ Things are where things are, and, as fate has willed,/ So shall they be fulfilled” lines 69-70 (1889). Since fate has willed it, the sons of Atreus shall fulfill their destiny. This translation suggests that Aeschylus may have believed fate and destiny to be separate: the former being an outside force controlling men, the latter being a path that they must follow. This is in keeping with Greek mythology, in which the Fates, or Moirae, were three goddesses who spun the thread of life of every being from birth to death (Encyclopaedia Mythica 2005). This fits well with Browning’s translation, and is even alluded to: the Fates, an outside source, influence destiny, something predetermined. Great importance, however, is still place upon the idea that men have predetermined destinies, which they live to fulfill.
Contrast this to Herodotus, who presents almost no instances of fate or destiny in Book III of The Histories, and no examples of the gods interfering with the acts of man. The closest Herodotus comes to mentioning destiny is when young Cambyses, at the age of ten, proclaims, “when I am grown up, I will turn all Egypt upside down,” line 3.3.3 (Godley 1920). Rather than destiny, however, this is an instance of foreshadowing. The adult Cambyses becomes king, and remembering his proclamation from many years ago, conquers Egypt. Cambyses says that he is going to do something, and then does it once he is able.
The one striking instance of prophecy in The Histories occurs in 3.43.3 when, after Cambyses accidentally stabs himself with his sword, it is revealed that it was prophesied that he would die at Ecbatana. Cambyses had always taken this to be Median Ecbatana, his capital city, rather the town Ecbatana in Syria, where he was. In 3.64.5, however, Cambyses says, “Here Cambyses Son of Cyrus is to die” (Godley 1920). This sounds more like a decision, rather than an acceptance of his fate. Indeed, in 3.65.1 it is revealed that Cambyses does not die for at least twenty days after he is wounded, for he addresses the leading Persian military officials present “about twenty days later” (Godley 1920). Selincourt’s translation differs, however, in Cambyses’ acceptance of his fate: rather than simply declaring that he is to die in Ecbatana, Cambyses says, “Here it is fated that Cambyses, son of Cyrus, should die” line 3.64.5 (Selincourt 1972), which implies a direct link between the prophesy and fate, something not before seen in Book III. The death of Cambyses brings shows fatalism in Herodotus’ writing that is rarely seen before or after. The fact that Cambyses stays in Ecbatana for at least twenty days after his wound suggests that Cambyses decides to stay there of his own accord: he could easily have commanded the army to move to another city or town, and thus proved the prophecy false. His decision not to, the reasons for which will only ever be known to Cambyses, shows a conscious choice,
The works of Aeschylus and Herodotus show two very different ideas of the role of destiny, fate, and divine interference play in the lives of great leaders. Whereas Aeschylus thought that the three were an integral, inescapable part of one’s life, Herodotus puts more emphasis on the importance of the individual, giving very little attention to the divine. While both wrote from an Athenian perspective and were fairly close temporally, their viewpoints differ widely. Put in their socio-historical context, however, these differences begin to make more sense.
Aeschylus was an Athenian who lived during the era of the Persian Wars, and fought at the Battle of Marathon (Lattimore 1953). He was deeply rooted in Athenian culture, winning the City Dionysia thirteen times during his lifetime (Lattimore 1953). The Athenian point of view is clear in many of Aeschylus’ works, particularly his thoughts on the importance of democracy (Lattimore 1953). It would make sense then, to infer that Aeschylus held many of the same religious beliefs as an average Athenian. These included the gods interfering with and influencing the lives of mortals, and the Ionian philosophy of cosmos; that is, that the universe is an ordered arrangement of things (Martin 1996). Fewer details are available on Herodotus, and much of what is known of him has been discovered through his writings. Some things, however, such as his pro-Athenian bias in The Histories can be explained in other ways.
It is rumoured that Herodotus approached both the Thebans and the Corinthians for patronage of his work, but since both rejected him he wrote disparagingly of them (Marincola 2002). The Athenians, however, paid him the sum of ten talents to write favourably of them (Marincola 2002). This explains the Athenian bias in his work, yet still leaves room for Herodotus’ own views on many issues, such as the importance of destiny to leadership. Indeed, in the first paragraph of Book I of The Histories, Herodotus declares that he, “Here displays his inquiry, so that human achievements may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvellous deeds - some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians - may not be without their glory,” line 1.1 (Selincourt 1972), a statement which undoubtedly shows that Herodotus holds mankind as responsible for its own actions, and that man does not simply fulfill his destiny.
Herodotus’ views may have been influenced by his extensive travel, which is why they do not sync perfectly with the established Greek identity. From The Histories we know that he travelled all over the Mediterranean, as well as into parts of Italy and Asia Minor, although the latter areas are a topic of scholarly debate (Marincola 2002). This would have exposed him to a wide variety of cultures and viewpoints, and given him access to a many different societies.
The differences between the two texts can easily be explained by the lives and cultures of their authors. Whereas Aeschylus was an Athenian centred in Athens during the “Golden Age” of the city (Martin 1996), leaving for brief sojourns only occasionally (Lattimore 1953), Herodotus had travelled all over the Mediterranean and even some of Asia to research his Histories, with no real “home” (Marincola 2002). Differences in their ideas of destiny and divine interference are the not the only things that separate them, however; they also differ on the importance of omens. Aeschylus perceives them as an extension of the divine, whereas Herodotus attributes little credibility to them, making use of them only for their symbolic value.
Omens and prophecy are of particular importance in Agamemnon as well. From lines 110 - 120, the Chorus describes how Agamemnon and Menelaus were sent off by an “inspiring” omen (Smyth 1926): two birds devouring a pregnant hare trying to escape. The two take this as a message that they will succeed in their endeavour and so set out emboldened. Had it been a bad omen, Agamemnon and Menelaus most likely would not have left in such high spirits, as bad omens were seen as clues that humans had somehow offended the gods (Martin 1996).
In addition to this omen, Aeschylus devotes an entire character, Cassandra, to the importance of prophecy. Cassandra, however, is disbelieved by almost everyone as a punishment from the god Loxias, and is eventually murdered by Clytamnestra. Although this may make it appear as if Aeschylus thinks little of omens, the effect is instead the opposite: had those who ignored Cassandra listened to her prophecies, they could have saved her and Agamemnon. The irony shown by the Chorus is particularly interesting. In line 1213, after hearing of Cassandra’s curse to never have her prophecies believed, they say “And yet to us at least the prophecies you utter seem true enough,” and then later, after she foresees Agamemnon’s death, they say, “To words propitious, miserable girl, lull your speech,” line 1247 (Smyth 1926). At first, Aeschylus seems to be moving in the direction of Herodotus: had the Chorus believed all that Cassandra had said, they could have saved her and Agamemnon. The Chorus experiences a dramatic change, however, at the mention of Agamemnon’s impending death; and, rather than believe Cassandra, they change their mind regarding the veracity of her statements. Cassandra and Agamemnon’s final chance at salvation passes, exemplifying Aeschylus’ view that an individual is unable to change their destiny, no matter how hard they tries.
Herodotus takes a different approach to omens. While they appear several times in Book III of The Histories, each time they are disregarded in favour of acknowledging human deeds. Just before his death, it is revealed that Cambyses had a dream that “Smerdis” was sitting on the royal throne with his head touching heaven. Perceiving this to be his brother Smerdis, Cambyses has him murdered before he can usurp the throne. In another irregular display of fatalism, the Smerdis of Cambyses’ dream is actually the brother of the Magus to whom he has entrusted stewardship of his house. The two Magi eventually take power and the omen of Cambyses’ dream is fulfilled.
The omens that are involved with Darius’ rule are much more characteristic of Herodotus’ writing and overall point of view. The first occurs in 3.76.3, when the seven conspirators are on their way to kill the Magi brothers:
The seven Persians, when they had decided to attack the Magi at once and not delay, prayed to the gods and set forth, knowing nothing of what had happened to Prexaspes. [2] But when they had gone half way they learned what had happened to Prexaspes. Then they argued there, standing beside the road, Otanes' party demanding that they delay and not attack while events were in flux, and Darius' party that they go directly and do what they had decided and not put it off. [3] While they were arguing, they saw seven pairs of hawks chase and slash and tear to bits two pairs of vultures. And seeing this all seven consented to Darius' opinion, and went on to the palace, encouraged by the birds. Lines 3.76.1 - 3.76.3 (Godley 1920)
Although it seems like the conspirators on Otanes’ side of the argument truly believed they should wait, they all knew of Darius’ promise to betray them all if they should delay their attack. Had Darius reminded them of this, the other conspirators would most likely have come over to his side of the argument. Thus the omen is not completely necessary, and may suggest a tenet of Herodotus’ Athenian bias. Most likely it was employed for its symbolic value, as the hawk is a predatory animal, just as the conspirators would prey upon the Magi. Vultures, on the other hand, are birds of carrion that feast upon the scraps left over by others, just as the Magi did by usurping Cambyses’ throne from the Persians. In addition to this, vultures have no natural predators (Swiss National Park 2006), so there would be no reason for seven hawks to attack two vultures. Herodotus most likely constructed this event to foreshadow the fall of the Magi.
The next omen present connected to Darius is that in 3.86, regarding the sign used to select who should rule over the Persians. After the conspirators decide that whomever’s horse were to neigh first at sunrise would become ruler of the Persian Empire, Darius proceeds to try to find ways of having his horse neigh first. His groom, Oebares, devises a trick to make Darius’ horse neigh, and Darius uses this trick at sunrise. He is successful, and “there came lightning and thunder out of a clear sky” line 3.82.1 (Godley 1920). His companions took these signs “to be foreordained” (3.86.2) and so they bow before him. Herodotus’ usage of the word “thought” is key in this translation, as it implies that the signs were, in fact, not foreordained, and that Darius’ companions are wrong to be bowing before him. Selincourt translates it as, “though the sky was clear, there was a flash of lightning and a clap of thunder, as if it were a sign from heaven,” line 3.86 (Selincourt 1972), which, though worded differently, affirms the sentiment. Selincourt’s use of “as if” implies the same hesitant doubt present in Godley’s translation.
Darius’ final encounter with omens in Book III of The Histories comes when his army is besieging the city of Babylon. The circumstances surrounding it, however, are suspect:
The Babylonians thought nothing of the siege. They came up on to the ramparts of the wall and taunted Darius and his army with gesture and word, and one of them uttered this mot: [2] “Why loiter there, Persians, and not go away? You will take us when mules give birth.” One of the Babylonians said this, by no means expecting that a mule would give birth. Lines 3.151.1 - 3.151.2 (Godley 1920)
This does not sound like one of the previous omens. There is a human quality to it: one of the Babylonians had to make a conscious decision to say that the city would fall when a mule gives birth. It lacks the mysterious ambiguity of Cambyses’ dream or the random nature of the conspirators observing seven hawks attacking two vultures. But a mule does give birth in the twentieth month of the siege:
One of [Zopyrus’] sumpter-mules foaled … he began to think hard, and came to the conclusion that the time had come when Babylon could be taken - for had not that Babylonian, at the beginning of the siege, said that the city would fall when mules foaled? That the man should have used the phrase, and that the miracle should have actually happened - surely that meant that the hand of God was in it Line 3.153 (Selincourt 1972)
The language that Herodotus uses to describe the event seems fairly sceptical of whether or not the birth of the foal was a miraculous sign, rather than just some strange coincidence. Zopyrus’ thought process sounds like he is trying to rationalize why one of his sumpter-mules gave birth. To say nothing of the fact that Babylon did not fall immediately after the mule gave birth; rather, Darius sustained great losses, numbering in the thousands, before he was finally able to capture the city.
While Aeschylus gives special attention to omens, prophecy and the roles they serve, Herodotus takes very little notice of them except on very rare occasions. Aeschylus’ characters only make the most important decision of the play after witnessing an omen of their success in battle, and he devotes an entire character to showing the importance of omen and prophecy. The omens that are present in The Histories are often dubious, and it seems that Herodotus himself is sceptical of many of them, both through the amount of attention he gives to omens, and the way in which he describes them.
Aeschylus and Herodotus give very different opinions on the importance of destiny, the interference of the divine, and omens to the characters in their texts. While Aeschylus places a great deal of importance on them, Herodotus instead gives them very little attention, and focuses instead on the achievements of the characters of The Histories. Through the presentation of fate, the degree to which mankind and the gods interact, and the way omens and prophecy are described, Aeschylus presents a traditional Greek view. The Histories are more varied, with Herodotus presenting a variety of viewpoints, the most prevalent of which is decidedly non-fatalistic. When analyzed in their socio-historic context, the differences are easily seen as a product of the societies that produced the authors. Did Herodotus or Aeschylus have the power to change their societies, or did their societies change them? Based on their views of destiny and fate, each man would have a different answer.