Use the following persistent identifier: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_Nagy.Pindars_Homer.1990.
9. The Authority of Historiā and the Sign of the Hero
The process of arbitration is presented as a contest among a group of elders, where each takes his turn in offering, with skēptron ‘scepter’ in hand (XVIII 506), [14] a formula for resolution of the litigation (502–506); whoever pronounces the most equitable formula is to be awarded a given measure of gold (507–508). [15]
Hesiod’s presupposition of the kings’ soundness of mind is really a condition here: if the kings do not understand the ainos, then they are not sound of mind. [35] These same kings have so far in the Works and Days displayed just the opposite of soundness, in that they have earlier been described as ready to pronounce a dikē ‘judgment’ that is unsound (οἱ τήνδε δίκην ἐθέλουσι δικάσσαι Works and Days 39). This unsound dikē was pronounced by the kings in the context of their arbitrating a neikos ‘conflict’ between Hesiod and his brother Perses (Works and Days 35); [36] it is in this light that Hesiod seeks to instruct them, by way of his ainos (202) of “The Hawk and the Nightingale,” [37] in how to pronounce a sound dikē. If the kings understand the ainos, then they will have learned the lesson that dikē, in its ultimate sense of ‘justice’, is superior to its opposite, hubris ‘outrage’; [38] if they do not understand, however, then their very raison d’être, which is to pronounce dikē ‘judgment’, is undermined, and they are left without any authority.
ne arbitri dicta nostra arbitrari queant
so that arbitrī may not arbitrārī what we say.
eamus intro, non utibilest hic locus factis tuis
dum memoramus, arbitri ut sint qui praetereant per vias
Those who pass by on the streets may be arbitrī.
miquidem iam arbitri vicini sunt, meae quid fiat domi,
ita per impluvium intro spectant
they peer through the impluvium.
In explaining how such a “clandestine witness” as an arbiter evolves into an arbitrator, a judge, Benveniste adduces the semantics of iūdex: [60] {260|261}
Although Benveniste does not directly adduce histōr or historiā in this connection, we can see that his working definition of arbiter is pertinent to the meanings of both these Greek words. [61] The histōr, whose authority is derived from Zeus as king, can be understood as thereby having the privileged vantage point of the gods themselves, who can see without being seen. [62] The same goes for the historiā ‘inquiry’ of Herodotus: when he sēmainei ‘indicates’ that Croesus is aitios ‘responsible’ for the ultimate conflict between Hellenes and barbarians (Herodotus 1.5.3), [63] he is in effect speaking from a privileged vantage point similar to that of the god Apollo himself, who sēmainei ‘indicates’ by way of his Oracle (Heraclitus 22 B 93 DK) [64] —and who likewise declares that Croesus is aitios (Herodotus 1.91.4). [65]
ὄφρα τυραννίης ἦσαν ἄνευ στυγερῆς …
while they [= the Colophonians] were still free of hateful tyranny … [76]
The Colophonians are ultimately ruined by their own hubris:
καὶ Σμύρνην· πάντως Κύρνε καὶ ὔμμ’ ἀπολεῖ
and Smyrna; and it will assuredly ruin you [plural] too, Kyrnos!
The expression Κολοφωνία ὕβρις ‘Colophonian hubris’ is in fact proverbial (Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum I p. 266.6–7). [77]
What Artauktes had said actually conveys an ulterior meaning: in Greek epic tradition Protesilaos was the first Achaean to die fighting the Trojans (Iliad ΙΙ 698–702). Moreover, oikos is a word that can designate the sacred precinct of a hero (e.g., Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 627). [99] For Xerxes, the oikos requested by Artauktes is the ‘house’ of a Greek; for Artauktes, it is the precinct of Protesilaos. Once he is granted ownership of the precinct, Artauktes proceeds to rob it of its riches, to which the narrative refers as the khrēmata of Protesilaos (9.116.1, 3; 9.120.3). The personalized tone reminds us of the same word khrēmata in a poem of Theognis (667, 677), describing the loss of possessions on the part of a figure who is presented as an exponent of dikē ‘righteousness’ and who speaks in the mode of the ainos (ᾐνίχθω 681). [100] Artauktes commits the further outrage of farming the lands of the precinct for his own profit and having sexual intercourse with women within the shrine (9.116.3). From a Hellenic standpoint Artauktes is clearly an exponent of hubris.
Footnotes