Herodotus 1.96

[Paul Derouda]

This passage is causing me some trouble. In order to give enough context, I'll quote the whole chapter.

ἐόντων δὲ αὐτονόμων πάντων ἀνὰ τὴν ἤπειρον, ὧδε αὖτις ἐς τυραννίδα περιῆλθον. ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖσι Μήδοισι ἐγένετο σοφὸς τῷ οὔνομα ἦν Δηιόκης, παῖς δ᾽ ἦν Φραόρτεω. [2] οὗτος ὁ Δηιόκης ἐρασθεὶς τυραννίδος ἐποίεε τοιάδε. κατοικημένων τῶν Μήδων κατὰ κώμας, ἐν τῇ ἑωυτοῦ ἐὼν καὶ πρότερον δόκιμος καὶ μᾶλλόν τι καὶ προθυμότερον δικαιοσύνην ἐπιθέμενος ἤσκεε: καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι ἐούσης ἀνομίης πολλῆς ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν Μηδικὴν ἐποίεε, ἐπιστάμενος ὅτι τῷ δικαίῳ τὸ ἄδικον πολέμιον ἐστί. οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς κώμης Μῆδοι ὁρῶντες αὐτοῦ τοὺς τρόπους δικαστήν μιν ἑωυτῶν αἱρέοντο. ὁ δὲ δή, οἷα μνώμενος ἀρχήν, ἰθύς τε καὶ δίκαιος ἦν, [3] ποιέων τε ταῦτα ἔπαινον εἶχε οὐκ ὀλίγον πρὸς τῶν πολιητέων, οὕτω ὥστε πυνθανόμενοι οἱ ἐν τῇσι ἄλλῃσι κώμῃσι ὡς Δηιόκης εἴη ἀνὴρ μοῦνος κατὰ τὸ ὀρθὸν δικάζων, πρότερον περιπίπτοντες ἀδίκοισι γνώμῃσι, τότε ἐπείτε ἤκουσαν ἄσμενοι, ἐφοίτων παρὰ τὸν Δηιόκεα καὶ αὐτοὶ δικασόμενοι, τέλος δὲ οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ ἐπετράποντο.

1) καὶ μᾶλλόν τι καὶ προθυμότερον δικαιοσύνην ἐπιθέμενος ἤσκεε: I'm not sure what the comparative forms stand for, what is the point of comparison? To a somewhat larger degree and more eagerly than what? "To a somewhat degree and more eagerly [than before?/than people were used to do?] he strove for integrity"? I'm not even sure if I got the και's right.

2) καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι ἐούσης ἀνομίης πολλῆς ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν Μηδικὴν ἐποίεε, ἐπιστάμενος ὅτι τῷ δικαίῳ τὸ ἄδικον πολέμιον ἐστί. "This he did even though great lawlessness was reigning throughout Media, and fully aware that injustice is an enemy of justice". I don't understand the point the latter half of this is making; surely Herodotus isn't just stating the obvious (the general truth that good and bad are opposites)? Is the point that it's difficult to do good, because you have to fight evil? Or (and this might be far-fetched), as Deiokes is something of an opportunist, is the point that as Deiokes himself is used to mischief, he'll have to act against his own nature?

It's a nice humorous touch how Deiokes is first described as falling in love with the idea of becoming tyrant (ἐρασθεὶς τυραννίδος), and after that as wooing leadership (μνώμενος ἀρχήν).

I'd appreciate any help! Thanks.

[bedwere]

The comparative is used without a term of comparison to indicate excess.

[*] 1082. The comparative may stand alone, the second part being implied.

a. That which is exceeded is indicated by the sense only: οἱ σοφώτεροι the wiser (those wiser than the rest); ἐν εἰρήνῃ αἱ πόλεις ἀμείνους τὰ_ς γνώμα_ς ἔχουσιν in time of peace States are actuated by higher convictions (than in time of war) T. 3.82. So τι νεώτερον something new (more recent than that already known) P. Pr. 310a (often = a calamity or a revolutionary movement); ““ὕστερον ἧκον” they came too late” T. 7.27; and often where we supply is usual (right, fitting, etc.).

b. The Hom. θηλύτεραι γυναῖκες implies a comparison with men. In Κῦρος . . . ἐγεγόνει μητρὸς ἀμείνονος, πατρὸς δὲ ὑποδεεστέρου Cyrus was born of a mother of superior, but of a father of inferior race (Hdt. 1.91) the comparison is between the qualities of mother and father respectively. Cp. 313 b.

c. The comparative denotes excess: ““μείζοσιν ἔργοις ἐπιχειροῦντες οὐ μι_κροῖς κακοῖς περιπί_πτουσι” by entering upon undertakings too great they encounter no slight troubles” X. M. 4.2.35.

d. The comparative is used to soften an expression (rather, somewhat): ““ἀγροικότερον” somewhat boorishly” P. G. 486c, ““ἀμελέστερον ἐπορεύετο” he proceeded rather carelessly” X. H. 4.8.36. Here the quality is compared with its absence or with its opposite

.

2) Heredotus seems to convey that Deiokes knew he was doing evil but he did it anyway.

[mwh]

καὶ μᾶλλόν τι καὶ προθυμότερον δικαιοσύνην ἐπιθέμενος ἤσκεε.
He already had a good reputation (καὶ πρότερον δόκιμος, even earlier, earlier too). Now he set about practising δικαιοσυνη even more (καὶ μᾶλλόν τι) and more zealously (καὶ προθυμότερον)—sc. than he did before.

καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι ἐούσης ἀνομίης πολλῆς ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν Μηδικὴν ἐποίεε, ἐπιστάμενος ὅτι τῷ δικαίῳ τὸ ἄδικον πολέμιον ἐστί.
και ταυτα μεντοι … εποιεε adds the next point, with a bit of punch. And this he set about doing through all Media, there being/since there was much lawlessness throughout the land (I don’t think the gen.abs. is concessive), in the knowledge that injustice is antithetical to justice. The point is simply that if you want δικαιοσυνη to prevail throughout the land, as Deiokes does, you have to tackle the lawlessness which is now rife. The generalized maxim may seem a gratuitous truism but surely it’s Herodotean enough, and the polarity thematically and contextually appropriate, bolstering D’s call for law&order. I don’t see any support for bedwere’s take. D’s aim is to be a just tyrant, and Hdt presents him as succeeding.

[Paul Derouda]

Thanks.

The couple of translations I checked took the genetive absolute as concessive; even Stein does. So I was more or less in line with bedwere, even if I found it difficult to accept, especially as in what follows, Deiokes, despite his lust of power, isn't described as evil, and he continues to champion justice even after becoming king. (Not that Herodotus in general describes anyone as purely evil – for him, things are hardly ever so black and white). It makes a lot more sense if ἐούσης ἀνομίης πολλῆς isn't concessive.

Here's what Stein says:
"und das that er, obgleich im ganzen Mederlande Gesetzlosigkeit herrschte (d. h. er machte damit eine auffallende Ausnahme), und obgleich er wusste, dass die Gerechten von den Ungerechten befeindet werden."

[Hylander]

Stein seems more or less right, doesn't he?

Herodotus' point is that D. was courageous.

He practiced justice, and he did this [courageously] even though [concessive/adversative] lawlessness, i.e., injustice, was rampant throughout Medeia [and even though] knowing/he knew that injustice is the enemy of justice [and that he therefore risked attack by the unjust].

[mwh]

Certainly that makes sense, but is it Herodotus’ sense? I usually respect Stein (and Hylander, for that matter), but here I think he’s wrong.
I see no cause to invest either of the two participles with concessive force. There’s nothing to invite such a reading. Saying that “Herodotus' point is that D. was courageous” is an empty assertion. There’s no hint of that in the Greek, and it’s you who have to supply “[courageously]” in your paraphrase.
The guy was on a justice/law&order campaign, so he wanted the widespread lawlessness stamped out, knowing that wrong (here represented by lawlessness) is incompatible with right.
He doesn’t get attacked for it, just the opposite: he’s elected δικαστής and gains universal acclaim for the justice of his judgments—just as he intended, and pretty soon he's everyone's choice to be king, expected to replace ανομιη with ευνομιη and to administer justice. Which he does.
And I see that the genitive absolute is echoed by εουσης ῶν ἁρπαγης και ανομιης ετι πολλῳ μαλλον a few lines further on, which is certainly not concessive.
And anyway I fancy that if he meant “even though” there was a lot of lawlessness, Hdt would have made it clear. Participles used concessively are normally marked as such (e.g. καιπερ).
The same goes for the επισταμενος, which it seems to me makes much better sense taken as causal or circumstantial, as one would expect such a participle to be.

And surely there’s not the slightest suggestion (pace bedwere) that he was doing evil. That's expressly contradicted: προθυμότερον δικαιοσύνην ἐπιθέμενος ἤσκεε.

[bedwere]

And surely there’s not the slightest suggestion (pace bedwere) that he was doing evil. That's expressly contradicted: προθυμότερον δικαιοσύνην ἐπιθέμενος ἤσκεε.

No problem. I saw it later.

[Hylander]

ὅτι τῷ δικαίῳ τὸ ἄδικον πολέμιον ἐστί.

"knowing that wrong (here represented by lawlessness) is incompatible with right."

If this were the other way around, οτι τωι αδικωι το δικαιον πολεμιον εστι, I would be find mwh's interpretation more compelling. But as it is, injustice is the aggressor. Isn't πολεμιον a little stronger than "incompatible with"?

LSJ gives "opposed, adverse" as meanings for πολεμιος, citing 7.47 and 7.49, where the terms are γῆ καὶ θάλασσα, but in those passages it looks to me like there is at least metaphorically an active hostility, and both terms are said to be πολεμιοι to one another. In 1.96, as I mentioned, τὸ ἄδικον is the aggressive party, and I think "incompatible" weakens the underlying idea.

Maybe the gen. abs. and participle should be read simply as circumstantial, 'he did this at a time when lawlessness was rampant, knowing that injustice is the enemy of justice', the implication, in my view, being that he acted justly knowing that he would make a lot of enemies in the process.

mwh might counter that there's no further discussion of D.'s enemies attempting to undo him, and in fact he is ultimately chosen by universal acclamation as king.

[mwh]

I don’t think it makes a world of difference which way round it goes, but it makes good sense the way it is—the word order as well as the syntax—and is perhaps a bit more pointed. Deiokes is the standard-bearer for το δικαιον, and with το δικαιον το αδικον is naturally at war, metaphorically speaking. The maxim is a standing truth, like e.g. “the bitter is at war with the sweet” (or more precisely “with the sweet the bitter is at war”). It has something of a proverbial ring to it, it's framed in entirely abstract terms, and I think it would be mistake to make too much of which is at war with which, when they're definitional opposites. In Herodotus' Median situation το δικαιον, Right, is instantiated by Deiokes' δικαιοσυνη and prospective ευνομιη, and το αδικον, Wrong, by the widespread ανομιη that confronts him; and as he enters the scene, Wrong is prevalent. Having το αδικον against him, the wise and incorruptible Deiokes practices δικαιοσυνη even more sedulously. If we want to push the πολεμιον metaphor (which I really don't, but to humor Hylander) we can imagine a war game in which our hero in shining armor repels the multiple baddies (or medieval devils) that set upon him. But the martial image, such as it is, is very weak, and no more than momentary.

But what I was arguing was that there’s no cause to read either of the participles (εουσης, επισταμενος) as carrying an implication of “even though.” And it seems that all of us here are now in agreement on that, contra Stein. Or not?

My “incompatible with” may undertranslate πολεμιον (but it’s only metaphorical, after all), but not half as much as “even though lawlessness was rampant” overtranslates ἐούσης ἀνομίης πολλῆς. I noted the subsequent (97.2) εουσης ῶν ἁρπαγης και ανομιης ετι πολλῳ μαλλον, which continues “the Medes gathered together and discussed” what to do, and decided to establish a monarchy, with Deiokes as king. That clinches it I think. Τhe εουσης phrase there doesn't mean “even though” there was a lot more lawlessness, just as the εουσης phrase it so strongly echoes won't mean “even though” there was a lot of lawlessness. In both cases it’s more causal than anything else, as practically all the many participles hereabouts are (and as unmarked participles generally are). Since (not Even though) lawlessness was rife throughout the land he doubled down on his dedication to justice (since he knew that injustice wars against justice). And since lawlessness was still worse when he relinquished his δικαστης role they got together and made him king.
(And monarchy slid quickly into tyranny: quelle surprise.)