style="font-size:15px;"> 2 Kindstrand, Jan Fredrik. 1981. Anacharsis: The Legend and the Apophthegmata. Uppsala and Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
ANACREON (Ἀνακρέων, ὁ)
JESSICA M. ROMNEY
MacEwan University
Anacreon of TEOS (c. 570–485 BCE) is one of the nine lyric poets of Greece. His extant POETRY focuses on the topics of love, beauty, youth vs. old age, and WINE and was performed in the small elite DRINKING occasions known as symposia. Later ages received him as a great lover of wine. His poems and reputation fostered a later tradition of poetry collectively known as “the Anacreontea.”
Herodotus introduces Anacreon near the end of the POLYCRATES cycle in an alternate account for OROETES’ actions. In this version, a MESSENGER from Oroetes arrived on SAMOS to see the tyrant, who “happened to be reclining in the men’s quarters” with Anacreon at the time; they were likely participating in a symposion. Polycrates paid the messenger no heed, thereby insulting the satrap (3.121).
Although Herodotus does not explain why Anacreon was in Samos at the time, the poet was likely there in some sort of capacity as a court poet for Polycrates. After Polycrates’ death, HIPPIAS and HIPPARCHUS, the sons of PEISISTRATUS, brought Anacreon to ATHENS, where again he composed poetry for the TYRANTS’ court (Kantzios 2004–2005). Following the expulsion of Hippias from Athens, Anacreon remained there, and a statue was set up on the ACROPOLIS after his death (Paus. 1.25.1).
SEE ALSO: Causation; Satrapies
REFERENCE
1 Kantzios, Ippokratis. 2004–2005. “Tyranny and the Symposion of Anacreon.” CJ 100.3: 227–45.
FURTHER READING
1 Campbell, David A., ed. 1988. Greek Lyric. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2 Rosenmeyer, Patricia A. 1992. The Poetics of Imitation: Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ANACTORIUM (Ἀνακτόριον, τό)
ALISON LANSKI
University of Notre Dame
A city founded by CORINTH in the mid‐seventh century BCE on the south coast of the Ambracian Gulf (BA 54 C4; Müller I, 894–95). The Anactorians (Herodotus only uses the city‐ethnic, Ἀνακτόριοι), along with the LEUCADIANS, sent eight hundred HOPLITES to PLATAEA in 479 BCE in support of the Greek cause; they were stationed across from the SACAE in the battle line (9.28.5, 31.4). Anactorium was allied with SPARTA during the PELOPONNESIAN WAR (Thuc. 2.9.2). The small bay in front of the city was sometimes referred to as the Anactoric Gulf (Ps.‐Scylax 31, 34). A well‐known sanctuary of APOLLO Aktios was located just outside the city (Thuc. 1.29.3; Strabo 7.7.6/C325).
SEE ALSO: Acarnania; Ambracia; Colonization; Hellenic League
FURTHER READING
1 Hammond, N. G. L. 1967. Epirus, 425–27. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2 IACP no. 114 (356–57).
ANAGYROUS (Ἀναγυροῦς)
CHRISTOPHER BARON
University of Notre Dame
A DEME (district, precinct) of ancient ATHENS, on the western coast of Attica south of HYMETTUS (BA 59 C3), modern Vari. Anagyrous occurs in the Histories only as a demotic (Ἀναγυράσιος) for the Athenian EUMENES, who won special PRAISE for his valor at the Battle of SALAMIS (8.93.1).
SEE ALSO: Democracy
FURTHER READING
1 Travlos, John. 1988. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika, 446–66. Tübingen: Wasmuth.
2 Whitehead, David. 1986. The Demes of Attica, 508/7–ca. 250 B.C.: A Political and Social Study. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
ANALOGY
ROSARIA VIGNOLO MUNSON
Swarthmore College
Analogy, a mental process that allows us to perceive similarities among events, agents, or objects belonging to different times and places, represents an important tool by which Herodotus understands reality; from our viewpoint, it provides a fundamental instrument for interpreting the texture of the Histories. Even glosses by which Herodotus underlines uniqueness—e.g., by a superlative (see Bloomer 1993)—are often markers of quantitative rather than qualitative difference and indirectly identify classes of similar phenomena. The counterpart of analogy is polarity, but objects that are opposite in one way are likely to be similar in other respects (Lloyd 1966; Corcella 1984).
Analogy is “horizontal” when it binds parallel facts. But it also works “vertically” across different levels of reality, as in inductive PROPHECY (see e.g., the Delphic reference to CYRUS (II) as a MULE, 1.55.2) or in other symbolic associations elicited by the text (see examples in the entry on THŌMATA). Simultaneously, we distinguish analogy that is diachronic, among events belonging to different points in the CHRONOLOGY of the historical narrative, from synchronic, when ethnographic or geographic descriptions create a comparative field extending not in TIME but in space (Munson 2001, 45–133).
In the historical narrative, Herodotus may draw attention to similarity (or polarity) by an explicit METANARRATIVE comparison, as when he opines that the democratic reforms of the Athenian CLEISTHENES imitated policies of his homonymous grandfather, the tyrant of SICYON (1.67.1). Occasionally speakers, too, compare and contrast. When either the narrator or his speakers discuss circumstances of their present in the light of events of their past (see e.g., 7.10.γ, ARTABANUS’ recollection of DARIUS I’s Scythian expedition on the eve of XERXES’ expedition against Greece), they encourage Herodotus’ AUDIENCE to apply to their own present the same or other parts of the work. Most frequently, in fact, historical analogy impresses us silently, by the resemblances that transpire from the theoretically endless variety of Herodotus’ world.
Concatenations of analogies create overlapping and concentric patterns throughout the work. This phenomenon has been most influentially examined by HENRY IMMERWAHR (1966; 1956) following the lead of Bischoff (1932), Hellmann (1934), and Pohlenz (1937). On the historical/diachronic side especially pervasive is the monarchical model, represented by the actions and features typical of individuals who hold power or aspire to it. This pattern tends to subsume many others to itself: rise and fall (Immerwahr 1966, 149–98); imperialism (Immerwahr 1956; Evans 1991; Dewald 2003), including the crossing of natural BOUNDARIES, symbolic of a violation of NOMOS in a broader sense (Immerwahr 1954, 19–28 and 1966, 325; Konstan 1983; Lateiner 1989, 126–44; Stadter 1992, 785–95; Payen 1997, 138–45); the failure of a superpower (a "soft culture" in anthropological terms) to conquer a primitive ("hard") opponent (Hellmann 1934, 77–98; Cobet 1971, 172–76; Redfield 1985; Flory 1987, 81–118);
