Acharnians (Dikaiopolis) blames the PELOPONNESIAN WAR on a reciprocal series of abductions of women (523–28). Fornara (1971) argues that this passage contains no substantial allusion to Herodotus but merely a circumstantial resemblance. Cobet (1977) and Sansone (1985) reassert the case for an allusion: Cobet argues that Aristophanes’ tauta men dē smikra… (Ach. 523–24) mimics Herodotus’ tauta men dē isa… (1.2.1); Sansone believes that the presence of the characteristically historiographical men dē alone constitutes a secure reference. For more possible references, see Wells (1923, 169–82).
Other plays from the mid‐420s. Knights [1] echoes the DREAM of AGARISTE (II) wherein the unborn PERICLES is likened to a LION (Hdt. 6.131.2) at line 1037, [2] recalls the phrase “wooden wall” (teichos xulinon, 7.141.3) at 1040, and [3] refers to ECBATANA as a seat of power (1.98) at 1089. Clouds evokes Herodotus’ description of the NILE (2.25) at 272, and the chorus’ appeal to ATHENS (576–94) resembles that of PAN at 6.105.2. Finally, Wasps (1084) vaguely recalls the Spartan DIENECES’ witticism (7.226.1). No single element convinces by itself, but their combined weight is remarkable. (For thematic resemblances, see Davie 1979 and von Möllendorff 2003.)
Plays from the 410s. Fornara (1971) rejected all early references in favor of a later terminus ante quem, pointing to a second concentration of Herodotean references in the 410s, especially in the Birds. For Fornara, the critical passage is Birds 1124–38, which resembles Herodotus’ description of the Wall of BABYLON (1.179.1) and of the PYRAMIDS (2.127.1). Birds also refers to the Wall of Babylon (552) and to oracles of Bacis (961–62, cf. Hdt. 8.77). Finally, two of Aristophanes’ plays performed in 411 BCE refer to the Halicarnassian queen, ARTEMISIA (cf. Hdt. 8.87–88): Lysistrata (675) and Thesmophoriazusae (1200).
SEE ALSO: Athens and Herodotus; Date of Composition; Rape; Reception of Herodotus, Ancient Greece and Rome
REFERENCES
1 Cobet, Justus. 1977. “Wann wurde Herodots Darstellung der Perserkriege publiziert?” Hermes 105: 2–27.
2 Davie, John N. 1979. “Herodotus and Aristophanes on Monarchy.” G&R 26.2: 160–68.
3 Fornara, Charles W. 1971. “Evidence for the Date of Herodotus’ Publication.” JHS 91: 25–34.
4 Sansone, David. 1985. “The Date of Herodotus’ Publication.” ICS 10: 1–9.
5 von Möllendorff, Peter. 2003. “Literarische Konstruktionen von autonomía bei Herodot und Aristophanes.” Antike und Abendland 49: 14–35.
6 Wells, Joseph. 1923. Studies in Herodotus. Oxford: Blackwell.
FURTHER READING
1 Dover, K. J. 2004. “The Limits of Allegory and Allusion in Aristophanes.” In Law, Rhetoric and Comedy in Classical Athens: Essays in Honour of Douglas M. MacDowell, edited by D. L. Cairns and R. A. Knox, 239–49. Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.
ARISTOPHANTUS (Ἀριστόϕαντος, ὁ)
CHRISTOPHER BARON,
University of Notre Dame
Patronymic, father of COBON (6.66.2). Herodotus names Cobon as the man who wielded the greatest influence at DELPHI in the first decade of the fifth century BCE. Nothing more is known of Aristophantus.
ARISTOPHILIDES (Ἀριστοϕιλίδης, ὁ)
CHRISTOPHER BARON
University of Notre Dame
King or perhaps TYRANT of TARENTUM (Taras) in southern ITALY in the late sixth century BCE. Herodotus recounts how, when the Greek doctor DEMOCEDES reached Italy with a Persian scouting expedition during the reign of DARIUS I, Aristophilides helped Democedes escape to CROTON by removing the steering oars from the two Persian ships and placing the crews under arrest (3.136.2). Aristophilides, whom Herodotus labels basileus, is not attested in other sources, which are admittedly thin for southern Italy in the ARCHAIC AGE. Tarentum was ruled by a DEMOCRACY in the mid‐fifth century, but as a colony of SPARTA it is possible the city originally had a king (see Malkin 1994, 132, though the date of the episode Herodotus narrates cannot be “492”; it must be earlier than Darius’ Scythian expedition (cf. 3.139.1, 3.150.1, and 4.1.1), thus c. 515 BCE). But it is also possible that Herodotus’ term refers to a magistracy, not a kingship (Jacquemin 1993, 21 n. 24).
SEE ALSO: Colonization; Gillus; Monarchy; Ships and Sailing
REFERENCES
1 Jacquemin, Anne. 1993. “Oikiste et tyran: fondateur‐monarque et monarque‐fondateur dans l’Occident grec.” Ktèma 18: 19–27.
2 Malkin, Irad. 1994. Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ARISTOTLE
SUSAN D. COLLINS
University of Notre Dame
Writing in the century after Herodotus, Aristotle refers to him directly only a few times in his works. Although these references show that Aristotle had read and was willing to make use of the Histories, they do not definitively establish his view of the work. His most definitive statement occurs in the Poetics. There he identifies Herodotus as an “historian” just prior to introducing his well‐known distinction between history (historia) and poetry (poiēsis): history speaks of what has come to be, whereas POETRY speaks of the sort of things that could come to be (what is likely or necessarily to happen). On this account, poetry is both more philosophic and more serious than history, since poetry speaks more of general things and history of particular things (Pol. 1451a36–51b7). The immediate difficulty is that Aristotle’s statement assumes the disciplinary divisions of the fourth century BCE, a development for which Aristotle himself deserves much credit. Hence, it would seem that the classification of Herodotus as an historian is anachronistic, since, in writing in the fifth century, he is not confined by later disciplinary lines.
However few, Aristotle’s references to the Histories themselves illustrate the range of Herodotus’ inquiries and the ways in which they defy easy classification. For example, he not only makes use of Herodotus’ observations of natural phenomena (Eth. Eud. 1236b9; Gen. an. 736a10–13; Hist. an. 523a17), but his own descriptive approach to these phenomena reflects that of Herodotus; some scholars argue that he occasionally even borrows from Herodotus without attribution. Yet Aristotle is also sometimes critical of Herodotus’ descriptions and in one instance calls him a “mythologist,” holding him responsible for promoting an error, based on poor observation, about how FISH copulate (Gen. an. 756b3–8). These kinds of statements make Aristotle at least partly responsible for the view that Herodotus is a “liar,” a criticism that extends to Herodotus’ inquiries into moral and political matters in which his naturalist studies are embedded. As is clear from the centuries‐long dispute, it is difficult to adjudicate this criticism not least because Herodotus’ inquiries reflect the variability, particularity, and ambiguity of human affairs. Hence, for example, he frequently reports without comment various stories or interpretations
