Agamemnon in Herodotus and Thucydides: Exploring the historical uses of a mythological paradigm
This paper explores the use of the myth of Agamemnon in Herodotus and Thucydides. I argue that the deployment of Agamemnon in their works is shaped by, and sheds additional light on, the historians’ attitude toward myth (and its use in rhetoric), their narrative aims and historical outlook. Herodotus’ readiness to embrace myth in both narrative and speeches, his representation of complex motivation, his description of the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians, and his panhellenic outlook, influence the function of Agamemnon: as king of Sparta and the leader of the Greeks in the Trojan War, he reflects the idealistic and pragmatic motivation of the Spartans in the context of the Persian Wars. Agamemnon’s function in Thucydides is different since it is affected by the general avoidance of mythological argument – especially in rhetoric – and its merely relative significance, the description of a war between the Greeks, Thucydides’ pragmatism, and his writing for posterity: aptly replaced by Sparta’s Dorianism in the context of the war against Athens, Agamemnon becomes a contemporary tyrant king who may represent any city or individual yearning for power and empire.
Speeches in Herodotus' Account of the Battle of Plataea
T HE many scenes of direct speech which we find in the first books of Herodotus are largely anecdotal. They are speeches which belong to the novel or the short tale, speeches which stress a striking development or bring out an unusual thought or witticism. Speeches which interpret historical events we find for the first time in Herodotus' account of the Ionic revolt.' Here the speeches serve to convey aspects and interpretations which Herodotus obviously considered important for a proper understanding of the course of the revolt. In introducing this type of direct speech Herodotus was probably influenced by the example of the epic, a connection which, however, cannot be completely proved. Whether such an influence existed or not, the historian turned this form of speech to his special use and made it an instrument for conveying his judgments and opinions-an instrument which he employed with art and effect in the later books of his work. All through his account of Xerxes' invasion, direct speeches present to us his attempts at interpreting the events he reports. Herodotus only once sets forth his view in a more direct manner, in vii. 139, in his famous comment on the role of Athens. Everywhere else it is in the speeches that we must search for his own appraisals. Often, it has to be admitted, the speeches are perplexing or surprising at first. Their meaning does not appear readily or clearly, at least not so long as the speeches are read as independent creations and are separated
Carnival of Shame: Doctorow and the Rosenbergs
“Literature can turn language, for the moment at least, against the sentence of death.” Considering the national and international furor provoked by the sensational early 1950's “atom spy” trial and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, one may be surprised that these dramatic and traumatic events have not inspired more literary artistry than they have. But a prominent playwright, Arthur Miller, did write The Crucible (produced in 1953) in part as a response to the rabid McCarthyism of that era, and two highly regarded novelists in a later decade composed ambitious novels drawing directly on the Rosenberg affair: E. L. Doctorow in The Book of Daniel (1971) and Robert Coover in The Public Burning (1977). In 1987, Sidney Lumet produced the little noticed film Daniel, based on Doctorow's novel, and still more recently Tony Kushner's Pulitzer Prize-winning play, Angels in America, with Ethel Rosenberg as one of the characters, has been playing on Broadway.