In chapter 9 of the Poetics, Aristotle famously claims that poetry is “more philosophic” than history. He grounds this claim in the apparent fact that while universals drive the action of poetry, particulars drive the action of history. In an historical composition, a particular thing happens because a particular person did it at some point in the past, but in poetry, a particular thing happens because it is what is likely according to a universal principle. The particular action in a poetic composition is still, of course, particular, but it points to a universal principle, or it is a representation of a universal principle. Aristotle goes on to single out Herodotus, saying that his work would be no less a history than it is now were it written
…show more content…
After the prologue to his work, however, and after indicating that he will begin by speaking of Croesus, the man who did the first unjust things to the Greeks, he tells the story of Candaules. He does not, strictly speaking, need to begin with Candaules for reasons of historical completeness, that is, in order to include every event from the time period he considered. Candaules lived before Croesus and is therefore from before the events of the history proper. Of course, one might think that Herodotus includes Candaules to explain how the family of Croesus received the kingship of Lydia. This would be an “historical” reason. But if this was Herodotus’ sole purpose for including the story, he could just as well have said that Croesus’ family received the kingship “from a divine oracle,” just as he said that the Heraclids did at 1.7. In fact, he says this very thing about Gyges in the first sentence of 1.13, “he held the kingship and was strengthened in power from the oracle in Delphi,” but he clearly does not think that this sentence is enough. We therefore have reason to suspect that Herodotus includes this story for purposes other than mere historical …show more content…
In 1.6, Herodotus calls Croesus a tyrant, τύραννος. In 1.7, he calls Candaules a tyrant. The other rulers mentioned in these two passages are referred to as kings, βασιλεὺς, or at the very least are said to have been ruling as kings, βασιλεύσαντες. It cannot be the case that Herodotus distinguishes the kring from the tyrant on the neutral ground of whether the ruler received his power from his birth or from elsewhere because the two rulers whom he calls tyrants are both the last of their respective lines. Candaules is the last Heraclid ruler, and Croesus is the last Mermnad ruler. Since the only thing we know about Candaules at this point is that he was the first to do unjust deeds to the Greeks and force some of the Greek cities to pay him tribute (1.5, 1.6), it is reasonable to connect this to his being a tyrant. The tyrant thus first comes to light in the Histories as a doer of unjust deeds. The question now is why Herodotus calls Candaules a tyrant. This leads us to the story of Candaules and
After the prologue to his work, however, and after indicating that he will begin by speaking of Croesus, the man who did the first unjust things to the Greeks, he tells the story of Candaules. He does not, strictly speaking, need to begin with Candaules for reasons of historical completeness, that is, in order to include every event from the time period he considered. Candaules lived before Croesus and is therefore from before the events of the history proper. Of course, one might think that Herodotus includes Candaules to explain how the family of Croesus received the kingship of Lydia. This would be an “historical” reason. But if this was Herodotus’ sole purpose for including the story, he could just as well have said that Croesus’ family received the kingship “from a divine oracle,” just as he said that the Heraclids did at 1.7. In fact, he says this very thing about Gyges in the first sentence of 1.13, “he held the kingship and was strengthened in power from the oracle in Delphi,” but he clearly does not think that this sentence is enough. We therefore have reason to suspect that Herodotus includes this story for purposes other than mere historical …show more content…
In 1.6, Herodotus calls Croesus a tyrant, τύραννος. In 1.7, he calls Candaules a tyrant. The other rulers mentioned in these two passages are referred to as kings, βασιλεὺς, or at the very least are said to have been ruling as kings, βασιλεύσαντες. It cannot be the case that Herodotus distinguishes the kring from the tyrant on the neutral ground of whether the ruler received his power from his birth or from elsewhere because the two rulers whom he calls tyrants are both the last of their respective lines. Candaules is the last Heraclid ruler, and Croesus is the last Mermnad ruler. Since the only thing we know about Candaules at this point is that he was the first to do unjust deeds to the Greeks and force some of the Greek cities to pay him tribute (1.5, 1.6), it is reasonable to connect this to his being a tyrant. The tyrant thus first comes to light in the Histories as a doer of unjust deeds. The question now is why Herodotus calls Candaules a tyrant. This leads us to the story of Candaules and