Fate: Greeks versus Barbarians
The concept of fate permeates throughout ancient Greek culture, and Herodotus’s Histories are no exception. However, the exact role that Herodotus portrays fate to play throughout his work is more difficult to determine. On one hand, Herodotus’s work demonstrates a more fatalistic mindset right from the beginning in books one through four– with characters such as Cambyses and Croesus struggling in their attempts to alter the outcome of predetermined prophesies. At first glance, this appears to create a simple case for Herodotus’s belief in a fatalistic universe. Yet in books five through nine, Herodotus approaches fate from a slightly different angle. Simultaneously with his shift to a more chronological and historical …show more content…
Cambyses had a dream while on campaign in Egypt that “a messenger came from home and reported to me that Smerdis was sitting upon the royal thrown and had touched the heaven with his head” (3.65). In response to this dream, Cambyses killed his brother Smerdis, only to have a different Smerdis of the Magi usurp the throne months later. The story of Cambyses echoes that of Croesus in both form and structure by presenting a character that experiences a divine premonition while sleeping, subsequently attempts to prevent the fulfillment of that premonition, and ultimately fails in a cruel twist of fate. This concept of fate’s predetermined and unchanging nature resonates throughout the first four books of Herodotus’s work, as those Herodotus classifies as barbarians continually struggle against the power of …show more content…
Books five through nine make it clear that individuals do have some power to shape history and influence fate, while books one through four simultaneously affirm that not everyone has this ability. So who, in Herodotus’s eyes, has the power to influence the future and fate rather than blindly accept it? It is hard to believe that Herodotus’s outlook on fate shifts while talking about the Greeks themselves versus various other barbarian cultures purely by coincidence. Additionally, it is not beyond the realm of reason that Herodotus and other Greeks, especially those in Athens, viewed themselves as superior to other cultures around them. In fact, the very development of the Greek Polis was intertwined with the development of a Greek identity that in and of itself, separated the Greeks from those around them. One interpretation of this difference between Herodotus’s application of fate can then be logically tied back to this division between the Greeks and the barbarians – both in the real world of Herodotus’s time and in the Histories. The distinct difference in the way fate is handled when talking about barbarians versus when talking about Greeks implicitly leads to the suggestion that Greeks have more control over their fate than barbarians. This difference
The concept of fate permeates throughout ancient Greek culture, and Herodotus’s Histories are no exception. However, the exact role that Herodotus portrays fate to play throughout his work is more difficult to determine. On one hand, Herodotus’s work demonstrates a more fatalistic mindset right from the beginning in books one through four– with characters such as Cambyses and Croesus struggling in their attempts to alter the outcome of predetermined prophesies. At first glance, this appears to create a simple case for Herodotus’s belief in a fatalistic universe. Yet in books five through nine, Herodotus approaches fate from a slightly different angle. Simultaneously with his shift to a more chronological and historical …show more content…
Cambyses had a dream while on campaign in Egypt that “a messenger came from home and reported to me that Smerdis was sitting upon the royal thrown and had touched the heaven with his head” (3.65). In response to this dream, Cambyses killed his brother Smerdis, only to have a different Smerdis of the Magi usurp the throne months later. The story of Cambyses echoes that of Croesus in both form and structure by presenting a character that experiences a divine premonition while sleeping, subsequently attempts to prevent the fulfillment of that premonition, and ultimately fails in a cruel twist of fate. This concept of fate’s predetermined and unchanging nature resonates throughout the first four books of Herodotus’s work, as those Herodotus classifies as barbarians continually struggle against the power of …show more content…
Books five through nine make it clear that individuals do have some power to shape history and influence fate, while books one through four simultaneously affirm that not everyone has this ability. So who, in Herodotus’s eyes, has the power to influence the future and fate rather than blindly accept it? It is hard to believe that Herodotus’s outlook on fate shifts while talking about the Greeks themselves versus various other barbarian cultures purely by coincidence. Additionally, it is not beyond the realm of reason that Herodotus and other Greeks, especially those in Athens, viewed themselves as superior to other cultures around them. In fact, the very development of the Greek Polis was intertwined with the development of a Greek identity that in and of itself, separated the Greeks from those around them. One interpretation of this difference between Herodotus’s application of fate can then be logically tied back to this division between the Greeks and the barbarians – both in the real world of Herodotus’s time and in the Histories. The distinct difference in the way fate is handled when talking about barbarians versus when talking about Greeks implicitly leads to the suggestion that Greeks have more control over their fate than barbarians. This difference