Female Revenge Stories in Herodotus’ Histories

Summary

PDF Version

Audio

Table of Contents

Names

Timeline

Search this Text

Female Revenge Stories in Herodotus’ Histories

Women’s stories, undoubtedly, give a unique colour to Herodotus’ Histories. Women participate in all activities that form the body of the historian’s work: they are associated with war either as victims or as warriors, they rule countries, they preserve ethnic identity, they act as protectors of their families, they give oracles, and they take revenge.[1] The representation of women in the Histories has attracted much attention at different times, with different methods of approach.[2] Regardless of the varying approaches, though, the majority of scholars tend to agree that the presence of women in Herodotus’ Histories is often related to nomos.[3] After all, a major theme in the Histories is the role of nomos (‘a custom of such impact as to function as a natural law within a community’ [4] ) in determining human attitudes and behaviour.[5]

This role of nomos becomes more prominent in four accounts of individual female characters: the stories of Candaules’ wife (1.8–15), Nitocris of Babylon (1.185–187), Tomyris (1.205–215), and Amestris (9.109–111). All these women appear to punish males when they act against the nomos and overstep moral boundaries. What is more, the act of revenge in these stories seems to follow a certain pattern, unique in its form in the Histories. At first we see a king inflamed by a certain passion. This passion proves to be so irrational that it leads him to overstep certain moral codes and harm a royal lady herself or a member of her family. The woman notices what is happening in a remarkably intelligent way and finally devises an artful plan for revenge that the king is unable to foresee.

In this paper I set out to examine this pattern, focusing on one of these accounts due to the paper’s limited length. This is the story of the queen Tomyris, who is portrayed as a woman capable of avenging her son’s death in the most brutal way, by killing the great king of Persia, Cyrus. The same female character is also found in other accounts of ancient Greek literature; yet I will show that only in Herodotus does she demonstrate the cleverness and ability to take her own revenge. This fact speaks for the originality of the female revenge motif that Herodotus employs in this story.

Before telling us about Tomyris, Herodotus explains the reason why Cyrus wished to advance with his army against the nation of the Massagetae:

The reader is thus informed about Cyrus’ passion for war and expansion. Cyrus wants to expand more because, whenever he aims to advance with an army, no nation is able to contrive a way of escaping. But does this overconfident and ambitious aggressor have any limits? Or could it be that his will to expand his kingdom makes him insatiable?

After offering this picture of Cyrus, Herodotus goes on to inform his readers about the king’s proposal to the queen of the Massagetae. Tomyris however understood that Cyrus’ only purpose in wishing to marry her was to gain her throne and enslave the Massagetae, and thus turned him down. As Herodotus explicitly tells us, the queen appears to be well aware of what Cyrus really wants ( συνιεῖσα, 1.205.1). In this way, the reader has the first indication that this queen also has the ability to understand, without too much thinking or the need for explanations. She needs no more evidence; Cyrus’ proposal is enough for her to understand his devious plans. She also has the courage to refuse even the king of Persia himself.[6]

Herodotus then mentions that Cyrus, since he did not succeed by trickery ( ὡς οἱ δόλῳ οὐ προεχώρεε , 1.205.2), started his campaign against Tomyris openly ( ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανέος , 1.205.2). Thus, Herodotus’ audience has the first proof that Tomyris was right in thinking that Cyrus’ only intention, when he proposed to marry her, was to enslave the nation of the Massagetae.

When Tomyris was informed that Cyrus had started his campaign against the Massagetae by building bridges in order to cross the frontier river, she gave him her first warning. In this warning she told Cyrus three times to stop the campaign against her country ( παῦσαι σπεύδων τὰ σπεύδεις; παυσάμενος δὲ βασίλευε τῶν σεωυτοῦ; ἡμέας ἀνέχευ ὁρέων ἄρχοντας τῶν περ ἄρχομεν , 1.206.1). In this way, the reader’s attention is drawn to her intelligence and foresight.For it is as if the queen were telling Cyrus: “you have to listen to what I am telling you.” As it appears, the queen not only sees through Cyrus’ intentions, but also knows his character well: [7] it would be hard for Cyrus to listen to her and think seriously about a woman’s warning. Furthermore, the reader also learns that not only is the queen seen as a woman clever enough to see through Cyrus’ plans; she is also shown to have the courage to challenge him even in his own territory, if he will not follow her advice to remain at peace (1.206.2–3).[8]

As the narrative goes on, Cyrus is presented as even less clever than the queen. That is because after Tomyris’ message, we reasonably expect an immediate answer from Cyrus. But instead Cyrus, unlike Tomyris who decides on her own accord, asks for his counsellors’ advice ( ταῦτα δὲ ἀκούσας ὁ Κῦρος συνεκάλεσε Περσέων τοὺς πρώτους, συναγείρας δὲ τούτους ἐς μέσον σφι προετίθεε τὸ πρῆγμα, συμβουλευόμενος ὁκότερα ποιέῃ , 1.206.3).[9] He follows the counsel of Croesus, according to which the battle must take place in the territory of Tomyris, because it would be a shame to give ground to a woman ( χωρίς τε τοῦ ἀπηγημένου αἰσχρὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀνασχετὸν Κῦρόν γε τὸν Καμβύσεω γυναικὶ εἴξαντα ὑποχωρῆσαι τῆς χώρης , 1.207.5). In the following lines, the reader is surprised once more. For Cyrus follows Croesus’ suggestion of using a trick (1.207.6–7). He therefore agrees with Croesus that it would be a shame to give ground to a woman, but he does not think it is also shameful to defeat a woman through guile.[10]

According to Croesus’ plan, the Persians would take advantage of the Massagetae’s unfamiliarity with wine. While Cyrus sends a message to Tomyris telling her that they are going to fight in Persia, the Persians prepare a banquet with plenty of undiluted wine. Thus, when the Massagetae attack and take the camp, they celebrate their victory with a feast. Once the Massagetae are drunk and asleep the Persians return, kill many of them, and take others as hostages, among them Tomyris’ son Spargapises. Once more, the reader cannot but observe the difference, in terms of both cleverness and morality, between the king and the queen. Cyrus is going to act based on trickery for the second time, and the reader knows that the first one was completely unsuccessful.

Tomyris’ second warning comes when she finds out that her son is being held captive. Again, the reader cannot but admire her calmness. Through this warning she reminds Cyrus that he is overstepping certain moral codes. For, as she tells him, her son has been enslaved by trickery and not because he was defeated in battle ( τοιούτῳ φαρμάκῳ δολώσας ἐκράτησας παιδὸς τοῦ ἐμοῦ, ἀλλ’ οὐ μάχη κατὰ τὸ καρτερὸν 1.212.2). Tomyris declares through her warning that her patience has its limits, and that she will fill Cyrus with blood if he does not release her son ( ἦ μὲν σε ἐγὼ καὶ ἄπληστον ἐόντα αἴματος κορέσω , 1.212.3). Thus she reveals herself as a woman capable of revenge.

Later, the reader finds out how harsh the queen can be. As soon as Tomyris learns of her son’s death, she confronts Cyrus and his army in battle. The Persians are defeated by the Massagetae, and Cyrus is killed during the fighting. When Tomyris finds his body, she puts his head in a skin filled with human blood. In this way she fulfils her last threat to him and avenges her son’s death. At last, when she finds her dead enemy’s body, she is the one who has the last laugh at Cyrus, for she fulfils her last threat to fill him with blood.[11]

Gould has argued that the fact that Tomyris surpasses the Persians in violence and bloodthirstiness is indicative of what female power means to Herodotus.[12] Yet on the other hand it could be said that Herodotus emphasizes not so much female violence, but rather completely justified female revenge. This becomes especially clear if we consider more carefully the structure of his description of Tomyris’ revenge, and accordingly Cyrus’ death, for Herodotus narrates step by step the queen’s reaction to Cyrus’ intentions. She gives him two warnings, o f which the second reveals her loss of patience. Later on, Herodotus makes it obvious that she resorts to violence only when she is given no other choice: Τόμυρις δὲ, ὥς οἱ Κῦρος οὐκ ἐσήκουσε, συλλέξασα πᾶσαν τὴν ἐωυτῆς δύναμιν συνέβαλε Κύρῳ (1.214.1).[13] Lastly, when she finds her dead enemy’s corpse, she says: σὺ μὲν ἐμὲ ζῶσάν τε καὶ νικῶσάν σε μάχῃ ἀπώλεσας παῖδα τὸν ἐμὸν ἑλὼν δόλῳ. σὲ δ’ ἐγὼ, κατὰ περ ἠπείλησα, αἵματος κορέσω (1.214.5). She is telling Cyrus that although she still lives and although she has conquered him, he has destroyed her, by killing her son by guile. She leaves no doubt that it is not her power that counts after all, as she has been destroyed because of her son’s death. Thus the queen herself minimizes the significance of her power but does not forget to emphasize her revenge: “I will fill you with blood as I threatened you.” It is her revenge that counts most of all, not her power, and it is that very fact that causes the audience’s surprise.

Herodotus thus presents Tomyris not only in her role as queen, but also as the mother who will go to any length to save her son’s life, and if this does not succeed, to avenge his death. But whatever her role is, the reader cannot but observe Tomyris’ calmness and intelligence throughout the whole episode. She has the cleverness to see through Cyrus’ plans and intentions and the prudence to warn him that his deeds may not work to his advantage. Being confident of herself and her power, she has also the boldness to threaten him and give him a choice when she is the one threatened with invasion and war. When her patience reaches its limit, she finally reveals herself as a woman capable of taking revenge when she is harmed.

Other Accounts of Tomyris and Cyrus’ Death

In 1.214.5 Herodotus writes: τὰ μὲν δὴ κατὰ τὴν Κύρου τελευτὴν τοῦ βίου πολλῶν λόγων λεγομένων ὅδε μοι ὁ πιθανώτατος εἴρηται (“ Of the many stories told about the death of Cyrus, this account seems to me to be the most credible version ”) . We learn thus that Herodotus could have narrated Cyrus’ death differently. Indeed, Ctesias ( FGrH 688 F 9) says that Cyrus died after he was wounded by the Indians, and Onesicritus ( FGrH 134 F 36) that he died of a broken heart when he heard of his son Cambyses’ misdeeds. Moreover, according to Xenophon ( Cyropaedia 8.7) he died peacefully in his bed.[14]

By stating that there are other stories regarding Cyrus’ death apart from his own version, Herodotus himself tells us that he is using his own judgment in choosing which version to include in his work. Thus, he explains to his reader his first step: he chose the story according to which the Persian king was killed by a woman. Nevertheless, we know today that there are also several other sources where Tomyris is also presented as being involved in the king’s murder as it happens in Herodotus. Most of these sources preserve only scant information and mention nothing about how and why Tomyris killed Cyrus: e.g. Theophilus ( Ad Autolycum 3.27.1–3) Κύρου οὖν βασιλεύσαντος ἔτεσιν κηʹ καὶ ἀναιρεθέντος ὑπὸ Τομύριδος ἐν Μασσαγετίᾳ . [15] Only two of those sources are somewhat more detailed. The first is Diodorus Siculus (2.44) who says that Cyrus was imprisoned and then crucified by the queen.[16] The second is told by Polyaenus (8.28) who, like Herodotus, reports that Cyrus died at the hands of Tomyris. In this version, however, Tomyris is the one who employs the trick that Cyrus used in Herodotus’ story, following Croesus’ advice. In other words, the queen is presented as the one who made the Persians drunk, imprisoned them, and killed their king.

It is apparent, I think, that both in these sources and in Herodotus’ Histories, this particular woman is depicted as an independent and powerful queen. Otherwise she could not have the courage to fight against the Persian army, and defeat and kill one of the most outstanding Persian kings. Nevertheless, the importance in Herodotus’ account lies in the fact that Tomyris does not simply kill Cyrus; she also avenges her son’s death. In the other accounts Tomyris does not gloat over her vengeance on Cyrus. It is nowhere else mentioned that her reason for attacking and then killing Cyrus was her desire to take revenge for her son’s death. Only Herodotus gives his reader a reason for Tomyris’ cruelty, for in his narrative, Tomyris’ decision to kill Cyrus comes only after her son’s death. Herodotus, in other words, is the only writer who gives his reader a carefully planned description of an instance of female revenge.

To conclude, the pattern of female revenge can be summarized thus: in 1.204 Herodotus informs us about Cyrus’ great passion for power, and his intention to subdue the Massagetae either by marrying Tomyris or by force. In both cases Tomyris understands his intentions immediately, in contrast with the king who needs the help of his counsellors to decide. When the king oversteps the moral codes of fair fighting and, by a trick, becomes the reason for the death of Tomyris’ son, she takes her bloody revenge. Thus the figure of Tomyris, as presented by Herodotus, is unique in her acute-mindedness in foreseeing every intention of Cyrus and her inventiveness in conceiving and executing a plan for revenge.

It goes without saying that there are several more stories of female revenge in other parts of Herodotus’ Histories [17] and that, obviously, Herodotus does not provide a ready model for all of them. After all, as has already been pointed out in my introduction, there is an abundance of women’s stories in the Herodotean world, and their representation in the Histories is usually related to the law ( nomos ) or custom.So if, as Lateiner has argued, “Herodotus differs from his predecessors and successors both in his organization of subjects and in his literary and scientific attitudes towards the material,” [18] then the question arises whether he also differs in his attitudes toward the women that appear in the Histories. I think that this paper answers at least a small part of this question. Herodotus’ representation of some women indeed evinces some literary patterns that we can hardly find anywhere else in the ancient Greek literature.

Bibliography

Bakker, E. J., I. J. F. de Jong, and H. van Wees, eds. 2002. Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Leiden.

Blok, J. 2002. “Women in Herodotus’ Histories.” In Bakker et al. 2002:225–242.

Cameron, A., and A. Kuhrt, eds. 1983. Images of Women in Antiquity. London.

Deacy, S., and K. F. Pierce, eds. 1997. Rape in Antiquity. London.

Dewald, C. 1981. “Women and Culture in Herodotus’ Histories.” In Foley 1981:91–125.

Flory, S. 1987. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit.

Foley, H. P., ed. 1981. Reflections of Women in Antiquity. New York.

Georgiou, I. E. 2002. Women in Herodotus’ Histories. Swansea.

Gera, D. 1997. Warrior Women. The Anonymous Tractatus De Mulieribus. Leiden.

Gould, J. 1989. Herodotus. London.

Harrison, T. 1997. “Herodotus and the Ancient Greek Idea of Rape.” In Deacy and Pierce 1997:185–208.

Hazewindus, M. W. 2004. When Women Interfere. Studies in the Role of Women in Herodotus’ Histories. Amsterdam.

Lateiner, D. 1989. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto.

Munson, R. 1988. “Artemisia in Herodotus.” CA 7:91–106.

Pembroke, S. 1967. “Women in Charge: The Function of Alternatives in Early Greek Tradition and the Idea of Matriarchy.” Journal of the Warbyrg and Courtauld Institutes 30:1–35.

Rossellini, M., and S. Said. 1978. “Usages de femmes et autres nomoi chez les ‘sauvages’ d’ Hérodote: Essai de lecture structurale.” Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa 8:949–1005.

Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1983. “Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek Historiography of Persia.” In Cameron and Kuhrt 1983:20–33.

Strassler, R. B., ed. 2009. The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories. Trans. A. L. Purvis. New York.

Tourraix, A. 1976. “La femme et le pouvoir chez Hérodote.” Dialogues d’ Histoire Ancienne 2:369–386.

Walcot, P. 1978. “Herodotus on Rape.” Arethusa 11:137–147.

Wolff, E. 1964. “Das Weib des Masistes.” Hermes 9:51–58.

Footnotes

Note 1
The first scholar who observes that Herodotus’ Histories are indeed saturated with female presence and attempts to offer a broad account of women in the historian’s work is Dewald (1981).

Note 2
Scholarship on women in Herodotus can generally be separated into two categories: (1) Readers who regard Herodotus first and last as an historian, though perhaps a highly imaginative one, and (2) readers who follow a more literary point of view and lay the emphasis on Herodotus’ text. The first category includes Tourraix 1976, Dewald 1981, and Lateiner 1989. The second category includes Wolf 1964, Pembroke 1967, Rossellini and Said 1978, Walcot 1978, Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983, Harrison 1997, and Munson 1988. For a survey of the recent Herodotean scholarship regarding women, see Blok 2002:225–242. Other works that have influenced some of the ideas developed in this paper are Flory’s useful study (1987) on the motif of the clever, vengeful queen in Herodotus, Georgiou 2002, and Hazewindus 2004.

Note 3
See Blok 2002:227–228.

Note 4
The definition is given by Blok (2002:227).

Note 5
Lateiner 1989:135–140.

Note 6
Hazewindus 2004:153–154.

Note 7
Hazewindus 2004:156–157.

Note 8
See also Georgiou 2002:48.

Note 9
Hazewindus 2004:158.

Note 10
Georgiou 2002:49.

Note 11
Flory 1987:42–43 argues that Tomyris fills Cyrus with blood as he filled her son with undiluted wine (1.212). Likewise, the insulted wife of Candaules wanted her husband to be killed “in the same place” where he first disgraced her.

Note 12
Gould 1989:131. Gera 1997:188–189 has more rightly observed that “Tomyris represents in her dealings with Cyrus a peculiar combination of moderation and bloodthirstiness, wisdom and savagery.” Cf. Georgiou 2002:52n118.

Note 13
As Hazewindus has it: “We see that not the fact that Cyrus invaded her land is decisive but the fact that he did not listen to her demand to return her son” (2004:173).

Note 14
Note that in all the ancient sources, except Xenophon, Cyrus dies in a battle while expanding his empire in the East. The remarkable difference, therefore, regards the identity of the enemy.

Note 15
Cf. also Georgius Syncellus Ecloga Chronographica 282.18–19, Lucian Charon 13.15–18 (Lucian specifically reports that Tomyris put Cyrus’ head in a skin full of blood, but again nothing is mentioned regarding the reason why this happened); Chronicon Paschale 269.15, Macarius Apocriticus 4.170.8–9; Suda s.v. Tomyris.

Note 16
Diodorus does not mention the queen’s name. Furthermore, he regards the female character who killed Cyrus as the queen of the Scythians and not of the Massagetae. It is likely, however, that he is also talking about Tomyris, as it seems the land of the Massagetae was often thought to be Scythia. After all, Herodotus himself notes that the two nations have several similarities (1.201, 215, 216; 4.11). It is therefore easy to confuse them. See also Gera 1997:188n5.

Note 17
See for example 1.145–146, 2.100, 6.138.

Note 18
Lateiner 1989:8.