Volume 15/No. 2/October 1996
techniques include the repetition of narrative patterns
and the juxtapositionof events in the narrative in order to suggest an intrinsic connection betweenthem.
Herodotus uses these literary devices toestablish the general concepts thatunderlie the particulars and thereby explain them, without providing an explicit,rational analysis. Whether or not analogical thinking is a general characteristic of archaic Greek thought,
Herodotus certainly expresses his views both implicitly,through analogical and literary devices, and explicitly, through direct, analyticalstatements. Thus, any serious attempt to understand Herodotus’ views must takeinto account both types of expression.In what follows, after a brief summary of Solon’s views, I will examine thedirect and indirect evidence for Herodotus’ acceptance of these views. I will limitmyself tothree types of indirect evidence: the repetition of key words and phrases,the repetition of narrative patterns, and the juxtaposition of events.
II. SOLON’S VIEWS
Solon makes three main points in his speech to Croesus (1.29–33).
First,he knows that the god is completely jealous and likes to make trouble for men:
Second, because the gods are so jealous, human happiness is extremelyunstableandman’slifeisfullofmisfortune(
1.32.4).The causal connection between the jealous gods and the instability of humanhappiness is made clear:
(for the god, having shown a glimpse of happiness to many, overturnsthem root and branch, 1.32.9). Human happiness is ephemeral because the jealousgods make it so.
10. Cf. Lateiner (1977) and (1984); Dewald (1985) 50; Red
eld (1985) 113; Boedeker (1987)201; and Flory (1987) 13–16.11. See Boedeker (1988) 42; Dewald (1993) 57; and Gera (1993) 36.12. See G. E. R. Lloyd (1966) 172–209 and Corcella (1984) 25–54 on analogy as a fun-damental aspect of archaic Greek thought. It has also been noted that such devices are partic-ularly characteristic of works originally designed for oral performance; see Masaracchia (1984)441.13. Among the many discussions of this passage, note especially Regenbogen (1930b); Hellman(1934); Nawratil (1942); Krischer (1964); Immerwahr (1966) 154–61; and more recently, Sage(1985). All translations from Herodotus are my own.14. I accept the arguments of P¨otscher (1958) 9–10 and Immerwahr (1966) 314 that Herodoteanterms such as
refer to a divine power that represents the concerted e
ortsof the gods as a group (despite individual di
erences) to maintain a boundary between the humanand divine spheres.15. According to Pohlenz (1937) 111–15, the concept of
in Herodotus refers to adivine intervention in human a
airs in order to preserve the proper proportion between gods andmen. Recent studies have come to similar conclusions. E.g., Lloyd-Jones (1971) de
nes it as “the