Herodotus' Conception of Foreign Languages[*] Thomas Harrison (University College, London) Histos 2, 1998 Introduction In one o the most

amous !assages in his Histories, Herodotus has the "thenians give the reasons #hy they #ould never $etray %reece (8&1''&2)( irst and oremost, the images and tem!les o the gods, $urnt and re)uiring vengeance, and then *the %ree+ thing*, $eing o the same $lood and the same language, having common shrines and sacri ices and the same #ay o li e&,1- .ith race or $lood, and #ith religious cult, language a!!ears as one o the chie determinants o %ree+ identity& This im!ression is con irmed in Herodotus* accounts o oreign !eo!les( language is / #ith religious customs, dress, hairstyles, se0ual ha$its / one o the +ey items on Herodotus* chec+list o similarities and di erences #ith oreign !eo!les&,2That language #as an im!ortant element o #hat, to a %ree+, it meant to $e a %ree+, should not !erha!s $e thought sur!rising& "s is #ell +no#n, the %ree+s called non/%ree+s $ar$aroi, a term usually ta+en to re er !e1oratively to the $a$$le o oreign s!eech&,2- 3or should it $e thought sur!rising o any !eo!le& Com!are this de inition rom an "ra$ic/4nglish dictionary o the three letter root ae/1a/ma( s!ea+ing incorrect "ra$ic, dum$, s!eechless, $ar$arian, non/"ra$, oreigner, alien, 5ersian&* 5olish riends in orm me that they invaria$ly ind themselves sei6ed $y uncontrolla$le laughter on hearing s!o+en C6ech( C6ech allegedly sounds li+e 5olish s!o+en $y a ive/year/old child, or #hile eating !otatoes&,'- Herodotus himsel ascri$es a very %ree+/ sounding linguistic sno$$ery to his $ar$arians& The 4gy!tians call all #ho are not o the same language (homoglossous) $ar$arians (2&178&7)&,7- (5resuma$ly here #e are to understand that they called them *the 4gy!tian or $ar$arians*&,8-) Herodotus* 5ersians also had ideas o language #hich re lected $adly on the %ree+s( !eo!le o the same language as one another should not, 9ardonius says, ma+e #ar on one another $ut ma+e !eace through heralds (:&9&$2)& This is, o course, #hat they do, at least #ell and or long enough to de eat the 5ersians& There is !erha!s also an im!lication in 9ardonius* remar+ that those o di erent languages are a it o$1ect o aggression&,:In other res!ects, ho#ever, Herodotus* conce!tion o oreign languages / or the %ree+ conce!tion o oreign languages im!licit in the Histories, or the distinction $et#een the t#o #ill occasionally $e very grey / is very much more sur!rising, more com!le0 and more contradictory than, at irst sight, it might a!!ear& Herodotus #as not, o course, a !ro essional !hilologist( #e have no reason or right to e0!ect a consistent or a rationali6ed theory o the nature o language im!licit in his Histories, let alone e0!licitly !resented, 1ust as #e cannot ta+e or granted the e0istence o any single *%ree+ vie# o language* o #hich he is the re!resentative& .hat he gives us is a su$stantial $ody o material, scattered in a #ide variety o conte0ts, suggestive o assum!tions o the nature o language #hich are very di erent rom our o#n& The !ur!ose o this !a!er is to try to tease out the assum!tions underlying this material& I #ill concentrate on our main areas( his +no#ledge o oreign languages; his !resentation o oreign languages (and the degree o a#areness o language di erence evident in his narrative); the %ree+ conce!tuali6ation o oreign languages; and inally the imagined relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and oreign languages& 1& Herodotus* +no#ledge o oreign languages Ho# much does Herodotus +no# o any oreign language< Ho# systematic is his interest in oreign languages< It is !ro$a$le that Herodotus could not read or s!ea+ any language other than %ree+& .e might have e0!ected a Halicarnassian to have $een a$le to understand Carian& Herodotus does tell a story o ho# the !romantis o the oracle o "!ollo 5t=os, #hen consulted $y the 4uro!ian 9ys on $ehal o 9ardonius, s!o+e in a *$ar$arian language* (8&127&2)( at irst, those three %ree+/ s!ea+ers #ho had $een de!uted to ta+e notes #ere at a loss at this marvel, $ut then 9ys snatched the #a0 ta$let rom one o their hands and $egan to #rite, or he understood that the oracle #as in Carian&,8- 4lse#here Herodotus introduces the )uestion o #hether the Carian

language derives rom the Caunian or vice versa, $ut cannot settle it (1&1:2)& " glance at the range o remar+s made $y Herodotus on other oreign languages sho#s, ho#ever, that there is nothing here to suggest a s!ecial +no#ledge or even a s!ecial interest in Carian&,9- 3or can #e merely ta+e or granted rom Herodotus* Carian $ac+ground that he #as a$le to understand the Carian language&,1>In the case o other languages, he sho#s himsel ignorant $y his interest& ?amously he asserts that all 5ersian names end in the letter sigma,,11- so revealing that he +ne# all his 5ersian through its %ree+ orms (1&129),12- / and also ignoring his o#n evidence o the names o 5ersian #omen such as "tossa or 5haedyme& "s 9eyer commented on this !assage, *9it @echt $e#er+t er, dass die 5erser sel$st davon nichts #Assten; die 4ntdec+ung 6eigt uns, dass Herodot +ein .ort !ersisch +annte&*,12- Herodotus seems to have mista+en all !ictogra!hic scri!ts or 4gy!tian, so that the discovery o various Hittite and other near/4astern monuments convinced him that he had ound traces o the cam!aign o Besostris, a semi/mythical 4gy!tian +ing, in "sia 9inor, 5hoenicia, and even Thrace&,1'- He also claims to have seen, and to have $een a$le easily to read, e0am!les o *Cadmeian letters* inscri$ed in the tem!le o "!ollo Ismenias in The$es (7&79/81); these inscri!tions, in immaculate %ree+ verse, he $elieved to have $een inscri$ed $y contem!oraries o Cedi!us and his ather Laius&,17Herodotus* mista+es may sometimes $e amusing, $ut his ignorance is neither unusual nor sur!rising& Themistocles #as a rare e0am!le o a %ree+ #ho could s!ea+ a oreign language; he learnt 5ersian #ell enough, 5lutarch tell us, in a year, to $e a$le to converse luently #ith Der0es and incur the 1ealousy o the 5ersian no$ility $y his intimacy #ith the +ing (Them& 29&7)&,18- This vignette seems to sho# Themistocles* language s+ills as yet another re lection o his s!ecial intelligence, the o$1ect rather o a#e than imitation&,1:- 4ven in the conte0t o "le0ander*s con)uest o 5ersia, #e hear that 5eucestas #as the only 9acedonian to learn 5ersian ("rr& "na$& 8&2>&2)&,18- Thucydides sho#s no greater a degree o sensitivity to oreign languages than Herodotus( he descri$es #hat must have $een a letter in "ramaic #ith the catch/all term *assyria grammata* ('&7>&2)&,19- ?or the most !art indeed the %ree+s seem to have thought (li+e the Eritish today<) that the $urden o res!onsi$ility lay on oreigners to understand them&,2>- The caste o inter!reters in 4gy!t through #hom the %ree+s and 4gy!tians made themselves understood #ere 4gy!tian children $rought u! and educated $y the %ree+s, not the other #ay around (2&178&')&,21- "s this e0am!le sho#s, #hen the %ree+s envisaged the !rocess o learning a oreign language, they did so as something underta+en $y children rather than adults&,22- Cnly in the @oman !eriod, as a unction !erha!s o the @omans* stronger ethos o assimilating oreign cultures,,22- do #e see any sign / or e0am!le, #ith a mar+edly more com!limentary vie# o Themistocles rom Cornelius 3e!os / that com!etence in a language other than one*s o#n #as considered admira$le&,2'- 4ven then it is hard not to #onder ho# great a gras! these authors really had o the !racticalities o multilingualism to imagine it !ossi$le or 9ithridates or Cleo!atra to have s!o+en u! to t#enty ive languages (or ho# 3e!os could have imagined it !ossi$le that Themistocles s!o+e 5ersian $etter than the 5ersians) / might 9ithridates* and Cleo!atra*s +no#ledge o oreign languages have $een the unction o their status as the dangerous enemies o @ome<,27" distrust o oreign languages is also re lected in a num$er o !ara$les o the dangers, indeed the ultimate im!ossi$ility, o cultural integration& Bo #e have the story o the Bcythian +ing Bcyles, introduced $y Herodotus as an illustration o the Bcythian hatred o oreign customs ('&:8&1)& Bcyles, having learnt the *%ree+ language and letters*('&:8&1),28- rom his Istrian mother, $ecame more and more envelo!ed into %ree+ culture until, on the eve o his initiation into the mysteries o Fionysus, his house #as struc+ $y a thunder$olt rom the god; his !eo!le, as a result o his initiation, set u! his $rother in his !lace and +illed him ('&:8/8>)& The 9edian +ing Gya0ares o ers some Bcythian su!!liants the o!!ortunity to educate a grou! o children in the Bcythian language and in archery (1&:2&2)( a ter $eing harshly treated $y Gya0ares one day, or returning em!ty/ handed rom a hunt, they have their revenge $y +illing one o the $oys in their charge and eeding him to the +ing (1&:2&7)& 9ost illuminating !erha!s is the story o the origin o the term *Lemnian

deeds* to descri$e outrageously $loody actions (8&128)& The "thenian #ives +idna!!ed $y the Lemnians at the estival o "rtemis at Erauron taught their children the *"ttic language and the manners (tro!ous) o the "thenians*& "s a result they soon dominated the !ure/$red 5elasgian children o Lemnos& The 5elasgians as+ed themselves #hat these "thenian children #ould achieve #hen they #ere men, and so +illed them and their mothers& The "ttic language and a characteristic "ttic reedom o s!irit go hand/in/hand here&,2:- Eut another moral shouts out more clearly rom all these stories( that each should +ee! to his o#n& Herodotus does, nonetheless, introduce a num$er o oreign #ords (largely terms or e0otic, untranslatea$le, trade items) into his Histories&,28- Ivan Lin orth a!!lauded Herodotus or $eing so s!aring in his use o oreign #ords; he com!lains, $y com!arison, o modern travel/$oo+s *sometimes rendered nearly unintelligi$le $y oreign #ords*&,29- .hether or not he uses them o ten or s!aringly is a di icult, since largely su$1ective, )uestion( #e cannot +no# ho# many oreign #ords he had at his dis!osal& .e may !erha!s 1udge / though it is again a su$1ective )uestion / that Herodotus im!arts his +no#ledge o oreign #ords #ith a certain relish, as i they #ere, in his mind, !ri6ed souvenirs o his en)uiries (ho#ever those en)uiries #ere carried out)& @ather more concretely, #e can com!are his +no#ledge o oreign #ords #ith that o other authors& I #e ta+e the list o loan #ords rom the 3ear 4ast com!iled $y Thomas Eraun, Herodotus emerges as including in his Histories all $ut one o the archaic near/eastern loan #ords,,2>- and a su$stantial !ro!ortion, ive out o eighteen, o those #ords Eraun classes as classical loan #ords& C course, re erences to oreign #ords in e0tant %ree+ literature are hardly a relia$le guide to general %ree+ usage; #e certainly cannot argue rom the silence o other sources that Herodotus #as the irst to discover a oreign #ord& The com!arison o Eraun*s list #ith Herodotus, ho#ever, only strengthens the im!ression dra#n rom the discre!ancy $et#een his +no#ledge o archaic and o classical loan #ords that Herodotus* +no#ledge o oreign #ords is largely or e0clusively second/hand, and that it is dra#n rom %ree+ sources& C the ive classical loan #ords rom Eraun*s list, or e0am!le, deltos (#riting ta$let), $ussos (a ine te0tile),21-, sindon (linen), +amelos (camel) and +innamomon (cinnamon), only +innamomon clearly a!!ears irst in the Histories& The other our terms all a!!ear in earlier authors, "eschylus or 5indar, or in one case in Herodotus* contem!orary Bo!hocles&,22- Those classical loan #ords rom Eraun*s list that Herodotus does not include in his Histories largely a!!ear in later sources, so !erha!s suggesting that Herodotus* coverage o oreign #ords current in %ree+ voca$ulary #as !retty good, $ut they also a!!ear in a #ide variety o sources / orators, !hiloso!hers and !lay#rights as #ell as, less sur!risingly, in Deno!hon / con irming the im!ression o the lac+ o any !articular *!ro essional* e0!ertise in oreign #ords&,22- In short, it seems that, although Herodotus may have $een ade!t at gathering together the oreign #ords or oriental e0otica #hich #ere amiliar in cultured %ree+ circles, he #as in no sense a !ioneer in the investigation o oreign languages& Indeed it is dou$t ul i there #ere any such !ioneers& Though there may have $een a greater interest sho#n in dialectical di erences #ithin the %ree+ language, there is no sign, argua$ly until Hesychius, o any systematic in)uiry into oreign #ords&,2'Ho# re!resentative is Herodotus o the general degree o +no#ledge o or interest in oreign languages among the %ree+s< Burely, given the degree o contact $et#een the %ree+ and *$ar$arian* #orlds in !ractice,,27- there must also have $een a greater degree o linguistic contact as #ell& Btill, ho#ever, the !oint stands that, #hilst Herodotus and other authors used a smattering o oreign terms to in1ect s!ice and colour into their te0ts, little status seems to have $een attached to the more systematic +no#ledge o oreign languages& That Herodotus, o mi0ed Carian and %ree+ $ac+ground and a man (leaving aside the )uestion o the e0tent o his actual travels) at very least #ith a !ro essed interest in oreign cultures and an a!!arent delight in revealing his +no#ledge o oreign languages, should $e no more +no#ledgea$le than he is is star+ testament to this& 2& Herodotus* !resentation o oreign languages Herodotus is also generally not sensitive to the )uestion o the language in #hich his non/%ree+s

s!ea+&,28- There is !ro$a$ly only one clear instance (i you e0clude an oracle that is s!o+en in Carian on the grounds that it is !resuma$ly $elieved to $e su!ernatural,2:-) o a %ree+ s!ea+ing a oreign language in the Histories( Histiaeus, the originator o the Ionian @evolt, and or a long time $e orehand a courtier o Farius, is e0!licitly stated to have shouted out to a 5ersian soldier #ho #as chasing a ter him in the 5ersian language (5ersida glossan metieis) that he #as Histiaeus the 9ilesian (8&29&2)& This story is matched $y a single instance o a 5ersian s!ea+ing %ree+& "t the The$an $an)uet thro#n $y "ttaginus in honour o 9ardonius and the 5ersians $e ore 5lataea, a 5ersian #as seated ne0t to a %ree+ on every couch& Thersander, a man o Crchomenus, had a couch/mate #ho s!o+e %ree+ (Hellada glossan ienta, 9&18&2) and #ho gave him a *ver$al memorial* o their meal together( the in ormation that o all those seated $e ore them, and o the army encam!ed $y the river outside, in a short time the over#helming ma1ority #ould $e dead& "t the same time as he said these things he cried& To as+ #hether the other %ree+s and 5ersians #ere having e)ually meaning ul conversations, or to generali6e on the $asis o this story that *the 5ersians could mi0 #ith other !eo!les #ithout the !rovision o inter!reters*,28- is surely to !ress this anecdote urther than it allo#s& " %ree+/s!ea+ing 5ersian (#ith the linguistic status o the remaining 5ersians le t conveniently vague) might sim!ly have seemed !re era$le to Herodotus to hy!othesi6ing a #hole regiment o inter!reters&,29Cn other occasions #e sim!ly cannot ta+e or granted in #hat language Herodotus envisages conversations as ta+ing !lace& Cne other !ossi$le instance o %ree+s #ho s!ea+ 5ersian comes rom the story o a B!artan em$assy to Cyrus (1&172&1)& The B!artans #arn Cyrus that he must not meddle #ith the %ree+ cities o "sia 9inor, or he #ill have them to ans#er to& Cyrus then turned to the %ree+s !resent and en)uired o them #ho #ere these B!artans and ho# many #ere they that they should come and !ronounce to him in this ashion& This is one o a num$er o stories in Herodotus and else#here o 5ersian +ings* as+ing *#here on earth* is "thens or B!arta; the tendency o the stories is to rein orce the status o the %ree+ cities as the !luc+y underdogs, the $rave Favids in the struggle against the 5ersian %oliath&,'>- The detail o the %ree+s !resent at Farius* court is )uite incidental& 3o#, o course, #e +no# that there #ere %ree+s at Farius* court,,'1- and #e might guess that they could s!ea+ a s!attering at least o 5ersian& In general, it is reasona$le to su!!ose also that there #as a ar greater degree o contact $et#een %reece and 5ersia, and $y e0tension o linguistic contact, than a!!ears to $e the case at irst sight& Eut #e cannot sa ely !resume that Herodotus envisaged the conversation in 5ersian, or indeed that he ever thought to thin+ a$out it& Bometimes Herodotus ma+es e0!licit the !resence o inter!reters, or e0am!le during Cyrus* intervie# o Croesus on the !yre (1&88&8), or in the conte0t o Farius* demonstration that the Callatian Indians #ould not $urn their !arents or any sum o money, #hereas the %ree+s #ould not (as the Callatian Indians do) eat their !arents (2&28&2/'); Cam$yses commandeers some ish/ eaters to inter!ret #ith the 4thio!ians (2&19&1); Farius tal+s through an inter!reter to the Bamian Byloson (2&1'>&2); Herodotus re ers to his o#n inter!reter on his (alleged) travels in 4gy!t (2&178&8); he also re ers to the need or seven inter!reters to accom!any Bcythians on visits to the "rgi!!aei ('&2')&,'2- Ho#ever, on other occasions, or e0am!le the earlier conversation $et#een Byloson and Farius (2&129), or in #ritten corres!ondence $et#een !eo!le o di erent nationalities, or e0am!le the e0tended corres!ondence o the Bamian 5olycrates and the 4gy!tian +ing "masis (2&'>/'2), Herodotus does not a!!ear to $other himsel / any more than his model, Homer / #ith the )uestion o the language s!o+en& Though #e may #onder in some instances #hether the !resence o inter!reters constitutes a mar+er o the es!ecially alien nature o the dialogue at issue / so, Herodotus* mention o an inter!reter during Farius* *seminar on com!arative unerary !ractices* comes only a ter the introduction o the Callatian Indians,'2- / there is $y no means al#ays any a!!arent rhyme or reason to the !resence o a$sence o inter!reters& .e cannot then assume on the $asis o stories such as Bolon*s visit to the court o Croesus / any#ay chronologically im!ossi$le /, and the lac+ o any mention o inter!reters there, that *Lydians &&& #ere a$le to understand %ree+*&,''"gain Herodotus* !resentation o oreign languages is not out o +ee!ing #ith that o many %ree+

#riters& Though the %ree+ tragedians did sometimes try to convey $ar$arian s!eech through *caco!hony, other acoustic e ects, and the use o scattered items o oreign voca$ulary*,'7- and o e!ic voca$ulary, in general they ollo# the convention that $ar$arians s!ea+ %ree+ / though attention is at the same time dra#n re!eatedly to their $ar$arous s!eech,,'8- and though s!ea+ing %ree+ can $e ta+en as !roo o $eing a %ree+&,':- The %ree+ comedians a!!ear to have $een rather more interested in language di erence, i only $ecause they sa# the comic o!!ortunities o oreign (including regional %ree+) accents&,'8- Their im!ressions o oreign s!eech may sometimes contain authentic elements o oreign languages; they o er some guide at least to the regional di erences in !ronunciation #ithin %reece&,'9It is only !erha!s #ith Deno!hon*s "na$asis, that #e see a more realistic a!!reciation o language di erence& Thucydides is conscious o the !ractical o!!ortunities o the di erences in %ree+ dialects,,7>- $ut his !ortrayal o oreign languages / or e0am!le o the 4urytanians #ho, *so it is said, s!ea+ a language #hich is almost unintelligi$le and eat their meat ra#* (agnostatoi de glossan +ai omo!hagoi, 2&9'&7) / is essentially caricatured& In the "na$asis, ho#ever, #e see named inter!reters (1&2&1:, 1&8&12),71- and a ma+eshi t inter!reter (7&'&'); noticea$ly also the language s!o+en $y an inter!reter is on one occasion s!eci ied ('&7&2')&,72- (Ey contrast, Thucydides terms the Carian %aulites diglossos (8&87&2) though it may ma+e more sense to su!!ose him trilingual&,72-) Bcenes li+e that o the slave !eltast #ho comes or#ard rom the ran+s to inter!ret #ith his o#n !eo!le, the 9acronians ('&8&'), o the cu!$earer #ho to the amusement o all !resent understands %ree+ (:&2&27), o the inter!reter #ho recognises Tissa!hernes* $rother (2&7&27), or o the intervie# through an inter!reter #ith some 5ersian #omen at a s!ring ('&7&9/1>) seem to re lect the real attem!t o Deno!hon to *get $y* in oreign lands& The convention that $ar$arians s!ea+ %ree+ has colla!sed under the #eight o his e0!erience& Herodotus* inter!reters, $y contrast, seem to $e a!!lied to the narrative li+e a linguistic !anacea& Certainly Herodotus does not entertain the !ossi$ility o Bcythian inter!reters #ho can s!ea+ all seven languages re)uired or a 1ourney to the "rgi!!aei, $ut he a!!ears to imagine that the %ree+s !resent at Farius* intervie# o the Callatian Indians #ere a$le to understand the Indians $y means o a single Callatian/Indian/to/%ree+ inter!reter / surely a rare commodity&,7'- This !assage must re lect the act that Herodotus* inter!reters are rather more the !roducts o narrative convenience than o any great e0!erience o the !racticalities o language di erence& ,77- The tem!tation must $e resisted, ho#ever, to imagine that the di erence $et#een the t#o historians is the re lection o a !rogressive enlightenment #ith regards to oreign languages& The accounts o the cam!aigns o "le0ander sho# little o the !ractical a#areness concerning language o Deno!hon, very !ro$a$ly due to the distance in time rom the events&,78- It is Deno!hon, rather than Herodotus, #ho a!!ears to $e the e0ce!tion to the rule& 2& The %ree+ conce!tuali6ation o oreign languages Ho# did Herodotus and the %ree+s envisage the di erence $et#een %ree+ and oreign languages< The entire rame #ithin #hich the %ree+s vie#ed oreign languages #as, in a num$er o #ays, very di erent& ?irst, although on a num$er o occasions Herodotus re ers to, or im!lies, the e0istence o a common %ree+ language, including the )uotation #ith #hich I $egan (8&1''&2),,7:Herodotus has no unam$iguous #ay o re erring to dialect as distinct rom language&,78- Cn one occasion he a!!ears at irst sight to come close to a ormula or descri$ing dialect& The cities o Ionia do not use the same language (glossan) as one another, $ut have our characteres glosses, or orms o language (1&1'2&2)& He goes on immediately, ho#ever, in turning to the cities o Lydia (4!hesus, Colo!hon, Le$edus, Teos, Cla6omenae and 5hocaea) to say that these cities *do not agree at all* in their language #ith the other Ionians $ut *sound the same as one another* (homologeousi +ata glossan ouden, s!hisi de homo!honeousi, 1&1'2&')&,79- 4lse#here Herodotus tal+s o the *"ttic language* (glossan, 8&128&2)& This ha6iness in the distinction o language and dialect is not uni)ue to Herodotus& The e0!ression *the "ttic language*, or e0am!le, is used in the !oetry o Bolon;,8>- Thucydides can s!ea+ o the *Forian language* and

"eschylus o the 5hocian&,81- The term diale+tos can $e used o oreign languages,82- and o the range o accents #ithin a city,82- as much as o di erences $et#een cities or regions&,8'- The distinction $et#een dialect and language is, o course, inevita$ly a ha6y one, given that it is o ten dictated rather more $y !olitical than linguistic criteria&,87- The ra!id discovery o distinct Croatian, Ber$ian and Eosnian languages in the ormer Hugoslavia, the ongoing discussion as to the status o ancient 9acedonian,,88- or the )uestion o #hether Bcots or "merican 4nglish are distinct languages, !rovide elo)uent !roo o this&,8:Iust as the $oundary $et#een dialect and language is unclear, so also another common modern distinction is less !revalent( that is, the idea that language sets humans a!art rom animals& "nother #ord, other than glossa, used to denote language, !hone, can $e used as much to descri$e the sound o asses as the language o men ('&129&2);,88- Hermi!!us re ers to the diale+tos o a lam$ ( r& 2 G")& The term anthro!isti, !aralleling !ersisti or doristi,,89- im!licitly e)uates human #ith animal s!eech (B& r& 82: @adt)& "ristotle ma+es the e)uation e0!licit and develo!s it( animals di er, according to locality, $oth in their !hone and in their diale+toi, #hereas men are all the same in !hone $ut di er in their diale+tos ("rist& Hist& "nim& 728$)&,:>- In the "ristotelian 5ro$lemata the distinction $et#een animals and humans is made that animals can only utter at most a e# consonants (5ro$l& 897a); this has the conse)uence that children, $e ore learning their letters, are li+e $easts& The common analogy o oreign s!eech #ith the sound o $irds,:1- !erha!s re lects the same grey $oundary $et#een human and animal s!eech / though, o course, the analogy #ould not !ro!erly dehumani6e the language o $ar$arians i there #ere no distinction dra#n $et#een human and animal s!eech& "nother $roader idea that colours the characteri6ation o oreign languages is that the manner o s!eech o a !eo!le or o an individual re lects certain innate characteristics& Bo, Ion in 4uri!ides* !lay !rays that his mother $e "thenian *that rom my mother ree s!eech (!arrhesia) might $e mine (4& Ion 8:>/7)&,:2- " similar im!lication lies $ehind the discovery o the identity o the $oy Cyrus& Cyrus, $rought u! a ter his e0!osure as a child as the son o a s#ineherd, is discovered #hen in a classless !layground, encom!assing $oth the sons o s#ineherds and o aristocrats, he is a!!ointed +ing and #hi!s the son o "rtem$ares& .hen summoned $e ore his grand ather, the +ing "styages, his *very ree* manner o s!eech (hy!o+risis eleutheoritere, 1&118&1), together #ith his loo+s and age, reveal him as the right ul +ing o 9edia, and reduce "styages to s!eechlessness& Cyrus* reedom o s!eech, one sus!ects, in so ar as it is a mar+er o his royalty, is contrasted im!licitly #ith the lac+ o reedom o his uture su$1ects& ?reedom o s!eech is something that the Chorus o "eschylus* 5ersians loo+ or#ard to as a result o the demise o their monarchy, $ut #hich they ail to achieve (791/')&,:2- ?or the lac+ o such a ree s!irit is the characteristic o the slave, as Bo!hocles ma+es clear $y im!lication #hen Feianeira in the Trachiniai asserts that a slave can s!ea+ a ree logos (Bo!h& Trach& 82/2)& The slave or oreigner*s lac+ o reedom o s!eech is not 1ust the result o their circumstances (it is not 1ust or ear o $eing #hi!!ed that slaves are not ha$itually outs!o+en,:'-), $ut o their nature&,:7- This idea seems to $e connected to another image o $ar$arian s!eech, that it is ver$ose and lac+ing in content&,:8- Ear$arian s!eech is !erha!s then at the o!!osite !ole to the archety!ally !ithy (and ree<) Laconic s!eech&,::The central element in the characterisation o oreign languages is the em!hasis on their incom!rehensi$ility& Bo, or e0am!le, as #e have seen, Thucydides descri$ed a grou! o "etolians as agnostatoi de glossan (2&9'&7)&,:8- It is $y analogy to this that %ree+ dialects or accents, such as the Les$ian o 5ittacus, can $e descri$ed as $ar$arian (5& 5rot& 2'1c) / though it #ould not seriously have $een maintained that a Les$ian #as not %ree+ / or that a man can $e said to have la!sed into *su$/$ar$arian s!eech*&,:9- It is also $ecause o the imagined incom!rehensi$ility o oreign languages that the re)uent analogy is dra#n $et#een oreign languages, !ro!hecy and the sound o $irds& Herodotus* rationalisation o the myth o the oundation o the oracle o Fodona rests on the idea that 4gy!tian #omen could have $een descri$ed as $lac+ $irds rom the sound o their s!eech (2&7'/:)& Cassandra*s !ro!hecies li+e#ise are descri$ed as uttered in a *$ar$arian language* li+e a s#allo# (!honen $ar$aron, "&

"g& 1>7>/2)&,8>- That this idea is not 1ust a rather ee$le simile is suggested $y the use o the same term hermeneus to descri$e $oth the inter!reter o oracles and o oreign languages&,819ore outlandish languages, or the languages o more outlandish !eo!les, are com!ared to the sounds emitted $y less attractive animals( the Troglodyte 4thio!ians, the astest runners in the #orld (something to do !erha!s #ith their $eing hunted in chariots $y their neigh$ours the %aramantes), have a language *similar* to no other, $ut sounding li+e screeching $ats ('&182&')& The Troglodyte 4thio!ians !rovide an e0am!le o ho# Herodotus and the %ree+s #ere #illing and a$le to see )uite undamental di erences $et#een their o#n language and those o other !eo!les, and so to go to e0tremes in dehumani6ing them& "s #ell as the Troglodytes, #e also hear o the "tarantes, the only *anonymous* !eo!le o #hom #e +no# ('&18'&1), in that they have no !ersonal names&,82- In other #ays, ho#ever, 1ust as Herodotus sees !atterns in the geogra!hy o his #orld (the 3ile mirroring the Fanu$e) or in human customs (4gy!tian men urinating sitting do#n and #omen standing u!), so he tends to see arti icial !atterns in languages& It is this desire to systematise language, or e0am!le, that leads him to the alse conclusion that all 5ersian names end in the letter sigma (1&129), or to the true o$servation that the names o all %ree+ estivals end in the letter al!ha (1&1'8&2)&,82- " similar schematism can $e seen in the characterisations o oreign !eo!les (in terms $oth o their languages and other characteristics) listed in "!!endi0 1& It is all a little too tidy, too convenient, the manner in #hich human $eings are !resented as $eing the sum o ive or si0 cultural com!onents (e&g&, the "ndro!hagoi, '&1>8), or #hen he is less concerned to give details, 1ust t#o (e&g&, the eastern 4thio!ians, :&:>&1)& The schematism o Herodotus* accounts o oreign !eo!les $ecomes even more !ronounced on those occasions on #hich he attem!ts to $lur his categories, or e0am!le $y his o$servations on the language o the %eloni, hal /Bcythian, hal /%ree+ ('&1>8&2), that o the "mmonians, *$et#een* 4gy!tian and 4thio!ian (2&'2&'), or the dress o the Bagartian nomads, hal /5ersian, hal /5actyan (:&87&1)& That such an outloo+ #as not uncommon can $e seen rom the #ides!read use o terms such as mi0ellen, mei0o$ar$aros or hemi$ar$aros&,8'The most drastic orm o schematism !ossi$le in characterising oreign languages is one that Herodotus avoids, ho#ever( that is to s!ea+ as i all languages other than %ree+ #ere one *$ar$arian language* (B& "1& 1282/2)&,87- It is not necessary to imagine that anyone seriously held that there #ere only t#o languages, nor is it necessary to envisage a !rogression rom this a$stract idea o t#o languages to a vision o a #orld #ith countless com!eting languages (or the reverse !rogression)&,88- .hat #e have is rather t#o models o thought that alternate( 1ust as in tragedy the *styli6ed literary milieu* in #hich all $ar$arians s!ea+ %ree+ is !enetrated $y *isolated touches o realism*, in 4dith Hall*s #ords,,8:- so one attitude o indi erence to oreign languages, leading to the characterisation o $ar$arians as a single monolithic grou!, alternates #ith another attitude $ased on the o$servation o linguistic di erences& The di erentiation o oreign languages does not originate in a !hiloso!hical or high$ro# reaction to a !o!ular notion o t#o languages, $ut is indeed itsel a !o!ular idea( the re!resentation o $ar$arians as an untidy horde made u! o countless di erent !eo!les each #ith their o#n languages is a clichJ rom Homer through Herodotus and "eschylus to 5lato and 5oly$ius&,88- " similar association o all $ar$arians together can $e seen in the idea that $ar$arians are aglossos (B& Trach& 1>8>)& This cannot !resuma$ly re lect a $elie that they did not s!ea+, only that their language, $y com!arison #ith %ree+, in some sense did not constitute an authentic language&,89- This #ould tally #ith the re)uent characterisation o oreign languages in terms o animal sounds& "nother #ay in #hich Herodotus* !resentation o oreign languages resists an over/deterministic schematism is on the su$1ect o the structure o language& The %ree+s tended to see di erences $et#een languages as $eing di erences in names& Learning a language #as merely a !rocess o *learning names* (Fissoi Logoi FG E9> 8 (12))& " sentence, in the !hrase o Fenyer, #as merely a *dollo! o names*&,9>- The same idea o *language as nomenclature* is !erha!s re lected in the characterisation o oreign languages through sounds, in the Homeric language o the gods, itsel 1ust a series o se!arate names, or in the remar+ o Hermogenes in 5lato*s Cratylus that *di erent cities use di erent names or the same things* (5l& Crat& 287d/e)&,91-

Certain details o Herodotus* !resentation o oreign languages might have $een used to argue against such a !osition& To $egin #ith, there are not al#ays e)uivalent #ords in one*s o#n language or the #ords o oreign languages& The %ree+s never +ne# a crocodile until they discovered them in 4gy!t& Bo they named crocodiles, or cham!sai, as they #ere +no#n in 4gy!t according to Herodotus (2&89&2), $y analogy to something #hich they did have a #ord or, #hich a crocodile resem$led, and #hich, through $eing in another sense !re!osterously unli+e a crocodile, served at the same time to $elittle the 4gy!tians, or to reduce their marvels to a more managea$le scale( a li6ard or, in %ree+, a +ro+odeilos&,92- In this case, the %ree+s used a #ord already in their language; in another case they $orro# a #ord, al$eit translating it on the #ay( the one/eyed !eo!le, he remar+s, *#e name in Bcythian* as *"rimas!ians* as *"rima* means one, and *s!ou* eye ('&2:)&,92- Herodotus #as also a#are, as the case o the crocodile im!lies, o #hat #e #ould call homonyms, that the same name might a!!ly to t#o di erent things( the Ligyes #ho live a$ove 9assalia call traders sigynnai #hereas the Cy!riots use the same #ord to descri$e s!ears (7&9&2)&,9'- 9ost im!ortantly !erha!s, rom the !oint o vie# o the idea o *language as nomenclature*, Herodotus sho#s an a#areness that oreign #ords do not al#ays mean the same as the e)uivalent %ree+ #ord( that is to say, the re erent may $e the same #hilst the meaning is di erent& The 4gy!tian name or the 4thio!ian deserters, "smach, means *those #ho stand on the le t/hand side o the Ging* (2&21)&,97These o$servations might have led Herodotus to )uestion the idea o *language as nomenclature*& Bel /evidently, ho#ever, they did not& There is no sign that Herodotus ever thought through the im!lications o such material, or indeed that he ever ormulated any general vie#s on the nature o language& '& The imagined relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and oreign languages .e move no# to the most com!le0 and involved )uestion, that o the imagined relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and oreign languages& "s #e have seen, Herodotus is a#are o the e0istence o #hat #e #ould call *loan #ords* and o the need to ormulate ne# #ords to designate un amiliar things& Foes he, ho#ever, envisage a $roader connection $et#een di erent languages< "nd, i so, o #hat nature is that connection< ?irst and amously, Herodotus ascri$es the introduction o the al!ha$et to the 5hoenicians (7&78)( The 5hoenicians #ho arrived #ith Cadmus (#ho included the %e!hyraioi) introduced many s+ills to the %ree+s u!on settling in this land, and in !articular letters (grammata); or, as it seems to me, the %ree+s did not have them $e ore this& To $egin #ith these 5hoenicians used the letters #hich all the 5hoenicians used& In the course o time, they changed at the same time as the language the sha!e o their letters& 3o# the %ree+s #ho chie ly lived a$out them in those !arts #ere at that time the Ionians& They then learnt the letters rom the 5hoenicians, and a ter ma+ing modi ications to the sha!e o a e# o them, used them& Herodotus sometimes inds it di icult to imagine any historical change as evolutionary( so, or e0am!le, the Lydians* trans ormation rom great #arriors to decadent tradesmen #earing sli!!ers is the result o a !lan o Croesus to save his !eo!le rom a #orse ate at the hands o Cyrus (1&17'/78)& In the case o the introduction o the al!ha$et, he a!!ears to envisage a relatively natural, evolutionary change, something not true o those o his contem!oraries #ho ascri$ed the introduction o the al!ha$et to individual inventors, #hether it $e Cadmus, 5alamedes, Hermes, Theuth, Fanaus or 5rometheus&,98- Herodotus* theory o the introduction o the al!ha$et is $ased, o course, on his o$servation o the di erences $et#een the letter/ orms o his day and o his Gadmeia grammata rom The$es& (It is !erha!s the relatively amiliar orm o these inscri!tions that made it necessary or him to reconstruct the develo!ment o the %ree+ al!ha$et in t#o stages&) The sha!es o the letters o the al!ha$et, ho#ever, a!!ear in Herodotus* account almost to mould themselves to the sounds o the %ree+ language& .hy should a change o language necessitate a change in letter/ orms< Clearly this #as not a )uestion #hich Herodotus thought to as+ himsel & Foes he, ho#ever, assume that there is an ideal ashion in #hich a letter re!resents a sound<,9:-

.e might also e0!ect signs o non/%ree+ in luence on the %ree+ language in Herodotus* discussion o the 5elasgian origins o the %ree+s (1&78/8)& Herodotus* argument here re)uires a airly lengthy !rJcis& His discussion comes in the conte0t o his irst introduction o the B!artans and the "thenians (1&78&2), one o the Foric genos, one o the Ionic& These t#o !eo!les #ere *in ancient times one 5elasgian, the other a Hellenic !eo!le*, one a !eo!le #hich had never le t its home, the other one #hich had #andered #idely& (Herodotus then recounts the #anderings o the Hellenes in the reign o Feucalion until the !oint at #hich they enter the 5elo!onnese and are called Forian, 1&78&2&,98-) .hat language the 5elasgians s!o+e, Herodotus cannot say or certain, $ut i it is !ossi$le to say (ei toutoisi te+mairomenon dei legein, 1&7:&2), the evidence o the surviving 5elasgians, those #ho d#elt at Creston,,99- or those #ho had ounded 5lacia and Bcylace on the Helles!ont, suggests that the original 5elasgians s!o+e a $ar$arian language& That the language these !eo!les s!ea+ is 5elasgian (or at least a relia$le inde0 o the $ar$arian nature o 5elasgian) is suggested also $y the o$servation that their language is unli+e that o any o their neigh$ours, #hereas the !eo!les o Creston and o 5lacia and Bcylace s!ea+ the same language as one another( this *ma+es clear* that these !eo!les im!orted the character o their language (glosses charactera) #hen they moved to their !resent lands and that they had guarded their common language&,1>>.here does this leave the 5elasgian "thenians< The "ttic race (to "tti+on ethnos), $eing 5elasgian (eon 5elasgi+on), at the same time as they changed to $ecome %ree+s learnt the language (hama tei meta$olei es Hellenas +ai ten glossan metemathe, 1&7:&2)& The %ree+ race (to Helleni+on), in Herodotus* o!inion, have used the same language ever since they irst came into $eing (e!eite egeneto, 1&78&1)& .hen the %ree+ race,1>1- #as se!arated o rom the 5elasgian (a!oschisthen&&& a!o tou 5elasgi+ou), it #as #ea+ and small, $ut then $y the introduction o 5elasgians and other $ar$arians, it gre# to a multitude o races (es !lethos ton ethneon)& The 5elasgian race, on the other hand, $eing $ar$arian, never gre# greatly (oudama megalos au0ethenai)& This is a notoriously muddled and di icult !assage o the Histories,,1>2- crammed #ith revealing assum!tions& (In #hat sense, or e0am!le, do $ar$arian races *never gro# greatly*< 3ot, #e might su!!ose, in terms o num$ers( $ar$arians are, in general, archety!ally numerous&,1>2-) Cn the )uestion o language, ho#ever, the !assage $egs a num$er o )uestions& ?irst, Herodotus manages to maintain an ideal o %ree+ linguistic !urity, $ut only $ecause o the convenient theory that #hile they s!o+e another language they #ere not in act %ree+& Ho# did the "thenians $ecome %ree+< .hat does it mean to change to $ecome %ree+< Herodotus ma+es it sound almost as though learning a language #as a condition o 1oining the clu$&,1>'- ?inally, ho# did the %ree+ language come a$out< 3o ans#er is given& %ree+ #as al#ays %ree+ and the %ree+s al#ays s!o+e %ree+(,1>7- these are Herodotus* !riorities& In other instances, ho#ever, Herodotus concedes a greater degree o non/%ree+ in luence on %ree+& Herodotus* account, or e0am!le, o the ado!tion $y the 5elasgians o the names o the gods (2&72&1) suggests a much closer relationshi! $et#een the 5elasgian and %ree+ languages& Ee ore they heard the names o the gods, the 5elasgians (assuming, interestingly, the e0istence o a num$er o gods,1>8-) called them sim!ly theoi, on the grounds that they had *esta$lished (thentes) all a airs in their order*& This etymology, advanced a!!arently in all seriousness,,1>:seems to suggest that the 5elasgians s!o+e a language at least *a+in to* %ree+&,1>8The most intriguing material, ho#ever, suggesting a $roader relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and oreign languages / and the material that #ill $e the ocus o my remaining discussion / is that surrounding the names o the gods themselves& "s is #ell +no#n, the %ree+s assimilated oreign gods $y su!!osing that they #ere not in act oreign at all, $ut #ere merely the %ree+ gods #orshi!!ed under other names and #ith other rites& Herodotus, in the #ords o @o$ert 5ar+er,

*tends to su!!ose that %ree+ and oreign gods can $e translated into one another, li+e %ree+ and oreign #ords&*,1>9- Bo, to ta+e only 4gy!tian e0am!les, Herodotus tells us that the 4gy!tians call (+aleousi) Keus *"mon* (2&'2&7), that Eu$astis is *in the %ree+ language* (+ata Hellada glossan) "rtemis (2&12:&7), or that the %ree+s name (onoma6ousi) Horus *"!ollo* (2&1''&2)& Ho#ever, there is a !ro$lem& ?or des!ite his translating many i not all oreign gods* names, des!ite then his evident a#areness that the names o oreign gods di ered, he ma+es the assertion that the %ree+ names o the gods came rom 4gy!t (2&7>)( "lmost all the names o the gods came rom 4gy!t to %reece (schedon de +ai !anton ta ounomata ton theon e0 "igu!tou eleluthe es ten Hellada)& ?or that they came rom the $ar$arians I ound $y investigation to $e true, and I thin+ that they arrived es!ecially rom 4gy!t& ?or e0ce!t or 5oseidon and the Fioscuri, as I e0!lained $e ore, and Hera and Hestia and Themis, and the %races and the 3ereids, the names o the other gods the 4gy!tians have al#ays had in their land (ton allon theon "igu!tioisi aiei +ote ta ounomata esti en tei chorei)& I say #hat the 4gy!tians themselves say& Those gods #hose names the 4gy!tians say they do not +no#, these seem to me to have $een named $y the 5elasgians, e0ce!t 5oseidon, or this god they discovered rom the Li$yans& 3o other !eo!le e0ce!t the Li$yans have had 5oseidon*s name esta$lished among them rom the $eginning, and they have al#ays honoured him& Ho# are #e to s)uare these t#o a!!arently contradictory !ositions< Cne solution that has o ten $een ado!ted is that Herodotus here does not mean $y *names o the gods* the names o the gods, $ut the !ractice, the ha$it, o giving names to those gods, the recognition o them as distinct&,11>- Bo, according to Ivan Lin orth, #hen Herodotus *#ishes to say that the %ree+s derived their +no#ledge o a god rom 4gy!t, he says that the name came to them rom 4gy!t, and this in s!ite o the act that the %ree+ name and the 4gy!tian name are totally di erent*& This solution has the advantage o solving the immediate contradiction, $ut it gives rise to a num$er o even greater !ro$lems& There is only time here to s+etch the main outlines o these di iculties&,111- "s Lattimore argued, ounoma might mean something more than *name*, $ut it is hard to see ho# it can mean anything less( *i Herodotus means to tell us that the 5elasgians derived rom 4gy!t everything a$out the gods e0ce!t their names, he is deli$erately em!hasi6ing the most misleading o !ossi$le terms*&,112- Lin orth*s solution o a *technical sense* o the #ord ounoma also has the e ect o ma+ing a nonsense o a num$er o near$y !assages& In his account o the 5elasgians* discovery o the names o the gods, Herodotus says that they had *not yet heard* the names (ou gar a+e+oesan +o, 2&72&1)& Ee ore they heard the names o the gods, the 5elasgians sim!ly called the gods *theoi*& I #e #ere to assume that the 5elasgians merely called them the 5elasgian or theoi, Herodotus* etymology o the term (unless he #ere to assume that the 5elasgian term or theoi someho# had a !arallel etymology<) #ould $e di icult to e0!lain&,112- It is also !ossi$le to ma+e out a very good case that, at least in the case o some gods, Herodotus really does $elieve that the %ree+ names derived rom 4gy!t& The case is es!ecially strong in the cases o Fionysus and o Heracles #here Herodotus o ers !recise conte0ts or the introduction o their cults rom 4gy!t to %reece (2&'2/7, '9); in $oth cases, interestingly in the light o his argument that the %ree+ al!ha$et derived rom the 5hoenicians, the middlemen in the introduction o these cults are 5hoenician&,11'.e are still le t #ith the original contradiction, ho#ever& Ho# can Herodotus $elieve $oth that the name *Fionysus* derived rom 4gy!t, and that Fionysus is the %ree+ name or Csiris (2&1''&2)< @ichmond Lattimore suggested that the solution lay in the act that gods can have more than one name& Ho#ever, Herodotus* manner o ma+ing e)uations suggests a translation o e)uivalent names, not that the 4gy!tians or Bcythians have, as it #ere, another name tuc+ed a#ay& His translations o gods* names are !er ormed in !recisely the same #ay as his translations o more humdrum !ieces o voca$ulary, or e0am!le his o$servation that !iromis is *in the %ree+ language +alos +agathos* (2&1'2&1)& ("re #e to assume in these cases that the 4gy!tians in act used the term +alos +agathos alongside !iromis, or that they #ere all $ilingual<) ?or a $rie moment, I antasi6ed recently that another, similarly $old, solution might e0ist& I the names o the 4gy!tian

gods, or e0am!le Horus *the lo ty one*, #ere in act ta$oo names,,117- might Herodotus have thought that the %ree+s* names #ere the real, unmentiona$le, 4gy!tian names< Ho#ever, #e should, I thin+, resist solutions #hich !resume that Herodotus +ne# much more than he #anted to disclose& Herodotus re!eatedly mentions the name o Csiris des!ite a considera$le dis!lay o reluctance to do !recisely that( surely, then, he #ould at least have mentioned the e0istence o other names, had he +no#n them&,118Ultimately !erha!s #e should not struggle too o iciously to ma+e Herodotus consistent& There are, ho#ever, some #ays o so tening, or hel!ing to understand, the contradiction( and these lie in his understanding o the nature o language& To $egin #ith, des!ite the im!ression o his discussion o the 5elasgians that the %ree+ language #as $orn ully/ ledged, and des!ite the success o the surviving 5elasgians in *guarding* their original language, Herodotus +no#s that language changes& This is im!licit, o course, in the idea o the 5elasgians* !reservation o their language& It is also evident rom a num$er o re)uently re!eated e0!ressions in the course o the Histories, or e0am!le #hen he introduces a city or !eo!le as *no# called 0* or * ormerly called y*, ,11:- or #hen he gives details o ho# the names o di erent !eo!les have changed, almost al#ays as a result o a (%ree+) mythical e!onymous ancestor&,118- %iven Herodotus* ac+no#ledgement o language change, !erha!s then he thought (or might have thought, i someone had con ronted him #ith his contradiction) that the 4gy!tians had once used the %ree+ names, $ut that, having im!arted these to the %ree+s, and the names having allen out o use in 4gy!t, they had $egun to use di erent names&,119- There is a vast gul in time, according to Herodotus, $et#een the the introduction to %reece o the names o the gods and his o#n day( +no#ledge o Fionysus came to %reece si0teen hundred years $e ore his li etime, +no#ledge o 5an around eight hundred years (2&1'7&')& 9ore interestingly, ho#ever, there are a num$er o !assages in the Histories #hich are suggestive o the idea, amously !ro!osed in 5lato*s Cratylus, o the natural a!!ro!riateness o names, a *certain rightness o names (orthotta tina tn onomaton), the same $oth or %ree+s and $ar$arians* (5l& Crat& 282a/$)&,12>- Bimilar ideas may, or e0am!le, lie $ehind his discussion o the origins o the names o the continents ('&'7&2/7)( I cannot #or+ out #hy it is, since the earth is all one, that there should $e three names set u!on it (mii eousi gi ounomata tri!hasia +eitai), all having the e!onyms o #omen; nor #hy or $oundaries the 4gy!tian river 3ile is given as one and the Colchian river 5hasis as another / though there are those #ho s!ea+ or the 9aeetian river Tanais and the Cimmerian erries& 3or can I ind out the names o those #ho esta$lished these $oundaries or rom #here they got these e!onyms& ?or instance, Li$ya is said $y many %ree+s to have that name rom Li$ya, a #oman native to that land, and "sia has its name $y attri$ution to 5rometheus* #i e& Het the Lydians claim a share in the name "sia too, in that they say "sia #as so called rom "sies, the son o Cotys, the son o 9anes, rom #hom the tri$e o "siads in Bardis is called; and so, according to them, the name is not rom 5rometheus* #i e at all& Eut a$out 4uro!e, no one +no#s #hether it is surrounded $y #ater, nor is it +no#n #hence came its name or #ho it #as that gave it its name, unless #e say that the country gots its name rom Tyrian 4uro!e, $eing $e ore then #ithout a name li+e the other lands& Eut this #oman a!!ears to $e rom "sia and did not arrive in this land #hich is no# called $y the %ree+s 4uro!e, $ut only as ar as rom 5hoenicia to Crete and rom Crete to Lycia& That is enough said& .e #ill use the esta$lished names or these things& 3o# clearly Herodotus has some !ro$lems #ith the conventional names, even though he decides ultimately to o!t or them& "t the same time, ho#ever, there is a lingering idea here that the distinctions o language should re lect real rather than merely ar$itrary distinctions; he #ants the names to ma+e sense and is disa!!ointed that they do not& The same idea that names can $e a!!ro!riate to the o$1ect named can $e seen !erha!s more $aldly $ehind an odd, a!!arently thro#a#ay, remar+ o Herodotus* that the names o the 5ersians itted their $odies and magni icence (ta ounomata s!hi eonta homoia toisi somasi +ai tei megalo!re!eiei, 1&129)&,121-

There are a num$er o !arallels $et#een the )uestion o the names o the continents and that o the names o the gods& "s #ell as 1ust trying to ind names that are loosely a!!ro!riate to the o$1ects named, Herodotus is also +een in this !assage to ascertain the one original source o any name& The etymologies o the %ree+s and the Lydians are alternatives, $ut there are no alternative names( "sia is called *"sia* $y $oth Lydians and %ree+s& In the same #ay, 1ust as Herodotus goes $ac+ and loo+s or the irst inventor or the irst instance o any num$er o !henomena,,122- so he also loo+s or the origins o the names o the gods, and seems to assume that that there is an authentic name #hich #as held rom the $eginning&,122- Bome !eo!les al#ays !ossessed the names o certain gods& Herodotus distinguishes, or e0am!le, $et#een those gods to #hom the 5ersians sacri iced * rom the $eginning*,,12'- and "!hrodite to #hom they learnt to sacri ice (1&121&2)& The names o the ma1ority o the gods, he says, had al#ays $een in 4gy!t (2&7>&2), and the Li$yans are the only !eo!le to have !ossessed the name o 5oseidon * rom the $eginning* (2&7>&2)& In the case o those gods #ho have no o$vious origin, Herodotus attem!ts to ind one almost $y a !rocess o elimination( those gods o #hose names the 4gy!tians deny +no#ledge Herodotus rec+ons (#ith the e0ce!tion o 5oseidon) *to have $een named*, !resuma$ly named or the irst time, $y the 5elasgians& "nother !arallel $et#een the names o the continents and the names o the gods (in !articular #ith his discussion o the 5elasgians* discovery o the names o the gods) is that 1ust as the 5elasgian gods #ere once anonymous, so #ere the continents until the li etimes o the #omen a ter #hom they are named&,127?inally, Herodotus* resolution that he should give the $ene it o the dou$t to the current names o the continents is reminiscent o a common attitude to the names o the gods( *Keus*, say the Chorus in "eschylus* "gamemnon (18>/7), *#hoever Keus may $e, i this name is !leasing to him, $y this name I address him& I can com!are #ith him, measuring all things against him, none $ut Keus&*,128- The im!lication o such !assages is not that names are merely conventional, $ut rather that, should the right name $e hit u!on, a name indeed has a certain !o#er& These !arallels $et#een Herodotus* discussion o the names o the gods and o the continents suggest that he may, in his discussion o the gods* names, have $een thin+ing instinctively in terms o a single set o authentic names& Ho#ever, ho# might he have accounted or the e0istence o other names in !arallel to the authentic names< " very similar o$1ection #as advanced against the idea o the natural a!!ro!riateness o names, irst $y Hermogenes in the Cratylus (287d/e) and later $y Be0tus 4m!iricus (adv& math& 1&'7; c & 5yrrh Hy!& 2&21'), that di erent cities and di erent !eo!les use di erent names or the same thing& Cther arguments #ere advanced $y Femocritus( the e0istence o homonyms and o synonyms and the act that names may change&,12:- The Cratylus itsel !rovides a num$er o res!onses to these criticisms& Cne res!onse is to hold that di erent names or the same thing can ca!ture its essence e)ually #ell& "s Bocrates argues (Crat& 289d/29>a), *i di erent la#givers do not em$ody it ,the name- in the same sylla$les, #e must not orget this ideal name on that account; or di erent smiths do not em$ody the orm in the same iron, though ma+ing the same instrument or the same !ur!ose, $ut so long as they re!roduce the same ideal, though it $e in di erent iron, still the instrument is as it should $e, #hether it $e made here or in oreign lands&*,128- "s Ea0ter !uts it, *a %ree+ name and a $ar$arian name o com!letely di erent letters and sylla$les can $e )ualitatively e)uivalent $y re!roducing the same idea&*,129- "n alternative !osition, ho#ever, is to su!!ose that some names are more valid than others& " chauvinist version o this stance, one that #e have seen already in the vie# that $ar$arians are aglossoi, might $e that %ree+ names and valid names are one and the same& That is not a !osition ado!ted in the Cratylus& Indeed one o the !ossi$le let/ out clauses #hich e0!lain any name #hose meaning cannot $e discovered through etymology is that it is a oreign name ta+en rom $ar$arians older than the %ree+s (Crat& '27e/'28a; c & '21d)& Eut another !ossi$ility is also raised, and that is sim!ly that some names might $e arti icial and conventional, and $y e0tension that there are t#o levels o language( Hermogenes* name, or e0am!le, since he is not really *$orn rom Hermes* must either not $e his name or $e a merely conventional name&,12>-

.hat evidence does Herodotus !resent on these )uestions< The irst !assage that may $e relevant is the amous story o 5sammetichus* language test in $oo+ II (2&2/2)& 5sammetichus #ished to settle the )uestion o #ho #ere the oldest !eo!le o man+ind& "nd so he gave t#o ne#/ $orn children to a she!herd, #ith instructions that no #ord should $e s!o+en to them, $ut that they should $e le t alone in a room and ed $y goats introduced rom time to time into their room& " ter t#o years the she!herd #as met one day $y the t#o children crying out *$e+os* as they held out their hands& .hen this occurred re!eatedly, the she!herd re!orted this to the +ing, #ho in turn ascertained that *$e+os* #as the 5hrygian name or $read& Bo the 4gy!tians concluded that the 5hrygians #ere the oldest !eo!le in the #orld and also (#ithout any !roo to this e ect) that they, the 4gy!tians, #ere the second oldest !eo!le&,121.hat are the im!lications o this story< ?irstly, it !resu!!oses that the irst language #ill have $een s!o+en $y the irst !eo!le( Herodotus does not entertain the !ossi$ility that there might have $een an older !eo!le still #ho had no language&,122- 9ore im!ortantly, one language emerges, given the a$sence o other *nurturing in luences*, as the de ault setting, the natural, authentic language o men& That such an idea had a #ider currency is suggested also $y its re utation in the Fissoi Logoi (FG 9> E 8 (12))( i a small (%ree+) child #ere trans!orted to 5ersia, #e are told, he #ould s!ea+ 5ersian / and vice versa& The story is also reminiscent o an idea e0!ressed in the Cratylus, re erred to a$ove, that certain names (#hose etymologies are im!ossi$le to discover) are derived rom $ar$arian languages older than %ree+& The story may also !resu!!ose, as "lan Lloyd has !ut it, that *one language #as invented and all others someho# descended rom it*&,122- This is not necessarily the case, ho#ever& The story em!hasises the e0ce!tional )uality o one language, its a$solute rather than relative originality& It is !ossi$le, say, that di erent languages #ere generated inde!endently o one another&,12'"nother !assage that sheds urther light on Herodotus* idea o the relationshi! $et#een di erent languages is that in #hich he translates the names o the 5ersian +ings (8&98&2)( These names mean in the %ree+ language( Farius #or+er (er0ies), Der0es #arrior (areios), and "rta0er0es great #arrior (megas areios)& Thus rightly (orthos )the %ree+s #ould call them in their o#n language&,127Herodotus !resumes that the names o the +ings mean something, that they there ore have a %ree+ e)uivalent& "&E& Coo+ made the intriguing suggestion, ho#ever,,128- that Herodotus* translations o the +ing*s names have $een distorted in transmission, and should read instead( Farius areios, Der0es er0ies, and "rta0er0es +arta er0ies& This may $e thought to $e as+ing a lot o te0tual transmission( irst that areios and er0ies are con used, and then that the situation is rationali6ed $y "rta0er0es $ecoming +arta/areios; then, though this is less im!ortant, that +arta is re!laced $y the more common megas& There are other areas o dou$t( the con usion may, o course, not $e in the manuscri!t tradition, $ut $e Herodotus* o#n or that o his source (though #hether the ideas o language underlying this !assage are those o Herodotus or o his source is, argua$ly, not very im!ortant)& "gainst the irst o$1ections is the !o#er ul argument o the uncanny !honetic resem$lance $et#een the names and their %ree+ *translations*& 9oreover, #hy, as Coo+ as+ed, *should Herodotus have used the e0cessively rare #ord er0is, unless he #ished to $ring out #hat he too+ to $e the o$vious etymology o Der0es<* I Coo+*s theory is correct, Herodotus a!!ears to envisage not only that these 5ersian names have a meaning #hich can $e rendered in %ree+, $ut that their meaning can only $e discovered through their %ree+ etymologies& It is or this reason, $ecause the 5ersian names mean something in %ree+ (rather than sim!ly $ecause o the a!!ro!riateness o their meanings), that Herodotus can say that the %ree+s call the +ings *rightly in their o#n language&*,12:- .ere these 5ersian names, ho#ever, e0ce!tional in that their meaning could $e understood through %ree+, or can #e ma+e any 1udgement a$out a general relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and 5ersian, or e0am!le that 5ersian is a distorted, corru!t version o %ree+<

The !ossi$ility that only a e# 5ersian names might have $een imagined to have had %ree+ derivations is argua$ly su!!orted $y the $ar$arian derivations o the Cratylus( only a hand ul o %ree+ #ords are imagined to $e in origin $ar$arian #ords on the grounds that they do not allo# o a %ree+ etymology& The #ords are nota$ly %ree+/sounding( !yr, hydor, +yon (Crat& '1>a), so!hia ('12$),+a+on ('18a), or algedon ('19c)& Ho#ever, that Herodotus envisaged a $roader relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and 5ersian is suggested $y the act that the assimilation o 5ersian names to %ree+ #ords #as a very much more #ides!read !ractice amongst the %ree+s&,128Bome o these are #hat one might term #ea+ cases o assimilation, the mere moulding o 5ersian names into recogni6a$le and convenient orms, or e0am!le the name "ndro$a6us, in luenced $y the %ree+ andro/, "rta$es, in luenced $y arta$e, the 5ersian measure, or "rti$ios, in luenced $y the %ree+ #ord $ios& Cthers, ho#ever, one might descri$e as e0am!les o *ideologically charged* assimilation( Ha$ro+omes, in luenced $y the %ree+ ha$ro/, so t,,129Harmamithres in luenced $y the %ree+ harma or chariot,,1'>- Har!agus, the name o the 9edian general #ho ravaged the coast o "sia 9inor or Cyrus, in luenced $y the %ree+ har!age, !lunder, and Cyrus himsel , in luenced $y to +yros, su!reme authority&,1'1- %reat !lay is made in Herodotus* account o the name o Cyrus, o #hether, or e0am!le, the $a$y Cyrus #as indeed Cyrus(,1'2- *the $a$y named Cyrus*, Herodotus says on t#o occasions, $e ore correcting himsel , and saying that he had another name and not Cyrus (1&112&2; c & 1&11'&')& His name is su$se)uently discovered at the same time as his +ingshi! is revealed through his ree manner o s!eech( his name has encoded #ithin it his royal authority& 9ost ideologically charged o all, ho#ever, is the name o the 5ersians themselves, meaning in %ree+ *destroyers*, something !ic+ed u! on in "eschylus* 5ersians as #ell as in t#o o the most amous oracles o the time o the 5ersian #ars (:&22>&', 8&::&1, "& 5ers& 87)&,1'2Buch #ord/!lays a!!ear too re)uently to $e merely the sel /conscious !roduct o literary artists, $ut are rather the re lection o a more dee!/rooted idea o language&,1''- %ree+ names too #ere signi icant in their meanings& *.ho #ould have thought*, Bo!hocles* "1a0 cries ('2>/2; c & 91'), *that my name #ould come to harmonise #ith my sorro#s*,the cry aiai-<,1'7- It #as not only mythical characters #hose names #ere so signi icant, moreover& The story o Hegesistratus, #hose name #as ta+en as an omen o the success o the 9ycale e0!edition (9&91), sho#s that even in relatively everyday conte0ts a name might $e thought to indicate its $earer*s destiny&,1'8%ree+ names, in general, are unusually meaning ul, and stories in the Histories o ho# an individual came $y his name,1':- suggest that the %ree+s #ere conscious o this, even !erha!s that children #ere named #ith a vie# to the ul ilment o their ominous names&,1'8.hen the %ree+s then sa# meaning in 5ersian names, they #ere doing no more than they did in relation to their o#n names / e0ce!t or the !resum!tion !erha!s that the meaning o 5ersian names #as not similarly evident to 5ersians&,1'9- Clearly not all 5ersian names #ere susce!ti$le to %ree+ etymologi6ing& Ho#ever, a su icient num$er o 5ersian names are $elieved to reveal their meaning in %ree+ (and only in %ree+) to suggest some $elie that, !resuma$ly in the distant !ast, there #as a lin+ $et#een the %ree+ and 5ersian languages& 9oreover, the act that 5ersian names can $e understood through %ree+ and not a!!arently vice versa (though this could, o course, $e due sim!ly to relative ignorance o 5ersian), and the act that only a hand ul o %ree+ #ords in the Cratylus are said to derive rom $ar$arian languages, might suggest that the relationshi! #as not a relationshi! o e)uals, $ut that the 5ersian language #as $elieved, at least in !art, to derive rom and to $e su$ordinate to %ree+& This is not to say that Herodotus could not tell the di erence $et#een %ree+ and oreign names in his o#n day& Indeed he comments that the name o the northern river *4ridanus* is trans!arently %ree+, and so cannot $e a $ar$arian name $ut must have $een invented $y some !oet (2&117&2)& Ho#ever, as the Cratylus demonstrates re!eatedly, names #ere $elieved to undergo signi icant distortion over time( it is only $y a certain rearrangement, 1ust as #ith Herodotus* etymology o the 5ersian +ings* names, that the meaning o a %ree+ name can $e teased out& "s #e have seen, !er ectly %ree+/ sounding #ords in the Cratylus are ascri$ed an un+no#n $ar$arian etymology& In order to maintain then, or e0am!le, that Herodotus really did $elieve that the %ree+ gods* names came

rom 4gy!t, it is not necessary to $elieve him totally lac+ing in any sense o the di erence $et#een %ree+ and 4gy!tian in his o#n day& "s #e have seen, he +ne# that the 4gy!tians had di erent names $oth or the gods and or other things& The names o the gods that came rom 4gy!t might, in Herodotus* vie#, have arrived in a rather di erent orm rom that in #hich he +ne# them in his o#n day&,17>Can #e, inally, reconstruct any consistent !lan o ho# Herodotus conceived o the relationshi! $et#een di erent languages< The Cratylus envisaged that certain %ree+ #ords derived rom $ar$arian languages that #ere older than %ree+& 9ight Herodotus have $elieved not only that the names o the gods came rom 4gy!t, $ut that %ree+ in general derived rom 4gy!tian, and 4gy!tian in turn rom 5hrygian< It is im!ossi$le to $e certain& C the %ree+ language, only the gods* names are certainly o 4gy!tian origin& C the 5ersian language, all that #e can $e certain o is that a large num$er o !ersonal names #ere $elieved to $e understanda$le only through their %ree+ etymologies& His remar+ that 5ersian names #ere a!!ro!riate to their $odies suggests that he ascri$es at least a degree o authority or a!!ro!riateness even to 5ersian names& There is nothing, moreover, in the story o 5sammetichus* language test that necessitates the idea that one language must descend #holesale rom another& I Herodotus had ever ormed any overarching theory o the relationshi! o languages, #e might e0!ect to have heard a$out it rather more ully& .hat #e have is surely more li+ely to re!resent the hal /digested ragments o a $roader %ree+ de$ate& (Cther %ree+ #riters, or e0am!le, ascri$ed the origins o #riting to the 5hrygians&,171-) That other %ree+s might have ormulated such ideas, ho#ever, and that such ideas #ere, as it #ere, at the $ac+ o Herodotus* mind, is a tantali6ing !ossi$ility& 7& Conclusion In their vie# o oreign languages, Herodotus and the %ree+s emerge then inally as ado!ting a num$er o di erent, even contradictory, strategies( they may ignore language di erence, they may caricature it; they may see+ to di erentiate $et#een oreign languages, and they may assimilate all oreign languages into a single *$ar$arian language*; they may see+ to distance oreign languages rom %ree+, and then they may see connections $et#een their o#n and oreign languages& T#o )uestions remain& ?irst, #hat e0!lanation can there $e or the %ree+s* lac+ o curiosity in oreign languages< "nna 9or!urgo Favies has suggested that the lac+ o scholarly interest in the descri!tion or classi ication o oreign languages may have $een the result o the vie# o oreign languages as mere collections o names&,172- .e might su!!ose then that the $roader %ree+ lac+ o interest in oreign languages #as sim!ly a unction o their chauvinism& The Cld Cligarch remar+s disa!!rovingly that the "thenians, as they dre# also on oreign cuisine, mi0ed their language rom %ree+s and $ar$arians (,Den&- "th& 5ol& 2&8), #hereas other %ree+s merely used their o#n language& The !assage !resu!!oses an ideal that one should !reserve one*s language against oreign in luence, something that t#ice in the Histories #e hear o a !eo!le doing (1&7:&2, 8&119&')& Eut ho# does one in !ractice *guard one*s language* (even #ith the orces o the "cadJmie ?ranLaise on one*s side)< I the "thenians* use o oreign #ords #as the result o their naval in luence and contacts, ho# did other %ree+s remain untainted $y the same oreign in luence<,172- Cther chauvinist cultures, not least that o the Eritish em!ire, have res!onded in a rather di erent ashion #ith regard to the languages o other !eo!les, $y classi ying and ordering them&,17'- C course, the Eritish settled India& The num$er o Indian #ords ($ungalo#, tandoori etc&) that have !enetrated into everyday 4nglish is not !erha!s o such a di erent order to the num$er o oreign loan #ords in %ree+& Ho#ever, the %ree+ lac+ o curiosity in oreign languages e0tends even into the Hellenistic !eriod&,177- In other areas, moreover, or e0am!le in that o religion, %ree+ chauvinism too+ a di erent direction( the %ree+s may have +no#n little a$out oreign religion, $ut #hat they did +no# they ordered systematically $y analogy to their o#n gods and rituals& To return, inally, to the )uestion #ith #hich I $egan, ho# chauvinist #ere the %ree+s in their characterisation o oreign !eo!les through language< "ccording to 9or!urgo Favies again, #e ind in %reece *no @omantic vie#s a$out the uni)ueness o each language as an e0!ression o national s!irit&*,178- .e ind in act a #hole range o attitudes concerning language di erence, rom a sentimental !ride in one*s o#n language to outright hostility to those o others&

" relatively innocent !ride in the %ree+ language can $e seen in 5hiloctetes* res!onse to irst hearing %ree+ on Lemnos (B& 5hil& 227, 22'/7)( #e can surely !resume that Bo!hocles* audience #ould have sym!athised #ith this element o 5hiloctetes* !light, and that the average %ree+, stranded ar rom %reece, might also have longed or the sound o a amiliar voice& " degree o *ta$loid* 0eno!ho$ia must $e im!licit in the satire o oreign accents, $oth non/%ree+ and non/ "ttic, that #e see in "risto!hanes&,17:- The Bu!!liants o "eschylus* !lay li+e#ise e0!ect di iculties on account o their s!ea+ing a oreign language ("& Bu!!l& 9:2/')& 9ore !oisonous, ho#ever, are a num$er o !assages suggestive o an idea o linguistic su!eriority, even o linguistic !urity& Themistocles, according to 5lutarch, recommended the e0ecution o a 5ersian/ %ree+ inter!reter or daring to use the %ree+ language to transmit the commands o a $ar$arian (5lut& Them& 8&')& 5lutarch also o ers an interesting variation on the story o 9ys and the Carian oracle (9or& '12a, de de & orac&)( the reason #hy the oracle ans#ered in Carian #as that *it is not or $ar$arians ever to receive a #ord in the %ree+ tongue that is su$servient to their command&* Though such !assages are $oth late, they are reminiscent o the characterisation o oreign !eo!les in terms o the reedom o s!irit o their language; Herodotus too, in a more historical and detached s!irit, is concerned in his account o the *5elasgian theory* #ith maintaining the linguistic integrity o %ree+& The same sense o su!eriority #as elt $y the "thenians o their *dialect*& Bolon lamented the scandal that "thenians had #ondered so long a#ay rom their homeland that they *no longer s!o+e the "ttic language* (glossan ou+et* "tti+en ientas, r& 28&1>/12 .est)& "ccording to Thucydides* 3icias, non/"thenian sailors on the Bicilian e0!edition had ado!ted "ttic out o admiration or "thens (Thuc& :&82&2)& The most mar+edly !e1orative characterisation o oreign languages comes, ho#ever, rom a source or the 5ersian .ars other than Herodotus( the messenger*s account o the $attle o Balamis rom "eschylus* 5ersians& ?irst #e have the !aean o the %ree+s( *C sons o the %ree+s, come on, li$erate your atherland, li$erate your children, our #ives, the shrines o the ancestral gods and the graves o your ore athers& Cur struggle no# is on $ehal o them all&* Then in res!onse comes the untidy clamour (rhothos) o the 5ersian tongue (299/'>:)& The cries o the %ree+s are echoed $ac+ $y the island roc+s, as a sym$ol o the su!!ort o land and sea or the %ree+s, and #ith the result that the 5ersians are ins!ired $y terror (288/92)& The %ree+ language then is a sym$ol o %ree+ unity and o the %ree+s* $elonging to their land; it is also a #ea!on& "5543FID 1( @4?4@43C4B TC ?C@4I%3 L"3%U"%4B M Ionians do not use the same language (glossan) as one another, $ut have ' dialects (characteres glosses); those cities #hich are in Lydia (4!hesus, Colo!hon, Le$edus, Teos, Cla6omenae and 5hocaea) agree in no #ay in their language #ith these (1&1'2&2/')& M Foes Carian derive rom Caunian or vice versa (1&1:2)< M "mmonians settlers o 4gy!tians and o 4thio!ians, $ut they use a language $et#een $oth (!honen meta0u am!hoteron nomi6ontes, 2&'2&')& M Colchians and 4gy!tians( #ay o #or+ing linen, #hole #ay o li e and language v& similar to one another (2&1>7)& M 4gy!tians call $ar$arians all those #ho have not the same language as them (homoglossous, 2&178&')& M There are many Indian !eo!les, none o #hom s!ea+ the same language as one another (ou+ homo!hona s!hisi, 2&98&2) M "rgi!!aeans use Bcythian clothing&&& $ut have o#n language (!honen de idien ientes, '&22&2) M Bcythians use : languages and : inter!reters on 1ourney to "rgi!!aei ('&2')& M "ndro!hagoi( nomads, #ear clothes li+e the Bcythians, have their o#n language, and are the only ones o these #ho eat !eo!le ('&1>8)& M %eloni (in ancient times %ree+) s!ea+ a language hal /Bcythian, hal /%ree+ ('&1>8&2)& M Eudini do not use the same language as the %eloni ('&1>9&1) M Bauromatae use Bcythian language $ut not correctly as "ma6ons learned it im!er ectly at irst ('&11:)&

M The Troglodyte 4thio!ians have a language *similar* to no other, $ut sounding li+e screeching $ats ('&182&')& M "tarantes are the only anonymous !eo!le o #hom #e +no# ('&18'&1)& M 4retrians, trans!orted $y Farius to "ra$ian %ul , guarded their o#n language (8&119&')& M Bince the %ree+s are o the same language (homoglossous), they should, 9ardonius says, deal #ith one another through heralds rather than ma+ing #ar (:&9&$2)& M 4astern "thio!ians di ered not at all in orm rom other (4thio!ians), leaving aside language (!honen) and hair (:&:>&1)& M Bagartians nomads, in language (!honei) a 5ersian !eo!le, in dress hal /5ersian, hal / 5actyan (:&87&1)& M The "thenians* reasons or not $etraying %reece (8&1''&2)& M 5ro!hecy o Eacis( *#hen a $ar$aro!honos shall thro# a $y$lus yo+e over the #ater*&&& (8&2>&2)& "5543FID 2( T@"3BL"TIC3B E4T.443 L"3%U"%4B "3F FI"L4CTB,178M Candaules, #hom the %ree+s name 9yrsilus (1&:&2)& M Ca!!adocians named Byrians $y %ree+s (1&:2&1)& M Bcythians call those #ith emale disease enareas (1&1>7&')& M The name o 9itradates* #i e #as Gyno in the %ree+ language, in the 9edian language B!a+o (1&11>&1); or the 9edes call a $itch (+yna) s!a+a& M 5ersian arta$e converted into "ttic choini0 (1&192&2)& M The !alm trees #hich the %ree+s call male (1&192&7)& M The 5hrygians (5sammetichus learns) call $read $e+os (2&2&')& M Conversion o stades, !arasangs and schoinoi (2&8)& M The 4thio!ian deserters called in 4gy!tian "smach, or *those #ho stand on the le t/hand side o the +ing* (2&21)& M Crocodiles called cham!sai $y 4gy!tians (2&89&2)( named $y analogy to li6ards $y Ionians& M 4gy!tian loaves called +yllestis (2&::&')& M Linus is the same as 9aneros, and has di erent name according to the !eo!le (2&:9&2)& M Tunics the 4gy!tians call +alasiris (2&81&1)& M .ater/lily the 4gy!tians call lotus (2&92&2)& M Bilicy!rium oil the 4gy!tians call +i+i (2&9'&1)& M The Colchian linen is called Bardinian $y the %ree+s, 4gy!tian called *4gy!tian* (2&1>7)& M " 9em!hite $ecame +ing #hose name *in the %ree+ language* #as 5roteus (2&112&1)& M 5iromis is in the %ree+ language +alos +agathos (2&1'2&')& M The 4gy!tians call all those #ho are not o the same language (homoglossous) $ar$arians (2&178&7)& M This !lace is called in the %ree+ language *the island o the $lessed* (2&28&1)& M "ra$ians call ledanum ladanum (2&112)& M Bcoloti called Bcythians $y %ree+s ('&8&2)& M "n island called $y the %ree+s 4rytheia ('&8&2)& M Cne eyed !eo!le #e name in Bcythian as *"rimas!ians* as "rima is one, s!ou is eye ('&2:)& M Hy!er$orean maidens #ho #ent to Felos named $y the Felians as Hy!eroche and Laodice ('&22&2)& M 5lace in Bcythian is 40am!aios, in %ree+ language Bacred @oads ('&72&2)& M Large ish #hich Bcythians call anta+aii ('&72&2)& M Bcythians call "ma6ons Cior!ata (#hich means man/+illers in the %ree+ language)( they call man oior, !ata is to +ill ('&11>&1)& M Li$yans call +ing Eattus ('&177&2)& M Kegeries is Li$yan #ord or one o three varieties o mouse; in %ree+ means *hills* ('&192&2)& M The Ligyes #ho live a$ove 9assalia call traders sigynnai, #hereas the Cy!riots use the same #ord to descri$e s!ears (7&9&2)& M 5arasang is #hat the 5ersians call 2> stades (8&'2&2)& M The 5ersians call the oil rom "rdericca rhadinace (8&119&2)&

M 5ersian s#ord #hich they call a+ina+en (:&7'&2)& M "ssyrians called Byrians $y the %ree+s, $ut "ssyrian $y the $ar$arians (:&82)& M The 5ersians call all Bcythians Bacae (:&8'&2)& M These Byrians called Ca!!adocians $y the 5ersians (:&:2&1)& M Hot $aths near Thermo!ylae called chutroi (:&1:8&2)& M The "chaeans call a !rytaneion a leiton (:&19:&2)& M The $ene actors o the +ing are called in 5ersian orosangai (8&87&2)& M The 5ersians call their !ostal service angareion (8&98&2) M The B!artans call Ear$aroi 0einoi (9&11&2)& M The +ni e/$earers called Galasiries, the only 4gy!tian ighting men (9&22&1)& M " !ass #hich the Eoeotians call *three heads* and the "thenians *oa+/heads* (9&29&1)& M 5ersian east is called in 5ersian ty+ta, in the %ree+ language teleion (9&11>&2)& 3CT4B ,M- This !a!er has $een delivered in a num$er o di erent versions at Bt& "ndre#s, 3e#castle, and at the 199: Classical "ssociation "%9& I should li+e to e0!ress my than+s to all those #ho too+ !art in the su$se)uent discussions, and es!ecially to @o$ert ?o#ler, "lan %ri iths, @o$ert 5ar+er, "nna 9or!urgo Favies and Bte!hanie .est or their e0tremely valua$le comments on #ritten dra ts, to Hu$ert 5etersmann or +indly sending me o !rints o his !u$lications, to "drian %rat#ic+ or his e0!ert advice on a !oint o detail, and to Favid Colclough and Lucinda 5latt or the re!eated hos!itality #hich allo#ed me to underta+e the $ul+ o the research& "ll re erences are, unless s!eci ied, to Herodotus& ,@eturn to te0t,1- Cr culture( 4dith Hall, Inventing the Ear$arian (C0 ord, 1989) 187& Bee also on this !assage I&9& Hall, 4thnic Identity in %ree+ "nti)uity (Cam$ridge, 199:) ''/7, arguing against an *NessentialistN de inition o %ree+ness* on Herodotus* !art& I&9& Hall insists also that language and dialect should $e seen as indicia rather than as criteria o ethnicity (e&g&, !& 1::)& The $est modern discussion o %ree+ *nationality* is ?&.& .al$an+, *The !ro$lem o %ree+ nationality*, 5hoeni0 7 (1971) '1/8>, re!rinted in his Belected 5a!ers (Cam$ridge, 1987) 1/19& ,@eturn to te0t,2- Bee the list o re erences to oreign languages that ma+e u! "!!endi0 1& Com!are the ta$les o to!ics in Herodotus* ethnogra!hic sections !re!ared $y I&L& 9yres, Herodotus, the ?ather o History (C0 ord, 1972) :2, and $y %& Lachenaud, 9ythologies, @eligion et 5hiloso!hie de l*Histoire dans HJrodote (5aris, 19:8) 12'& Eoth ta$les em!hasise the consistency o Herodotus* criteria or inclusion; neither eatures language& ,@eturn to te0t,2- Bee 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) '& The linguistic associations o the term $ar$aros are re lected most strongly (in the Classical !eriod) at "r& "v& 199/2>>, 5l& 9ene0& 2'2a, 5l& 4!& 8 272e& The idea that the the term #as onomato!oeic is advanced $y Btra$o, 1'&2&28& ,@eturn to te0t,'- "nd 5olish corres!ondingly sounds sno$$ish to C6ech ears& Bee, ho#ever, 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) '/7, or e0am!les o cultures #here language is not so !rivileged as a criterion o ethnic or national identity& " %ree+ !arallel or the "ra$ic ae/1a/ma is the term *solecism*, allegedly derived rom the incorrect "ttic o the !eo!le o Boli in Cilicia( see Btra$o, 1'&2&28, F&L& 1&71 (c & the term soloi+i6ontes used o the Bauromatae, '&11:)& ,@eturn to te0t,7- Herodotus* o$servation a!!ears to have a $asis in act( c & the inscri!tion rom "$u/Bim$el (9L:a&') in #hich %ree+ soldiers o 5sammetichus are descri$ed as alloglosos; or 4gy!tian attitudes to oreign languages more $roadly, see B&?& Fonadoni, *%li 4gi6iani e le lingue degli altri*, OC 2 (198>) 1/1', re!rinted in his Cultura dell* "ntico 4gitto (@ome, 1988) 192/2>8& ,@eturn to te0t,8- Bee Legrand ad loc&, II&1:9 n&7& ,@eturn to te0t-

,:- C & 5l& @es!& ':>e/':1c& ,@eturn to te0t,8- Bee L& @o$ert, *Le Carien 9ys et l*oracle du 5t=on (HJrodote, OIII, 127)*, Hellenica 8 (197>) 22/28& @o$ert authoritatively dismisses the ideas that the oracles #ere delivered in Carian as a rule or that the story o 9ys is evidence o the Carian origins o the cult& He is, ho#ever, e0cessively dou$t ul on the )uestion o #hether the !romantis s!o+e Carian even on this one e0ce!tional occasion, $elieving rather (!!&29/2>) that 9ys read #hat he #as loo+ing or into an incom!rehensi$le $a$$ling( see here %eorges Fau0, *9ys au 5tPion (HJrodote, OIII, 127)*, Hommages .& FJonna (Eru0elles, 197:) 17:/82& ,@eturn to te0t,9- Bee "!!endi0 1& ,@eturn to te0t,1>- C & H& Fiels, *Fie "n Qnge der 5hilologie $ei den %riechen*, 3eue Iahr$uch Ar 5hilologie 27 (191>) 1/27 (at !&1'), @o$ert, o!& cit& (n&8) 28( *"u Oe siRcle, dans les villes cariennes, il ne devait y avoir !ersonne, si hellJnisJ St/il, )ui ne sSt tou1ours le carien*& Carian decrees issued in %ree+ do not im!ly general $ilingualism as su!!osed $y F&I& 9osley, *%ree+s, Ear$arians, Language and Contact*, "ncient Bociety 2 (19:1) '& Contrast the e0em!larily cautious a!!roach o B& Horn$lo#er, 9ausolus (C0 ord, 1982) 2: and n& 187, 2'1/''& ,@eturn to te0t,11- Cr san as the Forians, unli+e the Ionians, call it( or the signi icance o this ethnic distinction, see I&9& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 172/2& ,@eturn to te0t,12- ?or H*s +no#ledge o oreign languages, see 4& 9eyer, ?orschungen 6ur "lten %eschichte (Halle, 1892) 192/7, H& Fiels, o!& cit& (n&1>) 1' &, @& Bchmitt, *The 9edo/5ersian names o Herodotus in the light o the ne# evidence rom 5erse!olis*, ""ntHung 2' (19:8) 27/27 at !&27 (re!rinted in I& Harmatta (ed&) Btudies in the Bources on the History o !re/Islamic Central "sia (Euda!est, 19:9) 29/29), B& .est, *Herodotus* e!igra!hical interests*, CT 27 (1987) 2:8/2>7& B& 9andell*s hy!othesis, *The language, eastern sources, and literary !osture o Herodotus*, "nc. 21 (199>) 1>2/8, that Herodotus +ne# "ramaic ounders sim!ly on the act that Herodotus no#here reveals his +no#ledge o "ramaic as he is ha!!y to reveal his ignorance o other languages& Immer#ahr, ?orm and Thought in Herodotus (Cleveland, 1988) 188 and n&111, remar+s that H&*s statement on 5ersian names *is sym$olic o the e0ternal magni icence, as #ell as the unity o the 5ersians*& Is this e)ually true, ho#ever, o his o$servation on %ree+ estivals (1&1'8&2)< ,@eturn to te0t,12- 9eyer, o!& cit& (n&12) 19'& Bee, ho#ever, I& %ershevitch, *The Cld 5ersian Lis!*, in %& %noli and "& 5anaino (eds&) 5roceedings o the ?irst 4uro!ean Con erence on Iranian Btudies (@ome, 199>) I&117/22, or a rather ela$orate alternative e0!lanation o Herodotus* mista+e as the result o the manner o transcri!tion o 5ersian names $y 4lamite scri$es& ,@eturn to te0t,1'- B& .est, *Besostris* Btelae (Herodotus 2&1>2/1>8)*, Historia '1 (1992) 11:/2>& ,@eturn to te0t,17- B& .est, o!& cit& (n&12) es!& 29>/7& ,@eturn to te0t,18- C & Thuc& 1&128&1, Corn& 3e!os Them& 1>, F&B& 11&7:, Oal& 9a0& 8&: e0t& 17& ?or a rather less tolerant attitude to oreign languages on Themistocles* !art, see 5lut& Them& 8&' (on #hich see $elo#, sect& O)& Less relia$ly, "lci$iades is said to have imitated 5ausanias in his medism, and ado!ted 5ersian dress and 5ersian s!eech, "thenaeus 12, 727e, and 5ythagoras is said to have learnt 4gy!tian a ter a letter o introduction rom 5olycrates to "masis, F&L& 8&2& ,@eturn to te0t,1:- Fu$uisson, $y contrast, *@emar)ues sur le voca$ulaire grec de l*acculturation*, @E5h 8> (1982) 7/22, sees Themistocles* learning o 5ersian as !resented as a !urely !ractical underta+ing, devoid o any interest in 5ersian culture; "lci$iades* ada!tation to di erent customs is seen as a !erversion& That H& at least envisaged com!lete cultural assimilation as !ossi$le is

suggested $y the story o 9iltiades* son, 8&'1&'& ,@eturn to te0t,18- Though see "rr& "na$& 2&8&8 or the diglssos Laomedon& ,@eturn to te0t,19- Bee "& 9omigliano, "lien .isdom (Cam$ridge, 19:7) 9, C& 3ylander, *"ssyria %rammmata( remar+s on the 21st *Letter o Themistocles*, C!uscula "theniensia 8 (1988) 119/28, .est, o!& cit& (n&1') 119 and n&1'& 3ylander ingeniously demonstrates that Themistocles* 21st letter contains evidence o +no#ledge in %reece o the invention o Cld 5ersian scri!t& 9&/?& Easle6, L*Utranger dans la %rRce "nti)ue (5aris, 198') 188, assumes that the language learnt $y Themistocles #as also "ramaic& ?or Thucydides* +no#ledge o things 5ersian, see also @& Bchmitt, *"chaimenidisches $ei Thu+ydides* in H& Goch and F&3& 9ac+en6ie (eds&) Gunst, Gultur und %eschichte der "chQmeniden6eit und ihr ?ortle$en (Eerlin, 1982) 89/88& ,@eturn to te0t,2>- 9omigliano, o!& cit& (n&19) :/8, 18/19& ?or the %ree+ attitude to oreign languages, see in general 9& Le1eune, *La CuriositJ linguisti)ue dans l*"nti)uitJ Classi)ue*, in Con Jrences de l*Institut de Linguisti)ue de l*UniversitJ de 5aris 8 (19'>/'8) '7/81, O& @otolo, *La communica6ione linguistica ra alloglotti nell* antichitV classica*, in Btudi classici in onore di T& Cataudella vol& 1 (Catania, 19:2) 297/'1', and a num$er o overla!!ing essays $y I& .erner, *Genntnis und Ee#ertung remder B!rachen $ei den anti+en %riechen*, 5hilologus 122 (1989) 189/:8, *3ichtgriechische B!rachen im Ee#usstsein der anti+en %riechen*, in 5& HQndel and .& 9eid (eds&) ?estschri t @& 9uth (Inns$ruc+, 1982) 782/97, *Kur ?remds!rachen!ro$lemati+ in der griechisch/r=mischen "nti+e, in C&.& 9Aller, G& Bier and I& .erner (eds&) Kum Umgang mit remden B!rachen in der griechisch/r=mischen "nti+e, 5alingenesia 28 (Btuttgart, 1992)& ,@eturn to te0t,21- Is it signi icant that the oracle o "mmon addresses "le0ander in %ree+ (@otolo, o!& cit& (n&2>) 298/: and n&9 on 5lut& "le0& 2:) #hile %ree+ oracles in general (c & the story o 9ys, 8&127&2) s!ea+ only in %ree+< %ree+ oracles #ere, o course, consulted $y non/%ree+s (e&g& Croesus in Eoo+ I), $ut there are not su icient grounds to s!eculate the e0istence o a ully !olyglot clergy (as does 9&/?& Easle6, o!& cit& (n&19) 8>&) Croesus and the Hy!er$oreans are scarcely everyday $ar$arians; and Croesus at any rate #as assisted in his consultation o Fel!hi $y the "thenian "lcmeon, 8&127&2& Bo!hocles* descri!tion o the oa+ o Fodona as !olyglossou, Trach& 1188, cannot $e ta+en as evidence that oracles at Fodona #ere given in a range o voices (c & Hdt 2&7'/ ':)& ,@eturn to te0t,22- C & 1&:2&2, '&:8&1, HH"!hr& 112/118, 5l& 5rot& 227e, Fissoi Logoi FG 9> E8, 12& The Bcythians and "ma6ons do learn to understand each other as gro#n/u!s, '&111/11:, $ut it is interestingly only the "ma6on #omen #ho are a$le to learn the male Bcythians* language, '&11'&1, and even then they only gras! it im!er ectly, '&11:& ,@eturn to te0t,22- Bee 9& Fu$uisson*s descri!tion, o!& cit& (n&1:) 21, o @ome as *la citJ hJtJrogRne et assimilatrice !ar essence, le creuset de l*Italie !uis du monde*& 9ore generally, see .&%& @unciman, *Foomed to 40tinction( the !olis as an evolutionary dead/end*, in C& 9urray and B& 5rice (eds&) The %ree+ City (C0 ord, 199>) 2':/8:, T&I& Cornell, The Eeginnings o @ome (London, 1997), chs& 7/8& ,@eturn to te0t,2'- Themistocles( 3e!os, Them& 1>& ,@eturn to te0t,27- Cleo!atra( 5lut& "nt& 2:&2/'& 9ithridates( 5liny 3H :&88, 27&8:, "ul& %ell& 3" 1:&1:, Oal& 9a0& 8&: e0t& 18& Contrast the more modest, and more !lausi$le, linguistic accom!lishment o 4nnius, "ul& %ell& 3" 1:&1:, or o 5& Licinius Crassus, Oal& 9a0& 8&:&8& ,@eturn to te0t,28- The t#o are almost universally seen as se!arate stages in the learning o a language& ,@eturn to te0t-

,2:- ?or *Lemnian deeds*, see also 4& Hec& 888/: and "& Cho& 821/8 #ith %arvie ad loc& C & also the linguistic resistance o the +idna!!ed #ives o the irst 9ilesian #ives, 1&1'8, and the uncanny !arallel !reserved $y the early ninth/century chronicler 3ennius in his Historia Erittonum (tr& I& 9orris) ch& 2: o the "rmorican Eritish *#ho destroyed the #estern !arts o %aul to the ground, and did not leave alive those #ho !iss against the #all& They married their #ives and daughters and cut out their tongues, lest their descendants should learn their mothers* tongue& That is #hy #e call them in our language *Lete#icion*, that is, hal /dum$, $ecause their s!eech is muddled&* ,@eturn to te0t,28- Bee "!!endi0 2& C & Immer#ahr*s o$servation, o!& cit& (n&12) 221 n&118, that Herodotus* *main linguistic interest* #as in *di erences o voca$ulary*& ,@eturn to te0t,29- I&9& Lin orth, *%ree+ gods and oreign gods in Herodotus*, UC5Cl5h 9 (1928) 1/27 (at !& 11)& ,@eturn to te0t,2>- Bee Eraun*s list, *The %ree+s in the 3ear 4ast*, C"H III2 !t&2, 1/21 (at !!& 27/8); see also or an e0cellent discussion o the $ac+ground o contacts underlying the loan o #ords, .& Eur+ert, The Crientali6ing @evolution (Cam$ridge 9ass&, 1992) 22/'>, and or additional loan #ords, e&g&, "&%& 9c%ready, *4gy!tian #ords in the %ree+ voca$ulary*, %lotta '8 (1988) 2':/7', E& Hemmerdinger, *Fe la 9Jconnaissance de )uel)ues etymologies %rec)ues*, %lotta '8 (19:>) '>/ 88, and @& Bchmitt, *N9JconnaissanceN altiranischen B!rachgutes im %riechischen*, %lotta '9 (19:1) 97/11>, es!& 9:/1>>& 3o list o loan #ords can $e inally authoritative( I use Eraun*s merely as an e0am!le& ,@eturn to te0t,21- 5roduced rom ilaments s!un $y a mollusc& Herodotus only includes the ad1ective $ussinos, 1&2>>, 2&88&8, 2&97&2, :&181&2& ,@eturn to te0t,22- Feltos( 5i& r& 72h 2' (9aehler), H& Eatr& 2& Eussos (or $ussinos)( B& r& 2:2&2 @adt, "& 5ers& 127& Bindon( "& r& 172& Gamelos( "& Bu!!l& 287& The #ord angareion (2&128&2, 8&98&2) used to descri$e the 5ersian !ostal service ( or the etymology o #hich see Hemmerdinger, o!& cit& (n&2>) '1) is oreshado#ed $y angareios, "& "g& 282& The terms !arasangai (W 2> stades, 2&8, 8&'2&2) and orosangai (the $ene actors o the +ing, 8&87&2, or #hich terms see I& .ieseh= er, *Fie N?reundeN und N.ohltQterN des %ross+=nigs*, Btudia Iranica 9 (198>) :/21) are !aralleled res!ectively at B& r& 72> @adt and at B& rs& 182, 82' @adt& ,@eturn to te0t,22- Is& 8&22, "nti!h& 121&8 G" (arra$on, !ledge), Den& "na$& 1&7&8, B& r& 1>9' @adt (siglos), Cr!h& Lith& 28:, 812 "$el, 5l& 5haed& 11>d (ias!is, 1as!er), "r& r& 22' G", "nti!h& 218&2 G" (+a++a$os, coo+ing !ot), "r& 4)& 1298, 5l& 8>8 (si!ue, $read $in; c & si!uXs, @"L 2> (1987) '7' &, no& 1>), "nth& 5al& '&1&'2 (+u!ros, henna), Th!hr& H5 9&:&2, "nth& 5al& '&1&'2 (nardos, nard), B& r& 8'9 @adt (na$las, har!), "rist& 5ol& 12'1$1 (sam$u+e, har!), Hermi!!& 91 G", "r& Lys& :2> (ses, moth), Th!hr& H5 9&1&2, 9&:&2 (chal$ane, gal$anum)& ,@eturn to te0t,2'- C & Le1eune, o!& cit& (n&2>) 78, s!ea+ing o le0icons as #ell as o historians and geogra!hers( *il s*agit tou1ours de menues curiositJs de collectionneurs, d*indications isolJes, ournies au hasard de la descri!tion des vYtements, des armes, des ha$itations, des modes de vie, des coutumes, des lois, des croyances che6 les !o!ulations $ar$ares( les mots viennent s*insJrer dans ce !ittores)ue ethnogra!hi)ue, dont l*anti)uitJ Jtait riande&* ?or di erences $et#een dialects, see CCF2 s&v& glossa, glossary, and the argument o G& Latte, *%lossogra!hica*, 5hilologus 8> (1927) 128/:7, that 5lato may have had access to a collection o le0ical corres!ondences& Contrast I&9& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 1:'& ,@eturn to te0t,27- ?or contacts $et#een %reece and the 3ear/4ast, see Eraun, o!& cit& (n&2>) and n&'1 $elo# or %ree+/5ersian contacts; see also no# 9&L& .est, The 4ast ?ace o Helicon (C0 ord, 199:)

8>8/2' on the *dynamics o international transmission*, commenting (!& 8>:) that *there must have $een ar more #ho learned this or another oriental tongue in unrecorded circumstances*& ?or contacts $et#een %reece and 4gy!t, see 9&9& "ustin, %reece and 4gy!t in the "rchaic "ge, 5C5hB Bu!!lement 2 (Cam$ridge, 19:>), T& Eraun, *The %ree+s in 4gy!t*, C"H III2 !t&2, 22/78& ,@eturn to te0t,28- "s "nna 9or!urgo Favies comments in the handout to a lecture *%ree+s and Ear$arians( ho# can a great culture $e monolingual<*, irst delivered as a .e$ster lecture at Btan ord in "!ril 1988, *in historical narrative, the necessary e0istence o inter!reters is o ten orgotten*& ,@eturn to te0t,2:- @otolo, o!& cit& (n&2>) 298, counts "!hrodite*s s!eech at HH"!hr& 112/8 as the irst instance o $ilingualism& The Fel!hic oracle also manages to s!ea+ one #ord o Li$yan ('&177&2)& ?or oreign languages as an analogy or mantic !ossession, see $elo#, sect& III& ,@eturn to te0t,28- "s 9osley, o!& cit& (n&1>) 7& 9andell, o!& cit& (n&12) 1>:, !osits a general rule that *#hen there is no indication in the te0t that he used an inter!reter as an intermediary, there is no 1usti ication or assuming that he used one& Cnly #here he s!eci ically tells the reader that he needed an inter!reter, are #e 1usti ied in assuming that the im!lied narrator did not +no# the language in )uestion&&&* ,@eturn to te0t,29- Buch !ro$lems, #hether !ractical or historiogra!hical, are avoided $y the di erent seating arrangements at "le0ander*s C!is $an)uet, "rr& "na$& :&11&8& ,@eturn to te0t,'>- Bee T& Harrison, *"eschylus, "tossa and "thens* in 4& Fa$ro#a (ed&) "ncient Iran and the 9editerranean .orld (Gra+Z#, orthcoming)& ,@eturn to te0t,'1- ?or contacts $et#een %reece and 5ersia, see F&9& Le#is, B!arta and 5ersia (Leiden, 19::) and his *5ersians in Herodotus* in 9&H& Iameson (ed&) The %ree+ Historians& 5a!ers !resented to "&4& @au$itsche+ (5alo "lto, 1987) 1>1/1:; see also no# 9&C& 9iller, "thens and 5ersia in the ?i th Century (Cam$ridge, 199:), es!& chs& 2/'& ?or #ides!read e!igra!hic evidence o Iranians in the "egean (not 1ust "sia 9inor), see 9&/?& Easle6, *5rJsence et Traditions Iraniennes dans les CitJs de l*UgJe* @4" 8: (1987) 12:/77& ?or aristocratic contacts $et#een the 5ersian and %ree+ #orlds, see also the ingenious reconstruction o L&9& .hit$y, *Ion o Chios and the margins o the Felian League*, in 4& Fa$ro#a, o!& cit& (n&'1), and no# L& 9itchell, %ree+s Eearing %i ts (Cam$ridge, 199:), ch& 8& ,@eturn to te0t,'2- C & 9osley*s inter!retation o this !assage, o!& cit& (n&1>) 2( *they too+ #ith them seven inter!reters, each o #hom s!o+e seven di erent languages*& ,@eturn to te0t,'2- Eoth this suggestion and the !hrase I o#e to Bte!hanie .est( the same highlighting o the *alien element* might $e seen, she suggests, in the contrast $et#een Bolon*s intervie# #ith Croesus (#here no inter!reter is mentioned) and Croesus* #ith Cyrus& ,@eturn to te0t,''- 9osley, o!& cit& (n&1>) 2& ?or %ree+ inter!reters, see es!& 9osley, o!& cit& (n&1>), E& @ochette, *%recs et Latins ace au0 langues JtrangRres*, @E5h :2 (1997) 7/18; see also the comments on the !resence o inter!reters in Herodotus o 9&L& .est, o!& cit& (n&27) 8>8/9 (*The !assages may not $e historically relia$le, $ut at least they $ear #itness to Herodotus* assum!tions and e0!ectations*)& ,@eturn to te0t,'7- 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 1:; or oreign languages in tragedy, see Hall 1:/21, :8/9, 11:/121, 1::/ 81& ?or the characterisation o the 5ersians in "& 5ers&, see also C& 9orenilla/Talens, *Fie Chara+terisierung der "uslQnder durch lautliche "usdruc+smittel in den 5ersern des "ischylos so#ie den "charnern und O=geln des "risto!hanes*, I? 9' (1989) 178/:8& ?or 5ersian names in

"eschylus, see @& Bchmitt, Fie Iranier/3amen $ei "ischylos (Iranica %raeca Oetustiora I) (.ien, 19:8)& 5&F& "rnott, 5u$lic and 5er ormance in the %ree+ Theatre (London, 1989) 127, com!ares the colouring o the language o "eschylus* 5ersians #ith the *%erman o icer in an "merican/ or Eritish/made #ar ilm s!ea+ing accented 4nglish #ith a e# %erman !hrases thro#n in*& ,@eturn to te0t,'8- e&g& "& Bu!!l& 11:/19& In the same #ay, though Crestes and 5ylades in "eschylus* Choe!horoi are said to ado!t 5hocian accents (78>/'), they continue to s!ea+ in "ttic trimeters that sho# no sign o any !honetic imitation( 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 118, "& Favies, *The %ree+ notion o dialect*, Oer$um 1> (198:) :/28 at !& 12 (though c & 5&T& Btevens, *Collo)uial e0!ressions in "eschylus and Bo!hocles*, CT 29 (19'7) 97/1>7 at !& 98)& "s Favies !oints out, *that ,Crestesthen !rocedes to s!ea+ in $eautiul "ttic trimetres does not alter the im!ort o the sentence* as evidence o dialect s#itching in everyday s!eech& ,@eturn to te0t,':- 5hiloctetes, B& 5hil& 222/2', needs to hear 3eo!tolemus s!ea+ $e ore +no#ing that he is %ree+ ($ut c & 4& Hel& 82/')& ,@eturn to te0t,'8- In general see( B& Halli#ell, *The sounds o the voice in Cld Comedy* in 4&9& Crai+ (ed&) *C#ls to "thens* (C0 ord, 199>) 89/:9, C& Eri0he, *La langue de l*Jtranger non/%rec che6 "risto!hane* in @& Lonis (ed&) L*Utranger dans le 9onde %rec (3ancy, 1988) 112/28, @&Bchmitt, *5erser und 5ersisches in der alten "ttischen Gom=die*, "cta Iranica 22 (198') '79/:2& There is a vast secondary literature on individual !assages in "risto!hanes& ?or "r& "ch& 91/122, es!& 1>>, see C& Hansen in ?estschri t 9a0 Oasmer (.ies$aden, 1978) 1::/8>, G&I& Fover, 9aia (1982) :/8, .& Erandenstein .KGBC (.iener Keitschri t Ar die Gunde sAd/ und Cstasiens und "rchiv Ar Indische 5hiloso!hie) 8 (198') '2/78, 9&L& .est, C@ 18 (1988) 7/:, C& Chiasson, C5h :9 (198') 121/28, 9orenilla/Talens, o!& cit& (n&'8)& ?or the Tri$allian in "r& "v&, see I& .hatmough, C5h ': (1972) 28, Chiasson, C5h :9 (198') 122 n&8& ?or the archer scene in "r& Thesm& (1>>1 &), see 4& Hall, 5hilologus 122 (1989) 28/7' ( or linguistic caricature es!& !!& 28/'>)& ,@eturn to te0t,'9- Bee the $alanced discussion o B& Colvin, *"risto!hanes( dialect and te0tual criticism*, 9nemosyne '8 (1997) 2'/':& ,@eturn to te0t,7>- Thuc& 2&112&', '&2&2& ,@eturn to te0t,71- C & the !resuma$ly $ilingual envoy Timesitheus, 7&'&2& ,@eturn to te0t,72- Cther inter!reters in the "na$asis( 2&2&1:, '&2&18, '&'&7, :&2&19, :&8&8& Bee also the $ilingual 5ategyas, 1&8&1& ,@eturn to te0t,72- @o$ert, o!& cit& (n&8) 28& C & 5lut& "le0& 2:&1/2, F&B& 1:&88&7& ,@eturn to te0t,7'- C & 9osley*s literal reading, o!& cit& (n&1>) 7& ,@eturn to te0t,77- " good analogy might $e 4& @hes& 29>/29: #here a sur!rising degree o linguistic com!etence is ascri$ed $y 4uri!ides to the Tro1an she!herd( he is ca!a$le irst o detecting that @hesus* Thracians #ere not %ree+ and then o )uestioning them in their o#n Thracian& ,@eturn to te0t,78- "rr& "na$& 2&8&8, '&2&:, :&1&7, Ind& 28&2/7, Curt& @u & 7&11&'/7, 7&12&:, 8&7&19, 8&11&', 8&2&19, 5lut& "le0& 2:&1/2, F&B& 1:&88&7& ,@eturn to te0t,7:- C & 2&78&2, '&:8, 8&127& ,@eturn to te0t-

,78- Bee es!& 9or!urgo Favies, o!& cit& (n&'8); or consciousness o dialect relative to the *cultural sense o %ree+ as a single language*, see also Halli#ell, o!& cit& (n&'8) :2, G& 9ic+ey, *Fialect consciousness and literary language( an e0am!le rom ancient %reece*, T5hB (1981) 227/88, C& Eri0he and @& Hodot, *[ chacun sa +oinJ* in C& Eri0he (ed&) La GoinJ grec)ue anti)ue I / une langue introuva$le (3ancy, 1992) :/21& ?or the reality o the relationshi! $et#een %ree+ dialects and ethnic identity, see I&9& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1), ch& 8 (including a rather ina!!ro!riately entitled section *The %ree+ "ttitude to Fialect*, !!& 1:>/::)& ,@eturn to te0t,79- This lac+ o a clear distinction $et#een dialect and language e0!lains the inclusion o translations $et#een dialects as #ell as rom oreign languages in "!!endi0 2& ,@eturn to te0t,8>- Bolon r& 28&11/12 .est& ,@eturn to te0t,81- Thuc& 2&112, "& Cho& 78'& ,@eturn to te0t,82- 5ol& 1&8>&8, F&B& 1:&88&7 (c & 7&8&7)& 5hone can also $e used o #hat #e #ould term dialect( Thuc& 8&7&1, :&7:&2& ,@eturn to te0t,82- "r& r& :>8 G"; c & Fem& 2:&77& ,@eturn to te0t,8'- C & also H& Cd& 19&1:7/:, "& Be!t& 189/:> #ith 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 1:8& ,@eturn to te0t,87- Bee 9or!urgo Favies, o!& cit& (n&'8) 8( *It is sim!ly not true&&& that the structural distinctions $et#een t#o so/called dialects o a language are al#ays smaller than those $et#een t#o so/ called languages&* ,@eturn to te0t,88- ?or #hich see 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1), !!& 1:9/8> (#ith urther re s&) ,@eturn to te0t,8:- *.hy*, as+ed the "merican @u!ert Hughes, *should #e !ermit the survival o the curious notion that our language is a mere loan rom 4ngland, li+e a co!!er +ettle that #e must +ee! scoured and return #ithout a dent* ()uoted $y H&L& 9enc+en, The "merican Language (London, 'th ed&, 1982) 8:)& Bimilarly ideologically charged is the common idea that *@eceived 5ronunciation* is an a$sence o accent, as i regional accents #ere merely accretions to a !ure original& ,@eturn to te0t,88- 5hone, according to "ristotle, is the sound made $y a creature #ith a soul, de& anim& '2>$& ?or such terminology in !hiloso!hical #riters, see es!& .& "0, Laut, Btimme und B!rache (%=ttingen, 1988)& ,@eturn to te0t,89- 5ersisti( 8&87&2, 9&11>&2& Foristi( Bimonides test& '' Cam!$ell, Call& I&2>2&18 5 ei er& ,@eturn to te0t,:>- C & "rist& 5ro$l& 897a( *#hy does man sho# great variety o voice (!ollas !honas a!hiesan) $ut other animals have only one, unless they are o di erent s!ecies< Cr has man only one voice (mia !hone) though many varieties o s!eech (diale+toi)<* ,@eturn to te0t,:1- Bee $elo#, n&8>& ,@eturn to te0t,:2- c & 4& Hi!!& '21/2; see also the association o language and reedom o s!eech in the story o the Lemnian deeds, 8&128, or #hich see a$ove, sect& I& (3otice also ho# their "thenian genetic inheritance, even through the maternal line, !redominates over the 5elasgian&) ,@eturn to te0t,:2- Bee urther Harrison, o!& cit& (n&'>)& That this * reedom o s!eech* is something that $y

de inition cannot $e a universal characteristic is suggested also $y %orgias* argument, 5l& %org& '72d/e, that s!eech gives you the reedom to ma+e others your slaves& ,@eturn to te0t,:'- Though en orcement o a correctness o s!eech may $e im!lied $y 5l& %org& '87$/c as suggested $y Halli#ell, o!& cit& (n&'8) :>/1& ,@eturn to te0t,:7- C & "r& r& :>8 G"& Bee here (and or the di erent s!eech o other grou!s, es!& #omen) Halli#ell, o!& cit& (n&'8) :>/1; or #omen*s s!eech, see also 9&4& %illeland, "I5h 1>1 (198>) 18>/ 2, F& Eain, "ntichthon 18 (198') 2'/'2& ,@eturn to te0t,:8- Bee es!& Bimonides 872 59%, or the 5hrygian in 4& Crestes; c & 5i& Cl& 2&88 &, "nacreon '>2 59%, Bimonides 8>> 59%& ?or the idea that $ar$arian s!eech #as imagined to $e lac+ing in logos, reason, see Easle6, o!& cit& (n&19) 188& C & the logos/!hone antithesis o "rist& 5ro$l& 897a& ,@eturn to te0t,::- 2&'8, 5l& 5rot& 2'2e& " Foric #hich #as *almost music* #as the language o choice o a miraculous !olyglot discovered in the "ra$ian gul $y Cleom$rotus( 5lut& 9or& '21$ (de de & orac&)& ,@eturn to te0t,:8- The su!erlative does not necessarily re lect any desire to understand oreign !eo!les, $ut more li+ely 1ust a relative scale o $ar$arism& C & the !resuma$ly !arado0ical e0!ression $ar$ara sa!hene at "& 5ers& 822/8, or #hich see %& 5aduano, Bui 5ersiani di 4schilo( !ro$lemi di ocali66a6ione drammatica (@ome, 19:8) 22, "& Tourrai0, *Les 5erses( la %Jo!oliti)ue et l*Histoire*, in 5& %hiron/Eistagne, "& 9oreau and I&/C& Tur!in (eds&) Les 5erses d*4schyle (9ont!ellier, 1992\2) 99/11:& ,@eturn to te0t,:9- Halli#ell*s translation, o!& cit& (n&'8) :>, o 5l& Lys& 222a& ?or 5ittacus and Les$ian, see urther I& .erner, *Fas Les$ische als $ar$arische B!rache<*, 5hilologus 127 (1991) 77/82& ,@eturn to te0t,8>- C & B& Trach& 1>8>, "nt& 1>>2, 4& Ea& 1>2'/7, "r& "v& 199/2>>, @an& 8:9/82, 5a0& 881& The analogy o $ar$arian s!eech and the sound o $irds is !erha!s suggested o the Tro1ans at H& Il& 2&1/9& ,@eturn to te0t,81- "& "g& 817/8, 1>82/2, 817/8 (c & 127')& Bee urther Le1eune, o!& cit& (n&2>) 78 (commenting also on the commercial overtones o inter!res), @otolo, o!& cit& (n&2>) 298 n&9, 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 11:/8& ?or analogy o !oet and hermeneus( 5l& Ion 72'e& ,@eturn to te0t,82- Buch a !henomenon has never $een recorded o any human society (see @&F& "l ord, 3aming and Identity( " Cross/Cultural Btudy o 5ersonal 3aming 5ractices (3e# Haven, 1988) 1) / or any other human society, one is tem!ted to add& There are, ho#ever (see "l ord, !!& 112/2) societies #ith ta$oos on the use o !ersonal names( though I am +een to resist the tendency to attem!t to vindicate Herodotus* accuracy at every turn, #e might #onder i this is the source o the con usion here& ,@eturn to te0t,82- "nna 9or!urgo Favies !oints out to me that Herodotus might have $een interested here in sho#ing that the various orms o s!eech in %reece #ere not so remote rom each other& ?or the schematism o Herodotus* vie# o oreign lands and !eo!les, see es!& I& @ed ield, *Herodotus the Tourist*, C5h 8> (1987) 9:/118, ?& Hartog, The 9irror o Herodotus, tr& I& Lloyd (Eer+eley, 1988), 5& Cartledge, *Herodotus and the NCtherN( a meditation on em!ire*, 49C 2' (199>) 2:/'>& ,@eturn to te0t,8'- C & Danthus ?%rHist :87 ? 17 or 9ysian as mi0olydion and mi0o!hrygion& ?or re s& and or the meaning o such e0!ressions, see Fu$uisson, o!& cit& (n&1:) 11/18; Fu$uisson suggests that

such e0!ressions re lect the assum!tion that #hile $ar$arians can $ecome %ree+ through the ac)uisition o %ree+ culture, %ree+s cannot ac)uire $ar$arian culture (as there is no such thing) $ut can only $ecome $ar$arians through mi0ed $lood& C & Le1eune, o!& cit& (n&21) 78 n&'& ,@eturn to te0t,87- C & the terms $ar$aristi, "r& r& 81 G", or $ar$ari+os, Den& "na$& 1&8&1, *the $ar$arian dialect*, F&B& 7&8&7, $ar$ari+a grammata, "rr& "na$& 2&8&8, *the !hone o the $ar$arians*, 5l& Tht& 182$, or the remar+ o Be0tus 4m!iricus, 5yrrh& Hy!& 1&:' that the !hone o the $ar$arians is monoeide, or *o one orm*& ,@eturn to te0t,88- C & 9or!urgo Favies, o!& cit& (n&'8) 17, on 5l& 5ol& 282d #here 5lato *attac+s the ty!e o classi ication that divides man+ind into t#o* des!ite the evidence o di erences in language& " similarly sim!listic !olarisation can $e ound at 5l& @es!& ':>c/':1c, and in much earlier %ree+ literature( see 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 7:, on the a$solute !olarisation o Hellene and Ear$arian im!lied $y "eschylus* 5ersae& ,@eturn to te0t,8:- 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 19& ,@eturn to te0t,88- Bee e&g& H& Il& 2&8>2/', '&'28/8, "& 5ers& 299/'>:, 5ol& 1&8:&12, 22&12& ,@eturn to te0t,89- Favies, o!& cit& (n&'8) 17/18& Contrast the @ussian term or *%erman*, nemec, related to the #ord or *dum$*& ,@eturn to te0t,9>- 3& Fenyer, Language, Thought and ?alsehood in "ncient %ree+ 5hiloso!hy (London, 1991) :'; see urther ch& 9, *3ames, ver$s and sentences*& The distinction o di erent ty!es o names #as $egun $y 5rotagoras, FG 8> "1, 72, "2:, "29& ,@eturn to te0t,91- In the #ords o 9or!urgo Favies (n&28), #e ind in %ree+ *no structuralist vie#s according to #hich in di erent languages similar semantic ields are di erently divided and there is no one/to/ one semantic corres!ondence $et#een #ords&* The divine names in Homer are at Il& 1&'>2/', 2&812/', 1'&29>/1, 2>&:', Cd& 1>&2>7, 12&81; that the language o the gods #as a series o se!arate names is o$served $y Bocrates at 5l& Crat& 292d& ,@eturn to te0t,92- Bimilar antonyms are o$elis+os (s!it) !yramidos (a variety o ca+e) and strouthos (s!arro# or ostrich)& Herodotus a!!ears to have !reserved the 4gy!tian #ord airly accurately( see I& Cern], *5hilological and etymological notes*, "B"4 '2 (19'2) 2'8/8, T&C& Lam$din, *"nother cunei orm transcri!tion o 4gy!tian msh, NcrocodileN*, I34B 12 (1972) 28'/7& The #ord cham!sa #as in Hecataeus, ho#ever, ?%rHist 1 ? 22'a, though it !ro$a$ly cannot $e read at "& Bu!!l& 8:8 (see 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 12>)& ,@eturn to te0t,92- ?or dou$t concerning Herodotus* etymology, see Corcella, ad loc& (!& 278)& ,@eturn to te0t,9'- C & '&192&2 (Li$yan #ord, 6egeries, or a ty!e o mouse in %ree+ means *hills*, $ounoi), 7&72&' (t#o rivers have the same name though they do not even have the same source; $oth rivers are anonymous, although, according to @a#linson ad loc&, #hat Herodotus says is true o the greater and lesser rivers Ka$)& C & Heraclitus FG 22 E '8 on the t#o meanings o $ios as li e and arro#; Heraclitus !oints out that an arro# deals death, the o!!osite o li e, so !erha!s revealing a desire to see some underlying order or a!!ro!riateness to names ( or #hich see urther $elo#, sect& IO)& The idea that the same #ord might $e used to descri$e t#o di erent, even undamentally o!!osed, things is one, o course, e0!loited $y Thucydides in his account o the Corcyraean revolution, 2&82&' && ,@eturn to te0t,97- ?or Herodotus* etymology here (and a cautious a!!roval), see Lloyd ad loc&, II&128/9& ,@eturn to te0t-

,98- Hecataeus ?%rHist 1 ? 2>, Fionysius o 9iletus ?%rHist 88: ? 1, "na0imander ?%rHist 9 ? 2, "ndron ?%rHist 1> ? 9, "!ollodorus ?%rHist 2'' ? 187, Btesichorus r& 212 59%, 4& r& 7:8 3, %org& 5al& 2>, 5l& 5hil& 18c, 5hdr& 2:'c/d, "rist& r& 7>1 @ose, many o #hich are collected and discussed at schol& Fionysius Thra0* "rs %ramm& (ch& 8) !&182 (Hilgard)& "eschylus* !icture o man*s ac)uisition o letters de!ends on the agency o 5rometheus, "& 5O& '':/88; it is the com$ination o letters (grammaton te syntheseis, '8>) that ma+es letters use ul or memory and the muses (the !riority o literature is stri+ing), as it is the com$ination o letters in a name that ca!tures the essence o a thing, 5l& Crat& '2'd/e& ?or %ree+ ideas o the origins o #riting, see H& %rassl, *Herodot und die griechischen Bchri t*, Hermes 1>> (19:2) 189/:7, B& .est, o!& cit& (n&12) 29', $ut es!ecially L&H& Ie ery, *"rchaia %rammata( some ancient %ree+ vie#s*, in .&C& Erice (ed&) 4uro!a& ?estschri t 4rnst %rumach (Eerlin, 198:), 172/88; see no# also Fe$orah Bteiner, The Tyrant*s .rit (5rinceton, 199')& ?or the manner in #hich the al!ha$et #as really introduced into %reece, see no# the survey o I&9& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 1'2/72& The idea that the invention o the %ree+ al!ha$et #as the #or+ o a single man is alive and #ell in the theory o the *single ada!ter* o 5hoenician scri!t( see Le1eune, o!& cit& (n&2>) '7, and no# E&E& 5o#ell, Homer and the Crigin o the %ree+ "l!ha$et (Cam$ridge, 1991) 1>/12, and in his *Homer and #riting*, in I& 9orris and E& 5o#ell (eds&) " 3e# Com!anion to Homer (Leiden, 199:) 2/22; 5o#ell even s!eculates as to #hether *5alamedes #ere the actual name o the ada!ter* (!&28)& ,@eturn to te0t,9:- .e may as+ #hether a similar idea lies $ehind the analogy $et#een !ainting and naming $y a com$ination o letters at 5l& Crat& '2' d/e& C course, a change to 5hoenician scri!t did ta+e !lace, the addition o vo#els, leading 5o#ell to a!!rove o Herodotus* version o the introduction o the al!ha$et, 9orris and 5o#ell o!& cit& (n&98) 22; it is )uestiona$le, ho#ever, in the light o his Gadmeia grammata #hether Herodotus had any such accurate +no#ledge o the nature o the di erences $et#een 5hoenician and %ree+ scri!t& Cn the )uestion o the signi icance o the (actual) changes rom 5hoenician to %ree+ scri!t, see no# the arguments o @& .oodard, %ree+ .riting rom Gnossos to Homer (3e# Hor+, 199:) 27> (*Had the %ree+s sim!ly continued the 5hoenician tradition o only re!resenting consonants in their #riting system, those achievements o the human intellect and s!irit revealed since anti)uity through the al!ha$etic medium #ould not, I sus!ect, have $een com!romised&&& this is to con use the genius o human thought #ith the mechanical means o its gra!hic e0!ression&*) ,@eturn to te0t,98- C & Hecataeus ?%rHist 1 ? 119 (the 5elo!onnese once $ar$arian)& ,@eturn to te0t,99- ?or te0tual !ro$lems, and or the related )uestion o the 5elasgian origins o the 4truscans, c & @&"& 9c3eal, *Ho# did 5elasgians $ecome Hellenes< Herodotus I&78/8*, ICB 1> (1987) 11/21, or a sensi$le de ense o Creston, 12/18& Bee also F& Eri)uel, Les 5Jlasges en Italie& @echerches sur l*Histoire de la LJgende (@ome, 198')& ,@eturn to te0t,1>>- The urther com!lication o surviving 5elasgians #ho are no longer called 5elasgian $ut have changed their name (to ounoma mete$ale) clearly o!ens Herodotus u! to a charge o circularity, and may suggest an inter!olation& C & the !reservation $y the 4retrians trans!orted to the "ra$ian %ul o their language, 8&119&', or Herodotus* argument, 2&1>7, introduced rather late in su!!ort o the $elie that Colchians are 4gy!tians, that their #hole #ay o li e and language are similar& Lloyd, ad loc, II&27/8 (c & I&181/2) rationali6es Herodotus* claim as *$ased on nothing more than a similarity o sound $et#een one or t#o o the e# 4gy!tian and Colchian #ords that he or his sources +ne#*& Constrast F& ?ehling, Herodotus and his *Bources* , tr& I&%& Ho#ie (Leeds, 1989) 122, arguing that Herodotus* assertion is *merely a secondary conse)uence o his erroneous theory*, citing the !arallel language !roo s o Danthus, ?%rHist :87 ? 17/18 and at F&B& 7&'8&2& .&G& 5ritchett ma+es no mention o the similarity o language $et#een Colchians and 4gy!tians in the course o his violent ri!oste to ?ehling, The Liar Bchool o Herodotus ("msterdam, 1992) 12/18& ,@eturn to te0t,1>1- Cr the %ree+ !art o the "thenians( see "&%& Laird, *Herodotus on the 5elasgians in "ttica*,

"I5h 7' (1922) 9:/119 (at !&11'), @&"& 9c3eal, o!& cit& (n&99) 1:/18& It is hard to see, ho#ever, in #hat sense the "thenians could have $een said to have gro#n into a multitude o races& ,@eturn to te0t,1>2- Bee es!& I&L& 9yres, *" History o the 5elasgian Theory*, IHB 2: (19>:) 1:>/227, "&%& Laird, o!& cit& (n&1>1) 9:/119, @&"& 9c3eal, o!& cit& (n&99) 11/21& ?or a collection o all ancient sources on the 5elasgians, see Lochner von HAtten$ach, Fie 5elasger (Oienna, 198>)& Bayce, ad loc& (!!& 2>/21 n&7), loses !atience #ith Herodotus( *.e must leave Herodotus to harmoni6e ,hisinconsistent statements&&& His s!eculations on !hilology and ethnology are never very !ro ound&* ,@eturn to te0t,1>2- ?or e0am!le, the image o the "sian hordes o Der0es !resented in "eschylus* 5ersians, e&g& 222/':, and in Herodotus, e&g& 1&128&1, :&':/'9; c & 5i& Isthm& 7&'9/7>, 4& Tro& :'8, Hi!!& ".5 12& ,@eturn to te0t,1>'- "s 9yres !uts it, o!& cit& (n&1>2) 2>8, *Herodotus rests content #ith a vie# o the !rocess o Helleni6ation #hich&&& assumes a +ind o s!ontaneous generation&* Bee, ho#ever, the reaction o Laird, o!& cit& (n&1>1) 1>9/11>, citing the gradual Foriani6ation o the Cynourians (8&:2), *due to $eing su$1ect to the "rgives and the !assage o time*& C & Thuc& 2&88&7 on the linguistic *hellenisation* (hellenisthesan ten glossan) o the "m!hilocians through the in luence o some "m$raciots they as+ed to live #ith them& ,@eturn to te0t,1>7- "s @o$ert ?o#ler has commented to me in corres!ondence, *once the Hellenes and their language #ere di erentiated rom the 5elasgian, they never changed& Hellene and 5elasgian are immuta$le essences; one can a$andon one essence or the other, $ut the essences do not ada!t, evolve or commingle& "s it ha!!ened, historically the tra ic #as all one #ay (ho# satis ying)&* ,@eturn to te0t,1>8- Contrast Eur+ert*s characterisation o the 5elasgian theoi as an *ungeschiedene 4inheit*, *Herodot A$er die 3amen der %=tter( 5olytheismus als Historisches 5ro$lem*, 9H '2 (1987) 121/ 22 (at !&12>), or the remar+ o Immer#ahr, o!& cit& (n&12) 212, that the 5elasgians *had !erceived a unity o religious orces that Herodotus also detected $ehind divergent traditions*& Ho# and .ells and H& Usener, #hilst they also read too much into Herodotus* #ords, do so in an o!!osite ashion( Ho# and .ells, ad loc&, o er the comment *#ithout having de inite names or them&&& e&g& the sun, $ut not "!ollo*; Usener, %=tternamen& Oersuch einer Lehre von der religi=sen Eegri s$ildung (Eonn, 1898) 2:9, sees the 5elasgian theoi as Bonderg=tter descri$ed only ad1ectivally as o!!osed to gods #ith !ersonalities, myths and !ro!er names& Bee also the rather over/ingenious theory o 9yres, o!& cit& (n&1>2) 198 (use ully summarised $y Lloyd, II&2'2/7&) ,@eturn to te0t,1>:- "s recogni6ed $y .& Eur+ert, *Herodot als Histori+er remder @eligionen* in .& Eur+ert et& al, HJrodote et les 5eu!les non/%recs (%eneva, 199>) 28/9, Lloyd ad loc& (II& 2'7); see, ho#ever, ?ehling*s argument, o!& cit& (n&1>>) 89/9>, that Herodotus ascri$ed an undi erentiated !antheon to Fodona in the light o H& Il& 18&222& Cn Herodotus* etymology o theoi, see Fiels, o!& cit& (n&1>) 19, 1udging the etymology alse, though see no# H& 5etersmann, *Les dieu0 anciens et leur !ro essions*, Gtema 17 (199>) :7/8>, and his *Eeo$achtungen 6u den "!ellativen Ar *%ott*, in G&/ ?& Gra t, 4&/9& Lill, U& Bch#a$ (eds&) triu#e& Btudien 6ur B!rachgeschichte und Literatur#issenscha t& %edQchtnis$uch Ar 4l riede Btut6 (Heidel$erg, 1992) 12:/1'1, es!& 129/ '1& ,@eturn to te0t,1>8- @a#linson II&98& C & "eschylus Bu!!liants #here no re erence is made to the $ar$aric nature o the 5elasgians* s!eech, unli+e that o the Chorus, 9:2/'( see urther 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 1:1/2& ,@eturn to te0t-

,1>9- @o$ert 5ar+er, "thenian @eligion( " History (C0 ord, 1998) 179& Cn the identi ication o %ree+ and oreign %ods, see (in addition to 5ar+er, ch& 9) es!& Lin orth, o!& cit& (n&28), .& Eur+ert, o!& cit& (n&1>:), I& @udhardt, *Les attitudes des grecs V l*Jgard des religions JtrangRres*, @H@ 2>9 (1992) 219/28& The e)uation o oreign and %ree+ gods is o ten seen as a re lection o an essentially tolerant attitude to oreign religions, a !osition I intend to )uali y in a cha!ter o a orthcoming monogra!h, Fivinity and History( The @eligion o Herodotus (!rovisional title)& ,@eturn to te0t,11>- Bee es!& Lin orth, o!& cit& (n&28) 18/19 ( oreshado#ed $y Lin orth at UC5Cl5h : (192') 2:7, and restated in his *%ree+ and 4gy!tian %ods (Herodotus II&7> and 72)*, C5h 27 (19'>) 2>>/1), @udhardt, o!& cit& (n&1>9) 22:/8, .& Eur+ert, o!& cit& (n&1>8)& ,@eturn to te0t,111- Bee es!& @& Lattimore, *Herodotus and the names o the 4gy!tian %ods*, C5h 27 (19'>) 27:/87 and Lloyd II&2>2/7, $ut also Fiels, o!& cit& (n&1>) 18, 9eyer, o!& cit& (n&12) 19'& " ull discussion o the arguments #ill orm an a!!endi0 to Harrison (n&1>9)& ,@eturn to te0t,112- Lattimore, o!& cit& (n&111) 279/8>& ,@eturn to te0t,112- Bimilar di iculties arise in trying to reconcile Lin orth*s theory #ith Herodotus* discussion o the name o Heracles (2&'2&1/')( see Harrison (n&1>9)& ,@eturn to te0t,11'- Bee Harrison (n&1>9)& ,@eturn to te0t,117- Bee, e&g&, B& 9oren6, 4gy!tian @eligion, tr& "&4& Gee! (London, 19:2) 21 && ,@eturn to te0t,118- 2&88&2, 122&2, 1:>&1& ?or an e0!lanation o Herodotus* occasional reticence concerning the divine in his account o 4gy!t, and or urther re s&, see my *Herodotus and the certainty o divine retri$ution*, in "&E& Lloyd (ed&) .hat is a %od< Btudies in the 3ature o %ree+ Fivinity (London, 199:) 1>8 and n& 22 (!&118)& ,@eturn to te0t,11:- Bee 1&7:&1 (Thessaliotis), 2&99&' (9em!his), 2&111&2 (*@ed soil*), 2&112&2 (Cano$ic mouth), 2&178&' ( loating island), '&8&2 (Bcythian territory), '&18>&1 (Earca), :&9' ("chaea), :&1>8&2 (Erianti+), 8&'2 (Foris), 8&''&2 (Hellas), 8&'8&1 ("egina)& ?or e0am!les in Herodotus* contem!oraries, es!& Hecataeus and 5herecydes, see @& ?o#ler, *Herodotos and his contem!oraries*, IHB 118 (1998) :2 n& 88& ,@eturn to te0t,118- Bee "!!endi0 2& ?or this *mythological colonisation* o oreign !eo!les, see Eraun, o!& cit& (n&2>) 29/21, 4& Hall, o!& cit& (n&1) 28, ?o#ler, o!& cit& (n&11:) :2 and n&82 (*The use o e!onyms is so common and universal that I have not $othered to illustrate it*)& ,@eturn to te0t,119- "s suggested $y Lloyd, II&2>'/7& ,@eturn to te0t,12>- ?or the Cratylus and its !hiloso!hical $ac+ground, see C&I& Classen, *Btudy o language among Bocrates* contem!oraries*, in Bo!histi+, .ege der ?orschung Ed& 18: (Farmstadt, 19:8) 217/':, B&E& Levin, *.hat*s in a name<( a reconsideration o the Cratylus* historical sources and to!ics*, "ncient 5hiloso!hy 17 (1997) 91/117, $ut es!& T&9&I& Ea0ter, The Cratylus& 5lato*s Criti)ue o 3aming, 5hiloso!hia "nti)ua vol& 78 (Leiden, 1992)& The idea o the a!!ro!riateness o names is ascri$ed in the dialogue itsel to 5rodicus (28'$) and to 4uthy!hro (298d/e, '28c), $ut Ea0ter, ch& 7, stresses the #ide range o targets against #hom 5lato is arguing( 5lato *is $attling against #hat he sees as a culture/#ide mista+en $elie in the !o#er o names* (!&1>:)& ,@eturn to te0t,121- Immer#ahr asserts, o!& cit& (n&12) 188 n&111, that Herodotus* statement *should re er to the

length and !eculiar sound o the names, not to their meaning*& ,@eturn to te0t,122- Bome !rominent * irsts* in Herodotus( 1&7&2, 1&8&2, 1&22, 1&9'&1, 1&1>7&1, 1&182&2, 2&2/2, 8&112&2& Bee more generally "& GleingAnther, 5rotos Heuretes, 5hilologus Bu!!l& 28 (Lei!6ig, 1922) '2/87, E&"& van %roningen, In the %ri! o the 5ast (Leiden, 1972) 22/', ?o#ler, o!& cit& (n&11:) :2/' and n& 8:& ,@eturn to te0t,122- Though contrast the common idea o gods as *many/named*( e&g& "& 5O 212, Bo!h& CC '2/ 2 (c & "& 4um& '18), B& r& 9'1 @adt, 4& Hi!!& 1/2, Eacch& 2:7/8& ,@eturn to te0t,12'- "s @udhardt remar+s, ho#ever, o!& cit& (n&1>9) 227/8, it is relatively easy to +no# the sun, moon, stars etc& rom the $eginning& ,@eturn to te0t,127- 5eo!les, $y contrast, seem usually to have had a name $e ore their current name( see a$ove, n&11:& Ion also #as anonymous $e ore his identity #as discovered( 4& Ion 12:2/2& ,@eturn to te0t,128- ?or other instances o this uncertainty re& the names o the gods, see B&I& 5ulleyn, *The !o#er o names in classical %ree+ religion*, CT '' (199') 1:/27, no# revised as ch& 8 o his 5rayer in %ree+ @eligion (C0 ord, 199:), concluding that names had no magical !o#er& His suggestion that !hiloso!hical in luence may lie $ehind some such instances o uncertainty (e&g& 4& r& 912&2 3, Tro& 88', Eacch& 2:7) is undermined $y "& "g& 18>/7 (as 5ulleyn ac+no#ledges)& 9oreover, e0!ressions o ear concerning *theological* s!eculation such as 5l& Crat& '>>d/'>1a, '>:d/e, 5hil& 12c, cannot $e dismissed as merely or e0clusively !hiloso!hical in tone& ,@eturn to te0t,12:- Femocritus FG 88 E 28& Fiodorus Cronus too+ a more !ractical a!!roach to dis!roving the *natural a!!ro!riateness o names* $y giving the names men and de to his sons, the name allamn to a servant, and Theognis to his daughter( %& %iannantoni, Bocratis et Bocraticorum @eli)uiae vol& 1 (3a!les, 199>) II& ?8/:& ,@eturn to te0t,128- C & "rist& de inter!r& 1&18a( names may not $e the same among all !eo!les, $ut the *im!ressions o the soul* (!athemata tes !syches) are the same or all men, as are the !ragmata that the im!ressions re!resent& ?or the gradual %ree+ distinction o name and thing, see urther Eur+ert, o!& cit& (n&1>8), 9& Balvadore, Il 3ome, La 5ersona& Baggio sull* 4timologia "ntica (%enova, 198:)& C & also the charming argument o 4!icurus, Letter to Herodotus :7/8 (tr& C&.& Chilton, *The 4!icurean Theory o the Crigin o Language& " Btudy o Fiogenes o Cenoanda& ?ragments D and DI (.)*, "I5h 82 (1982) 179/8: at !&181), maintaining the idea o the naturalness o language in such a #ay as to account or linguistic di erences( *"nd so names #ere not originally $rought into $eing $y ar$itrary determination, $ut men*s o#n natures in their di erent races, eeling their !articular emotions and receiving their !articular im!ressions, emitted in their !articular ashion the air orced out $y each o these emotions and im!ressions #ith the added di erences caused $y the !laces o the a$ode o the nations at the time& Then later $y common agreement in their di erent races !articular names #ere settled on so as to ma+e their meanings less am$iguous to one another and more $rie ly e0!ressed&* Fiogenes o Cenoanda criticised the idea o the naturalness o names as a$surd, *in act&&& more a$surd than any a$surdity as #ell as $eing )uite im!ossi$le*( see Chilton, !& 182& ,@eturn to te0t,129- Ea0ter, o!& cit& (n&12>) ''& ,@eturn to te0t,12>- C & Ea0ter, o!& cit& (n&12>) 1>& ,@eturn to te0t,121- ?or the story o 5sammetichus, see @& Gassel, Gleine Bchri ten (Eerlin, 1991) 88/:, $ut es!& no# 5& Oannicelli, *L*es!erimento linguistico di 5sammetico (Herodot& II&2)( c*era una volta il rigio*,

in ?rigi et ?rigio& 9onogra ie scienti iche / Berie Bcien6e umane et sociale (@ome, C3@, 199:) 2>1/1:& Bimilar e0!eriments are ascri$ed also to ?rederic+ II o %ermany, Iames IO o Bcotland and the 9oghul em!eror "+$ar( or these !arallels, see es!& "& Bule+, *The e0!eriment o 5sammetichus( act, iction, and model to ollo#*, IHI 7> (1989) 8'7/71& The e0!eriment o Iames IO o Bcotland (on the isle o Inch+eith in the ?irth o ?orth) ends, in the account o @o$ert Lindesay o 5itscottie*s The Histories and Chronicles o Bcotland, ed& "eneas I&%& 9ac+ay (4din$urgh, 1899) I&22:, in the Herodotean 1udgement( *Bum sayis they s!a+ goode he$re# $ot as to my sel I +ne# not $ot $e the authoris reherse*& ?or later !arallels to the idea o *natural language*, e&g& that di erent languages retained elements o the original, !er ect language created $y "dam, see Ea0ter, o!& cit& (n&12>) 87/:2, 4& Baid, Crientalism (London, 19:8) 127/8& ,@eturn to te0t,122- " !ossi$ility raised at least in theory $y 4uri!ides, Bu!!l& 2>1/' (god irst gave intelligence to men and then language, the messenger o logoi), or $y re erences to non/ver$al communication (e&g& 4& I" '87/8, Cr& 12'7 (c & B& "nt& :>>), '&111 && ,@eturn to te0t,122- Lloyd, II&7& ,@eturn to te0t,12'- The relationshi! $et#een di erent languages is an area that receives no concentration in ancient myths^theories o the origin o languages, even those in #hich multi!le languages are a eature, e&g& %en& 11&1/9, ?%rHist 2:2 ? :9, 5hilo& "le0& de& !ost& Caini 91; li+e#ise, there is no idea at 5lut& 9or& 2:>$ o ho# the uture o one !oliteia and one language might $e realised& Cther myths are o the origin o s!eech, letters, sound, a irst language, $ut not o a num$er o languages( 5l& Tim& ':c/d, 5hdr& 2:'c/d, Crat& '>8a/$, F&B& 1&18&1, 5& Ferveni col& 1: & (in the translation o La+s and 9ost)& ,@eturn to te0t,127- Bee @& Bchmitt*s suggestion, *Fie Oer assungsde$atte $ei Herodot 2,8>/82 und die 4tymologie des Fareios/3amens*, Historia 28 (19::) 2'2/', that Herodotus reveals +no#ledge o the real Iranian etymology o Farius* name at 2&82&7& ?or the real meaning o the 5ersian +ings* names, see "& Ho mann/Gutsch+e, *Iranisches $ei den %riechen*, 5hilologus 88 (19>:) 1:2/91, es!& 1:'/8, H& Bchme1a, *Fareios, Der0es, "rta0er0es& Frei !ersische G=nigsnamen in griechischer Feutung (Ku Herodot 8,98,2)*, Fie B!rache 21 (19:7) 18'/88, #ith an alternative e0!lanation o the Herodotean etymology& ,@eturn to te0t,128- *3omen Cmen*, C@ 21 (19>:) 189, acce!ted no# $y H&E& @osJn in his ne# Teu$ner edition& C & B& Eenardete, Herodotean In)uiries (The Hague, 1989) 182, arguing that Herodotus *thus denies that their loo+s can tell one anything at all& Translation rom 5ersian to %ree+ cannot $e done $y li+eness o letters to letters, $ut it de!ends on the sameness o meanings&* ,@eturn to te0t,12:- The meanings o the +ings* names may, o course, alternatively or in addition $e a!!ro!riate to the characters o the res!ective +ings (c & 1&129)& C & '&79&2 #here the Bcythians are said to have named Keus *5a!aios* most correctly or most a!!ro!riately (orthotata) Cne !ossi$ile e0!lanation is that Herodotus +ne# that 5a!aios meant * ather* in Bcythian and "!i *mother*( see G& 9euli, *Bcythica*, Hermes :> (1927) 121/:8 at !&1'1, L& Kgusta, *K#ei B+ythische %=tternamen( 5a!aios und "!i*, "rchiv Crient_lni 21 (1972) 2:>/1, and his Fie 5ersonennamen griechischer BtQdte den n=rdlichen Bch#ar6meer+Aste (5raha, 1977) 2>2/'& (This may $e connected to Herodotus* notorious mista+e o su!!osing that the 5ersian god 9itra #as emale, in that he may have $een misled $y a ver$al resem$lance into su!!osing that 9itra #as a mother/goddess( @& 9er+el$ach, 9ithras (G=nigstein, 198') 1> n&1&) Ho#ever, #e might as+ #hy it is that Herodotus does not mention the meaning o *5a!aios* i he +ne# o it& The a!!ro!riateness o 5a!aios* name could consist sim!ly in a similarity o ritual $et#een Keus and 5a!aios (in other #ords, he is saying that the identi ication o the t#o gods is a good one)& ,@eturn to te0t-

,128- In general, see Immer#ahr, o!& cit& (n&12) s&v& etymologies (and see re s& in n&1'7 $elo#), @& Bchmitt, *9edisches und !ersisches B!rachgut $ei Herodot*, KF9% 11: (198:)) 119/'7, Bchmitt, o!& cit& (n&12), C&G& "rmayor, *Herodotus* 5ersian voca$ulary*, "nc. 1 (19:8) 1':/78, 9& 9ayrho er, Iranisches 5ersonennamen$uch I& Fie "ltiranischen 3amen (.ien, 19:9), inde0 sect& 2&2 (!!& III&22/'), @& K#an6iger, *Lautents!rechung und\oder Ool+setymologie< Ku einer iranischen 3amen der griechischen 3e$enA$erlie erung*, Glagen urter EeitrQge 6ur B!rach#issenscha t : (1981) 81/8& "ll Herodotus* 5ersian names are gathered *#ithin the $oundary o one dialect area* according to F& Hegyi, *Historical "uthenticity o Herodotus in the 5ersian ``Logoiaa, ""ntHung 21 (19:2) :2/8:& ,@eturn to te0t,129- ?or ha$ro/ com!ound names, see Bchmitt, *Ea+chylides a$ro$atas und die Iranier/3amen mit "nlaut "E@"\C/*, %lotta 72 (19:7) 2>:/18, 4& Hall, *"sia Unmanned( images o victory in classical "thens*, in I& @ich and %& Bhi!ley (eds&) .ar and Bociety in the %ree+ .orld (London, 1992) 1>8/22, es!& 122/2& ,@eturn to te0t,1'>- The transition rom M"r$amithra may, Bchmitt o!& cit& (n&12) 21, have $een * acilitated in that the original Mar$a/ has $een $rought u! to the indigenous names containing the name o the lunar god "rma in "sia 9inor&* ,@eturn to te0t,1'1- The !un is made e0!licit $y 3umenios o Tarsus, "nth& 5al& 2, 28& ,@eturn to te0t,1'2- C & Immer#ahr, o!& cit& (n&12) 182 n&28& ,@eturn to te0t,1'2- C & Immer#ahr, o!& cit& (n&12) '' n& 87, "& 9oreau, *Le songe d*"tosse*, in 5& %hiron/ Eistagne, "& 9oreau and I&/C& Tur!in (eds&) Les 5erses d*4schyle (9ont!ellier, 1992\2) 29/71 at !& 29, and es!& H&3& Couch, *Three !uns on the root o !ertho in the 5ersae o "eschylus*, "I5 72 (1921) 2:>/2& ?or the real etymology o the name 5ersians (and "rtaeans), see 4ric 5irart, *Les 3oms des 5erses*, I" 282 (1997) 7:/88& ,@eturn to te0t,1''- Bee the comments o ?o#ler, o!& cit& (n&11:) :2 n&::, on the distinction $et#een !o!ular and *scienti ic* etymology( *the latter usually seems more sel /conscious and dis!lays a !retence o $eing $ased on some theoretical understanding o the !henomenon; in !articular, it may $e used to construct or con irm an historical hy!othesis&* The di erence $et#een ancient and modern etymology is e0!lored $y Ea0ter, o!& cit& (n&12>) 7:/87& ,@eturn to te0t,1'7- Cther more or less li+ely #ord!lays or *s!ea+ing names* in the Histories, including $oth %ree+ names and Helleni6ed oreign names( "tys and "drastus (Immer#ahr, o!& cit& (n&12) 178 n&27, Hellmann, Herodots Groisos/Logos (Eerlin, 192') 82), Tellus (Immer#ahr, 178/: n&21), Fei!honus (Immer#ahr, 2>1), 5re0as!es (2&82&2( 5o#ell C@ 71 (192:) 1>', Immer#ahr, 182 n&28), 5roteus (2&118&'( 5o#ell C@ 71 (192:) 1>'), Leonidas (:&227&2( Immer#ahr, 28>/1 n&89), the seers Teisamenus, Hegesistratus and Hi!!omachus (Immer#ahr, 29'/7 and n& 18'), Callimachus (Immer#ahr, 27> n&2:; c & the e0aggerated comments o 9yres, o!& cit& (n&2) 2>8), 5eisistratus (Immer#ahr, 198), "styages (1&1>:&1, 128&2( Immer#ahr, 182 n&2:), Feioces (B& ?lory, The "rchaic Bmile o Herodotus (Fetroit, 198:) 12', Telesarchus (?lory, 1'7), 5hye (?lory, 128)& ?or etymologies in Hellanicus and other authors, es!& ragmentary historians, see ?o#ler, o!& cit& (n&11:) :2 n& :8/9, noting an *o$vious concentration o this activity in the later !art o the i th century&* 40am!les in tragedy are almost endless( e&g& Helen (4& Hel& 18:>/7, "& "g& 881/998; c & Hecataeus ?%rHist 1 ? 128), Ion (4& Hel& 881/2, 8>2, 82>/1, 4& Ion 8>/ 1, 881/2, 8>2, 82>/1, 12:2/2), Cdysseus (B& r& 987 @adt), 5olyneices ("& Be!t& 821/2)& ?or Homer, see 4& @isch, *3amensdeutungen und .orter+lbrungen $ei den bltesten griechischen Fichtern*, in 4umasia& ?estschri t cr 4rnst Ho#ald (Kurich, 19':) :2/9, re!rinted in his Gleine Bchri ten (Eerlin, 1981) 29'/212, 3& "ustin, *3ame magic in the Cdyssey*, CBC" 7 (19:2) 1/19, or or the discussion o the names Cdysseus and "chilles res!ectively (#ith urther re s&), B& .est ad& H& Cd& 1&72, %&

3agy, ICB 19 (199') 2/9& ?or Hesiod as etymologist, see 9&L& .est, Hesiod( Theogony (C0 ord, 1988) s&v& *etymologi6ing* and Hesiod( .or+s and Fays (C0 ord, 19:8) s&v& *etymologi6ing #ord/ !lay* and *etymology, ancient*& Bee also no#, in general, B&E& Levin, *%ree+ conce!tions o naming( three orms o a!!ro!riateness in 5lato and the literary tradition*, C5h 92 (199:) '8/7:, es!& '8/'9& ,@eturn to te0t,1'8- C & 5lut& 3i+& 1&2& ,@eturn to te0t,1':- e&g& 7&92&e1, 8&82&2& C ten, #e may sus!ect, such stories gre# out o the names; the names then came to constitute *!roo * o the truth o the stories& ?or the !arallel #ay in #hich monuments give rise to anecdotes, see 4& %a$$a, *True history and alse history in Classical "nti)uity*, I@B :1 (1981) 7>/82 (at !& 81)& ,@eturn to te0t,1'8- ?or #ish/ ul ilment in naming in anti)uity, see "& 4rs+ine, *@ome in the %ree+ .orld& The signi icance o a name*, in "& 5o#ell (ed&) The %ree+ .orld (London, 1997) 2:1& Immer#ahr, o!& cit& (n&12) 297 n&18', raises the )uestion o #hether seers or generals #ere chosen $ecause o their names& Bee also B& Horn$lo#er, *The religious dimension to the 5elo!onnesian .ar*, HBC5 9' (1992) 189/9: (at 189 and n&:2), on the choice o "lcidas to lead the oundation o Hera+leia, 9iltiades or an "thenian colony to the Chersonese o the 22>s (Tod 2>>), or o 9elanthius to lead the "thenian contingent in su!!ort o the Ionian revolt (7&9:&2)& Horn$lo#er sees the lac+ o name/!uns in Thucydides, and the lac+ o any mention o the signi icance o "lcidas* name, as re lecting a conscious reaction against Herodotus, *#ho li+e many %ree+s $ac+ to Homer and do#n to Bo!hocles sa# signi icance in !ro!er names*, something *totally a$sent* in Thucydides& I or one am #illing, des!ite the scorn ul comments o Horn$lo#er, 189 and n& :2 and in his Thucydides (London, 198:) 9', to acce!t the e0istence o the three #ord!lays detected $y 5o#ell in Thucydides, o!& cit& (n&1'8) 1>2; I #ould concede, ho#ever, that they are !erha!s more !urely *literary* #ord!lays than, say, 9&91& The case o 9elanthius, 7&9:&2, #here Herodotus too ails to dra# attention to the signi icance o a name, suggests that Horn$lo#er*s argument relies sim!ly on the num$er, and the !rominence, o e0am!les o name/!uns in Herodotus $y com!arison #ith Thucydides; the di erence may $e due as much to the di erent !eriods a$out #hich each author #as #riting, and conse)uently o the di erent material each had at his dis!osal, as to a conscious reaction on Thucydides* !art& ,@eturn to te0t,1'9- C & Herodotus* o$servation that the 5ersians had not noticed that all their names ended in the same letter, 1&129& ,@eturn to te0t,17>- Bome clue to the degree o corru!tion o these names can !erha!s $e gleaned rom Hecataeus* statement, ?%rHist 1 ? 21, that the 5hoenicians !ronounced Fanad as Fana& ,@eturn to te0t,171- Bee the discussion o Ie ery, o!& cit& (n&98) 172, 18>& ?or the evidence o the actual relationshi! $et#een %ree+ and 5hrygian, see %Anter 3eumann, *5hrygisch und %riechisch*, B".. '99 (1988)& ,@eturn to te0t,172- 9or!urgo Favies (n&28)& ,@eturn to te0t,172- Contrast the tone o cheer ul cosmo!olitanism o "nth& 5al& :,'19& ,@eturn to te0t,17'- This is one o the main themes o 4d#ard Baid*s Crientalism (n&121)& ,@eturn to te0t,177- Bee es!& 9omigliano, o!& cit& (n&19) ch&1& ,@eturn to te0t,178- 9or!urgo Favies (n&28)& ,@eturn to te0t-

,17:- Bee C& Eri0he in @& Lonis, o!& cit& (n&'8) 12:, distancing this *$anale mani estation de ce )u*on !ourrait a!!eler la 0Jno!ho$ie ordinaire* rom the *vision ideologi)ue de la langue* o the Cratylus& Bee also Halli#ell, o!& cit& (n&'8) :1, and (very much less su$tle) 4& Iannsens, *Les Utrangers comme JlJment comi)ue dans les comJdies d*"risto!hane*, 9Jlanges %eorges Bmets (Eru0elles, 1972) '77/8>& ,@eturn to te0t,178- This list is an attem!t at a com!rehensive list o translations $et#een languages or (#hat #e #ould term) dialects& It does not include translations o the names o the gods (see a$ove, n&1>9)& The e)uivalances are not al#ays !er ect (e&g& 2&89&2)& In a num$er o instances Herodotus seems to ta+e or granted, #hen he says that a oreign !eo!le calls 0 y, that they called 0 *y in their o#n language* (e&g& 2&178&7)& Cther !ro$lematic cases are #here the %ree+ translation o a oreign name means something in %ree+, e&g& 2&28&1 (a !lace called in the %ree+ language *the island o the $lessed*) or '&72&2 (a Bcythian !lace/name 40am!aios rendered in the %ree+ language *Bacred @oads*)( does he consider $y *in the %ree+ language* that the meaning o the Bcythian or 4gy!tian name is $eing rendered into %ree+, or merely that the t#o names re er to the same !lace< ,@eturn to te0tEac+ to HIBTCB( Contents o the current volume Eac+ to HIBTCB 9ain 9enu To Furham Classics Fe!artment Home 5age