R ev iew s
JO N D. M IK A LSO N , H erodotus an d Religion in the Persian Wars
(C hapel Hill: U niversity o f N orth C arolina Press, 2003); xiv plus 269;
cloth: ISBN 0807 827983, SUS45.00.
In this very com prehensive survey o f G reek religion in
H erodotus, Jon D. M ikalson provides the reader w ith valuable insights
into aspects o f religious beliefs w hich helped shape the overall G reek
perspective on the outcom e o f the conflict w ith the Persian Em pire, a
victory o f the pious G reeks against the im pious hubristic despot Xerxes.
As M em phasizes in the introduction, the role o f religion in the G reek
understanding o f the conflict has been m uch underrated by historians,
ancient and m odem . H erodotus is the m ajor exception and the fact that
he, as ‘the best and richest single source for G reek religion as it was
p racticed in the C lassical p eriod’ (6), offers religious explanations for
the causes and outcom es o f the conflict is noted by M, w ho, as a
historian o f G reek religion, seeks to analyse H erodotus’ account o f
G reek religious beliefs during the Persian W ars in greater detail and
restore these ‘religious elem ents to the im portance that H erodotus gives
th em ’ (9).
M adm its that there are ‘significant lim itations in focusing on one
au th o r’ (6), and freely acknow ledges the possibility that there m ay be
exaggerations and inaccuracies in H erodotus’ account; none the less he
is inclined to trust H erodotus, given that his account can be taken to
represent the history o f religious phenom ena as they w ere accepted and
believed by the G reeks in generations after the resolution o f the Persian
W ars.
H is attem pts to supplem ent and at tim es cross-exam ine
H erodotus’ account w ith those o f m uch later authors such as Plutarch,
Pausanias and D iodorus Siculus, are at tim es useful given that these
authors som etim es provide different versions and perspectives on the
sam e events recorded in H erodotus. H ow ever the chronological gap
betw een them and the Persian W ars is so great that it is extrem ely
difficult to arrive at an accurate estim ation o f their ultim ate value. In
this case their contribution seem s to be negligible at best and falls w ell
short o f M ’s expectations, but given that his intention is to focus more
on w hat the G reeks believed in, rather than the hard facts o f history, this
175
R
ev iew s
deficiency is only a m inor blot on an otherw ise excellent analysis o f
H erodotean G reek religion.
A fter the introduction follow s a long chapter (alm ost a hundred
pages) that provides an alm ost exhaustive catalogue o f religious
phenom ena as reported by H erodotus. The detailed survey is useful, but
only ju st m anages to avoid the pitfall o f repeating w hat H erodotus
actually w rote. M ’s choice to delay the m ajor discussions on the
religious elem ents o f H erodotus’ account until the third chapter m ay be
deliberate: how ever, to students fam iliar w ith the H istories this causes
the first chapter to seem m ore like a tedious narrative than a scholarly
analysis. C om m ents, w hen they do appear, are b rie f and leave the
reader w ith the feeling that m ore could have been said.
T he second chapter is o f greater interest and provides an excellent
and com prehensive sum m ary o f the roles attributed to individual deities,
heroes and the divine in H erodotus. P articular em phasis is given to the
key roles attributed to Z eus o f O lym pia, P oseidon o f the Isthm us, and
A pollo o f D elphi.
U nlike the other deities and heroes w hose
participation in the conflict is determ ined largely by locale (eg A thena,
A rtem is, H era) and is usually a reaction to som e act o f sacrilege
com m itted against their sanctuaries and tem ples by the Persians, these
three gods w ho w ere already Panhellenic in cult are show n to take an
active interest in the preservation o f G reece.
In the third chapter M begins in earnest to discuss the religious
beliefs and attitudes o f H erodotus. H e m akes the interesting com m ent
that H erodotus’ religious belief, in a typically G reek m anner, is
‘cognitive not em otional’ (139): that it is alm ost alw ays qualified or
reinforced by an appeal to reason. T he adoption o f this ‘cautionary
m ode o f n arrative’ (146) w henever describing religious phenom ena
how ever, M adds, does not im ply disbelief. H erodotus, like m ost
G reeks, M notes, accepts the existence and pow er o f the gods. O m ens
and oracles are accepted as legitim ate and it is a recognizable trait o f the
H istories that prayers and sacrifices m ade are alm ost alw ays effective;
w hich, how ever, m ay be due to the historian’s adoption o f a poetic
convention.
Y et w e do find H erodotus consciously avoiding the
176
R ev iew s
H om eric practice o f describing the gods in action on the battlefield. The
nonappearance o f the gods, M notes, is a characteristic o f G reek prose
that m ay also reflect the com m on popular b elief that except in dream s
‘G reek gods did not appear to their w orshippers’ (139).
Like G ould and Lateiner before him, M em phasizes the
im portance o f the concept o f divine phthonos in the Histories. H e also
notes that phthonos, the concept o f the divine, and the fatalistic notion o f
divine nem esis are all features borrow ed from the G reek poetic tradition.
H ow ever, throughout the book, he prefers to concentrate his inquiry on
the cultic side o f G reek religion. Thus although he is prepared to
acknow ledge the influence o f the poetic tradition on H erodotus’ prose,
he is adam ant that H erodotus show s a greater preference ‘for cult
realities over poetic conceptions’ (154). H e argues that concepts such as
phthonos and hubris that derive from poetry do not form a ‘pervasive
theological causality’ (154), but that greater em phasis is given to the
religious cause o f the w ar in a cultic sense. H e thus argues for the
preponderance o f cultic religion over the poetic in H erodotus’ narrative
o f the Persian W ars. Even when describing foreign religions, he adds,
H erodotus’ main interest is in religious practices, not actual beliefs.
Several o f the claim s m ade by M concerning foreign religions in
H erodotus can be challenged, perhaps even refuted: they need to be
reinforced w ith m ore evidence. For instance his assertion that the
Persians are show n using G reek-style divinations from the tim e o f
D arius by H erodotus (157) is questionable given that the divination o f
the kind m entioned in 3.76.3 o f the H istories could ju st as easily have
been form ulated in the context o f N ear Eastern tradition and religion.
W e do indeed discover sim ilar divinations in the Bible in the books o f
G enesis and Jerem iah w hich w ere all w ritten prior to the Persian
conquest o f B abylonia.
O racles, the interpretation o f dream s, the
keeping o f oaths and the paym ent o f tithes, w hich M identifies as being
typical features o f G reek cultic religion are also features o f N ear Eastern
religions and are not necessarily the product o f H ellenic influence or
H ellenization o f non-G reeks for literary purposes.
177
R ev iew s
L astly in the final chapter M recognizes H erodotus’ im m ense
contribution to the form ulation o f the history o f G reek religion. A
thorough sum m ary o f the origins o f G reek religion and deities is
provided along w ith com m ents on H erodotus’ relativism in the m atter o f
religious beliefs and practices o f different peoples. O verall, M provides
an excellent overview o f the nature and origins o f G reek religion as they
are presented in H erodotus. H e fully appreciates the value o f H erodotus
as the m ost im portant source on G reek religion during the classical
period. H e chooses to concentrate on the cultic, practiced side o f G reek
religion and stresses its preponderance over the religious elem ents
draw n from the G reek poetic tradition, especially in the narrative o f the
Persian W ars, and successfully accom plishes his aim o f placing this
aspect o f H ellenic religion w ithin a religious and historical context.
H yun Jin K im
U niversity C ollege, O xford.
178