Commentary on Book Two of Herodotus' Histories 2.129-135

Introduction

This paper will offer a commentary on Herodotus’ Histories 2.129-135. Book Two of Histories concerns itself with Egypt; specifically chapters 99-182 detail rulers of Egypt both legendary and actual. Book Two is distinct from the other books in Histories as it is in this book that we predominantly experience Herodotus as an investigator. More precisely it is in Book Two that Herodotus treats first person experience not as direct evidence but as a method of assessing the accounts of others. Chapters 129-135 provide us with the tale of King Mycerinus as recounted by whom Herodotus refers to in 2.127 as simply ‘ÆGYPTIOI’. These Egyptians are referred to at various points in Book Two and at times appear to refer to what might be termed ‘Egyptians in general’ . However, we can make a reasonable assumption in this instance, given what has been stated before at 2.99 and what is stated later at 2.142, that the Egyptians that provide Herodotus with the tale of King Mycerinus are probably priests. It should not be assumed that priests are any more reliable than the lay Egyptian in Histories however; the Egyptian priesthood did not necessarily concern itself with historical accuracy. Indeed the inclusion of priests may simply be a Herodotean literary device designed to reinforce his reader’s credulity.

2.129

King Mycerinus (MYKERINOS) appears to refer to the Egyptian King Menkaura (Mn-k3w-r'). Mycerinus was a fourth dynasty Old Kingdom Pharaoh who ruled Egypt between 2532-2503 BC, over two thousand years before Herodotus was writing. Herodotus states that he was the son of Cheops; however he was in fact the son of Chephren. In 2.129 Herodotus tells us that Mycerinus reversed his predecessor’s decisions by re-opening ...

... middle of paper ...

...n. Similarly the method by which Mycerinus meets his end in Herodotus is one which is reserved for despotic royalty throughout Histories. Given this, it must be considered that the tale of King Mycerinus contains a large proportion of Herodotean invention or modification. Even the alternative tale of the death of Mycerinus’ daughter which is dismissed so readily concerning the amputated statues has a Herodotean ring to it. Whilst some historians have seen the entire section dealing with Mycerinus as fictitious the fact that Herodotus describes festivals that do exist accurately but misinterprets them wildly means that it is difficult to abandon all faith in his accounts. In common with much modern historiographic meta-fiction it appears that Herodotus might have used ‘real’ backdrops with ‘real’ historical figures as a basis for what amounts to a fictional story.