Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

INSANITY IN HERODOTUS

A look at the crazies

Ronald Orr, B.A.

Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to examine the different word choices for those whom Herodotus of
Halicarnassus considers insane in his work The Histories. The paper will show that Herodotus
varies his word choices based on the factors as to why someone should be viewed as insane,
according to Herodotus. Those who were being punished with insanity earned the term
"mainomai" ("to be mad, raving") whereas someone who might not have been punished with
insanity is described with the term "hupomargoteros" ("being somewhat insane"). Five case
studies will be considered: Cambyses, Cyrus the Great, Skyles, Cleomenes, and Charlios, of
whom, the first four merit the term mainomai. The four men who are described with the verb
mainomai violated "nomos" (custom) in some way, shape, or form. (Charlios being the one who
Herodotus was unsure of as to whether he did violate custom, thus earning the term
"hupomargoteros".) We can see from Herodotus' work that custom was one of the most
important aspects to his understanding of the world around him. Herodotus goes as far as to
quote the Greek poet Pindar who penned, "Custom is the king of all." showing the significance
of custom to Herodotus. A great deal of emphasis will be placed on the different deeds that each
man committed and how each deed violated the custom of either men and/or the gods. These
deeds will be examined through the language of the text and how Herodotus recounted the
stories. This examination will show the importance of custom to Herodotus and why someone
who violated custom should be considered insane.
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

Acknowledgements:

Here I would like to thanks all of those who have helped me in my academic journey. Of course,
I would like to thank my undergraduate mentors, Drs. Marshall and Pamela Johnston, Melinda
Gunning, and Patricia DeBenedetto. I would also like to thank my fellow classmates from Fresno
Pacific University who helped contribute to this project in a positive way either by being a
sounding board for ideas or took me out for a beer after this project's completion, specifically:
Max McDougal, Dan Crosby, David Snyder, Katie Elwood, Anna Gregory and Chelsea
Vongehr. I owe a great deal of gratitude to those at Texas Tech who aided this project as well,
Evan Levine and Brandon Baker. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for without their love
and support, this project and my schooling would not be at the level it is now.

All translations of Herodotus are either my own or cited from Andrea Purvis in her recent
translation of the historian.
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

Herodotus of Halicarnassus, the "father of history" as he was dubbed by Cicero, wrote what is
considered to be the first work of modern-day history, The Histories. Writing in the mid-5th
century BCE, Herodotus examined what, he believed, caused the wars between the Greeks and
the Persians. This account led him to many different places and peoples in order to search for
these causes. Some of the places that he may have visited were Egypt, Scythia and northern
Africa. In these travels, he came across many different characters whom he included in his
narrative.

For the purposes of this paper, we will examine five characters from the narrative about whom
Herodotus shared stories. These five people share a common trait within the narrative; they all
are described as being insane. Four out of the five, I will argue, are being punished with insanity
for violating custom either of the gods or of men, thus fitting into what can be described as a
"Paradigm of Insanity." The four who are being punished merit the Greek verb μαίνομαι
(mainomai "to be mad, raving, raging") somehow, Herodotus argued, violated custom.
Therefore, it should be seen that insanity itself in Herodotus' work is both a punishment and the
means for a character's ultimate punishment (his brutal death) to be fulfilled.

First, we must examine the terminology that Herodotus used when discussing the insane and
their violations against custom. When describing custom, Herodotus used the noun νόμος
(nomos "custom, law, institution, ordinance"). However, as a traveler, Herodotus focused on his
dealings with other peoples. More specifically, Herodotus focused on the customs of the many
foreign cultures he encounters. Such customs he described were those of the Babylonians, the
Scythians, the Persians, the Lydians, Egyptians, Ethiopians and Libyans. These digressions into
various customs are spread throughout the various books of his narrative. Tim Rood stated
(2009), “it becomes clear that his inquiry into foreign lands and peoples than just underpin his
explanation of the cultural conflicts...[it] proves to be as central to his project as his inquiry into
the wars fought by the Greeks and non-Greeks” (p 290).

The paradigm for Herodotus’ use of insanity begins with a character who has committed a
horrible transgression(s), generally against the gods however, it is not a requirement to be
considered insane. However, to merit the use of mainomai, the violation must be against custom,
whether it is against the gods’ or man’s customs. Later in the character’s story, the character will
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

go completely mad and the punishment would begin. It is important to note that the characters
can either be completely sane at first or have some traces of insanity before going “completely
mad.” After madness befalls the character, his undoing must mirror what caused his insanity.
Insanity itself was not the sole punishment that Herodotus used for his characters, it was also a
means in which punishment was enacted.

Scott Scullion argued that, in Herodotus, “mockery even of unsound custom argues madness”
(2006, p 201). For Cambyses, Cleomenes and Skyles the violation of custom is religious in
nature. Cyrus the Great is the only character where mainomai is used and religion was not the
custom that was violated. The use of mainomai for a character's violation of custom provides an
interesting look at how Herodotus viewed custom. Herodotus stated in Book Three that he
viewed custom, quoting Pindar, “custom is the king of all” (3.38).

For the five people that are said to be insane, their punishment is fitting for what their actions
were. The punishment results in the gruesome death of the characters (or assumed death in the
case of Charliaos). An interesting note, the four characters whom the term mainomai is used,
their death is described in great detail, more so than the other characters (not insane) who die in
Herodotus’ work. These deaths were also a lot more graphic in nature than the other deaths
within his narrative. They were more gruesome because these deaths must fit the gruesomeness
of the crime(s) that the character committed. Charliaos is the only character who is considered to
be insane that the term mainomai is not used.

The paradigm is consistent throughout every character about whom Herodotus wrote being
insane. However, Herodotus uses two different words when dealing with insanity: mainomai and
hupomargoteros. Charliaos is the only character for whom mainomai is not used. For those
whom mainomai is used, the transgression(s) he committed are known to Herodotus and said
insanity is a means for the character to be punished..

Cambyses:
Very little is known about the historical Cambyses. One of the few sources we have of Cambyses
and his reign in Egypt is Herodotus’ which does not treat him fairly. The later historical sources
(particularly of Greek and Roman authorship) of Cambyses’ reign follow the same pattern as
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

Herodotus, therefore being of little use when trying to discover what actually happened. Much of
what Herodotus claims cannot be taken at face value; the sources that Herodotus used were
considerably biased against Cambyses. These sources created a picture of Cambyses that was
one of pure insanity instead of a good military leader. For the purpose of this paper, however, the
historical Cambyses is of little interest.

Cambyses was the second king of the Persian Empire and took control of the Empire in 530
BCE. Before he became king of Persia, he had been a satrap in Babylon for eight years. He
assumed control after Cyrus is killed in battle because he was the son of Cyrus by Cassandane.
From birth, Cambyses is said to have had the “sacred disease” which could have contributed to
his madness. Cambyses spent most of his time fighting in Egypt, something Cyrus, according to
Herodotus, wanted to pursue but was unable to do. Cambyses was the first Persian to enter into
Egypt who was able to conquer it. Herodotus treated Cambyses with an unusually unfair bias
against him, as compared the other Persian leaders like Xerxes or Darius. According to
Herodotus, Cambyses left Egypt when he heard that his throne was being usurped. As Cambyses
is leaving Egypt, he is stabbed in the thigh by accident which becomes gangrenous. This wound
was the beginning of the downfall of the Persian leader who had no legitimate sons or daughters
to rule after him. After Cambyses, Darius became king of the Persian Empire through, as
Herodotus claimed, a series of debates on what form of government is better.

Cambyses invaded Egypt in 525 BCE and had initial luck in the war. However, after the battle at
Memphis, the luck of Cambyses ran out. The legends that arose after his rule state that Cambyses
tried to invade the Ethiopians and the army was lost in the desert. It is after this defeat in the
desert that Cambyses believed, Herodotus stated, that the Egyptians to be mocking him. In
actuality, the Egyptians were celebrating the arrival of the Apis bull. Cambyses then stabbed the
Apis Bull in defiance of both Egyptian and Persian custom. This action merited Herodotus
calling Cambyses “insane” and it spelled his downfall later in Book Three. H. R. Immerwahr
(1966), trying to understand Herodotus’ viewpoint of Cambyses, stated that, “The reversal of
Cambyses' attitude is so violent that it could only be understood as madness” (p 168).

Cambyses follows the paradigm of insanity that Herodotus laid in his work. Since it has been
established that insanity, as Herodotus viewed it, was a punishment for a crime that violated
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

custom, Cambyses is fully insane, according to Herodotus, after he killed the Apis bull. The Apis
bull became weaker and weaker until it ultimately died. As the bull was dying, it is said that
Cambyses mocked the Egyptians and the mortality of their gods and ordered his men to give the
priests punishment and to kill any Egyptian celebrating. The killing of the Apis bull violated,
what Herodotus saw as, every aspect of Persian culture in dealing with other cultures and
customs. Herodotus describes Persian culture as one that welcomes other cultures and customs
(1.135). Therefore, according to Herodotus, only a madman would openly mock another culture,
a Cambyses did. After the slaying of the Apis bull, Cambyses continued his acts of insanity
including the slaying of his brother Smerdis and his younger sister. Herodotus believed that
Cambyses went mad because of his acts against the Egyptian culture.

The insanity occurred after Cambyses had committed these acts (as is the same for every other
character where the verb mainomai is used), showing the start of the paradigm of insanity. It is
after the slaying of the Apis bull that Herodotus stated that Cambyses went completely insane.
However, Herodotus asserts that Cambyses was somewhat insane before this act (οἷα ἐὼν
ὑπομαργότερος,). As mentioned earlier, out of his madness Cambyses had Smerdis, his brother,
killed and according to Herodotus, Cambyses himself killed his sister-wife. Indeed, Herodotus
continues, Cambyses tried to kill almost everyone who made him angry. In fact, Herodotus
claims that Cambyses even committed mad acts against the gods and the dead. As Herodotus
later puts it, “I am convinced by all the evidence that Cambyses was seriously deranged” (3.38)
For the purpose of Herodotus' work, Cambyses serves as a character who violated custom and he
therefore, must have been insane to violate custom (Marincola, 2001, 46).

After Cambyses became insane, his punishment began. Herodotus claimed that, after Cambyses
had murdered his sister and brother and tried to kill Croesus and others, he received word of one
of the Magi (also named Smerdis like his brother) trying to usurp the throne. As Cambyses was
mounting his horse to head back to the capitol, the tip of his scabbard fell off and his sword
stabbed him in the thigh. The stab wound was in the same place as the wound he gave to the
Apis bull earlier. Herodotus says that Cambyses stated as soon as he realized what had happened,
“It is here that Cambyses son of Cyrus is fated to meet his end” (3.64). Herodotus gave
Cambyses a great speech to say after he knew he was destined to die, in which Cambyses
confessed his deep secrets. Cambyses, just like the Apis bull, became weaker and weaker
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

because his wound developed an infection of gangrene. This wound eventually killed Cambyses
just like the wound that slowly killed the Apis bull. Thus, Cambyses completed the paradigm of
insanity and paid for his crimes with insanity and a brutal death.

Cleomenes:
Cleomenes was one of the kings of Sparta and went insane for committing unjust acts against
Demaratos. During the reign of Cleomenes, there was a revolt of the Ionian poleis who were
under the control of the Persian satraps. Although this Revolt was mentioned in Chapter 1, it
becomes necessary to examine again because it is in this Revolt that Cleomenes committed his
transgressions. This revolt also led to the first invasion of the Persian army in 490 BCE. Not
every poleis on the Ionian Coast turned against their Persian satraps. This would later influence
Cleomenes’ decision to arrest the Greeks around the Aegina.

Herodotus detailed the life of Cleomenes in Books Five and Six of his work. According to
Herodotus, Cleomenes became king in roughly 499 BCE after his father Anaxandridas died.
Cleomenes right to the throne was contested by Dorieus (a younger son of Anaxandridas)
because, as Herodotus reported, Cleomenes was never in his right mind. In his tenure as king,
Cleomenes besieged the polis of Athens in order to place Isagoras as tyrant over her. Herodotus
recounted this story as a failure because of the Athenian uprising that thwarted the siege. Later in
his reign, Cleomenes attempted a campaign against Aegina to arrest the Greeks who medized
(allied themselves with the Persian Empire). While Cleomenes was away, the other king of
Sparta, Demaratos, began to slander Cleomenes, causing strife between them. Cleomenes failed
to arrest the Medizers and when he returned home to Sparta, he confronted Demaratos and
accused him of not having legitimacy as king. Herodotus reported that Demaratos ultimately had
to flee from Sparta. He fled to Persia, where Darius gladly accepted him. After his flight, the plot
against Demaratos became known to the Spartans, causing Cleomenes to flee into Thessaly.
While in Thessaly, Cleomenes tried to unite with the Arcadians against Sparta. The Spartans
received word of this plot and sent a convoy to take Cleomenes back to Sparta, for fear of his
growing power. It was at this time that Cleomenes was “stricken with madness” and was put into
wooden stocks. While in the stocks, Cleomenes ordered the helot guarding him to hand-over his
knife. Cleomenes proceeded to kill himself, starting with mutilating his shins, then proceeded up
his thighs and finally starting cutting his stomach, which ended his life.
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

Herodotus recorded that Cleomenes, just like Cambyses, was somewhat insane before he
committed his unjust acts (ἐόντα καὶ πρότερον ὑπομαργότερον, “being even somewhat mad
firstly”). However, Herodotus did not mention anything about Cleomenes having the “sacred
disease” as Cambyses did. Cleomenes' madness, according to Herodotus, was brought on by
violating the customs of the gods. In addition to his own opinion, Herodotus also offers the
opinions of the Athenians and the Argives as to Cleomenes' downfall, both of whom use the
custom of the gods as an explanation. The Athenians said that because Cleomenes offered bribes
to the oracle concerning Demaratos' legitimacy as king of Sparta. The Argives said that it was
because he brought fugitives into the sanctuary of Argos and executed them. The general
consensus of the three reports being that Cleomenes was being punished in a way of divine
retribution.

Cleomenes merited Herodotus using the verb mainomai because he violated the custom. In each
of the three possibilities as to why he was insane, custom was at the base-level. If one is to take
Herodotus' view, then Cleomenes violated the custom of his own polis by plotting against his co-
king. If one believed the Athenian or Argives, then the custom that Cleomenes violated was that
of the gods by either bribery or unlawful slaughter of people who were under the protection of a
religious sanctuary. Cleomenes violating other Greek peoples was a great violation of culture and
therefore, the only explanation was insanity. From the standpoint of Herodotus' work, Cleomenes
went insane and, as Philip Stadter (2006) stated, “turned himself into mincemeat" (pg 245).

Skyles and Charliaos:

Two auxiliary characters within Herodotus' narrative are Skyles the Scythian king and Charliaos,
the brother of the tyrant (Maiandrios) on Samos. These characters do not further the main plot of
the narrative but they do provide insight into Herodotus' view of custom. Charliaos, as
mentioned earlier, is the only character who is considered insane in the narrative that the verb
mainomai is not used, because, as Herodotus stated, he committed some transgression that may
or may not have been a violation of custom. Skyles violated the custom of the Scythians by
celebrating the Bacchic rites of Dionysus. Skyles was killed by the Scythians for his crime
against custom; Charliaos, one must assume, is killed because everyone in the uprising he led
was slaughtered by the Persians.
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

First, we shall examine Skyles and his insanity. Skyles was a Scythian king who, Herodotus
stated, was fond of Greek customs and would commonly celebrate Greek festivals and deities.
Skyles always dressed in Greek robes when he was alone, so other Scythians couldn't see. Skyles
had built for himself a house in the village of the Borysthenites, where he could practice Greek
religious rites and customs.

However, according to Herodotus, “it was fated that things would turn out badly for Skyles...”
(4.79) even though he was able to live a lavish life-style. Skyles had a desire to be initiated into
the Bacchic rites of Dionysus which Herodotus stated, led to his downfall. Skyles proceeded to
be initiated within the village of the Borysthenites into the Bacchic rites. One of the
Borysthenites, according to Herodotus, stated that “Now this same divinity [Dionysus] has taken
possession of your own king, and he is celebrating the Bacchic rites in a state of madness under
the influence of the god” (4.79). The Borsythenite led the other Scythians to the place where
Skyles was celebrating the Bacchic rites. The Scythians, upon seeing Skyles in his state of
madness, march home and inform the army of what had happened. The Scythians then chose
Skyles brother, Octamasades, as their new king.

Skyles then went home to rule the Scythians but he discovered that the Scythians have learned of
his initiation and have appointed Octamasades as king. Skyles was forced to flee to Thrace,
however when he arrived, Herodotus reported, the Thracians were opposed to him. In order to
prevent war Octamasades offered a trade, his brother for Sitalkes' brother (Sitalkes was a
messenger from the Thracians). The brothers were exchanged and Octamasades had Skyles
beheaded on the spot. Herodotus stated, “So that is how protectively the Scythians uphold their
own customs, and such are the penalties they exact on those who deviate from them by taking up
foreign customs” (4.80) showing the importance of custom to Herodotus.

Skyles was executed because of the madness he showed in both celebrating the Bacchic rites and
violating the custom of the Scythians. Although celebrating the Bacchic rites doesn't necessarily
merit punishment, because Skyles was not Greek and celebrating the Greek ways, he was fated
to be punished. Skyles' charge of madness is interesting to note because it stemmed from
worship of Dionysus, not necessarily a horrible transgression as in the cases of the characters
mentioned before. The worship of Dionysus was a Greek custom, not a Scythian one. Therefore,
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

because Skyles was a Scythian celebrating a Greek custom (forbidden by Scythian law), his
punishment was fitting for violating the custom of the Scythians.

Charliaos entered Herodotus' narrative already being “somewhat insane” for having committed
some transgression or another (3.145). Herodotus tells the story of Charliaos in three chapters of
book three. According to Herodotus, Charliaos was confined to the dungeon when he first
appeared in the narrative. While he was in the dungeon, he overheard his brother (the tyrant of
Samos, Maiandrios) talking with the Persians. Charliaos then shouted that he would like to talk
to Maiandrios. Maiandrios then brought Charliaos to him. It was in this meeting that Charliaos
convinced Maiandrios to attack the Persians. Maiandrios then fled from Samos and left Charliaos
in charge of Samos with mercenaries. The force of mercenaries then threw open the gates to the
citadel to engage the Persians. The Persians however, overwhelmed them and slaughtered
everyone in the acropolis. Charliaos, one must infer, was killed within the acropolis with the
mercenaries.

Charliaos is arguably the most interesting case of insanity within Herodotus' narrative because
his transgression is unknown. Therefore, Herodotus seemed to be unsure as to whether Charliaos'
transgression was against custom or not as evident by Herodotus stating, he had committed some
transgression or other when describing why Charliaos was in the dungeon. Because Herodotus
did not know the transgression that Charliaos had committed, Herodotus cannot use mainomai to
describe his madness. Charliaos still falls within the paradigm of insanity. Herodotus assumed,
because it probably was reported to him, that Charliaos was insane. But Herodotus, it seems, was
unable to discover what the crime was so he must use “some transgression or other.” Since
Herodotus was unable to discover what crime, Herodotus was then unable to use the verb
mainomai. Charliaos did commit some transgression, as Herodotus reported, and even though it
may or may not have been against custom, Charliaos must still pay the penalty for it. Although
his transgression was unknown, he still paid the penalty of death for his crime, following the
paradigm.

Both Skyles and Charliaos, although auxiliary characters to the main plot-line of the Persian
Wars, demonstrated Herodotus' paradigm of insanity. Even though Charliaos did not violate
custom, he was still considered somewhat insane by Herodotus. Skyles violated the custom of
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

the Scythians by celebrating the Bacchic rites and therefore was executed by his own people
because of it. These two characters further the idea of Herodotus' paradigm because of their
transgressions which must be accounted for, showing talionic punishment.

Cyrus the Great:

The last character in Herodotus' narrative that we shall examine is Cyrus the Great. Cyrus, unlike
the other characters, was not called “insane” by Herodotus directly. Instead, Herodotus had
another character, the queen of the Massagetai Tomyris, call Cyrus insane for his actions against
her people. The verb mainomai is used with Cyrus as with the other characters who Herodotus
judged for their crimes, however it however had a different delivery method than Herodotus’
own judgment. Even though Cyrus was not called “insane”directly, he still fits the paradigm of
insanity that Herodotus laid out in his narrative.

Cyrus historically, as mentioned earlier, was an exceptional leader and a great political idealist.
Cyrus established the Persian Empire that later went on to fight the Greeks. A fair amount of
Book One is reserved for Cyrus birth, upbringing, military campaigns and his death brings the
end of the book. Cyrus was able to unite Persia in order to expand his ever-growing empire. Out
of this unity arose a very powerful army that caused even the enemy to defect. The army of
Astyages completely deserted him and went over to Cyrus. This paved the way for Cyrus to
march his way into Median Empire and conquer her and all her territories. The next stop for
Cyrus' military was the Lydian Empire under its king Croesus. Herodotus picked up this story by
having Cyrus, hearing the words of Croesus on his own funeral pyre, save Croesus to make him
his royal adviser. However, Cyrus most certainly killed Croesus to keep control over the empire.
Cyrus was never able to wage war directly on the Greeks, his massive expansion paved the way
for his successors to try and invade the Greek mainland. One could easily compare Cyrus'
expansion to the massive expansion under Alexander the Great of Macedon in 323 BCE or
Mohammad in 622 CE (Green, 1996, pg 6). Cyrus was killed in battle, allowing his successor
Cambyses (the same Cambyses mentioned earlier) to take over the Empire he had built.

Cyrus, having risen to power and overthrew the Lydians, expanded his empire to the massive
powerhouse that it was during the Persian Wars. It is not until the end of Book One that Cyrus
was called insane by the Queen Tomyris. The story, as Herodotus told it, said that Cyrus set up a
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

banquet with undiluted wine and food for the Massagetai and then ordered his troops to fall back.
The Massagetai, thinking that they have just won a great victory, indulged themselves on the
food and drink. Cyrus then ordered his army, once the Massagetai are drunk, to slaughter them.
His army wipes out one third of the Massagetai's army and Cyrus even captures the queen's son
Spargapises. The queen then sent a herald to Cyrus saying:

Bloodthirsty Cyrus, do not gloat over what has happened here. You
Persians indulge yourselves with the fruit of the vine to the point of
madness...By such means you have tricked me and taken my son prisoner,
not by supremacy in battle. Well, then, I urge you to follow this advice:
return my son to me and, despite the damage you have cunningly wreaked
upon a third part of the army of the Massagetai, you may leave this land
unharmed. If you do not do this, I swear by the Sun, the Lord of the
Massagetai, that I will satisfy your thirst for blood, insatiable as you are.

Cyrus, of course, refused to leave and he proceeded to launch his army into another battle with
the Massagetai. Before the fight however, Spargapises begged Cyrus to be set free. Cyrus
obliged and Spargapises immediately killed himself. After his suicide, the battle began. In this
fight, Cyrus was killed, and Queen Tomyris' prophecy was fulfilled.

Herodotus continued that Queen Tomyris searched the battlefield looking for Cyrus. When she
found him, she threw his head into a wineskin of human blood saying, “I am alive and have
conquered you in battle, but you have taken my sun through guile. Well, then, just as I
threatened, I will slake your thirst for blood” (1.214). Here, one can see, that even though
Herodotus had Queen Tomyris speaking for him, Herodotus had Cyrus meet his end in the same
way that he was able to defeat the Massagetai.

The paradigm of insanity fits Cyrus just as it fits the other characters within the narrative.
However, the only exception for Cyrus is that he was indirectly called insane by Herodotus.
Cyrus, as Herodotus reported it, fought dishonestly and directly influenced the death of Queen
Tomyris' son. Even though Tomyris' statement was a blanket statement to cover all Persians, it
was said directly to Cyrus by the herald. Because of Cyrus' treatment of the Massagetai army, he
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

and the rest of the Persians who acted that way, were considered insane. Their punishment was
their defeat in battle, however their leader's head was thrown into a wineskin of human blood,
fulfilling his ironic punishment.

Cyrus violated the custom of the Massagetai and used undiluted wine to try and conquer them.
However, unlike the other characters in the narrative, Cyrus is not directly called insane, rather
he was lumped together with the Persians about drinking wine to the point of madness. Since the
massive army of the Persians is considered insane, the army is wiped out. Since Cyrus was
singled-out by the herald of Queen Tomyris, his punishment was greater than what the rest of his
army was to be. However, his punishment was fulfilled after he was killed, his head being
thrown into a wineskin. Therefore, in the same way that Cyrus was able to wipe out a third of the
army of the Massagetai, his head must be thrown into the wineskin in order to fulfill the
paradigm that Herodotus laid out for the insane in his narrative.

Conclusions:
Insanity for Herodotus was the means in which his characters suffered for their transgressions.
Insanity was used by Herodotus for those whose transgressions had violated custom or who was
reported as insane to Herodotus. The term mainomai was used with four of the five characters in
his narrative whom he considered to be insane. Cambyses, Cleomenes, Skyles and Cyrus were
considered insane because they violated custom in some way or another. Charliaos is the only
character whom Herodotus does not use mainomai to describe his madness. Therefore, it seems
that Herodotus only used mainomai when he himself was “sure” of the transgression that
someone committed.

The use of insanity, in addition to drinking wine and violation of custom, was used to enact
punishment. A clear paradigm of insanity is shown for the characters within Herodotus' work.
First, a character would commit a horrid crime that violated custom. Then, the character would
be cursed with insanity. After the insanity would besiege the character, they would be killed in a
gruesome way that mirrored the original crime. This paradigm is consistent throughout the
narrative, even of Charliaos whom mainomai is not used to describe the insanity. Therefore, one
should see the use of insanity by Herodotus as a form of justice for those who violated custom.
Insanity in Herodotus: A look at the crazies

Bibliography

Green, P., (1996). The Greco-Persian wars. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Herodotus, Histories R. B. Strassler (Ed.). (A. Purvis, Trans.), New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Immerwahr, H. R., (1966). Form and thought in Herodotus. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Marincola, J. (2006). Greek historians. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Romm, J., (1998). Herodotus. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rood, T., (2006). Herodotus and foreign lands. In J. Marincola & C. Dewald (Eds.),
Cambridge companion to Herodotus (pp. 290-305). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Scullion, S., (2006). Herodotus and Greek religion. In J. Marincola & C. Dewald (Eds.),
Cambridge companion to Herodotus (pp. 192-208). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press.

Stadter, P., (2006). Herodotus and the cities of mainland Greece. In J. Marincola & C. Dewald
(Eds.), Cambridge companion to Herodotus (pp. 242-256). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press.