9 Croesus Before Solon’s Visit (§§25-28)

Croesus assumes power over Lydia on the death of his father Alyattes. Without any explanation of motives, Herodotus tells of the Lydian’s attack on Ephesus. During the battle, the city dedicated itself to Artemis by attaching a rope of seven stades (about a mile) from the temple to the wall; this is the only detail the historian provides. Later, in one of the stories of the tyrant Periander’s cruelty (3.48), we learn about the three hundred Corcyrean boys whom the tyrant has sent for castration and lives as eunuchs to Alyattes and how en route they too took refuge at a temple of Artemis, but there are no overt indications that we are to refer to this story for an understanding of the present passage. Recalling it does, however, help us to keep in mind the relationships among the various tyrants and perhaps to reflect that-oriental or Greek-the despots are despicable. As there is no indication that the appeal to Artemis led to any suspension of hostilities on Croesus’s part, we can assume that he continued his siege of the city, and a faint sense of impiety is thus allowed to shade our first impression of Croesus.

If there was any doubt about Croesus’s immorality, it is cleared up in the next sentence, when we learn that he then made war on every Ionian and Aeolian state, “alleging some motives of responsibility upon some, others upon others, greater charges upon those when he could find them, trifling ones upon others” (ἄλλοισι ἄλλας αἰτίας ἐπιφέρων, τῶν μὲν ἐδύνατο μέζονας παρευρίσκειν, μέζονα ἐπατιώμενος, τοὶσι δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ φαῦλα ἐπιφέρων). Later, we shall see Croesus looking for motives to justify his invasion of Persia (1.46, 1.73). Perhaps the fact that he feels he must find some excuse for attacking other nations shows an underlying sense of morality in Croesus. He doesn’t attack them out of transparent motives of greed, but he feels it necessary to allege some provocation. Of course, as Pindar (Pythian 5.28) observes, such a pretext is the “daughter of After­ thought.” And Herodotus is also establishing the groundwork for later irony, for Croesus will accuse Cambyses of killing men who are his own citizens, “seizing them on no worthy cause” (ἐπ᾽οὐδεμιῇ αἰτιῃ ἀξιοχρέῳ ἑλών [3.36]). Still, Herodotus’s use of “trifling” (φαῦλα) makes it clear that Croesus is not to be excused.

Now (1.27) Herodotus uses the same expression he had used when he introduced Croesus as the “first to subdue the Greeks and exact tribute” (κατεστράφατο ἐς φόρου ἀπαγωγήν), reinforcing the earlier claim. Whatever battles Croesus’s predecessors may have had with the Greeks, they did not subdue them. The historian then introduces the first story about Croesus, a story hardly ever mentioned because it is eclipsed by the subsequent tale about the meeting with Solon, and yet, since it also involves a meeting with one of the Seven Sages of Ancient Greece and indeed a meeting with a very different outcome, it is not devoid of interest. Having subdued the Greeks of the Asiatic mainland, Croesus plans to attack the island Greeks. While the ships are being built, either Bias of Priene or Pittacus of Mytilene—Herodotus is not sure, as there are traditions for each—comes to visit. Croesus thus was fortunate enough to be visited by 29 percent of the Sages (and, if the story of Thales’s help be true, by 43 percent!).

In answer to Croesus’s question about the Greeks’ activities, the sage (whichever one it was) replies that the islanders were gathering ten thousand horses for an attack on Sardis. Croesus expresses the wish that the gods would actually put such foolish thoughts in the heads of the Greeks! The sage replies that just as Croesus knows what would happen if the islanders were foolish enough to attack Croesus on the mainland, so the islanders desired nothing more “than to catch the Lydians on the sea and take vengeance for the wrongs done to them on the mainland and their enslavement.” Pleased by the wise speech, Croesus abandons his project and, like Alyattes, who had entered into a guest-friendship (ξεινίη) with Miletus after abandoning his plan of conquest, enters into a guest­friendship with the island Greeks.

The story shows that Croesus is at least on occasion capable of learning from wise advice. It also helps us to understand why, if Croesus feels the need to expand his sovereignty, he will, to avoid naval confrontation, have to go eastward. He is less arrogant than the Persian monarchs, who will not recognize any boundaries to their terrene kingdom. The story also casts the Greeks somewhat unfavorably, for they are willing to enter a relation­ ship of amity with one who has enslaved their fellows. Their guilt, however, is considerably mitigated by the menace.

Croesus responds with pleasure to the sage’s advice (he was “very pleased with the answer” [κάρτα τε ἡσθῆναι τῷ ἐπιλόγῳ]).^[1] When he hears Solon, he will not be pleased (1.33: ταῦτα λέγων τῷ Κροίσῳ οὔ κως οὔτε ἐχαρίζετο). The unreflective immediate response of monarchs is what matters in the formulation of their policy. Even when they are pleased or “charmed,” there is a danger to public and private welfare. Throughout the History we shall see stories of charm lead to ominous results. When, for example, Herodotus tells us the story of Syloson and his cloak, our initial response is different from our considered response (3.139-40). Syloson gave his cloak to Darius when Darius was a bodyguard of Cambyses in Egypt. Later, when Darius became king, Syloson reminded the king of how he had given him the cloak and asked for Samos in return. Darius makes a speech about how the cloak in the bygone days is proportional to Samos now and he hands the island over to Syloson. How charming, we think at first. But upon a moment’s consideration we see that impulsive generosity in giving a cloak is no qualification for rulership-and the true meaning of the story is the caprice of despotic kings.^[2] Here Croesus responds with intelligence to the advice; when Solon gives him even more reasoned advice, he won’t. That monarchy, and Oriental monarchy in particular, is characterized by unilateral despotic behavior is one of the major themes of the History.^[3] Such behavior simplifies somewhat the search for causes, for a cause can be located in the impulse of a single individual’s psyche.

In time, Croesus conquered almost all the nations west of the Halys River. Among the nations listed Herodotus mentions Lydia. There is some debate about the validity of the text,^[4] but as the Greek reads εἶχε καταστρειψάμενος (“having conquered them he held them”), it seems to me quite possible that the historian wishes to emphasize the rule of a single individual even over his own people. The Lydians are among the oppressed.