Candaules got what he deserved?

Textkit Community Civilization and Culture of the Greeks and Romans
1

My reply to this bit of ὑπεκδύομαι → ὑπεκδύς How?!http://discourse.textkit.com/t/how/12271/1 is a bit off topic for learning Greek so I am posting it here.

I don’t imagine that you literally mean to say that what Herodotos describes in itself deserved death. However, of the three he is the one who clearly sets thing in motion and has no one to blame by himself.

The story reminds me of the case of Beatrice Cenci who was imprisoned by her father and repeatedly raped and beaten by him until in the end she murdered him. The options open to an upper class Roman woman of the late 16th century were so few that her choice was narrowed down to suffer on in silence or murder. In that sense she was in the same position as Queen for whom any action against Candules short of the palace coup she engineered. The very fact that Candules held all the cards meant that if his wife should resist at all she would have to strike back in the most extreme way possible.

Women of Athens had a similar lack of power and lack of redress and I rather suspect that Heroditos included that story because he knew it would produce a thrill of horror in his audience.

2

This is one of the “oriental tales” that run throughout Herodotus. It’s probably apocryphal, of course. The Lucretia story in Livy, Ovid and Shakespeare is similar–a man is so infatuated with his wife’s beauty (and with himself as her husband) that he invites other men to surreptitiously view her nude, with dire consequences. I think there are similar folk-tales floating around in other cultures, too.

3

While there are superficial similarities the key points, at least as Livy tells it are quiet different. Tarquin is the equivalent of Gyges but he is not invited to see Lucrecia naked. And Lucrecia calls for vengeance against Tarquin not her husband.

Beatrice Cenci on the other hand was no myth and did actually take revenge against a family member for the wrongs suffered. It is what one real woman actually did choose to do and for that reason I suspect there were women of Athens who when pushed to breaking point acted in the same way.

Heroditos had several versions of the Gyges story to choose from. He chose that one, I suspect, because he expected it to draw in his listeners with the same kind of horrified fascination that people watch horror movies today.

4

This is an old thread I bumped into while looking for discussion on Kandaules and Gyges.

It may well be a well known theme, as Qimmick/ Hylander suggests, but Herodotus makes it into a great short-story, beginning with this memorable sentence:

οὗτος δὴ ὦν ὁ Κανδαύλης ἠράσθη τῆς ἑωυτοῦ γυναικός, ἐρασθεὶς δὲ ἐνόμιζέ οἱ εἶναι γυναῖκα πολλὸν πασέων καλλίστην.

The Oxford Commentary dryly notes that a man falling in love with his wife is ‘apparently an unusual occurence in Herodotus’ view’, but I wonder if that was really the case. Isn’t it rather just good story telling and a captivating opening sentence?

A hallmark of a good story teller is that he knows to suggests a lot with minimal means. In this episode for example, when Kandaules tells Gyges how he has to hide in the bedroom to see his (Kandaules’) wife undress, he does so with the words: ἐπὶ τοῦτον τῶν ἱματίων κατὰ ἓν ἕκαστον ἐκδύνουσα θήσει, καὶ κατʼ ἡσυχίην πολλὴν παρέξει τοι θεήσασθαι → she will set each of her garments on it (i.e the chair) one by one as she takes them off…
This detail of the garments being put on the chair (and thus coming off, one presumes) one by one suggests, I think, the erotic fascination of Kandaules with his wife. The first striptease in literature!
The actual description of the event (Gyges watching the queen undress) is much more straightforward and does not mention this detail: ἐσελθοῦσαν δὲ καὶ τιθεῖσαν τὰ εἵματα ἐθηεῖτο ὁ Γύγης.

And then, when things go wrong and the queen notices Gyges, Herodotus writes: καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἐπορᾷ μιν ἐξιόντα. μαθοῦσα δὲ τὸ ποιηθὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνέβωσε αἰσχυνθεῖσα οὔτε ἔδοξε μαθεῖν, ἐν νόῳ ἔχουσα τίσεσθαι τὸν Κανδαύλεα → but the woman saw him as he left and, realising this was her husband’s doing, she did not cry out…etc

Now, why did she immediately know it was her husband’s idea? Surely Gyges could have been acting on his own. Maybe she was expecting this or something similar to happen, maybe her husband even hinted at it. Of course Herodotus doesn’t tell us, so we’ll never know. The way he writes here, not spelling out every detail -explaining for example how the queen found out about her husband- but rather dropping hints and suggestions, makes for pacy and interesting story telling.

So, 10 pages into Herodotus and loving it!

5

Herodotus establishes when she confronts Gyges that she thinks him spineless and easily manipulated. So I suspect Herodotus would answer that she thinks him to be quite incapable of trying something like that unless put up to it by his King.

6

That’s another possibility, sure, but I don’t see the text giving any clue in this direction. I mean, why do you think Kandaules’ wife thinks Gyges is spineless?

1.11.2 ὡς δὲ ὁ Γύγης ἀπίκετο, ἔλεγε ἡ γυνὴ τάδε· “νῦν τοι δυῶν ὁδῶν παρεουσέων Γύγη δίδωμι αἵρεσιν, ὁκοτέρην βούλεαι τραπέσθαι. ἢ γὰρ Κανδαύλεα ἀποκτείνας ἐμέ τε καὶ τὴν βασιληίην ἔχε τὴν Λυδῶν, ἢ αὐτόν σε αὐτίκα οὕτω ἀποθνῄσκειν δεῖ, ὡς ἂν μὴ πάντα πειθόμενος Κανδαύλῃ τοῦ λοιποῦ ἴδῃς τὰ μή σε δεῖ.
1.11.3 ἀλλʼ ἤτοι κεῖνόν γε τὸν ταῦτα βουλεύσαντα δεῖ ἀπόλλυσθαι, ἢ σὲ τὸν ἐμὲ γυμνήν θεησάμενον καὶ ποιήσαντα οὐ νομιζόμενα.” ὁ δὲ Γύγης τέως μὲν ἀπεθώμαζε τὰ λεγόμενα, μετὰ δὲ ἱκέτευε μή μιν ἀναγκαίῃ ἐνδέειν διακρῖναι τοιαύτην αἵρεσιν.
1.11.4 οὔκων δὴ ἔπειθε, ἀλλʼ ὥρα ἀναγκαίην ἀληθέως προκειμένην ἢ τὸν δεσπότεα ἀπολλύναι ἢ αὐτὸν ὑπʼ ἄλλων ἀπόλλυσθαι· αἱρέεται αὐτὸς περιεῖναι. ἐπειρώτα δὴ λέγων τάδε· “ἐπεί με ἀναγκάζεις δεσπότεα τὸν ἐμὸν κτείνειν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα, φέρε ἀκούσω τέῳ καὶ τρόπῳ ἐπιχειρήσομεν αὐτῷ.”

Granted, confronted with the choice between his own death or that of his king Gyges choses to save his life: αἱρέεται αὐτὸς περιεῖναι. Is it this what you mean? I don’t see Herodotus passing any moral judgement on this or giving clues Gyges is a walk-over.

7

πάντα πειθόμενος Κανδαύλῃ - “in all things obeying Candaules”. In other words Gyges is so helpless in the face of Candaules that if Gyges and Candaules both remain alive it is inevitable that Gyges will again be pressured into gazing on the nakedness of his wife.

That the wife sees only these two options to prevent humiliation, to kill one or the other, suggests
that the “love” of Candaules is entirely selfish. It in no way means that he takes into account the wishes of his wife. I don’t think that Herodotus intends any moral judgment in depicting his love in this way. It quite possible that he is unaware of any other form of love. If so it is revealing about male attitudes to women in 5th century Athens.

Are there any of Herodotus’ stories where a male is shown to be capable of love that doesn’t reduce the woman to an object?

8

That hints perhaps at the reason why the queen confronts Gyges with the choice between his death or the death of the king, but it doesn’t, in my view at least, explain why she realises this whole affair is her husband’s doing in the first place. Mind you, she realises this immediately when she sees Gyges sneaking out off the bedroom, so instantaneously in fact that she doesn’t even make a sound. To me this suggests this spying on her at her husband’s bidding did not come totally unexpected and that can only mean she already suspected him. Maybe she overheard him boasting about her, maybe she was aware of his voyeuristic tendencies, maybe he spoke with her about just such a prank. In short, it has nothing to do with Gyges.
Also, I think πάντα πειθόμενος Κανδαύλῃ is not enough to establish Gyges as spineless; he is supposed to obey his king in all things after all, isn’t he?

Interesting. Could you unpack your reasoning behind this assertion? To me it just seems to indicate that she thinks being seen naked by someone else than her husband is a horrible thing that her husband did to her and in which Gyges bears some responsibility too (though less than Kandaules). So she has two objects: First, punish Kandaules, and if that proves impossible, Gyges and secondly, make that no one but her husband (whoever that may be) has seen her naked. That’s the reason she demands Gyges to marry her after killing Kandaules. At least, that’s how I see it.

9

There is no hint in the text of these other options. But if she already regards Gyges as without an independent will then of course she will instantly come to the conclusion that it is her husband who is to blame.

As far as the wife is concerned, only a husband can look upon the nakedness of his wife and that is a fundamental norm more fundamental than others such as the duty of a subject to obey his king. And indeed Kandaules himself seems to be aware that he is asking Gyges to do something that does not come under the umbrella of duties of a subject to his king. He does not order Gyges, he persuades and never uses threats.

Herodotus is quite explicit that the wife’s sole motive is to ensure that no one but her husband should see her naked. She isn’t after revenge. It could hardly be regarded as punishment of Gyges for him to gain the Kingdom of Lydia. She isn’t bothered which of the two men look upon her while naked so long as it is only the one who is her husband. Her sole concern is the future.

For us today, the expectation is that love values the independent will of the beloved. If that was the kind of love that Kandaules felt for his wife she would have the option of going to Kandaules and saying “If you love me you will not permit anyone to see me naked again.” Kandaules, as depicted by Herodotus, would surely find such a logic absurd and indeed perhaps Herodotus himself.

10

Yes, you’re right of course about the importance of not being seen naked by no one but her husband. I edited my text right after having posted it to reflect this but you obiously missed that while writing your reply. Sorry.

You’re wrong though about the revenge part, since Herodotus explicitly states that she wants to punish her husband: μαθοῦσὰ δὲ τὸ ποιηθέν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνέβωσε αἰσχυνθεῖσα οὔτε ἔδοξε μαθεῖν, ἐν νοῶ ἔχουσα τίσεσθαι τὸν Κανδαύλεα

Furthermore, if the wife’s sole motive is to ensure that no one sees her naked but her husband, woudn’t it have been easier just to have Gyges killed (either by suicide or by force -she is the queen after all-). Instead of this she confronts him with a dilemma:

A) K dead, G husband
B) G dead

She states this dilemma twice, both times putting option A first, indicating this is what she prefers, as she wants to see her husband punished (as Herodotus told us a few lines before).

Btw, are you still reading Herodotus?

11

I am glad we agree and if anyone is at fault it is me for not checking to see if the post had been changed

I missed that bit - yes that does make if clear which outcome she prefers but she is prepared to settle for simply a dead Gyges as not being seen naked by man not her husband in future is a major concern if not as you point out her sole one.

Not necessarily. Kandaules would be very angry to find his favorite servant killed and his love for his wife being the kind of love that it was would only provide limited protection. Gyges, however, could be trusted to do whatever she wanted should she become his wife - his spinelessness has advantages.

Agreed. Indeed we now seem to agree on most points.

While the fact that revenge is part of the wifes motive weakens my argument about the selfishness of Kandaules love I do think it is an aspect that is worth keeping mind. When I first read the story my first reaction was that the wife was being a bit harsh as Kandaules only acted as he did because he loved her. This was because to us today love implies that the love has the best interests of the beloved at heart. Kandaules love, however, is the starting point that leads to him humiliating his wife.

In the story the wife has no reason to be grateful for her husbands love and clearly does not feel it. I suspect that this reflects the experience of the Athenian men that Herodotus knew.

I am reading Xenophon at the moment. I will let you know if I go back Herodotus.

12

The way I understood the story (I haven’t re-read it now) is that Gyges is hardly spineless. Rather, he is represented as the archetypal good soldier and loyal servant of his king. In the inner logic of this oriental story, it’s only to be expected that characters act in ways that are predictable for the archetypes they represent. If the queen discovers that the most loyal soldier of his husband peeping is on her, it’s in the logic of the story that he, the loyal soldier, must be there because the king told him so. (Real life is always more fantastic than stories, but this isn’t real life.) This may or may not imply something the king had done or said previously, like Bart suggested.

I think the wife’s sole concern is her status. Since it’s impossible for her to be king, the highest she can achieve is queen, and just being the king’s trophy wife isn’t enough for her. She thinks it’s beneath her dignity that his husband (whoever he is) shows her around to his buddies (not because she’s shy, but because she’s self-conscious), so she makes a decisive move to show that she’s nobody’s toy to play around with. Replacing Candaules by Gyges is actually politically a very good more – she not only gives a dire warning to Gyges and everyone else that they shouldn’t mess around with her, but also probably ends up with a better husband, having exchanged the unstable, flippant Candaules for the good, loyal soldier Gyges.

Wait until you get to book II! Ever wondered how Kheops was able to raise enough money to build the greatest pyramid? Herodotus will tell you!

EDIT: I wrote this before seeing Daivid’s last.

13

Gyges as the loyal soldier would indeed fit with “in all things obeying Candaules” but clearly there is a limit to his loyalty. If loyalty was the core of Gyges character he would have replied “I would rather die than betray my King”. And never in the story acts out of his own will. When it is first proposed that he gaze on Kandaules naked wife his reaction is horror but he in the caves in to Kandaules pressure and does so anyway. When the wife proposes that he take power in a coup his reaction is again horror but he again he caves in. Throughout the story he is being pushed into doing what he really doesn’t want to do so reckon spineless fits better than loyal.

Everything else in your post I reckon is spot on.

14

I don’t think it’s status or the fact that it’s beneath her dignity. Herodotus makes it quite clear that it’s shame about having been seen naked (a great disgrace among the Lydians even for a man) that motivates her to take revenge on Kandaules:

μαθοῦσα δὲ τὸ ποιηθὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνέβωσε αἰσχυνθεῖσα οὔτε ἔδοξε μαθεῖν, ἐν νόῳ ἔχουσα τίσεσθαι τὸν Κανδαύλεα.
παρὰ γὰρ τοῖσι Λυδοῖσι, σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ παρὰ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι βαρβάροισι καὶ ἄνδρα ὀφθῆναι γυμνὸν ἐς αἰσχύνην μεγάλην φέρει.

I agree with your positive assessment of Gyges though.

For anyone interested in a literary approach to Herodotus I can heartily recommend Discourses on the First Book of Herodotus by James Arietti: difficult to find but an inspiring and thought provoking book.

15

I like how in reviving this thread Bart focussed on Hdt’s story-telling technique. It’s a tribute to Hdt as a story-teller that we tend to forget that the motivations and actions and personalities of the characters in the story have no existence beyond what he tell us. This memorable little tale of kinky voyeurism well serves its purpose of highlighting the switch from one dynasty to another.

Candaules fell in love with his own wife—what an opening! as Bart remarks. But isn’t its effect premissed precisely on that being an unusual occurrence? Husbands are more likely to fall out of love with their wives than into love with them, at least In modern Western culture. In cultures known to Hdt, or imagined by him, falling in love with the woman you’ve been married to may perhaps have been a little less unusual (though it didn’t happen with Prince Charles), but still.

But “fell in love” is an anachronistic euphemism in any case, a product of modern romanticism. (daivid, not even your first reaction should have been that “Kandaules only acted as he did because he loved her”!!) The word is ηρασθη—he was smitten with sexual desire. And that, says Hdt, putting things a bit back to front, got him thinking that his nameless wife was the most beautiful of all women. It’s her surpassing beauty that is of course the real starting-point of the tale, and what a less skilled story-teller than Hdt would have opened with.

16

It is a great opening, isn’t it? Its paradoxical quality reminds me of the short-stories by Saki (alias Hector Hugh Munro). And, yes, you’re right, its effect is achieved by the unexpectedness of what it states. Husbands, in our culture, are supposed to have fallen (passionately) in love with their spouses long ago; in ancient Greek culture perhaps they weren’t supposed to fall in love at all.

17

I might be splitting hairs a bit but I think there’s a difference. Although there is a lot of semantic overlap, αἰσχυνθεῖσα here is closer to “dishonored” than “ashamed”. Of course she is ashamed too, but that’s not the main point. She’s not the young blushing girl, she’s the Machiavellian and she’s seething with anger. She’s like Achilles or Agamemnon in the first book of the Iliad. She’s the queen and her husband has treated her like she were a common slave-girl. That’s an assault on her status, her τιμή (though Herodotos doesn’t use the term).

Gyges is a good, balanced soldier in the first place and “in all things obeying Candaules” in the second place, but only in the second, because obeying to one’s king is part of being a good soldier, even if the king is an irresponsible sort of a fellow. He was put in a situation where there were no good options available, and twice so. First he obeyed to his king’s stupid orders, but only after protesting as vigorously as was possible for him. And when the wife caught him, he was again made an offer he couldn’t refuse. Making any other decision in either case would have been self-destructive for him, and that would not have been in accordance with the Greek mindset (something like that might have happened in a medieval chivalric romance).

18

A random remark from Kenneth Dover’s Greek Homosexuality, (a book I recently read), p. 151 footnote:

The assumption that shared sexual experience is the foundation upon which the mutual sexual passion of the partners is built rather than the goal towards which their pre-existing passion moves is widely adopted in societies which segregate boys and girls and put the responsibility of arranging marriages on parents.

This is about sex but I suppose it’s a good reminder that the dynamics of arranged marriages and our “love-marriages” are different. (You might find the quotation marks cynical; but I’m only contemplating the possibility that also the other half of the world, with their arranged marriages, may, on occasion, experience a feeling called love :slight_smile: )

19

Saki, yes. There’s much in common with his tale of Sredni Vashtar, which I read as a child with unspeakable delight. When she learnt what had been done Candaules’ wife said nothing but resolved on vengeance (which of course she achieved). Just so the hero of Saki’s tale. And in both cases the vengeance takes the form (after prospective failure) of a mediated killing.

20

I wasn’t thinking of a particular story, but yes, Sredni Vashtar is quite similar in the way the revenge motif is handled. And of course, we see Saki using the same technique as Herodotus or Homer in his obituaries of giving just enough information to spark the imagination. We’ll never know for sure how Conradin’s guardian actually died (gruesomely one hopes in secret) and the story is the better for it.