KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE: HERODOTUS’

NARRATIVE STRATEGY IN SUPPRESSING NAMES OF WOMEN

(Hdt. 1.8–12 and 9.108–13)1

Abstract: Herodotus frames his Histories with the logoi of Kandaules and Masistes:
tales of tyrannical eros that compare in a number of well-documented ways. Herodo-
tus’ suppression of names for both Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives has received
little comment, however. By juxtaposing evidence from other Herodotean narratives
concerning naming in general and the anonymity of women with evidence from
Athenian oratory and comedy, I argue that Herodotus’ suppression of names for
these two wives is purposeful. The women’s anonymity marks them with respect and
exonerates them from culpability in the ultimate demise of the tyrants associated
with them.

H
erodotus’ parable of Gyges, Kandaules and Kandaules’ wife
(1.8.1–12.2) has occasioned a veritable library of scholarly
commentary about its purpose and placement.2 As so many
other tales in the Histories, the story of Kandaules is understood to
teach Herodotus’ audience moral lessons about kingship and propri-
ety, and, as one of Herodotus’ introductory narratives, the tale also
serves to foreshadow King Xerxes’ eventual downfall. Less has been
said about the narrative of Masistes’ wife from late in the Histories, a
story which also helps frame Herodotus’ work as a whole and to
which the tale of Kandaules’ wife has thus often and quite profitably
been compared (9.108–113).3 In the comparison that follows I focus
on one seemingly small and relatively overlooked feature of these
tales: the lack of a proper name for both women. I argue that not
naming these women is in fact a deliberate and significant narrative
strategy for Herodotus, and that we can observe a generally similar
pattern of naming and not naming certain types of women, as well

1
An early version of this article was presented at the meeting of the Classical
Association of the Middle West and South, April 2005. I wish to thank the audience at
that presentation, as well as Charlie Chiasson, Kevin Daly, Nancy Felson, Rachel
Friedman, Greta Ham, Jim Heath, Rosaria Munson, John Porter, Susan Shapiro, and
particularly S. Douglas Olson and the anonymous reviewers at CJ for their insightful
comments. I would also like to thank the Bucknell University students from Greek 151
(Fall 2003) who helped me with the beginnings of this idea.
2
See, e.g., Tourraix (1976); Dewald (1981); Konstan (1983); Evans (1985); Harrison
(1997); Blok (2002). On the tale of Gyges and Kandaules as a “short story,” see Gray
(2002) 293. For problems in identifying Herodotean tales as logoi, see de Jong (2002)
255.
3
Most notably by Gammie (1986) 171–95, who focuses on abuses of tyranny.

THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 101.3 (2006) 000-000

2 STEPHANIE LARSON

as select other characters, throughout his Histories. I thus begin by

considering Herodotus’ general tendencies in naming, particularly in
naming women. I then suggest that in making these choices Herodo-
tus may have been influenced by the widespread Athenian practice
of publicly suppressing respectable women’s names. Herodotus’
suppression of names for Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives, I concl-
ude, bears interpretive implications for both figures. By maintaining
their anonymity, Herodotus marks these women with a certain re-
spect and thus challenges his audience not to view them as culpable
contributors in the final downfall of the male figures.
My concentration on the female characters in these tales comple-
ments and expands upon previous work on these particular Herodo-
tean stories and on the treatment and categorization of gender in
Herodotus in general. A number of modern discussions of the tales
of Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives, including Gammie’s excellent
piece, have primarily focused on lessons about tyranny and despot-
ism. To this end such discussions concentrate on the activities of the
male protagonists: Kandaules, Gyges and Xerxes. Previous authors
have paid less attention to the similarities between Herodotus’ treat-
ment of the female protagonists.4

Suppression of Detail in Herodotus

It is not surprising that Herodotus might choose to omit select

names from the narratives of Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives, since
he himself openly acknowledges his purposeful suppression of de-
tails, particularly names, from other logoi in the Histories. He occa-
sionally does so, as Boedeker notes, in order to spare his audience
gory detail or “indecorous” mention of men of ill-repute.5 He sup-
presses the name of a Samian, for example, who stole a large amount
of money from an escaped eunuch in the service of the Achaemenid
Sataspes (4.43.7); here Herodotus emphasizes his knowledge of this
name and his willful omission of it: to; ou[noma eJk w;n ejp ilhvqomai.6 Al-
though it is important to note this negative approach in withholding
detail, as I will argue, Herodotus’ suppression of women’s names
seems to follow a demonstrably different pattern.
Three other and more extended Herodotean comments involv-
ing suppressed names are more telling for our purposes. At 7.96.1
Herodotus openly discusses why he has decided against including
the names of the Phoenician commanders among Xerxes’ contingent:

4
The exception being Hazewindus (2004) 43–128, who treats both narratives, al-
though she concentrates primarily on the character of Amestris in the Masistes logos.
5
Boedeker (2000) 109.
6
The passage is incorrectly cited by Boedeker (2000) 109 as Hdt. 4.36.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 3

ejpebavt euon de; ejpi; pasevwn tw'n new'n Pevrsai kai; Mh'doi kai; Saavkai. touvtwn
de; a[rista pleouvsa" pareivconto neva" Foivnike" kai; Foinivkwn Sidwvnioi.
touvt oisi pa'si kai; toi'si ej" to;n pezo;n tetagmevnoisi aujtw'n ejph'san
eJkavstoisi ejpicwvrioi hJgemovne", tw'n ejgwv, ouj ga;r ajnagkaivh/ ejxevrgomai ej"
iJstorivh" lovgon, ouj paramevmnhmai.

Persians and Medes and Sakai were sailors on all the ships. The Phoenicians
offered the best sailing ships, especially the Sidonians. All of these men like
those drawn up in the infantry had each their own local leader, whose
names I have not mentioned additionally, since I am not compelled to do so
by the course of my inquiry.

Although the precise signification for ej" iJstorivh" lovgon is de-

batable,7 on a basic level Herodotus here openly acknowledges that
his narrative strategies help determine the details which he incorp-
orates;8 in this logos names are simply not needed for his purposes.
At the end of his catalogue of famous Persian admirals at 7.99, Her-
odotus likewise remarks that he will refrain from mentioning the
other naval leaders (except Artemisia), since he feels no compulsion
to list the additional names in this logos (oujk ajnagkazovm eno").
Herodotus makes a third and most illuminating remark about
suppressing names in concluding his account of Thermopylae. Here
he emphatically informs his audience — twice in one sentence, in
fact — that he has found out the name of every one of the three hun-
dred warriors who perished alongside Leonidas:

kai; Lewnivdh" te ejn touvtw/ tw'/ povnw/ pivptei ajnh;r genovmeno" a[risto" kai;
e{teroi met∆ aujtou' ojnomastoi; Spartihtevwn, tw'n ejgw; wJ" ajndrw'n ajxivwn
genomevnwn ejpuqovmhn ta; oujnovmata, ejpuqovmhn de; kai; aJpavntwn tw'n
trihkosivwn.

And Leonidas, after he proved a most excellent warrior, fell in this battle
and with him other notable Spartans, whose names I have found out be-
cause they were worthy men, and I have even found out the names of all
three hundred (7.224.1).

Macan long ago noted the curiosity of omitting names for these
men.9 It is indeed striking that Herodotus lets his audience know
that he has heard names for all the dead Spartans but is not willing
to divulge them. Herodotus underscores his open suppression of this
information by immediately continuing his narrative with specific
names of fallen Persian warriors of Xerxes’ family.10 Based on what

7
For various proposals, see Macan’s 1907 commentary ad loc.
8
Boedeker (2000) 109.
9
Macan (1907) ad loc.
10
kai; dh; Persevwn pivptousi ejnqau'ta a(lloi te polloi; kai; ojnomastoiv, ejn de; dh;
kai; Dareiv ou duv o pai' de" ∆Abrokovmh" te kai; ÔUperavnqe", ejk th' " ∆Artavnew qugatro;"
4 STEPHANIE LARSON

Herodotus himself says, Lateiner has made the most reasonable sug-
gestion for the motives behind Herodotus’ omission of the Greek
names here: as an honor to the glory of the dead Spartans, he has
chosen not to record them.11 As wJ" ajndrw'n ajxivwn genomevnwn and the
rest of the passage implies, it is not only the most distinguished lead-
ers at Thermopylae who are worthy, but the rest of the three hun-
dred men likewise deserve to be remembered respectfully and com-
munally through the virtual cenotaph for their sacrifice that Herod-
otus thus provides. Herodotus’ suppression of individual Spartan
identities thereby accentuates the worthy characteristics these men
exemplified in carrying out duties expected for their civic and
gender roles. Herodotus continues by considering the dead Achae-
menid notables differently, for in this quasi-sacred context of Therm-
opylae he freely names them, most likely because of their valuable
individual and collective status as identifiable postwar trophies.
Herodotus’ suppression of Spartan names at 7.224.1 contrasts
with other sections of his narrative, most notably his catalogue of
Xerxes’ land and naval forces, where the historian describes the vari-
ous contingents in ethnographic detail and assigns them to named
Persian commanders (7.61–99). The multitude of Persian names,
family trees, details of battle dress and gear creates a composite ef-
fect of horror at Xerxes’ massive assemblage which Herodotus seems
to include in order to emphasize the miracle of its eventual defeat
(see esp. 7.81.1). Waters has paralleled this Herodotean catalogue
with the Iliadic Catalogue of Ships and discusses other passages
where Herodotus includes such lists.12 Given the historian’s long-
recognized tendency to include such detail, Boedeker’s suggestion
that Herodotus has suppressed the known names of the Spartans at
7.224.1 simply in order to avoid listing names thus seems unlikely.13
By informing his audience of his knowledge of the Spartans’ names
and by freely listing various Achaemenids at the end of this section,
he instead highlights the anonymity of the Spartans and thus invites
his reader to honor them.
In these passages and thus in his own words, then, Herodotus
acknowledges the potential reasons why he might choose to omit
known names from his narrative: to preserve a sense of decorum, to
pursue a narrative strategy, or to mark respect for unnamed charact-
ers involved in a narrative. The latter two reasons are clearly inter-
related and are likely operating in the narratives of Kandaules’ and
Masistes’ wives.

Fratagouvnh" gegonovte" Dareivw/ .

11
Lateiner (1989) 68; also Boedeker (2000) 109, who briefly reviews Lateiner’s
interpretation.
12
Waters (1985) 61.
13
Boedeker (2000) 109.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 5

Naming Women in the Histories

Before turning to these tales it will be useful to consider general

tendencies of naming and not naming women in the Histories as a
whole. As I will suggest, although Herodotus does not follow an ab-
solutely consistent pattern in naming women, he observes a general
tendency to suppress names for women who observe proper female
behavior, and he often conspicuously names women of less repute or
of questionable activity.
A look at some of the female figures that Herodotus does not
hesitate to name even in close proximity to the narrative of Kan-
daules’ wife supports this general interpretation. As prelude and
counterpoint to his tale Herodotus introduces the infamous women
who open the Histories: Io, Europa, Medea and Helen. Although to
us these women are purely mythical, Herodotus here grounds them
in his vision of the past and bases his entire historical inquiry on
their introduction. His representation of their situations as historical
thus allows us to compare his treatment of their names with his sub-
sequent treatment of the rather more acceptably historical figures of
Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives.
As Herodotus historicizes the mythologies of these famous
wandering ladies, he includes a few interpretive remarks from his
sources, particularly regarding Io. He reports that, according to the
Phoenicians, Io departed with Phoenician merchants because she
found herself pregnant and was ashamed for her family (1.5.2). Al-
though Herodotus mentions few details about the personal intent-
ions of the other women involved in the narrative, in the middle of
this section and in the mouths of the Persians he offers a well-known
generalization about the motives of all four women (1.4.2): dh'l a ga;r
dh; o{ti, eij mh; aujtai; ejbouvl onto, oujk a]n hJrpavzonto (“for in fact it is
clear that, unless they themselves were willing, they would not be
abducted”). Even in simply reporting this view, Herodotus casts
aspersions on the women’s characters which he reaffirms by naming
each of them in turn.14
Comparison between these tales and the story of Kandaules’
wife is inevitable because of Herodotus’ narrative sequence. As
Hazewindus suggests, by juxtaposing the narrative of Kandaules
with the preceding tales of Io, Europa, Medea and Helen, Herodotus
sets the stage for the contrasting motivations of Kandaules’ wife.
Kandaules’ story offers an immediate and different example of a fe-
male protagonist: one who, as Hazewindus remarks, “rebelled
14
For additional readings of these rape stories and on Herodotus’ preface in gen-
eral, see Walcot (1978) 139–41; Flory (1987) 25–9; Lateiner (1989) 38, 40–3; Thomas
(2000) 267–8; Chiasson (2003) 17 and n. 38 with further bibliography.
6 STEPHANIE LARSON

against the kind of objectification ... that induces such abductions.” 15

Rather than anxiety over sexual licentiousness, it is concern for her
own propriety and the related reputation of her household which
motivates Kandaules’ wife to act in what at first seem inappropriate
ways for a respectable woman.16 Of course, one might argue that the
mythical women’s names were so well known that it would be ridic-
ulous to suppress them; because of their fame Herodotus simply had
to name Io, Europa, Medea and Helen. Yet given Herodotus’ general
and well-known interests in reciprocity and the cyclical nature of
seemingly unrelated events, it does not seem inappropriate to con-
sider the possibility that in contrast to the stories of these infamous
and culpable women, he deliberately chooses anonymity for Kand-
aules’ wife, for she acts ultimately out of sexual decorum. In the end,
however, the issue does not concern Herodotus’ naming of these
famous mythical women as much as it concerns his willful and con-
trasting omission of the name for the historical figure of Kandaules’
wife.
Support for this reading is found in a remarkable example of the
contrast between naming and not naming in the comparable Masist-
es narrative. There Herodotus presents three different types of wifely
figures and denotes these differences through naming: Masistes’
wife, the blameless, faithful and victimized wife remains anonym-
ous, while Herodotus freely (and repeatedly) names Artaynte, the
adulterous daughter, and Amestris, the savage and powerful queen
of Xerxes. The explanation for this difference is simple: Masistes’
wife successfully resists Xerxes’ advances, while Artaynte, the dau-
ghter, engages in an affair with him, despite her marriage to his own
son. Thus Herodotus respects Masistes’ wife by not naming her at all
and calls attention to her propriety by freely naming the less reput-
able Artaynte, as well as the vicious Amestris, the mutilator of the
only blameless woman in the story. In the Masistes narrative, then,
only the unambivalently proper woman remains nameless!17
Of course, Herodotus does not name all other women who play
a role in his narrative, nor does he observe an absolutely consistent
pattern of naming or not naming different types of women in the
inner books of his Histories. But quite a number of depictions of other
nameless women are comparable to the characters of Kandaules’ and

15
Hazewindus (2004) 47–8; for the retropective importance of the abduction sto-
ries in light of the Kandaules’ narrative, see Hazewindus (2004) 239.
16
See esp. Hdt. 1.10.2–3. Flory (1987) 30, 32–5 has contrasted aspects of the stories
of Io, et al., with Kandaules’ wife. See Arieti (1995) 17 for a comparison between the
motives of the male protagonists in these stories.
17
For the possible significance in meaning of Artaynte’s name in relation to the
male Artayntes, near-murderer of Masistes, mentioned just prior to the narrative
about Masistes’ wife and Xerxes (9.107.1–3), see Hazewindus (2004) 93–4, 104. For Art-
aynte as the destroyer of Masistes’ entire oikos, see Gray (1995) 208.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 7

Masistes’ wives. For example, the unmarried daughter of Zopyrus,

raped by Sataspes, remains unnamed, although Herodotus dwells on
Sataspes’ various punishments for the crime (4.43.1–3). The daugh-
ter’s shame at the event is reinforced by the action of Sataspes’ own
mother, who herself advocates the harsh punishment for her son of
circumnavigating Libya by way of Gibraltar and the Arabian Gulf.
That this proposal is devised by Sataspes’ mother herself suggests
that the unnamed girl was perceived as a helpless victim and that
the crime against her was considered important enough to warrant
punishment, even by members of Sataspes’ own family. At the same
time, Herodotus does not name Sataspes’ mother; her anonymity in
turn reinforces her own propriety as well as her status as protector of
her household, for she originally suggested Sataspes’ punishment as
a means for him to escape impalement at Xerxes’ own hand. Thus,
contained within the story of Sataspes, we again find fragmentation
of the female, this time into two blameless women, the unmarried
daughter wholly a victim, and the anonymous wife and mother,
protectress of her own reputation as well as guardian of her oikos.18
Herodotus provides a complementary depiction of another un-
named protector of the oikos with the story of the upper-class wife
and widow of Intaphrenes, one of the original Persian conspirators
against the Magi (9.118–19).19 Faced with Intaphrenes’ hubristic
crime against Darius and the resultant possibility of a death sentence
for her entire extended family, Intaphrenes’ wife protects both her-
self and her original oikos by pleading for her brother’s life instead of
her husband’s. In response to this request, Darius grants her the lives
of both her brother and her eldest son. In the end, then, Intaphrenes’
anonymous wife can be read as a dutiful protectress of both her
original household and the future continuity of her married oikos.20
Until this point I have considered only Herodotean suppression
of names for women of eastern empires, both Lydian and Persian.
One might insist that such omission is not suppression at all but
simply indicates the tendency of Herodotus’ eastern sources not to
use the names of women; both Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Waters (to
a lesser extent) take this approach.21 However, Herodotus declines to
18
Also comparable is the narrative of the daughter of Mycerinus, raped by her
own father (2.131.1–132.3). Although Herodotus discredits the story of her rape, even
in the more reputable version about her which he advocates, she remains unnamed.
19
For Intaphrenes, the closest friend of Otanes and an original conspirator who
lived only to be later killed by Darius, see Hdt. 3.70.2, 78.2, 118–19; Hardy (1996) 101–
9.
20
Sancisi-Weerdenburg argues that this tale, among others (including that of Ar-
taynte in the Masistes narrative), highlights the tension between a wife’s duties to her
original family and the family of her husband in stories with a Persian background
(Sancisi-Weerdenburg (1983) 29–31).
21
Sancisi-Weerdenburg (1983) 20–31; Waters (1985) 128–9.
8 STEPHANIE LARSON

name a number of Greek women in his narrative as well, many of

whom, as we will see, arguably parallel aspects of the characters and
situations of Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives. The suppression of
women’s names thus cannot simply be attributed to reliance on for-
eign sources. Herodotus makes the unmarried daughter of Heget-
orides, for example, identify herself to the Spartan king Pausanias by
her father’s and grandfather’s names alone. This is a significant way
of identifying the girl, for she easily could have been made to refer to
herself by her own name, particularly since she had been tainted by
having served as a concubine to the Persians (9.76.1–3). Herodotus’
refusal to name her directly thus may imply that she is not to blame
for her current sexual defilement.
In an earlier narrative, Herodotus also discusses an unnamed
Paeonian woman and her effect upon Darius (5.12–14). This anony-
mous woman has two ambitious brothers whose names Herodotus
knows and makes a point of recording in the story: Pivgrh" kai;
Mantuvh" (5.12.1). In the hope of achieving power in Paeonia through
Darius’ intervention, the brothers persuaded their unnamed sister to
walk along Darius’ route to Sardis balancing a jar of water on her
head, leading a horse and spinning flax. Darius finds her capabilities
at multi-tasking so virtuous and impressive that he immediately
demands to know her identity and ethnicity; although she remains
anonymous throughout the narrative, through her the brothers’ plan
to become known to Darius is thus effected, and Paeonia is incorpor-
ated into the Persian empire (5.15.1–3). Both of these unnamed Greek
women, the daughter of Hegetorides and the virtuous Paeonian sis-
ter who catches Darius’ eye, are useful parallels to the figures of
Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives. In differing ways, these women
protect themselves and their families, and in the case of the un-
named Paeonian woman, as with Kandaules’ wife, the ruling power
over an entire kingdom is transferred. Although these figures play
minor roles in Herodotus’ larger narrative, it is clear that their ano-
nymity follows a similar strategy in omitting names for respectable
females.22

22
One might object that Herodotus could not have discovered every name for
every character in every logos; not naming a minor character in his narrative thus
holds little or no significance. However, in the interest of revealing all interpretive
possibilities in the Histories, it seems best to begin our examination of each logos and
its attendant details by assuming that Herodotus was well-informed and purposefully
manipulated his sources. In other words, we owe it to the author to look at each case
in which a detail, such as a name, is absent from the narrative. Given corroborative
outside evidence or parallel tendencies within Herodotus’ work as a whole, we may
then discuss whether or not the specific omission might have been purposeful; we
thus open discussion of any resultant and potentially important implications. At times
this approach will end in vain, for there are instances of anonymity in the text which
seem to be relatively unimportant as background for Herodotus’ main points or about
which we can find no outside corroboration. In such cases we may then indeed chalk
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 9

We find one of the clearest parallels to the anonymity of Kand-

aules’ and Masistes’ wives in the important yet unnamed wife of the
Spartan Agetus, the later wife of the Spartan King Ariston, mother of
King Demaratus, and a more consequential figure in a larger logos
(6.61–69).23 In Herodotus’ narrative this woman quickly becomes a
commodity, given to King Ariston on the basis of an oath of equal
exchange promised between himself and his friend Agetus, her first
husband. Seven months later and after the birth of a son, Demaratus,
Ariston maligns his new wife’s reputation by suspecting that the
baby is not his but Agetus’ son. In fact, as Herodotus reports, one of
Demaratus’ later enemies subsequently manipulated the Delphic or-
acle to state that indeed, Demaratus was not the son of Ariston.
Significantly, speculation over Demaratus’ paternity is put to rest by
Demaratus’ still anonymous mother, who, in response to the boy’s
later queries about his father, narrates an Alkmene-like tale of a noct-
urnal visit by the local Spartan hero Astrabakos disguised as Ariston.
The remainder of that night, she relates, was spent with the real
Ariston. She then explains that premature birth is common, a fact
even Ariston himself recognized after his initial shock at Demaratus’
early delivery. Given Herodotus’ familiarity with the details of this
story and with arcane details of Spartan history in general, it is dif-
ficult to believe (as I will also suggest below for the cases of
Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives) that Herodotus was unfamiliar
with a name for the mother of the Spartan King Demaratus. Yet
throughout this lengthy narrative Herodotus does not once refer to
her by name, even when Demaratus is made to address her directly
or she herself is made to respond to him in direct speech. Herodotus’
suppression of the queen’s name thus highlights her innocence of the
original accusation against her (and by extension her son’s)

up the absence of detail either to Herodotus’ sources, as Waters would have it, or to
the historian’s disinterest in a particular element of a larger logos. But we cannot sim-
ply dismiss those cases in which it is fair to suggest that Herodotus had a specific
purpose in mind in the inclusion or omission of a small detail of his narrative. To give
a further example: for years commentators dismissed Herodotus’ genealogy of the
Heraklids as irrelevant, for the catalogue contains the names of no women and only a
mention of the union between an anonymous slave-woman and Herakles at its begin-
ning (1.7.4). Yet as Hazewindus has pointed out, the function of the mention of the
slave woman and Herakles at the head of the Heraklid family tree serves to set up the
subsequent story of Kandaules, the last ruling Heraklid of the logos, and his wife
(Hazewindus (2004) 46–7). In other words, the anonymous slave-woman, a figure who
at first glance would seem merely tangential if not completely insignificant, bears
importance for the procession of the narrative. Given her status as an introduction to
the story of Kandaules and his wife, it is reasonable to suggest that her anonymity
parallels the subsequent anonymity of Kandaules’ wife and should not be dismissed
as a minor detail or as Herodotus’ simplistic repetition of an incomplete source.
23
On the Demaratus narrative as a whole, see Boedeker (1987) 185–201; on his
mother specifically, see Boedeker (1987) 188–9, 194.
10 STEPHANIE LARSON

reputation.
This is not to suggest that Herodotus consistently omits the
names of women whom he considers of upstanding reputation and
names only women of ill repute. He does quite the opposite, in fact,
in his short and relatively obscure narrative of the unnamed but ma-
nipulative second wife of Etearchus, ruler of the Cretan community
of Oaxus and grandfather of Battus (4.154.1–5). Herodotus also takes
the opposite tack at 7.99.1–3 — where he boldly calls attention to a
different approach — by naming the powerful and famous female
captain Artemisia, whom, as is often surmised, Herodotus may have
admired as a fellow Halikarnassian.24
Noticeably often, however, Herodotus emphasizes the names of
powerful but wicked female figures. In narrating Cyrenaean events,
for example, he frequently names the powerful and violent Phere-
time, royal wife of Battus the lame and mother of Arkesilaos (4.162–
7, 200–5).25 Herodotus likewise mentions names of some of the more
notorious and well-known Greek courtesans, such as Rhodopis, who
were fascinating yet simultaneously reviled figures throughout the
oikumene (2.134.1–135.6).26 A general tendency to suppress the names
of respectable women and to include the names of powerful or
threatening women in Herodotus’ narrative is thus apparent
throughout the Histories.

Observations on Athenian Practice

This discussion brings us back to the question of anonymity for

the women in the Kandaules and Masistes tales: what effect might
the omissions of names for Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives have on
the narratives?27 An answer becomes clearer when we consider evid-
ence from late-fifth and fourth-century Greece for the intentional
avoidance of women’s names. Most of this evidence comes from
Athens, but as Thomas has demonstrated, Herodotus was deeply
familiar with fifth-century Athenian society and heavily engaged in
the major philosophic and anthropological debates of the day. 28

24
On Artemisia in general, see Dewald (1981) 109–10; Munson (1988) 91–106;
Hazewindus (2004) 27–32.
25
On the tale of Pheretime, see Hazewindus (2004) 217–36.
26
Although Herodotus does not often name prostitutes in brothels, his silence
about their identities is understandable since most brothel prostitutes were unindi-
viduated slaves (see, e.g., Hdt. 1.93–4, 135; 2.126; Davidson (1997) 83–91). Interest-
ingly, most of the nameless prostitutes in Herodotus were foreign (see McClure (2003)
12, for commentary on this aspect of Herodotean narrative and these passages). See
Davidson (1997) 104–7, 109–36 for discussions of the fame and practices of the most
well-paid hetairai.
27
For Herodotean selectivity and omissions of entire subjects, see Lateiner (1989)
59–75.
28
On Herodotean familiarity with and general similarities to Athenian perform-
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 11

Other scholars, most recently Fowler and especially Moles, have

pointed out the now common views that Herodotus often narrates
from a late fifth-century Athenian perspective or at least attempts to
discuss Athenian issues of his time by examining the past.29 It thus
seems nearly impossible to accept that Herodotus did not have an
Athenian subset of his larger audience at least partly in mind for his
work or that he was not influenced by Athenian practices.30 Fowler’s
point that Herodotus creates the past through the lens of his (part-
ially Athenian) present is thus important to keep in mind in this
context and will help decipher the namelessness of the wives in our
narratives.31 In other words, it is reasonable to examine Herodotus’
reporting of the tales of non-Greeks for Athenian influence and bias.
As for practices in naming, by the time Herodotus was active in
Athens, identifying respectable women by name in public was taboo
in most contexts, particularly if their naming related to the reputa-
tion of their households or their own personal reputation. One need
only recall the famous words of the Thukydidean Perikles to the
Athenian widows about their arete (2.45.2):

eij dev me dei' kai; gunaikeiva" ti ajreth'", o{sai nu'n ejn chreiva/ e[sontai,
mnhsqh'nai, braceiva/ parainevsei a{pan shmanw'. th'" te ga;r uJparcouvsh"
fuvsew" mh; ceivrosi genevsqai uJmi'n megavl h hJ dovxa kai; h|" a]n ejp∆ ejlavciston
ajreth'" pevri h] yovgou ejn toi'" a[rsesi klevo" h/\.

If it is necessary to recount something on the subject of female excellence to

those of you who will now be in widowhood, I will indicate it with this brief
advice. Your glory will be great in not becoming worse than your natural
character, and the greatest kleos will be hers who is least talked of among
men in terms of either excellence or blame.

ances of the late fifth century, particularly performances of the sophists, see Lateiner
(1989) 19; Thomas (1992) 125; Desmond (2004) 26–8 (who also points out difficulties in
locating Herodotean ideas in fifth-century culture). For specific comparison of Hero-
dotean polemic, used especially in his ethnographies and geographies, to public per-
formances of fifth-century sophistic, medical and scientific epideixis, see Thomas (2000)
257–60, 270–85. See Flory (1980) 12–28 for the view that the length of Herodotus’
Histories, as a book, prohibited its popularity during Herodotus’ lifetime and that the
work was “not even widely known in the late fifth century”. For Herodotean
influence on later writers, see, e.g., Lateiner (1989) 217, 220–4.
29
Moles (2002) 35–52; Fowler (2003) 308–11 with bibliography. For the purposes
of this paper, it is not necessary to reconsider the vexed question of Herodotus’ spe-
cific date, since attributing his work to the late fifth-century is sufficient in establishing
a general mentalité. For discussion and bibliography on the text’s dating, see Moles
(2002) 34 and n. 13; Fowler (2003) 306–7 (advocating the 430s).
30
For the panhellenic composition of Herodotus’ audience, see Moles (2002) 35
and n. 21; for bibliography, see Moles (2002) 51 n. 87.
31
Fowler (2003) 312.
12 STEPHANIE LARSON

As Schaps has shown in detail, the avoidance of respectable

women’s names was also prominent in the Athenian law courts. 32
Schaps concludes that suppressing women’s names by referring to
them only in kinship terms marks respect of the highest order, since
a woman’s proper role centered around her duties to her oikos and its
male inhabitants.33 Sommerstein has made similar observations by
examining evidence from Athenian comedy.34 It seems reasonable to
keep these cultural tendencies in mind when considering Herodotus’
suppression of the names for Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives. In the
end, by omitting their names, the historian encourages his audience
to reconsider the roles these women play in their stories: through an-
onymity Herodotus portrays these two royal queens as dutiful and
respected members of their households and thereby implicitly em-
phasizes the concern they exhibit in maintaining female propriety.

Comparing the Narratives of Kandaules’ and Masistes’ Wives

I return to the two logoi, which have been compared at length in

numerous studies. The story of Masistes’ wife has been commonly
understood to mark the end of Herodotus’ main narrative and to
mirror that of Kandaules’ wife in Book One in structure, theme and
even wording.35 As Gammie notes,36 both tales begin with a king’s
erotic love of a family member who remains nameless (hjravsqh at
1.8.1 and h[ra at 9.108.1); both kings voluntarily propose an offer to
another (Gyges at 1.8.2; Artaynte at 9.109.2); in both narratives
Herodotus foretells the demise of the household (Kandaules at 1.8.2;
Artaynte at 9.109.2); the wives of the kings in both stories offer a

32
Schaps (1977) 323–30. Gould has drawn attention specifically to Demosthenes’
private speeches, in which Demosthenes mentions 509 males by name, but only 27
females, all of whom are either hetairai or slaves. When Demosthenes refers to female
members of his own family or other respectable females, he is careful to avoid using
their proper names (for further details see Gould (1980) 45 and n. 49; Schaps (1977)
325–30).
33
Schaps (1977) 330.
34
Sommerstein (1980) 393–407; he also points out the value in acknowledging
this practice when interpreting ancient comedy in general. For the exceptional Lysi-
mache/Lysistrata, see pp. 395–6, 402, 406.
35
Wolff (1964) (who also argues that the specific plot of the Masistes narrative
helped Herodotus choose which variant of the Gyges story to include); Herington
(1991) 152–3 (who notes a number of valuable verbal parallels but seems unaware of
Gammie’s earlier work); Harrison (1997) 193; Blok (2002) 230–2. Hazewindus (2004)
122–8, 240 offers a fine synopsis of many earlier comparisons but also seems unaware
of Gammie’s previous discussion; see also Dewald (1997) 68–9 and n. 17 for a brief
comparison. For thematic repetition in the ending episodes of the Histories, the “ring
composition” of the Histories as a whole, as well as specifics about other concluding
episodes, see Herington (1991) 149–60; Dewald (1997) 65–82; Desmond (2004) 31–40.
36
Gammie (1986) 185–7.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 13

choice to a person involved in the original offense, leaving no room

for compromise (Kandaules’ wife at 1.11.2; Xerxes’ wife Amestris at
9.110.2–111.1); the future or present king is forced to accept the
murder or mutilation of a person to whom he had previously been
devoted (Gyges at 1.11.2–4; Xerxes at 9.110.2–111.5); and the doomed
household falls (Kandaules’ at 1.12.2–13.2; Masistes’ at 9.112–113.2).
Gammie painstakingly presents the parallels between the tales in
order to accentuate their emphasis on the weaknesses of monarchy. 37
Both stories have also been shown to exemplify a narrative structure
common throughout the Histories involving royal women who
transfer or maintain power in their households.38 Wolff has further
argued that these tales frame Herodotus’ entire history of Greek con-
flict with eastern empires and the eventual downfall of their kings. 39
Additional thematic ties between the stories are evident, including
an evolution of theme from desiring to see what is not one’s own to
desiring to acquire it,40 and the “contravention of nomos through
lust” found in both narratives, particularly the conventions of
marriage.41
A few further links are important in this context, not least of
them a preoccupation with female sexuality and propriety in both
tales. In fact, in the logos of Kandaules’ wife, Herodotus evokes the
world of female sexual honor and communal esteem by including
his only direct use of the term aidôs in all of the Histories; through this
hapax legomenon Herodotus invites his audience to contemplate aidôs
in interpreting the role of Kandaules’ wife.42 He positively emphas-
izes the rectitude of her strong reaction to the involuntary loss of her
aidôs by parenthetically highlighting the embarrassment that even
male nudity involved in Lydia (1.10.3):

37
Toward a similar conclusion, Harrison (1997, 189) implies that Herodotus uses
stories of rape and (by extension) stories of attempted rape as tales upon which to
base conclusions about male protagonists.
38
Blok (2002) 232, commenting on Tourraix (1976), esp. 370–1.
39
Wolff (1964) 677–8.
40
Bernardete (1969) 212.
41
Gray (2002) 312.
42
Although the term aidôs defies simple translation, I refer to female aidôs as
“propriety” or “reputation,” but only with an understanding of the complexity of the
term, which encompasses shame tinged with a sense of upholding one’s virtue in the
face of the expectations of others and of society as a whole; in return one gains both
respect and honor (Harder (1953) 448–9). At the same time, aidôs involves meeting
one's own internal standards by focusing on personal culpability in losing virtue
(Cairns (1993) 14–15, 26; see also Cairns (1996) 78 and Ferrari (2002) 73–80). On aidôs in
the Kandaules logos, see Cairns (1996) 78–81. For the aidôs of Kandaules’ wife, see also
the general comments of Harrison (1997) 194–5; Travis (2000) 337–8, 342. For shame as
a theme connected to women in Herodotus in general, see Harrison (1997) 193–5.
14 STEPHANIE LARSON

para; ga;r toi'si Ludoi'si, scedo;n de; kai; para; toi'si a[lloisi barbavroisi, kai;
a[ndra ojfqh'nai gumno;n ej" aijscuvnhn megavlhn fevrei.

For among the Lydians, and also with nearly all other barbarians, even for a
man to be seen naked brings great shame.43

On the basis of the other narrative parallels between the tales of

Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives, one suspects that the concept of
female aidôs ought to be considered in the Masistes narrative as well,
particularly in light of the striking pattern of naming women within
that logos, as discussed above.44
Before returning to a discussion of naming in these narratives, it
seems worth noting that in both tales the criminal eros of the two
tyrants and their subsequent treatment of women parallel the Pers-
ian Otanes’ characterization in the Constitutional Debate of the
typical behavior of a tyrant (3.80.5). There Otanes notes that violating
women is one of the three worst crimes tyrants habitually commit. In
the Debate, this tyrannical transgression goes hand in hand with
disobeying the structure of nomoi and putting men to death without
trial. As is clear, nomoi and nomismena are important factors in the
Kandaules story;45 they are also evident within the Masistes narrat-
ive. There concern for nomoi is particularly visible in Xerxes’ initial
refusal to force Masistes’ wife to his will out of familial deference to
his brother, and also in Xerxes’ subsequent nefarious yet legal mar-
riage of his son to Masistes’ daughter (9.108.2, ta; nomizovmena).
Nomos plays a further ironic role in the story in the granting of
Amestris’ request of Masistes’ wife as a gift according to custom
(9.111.1, uJpo; tou' novmou). Both stories thus confirm Otanes’ conclus-
ions about tyrannical behavior by juxtaposing female aidôs with the

43
Arieti (1995, 22) has suggested that Herodotus remarks on the shame involved
in Lydian nudity in order to highlight Kandaules’ wife’s motives.
44
The tales seem also to concern the sad futility of even royal women’s owner-
ship of their own bodies and futures. This anxiety over female sexuality in these
stories recalls one of the more striking parallels between the sexual transgressions of
the male protagonists, namely, that both blameless wives are “loved” by their husb-
ands exclusively. As Gammie and Hazewindus note, Herodotus heads each tale with
a mention of eros (Gammie (1987) 186; Hazewindus (2004) 49, 94–5). That Herodotus
also concludes the Masistes’ story with Xerxes’ eros finalizes this additional thematic
link between the two tales (see Gray (2002) 310 for the framing of the entire Masistes
narrative through eros). Given this emphasis, one might call both narratives, after
Dewald (1997) 69 n. 17 and 70, Harems-Liebesgeschichten: stories that concentrate on
sexual fanaticism of eastern tyrants and related dynastic downfall. (Other scholars,
too, have their own names for the tale: novella (Jacoby) and drama (Stahl, Grene, and
others); see Gammie (1987) 177 and nn. 26–7).
45
On nomoi in Herodotus, see, e.g., Lateiner (1989) 137 and n. 28 with sources
there; Flory (1987) 33; on nomos in Book One, see esp. Konstan (1983) 1–19 (11–13 on
the story of Kandaules in particular); Travis (2000) 338–9 (on the intersections between
personal and cultural nomoi in Kandaules’ tale), 344–5.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 15

upholding of ancient traditions and law.46 By appearing in stories

which serve to frame Herodotus’ Histories, this concentration on
nomos and transgressions against it also accentuates Herodotus’
general portrait of the weakness of tyranny and kingship in the work
as a whole.47
A further and, I would argue, crucial similarity between the tales
lies in Herodotus’ suppression of names for both Kandaules’ and
Masistes’ wives. This similarity highlights the concern for personal
reputation that both blameless wives exhibit. As is clear from her
immediate reaction to being seen nude by a man other than her hus-
band, as well as her subsequent plan of action for Gyges, Kandaules’
unnamed wife actively works to protect her own sexual reputation.48
As noted above, in the Masistes narrative it is only Masistes’ wife,
the sole woman who acts within proper limits in the story, who re-
mains anonymous; the other two wives, Artaynte and Amestris, are
named repeatedly. Through naming Herodotus thus emphasizes the
actions of these two less honorable women and their attendant
disregard for various aspects of their personal reputations.
Herodotus’ omission of names for the blameless female prot-
agonists of these tales and his direct use of names for females of less
repute in the Masistes story have generally not received substantial
comment, although various scholars have noted the absence of a
name for Kandaules’ wife.49 Hazewindus lightly remarks: “the fact
that the queen has no name may serve as a gap, an implied negation
that activates the reader’s curiosity.”50 Gammie observes the lack of
names in both tales, but does not draw any conclusions from their

46
On the concept of rape in Otanes’ speech, see Harrison (1997) 189; on the views
toward tyranny in the speech in general, see Gammie (1986) 172–5, 195.
47
Gammie (1986) 187.
48
As Cairns has noted in his discussion of Gyges’ maxim on aidôs, proper wifely
aidôs is exclusively restricted to nudity before her husband. Bodily display before any
other male results in the abandonment of “the disposition of aidôs itself” and thus
involves a crucial loss of honor linked to one’s social role (Cairns (1996) 80–2). The
relationship between aidôs and clothing in the Kandaules narrative has drawn much
discussion recently, although Harder was the first to comment at length on protective
clothing as a symbol of aidôs (Harder (1953) 448–9). Cairns draws similar conclusions
about the tale by noting that aidôs highlights the interrelationships between the con-
cepts of nakedness and viewing, clothing and propriety, and honor for women and
their oikoi (Cairns (1996) 80–1). Ferrari too comments on Gyges’ maxim: “there is a
play, in the sentence, between the image of aidôs as clothing and that of aidôs as the
boundary of decency” (Ferrari (2002) 54–6, 73–81; quote from p. 79). For the omni-
present motif of spectation in the tale and also in Book One in general, see Travis
(2000) 332–4, 336–56. For the avoidance of female nudity out of shame and perhaps
even danger in archaic and classical Greek art, see Bonfante (1989) 558–62, 567–70.
49
Gould (1980) 53; Flory (1987) 35; Hazewindus (2004) 47; see Hazewindus (2004)
84 for the mention of Masistes’ wife’s anonymity.
50
Hazewindus (2004) 239.
16 STEPHANIE LARSON

absence, even about tyranny, his main concern.51 As noted above,

Waters too remarks on the lack of names but attributes their absence
and Herodotus’ naming of other women elsewhere simply to the
historian’s strict reliance on his sources.52 These approaches fail to
give Herodotus his due as a narrative strategist of a purposeful and
cohesive work.
I suggest that in maintaining anonymity for these wives Herodo-
tus has more in mind than blindly following his sources or simply
conveying a subordinate status. There are in fact good reasons for
thinking that Herodotus knew the women’s names, the first of which
concerns his reporting of corroborated names for the male protagon-
ists. The historicity of a Gyges who usurped the Lydian throne from
a Kandaules is assured from a variety of sources, such as the famous
passage of Archilochus (fr. 25 West2), which Herodotus himself uses
to bolster Gyges’ identity (in addition to the reference to the Delphic
oracle at 1.13.1); this Gyges also appears in Assyrian inscriptions.53
That other figures in the stories bear historical proper names rather
than invented functional names appropriate for fairy tales or oral
stories (e.g., Kalypso) further suggests that proper names for the
female characters would also have been familiar.54 In the Kandaules
narrative, in fact, Herodotus uses two names for the tyrant (1.7.2):
h\n Kandauvl h", to;n oiJ ”Ellhne" Mursivlon ojnomavzousi, tuvranno"
Sardivwn (“Kandaules, whom the Greeks call Myrsilus, was tyrant of
Sardis”).55 Given Herodotus’ knowledge of Kandaules’ variant
names and his care to include them, as well as the verified name of
Gyges, it is all the more striking that in the same story Herodotus
maintains the anonymity of Kandaules’ wife.
Masistes’ wife, too, was an historical person, married to the well-
known (and named) brother of the infamous Xerxes. In itself the abs-
ence of her name is thus noteworthy. But further, as noted above,

51
Gammie (1987) 186.
52
Waters (1985) 128–9.
53
Wells (1923) 19–26, esp. 19–21; Flory (1987) 31.
54
On invented functional names, such as Kalypso, Oedipous, Hippolytus,
Odysseus, & sim., see Peradotto (1990) 120–42. That the story of Kandaules and his
wife contains certain folktale motifs does not negate the use of historical and proper
names in the story, as Waters (1985 128) suggests . For the folktale motifs of the Janus-
agent and the eternal-triangle in the tale, see Lang (1944) 146–9; see also Lang (1944)
201, for historicity behind the folklore motifs in the Kandaules story.
55
“Kandaules,” as has been suggested, may have been a sacral title for the king,
while Myrsilus was his proper name and the one with which certain Greeks were
more familiar (How and Wells (1928) 56). For Herodotus’ choice in using this title as a
more exotic and non-Greek name for the tyrant, see Evans (1985) 231. Evans (1985)
229–31 suggests that eastern Greeks would have been more familiar with the story
than others because the tale in origin was Lydian. Pedley (1968) 36 argues for the
story’s Greek origin. Contra Pedley, see also Arieti (1995) 21 n. 37, who discusses
Evans’ argument. For the Greekness of the Masistes’ logos, see Hazewindus (2004) 115
with n. 29, 122.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 17

Herodotus knows Masistes’ own daughter’s name (Artaynte), which

he uses throughout the story. He is thus clearly familiar with this
branch of the historical royal family, and his repeated references to
the daughter boldly highlight his omission of her mother’s name.56

Conclusions

Given Herodotus’ general tendencies to name and not name

certain types of women as well as the structural, thematic, and geo-
graphical links between the stories of Kandaules’ and Masistes’
wives, the audience of the Histories is invited to consider the inter-
pretive implications of omitting the women’s names. Within the
social context surrounding respectable women’s names discussed
above, Herodotus’ omission of the names for Kandaules’ and Mas-
istes’ wives emphasizes anxiety for their personal and familial aidôs.
This interpretation accords with two of the interrelated reasons
Herodotus himself gives for purposeful omission of names else-
where in his work: namely, that his logos requires the omission and
that anonymity marks the unnamed with respect.
On this reading, then, Masistes’ anonymous wife seems even
more unjustly treated by Xerxes (not to mention Amestris); her
namelessness may exonerate her from the charge of plotting for
Masistes’ usurpation of Xerxes’ throne by asking their daughter to
demand the royal robe.57 Kandaules’ wife too, however implicated in
the murder of her husband, appears more sympathetic in the plan-
ning of his punishment, as opposed to the hostile and Clytemnestra-
like interpretation she has sometimes received.58 This reading of
small detail thus has larger implications, for it suggests that Herodo-
tus may be more active as a moralist than some critics have
suggested.59 Rather than abstaining from judgment, by suppressing
names for the figures of Kandaules’ and Masistes’ wives, Herodotus
subtly condones the behavior of these women, a factor of particular
importance in interpreting his treatment of Kandaules’ wife and her
often questioned role in the transfer of a kingdom. Indeed, it is worth
suggesting that Herodotus reinforces this unspoken respect toward
Kandaules’ wife by using the hapax legomenon aidôs in the narrative,

56
For the perennial question of Herodotus’ sources, see Fehling (1989, English
translation of 1971 edition); Hartog (1988, English translation of 1980 edition);
Pritchett (1993); Fowler (1996) 80–6 and bibliography there, esp. nn. 125, 130, and 134;
Shrimpton (1997) with appendix of sources; Boedeker (2000) 99–102, also with biblio-
graphy.
57
Thus Hazewindus (2004) 105–6, 108, 117, 119, 126–7, 218, following Sancisi-
Weerdenburg (1983) 27–30.
58
See, e.g., Konstan (1983) 12; Lateiner (1989) 138.
59
Waters (1971) 84; Dewald (1981) 106; Hazewindus (2004) 80, 125–6.
18 STEPHANIE LARSON

thus raising a theme that must also be considered in the parallel

Masistes logos. Finally, by omitting the names of respectable women
from both narratives concerning the abuse of tyranny, Herodotus not
only exculpates these women from direct blame but further im-
plicates the male protagonists as responsible parties in their own
destruction and the downfall of their dynasties.

STEPHANIE LARSON
Bucknell University

WORKS CITED

Arieti, J. 1995. Discourses on the First Book of Herodotus. London.

Bernardete, S. 1969. Herodotean Inquiries. The Hague.
Blok, J. 2002. “Women in Herodotus’ Histories.” In Brill’s Companion to Hero-
dotus, edited by E. Bakker, I. de Jong and H. van Wees, pp. 225–42. Lei-
den.
Boedeker, D. 2000. “Herodotus’s Genre(s).” In Matrices of Genre: Authors,
Canons, Society, edited by M. Depew and D. Obbink, pp. 97–114. Cam-
bridge, MA.
——. 1987. “The Two Faces of Demaratus.” In Herodotus and the Invention of
History, edited by D. Boedeker. Arethusa 20.1–2, 185–201.
Bonfante, L. 1989. “Nudity as a Costume in Classical Art.” AJA 93: 543–70.
Cairns, F. 1996. “‘Off with her AIDWS’: Herodotus 1.8.3–4.” CQ NS 46: 78–83.
——. 1993. Aidôs. Oxford.
Chiasson, C. 2003. “Herodotus’ Use of Attic Tragedy in the Lydian Logos.”
CA 22.1: 5–35.
De Jong, I. 2002. “Narrative Unity and Units.” In Brill’s Companion to Herodo-
tus, edited by E. Bakker, I. de Jong and H. van Wees, pp. 245–66. Leiden.
Desmond, W. 2004. “Punishments and the Conclusion of Herodotus’ Histo-
ries.” GRBS 44: 19–40.
Dewald, C. 1997. “Wanton Kings, Pickled Heroes, and Gnomic Founding
Fathers: Strategies of Meaning at the End of Herodotus’s Histories.” In
Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, edited by
D. Roberts, F. Dunn and D. Fowler, pp. 62–82. Princeton.
——. 1981. “Women and Culture in Herodotus’ Histories.” In Reflections of
Women in Antiquity, edited by H. Foley, pp. 91–125. Philadelphia.
Evans, J. 1985. “Candaules, whom the Greeks name Myrsilus ...” GRBS 26:
229–33.
Fehling, D. 1989. Herodotus and His “Sources:” Citation, Invention, and Narra-
tive Art, translated by J. Howie. Leeds.
Felson, N., and L. Slatkin, 2004. “Gender and Homeric Epic.” In The Cam-
bridge Companion to Homer, edited by R. Fowler, pp. 91–114. Cambridge.
Ferrari, G. 2002. Figures of Speech: Men and Maidens in Ancient Greece. Chi-
cago.
 KANDAULES’ WIFE, MASISTES’ WIFE 19

Flory, S. 1987. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit.

——. 1980. “Who Read Herodotus’ Histories?” AJP 101: 12–28.
——. 1978. “Arion’s Leap: Brave Gestures in Herodotus.” AJP 99: 411–21.
Fowler, R. 2003. “Herodotus and Athens.” In Herodotus and his World: Essays
from a Conference in Memory of George Forrest, edited by P. Derow and R.
Parker, pp. 305–18. Oxford.
——. 1996. “Herodotus and His Contemporaries.” JHS 166: 62–87.
Gammie, J. 1986. “Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiogra-
phy or Conventional Portraiture?” JNES 45: 171–95.
Gould, J. 1980. “Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of
Women in Classical Athens.” JHS 100: 38–59.
Gray, V. 2002. “Short Stories in Herodotus’ Histories.” In Brill’s Companion to
Herodotus, edited by E. Bakker, I. de Jong and H. van Wees, pp. 291–317.
Leiden.
Harder, R. 1953. “Herodot I, 8, 3.” In Studies Presented to David Moore Robin-
son, vol. 2, edited by G. Mylonas and D. Raymond, pp. 446–9. St. Louis.
Hardy, C. 1996. “Nomos and Replaceability in the Story of Intaphrenes and
His Wife.” TAPA 126: 101–9.
Harrison, T. 1997. “Herodotus and the Ancient Greek Idea of Rape.” In Rape
in Antiquity: Sexual Violence in the Greek and Roman Worlds, edited by S.
Deacy and K. Pierce, pp. 185–208. London.
Hartog, F. 1988. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the
Writing of History, translated by J. Lloyd. Berkeley.
Hazewindus, M. 2004. When Women Interfere: Studies in the Role of Women in
Herodotus’ Histories. Amsterdam.
Herington, J. 1991. “The Closure of Herodotus’ Histories.” ICS 16: 149–60.
How, W. and J. Wells. 1928. A Commentary on Herodotus, vol. 1. Oxford.
Konstan, D. 1983. “The Stories in Herodotus’ Histories: Book I.” Helios 10.1:
1–22.
Lang, M. 1944. Biographical Patterns of Folklore and Morality in Herodotus’ His-
tory. Diss., Bryn Mawr.
Lateiner, D. 1989. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Toronto.
Macan, R. 1907. Herodotus: The Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Books with Introduc-
tion and Commentary. Oxford.
McClure, L. 2003. Courtesans at Table: Gender and Greek Literary Culture in
Athenaeus. New York.
Moles, J. 2002. “Herodotus and Athens.” In Brill’s Companion to Herodotus,
edited by E. Bakker, I. de Jong and H. van Wees, pp. 33–52. Leiden.
Munson, R. V. 1988. “Artemisia in Herodotus.” CA 7: 91–106.
Pedley, J. 1968. Sardis in the Age of Croesus. Norman.
Peradotto, J. 1990. Man in the Middle Voice. Princeton.
Pritchett, W. 1993. The Liar School of Herodotus. Amsterdam.
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. 1983. “Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek
Historiography on Persia.” In Images of Women in Antiquity, edited by A.
Cameron and A. Kuhrt, pp. 20–33. Detroit.
Schaps, D. 1977. “The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and Women’s
Names.” CQ NS 27: 323–30.
Shrimpton, G. 1997. History and Memory in Ancient Greece (with an appendix
on Herodotus’ Source Citations by G. Shrimpton and K. Gillis). Mont-
20 STEPHANIE LARSON

real.
Sommerstein, A. 1980. “The Naming of Women in Greek and Roman Com-
edy.” QS 11: 393–409.
Thomas, R. 2000. Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Per-
suasion. Cambridge.
——. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece. Cambridge.
Tourraix, A. 1976. “La femme et le pouvoir chez Hérodote: Essai d’histoire
des mentalités antiques.” DHA 2: 369–86.
Travis, R. 2000. “The Spectation of Gyges in P. Oxy. 2382 and Herodotus
Book 1.” CA 19.2: 330–59.
Walcot, P. 1978. “Herodotus on Rape.” Arethusa 11: 137–47.
Waters, K. 1985. Herodotos the Historian: His Problems, Methods and Originality.
Norman.
Wells, J. 1923. “Who Was Gyges?” In Studies in Herodotus, edited by J. Wells,
pp. 19–26. Oxford.
Wolf, E. 1964. “Das Weib des Masistes.” In Herodot, edited by W. Marg, pp.
668–78. Darmstadt (originally published in Hermes 92: 51–8).