Herodotus

Hērŏdŏtus, i, m., = Ἡρόδοτος,

• celebrated as the earliest Greek historian, born at Halicarnassus, 484 B. C.: quamquam et apud Herodotum, patrem historiae et apud Theopompum sunt innumerabiles fabulae, Cic. Leg. 1, 1, 5; id. de Or. 2, 13, 55; cf. Quint. 10, 1, 73; 101; 9, 4, 16; 18.

Hērodotus, ī, m. (Ἡρόδοτος), aus Halikarnassus in Karien (geb. 484 v. Chr.), Vater der griech. Geschichtschreibung, der erst nach vielen Reisen an die Bearbeitung seiner Geschichte (in 9 Büchern) ging († 415 v. Chr. zu Thurii in Unteritalien), Vitr. 8, 3, 27. Cic. de or. 2, 55. Quint. 10, 1, 73.

Hērŏdŏtus, (13) ī, m. (Ἡρόδοτος), Hérodote [célèbre historien grec, né à Halicarnasse] : Cic. Leg. 1, 5.

Hero'dotus

(Ἡρόδοτος).

1. The earliest Greek historian (in the proper sense of the term), and the father of history, was according to his own statement, at the beginning of his work, a native of Halicarnassus, a Doric colony in Caria, which at the time of his birth was governed by Artemisia, a vassal queen of the great king of Persia. Our information respecting the life of Herodotus is extremely scanty, for besides the meagre and confused article of Suidas, there is only one or two passages of ancient writers that contain any direct notice of the life and age of Herodotus, and the rest must be gleaned from his own work. According to Suidas, Herodotus was the son of Lyxes and Dryo, and belonged to an illustrious family of Halicarnassus; he had a brother of the name of Theodorus, and the epic poet Panyasis was a relation of his, being the brother either of his farther or his mother. (Suid. s. v. Πανύασις) Herodotus (8.132) mentions with considerable emphasis one Herodotus, a son of Basilides of Chios, and the manner in which the historian directs attention to him almost leads us to suppose that this Chian Herodotus was connected with him in some way or other, but it is possible that the mere identity of name induced the historian to notice him in that particular manner.

The birth year of Herodotus is accurately stated by Pamphila (apud Gell. 15.23), a learned woman of the time of the emperor Nero: Herodotus, she says, was 53 years old at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war; now as this war broke out in B. C. 431, it follows that Herodotus was born in B. C. 484, or six years after the battle of Marathon, and four years before the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis. He could not, therefore, have had a personal knowledge of the great struggles which he afterwards described, but he saw and spoke with persons who had taken an active part in them. (9.16). That he survived the beginning of the Peloponnesian war is attested by Pamphila and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Jud. de Thuc. 5 ; comp. Diod. 2.32; Euseb. Chron. p. 168, who however places Herodotus too early), as well as by Herodotus's own work, as we shall see hereafter. Respecting his youth and education we are altogether without information, but we have every reason for believing that he acquired an early and intimate acquaintance with Homer and other poems, as well as with the works of the logographers, and the desire one day to distinguish himself in a similar way may have arisen in him at an early age.

The successor of Artemisia in the kingdom (or tyrannis) of 11alicarnassus was her son Pisindelis, who was succeeded by Lygdamis, in whose reign Panyasis was killed. Suidas states, that Herodotus, unable to bear the tyranny of Lygdamis, emigrated to Samos, where he became acquainted with the Ionic dialect, and there wrote his history. The former part of this statement may be true, for Herodotus in manny parts of his work shows an intimate acquaintance with the island of Samos and its inhabitants, and he takes a delight in recording the part they took in the events he had to relate; but that his history was written at a much later period will be shown presently. From Samos he is said to have returned to Halicarnassus, and to have acted a very prominent part in delivering his native city from the tyranny of Lygdamis; but during the contentions among the citizens, which followed their liberation, Herodotus, seeing that he was exposed to the hostile attacks of the (popular ?) party, withdrew again from his native place, and settled at Thurii, in Italy, where he spent the remainder of his life. The fact of his settling at Thurii is attested by the unanimous statement of the ancients; but whether he went thither with the first colonists in B. C. 445, or whether he followed afterwards, is a disputed point. There is however a passage in his own work (5.77) from which we must in all probability infer, that in B. C. 431, the year of the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war, he was at Athens; for it appears from that passage that he saw the Propylaea, which were not completed till the year in which that war began, It further appears that he was well acquainted with, and adopted the principles of policy followed by Pericles and his party which leads us to the belief that he witnessed the disputes at Athens between Pericles and his opponents, and we therefore conclude that Herodotus did not go out with the first settlers to Thurii, but followed them many years after, perhaps about the time of the death of Pericles. This account is mainly based upon the confused article of Suidas, who makes no mention of the travels of Herodotus, which must have occupied a considerable period of his life; but before we consider this point, we shall endeavour to fix the time and place where he composed his work. According to Lucian (Herod. s. Act. 1, &c.) he wrote at Halicarnassus, according to Suidas in Samos, and according to Pliny (Plin. Nat. 12.4.8) at Thurii. These contradictions are rendered still more perplexing by the statement of Lucian, that Herodotus read his work to the assembled Greeks at Olympia, with the greatest applause of his hearers, in consequence of which the nine books of the work were honoured with the names of the nine muses. It is further stated that young Thucydides was present at this recitation and was moved to tears. (Lucian, l.c. ; Suid. s. vv. Θουκυδης, ὀργᾶν; Marcellinus, Vit. Thuc. § 54; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 60. p. 19, Bekk. ; Tzetz. Chil. 1.19.) It should be remarked that Lucian is the first writer that relates the story, and that the others repeat it after him. As Thucydides is called a boy at the time when he heard the recitation, he cannot have been more than about 15 or 16 years of age; and further, as it is commonly supposed that the Olympic festival at which Thucydides heard the recitation was that of B. C. 456 (Ol. 81.), Herodotus himself would have been no more than 32 years old. Now it seems scarcely credible that Herodotus should have completed his travels and written his work at so early an age. Some critics therefore have recourse to the supposition, that what he recited at Olympia was only a sketch or a portion of the work but this is in direct contradiction to the statement of Lucian, who asserts that he read the whole of the nine books, which on that occasion received the names of the muses. The work itself contains numerous allusions which belong to a much later date than the pretended recitation at Olympia; of these we need only mention the latest, viz. the revolt of the Medes against Dareius Nothus and the death of Amyrtaeus, events which belong to the years B. C. 409 and 408. (Hdt. 1.130, 3.15; comp. Dahlmann, Herodot. p. 38, &c., and an extract from his work in the Classical Museum, vol. i. p. 188, &c.) This difficulty again is got over by the supposition, that Herodotus, who had written his work before B. C. 456, afterwards revised it and made additions to it during his stay at Thurii. But this hypothesis is not supported by the slightest evidence ; no ancient writer knows anything of a first and second edition of the work. Dahlmann has most ably shown that the reputed recitation at Olympia is a mere invention of Lucian, and that there are innumerable external circumstances which render such a recitation utterly impossible: no man could have read or rather chanted such a work as that of Herodotus, in the open air and in the burning sun of the month of July, not to mention that of all the assembled Greeks, only a very small number could have heard the reader. If the story had been known at all in the time of Plutarch, this writer surely could not have passed it over in silence, where he tells us of Herodotus having calumniated all the Greeks except the Athenians, who had bribed him. Heyse, Baehr, and others labour to maintain the credibility of the story about the Olympic recitation, but their arguments in favour of it are of no weight. There is one tradition which mentions that Herodotus read his work at the Panathenaea at Athens in B. C. 445 or 446, and that there existed at Athens a psephisma granting to the historian a reward of ten talents from the public treasury. (Plut. de Malign. Herod. 26, on whose authority it is repeated by Eusebius, Chron. p. 169.) This tradition is not only in contradiction with the time at which he must have written his work, but is evidently nothing but part and parcel of the charge which the author of that contemptible treatise makes against Herodotus, viz. that he was bribed by the Athenians. The source of all this calumnious scandal is nothing but the petty vanity of the Thebans which was hurt by the truthful description of their conduct during the war against Persia. Whether there is any more authority for the statement that Herodotus read his history to the Corinthians, it is not easy to say; it is mentioned only by Dion Chrysostomus (Orat. xxxvii. p. 103 ed. Reiske), and probably has no more foundation than the story of the Olympic or Athenian recitation. Had Herodotus really read his history before any such assembly, his work would surely have been noticed by some of those writers who flourished soon after his time; but such is not the case, and nearly a century elapses after the time of Herodotus, before he and his work emerge from their obscurity.

As, therefore, these traditions on the one hand do not enable us to fix the time in which the father of history wrote his work, and cannot, on the other, have any negative weight, if we should be led to other conclusions, we shall endeavour to ascertain from the work itself the time which we must assign for its composition. The history of the Persian war, which forms the main substance of the whole work, breaks off with the victorious return of the Greek fleet from the coast of Asia, and the taking of Sestos by the Athenians in B. C. 479. But numerous events, which belong to a much later period, are alluded to or mentioned incidentally (see their list in the Classical Museum, l.c.), and the latest of them refers, as already remarked, to the year B. C. 408, when Herodotus was at least 77 years old. Hence it follows that, with Pliny, we must believe that Herodotus wrote his work in his old age during his stay at Thurii, where, according to Suidas, he also died and was buried,for no one mentions that he ever returned to Greece, or that he made two editions of his work, as some modern critics assume, who suppose that at Thurii he revised his work, and among other things introduced those parts which refer to later events. The whole work makes the impression of a fresh composition; there is no trace of labour or revision; it has all the appearance of having been written by a man at an advanced period of his life. Its abrupt termination, and the fact that the author does not tell us what in an earlier part of his work he distinctly promises, (e. g. 7.213), prove almost beyond a doubt that his work was the production of the last years of his life, and that death prevented his completing it. Had he not written it at Thurii, he would scarcely have been called a Thurian or the Thurian historian, a name by which he is sometimes distinguished by the ancients (Aristot. Rh. 3.9; Plut. de Exil. 13, de Malign. Herod. 35; Strab. xiv. p.657), and from the first two of the passages here referred to it is even doubtful whether Herodotus called himself a Thurian or a Halicarnassian. There are lastly some passages in the work itself which must suggest to every unbiassed reader the idea that the author wrote somewhere in the south of Italy. (See, e. g. 4.15, 99, 3.131, 137, 138, 5.44. &100.6.21, 127).

Having thus established the time and place at which Herodotus must have written his work, we shall proceed to examine the preparations he made for it, and which must have occupied a considerable period of his life. The most important part of these preparations consisted in his travels through Greece and foreign countries, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the world and with man, and his customs and manners. We may safely believe that these preparations occupied the time from his twentieth or twenty-fifth year until he settled at Rhegium. His work, however, is not an account of travels, but the mature fruit of his vast personal experience by land and by sea and of his unwearied inquiries which he made every where. He in fact no where mentions his travels and adventures except for the purpose of establishing the truth of what he says, and he is so free from the ordinary vanity of travellers, that instead of acting a prominent part in his work, he very seldom appears at all in it. Hence it is impossible for us to give anything like an accurate chronological succession of his travels. The minute account which Larcher has made up, is little more than a fiction, and is devoid of all foundation. In Greece Proper and on the coasts of Asia Minor there is scarcely any place of importance, with which he is not perfectly familiar from his own observation, and where he did not make inquiries respecting this or that particular point; we may mention more especially the oracular places such as Dodona and Delphi. In many places of Greece, such as Samos, Athens, Corinth and Thebes, he seems to have made a rather long stay. The places where the great battles had been fought between the Greeks and barbarians, as Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, and Plataeae, were well known to him, and on the whole route which Xerxes and his army took on their march from the Hellespont to Athens, there was probably not a place which he had not seen with his own eyes. He also visited most of the Greek islands, not only in the Aegean, but even those in the west of Greece, such as Zacynthus. As for his travels in foreign countries, we know that he sailed through the Hellespont, the Propontis, and crossed the Euxine in both directions; with the Palus Maeotis he was but imperfectly acquainted, for he asserts that it is only a little smaller than the Euxine. He further visited Thrace (2.103) and Scythia (4.76, 81). The interior of Asia Minor, especially Lydia, is well known to him, and so is also Phoenicia. He visited Tyre for the special purpose of obtaining information respecting the worship of Heracles; previous to this he had been in Egypt, for it was in Egypt that his curiosity respecting Heracles had been excited. What Herodotus has done for the history of Egypt, surpasses in importance every thing that was written in ancient times upon that country, although his account of it forms only an episode in his work. There is no reason for supposing that he made himself acquainted with the Egyptian language, which was in fact scarcely necessary on account of the numerous Greek settlers in Egypt, as well as on account of that large class of persons who made it their business to act as interpreters between the Egyptians and Greeks; and it appears that Herodotus was accompanied by one of those interpreters. He travelled to the south of Egypt as far as Elephantine, everywhere forming connections with the priests, and gathering information upon the early history of the country and its relations to Greece. He saw with his own eyes all the wonders of Egypt, and the accuracy of his observations and descriptions still excites the astonishment of travellers in that country. The time at which he visited Egypt may be determined with tolerable accuracy. He was there shortly after the defeat of Inarus by the Persian general Megabyzus, which happened in B. C. 456; for he saw the battle field still covered with the bones and skulls of the slain (3.12.), so that his visit to Egypt may be ascribed to about B. C. 450. From Egypt he appears to have made excursions to the east into Arabia, and to the west into Libya, at least as far as Cyrene, which is well known to him. (2.96.) It is not impossible that he may have even visited Carthage, at least he speaks of information which he had received from Carthaginians (4.43, 195, 196), though it may be also that he conversed with individual Carthaginians whom he met on his travels. From Egypt he crossed over by sea to Tyre, and visited Palaestine; that he saw the rivers Euphrates and Tigris and the city of Babylon, is quite certain (1.178, &c., 193). From thence he seems to have travelled northward, for he saw the town of Ecbatana which reminded him of Athens (1.98). There can be little doubt that he visited Susa also, but we cannot trace him further into the interior of Asia. His desire to increase his knowledge by travelling does not appear to have subsided even in his old age, for it would seem that during his residence at Thurii he visited several of the Greek settlements in southern Italy and Sicily, though his knowledge of the west of Europe was very limited, for lie strangely calls Sardinia the greatest of all islands (1.170, 5.106, 6.2). From what he had collected and seen during his travels, Herodotus was led to form his peculiar views about the earth, its form, climates, and inhabitants ; but for discussions on this topic we must refer the reader to some of the works mentioned at the end of this article. Notwithstanding all the wonders and charms of foreign countries, the beauties of his own native land and its free institutions appear never to have been effaced from his mind.

A second source from which Herodotus drew his information was the literature of his country, especially the poetical portion, for prose had not yet been cultivated very extensively. With the poems of Homer and Hesiod he was perfectly familiar, though lie attributed less historical importance to them than might have been expected. He placed them about 400 years before his own time, and makes the paradoxical assertion, that they had made the theogony of the Greeks, which cannot mean anything else than that those poets, and more especially Hesiod, collected the numerous local traditions about the gods, and arranged them in a certain order and system, which afterwards became established in Greece as national traditions. He was also acquainted with the poetry of Alcaeus, Sappho, Simonides. Aeschylus, and Pindar. He further derived assistance from the Arimaspeia, an epic poem of Aristeas, and from the works of the logographers who had preceded him, such as Hecataeus, though he worked with perfect independence of them, and occasionally corrected mistakes which they had committed; but his main sources, after all, were his own investigations and observations.

The object of the work of Herodotus is to give an account of the struggles between the Greeks and Persians, from which the former, with the aid of the gods, came forth victorious. The subject therefore is a truly national one, but the discussion of it, especially in the early part, led the author into various digressions and episodes, as he was sometimes obliged to trace to distant times the causes of the events he had to relate, or to give a history or description of a nation or country, with which, according to his view, the reader ought to be made familiar; and havilng once launched out into such a digression, he usually cannot resist the temptation of telling the whole tale, so that most of his episodes form each an interesting and complete whole by itself. He traces the enmity between Europe and Asia to the mythical times. But he rapidly passes over the mythical ages, to come to Croesus, king of Lydia, who was known to have committed acts of hostility against the Greeks. This induces him to give a full history of Croesus and the kingdom of Lydia. The conquest of Lydia by the Persians under Cyrus then leads him to relate the rise of the Persian monarchy, and the subjugation of Asia Minor and Babylon. The nations which are mentioned in the course of this narrative are again discussed more or less minutely. The history of Cambyses and his expedition into Egypt induce him to enter into the detail of Egyptian history. The expedition of Dareius against the Scythians causes him to speak of Scythia and the north of Europe. The kingdom of Persia now extended from Scythia to Cyrene, and an army being called in by the Cyrenaeans against the Persians, Herodotus proceeds to give an account of Cyrene and Libya. In the meantime the revolt of the Ionians breaks out, which eventually brings the contest between Persia and Greece to an end. An account of this insurrection and of the rise of Athens after the expulsion of the Peisistratidae, is followed by what properly constitutes the principal part of the work, and the history of the Persian war now runs in a regular channel until the taking of Sestos. In this manner alone it was possible for Herodotus to give a record of the vast treasures of information which he had collected in the course of many years. But these digressions and episodes do not impair the plan and unity of the work, for one thread, as it were, runs through the whole, and the episodes are only like branches that issue from one and the same tree: each has its peculiar charms and beauties, and is yet manifestly no more than a part of one great whole. The whole structure of the work thus bears strong resemblance to a grand epic poem. We remarked above that the work of Herodotus has an abrupt termination, and is probably incomplete: this opinion is strengthened on the one hand by the fact, that in one place the author promises to give the particulars of an occurrence in another part of his work, though the promise is nowhere fulfilled (7.213); and, on the other, by the story that a favourite of the historian, of the name of Plesirrhous, who inherited all his property, also edited the work after the author's death. (Ptolem. Heph. apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 190.) The division of the work into nine books, each bearing the name of a muse, was probably made by some grammarian, for there is no indication in the whole work of the division having been made by the author himself.

There are two passages (1.106, 184) in which Herodotus promises to write a history of Assyria, which was either to form a part of his great work, or to be an independent treatise by itself. Whether he ever carried his plan into effect is a question of considerable doubt; no ancient writer mentions such a work; but Aristotle, in his History of Animals (8.20), not only alludes to it, but seems to have read it, for he mentions the account of the siege of Nineveh, which is the very thing that Herodotus (1.184) promises to treat of in his Assyrian history. It is true that in most MSS. of Aristotle we there read Hesiod instead of Herodotus, but the context seems to require Herodotus. The life of Homer in the Ionie dialect, which was formerly attributed to Herodotus, and is printed at the end of several editions of his work, is now universally acknowledged to be a production of a later date, though it was undoubtedly written at a comparatively early period, and contains some valuable information. Works Histories

It now remains to add a few remarks on the character of the work of Herodotus, its importance as an historical authority, and its style and language. The whole work is pervaded by a profoundly religious idea, which distinguishes Herodotus from all the other Greek historians. This idea is the strong belief in a divine power existing apart and independent of man and nature, which assigns to every being its sphere. This sphere no one is allowed to transgress without disturbing the order which has existed, from the beginning, in the moral world no less than in the physical; and by disturbing this order man brings about his own destruction. This divine power is, in the opinion of Herodotus, the cause of all external events, although he does not deny the free activity of man, or establish a blind law of fate or necessity. The divine power with him is rather the manifestation of eternal justice, which keeps all things in a proper equilibrium, assigns to each being its path, and keeps it within its bounds. Where it punishes overweaning haughtiness and insolence, it assumes the character of the divine Nemesis, and nowhere in history had Nemesis overtaken and chastised the offender more obviously than in the contest between Greece and Asia. When Herodotus speaks of the envy of the gods, as he often does, we must understand this divine Nemesis, who appears sooner or later to pursue or destroy him who, in frivolous insolence and conceit, raises himself above his proper sphere. Herodotus everywhere shows the most profound reverence for everything which he conceives as divine, and rarely ventures to express an opinion on what he considers a sacred or religious mystery, though now and then he cannot refrain from expressing a doubt in regard to the correctness of the popular belief of his countrymen, generally owing to the influence which the Egyptian priests had exercised on his mind; but in general his good sense and sagacity were too strong to allow him to be misled by vulgar notions and errors.

There are certain prejudices of which some of the best modern critics are not quite free : one writer asserts, that Herodotus wrote to amuse his hearers rather than with the higher objects of an historian, such as Thucydides; another says that he was inordinately partial towards his own countrymen, without possessing a proper knowledge of and regard for what had been accomplished by barbarians. To refute such errors, it is only necessary to read his work with an unbiassed mind : that his work is more amusing than those of other historians arises from the simple, unaffected, and childlike mode of narration, features which are peculiar more or less to all early historians. Herodotus further saw and acknowledged what was good and noble wherever it appeared; for he nowhere shows any hatred of the Persians, nor of any among the Greeks : he praises and blames the one as well as the other, whenever, in his judgment, they deserve it. It would be vain indeed to deny that Herodotus was to a certain extent credulous, and related things without putting to himself the question as to whether they were possible at all or not; his political knowledge, and his acquaintance with the laws of nature, were equally deficient; and owing to these deficiencies, he frequently does not rise above the rank of a mere story-teller, a title which Aristotle ( De Animal. Gener. 3.5) bestows upon him. But notwithstanding all this, it is evident that he had formed a high notion of the dignity of history; and in order to realise his idea, he exerted all his powers, and cheerfully went through more difficult and laborious preparations than any other historian either before or after him. The charge of his having flattered the Athenians was brought against Herodotus by some of the ancients, but is totally unfounded; he only does justice to the Athenians by saying that they were the first who had courage and patriotism enough to face the barbarian invaders (6.112), and that thus they became the deliverers of all Greece; but he is very far from approving their conduct on every occasion; and throughout his account of the Persian war, he shows the most upright conduct and the sincerest love of truth. On the whole, in order to form a fair judgment of the historical value of the work of Herodotus, we must distinguish between those parts in which he speaks from his own observation, or gives the results of his own investigations, from those in which he merely repeats what he was told by priests, interpreters, guides, and the like. In the latter case he undoubtedly was often deceived; but lie never intrudes such reports as anything more than they really are; and under the influence of his natural good sense, he very frequently cautions his readers by some such remark as " I know this only from hearsay," or " I have been told so, but do not believe it." The same caution should guide us in his account of the early history of the Greeks, on which he touches only in episodes, for he is generally satisfied with some one tradition, without entering into any critical examination or comparison with other traditions, which he silently rejects. But wherever he speaks from his own observation, Herodotus is a real model of truthfulness and accuracy; and the more those countries of which he speaks have been explored by modern travellers, the more firmly has his authority been established. There is scarcely a traveller that goes to Egypt, the East, or Greece, that does not bring back a number of facts which place the accuracy of the accounts of Herodotus in the most brilliant light : many things which used to be laughed at as impossible or paradoxical, are found to be strictly in accordance with truth.

The dialect in which Herodotus wrote is the Ionic, intermixed with epic or poetical expressions, and sometimes even with Attic and Doric forms. This peculiarity of the language called forth a number of lexicographical works of learned grammarians, all of which are lost with the exception of a few remnants in the Homeric glosses ( λέξεις ). The excellencies of his style do not consist in any artistic or melodious structure of his sentences, but in the antique and epic colouring, the transparent clearness, the lively flow of his narrative, the natural and unaffected gracefulness, and the occasional signs of carelessness. There is perhaps no work in the whole range of ancient literature which so closely resembles a familiar and homely oral narration than that of Herodotus. Its reader cannot help feeling as though he was listening to an old man who, from the inexhaustible stores of his knowledge and experience, tells his stories with that single-hearted simplicity and naivecté which are the marks and indications of a truthful spirit. "That which charms the readers of Herodotus," says Dahlmann, "is that childlike simplicity of heart which is ever the companion of an incorruptible love of truth, and that happy and winning style which cannot be attained by any art or pathetic excitement, and is found only where manners are true to nature; for while other pleasing discourses of men roll along like torrents, and noisily hurry through their short existence, the silver stream of his words flows on without concern, sure of its immortal source, every where pure and transparent, whether it be shallow or deep; and the fear of ridicule, which sways the whole world, affects not the sublime simplicity of his mind." We have already had occasion to remark that notwithstanding all the merits and excellencies of Herodotus, there were in antiquity certain writers who attacked Herodotus on very serious points, both in regard to the form and the substance of his work. Besides Ctesias ( Pers. 1.57.), Aelius Harpocration, Manetho, and one Pollio, are mentioned as authors of works against Herodotus; but all of them have perished with the exception of one bearing the name of Plutarch ( Περὶ τῆς Ἡροδότου κακοηθείας ), which is full of the most futile accusations of every kind. It is written in a mean and malignant spirit, and is probably the work of some young rhetorician or sophist, who composed it as an exercise in polemics or controversy. Editions Latin Edition

Herodotus was first published in a Latin translation by Laurentius Valla, Venice, 1474. Greek Editions

and the first edition of the Greek original is that of Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1502, fol. which was followed by two Basle editions, in 1541 and 1557, fol. The text is greatly corrected in the edition of H. Stephens (Paris, 1570 and 1592 fol.), which was followed by that of Jungermann, Frankfort, 1608, fol. (reprinted at Geneva in 1618, and at London in 1679, fol.). The edition of James Gronovius (Leiden, 1715) has a peculiar value, from his having made use of the excellent Medicean MS.; but it was greatly surpassed by the edition of P. Wesseling and L. C. Valckenaer, Amsterdam, 1763, fol. Both the language and the matter are there treated with great care; and the learned apparatus of this edition, with the exception of the notes of Gronovius., was afterwards incorporated in the edition of Schweighäuser, Argentorati et Paris. 1806, 6 vols. in 12 parts (reprinted in London, 1818, in 6 vols., and the Lexicon Herodoteum of Schweighäuser separately in 1824 and 1841, 8vo.). The editor had compared several new MSS., and was thus enabled to give a text greatly superior to that of his predecessors. The best edition after this is that of Gaisford (Oxford, 1824, 4 vols. 8vo.), who incorporated in it nearly all the notes of Wesseling, Valckenaer and Schweighäuser, and also made a collation of some English MSS. A reprint of this edition appeared at Leipzig in 1824, 4 vols. 8vo. The last great edition, in which the subject-matter also is considered with reference to modern discoveries, is that of Bähr, Leipzig, 1830, &100.4 vols. 8vo. Among the school editions, we mention those of A. Matthiae, Leipzig, 1825, 2 vols. 8vo.; G. Long, London, 1830; and I. Bekker, Berlin, 1833 and 1837, 8vo. Translations

Among all the translations of Herodotus, there is none which surpasses in excellence and fidelity the German of Fr. Lange, Breslau, 1811, &c., 2 vols. 8vo. Further Information

The works written on Herodotus, or particular points of his work, are extremely numerous: a pretty complete account of the modern literature of Herodotus is given by Bähr in the Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie und Paedagogik, vol. xli. p. 371, &c.; but we shall confine ourselves to mentioning the principal ones among them, viz., J. Rennell, The Geographical System of Herodotus, London, 1800, 4to, and 1832, 2 vols. 8vo.; B. G. Niebuhr, in his Kleine Philol. Schriften, vol. i.; Dahlmann, Herodot, aus seinem Buche sein Leben, Altona, 1823, 8vo., one of the best works that was ever written; C. G. L. Heyse, De Herodoti Vita et Itineribus, Berlin, 1826, 8vo.; H. F. Jäger, Disputationes Herodoteae, Göttingen, 1828, 8vo.; J. Kenrick, The Egypt of Herodots, with notes and preliminary dissertations, London, 1841, 8vo.; Bähr, Commentatio de Vita et Scriptis Herodoti, in the fourth Avolume of his edition, p. 374, &c.

Hero'dotus

2. Of Chios, the son of Basilides, is mentioned by Herodotus the historian (8.132) as one of the ambassadors who, after the battle of Salamis, arrived in Aegina to call upon the Greeks to deliver Ionia. What may have induced the historian to mention him alone among the ambassadors is uncertain. (See above, No. 1.)

Hero'dotus

3. A son of Apsodorus of Thebes, a victor in the Heraclean, Isthmian, and other games, whose name is celebrated in Pindar's first Isthmian ode. He lived about Ol. 80-83; his father, being expelled from Thebes, had gone to Orchomenos, but afterwards returned to Thebes. (See Dissen, ad Pind. l.c.)

Hero'dotus

4. A brother of the philosopher Democritus (Suid. s. v. Δημόκριτος), and perhaps the same as the one to whom Diogenes Laertius (9.34) refers in his account of Democritus. Whether he is identical with Herodotus, the author of a work Περὶ Ἐπικούρου ἐφηβείας (D. L. 10.4), cannot be decided.

Hero'dotus

5. Of Olophyxus in Thrace, is mentioned as the author of a work Περὶ Νυμφῶν καὶ ἱερῶν. (Steph. Byz. s. v. Ὀλόφυξος; Suid. s. v. Ὀλόφυξις; Eustath. ad Hom. Il. 5.683.)

Hero'dotus

6. A logomimus, who lived at the court of Antiochus II., and was highly esteemed by that king. (Athen. 1.19.)

Hero'dotus

7. A brother of Menander Protector, lived in the time of the emperor Mauritius. Works History beginning with the death of Agathias

He wrote a history beginning with the death of Agathias. (Suid s. v. Μένανδρος; Codinus, de Orig. Constant. p. 26; Malalas, Chron. i. p. 200.) It should be observed that in MSS. and early editions the name of Herodotus is frequently confounded with Herodorus and Heliodorus. On the Life of Homer

Whether the work Περὶ τῆς ʽομήρου Βιοτῆς, is the production of a grammnarian of the name of Herodotus, or whether the author's name is a mere invention, it is impossible to say; thus much only we know, that some of the ancients themselves attributed it to Herodotus the historian. Further Information

Steph. Byz. s. v. Νέον τεῖχος; Suid. s. v. Ὅμηρος; Eustath. ad Hom. Il. p. 876. [L.S]

Hero'dotus

a statuary of Olynthus, contemporary with Praxiteles, made statues of Phryne and other courtesans. (Tatian, Orat. Graec. 53, 54.) [P.S]

Hero'dotus

(Ἡρόδοτος), the name of several physicians, of whom the most eminent was,

1. A pupil of Athenaeus, or perhaps rather of Agathinus (Galen, De Differ. Puls. 4.11, vol. viii. p. 751), who belonged to the sect of the Pnenmatici (Id. De Simplic. Medicam. Temper. ac Facult. 1.29, vol. xi. p. 432). He lived probably towards the end of the first century after Christ, and resided at Rome, where he practised with great reputation and success. (Galen, De Differ. Puls. l.c.) He wrote some medical works, which are several times quoted by Galen and Oribasius, but of which only some fragments remain, most of which are to be found in Matthaei's Collection entitled XXI Veterum et Clarorum Medicorum Graecorum Varia Opuscula, Mosqu. 4to. 1808.

Hero'dotus

2. The son of Arieus, a native either of Tarsus or Philadelphia, who probably belonged to the sect of the Empirici. He was a pupil of Menodotus, and tutor to Sextus Empiricus, and lived therefore in the former half of the second century after Christ. (Suidas, s. v. Σέξστος; D. L. 9.116.)

Hero'dotus

3. The physician mentioned by Galen (De Bon. et Prav. Aliment. Succ. 100.4. vol. vi. p. 77.5 ; De Meth. Med. 7.6. vol. x. p. 474), together with Euryphon, as having recommended human milk in cases of consumption, was probably a different person from either of the preceding, and may have been a contemporary of Euryphon in the fifth century B. C. Works Glossary of Ionic Words

There is extant, under the name of Herodotus, a short Glossary of Ionic words.

This is commonly printed together with the Glossary of Erotianus, and supposed to relate to the Hippocratic Collection. Franzius, however, is inclined to the opinion that the little work is intended to explain, not the words used by Hippocrates, but those used by Herodotus the historian, and that hence it has been attributed by mistake to a physician or grammarian of the name of Herodotus.

Some persons have attributed to a physician named Herodotus two of the treatises included in the collection of Galen's works, viz. the Introductio or Medicus, and the Definitiones Medicae. But though it may be doubted whether these works belong to Galen, it is equally doubtful whether they were written by Herodotus. Further Information

See Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xiii. p. 184, ed. vet.; J. G. F. Franz, Preface to his edition of the Glossaries of Erotianus, Galen, and lerodotus, Lips. 1780, 8vo. [W.A.G]

Herodŏtus

(Ἡρόδοτος). (1) A celebrated Greek historian, born at Halicarnassus in Caria, B.C. 484 (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. p. 29, 2d ed.). He was of Dorian extraction, and of a distinguished family. His father was named Lyxes, his mother Rhoeo or Dryo. Panyasis, an eminent epic poet, whom some ranked next to Homer, was his uncle either by the mother's or father's side. The facts of his life are few and doubtful, except so far as we can gather them from his own works. Not liking the government of Lydgamis, the grandson of Queen Artemisia, who was tyrant of Halicarnassus, Herodotus retired for a season to the island of Samos, where he is said to have cultivated the Ionic dialect of the Greek, which was the language there prevalent. Before he was thirty years of age he joined a number of his fellow-exiles in an attempt, which proved successful, to expel Lygdamis. But the banishment of the tyrant did not give tranquillity to Halicarnassus, and Herodotus, who himself had become an object of dislike, again left his native country and visited Athens, where he made the acquaintance of many of the brilliant writers of the time. Of these, Sophocles became his intimate friend, and wrote a poem in his honour in B.C. 440, a fragment of which is preserved by Plutarch. (See Hanna, Sophokles' Beziehungen zu Herodot [1875]). Eusebius states that he received at Athens many public marks of distinction. As Athenian citizenship was not open to him, he joined, as it is said, a colony which the Athenians sent to Thurii in Southern Italy, about B.C. 443. He is said to have died in Thurii, and to have been buried in the market-place.

Herodotus is regarded by many as the father of profane history, and Cicero (De Leg. i. 1) calls him historiae patrem; by which, however, nothing more must be meant than that he is the first profane historian whose work is distinguished for its finished form, and has come down to us entire. Thus Cicero himself, on another occasion, speaks of him as the one qui princeps genus hoc (scribendi) ornavit (De Orat. ii. 13); while Dionysius of Halicarnassus has given us a list of many historical writers who preceded him.

Herodotus presents himself to our consideration in two points: as a traveller and observer, and as an historian. The extent of his travels may be ascertained pretty clearly from his history; but the order in which he visited each place, and the time of his visit, cannot be determined. The story of his reading his work at the Olympic Games, on which occasion he is said to have received universal applause, and to have had the names of the nine Muses given to the nine books of his history, has been disproved. The story is founded upon a small piece by Lucian, entitled “Herodotus or Aëtion,” which apparently was not intended by the writer himself as an historical truth; and, in addition to this, Herodotus was only about twentyeight years old ( Suid. s. v. Θουκυδίδης) when he is said to have read to the assembled Greeks at Olympia a work which was the result of most extensive travelling and research, and which bears in every part of it evident marks of the hand of a man of mature age. The Olympic recitation is not even alluded to by Plutarch, in his treatise on the “malignity” of Herodotus. Furthermore, it is certain that the division of his work into books was not known to Herodotus himself, but was probably due to the Alexandrian grammarians. It is first mentioned by Diodorus Siculus. At a later period Herodotus read his history, as we are informed by Plutarch and Eusebius , at the Panathenaean festival at Athens, and the Athenians are said to have presented him with the sum of ten talents for the manner in which he had spoken of the deeds of their nation. The account of this second recitation may be true.

With a simplicity which characterizes his whole work, Herodotus makes no display of the great extent of his travels. He frequently avoids saying in express terms that he was at a place, but he uses words which are as conclusive as any positive statement. He describes a thing as standing behind the door (ii. 182), or on the right hand as you enter a temple (i. 51); or he was told something by a person in a particular place (ii. 28); or he uses other words equally significant. In Africa he visited Egypt (see Budinger, Die ägyptische Forschung Herodot's [Vienna, 1873]), from the coast of the Mediterranean to Elephantiné, the southern extremity of the country (ii. 29); and he travelled westward as far as Cyrené (ii. 32, 181), and probably farther. (See Neumann, Nordafrika nach Herodot [1893]). In Asia he visited Tyre, Babylon, Ecbatana (i. 98), Nineveh, and probably Susa (v. 52 foll., vi. 119). He also travelled to various parts of Asia Minor, and probably went as far as Colchis (ii. 104). In Europe he visited a large part of the country along the Black Sea, between the mouths of the Danube and the Crimea, and went some distance into the interior. He seems to have examined the line of the march of Xerxes from the Hellespont to Attica, and certainly had seen numerous places on this route. He was well acquainted with Athens (i. 98, v. 77), and also with Delphi, Dodona, Olympia, Delos, and many other places in Greece. That he had visited some parts of Southern Italy is clear from his work (iv. 99, v. 44). The mention of these places is sufficient to show that he must have seen many more. (See Hildebrandt, De Itineribus Herodoti Europaeis et Africanis [Leipzing, 1883].) So wide and varied a field of observation has rarely been presented to a traveller, and still more rarely to any historian of either ancient or modern times; and, if we cannot affirm that the author undertook his travels with a view to collecting materials for his great work, a supposition which is far from improbable, it is certain that, without such advantages, he could never have written it, and that his travels must have suggested much inquiry, and supplied many valuable facts, which afterwards found a place in his history.

The nine books of Herodotus contain a great variety of matter, the unity of which is not perceived till the whole work has been thoroughly examined; and for this reason, on a first perusal, the history is seldom well understood. But the subject of that history was conceived by the author both clearly and comprehensively. His aim was to combine a general history of the Greeks and the barbarians (i. e. those not Greeks) with the history of the wars between the Greeks and Persians. Accordingly, in the execution of his main task, he traces the course of events from the time when the Lydian kingdom of Croesus fell before the arms of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy (B.C. 546), to the capture of Sestus (B.C. 478), an event which completed the triumph of the Greeks over the Persians. The great subject of his work, which is comprised within the space of sixty-eight years, advances, with a regular progress and truly dramatic development, from the first weak and divided efforts of the Greeks to resist Asiatic numbers, to their union as a nation, and their final triumph in the memorable battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, and Mycalé. But with this subject, which has a complete unity, well maintained from its commencement to its close, the author has interwoven, conformably to his general purpose, and by way of occasional digression, sketches of the various people and countries which he had visited in his wide-extended travels. The more one contemplates the difficulty of thus combining a kind of universal history with a substantial and distinct narrative, the more one must admire, not so much the art of the historian, as his happy power of bringing together and arranging his materials, which was the result of the fulness of his information, the distinctness of his knowledge, and his clear conception of the subject. These numerous digressions are among the most valuable parts of his work; and, if they had been omitted or lost, barren indeed would have been modern investigation in the field of ancient history, over which the labour of this one great writer now throws a clear and steady light. The anecdotes, also, that sparkle through his pages are fascinating in their variety and in the illustrations they afford of the life and manners of the age that he describes.

The style of Herodotus is simple, pleasing, and highly picturesque; often, indeed, poetical both in expression and sentiment, and bearing evident marks of belonging to a period when prose composition had not yet become a finished art. That he was a close student of Homer is evident in every page of the history, since his phrases and expressions are everywhere coloured by the Homeric influence. Hence, Dionysius of Halicarnassus calls him Ὁμήρου ζηλωτής, and Longinus μόνος Ὁμηρικώτατος. So graceful and winning was his style that Athenaeus describes him as ὁ μελίγηρυς. His information is apparently the result of his own experience. In physical knowledge he was somewhat behind the science of even his own day. He had, no doubt, reflected on political questions; but he seems to have formed his opinions mainly from what he himself had observed. To pure philosophical speculations he had no inclination, and there is not a trace of such in his writings. He had a strong religious feeling bordering on superstition, though even here he clearly distinguished the gross and absurd from that which was reasonable. He seems to have viewed the manners and customs of all nations in a more truly philosophical way than many so-called philosophers, considering them all as various forms of social existence under which happiness might be found. He treats with respect the religious observances of every nation; a decisive proof of his great good sense. Until lately there was a strong tendency to exaggerate the credulity of Herodotus; but a fuller knowledge of the countries described by him has justified many of the statements once regarded as absurd. Moreover, a distinction must be drawn between the things he tells of his own knowledge and those which he merely relates as having been told him by other persons. The exquisite lines quoted by Prof. Merriam in his introduction are wonderfully descriptive of the whole tone and spirit of Herodotus: “He was a mild old man and cherished much The weight dark Egypt on his spirit laid; And with a sinuous eloquence would touch Forever at that haven of the dead. Single romantic words by him were thrown As types on men and places, with a power Like that of shifting sunlight after shower Kindling the cones of hills and journeying on. He feared the gods and heroes and spake low That Echo might not hear in her light room.”

Plutarch accused Herodotus of partiality, and composed a treatise on what he termed the “spitefulness” of this writer (Περὶ τῆς Ἡροδότου Κακοηθείας), taxing him with injustice towards the Thebans, Corinthians, and Greeks in general; but the whole monograph is weak and frivolous.

Herodotus had planned to write a work on Assyrian history (i. 106, 184), but whether or not he ever carried out his intention is not known. A life of Homer has been commonly ascribed to Herodotus, and appears in some editions of his history; but it is now deemed spurious. See Schmidt, De Herodotea quae fertur Vita Homeri, 2 pts. (1874-75).

Manuscripts.—Of forth-six MSS. containing a whole or a portion of Herodotus, five, which are of superior age and excellence, form the basis of the accepted text. These represent two “families,” to one of which belong the Codex Florentinus or Mediceus of the Laurentian Library at Florence, dating from the tenth century, a Codex Romanus of the eleventh century, and a second Codex Florentinus, also of the eleventh century. To the other family belong a Codex Parisinus, beautifully written, of the thirteenth century, and a third Codex Romanus of the fourteenth century, lacking, however, the Fifth Book. Of this, also, the text of the First Book has been considerably altered, possibly in order to adapt the work to the use of schools. An account of the MSS. is given by Stein in his edition mentioned below.

Bibliography.—The editio princeps of Herodotus is that of Aldus (1502). Standard critical editions are those of Schweighäuser, 5 vols. (Strassburg, 1816); Gaisford (Oxford, 1840); Stein (Berlin, 1869); and Dietsch (Leipzig, 1874). Good commentaries are those of Bähr in Latin (Leipzig, 1856); Blakesley (London, 1854); Stein in German (Berlin, 1877), and Rawlinson (London, 1858); also Abicht in German (1876). English translations have been made by Rawlinson, 4 vols. (2d ed. 1862), and G. C. Macaulay, 2 vols. (London, 1890). A valuable Lexicon Herodoteum is that of Schweighäuser (London, 2d ed. 1824). Very useful are the appendices to Prof. Sayce's edition of Bks. I.-III. (London, 1883). On the dialect, see Abicht, Uebersicht über den herodoteischen Dialect (3d ed. Leipzig, 1874); and Merzdorf, Quaestiones Grammaticae de Dialecto Herodotea (Leipzig, 1875). Stein's introduction on the dialect in his school edition is admirable; also Smyth in his Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects (1894). On the sources of his history, see the monographs of Panofsky (1865) and K. W. Nitzsch (1871). On his travels, see the works already cited in the text.

(2) A physician of Tarsus, of the empiric school, and successor to Menodotus of Nicomedia. A work of his, entitled “The Physician,” is mentioned by Galen.

Herodotus Herodotus, a Clazomenian

• Olympic victor: Paus. 6.17.2

Herodotus(2), an Ionianenvoy

• son of Basileides: Hdt. 8.132

Herodotus(3), of Halicarnassus Life

Birth of Herodotus at Halicarnassus c. 484

Death of Herodotus at Thurii c. 425

The Historyof Herodotus begins with the seemingly unambiguous declaration that “this is the exposition of the researches by Herodotus of Halicarnassus,” a town in Asia Minor. But already in the first century A.D., the author Plutarch reports (On Exile 13.604F) that many scholars change Halicarnassos to Thurii, an Athenian colony in Southern Italy, since Herodotus settled there later on in life. This confusion, though minor (there is no doubt as to which Herodotus is described, and all agree that he did in fact move to Thurii), touches on a major theme in Herodotus’ own life, his ambiguous and in some ways marginal status within the Greek world. Herodotus never belonged to the ancient Greek homeland, and his own work offers eloquent testimony to the rivalry between the old, established states of the mainland and the more recently constituted colonies (see, for example, the debate between Gelon of Sicily, and representatives of Sparta and Athens at Hdt. 7.157-163). Halikarnassos and Thurii are alike in that they are located at the ends of the Greek world, the west coast of Turkey and South Italy.

evidence for the length of Herodotus’ Career

Many scholars assume that Herodotus ended his days in Thurii and was buried there. A late source records the text of a four-line epitaph, which was supposedly inscribed on his tomb in the agora of Thurii. The source for this is the Roman author, Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 15.23). Herodotus mentions events that took place at the opening of the Peloponnesian War: e.g., the Theban attack against Plataia led by Eurymachos (431: Hdt. 7.233.2), the expulsion of the Aeginetans at the conclusion (end of 431: Hdt. 6.91.1), the Spartans’ sparing of Dekeleia in their invasion of Attika (431 or 430: Hdt. 9.73.3), execution of Aristeas’ and the Lakedaimonian envoys (430: Hdt. 7.137.3). On the other hand, Herodotus’ describes at Hdt. 6.91how the Spartans settled the Aeginetans who had been driven from their homes in the territory of Thyrea, but he does not mention the fact that the Athenians wiped out the Aeginetans in Thyrea, an event which took place in 424 (Thuc. 4.57). Most scholars assume that he was alive sometime after 430 but died before 424.

Travels

Herodotus seems to have travelled extensively throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. He specifically tells us that he visited Elephantine, a city on the Nile in the southern portion of Egypt (Hdt. 2.29.1), the Arabian frontier on the East of Egypt (Hdt. 2.75.1), and Tyre in Phoenicia (Hdt. 2.44.1). He strongly implies that he also visited Babylon (Hdt. 1.193.4and Hdt. 1.183.3) in Mesopotamia and Exampaios, a stream in Skythia which he locates between the Borysthenis (Dnieper) and Hypanis (Bug) rivers in South Russia (Hdt. 4.81.1). Whatever the details, Herodotus clearly travelled through vast sections of the world known to the Greeks. He was a very cosmopolitan individual.

Herodotus: Dorian, Barbarian and Greek

Born in Halikarnassos, a city then under Persian rule, Herodotus belonged to the most international segment of the Greek world, for the colonies in Asia Minor were planted on the outermost edge of the vast and ancient continental Near East. Halikarnassos was a Dorian Greek colony, and Herodotus expresses an open disdain for the Ionian Greek colonies of Asia Minor (e.g., the pathetic Ionian behavior at Hdt. 6.12) and for Ionians in general (for the general low repute of the Ionians, Hdt. 1.143.2-3). Nevertheless, Herodotus also scoffs at the idea of “ethnic purity.” The Ionians in Asia Minor comprised many different ethnic groups from Greece (Hdt. 1.146.1), and even those who came directly from the city center at Athens and who boasted that they were the best bred did not bring wives with them, but by force married Carian women native to Asia Minor, after killing their other family members (Hdt. 1.146.2). Greek culture is, for Herodotus, explicitly a matter of language and implicitly the culture which the Greek language defines: the Greeks themselves multiplied by joining with many different “barbarian” groups (Hdt. 1.58). Late sources tell us that Herodotus’ father was named Lyxos and that he was related to a late epic poet, Panyassis. Both the names Lyxos and Panyassis are generally thought to be Carian (the native population on the coast of Turkey where Halikarnassos was founded), and Herodotus himself may have belonged to family which considered itself ethnically to be Carian as well as Greek.

Whatever the truth of these particular details, Herodotus does seem to have been born, to have lived and to have died on the various edges of the Greek world. This outlook reveals itself in several ways. He is acutely conscious that not all of his readers are from the center of the Greek world. After comparing the Thracian Chersonnese to the coast of Attica, for example, Herodotus Hdt. 4.99.3adds a comparison with the heel of Italy for anyone “who has not sailed along the coast of Attica” (Hdt. 4.99.5: ὃς δὲ τῆς Ἀττικῆς ταῦτα μὴ παραπέπλωκε). He clearly grasps that different cultures have their own, often contradictory, customs, and adheres to an often amused cultural relativism. At Hdt. 3.38, he argues that the Persian king Cambyses must have been mad, for no sane man would mock the customs of other people. This comment is surely ironic, since Greeks, like most peoples, frequently derided the customs of foreigners. He follows this judgment of Cambyses with a telling anecdote. The Persian king gathered some Greeks and some Callatiae, a particular group in India. He asked the Greeks for what price they would eat their parents’ dead bodies, and they denied that they would do so for any price. When he asked the Callatiae whether they could be induced to cremate their fathers’ bodies, they were equally scandalized, for they regularly ate those corpses. Proper burial was a very sensitive issue for Greeks (Sophocles, Antigoneis based on the importance of proper burial), and Herodotus’ anecdote therefore cuts deep. The History itself, in which the Greeks eventually drive back the Persian invaders, concludes with an admiring anecdote about Kyros, the man who established the Persian empire (Hdt. 9.122). Herodotus was always “decentered” and could never view Greek culture in the insular manner of those who had spent their whole lives in the landlocked valleys of mainland Greece.

Surviving Works

Work begins on the History c. 450

Work finishes on the History c. 430

Herodotus clearly worked on his History as late as 430, but his work seems to have been well known even before this time, and it seems likely that he worked on it over a period of years. Soph.Ant. 905-912seems to recall the story of Intaphernes in Herodotus (Hdt. 3.119, esp. section 6). The Sophoclean echo has struck many readers as so peculiar that they have argued that Sophocles could not have written this passage and that it must be a later interpolation, but this hypothesis is controversial at best. Other passages in which Sophocles and Herodotus resemble each other include: Hdt. 2.35.2and Soph. OC 337-341(the reversal of gender roles in Egypt); Hdt. 4.95.4and Soph. El. 62-64(Orestes’ describes his actions in a manner strongly reminiscent of the story of Salmoxis, a Thracian seer). We even have a poem in which Sophocles addresses someone named Herodotus, very possibly (though not necessarily) the Historian. Preserved at Plut. An Seni 3.785bthis poem informs us that he was fifty five years old. This would place the poem just before 440-roughly the same period in which many have traditionally dated Sophocles’Antigone, with its striking allusion to the story of Intaphernes. Other indications associate Sophocles with Athens in the 440s: ancient tradition records that Herodotus read selections of his work aloud publicly in Athens in the 440s. While the sources for this are late, the correspondences with Sophocles and the detailed knowledge of Athens which Herodotus demonstrates suggest that he spent some time there.

importance and Influence of Herodotus herodotus and Homer (3)

When he composed his history, Herodotus clearly had the monumental Homeric epics in mind. The opening section of his history (Hdt. 1) declares that this work belongs to Herodotus of Halikarnassos and its purpose is that the great and marvelous deeds, of Greeks and of non-Greeks alike, not be forgotten or lose their fame over time. This intention to memorialize in literary form the events of the past reflects the concerns of epic poetry. On the level of vocabulary, Herodotus uses a derivative of the epic term kleos, “fame,” to describe the renown which he wishes to preserve. Herodotus pointedly declines to say that he will confer this kleos on the events described. Rather, he takes a more subordinate role, expressing his hope that the history will prevent the events described from losing the kleos which they have already acquired. But if Herodotus has Homer generally in mind, his work differs from Homeric epic in at least two basic regards. First, Herodotus composes in prose form, not poetry, and second, Herodotus concentrates not on the mythical past but primarily on events within the last several hundred years and especially on the rise of Persia, culminating in Xerxes’ invasion of Greece, which had taken place within the preceding hundred years or so.

Herodotus: A Dorian writing in the Ionic Greek dialect (3)

Herodotus wrote his history in the Ionic dialect, which reflects the type of Greek spoken in the Ionian Greek cities of Asia Minor. Ionia had during the archaic period been the home of many of the most prominent thinkers. Thales, often referred to as the first Greek philosopher, lived in Miletus during the early sixth century. We can be confident of roughly when he lived, because he predicted an eclipse which took place on May 28, 585 (Hdt. 1.74, see also the help which Thales offers at Hdt. 1.75and Hdt. 1.170). Anaximander, another philosopher from Miletus, composed the first philosophical prose work in the middle of the sixth century, a century before Herodotus. Writing in the Ionic dialect, he helped define it as the dialect for prose literary expression. Thus, although Herodotus came from a city in which Doric was spoken and although he expresses contempt for the Ionian Greeks (e.g. Hdt. 1.143.2-3and Hdt. 6.12), he nevertheless chose Ionic as the dialect in which to frame his thoughts. Herodotus’ work was part of a growing prose literature in Ionic. Hippocrates (c. 469-399), often called the Father of Medicine, was a somewhat younger contemporary of Herodotus. A large number of medical treatises, composed in Hippocrates’ school during the period c. 440-340 survive. A number of other authors had, it seems, written about foreign peoples before Herodotus, and he thus had some precedents to follow in the “ethnographic” aspects of his work.

herodotus and Hekataios

The most important prose predecessor to Herodotus seems to have been Hekataios (like Thales and Anaximander, a citizen of Miletus). Herodotus presents Hekataios the λογοποιός(which might roughly be translated, “prose author” as still alive and advising the Ionian Greeks during their revolt against Persia (499-493, see Hdt. 5.36and Hdt. 5.125). Elsewhere, Herodotus cites Hekataios’ story about Athenian dealings with the non-Greek Pelasgians (Hdt. 6.137). At Hdt. 2.143he tells us that Hekataios traced his own genealogy sixteen generations back to descent from a god. When Hekataios visited Egypt, Herodotus tells us, the priests found it implausible that either mortals should be descended from gods or that a genealogy should be so short. They did not merely recite a genealogy, but showed to Hekataios statues of more than 340 generations of high priest, who had passed this position from father to son.

At Hdt. 2.143, Herodotus may portray Hekataios as both provincial and credulous, but he also implies that he is familiar with Hekataios’ “Circumnavigation of the Known World” (γῆς περίοδος). According to Porphyry, a late (3rd century AD) and not very reliable author, Herodotus borrowed from Hecataeus his descriptions of the crocodile (Hdt. 2.70), the hippopotamus (Hdt. 2.71), and the mythical phoenix (Hdt. 2.73). Herodotus certainly had Hekataios’ version of events in mind in many other passages as well.

herodotus as an Investigator (3)

Whatever Herodotus owes to other written sources, Herodotus distinguished himself an active and inquiring reporter. The extent of his travels has already been discussed. Herodotus travelled widely, and he acquired much of what appears in the History by listening to informants and by observing physical evidence, both contemporary and the archaeological remains of the past. The Greek term ἱστορίη, from which our word “history” is derived, means for Herodotus something like “first-hand research,” and Herodotus would surely have identified more closely with the anthropologist studying different cultures in the field or the journalist interrogating the actors of major events than he would with the scholar working primarily with archival materials. We should translate the opening phrase of Herodotus’ History as “this is the report of the researches (ἱστορίη) of Herodotus the Halicarnassian.” Herodotus uses his inquiries to assert an authoritative role in which he can assign both praise and blame to the participants in the events which he relates.

TheAuthority of Herodotus

Whatever Herodotus’ claim to authority, much of what he reports cannot possibly be true. There are plenty of ethnographic tall tales, but Herodotus repeatedly reminds us that he can often do no more than repeat what he himself has heard. Thus, when he describes one-eyed Arismaspians, a fabled people who live in the far north and who steal gold from griffins, he says that this is what people say (Hdt. 3.116: λέγεται) and then adds that he himself does not believe that people, otherwise normal, could be born with one eye. Herodotus records plenty of fanciful tales, not always with such a careful disclaimer. More significant are gross exaggerations. It is, for example, almost inconceivable that Xerxes could have brought 1,700,000 men with him across the Hellespont (Hdt. 7.60.1). Worst for the modern historian are episodes which appear to be clear fabrications. At one point (Hdt. 3.80-82), three Persians engage in a completely Greek debate as to which mode of government, democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy, was superior. When he introduces this story, Herodotus demurely remarks (Hdt. 3.80.1) that the discussions which he will relate will probably seem incredible to most Greeks, but Herodotus will relate them anyway. In this passage he does not distance himself from the report, claiming that he has heard an account of these speeches, but states outright “these utterances were spoken,” ἐλέχθησαν λόγοι. More important, Herodotus will include what appears to be a fabricated meeting without any such warning to the reader. At Hdt. 1.29-33, Herodotus describes a meeting between the Athenian statesman Solon and the Lydian king Kroisos. This meeting (to which we will return) is a central episode in this first book and sets the moral tone for the rest of the history. Its importance for the narrative can hardly be overstated. Nevertheless, Solon almost certainly visited Asia Minor a generation before Kroisos came to power in Lydia. The meeting between the two never could never have taken place. Herodotus includes it because it follows a popular genre of stories about Greek wisemen, and because it allows him to make particular points about fate and human beings. To many modern historians, Herodotus is an enormously frustrating source, for they can never feel sure how far they can trust his word.

herodotus as Critic and Representative of his Time (3)

Intellectually, Herodotus is one of the most important writers who survives from the classical period. He captures better than any other author a comprehensive and reasonably functional moral outlook. When Solon meets Kroisos, he remains utterly unimpressed with the immense wealth which Kroisos has accumulated. Divine forces, Solon observes, are jealous and harsh (Hdt. 1.32.1: τὸ θεῖον πᾶν ἐὸν φθονερόν τε καὶ ταραχῶδες). Wealthy mortals (Hdt. 1.32.5) should be considered “lucky,” εὐτυχής“fortunate,” ὄλβιοςuntil they have completed their lives, for any moment can bring a disastrous change in fortune. A few chapters later (Hdt. 1.86-87), Kroisos, having lost his empire to the Persian emperor Kyros, recalls Solon's words just as he is about to be burnt alive. Realizing that Solon had been right all along, he calls out the Athenian wise man's name. Ultimately, Kroisos conveys his new view of life to Kyros, who chooses to spare Kroisos. With some possibly divine intervention, Kroisos is rescued from the already burning pyre and lives on as a kind of official sage at the Persian court. The remainder of the history focuses on the reigns of four Persian kings, Kyros, Kambyses, Dareios and Xerxes, each of whom undergoes a rise and fall that illustrates the same cyclical view of fate.

herodotus and Sophocles (3)

Connections between particular passages in Herodotus and Sophocles were mentioned in a previous section. Sophocles surely knew of Herodotus’ work and the two men may well have known each other personally. More generally, the two authors approach similar problems but with very different perspectives, and Sophocles in particular may have had Herodotus in mind when he composed many of his plays. It is worth comparing Kroisos’ revelation at Hdt. 1.86with those of Ajax at Soph. Aj. 646-692and of Oedipus Soph. OT 1076-1085. Sophocles’ heroes, like Kroisos, gain insight into the limitations of their mortal conditions, but they hardly turn into sages such as the Herodotean Solon or Kroisos. They become, if anything, more self-assertive, and acknowledge their limits by killing themselves (Ajax) or gouging out their eyes (Oedipus). There are of course many ways to interpret Herodotus and Sophocles, but the figures who appear in these two authors should be closely compared.

On Herodotus’ life, see [Lesky, 1966] 306-9, [Easterling, 1985] 426-442, 783-784, [How, 1912] 1-9. For a discussion of Herodotus’ language and prose, see [Palmer, 1980] 142-152.

Bernadete, Seth. Herodotean Inquiries. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1969. 213. Burkert, Walter, ed. Herodote et les Peuples non Grecs : Neuf Exposes suivi de Discussions. Vandoeuvres-Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1990. 35: 350. Darbo-Peschanski, C. Le Discours du Particulier: Essai sur l' Enquete Herodoteenne. Paris: Seuil, 1987. 252. Evans, J. A. S. Herodotus. Twayne's World Authors Series. Boston: Twayne, 1982. 645: 198. Evans, J. A. S. Herodotus, Explorer of the Past: Three Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. x+166. Fehling, Detlev. Herodotus and his "sources" : Citation, Invention, and Narrative Art. ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers, and Monographs. Leeds, Great Britain: Francis Cairns, 1989. x+277. Flory, Stewart. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987. 204. Fornara, Charles W. Herodotus: an Interpretive Essay. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. 10+98. Gould, John. Herodotus. Historians on Historians. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989. 164. Hart, John. Herodotus and Greek History. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1982. 227. Hartog, Francois. The Mirror of Herodotus: The Representation of the Other in the Writing of History. The New Historicism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988. 5: xxv+386. Hunter, Virginia J. Past and Present in Herodotus and Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. xviii+371. Immerwahr, Henry R. Form and Thought in Herodotus. American Philological Association Monograph Series. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. 23: xviii+374. Lang, Mabel L. Herodotean Narrative and Discourse. Martin Classical Lectures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. 28: viii+179. Lateiner, Donald. The Historical Method of Herodotus. Phoenix Supplementary Volume. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989. 23: x+319. Shimron, Binyamin. Politics and Belief in Herodotus. Historia Einzelschriften. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989. 58: 126. Starr, Chester G. The Flawed Mirror. Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press, 1983. 70. Ussher, Stephen. Herodotus: the Persian Wars: A Companion to the Penguin Translation of Books 5-9 from Herodotus. Classical Studies Series. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1988. 80. Waters, Kenneth H. Herodotos on Tyrants and despots; a Study in Objectivity. Historia Einzelschriften. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1971. 15: 100. Waters, Kenneth H. Herodotos, the Historian: his Problems, Methods, and Originality. London: Croom Helm, 1985. 194. Gregory Crane

• the historian: Hdt. 1.1, Paus. 1.5.1, Paus. 1.33.5, Paus. 1.43.1, Paus. 2.16.1, Paus. 2.20.10, Paus. 2.30.4, Paus. 3.2.3, Paus. 3.25.7, Paus. 4.35.12, Paus. 5.26.4, Paus. 10.20.2, Paus. 10.32.8, 9, Paus. 10.33.8, 9, 12