Herodotus (3,277 words)

Article Table of Contents1. [1] The historian Herodotus, approx. 485-424 BC2. [2] Student of Epicurus3. [3] Greek physician practising in Rome, 1st/2nd cent. AD4. [4] Sculptor from Olynthus

(Ἡρόδοτος; Heródotos).[German version]

[1] The historian Herodotus, approx. 485-424 BCThe historian Herodotus.Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

A. LifeSources on the life of H., the ‘father of history’ (Cic. Leg. 1,1,5), c. 485-424 BC (fundamental for all of the following: [1]) are, apart from the information he provided himself in particular, the Suda s.v. H. or s.v. Panyassis. H. came from Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum) in the south-west of Asia Minor. The names of his father, Lyxes, and his uncle, Panyassis, a famous epic poet, point to Carian origin. Because of a failed attempt to overthrow the tyrant Lygdamis, H. fled for some time to Samos; after returning home, he was involved in the final overthrow of Lygdamis before 454. Because of differences with his fellow citizens, he later left his homeland forever and emigrated to the panhellenic colony of Thurii founded in 444. According to Eusebius (Chronica Arm. 83), H. held public readings from his work in 445/4 in Athens and was given a large fee for it (cf. Diyllus FGrH 73 F 3). In Athens he was also introduced to the circle of Pericles and made friends with Sophocles who wrote an ode to H. (Anthologia Lyrica Graeca I3 79 Diehl) and on several occasions made reference to the work of H. (cf. especially Soph. Ant. 903ff. with Hdt. 3,119; further passages: [2. 3183] and [3. 2ff.]). On the other hand, a lasting influence of tragedy on H. is noticeable, e.g. in the story of Adrastus (Hdt. 1,34ff.) or the portrayal of Xerxes (bks. 7 and 8). According to Apollodorus (FGrH 244 F 7), H. was 53 years old at the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War: the date of birth resulting from this - 484 - should be about accurate. H. still experienced the first years of the Peloponnesian War (cf. Hdt. 6,91; 7,137; 233; 9,73). In 424 his historical work was available, as several passages from it were parodied in the ‘Acharnians’ of Aristophanes (cf. e.g. Aristoph. Ach. 523ff. with Hdt. 1,4; [4. 21014] lists scholars who support a later date of publication). He probably died a little later.H. went on extended journeys whose chronology is uncertain [5. 128ff.; 6; 7. XVff.]: 1. to the Black Sea region, base at Olbia (Hdt. 4,17), from there up the Hypanis to the land of the Scythians (4,81). In the process H. probably also got to know the southern Black Sea coast, Thrace and Macedonia. 2. to Egypt up to Elephantine and the first cataract of the Nile. In total about a four-month stay after the battle of Papremis 460/459 (cf. 3,12); from Egypt probably a detour to Cyrene (cf. 2,32f.; 181). 3. to the Near East, to Tyre (2,44), to the Euphrates (1,185) and to Babylon (1,178ff.), but not to actual Persia. 4. to the whole Greek settlement area, among others to the motherland (locations of battles in the Persian War!), Asia Minor, Magna

Graecia and Sicily.Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

B. Structure of his workH.'s work is completely extant; the classification into nine books (cf. Diod. 11,37,6) probably goes back to the Alexandrian philologist Aristarchus [4] of Samothrace who also wrote a commentary on H. The proem states: ‘This is the presentation of the investigation (historíēs apódexis) of H. of Halicarnassus, so that what happened among humans shall not fade with time nor shall great deeds, some the work of Hellens, some of barbarians, or lose their fame, particularly however, for whatever blame or cause (aitíē) they waged war upon each other’ (on the proem most recently [8. 234ff.] with literature). H. brushes aside the mythological conflicts between Greeks and ‘Barbarians’ (1,1-5) and turns immediately to the historical period, i.e. the recent past, namely the Lydian king Croesus (c. 560-547) ‘of whom I know that he started the injustices against the Greeks.’ Thus, the sequence of the ‘barbarian kings’ who wanted to subjugate the Greeks becomes the leitmotif of the portrayal: Croesus (1,6-94), Cyrus (1,141-214), Cambyses (2,1-3; 70), Darius (3,61-7,4), Xerxes (7,5-8 end) (on the structure of the work cf. especially [1. 288ff.] and [9; 10. 47ff.]).To this single-stranded main narration H. adds an immense wealth of geographical, ethnographical and historical material in the form of shorter and longer excursuses (lógoi), at whose ends the main narration is continued where it was interrupted. The individual peoples (country and people, history, etc.) are always introduced where they first come into contact with the conquering power Persia. Examples: 1,178-200 (Babylonians); 1,201-216 (Massagetians); 2,2-182 (Egyptians); 3,20-24 (Ethiopians); 4,5-82 (Scythians); 1,142-151 (Ionians); 3,39-60; 120-149 (Samians). The history of the Greek motherland, especially of Athens and Sparta, however, is presented in several parts that are correlated with each other (Athens: 1,59-64; 5,55-96; 6,121ff.; Sparta: 1,65-68; 5,39-48; 6,51-84). In the Ionian Revolt (5,28ff.) the Persian and the Greek narrative threads are united: H. describes the great Persian War with a technique of parallel narration, in which the events are represented alternately from one side or the other up to the clash of the two powers. The expedition of Darius that fails at Marathon (6,102ff.) is followed by the great campaign of Xerxes, from the decision to go to war (7,5ff.) through the mustering of his armies (7,59ff.), the battles of Thermopylae (7,198-239), of Artemisium (8,1-23) and of Salamis (8,40-96) to the victories at Plataeae (9,19-89) and Mycale (9,90-107). The work ends with the capture of Sestus in 479 which marks the Greeks' transition from being on the defensive to being on the offensive. Whether it is complete or not in its present form is contested (cf. the research review in [1. 152]; on this problem most recently [12. 47ff.]).Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

C. Genesis of his workCharacteristic is on the one hand the extraordinarily wide exposition with a great amount of ethnographical and geographical material, and on the other hand a density of representation that increases as the work develops and that narrates the history of the Persian Wars in an essentially cohesive way in the last three books. This discrepancy is interpreted biographically

by numerous scholars (this so-called analytical trend was initiated by [1. 205ff., 467ff.] and further developed especially by [5. 442]; cf. also [13. 36-68]): H. is said to have originally been a geographer and ethnographer like Hecataeus [3] and in this capacity to have written the great ethnographic lógoithat were originally independent constructs. Only under the influence of Periclean Athens did he become a historian and decided to portray the Persian Wars, the great glorious feat of the Athenians. Accordingly a range of very heterogeneous material went into his work and was combined into a whole after a fashion. In fact there is, however, much to support the view that H. planned and wrote his work in the present form from the outset (supporters of the unitarian faction are among others [14; 15. 360ff.; 4. 32ff.]).Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

D. Sources and historical methodsIn the ethnographical-geographical parts, H. now and then uses literary sources, for instance Hecataeus [3], who forms the basis for i.a. 2,70-73 (FGrH 324a); on the other hand there is almost a total lack of written sources for the historical parts: H. occasionally uses poetry like the ‘Persians’ of Aeschylus, and he also uses inscriptions (e.g. the Snake Column of Delphi, cf. ML 27 with Hdt. 8,82) and collections of oracles, but neither notable historical works nor local chronicles, nor lists of officials and victors were available to him. The ancient Oriental and Egyptian records remained incomprehensible to him. His method of working was essentially as follows (cf. 2,99; in this regard in particular [16; 17; 4. 35ff.; 13. 44f.]): in the ethnographical-geographical parts he mainly worked on the basis of autopsy (his own observation) and his own experience [18], in the historical sections on the basis of oral tradition (cf. the treatises mentioned in [4. 21134]) that he collected from ‘knowledgeable’ people, either individuals (2,28,1; 125,6; 4,76,6; 8,65,6), professional groups (‘the priests’) or anonymous inhabitants of countries (‘the Egyptians’, ‘the Scythians’, ‘the Carthaginians’) and cities (‘the Athenians’, ‘the Corinthians’, ‘the Cyrenians’ etc.) [13. 44].The assumption that H. ‘quite freely invented’ the virtually unbelievable wealth of such citations and should be regarded as a mere ‘arm-chair scholar’ who only feigned his journeys, his personal observation and his sources, is an aberration on the part of modern research (this research faction was established by [19] and still has numerous adherents, e.g. [20; 21; 22 and 23], but on [23] cf. individually the essays quoted and critically discussed by [35. 234-285]) that actually require no serious refutation ([24] is fully justified in opposing the scholars mentioned in the previous note who consider the historical work of H. to be a ‘great compilation of lies’). In fact H.'s unique ‘scholarly’ achievement lies in his crystallization - from the welter, the diversity, the conflicting oral information that he drew from numerous persons in the most varied of places - of the history of the Persian Wars as a unity in its form that has become classical, which he achieved without notable written sources.H.'s methodological basic principle is: ‘I am obligated to report that which is reported, but I am not obligated to believe everything; and these words shall apply to my entire representation’ (7,152) [4. 34ff.]. This maxim results in the rendering of divergent and partly contradicting traditions, according to the tendency and view of the respective informants, without H. supporting the correctness of one version or the other. Thus, for example, an Alcmeonid and a Philaid tradition in Athens, a tradition for and against Demaratus in Sparta, a Spartan, Tegeatic and Athenian tradition regarding the battle of Plataeae, exist equally side by side.

Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

E. Bias and credibilityWith regard to the great thematic framework, it can be noted that H. often acknowledges the superiority of ‘barbarians’, especially the Egyptians, to the Greeks (cf. 2,4; 32; 50; 58; 77; 82) and always describes the customs and way of life of non-Greeks with great objectivity. His reports about foreign peoples, e.g. Egyptians, Babylonians, Scythians and Massagetians, also prove to be reliable to a large extent (cf. [4. 21136]; most recent [25; 26]). With regard to the main topic, H., similar to Aeschylus, regards the Persian Wars as a battle between freedom and slavery, democracy and despotism, frugality and luxury, individual competence and the anonymous mass (cf. especially the dialogue between Xerxes and Demaratus in 7,101-104) [27. 215ff.], but he should by no means be regarded as a panegyrist of the ‘National War’: in his view the Persian Wars under Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes rather brought greater disaster to Hellas then all the previous 20 generations together (6,98). H. also mentions the mistakes and weaknesses of the Greeks by name, e.g. their lack of unity, their particularism, their reciprocal rivalries and disputes, the way in which numerous poleis sided with the Persians, and the shortcomings of the Greeks of Asia Minor in the Ionian Revolt [2. 565f.]. He does indeed admire the nómos (‘law and customs’) and the bravery of the Spartans very much (cf. 7,101-104), but in the passage about Athens (7,139) he regards the Athenians as actual ‘saviours of Greece’. Certainly his admiration for Athens is generally not unlimited, his work must therefore by no means be considered to be pro-Athenian in its bias (first demonstrated by [28. 474ff.]; cf. in this regard most recently [29]). In the chronological field H.'s achievements were also considerable (on this cf. [30]).Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

F. World view and view of historyThe transitory nature of all earthly things is a leitmotif in the entire presentation (1,5), and the ‘cycle of human things’ is mentioned throughout, especially in the logos about Solon and Croesus (1,207). Despite occasional rationalism a religious world view predominates that is manifested in a fateful predestination of events, the idea of the gods' envy and némesis (retribution) and the punishment of human hubris by ‘the divine’ (cf. e.g. 1,30-33: Croesus; 3,39ff.: Polycrates of Samos; 7,35: Xerxes) (cf. [31. 368ff.]). Divine agency is expressed in omens, dreams, oracles and the voices of warners, but human motivations and decisions are not unimportant either [32].Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

G. Herodotus as narrative writerSince Cicero (Leg. 1,1,5) H. has been considered to be not only the first historian but also the first narrative writer of the West. From the wealth of anecdotes, novellas and stories the following can be emphasized: the picaresque deed of Rhampsinitus (2,121), the ring of Polycrates (3,40-45), the recklessness of Hippocleides (6,126ff.), and the horror meal of Harpagus (1,117ff.). Such tales are not an end in themselves but contain in nuce the elements

of Herodotus' world view; the same applies to conversations, dialogues, and direct speeches that can often be found in his works [31; 33].Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

H. Language and styleAncient stylistic criticism (Dion. Hal. Ad Pompeium 3,11 and De Thucydide 23) already emphasized the poikilía (‘vividness’) of H.'s language that reflects the great wealth of content. Colloquial-style narrative, matter-of-fact reporting style, the linguistic means of the epic, the tragedy and of Sophistic are the main factors in his stylistic synthesis that as a whole, however, has a character sui generis. [34].Meister, Klaus (Berlin)[German version]

I. InfluenceH. had an enormous influence on all subsequent Greek and Roman historiography; on this [3; 4. 40f.]. He prompted the writing of historical specialized literature (e.g. works of Hellanicus, Antiochus), whilst Thucydides (1,22) formulated his historical method in dialogue with H. (who is not mentioned by name). The shaping of rhetorical, dramatic or pragmatic historiography took place only in the Hellenistic period but it is already present, at an embryonic stage, in the work of H. The commentary of Aristarchus of Samothrace (PAmherst II 12, 1901) shows H., to be a recognized classic work, and also Plutarch's writing ‘On the malice of Herodotus’ attests to his great authority. In the Middle Ages two textual recensions existed; in Humanism and in the Renaissance H. was known through the Latin translation of Lorenzo Valla (1452-1456) but well into the 20th cent. he was still regarded as an unreliable inventor of stories. Only in recent times has H. begun to emerge from the shadow of Thucydides. The universal historical concept of his work, the breadth of his idea of history, the detailed consideration of the anthropological dimension as well as the heuristic principle ‘report what is reported’ among other things contributed to this [4. 41].HistoriographyMeister, Klaus (Berlin)

Bibliography1 f. jacoby, s.v. H., RE Suppl. 2, 205-520 = Griech. Historiker, 1956, 7-1642 schmid/stählin I 23 k.-a. riemann, Das herodoteische Geschichtswerk in der Antike, diss. 19674 k. meister, Die griech. Geschichtsschreibung, 19905 k. von fritz, Die griech. Geschichtsschreibung, 19676 r. p. lisler, The Travels of Herodotus, 19807 d. asheri, Erodoto, Le storie, libro 1, 19888 k. meister, Die Interpretation histor. Quellen, vol. 1, 19979 h. wood, The Histories of Herodotus, 197210 k. h. waters, Herodotus, the Historian, 198511 h. bengtson, Griech. Geschichte, 51977

12 r. oswald, Gedankliche und thematische Linien in Herodots Werk, in: Grazer Beiträge 21, 1995, 47-5913 o. lendle, Einführung in die griech. Geschichtsschreibung, 199214 j. cobet, Herodots Exkurse und die Frage der Einheit seines Werkes, 197115 chr. meier, Die Entstehung des Politischen bei den Griechen, 198016 k. verdin, De historisch-kritische methode van Herodotus, 197117 d. lateiner, The Historical Method of Herodotus, 198918 g. schepens, L' autopsie dans la méthode des historiens grecs du Ve siècle avant J.-C., 198019 d. fehling, Die Quellenangaben bei Herodot, 1971 (Eng. transl. 1989)20 s. west, Herodotus' Epigraphical Interests, in: CQ 79, 1985, 278-30521 f. hartog, The Mirror of Herodotus, 198822 e. hall, Inventing the Barbarian, 198923 o. k. armayor, Herodotus' Autopsy of the Fayoum, 198524 w. k. pritchett, The Liar School of Herodotus, 199325 Hérodote et les peuples non grecs, Entretiens 35, 198826 r. rollinger, Herodots babylonischer Logos (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 84), 199327 w. schadewaldt, Die Anfänge der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen, 198228 h. strasburger, Herodot und das perikleische Athen, in: w. marg (ed.), Herodot, 31982, 574-60829 m. ostwald, Herodotus and Athens, in: Illinois Classical Studies 16, 1991, 137-14830 h. strasburger, Herodots Zeitrechnung, in: w. marg (ed.), Herodot, 31982, 688-73631 lesky32 l. huber, Rel. und polit. Beweggründe in der Geschichtsschreibung des Herodot, diss. 196533 m. lang, Herodotean Narrative and Discourse, 198434 w. schadewaldt, Die Anfänge der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen, in: Antike 10, 1934, 144-168, esp. 15835 w. k. pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography, vol. 4, 1982.

Editions:j. feix, 2 vols. (Heimeran) 51995a. d. godley, 4 vols. (Loeb), 1922-1938k. hude, 2 vols. (Oxford), 1926/7ph.-e. legrand, 10 vols. (Budé), 1946-1954h. b. rosen, 2 vols. (Teubner), 1987 and 1997.

Commentaries:d. asheri et al. (Mondadori) 1988ff. (Ital.), one book respectivelyw. w. how, j. wells, 2 vols., 21928h. stein, 5 vols., 4-61893-1908On book 2: a. b. lloyd, 2 vols., 1975-1987.

Lexica:j. e. powell, 1938.

Bibliography:Most recent fr. bubel, Herodot-Bibliographie 1980-1988, 1991.

German translations:th. braun, h. barth, 2 vols., 21985a. horneffer, 41971w. marg, 2 vols., 31980h. stein, w. stammler, 1984.

Bibliography:t. s. brown, The Greek Historians, 1973, 25ff.a. corcella, Erodoto e l'analogia, 1984h. drexler, Herodot-Studien, 1972h. erbse, Studien zum Verständnis Herodots, 1992Id., Histories apodexis bei Herodot, in: Glotta 73, 1995/96, 64ff.j. a. evans, Herodotus, 1982Id., Herodotus, Explorer of the Past, 1991 j. gould, Herodotus, 1989Id., Herodotus and Religion, in: s. hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography, 1994, 91-106d. boedeker (ed.), Herodotus and the Invention of History, 1987 (= Arethusa, vol. 20)v. hunter, Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides, 1982h. r. immerwahr, Form and Thought in Herodotus, 1966t. j. luce, The Greek Historians, 1997, 15ff.w. marg (ed.), Herodot, 31982 (WdF 26)d. müller, Topographischer Bildkommentar zu den Historien Herodots, 1987b. shimron, Politics and Belief in Herodotus, 1989.[German version]

Cite this page"Herodotus." Brill’s New Pauly. Antiquity volumes edited by: Hubert Cancik and , Helmuth Schneider. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. Francisco Cortés Gabaudan. 15 December 2013 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/herodotus-e511320>