This article presents a new conjecture on Herodotus 1.51.3.

This article locates Hegel’s understanding of the nature of knowledge in various contexts (Hegel’s logical system, Kantian idealism, the Enlightenment ideal of encyclopaedia) and applies it specifically to his systematic classification of histories. Here Hegel labels Herodotus an “original” historian, and hence incapable of the broader vision and self-reflexive method of a “philosophical” historian like Hegel himself. This theoretical classification is not quite in accord with Hegel’s actual appropriation of material from Herodotus’s narrative for his own purposes. These (...) appropriations point in complex ways to dimensions of the “Father of History” which are proto-Hegelian, as well as to other dimensions which are not. (shrink)

The broad aim of this inquiry is to use a close reading of the text to explore Herodotus' interest in "human nature", in other words to measure him by the standard offered by the contemporary Sophistic movement and by Thucydides, who shares the same preoccupation. "Human nature" is taken to include human psychology at all levels from individuals to city states, nations and empires. The focus is on Herodotus' sensitivity to the psychological complexities of individuals, in particular to (...) the contradictions and paradoxes in their behaviour; his interest in the mechanisms of social and political life; and his examination of the phenomenon of empire and how he shares with Thucydides a concern with its psychological motivation, with particular attention to his foreshadowing of Athenian empire. The study concludes by placing Herodotus firmly within the Sophistic (and Hippocratic) intellectual milieu and identifying him as an active participant in the major debates of the late 5thc. Central to the inquiry is the detailed analysis of extended contexts, exploring how large sections of text are put together, with consideration not merely of the structure and literary presentation but also Herodotus' use of his sources and the intentionality of the narrative. The fundamental hypothesis is that Herodotus is a complex and sophisticated writer with a developed critical acumen in his use of sources, such that he uses his material much more than his material uses him. (shrink)

Herodotus of Halicarnassus was an Ionian traveler and storyteller who lived in the 5th century BC. He is almost exclusively known for writing The Histories, a collection of "inquiries" about the places and peoples he encountered during his wide-ranging travels around the Mediterranean littoral and into the Mesopotamia.

This article aims to discuss the relationship between Herodotus and Thucydides. New scholarly trends date the composition of Herodotus’ Histories to 413 BC, or even later, against high chronology of 431, and suggest Herodotus’ use of Thucydides’ narrative. Herodotus’ debt to Thucydides has been suggested by scholars either cautiously or boldly. This examination will show cases where Herodotus is alluding to events of the Peloponnesian War or even responding to Thucydides’ narrative. In fact, anachronisms, presentisms, (...) and allusions to Thucydides’ text can be found throughout Herodotus’ narrative. We will explore the reasons for Herodotus’ engaging with the events of that War, conjecturing about his goals: attracting the interest of his audience, or providing a warning to his contemporaries; moreover, it is important to understand whether this engagement was just coincidental. (shrink)

Herodotus uses the encounter between the Milesian tyrant Aristagoras and the Spartan king Cleomenes to further his authorial self-presentation. He contrasts his own aims and methods as an inquirer with those of Aristagoras, who becomes a “rival” inquirer for Herodotus in this passage. Seeking military aid from Cleomenes for the Ionian Revolt, Aristagoras points to his bronze map of the world and gives an ethnographical and geographical account of the peoples and land of Asia, from Ionia to Susa. (...) Aristagoras accordingly takes on many of the characteristics of Herodotus himself, including the use of shared ethnographical language. Aristagoras' ethnographical account is marred, however, by a rhetorical strategy that depicts the Asians as wealthy, but weak adversaries. While careful not to criticize Aristagoras' map itself, Herodotus is able to exploit Aristagoras' verbal description of his map to illustrate his own forthcoming account of the Persian Royal Road , which Herodotus assures readers is even more “accurate” than Aristagoras' account had been . Aristagoras is “deceiving” Cleomenes “well,” says Herodotus, until he tells the “truth” about the length of the journey to Susa . Telling the truth is a mistake for the deceiver Aristagoras, but an obligation for the inquirer Herodotus. (shrink)

The battle of Salamis can be dated with a high degree of certainty. Probably about the time of that battle, Cleombrotus was at the Isthmus, constructing the defences there . At some point while building the wall, he considered giving chase to the Persian army. When his sacrifice was answered by a solar eclipse, he took this as a bad omen and immediately returned to Lacedaemon . The eclipse visible to Cleombrotus could only have been that of 2 October 480. (...) Now it is generally supposed that Cleombrotus would not have thought to abandon the construction of the wall and pursue Xerxes unless the latter had just begun his retreat from Athens. Thus, as Herodotus says that a few days () after the battle of Salamis Xerxes withdrew from Attica , the battle of Salamis probably occurred before 2 October 480. (shrink)

This essay explains the appearance of tragic narrative patterns and motifs in the Croesus logos not as a passive manifestation of "tragic influence," but as a self-conscious textual strategy whereby Herodotus makes his narratives familiar and engaging while also demonstrating the distinctive traits of his own innovative discourse, historie. Herodotus' purposive appropriation and modification of tragic technique manifests the critical engagement with other authors and literary genres that is one of the defining features of the Histories. Herodotus (...) embellishes the story of Atys and Adrastus with numerous formal and thematic features of Attic tragedy. Uniquely in the Histories, the story traces the full arc of a tragic drama, from the king's ominous dream of Atys' death to catastrophe, lament, and burial. The celebrated climactic description of Adrastus' suicide, however, transcends Herodotus' dramatic model. In describing Adrastus as the most unfortunate man "of all that he himself knew," Herodotus introduces an idiom used elsewhere in the Histories to portray the activity of the histor, and thus places the unmistakable stamp of his own genre upon tragic narrative. In a fully mimetic episode that lacks the author's characteristically intrusive "voiceprint," Herodotus seems to suggest that he could beat the dramatists at their own game if he chose to play it. Two other episodes make similar use of tragic motifs on a smaller scale. In the story of Gyges and Candaules Herodotus adapts the Aeschylean motif of the decision made under duress to focus attention on human causation and socio-political issues of fundamental interest to him. Finally, the tragic stylization of Croesus' pyre scene allows Herodotus to manipulate audience expectations while subtly demonstrating, through the use of indirect discourse, the interest in source criticism that sets Herodotean historie apart from the poetic tradition. (shrink)

Early in Book 1 of Herodotus' Histories, Solon speaks to Croesus about the jealousy of the gods and the ephemeral nature of human happiness . Since Solon's speech is so prominently placed, and since it introduces themes that recur throughout the Histories, it has traditionally been seen as programmatic, i.e., as expressing Herodotus' own views about the gods and human happiness. Although the assumption that Solon speaks for Herodotus has long been the standard view, it has recently (...) been challenged on the grounds that Herodotus himself never directly affirms his agreement with what Solon says. On the other hand, many scholars have noted that Herodotus does not always state his views directly: he often uses literary devices such as analogy, juxtaposition, and the repetition of narrative patterns to indicate his views. After isolating the three main principles of Solon's speech , this paper examines the direct and indirect evidence for Herodotus' acceptance of these principles. After examining the evidence in Books 1-9 of the Histories, the paper concludes that Herodotus does indeed agree with the views of his character Solon, and that he makes his agreement clear both explicitly and implicitly, through analogy, repetition, and juxtaposition. Moreover, the position of Solon's speech indicates that Herodotus meant it to be programmatic, setting forth basic assumptions about the nature of human life and its relation to the gods which could then provide a philosophical framework for the Histories as a whole. (shrink)

Numerous ancient sources attest that Artemisia of Halicarnassus, a fifth-century BCE tyrant whose polis came under Persian rule in 524 BCE, figures prominently in Xerxes’ naval campaign against Greece. At least since Pompeius Trogus’ first-century BCE Philippic History, interpretations of Artemisia have juxtaposed her “virile courage” (uirilem audaciam) with Xerxes’ “womanish fear” (muliebrem timorem) primarily as a means of belittling the effeminate non-Greeks. My paper argues that although Herodotus is aware of such interpretations of Artemisia, he depicts her primarily (...) as an excellent counsel, a woman who is not only brave in battle, but who is a wonder primarily because of her intellectual excellences in deliberative rhetoric and “geo-political” strategy in the Greco-Persian world. (shrink)

This article re-evaluates the significance attributed to Hecataeus¿ encounter with the Theban priests described by Herodotus (2.143) by setting it against the evidence of Late Period Egyptian representations of the past. In the first part a critique is offered of various approaches Classicists have taken to this episode and its impact on Greek historiography. Classicists have generally imagined this as an encounter in which the young, dynamic and creative Greeks construct an image of the static, ossified and incredibly old (...) culture of the Egyptians, a move which reveals deeper assumptions in the scholarly discourse on Greeks and ¿other¿ cultures in the Mediterranean world. But the civilization that Herodotus confronted in his long excursus on Egypt was not an abstract, eternal Egypt. Rather, it was the Egypt of his own day, at a specific historical moment ¿ a culture with a particular understanding of its own long history. The second part presents evidence of lengthy Late Period priestly genealogies, and more general archaizing tendencies. Remarkable examples survive of the sort of visual genealogy which would have impressed upon the travelling Greek historians the long continuum of the Egyptian past. These include statues with genealogical inscriptions and relief sculptures representing generations of priests succeeding to their fathers¿ office. These priestly evocations of a present firmly anchored in the Egyptian past are part of a wider pattern of cultivating links with the historical past in the Late Period of Egyptian history. Thus, it is not simply the marvel of a massive expanse of time which Herodotus encountered in Egypt, but a mediated cultural awareness of that time. The third part of the essay argues that Herodotus used this long human past presented by the Egyptian priests in order to criticize genealogical and mythical representations of the past and develop the notion of an historical past. On the basis of this example, the article concludes by urging a reconsideration of the scholarly paradigm for imagining the encounter between Greeks and ¿others¿ in ethnographic discourse in order to recognize the agency of the Egyptian priests, and other non-Greek ¿informants¿. (shrink)

At Aristotle's Rhetorica III 9.2 , in a discussion of λξις ερομνη and κατεστραμμνη, occurs the following misquotation of Herodotus' proem.

‘He who tries to play a double part, and fails in the attempt, as Histiaeus did, is not likely to occupy an honourable place in history. He seems to have been of great and selfish ambition, without the capacity to form a judgement as to the means requisite to carry it out, and without any scruple as to the means he did adopt.’ Grundy's judgement has proved widely influential among modern scholars. It has been seriously questioned only by Heinlein, who, (...) in making Histiaeus the loyal confidant of Darius, offered a radically different interpretation of his political career. But the wild and undisciplined nature of many of Heinlein's conjectures prevented his hypothesis from winning acceptance. In this paper I venture to suggest that the accepted view of Histiaeus as a private adventurer might be false, and that a revaluation of his career along the lines proposed by Heinlein might be profitable. (shrink)

In Demosthenes’ speech On the False Embassy, we read an obelized infinitive at §231, †εὐθενεῖσθαι†, ‘to be flourishing’, in an imaginary dialogue designed to captivate and persuade the judges through its striking antitheses and dramatic tone: — τί οὖν μετὰ ταῦτα.

Herodotus holds an honoured place among the pioneers of Greek epigraphy. We seek in vain for earlier signs of any appreciation of the historical value of inscriptions, and though we may conjecture that the antiquarian interests of some of his contemporaries or near-contemporaries might well have led them in this direction, our view of the beginnings of Greek epigraphical study must be based on Herodotus, whether or not he truly deserves to be regarded as its ρχηγέτηϲ. Apart from (...) its significance in the history of scholarship Herodotus' use of inscriptions may be expected to throw some light on his methods and on his conception of his task. He cites epigraphic evidence throughout his work and in relation to a wide range of topics; if his use of this material suggests any general conclusions, we do not need to allow for the bias of a single source or the effect of peculiar local conditions, as we must when we consider his accounts of individual episodes or areas. We are relatively well placed to assess his procedure. We have a reasonably clear idea of the general appearance of the various scripts concerned , and in this respect enjoy a considerable advantage over the majority of Herodotus' original audience. Three of the inscriptions which he cites have been wholly or partly preserved, and thus provide a simple gauge of his accuracy in reporting such evidence. (shrink)

This essay argues that the motifs of divine vengeance present in the Histories reflect a conscious, considered theory of divine action. This theory is defined by Herodotus’ empirical methodology and his lack of poetic revelation or other claimed insight into the nature and motivations of divinity. For Herodotus, divinity possesses a basically regulatory role in the cosmos, ensuring that history follows certain consistent patterns. One such pattern is vengeance, by which a large-scale balance of reciprocity is maintained in (...) human events through human and divine acts of repayment. This theory underlies Herodotus’ historical project, reinforcing his general skepticism about human knowledge and power and making possible his universalizing approach to historical narrative. (shrink)

Our understanding of the world is not static; it can both expand and contract, and it can also stagnate. In history the expansion of the known universe has come about from various causes, from scientific advance, the slow processes of trade and exploration, from, colonization, and especially from conquest. Periods of expansion produce often a re-evaluation of the external world, both that which was already known and that which was previously unknown, or on the fringes of the known. But no (...) one is wholly capable of a direct response toreality: reality as soon as it is experienced is perceived, organized: ‘Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen nicht der Dinge’. (shrink)

As A. B. Lloyd points out, the passage from Herodotus which includes this sentence is the most important non-Egyptian commentary on Ancient Egyptian shipbuilding. In the years following the discovery of the Dynasty IV ships buried beside Khufu's pyramid at Giza , J. S. Morrison suggested a change in the translation of the word επκτωσαν. Traditionally, and in Lloyd's commentary, the verb μπακτω has been interpreted as meaning ‘to caulk’. Morrison, however, believes that επκτωσαν ought to refer to reinforcement (...) of a ship's fastenings with papyrus ropes. He bases this interpretation on the evidence of the Khufu boats, which are sewn through v-shaped mortises across the hull's width , and on the argument that caulking is better done from the outside. Lloyd has challenged this translation, but we would like to support it with some further evidence, in particular evidence of Egyptian shipbuilding practice. (shrink)

Our understanding of the world is not static; it can both expand and contract, and it can also stagnate. In history the expansion of the known universe has come about from various causes, from scientific advance, the slow processes of trade and exploration, from, colonization, and especially from conquest. Periods of expansion produce often a re-evaluation of the external world, both that which was already known and that which was previously unknown, or on the fringes of the known. But no (...) one is wholly capable of a direct response toreality: reality as soon as it is experienced is perceived, organized: ‘Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen nicht der Dinge’. (shrink)