Hello and Welcome to the Dropout Classicist Newsletter! Today we will be covering the Herodotus! This article is adapted from an essay I wrote a while ago, so is a little more academic than I usually attempt. If you enjoyed this, and want to read more on Ancient History and Mythology, please consider subscribing!
Herodotus is the father of history, or that is the title we often bestow upon him. Anyone wishing to learn about Greek history via the Greeks themselves is handed his ‘Histories’. His works are entertaining, insightful and full of fantastic and delightful tangents. He towers among some of the greatest non-fiction writers in the world, his work untouchable on its pedestal. Only the likes of his near-contemporary Thucydides is heralded as coming even close in cruciality for our understanding of the ancient world. Academics often idolise him, but can we even trust him?
History is an evolving art, and we often look at Herodotus as the ‘inventor’. Often, this sort of attribution is a pitfall common to human nature. We want a name and a story for things, we like to picture an individual with a motive and a vision. Nowhere is this behaviour more common than in Greek history. Whenever they can, writers tie a concept, event or idea to a big name, hero or god. This can be seen with the likes of drama, where big names such as Aeschylus added in the concept of a third actor, and a figure named Thespis (who’s name gives us the modern term Thespian) is credited with the entire concept. No doubt this sensationalisation of founding finds root in oral history, the primary method of the spread of information just before Herodotus and the relatively recent (re)introduction of writing.
‘In what way is this relevant to Herodotus’ trustworthiness?’ you are no doubt wondering. I believe this concept of attribution to a big name is a major factor in Herodotus’ title as the father of history. We can definitely say he is not the first to display inquiry into the past, so calling him the first historian is a generous oversimplification. Prior to Herodotus, other early writers in the Greek world were taking note of genealogy and geography, such as the obscure Hekataios. Herodotus is even theorised to use and even refute some of Hekataios’ work in his Histories, which may be one of the earliest examples of scholarly citations and shade. Genealogy and geography were important elements of the aforementioned oral history so common in the Greek world. Knowing the decent of your neighbours was important to understanding who they were, and determining the ‘civilised’ from the ‘barbarian’, as the greeks would have termed them. Plus, this kind of gathering of information is not unique to Greek thinkers, as Babylonians and Persians alike are reported to keep historical records. To call Herodotus the father of history is to centre history on the Greek world.
However, while his title of ‘the father of history’ may be in refute, his title as historian should certainly not be. Often, the public image of a historian is one of objectivity. Herodotus is often far from objective. However, the true power of historians is that of inquiry. This is seen no better than in the title of Herodotus’ works: ἱστορία. Though often translated as ‘history’, the meaning is ‘a learning via inquiry’ or just plainly ‘inquiries’. Herodotus is not the first to attempt to record events, but he is one of the first examples of someone analysing them.
A key consideration with anyone writing at any point in time is the potential biases they may have, and the potential cultural differences they may take for granted. If we are to question Herodotus’ trustworthiness, we must take into account how he deals with them. After all, he is writing at a time when literacy is very low, in a world of prejudice and divide. He is also writing in a world where myth and truth lay intertwined, where gods and heroes of equal relevance to living, breathing people.
Some scholars have argued that the Greeks did not question the heroic past and myths of origin. Commonly cited examples are Plato, claiming in his Republic that Homer’s works are slanderous of heroes and gods as though they were historical figures, and Herodotus’ writings, like his pondering of the kidnappings of Helen, Io and Europa in his opening.
For my part, I shall not say that this or that story is true, but I shall identify the one who I myself know did the Greeks unjust deeds, and thus proceed with my history, and speak of small and great cities of men alike.
This is often held against early historians as a critique, though I believe we can use it as a defence of their methods. For example, Herodotus discusses Heracles quite a lot. Though we know Heracles is a mythical figure, he is not to the Greeks at this time. Herodotus therefore does not question his existence when met with tales about him, but he frequently scrutinises the contents of the tales. With regards to human based biases, which are again crucial given the intrinsic xenophobia in much ancient culture, many scholars take the stance that Herodotus is not too influenced by culture when judging evidence. Seen as he was born in Anatolia, near the borders of the Persian Empire, and spent a large portion of his live travelling, he seems rather fond of exploring and documenting the world. His chapters on Egypt are ones I often find myself revisiting. Of course, he writes almost completely as an outsider and assuming himself to be the more civilised, but often he has a genuine curiosity and excitement that sets him apart.
This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvellous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other. - Histories, Opening line
In no way does any of this mean we should take his opinions without a second thought. History is always written by the victors, and this crucial factor is evident in what Herodotus chooses to record. He has a very obvious sway towards Athens and its democracy, praising the citizens for their defeats of the Persians in the Persian War. It is very clear to see what side he takes, though not all of his works focus on the war between Greeks and Persians. But to say Herodotus is alone here would be a mistake. If we do not consider the biases of authors, ancient or modern, we fall into a trap of dangerous thinking. This is a behaviour exhibited by even Herodotus himself, when he jots his own thoughts on the accounts he receives from those he questions. If would be wise of us to treat his work with a similar level of scrutiny, and it is charming to imagine him encouraging this.
When it comes to looking at the past, written accounts are always scarce. For the time at which he writes, Herodotus’ works are remarkable. Very often, he is our soul written source, and his only competitor is archaeology itself. Thankfully, both tread very different ground. When researching Herodotus, I initially intended to pit him against archaeology. To do so would have been a mistake. Though sometimes at odds, they both intertwine to help form our current view of the past. Herodotus tells us about the grand sweeps of history, the big names and battles. Archaeology lets us fill in the gaps, find the lives of the ordinary citizens through their remnants. Even when they are at odds, it does not discredit Herodotus’ view entirely. It merely gives us an insight into how things would have been viewed by a living, breathing citizen of the Mediterranean. When Herodotus tells us about giant ants or gryphons, it is a delightful insight into the world which we cannot piece together from the material remains.
Whether we should trust Herodotus is a tricky question. There are many things he could get wrong, and many things we know he does. But this does not change whether we should read Herodotus, because we certainly should. History is an ever-evolving art, one in which the diversity of viewpoints can do nothing but benefit the greater understanding of the past. In that respect, Herodotus is simply one of the earliest in the longest discussion known to mankind, our discussion of our own past.
Sources and Further Reading:
Herodotus, Histories tr. A. Selincourt
Waterfield, R. Creators, Conquerors and Citizens
Meiggs, R. The Struggle For Greece
Completely agree. I like Herodotus a lot, freckles and all. I personally think complete objectivity is like striving for the impossible, so I never hold the lack of it against him, or any contemporary historian (we’re all human after all.) At the same time, assuming we don’t have an agenda to push (though that in itself can be part of the history), it’s a very good thing to at least aim for objectivity. That, and getting your hands on as many different sources as possible (including from parallel disciplines like archaeology, but def not limited to it.) Maybe then we get close to a truth - at least a representative version of it for the time period or event, etc.