Andrew Messing

Professor Barnard
Greek 307
15 December 2008
The Misunderstood Storyteller:
Herodotus intent behind his Histories
The question of Herodotus reputation, and whether his Histories actually
represents history or something else, are questions asked almost since the worked was
first penned. It was Cicero who, in De Legibus, first called Herodotus pater historiae but
in the same breath he declared that in Herodotus sunt innumerabiles fabulae (1.5)
Others have been less generous still, referring to him as the father of lies. Yet the
debate on whether Herodotus work should count as history suffers from a serious flaw.
If history is a discipline, or even a science, that originated from Herodotus, it is not fitting
to hold him to rules of a genre which was created as a result of his work. In other words,
that the writing of history has certainly progressed since Herodotus should be taken for
granted, as should an understanding that Herodotus was largely responsible for creating
history as a genre and a discipline. However, as with any lasting creation, it is inevitable
that later versions will make the originators seem paltry by comparison. This is
especially true when if it is understood that Herodotus did not invent history, he the father
of history, in that history came from him. Once this is understood, it becomes clear that
Herodotus was not writing history, but was clear from the onset what his intentions were,
and all would be best served if they took him at his word.
Herodotus himself never claims to be writing history. His own statement of
purpose at the beginning of his work is quite clear: ioopiq ooti qt, o
q t o ytvotvo t ovpoov o _povo tiqio ytvqoi, qt tpyo tyoio
t |oi oooo o|ito ytvqoi, o t oiio |oi i qv oiiqv toitqoov
oiiqioioi (1.1-5). At first glance, it appears that Herodotus is indeed claiming to write
history. After all, what is history if not a work designed so that things not be forgotten?
Yet there is an important distinction between what must be defined as the purpose behind
a work of history, and the purpose behind Herodotus. The study of history is essentially
a search for the truth A work that does not aim at truth may be many things but not a
work of history (Windshuttle 185). Herodotus primary concern is not with truth per se,
but with relating great and wondrous works in the hopes that the stories not be
forgotten or unsung. He is more concerned with stories than with truth.
Herodotus liberties with the truth were well known even in ancient times.
Ciceros comment on Herodotus fabulae has already been mentioned. The Latin fabulae
corresponds quite well with the Greek uo (Bettini 200), and thus Ciceros remark may
be accurately taken as derogatory:
As we can see, there is often a dismissive aura swirling around the term
fabula so that when the term is applied to a specific discourse it is meant
to discredit it. Fabula, too, is the story that others believeWhat is the
linguistic origin of the word fabula? It is clearly a substantive derived
from the verb fari. In fact, fabula is to fari as subula is to suere, fibula to
figo, and so on.31 From a morphological perspective, fabula is the
instrument that realizes the act of fari, as fibula is the instrument that
realizes the act of figere. If so, something striking happens: fabula
presents itself as a rather frivolous noun derived from an extremely serious
verb. (Bettini 201)
Ciceros passing slight is nothing when compared to Plutarchs malicious essay De
Herodoti Malignitate. Plutarch maligns Herodotus and his work on multiple grounds,
from his treatment of Thebes, Corinth, and the Boethians, to his deliberate malice: ou
yop ovov q to_oq oi|io q ovo o|tiv tivoi i|oiov oiio |oi
|o|oqtio o|po tpyov tu|oiiov ioutvov |oi oioqo uoopoov tivoi
(1). He ends with a warning to potential readers: oii ootp tv poio ti
|ovopio uiotooi qv iooqiov ouou |oi |o|oioyiov, itioi |oi
ooioi o_qooiv uotu|uiov, ivo q iootv ooou |oi tuti tpi ov
opioov |oi tyioov q Eiioo oitov |oi ovpov oo ioovt (43).
However, it was Herodotus method against which Plutarch had the greatest problem:
But what roused Plutarch's animus against Herodotus was his view of what history was
all about. For Plutarch, history had a serious educational purpose (Evans 14).
Apparently, Herodotus love of deeds and stories did not conform to Plutarchs
understanding of what history ought to be. Other ancient authors wrote similar polemics
of which we have fragments, including Against Herodotus by Manetho, On Herodotus'
thefts, by Valerius Pollio, On Herodotus' lies, by Aelius Harpocration, and Against
Herodotus by Libanius (Evans 14).
Thucydides too appears to have issues with the historical method employed by
Herodotus. Although he does not actually name Herodotus, he does contrast his style
with that employed by Herodotus:
|oi t tv o|poooiv ioo o q uot ouov otptotpov
ovtioi oooi t ouiqoovoi ov t ytvotvov o oot o|otiv
|oi ov tiiovov ot oui |oo o ovpotiov oiou ov |oi
opoiqoiov totooi, otiio |pivtiv ouo op|ouvo tti,
|qo t t oti oiiov q oyovioo t o opo_pqo o|outiv
uy|tioi. (1.22.4)
It appears that he is comparing himself to Herodotus, whose work is centered around o
uoq. Also, while Herodotus is interested in o ytvotvo t ovpoov,
Thucydides, who knew his work, specifically adds o oot to ov ytvotvov,
perhaps to make it quite clear that he is concerned with the clear truth and Herodotus
was not.
Even acknowledging that writers of the classical period were less skeptical than
todays historians (or people in modern society in general), it appears from the historical
record that they knew very well the duties of the historian. Thucydides comment on his
commitment to truth may be read above. Polybius, in his Histories, quotes Timaios
views on history: Oi 1ioio, qoi tyioov oopqo tpi qv ioopiov tivoi
o tuo, io |oi opoivti ouoi,, ou, ov ttityq ittuotvou, tv oi,
ouyypoooiv, ttpov i qtiv ovoo oi, uiioi,, ovo t oiiov q |oitiv
ioopiov (12.11). Cicero, in his De Legibus, also connects history with truth: Quippe
cum in illa [historia] omnia veritatemreferantur (1.5). Lucian states that, ou q
ouyypoqto tpyov t|ooo, o tpo_q, titiv (How to Write History 39), and
says also (more poetically) that compared to the ouoi|o , q t ou| ov i tuo
ttoov [q ioopio] ou o|opioiov ovoo_oio, ou oiiov q qv opuqpiov
iopov oit ooi qv po_tiov opotoooi ov i t ouqv |ootv (How
to Write History 7). It is quite clear that those purporting to write history after Herodotus
thought their greatest concern ought to a commitment to truth.
Modern historians, particularly those of the 19
th
century when the idea of
Herodotus as a father of lies was in scholarly vogue (Flory 64), have also rightly
pointed out numerous liberties Herodotus took with the truth. Possible examples are
numerous. Geography is of particular embarrassment for scholars wishing to defend the
reputation of Herodotus, as it is the least of what a well-traveled historian could factually
report: One reason for the embarrassment is that Herodotus' figures are badly wrong in
the case of the Black Sea, where Herodotus' error on the length and breadth is one
hundred percent and forty percent respectively, while his error on the more familiar
Hellespont drops to one in six for both length and breadth, and that on the width of the
Propontis to only one in seven (Armayor 47). Again:
Much more embarrassing is the great Scythian bronze of king Ariantas
that Herodotus claims to have seen for himself. In view of his claim, we
can only try to decipher what he saw in the light of metrology. According
to standard metrology, that of Hultsch for example, Herodotus' amphoreus
is a liquid measure equal to the Attic metretes and I.5 Roman amphorae or
about 39.4 liters, or some 10.4 gallons. According to standard metrology,
therefore, king Ariantas' 6oo-amphoreis bronze must have held upwards of
6,244 gallons, like Croesus' 6oo-amphoreis silver bowl at Delphi (i.5i).
Herodotus does not mention Croesus' dedication in this passage. J acoby
argues that Herodotus must have gone to Scythia before he went to Delphi
or else he would have, but in that case we are merely left to wonder why
he did not mention the Scythian vessel when he came to tell about that of
Delphi. But it seems difficult to believe a 6,244-gallon vessel in either
place. (Armayor 51).
Herodotus various inaccurate or even mythic descriptions of geography present
problems to any who would paint him as a dispassionate recorder of facts:
In the majority of these cases Herodotus casts a skeptical eye on the
archaic legacy, leading some scholars to label him a 'Father of
Empiricism,' but this formulation fails to account for other passages in
which mythic and speculative thinking still predominate; indeed, the
contradictions between the two approaches have led Lionel Pearson and
others to question whether any coherent scheme of thought underlies
Herodotean geography at all (Romm 98-99)
Geography is not the only place where Herodotus displays an affinity for the
mythic over the factual and a certain carelessness with the truth. Of Herodotus account
of Perdiccas, Kleinknecht writes, Der historische Wert der herodoteischen berlieferung
war damit erschpft. Die Grndungssage selbst ist geschichtlich wertlos (136). Flory, in
his chapter on Truth and Fiction in Herodotus points out that the first account given in
the Histories of the strife between the Greeks and Persians is rationalism, pushed to its
absurd extreme. Herodotus here parodies not just myth but rationalism itself. He makes
the very plausibility of the demythologized tales suspect, particularly through unspoken
or barely hinted comparison with the poetic originals He joins together totally different
and timeless myths in a logical and orderly chronological sequence of cause and effect
never suggested by the originals (25). Whether Florys designation of Herodotus style as
containing playfully exaggerated seriousness (28) can be accepted is certainly
debatable. What is not is Herodotus manipulation of myth into something designed to
appear rational. It is no wonder Grant puzzles over the contrast between Herodotus the
keen, shrewd, painstaking researcher and critic, and Herodotus careless and casual to the
point of blamable negligence (283).
If Herodotus is thought of as the first historian, then certainly there are numerous
issues to be found not only with his work but with his historical method. Herodotus,
however, an [h]eir to the Greek storytelling tradition (Flory 52), never claims to be
writing history. His heirs, both ancient and modern, have projected history back into his
work, and applied the standards and methodologies which grew from his work onto it.
Herodotus does not ever state at the beginning of his book or anywhere else that he will
tell only the truth about the past, for the father of history does not always accept the
superiority of truth to fiction. Herodotus often tells lengthy stories he admits are false,
disproves plausible stories, or accepts preposterous ones without proof (Flory 50). It is
true that Herodotus in the beginning of his Histories uses the word ioopiq to describe
his work. However, it was not until after Herodotus, and largely because of him, that
ioopiq began to mean history (Evans 12). In Herodotus, the word means something
else altogether:
The emblematic word, histori, little by little took holdIt is an abstract
word, formed from the verb historein, to enquire. To inquire, in all the
meaning of the word, means to go and see for oneself. It expresses more a
state of mind and an approach than a specific field.Herodotus is neither
bard nor even histr: he historei (investigates). He does not possess the
natural authority of the histr, nor does he benefit from the divine vision
of the bard. He has only histori, a certain form of inquiry which is the
first step in his historiographical practice. Produced as a substitute,
histori operates in a way analogous to the omniscient vision of the Muse,
who knows because her divine nature allowed her to be present
everywhere. (Hartog 394).
Herodotus is a storyteller. Even those parts of his work that seem to us to make
use of historical methodology are better explained by artistic design to make the story
more interesting. For example, Herodotus will occasionally demur that he is merely
reporting o ityotvo. Many readers of Herodotus have believed that such passages
amount to a pledge by the author to give us, to the best of his ability, all the evidence
Herodotus actual practice plainly contradicts the assumption that his goal is to preserve
all the evidence and give all possible versions of the event (Flory 63). His choice of
words is therefore not intended to be taken literally or seriously because it is only a
traditional raconteurs trick of punctuating a story with a disclaimer (Flory 65). His
purpose is not to distance himself, but to write in such a fashion that the great works of
men will not be unsung. He is attempting to do for the Persian Wars what Homer
had done for the Trojan War (Hortag 394). That his work contains more history than
Homers can easily be explained by his style of storytelling. Herodotus, after all, is
writing in prose, not epic poetry. Once Herodotus purposes are understood, and the
confusion over his use of terminology explained, the need to examine historical or
methodological inconsistencies in his work vanishes. Herodotus is not writing history,
nor should he be referred to as an historian, because his central aim is not that of history
or that of an historian. He is not concerned with the truth above all else, but with
guaranteeing that the stories he has uncovered by his researches be remembered.
To say this is certainly not to detract from his accomplishments, which are great.
Whatever his design, there is little doubt that prior to Herodotus a work of prose of such
grandeur and scope had never been accomplished. Certainly none survive. There is little
doubt, too, that as a direct result of the massive scale of his researches, later writers,
wishing also to record the past, developed the discipline of history. That their concern for
truth differs from Herodotus does not negate his considerable influence. Herodotus may
not have written a historical work, but he was the father of history.














Works Cited
Armayor, Kimball O. Did Herodotus Ever Go to the Black Sea? Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 82 (1978): 45-62.
Bernardakis, Gregorius N, ed. Moralia Plutarchi Chaeronensis. Vol. 5. B. G. Teubneri,
1893.
Bettini, Maruiziu. Mythos/Fabula: Authoritative and Discredited Speech. History of
Religions 45.3 (2006): 195-212.
Bttner-Wobst, Theodorus, ed. Polybii Historiae. B. G. Teubneri, 1904.
Evan, J . A. S. Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of Herodotus. The
Classical J ournal 64.1 (1968): 11-17.
Flory, Stewart. The Archaic Smile of Herodotus. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
1987.
Grant, J ohn R. Some Thoughts on Herodotus. Phoenix 37.4 (1983): 283-298.
Hartog, Francois. The Invention of History: The Pre-History of a Concept from Homer
to Herodotus. History and Theory 39.3 (2000): 384-395.
Kleinknecht, Hermann. Herodot und die Makedonische Urgeschicte. Hermes 94.2
(1966): 134-146.
Morris, Charles D, ed. Thucydides: Book I. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1891.
Romm, J ames. Herodotus and Mythic Geography: The Case of the Hyperboreans.
Transactions of the American Philological Association 119 (1974-): 97-113.
Stein, Heinrich. Herodotos. Vol. 1. Berlin: Widmannsche Buchhandlung, 1883.
Sommerbrodt, J ulius, ed. Schriften Des Lucian. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung,
1888.
Vahleni, J ohanis, ed. De Legibus Libri M. Tullii Ciceronis. Berolini: Apud Fransiscum
Vahlenum, 1853.
Windshuttle, Keith. The Killing of History: How a Discipline is being Murdered by
Literary Critics and Social Theorists. Paddington: Macleay Press, 1996.