Herodotus II
The basic themes of the Histories emerge in the First Book. The opening sentence and paragraphs give us a fairly clear idea of the author's intentions.
"This is the exposition / setting-forth of the history of Herodotus of Halicarnassus…"
In other words, Herodotus' book is not history itself, much less the events that took place—if the latter were the case then the history of Herodotus would be the story of his life. No, history is a process of going places to find things out. A histor is a wise man who has learned things by investigation. The root is the same as oida, I know and is related to verbs of seeing. So historia (or, in H's Ionic dialect, historie) is the process of investigation. Since there were few written historical accounts to consult before Herodotus set forth his findings, his research was mainly a process of going to see people who knew something.
"so that the things done by human beings may not become in time become extinct, neither the great and wondrous things done, some by Greeks and others by barbarians, may not lose their fame, especially for what reason they fought each other."
So, it is not the mere facts he wishes us to learn, but the point of the conflict, so that we too may become histores, if only passively through reading.
Herodotus then treats us to an absurdly fanciful account of girl-snatchings, which supposedly led to the East/West conflict. How seriously is this intended? I don't know. Most obviously, it links his theme with the great tradition of Greek epic poetry and mythology: Europa, Io, and Medea echo the story of Helen, whose abduction of seduction by Paris brought on the Trojan War. Since, elsewhere, he shows himself a fairly shrewd judge of human motivations, this introduction may be in part a jeux d'esprit. At any rate, he would tell us that we don't know any more about the story than he or the epic poets did, and we should be content with a good story.
Indeed, two of H's strongest points are his narrative skill and his willingness to tell any traditional story, including stories that conflict, whether he believes them or not.
Because the first verifiable conflict between Greeks and barbarians was the result of the Lydian kingdom's attempt to dominate the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Eastern Aegean, he begins with the Lydians. Before embarking on his narrative course, however, he reminds us not to judge by present appearances: Formerly great cities have become small and vice-versa. Human happiness/good fortune, he reminds for the first but by no means the last time, is highly unstable [I.5] This is a lesson that Americans refuse to learn, believing ourselves exempt from the historical process that created the Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman empires only to destroy them.
Within the Lydian logos, H. interweaves many charming Greek stories, but the key passage is probably the chronologically impossible meeting between Solon and Croesus. Croesus is a sympathetic tragic hero, but a barbarian. He puts his confidence in his power and wealth and is not a little nettled, when Solon answers his question about "Who is the happiest man," with the obscure Tellus of Athens and the legendary figures of Cleobis and Biton. Solon's warning to count no man happy until you know the manner of his death is often cited, but commentators neglect the context. Tellus and the Argive brothers are not happy as individuals but as family men and members of a community in which they have respect and honor. Croesus' downfall involves not only the loss of wealth and power but the premature death of his unimpaired son. If any passage in Greek literature can warn us against the foolish mistake of regarding the Greeks as modern individualists, it is this.
It is impractical to summarize this great book, but I am happy to entertain questions to keep the ball rolling.
Entries(RSS)
Dr Fleming, we are all much in your debt for sharing these wonderful and incisive commentaries on Herodotus.
When you suggested Herodotus you also mentioned Aeschylus' "The Persians." I have just obtained the De Selincourt translation of Herodotus; can you suggest the best translations for this work of Aeschylus? I've noticed that it is often available in volumes that contain some other plays also.
Interestingly, too, Herodotus, in his introduction, sets out to preserve the fame/glory (kleos) of heroes. In order for kleos to be preserved, the names of the people, and their stories, must be remembered - an act later demonstrated by Herodotus regarding the names of the fallen Spartans at Thermopylae: "their names I have learned, as those of men who deserve to to be remembered; indeed, I have learned the names of all three hundred." On a more mundane level, this kleos was transferred ancestrally, where a son would carry on his father's kleos, both by remembering his ancestors and augmenting his ancestors' glory. I remember that Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges (who, granted, was wrong about a good many things) once wrote that much of Greco/Roman religion can be understood as the ancestral act of not allowing previous generations to be forgotten. In this sense, the writings of Herodotus serve as a quasi-religious monument to his Greek forbearers.
The Persians is a tough play to translate. It strikes many modern readers as more of a pageant than a play, though, interestingly, it is our first surviving example of a tragedy. Aeschylus was not unique in choosing a theme from recent history, since his predecessor Phrynichus put on a controversial play about the Capture of Miletus by the Persians and was fined for causing so much mental anguish. (I believe, by the way, that this has more to do with a political struggle in Athens between those who advocated war with Persia and those who opposed it.) I have not read Christopher Collard's recent translation for Oxford, though he is a respected scholar on Greek drama. The Penguin is readable, though the translator is a bit of a kook.
I'd rather be wrong with Fustel than right with most scholars today. He overgeneralized, of course, and his over-generalizations have then been distorted and ridiculed. In the main, he--like Henry Sumner Maine--was on the right track. In Homer, it has been pointed out, hardly anyone has a genealogy going back more than three generations, and when there is one, it provokes the observation that the generations of men are like leaves in the wind. It is a far more frightful thought than we might think. Your great-grandchildren probably will not know who you were. Nobody will. Herodotus and Thucydides--as well as the great ancient poets--all sought the immortality of memory. Thucydides created a ktema es aien--a possession or thing for ever--while Horace boasted non omnis moriar--I shall not all die. The human person is precious, they understood, and it is a great sorrow for us to pass away. Christianity offers a different solution, but the ancients had perhaps a stronger grasp of reality than most of us have today.
"his narrative skill and his willingness to retell any traditional story, including stories that conflict, whether he believes them or not."
This is an essential aspect of traditional historians. They don't attempt to do all the thinking for the "self" but rather hand down what was given to them with a certain repect and understanding -- even reverence in some instances. The word ignorance and ignore are closely related and for a reason. The wise man does not ignore the "tall" tale but attempts to understand it, or as one man has put it "all myths are true or else not true myths."
I got started late, but I'm now at the point where Croesus is advising Cyrus concerning the plundering of Sardis.
It seems odd that the Persians would have used the destruction of Troy, which they must have known about only from the Greeks anyway, as a means of justifying their wars against the Greeks.
So far, the first book reads like a fable as much as a history, has a measure of wisdom, and is altogether more entertaining and interesting than a great many modern style histories.
I agree with Mr. Wilson. This book is fun to read.