II. Herodotus

Abstract

Reactions to Herodotus’ work have varied greatly both in ancient and modern times, and his reputation has always contained something paradoxical about it. In antiquity, he was on the one hand acknowledged as the ‘father of history’, the first writer to compose a narrative of the past with the sufficient care and adornment required of high literary endeavour and moral purpose, while treating his theme in a manner that came to be recognized as ‘historical’. On the other hand, his history contained much material that was problematic, especially stories of marvels and strange (and unbelievable) customs that seemed to undermine the serious purpose of history. The modern era has had different concerns and interests, yet here too Herodotus’ reputation has fluctuated; he has at times been considered a serious practitioner of an activity that in its essentials constitutes what is today considered a historical method, and at other times an amiable writer of fiction. It has also been difficult for him to escape from the shadow of his successor Thucydides, who seemed so much closer to modern notions of a historian. Possibly the greatest change that the last thirty years have seen is the near abandonment of the portrait of Herodotus as an well-intentioned, if imperfect, investigator, a man whose striving to become a historian overcame his obvious failure to actually be one. Such a portrait was based ultimately on a supercilious indulgence and a conviction that we knew so much better than he how to do what he so clearly tried to do and failed. Now things are not so clear: what history is and what purpose it fulfills seems to be very complex and driven largely by the needs of the individual societies that use it.