HERODOTUS ?, THat HERO DOTER!

INTRODUCTION

He was born in Halicarnassus in 484 BC; and the governor of the city was a woman named Artemisia. This arguably may have had an influence on Herodotus in his youth, as he was reared in a semi-matriarchal, strife bound, society. This being the case, he may have been socialized throughout his boyhood by the town mothers. This in turn would assuredly have opened him up to the processes of town gossip, urban mythology and the general social norms and discussions of the time.

Therefore, it is not without concern, that this paper will investigate Herodotus from a different perspective. Whilst the perspective given will be definitive, it will also be new and innovative, though probably not unthought of. Sexuality, and indeed sexual questioning will be the basis of the assessment of how (and how well) Herodotus has contributed to our understanding of Greek and Persian society.

One particular aspect in the study of this man was his cultural environment; he was from the predominant Ionian group of the Asia Minor region, and educated in a Dorian enclave in his metropolitan district. This urban mix of ethnic groups must have led to the seemingly more tolerant disposition of Herodotus. An unusual trait in an epoch of strained relations, ethno-centrism, socio-religious cleavages and Greek tradition.

‘Herodotus success in touring the world and handling oral traditions is something exceptional by any standard – something we are not yet in a position to explain fully. The secrets of his workshop are not yet all out’. The bulk of the modern critique fails to fully recognise the socio-cultural value in the Histories, and Selincourt believes that ‘with this meagre collection of bibliographical facts, and of even less satisfying bits of guess-work, we must be content’.

Herodotus was, and is now well understood. This obviously has a lot to do with the prose of the literature that has been produced by the author. The mass of introductory and précis literature available today about the legendary Herodotus all argue relatively the same. There seems to be consensus throughout historical academia that the details about the ‘Father of History’ are all relatively known. It appears as if one modern author has written the definitive account of Herodotus and his work; and all other budding historians have copied the genre, the analogies, the general descriptive details and thus plagiarised the first assessments that were ever made.

However, the best contemporary indicator that things with Herodotus are not as they might seem to be, is in the book by Penguin Classics: Herodotus: The Histories. In the introduction the authors write ‘Thucydides did not name Herodotus; that was left for later writers’. In Thucydides work, the lack of naming his predecessor is perhaps the indication of the distain that he had held for the man. It may also signal some other issues as yet unexplained. Why this might be is unclear, yet there is no doubt that this distaste is broad and leaves an indelible footprint in contemporary Herodotus historicism.

Whilst the prose of Herodotus is one of an easy and smooth flowing text, it is also one of less than prefect scholarly appearance. Yet it conveys the message well. Without being a specialist of ancient texts and the standards taught in those periods, it is possible to realise that the nature of the script perhaps contains an element of childish style. This is not to mean that Herodotus was himself childish, or that he was not well educated, because accounts describe him as being educated and rich. However, it may not be the content of The Histories that upset the intelligentsia of the time, but rather the manner in which it was gathered and subsequently published. This will be covered shortly.

THE HISTORIES

His Histories refer to identities and sources, as is the practice today; he generally writes in the third person (although he does regularly add his personal input) and always has a way of presenting solid details with a lighter perspective. He does not bring cold and deep harshness continuosly throughout his texts, yet he is well able to relate a shameless or horrid event in a manner that might generally be less abrasive.

It is for perceptions such as this, that perhaps there is a suspect nature in Herodotus; and indeed one that has earned him some contempt amongst his peers. Both in the modern era as well as in his own. With his immediate successor leaving out the name of Herodotus in his own work, we see the cultural paradigm of labelling set into the Greek historical genre. And wether the apparent distain expressed by Thuycidides toward Herodotus was responsible for the ending of Herodotus’ work is unknown.

Nonetheless, Pipes argues ‘Though Thucydides never mentions Herodotus by name, he voices his contempt for his predecessor in the opening of his own work’. And so, the truth of the histories of the past begin to be contested.

A philosopher of the time, Epicurus expresses his concerns about the interpretation and dissemination of knowledge in the realm of Greek meta-physics. He writes to Herodotus:

Epicurus to Herodotus, greetings:

‘For those who are unable to study carefully all my physical writings … I have myself prepared an epitome of the whole system, Herodotus, to preserve in the memory enough of the principal doctrines, to the end that on every occasion they may be able to aid themselves on the most important points…’

Epicurus is lecturing Herodotus about the finer points of getting the stucture of science across to people in a clear and concise format. He concludes:

Here then, Herodotus, you have the chief doctrines of Physics in the form of a summary. So that, if this statement be accurately retained and take effect, a man will … be incomparably better equipped … For he will clear up for himself many of the points which I have worked out in detail in my complete exposition…’

He ends his letter with the best explanation he can give in recognition of a properly structured process that will support the data being presented.

‘It is of such a sort that those who are already tolerably, or even perfectly, well acquainted with the details can … in silent fashion and as quick as thought run over the doctrines most important for their peace of mind’.

Whilst this letter does not seem to be written with any particular aim, it is certain that either upon request, or out of concern, Epicurus wrote to Herodotus. And with the final remarks come the explanation of the letter. Epicurus was schooling Herodotus in the needs and uses of stronger methodologies to create purposeful text. Herein we see professionalism coming to the fore in the context of early historicism. And at what age Herodotus received such professional instruction, has yet to be determined.

Like Epicurus, Thucydides too, wrote into his first work an attempt to lay claim to the professionalism of his historical effort, ‘It is written to be a possession of lasting value, not a work competing for an immediate hearing’. This indicates that there was an element of patience in his task. And Levi contends he ‘was the first and mightiest Athenian historian of Athens. There is an impressive and awkward weightiness … He was quite conscious of technique in his writing… he taught himself what history is’.

And this must have been because he wanted to ‘better his predecessors by introducing new information they did not have’. However, Herodotus appears to have had an air of immediacy about him.

Perhaps too, Herodotus’ overall description and subsequent appointment of blame for the Persian wars was another attractant of negative attentions. He claims ‘Hitherto the injuries on either side had been mere acts of common violence; but in what followed the Persians consider that the Greeks were greatly to blame’.

He goes on to dissect the ideology behind certain practices associated with conquering. It is plausible that this stirred the deep manners of men in an era of idolatry; his remarks likely upset the hearts of people born to conquer. Again, discussing women and the inspired causes of war, he says ‘but to make a stir about such as are carried off, argues a man a fool. Men of sense care nothing for such women, since it is plain that without their own consent they would never be forced away’. This remark is likely referring to the elevated status of the matriarchs in an epoch of war and idolatry, and he imparts the details well. The argument is that ‘when the Greeks ran off with their women, never troubled themselves about the matter; but the Greeks, for the sake of a single Lacedaemonian girl, collected a vast armament, invaded Asia, and destroyed the kingdom of Priam’.

Such is one simplistic yet considerably finite explanation given by Herodotus of a battle. The insight provided here can be parralled with instances of social unrest in third-world countries today. What were then leading imperial processes; are today viewed as simply socio-cultural skirmishes; and Herodotus helps us to make the distinction.

Women constantly appear in the Histories, as if Herodotus was well acquainted with them and their social causes and concerns. The insight given through these inclusions gives a wonderful perspective of the soci-cultural order in Greece.

Yet the way these perspectives and stories were gathered is intriguing. It seems that Herodotus was close to many of Greek societies more important folk. Those who were able to transmit a new fable or piece of exclusive information. And for him to consistently gain inside knowledge of, and thus include women, is no small fete. To say that Herodotus was near to, or perhaps involved in, many women’s lives begs the question of how he managed to get there. Was his character such that he was well liked by his topical subjects at the time and was thus brought nearer. His seemingly extrovert, perhaps humourous and therefore likable nature might explain this. Nonetheless, there may be other explanations; such as his sexuality. Or perhaps he was assigned by the state to be near those that mattered.

Whatever the reason, his focus on the finer points of society such as the intricacies of gossip, lend great strength to the present historical understandings of ancient Greece. The efforts made to find conflict triggers, the beginnings of a story and other centrally located details are the sign of a person recording history with intent. Herodotus very definitely intended to make a profound recording of his time. One that in future would give others the deepest, most refined understanding of the era as he could possibly construct.

Herodotus must have had a deep and intriguing mind, for without this facility he would surely not have completed his work so well. This is evidenced in his understanding of his regional geography. Wilson and Miller cite a map drawn by Herodotus when he was at the young age of about thirty. The immediate coastal regions of Greece are drawn reasonably accurate, as are most of the places drawn for the supposed centre of the world.

However, he had at that point, a rather narrow (but not inconsistent) belief of the worlds’ land mass. Despite this, his broad mind is expressed when he writes about a discovery of the equator whilst recounting a circumnavigation of the land-mass: ‘One of the things they reported, which I personally find incredible, though not everyone agrees with me, was that…they had the sun on their right’. On this, Wilson and Miller state Herodotus pours scorn on this finding; but if this were the case, Herodotus would surely have said so, and not found it ‘incredible’. Wilson and Miller are wrong in this assessment of Herodotus’ recordings.

‘Another thing I cannot explain is why, when the whole thing is one single land-mass, it has been given three distinct names (women’s names incidentally, too)’, inquires Herodotus.

His work reflects the kind of individual rigour that would have been present in Greek society at the time. Modern, first world societies do not share the same intellectual awareness that their past cousins once enjoyed. Interactive discussions and inquiries today are far removed from that which Herodotus experienced and has thus shared with us. Refined speech and progressive thought would have been the norms of the day. This natural and sophisticated primary source of communication is clearly transcribed in the form of the Herodotus Histories. Hartog has this to say, ‘it seems that the Histories very quickly became known, in Athens at least, and that they gained lasting recognition and renown throughout antiquity’.

CONCLUSIONS

To this end, Herodotus was clearly not afraid to record passages that might or would have been deemed to be unworthy of the effort, or even untrue. Many of his contemporary’s had claimed he was untruthful with his recordings. Even in modern times, critics are deemed able to pass judgement on events, times and subjects that have long since passed.

Nonetheless, no debate today is really able to discount the insight into cultures past, that have been provided by those cultures. It might have been said then, that he was a liar because his work was inconsistent with the mythologies and theologies that were embedded in the Greek culture. To this end, steadfast adherents to the cultural paradigms of the Greeks would likely find difficulty in accepting the new scripted urban myth and fact brought down by Herodotus.

They might argue that he had no right; or that this is not the way things ought to be done. Or perhaps his method was so inconsistent with the social practices of his region and time, that he was simply despised for it. Whatever the reason, and without dissuasion, Herodotus has brought forward a glimpse of the past that otherwise might not have been presented. His ability to convey the material is invaluable today, it contributes well to both social understanding and to the ancient historical perspectives as they are currently seen. He is by no means irrevelant, purely because he and his work are in the historical record; and available today for ready interpretation. On this basis alone his literature is invaluable today.

Perhaps the best indicator of what Herodotus’ life was really all about is embedded in his name. ‘Herodotus’ is derived from the Greek heros; and from dotos meaning ‘given to, granted’. Compared with names like Epicurus, a philosopher of the time, this name too is somewhat ‘curious’. As is Sophocles from the Greek name Sophokles, derived from Greek sophos "skilled, clever" and kleos "glory". He was a 5th-century Greek writer of sophisticated tragic poetry.

And again, the curiousness in the name of Hyginus; from the Greek hygieinos meaning "healthy". This was the name of the spiritually cleansing ninth Greek pope. It might therefore be said that Herodotus was a hero doter –when his name is deconstructed. (This is consistent with Thucydides not naming him; seeing him perhaps as un-manly in his pursuits). So that, wherever he went, he sought out men and women of renown. He was infatuated by the astonishing achievements of these people, and sought to record their amazing exploits.