Elendil Voronda

Elendil Voronda
The Last Alliance of Men and Elves.

Friday, 17 February 2012

Father of History or Father of Lies ? Herodotus




In choosing my title for this particular blog, I am reminded of an event which occurred during one of my many lectures, last week. The lecturer asked, "Herodotus was known as the father of .....", there was a silence, and then I bleated, "Lies", the lecturer chuckled, as did everyone else, but I was quite correct, for he, (the lecturer), confirmed that, yes indeed, the Romans called him the, "Father of Lies", everyone else of course knows him as, "The Father of History". I have always considered myself to be more Roman, in outlook, than Greek.

Timaeus, an ancient Greek historian, has written that, "the lack of truth was the greatest fault of history", he was convinced that his predecessors had not written history, and extorted them to call it something else. Lucian also expounds that it is the historians duty to, "tell the story as it happens". Of course the relationship between history and accuracy has always been open to interpretation. It was of course Cicero who gave Herodotus the title, "Father of History", he may then have acknowledged the fact that it is indeed open to interpretation. Cicero also believed that it was the duty of the historian to be accurate, anything else was, in his view to be left to the poets.  

"For in history everything is meant to lead to the truth, but in poetry a great deal is intended for pleasure--although in Herodotus, the Father of History, and in Theopompus, there are a countless number of legends.",


History was therefore to make pleasurable reading, and also to be factual at all times. The reputation of Herodotus, however, had the reputation of liar within a couple of generations of his death, yet was he still known as the Father of History. When Cicero wrote his, "De Divinatione", he accused the Father of History of outright invention. Despite this, no one in the ancient world sought to challenge the so called Father of History on his ,"Fabrications". 

It was not until the Renaissance that anyone pointed out the contradiction in the reputation of Herodotus. Petrarch pointed out that Cicero had called Herodotus, the Father of History, and of course the Father of History could not be accused of fabrication. This judgement showed the ambiguity of Herodotus reputation, rather more sharply than had been done, up to the present time. He started the historical tradition in the west, as a master of style, and as an artist, he delighted the audiences of antiquity, indeed when he was rediscovered in the Renaissance, it was a delight to scholars. However, at the same time he was treated as a story teller, who gives readers pleasure rather than truth, and he was accused of malice, deceit, and ignorance .


In 1842 Thomas de Quincy wrote an essay entitled, "The Philosophy of Herodotus", which attempted to explain the reputation of Herodotus. He produced the theory that the real problem was that people don't actually understand what Herodotus was trying to actually do in his work, "But whence arose the other mistake about Herodotus, that his great work was exclusively a history? It arose from a mistranslation, which subsists everywhere to this day" Historia, in the time of Herodotus, simply meant, "Enquiries", this will not do, historia does indeed mean research, in the time of Herodotus, not in our modern understanding, but the word soon picked up connotations that Herodotus was largely responsible for! The fact is that he, Herodotus did write history, no matter what he called it, and there is not mention by other ancients that he did not write anything but history.


There is a curious history regarding the reputation of Herodotus, it starts with Hellanicus and Thucydides. What Hellanicus thought of Herodotus, we do not know, although he was a historian of a different kind, a research scholar. For Hellanicus dates were most important. Thucydides never mentions Herodotus by name, but it is safe to assume that he disapproved of Herodotus. He contradicts Herodotus on a number of points, and his statement that his history was not a prized essay, but a procession of lasting value, sounds rather like an attack on Herodotus, later writers certainly thought so. Thucydides in his famous first book sets forth the creed of the historian, this goes in the face of the type of history that Herodotus wrote. Thcydides saw not future in the attempts of Herodotus to write history that he himself had not witnessed, or to tell the story's of men whose language he (Herodotus) could not speak. The historian had a more important task, to record events accurately as the human experienced them.

 In his account of the Peloponnesian  War Thucydides makes what can be described as a direct reproof against the historical product of Herodotus, "The absence of an element of romance in my account of what happened, may well  make it less attractive to listen to listen to, but all who wish to attain a clear view of the past, and also of the same or similar events which, human nature being what it is, will recur in the future--if these people consider my work useful, I shall be content. It is written to be a procession of lasting value, not a work competing for an immediate hearing"

Both Hellanicus and Thcydides left marks on the tradition of historiography, they have their successors, men such as Ephoros, (for Hellanicus), and Xenophan follows in the tradition of Thcydides. Who were the descendants of Herodotus ? There was one of some importance, Ctesias of Cindos the Greek physician of the Persian king Artaxerxes II, who is best know for his attacks on the veracity of Herodotus, yet he himself relied heavily on Herodotus. Herodotus follows the style of Homer, and Ctesias is the final flowering of that school of history, untouched by the teachings of Thucydides. The school was degenerate, it had no moral purpose, and was influenced by propaganda and fraud. 


It is necessary for us to recognise that from the early Hellenistic period, Herodotus did not suffer, as Ctesias did, of being classified as an entertaining liar. He suffered far worse, he was attacked by a whole series of essays designed to expose his falsehoods, and his plagiarisms. "Herodotus is attacked by everyone without exception", wrote Josephus.  







No comments:

Post a Comment