I miss completely a word about the method of Herodotus. It is the method which is extraordinary, and which makes him the true Father of History. Because, there were even historians prior to Herodotus, e.g. Hecataeus, but they did not apply this method. The method is about reporting first what he had heard, and not judging prematurely. Often Herodotus says, I don't believe it, or: It is only a myth, but nevertheless he reports it. Or he reports different versions of a story, not suppressing an unwanted version. It is a terrible misunderstanding that Herodotus himself believed all the "colorful" stories he reported. To the contrary. Herodotus names and critizes his sources. This is more than just naively reporting. This spirit of the inquirer, of the trustworthy reporter, is what makes Herodotus the Father of Histor(iograph)y. Not that he was the first one who wrote about history. And I strongly disagree that Thucycides is so much better than Herodotus. Thucydides had a much more factual subject, but he rarely gives us his sources, and he rarely gives us different versions of a story. Thucycides looks more factual, but is he?
I have always found umbridge with the Eurocentric moniker of "Father of History" when it is well documented that the Chinese were engaged in historical inquiry much earlier than the Greeks.
Feb 26, 2023·edited Feb 26, 2023Liked by Classical Wisdom
Even for the most uncredible stories in Herodotus some scholar will come along one day and will demonstrate why the story is not uncredible but only true from Herodotus' point of view (or at least worth reporting, not necessarily true for him), and what the real backgrounds are. The more such strange stories with very good background explanations you encounter, the more it becomes clear that Herodotus is very trustworthy.
The most extreme example I know of is Herodotus story about the oracle of Dodona which allegedly was founded by two doves (yes: doves) coming from Egypt. Sounds very incredible. But Prof. Heinz-Günther Nesselrath pointed out that this story was meant totally seriously, and what the backgrounds for this strange story are.
See: Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Dodona, Siwa und Herodot -- ein Testfall für den Vater der Geschichte, in: Museum Helveticum Vol. 56 (1999) issue 1; pp. 1-14. For free here https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=mhl-001:1999:56#11 (German only)
Yes, writing history can be problematic depending on who writes what and for what purpose. But, if writing history strictly adheres to the universal law of logic where real terms are connected by copula as its principle rule without allowing the writer's subjective intention to smear the facts.
Excellent and balanced view of Herodotus and his legacy in proper perspective. I have actually read the Histories, and agree strongly with the author's conclusions.
I miss completely a word about the method of Herodotus. It is the method which is extraordinary, and which makes him the true Father of History. Because, there were even historians prior to Herodotus, e.g. Hecataeus, but they did not apply this method. The method is about reporting first what he had heard, and not judging prematurely. Often Herodotus says, I don't believe it, or: It is only a myth, but nevertheless he reports it. Or he reports different versions of a story, not suppressing an unwanted version. It is a terrible misunderstanding that Herodotus himself believed all the "colorful" stories he reported. To the contrary. Herodotus names and critizes his sources. This is more than just naively reporting. This spirit of the inquirer, of the trustworthy reporter, is what makes Herodotus the Father of Histor(iograph)y. Not that he was the first one who wrote about history. And I strongly disagree that Thucycides is so much better than Herodotus. Thucydides had a much more factual subject, but he rarely gives us his sources, and he rarely gives us different versions of a story. Thucycides looks more factual, but is he?
I have always found umbridge with the Eurocentric moniker of "Father of History" when it is well documented that the Chinese were engaged in historical inquiry much earlier than the Greeks.
Even for the most uncredible stories in Herodotus some scholar will come along one day and will demonstrate why the story is not uncredible but only true from Herodotus' point of view (or at least worth reporting, not necessarily true for him), and what the real backgrounds are. The more such strange stories with very good background explanations you encounter, the more it becomes clear that Herodotus is very trustworthy.
The most extreme example I know of is Herodotus story about the oracle of Dodona which allegedly was founded by two doves (yes: doves) coming from Egypt. Sounds very incredible. But Prof. Heinz-Günther Nesselrath pointed out that this story was meant totally seriously, and what the backgrounds for this strange story are.
See: Heinz-Günther Nesselrath, Dodona, Siwa und Herodot -- ein Testfall für den Vater der Geschichte, in: Museum Helveticum Vol. 56 (1999) issue 1; pp. 1-14. For free here https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=mhl-001:1999:56#11 (German only)
Great article. I found the part about Gelonus particularly interesting. It just goes to show we shouldn't be completely dismissive of Herodotus.
Yes, writing history can be problematic depending on who writes what and for what purpose. But, if writing history strictly adheres to the universal law of logic where real terms are connected by copula as its principle rule without allowing the writer's subjective intention to smear the facts.
Excellent and balanced view of Herodotus and his legacy in proper perspective. I have actually read the Histories, and agree strongly with the author's conclusions.
"The first historian was, of course, Herodotus who was the author of the famous Histories."
Of course? Was any history made BEFORE him? Was it done by historians? My reading was clouded by that statement.