Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T05:37:24.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Persian Friends of Herodotus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. Wells
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From what sources did Herodotus draw the materials for his history? At what date or dates did he compose it? These inquiries have an endless fascination for the student of Herodotus, which is not lessened by the fact that they admit of no certain answer. The combinations which will be suggested in this paper have, so far as I know, not been suggested before; but if, as is extremely likely, they have already been made, there is always a certain interest in the fact that two inquirers, working independently, have come to the same conclusions.

It is not necessary to give evidence of the fact that Herodotus himself was highly satisfied with his own sources of information as to Persian history, and that he considered he could speak with authority upon it. (Cf. e.g. i. 95.) Nor is it necessary to give evidence for the view that Herodotus had on some points official or semi-official Persian information: e.g. in his account of the satrapies in Bk. III., of the Royal Road in Bk. V., and of the Persian army in Bk. VII.

These two points will be assumed, and also that Herodotus is a trustworthy witness, that he reports truly what he has heard, without exaggeration or suppression, and that he had some idea of the differing value of various witnesses.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 27 , November 1907 , pp. 37 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1907

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The references to Ctesias are given to C. Müller's edition, published with the history of Herodotus (Paris. F. Didot, 1844). This seems the edition most generally used, but it is very inaccessible; valueless as the works of Ctesias are, a critical edition in a cheap and handy form would be of great convenience to students of Graeco-Oriental history.

2 I submit that this explanation of the well known difficulty as to these speeches is far more satisfactory than the view that sees in them an instance of the composite character of Herodotus' work. Maass, , e.g. (Hermes xxii. 581 Google Scholar seq.), on the strength of a supposed parallel in Isocrates, argues that the historian has here introduced some of the ‘negative arguments’ (καταβάλλοντες λόγοι) of his contemporary Protagoras. His theory has not a scrap of evidence in its favour, and Meyer, E. (Forsch. i. 201–2)Google Scholar well says ‘Maass makes Herodotus a simpleton, if he imagines that he could impose on the public as historical facts inventions of his good friend Protagoras.’ Moreover the theory ignores Herodotus' insistence on his own accuracy, which is surely a most important point.