No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II. History: Authority Through Narrative
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Extract
Herodotus was not the first to write prose. When his History appeared, probably in the 430s BCE, the scientists of Ionia (like the author of Airs, Waters, Places) had been working for more than a generation. Anaximander and Anaximenes had produced works on the nature of the world as early as the middle of the sixth century, and Hecataeus had already produced his Periodos Gês, ‘Trip around the World’, which surveyed the nations of the Mediterranean. Heraclitus had deposited his paradoxical provocations in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Yet, both for the Greeks and for us, what Herodotus achieved demands to be seen as a radical departure. For the first time, the stirring and dramatic events of a nation at war are not merely recorded but explored and discussed at epic length in prose. It is extremely difficult after the long history of History to appreciate just how remarkable this innovative and foundational act is.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2002
References
1 The testimonia on these early writers are most easily found in Kirk, Raven and Schofield (1983); Hecataeus in Jacoby’s Fragments of the Greek Historians.
2 Forrest (1966) and Davies (1993) are brief and still useful introductions; a much more detailed account is Ostwald (1986), and an up-to-date introduction is Osborne ed. (2000). Hornblower (1991) usefully goes well beyond Athens.
3 See Pollitt (1972); Osborne (1987); Castriota (1992); Rhodes (1995); Osborne (1998): looking at the politics of Greek art has become standard now.
4 On festivals and their culture, see Goldhill (1986), (2000); Connor (1987); Osborne (1993); Neils ed. (1992); Goldhill and Osborne edd. (1999) – all with extensive further bibliography.
5 On the thematics of naming in Homer see Goldhill (1991), ch. 1; and on the nature of the name of Hesiod and of Homer, Nagy (1979), 296–300; (1990), 52–82, who puts a strong case for the generic (rather than individual) value of both names.
6 An interesting version of Protagoras and democracy in Farrar (1988), 44–125.
7 Aristotle Rhet. 3. 9. 2 (mis)quotes this first line interestingly as ‘Herodotus of Thurii’. Thurii was a new town which had laws drawn up for it by Protagoras, and was where Lysias also spent much time. Herodotus also spent time there and, according to tradition, died and was buried there. No modern editor follows Aristotle’s version, though it is sometimes assumed that there was another tradition of text with such a reading. The word order is also different in Aristotle.
8 There is much discussion of this term: the most recent and useful is Thomas (2000), which has extensive bibliography to earlier discussions.
9 See in general Goldhill and Osborne edd. (1999), 3–4; Lloyd (1987); Thomas (2000,) 249–69 for the connections with medicine in particular.
10 For discussion and bibliography see Goldhill (1991), chapter 2.
11 Later writers, however, certainly saw the Trojans as barbarians, and Mackie (1996) makes the strongest case for significant differences between Greeks and Trojans. See, however, Hall (1989) and Redfield (1975).
12 Il. 1. 8–9.
13 II. 3. 164.
14 On the sense of logioi see Nagy (1987).
15 On Herodotean narrative in general see Lang (1984); Immerwahr (1966); and from a different, less Unitarian perspective Fornara (1971); Marincola (2001). On this passage see e.g. Fowler (1996); Pelliccia (1992), which set it in a context.
16 On Croesus see Gould (1989), who draws on Segal (1971); Stahl (1975) and Sebeok and Brady (1979); Moles (1996).
17 Aesch. Pers. 405, to be read with the commentary of Hall (1996).
18 See Gould (1989) – still the best introduction to Herodotus; also Hall (1989); Romm (1998); Cartledge (1993); and the more detailed Hartog (1988).
19 Her. 3. 91.
20 For this sense of reversal see Pembroke (1967); Vidal-Naquet (1981).
21 Said (1978) has been massively influential here.
22 Her. 7. 104. On Demaratus, see Boedeker (1987).
23 On the narrative use of laughter in Herodotus see Lateiner (1977).
24 Her. 7. 209.
25 Plutarch, On the Malignity of Herodotus.
26 The best general account of Herodotus ‘abroad’ is Redfield (1985); see also Lloyd (1990). There is much discussion of the truth or value of Herodotus’ Egyptian account: most dismissive is Fehling (1989); most credulous, Bernal (1987); more interesting is Hunter (1982), 50–92.
27 The most up-to-date book on Herodotus’ religion is Harrison (2000), though it has been widely criticized for undervaluing the sophistication of Herodotus’ account.
28 Hartog’s brilliant account has been seminal in Herodotean studies (Hartog [1988]).
29 Her. 1. 94.
30 Her. 4. 184.
31 Her. 4. 30.
32 Her. 3. 80–4. For discussions of Herodotean politics, see Fornara (1971); Raaflaub (1987), Gould (1989), 116–20; Moles (1996).
33 Her. 3. 80.
34 Od. 5. 74; Od. 7.43-5; Il. 24. 483–4: the full range of the language of wonder and sight is discussed by Prier (1989).
35 Arist. Met. 1. 2. 9 (982b).
36 Her. 2. 35.
37 Ibis: Her. 2. 76. Ants: Her. 3.102.
38 On the Nile see Vasunia (2001).
39 See Her. 2. 35ff.
40 Her. 2. 20.
41 Her. 2. 28.
42 Her. 9. 120. On the ending of Herodotus, see Boedeker (1988); Herington (1991) and especially Devvald (1997). See Nagy (1990), 269–73 on the wider significance offish and portents.
43 Her. 1. 87.
44 Her. 1. 90.
45 Her. 1. 90.
46 Her. 9. 65.
47 This comment is set in context by Kerferd (1981), 163–72.
48 Her. 6. 98.
49 Lots of examples in Harrison (2000), 64–101.
50 Her. 9. 100.
51 Well collected by Lateiner (1989); Dewald (1987) is a particularly good discussion.
52 Her. 7. 152–3.
53 Her. 4. 36.
54 Her. 1. 57.
55 Her. 2. 50.
56 Her. 5. 86.
57 Well collected by Lateiner (1989).
58 Her. 3. 134.
59 Her. 1. 11.
60 References to the end of the war: Thuc. 2. 65; 5. 26.
61 See especially Macleod (1983), 140–58; also Moles (1993), 112–13; Finley (1967), 1–55.
62 See Hornblower (1991b) ad loc.
63 Thuc. 1. 22.
64 For the echoes of Herodotus in this opening see e.g. Moles (1993), 99–107.
65 See the useful note of Connor (1984), 21 n.4.
66 Thuc. 1.1.
67 One of the most discussed (and often reviled) sections of the work: see Hunter (1982), 17–49; Farrar (1988), 138–46; Price (2001), 333–44 (all with further bibliography).
68 Thuc. 1. 11.
69 Thuc. 1. 20.
70 Thuc. 1. 21.
71 See Ford (forthcoming); Gould (1990).
72 On History’s rejection of Myth, see Detienne ( 1986) (although this translation is particularly poor), Cartledge (1993), 18–35 (with useful bibliography). Thomas (1989), Lloyd (1979) and Vernant (1983) are crucial background reading here.
73 Thuc. 1. 22.
74 Thuc. 1. 22.
75 On akribeia, see Crane (1996), 32–8 and 50–74.
76 See e.g. Cogan (1981) on this.
77 Thuc. 1. 22.
78 Thuc. 1. 23: for a useful summary of the arguments about this phrase see Hornblower (1991b), 64–6.
79 Thuc. 1. 23. de Ste. Croix (1972) discusses Thucydides’ case most fully, though not wholly convincingly; Orwin (1994), 30–63. The contrast between superficial and profound causes has been called ‘Thucydides’ greatest single contribution to later history-writing’ (Hornblower [1991b], 65). On the idea of prophasis, see Rawlings (1975), though his conclusions on this passage are unnuanced.
80 See Stadter ed. (1973) with bibliography of earlier discussions; Hornblower (1987), 45–72; Cogan (1981), and especially Macleod (1983) which remains seminal. The best study of a single speech in context is Loraux (1986).
81 See Cogan (1981), 94–100; Orwin (1994), 118–41; Rood (1998), 162–7; and especially Macleod (1983), 68–87 and Ober (1994).
82 Thuc. 6. 8.
83 Thuc. 6. 12–13.
84 Thuc. 6. 16–18.
85 Thuc. 6. 15.
86 Thuc. 6. 15.
87 Thuc. 3. 36.
88 For democratic dissent see the fine study of Ober (1998); also Yunis (1996).
89 Thuc. 3. 37.
90 Thuc. 3. 37.
91 Thuc. 3. 38.
92 Bibliography – largely German – in Rusten (1989) ad loc, and Hornblower (1991b) ad loc. See also Connor (1984), 63–78; Ober (1998), 83–9.
93 For good introduction to this issue, with bibliography, see Ober (1998), 52–63.
94 Thuc. 8. 7.