No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016
Reactions to Herodotus’ work have varied greatly both in ancient and modern times, and his reputation has always contained something paradoxical about it. In antiquity, he was on the one hand acknowledged as the ‘father of history’, the first writer to compose a narrative of the past with the sufficient care and adornment required of high literary endeavour and moral purpose, while treating his theme in a manner that came to be recognized as ‘historical’. On the other hand, his history contained much material that was problematic, especially stories of marvels and strange (and unbelievable) customs that seemed to undermine the serious purpose of history. The modern era has had different concerns and interests, yet here too Herodotus’ reputation has fluctuated; he has at times been considered a serious practitioner of an activity that in its essentials constitutes what is today considered a historical method, and at other times an amiable writer of fiction. It has also been difficult for him to escape from the shadow of his successor Thucydides, who seemed so much closer to modern notions of a historian. Possibly the greatest change that the last thirty years have seen is the near abandonment of the portrait of Herodotus as an well-intentioned, if imperfect, investigator, a man whose striving to become a historian overcame his obvious failure to actually be one. Such a portrait was based ultimately on a supercilious indulgence and a conviction that we knew so much better than he how to do what he so clearly tried to do and failed. Now things are not so clear: what history is and what purpose it fulfills seems to be very complex and driven largely by the needs of the individual societies that use it.
1 The main ancient testimonia are the Suda’s entries on Herodotus and Panyassis; for modern accounts of Herodotus’ life see Jacoby (1913), 213–37; Schmid-Stählin 1.2.550-9; Myres, J., Herodotus: Father of History (Oxford, 1953), 1–16 Google Scholar; cf. also Brown (1973), 25–32; id., ‘Early Life of Herodotus’, AncW 17 (1988), 3–15.
2 See, above all, Lefkowitz, M., The Lives of the Greek Poets (Baltimore and London, 1981)Google Scholar, and the papers collected in ead., First Person Fictions: Pindar’s Poetic ‘I’ (Oxford, 1992).
3 See, for example, the developmental scheme of Dionysius of Halicarnassus at Thuc. 5, where the stylistically inferior early historians gradually give way to Herodotus and Thucydides; on this schema, which probably goes back to Theophrastus, see Fornara (1983), 18–19; cf. above, Introduction, n. 1.
4 On Ephorus and Theopompus see below, pp. 106–9; the Thucydides story is told at Marc. Vit. Thuc. 54.
5 Although the manuscripts have Άλικαρνησσέος, Aristotle knew the beginning as Θουρίου: on this issue see Jacoby (1913), 205–13; Brown, T. S., ‘Halicarnassus or Thurii?’, EMC/CV 27 (1983), 5–16 Google Scholar. That Halicarnassus claimed him as her own is shown by the recently discovered inscription there, which charts the literary glories of the city, and refers to Herodotus as ‘the prose Homer in history’ (Ήρόδοτον ròν πϵζὸν έν ίστορίαισιν “Ομηρον): see Isager, S., ‘The Pride of Halikarnassos’, ZPE 123 (1999), 1–23 Google Scholar.
6 See above, p. 21.
7 On Herodotus and Samos see Mitchell, B., ‘Herodotus and Samos’, JHS 95 (1975), 75–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tölle-Kastenbein, R., Herodot und Samos (Wiesbaden, 1979)Google Scholar.
8 On the colony see Ehrenberg, V., ‘The Foundation of Thurii’, in id., Polis und Imperium, edd. Stroheker, K. and Graham, A. J. (Zurich, 1965), 298–314 (orig. AJP 69 (1948), 149–70)Google Scholar. That Herodotus was familiar with southern Italy is evident from his comparandum at 4.99.5.
9 This is in stark contrast to the preeminent role assigned to Athens by earlier scholars, where it was assumed that Herodotus had a special relationship with Athens: indeed, for Jacoby Herodotus became a historian largely under the stimulus of Periclean Athens; the view was little challenged until Strasburger, H., ‘Herodot und das perikleische Athen’, in: id., Studien zur Alten Geschichte (Berlin and New York, 1982), ii.542–626 (orig. Historia 4 (1955), 1–25)Google Scholar, who argued that Herodotus was not the wholehearted proponent of Athens; for a variation of this, cf. Meier at n. 23 below; cf. also below, n. 124 for a more serious reservations about Herodotus and Athens. Cf. also Gould (1989) 14–17, who has some good observations on Herodotus in Athens; Forrest, W. G., ‘Herodotus and Athens’, Phoenix 38 (1984), 1–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ostwald, M., ‘Herodotus and Athens’, ICS 16 (1991), 137–148 Google Scholar. That Herodotus never visited Athens is the thesis of Podlecki, A.J., ‘Herodotus in Athens?’, in Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean. Festschrift . . . F. Schachermeyr (Berlin, 1977), 246-65Google Scholar.
10 For the views of older scholars see Macan, R. W., Herodotus: The Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Books (London, 1908), ii.xlv–xlix Google Scholar; cf. the recent development of this thesis by Drews (1973), 45–96.
11 Jacoby (1913), 360–78 stands as the main exponent of this view; cf. Fornara (1971), ch. I, and Brown (1973), 34.
12 A book of fundamental importance in this regard is Pohlenz, M., Herodot. Der erste Geschichtsschreiber des Abendlandes (Leipzig, 1937)Google Scholar.
13 For example, von Fritz accepts Jacoby’s developmental notion of Herodotus, but believes that he began as a geographer rather than an ethnographer: see ‘Herodotus and the Growth of Greek Historiography’, TAPA 67 (1936), 315–40; id. (1967), i.442-75.
14 For ethnography as an explanatory system see Lateiner (1989), 145–62.
15 This has been well pointed out by Lateiner (1989), 5.
16 Luc. Hdt. 1. According to ancient testimonia, Herodotus approached both the Thebans and Corinthians for support, but was rebuffed by them (Plut. Mal. Her. 26, 31; D. Chrys. Orat. 37); at Athens, by contrast, he was rewarded with a grant of ten talents (Diyllus, FGrHist 73 F 3). Not much credence should be placed in any of this, since it is a patent attempt by later critics to explain why Herodotus is biased against the Thebans and Corinthians, but favourable to the Athenians.
17 Above, p. 11.
18 The ancient 9-book division was probably made in the Hellenistic era (Schmid-Stählin, 1.2.662-3), and could not indicate units of performance: the length of the books as we currently have them differs greatly, ranging from Book 9 (65 OCT pages) to Books I and VII (each 118 OCT pages). Cagnazzi, S., ‘Notizia di 28 logoi di Erodoto’, AFLB 16 (1973), 89–96 Google Scholar; ead., ‘Tavola dei 28 logoi di Erodoto’, Hermes 103 (1975), 385–423 breaks down the Histories into units that might possibly have been suitable for discrete oral performances. The important article of Flory, S., ‘Who Read Herodotus’ Histories? , AJP 101 (1980), 12–28 Google Scholar argues that Herodotus’ work is, like Thucydides’, primarily designed for reading, but this does not preclude the possibility that portions of the work were orally performed (as with Thucydides: see below, p. 65), although as Johnson, W. A., ‘Oral Performance and the Composition of Herodotus’ Histories ’, GRBS 36 (1995), 229-54Google Scholar, points out, the oral performances cannot be exactly the same as the text we have. See also Thomas, R., ‘Performance and Written Publication in Herodotus and the Sophistic Generation’, in Vermittlung und Tradierung von Wissen in der griechischen Kultur, edd. Kullmann, W. and Althoff, J. (Tübingen, 1993), 225-44Google Scholar; ead. (2000), 257–69.
19 Especially important here is Thomas (1989); cf. ead., Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 1992), 103–4, however, on the difficulty of the concepts ‘oral’ and ‘written’.
20 The publication date has been much discussed: Fornara, C. W., ‘Evidence for the Date of Herodotus’ Publication’, JHS 91 (1971), 25–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id., ‘Herodotus’ Knowledge of the Archidamian War’, Hermes 109 (1981), 149–56; the traditional date is defended by Cobet, J., ‘Wann wurde Herodots Darstellung der Perserkriege publiziert?’, Hermes 105 (1977), 2–27 Google Scholar; id. ‘Philologische Stringenz und die Evidenz für Herodots Publikationsdatum’, Athenaeum 65 (1987), 508–11; cf. also Sansone, D., ‘The Date of Herodotus’ Publication’, ICS 10 (1985), 1–9 Google Scholar; Evans (1991), 89–90.
21 Schmid-Stahlin 1.2.590, n.9 gives a list of references in the Histories to events after 479; cf. Cobet (1971), 59–77.
22 See below, p. 47.
23 Fornara (1971) is the classic exposition of this position; cf. Raaflaub, K. A., ‘Herodotus, Political Thought and the Meaning of History’, Arethusa 20 (1987), 221-48Google Scholar; Meier, C., ‘Die Entstehung der Historie’, in Die Entstehung des Politischen bei den Griechen (Frankfurt, 1980), 360–434 Google Scholar; id., ‘The Origin of History in Ancient Greece’, Arethusa 20 (1987), 41–57, esp. 53—4, who sees the Athenian empire as the spur to and great concern of Herodotus’ work. See also Stadter, P., ‘Herodotus and the Athenian Arche ’ ASNP 22 (1992), 781–809 Google Scholar. For some reservations about the extent of the influence of the Peloponnesian War on Herodotus, see Derow, P., ‘Herodotus Readings’, Classics Ireland 2 (1995), 29–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Erbse, H., ‘Der erste Satz im Werke Herodots’, in Festschrift Bruno Snell (Munich, 1956), 209-22Google Scholar; Krischer, T., ‘Herodots Prooimion’, Hermes 93 (1965), 159-67Google Scholar; Hommel, H., ‘Herodots Einleitungssatz: ein Schlüssel zur Analyse des Gesamtwerks’, in: Gnomosyne. Festschrift . . . W. Marg (Munich, 1981), 271-87Google Scholar; Nagy, G., ‘Herodotus the Logios ’ Arethusa 20 (1987), 175-84Google Scholar; Lateiner (1989), 14, cf. 232–3 nn. 7–13 for a valuable brief survey of opinions on the preface; Pellicia, H., ‘Sappho, Gorgias’ Helen, and the Preface to Herodotus’ Histories ’, YCS 29 (1992), 63–84 Google Scholar; Porciani (1997), 3–78 studies the prefaces of Herodotus, Thucydides, Hecataeus and Antiochus of Syracuse, and points out numerous parallels between them and Near Eastern inscriptions and letters.
25 Immerwahr, H., ‘ Ergon: History as Monument in Herodotus and Thucydides’, AJP 81 (1960), 261-90Google Scholar.
26 The epic singer’s subject were the ἒργ’ àνδρων те θ€ών те (Od. 1.338, Penelope to Phemius).
27 See below, p. 51.
28 There have been many studies of the structure: Jacoby (1913), 281–330 (table, cols. 283–326); Immerwahr (1966) passim looks at small-and large-scale structure; Myres (above, n. 1), 118–34 has a chart of his famous ‘pedimental’ structure; cf. also Cobet (1971); Cagnazzi (above, n. 18); Waters, K., ‘The Structure of Herodotus’ Narrative’, Antichthon 15 (1974), 1–10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 The Croesus narrative is immensely important in establishing some of Herodotus’ most persistent themes: see Stahl, H.-P., ‘Learning Through Suffering? Croesus’ Conversations in the History of Herodotus’, YCS 24 (1975), 1–36 Google Scholar; von Fritz (1967), i.216-31; Lateiner (1989), 36–9; Erbse (1992), 12–30; Georges (1994), 169–76. See also below, at n. 136.
30 On the portrait of Cyrus in Herodotus, see Immerwahr (1966), 161–7; Avery, H. C., ‘Herodotus’ Picture of Cyrus’, AJP 93 (1972), 529-46Google Scholar; Evans (1991), 51–6.
31 On Cambyses see below, n. 119.
32 On the portrait of Darius, see Immerwahr (1966), 169–76; Evans (1991), 56–60; Erbse (1992), 56–73; Georges (1994), 195–9. The inscriptions at Behistun on Darius’ accession have been exploited for their potential in telling us much about both Persian and Herodotean historiography: see Dandamayev, M. A., Persien unter den ersten Achämeniden (Wiesbaden, 1976), 108-58Google Scholar; Balcer, J.M., Herodotus and Bisitun: Problems in Ancient Persian Historiography (Wiesbaden 1987)Google Scholar.
33 On the portrait of Xerxes, see below at n. 121.
34 Immerwahr (1966), 316, and below, p. 000.
35 For the ‘Odyssean’ first half, see Marincola (1997a) §11; on Herodotus’ imitation of Homer as a narrator of war and battles, see Fornara (1983), 62–3, 76–7; Woodman (1988), 1–4, 48–9; Huxley, G. L., Herodotus and the Epic (Athens, 1989)Google Scholar. See also above, Ch. I n. 3.
36 Immerwahr (1966), 51–8; Wood, H., The Histories of Herodotus (The Hague, 1972), 115-18Google Scholar.
37 Fundamental is Immerwahr (1966), passim.
38 Wood (above, n. 36), 93–111; Hartog (1988), 34–60.
39 Dillery, J., ‘Reconfiguring the Past: Thyrea, Thermopylae and Narrative Patterns in Herodotus’, AJP 117 (1996), 217-54Google Scholar suggests two types of narrative patterning, one deliberate (those to which Herodotus calls attention) and the other simply ‘a function of his way of viewing events’ (237). For other types of repetition and patterning see Long, T., Repetition and Variation in the Short Stories of Herodotus (Meisenheim am Gian, 1986)Google Scholar.
40 Wolff, E., ‘Das Weib des Masistes’, Hermes 92 (1964), 51-6Google Scholar; on ring-composition see Beck, I., Die Ringkomposition bei Herodot und ihre Bedeutung für die Beweistechnik (Hildesheim, 1971)Google Scholar; cf. Immerwahr (1966), 46–78.
41 Cf., e.g., 4.30.1, προσθήκας γὰρ δή μοι ό λόγος έξ άρχής έδίζητο.
42 This position is argued at length in Cobet (1971), refuting Erbse, H., ‘Tradition und Form im Werke Herodots’, Gymnasium 68 (1961), 239-57Google Scholar on ‘essential’ and ‘inessential’ excursuses; cf. Erbse (1989), 119–21. Waters, K. H., Herodotus the Historian: His Problems, Methods and Originality (London and Norman, Ok., 1985), 70-1Google Scholar uses the terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’, but this is not particularly helpful. Cobet points out that the variety of excursuses expands upon the material in the larger, Persian-expansion narrative; cf. Gould’s neat formulation (1989, 57), that the digressions, like Homeric similes, ‘serve to open up the world of the narrative . . . to admit relevant but different areas of human experience’.
43 Early history of Athens and Aegina, 6.85-93, not least important for the fact that the Athenian ships outfitted for that struggle were eventually used to fight the Persians: 7.144.
44 Hdt. 5.92.
45 Cf., e.g., 7.151, 8.85.3, 9.75, 9.105, with Cobet (1971), 59–77.
46 Hdt. 1.23-4, 3.40-5, 8.104-6; fundamental is Aly, W., Volksmärchen, Sage und Novelle bei Herodot und seinen Zeitgenossen 2 (Göttingen, 1969)Google Scholar; cf. also next n.
47 Two recent books are largely devoted to studying the ‘novelistic’ material: Flory (1987), and van der Veen (1996), both excellent examinations, although the former may overstate the case when he says that ‘the anecdotes hold this work together, both in practical terms by repeating the same themes in sections of the book that at first appear unrelated, and in philosophical terms because the repeated themes illuminate the whole historical narrative and the mind of the author’ (16); cf. Erbse (1989), 183–9, who emphasizes Herodotus’ inventiveness in his anecdotal material. See also Lang, M., ‘War and the Rape-Motif, or Why Did Cambyses Invade Egypt?’, PAPS 116 (1972), 410-14Google Scholar; Griffiths, A., ‘Democedes of Croton: A Greek Doctor at the Court of Darius’, in Kuhrt, A. and Sancisi-Weerdenberg, H., edd., Achaemenid History II (Amsterdam, 1987), 37–51 Google Scholar; id., ‘Euenios, the Negligent Nightwatchman (Herodotus 9.92-96)’, in Buxton, R., ed., From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought (Oxford, 1999), 169-82Google Scholar.
48 This is especially brought out by van der Veen (1996), passim. On the theme of the mutability of fortune, see below, p. 50.
49 This point is well discussed by Rosier, W., ‘Die Selbsthistorisierung des Autors. Zur Stellung Herodots zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit’, Philologus 135 (1991), 215-20Google Scholar.
50 Egypt, of course, is the land of greatest marvels (2.35.1); on Samos see 3.60.1.
51 On marvels in Herodotus see Barth, H., ‘Zur Bewertung und Auswahl des Stoffes durch Herodot (Die Begriffe θώμα, θωμάζω, θωμάσίος und θωμαστός) ’ Klio 50 (1968), 93–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Redfield, J., ‘Herodotus the Tourist’, CP 80 (1985), 97–118 Google Scholar, esp. 110–12; Lateiner (1989), 147–50. On marvels as part of the inquiry into the natural world see Thomas (2000), 135–67; on marvels in the religious realm, Harrison (2000), 64–101.
52 Hdt. 2.157, 2.68.2, 4.187.3; 9.37.2; on the importance of ‘firsts’, see Kleingünther, A., Πρώτος Εύρέτης (Leipzig, 1933), 43–65 Google Scholar; on superlatives, Bloomer, W. M., ‘The Superlative Nomoi of Herodotus’ Histories ’, CA 12 (1993), 30–50 Google Scholar.
53 On the source-citations see von Gutschmid, A., ‘Index fontium Herodoti’, in id., Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1893), iv. 145-87Google Scholar; Jacoby (1913), 398–9, with Jacoby’s discussion of the sources, 419–67; Fehling (1989), passim.
54 A great deal of discussion has centred on the identity of these priests: see Lloyd, A. B., Herodotus Book II: Introduction (Leiden, 1975), 89–100 Google Scholar.
55 Six to be exact: 2.55 (Promeneia, Timarete, and Nicandra, priestesses at Dodona); 3.55.2 (Archias); 4.76.6 (Tymnes), and 9.16.1 (Thersander). For some suggestions on Herodotus’ Persian sources see Lewis, D. M., ‘Persians in Herodotus’, in id., Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History (Cambridge, 1997), 345-61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 On Herodotus and Delphi, see Crahay, R., La littérature oraculaire chez Hérodote (Paris, 1956), 189–205 Google Scholar; Flower, H. I., ‘Herodotus and Delphic Traditions about Croesus’, in Flower, M. and Toher, M., edd., Georgica. Greek Studies . . . G. Cawkwell (London, 1991), 57–77 Google Scholar.
57 Gould (1989), 21–2 suggests that Herodotus’ inquiries may have an epic prototype in the journey of Telemachus to Menelaus, there to inquire about the history of Troy and his father. One must assume on this model that Herodotus had access to ‘well-placed’ people, and that, in consequence, he must have been a member of the élite.
58 Less commonly in the past tense, ‘such and such said’: these are limited to the Egyptian and Scythian logoi: Marincola, J., ‘Herodotean Narrative and the Narrator’s Presence’, Arethusa 20 (1987), 121-37Google Scholar.
59 Groten, F. J., ‘Herodotus’ Use of Variant Versions’, Phoenix 17 (1963), 79–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fehling (1989), 143–7; Lateiner (1989), 76–90; for the use of variant versions in ancient historians generally, Marincola (1997), 280–6.
60 The most striking example of the latter is the long narrative of the clever thief during the reign of Rhampsinitus (2. 121); the story proceeds for nearly a hundred lines in indirect discourse, all dependent on an initial ‘the priests said’.
61 Herodotus makes this explicitly valid for his entire work at 7.152.3, έγὼ δὲ ὀϕϵίλω λέγϵιν τὰ λϵγόμϵνα, πϵίθϵσθαί γϵ μὲν οὐ παντάπασιν ὀϕϵίλω, καί μοι τοῠτο τὸ ἒπος ἐχέτω ἐς πάντα λόγον.
62 A brief history of the written sources question in Fehling (1989), 1–5.
63 Above, p. 24.
64 Jacoby (1956), 49.
65 Hdt. 2.156.2 ~ Hecataeus, FGrHist 1 F 305.
66 Similarly Egypt as ‘the gift of the Nile’: Hdt. 2.5.1 ~ Hecataeus, FGrHist 1 F 301.
67 Fehling (1989), passim, esp. 12–86; Bichler/Rollinger (2000), 161–3 puts Fehling’s observations in the context of other scholars’ similar doubts.
68 Armayor, O. K., ‘The Homeric Influence on Herodotus’ Story of the Labyrinth’, CB 54 (1977-8), 68–72 Google Scholar; id., ‘Did Herodotus Ever Go to the Black Sea?’, HSCP 82 (1978) 45–62; id., ‘Did Herodotus Ever Go to Egypt?’, JARCE 15 (1978), 59–71; id., ‘Herodotus’ Catalogue of the Persian Empire in the Light of the Monuments and the Greek Literary Tradition’, TAPA 108 (1978), 1–9; id., ‘Herodotus’ Persian Vocabulary’, AncW 1 (1978), 147–56; id., ‘Sesostris and Herodotus’ Autopsy of Thrace, Colchis, inland Asia Minor and the Levant’, HSCP 84 (1980), 52–74; id., Herodotus’ Autopsy of the Fayoum: Lake Moeris and the Labyrinth of Egypt (Amsterdam 1985); West, S., ‘Herodotus’ Epigraphical Interests’, CQ 35 (1985), 278–305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead., ‘Herodotus’ Portrait of Hecataeus’, JHS 111 (1991), 144–60. The full-scale assault on these works by Pritchett, W. K., The Liar School of Herodotus (Amsterdam, 1985)Google Scholar, is flawed from the title on; despite some good observations, the work is marred by wholesale misunderstanding, tendentious misquotation, and circular reasoning, and should be used with great caution.
69 Evans, J.A.S., ‘Oral Tradition in Herodotus’, Canadian Oral Hist. Assoc.Journ. 4 (1980), 8–16 Google Scholar; id. (1991), 89–146; Cobet, J., ‘Herodot und mündliche Überlieferung’, in: von Ungern-Sternberg, J. and Reinau, H., edd., Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung (Stuttgart, 1988), 226-33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas (1989), passim, esp. 165–72, 247–51; Stadter, P., ‘Herodotus and the North Carolina Oral Narrative Tradition’, Histos 1 (1997)Google Scholar.
70 Luraghi, N., ‘Local Knowledge in Herodotus’ Histories ’, in: id., ed., The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford, 2001), 138-60Google Scholar argues persuasively that the source citations are often misread, and their purpose is mainly to indicate that such a tradition exists; they are not there primarily to indicate how the narrator received his information about this or that tradition.
71 On Herodotus’ historical method see above all Verdin, H., De historisch-kritische Methode van Herodotus (Brussels, 1971)Google Scholar, and Lateiner (1989), on both of which I have drawn widely for this section.
72 Thuc. 1.22, a passage which has its own considerable problems: below, pp. 77–8.
73 On these abductions, see Flory (1987), 24–9, 166–7 nn. 4–5; Gould (1989), 64; Lateiner (1989), 35–6, 240 n.74.
74 On autopsy see the exhaustive study of Schepens (1980), esp. 33–93.
75 Contrast these remarks with the remarks which are specifically said to be valid for the entire work (above, n. 61).
76 Corcella, A., Erodoto e l’analogia (Palermo, 1984), 57–91 Google Scholar has excellent observations on gnòmê in Herodotus.
77 For a succinct introduction, see Kerferd, G. B., The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar; cf. also the relevant portions of Guthrie, W. K. C., History of Greek Philosophy III (Cambridge, 1969)Google Scholar, reissued separately as The Sophists (Cambridge, 1971).
78 See, e.g., Schmid-Stählin i.2.318; cf. the survey of views in Thomas (2000), 4–7.
79 See the recent collection of essays in Buxton, R., ed., From Myth to Reason? (Oxford, 1999)Google Scholar.
80 On 7.139, see Demand, N., ‘Herodotus’ Encomium of Athens: Science or Rhetoric?’, AJP 108 (1987), 746-58Google Scholar; on 3.80 there is a massive literature; cf. Benardete, S., Herodotean Inquiries 2 (South Bend, Ind., 1999), 84-6Google Scholar; Lateiner (1989), 163–86 (comprehensive); Lasserre, F., ‘Hérodote et Protagoras: le débat sur les constitutions’, MH 33 (1976), 65–84 Google Scholar; Evans, J. A. S., ‘Notes on the Debate of the Persian Grandees in Herodotus’, QUCC 36 (1981), 69–84 Google Scholar.
81 See the fundamental article of Lateiner, D., ‘The Empirical Element in the Methods of Early Greek Medical Writers and Herodotus: A Shared Epistemological Response’, Antichthon 20 (1986), 1–20 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; for sophistic involvement in less epideictic passages, see Thomas (2000), esp. chh. 2–5; on Herodotus’ use of analogy, see above, n. 76.
82 See below, p. 55.
83 Marincola (1997), 218–36.
84 See below, p. 103.
85 This is not to say that he was not corrected on factual error: Thucydides must have him in mind in 1.21, and Ctesias ‘corrected’ him in numerous matters, just as a host of writers on Egypt claimed to be correcting and improving his account (below, pp. 107–8); factual inaccuracy was not, however, the main criticism.
86 See Marincola, J., ‘Plutarch’s Refutation of Herodotus’, AncW 20 (1994) 191–203 Google Scholar.
87 See the references in n. 9 above.
88 On these distinctions see Walbank, F. W., ‘History and Tragedy’, in Walbank (1985), 224-41Google Scholar; orig. in Historia 9 (1960), 216–34; Wiseman (1993), 128–31.
89 For recent examinations of this sort see: Gottlieb, G., Das Verhältnis der ausserherodoteischen Überlieferung zu Herodot (Bonn, 1963)Google Scholar; Schmitt, R., ‘The Medo-Persian Names of Herodotus in the Light of the New Evidence from Persepolis’, AAHung 24 (1976), 25–35 Google Scholar; Lloyd, A.B., ‘Herodotus on Egyptians and Libyans’, in Nenci/Reverdin (1991), 215-53Google Scholar; J. Harmattá, ‘Herodotus, Historian of the Cimmerians and Scythians’, ibid. 115–30; D. Asheri, ‘Herodotus on Thracian Society and History’, ibid. 131–69; Helm, P. R., ‘Herodotus’ Mêdikos Logos and Median History’, Iran 19 (1981), 85–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rollinger, R., Herodots Babylonischer Logos. Eine kritische Untersuchung der Glaubwürdigkeitsdiskussion an Hand ausgewählter Beispiele (Innsbruck 1993)Google Scholar; Dandamayev, M., ‘Herodotus’ Information on Persia and the Latest Discoveries of Cuneiform Texts’, SS 7 (1985), 92-9Google Scholar; Calmeyer, P., ‘Greek Historiography and Achaemenid Reliefs’, in Kuhrt, A. and Sancisi-Weerdenberg, H., edd., Achaemenid History II (Leiden, 1987), 11–26 Google Scholar; Baker (above, n. 32); Lewis (above, n. 55); id., ‘Postscript’ in Burn, A. R., Persia and the Greeks (London 2 1984), 587–609 Google Scholar; Froschauer, P., Herodots ägyptischer Logos. Die Glaubwürdigkeitsdiskussion in kritischer Sicht: Forschungsgeschichte-Ausgewählte Argumentationen-Archäologischer Befund (diss. Innsbruck, 1991)Google Scholar.
90 Important works on Herodotean narrative include: Lang, M., Herodotean Narrative and Discourse (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar; Beltrametti, A., Erodoto. Una storia governata dal discorso. Il racconto morale come forma della memoria (Florence, 1987)Google Scholar; Darbo-Peschanski, C., Le discours du particulier. Essai sur l’enquête hérodotienne (Paris, 1987)Google Scholar; Dewald, C., ‘Narrative Surface and Authorial Voice in the Histories’, Arethusa 20 (1987), 147-70Google Scholar; Schwabl, H., ‘Herodot als Historiker und Erzähler’, Gymnasium 76 (1969), 253-72Google Scholar; Payen, P., ‘Discours historique et structures narratives chez Hérodote’, Annales (ESC) 45 (1990), 527-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar (mainly on the Egyptian logos); Munson, R., ‘Herodotus’ Use of Prospective Sentences and the Story of Rhampsinitus and the Thief in the Histories ’, AJP 114 (1993), 27–44 Google Scholar; Kuch, H., ‘Narrative Strategie bei Herodot’, Eikasmos 6 (1995), 57–65 Google Scholar; de Jong, I.J.F., ‘Aspects narratologiques des Histoires d’Hérodote’, Lalies 19 (1999), 217-74Google Scholar is a particularly valuable comprehensive overview; see also the general observations on historical narrative in Rood (1998), 3–23. For the very different narrative manner of later historians, see Marincola (1997), 8–11. The most consistent imitator of Herodotus’ narrative manner in antiquity was Dionysius of Halicarnassus: see below, n. 173.
91 See, e.g., 1.5.3 (προβήσομαι, ἐς τὸ πρόσω τοϋ λογου), 7.137.1 (ἐπάνϵιμι ἐπὶ τον πρότερον λόγον); very common are expressions such as ώς каі πρότϵρόν μοι ϵἴρηται or δϵδήλωται (e.g., 1.130.3, 4.129.2,6.123.2. 7.217.2).
92 As to the last, explicit remarks of travel are confined to Book II (3.1, 28.1, 44.1-2, 44.4, 75.1, 77.1, 148.5); for possible reasons see Marincola (above, n. 58); similarly, Darbo-Peschanski (above, n. 90), 108–12.
93 See, e.g., 2.17, 4.87.2, 4.101.3, 7.184.1, 7.186.1-187.2, 8.66.2, 9.32.2; expressions of measurement in 2.6.1, 2.127.1, 4.86.4.
94 Space precludes a full listing here; most of the major passages are noted in Marincola, J., ‘Thucydides 1.22.2’, CP 84 (1989), 216-23Google Scholar; cf. Hohti, P., #x2018;Συμβάλλεσθαι: A Note on Conjecture in Herodotus’, Arctos 11 (1977), 5–14 Google Scholar.
95 Explicit praise is at 1.137 (bis), but this is not Herodotus’ usual procedure. Much more common is praise in the mouth of others, as, for example, Demaratus’ praise of Sparta to Xerxes, 7. 102, with Fornara (1971), 49–50.
96 See e.g. 2.64.2, 3.3.1, 4.5.1, 5.86.3; Packman, Z. M., ‘The Incredible and the Incredulous: The Vocabulary of Disbelief in Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon’, Hermes 119 (1991), 399–414 Google Scholar.
97 Linforth, I. M., ‘Herodotus’ Avowal of Silence’, UCPCP 7 (1924), 269-92Google Scholar; id., ‘Named and Unnamed Gods in Herodotus’, ibid. 9 (1928), 201–43; Mora, F., ‘I “Silenzi Erodotei”’, Studi Storico-Religiosi 5/2 (1981), 209-22Google Scholar; Harrison (2000), 182–91.
98 See, e.g., for the first type 2.130.2, 6.137.1; for the second, 4.53.5, 7.152.1, 8.112.2; and for the third, 8.87.1 (ignorance of the action of all the contingents except Artemisia).
99 Hdt. 1.51.4,2.123.3,4.43.7.
100 7.214.3: τούτον αΐτιον γράφω. Herodotus uses the verb of his own activity also at 1.95.1, 2.70.1, 2.123.1-3, 4.195.2, 6.53.1.
101 Dewald (above, n. 90), 150.
102 Thomas (2000), 168–212.
103 Lloyd, G. E. R., The Revolutions of Wisdom (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1987), 83–108 Google Scholar.
104 See the works cited above, n. 90.
105 See Nagy (above, n. 24); on Pindar see above, pp. 12–13.
106 On the speeches in Herodotus see Hohti, P., The Interrelation of Speech and Action in the Histories of Herodotus (Helsinki, 1976)Google Scholar; Heni, R., Die Gespräche beiHerodot (diss. Heidelberg, 1976)Google Scholar; Lang (above, n. 90); Lateiner (1989), 19–21 is brief but useful; Waters, K., ‘The Purpose of Dramatisation in Herodotus’, Historia 15 (1966), 157-71Google Scholar. Older but still valuable are Deffner, A., Die Rede bei Herodot und ihre Weiterbildung bei Thukydides (diss. Munich, 1933)Google Scholar; Steinger, G., Epische Elemente im Redenstil Herodots (diss. Kiel, 1957)Google Scholar.
107 Lattimore, R., ‘The Wise Adviser in Herodotus’, CP 34 (1939), 24–35 Google Scholar; Bischoff, H., Der Warner bei Herodot (diss. Marburg, 1932)Google Scholar; Peiling, C. B. R., ‘Herodotus’ Artabanus and Thucydides’ Archidamus’, in Geórgica. Greek Studies . . . G. Cawkwell, edd. Rower, M. and Toher, M. (London, 1991), 120-42Google Scholar.
108 For the comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides see D. Hal. Pomp. 3 (ii. 382–4 Usher); Gould (1989), 42 estimates that there are some 940 individuals named in Herodotus.
109 See above, p. 7.
110 Below, pp. 69–72.
111 See the excellent discussion in van der Veen (1996), 23–52.
112 Hdt. 5.92γ, with van der Veen (1996), 86–9.
113 On the matter of indirect versus direct characterization, see the classic exposition of Bruns, I., Die Persönlichkeit in der Geschichtsschreibung der Alten (Berlin, 1898)Google Scholar.
114 Waters, K. H., Herodotus on Tyrants and Despots: A Study in Objectivity (Historia Einzelschrift 15; Wiesbaden, 1971)Google Scholar is the fullest exposition of the view that Herodotus maintains objectivity in his portraits of one-man rule; his position, however, is demolished by Lateiner (1989), 170–85. See also Gammie, J. G., ‘Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiography or Conventional Portraiture’, JNES 45 (1986), 171-95Google Scholar; Gray, V. J., ‘Herodotus and Images of Tyranny’, AJP 117 (1996), 361-89Google Scholar. There is also much pertinent material in West, S., ‘Sophocles’ Antigone and Herodotus Book III’, in Griffin, J., ed., Sophocles Revisited. Essays . . . H. Lloyd-Jones (Oxford, 1999), 109-36Google Scholar.
115 1.100.1, ἦν τὸ δίκαιον ϕυλάσσων χαλεπός. Lateiner (1989), 171 has argued that the portrait of Deioces is not a positive one, but the most that can be said against Deioces is that he isolates himself and keeps away from his subjects. Cf. Flory (1987), 122–7 for the positive aspects of Deioces’ rule.
116 Lateiner (1989), 172–9 has assembled the evidence in a convenient tabular form.
117 Cf. the unnamed Persian at 9.16.5, who speaks for all his countrymen when he says that ‘many of us, although we know otherwise, obey orders, because we are bound by necessity’.
118 Christ, M., ‘Herodotean Kings and Historical Inquiry’, CA 13 (1994), 167–202 Google Scholar.
119 On Herodotus’ portrait of Cambyses, see Immerwahr (1966), 167–9; Brown, T. S., ‘Herodotus’ Portrait of Cambyses’, Historia 31 (1982), 387–403 Google Scholar; Hofmann, I. and Vorbichler, A., ‘Das Cambysesbild bei Herodot’, AfO 27 (1980), 86–105 Google Scholar; Lloyd, A. B., ‘Herodotus on Cambyses. Some Thoughts on Recent Work’, in Kuhrt, A. and Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., edd., Achaemenid History III. Method and Theory (Leiden, 1988), 55–66 Google Scholar; Griffiths, A., ‘Was Cambyses Mad?’, in Powell, A., ed., Classical Sparta: Techniques behind her Success (London, 1989), 51–78 Google Scholar; Georges (1994), 186–95. It has been suggested that the portrait of Cambyses in Herodotus has been influenced by the anti-Persian bias of the priestly class at Egypt: Balcer (above, n. 32) 91–100.
120 It is also Cambyses’ actions that call forth the story of Darius’ ‘test’ of Greeks and Indians (3.38), in which the inviolability of custom is demonstrated by the Indian and Greek horror of being asked to do what is not nomos. On the importance of nomos in Herodotus’ work see Lateiner (1989), 145–62; Gould (1989), 94–109, and below, n. 142.
121 On Herodotus’ portrait of Xerxes, see Immerwahr (1966), 176–83; Evans (1991), 60–7; Georges (1994), 199–203.
122 Hdt. 9.108-121: on these passages see below, pp. 57–8.
123 On Mardonius, see Immerwahr (1966), 289–90; Evans (1991), 67–72.
124 The final actions of the Athenians at the Hellespont, particularly the siege of Sestos and the crucifixion and punishment of Artaýctes, are crucial here in our evaluation of them: see Moles, J., ‘Herodotus Warns the Athenians’, PLLS 9 (1996), 259-84Google Scholar; Peiling, C., ‘East is East and West is West – Or Are They?’, Histos 1 (1997)Google Scholar, who emphasizes the porousness of the Greek/barbarian dichotomy; Dewald, C., ‘Pickled Heroes, Wanton Kings and Gnomic Founding Fathers: Reading the End of Herodotus’ Histories ’, in Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature, edd. Roberts, D. H., Dunn, F. M. and Fowler, D. (Princeton, 1997), 62–82 Google Scholar; more generally, Herington, J., ‘The Closure of Herodotus’ Histories ’, ICS 16 (1991), 149-60Google Scholar. On the importance of endings in literature for providing interpretative markers, see Fowler, D., Roman Constructions (Oxford, 2000), 239–307 Google Scholar. See also below, pp. 57–8.
125 de Romilly, J., ‘La Vengeance comme explication historique dans Hérodote’, REG 4 (1971), 314-47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gould (1989), 89–92; id., Give and Take in Herodotus (J.L. Myres Memorial Lecture, Oxford, 1991); Harrison, T., ‘Herodotus and the Certainty of Divine Retribution’, in Lloyd, A. B., ed., What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity (London, 1997), 101-22Google Scholar; Braund, D., ‘Herodotus on the Problematics of Reciprocity’, in Gill, C., Postlethwaite, N. and Seaford, R., edd., Reciprocity in Ancient Greece (Oxford, 1998), 159-80Google Scholar; Harrison (2000), 102–21.
126 See above, n. 73.
127 Hdt. 1.8-12; on this story see Stahl, H.-P., ‘Herodots Gyges-Tragödie’, Hermes 96 (1968), 385–400 Google Scholar; Flory (1987), 30–8; D. Cairns, Off With Her Aἰδώς: Herodotus 1.8.3-4’, CQ 46 (1996), 78–83.
128 Hdt. 1.123.1,3.48,4.1.1-2.
129 Hdt. 5.105; 8.144.2.
130 Cf. Immerwahr (1966), 307 on the workings of tisis: ‘the result of such counteraction is a balance of world forces . . ., thus assuring the continuity and indeed the permanence of history’; cf. Gould (1989), 82: ‘the most pervasive strand of explanation in Herodotus’ narrative, so pervasive that it constitutes the essence of his perception of events, is the sense that historical experience is the result of reciprocal action, the fulfilling of debts of gratitude and the taking of revenge.’
131 For more on the final scenes, see below, pp. 57–8.
132 See also above, n. 48.
133 Cf. 2.120.5, the observation that ‘great offences meet with great punishments at the hands of the gods’. See Shapiro, S., ‘Herodotus and Solon’, CA 15 (1996), 348-64Google Scholar for the importance of this episode in establishing the framework for the whole history.
134 As with Achilles’ two urns of Zeus (Il. 24.527-33), humans receive from the gods either blessings and evils mixed, or evils alone; no one receives only blessings.
135 The gods thus act as guarantors of the order of the world: Immerwahr (1966), 312–13, cf. 252; and from a slightly different vantage point, Harrison (2000), 102–21.
136 See above, n. 29.
137 On the Poly crates story see van der Veen (1996), 6–22.
138 Hdt. 1.73.1 gives three reasons, the desire to add more land to his realm, his trust in the oracle, and his desire to pay back Cyrus for his treatment of Astyages.
139 Evans (1991), 9–40; Alonso-Núñez, J. M., ‘Herodotus’ Ideas About World Empires’, AncSoc 19 (1988), 125-33Google Scholar.
140 On boundary crossings see Lateiner (1989), 126–44; on peoples at the end of the world as cultural markers, see Romm (1992), 47–77; on the campaign itself, Georges, P., ‘Darius in Scythia: the Formation of Herodotus’ Sources and the Nature of Darius’ Campaign’, AJAH 12 (1987 [1995]), 97–147 Google Scholar.
141 Hdt. 7. 35 (Xerxes at the Hellespont); 8.109.3 (Themistocles’ remarks); 7.33 + 9.120.4 (spot of crucifixion).
142 See Redfield (above, n. 51); Hartog (1988); Cartledge, P., ‘Herodotus and “the other”: A Meditation on Empire’, EMC/CV 34 (1990), 27–40 Google Scholar; id. (1993), 8–17, 36–62 (on the Greek/barbarian dichotomy in Herodotus and other authors); Darbo-Peschanski, C., ‘Les logoi des autres dans les Histoires d’Hérodote’, QS 22 (1985), 105-28Google Scholar; Rosselini and Said (below, n. 150); Nenci, G., ‘L’occidente barbarico’, in Nenci/Reverdin (1990), 301-21Google Scholar; Nippel, W., ‘Ethnographie und Anthropologie bei Herodot’, in: id., ed., Griechen, Barbaren und ‘Wilde’: Alte Geschichte und Sozialanthropologie (Frankfurt am Main, 1990), 11–29 Google Scholar; Gray, V.J., ‘Herodotus and the Rhetoric of Otherness’, AJP 116 (1995), 185–211 Google Scholar; Peiling (above, n. 124); Bichler, R., Herodots Welt. Die Aufbau der Historie am Bilder der fremden Länder und Völker, ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte (Berlin, 1999)Google Scholar.
143 Cf. Redfield (n. 51).
144 Hartog (1988), 34–60.
145 On Egypt see Lloyd (above, n. 54); Benardete (above, n. 80), 32–68; Froidefond, C., Le mirage égyptien dans la littérature grecque ďHomére à Aristote (Paris, 1971), 115–207 Google Scholar; note that in the Egyptian logos it is ‘all other people’ vs. the Egyptians (2.35-36).
146 Burkert, W., ‘Herodot über die Namen der Götter: Polytheismus als historisches Problem’, MH 42 (1985), 121-32Google Scholar; id., ‘Herodot als Historiker fremder Religionen’, in Nenci/Reverdin (1990), 1–39; Gould, J., ‘Herodotus and Religion’, in Hornblower (1994), 91–106 Google Scholar.
147 Briant, P., ‘Hérodote et la société perse’, in Nenci/Reverdin (1990), 69–104 Google Scholar.
148 Fehling (1989), 193–4.
149 For all these incidents, see Pelling (above, n. 124).
150 Pembroke, S., ‘Women in Charge: the Function of Alternatives in Early Greek Tradition and the Ancient Idea of Matriarchy’, JWI 30 (1967), 1–35 Google Scholar; Tourraix, A., ‘La femme et la pouvoir chez Hérodote: Essai d’Histoire des mentalités antiques’, DHA 2 (1976), 369-86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosselini, M. and Said, S., ‘Usages des femmes et autres nomoi chez les ‘sauvages’ d’Hérodote: essai de lecture structurale’, ASNP 8 (1978), 949–1005 Google Scholar; Dewald, C., ‘Women and Culture in Herodotus’ Histories ’, in Foley, H., ed., Reflections of Women in Antiquity (New York, 1981), 91–125 Google Scholar; Sancisi-Weerdenberg, H., ‘Exit Atossa: Images of Women in Greek Historiography on Persia’, in: Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A., edd., Images of Women in Antiquity (London and Canberra, 1983), 20–33 Google Scholar; Said, S., ‘Usages des femmes et sauvagerie dans l’ethnographie grecque d’Hérodote à Diodore et Strabon’, in: La femme dans le monde méditeranéen. L Antiquité (Lyon, 1985), 137-50Google Scholar; Munson, R., ‘Artemisia in Herodotus’, CA 7 (1988), 91–106 Google Scholar.
151 See 3.133-4, 7.3.4 (Atossa); 8.87-8 (Artemisia); 1.205-14 (Tomyris); 4.162-5, 205 (Pheretime).
152 Lateiner (1989), 135–40 has a useful overview of women in the Histories, but his conclusions that women are symbolic of the private realm and that they are indicators of the health of the state (135, cf. 140) seems overly reductive (as his own examples demonstrate). On the lack of stereotyping in Herodotus’ characterizations, see above, pp. 43–8.
153 On religion in Herodotus see Lachenaud, G., Mythologies, Religion, et Philosophie d’Histoire dans Hérodote (Lille/Paris, 1978), 115–404 Google Scholar; Mora, F., Religione e Religioni nelle Storie di Erodoto (Milan, 1985)Google Scholar; Shimron, B., Politics and Religion in Herodotus (Wiesbaden, 1989), 26–57 Google Scholar; Gould (above, n. 146); Harrison (2000).
154 For the role of heroes and hero-cult in Herodotus see Vandiver, E., Heroes in Herodotus: The Interaction of Myth and History (Frankfurt am Main, 1991)Google Scholar; Boedeker, D., ‘Hero Cult and Politics in Herodotus: the Bones of Orestes’, in Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L., edd., Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece (New York and Oxford, 1998), 164-77Google Scholar.
155 Crahay (above, n. 56); Elayi, J., ‘Le Role de l’Oracle de Delphes dans le conflit gréco-perse d’après “Les Histoires” d’Hérodote’, IA 13 (1978), 93–118 Google Scholar; 14 (1979), 67–151; Robertson, N., ‘The True Meaning of the “Wooden Wall”’, CP 82 (1987), 1–20 Google Scholar; Harrison (2000), 122–57.
156 On dreams in Herodotus see Frisch, P., Die Träume beiHerodot (Meisenheim am Gian, 1968)Google Scholar, and for two individual studies, West, S., ‘And It Came to Pass that Pharaoh Dreamed: Notes on Herodotus 2.139, 141’, CQ 37 (1987), 262-71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pelling, C., ‘The Urine and the Vine: Astyages’ Dreams at Herodotus 1.107-8’, CQ 46 (1996), 68–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
157 Interpretation also highlights the skill of the wise man: Bencsik, A., Schelmentum und Macht: Studien zum Typus des σοϕὸς άνήρ bei Herodot (Bonn, 1994)Google Scholar.
158 Other battle marvels are reported similarly: see, e.g. 6.117 (Marathon); 9.83 (Plataea).
159 Hdt. 7.17.2, άποτρέπων το χρεον yevkaBai.
160 Hdt. 9.16.4, o TL беѓ γενέσθαι ек τοϋ θεοϋ, άμήχανον аттотрєфаі άνθρώπω.
161 Gould (1989), 73–8 has a fine discussion of the ‘what was going to be’ motif as a narrative device, but his sweeping conclusion that Herodotus’ ‘sense of what was “going to happen” is the traditional language of a teller of tales’ (77) is unwarranted and too dismissive of genuine belief in Herodotus. For a similar devaluation of Herodotus’ religious belief, see Shimron (n. 153), 26–57; contra, Harrison (2000), passim.
162 See the works cited above, n. 125.
163 See above, n. 114.
164 Boedeker, D., ‘Protesilaos and the End of Herodotus’ Histories ’, CA 7 (1988), 30–48 Google Scholar.
165 See esp. Dewald (n. 124), passim (also her summation of earlier opinions, 69–80); cf. Krischer, T., ‘Herodots Schlusskapitel, seine Topik und seine Quellen’, Eranos 72 (1974), 93–100 Google Scholar.
166 On Herodotus’ Nachleben see Riemann, K.-A., Das herodoteische Geschichtswerk in der Antike (diss. Munich 1967)Google Scholar; Jacoby (1913), 504–14; Evans, J.A.S., ‘Father of History or Father of Lies: the Reputation of Herodotus’, CJ 64 (1968), 11–17 Google Scholar. Earlier views on Herodotus’ isolation from the later tradition can be seen in Momigliano, A., ‘The Place of Herodotus in the History of Historiography’, in Momigliano (1955-92), ii. 29–44 Google Scholar (orig. History 43 (1958), 1–13); id. (1990), 46; cf. Collingwood, R. G., The Idea of History (Oxford, 1946), 28 Google Scholar: ‘Herodotus had no successors.’
167 Marincola (1997), 95–117.
168 On Herodotus and Thucydides see Hornblower, CT ii. 19–38, in part an answer to Kennelly’s, J. J. ‘Thucydides’ Knowledge of Herodotus’ (diss. Brown, 1994)Google Scholar, in which Kennelly denies any knowledge by Thucydides of Herodotus. Although I disagree with Kennelly’s overall interpretation, he has useful observations on many passages, and it is salutary to be reminded that we have no irrefutable evidence that Thucydides was familiar with Herodotus’ work. See also Hornblower, CT ii. 122–37 (a corrected republication of his ‘Thucydides’ Use of Herodotus’, in Sanders, J., ed., ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (Athens, 1992), 141–54Google Scholar), and 137–45 (a list of those passages discussed or cited by scholars as possible parallel passages between Herodotus and Thucydides); Tsakmakis, A., ‘Thucydides and Herodotus: Remarks on the Attitude of the Historian Regarding Literature’, SCI 14 (1995), 17–32 Google Scholar; Canfora, L., ‘Tucidide erodoto’, in Canfora (1999), 114-23 (orig. QS 16 (1982), 77–84)Google Scholar; Rood, T., ‘Thucydides and his Predecessors’, Histos 2 (1998), §4.2Google Scholar; id., ‘Thucydides’ Persian Wars’, in Kraus (1999), 141–68.
169 Brown, T.S., ‘Echoes of Herodotus in Xenophon’s Hellenica\’ AncW 17 (1988), 3–15 Google Scholar; Gray, V., The Character of Xenophon’s Hellenica (London and Baltimore, 1989), passim, esp. 3–9, 15–22, 71–5Google Scholar.
170 Above, p. 2.
171 See esp. Murray, O., ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture’, CQ n. s. 22 (1972), 200-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
172 Nicolai, R., La storiografia nell’educazione antica (Pisa, 1992), 297–339 Google Scholar.
173 Ek, S., Herodotismen in der Archäologie des Dionys von Halikarnass (Lund, 1942)Google Scholar; id., ‘Eine Stiltendenz in der Römischen Archäologie des Dionysios von Halikarnass’, Eranos 43 (1945), 198- 214; for Dionysius’ evaluation of Herodotus in comparison to Thucydides see the Letter to Pompeius.
174 Blänsdorf, J., ‘Herodot bei Curtius Rufus’, Hermes 99 (1971), 11–24 Google Scholar; Heckel, W., ‘One more Herodotean reminiscence in Curtius Rufus’, Hermes 107 (1979), 122-3Google Scholar.
175 On this work see Bowen, A. J., Plutarch: The Malice of Herodotus (Warminster, 1992)Google Scholar; Seavey, W., ‘Forensic Epistolography and Plutarch’s de Herodoti malignitate ’ Hellas 2 (1991), 33–45 Google Scholar; Hershbell, J.P., ‘Plutarch and Herodotus: The Beetle in the Rose’, RhMus 136 (1993), 143-63Google Scholar; Marincola (above, n. 86).
176 On the appreciation of Herodotus’ style, see D. Hal. Pomp. 3 ad fin.; for his moral direction, D. Hal. Pomp. 3 passim.