Table of Contents
<html>
<a href=“http://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki/doku.php?id=submission_page”><img src=“http://lucianofsamosata.info/images/contact.png” /></a>
</html>
Herodotus' Analysis of the Historical Process
Truths Are Derived From Wisdom
<html><p xmlns:dct=“http://purl.org/dc/terms/”><a rel=“license” href=“http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/”><img src=“http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png” style=“border-style: none;” alt=“Public Domain Mark” /></a><br />This work (by <a href=“https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki” rel=“dct:creator”>https://lucianofsamosata.info/wiki</a>), identified by <a href=“http://meninpublishing.org” rel=“dct:publisher”><span property=“dct:title”>Frank Redmond</span></a>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p></html>
Authored by Frank Redmond, 2006
Introduction
Herodotus knows that if there ever are to be truths in history, they are formed from rational wisdom, not purely factual, atomic evidence. The purpose of this essay is to identify and explore what historical wisdom is to Herodotus and how he manifests this wisdom throughout his work. I will demonstrate that Herodotus did not have one overarching idea of what Truth is in history, but rather that he explores wisdom through his thorough study of deeds of men. For this reason, I am going to be investigating in particular Herodotus' introductionary statement, his sources, the conversations of Solon and Artabanus, the wisdom to be found in his depictions of battles and campaigns, both on land and at sea, and his idea of balance.
Essay
The opening statement of the Histories is the closest thing we possess by Herodotus which explicitly outlines the intent of his work. With this initial statement, Herodotus establishes what he means by “historia”, and thus provides us with the purpose of his writing. “Historia”, the Greek term for “investigations” or “a learning by inquiry” makes no reference to the gods or other divine happenings. Nor does it have to do with mere observation and strict chronicling of facts. Rather, “historia” is an active, kinetic investigation into the deeds of men and how these deeds have a causative relationship with one another. It also investigates the results of these deeds. The purpose of a work of history is for it to share with the reader human achievements, both good and bad. These human achievements form the backbone of Herodotus' work, giving it the necessary data upon which one can formulate wisdom and truth. Lessons are to be learned from the “genomena” [things having become] and the “erga” [deeds] of men.
The general idea is that if events did not occur, they could not be remembered and thought about. But since they did occur, it is possible for us to record these affairs, learn the wisdom from them, and give them their proper glory and adequate thought. These events become well-springs of wisdom. Herodotus does not believe in the passive historian; rather he explicitly states in his introductionary statement that men should approach “ta genomena” and “ta erga” of men with a critical, investigative eye with the ultimate aim of producing wisdom for the reader.
Herodotus most likely “made-up” a good percentage of his sources, or at least took most of his information secondhandedly through other Greek accounts, sometimes with less than a critical eye. Although this may seem to undermine the credibility of Herodotus and his mission to provide us with an accurate account of the deeds of men, it does not have to, for it does not detract from the main purpose of Herodotus' work which is to provide us with overarching historical wisdom and truth. Whether this monument was standing here or this river flows there is irrelevant; they just add depth to the text. What is relevant, however, is that Herodotus is trying to provide us with the breadth of the knowledge of his times all into one work. He is trying to the best of his abilities and acumen to collate as much material as he can, so that he can provide us with as big a picture as he possibly can. It is from this big picture one can develop a sense of historical continuations, wisdom, and truth. Without this picture, all that would be left is atomic facts. This is why it is irrelevant whether or not Herodotus actually traveled here or there, or saw this or that. Herodotus sought the big picture and saw that as integral to how one should view history.
If one only mines Herodotus for his archaeological and ethnographical information, one is missing the objective and power of Herodotus’ work. The Egypt chapter is a good example (if taken as a whole) of how the whole purpose of the chapter necessarily overrides the miscellaneous details here and there. What Book Two is trying to do is it is trying to develop a “truth” about Egypt and its role with the rest of the world. It is meant to answer the question: what wisdom does Egypt have to share? So with this objective in mind, Herodotus uses suspect sources or even his own imagination to flaunt the Egyptians, but only insofar as it supports his belief that the Egyptian are a superior culture and the virtual well-spring of knowledge. Herodotus figures that the greater the flaunting, the greater the attention paid towards Egypt, the greater his point will be taken. The labyrinth found in Book Two is a good example of this flaunting. Not only did it never exist, but even if it did, it would not reflect Egyptian artistic style. Like Marincola says, “H.'s description owes more to Homer and Greek influences than to Egyptian architecture” (643). But to Herodotus’ defense, the labyrinth would be a testament, if it did exist, to the supremacy of Egyptian engineering, wisdom, and culture in comparison to the rest of the earth.
This fabrication of sources is not limited to Egypt however: it is found whenever Herodotus discusses any far-off culture and their habits. His descriptions of the Scythians are legendary for the fact that everything he says has little or no basis in fact. Nevertheless, Herodotus leaves a general impression of the Scythians and their savagery which was his goal in the first place. For even though Herodotus stretched and/or fabricated some of his sources, the important thing to note is that no matter how much Herodotus veers from concrete facts, he is still constructing a true viewpoint in its place, one based in wisdom.
Solon's and Artabanus' speeches, too, stand out in the Histories as two places where Herodotus directly shares what he considers historical truth to consist of. The two stories prove that Herodotus is not merely concerned with facts and figures but is concerned with wisdom and the spreading of wisdom through investigating the affairs of men. For the conversations that Solon and Artabanus hold are not concerned with a mundane level of understanding, but with a more metaphysical one.
In regards to the Solon story, Herodotus' lesson for us to learn is that “olbios” [happiness] does not come from possessions but from glorious deeds and a prosperous life. We are told that when Solon arrives at Sardis, the city is “at the height of her wealth and prosperity” and that “all the great Greek teachers of that epoch, one after another, paid visits to the capital” (1.29). When Solon is asked the famous question - who is the most happy of all men? - he refuses to flatter Croesus. He “answered in strict accordance with his view of the truth” (1.31). He wisely understands that olbios is generated by deeds and not things as is the case with Tellus, who was a minor man who saw the prosperity of his city grow, saw his sons grow to a mature age, had enough funds to live in comfort but not greed, and had died a glorious death on the battlefield in defense of his city. Tellus is olbios personified. The two sons Cleobus and Biton also exhibit olbios. Their glorious deaths should be envied by men, for they were happy and satisfied when they died. They were lucky enough to have experienced this joy and to not have it slip away from them. What Herodotus is trying to say is that historically-speaking, if one investigatively looks at the situation, the happy man is not the most powerful or wealthiest. Rather, the humbler man who has good fortune until his death should be envied, for we are all in the end governed by luck: “Many rich men have been unfortunate, and many with a modest competence have had good luck” (1.32).
Later in the Histories, Artabanus’ marvelous speech also provides us with wisdom and truth concerning the deeds of men. His speech has parallels with Solon’s presentation insofar as they both are about wisdom being analogous to truth. Artabanus’ speech shows its wisdom by going against the supposed wisdom that both Xerxes and Mardonius have proposed, a wisdom which basically states that war is the only solution to the Greek problem, Persia deserves to possess the whole world due to its superiority, and the Greeks fight in a most ignorant and stupid way. Artabanus cautions the men of the assembly about this way of thinking. He says that they should keep the failed Scythian campaign in mind as they make their decision. There in Scythia the Persians got in over their heads and they will find themselves in a similar situation in Greece since the Greeks are in fact very brave and relaxed in the face of danger. Next, Artabanus goes on to address the issue of Persian superiority and might. He makes the point that things that have grandeur tend to become targets of god's wrath. The might of Persia might be compared to a great tree or large house which gets struck by lightning while smaller things escape. Artabanus explains how a great army like Persia's might be destroyed because of its size and power, “for once the god has conceived jealousy against a great army, he may hurl fear upon it or his thunder, and it will perish in a way unworthy of itself” (7.10). Artabanus has a sinking-feeling that the Greeks, although they may be small, might become a thorn in the side of the Persians, or worse might defeat and destroy Persian dominion. One can just sense that Herodotus through the words of Solon and Artabanus is providing us with his own viewpoint and perspective on life. He uses these two men as vehicles whereby he can pronounce what he considers wisdom to consist of.
Additionally, Herodotus has much wisdom to share about the ways of war and many truths become apparent when reading Herodotus’ accounts. Of all the wise things that Herodotus has to teach us about the navy, the most important is that the navy provides people with supplies and transportation. This is a truth. Once a navy has been destroyed or weakened it is likely that failure is imminent since supplies and people will be unable to reach their intended targets. This is seen early on when the Spartans fail to arrive at Sardis before its fall to Cyrus. They would have brought the necessary supplies and men to adequately battle Cyrus and perhaps been successful in defending the city. But since they fail to arrive, Sardis easily falls. Later, Aristagoras understands the value of having a fleet of ships to support his cause, so he goes to Athens to appeal for ships (5.97). But when he loses this fleet, he, too, is defeated with nothing left to support his cause. And in the most famous teaching about the navy, Themistocles decides that the oracle is speaking about building a wall of ships when she says “that the wooden wall only shall not fall, but help you and your children” (7.141). Themistocles has the intuition to know that strength lies in command of the seas, not in fortifying Athens herself. This is how he averts disaster and is able to confront and ultimately defeat the Persian fleet. As one can see, one historical truth that Herodotus wishes to convey is that naval power is essential to have. It is wise to maintain a navy.
In comparison to sea campaigns, Herodotus has much more to say about land campaigns, what makes them truly succeed and what makes them truly fail. So what makes them succeed? To Herodotus, a good campaign begins with a good plan. This is a historical truth; it is the wise thing to do. This principle is perhaps seen clearest with Cyrus’ besieging of Sardis. In the prelude to the major battle, i.e. the siege of Sardis, Cyrus makes sure to increase his forces while passing though every town on the way to Sardis, to try to detach representatives from Croesus’ favor, to fight right after a minor skirmish with Croesus, and to intuit that Croesus would disband his army after the skirmish. The capture of Sardis did not happen because of a surge of troops on the part of Cyrus, but because the siege was painstakingly planned. Cambyses later would correctly plan for his Egyptian campaign, and that is the major reason why it was so successful in comparison to his Ethiopian failure. For in the Egyptian campaign, he made sure that the troops had enough water and food during their crossing of the Arabian desert. He also made sure to establish good diplomatic ties with the Arabs so as to make the crossing a smooth affair. Good planning is also seen with the preliminaries for the Battle of Salamis by Themistocles. Themistocles, seeing that the other commanders were about to make an error in judgment, sent an informer to Xerxes to inform him that, since the Greeks were unable to find an adequate place to fight, they would be retreating that night. So the Persians went in search of these retreating ships, but they failed to find them, for the Greeks remained in place. Thus the tired Persian fleet sailed into the bay to battle the rested Greeks. The Greeks prevailed. Without the planning of Themistocles, the Greeks would have undoubtedly been crushed by sheer number.
On the other hand, bad planning leads to failure as is seen in the demise of Cambyses in Ethiopia and the failed expedition of Darius to Scythia. Both men failed to foresee the extremes which they would face in these hostile lands. Cambyses loses a substantial number of soldiers and camels to the harsh desert; Darius loses men left and right while he was running in circles trying to catch the roaming Scythians. Herodotus vividly depicts the failure of Cambyses as such: “If Cambyses, when he saw what the situation was, had changed his mind and returned to his base, he would, in spite of his original error [which was bad planning], have shown some sense; but as it was, he paid not the least attention to what was happening and continued his advance. The troops kept themselves alive by eating grass […], but once they reached the desert, some of them were reduced to the dreadful expedient of cannibalism” (3.25). If Cambyses thought more carefully about how he was to invade Ethiopia, he might have been able to defeat the Ethiopians. A bad plan always brings defeat in Herodotus, but wise, calculated decisions never fail to produce quality results.
Another truth we learn about land battles is that whenever they are fought at the ends of the earth, they are bound to fail. The first instance of this is found in Cyrus’ expedition against the Massagetae. He gets killed by them in his invasion. We are told that he got too ambitious and attempted to conquer too much. The next instance is Cambyses’ desire to envelope Ethiopia, which as we have seen, is a disaster. The other instance is the failure of Darius to destroy the Scythians who dwell near the edges of the world. This fails as well. Herodotus is obviously trying to share with us that going to the ends of the earth is not a good idea.
And in perhaps Herodotus’ greatest contribution, he develops the idea its is wise and essential to maintain balance. Whenever the balance gets interrupted in Herodotus, negative things occur to certain parties in order for the balance upright itself again. In other words, overall it is wise to always maintain a good balance of things. Some examples might be of benefit here.
One great example is the madness of Cambyses and the killing of Bull of Apis. By taunting, wounding, and killing the calf, Cambyses disrupts the nomos [custom, law] of the people of Egypt. Herodotus states that this is likely the reason why Cambyses went mad, or it was at least likely a major contributor. After the Apis affair, Cambyses would go on to commit more outrages like killing his brother Smerdis, having sex with his sister, and murdering a boy to practice hi archery skills. All these outrages further broke the rule of nomos and threw the balance off-kilter. It is only with the death of Cambyses that the balance gets righted again. In response to the actions of Cambyses, Herodotus states that “custom is king of all”; that is, nomos is the ruling force of the universe and is what determines what the balance is made of. The wisdom to be found in the Cambyses’ affair is that nemesis visits those who throw the balance off-kilter.
Another instance of the balance being disturbed is with the burning of Sardis and its temple during the Ionian revolt. With this event, the whole dynamic of the revolt changes. Suddenly the balance shifts in a negatively for the Greeks and the revolt goes downhill. Thus after the burning of Sardis, Persia quickly regains control of the situation, Athens resigns from the revolt, and slowly but surely the Ionian revolt is quelled. One can see easily the principle of nemesis [retribution] at play. The Ionian Revolt comes to a close and stability reestablishes itself.
Another instance is with the Battle of Marathon. We are told that the Persian force that is going to Greece to battle is so enormous it causes a kinesis in the middle of the Aegean. This kinesis forces the balance to go off-center, and the balance is only reestablished when the Persians do land and are aptly defeated by the Athenian company in the Battle at Marathon.
And perhaps the greatest upturning of the scales is seen with Xerxes’ Invasion of Greece. When Xerxes and his army proceed over the Hellespont and into Europe, immediately a huge upturning of the scales occurs. Thousands upon thousands of men flood into Europe, making it swell like no other time in its prior history. Nation upon nation invades Greece with groups coming from the corners of the world, from India to Egypt to Lydia. It is only with the massive retreat of Xerxes army back over the Hellespont in Book Eight that one senses that the scales have returned to their normal state. But it is important to note that this re-reckoning of the scales was no easy task. The Greeks had to fight smart and valiantly in order to make the Persians retreat. One could sense that the balance had been achieved when Xerxes’ troops made their final leap over the Hellespont, this time for good.
It is wise to maintain balance, for whenever it is not maintained, things always automatically right themselves and sometimes in very disadvantageous ways. Nemesis is a blind process. And in a final assessment, a lot of problems could have been avoided throughout the Histories if the balance was kept in mind. This is wisdom. But this did not occur. Sometimes, wisdom is gained from analyzing others’ mistakes.
Herodotus knows that if there ever are to be truths in history, they are formed from wisdom, not purely factual evidence. In Herodotus, truth and wisdom are synonymous.
WORKS CITED
Herodotus. Histories, The. Trans. De Selincourt; Revised Marincola. London: Penguin, 1954.
**It is noteworthy that later on Thucydides developed a similar, if not identical, view of the historical process and what is worth recording. Thucydides, like Herodotus, was not interested in the facts in-and-of-themselves, but only in how these facts can be used. Thucydides’ goal is to skopein into the future by using the lens of past events, that includes ta genomena and ta erga. It is safe to say that Thucydides, at least in respect to methodology, was in line with Herodotean principles.