Herodotus and Homer

Having taught Herodotus several times, I can tell you that students either love him or hate him. Most come in on the latter, primarily because it is so long and full of material that really doesn't seem relevant. If he is writing about the Persian Wars, they reason, why does it take him until book 5 (of 9) to get to the Battle of Marathon? Why does he have to go off on so many rabbit trails (the mark of a great teacher, IMHO)? I think the answers to these questions lie in his reliance upon the Homeric tradition, in part, and his understanding of the task of history.

I have written elsewhere of Herodotus' understanding of the nature of history, and I don't think reflection has made much difference in my mind yet. Specifically that Herodotus is not just concerned with events in-and-of-themselves, but with the causes of events. This is why after making his opening statement he immediately goes into a discussion of mythological abductions and explains that they were really just part of a long-standing war between East and West, of which the Persian Wars is but the most recent episode.

In terms of his reliance upon the Homeric tradition, this is why Herodotus is so long-winded about such seemingly trivial things as the history of Egypt. In Homer, especially the Iliad, when two warriors come together, they must often have a interview, of sorts, to determine who they are and what their history is. In that culture, Olympian curses have been meted out for less than justly slaying an enemy in a war that your great, great grandfather had made a pact with a hundred years ago. Such is the case for Glaucus and Diomedes (Il. vi.119-236). Upon coming together in battle in book six of the Iliad, Glaucus and Diomedes are smart enough to ask each other's parentage and history before they fight. When it is determined that their grandparents had been friends, they decide not to fight each other (though they turn a blind eye to the killing of their friends). They even exchange gifts to seal the deal.

This exchanging of ancestry is what Herodotus picks up on in his Histories. As he is going through the history of Persia, for example, he comes to the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. Realizing that his hearers (readers) have little or no knowledge of Egypt, he proceeds to share the history of that great nation before allowing Cambyses to summarily dispense with it. This is simply Homeric in its literary style. Two warriors (this time on the national level) come together to fight. They share their ancestry (but, of course, Herodotus's audience knows their own history) and then proceed to fight.

Knowing this may not make Herodotus any easier to wade through, but it should give comfort that he wasn't just a rambling storyteller (as Thucydides accused). He did it on purpose.