Herodotus is famously known by the dual moniker, “Father of History,
Father of Lies”. Whether or not he deserves the latter epithet is
perhaps up for debate. He is sometimes criticized as unserious for his
many cultural digressions and travelog sidebars. It would, however, take
a truly obtuse and narrow-minded critic to deny him the former title.
History as a thing separate from record-keeping and chronicling begins
with Herodotus. In and among his entertaining and diverting rabbit
trails is some of the best and most important history ever written. He
shows those who would do history after him what they were to strive for.
It is in the opening lines of the Histories where Herodotus
establishes the scope and purpose of history, and in doing so
establishes its role in man’s attempt to understand his world.
The lines which begin the Histories are a model of clarity
and simplicity. There is no excess rhetoric, no flowery overstatement.
Herodotus states succinctly in the above passage the purpose for his
account. His “enquiries” (ἱστορία) were made to serve memory and
understanding—memory in preserving the deeds of men, understanding in
examining how the circumstances of those actions came about.
Herodotus’ treatment of memory in this passage is more than just a simple remembrance. He is doing more than just recording a how, where, and when.
The preservation of memory here is active, even aggressive, as if time
were attempting to destroy the things of man, and history is a
brandished weapon holding it at bay.
Almost as an afterthought, Herodotus appends onto his paean to memory
a secondary goal. Among the matters covered will be “…the cause of the
conflict between the Greeks and non-Greeks.” This is just casually
thrown in as if to remind you to look for it along the way. Here
Herodotus is understating his purpose, and by playing down this item, he
shows its importance. The discovery of the causes of action, and why
men have acted as they have, is the heart of the study of history.
So what is the cause of the conflict between the Greeks and the
non-Greeks? What was the spark that began the fire that led the largest
army in antiquity to cross from Asia to Europe in order to subdue the
cities of Attica and the Peloponnese? Herodotus’ examination of this is
more subtle than some will give him credit for, and is composed of one
part scholarly guile, and one part showmanship. He will look at the
opinions of the Asians and the Greeks, and then settle on the pattern
that will lead him through his entire enquiry.
“According to learned Persians, it was the Phoenicians who caused the conflict....”1
So begins Herodotus’ examination of the causes of the great conflict.
Right away, he is already showing historians their business - he is
sourcing his work. He is telling you whose opinion he is working with.
As he proceeds, he relates the Persians’ story of Phoenicians going to
Argos and abducting Io. In a turnabout, some Greeks go to Tyre and
abduct Europa, while some others go to Colchis and abduct Princess Medea
(there is some confusion amongst the Persians as to whether the former
group were properly Greek, or Cretan). All of the second round of
abductors justify their actions by pointing to Io’s earlier capture.
Finally, the son of the Trojan king, Alexander (Paris), abducts Helen
from her home in Sparta. At this point, according to the Persians, the
Greeks gain culpability, for “…so far it had only been a matter of
abducting women from one another, but the Greeks…took the initiative and
launched a military strike against Persia.”2
While it is true that the Persians viewed this kind of rapacious
activity to be illegal, they found the Greek reaction to Helen’s
abduction odd because, “…it is stupid to get worked up about it....“
They viewed the Greek reaction to be unjust and “…date the origin of
their hostility towards the Greece from the fall of Illium.” 3
After sourcing these opinions, and running through them, Herodotus
gives his own opinion: forget the abductions; they are not the issue.
