Article by Professor Giovanni Pellegrino
Among its key elements is a personal vision of time: Herodotus seeks to present events as consequences of an internal tendency in humans and inherent to their condition. From the observation of human affairs, he formulates the “historical law” of moderation: when this is violated, the deity inevitably intervenes to restore balance and punish the guilty.
The title of Herodotus’ work is The Histories. This work was divided during the Hellenistic age into nine books, each named after one of the Muses. There was considerable uncertainty surrounding the composition of The Histories, which likely extended over a long period and required revisions and updates. One can assume that the work took on different forms depending on the stages of composition and the need to present it to diverse audiences. From even a brief analysis of The Histories, it is clear that Herodotus did not follow an annalistic (chronological) structure, but a thematic one. Time is thus subordinate to the event being described; accordingly, it is not an autonomous dimension of human experience in Herodotus’ view. He aims to show that events stem from patterns intrinsic to the human condition.
From a literary standpoint, Herodotus’ work shows clear influences from various authors and literary genres, though reconstructing these influences is not always straightforward. The loss of earlier Greek prose on historical and geographical subjects prevents us from determining precisely how much Herodotus was influenced by Xanthus, Charon, or Hecataeus. As for the use of sources in recounting events, Herodotus made extensive use of what we would today call primary sources: inscriptions, monuments, official Persian documents, and perhaps also Athenian and Delphic records, along with collections of oracles. However, it is evident that most of Herodotus’ information was gathered through direct observation and by collecting local traditions from various regions. These traditions are typically compared with Greek ones.
Herodotus’ narrative is based on a core of genuine historical material, even though the work contains chronological inaccuracies, name confusions, and legendary elements, some stemming from Egyptian propaganda. Regarding the ethnography of Egypt— a field in which Herodotus appears well-informed— the greatest distortions arise from the continual comparison with Greek customs, deities, and institutions. He demonstrates great respect for the customs of the peoples he describes, almost anticipating the modern perspective that a tradition holds intrinsic value regardless of its historical accuracy.
For the Greek historian, the mere existence of a tradition can offer valuable insights into a people’s character and help explain the behavior of individuals and societies. Herodotus states that he reports what is said but that he is not obliged to believe every tradition he records. This principle applies both to historical facts and to mythical tales, for which he often seeks rational explanations. However, his critiques typically focus on specific details that seem implausible or impossible. From observing past events, Herodotus develops a kind of “historical law”: when moderation is transgressed, the deity inevitably intervenes to restore balance and punish the offender. For Herodotus, even the mere intention to commit an act can invoke divine punishment. He believes that the causes of an event may lie in a distant, erroneous choice. Like Aeschylus, Herodotus holds that descendants can be punished for the sins of their ancestors. Divine intervention in major historical events seems governed by the same principle of moderation that ought to guide human behavior. This principle runs throughout Herodotus’ work.
In recent times, it has been interpreted as a reflection on the theme of power. From this perspective, Herodotus appears to urge his audience to reconsider pressing issues of his time, such as the growing Athenian imperialism and the resulting loss of freedom for many Greek cities. He was convinced that any unjust policy of power would end in disaster. Although extensive experience and familiarity with a wide range of situations can help guide human action, Herodotus believes it is often impossible to change the course of events. The greatest human suffering, he argues, lies precisely in the inability to control one’s fate. Herodotus’ relationship with Athens — the city that played a decisive role in the victory over the Persians — remains a topic of debate. On one hand, admiration for Athens and its achievements is clear; on the other, there is criticism of Periclean imperialism. In any case, some passages in The Histories show explicit support for Athens. For instance, Herodotus states plainly that the credit for saving Greece belongs to Athens. Yet the work also displays a strong interest in and respect for Sparta and its traditions.
Additionally, Herodotus seeks to understand — and to help his readers understand — the reasoning behind Persian actions and motivations. Much attention has been paid to the so-called “Herodotean question”: the study of the genesis and composition of The Histories. This question is crucial not only for evaluating Herodotus’ work but also for understanding fifth-century Greek historiography. Worth noting is Felix Jacoby’s view on this issue: he outlines an evolutionary path in which the work began as separate logoi (accounts) with geographic and ethnographic content and developed into a national Greek historiography focused on the Persian Wars. Jacoby even diminishes Herodotus’ originality in favor of Hecataeus, arguing that large portions of the work derive from the latter. Regarding how the work was disseminated, it is important to note that Herodotus presented his writing in the form of public recitations.
On such occasions, he likely adapted the content to suit the audience he was addressing. This suggests a rhapsodic practice in which individual sections could be harmoniously combined, continued at later dates, or revised based on audience interest. There is no doubt that The Histories is the product of long and complex development. Herodotus presented it to a wide range of audiences in different cities. For example, in Halicarnassus, there was strong interest in Persian history but less in the Persian Wars. By contrast, in Athens, the Persian Wars were central—politically and symbolically. Athenian propaganda, particularly within the Delian League, revolved around the victory over Persia.The Herodotean question has also prompted scholars to examine internal references, structural inconsistencies, and unfulfilled promises within the work. These issues likely stem from a process of composition that was not unified from the start.They were also probably influenced by Herodotus’ responsiveness to audience reactions. For that reason, he may have adapted content partially depending on where he was speaking and whom he was addressing.
In conclusion, The Histories is the result of a complex elaboration, not necessarily bound to an original, unified plan. Herodotus’ enduring appeal lies in his boundless curiosity about nature, history, and human behavior, as well as his exceptional storytelling skill. Nevertheless, not all judgments of his work have been positive. For example, Thucydides criticized him for pandering too much to public taste.Despite this, Herodotus remains an essential model for all historians who study the ancient East.