Early in Book 1 of Herodotus' Histories, Solon speaks to Croesus about the jealousy of the gods and the ephemeral nature of human happiness. Since Solon's speech is so prominently placed, and since it introduces themes that recur throughout the Histories, it has traditionally been seen as programmatic, i.e., as expressing Herodotus' own views about the gods and human happiness. Although the assumption that Solon speaks for Herodotus has long been the standard view, it has recently been challenged on the (...) grounds that Herodotus himself never directly affirms his agreement with what Solon says. On the other hand, many scholars have noted that Herodotus does not always state his views directly: he often uses literary devices such as analogy, juxtaposition, and the repetition of narrative patterns to indicate his views. After isolating the three main principles of Solon's speech, this paper examines the direct and indirect evidence for Herodotus' acceptance of these principles. After examining the evidence in Books 1-9 of the Histories, the paper concludes that Herodotus does indeed agree with the views of his character Solon, and that he makes his agreement clear both explicitly and implicitly, through analogy, repetition, and juxtaposition. Moreover, the position of Solon's speech indicates that Herodotus meant it to be programmatic, setting forth basic assumptions about the nature of human life and its relation to the gods which could then provide a philosophical framework for the Histories as a whole. (shrink)

Herodotus uses the encounter between the Milesian tyrant Aristagoras and the Spartan king Cleomenes to further his authorial self-presentation. He contrasts his own aims and methods as an inquirer with those of Aristagoras, who becomes a “rival” inquirer for Herodotus in this passage. Seeking military aid from Cleomenes for the Ionian Revolt, Aristagoras points to his bronze map of the world and gives an ethnographical and geographical account of the peoples and land of Asia, from Ionia to Susa. Aristagoras accordingly (...) takes on many of the characteristics of Herodotus himself, including the use of shared ethnographical language. Aristagoras' ethnographical account is marred, however, by a rhetorical strategy that depicts the Asians as wealthy, but weak adversaries. While careful not to criticize Aristagoras' map itself, Herodotus is able to exploit Aristagoras' verbal description of his map to illustrate his own forthcoming account of the Persian Royal Road , which Herodotus assures readers is even more “accurate” than Aristagoras' account had been . Aristagoras is “deceiving” Cleomenes “well,” says Herodotus, until he tells the “truth” about the length of the journey to Susa . Telling the truth is a mistake for the deceiver Aristagoras, but an obligation for the inquirer Herodotus. (shrink)

Herodotos and Thoukydides report on many occasions that kings, polis leaders, and other politicians speak and behave in ways that unintentionally announce or analyze situations incorrectly (misinformation). Elsewhere, they represent as facts knowingly false constructs or “fake news” (disinformation), or they slant data in ways that advance a cause personal or public (propaganda, true or false). Historians attempt to or claim to acquaint audiences with a truer fact situation and to identify subjects’ motives for distortion such as immediate personal advantage, (...) community advantage, or to encourage posterity’s better (if mistaken) opinion. Such historiographical bifocalism enhances the historian’s authority with readers (as he sees through intentional or unintentional misrepresentations) as well as sets straight distorted historical records. This paper surveys two paradigmatic Hellenic historians’ texts, how they build their investigative and analytic authority, and how they encourage confidence in their truth-determining skills. The material collected confirms and assesses the frequency of persons and governments misleading their own citizens and subjects as well as rival persons and powers. Finally, it demonstrates that these two historians were aware of information loss, information control (dissemination and suppression), and information chaos. (shrink)