Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture
Author(s): Oswyn Murray
Source: The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Nov., 1972), pp. 200-213
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/638201
Accessed: 26-09-2018 07:37 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Classical Quarterly
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE'
OUR understanding of the world is not static; it can b
and it can also stagnate. In history the expansion of th
come about from various causes, from scientific advan
trade and exploration, from colonization, and esp
Periods of expansion produce often a re-evaluation of
that which was already known and that which was pre
the fringes of the known. But no one is wholly capab
reality: reality as soon as it is experienced is perceived
die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen nicht der Dinge' (the
facts, not of things).2 To the understanding of experi
everyone comes with the preconceptions and prejudices
and seeks to explain the unknown in relation to it, in te
or contrasts ('The Egyptians in most of their mann
reverse the ordinary practices of mankind') :3 in term
ceptions of the noble savage, or the ideal state, or some
behind all societies: or in terms of what has been e
observers as the proper way of dealing with the unkno
involves the re-evaluation of those previous observers
expansion there correspond periods when the vision
when it is viewed in terms of a set of stereotypes which
and intelligent response to the new situation, but are
a generation too traditional to think for itself.
These statements may be illustrated from many perio
Arab expansion was followed in the ninth to eleventh
which Arab writers tried to grapple with the new hori
produced a literature based in part on their own obser
of travel was emphasized), on official records, and on
of the travels of others by land and sea. The old worl
longer adequate; it even became uncertain whether
the world. The theoretical basis of these Arab geograp
was not, however, empirical. It was derived from e
writings, and especially from the works of Ptolemy a
x This is the full version of a paper read to
the Joint Triennial Classical Conference at
Cambridge in July 1971. Its purpose, now as
then, is to provoke discussion: it is intended
as a preliminary attempt to establish lines of
approach in an area which I propose to
study in greater detail later. My concern
here is with an important and neglected
aspect of the history of Hellenistic historiography,
seen from the wider viewpoint
exemplified in the work of Felix Jacoby. I
am grateful for the comments of my audience
in 1971, in particular Professors Ernst
Badian, Moses Finley, Arnaldo Momigliano,
Martin Ostwald, and my old tutor J. P. V. D.
Balsdon. I would like also to thank Peter
Parsons for bibliographical help.
2 L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
i. I. The context of course is differ-
ent.
3 Herod. 2. 35; on this pattern of reversal
in ancient anthropological descriptions, see
S. Pembroke, 'Women in Charge', J. W.C.L
xxx (1967), I ff., esp. 16-18; compare also
Herodotus' emphasis on OavcLaca, K.Triidinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechischriimischen
Ethnographie (Diss. Basle, 1918),
21 ff.
4 See the excellent sketch of S. Maqbul
Ahmad, Encyclopedia of Islam, ii (1965), 575-
87 s. Djughrdfiya.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 201
lated into Arabic. Often there was a conflict between
tures and the empirical facts gathered by travel
conflict was a necessary one. The complexities of the
geographical literature can be seen for instance in
d.dhbih (published in two editions of 846 and 885intelligence under the Abbdsid caliphs, who wrote at
but was also a scholar, a translator of Ptolemy;' o
al-Mas'fidi, who died in 956, traveller, geographer, hi
geography was a part of history, and wrote his g
introduction to and an integral part of his history.z
century onwards there was a period of consolidation
in which the old geographers were used to propagate
the West had rejected by the sixteenth century, but
the nineteenth. Here we can see too the effect of th
exploration from the Arabs to the Portuguese, and so
In literary terms, the re-evaluation of previous writ
Professor Momigliano has shown, by the effect of
travellers in the sixteenth century, the accounts of
tion of America. Fifteenth-century scholars had
Herodotus was the father of history perhaps, but also
dred years later Stephanus in his Apologia pro Herodo
comparative study of native customs as showing tha
reliable.3 The influence was reciprocal; Alonso de Zor
Lords of New Spain (written before 1570) could discu
barism and civilization in terms of the Greek an
Bartolom6 de Las Casas in his Apologitica Historia (w
analyse and compare Indian culture, society, and reli
peoples, and according to the categories of Aristotle.
In the ancient world these same phenomena can
immediately after the periods of expansion there
flexibility of response, to the variety of human cult
the great writers of cultural history appear in or ju
first age of colonization and of contact with the East,
and those of the middle and late Roman Republic in
knew this well: Polybius expresses best this interrela
geographical knowledge, the importance of travel, th
and the effect of Alexander and the Romans in a pas
57-9).s5 These periods of expansion are followed b
vision becomes another stereotype to imprison the
I Text and translation in M. J. de Goeje
(ed.), Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, vi
(1889).
2 An excellent impression of al-Mas'fidi's
main work, the Akhbar ez-zeman (in 30
volumes ,of which only the first survives), can
be gained from the abbreviation of it which
he wrote, published in nine volumes by C.
Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille,
Magoudi, Les Prairies d'Or, Collection d'ouvrages
orientaux, Societe Asiatique (1861-77).
3 A. D. Momigliano, 'The Place of
Herodotus in the History of Historiography',
Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi
classici (I960), 29 ff., esp. 39 ff. (also in
Studies in Historiography [1966], 127 ff.); and
'Erodoto e la storiografia moderna',
Secondo contributo, 45 ff., esp. 52 ff.
4 See for these authors J. H. Elliott, The
Old World and the New z492-165o (1970),
chap. 2, esp. 46 ff.
s It was a common theme: cf. Strabo
I. 2. I, citing and expanding Eratosthenes;
and 2. 5. II on the problem of autopsy.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
202 O. MURRAY
such periods of change, th
new worlds tried to unde
and their predecessors. It
thing of the influence of
of the frontiers of the kn
Alexander.
For a long time the accepted modern view was that Herodotus was not read
widely in the Hellenistic world; his style was out of favour, and his reputation
was that of a liar, or a muthologos, a teller of charming stories. He had nothing to
teach the new scientific ethnography of the Hellenistic period, which mentioned
him only in disparagement or for ridicule; and the ordinary reader,
finding his delight in the pleasures of the moment, works written E' -rb 7rapaXprn/
a aKOvELV, in romantic stories of distant places, was now better served by
the wilder shores of prose romance or utopian travelogues.
Nowadays it is usual to dismiss this 'old view'; we know, it is said, that
Herodotus continued to be read in the Hellenistic world. But usually this
admission is immediately qualified: he was read for his style, but despised as a
historian; he was an author for the schools of rhetoric, not a man read by the
true seeker after knowledge; he was of course read, but his influence was slight
compared with that of Thucydides-it is Thucydides who dominates the
historiography of the Hellenistic world.'
In the face of this attitude, I must begin by offering in general terms some
indications of the popularity of Herodotus as an author; for such grudging
admissions scarcely do justice to the central position of Herodotus as one of the
most widely read authors throughout antiquity. And it is against this general
background, in which it must be assumed that almost every educated man had
read Herodotus, and quite as many as had read Thucydides, that we must
consider what difference this acquaintance with Herodotus made to the vision
of the world created in the early Hellenistic period.
First, a general numerical argument. From the provincial capitals of GraecoRoman
Egypt have come, according to the last count, no less than twenty-one
papyrus fragments of Herodotus; he stands fifteenth in the top twenty authors,
and sixth among prose writers, after Demosthenes, Plato, Isocrates, Thucydides,
and Xenophon. The fragility of such calculations is shown by the fact
that in a volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series soon to appear, fragments of
at least eleven new manuscripts on papyrus will be published, which would
raise Herodotus from fifteenth to ninth in order of popularity, roughly equal
with Thucydides, and above Xenophon. Moreover, Xenophon was for the
Graeco-Roman world a philosopher as much as a historian: in terms of his
historical works alone he falls far behind Herodotus. This popularity of Herodotus
might be explained by local factors, by the Egyptian Greek's interest in
I For the older view, cf. A. Kirchhoff,
Uber die Entstehungszeit des Herodoteischen
Geschichtswerk2 (1878), 9; A. Bauer, Herodots
Biographie (1878), 4. For modern views cf.
e.g. Momigliano in the articles cited p. 20o
n. 3; H. Strasburger, cited below, p. 2 Ii n. 4.
The best discussion of the influence of
Herodotus in antiquity is still F. Jacoby,
RE Suppl. ii (1913), 504-15 ; see also SchmidStdihlin,
Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, i. 2
(1934), 665-70; and the useful thesis of K. A.
Riemann, Das herodoteische Geschichtswerk in
der Antike (Diss. Munich, 1967). To all of
these I am deeply indebted for references in
this section.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 203
his own country; but the Egyptian section of Herodotus' wo
more heavily represented than any other part'. Of course it
calculations fail to distinguish between the Ptolemaic and Ro
I can see no reason why the reading habits of the bourgeois
should have radically changed towards rather than away fro
Roman rule. And if none of the papyrus fragments of Herod
the same is almost true of Thucydides: against the one t
fragment of Thucydides we can set the far more significant
a papyrus, that Aristarchus the great Alexandrian scholar o
century wrote a commentary on Herodotus-the earliest kno
on a prose author, and the only known one before Didy
orators.2 Nor was Aristarchus the only Alexandrian to i
Herodotus; Aristophanes of Byzantium used him for his Lex
chus' great rival Hellanicus the grammarian lectured on H
From the papyri then we may perhaps surmise that the tw
historians in Graeco-Roman Egypt were Herodotus and Thuc
or that at least there is no support in the evidence for the vi
period when one eclipsed the other. Both were standard aut
pleasure or instruction; and Herodotus at least was the
Alexandrian discussion and lectures, philological study, and
The general popularity of Herodotus is also well shown by
period. Herodotus is of course of all historians 'OpPLKwCra7
appeal to poets, whereas one can scarcely imagine Thucyd
historian of small Greek cities, appealing to the court poets
the poetic popularity of the two can hardly be compare
positive conclusion emerges again, that Herodotus was u
Hellenistic poets. His influence has been detected on Callima
are clear echoes of him in Apollonius Rhodius.6 Perhaps the
example is Apollonius' account of the Argonauts on Lake
prophecy of the clod of earth which was to symbolize futur
Libya. Here Apollonius does not just use the obvious poe
story is told in Pindar's Fourth Pythian. He also uses the
Herodotus book 4, deliberately combining the two in a comp
The list of poets who read and appreciated Herodotus c
with the help of the local epic poets and the Greek anthology
of being controversial, I will add only one more writer. The
be a greater tribute paid to a historian by a poet than the v
narrative. I refer of course to the faithful transmutation in
W. H. Willis, 'Census of Literary
Papyri', G.R.B.S. ix (1968), 212; I am
grateful to Prof. E. G. Turner for information
about the future Oxyrhynchus publication.
The Herodotus papyri so far published are
collected in A. H. R. E. Paap, De Herodoti
reliquiis in papyris et membranis Aegyptiis
servatis (Diss. Utrecht, I948).
2 P. Amherst ii, 12 = Paap, no. o; see
below, p. 204. On the problem of possible
commentaries on prose authors before
Didymus, see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical
Scholarship (1968), 224f., 277f.; and on
Didymus' methods, S. West, C.Q.xx (1970),
288 ff.
3 Pfeiffer, op. cit. 197; Schol. Sophocles,
Philoctetes 201.
* Longinus 13. 3; cf. Dionysius, ad Pomp.
3; Demetrius I2; Jacoby, RE Suppl. ii.
502 ff.
s E. Howald, Hermes, Iviii (1923), 133-8.
6 E. Delage, La Giographie dans les Argonautiques
d'Apollonios de Rhodes (1930), 82 ff.,
279 in general; in particular pp. 79 f. (Apoll.
I. 591: Herod. 7. 193), P. 255 (Apoll. 4.
1349: Herod. 4. I89).
7 Apoll. 4. I537 ff.: Herod. 4. 179;
Delage op. cit. 261-70.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
204 0. MURRAY
Herodotean story of Gyges of L
age.'
This affection and respect for
in honorific statues. That migh
Asianic style proclaimed (on a
not allotted the furrow of mankind nor was the self-sown shoot of the Muses
reared in India, nor did primeval Babylon bring forth the sweet lips of Herodotus
and Panyassis beloved of Hera, but the rocky soil of Halicarnassus;
through whose songs she has found great glory among the cities of the Greeks.'Z
We possess also the base of the portrait of Herodotus which stood in the library
of the kings of Pergamon, the most famous library of the Hellenistic world
after that of Alexandria.3
Such evidence is perhaps enough to show that the appreciation of Herodotus
was not confined to natives of Halicarnassus like Dionysius, who tried to
place Herodotus above Thucydides on stylistic grounds; rather Herodotus was
read widely by educated people.4 If we ask how he was read, the answer is one
which will emerge more clearly later on. But the poets at least, like the philosophers,5
read him for information. And Aristarchus' comments (or those that
survive in the miserable fragment of excerpts, perhaps also partly in epitome)
are surprisingly wide. He does the things we would expect of a grammarian,
explaining difficult words, offering parallels (not of obvious relevance),
discussing variant readings. But he is also concerned with the factual information
in Herodotus; he appears to add to it, he offers modern parallels, and in discussing
his variant reading he supports it by comparative factual material.
This is not a purely linguistic, stylistic, and textual commentary.6
II
My present purpose is however more specific; I wish to show the influence of
Herodotus on the conception which the Hellenistic age had of the world around
it. And especially I wish to argue that it is this influence which lies at the basis
of the whole tradition of Hellenistic historical ethnography. The easiest way to
demonstrate this is perhaps to investigate those prose authors of the early
Hellenistic period who interpreted for the new rulers of the world the alien
cultures which now belonged to them; for this small group of writers created a
view of foreign civilizations which lasted at least until the differently oriented
Roman conquests produced a Poseidonius.
Already in the fourth century B.C. the influence of Herodotus on the writing
I P. Oxy. xxiii (I956), no. 2382; Pack2,
no. 1707.
2 F. Hiller von Gaertringen, W. Peek,
Hermes, lxxvi (1941), 220 ff.; presumably the
base of a double-herm; Hiller von Gaertringen
assigns the poem to Antipater of
Sidon, which, in the absence of any more
specific statement about the date of the
inscription, would suggest that the editors
thought it late Hellenistic. It has not yet
been observed that this poem seems to
contain the earliest reference to the 'Muses'
of Herodotus (otherwise first attested in
Lucian), and therefore also to the nine-book
division (first certain reference Diodorus);
the remaining evidence is in SchmidStaihlin,
op. cit. 662 n. 3. Lebas-Waddington,
1618 (second century A.D.) records an early
statue of Herodotus which stood in the
position of honour in the gymnasium at
Halicarnassus (rov vHrapAav 'Hpd3or'ov).
3 Altertiimer von Pergamon, Inschr. no. 199.
* Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 3; H. MqLaEws ii.
III, p. 207 Usener-Radermacher.
s Despite the critical attitude of Aristotle,
he used Herodotus often, as did other
philosophers: some examples, Riemann, op.
cit. 36 if.; J. Geffcken, Zwei griechischen
Apologeten (1907), 188 n. 3.
6 For Aristarchus' commentary and bibliography,
see Paap, no. 10; Packz, no. 483;
Schmid-Stithlin, op. cit. 665 n. 8.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 205
of history had been strong, especially on Ephorus, whose his
as one of its main sources, and also shows many Herodot
historians of the court of Philip of Macedon seem to hav
interested in Herodotus-a specific instance perhaps of the g
the Persian empire as an area of expansion. Theopompus wro
Herodotus in two books (the first known epitome), and his h
for his Herodotean digressions: he seems to have offered
addition ofpoikilotis to history, for Strabo records him as sa
write stories in his histories more marvellous than Herodotus and Ctesias and
Hellanicus and those who write on India.'2 Callisthenes too is known to have
followed Herodotus almost word for word on occasions.3
But it is the early Hellenistic writers who seem most heavily indebted to
Herodotus. They never tire of denouncing him, and declaring his information
to be unreliable. That was of course necessary in order to assert (often falsely)
their own independence of his narrative, and their allegedly better sources of
information: it was a game which had been played with equal dishonesty by
Ctesias earlier.4 Thus Hecataeus, writing the standard account of Egypt under
Ptolemy Soter, can say: 'Now as for the stories invented by Herodotus and
certain other writers on Egyptian matters, who deliberately preferred to the
truth the telling of marvellous tales and the insertion of myths to please their
readers, these we shall omit, and give only what appears in the written records
of the priests of Egypt and has passed our careful scrutiny.'s References to the unreliability
of Herodotus and his love of stories (6?o80o) are numerous; as Josephus
says, other writers may attack each other, 'but everyone accuses Herodotus
of lying.'6 Indeed I know of only one author to have said anything respectful
about Herodotus; Agatharchides calls him'a tireless investigator ifever there was
one, and with much experience of history'--a significant tribute, for Agatharchides
goes on to discuss and refute Herodotus' theory of the rising of the Nile.7
In one sense all the attacks on Herodotus by professional historians and ethnographers
help to show that he was widely read, and all the contradictions of his
detailed information similarly show how carefully he was studied by the very
authors who denounce him. But my aim is to go further still, to suggest that for
all their denunciations the early Hellenistic writers saw the world through
Herodotean eyes, modelled large sections of their works on him, indeed that
their achievement in so successfully describing the new world they saw was
made possible only with the help of their great predecessor.
The earliest work I wish to discuss is that written by Alexander's admiral and
companion in India, Nearchus.8 Here there is no need to sort out in detail the
I Jacoby, RE Suppl. ii. 5I0.
2 For the epitome, see F.G.H. 115 T I,
F 1-4. 304. The purpose of this epitome is
obscure: cf. R. Laqueur, RE 5A (1934),
2188, and below, p. 206 n. I. On the character
of the history, Strabo I. 2. 35 = F 381; cf.
Triidinger, op. cit. 6o ff.
3 Herod. I. 202: F.G.H. 124 F 38; Herod.
I. 175: F 25; cf. F 30; Riemann, op. cit.
50 f.; Jacoby, RE Suppl. ii. 512.
4 The anti-Herodotean polemic is sketched
in A. Hauvette, Hdrodote (1894), 63-I80; see
also Schmid-Stahlin, loc. cit. (p. 2o02 n. I). For
Ctesias and Herodotus see F. Jacoby, RE xi
(1922), 2041-66; A. Momigliano, Atene e
Roma, xii (1931), I5 ff. = Quarto contributo,
181 ff.
s Diod. I. 69. 7; cf. the implicit attacks in
I. 59. 2 (Herod. 2. 1 1); 62. 2 (2. 112); 66.
10 (2. I5I).
6 From Thuc. I. 21-2 onwards; cf. esp.
the passing references to Herodotus as 0
pv0ooMyos in Aristotle, de gen. anim. 3. 5,
756b6; F 248, Rose p. 196; Jos. c. Ap. I. 16.
7 Diod. I. 37- 4.
8 For an up-to-date bibliography on
Nearchus (F.G.H. I33), see W. Spoerri,
Kleine Pauly, iv (1970), 33 f. On his relationThis
content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
206 0. MURRAY
work of Nearchus from t
is a simple one. Nearchus
reports largely what he sa
of an honest and percepti
Nearchus took Herodotus'
traces of its influence,
despite the fact that his o
reliable the account of Ind
as the innocent traveller,
travelled with a copy of H
of India and of his travels
mind; and there is good r
to emphasize this connect
Herodotus; thus Nearchus
size which are perhaps He
he never saw any of these
numbers to the Macedonia
the Herodotean story is
with a trade in skins and
perhaps others on Alexand
did not disbelieve it, but
echoing Herodotus' accoun
izing Herodotus' famous d
other alluvial plains-in c
North India.4 The paralle
Nearchus' work: he discus
Nile floods, and attributed
fauna of the same area a
between the Indian plains
gent observer, who saw h
But it is also the observat
valley environment thro
India looks not only to Her
full-scale description of
Arabia and Ethiopia, whic
used by Nearchus as a mod
inhabitants on his voyage
ship to Herodotus see esp. L.
Lost Historians of Alexander th
I I8 ff. (though he goes too fa
that literary form has distorted
ness of Nearchus' account; and
examples are not convincing).
I The close relationship betwe
and Herodotus raises a wider question:
Professor E. Badian pointed out to me on the
occasion of this paper that there is some
evidence for Herodotus having been a major
geographical source for the planning of
Alexander's expedition in general. Was
Theopompus' epitome an epitome of the
early books of Herodotus rather than of the
late ones, and designed as a field-book for the
campaign which Philip planned?
2 Herod. 3. o02, 105: Nearchus F 8. On
this story see the excellent note of How and
Wells ad loc.; W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in
Bactria and Indiaz (195I), io6 ff. is useful for
references, but somewhat too rationalistic in
his approach. 3 F 1i.
4 Herod. 2. 5; 2. Io: F 17; cf.
Anab. 5. 6. 3-8. On Nearchus' use of
Herodotus here, see Pearson, op. cit. I 18-20.
5 F 18-20; Pearson, op. cit. I20-3;
Triidinger, op. cit. 66 f.
6 F. i. I omit any discussion of Onesicritus:
his inventiveness and strong philoThis
content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 207
And yet Nearchus is perhaps closer to Herodotus in spirit th
nistic writers are; for he still retains something of the inn
traveller without preconceptions. That innocent eye was lost in
writer who influenced most decisively Hellenistic history and
Hecataeus of Abdera, the first author to write for and under
one of the Diadochoi. His work on Egypt, largely preser
Diodorus, was written very early in Ptolemy Soter's con
probably between 320 and 315, before the essential character
state apparatus had been established, and when native Eg
were more respected; its purpose was primarily to glorify the
present it as the source of all civilization, and the ideal ph
Hecataeus' work transformed the writing of ethnography. It
logical principles, carried out for the first time with total co
the archaeologia, prehistory or theologoumena-the mythical pe
mythology being in typical Greek fashion equated, and ex
flection of early history). Then perhaps a geographical sec
could be disputed. After the mythical period, the historical; fi
description of the customs of Egypt. Hecataeus' account is
investigations and information gathered from Egyptian priests
insistent on his access to the written archives of Egypt, and
dards of accuracy he has imported. But it is also clear that
Greek writers; and of these writers he used most extensi
Before he embarks on his description of the customs of Egyp
explicit attack on Herodotus as an unreliable source, quote
whole section on the history of Egypt, just before that, is in f
part taken with only the smallest alterations from Herodo
taeus' rationalistic attitude to Egyptian religion and its rel
modelled on that of Herodotus; and even in the section on cust
so insistent on his own superiority, it is clear that he has
extensively.
Hecataeus may have known of the lost fourth-century work
it is obvious that he regarded his greatest predecessor as Herod
that he was superseding Herodotus because Herodotus was
the modern taste, and because he was insufficiently 'scientifi
instead of organizing his material, he wrote as caught his
imported structure into his account, a structure based on philo
-theories of the ideal state which for Hecataeus was exemplif
and theories of the nature of ethnographic description. This
Herodotean innocent eye with genuine local tradition on the o
the other with Greek philosophy, set a standard and a pattern
the next two centuries: it was the renewal of the Herodotean
to a more sophisticated age.
Hecataeus' work provoked immediate competition from the
sophical interests make him a special case,
and put him outside the main stream of serious
ethnographic historians with which I am
concerned here. Nevertheless the influence
of Herodotus can of course be shown.
I On Hecataeus, see the works cited in my
article, 'Hecataeus and Pharaonic Kingship',
J.E.A. Ivi (1970), 141-71. For arguments
for and against the date there proposed,
see the discussion between myself
and M. Stern in J.E.A. lix (1973) (forthcoming).
On Hecataeus and Herodotus see
also the comments of J. Vogt, Tiibinger
Beitrage z. Altertumswissenschaft, v (1929),
132 f.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
208 0. MURRAY
kingdoms. Megasthenes w
the court of Chandragupt
the third century on the
taeus, and modelled on t
matic account of Indian c
(book I), the system of go
(book 3), archaeology, m
source of Diodorus' section
sthenes was a well-read m
account. He relied on his
gathered from Indians, bu
was perhaps unfortunate
least on general grounds
from Megasthenes' debt t
number of obvious reflec
India is an even better lan
a rigid caste system and p
from India not Egypt. T
Nearchus to Herodotus' gr
Egypt.
The other great early Seleucid writer is in a rather different situation.
Berossus was a bilingual priest of Baal, whose Babyloniaka was addressed to
Antiochus I.3 As the work of a non-Greek it is not surprising that his book
shows no direct acquaintance with Herodotus. But it still belongs within the
same tradition, for it too is arranged according to the principles established by
Hecataeus, and can be seen as yet another reply, compiled perhaps under
direct Seleucid patronage, to the court historian of the Ptolemies. Its three
books described the land of Babylon, the origins of civilization, and Babylonian
mythology in book I, the ten mythical kings of Babylon in book 2, and the
history in book 3. Berossus is of course a good deal more accurate than either
Hecataeus or Megasthenes, because he knew the Babylonian records, and kept
I The available accounts of Megasthenes
(F.G.H. 715) are not particularly satisfactory:
bibliography in J. D. M. Derrett,
Kleine Pauly, iii (1969), 1150 ff.; add the important
discussion of F. Altheim, Weltgeschichte
Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter i (1947),
257-64. The long and discursive article of O.
Stein, RE xv (1931), 230-326 contains also
the most balanced appreciation, especially
on his relationship to earlier Greek thought,
237-67. But the central importance of the
relationship between Megasthenes and Hecataeus
has not so far been realized. It is clear
in general (much of the evidence collected
by Stein 272 ff. and Triidinger, op. cit. 75 if.
is relevant here). In detail see for instance
Megasthenes F 32. 54 on the perfect nature
of Indian society, F 14 and F 4- 36. 4 on
climate, population, colonization, conquest,
(an implicit contrast or comparison with
much in Hecataeus, e.g. Diod. I. 28), or the
'Stoic' description of the nature of the
KO'ato! (F 33. 59) in identical words to
Hecataeus 264 F I.
2 The gap between the evidence of the
fragments and the harsh judgement of Strabo
on Megasthenes' reliability (T 4, a evusoAo'yo!;
contrast Arrian, T 6) is best explained
by seeing Megasthenes as an
accurate reporter, but uncritical of his predecessors
and informants: cf. the somewhat
unsympathetic account of T. S. Brown,
A.J.P. lxxvi (1955), 18 ff. On Megasthenes'
relationship to Herodotus, see esp. F 23:
Herod. 3. o02 (the gold-digging ants again) ;
further examples in Stein, op. cit. 237 f- On
the relative importance of Herodotus and
Ctesias for Megasthenes, see Stein, op. cit.
243.
3 Bibliography on Berossus (F.G.H. 68o) in
W. Spoerri, Kleine Pauly, i (1964), 1548; see
esp. P. Schnabel, Berossos u. die babylonischhellenistische
Literatur (1923) chaps. 1-2. On
the dedication, see T 2.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 2og9
closely to their form. But the arrangement of his material and his
of it fit the pattern established by Hecataeus. Berossus writes as a
trying to provide his Greek masters with an explanation of his cult
dance with their preconceptions. One vital section is however miss
the customs of Babylonia: a native perhaps could not distance him
to be able to describe his culture from the outside, as a foreigner
Berossus was in turn followed by Manetho, the Egyptian hig
Heliopolis;' he is so confidently placed after Berossus that it ma
specifically referred to Berossus in his works. His attitude at least is
His work was probably produced under royal patronage, and m
been addressed to Ptolemy.2 Even more than Berossus, he was a pr
fusion of Greek and native cultures, as is shown best by his collab
Timotheus, of the Athenian priestly family of the Eumolpidae, in
theology and cult of the new Graeco-Egyptian ersatz god, Sarap
calls him 'a man well acquainted with Greek culture'.3 His history
strongly the same limitations as that of Berossus: it is based direc
sacred books of Egypt ;4 writing thus, Manetho sought to correct
of Greek writers who had access to these records only indirectly.
therefore primarily concerned with what appeared in those
history of the kings of Egypt; and Manetho's account is so accurat
still the foundation of Egyptian chronology. Manetho does not see
written a complete Hecataean ethnography, but merely to have
same ground as his historical section, and (both in his histor
especially in other works) to have discussed the theology of Egypt
Within these limits it is still clear that Manetho followed the Hecataean
structure, the threefold division of the early kings of Egypt into gods (identified
with physical elements), divine kings, and human kings; and he accepted the
rationalistic physical explanation of the Egyptian gods provided by Hecataeus.s
But despite these signs of Hecataeus' influence, that author is not named in the
extant fragments. Rather we hear that Manetho's history was ostensibly
directed to the correction of Herodotus: according to Josephus, 'he convicted
Herodotus of making many mistakes about Egyptian affairs because of
ignorance.'6 Manetho may even have written an independent work Against
I On Manetho (F.G.H. 609) see R.
Laqueur, RE xiv (1928), Io6o ff.
2 The relationship between Manetho and
Berossus is unclear, because it is not certain
when the remarks of Syncellus refer to
Manetho and when they refer to a pseudonymous
work which he also knew; this is
merely a special instance of the general
problem of interpolations and pseudoManethos.
T I Ib states that Manetho is
later than Berossus, T I Ic and I Id show him
contradicting Berossus. Two pseudonymous
works portray him addressing Ptolemy II:
T IIa+F 25; T I2. None of this evidence
seems to relate directly to the real Manetho;
nevertheless this consistent attitude of
depicting a court writer under Ptolemy II
may well imply that the genuine works
possessed similar characteristics. The fact
that Plutarch on the establishment of the
Sarapis cult (T 3) puts Manetho in the later
years of Ptolemy I does not of course imply
a date for his literary works earlier than
Berossus, or even under Ptolemy I; see on all
this Laqueur, op. cit. IO63 ff.
3 C. Ap. 1. 73 = T 7a.
4 F I; cf. F 9. 105; F Io. 229. The last two
passages divide the sources of Manetho into
the sacred records and a selection EK 7Tv
adEacrroTTcaJw lyvoAoyov~'vw v 'from popular
legends'. The first category certainly represents
the real Manetho; but the second may
be the distinguishing mark of an antiJewish
interpolator.
s See J.E.A. Ivi (1970), 167 f.
6 Loc. cit. (n. 3). Other explicit references
to Herodotus, F 3 pp. 16 f.; F 2/3 PP. 22 f. ;
cf. Jacoby's apparatus, p. 42 note on I1-13,
p. 103 note on 8-12.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
210o O. MURRAY
Herodotus, though this may rather be a c
it is perhaps worth noting that Herodotu
ignorance (tir' dayvo&la E~evapLevov). Wh
rather than Hecataeus I do not know; p
respected protege of the Ptolemies: pe
historical section was so derivative on Herodotus that it was better to concentrate
on the mistakes of the original. For some reason at least, he felt that
Herodotus was still worth attacking, despite the existence of a more modern
account equally open to criticism.
It was not just ethnographers and cultural historians who used Herodotus.
One of the greatest of the early Hellenistic political historians, Hieronymus of
Cardia, wrote the standard account of the Diadochoi-pure political and
military history. And yet, for instance, his account of the expedition of Antigonus
against the Nabataean Arabs in 312 is organized and arranged like a
Herodotean logos, with a detailed description of the habits and customs of the
Arabs before the account of the actual fighting.2
With Berossus and Manetho we begin to see the development, the branching
out of different tendencies which can be traced back through Hecataeus to
Herodotus. The analysis of this Herodotean tradition could be extended to the
later Hellenistic writers, to Timaeus (the Herodotus of the west), to Agatharchides
(who admired Herodotus), to Eratosthenes (who was always quoting
him), and to Poseidonius. But this will be enough to show how the Herodotean
legacy affected the world view of the Hellenistic period, and how important he
is for an understanding of Hellenistic historiography. It would hardly be too
much to say that the early Hellenistic period saw the new world of Alexander
through Herodotean eyes, and sought to give the Herodotean tradition a more
systematic basis. But without the example of Herodotus the achievement of the
writers under the Successor kingdoms in recording and understanding the
oikoumene would have been very different, and more difficult.
Only in the late Hellenistic period does Herodotus seem to have suffered a
slight eclipse as a serious writer to be studied. Dionysius of Halicarnassus might
praise his literary merits; but Diodorus did not use him; and the great majority
of the references to Herodotus in Strabo come not from his own reading but
through earlier writers, like Eratosthenes.3
How does this sketch which I have given of one of the most important areas
of Hellenistic historiography fit into the standard modern accounts ? It shows,
I believe, that modern attempts to write the history of historiography in this
period are seriously distorted and inadequate. So far interest has concentrated
on Polybius, on his theoretical statements about the writing of history, and on
his polemic against his predecessors. But, as F. W. Walbank has shown, this
polemic is remarkably selective, and often selective on grounds which have
F 13.
2 Diod. 19. 94-o00 (not printed in F.G.H.
154) ; cf. F. Jacoby, RE viii (1913), 1559.
3 The exceptions are Strabo 7. 3. 8 and
perhaps 17. 2. 5. The fact was demonstrated
by W. Althaus, Die Herodotzitate in Strabons
Geographie (Diss. Freiburg i. B., 1941), which I
know only through Riemann's discussion, op.
cit. 47-55. Whether this establishes Althaus's
conclusion, that Strabo himself did not use
Herodotus as a geographical source, is more
dubious. Riemann rightly points out that
the explicit references to Herodotus are
mostly in polemical passages, but that there
are a number of passages where Strabo
reproduces information in Herodotus without
mentioning his name: it is unlikely that
all these passages come through an intermediary.
The problem needs further in-
vestigation.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 21r
nothing to do with the writing of history, but rather
rivals to Polybius' own reputation, like Timaeus and
with historians who belonged to the wrong states or h
views for Polybius.' One type of history, however, Po
some justification, a type which has been called by
history'. The discussion of this genre of tragic histor
existence, its importance, its origins, has dominated t
historiography for seventy years, since Eduard Schwa
lem.2 The central idea in this type of history is that of
feel the emotions which the actors themselves felt-it
version of the theory of Croce and Collingwood, that
temporary history, the re-enactment of past experienc
age. Now many political historians of the Hellenistic p
effects; and if there is also a theory of history behind
well be an application of the Aristotelian theory of tr
Polybius was at least right to object to such tendencies
to obscure the search after truth. But my point here
essentially a form of political history; it is concerned
actions of men and peoples at war, emotions in a nigh
of a city. To set up the theory of mimetic history as
period is to accept the limitations of Polybius' po
important way than Walbank has pointed out. For
historian, in the tradition of Thucydides: he is not pa
other types of history, though he could of course achi
of cultural history with his description of the Roman
graphical sections, especially we may suppose in boo
is primarily a political historian, his polemic is d
historians for the most part (and also against professi
simply ignores a whole area of Hellenistic historiograph
famous authors whom Polybius loves to attack, one na
all the work of Polybius, there is no reference at all to
H. Strasburger, in an important article called Die
Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung,4 has po
in ancient historiography, indeed in all historiog
history', the history of battles, events, political decisio
on the other 'static history', the history of culture, of
at peace. Of the former Thucydides stands as the a
Herodotus-at least in the early books, for Herodotus r
distinction is I think useful. But Strasburger goes on
F. W. Walbank, 'Polemic in Polybius',
J.R.S. lii (1962), i ff.
2 The best introductions to the bibliography
and problems raised in this discussion
are F. W. Walbank, B.LC.S. ii
(0955), 4 ff.; Hist. ix (1960), 216 ff. ; cf. also
C. O. Brink, P.C.P.S. vi (i960), 14 ff., and for
a more favourable view Strasburger, op.
cit. (n. 4) 78 ff. Interesting for Schwartz's
approach is his unfavourable judgement,
contrasting Ionian and Hellenistic ethnography,
in his article on Demetrius of
Callatis, RE iv (1901), 2807.
3 For an assessment of the growth of
Polybius' geographical interests, see P.
Pedech, La Me'thode historique de Polybe (1964),
chap. 12.
4 SB. d. Wiss. Gesellschaft an der Johann
Wolfgang Goethe Universitdit Frankfurt/Main, v
(1966), no. 3; see my review in C.R. xviii
(1968), 2 i8 ff., which contains indeed the
germ of the present article. There is therefore
no need for me to stress how much I owe
to Strasburger for clarifying the problems I
here discuss.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
212 O. MURRAY
account of Hellenistic his
supreme, and was exempl
factual Polybian approach
Herodotus revived with
Poseidonius, who united a
attempts at balance, this a
the importance of mimet
nistic world. Certainly Po
the period, and our accou
preoccupations. But any
remarkably homogeneous
used as his sources, will se
Polybius.
The only full-length wor
Mazzarino's stimulating a
of that work, he chooses a
which I have been discussi
of Persia, Deinon (father
little more than that his
both Persian history an
notoriously unreliable
considerable influence on
than on serious history.3
mass of references and allusions in serious historians which can be offered for
Herodotus. Moreover Ctesias and Deinon are themselves romantic and unworthy
representatives of the Herodotean tradition; and they covered only one
area of the new Hellenistic oikoumene. It seems unnecessary to set up these two as
the source of a type of Hellenistic history, when their predecessor Herodotus is
such a much more obvious candidate.
In 19o9 Felix Jacoby wrote a famous article giving the theoretical justification
of the structure of his proposed 'Fragments of the Greek Historians'.4
This was to include virtually all forms of non-fiction prose writing, not just
what we should narrowly call history, but also mythography, ethnography,
chronography, biography, literary history, and geography. His reason for this
I S. Mazzarino, II pensiero storico classico,
ii. I (1966), 14-26; compare his emphasis on
the importance for Eratosthenes of Hecataeus,
rather than the far more obvious
Herodotus (42 ff.). See in general the
review of A. Momigliano, R.S.L lxxix (1967),
206 ff. = Quarto contributo, 59 ff.
The standard work on Greek ethnography
is the thesis already cited, K. Triidinger,
Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-rdmischen
Ethnographie (Diss. Basle, 1918); despite its
great value, it has serious limitations. It is
obsessed with problems of Quellenforschung in
Herodotus and Poseidonius; and it is
specifically confined to ethnographic digressions
in historians rather than the main
writers on ethnography. It is therefore somewhat
peripheral to the real problems.
2 On the mysterious Deinon (F.G.H. 690),
to the brief article of E. Schwartz, RE v
(1905), 654 add F. Jacoby, RE xi (1922),
20o69.
3 On the influence of Ctesias (F.G.H. 688)
see F. Jacoby, RE xi. 2045, 2066 ff.; E.
Schwartz, Fiinf Vortrdge iiber den griechischen
Roman2 (I943), 84 ff. The novelistic characteristics
of Ctesias have been amply confirmed
by the new papyrus fragment, P. Oxy.
xxii (I954), 2330. On the general problem of
the relationship between historiography and
the origins of the novel, see the survey of
B. P. Reardon, Courants littiraires grecs des
Ile et Iiie siecles apris J.-C. (I971), 315 f-
4 Klio, ix (i909), 8o ff. = Abhandlungen z.
griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, 16 ff.
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
HERODOTUS AND HELLENISTIC CULTURE 213
wide sweep was that Greek history-writing in its origins did
between these different types; and the various developed form
complex interaction between the conflicting interests of these
attitudes of mind. When Jacoby died exactly fifty years later
greatest philological work of this century and the greatest
history for all time, was only three-quarters finished, and ther
anyone taking up the task. To many, his work has seemed marr
of organization which was unnecessarily complicated and with
I believe thatJacoby was right in his central insight. It is impo
Greek historiography and its development unless ethnography
so on are included. And this is not just because the early Ionian
distinguish these genres. It is because one of the central s
historiography remained this Ionian tradition, a tradition w
cultural history, as Thucydides dominated political history
direct consequence of the continuing influence of Herodotus.
history of Hellenistic historiography will be written until thi
recognized, and each side given its proper prominence. Nor ca
world view be understood without appreciating the importanc
Balliol College, Oxford OSWYN MURRAY
This content downloaded from 78.128.189.252 on Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:37:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms