This book is a magnum opus for the study of the relationship between Herodotus’ work and Greek poetry. It is part of a scholarly trend that examines Herodotus’s work and method within the broader historical and cultural context of Archaic and Classical Greece, an example of which worth mentioning is Scarlett Kingsley’s work, which analyses the influence of pre-Socratic thinkers on Herodotus.[1] I find this a methodologically significant perspective, because it allows not only for a better understanding of the cultural context—broadly defined—between the 7th and 5th centuries, but also of Herodotus’s historical mindset and, furthermore, of the dynamics underlying the emergence of the discipline of history in the ancient Greek world. This alone would suffice to highlight the importance of works of this kind, among which Charles Chiasson’s study must certainly be included. The volume is divided into three parts, preceded by an introductory section: the first part focuses on the relationship between Herodotus and epic poetry, the second on Herodotus and Greek Lyric Poetry, and the third on the relationship with tragic poetry. A general conclusion closes the volume, followed by bibliographical references, an Index Locorum, and a subject index.
Chiasson rightly points out that Herodotus constantly engages in dialogue with poetry and poets of various kinds within the Histories: with meticulous precision, the author recalls, starting from a passage in the Iliad, all the poets and poetic compositions to which Herodotus makes more or less explicit reference, engaging in critical dialogue with them (pp. 15-33), focusing on mythical, historical, or geographical questions. What emerges is a broad and in-depth knowledge of poetic culture by the historian, who “embraces epic, lyric, and tragic poetry alike, including the distinctive ethnographic variant of epic represented by Aristaeus’ Arimaspeia” (p. 33). The relationship between epic culture, both Homeric and Hesiodic, and Herodotean historiography is undoubtedly a crucial issue: it is not just a matter of reiterating the obvious, i.e. the historian’s profound awareness of the authoritative cultural and gnoseological heritage constituted by epic. Rather, it is key to reflect on how this historian was influenced by Homer in the main issues underlying historical knowledge, namely the relationship with the past, between the mythical and human planes of action, and the way of conceiving memorable events as the result of encounters/clashes between Greeks and non-Greeks. At the same time, it is important to establish how epic poetry influenced Herodotus from a narrative and conceptual point of view: in this regard, Chiasson points out that Herodotus thinks of Homer as his inspiration and rival. Consider, for example, the relationship between truth and falsehood in the poetic tradition as well as in Herodotus’s Histories. In archaic society, the poet plays a fundamental role in preserving the memory of events that are essential to defining a community’s identity, as Marcel Detienne had already noted when he referred to the poet as the “master of truth.”[2] While Herodotus explicitly emphasizes the difference between his approach to recounting the past and that of the poets, he is also fully aware of the difficulty of establishing the truth of past events through sources. For the author, “Herodotus makes no comprehensive truth claim for the Histories” (p. 302); on the contrary, he often incorporates traditions that he considered dubious or false in order to express truths of a different thematic nature, as in the three case studies discussed by Chiasson himself: the defection of Scyllias, Arion and the Dolphin, and Xerxes and his Helmsman. Within the Histories, the tension between truth and falsehood in certain respects recalls the Homeric or Hesiodic epic tradition of recounting falsehoods that resemble the truth. And from this perspective, even Herodotus’s Darius exhibits traits reminiscent of the polytropos Odysseus as a practitioner of metis, when he opposes the usurpation by the false Smerdis and seizes power at a crucial moment in Persian political history.
The second part of the book focuses on the relationship between Herodotus and the lyric poetic tradition: the author succeeds in weaving together a general discussion without, however, neglecting the details; in fact, he examines the relationship between the major Archaic lyric poets (considered individually) and the historian from Halicarnassus, as well as their possible influences on him. It is impossible to do justice here to Chiasson’s immense and valuable work. I will limit myself to a few brief remarks. While the relationship between the epic tradition—Homer in particular—and Herodotean historiography has been and continues to be a much-debated topic,[3] the relationship with lyric poetry, though equally stimulating, has received little attention in comparison. Yet this is a very significant topic, because it lies at the foundation not only of the Histories but of the entire ancient historiography in its nascent phase. As Santo Mazzarino has demonstrated, the “prehistory” of historiography is to be found precisely within archaic poetic culture,[4] because the latter was an expression of a community (e.g., Tyrtaeus) or a group (e.g., Mimnermus) that viewed the political context of Greek cities—and consequently their distant or recent past—with particular interest. From this perspective, poets such as Simonides (see the so-called “Plataea Elegy”), Pindar, and Bacchylides influenced Herodotus and his approach to history, both thematically (e.g., the story of Cyrene, the fall of Sardis under Persian rule) and methodologically. The figure of Solon plays a special role in the author’s analysis, given that this poet takes centre stage in one of the most famous passages of the Histories. In his dialogue with Croesus, a general perspective emerges—happiness as it relates to human life—which strongly influences Herodotus’s underlying worldview: “The counsel that Solon offers Croesus in the Histories represents a distinctively Herodotean adaptation of recognizably Solonian ideas” (p. 383)
Part III is devoted to the relationship between Herodotus and Greek tragic poetry. This is undoubtedly the most complex part for the modern scholar: the prevailing view, in fact, recognizes significant similarities between Attic tragedy and Herodotus, but at the same time acknowledges the complexity and high degree of uncertainty involved in accurately reconstructing the intertextual relationships. The primary source is obviously Aeschylus’s Persae, which was staged in 472 BC and thus constitutes a point of reference that Herodotus could certainly have had in mind: “Aeschylus’ Persae remains an undeniably important precedent for the account of Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in the Histories” (p. 612). And in fact, the two works have many points in common, especially regarding Herodotus’s portrayal of the Great King of Persia and his decision to invade Greece, the general significance of the disaster at Salamis, and the interplay of human and divine elements in the expedition’s failure. Common to both works is also their approach to the world of the Persian barbarians, encouraging readers to look beyond cultural differences and to refrain from demonizing Easterners. And yet there are also notable differences between Persae and Histories, especially regarding the ultimate purpose of the two works: the dramatic intent of Aeschylus Persae, despite its historical accuracy, cannot reach the levels of depth achieved by Herodotus’s contextualization.
In conclusion, I consider this volume by Chiasson to be an extremely important tool for the study and understanding of Herodotus’s work: it is not just another study of some aspects of the Histories from a narrative or historiographical perspective; rather, it is a broader endeavour: to study Herodotus’s Histories as the product of a wider cultural context—namely, that of Greece from the earliest phases of the Archaic period, focusing specifically on the poetic tradition. This work will make a significant contribution to the interpretation not only of the Histories but also of the earliest phases of Greek historiography.
Notes
[1] Scarlett K. Kingsley, Herodotus and the Presocratics. Inquiry and Intellectual Culture in the Fifth Century BC, 2024, Cambridge University Press.
[2] Detienne Marcel, I maestri di verità nella Grecia arcaica, 1977, Laterza (it. trans.).
[3] See the volume of Ivan Matijasič (ed.), Herodotus—The Most Homeric Historian?, 2022, Histos Supplement 14.
[4] Santo Mazzarino, Il Pensiero storico classico, I vol. pp. 37-121, 1966, Laterza.