Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

The events of Herod's reign indicate the temporary triumphs of his different adversaries. His high-priest, a Babylonian, was deposed in order that Aristobulus III., Mariamne's brother, might hold the place to which he had some ancestral right. But the enthusiasm with which the people received him at the Feast of Tabernacles convinced Herod of the danger; and the youth was drowned by order of the king at Jericho. Cleopatra had obtained from Antony a grant of territory adjacent to Herod's domain and even part of it. She required Herod to collect arrears of tribute. So it fell out that, when Octavian and the Senate declared war against Antony and Cleopatra, Herod was preoccupied in obedience to her commands and was thus prevented from fighting against the future emperor of Rome.

After the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) Herod executed Hyrcanus and proceeded to wait upon the victorious Octavian at Rhodes. His position was confirmed and his territories were restored. On his return he took in hand to heal with the Hasmonaeans, and in 25 B.C. the old intriguers, their victims like Mariamne, and all pretenders were dead. From this time onwards Herod was free to govern Palestine, as a client-prince of the Roman Empire should govern his kingdom. In order to put down the brigands who still infested the country and to check the raids of the Arabs on the frontier, he built or rebuilt fortresses, which were of material assistance to the Jews in the great revolt against Rome. Within and without Judaea he erected magnificent buildings and founded cities. He established games in honour of the emperor after the ancient Greek model in Caesarea and Jerusalem and revived the splendour of the Olympic games. At Athens and elsewhere he was commemorated as a benefactor; and as Jew and king of the Jews he restored the temple at Jerusalem. The emperor recognized his successful government by putting the districts of Ulatha and Panias under him in 20 B.C.

But Herod found new enemies among the members of his household. His brother Pheroras and sister Salome plotted for their own advantage and against the two sons of Mariamne. The people still cherished a loyalty to the Hasmonaean lineage, although the young princes were also the sons of Herod. The enthusiasm with which they were received fed the suspicion, which their uncle instilled into their father's mind, and they were strangled at Sebaste. On his deathbed Herod discovered that his eldest son, Antipater, whom Josephus calls a "monster of iniquity," had been plotting against him. He proceeded to accuse him before the governor of Syria and obtained leave from Augustus to put him to death. The father died five days after his son in 4 B.C. He had done much for the Jews, thanks to the favour he had won and kept in spite of all from the successive heads of the Roman state; he had observed the Law publicly--in fact, as the traditional epigram of Augustus says, "it was better to be Herod's _swine_ than a _son_ of Herod."

Josephus, _Ant._ xv., xvi., xvii. 1-8, _B.J._ i. 18-33; Schurer,
_Gesch. d. jud. Volk._, 4th ed., i. pp. 360-418.

HEROD ANTIPAS, son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace, and full brother of Archelaus, received as his share of his father's dominions the provinces of Galilee and Peraea, with the title of tetrarch. Like his father, Antipas had a turn for architecture: he rebuilt and fortified the town of Sepphoris in Galilee; he also fortified Betharamptha in Peraea, and called it Julias after the wife of the emperor. Above all he founded the important town of Tiberias on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee, with institutions of a distinctly Greek character. He reigned 4 B.C.-A.D. 39. In the gospels he is mentioned as Herod. He it was who was called a "fox" by Christ (Luke xiii. 32). He is erroneously spoken of as a king in Mark vi. 14. It was to him that Jesus was sent by Pilate to be tried. But it is in connexion with his wife Herodias that he is best known, and it was through her that his misfortunes arose. He was married first of all to a daughter of Aretas, the Arabian king; but, making the acquaintance of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip (not the tetrarch), during a visit to Rome, he was fascinated by her and arranged to marry her. Meantime his Arabian wife discovered the plan and escaped to her father, who made war on Herod, and completely defeated his army. John the Baptist condemned his marriage with Herodias, and in consequence was put to death in the way described in the gospels and in Josephus. When Herodias's brother Agrippa was appointed king by Caligula, she was determined to see her husband attain to an equal eminence, and persuaded him, though naturally of a quiet and unambitious temperament, to make the journey to Rome to crave a crown from the emperor. Agrippa, however, managed to influence Caligula against him. Antipas was deprived of his dominions and banished to Lyons, Herodias voluntarily sharing his exile.

HEROD PHILIP, son of Herod the Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem, received the tetrarchate of Ituraea and other districts to E. and N.E. of the Lake of Galilee, the poorest part of his father's kingdom. His subjects were mainly Greeks or Syrians, and his coins bear the image of Augustus or Tiberius. He is described as an excellent ruler, who loved peace and was careful to maintain justice, and spent his time in his own territories. He was also a builder of cities, one of which was Caesarea Philippi, and another was Bethsaida, which he called Julias. He died after a reign of thirty-seven years (4 B.C.-A.D. 34); and his dominions were incorporated in the province of Syria. (J. H. A. H.)

HERODAS (Gr. [Greek: Herodas]), or HERONDAS (the name is spelt differently in the few places where he is mentioned), Greek poet, the author of short humorous dramatic scenes in verse, written under the Alexandrian empire in the 3rd century B.C. Apart from the intrinsic merit of these pieces, they are interesting in the history of Greek literature as being a new species, illustrating Alexandrian methods. They are called [Greek: Mimiamboi], "Mimeiambics." Mimes were the Dorian product of South Italy and Sicily, and the most famous of them--from which Plato is said to have studied the drawing of character--were the work of Sophron. These were scenes in popular life, written in the language of the people, vigorous with racy proverbs such as we get in other reflections of that region--in Petronius and the _Pentamerone_. Two of the best known and the most vital among the _Idylls_ of Theocritus, the 2nd and the 15th, we know to have been derived from mimes of Sophron. What Theocritus is doing there, Herodas, his younger contemporary, is doing in another manner--casting old material into novel form, upon a small scale, under strict conditions of technique. The method is entirely Alexandrian: Sophron had written in a peculiar kind of rhythmical prose; Theocritus uses the hexameter and Doric, Herodas the _scazon_ or "lame" iambic (with a dragging spondee at the end) and the old Ionic dialect with which that curious metre was associated. That, however, hardly goes beyond the choice and form of words; the structure of the sentences is close-knit Attic. But the grumbling metre and quaint language suit the tone of common life which Herodas aims at realizing; for, as Theocritus may be called idealist, Herodas is a realist unflinching. His persons talk in vehement exclamations and emphatic turns of speech, with proverbs and fixed phrases; and occasionally, where it is designed as proper to the part, with the most naked coarseness of expression.

The scene of the second and the fourth is laid at Cos, and the speaking characters in each are never more than three. In Mime I. the old nurse, now the professional go-between or bawd, calls on Metriche, whose husband has been long away in Egypt, and endeavours to excite her interest in a most desirable young man, fallen deeply in love with her at first sight. After hearing all the arguments Metriche declines with dignity, but consoles the old woman with an ample glass of wine, this kind being always represented with the taste of Mrs Gamp. II. is a monologue by the [Greek: Pornoboskos] ("Whoremonger") prosecuting a merchant-trader for breaking into his establishment at night and attempting to carry off one of the inmates, who is produced in court. The vulgar blackguard, who is a stranger to any sort of shame, remarking that he has no evidence to call, proceeds to a peroration in the regular oratorical style, appealing to the Coan judges not to be unworthy of their traditional glories. In fact, the whole oration is also a burlesque in every detail of an Attic speech at law; and in this case we have the material from which to estimate the excellence of the parody. In III. a desperate mother brings to the schoolmaster a truant urchin, with whom neither she nor his incapable old father can do anything. In a voluble stream of interminable sentences she narrates his misdeeds and implores the schoolmaster to flog him. The boy accordingly is hoisted on another's back and flogged; but his spirit does not appear to be subdued, and the mother resorts to the old man after all. IV. is a visit of two poor women with an offering to the temple of Asclepius at Cos. While the humble cock is being sacrificed, they turn, like the women in the _Ion_ of Euripides, to admire the works of art; among them a small boy strangling a vulpanser--doubtless the work of Boethus that we know--and a sacrificial procession by Apelles, "the Ephesian," of whom we have an interesting piece of contemporary eulogy. The oily sacristan is admirably painted in a few slight strokes. V. brings us very close to some unpleasant facts of ancient life. The jealous woman accuses one of her slaves, whom she has made her favourite, of infidelity; has him bound and sent degraded through the town to receive 2000 lashes; no sooner is he out of sight than she recalls him to be branded "at one job." The only pleasing person in the piece is the little maidservant--permitted liberties as a _verna_ brought up in the house--whose ready tact suggests to her mistress an excuse for postponing execution of a threat made in ungovernable fury. VI. is a friendly chat or a private conversation. The subject is an ugly one, but the dialogue is as clever and amusing as the rest, with some delicious touches. Our interest is engaged here in a certain Kerdon, the artistic shoemaker, to whom we are introduced in VII. (the name had already become generic for the shoemaker as the typical representative of retail trade), a little bald man with a fluent tongue, complaining of hard times, who bluffs and wheedles by turns. VII. opens with a mistress waking up her maids to listen to her dream; but we have only the beginning, and the other fragments are very short.

Within the limits of 100 lines or less Herodas presents us with a highly entertaining scene and with characters definitely drawn. Some of these had been perfected no doubt upon the Attic stage, where the tendency in the 4th century had been gradually to evolve accepted types--not individuals, but generalizations from a class, an art in which Menander's was esteemed the master-hand. The [Greek: Pornoboskos] and the [Greek: Mastropos] we can piece together from succeeding literature, and see how skilfully the established traits are indicated here. This is achieved by true dramatic means, with touches never wasted and the more delightful often because they do not clamour for attention. The execution has the qualities of first-rate Alexandrian work in miniature, such as the epigrams of Asclepiades possess, the finish and firm outlines; and these little pictures bear the test of all artistic work--they do not lose their freshness with familiarity, and gain in interest as one learns to appreciate their subtle points.

The papyrus MS., obtained from the Fayum, is in the possession of the
British Museum, and was first printed by F. G. Kenyon in 1891.
Editions by O. Crusius (1905, text only, in Teubner series) and J. A.
Nairn (1904), with introduction, notes and bibliography. There is an
English verse translation of the mimes by H. Sharpley (1906) under the
title _A Realist of the Aegean_. (W. G. H.)

HERODIANS ([Greek: Herodianoi]), a sect or party mentioned in Scripture as having on two occasions--once in Galilee, and again in Jerusalem--manifested an unfriendly disposition towards Jesus (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13; Matt. xxii. 6; cf. also Mark viii. 15). In each of these cases their name is coupled with that of the Pharisees. According to many interpreters the courtiers or soldiers of Herod Antipas ("Milites Herodis," Jerome) are intended; but more probably the Herodians were a public political party, who distinguished themselves from the two great historical parties of post-exilian Judaism by the fact that they were and had been sincerely friendly to Herod the Great and to his dynasty (cf. such formations as "Caesariani," "Pompeiani"). It is possible that, to gain adherents, the Herodian party may have been in the habit of representing that the establishment of a Herodian dynasty would be favourable to the realization of the theocracy; and this in turn may account for Tertullian's (_De praescr._) allegation that the Herodians regarded Herod himself as the Messiah. The sect was called by the Rabbis Boethusians as being friendly to the family of Boethus, whose daughter Mariamne was one of Herod the Great's wives. (J. H. A. H.)

HERODIANUS, Greek historian, flourished during the third century A.D. He is supposed to have been a Syrian Greek. In 203 he was in Rome, where he held some minor posts. He does not appear to have attained high official rank; the statement that he was imperial procurator and legate of the Sicilian provinces rests upon conjecture only. His historical work ([Greek: Herodianou tes meta Markon basileias historion biblia okto]) narrates the events of the fifty-eight years between the death of Marcus Aurelius and the proclamation of Gordianus III. (180-238). The narrative is of special value as supplementing Dion Cassius, whose history ends with Alexander Severus. His work has the value that attaches to a record written by one chronicling the events of his own times, gifted with ordinary powers of observation, indubitable candour and independence of view. But while he gives a lively account of external events--such as the death of Commodus and the assassination of Pertinax--the barbarian invasions, the spread of Christianity, the extension of the franchise by Caracalla are unnoticed. The dates are often wrong, and little attention is paid to geographical details, which makes the narrative of military expeditions beyond the borders of the empire difficult to understand. Herodian has been accused of prejudice against Alexander Severus. His style, modelled on that of Thucydides and unreservedly praised by Photius, is on the whole pure, though somewhat rhetorical and showing a fondness for Latinisms.

Extensive use has been made of Herodianus by later chroniclers,
especially the "Scriptores historiae Augustae" and John of Antioch.
His history was first translated into Latin at the end of the 15th
century by Politian. The most complete edition is by G. W. Irmisch
(1789-1805), with elaborate indices, but the notes are very diffuse;
critical editions by I. Bekker (1855), L. Mendelssohn (1883); see also
C. Dandliker.

HERODIANUS, AELIUS, called [Greek: ho technikos], Alexandrian grammarian, flourished in the 2nd century A.D. He early took up his residence at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), to whom he dedicated his great treatise on prosody. This work in twenty-one books ([Greek: Katholike prosodia]) included also an account of the etymological part of grammar. The work itself is lost, but several epitomes of it have been preserved. His [Greek: Hepimerismoi] dealt with difficult words and peculiar forms in Homer. Herodianus also wrote numerous grammatical treatises, of which only one has come down to us in a complete form ([Greek: Peri monerous lexeos], on peculiar style), articles on exceptional or anomalous words. Numerous quotations and fragments still exist, chiefly in the Homeric scholiasts and Stephanus of Byzantium. Herodianus enjoyed a great reputation as a grammarian, and Priscian styles him "maximus auctor artis grammaticae."

The best edition is by A. Lentz, _Herodiani. Technici reliquiae_
(1867-1870); a supplementary volume is included in Uhling's _Corpus
grammaticorum Graecorum_; for further bibliographical information see
W. Christ, _Geschichte der griechischen Literatur_ (1898).

HERODOTUS (c. 484-425 B.C.), Greek historian, called the Father of History, was born at Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, then dependent upon the Persians, in or about the year 484 B.C. Herodotus was thus born a Persian subject, and such he continued until he was thirty or five-and-thirty years of age. At the time of his birth Halicarnassus was under the rule of a queen Artemisia (q.v.). The year of her death is unknown; but she left her crown to her son Pisindelis (born about 498 B.C.), who was succeeded upon the throne by his son Lygdamis about the time that Herodotus grew to manhood. The family of Herodotus belonged to the upper rank of the citizens. His father was named Lyxes, and his mother Rhaeo, or Dryo. He had a brother Theodore, and an uncle or cousin Panyasis (q.v.), the epic poet, a personage of so much importance that the tyrant Lygdamis, suspecting him of treasonable projects, put him to death. It is probable that Herodotus shared his relative's political opinions, and either was exiled from Halicarnassus or quitted it voluntarily at the time of his execution.

Of the education of Herodotus no more can be said than that it was thoroughly Greek, and embraced no doubt the three subjects essential to a Greek liberal education--grammar, gymnastic training and music. His studies would be regarded as completed when he attained the age of eighteen, and took rank among the _ephebi_ or _eirenes_ of his native city. In a free Greek state he would at once have begun his duties as a citizen, and found therein sufficient employment for his growing energies. But in a city ruled by a tyrant this outlet was wanting; no political life worthy of the name existed. Herodotus may thus have had his thoughts turned to literature as furnishing a not unsatisfactory career, and may well have been encouraged in his choice by the example of Panyasis, who had already gained a reputation by his writings when Herodotus was still an infant. At any rate it is clear from the extant work of Herodotus that he must have devoted himself early to the literary life, and commenced that extensive course of reading which renders him one of the most instructive as well as one of the most charming of ancient writers. The poetical literature of Greece was already large; the prose literature was more extensive than is generally supposed; yet Herodotus shows an intimate acquaintance with the whole of it. The _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_ are as familiar to him as Shakespeare to the educated Englishman. He is acquainted with the poems of the epic cycle, the _Cypria_, the _Epigoni_, &c. He quotes or otherwise shows familiarity with the writings of Hesiod, Olen, Musaeus, Bacis, Lysistratus, Archilochus of Paros, Alcaeus, Sappho, Solon, Aesop, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Simonides of Ceos, Phrynichus, Aeschylus and Pindar. He quotes and criticizes Hecataeus, the best of the prose writers who had preceded him, and makes numerous allusions to other authors of the same class.

It must not, however, be supposed that he was at any time a mere student. It is probable that from an early age his inquiring disposition led him to engage in travels, both in Greece and in foreign countries. He traversed Asia Minor and European Greece probably more than once; he visited all the most important islands of the Archipelago--Rhodes, Cyprus, Delos, Paros, Thasos, Samothrace, Crete, Samos, Cythera and Aegina. He undertook the long and perilous journey from Sardis to the Persian capital Susa, visited Babylon, Colchis, and the western shores of the Black Sea as far as the estuary of the Dnieper; he travelled in Scythia and in Thrace, visited Zante and Magna Graecia, explored the antiquities of Tyre, coasted along the shores of Palestine, saw Gaza, and made a long stay in Egypt. At the most moderate estimate, his travels covered a space of thirty-one degrees of longitude, or 1700 miles, and twenty-four of latitude, or nearly the same distance. At all the more interesting sites he took up his abode for a time; he examined, he inquired, he made measurements, he accumulated materials. Having in his mind the scheme of his great work, he gave ample time to the elaboration of all its parts, and took care to obtain by personal observation a full knowledge of the various countries.

The travels of Herodotus seem to have been chiefly accomplished between his twentieth and his thirty-seventh year (464-447 B.C.).[1] It was probably in his early manhood that as a Persian subject he visited Susa and Babylon, taking advantage of the Persian system of posts which he describes in his fifth book. His residence in Egypt must, on the other hand, have been subsequent to 460 B.C., since he saw the skulls of the Persians slain by Inarus in that year. Skulls are rarely visible on a battlefield for more than two or three seasons after the fight, and we may therefore presume that it was during the reign of Inarus (460-454 B.C.),[2] when the Athenians had great authority in Egypt, that he visited the country, making himself known as a learned Greek, and therefore receiving favour and attention on the part of the Egyptians, who were so much beholden to his countrymen (see ATHENS, CIMON, PERICLES). On his return from Egypt, as he proceeded along the Syrian shore, he seems to have landed at Tyre, and from thence to have gone to Thasos. His Scythian travels are thought to have taken place prior to 450 B.C.

It is a question of some interest from what centre or centres these various expeditions were made. Up to the time of the execution of Panyasis, which is placed by chronologists in or about the year 457 B.C., there is every reason to believe that Herodotus lived at Halicarnassus. His travels in Asia Minor, in European Greece, and among the islands of the Aegean, probably belong to this period, as also his journey to Susa and Babylon. We are told that when he quitted Halicarnassus on account of the tyranny of Lygdamis, in or about the year 457 B.C., he took up his abode in Samos. That island was an important member of the Athenian confederacy, and in making it his home Herodotus would have put himself under the protection of Athens. The fact that Egypt was then largely under Athenian influence (see CIMON, PERICLES) may have induced him to proceed, in 457 or 456 B.C., to that country. The stories that he had heard in Egypt of Sesostris may then have stimulated him to make voyages from Samos to Colchis, Scythia and Thrace. He was thus acquainted with almost all the regions which were to be the scene of his projected history.

After Herodotus had resided for some seven or eight years in Samos, events occurred in his native city which induced him to return thither. The tyranny of Lygdamis had gone from bad to worse, and at last he was expelled. According to Suidas, Herodotus was himself an actor, and indeed the chief actor, in the rebellion against him; but no other author confirms this statement, which is intrinsically improbable. It is certain, however, that Halicarnassus became henceforward a voluntary member of the Athenian confederacy. Herodotus would now naturally return to his native city, and enter upon the enjoyment of those rights of free citizenship on which every Greek set a high value. He would also, if he had by this time composed his history, or any considerable portion of it, begin to make it known by recitation among his friends. There is reason to believe that these first attempts were not received with much favour, and that it was in chagrin at his failure that he precipitately withdrew from his native town, and sought a refuge in Greece proper (about 447 B.C.).[3] We learn that Athens was the place to which he went, and that he appealed from the verdict of his countrymen to Athenian taste and judgment. His work won such approval that in the year 445 B.C., on the proposition of a certain Anytus, he was voted a sum of ten talents (L2400) by decree of the people. At one of the recitations, it was said, the future historian Thucydides was present with his father, Olorus, and was so moved that he burst into tears, whereupon Herodotus remarked to the father--"Olorus, your son has a natural enthusiasm for letters."[4]

Athens was at this time the centre of intellectual life, and could boast an almost unique galaxy of talent--Pericles, Thucydides the son of Melesias, Aspasia, Antiphon, the musician Damon, Pheidias, Protagoras, Zeno, Cratinus, Crates, Euripides and Sophocles. Accepted into this brilliant society, on familiar terms with all probably, as he certainly was with Olorus, Thucydides and Sophocles, he must have been tempted, like many another foreigner, to make Athens his permanent home. It is to his credit that he did not yield to this temptation. At Athens he must have been a dilettante, an idler, without political rights or duties. As such he would have soon ceased to be respected in a society where literature was not recognized as a separate profession, where a Socrates served in the infantry, a Sophocles commanded fleets, a Thucydides was general of an army, and an Antiphon was for a time at the head of the state. Men were not men according to Greek notions unless they were citizens; and Herodotus, aware of this, probably sharing in the feeling, was anxious, having lost his political status at Halicarnassus, to obtain such status elsewhere. At Athens the franchise, jealously guarded at this period, was not to be attained without great expense and difficulty. Accordingly, in the spring of the following year he sailed from Athens with the colonists who went out to found the colony of Thurii (see PERICLES), and became a citizen of the new town.

From this point of his career, when he had reached the age of forty, we lose sight of him almost wholly. He seems to have made but few journeys, one to Crotona, one to Metapontum, and one to Athens (about 430 B.C.) being all that his work indicates.[5] No doubt he was employed mainly, as Pliny testifies, in retouching and elaborating his general history. He may also have composed at Thurii that special work on the history of Assyria to which he twice refers in his first book, and which is quoted by Aristotle. It has been supposed by many that he lived to a great age, and argued that "the never-to-be-mistaken fundamental tone of his performance is the quiet talkativeness of a highly cultivated, tolerant, intelligent, _old_ man" (Dahlmann). But the indications derived from the later touches added to his work, which form the sole evidence on the subject, would rather lead to the conclusion that his life was not very prolonged. There is nothing in the nine books which may not have been written as early as 430 B.C.; there is no touch which, even probably, points to a later date than 424 B.C. As the author was evidently engaged in polishing his work to the last, and even promises touches which he does not give, we may assume that he did not much outlive the date last mentioned, or in other words, that he died at about the age of sixty. The predominant voice of antiquity tells us that he died at Thurii, where his tomb was shown in later ages.

_The History._--In estimating the great work of Herodotus, and his genius as its author, it is above all things necessary to conceive aright what that work was intended to be. It has been called "a universal history," "a history of the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians," and "a history of the struggle between Greece and Persia." But these titles are all of them too comprehensive. Herodotus, who omits wholly the histories of Phoenicia, Carthage and Etruria, three of the most important among the states existing in his day, cannot have intended to compose a "universal history," the very idea of which belongs to a later age. He speaks in places as if his object was to record the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians; but as he omits the Trojan war, in which he fully believes, the expedition of the Teucrians and Mysians against Thrace and Thessaly, the wars connected with the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor and others, it is evident that he does not really aim at embracing in his narrative all the wars between Greeks and barbarians with which he was acquainted. Nor does it even seem to have been his object to give an account of the entire struggle between Greece and Persia. That struggle was not terminated by the battle of Mycale and the capture of Sestos in 479 B.C. It continued for thirty years longer, to the peace of Callias (but see CALLIAS and CIMON). The fact that Herodotus ends his history where he does shows distinctly that his intention was, not to give an account of the entire long contest between the two countries, but to write the history of a particular war--the great Persian war of invasion. His aim was as definite as that of Thucydides, or Schiller, or Napier or any other writer who has made his subject a particular war; only he determined to treat it in a certain way. Every partial history requires an "introduction"; Herodotus, untrammelled by examples, resolved to give his history a magnificent introduction. Thucydides is content with a single introductory book, forming little more than one-eighth of his work; Herodotus has six such books, forming two-thirds of the entire composition.

By this arrangement he is enabled to treat his subject in the _grand_ way, which is so characteristic of him. Making it his main object in his "introduction" to set before his readers the previous history of the two nations who were the actors in the great war, he is able in tracing their history to bring into his narrative some account of almost all the nations of the known world, and has room to expatiate freely upon their geography, antiquities, manners and customs and the like, thus giving his work a "universal" character, and securing for it, without trenching upon unity, that variety, richness and fulness which are a principal charm of the best histories, and of none more than his. In tracing the growth of Persia from a petty subject kingdom to a vast dominant empire, he has occasion to set out the histories of Lydia, Media, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Scythia, Thrace, and to describe the countries and the peoples inhabiting them, their natural productions, climate, geographical position, monuments, &c.; while, in noting the contemporaneous changes in Greece, he is led to tell of the various migrations of the Greek race, their colonies, commerce, progress in the arts, revolutions, internal struggles, wars with one another, legislation, religious tenets and the like. The greatest variety of episodical matter is thus introduced; but the propriety of the occasion and the mode of introduction are such that no complaint can be made; the episodes never entangle, encumber or even unpleasantly interrupt the main narrative.

It has been questioned, both in ancient and in modern times, whether the history of Herodotus possesses the essential requisite of trustworthiness. Several ancient writers accuse him of intentional untruthfulness. Moderns generally acquit him of this charge; but his severer critics still urge that, from the inherent defects of his character, his credulity, his love of effect and his loose and inaccurate habits of thought, he was unfitted for the historian's office, and has produced a work of but small historical value. Perhaps it may be sufficient to remark that the defects in question certainly exist, and detract to some extent from the authority of the work, more especially of those parts of it which deal with remoter periods, and were taken by Herodotus on trust from his informants, but that they only slightly affect the portions which treat of later times and form the special subject of his history. In confirmation of this view, it may be noted that the authority of Herodotus for the circumstances of the great Persian war, and for all local and other details which come under his immediate notice, is accepted by even the most sceptical of modern historians, and forms the basis of their narratives.

Among the merits of Herodotus as an historian, the most prominent are the diligence with which he collected his materials, the candour and impartiality with which he has placed his facts before the reader, the absence of party bias and undue national vanity, and the breadth of his conception of the historian's office. On the other hand, he has no claim to rank as a critical historian; he has no conception of the philosophy of history, no insight into the real causes that underlie political changes, no power of penetrating below the surface, or even of grasping the real interconnexion of the events which he describes. He belongs distinctly to the romantic school; his forte is vivid and picturesque description, the lively presentation of scenes and actions, characters and states of society, not the subtle analysis of motives, the power of detecting the undercurrents or the generalizing faculty.

But it is as a writer that the merits of Herodotus are most conspicuous. "O that I were in a condition," says Lucian, "to resemble Herodotus, if only in some measure! I by no means say in all his gifts, but only in some single point; as, for instance, the beauty of his language, or its harmony, or the natural and peculiar grace of the Ionic dialect, or his fulness of thought, or by whatever name those thousand beauties are called which to the despair of his imitator are united in him." Cicero calls his style "copious and polished," Quintilian, "sweet, pure and flowing"; Longinus says he was "the most Homeric of historians"; Dionysius, his countryman, prefers him to Thucydides, and regards him as combining in an extraordinary degree the excellences of sublimity, beauty and the true historical method of composition. Modern writers are almost equally complimentary. "The style of Herodotus," says one, "is universally allowed to be remarkable for its harmony and sweetness." "The charm of his style," argues another, "has so dazzled men as to make them blind to his defects." Various attempts have been made to analyse the charm which is so universally felt; but it may be doubted whether any of them are very successful. All, however, seem to agree that among the qualities for which the style of Herodotus is to be admired are simplicity, freshness, naturalness and harmony of rhythm. Master of a form of language peculiarly sweet and euphonical, and possessed of a delicate ear which instinctively suggested the most musical arrangement possible, he gives his sentences, without art or effort, the most agreeable flow, is never abrupt, never too diffuse, much less prolix or wearisome, and being himself simple, fresh, _naif_ (if we may use the word), honest and somewhat quaint, he delights us by combining with this melody of sound simple, clear and fresh thoughts, perspicuously expressed, often accompanied by happy turns of phrase, and always manifestly the spontaneous growth of his own fresh and unsophisticated mind. Reminding us in some respects of the quaint medieval writers, Froissart and Philippe de Comines, he greatly excels them, at once in the beauty of his language and the art with which he has combined his heterogeneous materials into a single perfect harmonious whole. See also GREECE, section _History_, "Authorities."

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The history of Herodotus has been translated by many
persons and into many languages. About 1450, at the time of the
revival of learning, a Latin version was made and published by
Laurentius Valla. This was revised in 1537 by Heusbach, and
accompanies the Greek text of Herodotus in many editions. The first
complete translation into a modern language was the English one of
Littlebury, published in 1737. This was followed In 1786 by the French
translation of Larcher, a valuable work, accompanied by copious notes
and essays. Beloe, the second English translator, based his work on
that of Larcher. His first edition, in 1791, was confessedly very
defective; the second, in 1806, still left much to be desired. A good
German translation, but without note or comment, was brought out by
Friedrich Lange at Berlin in 1811. Andrea Mustoxidi, a native of
Corfu, published an Italian version in 1820. In 1822 Auguste Miot
endeavoured to improve on Larcher; and in 1828-1832 Dr Adolf Scholl
brought out a German translation with copious notes (new ed., 1855),
which has to some extent superseded the work of Lange. About the same
time a new English version was made by Isaac Taylor (London, 1829). In
1858-1860, the history of Herodotus was translated by Canon G.
Rawlinson, assisted in the copious notes and appendices accompanying
the work by Sir Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Henry Rawlinson. More
recently we have translations in English by G. C. Macaulay (2 vols.,
1890); in German by Bahr (Stuttgart, 1867) and Stein (Oldenburg,
1875); in French by Giguet (1857) and Talbot (1864); in Italian by
Ricci (Turin, 1871-1876), Grandi (Asti, 1872) and Bertini (Naples,
1871-1872). A Swedish translation by F. Carlstadt was published at
Stockholm in 1871.

The best of the older editions of the Greek text are the
following:--_Herodoti historiae_, ed. Schweighauser (5 vols.,
Strassburg, 1816); _Herodoti Halicarnassei historiarum libri IX._ (ed.
Gaisford, Oxford, 1840); _Herodotus, with a Commentary_, by J. W.
Blakesley (2 vols. London, 1854); _Herodoti musae_ (ed. Bahr, 4 vols.,
Leipzig, 1856-1861, 2nd ed.); and _Herodoti historiae_ (ed. Abicht,
Leipzig, 1869).

The most recent editions of the text, or of portions of it, with and
without commentaries are the following:--H. Stein, _Herodoti
Historiae_ (ed. Major, 2 vols., Berlin, 1869-1871, with _apparatus
criticus_; still the best edition of the text); H. Kellenberg,
_Historiarum libri IX._ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1887); van Herwerden,
[Greek: Historiai] (Leiden, 1885); H. Stein, _Herodotus, erklart_
(Berlin, 1856-1861, and several editions since; the best short
commentary and introduction); A. H. Sayce, _The Ancient Empires of the
East, Herodotus I.-III., with introductions and appendices_ (1883; an
attempt to prove the unveracity of Herodotus, especially in regard to
the extent of his travels, which has found little support amongst more
recent English or German writers); R. W. Macan, _Herodotus IV.-VI._ (2
vols., 1895) and _Herodotus VII.-IX._ (2 vols., 1908), with exhaustive
introduction, appendices and notes; the only scientific edition of
these books in English; E. Abbott, _Herodotus V. and VI._ (Oxford,
1893); A. Wiedemann, _Herodots zweites Buch mit sachlichen
Bemerkungen_ (Leipzig, 1890; the best and fullest commentary on book
ii.).

Among works of value illustrative of Herodotus may be mentioned
Bouhier, _Recherches sur Herodote_ (Dijon, 1746); Rennell, _Geography
of Herodotus_ (London, 1800); Niebuhr, _Geography of Herodotus and
Scythia_ (Eng. trans., Oxford, 1830); Dahlmann, _Herodot, aus seinem
Buche sein Leben_ (Altona, 1823); Eltz, _Quaestiones Herodoteae_
(Leipzig, 1841); Kenrick, _Egypt of Herodotus_ (London, 1841); Mure,
_Literature of Greece_, vol. iv. (London, 1852); Abicht, _Ubersicht
uber den Herodoteischen Dialekt_ (Leipzig, 1869, 3rd ed., 1874), and
_De codicum Herodoti fide ac auctoritate_ (Naumburg, 1869); Melander,
_De anacoluthis Herodoteis_ (Lund, 1869); Matzat, "Uber die
Glaubenswurdigkeit der geograph. Angaben Herodots uber Asien," in
_Hermes_, vi.; Budinger, _Zur agyptischen Forschung Herodots_ (Vienna,
1873, reprinted from the _Sitzungsber._ of the Vienna Acad.);
Merzdorf, _Quaestiones grammaticae de dialecto Herodotea_ (Leipzig,
1875); A. Kirchhoff, _Uber die Entstehungszeit des Herodotischen
Geschichtswerkes_ (Berlin, 1878); Adolf Bauer, _Herodots Biographie_
(Vienna, 1878); H. Delbruck, _Perser und Burgunderkriege_ (Berlin,
1887; of great importance for the criticism of the Persian Wars); N.
Wecklein, _Uber die Tradition der Perserkriege_ (Munich, 1876); A.
Hauvette-Besnault, _Herodote historien des guerres mediques_ (Paris,
1894); J. A. R. Munro, _Some Observations on the Persian Wars_ (in
various vols. of the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_; acute and
suggestive); G. B. Grundy, _The Great Persian War_ (London, 1901); J.
P. Mahaffy, _History of Greek Classical Literature_, ii. 16 ff.
(London, 1880); E. Meyer, _Forschungen zur alten Geschichte_, i. 151
ff., and ii. 196 ff. (Halle, 1892-1899); Busolt, _Griechische
Geschichte_, ii. 602 ff. (2nd ed., Gotha, 1895); J. B. Bury, _Ancient
Greek Historians_ (1908), lecture 2. For notices of current literature
see Bursian's _Jahresbericht_. Students of the original may also
consult with advantage the lexicons of Aemilius Portus (Oxford, 1817)
and of Schweighauser (London, 1824). On Herodotus' debt to Hecataeus
see Wells, in _Journ. Hell. Stud._, 1909, pt. i. (G. R.; E. M. W.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The date of his travels is difficult to determine. E. Meyer
inclines to put all the longer journeys, except the Scythian, between
440 and 430 B.C. The journey to Susa and Babylon is put by C. F.
Lehmann c. 450 B.C., and by H. Stein before 450.

[2] Most recent critics (e.g. Stein, Meyer, Busolt) put the visit to
Egypt after the suppression of the revolt under Inarus and Amyrtaeus
(i.e. after 449 B.C.), on the strength of Herod. 2. 30, which implies
the restoration of Persian authority.

[3] Stein, Meyer, Busolt, and other recent writers attribute his
departure from Halicarnassus to political causes, e.g. the ascendancy
of the anti-Athenian party in the state.

[4] This story is on chronological grounds rejected by all recent
critics.

[5] Opinion is divided as to this visit to Athens after his
settlement at Thurii. Stein, Meyer and Busolt hold that much of his
work (especially the later books) was composed at Athens soon after
430 B.C. See further Wachsmuth, _Rheinisches Museum_, lvi. (1901)
215-218. Macan, _Herodotus_ VII.-IX. (_Introduction_, pp.
xlv.-lxvi.), seeks to prove that the last three books were the first
part of the _Histories_ to be composed. He is followed in this view
by Bury.

HEROET, ANTOINE, surnamed LA MAISON-NEUVE (d. 1568), French poet, was born in Paris of a family connected with the famous chancellor, Francois Olivier. His poetry belongs to his early years, for after he had taken orders he ceased to write profane poetry, no doubt because he considered it out of keeping with his calling, in which he attained the dignity of bishop of Digue. His chief work is _La Parfaicte Amye_ (Lyons, 1542) in which he developed the idea of a purely spiritual love, based chiefly on the reading of the Italian Neo-Platonists. The book aroused great controversy. La Borderie replied in _L'Amye de cour_ with a description of a very much more human woman, and Charles Fontaine contributed a _Contr' amye de cour_ to the dispute. Heroet, in addition to some translations from the classics, wrote the _Complainte d'une dame nouvellement surprise d'amour_, an _Epistre a Francois I^er_, and some pieces included in the now very rare _Opuscules d'amour par Heroet, La Borderie et autres divins poetes_ (Lyons, 1547). Heroet belongs to the Lyonnese school of which Maurice Sceve may be regarded as the leader. Clement Marot praises him, and Ronsard was careful to exempt him with one or two others from the scorn he poured on his immediate predecessors.

See H. F. Cary, _The Early French Poets_ (1846).

HEROIC ROMANCES, the name by which is distinguished a class of imaginative literature which flourished in the 17th century, principally in France. The beginnings of modern fiction in that country took a pseudo-bucolic form, and the celebrated _Astree_ (1610) of Honore d'Urfe (1568-1625), which is the earliest French novel, is properly styled a pastoral. But this ingenious and diffuse production, in which all is artificial, was the source of a vast literature, which took many and diverse forms. Although its action was, in the main, languid and sentimental, there was a side of the _Astree_ which encouraged that extravagant love of glory, that spirit of "panache," which was now rising to its height in France. That spirit it was which animated Marin le Roy, sieur de Gomberville (1600-1674), who was the inventor of what have since been known as the Heroical Romances. In these there was experienced a violent recrudescence of the old medieval elements of romance, the impossible valour devoted to a pursuit of the impossible beauty, but the whole clothed in the language and feeling and atmosphere of the age in which the books were written. In order to give point to the chivalrous actions of the heroes, it was always hinted that they were well-known public characters of the day in a romantic disguise.

In the _Astree_ of Honore d'Urfe, which was a pure pastoral, in the religious romances of Pierre Camus (1582-1653), in the comic _Francion_ of Charles Sorel, piquancy had been given to the recital by this belief that real personages could be recognized under the disguises. But in the _Carithee_ of Gomberville (1621) we have a pastoral which is already beginning to be a heroic romance, and a book in which, under a travesty of Roman history, an appeal is made to an extravagantly chivalrous enthusiasm. A further development was seen in the _Polyxene_ (1623) of Francois de Moliere, and the _Endymion_ (1624) of Gombauld; in the latter the elderly queen, Marie de' Medici, was celebrated under the disguise of Diana, for whom a beautiful shepherd of Caria (the author himself) nourishes a hopeless passion. The earliest of the Heroic Romances, pure and simple, is, however, the celebrated _Polexandre_ (1629) of Gomberville. The author began by intending his hero to represent Louis XIII., but he changed his mind, and drew a portrait of Cardinal Richelieu. In this novel, for the first time, the romantic character proper to this class of books is seen undiluted; there is no intrusion of a personage who is not celebrated for his birth, his beauty or his exploits. The story deals with the adventures of a hero who visits all the sea-coasts of the world, the most remote as well as the most fabulous, in search of an ineffable princess, Alcidiane. This absurd and pretentious, yet very original piece of invention enjoyed an immense success, and historical romances of a similar class competed for the favour of the public. There was an equal amount of geography and more of ancient history in the _Ariane_ (1632) of Desmarets de Saint-Sorlin (1595-1676), a book which, long neglected, has in late years been rediscovered, and which has been greeted by M. Paul Morillot as the most readable and the least tiresome of all the Heroic Romances. The type of that class of literature, however, has always been found in the highly elaborate writings of Gauthier de Coste de la Calprenede (1609-1663), which enjoyed for a time a prodigious celebrity, and were read and imitated all over Europe. La Calprenede was a Gascon soldier, imbued with all the extravagance of his race, and in full sympathy with the audacity and violence of the aristocratic society of France in his day. His _Cassandre_, which appeared in ten volumes between 1642 and 1645, is perhaps the most characteristic of all the Heroic Romances. It deals with a highly romantic epoch of ancient history, the decline of the empire of Alexander the Great. The wars of the Persians and of the Scythians are introduced, and among the characters are discovered such personages as Artaxerxes, Roxana and Ephestion. It must not be supposed, however, that la Calprenede makes the smallest effort to deal with the subject accurately or realistically. The figures are those of his own day; they are seigneurs and great ladies of the court of Louis XIII., masquerading in Macedonian raiment. The passion of love is dominant throughout, and it is treated in the most exalted and hyperbolical spirit. The central heroes of the story, Oroondate and Lysimachus, are dignified, eloquent and amorous; they undergo unexampled privations in the quest of incomparable ladies whose beauty and whose nobility is only equalled by their magnificent loyalty. These books were written with an aim that was partly didactic. Their object was to entertain the ladies and to gratify a taste for endlessly wire-drawn sentimentality, but it was also to teach fortitude and grandeur of soul and to inculcate lessons of practical chivalry. La Calprenede followed up the success of his _Cassandre_ with a _Cleopatre_ (1647) in twelve volumes, and a _Faramond_ (1661) which he did not live to finish. He became more extravagant, more rhapsodical as he proceeded, and he lost all the little hold on history which he had ever held. _Cleopatre_, nevertheless, enjoyed a prodigious popularity, and it became the fashion to emulate as far as possible the prowess of its magnificent hero, the proud Artaban. It should be said that la Calprenede objected to his books being styled romances, and insisted that they were specimens of "history embellished with certain inventions." He may, in opposition to his wishes, claim the doubtful praise of being, in reality, the creator of the modern historical novel. He was immediately imitated or accompanied by a large number of authors, of whom two have achieved a certain immortality, which, unhappily, must be confessed to be partly of ridicule. The vogue of the historical romance was carried to its height by a brother and a sister, Georges de Scudery (1601-1667) and Madeleine de Scudery (1608-1701), who represented in their own persons all the extravagant, tempestuous and absurd elements of the age, and whose elephantine romances remain as portents in the history of literature. These novels--there are five of them--were signed by Georges de Scudery, but it is believed that all were in the main written by Madeleine. The earliest was _Ibrahim, ou l'Illustre Bassa_ (1641); it was followed by _Le Grand Cyrus_ (1648-1653) and the final, and most preposterous member of the series was _Clelie_ (1649-1654). The romances of Mlle de Scudery (for to her we may safely attribute them) are much inferior in style to those of la Calprenede. They are pretentious, affected and sickly. The author abuses the element of analysis, and pushes a psychology, which was beyond the age in penetration, to a wearisome and excessive extent. Nothing, it is probable, in the whole evolution of the Historical Romances has attracted so much attention as the "Carte de Tendre" which occurs in the opening book of _Clelie_. This celebrated map, drawn by the heroine in order to show the route from New Friendship to Tender, and a geographical symbol, therefore, of the progress of love, with its city of Tender-upon-Esteem, its sea of Enmity, its river of Inclination, its rock-built citadel of Pride, its cold lake of Indifference, is a miracle of elaborate and incongruous ingenuity. But, amusing as it is, it shows into what depths of puerility the amorous casuistry of these romances had fallen. These novels formed the chief topic of conversation and of correspondence in the literary society which gathered at and around the Hotel de Rambouillet, and in the personages of Mlle de Scudery's romances could be recognized all the famous leaders of that society. The mawkish love-making and the false heroism of these monstrous novels went rapidly out of fashion in France soon after 1660, when the epoch of the Heroic Romance came to an end. In England the Heroic Romance had a period of flourishing popularity. All the principal French examples were very promptly translated, and "he was not to be admitted into the academy of wit who had not read _Astrea_ and _The Grand Cyrus_." The great vogue of these books in England lasted from about 1645 to 1660. It led, of course, to the composition of original works in imitation of the French. The most remarkable and successful of these was _Parthenissa_, published in 1654 by Roger Boyle, Lord Broghill and afterwards Earl of Orrery (1621-1679), which was greatly admired by Dorothy Osborne and her correspondents. Addison speaks in the "Spectator" of the popularity of all these huge books, "the _Grand Cyrus_, with a pin stuck in one of the middle leaves, _Clelie_, which opened of itself in the place that describes two lovers in a bower." When the drama, and in particular tragedy, was reinstituted in England, sentimental readers found a field for their emotions on the stage, and the heroic romances immediately began to go out of fashion. They lingered, however, for a quarter of a century more, and M. Jusserand has analysed what may be considered the very latest of the race, _Pandion and Amphigenia_, published in 1665 by the dramatist, John Crowne.

See Gordon de Percel, _De l'usage des romans_ (1734); Andre Le Breton,
_Le Roman au XVII^e siecle_ (1890); Paul Morillot, _Le Roman en France
depuis 1610_ (1894); J. J. Jusserand, _Le Roman anglais au XVII^e
siecle_ (1888). (E. G.)