Boedeker, Deborah. "Epic Heritage and Mythical Patterns in Herodotus." Pages 97-116 in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Edited by Egbert Bakker, Hans van Wees, and Irene de Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
In "Epic Heritage and Mythical Patterns in Herodotus," Deborah Boedeker situates The Histories within the tradition of epic and myth by citing many examples where Herodotus employs language and conventions of those genres.
In the first section of her article, Boedeker attempts to draw some comparisons between The Histories and Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, while also highlighting some of the distinctions between them. She starts out by appealing to some of the ancient testimony and opinion, noting that an inscription at Halicarnassus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Hermogenes of Tarsus all draw comparisons between Herodotus and Homeric myth. On the other hand, she observes that Aristotle saw a greater distinction between the prose of Herodotus and the poetry of Homer. Moving on from this discussion, Boedeker begins to draw comparisons between the works themselves. She notes that Herodotus and Homer both share a common purpose to confer kleos, though Herodotus aims to confer it upon events or deeds while Homer confers it upon heroes. She remarks that both authors invoke external sources to strengthen the veracity or authority of their stories; Herodotus invokes informants while Homer invokes the Muses. Boedeker argues that Herodotus employs language, expressions, and even hexametric rhythms that recall Homeric style and which may even deliberately elude to specific scenes in the Homeric poems or the other poetic accounts of the past. And, Boedeker identifies some compositional features in The Histories, such as lists and mimetic narration, which she argues imitate Homeric composition.
Boedeker concludes the first section by identifying and commenting on the ways some scholars have explained Herodotus’ Homeric parallels and style. Mabel Lang and others explain the features as part of the "oral origins" (107) of the work; still others argue that Herodotus imitates Homer because his epics were "the only available model for the sustained narrative of great events" (107); and, building upon this latter notion, Oswyn Murray has even argued that the imitation is a deliberate device intended to set the Persian wars in direct descent or continuity with the Trojan war (108). Boedeker observes, though, that Herodotus "consciously differentiates his work from epic" (108), most particularly at the precisely the moment that he discusses the Trojan war. Still, Boedeker is unpersuaded by her own counterpoint and agrees that Herodotus "deserves his ancient epithet homērikōtatos" (108).
In the second section of the article, Boedeker examines, more generally, some of the mythic patterns and motifs that appear in The Histories. Although noting that Herodotus himself, and also Aristotle, uses the term muthos to refer to "someone else’s fabulous and incredible story," Boedeker observes that Herodotus relates several of his own such stories. Stories such as the Cyrus and the Demaratus birth narratives and the Periander and Lycophron cycle exhibit common mythical patterns and this leads Boedeker to deliberate on the problem of historicity that such "‘mythologized’ accounts" engender. Boedeker admirably refuses to treat the matter simplistically and argues that mythic patterns at least provide insight on the values and ideologies of the authors or audience. It is also her own opinion that an historical core may remain in some cases. Unfortunately, on this latter point, she does not provide a methodological foundation from which such an historical core might be uncovered. Instead, Boedeker shifts back to her central task of highlighting mythic patterns and motifs. Specifically, she observes a couple of cases when mythological events or characters break into Herodotus’ story as "historical background," including the rationalized account of the abductions of Greek and Barbarian women that leads to the Trojan War as well as stories about Talthybius and Artacytes.
Boedeker concludes the article by affirming what she believes her study has proven, namely that "the boundary between myth and history [in The Histories] is a permeable one" (116). On the whole, the specific examples that Boedeker proffers in support of her argument are sometimes weak, especially in the first section, or underdeveloped, especially in the second section. The article, though it titillates, never actually advances beyond a descriptive analysis into a prescriptive article that might provide some applications of her research. Still, Boedeker accomplishes the task she set for herself: that is, to consider "how epic and mythical traditions interact with his work, both by shaping the narrative of events and by influencing the scope and style of the work as a whole" (97) and she has shown that myth and history are permeable concepts in The Histories.
Boedeker on Herodotus: Epic and Myth
![[Valid Atom]](http://anduril.ca/blog/themes/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom Feed"){kind=small}
