Hornblower, Simon. "Herodotus and His Sources of Information." Pages 373-386 in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus. Edited by Egbert Bakker, Hans van Wees, and Irene de Jong. Leiden: Brill, 2002
In "Herodotus and His Sources of Information," Simon Hornblower addresses several problems concerning Herodotus' use of sources, including the operative principles in Herodotus’ handling of sources, his judgments on the sources, his selectivity, and his generalizations. At the outset, Hornblower distinguishes his analysis from the practice of Quellenforschung, a mode of source criticism that attempts separate out borrowed material from original material. Instead, Hornblower is interested in a loosely defined intertextuality. Also, at the outset, Hornblower rejects the view advanced by Fehling, among others, that Herodotus' sources are an invention.
Hornblower observes that Herodotus, in the main, draws upon two types of sources: oral and written. He notes that there are a couple of cases when Herodotus cites specific individuals. In many cases, however, Herodotus does not identify his sources, which leads Hornblower to conclude that Herodotus did not consider sources to have any more authority than his own reconstructions or arguments. Hornblower also discusses some of the differences between Herodotus and Thucydides, noting that Thucydides claims to undertake a rigorous historical reconstruction of events he either witnessed or could learn about from witnesses. He notes that Thucydides' methodological statements seem constructed as a polemic against Herodotus as Thucydides derides the use of chance informants or imaginary reconstructions by his predecessors. Hornblower argues Herodotus' oral sources are not, however, chance informants but reflect the traditions of the "intellectual and social elite" (376), interestingly suggesting that this is implied in the word logioi.
At this point, Hornblower proposes to look more closely at some examples in The Histories and identifies two categories of sources: those that are not explicitly cited but can be inferred and those that are explicitly cited. The first Hornblower associates with Quellenforschung and so simply refers readers to Jacoby as a reference for the use of such sources in Herodotus. The second category is the subject of Hornblower's analysis. He observes that critics have identified two operative principles that Herodotus seems to employ in source citation: "(1) the principle of citing the obvious source, and (2) the principle of regard for party bias" (378). Fehling observes and uses these principles to argue the fictional nature of Herodotus' sources but Hornblower claims that the principles themselves do not warrant such an a priori conclusion. Fehling, however, argues that Herodotus frequently uses these principles to introduce Greek theory. Hornblower rejects the implication of fraud and, by way of several illustrations, argues Herodotus employs sources "to distance himself" from events whereas more reliable material has no source citation. Still, this alternative does not really negate Fehling’s charge of fraud and could even go hand-in-glove with it.
In addition to the principle of distancing, Hornblower illuminates another principle in the work of Herodotus. He argues that Herodotus will frequently shift to indirect speech—an indication of sources—in order to convey religious and political information of a sensitive, speculative, or uncritical nature. Moreover, it is this information that Herodotus frequently does not pass judgment on, which Hornblower suggests might bespeak a certain "embarrassment" with regards to such divine interventions.
In the last pages of the article, Hornblower turns to the subject of Herodotus' selectivity and his tendencies towards generalization. He recognizes that it is quite difficult to analyze such an issue because it is often impossible to determine with certainty whether Herodotus knew of the things he left out. By contrast, Hornblower notes it is easier to determine such selectivity in Thucydides, at least in his 'ancient history,' because Thucydides is dependent on Herodotus. Still, Hornblower does identify one story that Herodotus presumably knew but left out, namely Apollo's rape of Cyrene. Hornblower seems to connect this omission to his earlier point regarding Herodotus' religious sensibilities. On the subject of generalization, Hornblower similarly observes that the "relation of sources to generalization remains elusive" (385).
In conclusion, Hornblower points to some additional lines of inquiry that have yet to be thoroughly investigated, chiefly the relation of sources to the methods of scientific and medical inquiry that Thomas has formulated. He observes, however, that it is very difficult to know whether Herodotus' sources are truly proofs or instead reflect "a shared intellectual milieu" (386).
On the whole, Hornblower's article elucidates some interesting elements of Herodotus' use of sources. He does not really respond effectively to Fehling's contention that the sources are inventions; indeed, in some cases, Hornblower's analysis seems to complement that contention. Also, Hornblower is not very thorough in his analysis but rather seems content to simply touch here and there on certain aspects of the problem. Yet, the analysis articulates some very clear principles of Herodotus' method in using and his judgment of sources.
Hornblower, Herodotus, and His Sources
![[Valid Atom]](http://anduril.ca/blog/themes/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom Feed"){kind=small}
