Why Was Herodotus Known as the "Father of Lies"?

Herodotus of Halicarnassus is widely known as the 'Father of History' for his work that recorded the Greco-Persian Wars. However, Herodotus' work also featured tales and myths about all sorts of ancient peoples, like the Egyptians, the Medes, and the Persians. While this cultural history remains a valuable window into the ancient world, it also sparked a centuries-long debate about the ancient Greek historian's credibility and intentions. Among certain circles, Herodotus became known as the "Father of Lies".

Shots Fired? Thucydides Contra Herodotus

Soon after Herodotus wrote his History, Thucydides wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War. In his first chapter laid down the fundamentals of a historian’s job. Even though Herodotus is not mentioned, we can clearly see him in Thucydides’ words when he states that a historian's role is not to insert fables and make the narration pleasant but "to look into the truth of things" (1:22).

For Thucydides, Herodotus has not witnessed the events himself and relied on “fables”. Also Herodotus’ history is pleasant to read, while Thucydides' is serious and dense.

Thucydides is basically accusing Herodotus of writing fairytales, while he authors a serious history.

The difference is between two different approaches to history and war, that of Herodotus’ sort of cultural history and Thucydides’ political. Herodotus presents the war between Greeks and Persians as a clash of civilizations where customs and culture play a pivotal role in a history of revenge and personal grudges. Thucydides views war as politically motivated. Athens inevitably goes to war against Sparta as one rising imperial power will inevitably go to war against the established imperial power. War is a result of power politics.

📜 You may also enjoy reading our article on Freud's uncanny, with examples from Greek Mythology.

Thucydides signalled a break from a previous tradition. The next historians would mostly side with Thucydides but no one would do more harm to Herodotus’ fame than Plutarch.

Plutarch Really Hated Herodotus

From the Hellenistic period onwards, Herodotus’ work was routinely attacked by various authors who sought to expose Herodotus as an entertaining liar. A series of essays against the Greek historian were written since then. Notable examples include Against Herodotus by Manetho, On Herodotus’ thefts by Valerius Pollio, On Herodotus’ lies by Aelius Harpocration, Against Herodotus by Libaniu, and Of Herodotus' Malice by Plutarch. Of all these, only Plutarch’s survives today.

In Of Herodotus' Malice, Plutarch, a Greek historian of the first AD century, listed a series of arguments against the credibility of Herodotus' works.

Plutarch presented Herodotus as sort of a sophist, a dishonorable individual who only cared about making his narration engaging while caring little about actually preserving the truth. Plutarch claims that when presented with two versions of a story, Herodotus would choose the one that would evoke the strongest emotional responses from his audience or assume that the worst case is closer to the truth.

Reading Plutarch’s essay, one clearly sees that he really despised Herodotus. Even when he recognizes Herodotus’ style “as being simple, free, and easily suiting itself to its subject”, his intention is not to compliment.

“it is also the highest malignity, to pretend to simplicity and mildness and be in the mean time really most malicious.”

So, for Plutarch even the positive aspects of the Herodotean work are meant to deceive and distract from the fact that personal fame, and not historical accuracy, is what Herodotus cares for the most. His main complaint is that Herodotus’ history is so well-written that people actually read it and even like it without caring for its weaknesses.

But Why Did Plutarch Hate Herodotus?

But what motivates Plutarch's critique? The motivation is personal nonetheless.

Now since he principally exerts his malice against the Boeotians and Corinthians, though without sparing any other, I think myself obliged to defend our ancestors and the truth against this part of his writings, since those who would detect all his other lies and fictions would have need of many books.

Boeotian by birth, Plutarch feels that Herodotus has painted his ancestors in a bad light. Defending the memory of the ancestors is not just a matter of history. In ancient Greece, one’s ancestry provided guidance for the future and was matter of honor. The honorable deeds of one’s ancestors would bring prestige and honor to the descendants, while a dishonorable ancestry would haunt the descendants for generations. In Herodotus, Thebes, the dominant Boeotian force, is painted in a bad light, while the Athenians are exemplified.

Also Plutarch, a priest of Apollo at Delphi, really dislikes what Herodotus writes about the oracle. If you’ve read Herodotus’ work, you most likely know what Plutarch refers to. The oracle took an ambivalent stance against the Persian invasion, even advising submission to the Persians. Plutarch thinks these are lies and he, as Apollo’s priest, has to “clean” the oracle’s name and restore its good fame that Herodotus has harmed.

However, here as Pelling (2007) has highlighted, Plutarch approaches Herodotus differently in his other works, often praising him and clearly relying on him as a source to tell the stories of the Persian Wars.

Another major point of Plutarch’s critique is that Herodotus is too sympathetic towards the Persians and too dismissive when it comes to Greek city-states. For this, he calls Herodotus “philobarbaros” (a barbarian sympathiser). Besides, Herodotus does portray the Persians as just as brave as the Greeks, but lacking in weaponry and armor which brought about their defeat at Plataea.

Father of Lies or Father of History?

In the Renaissance, a cautious approach toward Herodotus was the norm among the literary elites. Still, Herodotus’ work never fell out of fashion. In the 19th century, antiquarians and historians returned to Herodotus and as the colonial European powers expanded and the Ottoman Empire began to crumble, Egypt, Greece, and the lands of the Levant and Anatolia became more and more familiar and Herodotus was once again tested against archaeological and historical evidence, sometimes positive, sometimes negative.

So father of lies or father of history? The excesses of Herodotus are too many to list. Besides, he did claim that 2,6 million Persians fought at Thermopylae. He also mixes myth with fact and relies too much on oral testimonies and dubious sources. But that doesn’t mean that there is no truth in what he says. The verdict is not final, but is there a reason to take a side? Herodotus' is above all a well-written and entertaining read.

Even his critics could not deny that.

Bibliography

• Plutarch, Of Herodotus’s Malice. Translated by William Watson Goodwin.
• Cartledge, P. A. (2009). Taking Herodotus Personally. The Classical World, 102(4), 371–382. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40599873
• Evans, J. A. S. (1968). Father of History or Father of Lies; The Reputation of Herodotus. The Classical Journal, 64(1), 11–17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3296527
• Pelling, C. (2007). 'De Malignitate Plutarchi Plutarch, Herodotus, and the Persian Wars', in Emma Bridges, Edith Hall, and P. J. Rhodes (eds), Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars: Antiquity to the Third Millennium. ttps://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199279678.003.0008.

📜 Also read our article on how nationalism adopts symbols and myths to foster a common identity.