The History—properly speaking—commences with the story of Crœsus, king of Lydia, who reigned at Sardis about a century before the time of Herodotus. The Greeks, especially those of Asia Minor, maintained a frequent intercourse with the Lydians, and must therefore have had some general knowledge of their history; and it is evident that our author made himself acquainted, by personal researches, with such records and traditions as he could find at Sardis. But between his time and the reign of Crœsus, that city had once and again been pillaged, its government overthrown, the manners of its inhabitants changed, and probably, most of the ancient families had been banished, exterminated, or reduced to poverty; their places being supplied by Persians and Greeks. It must therefore be believed, that the authentic records of the state had to a great extent been dissipated, and that little better than vague reports remained to be collected when Herodotus visited Sardis. We are not therefore to be surprised if we find an air of the fabulous in the story of Crœsus and of his predecessors, the kings of Lydia. Nevertheless, some of the leading facts were authenticated by those gifts, of various kinds, that had been consecrated by the Lydian kings at Delphi, and many of which were preserved in the temple of Apollo, at that place, in the time of Herodotus: these gifts, by the inscriptions they bore, served to verify the accounts elsewhere received. At Delphi, Herodotus not only inspected vessels of gold and silver, preserved in the temple where the oracles were given, but he received from the priests their own copies of the many responses which he quotes in the course of his work. In these vaticinative verses the craft of the priests who composed them is often sufficiently apparent: and whatever they may be, their genuineness rests entirely upon the honesty of the Delphian priests, from whom our author received them. Yet the subject of the ancient oracles should not be passed by without acknowledging that, amidst all the glaring frauds, and the frivolous evasions, and the interested compliances with the wishes of the applicants, which characterise these responses, there is apparent also in some of them a knowledge of contemporary—though remote events, and of a sagacity in relation to the future, which is not satisfactorily explained without admitting the interposition of a super-human agency. An absolute denial of any such intervention, while it is unsupported by a true philosophy, does violence to the principles of historical evidence; nor is it demanded by any argumentative necessity.
The interlocution between Crœsus and Solon—the Athenian legislator, as related by Herodotus, may fairly be numbered among those dramatic embellishments with which ancient writers—and our author not less than others—thought themselves at liberty to relieve the attention of their readers. It need not be questioned that Solon visited Sardis; and it is not improbable that some rebuke of the Lydian king’s preposterous vanity—really uttered by the Grecian sage, may have formed the text of this long conversation.
The story of Adrastus, the Phrygian refugee, and of Atys, the son of Crœsus, if founded in fact, are evidently much indebted to the ingenuity of the narrator. Though these incidents may seem puerile to a modern reader, we ought to carry ourselves back to the author’s times, before we pronounce them to be altogether improper in the place where they appear. A student of history who reads only modern compilations will fail to obtain that just and exact idea of antiquity which these excrescent parts of the works of ancient historians convey.
The history of Crœsus is interrupted by a long digression, in which our author gives a sketch of the early history of the Athenians and Lacedæmonians. On these points he could be at no loss for traditions, or other sources of information; and here also he was open to correction from his contemporaries, who were as well informed as himself in matters of Grecian history. Yet the reader should not lose sight of the dates of the events severally mentioned, in forming his opinion of the value of the evidence. It is the manner of Herodotus to relate unimportant circumstances which took place—if at all—five hundred, or a thousand years before his time, with as much minuteness of detail, and as much confidence, as when he is describing recent events. Frequently, it may be supposed, he followed what he deemed authentic documents; but as we have no sufficient means of forming an opinion on the subject, such recitals are not to be admitted among the established points of history, unless they are confirmed by a coincidence of authorities.
The narrative of the war between Crœsus and Cyrus, which ended in the final dissolution of the Lydian kingdom, is resumed, sect. 69. The leading events of this war could not fail to be well known at the time in Greece; for besides that the intercourse between Greece and Asia was frequent, Crœsus was on terms of friendship with the Lacedæmonians, and was everywhere celebrated for the magnificence of his offerings to the Delphic god: moreover, the fall of Sardis, and the consequent conquests of the Persians in Asia Minor, brought a formidable enemy to the very door of Greece, and obliged the several states to inform themselves much more exactly than heretofore, of the affairs of their Asiatic neighbours. We may therefore place the conquests of Cyrus in Asia Minor among the authenticated facts of history. Yet from the details, as given by Herodotus, some considerable deductions must be made; for there is an air of dramatic embellishment apparent throughout the narrative. Sardis was taken by Cyrus about one hundred years before Herodotus wrote his history: it is not therefore probable that he had the opportunity of verifying his authorities by consulting any living witnesses of the event: it is more likely that he worked up, in his own manner, some floating traditions received from the Asiatic Greeks.
Crœsus, confounded by misfortunes which seemed to give the lie to the Delphic god, whose favour and advice he had courted by gifts of unexampled richness, requested permission of Cyrus to send the fetters he had worn, to Delphi, to be laid on the threshold of the temple;—directing the messenger to ask the Grecian god—If it was his custom to delude those who had merited the best at his hands. This request was granted; and the Lydian messenger brought back a reply which, whether or not it may be considered as genuine, is curious, if taken as a specimen of the policy and style of the Pythian:—
—When the Lydians arrived and delivered their message, the Pythian is said to have replied—That even the god could not avert the decree of fate. That Crœsus, the fifth in descent, suffered for the sin of his progenitor, who being a servant of the Heraclidæ, consented to the guile of the woman, and slew his master; taking possession without right, of his place and honour. That yet Apollo had endeavoured to defer the fall of Sardis till the next generation; but that he had not been able to move the Fates, who would no further yield to his solicitation than, as a special favour to Crœsus, to place the taking of Sardis three years later than otherwise it would have happened. Let Crœsus therefore know that he is a captive three years later than the Fates had decreed; and then remember that Apollo rescued him when about to be burned. As to the response, Crœsus had no right to complain; for the god had foretold that if he invaded the Persians, he would overthrow a great empire; and if upon this he had wished to be better informed, he should have inquired again, whether his own empire, or that of Cyrus was intended. Wherefore, as he had neither understood the oracle, nor asked for its meaning, he might take the blame to himself.
Having dismissed the Lydian affairs, Herodotus proceeds to give a sketch of the history of the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians, and to relate the story of the elevation of Cyrus to supreme power in Upper Asia. That he had visited Persia cannot reasonably be questioned; nor need it be doubted that he diligently availed himself of every means in his power to acquire information. Whether he was master of any of the eastern languages does not certainly appear; for though he frequently refers to the Persian historians, and though, in one place (139), he makes a philological remark on a peculiarity of the Persian language, we must ask more direct proof than this of his possessing an accomplishment so rare among the Greeks. We must however believe, that, at least by means of an interpreter, he had consulted the Persian writers. In commencing the history of Cyrus, he says—I shall follow those Persian writers who, without endeavouring to exaggerate the exploits of Cyrus, seem to adhere to the simple truth;—yet not ignorant that three different accounts of him are abroad.—Whether these three accounts are in fact those given by himself, by Ctesias, and by Æschylus, cannot be ascertained. It is evident that exaggerations and errors abounded among the oriental historians: the Greeks therefore, having at best a very imperfect access to these discordant authorities, must be perused with caution: it would be unsafe to rely with confidence upon any of these narratives; or to found upon them objections to statements which we derive from sources that are much more credible.
A general conformity with facts is all that we ought to expect from the Greek historians when they speak of the remote history of Asia. Herodotus at Babylon, or at Susa, must have been almost entirely dependent upon the good faith of the learned men with whom he happened to form acquaintance; and even if we give them credit for as much honesty as is usually practised on similar occasions towards foreigners—and him for a great measure of diligence and discretion, we shall scarcely find reason for considering these portions of the work to be true, otherwise than as to the general outline of events. Herodotus must however be allowed to rank above Xenophon, on the ground of authenticity; for the Cyropædia is only a political romance. Diodorus Siculus had access to sources of information that were not open to Herodotus; and the statements of the later may be admitted in correction of those of the earlier historian. Justin, or rather Trogus, seems to follow our author in his incidents, varying from him only in the order of some events. Josephus, in his reply to Apion, treats the Greek historians with contempt when they presumed to speak of Asiatic affairs; urging against them their many contradictions, and their want of really ancient and authentic documents, and quoting, as of higher authority, several works of which these citations are almost the only remaining fragments. Without impeaching the character of Herodotus, we may peruse the earlier portions of his history as an entertaining narrative, held together by a connected thread of truth, and supporting a series of incidents which, though characteristic of the times, are of very questionable historical authority. Of this kind is the story of the birth and early adventures of Cyrus, in which the art of the narrator in working up his materials, is apparent.—Probably some popular tales communicated to our author in Persia, were adapted by him to the taste of the Greeks. In his account of the manners, usages, habits, and buildings of the nations he visited, and of the features and productions of the countries through which he travelled, our author is deserving of a high degree of confidence; and though a few particulars,—plainly fabulous, are mingled with these descriptions, they must be admitted to take a place among the most valuable of the remains of ancient literature.
The narrative of the subjugation of the Ionians and Æolians of Asia Minor, by the Persians, stands, for the most part, upon a higher ground of authority than those which precede, and those which immediately follow it; not only because the transactions were comparatively recent; but because the affairs of these Asiatic Greeks were, at all times, well known to those of Europe.