The Nine Books of Herodotua contain a great variety of matter, the unity of which is not perceived till the whole work has been thoroughly examined ; and for this reason, on a first perusal the History is seldom well understood. But the subject of his History was conceived by the author both clearly and comprehensively. "The object of the inquiries (for so we may render the word Icrropfn) of Herodotus of Halicarnassus is this, that the acts of man may not be forgotten through lapse of time, and that great and wondrous achieve ments, performed partly by Greeks and partly by Barbarians, may not be without their fame; nod also how it came to peas that Greeks and Barbarians waged war together" (i. 1). His object then was to combine a general history of the Greeks and the Barbarians (that is, those not Greeks) with the history of the wars of the Greeks and Persians. Accordingly, in execution of his main subject, he traces the course of events from the time when the Lydian kingdom of Cronus fell before the arms (me. 546) of Cyrus, the founder of the Persian monarchy, to the capture of Sestos (n.e. 478), an event which crowned the triumph of the Greeks over the l'ereiana.
The great subject of his work, which is comprised within this space of sixty-eight years, not moro than the ordinary term of human life, advances with a regular progress and truly dramatic development, from the first weak and divided efforts of the Greeks to resist Asiatic numbers, to their union as a nation, and their final triumph in the memorable fights of Thermopylae, Salamis, and Platma. But with this subject, which has a complete unity well maintained from its corn meocement to its close, the author has interwoven, conformably to his general purpose, and by way of occasional digression, sketches of the various people and countries that he had visited in his widely-ex tended travels. The more we contemplato the difficulty of thus combining a kind of universal history with a substantial and distinct narrative, the more we admire, not the art of the historian (for such, in the proper sense of the term, he could not well possess), but that happy power of bringing together and arranging his materials which was the result of the fulness of his information, the distinctness of his knowledge, and the clear conception of his subject. These numerous digressions are among the most valuable parts of his work, and if they had been omitted or lost, barren indeed would have been our investi gation into the field of ancient history, over which tho labour of one man now throws a clear and steady light. It would be difficult to mention any single writer, ancient or modern, whose personal know ledge forms so large a part of the materials of his work, and it would not be easy to name one whose accuracy of observation and felicity of description wore accompanied with such singleness and rectitude of purpose. Of modern travellers Carsten Niebuhr is the only one whom we can call to mind as worthy, in this respect, to be placed by the side of the historian of Halicarnasau,s. But we know no complete parallel
to a writer whose mere digressions elevate him to the rank of an intel ligent traveller, and who could combine in harmonious union with a great historical work, designed to perpetuate the glories of his own nation, so endless a variety of matter collected from the general history of mankind. His predecessors in historical composition appear generally to have chosen subjects of a limited nature, partaking chiefly of the character of local annals. Herodotus chose for his subject a series of events which concerned the universal Greek nation, and not them only, but the whole civilised world; and by the way in which he executed his great undertaking he has earned the honourable and well-merited appellation of the Father of History.
That he was not duly appreciated by all his countrymen, and that in modern times his wonderful stories have been the subject of merri ment to the half-learned, who measure his experience by their own ignorance, we merely notice, without thinking it necessary to say more. The incidental confirmations of his veracity which have been accumu lating of late years on all aides, and our more exact knowledge of the countries which he visited, enable us to appreciate him better than many of the Greeks themselves could do ; and it cannot now be denied that a sound and comprehensive study of antiquity must be based upon a thorough knowledge of the Father of History.
The style of Herodotus is simple, pleasing, and generally perspicu ous: often highly poetical both in expression and in sentiment. But it bears evident marks of belonging to a period when prose compo sition had not yet become a subject of art. His sentences are often ill-constructed and hang loosely together; but his clear comprehension of his own meaning, and the sterling worth of his matter, have saved him from the reproach of diffuseness and incoherence. His acquire ments were apparently the result of his own experience. In physical knowledge be was certainly behind the science of his day. He had no doubt reflected on political questions; but he seems to have formed his opiuions mainly from what he had himself observed. To pure philosophical speculation he had no inclination, and there is not a trace of it in his writings. He had a strong religious feeling, bordering on superstition, though even here he could clearly distinguish the gross and absurd from that which was decorous (i. 199). He seems to have viewed the manners and customs of all nations iu a more truly philo sophical way than many so-called philosophers, considering them as various forms of social existence under which happiness might be found. He treats with decent respect the religious observances of every nation, a decisive proof, if any were wanting, of his good sense.