these mythical accounts and later “historical” events, he calls attention to these myths by placing them
right at the start of his history. The reason he does this is that, while the stories themselves cannot be
confirmed, they epitomize what is regarded as an acceptable type of explanation. No one is likely to doubt
the importance of desire, and particularly sexual desire, as a motive in human behavior. Similarly, the
urge to retaliate to aggression, to “even the count,” is so common as to appear natural.
“When Cyrus heard this argument [that the Persians should migrate to a more fertile territory], he
was not impressed by it. He told them to go ahead and do it, but he gave them a piece of advice,
telling them to be prepared to stop being rulers and to start being ruled. For, he said, luxuriant lands
tend to breed luxury-loving men, since it is just not in the nature of things for the same region to
produce both wonderful crops and good fighting men. The Persians saw the wisdom of what he said
and took their leave, won over by the reasoning of Cyrus. And so they chose to live in a rugged land
and be rulers rather than sow rich farmlands and serve others as slaves.” (Herodotus 9.122.3–4, the
closing words of Herodotus’ history)These stories introduce two fundamental themes of Herodotus’ history, the themes of desire and
retribution, as well as the framework through which these themes are to be explored, namely a narrative
account, or “story,” a word that is directly derived from the Greek word historia. A story is coherent –
that is, it “makes sense” – only if the storyteller and the audience share an understanding of what
constitutes an acceptable causal connection. In the case of myths like that involving Helen’s abduction and
Menelaus’ desire to recover his wife and punish her abductor, the motivation and causation are
transparent and readily understandable. What Herodotus has done is to combine this type of narrative
structure that is intelligible on the human level with the Milesian philosophers’ search for abstract
principles of causation. After he has moved on from the accounts of the Persian authorities, he says that he
will in the course of his history relate events connected with both powerful and insignificant states
because, over time, those that are insignificant become powerful and vice versa. That is, just as the
natural world exhibits evidence of encroachment and retribution on the part of conflicting elements, so
states (or “poleis,” as Herodotus in characteristically Greek fashion expresses it) have a natural tendency
to expand at the expense of their neighbors, until such time as they suffer retribution and are punished for
their misdeeds. Herodotus illustrates this process most notably with his very detailed narrative of the
expansion of the Persian Empire, and he even seems to supply an account of the dynamics of this “natural
tendency”: The homeland of the Persians is rugged and harsh and, therefore, of necessity breeds
inhabitants who are accustomed to difficulty. When such people come in contact with neighbors like the
Lydians, whose lands are more fertile and prosperous, they are seduced as if by erotic desire to possess
those lands. Because of their toughness, it is easy for them to conquer their neighbors’ lands, but in the
course of time they begin to lose their original tough character, softened by the luxuries that they have now
acquired, and they in turn are at risk of conquest by others.
“As far as the climate and the seasons are concerned, these Ionians to whom the Panionium belongs,
of all people that we know of, have established their poleis in what is in fact the finest location. For
neither the lands to the north nor those to the south are similarly endowed, being afflicted either with
the cold and the damp or with parching heat.” (Herodotus, 1.142.1–2)In order to show this process in continual operation, it is necessary for Herodotus to track its occurrence
in more than one state. For this reason, he begins, not with the Persians but with the Lydians, whose