1. Based on the opening of the Histories, what is envisioned as the purpose of this work? What kind of a book is it? Consider that question in terms of where in the Histories you can detect the strands of the traditions represented by other Greek authors you have read so far. Do you see any points of contact with Homer? Hesiod? Lyric? Ionian philosophy? Is this new genre of history intended to replace one or more of these?

2. Consider Herodotus' digression on Helen of Troy, 2. 113-120, together with the two fragments of Stesichorus in Lattimore's Greek Lyrics, pages 36-37, and what you found in the Iliad. How do the three different genres deal with the problem of variants in the account of Helen?

3. In what ways is Herodotus' historical method similar to and also different from the methods of a modern historian? Consider such aspects as what constitutes evidence and proof for Herodotus, what sources Herodotus uses (that you can identify from reading his work) and how critically he uses them, and the ways in which Herodotus deals with conflicts and disagreements among his sources (i.e. does he ignore them? Try to resolve them? Leave it up to the reader?).

4. Do you get a sense in Herodotus of a clear distinction between myth and history? Does Herodotus recognize gods or Fate as elements in his scheme of causation, and if so where do you see evidence of this? If he does allow gods and Fate as causative factors in history, does this destroy his credibility as an historian in your eyes?