Reading Classics, Chronologically Through the Ages discussion
History
>
The Histories by Herodotus (440 BCE) - #7
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
LOL! Oh wow, that's just hilarious! I wish I could say I was being clever, but no, that was a typo as the result of having scrambled eggs for a brain at the end of a workday.
Wow...talk about Freudian slip...
(I'll correct it) :-D
Mod
What are we to make of the accuracy of Herodotus' tales? He is telling us the stories he collected from other people in his travels. And although I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that most of those people are speaking truthfully, it does not follow that what they speak is the truth.
Also, the childhood game "telephone" comes to mind when it comes to oral recollections passed down through generations and across peers.
On the other hand, The Histories is referred to by many historians. I know that they take The Histories together with many other forms of evidence (anthropological, ancient documents, etc.) in order to weigh the details throughout.
The whole of the matter is highly nuanced... part of me worries that I'll read something in The Histories that is not historically accurate, but my brain will remember it as historical fact.
Does anyone else worry about that?
Is Herodotus mostly an entertainer, or does he deserve the title, "Father of History"?
What are your thoughts?
Mod
Oh, yes, Herodotus definitely deserves his honorific as "The Father of History". He was searching for truth and recording knowledge. He just got some of it wrong. :-)
I don't worry too much about remembering something from The Histories as fact that really isn't. It's pretty clear when reading it that what he wrote was his understanding at the time. I just need to think of it that way while I'm reading it. Some of it is true. Some of it is a reflection of the limitations of knowledge at the time. It's all a precious record of the intellectual climate at the time.
Sorento62 wrote: " Some of it is true. Some of it is a reflection of the limitations of knowledge at the time. It's all a precious record of the intellectual climate at the time. "Isn't this true of all history books regardless of when they were written?
Mod
Oh, yes, Herodotus definitely deserves his honorific as "The Father of History". He was searching for truth and recording knowledge. He just got some of it wrong. :-)
I don't worry too ..."
Yes, I agree with you. I suppose I set up a false dichotomy when I asked if he deserved the title, or if he was mostly an entertainer. I believe he was both. The Oxford edition I have mentioned in the Introduction that Herodotus not only collected stories as he travelled, but he lectured as well. And from the very flowing way that The Histories is written, his genius seems clear to me: rather than writing (and I'm assuming here that he wrote the same as he spoke) in the drier, more structured way that we're used to, he spoke/wrote as a story-teller, even though he is telling the knowledge he has gained in his search for truth. And telling and writing in this way is so much more engaging for other human beings to listen to, and to read. Perhaps he knew a thing or two about human nature and psychology...
Mod
Oh yes. History is definitely a reflection of the limitations at the time when it was written. And with respect to it being a record of the intellectual climate as well, I'm inclined to see the intellectual climate as highly political and social. In other words, I believe the *way* history is written reflects cultural & societal norms and beliefs, as well as the political climate at the time.
This is why it's so important to compare historical documentation with regards to the same event, but that were written in different periods. The truth is what it is...but humans write and tell of things through they're own personal lens, which is highly influenced by the local social culture and political views.
It was more of a rhetorical question.... ;-)Personally I am very critical of the material while reading recent history books. E.g. it is interesting to read US history considering what is missing and what is emphasized over the last few centuries. From that perspective I am pondering if Herodotus had an agenda as he wrote his inquiry....? It is certainly an interesting blend of stories as the Greek horizon is expanding way beyond the borders of the poleis.
Mod
Kenia wrote: "I knew it was rhetorical. ;-) I just wanted to use your question to expand on what Julie had said anyway."What are your thoughts on modern history books, e.g. college textbooks covering US history?
Mod
I'm not sure about college-level, although I'm sure they're more willing to cover recent topics more thoroughly (i.e. they fear controversy less) than at the high school level, I've just recently read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, which really opened my eyes to the history textbook industry at the high school level in the states. It's absolutely terrible. Loewen compares passages and proves that they are all written by more or less the same freelance writers that know nothing of history, and not actually by the authors themselves (who only lend their credibility to the book in name). He proceeds through American historical events, citing countless original sources, and shows how the textbooks are highly nationalized and how so many historical figures who were terrible people are "hero-ified" (e.g. Christopher Columbus) and how the human element is stripped away from so many important figures (e.g. Lincoln) making them seem almost god-like. And he has a whole chapter that discusses how they address recent events, within the last 50 or 60 years--events where there are still people alive who lived through them, such as Vietnam. And he points out how especially terrible those accounts are in the high school textbooks, mainly because they are still alive in the minds of so many, they are still considered "controversial." Basically what that means is that the high school education boards don't want to upset any parents (and many of them themselves are very emotional about more recent historical events and don't want them portrayed in certain ways)...and what happens when you try really hard not to upset ANYbody? Critical facts that are considered politically charged are left out.
He shined a fascinating like on the Reformation Period when it came to the fact that the way history is reported depends on the social and political climate of the times: during Reformation, African Americans were referred to as intelligent and things said about them were more objective as there was very little racism during that period. But when the early 1900s hit, I suppose there was a backlash...but racism became so rampant and terrible, that the new history books written post-Reformation about the Reformation period made African Americans sounds as if they were idiots who had no idea how to run government bodies, to lead, or to do anything.
In terms of modern history books written by scholars (i.e. academics, not textbook publishers), I presume they try the best they can to actually show the facts and be as academic as possible. But then again we are all human, and I like to know if the author is more liberal or more conservative, or if they might have an agenda of some sort, whether they themselves realize it or not.
I think the best way to really learn history is to read widely, and by that I mean reading a lot but mainly reading from a variety of perspectives (authors from various countries, various religions, various political positions, etc.). Just as with food, it's key to get lots of variety for good health! :-)
Your comparison with food is a good one. Good nutrition from a variety of sources! Lies My Teacher Told Me is an excellent example of how critical it is to assess one's sources. After all, we generally don't spend much time with the primary sources, but rely on the experts to compile holistic views. History is fascinating - a huge canvas filled with so much detail. By the way, do you think we should view Herodotus' book as a primary source, a secondary source or more as a "special" foundation for the beginnings of the writing of history?
As a resource:I listened to Elizabeth Vandiver's lectures on Herodotus a few years back! Herodotus: The Father of History
They are wonderful and she is a fantastic lecturer. Highly recommended!
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/course...
Mod
I believe his book acts as both a primary and secondary source. There are so many historical events that he references--for those of which he was the first to document the oral history on paper, he is a primary source (even if he was documenting it centuries after its occurrence, if he was the first to record it that makes it a primary source).
For those events for which there exists documents produced by witnesses or those who themselves participating in the actual events (e.g. letters between kings, documents recording battle details, etc.), then I think Herodotus' account of the story that lies behind those primary sources would make his particular account secondary.
Do you agree?
Mod
I listened to Elizabeth Vandiver's lectures on Herodotus a few years back! Herodotus: The Father of History
They are wonderful and she is a fantastic lecturer. Highly..."
Thanks for sharing this! It's so reasonably priced too! I think I'll finish reading through The Histories first and only sit with my own observations and that of the Oxford edition Introduction, and then I'll listen to these lectures to really impress his work in my mind and learn new ways to look back at it that I hadn't considered.
Mod
I really wanted to read deeper by following all the notes--and it's been very interesting to learn more about where Herodotus is historically accurate, where he isn't, where there isn't any certainty, and other related historical tidbits--but I think I'm going to switch tacks and just sail through without worrying about the notes. Going at such slow a pace for such a large book is discouraging for me.
Are any of you taking care to read the translator's historical notes?
Mod
The notes in my Landmark edition are on the same pages, so I am reading some of them. 2 hours! Wow, that's devotion! ;-)
For Herodotus' time, he was as historically accurate as was possible. I actually don't disbelieve him just because we don't see something today that he describes. For instance, his description of a hippopotamus sounds ridiculous, but perhaps there was some sort of animal that did look like that during his life. He presents as someone who is committed to communicating the facts. Of course, his presentation is through his own lense, just as his critics have theirs. His diligence in communicating when he has seen something or when he hasn't, is admirable. I do enjoy his skepticism as it's at these places that some of his personality shines through.
I'm loving this read and will be very sad when it's over!
Mod
One thing that struck me is that the geographical area called "Greece" by Herodotus seems to consist of the Aegean Sea islands, today's Greek peninsula, and also many locations on the west coast of what is today Turkey. On second thought, this makes sense as it was probably easier to travel by sea than by land in those days. But in this day and age, countries tend to be defined more by land masses than by sea access alone, so it was at first surprising to me that "Greece" would have included cities on both sides of the Aegean.
Mod
Not only that but there were other Greek settlements in Italy and I'm sure elsewhere.
I can't remember back clearly, but I got the impression that Herodotus did differentiate between the "mainland" Hellenes and the Hellenic areas of west Asia (Turkey). I need to brush up more on my Greek history!
I've been struck by his admiration for other cultures. I was reading an article that said that Herodotus displayed a disdain for the Hellenes (Greeks) but then, in my Landmark edition, there is a note that said Herodotus inserted a particular story to demonstrate the cruelty of the Persian kings. So we have two different viewpoints as to where Herodotus' sympathy lies. Odd ..... :-Z
Mod
I believe you are correct. At least, that's how I understand it too.
Mod
Mod
Mod
I always find diverse reader experiences fascinating. I'm happy to hear you're enjoying it so much. I'm also enjoying it but, as you said, I've been reading it non-stop so I just need a break. I'm sure I'll be happy to get back to it once I have some space. :-)
Mod
Is anyone moving on to read History of the Peloponnesian War? I've started that as well, but I'm finding it much dried than Herodotus. Nevertheless, it has some wonderful reviews so I can only hope that it picks up soon.
Mod
I've finished the main body of The Histories. I'd still like to go back and look at more of the maps in the last few books and maybe refresh myself on a few of the vignettes. But more importantly, there are quite a few Appendices with essays in The Landmark Herodotus, and I'd like to read a bunch of those.
It took me a long time to read The Histories (listening mostly, really) starting last November, and referring to the maps and text in The Landmark Herodotus a lot. It's been an illuminating experience, helping me to feel more grounded, truly more educated -- like I am now finally "in" on many of the references I've heard over the years.
And, yes, I like the voice of Herodotus himself as well. One thing I noticed a lot was the consultation of oracles, and that Herodotus did seem to believe in the power of Greek gods and oracles even though he was skeptical of many of the stories and legends that he heard.
I'm going to wait until next year for the History of the Peloponnesian War.
Mod
I found it a nice bridge between the absolute belief in the gods of Olympus and the burgeoning belief of a more monotheist god that appears to be mentioned by Plato/Socrates. Herodotus does not hide his skepticism at all about certain myths; he made me laugh at times! :-) He was very practical.
I can understand you wanting to wait. I have that feeling too, but also I'd like to move on, with some of the peoples and landmarks still fresh in my mind. I'll let you know how it goes.
Mod
Cleo wrote: "I found it a nice bridge between the absolute belief in the gods of Olympus and the burgeoning belief of a more monotheist god that appears to be mentioned by Plato/Socrates...."
Cleo, I find your interpretation of it as a bridge between two faith systems interesting. Mainly because I didn't see it that way at all, and so it's fascinating to hear another viewpoint I hadn't considered.
To me it was evidence of faith being a timeless part of the human condition: I see Herodotus as being the same as so many monotheistic followers today, in that his faith in high power and the earthly representatives is unwavering and given without question but anything that lies outside of his belief system deserves a critical eye.
I also see a parallel of gods & oracles vs. God & priests/ministers/etc.--because although back then they also had priests, not only were oracles taken just as seriously as the priests, but modern-day priests almost serve a hybrid function as they interpret scripture and communicate directly to God on behalf of their congregation (within certain denominations, anyway).
I wasn't aware of that monotheism was present in Greece during the 4th century BCE? I would love to know more about that aspect as I was completely convinced that polytheism (the Greek pantheon) was the norm in those days. Is that just a stereotype that I have in my mind? Clearly I need to read up on this aspect of Greek religion. Hmm, I think I have Greek Religion somewhere....What are your thoughts on this matter?
Mod
Kenia, I've now read The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, Metamorphoses, The Histories (almost) and I've dabbled a little with Plato (oh, and many of the Greek plays as well). I see a definite difference in the way Herodotus views the world and the function of the gods, than I do when I read Homer. You can also read from his own words that beliefs were different earlier, but in his time, he questions many of those beliefs. So yes, a big difference.
The "faith" of the Ancient Greeks was vastly different than the faith of the early Christians, as their understanding and expectation of gods vs. God is in many ways polar opposites. It's a conversation that's so vast, I'm not sure that it's wise to get into here.
Haaze, I'm going out of my realm a little with taking it further than Herodotus. i do remember in my very basic reading of Plato (and therefore Socrates) that one or both of them played with the idea of there being one supreme being --- not that he believe it absolutely but merely played with the idea as a possibility. I start The Republic in June-ish, so I'll be interested to see if Plato has anything else to say there, and I also want to read more of his dialogues. A fascinating subject!
Cleo wrote: "Haaze, I'm going out of my realm a little with taking it further than Herodotus. i do remember in my very basic reading of Plato (and therefore Socrates) that one or both of them played with the idea of there being one supreme being"Well, your post made me realize that I hadn't thought much about the "bridges" between polytheism and monotheism, so it was quite interesting that you put it forward. It is definitely a worthwhile question to ponder so I suspect that there are plenty of academics that have been through the archaeological evidence as well as the historical sources with a fine-tooth comb at this point in time.
All your posts about Herodotus made me realize how much I miss wandering in the ancient world...... *deep sigh*
Mod
Mod
Oh my, I think I've gotten Herodotus and Homer confused. That's embarrassing. I guess that's what I get for commenting about a book that I not only haven't finished, but haven't looked at in at least a month! :-o
Mod
If you can get hold of a copy of The Landmark Herodotus, I highly recommend it. Even with the Landmark edition and actually listening more than reading the text, it still took me 5 months to get through Herodotus' Histories (albeit while reading about 15 other books in the meantime). But at least with the combination of The Landmark Herodotus, with its many reference maps, and listening to an audio version (and not reading it continuously) I was able to actually enjoy it.
As I had mentioned previously, I found The Histories impossible to really comprehend or have patience with at first when I had no geographical reference points for so many of the peoples and places Herodotus describes. So glad I got the Landmark; Cleo was right. It's wonderful.
-Julie
Cleo wrote: "It's never too late to start! ;-) You've been spending time in Scandinavia and 19th century Europe, haven't you?"Yes, Europe and Scandinavia is the game, but the Greeks and Romans are calling my name....! :)
Mod
You rhymed! Maybe time for some ancient Greek poetry. ;-)
Mod
I am Cyrus, historical fiction about one of the early kings of Persia whose exploits Herodotus recorded.
Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae
This book has stellar ratings here on Goodreads. Herodotus gives a moving account of the battle in The Histories. It was also the subject of the movie "300", which was released in 2007. I haven't seen the movie, but I remember a lot of buzz about it at the time.
Books about Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism. Herodotus mentions a Pythagoras, and I believe he meant "the" Pythagoras, of the Pythagorean Theorem. (The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right triangle. "A"squared + "B"squared = "C"squared) Apparently he was an influential teacher and philosopher with followers as well, enough to have something called "Pythagoreanism" named after him.
Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans
and probably later on:
The Music of Pythagoras: How an Ancient Brotherhood Cracked the Code of the Universe and Lit the Path from Antiquity to Outer Space
and
The Cult of Pythagoras: Math and Myths
:-)
:-)
Julie
Mod
Cyrus the PersianI'm reading it for my Classic Children's Lit Event, and it's quite excellent!
As for Pythagoras, I know very little about him, except for the bit about him in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Here's an except from my review:
"Born on Samos, Pythagoras fled the tyranny of his island, preferring exile. Drawing near to the gods, they gave him in his intellect, what nature had denied to sight. He could speak of what governed the universe and was the first to condemn the eating of animals, calling it monstrous to let another die so you may live. It is fine to kill an animal if it is spoiling your crops or dangerous, but for heaven's sake, don't eat it! There is quite a diatribe supporting vegetarianism. At the end, Pythagoras cautions:
"But if, in any case, your mouths still crave
the limbs of butchered beasts, then be aware
that you're devouring your own laborers."
You'll stumble around if you lack reason, but Pythagoras will enlighten you.
He goes on to explain his idea of the principles of the universe, examining how all matter is continuously changing; there is no death only transformation. This great thinker provides us with many examples, from people, to landforms, to the heavens. This is the most (dare I say, only) scientific part of Metamorphoses."
Best of luck with your reading!
Sorento62 wrote: "Haaze wrote: "Europe and Scandinavia is the game, but the Greeks and Romans ar..."You rhymed! Maybe time for some ancient Greek poetry. ;-)"
Ah, would the Iliad count? :D
Mod
Wait for me! I'm dying to do an in-depth reading of The Iliad, like I did with The Odyssey, but I have to clear The Histories first and start up again with The Faerie Queene before taking on another project. Sigh! Why can't we just read and do nothing else? ;-)
I was thinking the very same thing this morning (on my way to work, of course)...
Mod
Wow, that is quite the fascinating list Julie! Enjoy!!
Cleo wrote: "Sigh! Why can't we just read and do nothing else? ;-)..."
Haaze wrote: "I was thinking the very same thing this morning (on my way to work, of course)..."
*sigh* If only we could all get paid--and well!--to read! lol
But seriously though, it's so tough to make time on top of work and personal life. I'm amazed at how much all of you read--I just don't know how you do it! I only have time to read once every 2-3 days or so, which means that even though I'm pretty fast it still takes me a while to get through books.
...I can't wait until I retire! LOL (which won't be for another ~25 years at least)
Mod
I just read Herodotus' theory and agreement with the Egyptians that during the real events of The Iliad, Helen was actually in Egypt. And when the Acheans came to attack Troy, the Trojans would have given her up if she was there, "For neither Priam or his kin could have been so demented that they would have willingly endangered their own persons, their children, and their city just so that Alexandros could have Helen." I think that is a really interesting opinion and moral judgement on the events. It's also interesting to look at these events as real history because while reading The Iliad, I took it to be fiction and somewhat forgot that there were real, historical components.
I'm also so happy to so clearly see these books building on one another.
Mod
Yes! I was also very fascinated with the Helen-in-Egypt theory, and found his argument about the Trojans not being so demented as to not give her up if they had her as very rational.
I stalled for a few months but began again in December. I’m currently nearing the end of Book 4. My goal is to read 15 pages/week, and that means I’ll finish it in June.
Mod
Mod
I'm reading in book 4 about the Taurians who made it a practice to cut off the heads of their enemies, put them on a wooden stake, and set it up over their house. That reminded me of an episode of Game of Thrones (I didn't get far into the series for many reasons). But this isn't fiction and I can't write it off as such.
The more I read, the more pessimistic I get about the goodness of human nature.
Mod
Although, I don't believe such acts were so easily accepted and commonplace. I think it's simply Herodotus that reports on it in such a way, where he's trying to be objective, and so it comes across as though people don't care. But I think that then, just as today, there were plenty of other cultures that looked at the Taurians (or others) with shock.
I believe human nature is basically good, but that it's fragile and easily susceptible to becoming twisted. It seems to result from an endless generational cycle of being put through pain and then reacting with anger and cruelty.
I am reminded of a Harry Potter quote: "It was important, Dumbledore said, to fight, and fight again, and keep fighting, for only then could evil be kept at bay, though never quite eradicated."
Mod
Mod
"I shall mention Artemisia. I find it absolutely amazing that she, a woman, should join the expedition against Hellas. After her husband died, she held the tyranny, and then, though her son was a young man of military age and she was not forced to do so at all, she went to war, roused by her own determination and courage... Of the entire navy, the ships she furnished were the most highly esteemed after those of the Sidonians, and of all the counsel offered to the king by the allies, hers was the best." 7.99
Also, I absolutely loved the way Herodotus reported about the Spartans and the story of Demaratos telling Xerxes that the Spartans will fight, even if they are outnumbered 1,000 to 1. Xerxes laughs it off and thinks it unbelievable that they will fight, especially without a tyrant to strike fear into them. But Demaratos says there is one thing stronger than the fear of a ruler - the power of law.
It has me wondering, is law and convention/tradition/family expectations stronger than authority? Isn't a certain amount of authority required to ensure people follow laws? I'm reading The Federalist Papers and discussing the formation of the Constitution and someone made the point that none of these writings/laws held any power until the people consented to them and agreed to live under their authority. The reason democracy has worked is that there is a certain amount of consent given by the people (and those who refuse to consent, aka break the law, are reprimanded by the others who do). And with that consent, there is a level of power and responsibility over the country by each individual. Those who have a level of power over their government feel compelled to protect it, whereas, those who have to power feel no responsibility to fight against invaders unless they believe they will suffer in response. It's actually quite logical - internal motivation (loyalty, responsibility, pride) is much stronger than external motivation (fear, demands, force).
Kendra wrote: "I just thought I'd quote this bit about this rad warrior queen. "I shall mention Artemisia. I find it absolutely amazing that she, a woman, should join the expedition against Hellas. After her hu..."
That point about authority and law is quite interesting. In the Ancient World, laws and traditions where much more connected than today, so it's possible to understand the "law" Demaratos talks about as being related to the values of Sparta. In fact, if we understand law in a broad sense - including the "non-written" laws of tradition, convention and values - , I think we can find it to be the very foundation of real authority. That's why even new laws created by an authority can face resistance from the people, if they do not agree to the general consent.
(If I am not wrong, Sophocles' Antigona is an example of conflict that shows the difference between the law of consent and the practice of authority)
I find this fact about the Spartans to be quite inspiring. It remembers me of something I heard many times: some people do what they must for fear of punishment (like slaves), others for payment or rewards (like mercenaries), and only a few for responsibility, loyalty or other internal motivations. Sometimes it seems to me that, today, the number of "slaves" and "mercenaries" is threateningly high.
Reading Classics, Chronologically Through the Ages
Books mentioned in this topic
Cyrus the Persian (other topics)Gates of Fire (other topics)
I am Cyrus: The Story of the Real Prince of Persia (other topics)
Pythagoras and Early Pythagoreanism (other topics)
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History (other topics)
More...
A Great Book Study has started the GoodReads group The Well-Educated Mind Histories, where everyone has just started to read and discuss this work.
Whether you'd rather join in the conversation there, or comment within this group, either way let's have fun discussing. :-)