The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Histories
ANCIENT HISTORY
>
ARCHIVE - * Supplemental - Definition of History
Mod
I thought I would start this off. I have been listening to the Teaching Company Tapes as I have begun reading The Histories. I have found it to be very helpful.
According to Professor Elizabeth Vandiver, "in popular usage, the term history has two separate and distinct meanings."
She states, "1) History can mean the actual evens of the past or 2) History can also mean the narrative account or description of those events."
Vandiver feels that her course deals with the second of these two meanings as it relates to the work of Herodotus.
No word for history existed before Herodotus wrote his work. Vandiver indicates that the first sentence of this work is key in understanding the true meaning of what Herodotus set out to do and what his meaning of this word was.
"Historie meant at the time that Herodotus was writing either inquiry or research; there was no word for history at that time. She states that Herodotus was setting out his research, telling his audience what he found out by inquiry; and because Herodotus' work was a new kind of writing, for which a term was needed, historie came to mean history in our sense."
Source: Elizabeth Vandiver: The Teaching Company Course Materials on Herodotus: The Father of History.
I would highly recommend this course to anyone.
Bentley
Yes. I love this course. And I love the idea that History is an inquiry. That ties it to that open-minded attitude of the philosophers and, eventually, scientists. It separates it from the politically correct re-writing of history that is so prevalent.
It also means that, not everything he writes is necessarily true, it is what was reported.
It also means that, not everything he writes is necessarily true, it is what was reported.
I've read a little more and thought a little more and listened a little more and I'm thinking that perhaps H. used this inquiry as a basis for moral lessons, as did the Iliad and the Odyssey. There seem to be implied morals with every story. From the very beginning, for instance, that great times don't last so don't get too proud and haughty. I'm also wondering if, in the story of Gyges, he's saying something about being too "obedient" to the king. That perhaps there are moral laws (not looking at someone's naked wife) that must never be broken. Although, as you say it is a strange way to handle such as story as Gyges seems to have no other choice.
Mod
Yes. I love this course. And I love the idea that History is an inquiry. That ties it to that open-minded attitude of the philosophers and, eventually, scientists. It separates it from the politically correct re-writing of history that is so prevalent.
It also means that, not everything he writes is necessarily true, it is what was reported.
Bentley responded:
Sort of like today with our newscasters.
I have to cut Herodotus a little slack; he had a script of what he wanted to accomplish and I believe he stuck to it.
I love the Teaching Company materials too.
I think we can safely say that everything he writes is not true; but it is what he believed at the time or what he wanted others to believe (things he considered important).
Bentley
Oldesq wrote:
To me, another part of this inquiry focuses not on the politically correct, nor revisionist history but the background and viewpoint of the historian- which is part of exploring the inquiry. That is, I don't believe there is one essential version, one "truth" as it were of past events. Rather, I think it is essential to examine how each version of an event is passed on to the listener.
The background and viewpoint of the historian is the key here. Obviously, what we read of historians from pre-media, pre-printed press times means the historian either lived through the events written about, or, as in the case of H, were told the stories. In the ancient times, this is where myth very much mixes in with reality.
Later on, the difference shows up in categories and or subject areas of the publications; i.e. Achilles shows up in The Illiad , and books like that, while Alexander shows up repeatedly in history books. Politically-correct is a new phrase for media times. Before the printed press, the media as it were would be spoken tales and stories. The printed press would bring together these stories, plus different versions of these stories, and various interpretations.
I guess family trees would enable the populace and the historians to tell the difference between myths and real persons.(??)
How true, Oldesq. What I meant was that when actual written trees with names and dates of birth and death of family members, etc. became mmore prevalent, this would be a core of history. In the case of the Mayflower, a passenger list would accomplish a lot to create concrete records of history.
Mod
http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/no...
message 9:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 15, 2008 03:42PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Virginia, that is correct. The passenger lists were a vital elements in history and are also very helpful in learning about ancestors. The passenger lists are relevant concrete records of history. I find also that family members embellish their ancestors; better to check out the docs themselves; but the anecdotes are always interesting even though some probably are folklore.
A.P. David who wrote Dance of the Muses is a friend of one of my profs at U of Chicago! She told us about him. I think he's from Sri Lanka or southern India.
Mod
That is interesting Vanessa. Maybe she can have him come in to meet all of you and give a talk.
Response to message 12:
Your comment is a great one Oldesq. I wondered about that myself.
She brought in a video of his class doing what he thinks are authentic Greek dances and readings. I think, if I remember correctly, he sees a link between Indian and Ancient Greek dances. I've noticed many links between Ancient Greece and India myself. Some are derived from the Indo-Europeans who settled both areas.
Mod
When I teach my Herodotus course, the first paper I assign is "What is History for Herodotus?" I tell my students that a good way to begin to address that question is to look at the very beginning of The Histories. As several of these posts have pointed out, the word historie in Greek means in English inquiry or research (the Penguin translation uses inquiry, the Landmark research). I also point out to my students that Herodotus tells us that in his work he will present his research, which seems to me to line up with the definition of history used by Professor Vandiver: history is what happened in the past (what Herodotus researches), and is what is written about the past (what Herodotus presents). In talking with my students about their papers during the past week, it occurred to me that it is also possible to think about Herodotus' historie, his research or inquiry, by making the most of both English words, and by thinking of the research as the gathering of information, and of inquiry as the critical evaluation of it.
Mod
Yes, BC the first sentence seems extremely important in this work.
Exactly (I think Vandiver had a good approach).
I see your point about it being the combination of both. Interesting evaluation of the word historie which was used for the first time in this way by H (I surmise) since there were no works considered histories before.
I think you gave your students a keen insight.
B
Response to message 18:Yes, Oldesq, you understand my idea. Herodotus clearly has accumulated a lot of information by talking to people. In some places he just tells us what he has heard from them, and doesn't seem to have processed it very critically. But in other places he'll indicate that he thinks one of the stories he has heard is more plausible than another, or that one is nonsense. I'm trying to get my students to be alert for his critical inquiries. He says, for instance, in Book 1, that there are three different stories about the boyhood of Cyrus, but that he will tell the one he thinks is the true one. In Book 2 he presents three theories of why the Nile floods, and makes clear which one he thinks is the best one (though he is clearly wrong). Today in class we looked at the episode in 2.54-57, in which he recounts a couple of versions of a story about the origin of an oracle. Though he is in general very careful not to offend religious sensibilities, he subjects the religious elements of this story to a thoroughly rational analysis.
Mod
Excellent points BC; I am not responding for Oldesq because O will do that; but I think H tried to evaluate and critique what he was reporting which makes the work quite unique for that time period especially.
So he made an eval as to which story he wanted to tell about Cyrus (the one he thinks is true based upon his POV) and additionally he tells us the theory of the Nile floods (wrong assessment there) and then thirdly (another example) he analyzes in 2.54-57 the origin of an oracle. I think the approach you are describing is the one that historians use today when they write their historical accounts or biographies of famous individuals. He really was ahead of his counterparts.
One question that we really have not gotten an answer about was why some works like H's are totally intact and other works of the same period (well known ones) are in fragments, etc. Was H's work housed in a protected environment; how was the manuscript discovered and where?
Bentley
Mod
My feeling is that he has done this: I think he is opinionated, a bit pompous, judgemental, a bit impressed with himself, a bit envious about others who came before him; a bright fellow who was a little embittered he was not a pure Greek, who felt foreign himself or an outcast, was probably drawn into the planning of the coup by his family and possibly did not want to be drawn into that mess but if he did not go along it would have violated Herodotus' Law of History (1). And I think he had a deep burning desire to be remembered for all time as a person who produced a noteworthy work about cultural diversity and the great conflict between the Greek and the Persians.
I think with Burton's work you are saying that H may be unreliable. Some of the critics feel he was a liar and not to be trusted. I would not go that far myself; but I certainly also do not believe in the Gods and Goddesses of the Greeks and these fables. However, the events that he is relating are true enough; even though his account might be filtered as all accounts are I am afraid. You only have to watch the nightly news to see and hear that.
I think H revealed his motivations in part in the first sentence and at the beginning of the book. It is interesting that he omits certain versions of the so called truth about events and states that these other versions are untrue and that his account that he has included is the one to be believed.
I am also amazed that in many instances that man has not evolved more in how they view war and conflict; for me I see a lot of the same motivations in the conflicts we find ourselves in now.
Of course, this is not a response from BC but I did think about what you wrote and wanted to respond since this is a supplemental thread about the definition of history and Herodotus probably was the man to introduce this term.
one last thing:
On another thread I was examining what Marincola was saying about Herodotus and the poetry of the past as he calls it. He states the following:
Herodotus is not an omniscent narrator like Homer. Unlike Homer he did not rely on the god or muse invoked at the beginning of the poem. Herodotus has no appeal to the Muses, and consequently informs his audience of the restricted parameters of his knowledge, often expressing uncertainty, conjecture, or outright ignorance.
Herodotus continually reminds the audience of his intrusiveness and his responsibility for the account itself.
Marincola states: This is a crucial distinction between poetry and prose: namely, that the former invests the narrator with truth and authority from some external sources who are presented as inspiring and/or instructing the poet, while the narrator of prose must win his own authority by human means , the construction of an account that is inherently probable and based on reliable and accurate reporting.
The result of this is the reader can search for the truth too about the past and Herodotus does not pretend to have the final word.
So I do not believe that Herodotus states in the work that he has the final word; in fact he is trying to draw his audience into the conversation and debate and just decides what he wants to include or not and makes these arbitrary decisions as he moves along like a biographer choosing what to include to make his case about an event or individual. I do not see a difference frankly. Although, I doubt a modern day biographer would point out what he omitted or state that there are different versions of the story; he would just make his own determination and slant. So Herodotus in that sense was not stating that he knew all.
Bentley
Mod
In other words, swim where you like...I enjoyed the examples very much; but you forced me to go deep to think about it. Not a bad thing. I did laugh to myself when I saw your response.
Oldesq, I agree that we all have our filters. That's what I was referring to somewhere else when I said I tend to see things through a Freudian lens, not to mention a 2lst century, middle-aged woman lens. That's why I like what H is attempting to do, report different views, different tales.
Michael Chrichton wrote a terific article a couple of years ago about how we "know". There is a very stringent method, in science. Even after following endless controls, the conclusion is always tentative. In the humanities, it's impossible to even approach this. There are verifiable facts, but as we know, there are people who still deny the Holocaust. Has there ever been anything in history that has been more well-documented? And there are living witnesses. But still, people will believe what they will. So when H says, "this is what the Persians say", I love it!
BTW, the pendulum has been swinging towards believing H.
Archaelogy has born out a lot of his claims. I love Vandiver's discussion of "myth". Myth, it seems to me, is what we don't believe. I have a good friend from India and she often refers to the Indian "myths". I finally asked her "Is that what they're called in India or is that the term for it in English?" She thought a while and then said "No, in India it's called "religion", in English it's called "myth". Don't you love that?
Michael Chrichton wrote a terific article a couple of years ago about how we "know". There is a very stringent method, in science. Even after following endless controls, the conclusion is always tentative. In the humanities, it's impossible to even approach this. There are verifiable facts, but as we know, there are people who still deny the Holocaust. Has there ever been anything in history that has been more well-documented? And there are living witnesses. But still, people will believe what they will. So when H says, "this is what the Persians say", I love it!
BTW, the pendulum has been swinging towards believing H.
Archaelogy has born out a lot of his claims. I love Vandiver's discussion of "myth". Myth, it seems to me, is what we don't believe. I have a good friend from India and she often refers to the Indian "myths". I finally asked her "Is that what they're called in India or is that the term for it in English?" She thought a while and then said "No, in India it's called "religion", in English it's called "myth". Don't you love that?
Response 24
Please! Take us deeper!
Please! Take us deeper!
It just ocurred to me that reporting different opinions, isn't that the beginning of scientific research? When you begin an experiment, you first list all of the research that was done before. It's only after that that you present your hypothesis. I think H is doing that here.
message 23:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 20, 2008 06:36PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
She thought a while and then said "No, in India it's called "religion", in English it's called "myth". Don't you love that?
The above quote Vanessa was great. It says it all. Why are the differences so deep between faiths and why should there most definitively be a separation of church and state. are summed up in the answer.
Vanessa, with due respect, I think H is going much further than the hypothesis stage when for example he tells the reader that he is choosing the rendition to believe. He does relate his research but then he pulls the threads together to form the fabric of his account and his version.
Bentley
Is that any different than any researcher? Don't they first report past opinions and then make a hypothesis and then draw a conclusion?
Maybe I've missed something. No, I KNOW I've missed a LOT! LOL!
Maybe I've missed something. No, I KNOW I've missed a LOT! LOL!
Mod
Bentley
Mod
message 28You're right Vanessa! Once man starts to ask question is where thought begins, where philosophy starts and where history is born. I think Herodotus is attempting to do something that was done by others, times before, but trying to give it that special, umm... how can I describe it... 'professional' touch. I think he didn't want to leave his 'Histories' as simple journal entries, he wanted them to be known, why not recognised, so people, maybe in the future or even in his present had the chance to know more about the world. That's how an historian gets to his job, I think...
message 34
Interesting point Oldesq. My son, as a researcher, discounts almost everything we hear. He doesn't believe global warming is real, for instance. When i mentioned that someone said that "in l0 years" such and such will be possible. He says that's silly. When someone says "in l0 years" it's meaningless.
There is a lot of rivalry and competition. I guess human nature is the same, whatever the field. Competition spurs people on. It can also cause corruption and dishonesty.
I wish we had better science education in this country. There's so much information to sort through and I find that most people have no way of evaluating information for truth.
Interesting point Oldesq. My son, as a researcher, discounts almost everything we hear. He doesn't believe global warming is real, for instance. When i mentioned that someone said that "in l0 years" such and such will be possible. He says that's silly. When someone says "in l0 years" it's meaningless.
There is a lot of rivalry and competition. I guess human nature is the same, whatever the field. Competition spurs people on. It can also cause corruption and dishonesty.
I wish we had better science education in this country. There's so much information to sort through and I find that most people have no way of evaluating information for truth.
message 29:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 03, 2008 10:48AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I disagree that H's path of choosing the most likely explanation is a more valid approach. Do not get me wrong; I believe that H did the best he could with what he knew then; but the best classicists agree that this is not history as we define it today; but the use of the word historie as it was then created (simply an inquiry, a research and/or gathering of ideas and stories with a spin).
There is nothing infallible about any findings that as we get smarter and more advanced cannot be improved upon; look at medicine at the beginning of the last century versus now.
There has to be corroboration for a theory; not just some evidence for a corroboration of a theory.
And as far as folks not wanting to believe in global warming; MHO is that they should travel to the Arctic and see what is happening to our ice cap; the polar bears are drowning and becoming cannibalistic because of no ice; in fact before much longer (due to global warming); there will be no ice cap at all during the summer months. I cannot understand folks not believing that; that can be seen now. And the fault is very much and largely man induced. Will they believe in global warming when the ice cap has vanished in the summer months? When the polar bears are extinct? When the coastline has disappeared in some places? I have to wonder what it is going to take? It makes me think of the folks who claim there was no holocaust. I was not there, I do not know folks who were, it did not happen in my lifetime but before, but still there is clear evidence to prove it happened.
I think we can run the risk of not believing anything which is as dangerous as believing everything we are told. Both positions are dangerous for mankind; because if we believe nothing then we cannot learn from our mistakes as human beings and then we could rationalize pretty much in our own minds that we can and should be able to do whatever we think selfishly we can or want to (the only thing that matters is our wants and the present).
Since this is a thread on the definition of historie, Herodotus was the father of that particular use of that word in terms of the meaning at that time (inquiry, research gathering of alleged facts or in some cases fabrications) and reporting these as he saw fit) which is what he did.
We don't have to believe what Herodotus said was "his truth or truths" because of many reasons; one being that we have a lot more history to go on now and our belief system has expanded. I think as regards religion and some of the stories that are still told in the name of religious belief; I have to say that we have not changed that much at all (there you either have faith meaning you believe or you don't).
Just MHO,
Bentley
message 30:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 03, 2008 09:34AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I tend to agree with you that there was some evidence of reporting prior to Herodotus (although most of it was a reporting of oral tradition and stories which involved the Gods); with Herodotus what I think is different is that H studies current events in relationship to past events to try to get a clearer picture of the connections between past and present; where is the origin of the conflicts? That is clearly a step forward for the genre of history as we knew it then and certainly a giant help for us in understanding the perceived cause and effect in the times of H (or at least understand his thinking process).
Bentley
message 35
Let me clarify. Global warming, is real. I believe the temperatures have climbed l degree, worldwide. It is my understanding, which is admittedly limited, that the cause is not clear. There are natural causes and there are man-made causes. I don't think there's a real certainty, as far as I know, that the causes for the l degree are man-made.
It seems to me that this is an issue for scientists to battle out, not politicians. Once science is taken over by political groups the truth gets lost. My son did a search, on-line, and found that almost all of the global warming articles were put out by political groups. When he dug down to the data the picture was different. Michael Chrihton wrote a terrific article about this same issue a couple of years ago. I'll see if I can find it.
Let me clarify. Global warming, is real. I believe the temperatures have climbed l degree, worldwide. It is my understanding, which is admittedly limited, that the cause is not clear. There are natural causes and there are man-made causes. I don't think there's a real certainty, as far as I know, that the causes for the l degree are man-made.
It seems to me that this is an issue for scientists to battle out, not politicians. Once science is taken over by political groups the truth gets lost. My son did a search, on-line, and found that almost all of the global warming articles were put out by political groups. When he dug down to the data the picture was different. Michael Chrihton wrote a terrific article about this same issue a couple of years ago. I'll see if I can find it.
message 32:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 03, 2008 11:41AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I believe I said the following: "And the fault is very much and largely man induced." I did not go into the other causes; but a large percentage are man made causes as I am sure you would agree.
The problem is that the United States may criticize other nations like China in terms of what they are not doing; but this country has not even gone along with the Kyoto agreement largely because of George Bush and we are one of the biggest contributors to the issue. Maybe we can all start with our SUVS.
It is OK; I have read a lot on the subject; I think it is a critical problem and you and I cannot move America to do something about it; it really now has to come from the President and Congress to pass new legislation to do anything that would matter dramatically and quickly. I think all of us can go green and do small things which together can make big differences but do we have the time left to make the huge impact which is needed in the shortest amount of time.
It is long past scientists battling it out without any assistance from countries to do things differently.
I respectfully agree with you on some points and disagree respectfully on others.
Bentley
Regarding Message # 4 by Oldesq:message 4: by Oldesq
09/07/2008 05:09AM
"To me, another part of this inquiry focuses not on the politically correct, nor revisionist history but the background and viewpoint of the historian- which is part of exploring the inquiry. That is, I don't believe there is one essential version, one 'truth' as it were of past events. Rather, I think it is essential to examine how each version of an event is passed on to the listener."
"Revisionist History?"
Hmmm... And here I thought ALL history was revisionistic! Sometimes revisions are forced by the discovery of new facts, but even when there are no alterations in our data base, historical interpretations seem to morph before our very eyes. As you mentioned, Oldesq, it is important to remember that there is no Absolute Truth in historical interpretation. Despite such bold statements as Ranke's "Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" ("as it really was") history is never anything more than our "best interpretive shot" at understanding what occurred -- an understanding arrived at by using imperfect sources, that are filtered through our own biased minds. Consequently we find that history texts frequently alter their "takes" on historical events, characters, causes, judgments, etc, etc, according to the "needs of the day," both political and social. History becomes an endless round of periodic revisionism, whether we like it or not. As a teaching discipline, I believe, history is quite a lively profession now, with today's accepted "historical truths" being quite often seen as the "lies" we will disparage tomorrow.
Regarding revision in history-writing, I think it only normal for each generation, and each culture, each interest group to devise its own interpretations of the flow of history. So when the US was in a more liberal, less militant frame of mind, we taught from such texts as "The Free and the Unfree;" but, back in the nifty-fifties we taught from text books that extolled the US virtues of post World War II globalism, itself a "revision" of national policy and historical interpretation that put a final end to US "Isolationism." Of course the Isolationist period was also a revisonistic interpretation based upon the US public's feeling of revulsion following the carnage of WW I and the general realization that the fatally flawed Peace of Versailles virtually made the rise of a Hitler "inevitable."
LOL! Revision seems the only constant in the discipline of history!
From a class in Historiography, the students made up the following "definition" of history (perhaps it too is ready for revision?):
History is a human invention and it involves the systematic study of past events that are thought to be significant for culture change. But our historical studies are always based on a fragmentary record of past events and facts; and they will always be selectively interpreted by people with biased-minds, so any history we humans can devise will never be the absolute truth, it will simply be a relative truth; and this relative truth will always be revised, be re-interpreted by the generations that come after us...
message 40
You're right Prunesquallor. Your reply reminded me of "Rashamon". If 4 people see a car accident there will be 4 versions of what happened.
But I think there is something else that sometimes goes on with "revisions" of history. I understand and accept any honest attempt to inquire into the past and as you say that will always be filtered through biased eyes. But sometimes the inquiry is not honest. It is a deliberate attempt to change the past. That is what I find disturbing. There are historians who lie. I don't believe that Africans were flying helicopters hundreds of years ago. Where is the evidence? I don't believe that the World Trade Center was an American plot. Where is the evidence? The Holocaust did happen, there is endless evidence.
People are capable of ideating. But just as there are some standards for scientific fact finding, some method to get at the truth, there has to be some standard for historical truth. Interpreting findings is one thing. Creating history out of whole-cloth is another.
You're right Prunesquallor. Your reply reminded me of "Rashamon". If 4 people see a car accident there will be 4 versions of what happened.
But I think there is something else that sometimes goes on with "revisions" of history. I understand and accept any honest attempt to inquire into the past and as you say that will always be filtered through biased eyes. But sometimes the inquiry is not honest. It is a deliberate attempt to change the past. That is what I find disturbing. There are historians who lie. I don't believe that Africans were flying helicopters hundreds of years ago. Where is the evidence? I don't believe that the World Trade Center was an American plot. Where is the evidence? The Holocaust did happen, there is endless evidence.
People are capable of ideating. But just as there are some standards for scientific fact finding, some method to get at the truth, there has to be some standard for historical truth. Interpreting findings is one thing. Creating history out of whole-cloth is another.
Hi, Vanessa!RE Vanessa: "But I think there is something else that sometimes goes on with 'revisions' of history. I understand and accept any honest attempt to inquire into the past and as you say that will always be filtered through biased eyes. But sometimes the inquiry is not honest."
Ah, we seem to be dealing with the phenomena of continua/ nuance today, LOL. Apparently, there is "revision" and then there is "REVISION!" I wonder if a perfectly innocent, and widely useful word has been redefined of late so that now, most people use the term "revision" only in its most pejorative sense?
At one end of the spectrum we have "minor revisions," perhaps based on the discovery of a new fact or two? Then we have major interpretative revisions, often based on a paradigm shift in a given culture: the liberal tone of the 1970s attacked the national-chauvinistic historical interpretations of the 1950s; and then the pendulum swung back the other way in the 1990s to a strident neo-conservative suite of interpretations. LOL, revisions all.
And then we have the egregious, outrageous, in-your-face, deliberate distortions you mention, Vanessa. I am not too terribly worried by the open distortions (ancient Mayans in rocket ships), though they can, I suppose do great damage among the ignorant. For me, a "credible," plausible, smoothly persuasive lie is the most ugly of all the REVISIONS.
But then, I think, we run up against the major stumbling block of the discipline: ALL histories represent a distortion of reality, and we usually see only the distortions we disagree with, while we are blindly unaware of those we happen to support...
In professional circles, the body of historians is supposed to act as a general braking influence, trying to see that certain vague standards of objectivity are met -- but I think there has always been a divide between the academic histories (peer-reviewed) and the popular works that seem at times to mock all attempts at achieving a consensual, "objective-based" interpretation of the past. I wonder if this gap, between academic and popular histories is actually increasing of late?
When we deal with Herodotus, it is sometimes helpful to compare him (his sense of objectivity, fair-play) with other historians like Livy, who had a nationalistic-chauvinist agenda deliberately built into his work.
Hullo, Oldesq!RE Oldesq: "But, by revisionist history, I meant that the inquiry should be performed before subsequent writers could also interpose their own bias and more recent agendas. And, because I am not reading the Histories in the original language, there are even more concerns about the filter of the translation."
Ah, yes, I see, thank you for the clarification -- lol, one more alternative meaning for that workhorse term, "revision." This is always a great matter of concern, are we getting what Herodotus really wrote? The entire field of source criticism was created to address just this issue, but it is often very difficult, especially when vast amounts of time have passed, to tease out the "additions,"and note the obvious gaps...
We are left with an imperfect manuscript in any case, and sometimes, as you point out, translations hobble us even further...
message 43
Wonderful posts Prunesquallor!
I agree, those sneaky misinterpretations of history with an agenda are worrisome, although the outrageous lies have done a lot of damage as well.
I always believe that the more information we get, the closer to the truth we get. But with all of the misinformation on the net, I'm not so sure.
A prof recently said to me that every generation writes the history it needs. That's basically it, isn't it? And you're so right, we only notice the revisions with which we disagree! So true.
So, what's the answer? Maybe it's teaching people how to think? How to reason and evaluate evidence? How not to accept authority? All roads lead back to Plato! LOL!
Wonderful posts Prunesquallor!
I agree, those sneaky misinterpretations of history with an agenda are worrisome, although the outrageous lies have done a lot of damage as well.
I always believe that the more information we get, the closer to the truth we get. But with all of the misinformation on the net, I'm not so sure.
A prof recently said to me that every generation writes the history it needs. That's basically it, isn't it? And you're so right, we only notice the revisions with which we disagree! So true.
So, what's the answer? Maybe it's teaching people how to think? How to reason and evaluate evidence? How not to accept authority? All roads lead back to Plato! LOL!
message 46
For someone who loves history this may sound strange, but I think I prefer a cleaned up life story! I saw both Cole Porter movies and the newer one made me uncomfortable. The Beautiful Mind was a great movie and I think had I known more about the truth...it would have ruined it for me.
I grew up in a time of black hats and white hats. There were heroes that inspired. I know it wasn't realistic. Maybe Don Quixote is getting to me or maybe I love him because of the way I am! I just like the idea of heroes. I like the myth. But I can see what you're saying, it's not the truth. I guess I'm feeling disillusioned!!!
I'm also watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence as there will be a lecture on it downtown tomorrow. It's a l962 white hat/black hat movie. It's corny as anything but I like it. I guess I'm old-fashioned.
For someone who loves history this may sound strange, but I think I prefer a cleaned up life story! I saw both Cole Porter movies and the newer one made me uncomfortable. The Beautiful Mind was a great movie and I think had I known more about the truth...it would have ruined it for me.
I grew up in a time of black hats and white hats. There were heroes that inspired. I know it wasn't realistic. Maybe Don Quixote is getting to me or maybe I love him because of the way I am! I just like the idea of heroes. I like the myth. But I can see what you're saying, it's not the truth. I guess I'm feeling disillusioned!!!
I'm also watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence as there will be a lecture on it downtown tomorrow. It's a l962 white hat/black hat movie. It's corny as anything but I like it. I guess I'm old-fashioned.
Message 48
OMG! Oldesq, you are sooo right! Ihad no idea and it was all about what we're discussing... everything is sooo connected. Don Quixote was in there too!
Before I forget, AP David, the author BC recommended with be giving the lecture next month!
Rippen, the prof who gave this lecture is an international authority on Hegel and his new book will be out soon. This was the absolute best lecture I've been to. I took a ton of notes but I'll try to summarize.
Marx and Nietche believed that poltics was pointless, everything comes down to violence.
Barzan wrote about the Western myth; the civil war was our Trojan War and the Movement west was our Odyssey.
l950's were the heyday of Westerns, perhaps because of the cold war.
Turner proposed a "frontier hypothesis"... advancing civilization, declining savagery.
Wester heroes are almost divine. Like Odysseus or Achilles.
The grandiosity is like opera, which is why they're called "horse operas".
We're a polyglot country .
One theme of westerns is that we never recovered from the civil war.
What is an american? A belief in political ideals of america.
Stewart (Ransom) turns into a phony pol. Pompous, trying to sound humble.
The early days of the shinbone are shown to be rowdy and dark.
Later days are orderly and filmed in light.
Vera Miles seems quiet, melancholy, defeated.
The honor code must be given up for a civil society (Hobbes), that's why Stewart picks up his steak. It's not worth fighting to the death over a steak.
Wayne is totally independent, the only one who could fight Liberty. Stewart is brave but inept. Wayne is blind to his dependence on others, like americans.
It's a tragedy. Wayne does what needed to be done. Could have intervened openly but Stewart said "no one fights my battles".
Wayne wants to make Hallie happy so he lets Stewart win.
Like High Noon, reality of political life is dependent on personal relationships.
Stewart's bravery is dependent on his vanity but he won't admit it, he buys the legend. He has a lack of self knowledge. He deceives himself
Cactus rose is the never changing desert and love.
We need to have legends but blindness is dangerous, illusion and fantasy dangerous.
Ransom is his name because like Christ he gives himself up.
Liberty is his name because he's unbridled liberty.
He's a monster.
Wayne is courtly. He burns his house in anger and despair.
Stewart throws his law shingle away before his showdown, he's stepping outside of the law.
Peabody was the old fashioned journalist who had intergrity
Modern journalist doesn't. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
When Vera miles asks "aren't you proud" when she says the desert has become a garden, the answer is not clear.
Stewarts whole life was built on a lie. He owes his whole life to an illusion.
See Don Quixote in there???? LOL! and that must be why I love him, I love the legend, the illusion.
OMG! Oldesq, you are sooo right! Ihad no idea and it was all about what we're discussing... everything is sooo connected. Don Quixote was in there too!
Before I forget, AP David, the author BC recommended with be giving the lecture next month!
Rippen, the prof who gave this lecture is an international authority on Hegel and his new book will be out soon. This was the absolute best lecture I've been to. I took a ton of notes but I'll try to summarize.
Marx and Nietche believed that poltics was pointless, everything comes down to violence.
Barzan wrote about the Western myth; the civil war was our Trojan War and the Movement west was our Odyssey.
l950's were the heyday of Westerns, perhaps because of the cold war.
Turner proposed a "frontier hypothesis"... advancing civilization, declining savagery.
Wester heroes are almost divine. Like Odysseus or Achilles.
The grandiosity is like opera, which is why they're called "horse operas".
We're a polyglot country .
One theme of westerns is that we never recovered from the civil war.
What is an american? A belief in political ideals of america.
Stewart (Ransom) turns into a phony pol. Pompous, trying to sound humble.
The early days of the shinbone are shown to be rowdy and dark.
Later days are orderly and filmed in light.
Vera Miles seems quiet, melancholy, defeated.
The honor code must be given up for a civil society (Hobbes), that's why Stewart picks up his steak. It's not worth fighting to the death over a steak.
Wayne is totally independent, the only one who could fight Liberty. Stewart is brave but inept. Wayne is blind to his dependence on others, like americans.
It's a tragedy. Wayne does what needed to be done. Could have intervened openly but Stewart said "no one fights my battles".
Wayne wants to make Hallie happy so he lets Stewart win.
Like High Noon, reality of political life is dependent on personal relationships.
Stewart's bravery is dependent on his vanity but he won't admit it, he buys the legend. He has a lack of self knowledge. He deceives himself
Cactus rose is the never changing desert and love.
We need to have legends but blindness is dangerous, illusion and fantasy dangerous.
Ransom is his name because like Christ he gives himself up.
Liberty is his name because he's unbridled liberty.
He's a monster.
Wayne is courtly. He burns his house in anger and despair.
Stewart throws his law shingle away before his showdown, he's stepping outside of the law.
Peabody was the old fashioned journalist who had intergrity
Modern journalist doesn't. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
When Vera miles asks "aren't you proud" when she says the desert has become a garden, the answer is not clear.
Stewarts whole life was built on a lie. He owes his whole life to an illusion.
See Don Quixote in there???? LOL! and that must be why I love him, I love the legend, the illusion.
I've begun reading some books for my East meets West course. The intro for one book explained how the history of Greece, although always seen as separate from the Near East and Egypt, is no longer seen that way.
Greece was seen as a kind of miracle, developing out of itself. But in the 20th century cunieform was deciphered along with Linear B and Hittite. The connections between cultures became more obvious. Globalization has changed our view of nationhood as well.
I was amazed to discover that there is a Hittite book that is very similar to the Theogony, but was written l000 years before. Until the 20th century the Hittites were a lost civilization. Now we can read their writings.
There are still many scripts yet to be deciphered. I have a hunch that the divisions between nations will break down as we learn more and more.
Greece was seen as a kind of miracle, developing out of itself. But in the 20th century cunieform was deciphered along with Linear B and Hittite. The connections between cultures became more obvious. Globalization has changed our view of nationhood as well.
I was amazed to discover that there is a Hittite book that is very similar to the Theogony, but was written l000 years before. Until the 20th century the Hittites were a lost civilization. Now we can read their writings.
There are still many scripts yet to be deciphered. I have a hunch that the divisions between nations will break down as we learn more and more.
Mod
message 51
My prof told us that there was one script deciphered in the l990's and he worked on one himself. It's an on-going process. Amazing isn't it?
My prof told us that there was one script deciphered in the l990's and he worked on one himself. It's an on-going process. Amazing isn't it?
Thank You, Vanessa!Ah, back in the (not so good) "Old Days" we were taught that the Greek mythologies were part of an Indo-European tradition that stood out quite distinctly from the mythologies of Asia, especially the Mesopotamian Ur-cultures (Sumer/ Akkad). It was still "OK" to see a Hittite-Greek connection because the former were also an Indo-European people, but I notice in the Kumarbi manuscript being compared with Hesiod's theogony, that the primal sky figure Anu is properly a Sumerian deity. I suppose the Hittites absorbed a good deal more than just the cuneiform script from their contacts with the Sumero-Babylonian cultures, and for some reason added Anu to their own pantheon. In this way, the Hittites become the mediators of Mesopotamian culture to the early Greeks. If I am reading you correctly here, Vanessa, your "East Meets West" course is stressing the commonalities of the various peoples living in and abutting this region.
I find this interpretation quite exciting on several different levels: it actually represents an "anti-racist" movement wherein the older nineteenth century attempt to see the Greeks as a racially/ culturally "pure" phenomenon is now being displaced by a cosmopolitan model where interactions at a fundamental level between differing systems may be as much responsible for the development of a particular "Greek genius" as any "inborn" greatness.
It will be interesting to keep this idea firmly in mind as we work our ways through Herodotus -- just how much of his inspiration is "oriental" in origin and how much does his book represent a manual for cultural mixing? LOL, "hybrid vigour?"
See "Theories of Mythology," Eric Csapo, 2005.
http://books.google.com/books?id=83P3...
PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Hittite+Theogeny&source=web&ots=1
19zKarRlG&sig=zOC7qMOHwfkOcwl1Syo-zo1EYYw#PPA74,M1
message 53
I'm in the midst of reading the Burkett book I posted in resources and glossary, Babylon, Memphis and Persepolis. It's a short and easy read and I recommend it. It's the only required reading for the course.
Thanks for your post as well. Honestly, there is so much to know and so much to connect that my head is aswirl! Burkett says that the first person to connect the bible and the Iliad was Gladstone, the British prime minister, back in the late l800's.
I asked Ilya about the bible/Greek connection and for some reason he did not buy that. Said the connection would have been through the Persians. You see how confusing this is? I hope he'll clarify in future lectures.
One of the teaching company tapes mentioned that both the bible and the Theogony start with "In the beginning.." and the prof gave a convincing argument that there was proof that Hesiod knew of the bible. When I brought this up in class Ilya dismissed it (I think he thought it was my own idea) and said that the Hebrews did not have a monopoly on genesis stories, which of course is true. Maybe both came from a third source.
Burkett denies Bernal's Black Athena ideas. He claims that Egyptians are neither black nor Asian. I found this confusing because, from the art, it appears to me that they might have been multi-racial.
I've been reading non-stop all morning and I think I need a break! Toooo much information!!!! LOL!
I'm in the midst of reading the Burkett book I posted in resources and glossary, Babylon, Memphis and Persepolis. It's a short and easy read and I recommend it. It's the only required reading for the course.
Thanks for your post as well. Honestly, there is so much to know and so much to connect that my head is aswirl! Burkett says that the first person to connect the bible and the Iliad was Gladstone, the British prime minister, back in the late l800's.
I asked Ilya about the bible/Greek connection and for some reason he did not buy that. Said the connection would have been through the Persians. You see how confusing this is? I hope he'll clarify in future lectures.
One of the teaching company tapes mentioned that both the bible and the Theogony start with "In the beginning.." and the prof gave a convincing argument that there was proof that Hesiod knew of the bible. When I brought this up in class Ilya dismissed it (I think he thought it was my own idea) and said that the Hebrews did not have a monopoly on genesis stories, which of course is true. Maybe both came from a third source.
Burkett denies Bernal's Black Athena ideas. He claims that Egyptians are neither black nor Asian. I found this confusing because, from the art, it appears to me that they might have been multi-racial.
I've been reading non-stop all morning and I think I need a break! Toooo much information!!!! LOL!
Mod
message 55
LOL! I just got back from a walk in the forest although I was listening to a tape on the Archaeology of the Iliad! I can't seem to stop myself!
OMG! I was just about to say that I got tickets to a play and I'm going to shut my brain off for the rest of the day. But then I remembered WHICH play! Eurydice! I wonder if there is a support group for me????
LOL! I just got back from a walk in the forest although I was listening to a tape on the Archaeology of the Iliad! I can't seem to stop myself!
OMG! I was just about to say that I got tickets to a play and I'm going to shut my brain off for the rest of the day. But then I remembered WHICH play! Eurydice! I wonder if there is a support group for me????
Mod
Oh dear; well let me know how the play is? LOL
message 57
The play was well done but sad. Sarah Ruhl (the playwright) received a "genius" award. I think it is/was in New York as well.
I did not know the myth and my husband explained it on the way there. I think she changed it and made it more generally about love and loss, especially between fathers and daughters.
The play was well done but sad. Sarah Ruhl (the playwright) received a "genius" award. I think it is/was in New York as well.
I did not know the myth and my husband explained it on the way there. I think she changed it and made it more generally about love and loss, especially between fathers and daughters.
Mod
message 59
This is from the program:
Our season opener is a bold, beautiful take on the classic Orpheus myth by Pultizer Prize nominee and MacArthur "Genius" winner Sarah Ruhl. Eurydice's wedding to her true love Orpheus is cut short when she wanders after a man bearing a letter from her dead father. Her disappearance turns out to be from life itself, when she plummets to the underworld in a rain-drenched elevator. Memories are forbidden in the world of the dead, but an unexpected reunion with her father vividly awakens Eurydice's mind with the love she felt in life. When Orpheus sings at the gates of hell to win her back, Eurydice must painfully decide whether to remain with her father or return to her earthly love. A modern tale of love and loss told from the heroine's point of view"
I had another one of "those" moments tonight. I can't sleep so I was reading the program, which made me sad. So, to get my mind off of the play I decided to read Memphis, Babylon, and Persepolis. Lo and behold, the very first sentence was about Orpheus! Then I realized I was reading a chapter entitled "Orpheus in Egypt". If I'd known I would have read it before the play! Turns out Orpheus and the Orphic cults are Egyptian. No great coincidence. Just the timing was odd.
This is from the program:
Our season opener is a bold, beautiful take on the classic Orpheus myth by Pultizer Prize nominee and MacArthur "Genius" winner Sarah Ruhl. Eurydice's wedding to her true love Orpheus is cut short when she wanders after a man bearing a letter from her dead father. Her disappearance turns out to be from life itself, when she plummets to the underworld in a rain-drenched elevator. Memories are forbidden in the world of the dead, but an unexpected reunion with her father vividly awakens Eurydice's mind with the love she felt in life. When Orpheus sings at the gates of hell to win her back, Eurydice must painfully decide whether to remain with her father or return to her earthly love. A modern tale of love and loss told from the heroine's point of view"
I had another one of "those" moments tonight. I can't sleep so I was reading the program, which made me sad. So, to get my mind off of the play I decided to read Memphis, Babylon, and Persepolis. Lo and behold, the very first sentence was about Orpheus! Then I realized I was reading a chapter entitled "Orpheus in Egypt". If I'd known I would have read it before the play! Turns out Orpheus and the Orphic cults are Egyptian. No great coincidence. Just the timing was odd.
As we discuss Herodotus and The Histories , we will come across topics which beg for additional discussion. As these topics reveal themselves we will open up supplementary threads to enable and encourage further and more deeper discussion.
As everyone is aware, the weekly Book/Section threads are the official "no spoiler threads" and if discussion veers off course or into portions of The Histories not yet discussed in the weekly threads, then one needs to mark it and note that the text that is to follow is a Potential Spoiler.
These supplemental threads do not have this same rule; so if you are reading The Histories for the first time, you might want to remain on the weekly Book/Section threads until you are much further along and not visit the supplemental threads.
Of course, the approach the reader takes is left up to them and Oldesq and I are providing both options.
This thread is therefore a thread to discuss the various definitions of "history" and which ones appear to apply to Herodotus and this work.
This is not a no spoiler thread: there is only one rule - discuss the various definitions of what a history or work of history connotes/denotes. What is Herodotus trying to accomplish with this work and what is his historical approach in this undertaking? What definition of "history" does he have in mind?
Bentley