The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Histories
ANCIENT HISTORY
>
ARCHIVE - 2. HERODOTUS - THE HISTORIES~BOOK I/SECTIONS 111-216 (09/22/08 - 09/28/08) ~ No spoilers, please
The theme of keeping your head and your poker face is back with Harpygus. Just as Kandules wife did not react to Gyges gaze, Harpygus does not react to having eaten his son. This degree of self-control and calculated scheming is amazing. It must be a kind of Greek ideal. It reminds me a bit of Odysseus. He never loses his cool and always winds up on top by scheming.
Tim, I hadn't noticed that, could you explain what you saw a little?
I'm very interested in this. I've had a hunch for a long time that the Greeks were aware of the Old Testament. I've been doing a little research and will be taking a class, beginning in October, that will explore this question.
If the Greeks had read the Old Testament by the 500's, then there would be good reason for Socrates/Plato "impiety". I find traces of monotheism and some hints of Israelite values in their thinking.
I'm very interested in this. I've had a hunch for a long time that the Greeks were aware of the Old Testament. I've been doing a little research and will be taking a class, beginning in October, that will explore this question.
If the Greeks had read the Old Testament by the 500's, then there would be good reason for Socrates/Plato "impiety". I find traces of monotheism and some hints of Israelite values in their thinking.
BTW, I asked a Biblical Archaeologist with whom I was taking a class, this quesion as she was pointing out that the Philistines were the Mycenaeans. She had never heard of this contact before but she said she was a biblical specialist and knew little about the Greeks.
Then I asked a professor of Greek literature and she said she'd never heard of it either. Not until later, around the time of Christ, when Greek and Roman influence was strong in Judea.
Then I asked a professor of Greek literature and she said she'd never heard of it either. Not until later, around the time of Christ, when Greek and Roman influence was strong in Judea.
Mod
Interesting difference; I have the Penguin. I like the Penguin translation better I think; I think it would be more in line with Herodotus' thinking. It is a major difference; the god being the responsible party in the Landmark translation and in Penguin (more of a health or personal problem or poor leadership decision).
There are major differences in the translations Oldesq. I dare to say that on that interpretation maybe the Landmark has come up short.
What do you think? Or are you more in line with the unbalanced by the god translation.
Bentley
There's also Sargon, who came BEFORE Moses. He was put into the river in a basket and floated down the river. I suppose if you're not a believer you might say that this is the myth that led to the Moses story. If you are a believer you might say that there were a lot of babies floating on rivers!
The question that comes to my mind is are these just the bits and pieces of myths that have survived? I was listening to the TC tape on Ancient Mesopotamia and so many of these themes are in various cultures. Our culture derives mostly from the Greeks and the Israelites. We don't read many Babylonian myths. Most of the writings were not deciphered until very recently and there are still many more that have never been deciphered. Then there are the illiterate societies. These myths and practices may have been commonplace at this time. That's what's so amazing about H, he is our window into these people's time.
Reply to message 7
Is what your questioning, then, is the responsibility for the act?
Is H falling back on epic tradition here and blaming the gods for his lack of balance? I can see it meaning the same thing, really, but I think it's a question of translation. That's the problem with not reading greek! If someone actually inserted the word "god" that's quite a big liberty he took. The same goes for omitting the word!
Is what your questioning, then, is the responsibility for the act?
Is H falling back on epic tradition here and blaming the gods for his lack of balance? I can see it meaning the same thing, really, but I think it's a question of translation. That's the problem with not reading greek! If someone actually inserted the word "god" that's quite a big liberty he took. The same goes for omitting the word!
Reply to message 9
Oldesq, you must be a great lawyer!
What is Hobson's choice?
I hadn't seen this angle but it's true. Everyone is a victim, sort of like society today.
What popped into my mind is Socrates saying that people only do evil because they don't know any better. They don't understand that to hurt another human being is to hurt themselves.
Oldesq, you must be a great lawyer!
What is Hobson's choice?
I hadn't seen this angle but it's true. Everyone is a victim, sort of like society today.
What popped into my mind is Socrates saying that people only do evil because they don't know any better. They don't understand that to hurt another human being is to hurt themselves.
Thanks. I usually call that a "Sophies Choice".
Mod
I am not sure that Harpagos misjudged himself (remember revenge is another law of H); it would be understandable from H's viewpoint that you could and should seek retaliation.
I don't think that approach does anything for me; but it seems to be the way they thought.
H does go further than most of his counterparts in finally saying that folks bring about their own despair and destruction. Can't always worm your way out of that by saying it was the gods who made me do it or playing the victim at the hands of the gods.
I found a great CD set called Odyssey of the West put out by Modern Scholar. It draws the connections between the Near East and Greece that I was so curious about.
Mod
Mod
I think that Herodotus felt that these folks (Magi) were peculiar to the extreme and I think that he was being sarcastic. I think the first line spells out how he felt. I think he was saying tongue in cheek: "Different strokes for different folks." (smile)
Here is another translation where maybe it is a little more apparent"
The Magi,' says Herodotus, 'are a very peculiar race, different entirely from the Egyptian priests, and indeed from all other men whatsoever. The Egyptian priests make it a point of religion not to kill any live animals except those which they offer in sacrifice. The Magi, on the contrary, kill animals of all kinds with their own hands, excepting dogs and men. They even seem to take a delight in the employment, and kill, readily as they do other animals, ants and snakes, and such-like flying and creeping things. However, since this has always been their custom, let them keep to it.'
message 14:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 22, 2008 03:11PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Here is an account:
- Why did the Magi come to Jerusalem instead of another city?
______________________________________
It was a little over 2,000 years ago, when the angel of the LORD appeared to the shepherds in the field ouncing, "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the LORD" (Luke 2:11). Many people are familiar with the Biblical story of angels appearing to the shepherds in the field ouncing Yeshua Messiah, Jesus Christ's birth, but throughout the years, the story of the Wise Men has taken on a somewhat mysterious, mythological quality. Although it is brief, the Biblical portrayal of the three wise men actually represents a truly beautiful account of the men who followed "the star" to worship Yeshua Messiah at His birth. Most people do not realize the account of the wise men is both figuratively
historical and also a symbolic representation of mankind's redemption.
WHO WERE THE "WISE MEN" OF OLD?
In the old days of the Testament, "wise men" were also known as "magi." They were called the Magians, or as in the Greek term referred to as "magoy." The word "magic," or "magikos," has long been associated with the mysterious sect of Magi priests who studied the deeper, darker secrets of nature, the stars, and the forbidden, the supernatural realm involving sorcery/witchcraft. So how can the supernatural, sorcery, or witchcraft be associated with the birth of the Yeshua Messiah and Christianity? It isn't obvious to the casual reader, but within the story of the wise men lies a deeper understanding of the the work of redemption that flows throughout the written word contained in the New Testament account of Yeshua Messiah, Jesus Christ birth, life, death, and resurrection.--
Interestingly, the only direct reference to the Magi in the Old Testament is found in Jeremiah 39:3, 13 and in the Book of Daniel, but these two references set the Old Testament frame-of-reference in understanding the role the wise men played in the birth account of Yeshua Messiah.(1) --It was Daniel who held the office of "Rab-mag," or chief among the Magi named among the princes of Nebuchadnezzar who were sent to Jerusalem.
Herodotus refers to the Magi as of the Median race who were actually priests of the Persians and later became known as priests of Zoroaster (the Zoroastrians). They were especially skilled in dream interpretation and the pseudo-art of astrology. The word Magi took several paths in history and eventually came to be linked with various forms of divination and sorcery, as seen in the New Testament scriptures in Acts 8:9; 13:8. So throughout history, "wise men" appear to have a dual meaning one associated with magic/divination/sorcery/astrology, and the other, as in the case of Matthew 2:-12, the Magi who were also known as "wise men."
The magi were especially skilled in the study of the heavens and were known as "aster" (star) "onomers" (watchers) -- or "star watchers" (Hebrew cocavím). They studied the Sun, Moon, and the movements of the stars as they traveled the night sky. They observed the mysterious workings of Solar and Lunar eclipses, the paths of comets, and associated these phenomenon with the major events that appeared to coincide with changes in the heavens. Many times these events were calculated far into the future. They acquired great skill in the natural sciences, medicine, and knowledge of the study of time. Daniel (and therefore much of the Book of Daniel) was about Daniel's position held in the office of chief Rab-mag (Isa. 9, 11; Dan 1:19-20; 2:12-13, 47; 4:7-9; 5:11-12; 9).
The Magi passed down their traditions and so successive generations were familiar with the writings of Daniel (the symbolism of the 70 weeks in Daniel 9), the study of time-patterns, etc., and from this knowledge, predetermined the time period in which a redeemer or savior would be born on Earth. This was no ordinary event, for the Magi had waited many years for the prophecy of Daniel to culminate. This is indicated in Matthew 2:2, when the Magi said, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him" [his star - see also Num 24:17).
They knew, and expected, a great event to precede the sighting of this "star." An ancient prophecy revealed that a redeemer would come to Earth at a predetermined time, and in the Book of Numbers it attests to this when it reads, "...a star shall come forth from Jacob" [24:17]; and in Matthew 2:10, the Holy Scriptures read, "When they [the Magi:] saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy."
The indication of the star has broader understanding in relationship to the Magi's study of time in relationship to prophecy. This becomes very clear when studying the entire passage -- (1) The Magi traveled to Jerusalem rather than to Bethlehem. Bethlehem is where Jesus Christ was born, but Jerusalem holds the prophecy of His coming. (2) Jesus was no longer a babe in a manger when the Magi inquired of Him to Herod. This is the reason Herod asked, "...what TIME the star appeared." Herod also referred to Jesus as "the young child" rather than as a "baby." (3) Herod ordered all children in Bethlehem ages 2 and under to be killed "...according to the TIME which he had diligently enquired of the wise men" (Matt 2:16).
The Holy Scriptures do not reveal "how many wise men" came forth, nor does Scripture reveal their qualification as "kings." The Holy Scriptures simply state they were known as "wise men," and they could be none other than the ancient Magi. Eventually, the three kings' story became associated with three kings named Gaspar, Melchior, and Belthazar who followed a star from the East and offered three different gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh. Gold is the symbolic element for royal blood (kingship); Frankincense was burned in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle, associated with the priesthood, and used as a special offering - a fragrance entering into the presence of GOD within the Holy of Holies; and in the Old Testament, Myrrh represented sacrifice through death (The spilling of blood through the embalming process).
In a Biblical context, "east" is always in relationship to (1) Jerusalem and (2) Israel. Therefore, the Magi' origin(s) were to be found in the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia, the location of ancient Babylon (Iraq), and probably included parts of Assyria. Both the Babylonians and the Assyrians were known for their study of the heavens and also for their worship of host of heaven (divination and/or early astrology).
Reply to message 6
Another interesting thing about these abandonments and exposures of children is their reluctance to actually kill the child.
These people often seem incredibly cold-blooded and cruel, yet when it comes to doing away with the baby, they always choose a passive way. I think originally children may have been exposed in part in the hope that someone would find them. But if they really felt threatened by the baby, isn't it interesting that they could not just kill it?
Another interesting thing about these abandonments and exposures of children is their reluctance to actually kill the child.
These people often seem incredibly cold-blooded and cruel, yet when it comes to doing away with the baby, they always choose a passive way. I think originally children may have been exposed in part in the hope that someone would find them. But if they really felt threatened by the baby, isn't it interesting that they could not just kill it?
Reply to message l8
I thought that statement that Astyages made about enslaving the Medes over a dinner was H way of demonstrating how barbaric and clueless he was.
I thought that statement that Astyages made about enslaving the Medes over a dinner was H way of demonstrating how barbaric and clueless he was.
message 24
That was an excellent summary. Do you think the idea of the story is that the Magi will convert to Christianity? Astrology is verboten in both Judaism and Christianity.
That was an excellent summary. Do you think the idea of the story is that the Magi will convert to Christianity? Astrology is verboten in both Judaism and Christianity.
Mod
By the way, this was a write-up from the web; not text that I wrote; I have no idea what the connotations are between the Magi and Christianity or Judaism for that matter. In fact, I am not sure if I recall many stories about them in the Bible aside from the story at the manger which all of us are familiar with.
Yes, isn't it odd that these men who I think were the first astronomers were into many fringe activities and astrology might have been considered rather tame in relationship to the others. Also, they were coined the Three Wise Men. What was their wisdom based upon at that time?
Bentley
My guess is that they must have understood mathematics. Isn't that amazing considering the time? I STILL don't understand!
I'm really curious about this and this might just trigger a Herodotean type digression!
My take on it was that they stayed on top of ziggurats all day and night and studied the stars and planets so they understood, better than most, the way things worked. Zoorastrians, I think, had an interesting religion that was a little more to our taste than the surrounding religions. But I'm very foggy on this and will have to do a little research.
My take on it was that they stayed on top of ziggurats all day and night and studied the stars and planets so they understood, better than most, the way things worked. Zoorastrians, I think, had an interesting religion that was a little more to our taste than the surrounding religions. But I'm very foggy on this and will have to do a little research.
Mod
Oldesq, I understood that too; but Herodotus makes them out to be "quite peculiar". I believe they were also the first astronomers.
But I also believe Oldesq that they were dabbling in the other,
Response to Vanessa: I think that as well.
Mod
Vanessa, I had posted information regarding the Magians in the glossary #18 and #19 I believe. #19 tells of the relationship that you are referring to.
However, the way that they are described by both Herodotus and the #19 glossary posting is not to my taste or way of thinking. In fact, that is why I was astonished that from this group came the three wise men according to the Bible rendition.
Bentley
Thanks for pointing that out Bentley!
When I took my Indo-Eur course last year the prof spent l/2 a class describing Zoorastrianism. Of course I remember almost nothing, LOL, but I do remember being impressed.
I'll check out # l8 and #l9 right now.
When I took my Indo-Eur course last year the prof spent l/2 a class describing Zoorastrianism. Of course I remember almost nothing, LOL, but I do remember being impressed.
I'll check out # l8 and #l9 right now.
message 25:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 23, 2008 06:29AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Bentley
Mod
message 27:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2008 09:06AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Tim posted:
Maybe H claiming the Persians made all their decisions under the influence of wine is a technique that H uses to further widen the gap between Greek Logic, which they were well know for, and the primitive ways of thinking and decision making of the Persians.
That is very interesting Tim; maybe some reporting bias is being shown here by Herodotus who obviously favored the Greeks but was trying most of the time to be neutral. I guess maybe his true feelings might be showing through. He certainly is not pointing out that making decisions under the influence of wine is a good thing. And I do think he portrays the Persians no matter what their achievements as being less advanced in social graces and in many other areas as compared to the Greeks.
Bentley
Mod
Sorry for typing Ted instead of Tim..Tim.
I agree with you; hard to believe that this is the case; it almost seems like a cultural oxymoron.
Their religion and how they practiced (oracles, etc.) seems to defy logic doesn't it.
I am part of an organized church/religion and I have to admit that its teachings rely a great deal on faith and ancient stories (both New Testament and old) and many of the stories defy logic and imply miracles and godlike powers. You either believe or not.
So when you have the same group (the Greeks) producing some of the greatest logicians; you have to wonder how they got along within even their small group. Was their religion based upon major decisions and other life tasks; did they separate it from other daily activities and work. I just cannot understand how the two belief systems were juxtapositioned within their society.
Bentley
Churchill was supposed to be drunk most of the time so this reminded me of him.
The Magi reminded me of the Prophets. They were also compared to the Brahmins. I think it's interesting that even this far back there were the two kinds of leadership, religious and state.
When I took a biblical archaeology class the prof explained that the prophets were not just religious people. They were learned and functioned as advisors, like Kissinger, or the other cabinet officers. They were savvy about the world situation.
Now it makes sense that the 3 Magi, going to the newborn Christ, would be a powerful symbol. He was the new king.
I find it difficult, in my own life and religion, trying to draw a line between religion and superstition. Traditions confuse the two and I think it's sometimes impossible to sort out. Trying to do this with the Greeks or Persians is really hard. My guess is that they had it all mixed up too.
I hurt my back so sitting here is painful, I won't be able to post much for a couple of days unless this goes away. I'll cross my fingers! LOL!
The Magi reminded me of the Prophets. They were also compared to the Brahmins. I think it's interesting that even this far back there were the two kinds of leadership, religious and state.
When I took a biblical archaeology class the prof explained that the prophets were not just religious people. They were learned and functioned as advisors, like Kissinger, or the other cabinet officers. They were savvy about the world situation.
Now it makes sense that the 3 Magi, going to the newborn Christ, would be a powerful symbol. He was the new king.
I find it difficult, in my own life and religion, trying to draw a line between religion and superstition. Traditions confuse the two and I think it's sometimes impossible to sort out. Trying to do this with the Greeks or Persians is really hard. My guess is that they had it all mixed up too.
I hurt my back so sitting here is painful, I won't be able to post much for a couple of days unless this goes away. I'll cross my fingers! LOL!
Mod
You are making me laugh about Churchill.
True about the Magi; but their practices were still repulsive.
Vanessa, it is difficult trying to reconcile the two when you think about it; most people try not to think about it because this is the way their family has worshipped for generations; why think about those things you cannot understand and seem to defy logic. I think that is the mantra that we internally listen to.
I am glad that we have a separation of church and state; can you imagine the President sending out for a response from an oracle. Very sorry about your back.
Bentley
message 31:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 24, 2008 07:13PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Response to #49There is a big difference between then and now in religion. I see that the Greeks used the oracles as advisors as well as the 'chief' of their religion, and gave them everything, and listened to whatever they said. They 'obeyed the gods', too, but it seems, to me, like the oracles talked to them supposedly from whatever god was worshipped.
Today, while you occasionally see some people follow their religion rules and speakers blindly, for the most part, we hear the homilies and sermons and rules from religious leaders, then we make up our own minds = free will. If you hear of someone doing an extreme act in the name of religion - like killing someone, etc., they usually are or thought to be schizophrenic. In Greek times, obeying oracles and doing whatever was ordered, even sacrifices, was accepted as the norm of life.
message 50
I think I may have hurt my back lifting the Landmark Herodotus!
I think I may have hurt my back lifting the Landmark Herodotus!
message 53
Yes, I think that the city was a huge symbol of the civilization and the accomplishments of the people. Think of how powerful a symbol it was to destroy the World Trade Center.
Alexander the Great destroyed Persepolis and I think that kind of thing has tremendous psychological impact.
Imagine if Washington D. C. were destoyed.
Yes, I think that the city was a huge symbol of the civilization and the accomplishments of the people. Think of how powerful a symbol it was to destroy the World Trade Center.
Alexander the Great destroyed Persepolis and I think that kind of thing has tremendous psychological impact.
Imagine if Washington D. C. were destoyed.
Has anyone noticed that the women leaders seem smarter than the men?
message 36:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 25, 2008 03:00PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I am going to make a copy of your post (62) and copy it to the Herodotus and women discussion; it is also apropos there. I think the difference is that the real women are not portrayed as well as the goddesses. The real women are conniving and manipulative and resort to trickery to get what they want or to achieve an end or they use their womanly ways to turn a man's head (I am not being coy; I am just reiterating H's take on the situations). Or the real women are portrayed even more horrid than any male dictator (Alexander, Darius, Croesus - all were portrayed better and with more sympathy) than a Queen Nitrocris. I honestly believe that H's take is probably similar to other men at that time (see what you get when you give a woman a little bit of power). Or the other saddest category was that they were chattel.
Bentley
Mod
Bentley
Mod
I'm going to have to re-read. My initial take was that the women were shrewd and played their cards right. They seemed smarter. I loved the queen who said she put the money in her tomb. I liked the way they used strategy rather than brute force. But that was my first impression.
Mod
I think what I see more in the men was hubris and being macho to the extreme; considering their power as invincible leading them into making huge errors of judgement. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
message 41:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 25, 2008 05:29PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Half of me felt that Croesus gave the advise to Cyrus as a way of settling a score although he should have been grateful to him for saving him. Of course, I wonder if these were Croesus' words or H's trying to get one of his laws of history across. It is a familiar theme.
Of course, if my theory is correct Croesus helped in Cyrus' demise and even made him second guess himself losing his confidence. Croesus was the number one authority on that statement.
message 69
I thought Cyrus showed good judgment in using Croesus. He knew he would be of use and he also felt for him.
I thought Cyrus showed good judgment in using Croesus. He knew he would be of use and he also felt for him.
Mod
message 56
That's a good point! It reminds me of the ten commandments. We're supposed to have no other gods but Him. That's acknowledging that other gods exist, right?
I know it's not politically correct to speak of primitive vs advanced societies but, heck, there is a difference! The primitive, it seems to me are more concrete and child-like. Advanced societies/religions have a more abstract idea of G-d. Does that make sense? Not to mention a more advanced compassion.
That's a good point! It reminds me of the ten commandments. We're supposed to have no other gods but Him. That's acknowledging that other gods exist, right?
I know it's not politically correct to speak of primitive vs advanced societies but, heck, there is a difference! The primitive, it seems to me are more concrete and child-like. Advanced societies/religions have a more abstract idea of G-d. Does that make sense? Not to mention a more advanced compassion.
message 53
It just occurred to me, I wonder if the city was a religious center? The temples were in the cities. I wonder if they might have thought of it as destroying the Vatican or Jerusalem or Mecca. Just an idea.
It just occurred to me, I wonder if the city was a religious center? The temples were in the cities. I wonder if they might have thought of it as destroying the Vatican or Jerusalem or Mecca. Just an idea.
message 46:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 26, 2008 07:54AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Yes Tim, I think it was one of Herodotus' laws of history; he was biding his time. I had thought at first that maybe Croesus was a changed man on the pyre; but in retrospect he was just feeling sorry for himself a bit (wouldn't all of us if we were being set ablaze).
I think Croesus basically said what goes around; comes around and now guess what it is your turn, Cyrus. However, Croesus was always very wary of Cyrus and knew him to be a dangerous person who could put him back on the pyre at a moment's notice.
So Croesus was not a free man either in the sense he was when he was the ruler and the one in charge and I think a part of him resented this and Cyrus and it was a forever thing (revenge).
I was thinking about the power of forgiveness that most religions teach everyone today; it doesn't seem that the religions of old subscribed to that notion. I bring this up because of the story of the Prodigal Son in the Bible and there seems to be a disconnect in this one area. Although even Matthew in the new testament brings up the eye for an eye theme. But true forgiveness I do not see;maybe that is why they were constantly fighting with each other.
I thought that Cyrus was forgiving of Croesus, or at least compassionate.
It seems real social justice was an invention of the Israelites. It was the first time that people were seen as equal before the law. Also, the value of the weak and powerless, the need to care for them. At least that's what the tapes and classes have told me. It's hard to believe that it's not inherent, in some way, to human nature.
It seems real social justice was an invention of the Israelites. It was the first time that people were seen as equal before the law. Also, the value of the weak and powerless, the need to care for them. At least that's what the tapes and classes have told me. It's hard to believe that it's not inherent, in some way, to human nature.
message 81\
I got a kick out of that too. It made me think that we keep inventing these terms, eg. Sophies Choice, Hobson's Choice and I bet there are many more!
I got a kick out of that too. It made me think that we keep inventing these terms, eg. Sophies Choice, Hobson's Choice and I bet there are many more!
Mod
message 84
I'm having a problem remembering and separating what H has said from what I've heard on the various tapes. This is the problem with listening to commentaries. On one of the tapes it is explained that the term "barbarian" could not have been used in the derogatory modern sense by H because he used the term when discussing the Persians and the Egyptians who he knew were very civilized. If we think of the terms barbaric and uncivilized as meaning not Greek, then I think there's no real contradiction, right? If Greeks think lying is good and the Persians always tell the truth, then the Persians are barbaric and uncivilized in his eyes but not in our own. I was often surprised by how even handed H was with the Persians in spite of their being "the enemy". It does get confusing.
I'm having a problem remembering and separating what H has said from what I've heard on the various tapes. This is the problem with listening to commentaries. On one of the tapes it is explained that the term "barbarian" could not have been used in the derogatory modern sense by H because he used the term when discussing the Persians and the Egyptians who he knew were very civilized. If we think of the terms barbaric and uncivilized as meaning not Greek, then I think there's no real contradiction, right? If Greeks think lying is good and the Persians always tell the truth, then the Persians are barbaric and uncivilized in his eyes but not in our own. I was often surprised by how even handed H was with the Persians in spite of their being "the enemy". It does get confusing.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The World of Herodotus (other topics)The Histories (other topics)
The Landmark Herodotus: The Histories (other topics)
For the week of September 22nd through September 28th, we are reading approximately the next 50 pages of Herodotus - The Histories.
This thread will discuss the following book and sections:
(Book I - Sections 111-216)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did during MY EARLY LIFE.
NOTE:
In the Penguin Edition section 111 starts on page 51 and goes through section 216 which concludes Book One on page 94.
This thread should only deal with these sections and with Book One. No spoilers, please.
Discussion on these sections will begin on September 22nd.
Welcome,
Bentley
TO SEE ALL PREVIOUS WEEK'S THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL