ARCHIVED DISCUSSION - TRAVELS WITH HERODOTUS - Book Discussion

[[deleted user]]

That is so true Oldesq. i've often thought how with the population booming along with the availability of education and information generally, "progress" will speed up. Thomas Friedman once said that in China when you are the top l% there are more than a million people just like you. Imagine what can be accomplished? I think the fuel that drives it all is money.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Response to Oldesq:

Of course, I see the point about rivalry spurring folks on and the great ideal of society fostering creative environments (all useful and interesting side conversations).

But for me the various Los Alamos' are unique and scary. And I hope that Athens was not really like that or a very good example; that is what I am trying to convey.

Now the intellectual exchanges that you are describing seem to me to be more like Athens

B

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

THE BATTLE'S END

K at the beginning of this chapter mentions that he thought he was finally rid of Croesus and then discovered he was back! He had at first become sympathetic to him because he seemed so human.

Then he pops up with King Cyrus who as the head of the Persian army has set out to conquer the Massagetae. These lovely people lived in central Asia on the banks of the Amu Darya.

In researching a little about the wonderful Massagetae; I learned that these folks are Iranian speaking peoples (and were later known as the Huns and Scythians). The Scythians were considered Iranians but their burial mounds were found later in the Ukraine and Russia. The Huns were Iranian speaking but allegedly of Turkish ancestry somehow (they were nomads). Supposedly the Massagatae were related to the Huns and the Scythians. The following urls spell out more details related to the above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu_Darya

K indicates that it is the 6th century BCE and the Persians are aggressively on the move conquering the world. K references other super powers who would try the same thing centuries later. They had pretty much conquered everybody; why Cyrus had to go to some tribe at the end of the earth cannot be fathomed. K thinks that Cyrus maybe thought at that point he could say that the world was his. This of course was going to be his downfall. What led to Croesus' downfall was now going to lead to the downfall of Cyrus.

K states: "The punishment for man's unrestrained rapaciousness befalls him always at the very moment - and here lies the particularly cruel and destructive irony - when he appears to be but a step away from attaining his dreams. The comeuppance is therefore accompanied by a savage disappointment in the world, a profound resentment towards a vengeful fate, and a depressing sense of humiliation and powerlessness."

The area called Araxes where this tribe lived looked like it was in the Georgia, Caucasus, Armenian part of the world by the border of Syria. It appeared that these folks were using something like narcotics and were probably some of the first junkies and addicts.

K gives an excerpt from H which shows the above:

"They have also discovered a kind of plant whose fruit they use when they meet in groups. They light a bonfire, sit around it, throw this fruit on the fire, and sniff the smoke rising from the burning fruit they have thrown on the fire. The fruit is the equivalent there to wine in Greece: they get intoxicated from the smoke, and then they throw more fruit on to the fire and get even more intoxicated until they eventually stand up and dance, and burst into song."

The leader of these folks is a queen named Tomyris. At first, Cyrus pretended that he wanted to marry her; but she realized that he was not after her. Things did not go well for Cyrus. All of the accounts say that she was Iranian.

The Persian capital was Susa (according to accounts this is in Iran as well) and it was very, very far to the shores of Amu Darya. There was no road and you had to go across mountain passes and steppes and the desert (Kara-Kum). K likens this expedition to being like Napoleon (France) on his "mad campaign" for Moscow. Kara Kum is 70% in Turkmenistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakum_...

K says that both Napoleon and Cyrus were going to both suffer defeat because they both wanted to seize, conquer and possess and by doing so they violated another fundamental Greek principle. It is called the law of moderation. You should never want too much, desire too much, not desire everything.

K says that their lust for conquest had dimmed their judgment and reason. He states that if reason ruled the world, would history even exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomyris

Source: Travels with Herodotus - pages 90 - 92

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

THE BATTLE'S END - CONT'D.

What fascinates K next is Cyrus's water. He states: "I am fascinated by this water. Water that has been boiled ahead of time. Stored in silver vessels to keep it cool, One has to cross the desert freighted with those vessels." The water is drawn on four wheeled wagons drawn by mules! Supposedly the king can only drink from the river Chodspes where the city of Susa is situated and it had to be boiled and kept cool!

The other thing that fascinates K is that supposedly Croesus and Cyrus are in the same procession. H says in his account that they were cordial. But how does he know; he wasn't even born yet says K. They cannot really talk either because they share no language. K wants to know what happens when Cyrus wants a drink of water; does he share it with Croesus. K notices that H doesn't even mention Croesus again until they get to Amu Darya which is very strange. What was he doing there in the first place?

Anyway he gives Cyrus bad advice; Cyrus has a nightmare and sends Cambyses back to Persia accompanied by Croesus because he is worried about his son's life. In fact, K wonders if Croesus purposely gave Cyrus bad advice. H says nothing.

The only thing H says at the end is that it is an honor for the Massagetan to sacrificially kill the very old and eat them; it is not an honorable death if you are diseased; then you are buried.

All I can say is that this account has to be the bloodiest and most sordid account in the book.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE GODS

In this chapter of TWH, K compares Tomyris to the indomitable Antigone of the Asiatic steppes (an interesting comparison).

Also in this chapter, K describes why he is attracted to Africa and feels that he can know it better than Asia which intimidated him.

He connects his attraction with that of Herodotus. K writes of the people of Cyrene who had visited the oracle of Ammon and that they told H of a conversation that they had had with the king of the Ammonians. Etearchus (the Ammonians) lived in the oasis of Siwa, in the Libyan desert. He described the trip into Egypt.

K believes that H is the consummate reporter, he wanders, talks, listens in order that he can later note down what he learned and saw, or simply to remember better. On land he probably got around on horseback, mule or foot. K feels that H took with him a slave to do and care for all of the important mundane tasks of life. And that probably they resembled Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. He also feels that H would have had to hire a guide so his group had to be at least 3 people. At that time, K states that it was still permissable to drink because Islam would not seize control of this region for a thousand years.

Herodotus is not content with what someone else has told him, he tries to verify each thing and compare and contrast the various versions he has heard and then formulates his own.

When H arrived in Egypt, the king Psammetichus had been dead for over 150 years. He is told that P wanted to know who was the oldest race on Earth. He came to the conclusion that it was the Phrygians not the Eygptians. It is an interesting story how he decided this.

But according to K, the important part was that H decided that the king understood the unalterable law of history according to whoever elevates himself will be humbled: Be not voracious, do not jostle your way to the fore, maintain moderation and humility: otherwise the chastising hand of Fate which beheads braggarts and all who presume to lord it over others, will descend upon you. He thinks that the wise king wanted to move the Phrygians to the front row so as to protect the Egyptians in the second row and that this would spare the Egyptians misfortune.

H then went out and searched to verify what he had been told (Memphis, Thebes, Heliopolis); H had an opinion on everything and searched I think for confirmation that his opinion was so (whether it was or not is left up to the reader to seek the truth I think).

H then tries to search for the source of the Nile (this river fascinated him). He seemed to take some dangerous trips on that river which could have killed him. So I guess we can call Herodotus brave or that he had courage. He then starts to observe the Egyptians and K states that Herodotus says that almost all Egyptian customs and practices are the opposite of those of everyone else.

These instances are fascinating: women go out and retail goods while men stay at home and weave, men carry loads on heads while women carry them on their shoulders, they relieve themselves indoors and eat outside, H states that the Egyptians believe that things that are embarrassing but unavoidable should be done in private, while things which are not embarrassing should be done out in the open. The women are not the priestesses, the men are. Sons do not look after their parents, the daughters must even if they do not want to. Priests have long hair everywhere else; here they shave their heads, they live with their animals and everywhere else people live separately, they knead dough with their feet and clay with their hands (it is the other way around elsewhere) and then he talks about circumcision which they practice.

The point is that H says in spite of these differences that there are Greek colonies in Egypt and everybody is friendly.

K believes and states that H is never shocked at difference, never condemns it, that he tries to learn about it so that he can understand and describe. Difference he says? K feels that H believes: "It only serves by some paradox only to emphasize a greater oneness, speaking to its vitality and richness."

K states that Herodotus was reproaching his kinsmen the Greeks for their pride, their conceitedness in believing they were superior and he points out that it is from the Greeks that the word barbarian comes from. It was the Greeks who instilled in other Europeans according to K to turn up their noses. K says that H fights this impulse every step of the way. He does this by juxtaposing the Greeks with the Egyptians and tries to get proof for his philosophy of moderation, modesty and common sense.

H starts with a question of where did the Greeks get their Gods. H tells the Greeks that "no" they came from the Egyptians. K says that if we had the media we had today that H would have been stoned to death or worse. And then H proves this opinion about the origin of the Gods with Heracles.

Very interesting account and explanation by K.

Bentley

[[deleted user]]

OK, I get it.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

OK, that is good. I am just reading and discussing Travels with Herodotus and this was the next chapter. Interesting to me; considering that the Egyptians have still been perceived as trying to be moderate in the Middle East. Anyway I found it such.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

The New Testament has the writings of the apostles and in the catholic faith they believe in the eight beatitudes (which in some way sounds to me a little like what Herodotus was preaching); maybe this is the link to the Bible where some may see some similarities (I don't know frankly) but here is the testament according to Matthew if anybody is interested (I think everybody can decide themselves) - it may be stretching it:

http://www.v-a.com/bible/matthew-5.html

[[deleted user]]

I think by the time of Christ there was a lot of Greek Influence in the near east. I wasn't thinking of links to the bible in content, so much, but in form and dates. According to archaeologists both the Iliad and the Bible (the Old Testament) were first written down in 700 BC. The Exodus and the beginning of the dark ages in Greece began in l200 BC, I think both may have had something to do with the explosion of Thera, the Sea Peoples, etc. General turmoil. But this is pure speculation on my part.

Both the Iliad and the Bible are full of supernatural explanations for events. Both are full of moral lessons. I think Vandivere might say that this is because both were originally oral histories.

As time went on, the supernatural elements recede, I think.
The first 5 books of Moses are considered much more sacred than the later books.

This is the kind of link I was thinking of. The content is something else, but that is interesting too. Odysseus is praised and admired for his deceitfulness. That doesn't go over in the bible! It's a different value system, thank goodness! But there seems to be parallels in development in both and I'm not sure how far that can go, which is why I'm taking that course!

Thanks for the link, it's very informative.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

That is interesting that you consider or some consider the first 5 books of Moses to be more sacred. I would feel closer to the accounts of the apostles. Thought-provoking.

I am glad you liked the link.

Bentley

[[deleted user]]

Yes, it's the closeness to G-d that makes each book sacred. That's what I was thinking when I thought that perhaps Herodotus was similar to Kings or Judges or Prophets, an historical account, I think, not involving gods as much. But as you say these things take a lifetime of study to approach understanding.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I agree with the above.

[[deleted user]]

Reply to message 7l

Oldesq, you just put into words what I'd been feeling about the book and why I think I might have lost interest in reading it.
I am reading H, not myth but as history. Even when he inserts myth I think he's giving us an accurate description of how HE thought. This is why I never read historical fiction, I feel very uneasy about confusing truth and fiction. I want "just the facts ma'am". i'm afraid that I'll begin believing fiction as truth.

In the program I'm in at U of C, we are always instructed to read the book, not about the book. I do cheat and read about the book and it can be very helpful. But ultimately, I want to experience the book through my own eyes and see what I see.

There is so much to read in the Landmark edition and so much to understand. I've gotten several books about H and I've tried to read them but with a limited amount of time I want to concentrate on the real thing. Even the "real" thing isn't "real" as it's a translation, and as you pointed out the insertion or deletion of one word changes the meaning so much!

I think that I might want to read these other books after I've digested H.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Later in his work Oldesq; he bought second hand books which were available in other languages because of availability and price (they were the ones there), I think that is what happened with The Sun Also Rises.

I think this is a memoir of K's travels which could be an absolutely true recollection or it could be a little like My Early Life depending upon how you look at it. He has also thrown in his own philosophy of life which he has learned in part from H blended with a few tweeks of his own.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Response to message 72:

I like K's book; it is similar to My Early Life though not as entertaining as Churchill.

I think it is fun to blend the two. I am of course reading also The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus and have The Teaching Company tapes and a host of other resources.

Kapuscinski's book is very good; I would give it three stars; maybe I would give My Early Life four. I think he explains a lot of H in laymen's terms; and I like the additional perspective.

I am also going to read other books which are fiction which mention Herodotus (I think that would be interesting too).

Kapuscinski has some great breakdowns; I would feel I missed a lot by not reading them.

Another great source.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Response to Oldesq (message 73):

How far have you read in K's book? It sounds like maybe you have not realized that he is telling you the story of his years in the field traveling behind the Iron Curtain and other places.

I think it is an autobiographical memoir. It has been widely acclaimed. It really is a chronicle. I had heard for some time about John Nash. I do not feel that this situation in any way had anything to do with Travels with Herodotus.

This is no more a version of a truth than any biography you have ever read; they are all slanted. And even more so are the autobiographies (most people slant these memoirs concerning their own lives too). I do not think that this is in any way fiction blended with non fiction; but I would then have to extend the same yardstick to The Histories (and I cannot say that this is not a blend of the very very far fetched with current events).

I am enjoying this book very much and it is quite informative about Herodotus who I think K learned a lot about life from

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

A chronicle or a memoir is what I think. A travel book; all of these fit. It was a Washington Post and Financial Times best book of its year. Would I say it is as well written as My Early Life (for me no) but then English was Churchill's native language. This was also translated from Polish from somebody named Klara Glowczewka so just like Herodotus..probably fluidity and prose get lost in the translation.

I think you should just read it and get out of it what you do; every reading experience is different and what you get out of it will be different that what I would or someone else. I think there is a difference with Frey's A Million Little Pieces (really fictional) because Frey conveyed that these events actually occurred and they never did. It was still a terrific read and Frey is very gifted; but it should have been marketed differently by his publisher and Frey was not being upfront either.

I think these things actually happened to K and he was writing his own travel log in the shadow of H.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Response to 78:

Our responses are crossing in space. I think it is a memoir and what K's remembers is a factual account (similar to Churchill I think).

I think K spells out clearly what he means. There is no question what his interpretation ever is regarding H. There may be certain allusions when he ties it back to his own life or to current events which H does too. You cannot deny that H is very opinionated and selective.

Like I said I do not think that K is making allusions or making references as an artistic device; but everybody's interpretation is going to be different I think.

Some folks want to read purist history (of course I think with closer examination they would find that history is recorded according to the eyes of the beholder) so even that is slanted. However, you are indeed closer to the source than a book of fiction or historical fiction. I really enjoy all of the different genres and really question everything I read for truth ( a very nebulous thing in today's world). So be careful if you are ever thinking you are reading the final word. The Bible to me is questionnable and I trust the New Testament more (now I am really stirring the pot and do not mean to). I feel it is more current and less based upon oral tradition. Of course, that is just my take on things in my own little corner of the world.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Response to 80:

I think it was unbelievable how his newspaper just left him hanging; he seems to try to cover up for them but he was sitting around "Waiting for Godot". I did not think he was particularly enamored with the Chinese ways; I find the country fascinating and interesting for the same reasons K did not. I remember in the outskirts in Xian eating at a small place my bodyguard/driver took me to and the young women literally watched me eat and stared at me and touched my bag and coat (it was very sad and touching at the same time); they tried so hard to talk to me too. I was touched by their simpleness and lack of motive. Yes, I was traveling in parts of China where I felt safer with a bodyguard. I personally did not feel safe in the Islamic parts; but this was just my feeling at the time.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

one last thing; I am really focused when reading K on what his personal relationship was with Herodotus and what he felt about The Histories in terms of the impact on his life.

I haven't really discussed the story line as much because of our emphasis is on The Histories. I may in fact read American Gods and The English Patient too (saw the move and loved it) to see how Herodotus was woven into these plots.

But my study is primarily The Histories, Herodotus and the impact of this work.

All of the peripheral work is of course just that. And everybody will have their own means and plan for reading The Histories and studying H which is terrific (reading is a personal experience). And these other threads are ancillary. But for those interested, they are another facet of looking at the impact of Herodotus and his work. For me, a travel log having this much impact 2500 years later is impressive.

Bentley

[[deleted user]]

Message 73

I don't think you are a curmudgeon at all. I think that when you love history, you want history!

BTW, I had a hard time understanding why a brilliant and beautiful student would fall for a schizophrenic teacher. Then, on 60 minutes, they interviewed Nash and his wife. She was from Equador. That explained it. I think she probably could not pick up on social cues that an native born American would have recognized... just my hunch. She may have wanted to stay in the US, too. I can see why they would have made his madness more visual for the screen.

[[deleted user]]

I just realized why i might be particularly afraid to read anything interpretive right now. I'll be taking that class soon and I don't want to misinterpret anything. I know the book is supposed to be extraordinary, my husband got really excited when he saw it. When we were reading MEL it was for fun. Now I feel I'm preparing for a course, it's a different mind-set. I do hope to read it when we're done with H.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Of course. Well hubbie can read it then (lol). I know you will do well in your class.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER

THE VIEW FROM THE MINARET

In this chapter K seems to be discussing Herodotus' views that the Greeks are mistaken when they state their Gods as originating with them; H states that the very own Greek gods existed in Egypt for more than ten thousand years. That the Greek genealogy goes back barely fifteen generations and the Egyptians at that time went back as much as 341.

In this chapter, I absolutely cannot believe that K was so careless; a great deal more could have happened to him

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

ARMSTRONG'S CONCERT

I can't believe how trustworthy K is; he could have gotten himself killed again. What did you think of this hashish story?

I did not see the point of the Armstrong concert. Did anybody else see a connection I missed?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

THE FACE OF ZOPYRUS

K seems to be at a standstill in the town of Paulis (Congo, Eastern Province). He has time on his hands and seems to want to read Herodotus again. Now he is reading about Darius (the then current King of Persia in the section of TH that K was reading). Darius is trying to quell an uprising of rebellious Babylon which was the large and most dynamic city on Earth at that time. K states that another century has to pass before the Greek' Athens will ever rival it. Babylon thinks the timing is good because Persia had come through a long period of anarchy; the power had been held by the Magi described by K as a priestly caste. The Magi were overthrown by a palace coup by a group of Persian Elites and Darius was selected. The Babylonians had long prepared for this uprising during the entire time that the Magi were in power. What Herodotus described was mass strangulation of all of the women in Babylon except for each man's mother and one other woman. Nowhere is it written about this mass execution. It sounds just horrible to me even reading about it. The reason they gave for doing this was to conserve supplies.

K asked how the bodies were disposed of because he states that
"a decent burial of the dead is a condition for the continued peace of the living; without it, the spirit of the departed returns by night and torments the survivors."

According to K, the Babylonian men taunted Darius and his army: They cried, "Why don't you just go away? Babylon will fall into your hands only when mules start bearing young." K points out that mules, as we are meant to know, are infertile.

K points out that there were massive walls around the city so wide that a wagon drawn by four horses all in a row could be driven along its top. There are eight great gates and a moat. So Darius was outside the gate already for 1 full year and seven months. Then Zopyrus' packmule gave birth. Zopyrus was the son of the Persian noble Megabyzus. Zopyrus decides to disfigure himself and says he did it because he could not stand seeing Assyrians mocking Persians. Zopyrus thinks that a single individual act of self destruction or self mutilation will give him liberation.

It seems to me that Zopyrus makes himself sort of a Trojan horse. Zopyrus plans with Darius how he will be a double agent.
K is shocked (it seems more so) that 3000 of the most learned men of Babylon were impaled on stakes. It seems the folks responsible for the women's deaths should have been impaled but K does not seem to make much of that. In fact, Darius arranged for 50,000 more women to be imported to Babylon so that there would be enough women for offspring and returned the city to the remaining Babylonians after destroying the wall, etc. Zopyrus was given command over Babylon; but K states that Darius would have preferred Zopyrus without his injuries than gain 20 more Babylons.

What a horrible story.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

THE HARE

K starts with a segment from the Bible (Isaiah 5:28) and then moves on to talking about the next quest by Darius (the Scythians). Somehow without maps and only oral transmission of information, Darius had advance intelligence to know where to look for them and the neighborhood where they lived. He lacked the Trachinians, the Getae and the Scythians and he was according to K a "skulking predator".

K asks what was Darius' universal imperative for attacking? Defense? Assisting Others? God's Will? So Darius tried to combine all three of these potential rationales: the attacker should appear in the glory of the anointed, in the role of who have found favor in his chosen god's eye.

Herodotus' first law of history is that revenge is always an option and that is what Darius grasps onto (revenge for an invasion of the Medes centuries ago).

K found it difficult to describe the Scythians. He said they came out of nowhere, existed for a thousand years , vanished and left beautiful metal artifacts. They had organized themselves into a confederation of tribes and their elite were the Royal Scythians who had a home base in lands to the north of the Black Sea between the Danube and the Volga. They also were considered savage and terrifying. And Herodotus' take is that the snow was the feathers that the Scythians described as protecting them.

Herodotus states that Darius mounted an unbelievable effort of 700.000 with 600 ships! Artabanus son of Hystaspes asks Darius to cancel this expedition; but Darius will not. The Scythians followed the course of action that the Russians followed with Napoleon many years later; retreat and burn everything in its path (destroying all vegetation).

However, it was surprisingly the Scythians chasing a hare that changed Darius mind and he retreated under the cover of darkness. I think that Darius for all of his wrong moves still was quite astute to recognize that the time had come when someone else held all of the cards. It was interesting to me also that the biggest army does not necessarily win the battle or skirmish.
Darius luckily on the advice of Coes did not destroy the bridges behind them.

I wondered after reading this account where the saying "Don't burn your bridges behind you" came from.

Bentley

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER;

AMONG DEAD KINGS AND FORGOTTEN GODS

I found K's description of why he could not wipe his face dry after washing it very interesting. K describes the meaning of this ritual: "The sun much like man needs water in order to live, if, upon awaking, it sees that it can drink a few drops from a man's face, it will be kinder to him in the hour when it becomes cruel- at noon. And it will manifest its kindness by providing him with shade. It does not give shade directly, but by the agency of various other things- a tree, a roof, a cave."

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

HONORS FOR THE DEAD OF HISTIAEUS

I love in this chapter the quote from Herodotus that "it seems easier to fool a crowd than a single person". And of course that fleet of ships was going to start the Greco-Persian War.

It seems odd after Histiaeus abandons him and turns on Darius that Darius in the end makes sure that the man is buried with honors because of a good deed which saved him years ago.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I am adding the Travels with Herodotus link to the thread.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

POTENTIAL SPOILER:

AT DOCTOR RANKE'S

What is interesting to K in the Congo is how all of these sundry very small tribes have not only their own unique language but their own specialized Gods! They seem to seek to be different.

K makes an association to Herodotus and what he found: Herodotus , wherever he was, always tried to note the names of tribes, their location and their customs. Where someone lives. Who are his neighbors.This-because knowledge of the world-whether back then in Libya or Scythia or today here in the Northern Congo-accrues not vertically but horizontally from a bird's eye view. They seem to pick their neighbors based upon differences rather than similarities and according to K that is why there is so much fighting.

[[deleted user]]

message 95

I have to read this book when I'm done with H! You give a beautiful and moving description of it, Antoine.

The Shadow of the Wind sounds like a wonderful book as well. I love that idea of books as a means of reliving life. I'd never thought of it quite like that before but it's so true and probably why biographies/autobiographies have always been my favorites. But really, any book has it's own life.

[[deleted user]]

message 90

Bentley, I can appreciate this post now that I'm reading about the Scythians. Thanks!

[[deleted user]]

message 6

In re-reading this I'm left wondering, how do we know who starts a war? It would be wonderful if there was justice in the world and the agressors always got punished. But one of the points I thought H was making was that the wars begin with he said/she said. Were Helen, Io, etc. abducted or not? Is a country justified in fighting over a woman?

[[deleted user]]

message 27

At my last class we read a passage in DonQuixote in which he explains that war is waged for peace. Everyone in my class felt that Cervantes was mocking this ridiculous and common defense of war. But I'm not so sure... Of course war is evil and no one in their right mind wants a war. It would be wonderful if everyone was in their right mind. But some are not. and self=defense is necessary. I felt it was tremendous hubris on the part of this class to sit in this lovely building, in this lovely city and freely discuss how nothing is worth fighting for. How war is "stupid". I thought of those soldiers who sacrificed their lives invading Normandy so that we could live in peace and freedom and how now, this country has contempt for soldiers. The way I understand it Greece waged war with Persia because Persia invaded Greece. Greece wanted democracy. Greece wanted to be free. I think they were heroic, an old-fashioned idea, I know.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Response to 90 (Vanessa) - no problem and welcome (I did not want to post more thinking I was getting ahead of The Histories - I will start moving forward again).

Response to 98: The abductions were just a smokescreen. Those folks sitting in your classroom are fools Vanessa (and I say that humbly and respectfully); maybe they would have preferred speaking German now and who knows if some of them without the sacrifices made by so many to protect their freedoms would even be with us today (considering what the Germans were all about at that point in history). The World Wars were very much about protecting our freedoms (especially II). I am not for all wars, nor preemptive strikes; but I am for protecting our interests and our freedoms and our way of life.

I could never say that there is nothing that is worth fighting for (how about their children and the lives of family members and to live freely in a democratic society); aren't these things important to them? You are correct war is horrendous and nobody in their right mind would choose it.

Bentley

[[deleted user]]

message l00

I have to agree. But it's so commonly accepted! There is one gentleman in the class who is a very bright and dear man. Very well read. He found an article from the Atlantic I think, and felt so strongly about it that he xeroxed it and gave us all a copy. It was an essay on how we should think of the people who died on 9/ll as martyrs. That whomever the terrorist kill, in the past or in the future are martyrs for peace! This man, btw, had been a marine. There's a woman in the class who'd daughter just graduated from West Point. When they spoke of soldiers as "fools" I looked at her and she seemed to be smiling in agreement!

Anyway, it's a relief to speak to someone who is not a "fool"!

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

That is very scary thinking in that class Vanessa.

So sad this martyr way of thinking. I consider those poor unfortunate souls who did nothing to deserve their fate except to either go to work in the morning or get on a plane as having been murdered and the entire situation is so regrettable and so sad. However, I do not consider them martyrs. In fact, I have come to dislike the entire term and word. It is a word that has been used too much lately to represent folks who sacrifice their own life to kill others for what they believe is a just cause (religious or otherwise). I feel horribly about all senseless killings

I do understand the point the dear man was trying to make although I disagree with the association expressed. And I cannot believe that the poor woman whose daughter just graduated from West Point has to hear this either. I do not think we should be setting up the idea of martyrs on either side of the equation (it is just bad all around). Why can't we just value human life no matter where the person lives or what their beliefs are? One of the reasons that India I believe was so successful in gaining its independence was because of Ghandi's non violent approach. It works and the other unfortunately does not in the long run.

So sorry for that line of discussion in your class; even talking about 9/11 gives folks stress and you are taking your classes for enjoyment.

Bentley

[[deleted user]]

message l02

Thanks for "getting it".

I just got back from seeing "W". It reminded me of a lot that I'd forgotten. Sometimes movies become our record of history and I know a lot of what was depicted was true but I think (as with most history) a lot was interpretation and conjecture. Actually, Stone was kinder to W than expected. He depicted him as a tortured but mostly well-meaning retard. Oh well.. I think it takes about 50 years to judge a president.

Also, I thought of the beginning of H, the tit for tat abductions of women as, in part,as an allegory for the way all wars begin. Did WW I really begin because a Serb shot the Archduke?

SNL just went on!!!!

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

It sounds Vanessa like Stone got the interpretation right. (lol)

There is always an undercurrent which rationalizes why things really occur.

Yes, SNL...they have had plenty of material this political season.

Bentley