The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Histories
ANCIENT HISTORY
>
ARCHIVE - 3. HERODOTUS - THE HISTORIES~BOOK II/SECTIONS 1-106 (09/29/08 - 10/05/08) ~ No spoilers, please
I'm really enjoying Book 2. H describes Egypt in such a way that I feel I have a much more intimate knowledge of it than I did before. I'm really impressed with his understanding of geology and his logical thinking. You can see how he's starting to think like a scientist, taking the different hypotheses about why the Nile floods and thinking through them. Even when he comes up with the wrong answers, his thinking is impressive.
Mod
I have moved this to the spotlighted top spot.
This thread will cover: (Book II - Sections 1-106). In the Penguin Edition, this would be pages 95 through 135. When posting, find the thread which corresponds to the segment you are reading. Check the syllabus to see what day each weekly thread will be opened. These are no spoiler threads.
Also, please note that the moderators will be performing some housekeeping duties and you may be contacted. Check the Off Topic Cafe for postings related to these tasks. Either Oldesq or myself may be contacting you.
Thank you. Enjoy the start of Book Two.
Well, tonight is the beginning of the Jewish New Year and reading about the customs of the Egyptians, while fascinating, puts a damper on my religious feelings. So much of Judaism seems to be taken from Egypt. I don't know why this should surprise me as Moses was Egyptian. There's the obvious things like circumcision, but subtle things, like refusing to use a knife that was used by a Greek to kill a sacred cow, is very Jewish. We're not supposed to use any kitchen implement that is not kosher, that has touched a pig or any other unclean animal. The sacredness of the cow reminds me of Hinduism, of course, but they do not carry over the idea of unclean implements. Then there is the custom of swinging the bull's head around. There is an old tradition called "kapora" in which, at the end of the New Year celebration, a chicken is swung around and is meant to be a kind of sacrifice that will absorb all bad luck for the next year. I've never seen this done myself but my mother always used to say "a kapora" when some trivial thing would break, get lost or go wrong. What she meant was "if something has to go wrong, let it be that". A kind of sacrifice. So the strange Egyptian customs sound very familiar to me.
BTW, does anyone believe that women really urinated standing up?
BTW, does anyone believe that women really urinated standing up?
Ah, I didn't take the gift of the Nile comment to be animistic but that could be possible. The Persians worshipped rivers and were animistic. In the Iliad, Achilles almost drowns in that river (I forget the name) and there is a return to animism in the way the river talks to him, so it must have been in their religion at one time.
The squatting toilets were all over Europe the last time I was there. I thought they were more economical. But they were used in the same almost seated way that a regular toilet is used. You wouldn't stand while using it. I find it hard to believe that women would do that, it would be messy! Just think of how male and female dogs have different stances when they urinate.
The squatting toilets were all over Europe the last time I was there. I thought they were more economical. But they were used in the same almost seated way that a regular toilet is used. You wouldn't stand while using it. I find it hard to believe that women would do that, it would be messy! Just think of how male and female dogs have different stances when they urinate.
message 9
I was confused but I'm reading the Landmark H and there are maps explaining what he's saying. Still, it is an odd way to describe the geography, isn't it?
I was confused but I'm reading the Landmark H and there are maps explaining what he's saying. Still, it is an odd way to describe the geography, isn't it?
I'm really enjoying this book so much. We skipped Egypt when we read it in class. I'm beginning to see that his supposed "digressions" really aren't. They remind me of the Homer. In the Iliad, before a soldier is killed, he always identifies him. He humanizes him by telling something about his life. I'm getting the same feeling with H. He's telling us who these people are.
As for the rivers themselves being actors, that sounds Persian.
As for the rivers themselves being actors, that sounds Persian.
message 8:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 29, 2008 08:46AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The book is by James Talboy Wheeler which has been digitized. I think most of his books are from the 1800s.
Added note: It was published in London in 1854 and you can actually download the pdf file (pretty fantastic work). I completed the download of the book. I believe the original is at Harvard. Enjoy.
Here is the url (in case you have problems finding this page) where you can download a digitized copy of the original which is at Harvard College (just click the download pdf selection and you get a copy of the whole book to research):
http://books.google.com/books?id=GJYU...
message 9:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 29, 2008 09:19AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
He seems to have been an English researcher/bookseller/editor turned professor who ended up in India. He did a similar work on Thucydides which can be downloaded as a PDF if anyone is interested in that work in their studies.
Also, he did another analysis of Herodotus and summary which is in the New York Public Library (the original) which has also been digitized and the pdf can be downloaded for any students of Herodotus: (here is that url): This seems to be putting Herodotus into an outline/summary form (not as useful as the Geography text)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Pv0N...
Mod
Bentley
LOL! I guess the story offended his pagan sensibilities. Every now and then he seems shocked by something and that surprises me. In book l he describes how young women have to go to the temple and have sex with a strange man as "disgusting". When you think of Greek customs and all of the barbarian customs he describes non-judgmentally, it's surprising when he expresses "disgust".
It is funny, leaving it to our imaginations. I'd rather not dwell on the possibilities myself but for someone so inclined....the sky's the limit! It's a little bit like the way Homer never describes Helen, just the reactions of others to seeing her.
It is funny, leaving it to our imaginations. I'd rather not dwell on the possibilities myself but for someone so inclined....the sky's the limit! It's a little bit like the way Homer never describes Helen, just the reactions of others to seeing her.
Mod
On the humorous side; maybe the priests lived in close quarters (who knows).
I have a friend who's ancestry as far back as anyone know is Russian Jewish but she's kind of dark and she has the gene for this. She can't eat fava beans, she can't take many meds and she developed gall stones. Her brother has the same thing and they traced mysterious deaths in the family going back to other generations. For instance, her uncle died of something that the drs. thought might be leukemia but was probably this.
As for the sacred cow, I think it makes sense to save a cow for milk and milk products rather than to eat it for meat. Bottom feeding fish, as you say, are more polluted than fish with fins. This is probably the source of kosher laws. No shell fish are allowed. I just thought of something. If the pig is infected with trichinosis it would make sense that the knife would not be safe either. That's probably the source of prohibition of polluted cooking implements.
It makes sense when you think of it, that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt as slaves. Slaves probably had to eat whatever they could. Moses was a prince and taught them how to be clean and healthy. It's amazing really, when you think aboutit, how much they understood without understanding too much about microbes, parasites, etc.
Good research (and reasoning) Odesq!
As for the sacred cow, I think it makes sense to save a cow for milk and milk products rather than to eat it for meat. Bottom feeding fish, as you say, are more polluted than fish with fins. This is probably the source of kosher laws. No shell fish are allowed. I just thought of something. If the pig is infected with trichinosis it would make sense that the knife would not be safe either. That's probably the source of prohibition of polluted cooking implements.
It makes sense when you think of it, that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt as slaves. Slaves probably had to eat whatever they could. Moses was a prince and taught them how to be clean and healthy. It's amazing really, when you think aboutit, how much they understood without understanding too much about microbes, parasites, etc.
Good research (and reasoning) Odesq!
message 14:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 30, 2008 09:32AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Isn't it something when we are studying Herodotus we uncover the origins of so many current practices among different religious groups that go back in part over 2500 years ago. I guess some of these practices had as their origins keeping folks healthy and enforcing these practices as part of their religious beliefs.
I wonder if in all cases they have the same meanings now or if the same practices are followed now more as tradition or ritual rather than because of a health necessity.
It is truly odd how in some the genetic makeup would make certain foods like fava beans so deadly. I think of how peanuts and peanut oil have become so deadly for children in the last 5 years or so (really mushrooming in terms of numbers of children affected); I can honestly say that I do not recall one classmate of mine ever having a peanut allergy.
Also, I guess in ancient times, they understood that certain practices kept people healthier while others contributed to the illness of their people. Moses was more instrumental than a lot of us have given him credit for.
Bentley
message 23
Good call on the peanut allergies! Imagine if we were an uneducated and uninformed superstitious people. I can imagine a leader saying that the lord does not approuve of eating peanuts. It is true. Peanuts hurt too many people. Why would the lord approve of that?
Many people would have been saved if the ban on eating Fava beans had been extended to more people, not just Egyptian priests.
Good call on the peanut allergies! Imagine if we were an uneducated and uninformed superstitious people. I can imagine a leader saying that the lord does not approuve of eating peanuts. It is true. Peanuts hurt too many people. Why would the lord approve of that?
Many people would have been saved if the ban on eating Fava beans had been extended to more people, not just Egyptian priests.
Mod
Maybe the reason it was not banned elsewhere is that others thought they were exempt (they thought they had different Gods) and would not be affected and that it was the fate of these folks to died (nothing to do with the beans).
Bentley
message 25
That was my hunch as well. That previously children would die suddenly with no explanation. I wonder if people thought that they were choking on the peanuts?
Message 26
That's probably true Bentley. If the gods are the explanation then there's no observation or questioning of cause and effect.
Of course in my friend's case, it took two recessive genes in a population of people who do not carry the gene (Russia). Her family, going back, had to have come from the Mediterranean but the customs of Russia would not have been in touch with that.
The gene must have been much more common in an in-bred Egyptian population. It would have been easier to observe the effects of eating Fava beans. But they must have had a more scientific mind-set than I had ever given them credit for.
That was my hunch as well. That previously children would die suddenly with no explanation. I wonder if people thought that they were choking on the peanuts?
Message 26
That's probably true Bentley. If the gods are the explanation then there's no observation or questioning of cause and effect.
Of course in my friend's case, it took two recessive genes in a population of people who do not carry the gene (Russia). Her family, going back, had to have come from the Mediterranean but the customs of Russia would not have been in touch with that.
The gene must have been much more common in an in-bred Egyptian population. It would have been easier to observe the effects of eating Fava beans. But they must have had a more scientific mind-set than I had ever given them credit for.
Mod
I was on a flight overseas (just recently) and there was an announcement that no peanuts would be passed out because there was a child on board who had serious peanut allergies and even if the child did not eat them; just having the smell of them being in the air supply would cause disastrous calamity for the child (life threatening). So we all went without our peanuts. Gladly.
Bentley
Mod
Vanessa, I think the belief in their gods stymied their ability to see and understand what should have been obvious. I think the Egyptians were vastly superior than even the Greeks (although the Greeks seemed to be able to market themselves better). Interesting about your friend; they have genetic mapping now (and some folks try to trace their ancestry back using these blood tests) and I bet that they could trace your friend's ancestry back to those regions.
I think they used this kind of testing to tell the story about Jefferson's illegitmate off spring.
Bentley
message 28
My daughter had a chemistry tutor last year who was rushed to the emergency room when she entered the faculty lunchroom and someone was eating a peanut sandwich. Her throat closed up. Just being in the same room sent her into shock.
My daughter had a chemistry tutor last year who was rushed to the emergency room when she entered the faculty lunchroom and someone was eating a peanut sandwich. Her throat closed up. Just being in the same room sent her into shock.
message 29
I wonder if the Egyptian priests were more in-bred than the rest of the population. They may have had a priestly class like the Brahmins or the Cohens. That would have increased the likelihood of their having the illness.
I had no idea that so much came from the Egyptians. I thought our inheritance (except for some wonderful monuments and mummies) was from the Greeks and always wondered why we learned about the Egyptians at all.
I wonder if the Egyptian priests were more in-bred than the rest of the population. They may have had a priestly class like the Brahmins or the Cohens. That would have increased the likelihood of their having the illness.
I had no idea that so much came from the Egyptians. I thought our inheritance (except for some wonderful monuments and mummies) was from the Greeks and always wondered why we learned about the Egyptians at all.
Mod
Yes, that is why on the flight we all gave up our peanuts.
Response to Message 31:
You raise an interesting point; I do not know the answer to that. I think the Greeks knew how to blow their own horn.
I have always found it interesting that as Book 2 begins, Cyrus has died and has been succeeded by his son Cambyses, who is "preparing for an expedition against Egypt" (2.1). That is the narrative excuse for Herodotus' long and complicated inquiries into Egypt. This sets up an obvious contrast between inquiry and invasion as ways of dealing with another country. The Egyptian logoi also introduce a third term into the opposition between the Greeks and Persians.
The first thing to be said about Egypt is that it is extremely ancient, and that its antiquity is part of the Egyptians' account of themselves. Just as Herodotus, at the beginning of Book 1, asserted that he was especially interested in inquiring into the causes of the Persian Wars, and then began his inquiries as far back in the past as he could go, so now when his subject is Egypt, he begins at the beginning. It is significant, though, that Herodotus' inquiries are based on the Egyptians' own, and that they would inquire into something as foundational as their being the most ancient race in the world...
message 33
That's an interesting point BC, something I would have missed.
BTW, my daughter just got an application to Stonehill College. You're not one of the profs on the cover are you?
That's an interesting point BC, something I would have missed.
BTW, my daughter just got an application to Stonehill College. You're not one of the profs on the cover are you?
Mod
Wasn't part of the Egyptians own inquiry done in order to place them in a less prominent position so as not to anger the gods. You make an interesting point in message 33.
Response to 33:No, Vanessa, as far as I know I'm not on the cover of the application. But here's my page:
http://www.stonehill.edu/x8607.xml
If you come for a campus visit be sure to look me up.
Mod
One of Egypt's Kings, Psammetichus, wanted to confirm what the Egyptians had always believed about their own extreme antiquity. Herodotus tells us that "mere inquiry failed to reveal which was the original race of mankind" (2.2), and that Psammetichus then contrived something other than mere inquiry, to settle the matter. It is significant that a traditional belief should be subjected to inquiry, and that the inquiry should undermine the belief without replacing it with anything else. When the more scientific experiment Psammetichus came up with seemed to demonstrate that the Phrygians were more ancient than the Egyptians, the Egyptians accepted this, and it became what they have believed ever since. Traditional belief was reestablished.Seth Benardete, however, in a very interesting book called Herodotean Inquiries, says that "the Egyptians appear to be so reluctant to abandon their supposed priority that they console themselves with second place with as little evidence as they once had to arrogate to themselves the first" (31).
But then Appendix C in The Landmark Herodotus says that "this narrative is quite unhistorical, though it does reflect current and earlier Greek research into genealogies and related phenomena, and the solution which emerges, that is, that Phrygian civilization was the oldest, could hardly be more wrong" (737).
Mod
The word inquiry is really what the original Greek word historie meant; so I love all of their inquiries into things or questions that they neither want to take an independent stance on or have a personal opinion. Safer to form a committee.
I thought that their story implied they felt that being in second place like Avis was safer with the Gods. I for one doubted the validity of the Phrygians being more ancient that the Egyptians.
Mod
Thank you BC
message 33:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 01, 2008 06:51AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Regarding this quote from the Landmark Herodotus:
But then Appendix C in The Landmark Herodotus says that "this narrative is quite unhistorical, though it does reflect current and earlier Greek research into genealogies and related phenomena, and the solution which emerges, that is, that Phrygian civilization was the oldest, could hardly be more wrong" (737).
Is the Landmark Herodotus claiming that the story is created by Herodotus and is a lie, a misrepresentation of another story, an account told to Herodotus by an unreliable narrator; or just a mistake on the part of Herodotus reflecting what the Greeks believed and therefore what he believed too.
What this connotation is saying is that the account or solution which emerged (same thing) could hardly be more wrong. What is your impression?
Bentley
In calling the narrative "unhistorical," I assume that the scholarly author of the Appendix means that there is no currently recognized evidence for it -- that a modern historian could not say that what is narrated did happen. But to say that the narrative "does reflect current and earlier Greek research" is to say that it is, in a sense, historical. There is, evidently, evidence for that Greek research. And there is no doubt evidence that positively contradicts the claim that the Phrygian civilization is the oldest.Herodotus probably heard the story, and so told it. He frequently says, "there is a story..." or "the Egyptians say...but the Hellenes say..." Sometimes he says that a particular story is right or wrong, and sometimes he says "here is a story which is not believable; but I will tell it because it is the story people tell..." I suspect that that is the case even when he doesn't explicitly say so.
Mod
BC you accurately pointed out the problem.
Tim, I see the point you are making; and there is no doubt that we have a lot to thank Herodotus for (welcome back from Chicago by the way). I am thankful and happy with my Penguin edition. Having said that, if Landmark felt that way "really" why dance. They could not resist to allude to what they really believe; they meant to say it and it is something huge; because of how they said it and because of the snarky element (as Oldesq suggested) this sentence should have clearly been left out. I tried to really understand how they could say that an account was both historical and unhistorical; could some of the facts or portions of the account have some basis in Greek research and some other facts or portions of the account be fallacious. I guess that could be true; but I did not get that impression from the statement they made.
I think Tim we have to look at what the term historie meant at the time that Herodotus wrote this work; it meant inquiry or research and therefore in terms of that meaning..he set out to do what he intended to do and in terms of that meaning the work is historical (in fact the genesis of the word we use today started with H).
I think Landmark was playing cute.
Bentley
message 45
I agree, Tim. I see it your way. I know H has been called "The Father of Lies" but I've been impressed by his efforts to be fair and honest.
I agree, Tim. I see it your way. I know H has been called "The Father of Lies" but I've been impressed by his efforts to be fair and honest.
message 47
What an excellent point Bentley. How could he be "unhistorical" if he was inquiring?
What an excellent point Bentley. How could he be "unhistorical" if he was inquiring?
Mod
Well have fun in Chicago; the posts will still be here when you get back.
You made me laugh with your comment that you did not want to miss anything good (lol).
Bentley
#44, 45, 47, with 48 and 49:A lot of medieval history came from stories from one group to another, so this method will continue for some time.
Talking about evidence and slants in writing history - I can't help but fly way forward: I wonder how the accounts of the assassination of President JFK would have differed if that period of time had the CSI, etc. and technology of today? Bet there might have been even more hushing up of the results, at least for a while, until some media fearless genius dug up the truth. This supposition can go back to the two world wars, etc.
I think that, overall, historians have done the best they could with what they were given in the time period of which they wrote - either living in, or the history they were covering. H didn't have much to work with, by today's standards, but I feel he did the best he could. I'm just glad his work survived.
Mod
Bentley
Mod
Oldesq, I am laughing. I will have to consider the other points.
message 37
Thanks so much BC. I hope she'll want to stay a little closer to home (Chicago) but I appreciate the invite!
Thanks so much BC. I hope she'll want to stay a little closer to home (Chicago) but I appreciate the invite!
message 39
That is an amazing story isn't it? I wonder how they know it's "unhistorical"? I'm thinking of all of the ways in which Herodotus has been doubted in the past and is now being proven correct. Do you think that the Egyptians used experiments in other ways?
That is an amazing story isn't it? I wonder how they know it's "unhistorical"? I'm thinking of all of the ways in which Herodotus has been doubted in the past and is now being proven correct. Do you think that the Egyptians used experiments in other ways?
message 44
It seems to me that if the Egyptians told this story, that's amazing enough. Even if it hadn't actually happened, the fact that they thought along these lines demonstrates rational thinking that we usually attribute to the Greeks, just as the Landmark does.
I'm curious, are there Egyptian books equivalent to Herodotus?
It seems to me that if the Egyptians told this story, that's amazing enough. Even if it hadn't actually happened, the fact that they thought along these lines demonstrates rational thinking that we usually attribute to the Greeks, just as the Landmark does.
I'm curious, are there Egyptian books equivalent to Herodotus?
message 55
I thought the model coffin was hysterical. "Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow" this will be you! I could imagine coffins in fast food places, reminding people of what they were putting into their bodies and where it will lead them. H did say that the Egyptians saw sickness as a result of what they ate, didn't he?
I hadn't realized that natrum was salt either. So the mummies were pickled people!
That's an interesting point about revenge Oldesq. I'm not sure. In my personal life I try never to act in revenge. But then there's society and the need for justice. OJ just got thrown in jail, possibly for life. Is it hubris for the judge to have thrown the book at him? It made my day!
I thought the model coffin was hysterical. "Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow" this will be you! I could imagine coffins in fast food places, reminding people of what they were putting into their bodies and where it will lead them. H did say that the Egyptians saw sickness as a result of what they ate, didn't he?
I hadn't realized that natrum was salt either. So the mummies were pickled people!
That's an interesting point about revenge Oldesq. I'm not sure. In my personal life I try never to act in revenge. But then there's society and the need for justice. OJ just got thrown in jail, possibly for life. Is it hubris for the judge to have thrown the book at him? It made my day!
message 6l
I see the line you're drawing between self-defense and revenge and in that case I can agree. Yes, the intent shouldn't be revenge. Good point!
I've actually been struggling with this point as I might file a malpractice suit. I hate the idea of it, of hurting anyone. OTH, these people are continuing in their negligence to hurt others. The line you've drawn helps me think of it more clearly. Thanks.
I see the line you're drawing between self-defense and revenge and in that case I can agree. Yes, the intent shouldn't be revenge. Good point!
I've actually been struggling with this point as I might file a malpractice suit. I hate the idea of it, of hurting anyone. OTH, these people are continuing in their negligence to hurt others. The line you've drawn helps me think of it more clearly. Thanks.
Message 55
LOL! I wonder if we "can handle the truth"?
I really wish there were more stringent rules throughout the country. I know many people object to the ban on trans-fats, etc. but I just don't get it!
LOL! I wonder if we "can handle the truth"?
I really wish there were more stringent rules throughout the country. I know many people object to the ban on trans-fats, etc. but I just don't get it!
I was just wondering about the "lotus-eaters" in the Odyssey. H describes how the Egyptians eat lotus plants. I've seen them for sale here and I know they're eaten in India. I don't think that they're intoxicating. Has anyone ever heard about this? Could Odysseus have been in Egypt?
message 65
Wikepedia has an excellent article with photos of the various lotus plants. Some are narcotics and the Egyptians used them in religious rites.
Wikepedia has an excellent article with photos of the various lotus plants. Some are narcotics and the Egyptians used them in religious rites.
Oldesq, my Indian friend has told me that Lotus root is a common dish in India. I have been in Asian markets and seen it canned. But these must be a different species. It does make me wonder how many people might have been slightly high. The Inca chew on leaves that contain cocaine to help them breathe at high altitudes, , then there are the mushrooms that the Indians in the west use to get high. I can understand when these things are used in religious rituals but I wonder if many people might have just been high all of the time, like the lotus eaters in the Odyssey. BTW, the land of the lotus-eaters, they think, was an island off the coast of Egypt.
I was also curious about the symbolism of women's urine and looked that up. Lots of theories. Pollution, healing, and bodily fluid as sexual fluid were a few.
I was also curious about the symbolism of women's urine and looked that up. Lots of theories. Pollution, healing, and bodily fluid as sexual fluid were a few.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
History Lesson: A Race Odyssey (other topics)Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History (other topics)
Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (other topics)
Herodotean Inquiries (other topics)
For the week of September 29th through October 5th, we are reading approximately the next 50 pages of Herodotus - The Histories.
This thread will discuss the following book and sections:
(Book II - Sections 1-106)
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, Book II, section 1 starts on page 95 and goes through section 106 which concludes on page 135.
This thread should only deal with these sections and with Book Two (although previous parts of Herodotus already discussed can be referenced). No spoilers, please.
Discussion on these sections will begin on September 29th.
Welcome,
Bentley
TO SEE ALL PREVIOUS WEEK'S THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL