The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Histories
ANCIENT HISTORY
>
ARCHIVE - 4. HERODOTUS - THE HISTORIES~BOOK II/SECTIONS 107-182 (10/06/08 - 10/12/08) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
Sorry I have not marked down each section but I have some general impressions.
l. I'm always surprised when H expresses some kind of conventional morality. When he says that the Pharaoh did a terrible thing by prostituting his daughter, I was surprised. I had thought that the Greeks were open to prostitution.
2. There are some parallels with the story of Joseph and his brothers. In one story someone is falsely accused of stealing a ritual chalice, in the same way that Benjamin was falsely accused.
Then there's the story of the l2 kings. They shared Egypt peacefully until an oracle predicted that one would rule the others. Eventually ll are exiled and the one king rules all of Egypt. Sounds so similar to the Joseph story. The interpretation of dreams is a thread that runs throughout as well. It leaves me wondering how these stories interacted. Did the Israelites take these tales and spin them? Put a moral to them? Or did the Egyptians somehow get them from the Israelites or the other surrounding people? At one point H says that, if my memory is correct, the kings go to Syria. Syria was Israel then.
3. There is a big movement denying the bible. They say that it was all made up at a late date. But reading H I see so many parallels in the stories that it lends support for the historicity of the bible, which is something I never doubted. It always seemed so silly to me to believe what the Greeks have written but not what the Israelites have written. Not that either is l00% literally true, but as a general outline I don't see why either should be doubted.
l. I'm always surprised when H expresses some kind of conventional morality. When he says that the Pharaoh did a terrible thing by prostituting his daughter, I was surprised. I had thought that the Greeks were open to prostitution.
2. There are some parallels with the story of Joseph and his brothers. In one story someone is falsely accused of stealing a ritual chalice, in the same way that Benjamin was falsely accused.
Then there's the story of the l2 kings. They shared Egypt peacefully until an oracle predicted that one would rule the others. Eventually ll are exiled and the one king rules all of Egypt. Sounds so similar to the Joseph story. The interpretation of dreams is a thread that runs throughout as well. It leaves me wondering how these stories interacted. Did the Israelites take these tales and spin them? Put a moral to them? Or did the Egyptians somehow get them from the Israelites or the other surrounding people? At one point H says that, if my memory is correct, the kings go to Syria. Syria was Israel then.
3. There is a big movement denying the bible. They say that it was all made up at a late date. But reading H I see so many parallels in the stories that it lends support for the historicity of the bible, which is something I never doubted. It always seemed so silly to me to believe what the Greeks have written but not what the Israelites have written. Not that either is l00% literally true, but as a general outline I don't see why either should be doubted.
The Landmark H makes a distinction between geometry and surveying, saying that Egypt developed surveying and measurement of land but not geometry. I'm not that sure what that means. How did they make pyramids and obelisks if they didn't have geometry? Are they saying that geometry is pure abstraction? But I thought Euclid devised it from observation. Next quarter we'll be studying Euclid, now I'll have a purpose!
And he married the one woman he found who had lain only with her husband. Sounds like a promiscuous society, no?
And he married the one woman he found who had lain only with her husband. Sounds like a promiscuous society, no?
Wow, a chill went down my back. I hadn't realized that the people of Sodom were struck with blindness. That theme of "seeing" physically and in the sense of understanding runs through so much.
I think what you say about mathematics makes a lot of sense.
H has such an interesting take on the Egyptian gods, doesn't he? He believes the Greek gods are THE gods so he just equates them. I don't know enough about Egyptian gods to know how accurate he is.
The issue of the flying serpents. Landmark dissmisses them as fantasy. This is probably true but by this point I've gained a lot of respect for what H says. I can't dismiss what he says. I know recent research has been bearing out a lot that has been dismissed. I wonder if this might not be one of those things.
The cardinal rule of archaeology is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I find many "experts" break this rule.
I think what you say about mathematics makes a lot of sense.
H has such an interesting take on the Egyptian gods, doesn't he? He believes the Greek gods are THE gods so he just equates them. I don't know enough about Egyptian gods to know how accurate he is.
The issue of the flying serpents. Landmark dissmisses them as fantasy. This is probably true but by this point I've gained a lot of respect for what H says. I can't dismiss what he says. I know recent research has been bearing out a lot that has been dismissed. I wonder if this might not be one of those things.
The cardinal rule of archaeology is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I find many "experts" break this rule.
message 7
I'm getting a little confused about the meaning of "animism". I did a quick search that didn't clarify anything. The holy waters of the Jordan, the Ganges, Lourdes, are they an example of animism? I thought it meant something else but now I'm not so sure.
The Scamander in the Iliad, was that the river talking or was that the spirit that lived in the river? I thought it was the river and that's why it was animistic. Later on in H there's an instance of an ocean being beaten (I don't want to spoil things) and I thought that was animistic. Are holy waters today the same thing? I didn't think so because they aren't anthropomorphised, but maybe that's not the issue.
I'm getting a little confused about the meaning of "animism". I did a quick search that didn't clarify anything. The holy waters of the Jordan, the Ganges, Lourdes, are they an example of animism? I thought it meant something else but now I'm not so sure.
The Scamander in the Iliad, was that the river talking or was that the spirit that lived in the river? I thought it was the river and that's why it was animistic. Later on in H there's an instance of an ocean being beaten (I don't want to spoil things) and I thought that was animistic. Are holy waters today the same thing? I didn't think so because they aren't anthropomorphised, but maybe that's not the issue.
message l0
That's exactly what I thought. Now, what about the holy rivers? It sounds as though, according to your description, they qualify as animate. But somehow I never thought of it that way. The water is considered holy but the river doesn't seem to have a will of it's own. Maybe that's the difference, a consciousness and will of its own?
That's exactly what I thought. Now, what about the holy rivers? It sounds as though, according to your description, they qualify as animate. But somehow I never thought of it that way. The water is considered holy but the river doesn't seem to have a will of it's own. Maybe that's the difference, a consciousness and will of its own?
Helen makes her first appearance in Herodotus' Histories at the beginning of Book 1, where her abduction by Alexandros is recounted as one of a number of abductions of Greek women by Asian men and Asian women by Greek men. This is the way Herodotus begins to explain the causes of the wars between Greece and Asia. He cites his Persian sources as saying that the abduction of women should not be a casus belli, and that the Greeks were the ones who started the wars, by going to war against Troy just because Alexandros the Trojan had abducted Helen the Spartan.The next mention of Helen comes in 2.112, in the midst of an account of the kings of Egypt. When he comes to a king "whose name in Greek is Proteus" (2.112.1)(though a note in the Landmark Herodotus says that "a king of Egypt named Proteus is a fiction based on the ancient Greek poet Homer), Herodotus says that "within the precinct of Proteus is a sanctuary named after Foreign Aphrodite, which I suppose is really a sanctuary of Helen daughter of Tyndareus" (2.112.2). He had heard a story about Helen and Proteus,but he had not heard of another sanctuary of Aphrodite named for a foreigner. He made further inquiries, and was told that when Alexandros had abducted Helen, they had sailed for Troy but were blown off course and came to Egypt. When King Proteus of Egypt learned what had happened, he declared that Alexandros had "committed a most impious act against his own host" (2.114.3), and ordered his arrest. It is significant that the guest/host relationship is also sacrosanct in Egypt (though of course Proteus is a figure from Greek myth). And it is fortunate for Alexandros that Proteus considers himself bound by the obligations of a host. He will not have Alexandros executed, but he will not let him keep Helen either. He will keep her, until her husband comes to reclaim her. Alexandros is given three days to leave Egypt.
This is obviously not the story of Helen of Troy as we know it from Homer. But Herodotus says that "it seems to me that Homer also heard this version of the story" (2.116.1). And he goes on to distinguish Homer's poetry from his own inquiries. He even cites Homer in support of the claim that Homer knew the Egyptian version of the story. And these inquiries also serve to support the claim that Homer can't have written the Cypria.
Having then the Greek and the Egyptian accounts of the adventures of Helen and Alexandros, Herodotus inquires further about their truth or fiction, and the Egyptians tell him that Menelaos was their source. According to Menelaos, when Helen was abducted by Alexandros, the Greeks went in force to Troy to get her back. The Trojans told them that Helen and Alexandros were not there, but in Egypt. The Greeks didn't believe them, and so beseiged the city. When Troy was taken, the Greeks discovered that Helen was not there, and so went to Egypt to get her. There Menelaos found her, safe and sound and under the protection of Proteus.
The Egyptians go on to say that Menelaos "was treated with great hospitality" by Proteus, but that once he had gotten Helen back he "behaved so dreadfully that he proved...that he was a most unjust man" (2.119.2). For when the weather prevented him from leaving Egypt, Menelaos seized and sacrificed two Egyptian children.
Having now inquired into all the versions he has heard of the story of Helen, Herodotus veentures his opinion that the events probably occurred as the Egyptians recounted. He reasons that if Helen had been at Troy when Menelaos came to claim her, the Trojans would certainly have handed her over rather than risk war with a large Greek force. Again, this version would hardly serve Homer's purposes, but then epic poetry and historical inquiry are from Herodotus on, distinct endeavors. Still, Herodotus' overall world view is not entirely distinct from the Homeric one. He concludes his discussion of the events surrounding the Trojan war by writing that "this all took place -- and here I am declaring my own opinion -- because a divine force arranged matters so that the Trojans, by their total ruin and destruction, would clearly demonstrate to all humans the fundamental truth that when great injustices are committed, retribution from the gods is also great. That, at least, is what I think" (2.120.5). Here the Landmark notes that "this chapter shows Herodotus' ability to take a critical stance toward traditional material," and that "it is also a clear statement of his religious posture." There is as much piety as inquiry about it.
message l8
Good point Oldesq. I'm old enough to remember a time when all
American men were expected to serve in the military. As the mother of a son I can't say that I'm not happy that there is no more draft, but ideally, for the country, I think it made some sense. During WW II Roosevelt's sons were in the war. That meant something. Ever since Viet Nam it seems that the soldiers are in a different "class" and I think that changes the way the country works. Was it Kerry who said something about soldiers being "dummies"? Fighting to protect your country should be an honorable thing to do.
On re-reading that section (2.141) what struck me was the power that dream interpretation had. It's made me think of Freud! Isn't that funny? These ancient and primitive people were seen as superstious to put such faith in dreams. Then along comes a l9th century neurologist who gives the interpretation of dreams a supposed legitimacy and importance. I think all of that is out of vogue again but who knows, maybe some new scientist will come up with another theory of interpretation.
Good point Oldesq. I'm old enough to remember a time when all
American men were expected to serve in the military. As the mother of a son I can't say that I'm not happy that there is no more draft, but ideally, for the country, I think it made some sense. During WW II Roosevelt's sons were in the war. That meant something. Ever since Viet Nam it seems that the soldiers are in a different "class" and I think that changes the way the country works. Was it Kerry who said something about soldiers being "dummies"? Fighting to protect your country should be an honorable thing to do.
On re-reading that section (2.141) what struck me was the power that dream interpretation had. It's made me think of Freud! Isn't that funny? These ancient and primitive people were seen as superstious to put such faith in dreams. Then along comes a l9th century neurologist who gives the interpretation of dreams a supposed legitimacy and importance. I think all of that is out of vogue again but who knows, maybe some new scientist will come up with another theory of interpretation.
message 20
Interesting parallel with Clytemnestra! No I hadn't thought of that. I couldn't understand that entire episode. Why did he kill those two Egyptian children? It seemed to be out of nowhere. Your idea makes some sense out of it, it would have been more obvious to H audience.
I think the dream as oracle makes sense too. I usually think of things in a Freudian way, but then he got most of his ideas from the Greeks! I have very vivid dreams and I often try to understand what they are "telling" me. Sometimes I gain an insight from a dream. I don' t think of them as oracles, though. There was one dream... uh, oh...woo-woo-woo-woo!!!
In a way, I can see how if a dream leads to a solution to a problem, or a special insight, it can be seen as in some sense an "oracle". If I'm worried about the bailout and dream that I take all of my money out of the bank and put it under the mattress and wake up with a "Eureka!" get the money out of the bank! that doesn't seem too different than Joseph saying save the grain from the 7 good years because you'll soon have 7 year of famine. If I go to a shrink and figure out my dream, it feels similar to the Pharaoh going to Joseph to interpret his dream. But yes, there is that feeling of the oracle to it. And then, if it doesn't work out, you can blame the dream, the interpreter, or the shrink, or if all else fails, your mother! LOL!
Interesting parallel with Clytemnestra! No I hadn't thought of that. I couldn't understand that entire episode. Why did he kill those two Egyptian children? It seemed to be out of nowhere. Your idea makes some sense out of it, it would have been more obvious to H audience.
I think the dream as oracle makes sense too. I usually think of things in a Freudian way, but then he got most of his ideas from the Greeks! I have very vivid dreams and I often try to understand what they are "telling" me. Sometimes I gain an insight from a dream. I don' t think of them as oracles, though. There was one dream... uh, oh...woo-woo-woo-woo!!!
In a way, I can see how if a dream leads to a solution to a problem, or a special insight, it can be seen as in some sense an "oracle". If I'm worried about the bailout and dream that I take all of my money out of the bank and put it under the mattress and wake up with a "Eureka!" get the money out of the bank! that doesn't seem too different than Joseph saying save the grain from the 7 good years because you'll soon have 7 year of famine. If I go to a shrink and figure out my dream, it feels similar to the Pharaoh going to Joseph to interpret his dream. But yes, there is that feeling of the oracle to it. And then, if it doesn't work out, you can blame the dream, the interpreter, or the shrink, or if all else fails, your mother! LOL!
message 21
The whole story makes no sense and H knows it. I can't understand why he equates Dionysis with Osiris. Dionysis didn't have anything to do with Hades did he? I'm not that knowledgible about all of these myths. Might it be that he interprets Osiris as Dionysis because there are "mysteries" involved?
It made no sense to me that the severed arm would be of any use. Could a woman have held onto him if it were his real arm? Then how did the king get him back? Wouldn't he have run away? H knows the story is crazy.
I'm really kind of curious how and why he thinks the Egyptian gods are the same as the Greek. I know he truly believes that the Greek gods are THE gods but I can't follow the correspondance, I guess I need to know more about the Egyptians.
The whole story makes no sense and H knows it. I can't understand why he equates Dionysis with Osiris. Dionysis didn't have anything to do with Hades did he? I'm not that knowledgible about all of these myths. Might it be that he interprets Osiris as Dionysis because there are "mysteries" involved?
It made no sense to me that the severed arm would be of any use. Could a woman have held onto him if it were his real arm? Then how did the king get him back? Wouldn't he have run away? H knows the story is crazy.
I'm really kind of curious how and why he thinks the Egyptian gods are the same as the Greek. I know he truly believes that the Greek gods are THE gods but I can't follow the correspondance, I guess I need to know more about the Egyptians.
message 21
Duh! I have to learn to stop wondering and just Google!
Wiki has a nice article about Osiris. Death and fertility.
Mysteries. I can see the association with Dionysis.
I wonder if the gods really did come from Egypt? H probably knew this. I'm going to have to just take H word for "who" these gods were!
Duh! I have to learn to stop wondering and just Google!
Wiki has a nice article about Osiris. Death and fertility.
Mysteries. I can see the association with Dionysis.
I wonder if the gods really did come from Egypt? H probably knew this. I'm going to have to just take H word for "who" these gods were!
Another thing...
As the mother of 3 (one son) and the wife of one man, I find it very hard to get them to do ANYTHING I want them to! How do these women, who were supposed to be so powerless, get these men to do whatever they want? The Egyptian mother "badgered" her son into getting his brother's corpse. At the risk of his own life. How did she do that? Kandaules wife, exerts tremendous power. Then there are the Queens who change the course of rivers, trick future generations, etc. It seems to me that the women are more powerful, more effective and shrewder than the men.
As the mother of 3 (one son) and the wife of one man, I find it very hard to get them to do ANYTHING I want them to! How do these women, who were supposed to be so powerless, get these men to do whatever they want? The Egyptian mother "badgered" her son into getting his brother's corpse. At the risk of his own life. How did she do that? Kandaules wife, exerts tremendous power. Then there are the Queens who change the course of rivers, trick future generations, etc. It seems to me that the women are more powerful, more effective and shrewder than the men.
message 26
Let me know what you think after you take another look. To me it seemed that her son did NOT want to do it but she got him to anyway. It sounded a lot like the story of Antigone except in Antigone she acted on her own conscience, another strong woman. For Antigone to stand up to the king and fight for what she thought was right, at the cost of her life, well, that's a strong woman. I wonder what the men reading these stories thought. I don't think Greek women were allowed to go to the theatre so Antigone was written for a male audience. Not sure if the readings of H were done for a mixed audience.
I may be particularly sensitive to this today as we just had a new couch delivered. My husband fought for this couch... I'm not thrilled with it!
Let me know what you think after you take another look. To me it seemed that her son did NOT want to do it but she got him to anyway. It sounded a lot like the story of Antigone except in Antigone she acted on her own conscience, another strong woman. For Antigone to stand up to the king and fight for what she thought was right, at the cost of her life, well, that's a strong woman. I wonder what the men reading these stories thought. I don't think Greek women were allowed to go to the theatre so Antigone was written for a male audience. Not sure if the readings of H were done for a mixed audience.
I may be particularly sensitive to this today as we just had a new couch delivered. My husband fought for this couch... I'm not thrilled with it!
Just finished this section of the book.Vanessa, I find the similarities you draw between the biblical stories and H. very interesting. I've never really understood those people who try to prove the stories in the bible false. They are missing the point entirely. Besides, the stories were written down by men (usually after many years of being passed down verbally) and men are by definition falible. I see the stories in the Old Testament as a growth of morality and even the human soul. We have been grappling with the same moral issues since the beginning and the fact that similar stories pop up in other cultures from other countries is faciniating. In a day before email, I think they were a way for people to relate, share ideas,and solve problems.
What really struck me about some of the stories in this section is that H. tells some pretty bizzare stories and does not mention whether he believes them or not.. leaving you to believe that he does because he likes to tell you when he doesn't believe something.
The story of the sacrafice of the two children is one example (2.107). I don't have children myself but the idea that parents would ever sacrifice their own children to save themselves is bizarre (even if you are a king and presumably more necessary for the country's wellbeing). It reminded me of the story of the sacrafice of Issac which is still hard for many to relate too.. and there Abraham was sacrificing his son because G-d told him to against his own will. I'm not really sure what moral this story is trying to tell me.
Of course, the story of the man using the severed arm as a form of trickery is extremely ridiculous on many levels. I really don't understand this one. Why would a king prostitute his daughter in this fashion .. the plan never has much credibility.. then for the guy to actually confess to the crime when he knows its a trick but escape because of "the arm trick".. then the king respects him for it and gives him (presumably the same daughter) after her debasement as a prize .. wow I am missing something here.
I've never read Homer but its on my list .. one thing I'm dying to know. What is the fate of Helen? H. never says. I'm assuming that when her husband got her back he wasn't very pleased with her .. what became of her?
It's incredibly interesting how H. always wants to find an equivalent Greek god for every Egyptian god. Although he seems to believe that all gods originated with the Egyptians, it seems that if he can't find an equivalent that the god somehow isn't real because it wasn't accepted by the Greeks? What do you think?
Oldesq, you mentioned the person taking a mortgage on a father's corpse. I read City of Joy by Dominique LaPierre some time ago which describes life in a particular slum in Calcutta. The book was written in the mid 80s. This is something that was done and described in detail in Calcutta at that time. The idea was that if the body isn't properly buried, the spirit won't rest or proceed to the afterworld as it should. A person who would take a mortgage on their father's spirit is heavily incentivized to pay it off. Of course, the idea of this is repulsive. However, what is more disturbing to me is that this may not exist in our culture because it wouldn't work. Alot of people in our culture seem to abandon and forget their parents while they are still living. No one would give them a mortgage on their parent's spirit because it would be a bad investment.
Sorry to be so long-winded. Guess I had a lot of thoughts on this part.
Sarah
What a wonderful and thoughtful post, Sarah, thank you. I'll try to respond as well as I can.
I agree with you about the bible as history. It always makes me chuckle when people claim there is absolutely NO evidence for say...the Exodus. Well, there's this book! I'm not saying that everything is literally true as written but I believe that when a Hittite or Egyptian book appears, it will be given more credence.
As for child sacrifice, it was a common practice. I think there are many interpretations of the Abraham story but one might be that G-d does not want us to sacrifice our children. The Canaanites were big on child sacrifice.
I just read the Iliad and the Odyssey for the first time last year, at least the first time for the whole thing. In the Odyssey Helen is back with Menelaus living a calm and contented life.
I think that H truly believes in the Greek gods. So, wherever he goes, he expects to find them. They're real to him. And there were equivalents throughout the area. My prof keeps pointing them out. If there is some strange deity that a people worships, it kind of makes sense that H wouldn't accept it. Just as we don't accept Zeus today. They become "myths" when you don't believe in them.
I think it's interesting how you brought up Calcutta. I think we take a lot for granted in our lives. Living can be such a fight for survival, day to day, but we've lost touch with that kind of world, thank goodness! Many of the stories in the Iliad and the Odyssey remind me of stories I've heard about the Holocaust. People living in constant fear of being killed. A really immoral, dog eat dog world with no rules.
Although I'm not a religious person after losing my parents 2 years ago I discovered the really profound need to protect their bodies. It was a surprise to me. The religious rituals that grow up around these drives were a great comfort to me. When I later read about these things, I understand them in a way I would not have been able to before. There's a strong need to protect, honor, and respect the body. It's hard for me to even think about this so I'll stop, but I know it's real.
I agree with you about the bible as history. It always makes me chuckle when people claim there is absolutely NO evidence for say...the Exodus. Well, there's this book! I'm not saying that everything is literally true as written but I believe that when a Hittite or Egyptian book appears, it will be given more credence.
As for child sacrifice, it was a common practice. I think there are many interpretations of the Abraham story but one might be that G-d does not want us to sacrifice our children. The Canaanites were big on child sacrifice.
I just read the Iliad and the Odyssey for the first time last year, at least the first time for the whole thing. In the Odyssey Helen is back with Menelaus living a calm and contented life.
I think that H truly believes in the Greek gods. So, wherever he goes, he expects to find them. They're real to him. And there were equivalents throughout the area. My prof keeps pointing them out. If there is some strange deity that a people worships, it kind of makes sense that H wouldn't accept it. Just as we don't accept Zeus today. They become "myths" when you don't believe in them.
I think it's interesting how you brought up Calcutta. I think we take a lot for granted in our lives. Living can be such a fight for survival, day to day, but we've lost touch with that kind of world, thank goodness! Many of the stories in the Iliad and the Odyssey remind me of stories I've heard about the Holocaust. People living in constant fear of being killed. A really immoral, dog eat dog world with no rules.
Although I'm not a religious person after losing my parents 2 years ago I discovered the really profound need to protect their bodies. It was a surprise to me. The religious rituals that grow up around these drives were a great comfort to me. When I later read about these things, I understand them in a way I would not have been able to before. There's a strong need to protect, honor, and respect the body. It's hard for me to even think about this so I'll stop, but I know it's real.
Mod
Having lost my mother and going through the same feelings that were described above; I understand only too well and I was comforted by the rituals as well. I think the body is what we think we have left of them; and it is difficult to remember or even believe that their spirit lives on (the same spirit they found when they came into this world)
I wonder how much I believe the Odyssey stating that Helen was back calm, cool and collected (maybe that is what the publicity stated). I think H believed in the gods as well with all of their myths; just as we believe some pretty strange things if we analyzed them in terms of our faiths too. I cannot see that much has changed.
Bentley
For the week of October 6th through October 12th, we are reading approximately the next 50 pages of Herodotus - The Histories.
This thread will discuss the following book and sections:
(Book II - Sections 107-182)
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 107 starts on page 135 and goes through section 182 which concludes on page 169.
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 October 6th.
Welcome,
Bentley
TO SEE ALL PREVIOUS WEEK'S THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL