History of Herodotus
February 16th 2007 23:35
Herodotus is frequently referred to as father of history but he is a very contentious figure both in ancient and modern times. People have always complained about his willingness to believe in fairy tales and his credulity and hold that other historians like Thucydides and Xenophon are better in comparison. Others though have regarded him as a model to emulate and his work, if it does not contain a great deal of truth in it, has at least a great deal of charm.
I am not a scholar in Greek literature or in history and am just a plain average reader with great deal of interest in reading. When I started reading Herodotus, I read him not as a historian or a polemcist but as a regular reader of books with a critical sense of his own. So, what is my verdict? I think his history is fabulous and thoroughly charming. I am something of a fan of fantasy genre( I don't like science fiction), and reading him gave me the same sense of wandering in unknown and mysterious lands that best of fantasy works produce in a reader.
I am not an academic historian concerned with nitty-gritty and hairsplitting to establish a recondite point of "truth" but what do I think is its worth as a history? I think a great deal. He has produced a new genre of writing, which in itself, is too valuable, for he has invented a new means of preserving memory of things past or passing. As for all the fantasy tales Herodotus included in his book, I think at the time he was writing, these fictions were current and an accepted means of perceiving and preserving facts, though a critical sense was developing, evident in Herodotus himself. He does not invent these fictions but reports them and they are all told to him by the people he met in his journey.
Since, the Greeks were famous for their free-thinking, his tales have aroused a great deal of scepticism among later scholars who then went on to produce a new criterion for good history, that is, it should describe facts as accurately as possible.(See my entry on Lucian's Instructions for writing History). But, I think such a spirit developed in the first because they had read him and developed a critical sense of differentiating what is real and what was merely fabulous. Plato might have ranted against Homer but his free-thinking would have been impossible without Homer. Similarly, I think the later historians, no matter how much they disbelieved him, are nevertheless indebted to him.
The History of Herodotus is divided into nine books, each bearing a name of one of the Nine muses. The concern of Herodotus is to tell the story of Greeco-Persian wars, at least the truth as percieved by the parties then extant. In his inimitable opening words, he says that he is writing this history because, "neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous,which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, maylose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another."
Two things are noticeable in these noble opening lines. Firstly, he wanted to preserve the memory of what happened. He didn't write and epic or a novel or a drama based on some dramatic events, and there were many, of the Persian wars. He wanted to preserve the memory of it, to which end he not only travelled widely but also delved into histories of all the participants and established the method for writing histories. Also, as far as I know, he has not done this monumental work in service of some king but in commitment to his ideals.
Second, the equal weight he gives to both the Greeks and the Barbarians, including the latter in his testimony. This is remarkable. Consider the earlier histories of Assyrian tablets or the proto-history of Jews contained in the Bible. Both omit the Other. An Assyrian king would definitely not have involved the deeds of the people he conquered in his victory proclamations and neither would the Jewish priests include testimony of other people in their books.
I will blog about the entire nine books in the next few days, as an interested amateur, interested in its story and also in its myths, if at all, more interested in the latter.
I am not a scholar in Greek literature or in history and am just a plain average reader with great deal of interest in reading. When I started reading Herodotus, I read him not as a historian or a polemcist but as a regular reader of books with a critical sense of his own. So, what is my verdict? I think his history is fabulous and thoroughly charming. I am something of a fan of fantasy genre( I don't like science fiction), and reading him gave me the same sense of wandering in unknown and mysterious lands that best of fantasy works produce in a reader.
I am not an academic historian concerned with nitty-gritty and hairsplitting to establish a recondite point of "truth" but what do I think is its worth as a history? I think a great deal. He has produced a new genre of writing, which in itself, is too valuable, for he has invented a new means of preserving memory of things past or passing. As for all the fantasy tales Herodotus included in his book, I think at the time he was writing, these fictions were current and an accepted means of perceiving and preserving facts, though a critical sense was developing, evident in Herodotus himself. He does not invent these fictions but reports them and they are all told to him by the people he met in his journey.
Since, the Greeks were famous for their free-thinking, his tales have aroused a great deal of scepticism among later scholars who then went on to produce a new criterion for good history, that is, it should describe facts as accurately as possible.(See my entry on Lucian's Instructions for writing History). But, I think such a spirit developed in the first because they had read him and developed a critical sense of differentiating what is real and what was merely fabulous. Plato might have ranted against Homer but his free-thinking would have been impossible without Homer. Similarly, I think the later historians, no matter how much they disbelieved him, are nevertheless indebted to him.
The History of Herodotus is divided into nine books, each bearing a name of one of the Nine muses. The concern of Herodotus is to tell the story of Greeco-Persian wars, at least the truth as percieved by the parties then extant. In his inimitable opening words, he says that he is writing this history because, "neither the deeds of men may be forgotten by lapse of time, nor the works great and marvellous,which have been produced some by Hellenes and some by Barbarians, maylose their renown; and especially that the causes may be remembered for which these waged war with one another."
Two things are noticeable in these noble opening lines. Firstly, he wanted to preserve the memory of what happened. He didn't write and epic or a novel or a drama based on some dramatic events, and there were many, of the Persian wars. He wanted to preserve the memory of it, to which end he not only travelled widely but also delved into histories of all the participants and established the method for writing histories. Also, as far as I know, he has not done this monumental work in service of some king but in commitment to his ideals.
Second, the equal weight he gives to both the Greeks and the Barbarians, including the latter in his testimony. This is remarkable. Consider the earlier histories of Assyrian tablets or the proto-history of Jews contained in the Bible. Both omit the Other. An Assyrian king would definitely not have involved the deeds of the people he conquered in his victory proclamations and neither would the Jewish priests include testimony of other people in their books.
I will blog about the entire nine books in the next few days, as an interested amateur, interested in its story and also in its myths, if at all, more interested in the latter.
| 63 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Adele
Lost Fanatic
Day Break TV
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
This is a very interesting article you have produced.
Although I found it rather hard going, not being familiar with him or his works, I could see your points of view and captured your great interest.
Well done,
katyzzz
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
I am sure you'll find Herodotus more rewarding than most modern novels or books. It's not just history, it's also greatly entertaining.
nagster
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
For your kind comments. I am sorry you found the article hard going. Will work on it.
nagster