Take a photo of a barcode or cover
notwellread 's review for:
The Histories
by Herodotus
I give this five stars, but not because I think it flawless – Herodotus is obviously not 100% accurate (he gives credence in places where he shouldn’t and expresses doubt where he might better have doubled down), has a few faults of style (the change between historical fact and folklore can be jarring at times, and some of the ‘fun’ parts are more strange than entertaining), and the Histories as a whole is a rather strange to a modern historian or casual reader.
I do, however, recognise that Herodotus is invaluable. I have studied Herodotus so much in the past, and continue to do so – most days, it feels like. At this point, I can’t imagine life without him.
For this reason, it’s difficult to review this – it’s such a huge text, and I know from the experience of writing endless essays, reading endless scholarship, lectures, a few presentations, plus a thesis, exactly how much there is to it, and there is probably still much more that I do not know. It is a long text, and hardly consistent in style or subject matter – it forms a weird combination of folklore, ethnography, geography, transcriptions word-of-mouth stories (often conflicting and contradictory), with some ‘proper’ history (at least, what we would recognise under this label), thrown in. And I have read the whole thing cover to cover, many parts of it several times, and much of it in the original Greek.
Although it therefore doesn’t form what we would now recognise as a strict ‘history’, it is essential in other ways – to see, for one, that our own idea of history is hardly the only way to go about it, and just as importantly to see where its other influences lie (particularly the famous stories, the methods of inquiry and ‘assessments’ that Herodotus loves to make, and the east vs. west narrative that, for better or worse, we’ve stuck with ever since). This sort of examination makes the subject matter seem almost irrelevant, but we should not forget that either – Herodotus gives us insight into early Greek history, both in eastern influences and in his various tangents about the founding of various cities and the general formation of Greek culture.
More recognised, on the other hand, is the Greco-Persian War narrative, always the same story we know and yet never tiresome. He observes, but doesn’t dismiss, making his own judgement when he needs to. He hates tyrants, but tolerates cultural differences; he condemns arrogance, but is amused by cunning. There’s room for the supernatural and the divine, but he holds himself back from too clear an endorsement where the unseen world can’t be historically examined. Balance is key, in every case – we might learn from this when we are too hung up on the exact word-for-word recounting of an event. This might be useful in a time when we always seem to be questioning our ‘relationship’ with the truth, and whether other people are too far parted from it: the Histories are true, in the sense of being ‘true’ to their own world and the story they have to tell – just perhaps not always in a way that we immediately understand.
I do, however, recognise that Herodotus is invaluable. I have studied Herodotus so much in the past, and continue to do so – most days, it feels like. At this point, I can’t imagine life without him.
For this reason, it’s difficult to review this – it’s such a huge text, and I know from the experience of writing endless essays, reading endless scholarship, lectures, a few presentations, plus a thesis, exactly how much there is to it, and there is probably still much more that I do not know. It is a long text, and hardly consistent in style or subject matter – it forms a weird combination of folklore, ethnography, geography, transcriptions word-of-mouth stories (often conflicting and contradictory), with some ‘proper’ history (at least, what we would recognise under this label), thrown in. And I have read the whole thing cover to cover, many parts of it several times, and much of it in the original Greek.
Although it therefore doesn’t form what we would now recognise as a strict ‘history’, it is essential in other ways – to see, for one, that our own idea of history is hardly the only way to go about it, and just as importantly to see where its other influences lie (particularly the famous stories, the methods of inquiry and ‘assessments’ that Herodotus loves to make, and the east vs. west narrative that, for better or worse, we’ve stuck with ever since). This sort of examination makes the subject matter seem almost irrelevant, but we should not forget that either – Herodotus gives us insight into early Greek history, both in eastern influences and in his various tangents about the founding of various cities and the general formation of Greek culture.
More recognised, on the other hand, is the Greco-Persian War narrative, always the same story we know and yet never tiresome. He observes, but doesn’t dismiss, making his own judgement when he needs to. He hates tyrants, but tolerates cultural differences; he condemns arrogance, but is amused by cunning. There’s room for the supernatural and the divine, but he holds himself back from too clear an endorsement where the unseen world can’t be historically examined. Balance is key, in every case – we might learn from this when we are too hung up on the exact word-for-word recounting of an event. This might be useful in a time when we always seem to be questioning our ‘relationship’ with the truth, and whether other people are too far parted from it: the Histories are true, in the sense of being ‘true’ to their own world and the story they have to tell – just perhaps not always in a way that we immediately understand.