Among his many works, Plutarch wrote an essay "On the Malignity (Malice) of Herodotus," a work in which he criticizes the father of history as a slanderer and a blasphemer, a man who dwells on the negative and omits the noble and the good. He admits that Herodotus is a great artist, but (he says) that only makes things worse.
Please read as much as you can of Books 8 and 9 of Herodotus' history. Be sure to read Book 9, Sections 90-122 (pp. 590-603 in the new Penguin edition). Cite one story from this section *and* one story *from some other part* of Herodotus' Histories that either supports Plutarch's criticisms or shows that Herodotus includes more than just negatives.
Within the section you wanted us to read I thought that story of Xerxes passion for his brother's wife, tells a story of the negative. section 108 of book 9, Xerxes gets a robe from his own wife and wears it around. He gets to meeting up with Artaynte who xerxes tells he will give her anything she demanded. Artaynte demands his robe made from his wife. Xerxes reluctantly does so and this gives his own wife, Amestris thought that it was the doing of Masistes wife and plots destruction against her. Xerxes tries to make up from the ill doing of his wife towards his brother's wife by offering his own daughter and riches but Masistes refuses. Eventually he finds his wife mutilated from the guards. Masistes tries to flee or Bactria to try to stir a revolt in the province which would result in harming the king, his brother, Xerxes. Instead Xerxes sends a party to find his brother and kills him and his sons before reaching Bactria.
ReplyDeleteAnother story in book 8 tells of the positive rather than the negative of Herodotus' writing. In section 37, Herodotus shares the story of the Persians getting to Athens and storming the Acropolis. Delphians at the temple of Athene say that right when the Persians were coming onto the temples of deplhi there were lightning bolts that struck down men and large rocks that also crumbled Persian forces. It shook the Persians courage so they retreated and on their account later they say while they were retreating their were two gigantic hoplites that were taller than human, struck down Persians left and right. The rocks that were toppled over also were still there in Herodotus' time so he believes some aspects of this tale fully.
I think that, while Herodotus certainly has some less than accurate and less than historic, sometimes seemingly irrelevant stories, that he does a fair job of representing both the good and bad. While he does focus on a lot of the bickering of Greek generals and leaders, he does so in the context of battle - it's dramatic but it is crucial. I also suspect he is as lot more forgiving than he is historical, given his being a proud Greek. Looking up other sources shows that he actually leaves out a lot of dire events that fell on the Greeks - either because he didn't know, which is plausible, or because he didn't want the Greeks portrayed in that light, which is at least as plausible.
ReplyDeleteLikewise in Book 8 a lot of his remarks about the military paths taken by the Persians and Greeks are often unfounded, untrue, or otherwise showing he was not particularly comfortable discussing the reasoning/consequences of the maneuvers. Though he recounts much of it in favor of the Greeks, specifically the Athenians, he is rather condescending towards non-Athenian Greeks, especially the Spartans. He misunderstands Persia's reasoning to go around the island of Euboea, not to attack the rear of the Greek navy but to conquer Thermopylae and other strategic points - they assume their massive navy will conquer the Greeks' and they won't need to reinforce them (which turns out to be very false, given the massive size of Xerxes' army and navy leads it to be too cumbersome and prone to small and quick attacks, which the Greeks exploited heavily.)
So while he can be gloomy and dramatic, and that much of his stories are very much so or are even false, most of it can be chalked up to "this is what I got from my sources" as well as "I'm a proud Athenian, so non-Athenian Greeks, Macedonians, Persians, etc., can be talked ill of, even if it's maybe not true."
So I don't agree with Plutarch on this, however his points are at least compelling and it's easy to see where his view's coming from.
In section 107 of book 9, Herodotus is talking about the Persian army that has “…taken refuge in the hills of Mycale…” (p. 597). Darius’ son Masistes began calling out the general, Artayntes, for his bad leadership ability. In fact, Masistes tells the general that “…his leadership is worse than a woman’s…” Herodotus points out that this is one of the worst things that can be said to a Persian man—that a women could lead better. So, Artayntes has heard enough of the Masistes’ blabbering and begins to pull his sword to kill Masistes, but Xenagoras steps in and grabs Artayntes, sparing Masites’ life. To this, Xenagoras is honor by Xerxes with the “gift” of “governorship of the whole province of Cilicia” (p. 598). I thought this was a good “positive” that Herodotus mentions. Clearly not all the history he tells is negative. Take that Plutarch!
ReplyDeleteAnother section that I found to be full of history that would seem to put down Plutarch’s scathing criticism of Herodotus’ ability to produce accurate information is found in section 73 of book 8. In this section, Herodotus outlines the “seven distinct peoples” of the Peloponnese. I just though it was good information that wasn’t totally muddied by story and ideology. Just good facts.
-Jonathon Fargher
i have to agree with Mitch, some of Herodotus's stories about Persia are less history and more of fiction. those who weren't truly Athenian Greeks were ridiculed or frowned upon by Herodotus and that is his "Achilles heel". he often spun folk tales about how life in Persia was so bad, their leaders were wither mad, corrupt, bloodthirsty, or straight-up incompetent. These tall tales and others about Persian oppression and tyranny combined with how other Greeks, like the Spartans, were too rigid and their governments were often labeled as counterproductive by his standards often made him more of a mad fool than a true historian.
ReplyDeleteHowever, The Roman Historian Plutarch forgets that Herodotus is more accurate with the events just prior or within his own time. the Hellespont and the battles of marathon and Thermopylae are key examples because Herodotus interviewed survivors who coexisted with him and he may have even looked at the battle sites personally to see for himself what the aftermath was. He also looked at primary sources for some of his earlier works. The preserved written records, temples and monuments in Ancient Egypt and the treasured relics of some of the Greek temples, like the one at Delphi. while these arent 100% accurate, they Egyptian records are more accurate in some aspects, like the battle of Kadesh in 1250 BCE or the different Dynasties and the major collapses of Egyptian civilization between the Old Kingdom and Herodotus's own lifetime.
Herodotus is writing the pretenses of our modern form of recording history through a bunch of stories that lead up to his present day. Like most of history that is recoded throughout the past it is mostly dark or negative. In book nine (p.593-96) Herodotus is telling the reader how the Greeks are invading the Asiatic coast to fight the Persians. He explains the process it took for the Athenians to bring the ships ashore, make a beachhead base camp, and show the Athenians effectively pushing back the Persians. When it comes to wars like this, there is always a double edge sword because, the victors write history. Another Example of Herodotus showing a double edge sword is in Book eight (p. 504) when a small group of Greek ships proved the Persians that they were effective and captured Persian ships who had Persian Royalty on board such as a brother of Gorgus king of Salamis. I think it really comes to the reader of Herodotus’s stories. Some might be for the Persian side while others might be for the Greeks. It’s like reading about World War One and choosing a side. Except for Italy they can’t choose who to fight for.
ReplyDeleteMitchell Buller
While reading Herodotus, a story in book 8 stuck out most to me. "The Naval Battle at Artemisium". This was about how the Egyptians of Persia and the Athenians of Greece were battling. The Egyptians brought their ships over to Greece and were planning an attack. A person warrior jumped off the ship before they hit land. He swam underwater for ten miles and told the Athenians what the Egyptians were planning. The Greeks then made the Egyptians go into a circle and bombed them. When the night fell there was a terrible storm, that wiped out many ships. There was then another stalemate battle the next day. The Egyptians were the MVPs of Persian and the Persians were the MVPs of Greece.
ReplyDeleteThis story reminded me of something I had read later on in the book. "The Naval Battle at Salamis". This battle, in short was filled with lots of miss communication and cowardly acts. Many of the events happening in this battle can be avoided by just communicating with each other. Honestly, I can't give many details because to me this story was kind of all over the place. Hard to follow and hard to understand. However, it does correlate with my first story because I think that the man who swam ten miles to tell the Greeks what the enemy plan was, was an act of coward-ism and could have been avoided. If that makes any sense.
Out of the section you wanted us to read, I want to present the story of Euenius. Euenius was on guard duty for the sacred sheep of the sun when he fell asleep on the job. During his time asleep, wolves got into the cave in which the sheep were being held and killed six of the sheep. The townspeople were furious and as punishment, they had his "eyes put out." After he was punished, nothing produced. The townspeople asked the oracle why this was happening and received the response that it was because they wrongly punished Euenius. That said, the townspeople compensated him to right their wrong against him. This story is kind of dark, but Herodotus adds it in to explain Deiphonus, the diviner's, roots (or supposed roots). Herodotus could have gone into detail about how Euenius' eyes were put out, but he didn't. He spares up the gross details, only using the story for the purpose of explaining Deiphonus' lineage.
ReplyDeleteAnother example from my personal selection is the story of the Persians at Delphi. In the story, the oracle is asked whether, upon the approach of the Persians, the sacred treasures should be hidden elsewhere or buried. The oracle said not to because it can care for itself. The Persians approached the temple only for lightning to strike down upon the pinnacles of the surrounding rocks. These rocks fell on the Persians, killing many and giving the Delphians the opportunity to slaughter those who were running away. Again, Herodotus could have given the gruesome details of what all happened when the rocks fell on the Persians and how the Delphians resorted to killing the remaining Persians, but he didn't. He, once again, spared us the gruesome details yet still got his point across. He needed to tell the reader where the army went next, but in the process he not only made the reading interesting but also not distastefully with less than acceptable details.
Even though some of his stories are depressing, he still manages to leave out unnecessary details of slaughter and war. Which makes the stories a little less depressing than they easily could have been.