Please read as much of you can of Books I and II of Herodotus' Persian War. Concentrate especially on Sections 1-14 of Book I and Sections 10-27, 123-131, 160, and 174 of Book II.Suppose that, instead of looking for a poet, Zeus and Dionysus were trying to find a great historian to bring back with them to Olympus. Cite a story or two from Herodotus showing why he might be a good candidate for the spot, and explain how this material shows Herodotus' strengths as a historian. If you're not impressed with Herodotus, cite a passage that shows why he ought to be left in Hades.
Sections 123-131 of Book II highlight a few different things to appreciate about Herodotus' history. At the beginning of the section, he plainly states his desire to relay the history exactly the way it was told. He won't let his own personal biases come into play and lets those who lived the history tell it. Some of the leaders discussed in this section were downright bad leaders, so it's nice to see that Herodotus didn't sugarcoat anything. Later in the section, Herodotus is discussing how the Egyptians constructed certain pyramids. One of the things I most admire about this information is how Herodotus isn't afraid to admit when he doesn't have information. He doesn't have exact numbers on the total cost of the pyramids, and says so. He merely lists the different aspects of production of the pyramids and lets his reader imagine the cost and organization that would be needed for a project like this. Just simply stating a number might not have been as effective.
ReplyDeleteI found Herodotus' historic accounts to be very insightful. One of the sections that I caught my attention was in Book II section 19. Herodotus is trying to figure out why the Nile acts the way it does by flooding each year. What was interesting about this was he says, "...I could get no information from the priests or anyone else." Here Herodotus is making it apparent that when he needs information, he goes to the priests. This makes sense because, from what I understand, priests were usually charged with keeping historical records. Another portion of Herodotus' accounts that sticks out is found in Book II section 131. Herodotus talks about an alternative account regarding the death of Mycerinus' daughter. In it, though he doesn't believe it Herodotus details how Mycerinus may have defiled his daughter, after which hung herself in shame, and the mother cut the hands of the servants off in punishment for letting the king have access to her. Herodotus, alluding to the 20 or so wooden carved women in a chamber, which represented Mycerinus' concubines, were missing there hands, but Herodotus puts this idea down saying that, "I could see for myself that they had simply dropped off through age." For me, Herodotus continually highlights seeing things for himself; talking with the priests, etc. Herodotus did his research and stays pretty true to the accounts that he finds, while at the same time really trying to make sense of what information he's been given. Great historian effort here!
ReplyDelete-Jonathon Fargher
I particularly like the story he tells in 1-14 in Book I. He makes the history interesting by making it read like a novel and he doesn’t fill in details he doesn’t know for sure. He doesn’t pretend to know which side of the story is right; so, he tells both sides of the story and what he thinks about each side (if he has any opinion I particular) and then he leaves the rest up to the reader. I also like that later, in Book II, when he is talking about the Nile, he incorporates other topics besides just history. He analyzes things outside of straight history and includes topics such as environmental history and soils and gives logical arguments for what he thinks. I am very impressed with Herodotus. He is thorough, he writes in Laymen’s terms, and he is systematic in the way he writes so that his writing is interesting to the reader as well as informative. Zeus would be wise to choose Herodotus.
ReplyDeleteHerodotus is known as the founder of the modern-day style for recording history. Even though the victors write history the he was not biased towards any of the sides of the stories. Since he was the first person to record history in this style it’s not going to be quite as accurate. It’s like buying a product that was just released, there are going to be a few kinks to it before being perfected. In this case for Herodotus, he recorded as best he could at the time because most of history was oral and some of them were legends. An example of Herodotus’s work is when he talks about the farming community and comparing them to different areas around Greece, North Africa, and the Middle East.
ReplyDelete-Mitchell Buller
Herodotus would be a good candidate for a great historian to bring to Olympus because of how he approaches different sides of the same history. For example, in his telling of how Io arrives in Egypt, he gives both the Persian and the Greek versions of the story. He doesn’t take a side in which version of the story is the right version or not, and doesn’t show any blatant favoritism of the Greek version of the story since he is Greek himself. He does a similar thing with his telling of the story of the death of Mycerinus’s daughter. He gives both of the versions of the story that he has heard in his telling of the story. Herodotus does with this tory, however, take a side in which version he believes to be true, but he does also provide evidence as to why he doesn’t believe the other version of the story. I think that Herodotus’s willingness to try to not take a side in what version of a story is true, but also providing evidence to back up his thoughts when he does take a side, shows his strengths as a historian. He doesn’t have to give multiple versions of a story, but he does so to help those versions be remembered.
ReplyDelete-Sam Tucker