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.
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
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.