Rating: 
Summary: Was He In on the Joke?
Review: "Now it happened that this Candaules was in love with his own wife," says Herodotus, in the great translation by Rawlinson. This is troublesome. Just how am I supposed to react here? In love with his own wife? Is it a surprise that Candaules is in love with his own wife? Is this a joke? Or is something lost (or gained) in translation?But let that pass. If you saw the movie "The English Patient," you may remember the rest of the story. You recall that Gyges the house servant, at the behest of the Candaules himself, hid behind the curtain and saw the queen naked. . The queen (Herodotus does not give her a name) observed the observer, and next day - backed by her armed guard - she confronted him with a stark choice: either you kill the king, or we kill you. Rawlinson says that Gyges "made a choice of life for himself," which is good enough. But Herodotus says that Gyges decided to "perieinai," and perhaps nothing in the whole work better exemplifies the peculiar genius of the author. "Perieinai" translates roughly as "to be there when it is all over." The touch is light, deft and pointed - as someone has said, almost Mozartian in its seeming ease. All this in just about the first prose narrative ever written. "Histories" is too grand a word. In one sense, Herodotus is the guy down at the end of the bar cadging drinks for stories. But no one ever did it better, and no one makes it look easier (which, surely, it is not). The question remains: was Herodotus in on the joke? I like to think that yes, just maybe he was.
Rating:
Summary: Was He In on the Joke?
Review: "Now it happened that this Candaules was in love with his own wife," says Herodotus, in the great translation by Rawlinson. This is troublesome. Just how am I supposed to react here? In love with his own wife? Is it a surprise that Candaules is in love with his own wife? Is this a joke? Or is something lost (or gained) in translation? But let that pass. If you saw the movie "The English Patient," you may remember the rest of the story. You recall that Gyges the house servant, at the behest of the Candaules himself, hid behind the curtain and saw the queen naked. . The queen (Herodotus does not give her a name) observed the observer, and next day - backed by her armed guard - she confronted him with a stark choice: either you kill the king, or we kill you. Rawlinson says that Gyges "made a choice of life for himself," which is good enough. But Herodotus says that Gyges decided to "perieinai," and perhaps nothing in the whole work better exemplifies the peculiar genius of the author. "Perieinai" translates roughly as "to be there when it is all over." The touch is light, deft and pointed - as someone has said, almost Mozartian in its seeming ease. All this in just about the first prose narrative ever written. "Histories" is too grand a word. In one sense, Herodotus is the guy down at the end of the bar cadging drinks for stories. But no one ever did it better, and no one makes it look easier (which, surely, it is not). The question remains: was Herodotus in on the joke? I like to think that yes, just maybe he was.
Rating: 
Summary: The 'Father' of History.
Review: ( This is what we are used to call him. Of course Herodotus is not the Father because History existed already long before he was born. The Father of Written History would be more accurate).
Herodotus was born in Halicarnassus and lived from 484 until 429 B.C. These dates are approximate.
The Histories of Herodotus is divided into nine 'books' (we would speak of chapters) each with a name of one of the nine Muzes: book 1 is Cleio, book 2 is Euterpe, book 3 is Thaleia, book 4 is Melpomene, book 5 is Terpsichore, book 6 is Erato, book 7 is Polymnia, book 8 Ourania and book 9 Calliope. Their names were given at random without a link to the content of each book.
Scholars believe that it wasn't Herodotus who used these names but that it was done probably by
an unknown copyist from the Hellenistic period (+- 300-200 B.C.).
Many critics say that there is no leading thread running through the nine books and that their digressions are used haphazardly with little explanation of historical events.
Those critics are not entirely wrong. Herodotus is fond of legends, myths and anecdotes ( in book 2
for instance we read an Egyptian horror story ) and let's face it; the Greeks themselves were fond of these things. Herodotus must have been a very popular writer in his time.
Modern historians though are not likely to use such things with minor importance in their scientific works.
There is a leading thread however but you have to simplify things a little. You could summarize Herodotus' work in three steps. 1. How Persia becomes a military power. 2. The conquest of Egypt by Persia. 3. Two attempts to conquer Greece and why they failed.
The first attempt fails in the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.). The second attempt is more complex but takes a turn in favor of the Greeks during the sea-battle of Salamis where the Persian fleet is almost destroyed. Legend ( or historical fact ? ) has it that Aeschylus - one of the three Tragedy Poets - participated in that battle. ( 480 B.C. ).
I give Herodotus 4 stars because - though he's an interesting read - Thycidides uses a more scientific and 'modern' approach in his description of the Peloponnesian War.
Rating: 
Summary: Grene wins on the strength of the translation
Review: By an costly combination of circumstances, I wound up recently linking three different translations in reading through Herodotus. Here's a comparative review of each, which I'm posting for each work.
1. Translation by G.C. Macaulay and revised throughout by Donald Lateiner; published by Barnes and Noble Classics in 2004, but the Macaulay translation is from around 1890.
I started with this one, attracted by the extensive introduction by Donald Lateiner. That intro was solid and revealed much that I hadn't been aware of. But the translation, even after Lateiner's revisions, is awkward and stilted. Many of the pronoun references are confusing, making it difficult to follow the narrative thread.
Here's about half of a single sentence: "Now Miltiades son of Kimon had thus taken possession of Lemnos:--After the Pelasgians had been cast out of Attica by the Athenians, whether justly or unjustly,--for about this I cannot tell except the things reported, which are these:--Hecataios on the one hand, the son of Hegesander, said in his history that it was done unjustly: for he said that when the Athenians saw the land which extends below Hymettos, which they had themselves given them to dwell in, as payment for the wall built round the Acropolis in former times, when the Athenians, I say, saw that the land was made good by cultivation, which before was bad or worthless, they were seized with jealousy and with longing to possess the land, and so drove them out, not alleging any other pretext: ..."
The footnotes are generally helpful, although many only state the obvious. They are all integrated with the text, making it unnecessary to keep paging to the back. The text is followed by some interesting additions: A "Repertory" of English translations, a list of comments and works "inspired" by Herodotus, further "comments and questions", an extensive bibliography, and two good Indices with that of proper names separate from the general index.
Maps: There are eight, all of which appear to be from the original Macaulay publication. In any case, they do not appear to be based on the most recent cartography. The first, more extensive maps are helpful, but, to my mind, the others are crudely drawn and lack important detail. Still, I'd give this edition a good rating for maps, since it turns out that eight is a comparatively generous serving.
2. Translation by Aubrey de Selincourt in 1954; revised by John Marincola in 1972, 1996, and 2003; published by Penguin Classics.
Disappointed by the Macaulay/Lateiner translation, I picked this one up on the basis of the strong reputation of Penguin Classics. It has another good introduction, followed by a limited bibliography. The translation itself is much easier to digest.
Here's how it renders the same passage as above: "The events which led to Miltiades' capture of Lemnos were as follows. The Athenians had forced certain Pelasgians to leave Attica. Whether or not they were justified in doing this is not clear; all I can offer are the two contradictory accounts, that of the Athenians themselves, on the one side, and of Hecataeus the son of Hegesander on the other. Hecataeus in his History maintains that the Athenians were in the wrong. According to him, they had given the Pelasgians in payment for building the wall round the Acropolis a tract of land, of poor quality and in bad condition, at the foot of Mt Hymettus; the Pelasgians had improved the land, and when the Athenians saw it changed out of recognition and in first-rate order, they grudged the gift and longed to take it back, until without further justification they forcibly ejected the occupants."
The footnotes, which are more extensive and informative than Lateiner's, are unfortunately all gathered as endnotes, necessitating frequent paging back and forth. There's a brief Glossary, which is far from adequate. A decent Index closes the edition.
Maps: There are only four, gathered together at the front. None of the battle sites are represented. The maps are well-drawn, but sacrifice detail for clarity. This was this edition's weakest aspect. It also lacks the many extras provided by Lateiner.
3. Translation by David Grene; published by the University of Chicago Press, 1987
A friend who owns a used book store provided this in time for the last 2 books of The History. There's a long Introduction, with a deeper focus than the others. Grene says this about his translation: "The English in which Herodotus comes before us should be direct, powerful, and clear but also, I think, a little odd." I found this to be a worthy approach and one which Grene achieves in practice, with little loss of clarity.
Here's that same passage: "Now this is the story of how Miltiades took Lemnos. The Pelasgians had been driven out of Attica by the Athenians--whether justly or otherwise I cannot say, only that Hecataeus, son of Hegisander, mentions it in his account and says that it was unjustly; for, he says, the Athenians had given the Pelasgians a piece of land to live in, under Hymettus, in payment for the wall that was at one time drawn around the Acropolis; and when the Athenians saw this place, which had before been very poor and worthless, now well tilled, they were seized with envy and longing to possess it and drove the Pelasgians out, urging no other pretext against them."
Grene has both footnotes and endnotes, the latter being longer and applicable to whole sections. There is a good Index that also attempts to provide explanatory material. That was a good idea, but it's applied somewhat randomly and was thus more frustrating than helpful.
Maps: There are 4 maps at the end and an additional 4 within the text. Of the 3 editions, this is the only one to include a map of Xerxes' route, but it has a major error. It also has the best map of Ionia.
I'd recommend Grene on the strength of his translation. But Lateiner has the best additional material. None of the three has sufficient maps for anyone who, like I, gets hung up on the many unfamiliar place names in Herodotus. You'll need a companion book for a better understanding of the geography; I haven't found an ideal solution, but both Wars of the Ancient Greeks by Victor Davis Hanson and The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece were helpful.
Rating:
Summary: Grand Old History
Review: Herodotus deserves his title "Father of History." He could also properly be called the "Father of Travelogues" as well, as well over half of the work is Herodotus' description of the known world, from both first-hand observation and hearsay. The rest is a chronicle of events in western Europe and the Near East, culminating in the Greek counter-offensive against Persia following the battle of Salamis. The narrative is full of digressions and tangents to delight all but the most meticulous readers, and Herodotus occasionally apologizes to them for the constant diversions. Herodotus gives a remarkably well balanced account of events, recognizing the motivations and merits of all but a few Greek cities who sided with Persia (Thebes, for example, does not fare well under Herodotus' stylus). True, he takes some digs at Sparta for being obsessed with festivals, but in the event Sparta's bravery is praised no less than Athens'. Herodotus was writing as the Peloponnesian War was breaking out, and his declaration that Athens and Sparta together are unbeatable is poignant in light of Greece's impending loss of freedom, a freedom that would not be restored for over two thousand years. Ultimately, The Histories is that best of classics, one that can be enjoyed by all, not just those with an interest in Ancient Greece. With all of the digressions, there is truly something in here for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Grand Old History
Review: Herodotus deserves his title "Father of History." He could also properly be called the "Father of Travelogues" as well, as well over half of the work is Herodotus' description of the known world, from both first-hand observation and hearsay. The rest is a chronicle of events in western Europe and the Near East, culminating in the Greek counter-offensive against Persia following the battle of Salamis. The narrative is full of digressions and tangents to delight all but the most meticulous readers, and Herodotus occasionally apologizes to them for the constant diversions. Herodotus gives a remarkably well balanced account of events, recognizing the motivations and merits of all but a few Greek cities who sided with Persia (Thebes, for example, does not fare well under Herodotus' stylus). True, he takes some digs at Sparta for being obsessed with festivals, but in the event Sparta's bravery is praised no less than Athens'. Herodotus was writing as the Peloponnesian War was breaking out, and his declaration that Athens and Sparta together are unbeatable is poignant in light of Greece's impending loss of freedom, a freedom that would not be restored for over two thousand years. Ultimately, The Histories is that best of classics, one that can be enjoyed by all, not just those with an interest in Ancient Greece. With all of the digressions, there is truly something in here for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Grand Old History
Review: Herodotus deserves his title "Father of History." He could also properly be called the "Father of Travelogues" as well, as well over half of the work is Herodotus' description of the known world, from both first-hand observation and hearsay. The rest is a chronicle of events in western Europe and the Near East, culminating in the Greek counter-offensive against Persia following the battle of Salamis. The narrative is full of digressions and tangents to delight all but the most meticulous readers, and Herodotus occasionally apologizes to them for the constant diversions. Herodotus gives a remarkably well balanced account of events, recognizing the motivations and merits of all but a few Greek cities who sided with Persia (Thebes, for example, does not fare well under Herodotus' stylus). True, he takes some digs at Sparta for being obsessed with festivals, but in the event Sparta's bravery is praised no less than Athens'. Herodotus was writing as the Peloponnesian War was breaking out, and his declaration that Athens and Sparta together are unbeatable is poignant in light of Greece's impending loss of freedom, a freedom that would not be restored for over two thousand years. Ultimately, The Histories is that best of classics, one that can be enjoyed by all, not just those with an interest in Ancient Greece. With all of the digressions, there is truly something in here for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Original and Informative
Review: Herodotus who is considered the Father of History, presents his view of the peoples of the ancient world in a concise (considering how much he crams into 600 pages) manner and gives us insight into civilizations we otherwise would know nothing about. I enjoy his descriptions of Egypt, Greece, Persia, Babylon, and others. His personal bias comes through many times. For instance he calls wife selling in Babylon a "sound practice." Also as a Greek, he has great aversion to the Persians who attacked his nation many times though he attempts to view them objectively. Overall, the language is verbose, the names are more numerous and difficult than the Old Testament, and many areas seem irrelevant. If you enjoy ancient history I suggest you read these works.
Rating:
Summary: Read the Greeks
Review: Herodotus, partly because of his popularity, defines in a very real sense the stage upon which we all act even today. It is simply a great story, and this was at least part of Herodotus's purpose. The Homeric elements alone ensure this. Also, this is a fantastic translation. The only part that is marred is the last 75 - 100 pages where Herodotus lets the anti-Spartan, pro-Athenian sentiment of the time color the story.
Rating:
Summary: Read the Greeks
Review: Herodotus, partly because of his popularity, defines in a very real sense the stage upon which we all act even today. It is simply a great story, and this was at least part of Herodotus's purpose. The Homeric elements alone ensure this. Also, this is a fantastic translation. The only part that is marred is the last 75 - 100 pages where Herodotus lets the anti-Spartan, pro-Athenian sentiment of the time color the story.
|
