What an interesting read. This book is such a gem. The Histories reads like you're sitting in someones house listening to him talk about his knowledge of the world. Herodotus' digressions are charming in the extreme. There is such a real sense of wonder, sometimes even to the point of accepting the incredible, to Herodotus' inquiries. From my studies, I came into this read with an idea instilled into me from my professors: that Herodotus is so obscured by the shadow of Thucydides "objectiveness" that he is just some funny source from antiquity. To be quite frank, that strong desire for historicity ruins the enjoyment that comes from Herodotus. The histories is great exactly because it is so playful (to us). Herodotus is deeply interested in learning and it comes off in this book. He tries to make sense of the world, and to me, this is what I love about the work.

 Going off of my friends from school, I might be in the minority in preferring books 1-5 over 6-9. I still loved the Greco-Persian wars but it wasnt as charming as the discussion of the rise of Persia. That being the case, the descriptions of the rise of Pan-Hellenism and Athenian imperialism was very interesting. So too was the brief glimpses of the reception of Athenian imperialism (yes, I know. That's a charged word for some) from a non Athenian source.

Years ago, I was on jury duty in LA. This was back when jury duty largely consisted of waiting around in a large room each day for a week. I brought along a copy of The Histories (the Rawlinson translation published by Everyman's Library) and found myself engrossed by all the stories, tall tales, gossip, rumors, etc. It's a wonderful panoply that's on offer here! Sure, Herodotus was criticized by many for not writing "facts," but the power of stories is far greater, and he knew it.

As a history nerd I always had the idea that I would one day read Herodotus. After all he’s generally regarded as the guy who kicked off the whole show. I had put it off due to the length of the book, but Audible were offering it “free” with my membership for a limited period, and it was that which led me to finally conclude “It is time!”

One thing about Audible is that it doesn’t always tell the reader about the translator. I could tell that the version I had was in 19th century English, and from what I can find out, it seems to be the Rawlinson translation.

Apart from a history the book is also a geography and an ethnology. Herodotus, who was a great traveller, describes the world as it was known to him. The Persian Empire is described in detail, as far as “India”, which I think are the lands we now know as Pakistan (of course it was all “India” in Rawlinson’s day). Egypt is also described in detail, and beyond it lies “Ethiopia”, which I think was the country we now call Sudan. The rest of Africa he calls “Libya”, describing how it extends west beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and south to a great sandy desert. Mediterranean Europe is well known but Northern Europe is the subject of garbled rumour. He says he can find out nothing about a northern sea from whence amber is procured (actually true and a reference to the Baltic), nor anything about “the Tin Islands”, (probably a reference to The British Isles). He does know of the Danube, which he calls the Ister, and the Black Sea, which he calls the Euxine. To the north of these are the lands of the Scythians, a “land without marvels”, excepting huge rivers and “the vastness of the plain.”

Herodotus is careful to distinguish hearsay from what he has seen himself. He will frequently make comments along the lines of “In this, I merely repeat what the Libyans say” and at other times will repeat a local legend but add that he personally places no credence in it.

One thing I found interesting, if this translation is accurate, is that on a couple of occasions Herodotus seems to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were black-skinned, “with wooly hair”, adding to my own knowledge of the continuing debate on the appearance of the ancient Egyptians, which will of course never be resolved. Opposing Herodotus is the evidence from hieroglyphs and other sources, suggesting that a range of skin tones existed amongst the ancient Egyptians.

In his build-up to the description of the Graeco-Persian Wars, Herodotus describes how the Persians conquered Asia Minor, including the cities of the Ionian Greeks, and how they also conquered Egypt. Subsequent expeditions against the Ethiopians failed, and Herodotus also describes an early example of asymmetrical warfare when he relates how King Darius invaded the lands of the Scythians with a huge army, via Thrace. Being a nomadic people with no cities to defend, the Scythians simply moved away from Darius, driving their herds with them and always keeping at least a day’s march between themselves and the Persian Army. Darius could do nothing other than simply wander about the plains until his supplies ran out and he had to retreat back across the Danube.

The most dramatic part of the book is of course around the Persian invasions of Greece. The stories of the battles of Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea are well-known, but it was great to read the original source material for these events.

There are times when Herodotus gets a little tiresome for the modern reader, and there’s too much mythology in here, but ultimately I’m really glad that I’ve finally read “The Histories.”

Mă bucură inițiativă Editurii Humanitas „de recuperare a unor mari opere ale Antichității clasice într-o formulă grafică originală și în ediții concepute pentru cititorul de azi.”

Însă, o ediție ca și aceasta poate reprezenta câteva probleme. În primul rand, e foarte importantă subiectivitatea celui care face antologia, ori, în cazul de față, am avut o mare neplăcere să constat că un episod care poate fi ușor introdus printre „cele mai frumoase istorii”, și care de altfel e menționat de majoritatea istoricilor cand vine vorba de Războaiele Medice sau de istoria spartanilor, a fost lasat pe dinafară. Mă refer la povestirea despre fiica regelui Cleomenes si viitoarea soție a regelui Leonidas, Gorgo de doar câțiva ani pe-atunci, care, în momentul când Aristagoras încearcă să-l mituiască pe tatăl sau cu bani pentru a veni in sprijinul Revoltei Ioniei, îi spune: „Tată, dacă nu te ridici și pleci acum, străinul acesta o să te corupă!” (cuvinte aproximative, citate din memorie). In prezenta ediția, se spune „Aristagoras încearcă să-l mituiască pe Cleomenes.” și atât, sărind peste episod. Sigur, într-o antologie nu poate fi loc pentru tot, dar din punctul meu de vedere s-au păstrat unele povestiri care au mai puțină legătură (directă sau indirectă) cu Războaiele Medice, în detrimentul unora ca și aceasta.

O altă abordare care mi se pare neinspirată e felul de a adnota textul. Sunt situații unde pot apărea neclarități sau confuzii din cauza asta, pentru că se găsesc doi termeni pe același rând și persoanele mai puțin cunoscătoare poate ca nu-și vor da seama la care dintre ei se referă nota.

Mai mult, pentru cineva care are pretenția la titlul de „clasicist”, adnotările conțin cateva greșeli impardonabile:
- Confundarea lui Miltiades, tiran in Chersones, cu Miltiades, eroul de la Maraton. Primul e unchiul celui din urmă, nu unul și același om.
- Confundarea lui Polydeukes (Pollux la romani), fratele lui Castor și deci unul din Dioscuri, cu Polinice, fratele lui Eteocles. Cei doi s-au războit pentru tronul Thebei. La început am crezut că e o greșeală de transcriere/tipărire, dar am sesizat greșeala în două parți.
Ar mai fi și o altă greșeală mai mică: se adnotează că hiloții ar fi Messenieni. Intre cele două grupuri e mai degrabă o relație de incluziune, nu de egalitate. Spartanii au cucerit, pe rând, ținuturile din jurul lor (e.g., Laconia). Laconii au ajuns (și ei) hiloți. Că în urma Războaielor Messeniene majoritatea hiloților erau originari din Messenia, e altceva.
Nu am stat sa citesc toate adnotările și glosarul, dar astea mi-au sărit în vedere.

În fine, sper ca în cazul în care Editura Humanitas plănuiește o reeditare a lui Tucicide, să nu mai facă o antologie. Ar fi păcat. Nu sunt foarte de acord cu principiul „cititorul din ziua de azi”. E păcat de anumite opere să fie trunchiate doar pentru a fi făcute cât mai accesibile/atractive pentru cât mai multă lume. Am citit ediția intregrală din anii 60 a Istoriilor. Pe lângă faptul că textul întreg poate fi greoi pe-alocuri - și din punctul acesta de vedere ediția prezentă are un plus, pentru că se citește mai fluent, dar cu ce preț? - erau într-adevăr foarte multe adnotări, până la saturație, dar am învățat multe din notele respective ele, și am înțeles mult mai multe despre ce se povestea decât din ediția asta, în care se regăsesc foarte puține. În fond, adnotările sunt acolo pentru a fi citite sau nu. E la latitudinea cititorului să facă o selecție.

Cât despre textul în sine, rămâne la fel de placut ca întotdeauna, cu toate reproșurile (fondate) care i se aduc.

Some parts are amazing, while some are utterly boring. The best bits for me are the more ethnographical fragments, where Herodotus describes various ancient peoples, their origins and their customs and mores (lots of sex, wine, weed and blood). It is interesting how he tries to trace processes of cultural diffusion in ancient times: who took what customs, rituals or gods from whom and his argumentation for each case, sometimes reminding me of modern cultural relativism.
Additionally, there are many memorable and fun anecdotal moments, especially involving the Spartans.
Another thing I enjoyed is to observe Herodotus' mix of what we would call today rational thinking with mystical/mythological beliefs. We have gods speaking through oracles and curses deciding battles or ants the size of a dog, but at the same time a kind of learned skepticism rises its head. Usually, Herodotus promises to tell the stories exactly as he had heard them, but sometimes he lets us know that he himself is skeptical about them. For examples, he tells us a story about one-eyed men, then adds that he doesn't believe such men exist. Or a legend about speaking birds then dismisses it as a metaphor because obviously birds can't speak.
I also liked his habit of telling several versions of a story and comparing them (the Egyptians say this, but the Persian version is that...). He constantly notes who tells the story in a certain way so that we can be aware of the possible bias or motivation behind a certain version of events.
The stuff that bored me to death was long geneologies, measurements of a lot of ancient buildings and towns and generally everything involving numbers. Unfortuntely, the Histories are full of this stuff. Non-specialists might wanna skip them and enjoy an otherwise interesting read.

I feel kind of wrong reviewing this book as it was written hundreds of years ago, but I’ll give it a whirl

Herodotus was hailed as "The Father of History" by Cicero; To me, he might as well be the Father of Humanism.

I've read a few war epics, Homer's Iliad, Hugo's Les Misérables and Tolstoy's War and Peace, The Histories excels them all in terms of scope, structure, richness of content, intricacy and theatrical grandeur. The main theme / storyline is the Persian Wars, i.e., the conflicts between the Persian Empire and Greek nations, culminating in the invasion of Greece by Xerces I; the underlying theme is the struggle between tyranny and freedom, between the inexorability of fate and the triumph of the human spirit.

Like threads in a beautiful Persian tapestry, Herodotus weaves together numerous elements in his narratives, the histories and geographies of the many nations in Asia and Europe, the customs, cultures and achievements of the peoples, the remarkable characters and lives of individuals, and the oracles foreshadowing their fates, from kings to slaves, heroes and thieves, men, women and children, their words and deeds all distinct and memorable.

Some accused Herodotus of making up fanciful stories rather than recording the facts. I'm reminded of Thomas Mann's comment on War and Peace, "Seldom did art work so much like nature; its immediate, natural power is only another manifestation of nature itself; " If the best art is but a manifestation or imitation of nature, why make up stories when the facts themselves are much more wondrous and glorious?

You live many lives when you read this book. A masterpiece.

Talk about an on point beard!



A surprisingly fun read and certainly worth it for historical significance alone.

Having dived down the history rabbit hole with Great Courses audiobooks the past year, focused mainly on Mesopotamia, Greece/Rome, Britain, the Celts, and the Italian Renaissance, it was a no-brainer I'd have to revisit The Histories after I bought it for uni in another lifetime and never got past the first chapter, 30 years ago. It was a very worthwhile listen, especially given the content as the first proper Western historical narrative based on travel, first-hand interviews, and research, though there is plenty of myth woven in as that was integral to Greek understanding of the world. As others have pointed out, it is equal parts storytelling, ethnography, cultural history, and a very detailed analysis of the Greco-Persian wars, with much insight.

Herodotus also gets full marks for repeated disclaimers that what he writes is true *to the best of his knowledge, based on what he has been told*, and that he tries to be as objective as any observer can be, despite all the intellectual and cultural assumptions and biases that inevitably creep in. He does a remarkable job, although it would be a brilliant experiment if there were a Persian Herodotus who could depict events from the other side. Now that would be turning the tables!

I have to admit that I wasn't able to give this one its full due as I listened in all different levels of attention (while "resting my eyes" and such), so not sure I have much more to offer, but I am certainly glad I read it now, at age 48, rather than back at age 18 in my first year at university. There is so much more life-experience I can draw on now to approach the material, its a far richer experience.

These are some excellent reviews that are far more comprehensive and interesting than my light effort, so check them out.

Riku Sajuj’s Review

Jan-Matt’s Review

Grace Tjan’s Review

Ian’s Review

I read this with my book club, well mostly. No one else finished because either their interest waned or their time was taken with other matters. I had both the interest and the time and continued to the end. This Oxford edition translated by Robin Waterfield was good. Usually introductions have me wondering why but this one was quite helpful in preparing me for reading Herodotus. I also appreciated the end notes, in particular the summary at the beginning of each, and the maps. I found myself perusing the maps to figure out where Herodotus was describing.

Although this does have a lot of names and is graphic in the descriptions of various ancient peoples’ practices, I was able to keep view of the bigger storyline thanks to the aforementioned introduction and end notes. Divided into 9 books, I have two that are my favorite. Book 2 describing Egypt I found quite fascinating. The description of the land and the animals captured my imagination. Book 7 began with Xerxes moving his army to attack Greece and ended with the famous Battle of Thermopylae. That battle is one of my favorites to read about, so intriguing.

I’m not sure I will read the whole thing again, but I can see picking it up to re-read parts. Plus I have found myself thinking about it and contemplating when I’m not actively reading.

SUI GENERIS

as a gooder reader than I once remarked, some books select their audience. By the same token, some audiences select their books.

Herodotus is best read in the bath.

When in India, look out for the dog-sized ants because THEY ARE FAST. Just one of many useful travel tips from our boy H.