God my eyes hurt

Tarihte yazılmış ilk tarih kitabı olma özelliği taşımasından ötürü dünya edebiyatı açısından önemli bir yere sahip olan Herodotos'un "Histories / Tarih"i benim gibi Antik Yunan Edebiyatı'nı tam anlamıyla bitirmek isteyen okuyuculara yönelik bir eser. MÖ 5. yüzyılda yazılmış olması nedeniyle içinde bir sürü yanlış barındıran eseri okurken yazarın harikulade gözlem ve araştırma yeteneğine ve de en önemlisi bunları bir araya getiriş şekline hayran kalmamak elde değil. Pers İmparatoru Cyrus / Kyros'dan başlayarak sırasıyla Cambyses / Kambyses, Darius / Dareios ve Xerxes / Kserkes'in hikayesinden 300 Spartalı'nın hikayesi olarak bilinen Thermopylae Savaşı'na kadar Themistocles ve Leonidas gibi önemli tarihi figürün içinde bulunduğu birçok önemli tarihi olayı okuma şansı bulduğumuz kitapta Mısır tarihine bile rastlamak mümkün. Herodotos'un coğrafi tasvirlerini inanılmaz sıkıcı ve gereksiz bulmama rağmen karakter hikayelerini çok beğendiğimi söylemek isterim. Okudukça insanoğlunun ne kadar vahşi olduğuna bir kez daha tanıklık ederken insanların aslında hiç değişmediğini açık bir şekilde görüyorsunuz. Yine de fazla özel isim barındırması nedeniyle okuması oldukça zor ve gerçekten sabır gerektiren bir eser olduğunu söylemekte fayda var. Kısaca, Antik Yunan Edebiyatı'nın son halkası olduğunu düşündüğüm Herodotos'un "Tarih"ini okumadan önce Homeros, Virgil, Sophocles, Euripides, Aeschylus ve biraz Platon okumak şart.

30.03.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

********************
*The Histories by Herodotus TBR
*Herodotus: The Father of History TBR
*Travels with Herodotus by Ryszard Kapuściński TBR
*The Life of Greece by Will Durant 5 stars
*24 Hours in Ancient Athens: A Day in the Life of the People Who Lived There by Philip Matyszak 3 stars

The point of ploughing through this 1858 translation of Herodotus' 'world classic' is precisely to read the text that Victorian imperialists would have read. Go to a later translation with annotations if you want to hear the fully authentic voice of the Greek but this one will do.

The book meets two needs. It is a geography (of the centres of power and civilisation in the fifth century BC) and a history, not only of those specific centres but of the massive clash between the hegemonic Persian Empire and the last nearby 'free' zone, that of the Greeks.

Herodotus is, of course, writing as a Greek but a cosmopolitan one who has travelled to many of the places he describes. His achievement is remarkable. The slanderous 'father of lies' claim is grossly unfair ... he may take an absurd story at face value but he will also frequently question claims.

The further away from Ionia he is, the more dodgy the data and the nearer, the more reliable, but, given the technology of travel and information transmission and preservation of the day, sneering strikes me as wholly inappropriate. It is not a religious text. We are all free to critique his claims.

Truth to tell, the geography is much duller than the history. The micro-histories of provinces and the founding of empires is very much less interesting than the second half of the text (made up of nine books) which centres on the Persian Wars.

If you can get through the first half, you will find (considering we are dealing with a text nearly 2,500 years old) some serious excitement as Darius and Xerxes build their forces, transport them around the Aegean and face off the mostly united Greek armies and navies.

The battle of Marathon in the first invasion (490-492BC) and those of Salamis and Plataea during the second invasion (480-479BC) are events placed in their context, filled with detail (sometimes more than one account of a particular event) and written to thrill.

If there is one section to read, it is the Spartan defence of the pass at Thermopylae which has become a by-word in Western culture for communitarian military sacrifice in defence of the homeland (Book VII) and has even inspired a contemporary comic book and film.

There are gaps, of course, that we must regret. He rarely goes far West so, although we know something of the tyrants of Greek Italy and Sicily, he tells us nothing about Etruria, little about Carthage and virtually nothing useful about the Western Mediterranean or Central Europe.

Nubia and Ethiopia are only palely reflected in relation to the Persian occupation of Egypt, Arabia, India and Central Asia are places of myth and legend and the South Russian steppes only interesting because of the peoples who harried civilisation.

Later commentators often position the books as a morality tale about civilisation and oriental barbarism but this is self-serving by those wanting to be inheritors of Hellenic culture. It has created a myth about difference that has been exaggerated,

It is a set of books about hegemony and the right of resistance. The Persians are representatives of imperial realpolitik rather than exporters of values. The Greeks have provoked them and the Persians find an irritating gap in control over the known world of consequence to them.

The Greeks themselves are not a polity but a distinctive culture. It becomes clear that (just as many Britons would prefer to serve a hegemonic European Union than be free) many Greeks will submit to Persian lordship from vulnerability or for profit.

The massive Persian forces also include many unstable Greek elements whose homelands are not being threatened with sack and massacre but who have thrown themselves in with the Persians either because they have little choice or, frankly, prefer mercantile stability to rebellion.

Herodotus is not a theoretician, ideologue or social scientist. He just tells it like it is but the clues are there to mercantile interests who quite like access to the 'single market' built by the Persians but who are ready to switch sides at the drop of a hat if necessary.

The Greeks who are defending their territory are an anarchic lot but they are able to sink their differences (Herodotus is good on the summits and councils where different interests are played out) to preserve their homelands.

What is remarkable is the relative discipline, not based entirely on fear and shame but on consultation and interest. This is explained by factors alien to us today but they include a culture of shame and honour and a fatalistic but interpretative approach to oracles and the will of the gods.

We are looking at a world both familiar to ourselves (in terms of interests, double-dealing, cynicism and political machination) and apparently unfamiliar (in terms of self-sacrifice, contempt for the cowardly, cultural coherence and shared religion).

I say unfamiliar but this would not be quite so unfamiliar to our grandparents and to all the generations before them. World War I was fought in part on the basis of Hellenic virtue which brings us full circle to the 1858 edition and its role in creating an imperial honour culture.

Herodotus can be read at many levels - as a source of data that would otherwise be lost, as a rattling narrative that reads as true history for the most part, as an incomplete picture of an Eastern Mediterranean civilisational zone and as exemplar.

One gets the impression that Herodotus was keen to tell the story of the Persian Wars as a culturally patriotic tale but he is never dismissive of the enemy. Persians are always treated with respect as worthy opponents who are different from Greeks but not radically so.

They come across 'just like us' as human beings (a theme to be brought out in Euripides 'The Persians') which is not incompatible with being triumphalist about victory. This is all about men against men with 'great men' (and the odd woman like Artemesia) on both sides.

The victory is all the sweeter because the gods are fickle and because Greek heroism matched Persian organisational might. Indeed, in battle sections, it is clear that the Persians themselves are fine fighters and that both sides had wobbly and inexperienced allies.

Similarly, the organisational structures of the two sides are central to the story. Both are capable organisers. Imperial might could bring vast numbers of men and material long distances. Hellenic fear could bring squabbling locals into one battle front that could hold a line.

Men were defending their homelands (and would go back to warring with each other as soon as the danger was over) against 'imperialism' while quite happy to build empires if they could (as Athens and Macedon were to do).

These wars are thus just one incident in the constant ebb and flow of raw power, organisation and morale where the ideology is merely culture - being a 'people' distinct from other people without necessarily wanting to exterminate them or not to trade or mate with them.

Indeed, civilisation might be defined as conquest and expansion that utilises what it controls instead of destroying it.

What is also heartening about Herodotus' world is that persuasion is just a tool for struggle and power - as in the references to the persuasive and cunning Athenian C-in-C Themistocles. There are no theorising philosophers trying to justify slaughter or getting in the way.

The books are riddled with pagan virtue, less ritualised than in Homer and without the magical thinking of Plato. This was a culture of power defending itself against another culture of power that had miscalculated the organisational and cultural cohesion of its opponent on its home territory.

A really interesting historical document. There's an appropriate balance between action and analysis, but with an introduction that is quite too long. Sometimes there are too many flashbacks and digressions about all kinds of details. But nevertheless a great read, as a story teller Herodotus is unparalleled, illustrating that - regardless of issues of method - history is and always will be a narrative.
It's clear Herodotus sees history as the story of great men and their greed, ambition, courage and sacrifice. But also dreams (predictive value), oracles (always right!), and a few times even the intervention of the gods play a key role. Fate is present in the background.
Noteworthy is the light adoring undertone concerning the Persians, especially Cyrus; on the other hand the Greeks are described as a bunch of scum (especially the Ionians), only Sparte is treated by Herodotus in a neutral way.

This book merits five stars because it truly represents the starting point of Western historical writing.

Herodotus asks all the basic questions that historians are supposed to when confronted with a source. Is the account truthful? If you think that it is not truthful do you ignore the information provided or use it and share your reserves with the reader? The best of historians will occasionally reject truthful accounts and accept lies as truthful. The point is that Herodotus is clearly adopting a critical stance towards all his sources even if he errs in places.

The modern reader is most likely to be concerned in those places where Herodotus appears to accept myths and legends as being historically accurate. In the defense of Herodotus, myths and legends have sometimes proven to contain historically accurate material. Until archaeologists discovered Troy and Mycenae in the 19th century, many had thought that these two cities existed only in legend and literature. Similarly the Norse sagas describing a Viking settlement in North America were considered to be legends or works of fiction until a Norse settlement was discovered at L'Anse aux Meduses in Newfoundland in the 1950's.

Moreover, it must be pointed out that in places Herodotus expresses a great deal of skepticism about the religious beliefs and practices of his era. He expresses a great deal of frustration about Oracles. He describes there pronouncements as typically being unintelligible. Moreover he suggests that in time, the Oracles appear to have consciously made inaccurate pronouncements. Herodotus notes that that the myths about the Olympian Gods vary considerably from city to city as do the actual names of the Gods. He points out that the geographic origins of many of the names of the deities are hard to definitively identify. Herodotus does not attack religion and superstition in the manner of the 18th Century enlightenment philosophers but he has a very critical view of the religion of his civilization.

What one gets in the Histories of Herodotus, is a well organized account of the Persian Wars written by a man trying to lay the ground rules for historical investigation as he goes. The result is a great classic of Western literature and history. Read it for its good points and do be distracted in places where it appears to fail modern standards for historical writing. All historians owe a debt to Herodotus who laid a great foundation for history which is after all an art not a science.

It is astounding to realize that as little time did the Battle of Thermopylae precede the publishing of this work as now lies between the Vietnam War and our day, and also that a mere century later the sixth great-grandson of the Alexander I of Macedon Herodotus writes about here would become known to the rest of the world ever after as "Alexander the Great." Well did Cicero another 277 years later call Herodotus "pater historiae" - the father of history.

Not for everyone, and even I could read it in chunks, but I loved it. Herodotus, the first historian, eschewed myth, which is why he was the first historian, but he wasn't above gossip and chattiness. This awesome volume has superb maps showing the places being discussed and even the routes taken by people being talked about. The notes are voluminous, and the translation is wonderful. I'm not a classicist, and don't know any Greek, but the classicists I know who do know the original, say it is the best translation of Herodotus ever made. So, for a change, try to delve into the ancient world of Greeks. By the way, Herodotus says that Helen wanted to go to Troy, and get out of Greece. Guess why? Today it would be in "Us" magazine.

Ah, the sublime egoism of the internets, where a mere mortal like me writes a review of Herodotus.
Obviously, as he is the first historian, you should read him. Even if he were boring and inaccurate, you should read him. But Herodotus is certainly not boring, and he's not as inaccurate as a lot of famous quotes from him would make you believe. It's sad, but Herodotus' reputation for inaccuracy, which he had even in the ancient world, comes largely from people stupidly misreading his greatest strength: whereas Thucydides and most later ancient historians would only give you the narrative they thought most plausible, Herodotus routinely gives several different versions of events as he heard them from different sources, and tells tales he heard but which he expressly doesn't personally believe. This is awesome because it allows us to double-check his work. For example, in 4.42 Herodotus describes the circumnavigation of Africa by the Egyptians ca. 600; and the detail he finds most unbelievable in the story--that the sailors had the sun to the northward of them as they sailed around the southern tip of Africa--is accurate and is now considered the best evidence that such a journey actually happened. Awesome book great job, H!

Ἰστορίαι = The Histories, Herodotus

The Histories of Herodotus is the founding work of history in Western literature. Written in 440 BC in the Ionic dialect of classical Greek, The Histories serves as a record of the ancient traditions, politics, geography, and clashes of various cultures that were known in Western Asia, Northern Africa and Greece at that time.

Although not a fully impartial record, it remains one of the West's most important sources regarding these affairs. Moreover, it established the genre and study of history in the Western world.

The Histories also stands as one of the first accounts of the rise of the Persian Empire, as well as the events and causes of the Greco-Persian Wars between the Achaemenid Empire and the Greek city-states in the 5th century BC.

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «تاریخ هرودوت»؛ «تواریخ»؛ نویسنده: هرودوت؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز هشتم ماه آگوست سال1972میلادی

عنوان: تاریخ هرودوت؛ نویسنده: هرودوت؛ ترجمه به انگلیسی: جرج راولین سن؛ تنظیم: ا.ج اوانس؛ مترجم: غلامعلی وحید مازندرانی؛ تهران، علمی، سال1324، در24ص و211ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر، سال1360، در هشت ص و300ص؛ موضوع تاریخ هخامنشیان - جنگهای ایران و یونان - از سده ششم پیش از میلاد تا سده چهارم پیش از میلادی

عنوان: تواریخ؛ نویسنده: هرودوت؛ مترجم: غلامعلی وحید مازندرانی؛ تهران، دنیای کتاب؛ سال1368؛ در573ص و4ص، مصور؛ شابک9643461637؛ چاپ دوم سال1368؛ چاپ سوم سال1386؛ چاپ دیگر مشهد، خاتم، سال1391؛ در612ص؛ شابک9786006153278؛

عنوان: تاریخ هرودوت؛ نویسنده: هرودوت؛ مترجم: مرتضی ثاقب فر؛ تهران، اساطیر، سال1389، در دو جلد؛ شابک جلد یک9789643314699؛ شابک جلد دوم9789643314705؛

تاریخ «هرودوت» یا کتاب «تواریخ» یک کتاب تاریخی است، که توسط «هرودوت»، مورخ «یونانی» در سال چهارصد و چهل پیش از میلادی نگاشته شده‌ است؛ این کتاب نخستین کتاب «تاریخ» در جهان به‌ شمار می‌رود؛ و شامل نه کتاب است (سه کتاب نخست به «آسیای صغیر»، «مصر»، «میان‌رودان»، «ایران» و «سوریه» و «سرزمین‌های مجاور آن»، کتاب چهارم دربارهٔ «سکاها» و کتاب پنجم تا نهم به «جنگ‌های ایران و یونان» اختصاص دارد)؛ شرح زندگانی چهار شاه ایرانی «کوروش بزرگ»، «کمبوجیه یکم»، «داریوش بزرگ»، و «خشایارشای بزرگ» در این کتاب آرمیده است

شرق شناس پرآوازه، و کاشف خط میخی «هنری راولینسون»، در دوران پادشاهی «محمدشاه قاجار»، مربی نظامی در فوج «کرمانشاه» بودند، ایشان ضمن خدمت، به کاوش و پژوهش برای کشف رموز «خط میخی» نیز همت گماشتند، و سرانجام موفق شدند؛ پس از کشف چگونگی خوانش «خط میخی»، برادر ایشان «جرج راولینسون»، از آن اکتشاف مهم تاریخی بهره گرفتند، و نخستین ترجمه کامل از «تاریخ هرودوت» به زبان «انگلیسی» را، با حواشی و توضیح در چهار مجلد، در سال1858میلادی منتشر کردند، در سال1910میلادی، نسخه ی تازه ای از ترجمه ی مزبور، در دو جلد منتشر شد، در این نسخه بیشتر متن را حفظ، اما حواشی و یادداشتها و مقدمه را، خلاصه کرده بودند، در آغاز جنگ جهانگیر دوم، نسخه ی یک جلدی از ترجمه ی «راولینسون» توسط «ا.ج اوانس» دوباره تلخیص و تنظیم شد، این کتاب برگردان جناب «غ وحید مازندرانی»، از همان نسخه یک جلدی، از زبان «انگلیسی» میباشد، که نخستین چاپ آن در سال1324هجری خورشیدی، توسط انتشارات علمی، در دسترس پژوهشگران قرار گرفته است؛

این فراموشکار نخستین بار متن «انگلیسی» کتاب را خوانده ام، و سپس بارها و بارها نیز آنرا دوباره خوانده ام، و هر بار که فرصتی دست دهد، و حوصله ام برای تاریخ تنگ شود، باز هم تکه ای از متن «انگلیسی» را میخوانم، کاغذ آن نسخه ی کتاب جیبی این فراموشکار کاهی است، و صفحاتش زرد شده، و چشمانم حروف «انگلیسی» ریز را این روزها خوب تشخیص نمیدهند، ولی میخوانم، این نوشته ی «هرودوت» شاهکاری است، که هماره باقی خواهد ماند، تا به آیندگان آموزش دهد که تاریخ را چگونه بنویسند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 01/10/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 19/08/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

4,5* (Translated by Robin Waterfield)

Herodotus's histories contains some of my favourite writings in all of ancient Greek literature.
Book 2 about Egypt especially, is utterly fascinating.
Books 7, 8 and 9, which mainly cover the events of Xerxes's invasion of Greece, is engaging throughout.
The middle part of the book however did not manage to interest me as much as the beginning and end though.
It contained little ethnography, and focused more on local histories, lineages and events surrounding king Darius.
One can understand why Herodotus engages in lineage listing, he wants great men's names to be remembered, but it makes for dull reading. Homer's Iliad suffers from the same malady.
Overall though this is a great work of storytelling, Herodotus truly manages to draw you in, it is a great pleasure to imagine oneself in the world of Herodotus.
In terms of entertainment value it puts into stark contrast that other great work of Greek history, Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian war, despite the fact that Herodotus's tales undeniably stray further from historical fact.