Herodot - turista i istoričar? Nije baš pravedno predstaviti ga u ovakvom redosledu, ali da je putovao, putovao je... Zamišljam te avanture pešice, na konjima, zapregama, brodovima… Koliko vremena da se stigne na sva ta mesta, a bilo je i opasno. Egipćani nisu ni želeli da putuju velikim plavim morem, držali su se Nila, a ni Grci se nisu oduševljavali kad se udalje od obala. Herodot ne samo da je proputovao Grčku, posetio Skitiju, već je dospeo do Persije, proveo par meseci u Egiptu, stigao i do južnih egipatskih oblasti, današnjeg Sudana.

Ovog fascinantnog Grka, rođenog 484 p.n.e. u današnjem Bodrumu, Ciceron je nazvao Otac istorije, a Plutarh Otac laži. Tek ovo je nepravedno - njegova zadužbina u obliku Istorije je kolosalna. Koliko je Herodot danas citiran, može da znači da bi bez njega gomila istorijskih činjenica bila izgubljena. O Skitima skoro da i nema drugih zapisa, čitava istorija jednog vremena ne bi postojala. Da je neki Herodot posetio stare Slovene...

Neki njegovi zapisi jesu u najmanju ruku nesigurni, ali ja imam pomalo romantičarski (naivan?) pogled na to. Sigurno nije namerno prenosio neistine, već je skupljao informacije i preneo dalje. Ponekad su priče pojednostavljene, umesto istorijskih dokumenata dobijamo seriju anekdota, ali ovo jeste sjajan pogled na grčku istoriju, mentalitet tog (i drugih) naroda. A opisom običaja dobijamo ne samo početak istorije, već i početak etnografije.

A kad sam već kod te reke anekdota, ona znači i da se ovo čita kao literatura. Nema suvoparnog prenosa činjenica, ovo su priče koje te zovu da im se vratiš. Teško se zaboravlja priča o odrastanju persijskog vladara Kira Velikog ili o tome kako je Kserks kaznio lokalnog vladara koji je molio da mu ne odvede svih pet sinova u rat (presekao ih na pola i proterao celu persijsku armiju putem između njih).

Istorija je podeljena u devet knjiga koje simpatično nose imena devet muza, a počinju pričom o kralju Krasu iz kraljevstva Lidija, kao početku evropsko-azijskog konflikta, a Kras se kasnije neočekivano pojavljuje na nekoliko mesta. Grci protiv Varvara (“barbari” su tako nazvani pošto su Grci njihov govor razumeli samo kao “bar bar bar”, a tako su nazivali sve ne-Helene). Nastavlja usponom Persijskog carstva pa dugačkim putovanjem u Egipat.

Ima iz tog dela o Egiptu interesantna pričica koja govori o Herodotovoj oduševljenosti detaljima, ali i o njegovoj naivnosti. Obilazi tako sa svojim vodičima groblje i nailazi na razbacane kosti i lobanje. Ovo se dešava pedesetak godina nakon velike bitke na tom mestu, a kad upita svoje vodiče kakve su to kosti, odgovaraju mu da su ostale tu nakon bitke. Pedeset godina kasnije? Već i ovo navodi na sumnju, ali sledi još nerazumnije objašnjenje - pogledajte kako Egipćani imaju deblje lobanje, pošto su navikli da nose šlemove i kape, dok Persijanci imaju tanke lobanje zato što hodaju gologlavi, pa im sunčevi zraci tanje kosti.

U Egiptu se bavi i pogrešnim prevodom hijeroglifa na piramidama, pa tako ti znakovi navodno govore o tome šta su radnici jeli i pili za vreme gradnje istih, što nema nikakve veze sa stvarnim prevodom. Moguće da je vodič bio nepismen, nije hteo to da prizna, pa je izmišljao dok su išli? Ipak, proces mumificiranja je opisan dosta verno i pošto egipatski mumifikatori nisu ostavljali nikakve zapise o tom procesu (valjda su ljubomorno čuvali znanje u okviru branše), ispada da je Herodotovo upustvo za mumifikaciju najbolje koje imamo.

U poslednjoj trećini Istorije, Herodot se vraća u Grčku i tu sledi klimaks - grčko-persijski ratovi. Ovo je zapis o tada skorijoj istoriji, o događajima od pre par decenija, kao kad bismo danas pisali o o ratu u Vijetnamu. Imao je mnogo izvora, preživelih svedoka, sigurno i zapisa iz tog doba. Prvi put imamo delo koje se bavi skorašnjim događajima umesto o legendama. Jonska pobuna protiv Persijanaca, pa manje bitke koje slede i prvi vrhunac sa atinskom pobedom kod Maratona (490 p.n.e.). Nakon Darijeve smrti, detaljna priča o velikom Kserksovom pohodu u kom želi da kazni Atinjane za nesreću svog oca. Nakon junačkog poraza Spartanaca kod Termopila, Atinjani nekim čudom (može se reći ni sami ne znaju kako) uspevaju da poraze persijsku flotu u pomorskoj bitci kod Salamine 480 p.n.e. Ako je antička grčka civilizacija temelj evropske i generalno zapadne civilizacije, koliko bi samo evropska istorija bila drugačija da nisu?

Ima i ovde stvari kojima na prvi pogled nije mesto u istorijskom delu. Uticaj bogova, na primer. Na trenutke je kao da čitaš Ilijadu, pa su ljudi u glavnim ulogama, ali bogovi redovno intervenišu i povlače niti. Čak i kad ne tvrdi da je neki događaj posledica odluke božanstva, ne postoji velika odluke koja nije donešena na osnovu žrtve bogovima i toga “da li je žrtva bila ugodna”. Uzmeš kozu ili bika, zavisno koliko je veliko pitnaje, žrtvuješ ga, onda je seciraš i na osnovu toga kako izgledaju jetra ili srce, proceniš da li treba da primiš bitku ili da se povučeš.

Ali čak i ti religiozni izveštaji diraju u srce. Detaljan opis dana koji prethode bitci kod Salamine govori kako Atinjani šalju ambasadore u proročište u Delfima kako bi proverili šta da rade povodom nadolazeće persijske invazije. Dobijaju odgovor “Bednici, a što sedite? Bežite na kraj sveta! Ostav’te domove vaše i brežuljke okruglog grada. Jer mi ni glava čitava, ni telo ostati neće… Čist’te se sad iz hrama i na nevolje spremni bud’te.”

Kad su već pali u očajanje posle ovoga, vrate se još jednom, sa novim žrtvama i mole za ugodnije proročanstvo: “Gospode, smiluj se na ove grančice s kojima smo ti došli i proreci nam nešto bolje o našoj otadžbini, u protivnom slučaju nećemo otići iz hrama, nego ćemo ostati tu dok ne umremo.” Srećom, dok sam ovo prepričavao ćerki, seckao sam luk za ramstek, pa nije mogla biti sigurna zbog čega tati suze oči.

Herodot pokušava da bude objektivan i ne predstavlja varvare kao proste divljake, ali ipak se radi o ratu između sila porobljavanja (Persije) i sila slobode (Atina) i njegova strast izbija sa svake strane. I ta strast se kroz ovo (inače, prvo preživelo dugačko delo u prozi) prenosi i na čitaoca. Priznajem, ponekad nije lako ispratiti sve sitnice - poznavanje grčke mitologije je skoro pa preduslov, a ne treba zaboraviti da je ovo istorija bez godina, pa je fino pratiti Vikipediju za dobijanje osećaja o vremenu - ali vredi truda. Herodot u uvodu kaže da je ovo delo pisao “radi toga da se vremenom ne bi umanjio značaj onoga što je čovečanstvo stvorilo, te da velika i divna dela, i ona koja su stvorili Heleni, kao i ona koja su stvorili varvari, ne bi bila zaboravljena, i zato da bi objasnio zašto je između Helena i varvara dolazilo do ratova.” Čitamo ga 2.500 godina kasnije, moglo bi se reći da je uspeo u tome.

P.S. Pre čitanja odgledao sam sjajan
Yale-ov kurs u 24 predavanja o istoriji antičke Grčke.

The Landmark Herodotus: blue/black/white maps every few pages; set out for readability; marginal content notes to skim through or locate events; opens to lie flat; short appendices A-U and an exhaustive index; the only fault in its well-thought-out usability may be its weight on your lap. Inexpensive for the quality.

This book is not only about histories. It's also about the way of life of various long-lost civilizations notably the Persians, the Greeks (apparently there were so many nations then), the Egyptians, the Scythians, and many more. An interesting mix of history, anthropology, geography (I hate this part because there are no illustrations or pictures), political and social sciences...this book is not only quite thick, but provides a really vast description on those above mentioned people. The details given in the book makes me grateful I live in the current age.

The first half of the book was kinda boring but the second half was superb. I especially love reading the battles in Marathon, Salamis and Plataea. Total EPIC. Battle of Thermopylae was not so bad, but I was surprised with so little details on the battle itself, considering there are already two movies about it (AFAIK), i.e. The 300 Spartans and its poor remake, 300 dan probably even poorer sequel (why on earth Zack Snyder and Frank Miller keep on defiling ancient history??).

I think Herodotus made some exaggerated statements, such as the amount of troops brought by Xerxes to invade Greece. Almost 3,000,000, huh? Did the then world population even top that? Don't think so. Maybe around 150,000 to 300,000 would be more believable. There are so many names of people, places, nations, races, etc that can give you a headache. But whatever, I still like this book because it gave me a window to the ancient yet highly illustrious past which is almost forgotten by the current generation.

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.

Sięgając po “Dzieje” na fali chwilowej fascynacji greckim antykiem obawiałem się, czy na pewno podołam lekturze. Teksty źródłowe potrafią być na tyle specyficzne, że trudno czerpać przyjemność z ich czytania, zwłaszcza gdy liczą sobie z grubsza 2500 lat. Obawy te okazały się na szczęście zupełnie bezpodstawne.

Herodot z Halikarnasu, nazywany ojcem historii, posiada również mniej szlachetny przydomek - ojciec kłamstwa. Już w antyku podważano jego twierdzenia, a spór wśród badaczy o to, gdzie Herodot, umyślnie, bądź nie, skłamał, trwa do dziś. Zdecydowałem się tym zbytnio nie przejmować, niech czynią to ludzie mądrzejsi ode mnie. Ufny niczym dziecko chwyciłem wyciągniętą przez Herodota dłoń i pozwoliłem mu prowadzić się przez fascynujący świat śródziemnomorskiego antyku.

Najważniejszym atutem “Dziejów” jest w mojej opinii okazja do spojrzenia na świat oczami człowieka, od którego dzieli nas 25 wieków. Zaskoczyła mnie wnikliwość i podejrzliwość Herodota wobec usłyszanych przekazów. Wielokrotnie zaznaczał, że coś wydało mu się mało prawdopodobne (azjatyckie latające węże), a na przyjęte przez ówczesnych za pewniki twierdzenia o świecie starał się znaleźć logiczne uzasadnienia. Jednocześnie nie podważał istnienia, lub wpływu bogów na życie zwykłych śmiertelników, przypisując rezultaty bitew ich interwencjom. Fascynująca była też dla mnie wiedza Herodota o wzajemnym przenikaniu się kultur i zapożyczaniu tradycji i wierzeń - sam doszukiwał się rodowodu niektórych z greckich obyczajów w kulturze i mitologii egipskiej.

Na osobne omówienie zasługuje polskie wydanie w serii Biblioteka Narodowa. Wstęp prof. Romualda Turasiewicza znacznie ułatwia lekturę “Dziejów”, wyjaśniając zarówno kontekst historyczny i literacki. Przypisy profesora oraz Sławomira Sprawskiego pozwalają natomiast oddać się lekturze bez obaw, że czegoś nie zrozumiemy, lub źle zinterpretujemy. Przekład Sławomira Hammera zachowuje antyczny klimat dzieła, nie czyniąc jednocześnie z lektury drogi przez mękę. Na końcu książki znajduje się również słowniczek helleńskich terminów oraz tabela miar, które czynią lekturę o wiele przystępniejszą.

Gdybyście jednak wciąż nie czuli się zachęceni do sięgnięcia po “Dzieje”, rozważcie, czy chcieli/chciałybyście dowiedzieć się więcej na następujące tematy:

Końskie genitalia, a objęcie przez Dariusza tronu Persji
Scytowie jako inspiracja dla rodu Boltonów z “Pieśni lodu i ognia”
Trakowie - pierwsi ludzie pozbawieni złudzeń
Ludzkie gazy w starożytnej dyplomacji
Pustynne złoto i jego strażnicy - krwiożercze mrówki
Wypiek chleba jako metafora n3kr0filii

I wiele, wiele innych, których odkrycie pozostawiam Wam.

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.

Do you secretly enjoy reading about murder, betrayal, torture, infanticide, mass suicide, Patricide & Co. (to name a few!) and whimsical people making idiotic decisions that end up butchering entire nations?

Oboy, do we have something for you! Have you heard of... Ancient Greece™?

The cradle of high European culture my balls, but let the bestselling author Herodotus tell you about it! Reading about human sacrifice has never been so entertaining.

Side effects may include: death out of boredom as the author eagerly and endlessly describes manmade lakes and canals and the exact process of digging them (it is, after all, a historical account... sort of) or, at the very least, perpetual confusion as about every person that had ever lived prior to Herodotus time is mentioned in this sensational piece of work.

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.

One of the surprising things about this book is that, despite its antiquity, the author’s personality comes through. Of course I’m hearing his voice through translation, but I couldn’t help but imagine that I was on the listening end of an extended conversation with the book’s narrator who had traveled widely, met many people, and read much. The book’s narrative sounds almost conversational with numerous digressions and detours that indicate extensive knowledge of the background of the characters and incidents being described. I almost feel like I’ve met the author who lived nearly 2.5 thousand years ago.

This book is generally recognized as the founding work of history in Wester literature. Published around 425 BC, the year the author died, it recounts the traditions, politics, geography, and wars of that era. The actual writing of the work had probably stretched over a number of prior years. The work is divided into nine books beginning with founding myths and Trojan War and proceeding through Greek history until the second Persian invasion.

It’s interesting to note that the second Persian invasion occurred approximately fifty-five years prior to the publishing of this account. Those intervening years were the zenith of the golden years of Ancient Greece during which Athens dominated over the other Greek city states. However, the beginning rebellions of what later became known as the Peloponnesian War (431 BC – 404 BC) were underway.

n  LINKn to my review of History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides.

n  LINKn to my review of Herodotus: The Father of History, by Elizabeth Vandiver (24 lectures)

Postscript added Sept 24, 2019:
One story told by Herodotus I found of particular interest—he reported being told of a Phoenician ship that circumnavigated around Africa (a.k.a. Libya in Herodotus’ era). This would have occurred about 2,000 years prior to Vasco da Gama. I was amazed to learn this, but Herodotus referenced the incident only as a reason for concluding that Africa was a smaller continent than Europe. Herodotus said the Phoenicians reported that the sun passed to the north of the ship while they were in the southern part of Africa—Herodotus believed this to be impossible. Ironically, Herodotus referenced the report of a northern sun as a reason for doubting to whole story, whereas today we recognize it as a reason to conclude that the reported circumnavigation to be credible.

An anthropological and historical survey of Ancient Greece and the Near East
26 April

tLocated in the Ancient Agora in Athens, under the reconstructed Stoa (porch) of Herod Atticus, is a bust of what could be considered to be the world's first ever historian.



tIt always fascinates me that in an era long before photography was ever conceived, and the ability to paint was restricted to basic drawings and sketches (if indeed they have survived), that because of the skill and ability of the ancient sculptors we are able to have a good idea of what these ancient people looked like. As for me, when I wondered into the Stoa of Atticus on hot Greek summer sunday, I stood amazed before the bust of Herodotus and said to myself, 'so, he did have a beard'.

tAnyway, for those who have been dying to know where Frank Miller got the idea for these movies (and comic books from which the movies were adapted):




then this is the book. In fact, Herodotus of Halicarnasus, in the opening paragraph, says that the purpose of this book is for the readers to understand the background to how these particular events occurred, namely the war between the Persians and the Greeks, which culminated in the battles of Thermopylae (300), Salamis (300: Rise of an Empire, though the movie is much, much, much more loosely based on the actual events than is 300) and Plataea (mentioned in passing at the end of 300). Oh, and I probably should also mention the battle of Marathon, where the Athenians managed to defeat the Persian landing party using the same tactics that Hannibal used to defeat the Romans at Cannae.

tHerodotus brings back a lot of memories for me though, especially sitting in Ancient Greek translating the entirety of book (or chapter) two, which is an 80 page exposition on the Egyptian culture (which, in my own opinion, is quite fascinating, particularly since he notices that the Egyptians practiced circumcision). Anyway, there have been a number of debates as to whether Herodotus is actually a history, or whether it is more of an anthropological text because he does spend an incredible amount of time exploring the culture and practices of many of the nations that live in the regions that he is interested in (namely everything to the east of Greece because, for some reason, in Herodotus' world, there is nothing all that much interesting to the west, despite the fact that at this time Rome did exist as a city – though he does mention Carthage and the Greek colonies in Sicily).

tThey (and by they I pretty much mean everybody) refer to Herodotus as the 'Father of History' and in many ways that is the case. The original Greek title of the book is 'Historia' which, in Greek, means, well, a story or a tale, which is in many cases correct because it is the story, or the tale, of how we arrived at this particular point. Ignoring all of the distractions (and there are some pretty fascinating distractions at that) regarding the cultural behaviours of the people that Herodotus explores (for instance the Persians did not have market places, the Egyptians loved al-fresco dining, and the Scythians did not believe in marriage, but rather shared and shared alike), the whole purpose of this incredibly long (and fascinating) book is about the Third (or second, depending on whether you include the first attempted invasion of Greece where Darius' fleet was destroyed off the coast of Mount Athos) Persian War and the victory of the Greeks over the much more powerful Persian Empire (though one could say that this is not actually all that surprising considering that at the time the Persian Empire had reached the limits of its power).

tAnother thing they (and by that I mean a handful of Classical Historians) say about Herodotus is that he is the 'Father of Lies'. Personally I thought that this is probably a little bit too harsh for the poor guy since the Bible refers to this guy:



tas the father of lies, and I won't throw in the picture of some politician as another comparison since, as everybody knows, all politicians lie for their own benefit. Anyway, back to Herodotus and as to why they refer to him as such. First of all it seems that it is because he writes about a number of things that he himself could simply not know about. This I feel may be a little strenuous because throughout his book Herodotus does indicate that he obtained much of his information from people who have been to those places or where witnesses to those events, and we also need to consider that back in those days the writers (especially the first Historian) did not need to quote sources in the same way that academics do today. The other reason that I suspect is probably because Herodotus is writing from an Hellenic point of view meaning that one could consider that much of his writings are little more than propaganda, exulting the Greeks above that of the other races. However the fact that Herodotus goes into enormous details in relation to the other cultures that existed around him at the time, I believe, is evidence against the idea that Herodotus is little more than an Ancient Greek propagandist.

tThe final thing that I want to look at is Herodotus' relationship with the Bible. Okay, as far as I know nobody is using Herodotus as a means to disprove the accounts of the Old Testament because, well, he is neither here nor there with regards to the accounts in the Bible. For those who want to disprove the Bible, my position is that you are going to have to look elsewhere because the fact that Herodotus does not mention the Jewish nation is a pretty flimsy attack, especially since at the time of Herodotus' writing it was most likely around the time the Jews had returned from exile and were probably did not even appear on his radar. In fact, you will notice that Herodotus does not even mention the existence of the Philistines or any of the other tribes that inhabited the area (though we should note that when the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered Palestine they shifted the populations around so as to prevent nationalist uprisings).

tWhat we do have with regards to Herodotus and the Bible (with the exception of the three main kings of Persia, who are mentioned in both accounts) is the fall of Babylon. For those who believe that there is a difference (Herodotus mentions two incidents, though the second was a nationalist uprising against the Persian overlords) we need to consider the reasoning behind the two accounts. Herodotus is writing a detailed history of the Greco-Persian conflicts and in doing so is writing a history of the Persian Empire from its inception. One of the significant events in the rise of the Persian Empire was the fact that they managed to conquer the Babylonian Empire (who had previously held sway over the Middle East), and Herodotus goes into explicit details in how that happened. The Biblical account of the fall of the Babylonian Empire can be found in the book of Daniel (Chapter 5). Here we have what is in effect a very brief description of what happened, namely Belshazzar went to sleep (probably quite drunk) King of Babylon and work up a Persian slave. The reason that Daniel does not go into explicit detail in relation to the fall of Babylon is that he is not writing a history but rather a theological tract and in doing so he is demonstrating the power of God over the Earthly authorities. Up until that time nobody imagined that Babylon would fall. Even though at the time the Persian army was camped outside the gates of the city, nobody believed that they would be able to breach the walls. However, the Persians did manage to breach the walls and the Babylonian empire was overthrown. Daniel's purpose was not to say how it happened (most likely because his readers probably already knew how it happened) but rather he was showing God's hand in the event. What Herodotus shows us, though, is how it happened, and by reading Daniel's account we can see God's hand in these events.

tFor those who are interested, I have written a blog post on what the world would have been like if the Greeks had lost at Marathon, and lost at Salamis.

খুবই ছোটবেলায় চাচার মুখে শুনেছিলাম, "ইতিহাসের জনক হেরোডটাস"। সেই ছোটবেলা থেকেই মনের গভীরে সুপ্ত-বাসনা ছিল, "বড় হয়ে হেরোডটাসের বই পড়ব"; অবশেষে আমি বড় হয়ে গিয়েছি, আমি হেরোডটাসের 'হিস্টোরিস' পড়ে ফেলেছি। তবে কে জানত আমার মত হেরোডটাসের ভাগ্য তার চাচার সাথে জড়িত থাকবে। তবে দুঃখ হল এই যে প্রায় সকল "প্রথম প্রেমের" ছ্যাকা খাওয়ার মত, হেরোডটাসের 'হিস্টোরিস' আমাকে হতাশ করেছে; যেন অনেক আশা বুকে নিয়ে সম্পুর্ণ নিরাশ হয়ে ফিরে আশা। যাই হোক, প্রথম প্রেম তো সসময়ই প্রথম, চাইলেও ভোলা যায় না। ......

হেরোডটাস জন্মেছিলেন হেলিকার্নাসুস (বর্তমানে তুরস্ক) নামক এশিয়ান গ্রীক কলোনীতে। অনেক সম্ভ্রান্ত পরিবারেই জন্মেছিলেন হেরোডটাস, তার চাচা ছিলেন গ্রীক মার্চেন্ট আর পরিব্রাজক। খুবই ছোটবেলা থেকে চাচার কাছে মুগ্ধ হয়ে শুনতেন পৃথিবীর বিভিন্ন প্রান্তের আজব আজব সব কাহিনী। কিন্তু তার চাচার ভুলের কারণে মাত্র ২৩ বছর বয়সে দেশ ছাড়তে হয় হেরোডটাসকে। তাই হেরোডটাসকে বলা হয়, "Historian not by choice, rather fate"। ভাগ্য তাকে ইতিহাসবিদ হওয়ার জন্য তৈরি করেছেন। হেরোডটাসের আমলে আরোও শতাধিক হিস্টোরিয়ানের নাম জানা যায়, কিন্তু এক হেরোডটাস ছাড়া আর কারো লেখা সারভাইভ করে নি। এটা অনেকটা ঐতিহাসিক সত্য যে, হেরোডটাস তার বেশিরভাগ কাহিনী হেকাটিয়ুস থেকে কপি করেছেন। তাহলে প্রশ্ন জাগতে পারে, কিভাবে হেরোডটাসের মত সেকেন্ড গ্রেড একজন ইতিহাসবিদের লেখা সারভাইভ করল? এই প্রশ্নের উত্তর খুজতে আমাদের যেতে হবে, গ্রিসের গোল্ডেন এইজ বা সোনালী সময়ে যখন পেরিক্লিস ছিলেন গ্রীসের স্ট্র্যাটেগয় বা কমান্ডার পেরিক্লিস প্রথম স্টেট ফান্ড ব্যবহার করে একটা পাবলিক লাইব্রেরি তৈরি করেছিলেন যেখানে প্রায় ৩০ হাজার প্যাপিরাস সংগৃহীত ছিল। যে কেউ চাইলে এথেন্সের এই লাইব্রেরীতে তার বই/লেখা জমা রাখতে পারতেন। কথিত আছে যে, হেরোডটাসের বয়স যখন পঞ্চাশাধিক তখন তিনি এথেন্সে আসেন (৪৪৭ বিসি) এবং তার "হিস্টোরিস" লেখা শুরু করেন। তিনি এথেন্সের মুক্তমঞ্চে যখন তার লেখা বই পড়ে শুনিয়েছিলেন, এথেন্সবাসী নাকি মুগ্ধ হয়ে ৬০ ট্যালেন্ট (প্রায় ৬ লক্ষ ডলার) পুরস্কার দিয়েছিলেন। তবে বইটা পড়লে বারবার কেবল এটাই মনে হয় যে, হেরোডটাস এথেন্সবাসীকে মুগ্ধ করার জন্যই এই বইটা লিখছিলেন।যাই হোক, পেরিক্লিসের বানানো সেই পাবলিক লাইব্রেরিতে হেরোডটাস তার হিস্টোরিস ডোনেট করেছিলেন এবং ঠিক এখান থেকেই হেরোডটাসের হিস্টোরিস সম্পুর্ণ অক্ষতভাবে উদ্ধার করা হয়েছে। ইতিহাসের নির্মম পরিহাস।

প্রত্যেক হিস্টোরিয়ানই কোন না কোনভাবে বায়াসড, হেরোডটাস বায়াসড গ্রীসের (স্পেশালি এথেন্স) প্রতি; হাজার হোক তার মাতৃভূমি, বায়াসড হওয়���টাই স্বাভাবিক। হেরোডটাস থিউসিডিডিস এর মত লজিক্যাল আর কোহেরেন্ট না। অনেক বেশি আউলাঝাউলা তার লেখা। আমি জানি না সিসেরোর কেন মনে হইছে হেরোডটাস ইতিহাসের জনক তবে আমি আমি স্ট্র্যাবোর সাথে একমতঃ "There is too much nonsense in Herodotus!" হেরোডটাসের মতে, "ইথিওপিয়ানদের সিমেন কালো!, নেবুচাঁদরেজার কে মহিলা, আল্পসকে বলেছেন নদী, জারক্সিসেস আর্মি হিসেব করেছেন ৫ মিলিয়নের উপরে যেটা প্রায় ইম্পসিবল!, হাজারো মিথকে তিনি সত্যি হিসেবে ধরে নিয়েছেন"। আবার মাঝে মাঝে অনেক বেশি রেশনালিস্টিক কথাবার্তাও লিখেছেন। There are So much Bullshits as History!! হেরোডটাসের হিস্টোরিস পড়ে বারবার মনে হয়েছে এটা একজন লোকের লেখা না; হয় এটা কয়েকজন মিলে লিখেছেন অথবা অন্যের চোথা মেরে দিয়েছেন।

(কন্টিনিউ)

This is the first non-fiction book ever written.

This is an amazing translation as the words appear as fresh as when they were written 2,500 years ago. The book is a mixture of history and legend, an enthralling read even when the author is describing the tribes of Libya and their characteristics. The events included are all the major battles between Persia and Greece...Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea.

I'm still in shock I read this book so quickly, testament to the author's engaging style.