Hegel and Marx get a lot of credit for changing the way we view the writing of history, and well they should. But Herodotus was highlighting the subjectivity of historical records well before either were born.

Here's a perfect example of how translation really does matter: the Penguin Classics edition of Histories is a very different read from this one. The Oxford translation has more humor, more self-awareness, more of an understanding that even Herodotus doesn't necessarily think what he is reporting can be trusted as fact (lots of qualifiers like "According to learned Persians..." or "It is so-and-so's contention that...", etc).

Regardless of translation or the factual content of his reporting, though, the real value of Herodotus (at least to me) is that it humanizes antiquity, putting life and personality to an era that we usually only experience through statues.

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.

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.

Of course, I read selections back in high school. So I presumed that I knew what Herodotus was all about. Then in reading/seeing The English Patient, which quotes very different kinds of selections, I began to suspect I had majorly missed the mark.

On finally reading from cover to cover, I discovered that the story of the invasions of Greece by Darius and Xerxes takes up a very small part of the book, at the end. Yes, that part has some dramatic scenes, some quotable quotes, and is "history." But most of Herodotus is anecdotal anthropology and travelogue and a delightful collection of rumors and traditions. The heart of the book isn't the history, it's the digressions. That's where you get the flavor of the times, a sense of what it might have been like to live in the fifth century B.C.

Eye openers:

The physical territory of Greece was but a small part of the Greek world, long before Alexander conquered and hellenized. Considering how slow and difficult transportation was, it's truly remarkable the cosmopolitan nature of that Mediterranean world. There are Greeks and Greek influence all over Egypt -- and the influence of Egypt on Greece was strong. In fact, it's very difficult to say where one culture ends and another begins -- there is little correlation between political boundaries and cultural boundaries.
The Greeks come across as a semi-nomadic people, frequently taking to their ships en masse, abandoning one territory/city and going off to conquer and settle territory somewhere else in the Mediterranean. They are nomads of the sea. They are like hermit crabs, shedding one shell and then taking over another, or sometimes growing another. There are Greek settlements all along the coasts of Africa, Italy, and Spain, and on almost every island -- not just in the Aegean and Ionian Seas, but also Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.
The oracles, particularly the oracle at Delphi, play a key role in determining when, where, and how populations move. Anyone contemplating "colonization" consults the oracles and anyone involved in a territorial dispute brought on by colonization consults the oracles as well. Greek peoples seem to be constantly at war with one another and shifting alliances for the flimsiest of reasons -- whether because of a bribe and/or because of some bizarre cultural insult (with obscure precedents in the distant, legendary past). But all trust the same oracle(s) and fear the wrath of gods should they desecrate temples or holy places (regardless of whether it is a god that they themselves hold in high esteem).
Some religious/cultural traditions are very local and others are held in common. The Spartans, for instance, are repeatedly constrained from participating in key battles/events because of local festivals/ceremonies which make little sense to other Greeks. (e.g., don't send troops to battle Darius' army at Marathon, despite the urgent pleas of the Athenians). But all respect the tradition of the Olympics -- even with Xerxes horde advancing on them.
The Persians were not so totally foreign to the Greeks as the Darius/Xerxes passages alone would lead one to believe. There were many Greeks at the Persian court. Many Greek colonies and mainland cities were Persian allies, or simply considered the Persians as another player in their local deadly games of coup and conquest and colonization. It was not just a matter of right and wrong, democracy against the evil empire. The Persians invaded at the prompting and request of various Greeks who wanted their help to advance their own personal ambitions. And even Athens seriously considered switching sides and allying with the Persians.
The Greeks often colonized voluntarily. A dissident faction would, with the full support of the local political powers, gather people, ships, and supplies and go off to conquer or found a city somewhere else. Or facing the threat of conquest, an entire city make take to its ships and sail off over the horizon with only the scantiest notion of its destination, and opportunistically taking root at the first likely looking landfall.
Peoples conquered by the Persians were often forced to colonize. Darius would take soldiers captured in war or the entire populations of conquered cities and resettle them on lands hundreds of miles away. he would give the leaders of his conquered enemies estates and wealth in his own territory, and would resettle some of his own people or subject peoples on the newly conquered land. This approach and the Greek voluntary colonization led to a continuous cultural churning and cross-fertilization. I had thought of the ancient world, with its limitations of transportation, as consisting largely of isolated parochial communities -- like rural mountain towns in the 19th century. Instead it was this vast mixing bowl -- turning and turning and turning again.
There were enormous cultural differences that persisted despite this churning. The traditions and beliefs with regard to marriage/sex and religion/death differ as widely from one city or one small country to the next as they did from island to island in the South Pacific in the 1920s. And on the fringes of the "civilized" world, where there was less churn, and about which far less was known first-hand, the differences much greater and some of the common practices were much more brutal by today's standards. In particular, I was interested to read of a nation where the women as well as the men were warriors, where a woman had to kill a man in battle before she had the right to marry.
When I think of the Mediterranean world in the 5th and 4th century BC, the only woman's name that comes to mind is Aspasia -- the brilliant courtesan, who inspired Plato and others. I was surprised to read in Herodotus about Artemisia -- ruler of a small nation allied with Xerxes. Apparently, the Greeks were somewhat scandalized to see a woman as a warrior/ruler (despite their legends of Amazons). But Artemisia was one of the most effective generals in Xerxes vast army.

لم تكن تلك فكرتي عن (تاريخ هيرودوت) قبل قراءتي له ، كنت أطنه أكثر علمية من ذاك لكثرة ماتم الإستشهاد به و الرجوع إليه أكاديميا
***
حكايات لطيفة و مشوقة على أي حال :) ، و من أكثر حكاياته التي لفتت ناظري حكاية قمبيز مع ملك إثيوبيا ...، و
(الأمازونيات)
كنموذج من النماذج الأنثوية الفريدة في التاريخ القديم

n  Hubris in History: A Recurring Terrorn

n  “The conversion of legend-writing into the science of history was not native to the Greek mind, it was a fifth-century invention, and Herodotus was the man who invented it.”

~ R.G. Collingwoodn

The prime subject of The Histories is the twenty years (499-479 B.C.E) of war between Greece and Persia for domination of the Greek world. However he intersperses this main narrative with plenty of personal interest stories, “wonders” about firsts and bests, historical parallels and occasionally his own biased judgements, but always making it clear that he is interested only in presenting a viewpoint — he leaves the act of judgement to the reader. We can safely say that it was Herodotus who helped create the concept of the discipline of “history,” in part by stressing and criticizing his sources and accepted traditions. My job is to record what I have been told, make of it what you will - that is the dominant warning note wherever H’s authorial voice intervenes in the narrative. That should be the disclaimer all history books should come with.

All the main themes of the book are evident in its beginning and ending, in keeping with the circular narratives that H prefers to adopt. All the intervening incidents act like reinforcements of the overall thrust inherent in the beginning and ending.

The Beginning: The Parallel Rise of Freedom & Empire

We begin with an insecure Hellenic world, just shaking off the shackles of tyranny and tasting real ambition for the first time. Meanwhile in the other end of the world, an existing empire is being shaped into a fearsome tyrannical force by the new Persian rulers. Soon the Persian empire starts to extend ominously outwards and gobbles up most of the known world. This infringes on a core idea of H — the concept of natural limits and over-extension. Persia is meant to fall. “The Small shall become the Big; and the Big shall become the Small.”

As long as empires are driven by ambition, history is doomed to repeat itself.

The gods set limits and do not allow human beings to go beyond them; Herodotus makes it clear that the Persians have to fail in their plan to conquer Greece, because they have overreached their natural boundaries. Xerxes announces his campaign by telling his advisers that he intends to conquer Greece so that ‘we will make Persian territory end only at the sky’ (7.8).

The Middle: The Clash of Civilizations

Then we are taken through the many over-extensions of the Persian empire under a succession of rulers (in Ionia, Scythia, etc), until they are poised to encroach upon the newly non-tyrannical Greek world. Here we enter the climactic middle of the narrative and is drenched in the details of the gory encounter. Many heroes, legends and dramatic material is born here and we emerge on the other side with a clear sense that it was Athens, without the yoke of tyranny, that was able to bring down the fearsome war machine of the Persian empire. David has won out against Goliath. This is achieved due to much luck and much pluck, but in the final analysis H seems to imply that the fault was with the hubris of the Persians.

It needs to be pointed out that: H is quite clear that as human beings Persians are on the whole no better and no worse than Greeks. Structurally, however, Xerxes’ great expedition to Greece stands as a monument to the dangerous blindness of massive empires and grandiose thinking—but it is also the backdrop against which H has been able to present to us the Greeks’ love of their homeland, their valor against incredible odds, and their deep desire to preserve their freedom.

So, even as this main narrative concludes, we are shown what is the inevitable result of Hubris that over-extends its own reaches. And of how tyranny in any form is not going to triumph over people who have tasted what freedom means.

The Ending: A Reenactment of The Beginning

Herodotus could have ended there. But he doesn’t. Instead he takes us to the Ending to rub in the message and to instill that message with its true significance — what is its bearing on the future? For, an investigation of History is meaningless unless it can educate us about the future. And it is the future that H ironically points to as he takes us through the concluding sections of his Histories.

For now it is the turn of the Greeks to over-extend. In the thrill of victory and in the thrall of a thirst for revenge, in the spirit of competition with its own neighbors, Athens and Sparta launch out on its own imperialistic enterprise to mainland Asia. This is to culminate in H’s own day with the Ionians looking upon Athens as the equivalent of a Tyrant.

The beginning of this period saw the triumph of the Greek mainland states over the might of the Persian Empire, first in the initial invasion of 490 and the battle of Marathon, and then in the second invasion of 480/79, with the battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, and finally Mycaleb in Asia Mnor.

This unexpected victory against what seemed like the mightiest empire on Earth resonated in Greek consciousness through the fifth century and indeed beyond. The Greeks in general, and the Athenians in particular, because they had played the major part in the triumph of “Freedom”, saw these victories as a triumph of right over might, courage over fear, freedom over servitude, moderation over arrogance. It helped crystallize and reinforce Greeks’ attitudes to their own newfound way of life and values, intensified their supreme distrust of monarchy and tyranny, and shaped their attitude to the Persians. And after what they visualized as the great struggle for freedom, the people of Athens entered upon a spectacular era of energy and prosperity, one of the great flowering periods of Western civilization.

In more practical terms, Athens’ naval success in the Persian Wars and its enterprise immediately after led to the creation of the Athenian Empire, which started as an anti-Persian league and lasted for almost three-quarters of a century (479-404).

H seems to imply that Athens should learn from these investigations of the past, see what Tyranny can do, see the dangers of over-extension, understand the need for balance, respect certain international boundaries, and stay its own overreaching hand.

And indeed within fifty years of the Persian defeat the dream had faded, and before the end of the century Athens, over-extended abroad and overconfident at home, lay defeated at the mercy of her enemies, a Spartan garrison posted on the Acropolis and democracy in ruins. Much in the intervening years had been magnificent, it is true, but so it might have remained if the Athenians had heeded Herodotus. He had portrayed the Greek victory as a triumph over the barbarian latent in themselves, the hubris that united the invader and the native tyrant as targets of the gods. The Persian downfall, or at least the defeat of their imperialistic ambition, called not only for exultation but for compassion and lasting self-control.

As should be quite obvious, there is much to learn in this for modern times too, but with an added twist. For Hubris did not end its romp through history there. It took on new wings once history started being recorded. Now every new emperor was also competing with history. Alexander had to outdo Xerxes. Caesar had to outdo Alexander. Britain had to outdo Rome. Germany had to outdo Britain. USA had to outdo Britain, etc. A never-ending arms-race with imperial history and the accompanying Hubris that powers it.

So Herodotus, even as he recorded History so as to blunt its devastating force on the lives of men, also unwittingly added new impetus to its influence, by adding the new flavor of recorded glory to the existing receptacle of legendary glory. Hubris drank it up.

I love Herodotus. I always come back to him... He's the first of his kind, and his *historia* set the foundations for modern historiography/Ethnographic.

He's got a cool style, He mixes mythology with Historiography, and it has a fun and alluring nature. His descriptions of the "other" remind me of our conceptualization of the Orient, he's the first of his kind in many ways, and he holds a special place in my heart...

10/10 constantly revisiting

During the fifth century B.C. Herodotus of Halicarnassus traveled the known world making inquiries and doing research on the origins and events of the wars between the Persians and the Greeks. This sizable text was the result and it includes what he referred to as enquiries but what encompasses much of what we would call history, sociology, anthropology, mythology and more. It is a wonderful narrative providing the essential background and events, including famous battles like Thermopylae and profiles of great leaders on both sides including Themistocles, Darius and Xerxes. Perhaps the best way to convey the import of this book is to let Herodotus speak for himself. He opens the book thus:

"Here are presented the results of the enquiry carried out by Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The purpose is to prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements produced by both Greeks and non-Greeks; among the matters covered is, in particular, the cause of the hostilities between Greeks and non-Greeks."

Herodotus does not shy away from opinions about the events that he narrates; one of these opinions is related early in Book One:
"I know that human happiness never remains long in the same place."

He also relates the opinions of others, notably Solon who counsels the magnificently wealthy King Croesus:
"Of course, it is impossible for one who is human to have all the good things together, just as there is no one country that is sufficient of itself to provide all good things for itself; but it has one thing and not another, and the country that has the most is best. So no single person is self-sufficient; he has one thing and lacks another. But whoso possesses most of them, continuously, and then ends his life gracefully, he, my lord, may justly win this name you seek---at least in my judgment. But one must look always at the end of everything---how it will come out finally. For to many the god has shown a glimpse of blessedness only to extirpate then in the end."

This value of this, the first historian's judgment and investigation becomes more and more evident as one reads on through his narrative. It demonstrates its excellence through episode after episode with the excitement of a great novel. It is not surprising that it has survived as the first history of the clash of civilizations. Reading it was an adventure into the known world in that time.

I think I would like to invite my Goodreads friends to browse any Book you like, then take heart to start with Book I as the inception of the whole inquiry unthinkable to those Greek scholars at that time, but Herodotus could make it and you cannot help admiring him when you read his famous preamble:

Herodotus of Halicarnassus here displays his inquiry, so that human achievements may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvellous deeds -- some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians -- may not be without their glory; and especially to show why the two people fought each other. (p. 4)

This preamble, I think, in the 1970 edition may entice you as well:

HERODOTUS of Halicarnassus, his Researches are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and of other peoples; and more particularly, to show how they came into conflict. (p. 41)

Moreover, the one in this 1988 edition published by the University of Chicago Press is also interesting:

I, Herodotus of Harlicarnassus, am here setting forth my history, that time may not draw the color from what man has brought into being, nor those great and wonderful deeds, manifested by both Greeks and barbarians, fail of their report, and, together with all this, the reason why they fought one another. (p. 33)

First of all, don't be intimidated by its length, that is, 543 pages in the 1996 Penguin edition, please find any translation you're familiar with its style or wording then keep reading a few pages once in a while, don't hope to finish it in a few days/weeks since it's one of the masterpieces in ancient history, you need time to think, take notes and ask yourself why.

Secondly, this is definitely his magnum opus for posterity of all nations to read, reflect and interpret in terms of reciprocal toleration as fellow human beings so that we learn not to make unthinkable mistakes again. In many engagements there, you can witness various unimaginably ruthless deeds instigated by the powers that be, fate and godlike valour of those true Greek and Persian soldiers. Those fallen heroes including all innumerable soldiers killed in various battles deserve our respect with awe, admiration and gratitude as our exemplary models of humankind.

And finally, scholars should honour and keep him in mind since Cicero called him 'the father of history' and we can enjoy reading his second to none narrative. However, some chapters might not be interesting when he sometime told us about the flora/fauna seemingly unrelated to the looming hostilities. I take them as relaxing moments and we can learn from what he told us frankly and good-humoredly. Those ruthless war scenes, for instance from Chapter 20 onwards in Book IX, are amazingly described to the extent that we can visualize such ruthless gory scenes with increasingly stupefying horror in which it is hopelessly put into words.

That's it and I think I would reread the University of Chicago version for solace and advice in there whenever I'm free from work. It'd teach us of course to mind our own business, be kind, have mercy towards our fellow colleagues, friends, cousins, etc. since we all have limited time to live on earth.

Note: In fact, I have another Penguin copy with its front cover showing a painted vase depicting two soldiers in action (Persian vs. Greek), not this one so the page numbers as mentioned above may vary. Therefore, I've reposted my review since I don't know how to return to its previous book cover.

Ok, I am going to say I am officially done reading The Landmark Herodotus as of December 21, 2018. I finished the body of the text long ago but had been holding out with the intent of reading several of the critical essay appendices. I believe I did read one or two of those critical essays, but I don't expect to read more of them any time soon.
My main recommendation is yes, if you are going to read Herodotus, you should most definitely read The Landmark Herodotus. Having all those maps right there at hand while reading is really essential to getting the most out of the book and not having your eyes glaze over as often.
For much of what he writes, I have a sense that I've been hearing references to these same things all my life. Even though it's boring in places, there's a precious vibrancy to hearing the primary source.
It really is amazing to have this account of happenings thousands of years ago. A wonderful grounding in the history of the ancient world.

A remarkable work of history written 2500 years ago. One could legitimately argue that this is the most important history book ever written.

But quite honestly this read is a slog at best and it took me a very long time to complete. The one book of the nine that I truly enjoyed was the second one on Egypt largely because it described the land, people and its customs.

Herodotus felt that the other eight books were best spent on describing the various Hellenistic wars and battles. I can only wonder why that was. I suspect it is because Egypt was very interesting to him but for the other nations in the other books he was either already familiar with them or never visited.

I can’t give good reviews to books solely because of their importance to history.

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.