8 ms·

Reading Herodotus' "The Histories" was life altering for me - I highly recomend it - but you MUST read a quality translation. I read the translation by Robin Wa

Reading Herodotus' "The Histories" was life altering for me - I highly recomend it - but you MUST read a quality translation. I read the translation by Robin Waterfield. There are other good translations. What you should not do is download any old version you find online. Bad translations ruin the book.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
zwkrt 8y ago
Can you elaborate on why it was so impactful?
- herodotus 8y ago
  I think everdrive captures it well: the ancient text most of us are exposed to in childhood is the bible (or other religious texts). I forgave a lot, because I just imagined that people were like that back then: gullible, ignorant, lacking in a critical approach. When you read Herodotus, it is like sitting in a room with a modern fabulous story teller. He is thoughtful, critical, sarcastic, skeptical and amusing. In short, a thoroughly modern person. The stories themselves are of course compelling too - the epic struggles between Greece and Persia. But it is the sense of intelligence that comes through. As I said, for me, life altering.
  - mrsharpoblunto 8y ago
    Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast has a whole series on the Persian empire (King’s of King’s) that draws heavily from Herodotus. It gets quite meta in places with a lot of time dedicated to Herodotus and his storytelling style, and he ends up as one of the more fascinating characters in the story itself. Dan likens him to a modern day screenwriter with a sense for drama and emotion that previous historians lacked and that reading Herodotus vs earlier records is in some ways like the difference between the black and white silent film era and modern cinema.
  - acqq 8y ago
    I've just recently discovered other people in the other parts of the world who were also completely not gullible also around 2500 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajita_Kesakambali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajita_Kesakambali "Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka "Charvakas denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions.[40] Charvakas also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things."
    - dan-robertson 8y ago
      I think this example is sort-of silly. It’s basically “there existed in the past people who denied religious beliefs which I also deny therefore they were not completely gullible.” But this argument basically requires one to assume that (a) society was progressing towards the denying of these religious beliefs and (b) that these people were part of the steps of that progress. It all feels very Whiggish. One can imagine eg a modern day Christian looking back to some roman converting to Christianity and saying that clearly not all Romans were completely gullible. I do not claim that there is nothing interesting in the history here but I do claim that it isn’t at all about gullibility.
      - acqq 8y ago
        > this argument basically requires one to assume that (a) society was progressing towards the denying of these religious beliefs No. I've never said that and I don't believe in that. My thesis it: there were the thinkers around 2500 years ago, on some very distant places, that came to the basis that is the actual basis of the modern science, fruits of which we all enjoy. The actual basis of the science is simple: to investigate the world, one must simply posit that the scientific explanation for any observation is not any other-worldy miracle. As soon as one bases his explanation on that, anything is possible, and automatically is out of the science. Moreover, the sciences which have to posit that aren't only physics or biology. Even history has to posit that: the basic premise of historic examination of any historic even is that there were no deities doing miracles, but the stories claiming miracles invented by humans. So one can either do history scientifically, or simply be religious, but he can't get the points in science from doing later. His work will then, correctly, be dismissed. Note, we started the discussion here by talking about Herodotus, the father of history. Not the father of religion. For a historian doing history, every religious story involving miracles is just a myth, no matter which religion tells it. Every (non theological) university book can't be made otherwise. And the same approach was of course true for the physicists doing physics: Newton could believe in deities as much a he wanted, he didn't explain the movements of planets with angels flipping wings but by demonstrating the calculations based on the rules of gravitation.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    For me the best story was finding out that already back then it was common to do "Erasmus", Greek medicine students going to Egipt to practice with what were the best known doctors in the field for a couple of years. Also in similar vein there is a letter from a known Roman writer, cannot remember the name now, complaining how his son is wasting his money in student parties in Athens instead of taking care to finish his degree. Some things haven't changed that much in a couple of thousand years. :)
    - andrepd 8y ago
      It was common, in many periods of history, for young and wealthy men to go on travels for purposes of education (e.g. the Grand Tour of 17th century aristocrats). Interestingly enough, one of the key principles of the development of early medieval universities was free and unmolested travel of scholars between institutions, independent of civil or religious authorities. This means both teachers and students travelled between universities to teach / find better teachers, respectively. Off-topic: the phrase "do Erasmus" is unmistakable. I see you're either Portuguese or Spanish ;)
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Portuguese. :)
everdrive 8y ago
I just read the Robin Waterfield myself, and I found it absolutely wonderful. It was the first ancient writing I've read in my adult life, and I was shocked by how clear and easy to understand it was. I know there are arguments for preserving the original prose of a text, however reading Waterfield's translation, it's clear that Herodotus wanted to be understood. He spoke clearly, and often caveated his speech to as to be clear to the reader. I can grab some verbatim excerpts if anyone's interested, but his clarification when telling of Darius of child ("But he didn't say Darius, because no one knew he was called Darius yet") and then his explanation of a metaphor in Getae blew my mind. ("They probably don't mean the northern lands are literally covered in feathers, and this was likely just a metaphor for snow.") This is how a precise, scientifically-minded modern writer would communicate. I had always always equated ancient writing with the Old Testament, or some of the more metaphor-laden prose for old plays (Oedipus) that were pretty opaque to my young mind. But reading Waterfield's translation of Herodotus was a different experience altogether: every sentence is easy to understand, and you can sympathize strongly with Herodotus and the ancient peoples he talks about: there's quite a bit of talent and intelligence, but not much concrete information. And, if you read the Histories without a reference nearby, then you're on equal footing with Herodotus himself.
- Udik 8y ago
  To add to your comment, this is one of the examples I still remember from reading parts of the Histories: "As for Libya [Africa, apparently], we know it to be washed on all sides by the sea, except where it is attached to Asia. This discovery was first made by Necos, the Egyptian king, who on desisting from the canal which he had begun between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent to sea a number of ships manned by Phoenicians, with orders to make for the Pillars of Hercules [the strait of Gibraltar], and return to Egypt through them, and by the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians took their departure from Egypt by way of the Erythraean sea, and so sailed into the southern ocean. When autumn came, they went ashore, wherever they might happen to be, and having sown a tract of land with corn, waited until the grain was fit to cut. Having reaped it, they again set sail; and thus it came to pass that two whole years went by, and it was not till the third year that they doubled the Pillars of Hercules, and made good their voyage home. On their return, they declared- I for my part do not believe them, but perhaps others may- that in sailing round Libya they had the sun upon their right hand. In this way was the extent of Libya first discovered." So Herodotus passes on us a piece of information he doesn't understand or believe in, but that seems to prove that the circumnavigation of Africa actually happened because the sailors, having passed the equator, kept seeing the sun on their right side at midday- since they were moving clockwise around the continent. Shivers :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stevenwoo 8y ago
You must have enjoyed the references to it in "American Gods" it's a slightly uncommon recommended reading for one of the first characters we meet.
comicjk 8y ago
If you like Herodotus, you should also try Thucydides, who wrote just slightly later. His attitude towards history is strikingly modern, to the point when it's a shock when he mentions some "new" piece of technology that's 2,500 years old.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

zwkrt 8y ago

Can you elaborate on why it was so impactful?

herodotus 8y ago
I think everdrive captures it well: the ancient text most of us are exposed to in childhood is the bible (or other religious texts). I forgave a lot, because I just imagined that people were like that back then: gullible, ignorant, lacking in a critical approach. When you read Herodotus, it is like sitting in a room with a modern fabulous story teller. He is thoughtful, critical, sarcastic, skeptical and amusing. In short, a thoroughly modern person. The stories themselves are of course compelling too - the epic struggles between Greece and Persia. But it is the sense of intelligence that comes through. As I said, for me, life altering.
- mrsharpoblunto 8y ago
  Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast has a whole series on the Persian empire (King’s of King’s) that draws heavily from Herodotus. It gets quite meta in places with a lot of time dedicated to Herodotus and his storytelling style, and he ends up as one of the more fascinating characters in the story itself. Dan likens him to a modern day screenwriter with a sense for drama and emotion that previous historians lacked and that reading Herodotus vs earlier records is in some ways like the difference between the black and white silent film era and modern cinema.
- acqq 8y ago
  I've just recently discovered other people in the other parts of the world who were also completely not gullible also around 2500 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajita_Kesakambali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajita_Kesakambali "Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charvaka "Charvakas denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions.[40] Charvakas also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things."
  - dan-robertson 8y ago
    I think this example is sort-of silly. It’s basically “there existed in the past people who denied religious beliefs which I also deny therefore they were not completely gullible.” But this argument basically requires one to assume that (a) society was progressing towards the denying of these religious beliefs and (b) that these people were part of the steps of that progress. It all feels very Whiggish. One can imagine eg a modern day Christian looking back to some roman converting to Christianity and saying that clearly not all Romans were completely gullible. I do not claim that there is nothing interesting in the history here but I do claim that it isn’t at all about gullibility.
    - acqq 8y ago
      > this argument basically requires one to assume that (a) society was progressing towards the denying of these religious beliefs No. I've never said that and I don't believe in that. My thesis it: there were the thinkers around 2500 years ago, on some very distant places, that came to the basis that is the actual basis of the modern science, fruits of which we all enjoy. The actual basis of the science is simple: to investigate the world, one must simply posit that the scientific explanation for any observation is not any other-worldy miracle. As soon as one bases his explanation on that, anything is possible, and automatically is out of the science. Moreover, the sciences which have to posit that aren't only physics or biology. Even history has to posit that: the basic premise of historic examination of any historic even is that there were no deities doing miracles, but the stories claiming miracles invented by humans. So one can either do history scientifically, or simply be religious, but he can't get the points in science from doing later. His work will then, correctly, be dismissed. Note, we started the discussion here by talking about Herodotus, the father of history. Not the father of religion. For a historian doing history, every religious story involving miracles is just a myth, no matter which religion tells it. Every (non theological) university book can't be made otherwise. And the same approach was of course true for the physicists doing physics: Newton could believe in deities as much a he wanted, he didn't explain the movements of planets with angels flipping wings but by demonstrating the calculations based on the rules of gravitation.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  For me the best story was finding out that already back then it was common to do "Erasmus", Greek medicine students going to Egipt to practice with what were the best known doctors in the field for a couple of years. Also in similar vein there is a letter from a known Roman writer, cannot remember the name now, complaining how his son is wasting his money in student parties in Athens instead of taking care to finish his degree. Some things haven't changed that much in a couple of thousand years. :)
  - andrepd 8y ago
    It was common, in many periods of history, for young and wealthy men to go on travels for purposes of education (e.g. the Grand Tour of 17th century aristocrats). Interestingly enough, one of the key principles of the development of early medieval universities was free and unmolested travel of scholars between institutions, independent of civil or religious authorities. This means both teachers and students travelled between universities to teach / find better teachers, respectively. Off-topic: the phrase "do Erasmus" is unmistakable. I see you're either Portuguese or Spanish ;)
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Portuguese. :)

everdrive 8y ago

I just read the Robin Waterfield myself, and I found it absolutely wonderful. It was the first ancient writing I've read in my adult life, and I was shocked by how clear and easy to understand it was. I know there are arguments for preserving the original prose of a text, however reading Waterfield's translation, it's clear that Herodotus wanted to be understood. He spoke clearly, and often caveated his speech to as to be clear to the reader. I can grab some verbatim excerpts if anyone's interested, but his clarification when telling of Darius of child ("But he didn't say Darius, because no one knew he was called Darius yet") and then his explanation of a metaphor in Getae blew my mind. ("They probably don't mean the northern lands are literally covered in feathers, and this was likely just a metaphor for snow.") This is how a precise, scientifically-minded modern writer would communicate. I had always always equated ancient writing with the Old Testament, or some of the more metaphor-laden prose for old plays (Oedipus) that were pretty opaque to my young mind. But reading Waterfield's translation of Herodotus was a different experience altogether: every sentence is easy to understand, and you can sympathize strongly with Herodotus and the ancient peoples he talks about: there's quite a bit of talent and intelligence, but not much concrete information. And, if you read the Histories without a reference nearby, then you're on equal footing with Herodotus himself.

Udik 8y ago
To add to your comment, this is one of the examples I still remember from reading parts of the Histories: "As for Libya [Africa, apparently], we know it to be washed on all sides by the sea, except where it is attached to Asia. This discovery was first made by Necos, the Egyptian king, who on desisting from the canal which he had begun between the Nile and the Arabian gulf, sent to sea a number of ships manned by Phoenicians, with orders to make for the Pillars of Hercules [the strait of Gibraltar], and return to Egypt through them, and by the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians took their departure from Egypt by way of the Erythraean sea, and so sailed into the southern ocean. When autumn came, they went ashore, wherever they might happen to be, and having sown a tract of land with corn, waited until the grain was fit to cut. Having reaped it, they again set sail; and thus it came to pass that two whole years went by, and it was not till the third year that they doubled the Pillars of Hercules, and made good their voyage home. On their return, they declared- I for my part do not believe them, but perhaps others may- that in sailing round Libya they had the sun upon their right hand. In this way was the extent of Libya first discovered." So Herodotus passes on us a piece of information he doesn't understand or believe in, but that seems to prove that the circumnavigation of Africa actually happened because the sailors, having passed the equator, kept seeing the sun on their right side at midday- since they were moving clockwise around the continent. Shivers :)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stevenwoo 8y ago

You must have enjoyed the references to it in "American Gods" it's a slightly uncommon recommended reading for one of the first characters we meet.

comicjk 8y ago

If you like Herodotus, you should also try Thucydides, who wrote just slightly later. His attitude towards history is strikingly modern, to the point when it's a shock when he mentions some "new" piece of technology that's 2,500 years old.