Classics and the Western Canon discussion

After losing the battle of Salamis, Mardonios and the remaining Persian land force intend to conquer Greece without Xerxes. Mardonios occupies Athens again, even though it has already been sacked. The Athenians are ready to fight again, but the Spartans are reluctant to join them, expending their efforts instead on a wall at the Corinthian isthmus and celebrating the festival of Hyakinthia. Eventually they are persuaded to march north under the Spartan king Pausanias. The Greeks engage the Persians at Plataea.

Before the battle, at a banquet hosted by the Thebans, one of the Persians predicts the defeat of the Persian army. His friend asks him if he shouldn't warn Mardonios, and he replies, "My friend, what has been destined to happen by the god is impossible for a mortal to avert by any contrivance, for no one believes even what trustworthy people say. And though many Persians know that this is true, we are bound by necessity to follow our orders. The most painful anguish that mortals suffer is to understand a great deal but to have no power at all."

There is a standoff for several days due to the fact that neither side could get favorable readings from their respective sacrifices, but Mardonios finally loses his patience and decides to ignore the sacrifices. The Greeks prevail, Herodotus says, not because they were superior in courage or strength, but because they had hoplite arms and because they fought in an orderly manner. Herodotus shows us that the Greeks, who fought willingly for freedom, were better at following orders under command than the Persians who were compelled to fight for Empire. (This is a general statement, of course. The Hellenes who are cut down by the Thebans at 9.69 fail for the same reason the Persians as a whole do: disorder.)

After the battle an Aeginetan named Lampon suggests to Pausanias that the body of Mardonios should be desecrated, just as the Persians desecrated the body of Leonidas after Thermopylae. Pausanias refuses, saying this is a deed more appropriate for barbarians than Hellenes. "It is quite enough for me to please the Spartans by committing no sacrilege and by speaking with respect for what is lawful and sacred."

When Xerxes left for the Hellespont, he left his tent behind for Mardonios. The Spartans are amazed by the luxury of the amenities, and Pausanias orders Xerxes's cook to prepare a Persian meal for him. As a joke, he then has his servants prepare a Spartan meal. Pausanias laughs and says, "Men of Hellas, I have brought you here together, because I wanted to show you what an idiot the leader of the Medes was. This was his lifestyle, but he came to us, who have this miserable way of life, in order to deprive us of it."

Herodotus says the naval battle of Mycale happened on the same day as Plataea. This "second Ionian revolt" results in a Greek victory and a Persian retreat to Sardis.

Nearly at the end of his inquiries Herodotus gives a very interesting story about Amastris, the wife of Xerxes. It is striking to me that Herodotus begins his book with stories that figure women prominently  -- the abduction of Helen and the wife of Candaules -- and close to the end we have with this one about Amastris, which seems to discuss the same issue: the failure to distinguish and observe boundaries.

But it's not quite over yet. The Greeks sail from Mycale to the Hellespont, intent on destroying Xerxes's bridge. They find it has already been wrecked by a storm. They besiege the nearby city of Sestos, which is ruled by a Persian named Artayktes. Artayktes’ sins are the following: he stole the wealth of Protesilaos, the first Greek to fall during the Trojan War, by telling a clever half-truth to Xerxes about taking the property of a man who “had waged war against his land.” After hoarding this wealth in Sestos he farmed the sacred grounds of Protesilaos for profit and had intercourse with women in the inner shrine. Finally, he did not prepare for the siege by the Athenians. When the Athenians capture him they crucify him on a promontory overlooking the Hellespont where bridge of Xerxes once was.

Herodotus tells us that the ancestor of Artayktes was Artembares, who suggested to Cyrus that the Persians should move out of their small and rough country and take better lands from their neighbors. Cyrus does not find this to be a “wonderful proposal,” but tells him to carry it out, “with the recommendation that as they did so they should prepare to be rulers no longer, but rather to become subjects under the rule of others. This was so, he said, because soft places tend to produce soft men; for the same land cannot yield both wonderful crops and men who are noble and courageous in war.” Herodotus says the Persians agreed with him, and chose to dwell in a poor land rather than to be slaves to others.

The last word of the last book of The Histories is δουλεύειν, which means “to be a slave.”

There are so many facts, details and stories in this book that it first it seems overwhelming. Now that I have finished it I can appreciate the amount of time and effort Herodotus must have put forth to create this work. Reading it is like being immersed in another time, another place.

Thanks for guiding us through to the end, Thomas. I've rarely felt such a sense of achievement at finishing a book. Before reading Herodotus, my impression of this weighty tome was of a dry and academic account of Greco-Persian wars, so it was refreshing to have this preconception so completely overturned. As well as being a window onto the ancient world and the customs of various peoples, The Histories also covers a wide range of fields, from early language development to cultural identity ("us" vs "them"), and Herodotus' charm and wit really shine through.

Highlights for me were the sections on Sparta and Egypt (all except the topography), Cambyses' descent into madness marked by his chief sin of disrespect for customs (“each group of people, after carefully sifting through the customs of other peoples, would surely choose its own”, 3:38) and the build-up to the Battle of Thermopylae, especially the visions of Xerxes and his chief advisor.

Just a couple of questions/comments:
1) "Father of..." I'd heard the "father of history" tag before reading Herodotus, and though it was a different type of history writing than I expected (not the Great Man version), I could still see why he justified this title. The "father of lies" tag is also understandable, given his love of tall tales and seeming credulity of oracles and portentous visions, but it's also clear to me that this was partly motivated by mean-spiritedness (especially on Plutarch's part, who was defending local pride) and a narrow understanding of how history should be written. This leads me on to the other tag ascribed to Herodotus, which is the "father of prose" or "Homer of prose" – I suppose my question is, can you be the father of history and the father of prose? If I had to choose the best descriptor of Herodotus, I'd probably choose the latter.
2) This goes back to a previous question of mine, which I probably posted too early in the discussions, about structure and style. We know that Herodotus performed some of this work as lectures, but the idea he would have delivered these nine books in their entirety over one or more performances (Audible gives the book's length as 28hrs+) seems very unlikely to me. So how was the book constructed and which sections were performed and which written down? I'm guessing only a close reading of the Greek would provide the answers, something not available to me and most readers.

Dave wrote: "We know that Herodotus performed some of this work as lectures, but the idea he would have delivered these nine books in their entirety over one or more performances (Audible gives the book's length as 28hrs+) seems very unlikely to me. So how was the book constructed and which sections were performed and which written down? "

Hey, Dave. I was fiddling around on the internet this morning and may have found an answer to this question. The 9 book division that we have now is a result of later editors of Herodotus. During Herodotus' time, the histories were broken into 28 logoi, each taking about 3 hours to recite. Even 3 hours seems like kind of a long time, but it is sort of movie-length. This website shows each of the books broken into logoi so you can compare the divisions.

Ashley wrote: "Dave wrote: "We know that Herodotus performed some of this work as lectures, but the idea he would have delivered these nine books in their entirety over one or more performances (Audible gives the..."

Thanks, Ashley. That deeper structure to the book does make a lot of sense to me and, for modern scholars, it must take a lot of detective work to try and uncover the seams between sections that were smoothed over by the editors in the Library of Alexandria.

As an addendum to my earlier comment, I want to thank you, Thomas, for guiding us through the Histories.

Thanks to you too -- and congratulations to all who finished the Histories! As mentioned before, not many get through the book in its entirety, so it is an applause-worthy achievement. And for those who are still working on it -- we're still listening! Please share your thoughts as you forge ahead.

I still have many questions about the Histories, but now that I've finished the book, I am wondering how books 2, 3, and 4 relate to the Greco-Persian conflict. I've been reading a very difficult book by classicist Seth Benardete called Herodotean Inquiries. He maintains that those very digressive books actually hold the key to the Histories as a whole. I don't understand him entirely, but it is at least true that custom and law (the same word in Greek, nomos) are crucial to the way in which Herodotus understands the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

If the Greeks were better, who do you think he thought were the best of the Greeks?

One of the things that amazes me is how many stories he has about the Persians. I have to wonder if he really saw the Persians the way they were, or if he was seeing them through a very Greek lens...

Thomas wrote: "Thanks to you too -- and congratulations to all who finished the Histories! As mentioned before, not many get through the book in its entirety, so it is an applause-worthy achievement. And for thos..."

My view of how books 2-4 relate to the Greco-Persian war is probably a bit simplistic, but I see the ethnographic inquiries as a way for Herodotus to convey to his Greek audience what it means to be Greek. For example, in book 2, we hear about Egyptians unable to live without a king, and in book 4 we have the Scythians roaming free without a unifying city state. At the heart of all this is the discussion in book 3 among the seven Persian nobles about the best system of government (which, as we discussed at the time, likely has more to do with Herodotus' authorial voice than genuine history).

In this way, I think The Histories are deeply political, and that Herodotus is using comparison and imagined debate to underline the strengths of Greek society, especially values such as equality and liberty (albeit interpreted differently in Sparta and Athens). Many of the stories he tells also highlight the corrupting effects of luxury (Croesus), lack of respect for customs (Cambyses) and lust for power (Xerxes).

Although Herodotus portrays the Persians' authoritarian tendencies as a fatal weakness, it still seems to me that he's saying that this is a failure of systems and not people. Some of the best characters throughout The Histories fit the role of "wise counsels", such as Solon with Croesus and Artabanos and Artemisia with Xerxes, so this perspective on how best to behave is shared by Greeks and Persians alike, but sometimes fate (oracles and dreams) and bad government stand in the way.

Dave wrote: "Although Herodotus portrays the Persians' authoritarian tendencies as a fatal weakness, it still seems to me that he's saying that this is a failure of systems and not people..."

That's a great point, Dave. I was just pondering whether Herodotus actually provides a definitive answer for the cause of the war, and while it doesn't seem to me that he does, the act of transgression is such a common and recurring theme that I think it must be close to the root of the thing. And transgression in all its forms is not specific to any particular culture or form of government. The cause of the war, and of many lesser conflicts, is a failure to act moderately and to maintain self-control -- from the wife-stealing that starts the Trojan War to Xerxes whipping the Hellespont -- an archetypal failure reflected in all cultures because it is a universal human failure, the "original sin."

In Herodotus's own time the Athenians would start to build their own Empire and commit many of the same transgressions that the Persians did... and the Athenians would lose their war too.

Thomas wrote: "Thanks to you too -- and congratulations to all who finished the Histories! As mentioned before, not many get through the book in its entirety, so it is an applause-worthy achievement. And for thos..."

I sadly has to pause mid book to deal with some health issues, but have enjoyed reading the comments, including the marvelous moderating by Thomas and so many insightful comments by those who were able to stay with the book to the end. I'm planning to keep working on it as my health (and the ongoing needs of this group's next read) permit.

But in the meantime, I agree with those who expected a fairly dry exposition of ancient history and were delighted by all the anecdotes, side forays, comments, explanations of customs, and humor embedded in the work. I had forgotten almost everything I had read of it in college (understandable, I think: that was over 50 years ago; who remembers a book they read once and fairly speedily under the pressure of an incipient seminar fifty years ago?), and didn't remember (if I realized it at the time) the delights of the work.

Again, my thanks to Thomas for his great work, and to all those whose comments have made this discussion such a pleasure to read through even if I wasn't able to comment directly after the first four or five books.

Sorry to hear that. Wishing you a speedy recovery.

Everyman, I hope your health improves soon. Take care of yourself and enjoy some light reading instead of weighty tomes like Herodotus.

Patrice wrote: "One thing has always puzzled me about the Greek mind set. Fatalism runs through so much of their thinking. The older I get the more I understand this. But fatalism leads to passivity and acceptance, two traits I would never associate with the Greeks."

Maybe we can distinguish between fatalism and fortune. Herodotus accuses Persians of fatalism at times (the conversation at 9.16 is a prime example) but fatalism doesn't apply as well to free people, and the Greeks are very much free people. Fortune, on the other hand, applies to all, and the stories that Herodotus tells about fortune seem to indicate that it operates in a leveling fashion -- the small are destined to become great, and the great inevitably fall. If there is a "moral" here perhaps it is that great nations and great people should exercise caution, be moderate, and have some humility.

I’m sorry I had little opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Just a few quick remarks …

I read The Histories in March and found the going relaxed and, on the whole, interesting. Sure, the book is a wheelbarrow full of frogs, sometimes there was detail overkill (Plataea) or I just felt my attention slipping (Egypt, not my thing). But there was much more stuff that was fascinating: Cyrus, the campaign against the Skythes, Salamis and the political machinations of Themistocles, to name a few.

It is the personal and critical presence of Herodotus in his work that makes him the first historian. But is he also the father of lies, as Plutarch wants us to believe? It is true that Herodotus has a specific POV, but so has Plutarch - I believe this is inherent in history writing. More striking from our perspective is his belief in worthless oracles, notwithstanding his common sense in other respects. And yes, sometimes his love of a good tale gets the better of him or his critical sense fails him (gold-digging ants!).

But outright lies? Well, Herodotus may have been lying about the extent of his travels (and therefore about his sources). Apparently no one who had visited Babylon could have told the story of its hundred gates (check the net for other examples). But imho that would make him the father of (social) science in another way too - and fathers are entitled to a few faults.

I also see The Histories as a quite straightforward read, WYSIWYG. But that’s all right - I find the actual or imagined real always so much more interesting than the ideal. And I like the integration of geography and history (and therefore the Landmark edition, though that one is a bit overdone). Some grip on geography gives history more sense (I would have loved Braudel if he had had some of Herodotus’ nimbleness).

Finally, the great thing about Herodotus is that he appreciates cultural differences without becoming a complete relativist. The Athenian ideal is clearly the thing for this Athenian by choice. But cultural superiority it is never seen as a personal merit. Herodotus works from a reality he deems worth defending without idolizing it. That’s what history should do.

Wonderful comment, Wendel.

Wendel wrote: "Finally, the great thing about Herodotus is that he appreciates cultural differences without becoming a complete relativist. "

I agree with this (not sure I would say the great thing, but certainly a great thing). For me this is a major factor in calling him a historian -- he had the ability to be fair and objective even to and about those who were his society's mortal enemies. That's a very hard thing to do, but is essential for true history.

Thomas wrote: " custom and law (the same word in Greek, nomos) are crucial to the way in which Herodotus understands the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians. Anyone have any thoughts on this..."

I've been listening to The History of Byzantium podcast recently, and I think he does a good job of exploring the role of religion. One theme is that societies who experience significant/persistent military defeat tend to question whether they have lost their God's (or gods') favor; or adopt their conqueror's religion outright. Essentially, that a culture is validated by strength of arms.

So, the general idea that Herodotus would see the Hellene's victory as a legitimizing event for their society - and a negation of the Persians' - certainly would fit into that framework.

Kyle wrote: "So, the general idea that Herodotus would see the Hellene's victory as a legitimizing event for their society - and a negation of the Persians' - certainly would fit into that framework. "

Definitely. And it's interesting to think about how this legitimization might have been construed during the Peloponnesian War, which was going on when Herodotus was writing. The Greeks succeed against the Persians because they put aside their individual differences out of a collective self-interest. Does their success over the Persians legitimize them in this way only, as a united front? What happens to this legitimacy when the war is over and they return to their homes and distinct customs?

Thomas wrote: "Kyle wrote: "So, the general idea that Herodotus would see the Hellene's victory as a legitimizing event for their society - and a negation of the Persians' - certainly would fit into that framewor..."

Yeah, Thucydides really shreds any neat little conclusions that we might draw from Herodorus. His treatment of the Peloponnesian war is to Herodotus what George RR Martin is to Tolkien. Turns out that most of history is just driven by self interest, and winning just means that one happened to be the strongest, made the right decisions, and/or got lucky.

Patrice wrote: "Kyle wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Kyle wrote: "So, the general idea that Herodotus would see the Hellene's victory as a legitimizing event for their society - and a negation of the Persians' - certainly ..."

Well, let's set Tolkien, et al aside - that would be a long digression.

But I think that Herodotus takes a very different approach than Thucydides. Herodotus essentially sets up a Good Guys v. Bad Guys conflict. He takes a winding road to get there, but at the end of the day, the scrappy little Hellenes triumph over the oppressive barbarians, and all is right with the world. As modern westerners, we also tend to overlay a perception that democratic societies inherently better, so that adds an extra element for us to identify with.

In Thucydides, we see that it only took about 2 generations for the Athenians to assert a hegemony over Persia's former Aegean territory. By the first years of the Peloponnesian War, she is at least as harsh a mistress as the Persians - and perhaps even moreso in some instances. Sparta is egged on by the other independent Cities to take up the standard against against Athens, but their power also derives brutal oppression. Thucydides does have at least some sympathies for Athens, especially in describing their wealth and power at the outset, but he is for the most part careful to just record events as they occurred. Recall that he was exiled early on, and it's not at all clear to me that he approved of the conduct of the war by either side as it went along.

So we essentially see a naked power struggle that appears more and more pointless each year. Both sides commit atrocities, the other cities shift allegiances based on their current self interest, and the Athenians run out of gas first. But, the Spartans loose so many full citizens that they can't hold power for long after their "victory". It winds up feeling eerily similar to World War I, just on a more personal scale.

At the end of the day, both approaches are valid. They just leave us with very different perceptions of Greek society - one optimistic, and one disillusioned. Or, one Romantic and one Modernist, to extend my WWI metaphor. As in all things, the truth is probably somewhere in between.

I could go on for several pages about the other insights that I got from Thucydides, but this probably is not the place for that.