Posted on 10/02/2005 1:59:19 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
How the life Herodotus lived affected his history writing is a subject of dispute among many experts
The question of how social conditions affecting Herodotus’s personal life affected his writing history may raise many disputes among historians.
“The state where Herodotus was born in was under Persian Empire at that time; it was governed by Lygdamis, who put to death the poet Panyasis, a relative of Herodotus, for opposition and riots against Persia. Following this event, Herodotus had to leave his native city and went to Samos Island in Athena, and ever since he inhabited in Greek lands. But since he did not have any properties in Greece, according to Perseus law, he could not get a Greek nationality,” Dr. Saeed Oryan, director of language and dialect research center of Iran’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization told CHN.
Herodotus, the Greek historian, who is known as the Father of History by many, was born in 484 BC in Halicarnassus, south west coast of Caria, Turkey, then a part of Persian Empire.
“Herodotus was not Greek. He was born in Halicarnassus (today’s Bodrum in Turkey). Therefore he was born in Strapie Lydia and under the Achaemenid kingdom. Not all of the people of the region were Greek, and there were some non-Greek families among them like Herodotus father’s family, who were being called barbaric speakers,” said Touraj Daryaee, associate professor of ancient history in California State University, Fullerton.
Replying to the question of how Herodotus’s life affected his view and inscription of history, Oryan believes that Herodotus has written the history of a country which halted him from getting an Athena nationality due to being born in one of its conquered lands, a place where he had to leave for the execution of his close relative. He wrote his history under such conditions. Even during his own time he was accused several times of writing the history of Persia based neither on what Presesus desired not on the realities.
Morteza Saghebfar, who is translating the whole text of Herodotus History, asserts that Herodotus began writing his history in return for receiving some gold.
Oryan, however, does not deny the importance of Herodotus history and just notes that we should consider Herodotus with regard to his own characteristics.
Daryaee explains that Herodotus more than being a historian was a sociologist and an anthropologist and his view to the non-Greek nations is absolutely different with that of other historians, somehow being closer to philosophers before Socrates.
Herodotus History which has been written mainly about the four first kings of the Achaemenid era, Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes, was translated to Latin from Greek for the first time in the 15th century. Until the last century, even the Europeans were not very familiar with it and for the first time it was Sir John Malcolm who mentioned it in his book of “The History of Iran”.
ping
Now I'll go read the article.
Ping for later.
Always a key ingredient before one reads anyone's writing of history - who is the man, what colored his vision and how well was he able to put aside his personal feelings and bias to try and arrive at a realtively objective version of events.
how about anchormen; or would it be up a notch or two in the newsroom hierarchy?
Hmmm. Went from a country where nationalist opposition resulted in execution to a more free society where he was able to publish.
Yeah, I think that might make a difference in his subjective opinion of his former oppressors. I recall that several Russians did the same thing after leaving Stalinist Russia.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
I probably shouldn’t be surprised to see that some moron loser troll put “biasedhistorian” and “idiot” into the keywords.
“According to a story in Herodotus, the nature of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and the advantages and inconveniences of each, were as well understood at the time of the neighing of the horse of Darius, as they are at this hour.”
John Adams: A DEFENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
[3.80] ... Otanes recommended that the management of public affairs should be entrusted to the whole nation. [democracy] “To me,” he said, “it seems advisable, that we should no longer have a single man to rule over us - the rule of one is neither good nor pleasant. Ye cannot have forgotten to what lengths Cambyses went in his haughty tyranny, and the haughtiness of the Magi ye have yourselves experienced. How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well-adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable? Such licence is enough to stir strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up with pride, while envy is so natural to human kind that it cannot but arise in him. But pride and envy together include all wickedness - both of them leading on to deeds of savage violence.
True it is that kings, possessing as they do all that heart can desire, ought to be void of envy; but the contrary is seen in their conduct towards the citizens. They are jealous of the most virtuous among their subjects, and wish their death; while they take delight in the meanest and basest, being ever ready to listen to the tales of slanderers. A king, besides, is beyond all other men inconsistent with himself. Pay him court in moderation, and he is angry because you do not show him more profound respect - show him profound respect, and he is offended again, because (as he says) you fawn on him. But the worst of all is, that he sets aside the laws of the land, puts men to death without trial, and subjects women to violence.
The rule of the many, on the other hand, has, in the first place, the fairest of names, to wit, isonomy; and further it is free from all those outrages which a king is wont to commit. There, places are given by lot, the magistrate is answerable for what he does, and measures rest with the commonalty. I vote, therefore, that we do away with monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all.”
[3.81] Such were the sentiments of Otanes. Megabyzus spoke next, and advised the setting up of an oligarchy [aristocracy]:- “In all that Otanes has said to persuade you to put down monarchy,” he observed, “I fully concur; but his recommendation that we should call the people to power seems to me not the best advice. For there is nothing so void of understanding, nothing so full of wantonness, as the unwieldy rabble. It were folly not to be borne, for men, while seeking to escape the wantonness of a tyrant, to give themselves up to the wantonness of a rude unbridled mob. The tyrant, in all his doings, at least knows what is he about, but a mob is altogether devoid of knowledge; for how should there be any knowledge in a rabble, untaught, and with no natural sense of what is right and fit? It rushes wildly into state affairs with all the fury of a stream swollen in the winter, and confuses everything. Let the enemies of the Persians be ruled by democracies; but let us choose out from the citizens a certain number of the worthiest, and put the government into their hands. For thus both we ourselves shall be among the governors, and power being entrusted to the best men, it is likely that the best counsels will prevail in the state.”
[3.82] This was the advice which Megabyzus gave, and after him Darius came forward, and spoke as follows:- “All that Megabyzus said against democracy was well said, I think; but about oligarchy he did not speak advisedly; for take these three forms of government - democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy - and let them each be at their best, I maintain that monarchy far surpasses the other two. What government can possibly be better than that of the very best man in the whole state?
The counsels of such a man are like himself, and so he governs the mass of the people to their heart’s content; while at the same time his measures against evil-doers are kept more secret than in other states.
Contrariwise, in oligarchies, where men vie with each other in the service of the commonwealth, fierce enmities are apt to arise between man and man, each wishing to be leader, and to carry his own measures; whence violent quarrels come, which lead to open strife, often ending in bloodshed. Then monarchy is sure to follow; and this too shows how far that rule surpasses all others.
Again, in a democracy, it is impossible but that there will be malpractices: these malpractices, however, do not lead to enmities, but to close friendships, which are formed among those engaged in them, who must hold well together to carry on their villainies. And so things go on until a man stands forth as champion of the commonalty, and puts down the evil-doers. Straightway the author of so great a service is admired by all, and from being admired soon comes to be appointed king; so that here too it is plain that monarchy is the best government.
Lastly, to sum up all in a word, whence, I ask, was it that we got the freedom which we enjoy? - did democracy give it us, or oligarchy, or a monarch? As a single man recovered our freedom for us, my sentence is that we keep to the rule of one. Even apart from this, we ought not to change the laws of our forefathers when they work fairly; for to do so is not well.”
Samos Island in Athena?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
