Talk:Herodotus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Selincourt translation

I restored the Selincourt translation of the opening to Historiae - it had been replaced by Wran with a so-called "vastly more accurate translation" that was almost unreadable. See here for a comparison. The Selincourt translation is recommended reading in the OCD 2003 edition and the fact that it aims at good English is no reason not to use it, even though it takes a few liberties with the exact wording. The Greek wording is now included for those who are interested in the exact wording of the original. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Successful mentions of historical migration by Herodotus

Hello, through many days of research, I have in my opinion wrote an article which successfully describes the migration of an ancient median tribe Baloch people as mentioned by Herodotus. Please leave your comment on the talk page of the article. And please do not be rude if you think something is wrong, it took very long to write it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 22:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth/death dates

The introduction first sentence has "(c. 484 BC – c. 425 BC)." But the info box on the right says born c. 490, died c. 430. I realize we might not have concrete dates but these two figures ought to at least match! Leperflesh (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The date 484 BC comes from Aulus Gellius. We don't really know anything about his date of death, it's all just an educated guess. Suda - which was written over 1000 years after Herodotus - reads though:

"He went back to Halicarnassus and drove out the tyrant; but later, when he saw that the citizens were jealous of him, he went of his own will to Thurii, which was colonized by the Athenians, and after he died there, was buried in the agora. But some say that he died in Pella."

I'll edit the infobox to make the dates match up.

--Dblk (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Loose use of "Lies"/"Liars"

Given these terms are inherently value-rich territory, I think we need to be a bit more careful in our use. I have no issue whatsoever with the discussion of Herodotus that relates to the elements of his work that may not be factual. But in review of the sources, I'm not sure we're following due weight here. There is a fairly large emphasis on "Father of Lies" and criticism, that doesn't seem to be borne by the balance of the sources. In any case, beyond that general balance issues, I think sections with subtitles like (Life - as told by other liars) push the envelope, even with "liars" set apart with quotations. Simply dividing it up by classical and contemporary biographies, or any other means would seem to work as well. Even if it's not the intent, the title implies that Herodotus was, in fact, a liar. That's a different assertion than saying someone else called him a liar. I'm not sure the quotation marks on liar negate that. It also seems fairly non-encyclopedic, stylistically. I'd suggest renaming that subsection, and then taking a hard look at the balance of criticism in the viewpoint of due weight. Jbower47 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Herodotus's credibility has always been a major issue for scholars and 'Father of Lies' is an appropriate title for dealing with that issue since it is a title that some authors ancient and modern have conferred on him. The section is sourced and it is even-handed. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "fairly non-encyclopedic, stylistically", but then I wrote most of it. There is an element of wry humour in that section and maybe you are objecting to that. However, many of the claims made about Herodotus by ancient authors are absurd and humour is hard to avoid. Besides, Herodotus didn't write a stylistically dry version of history and I think the current presentation reflects something of his lively spirit without any loss of credibility. McCronion (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology or Encyclopedia article?

The article sounds as if it is essentially defending the implausibilities within Herodotus's work.

While it is understandable to list counterpoints within an article, the entire 'Criticisms' section sounds apologetic. This article barely touches on the fact that Herodotus was a secondary source himself, and that almost all of his military figures for the Persian Wars are false by better than a 1000%+ margin of error. Some of his stories relating to Cyrus the Great are not supported historically either. Herodotus, throughout the Persian Wars, paints the Greeks as patrons for freedom... He completely ignored the fact that the majority of Sparta was living in the Helot caste, over a third of Athenians were enslaved, and women within Athens were property at best. Women and religious minorities within the Persian Empire were granted more rights than in probobly any other classical empire, despite the fact that it was an autocracy. Further, not all Greek states were even democratic, which makes Herodotus's claims even more bizarre. The fact that he peacefully lived within the Persian Empire his entire life is also considerable, when one looks at how much disgust he has for the empire in his writings. He certainly wasn't thrown in prison for his beliefs like many Greek scholars were (for supposedly being pro-Persian). If anything, one could make a fair argument that the Persians were closer to a free society when it comes to free speech, freedom of residence, minority protection, religious freedom, and women's rights. The Persians were also pivotal in ending Human Sacrifice throughout their territories. But of course, Herodotus paints them as devil hordes. My statements above by no means prove that Herodotus was completely false or that he was purposefully lying, but it does expose him as blatantly partisan in his work. By no means should he be passed off as an objective historian.

Response to above: I am sorry, but have you actually READ the Histories? Herodotus is not generally considered to have been "biased" or "racist" against the Persians - in fact, a lot of his fellow Greeks denigrated him because they thought that he had depicted the Persians TOO WELL... They would call him "philo-barbarian" - a "lover of barbarians" - because he seemed to respect and admire other cultures and civilizations too much. In other words, many Greeks felt he was too "internationlist" and not "patriotic" enough. I would highly suggest that before you post such claims again, you should actually READ the Histories. You will be plesantly surprised I think to find that some of the most interesting, most noble, most intelligent, and most wise characters in the Histories are not Greeks, but Persians.... look up the names "Artabanus" (also spelled "Artabanos") or "Otanes" - these two Persians present speeches that form a crucial thematic core for the Histories, and they are definitely described in very glowing terms by Herodotus. Or, just turn to the last page of the text and read the final speech that Cyrus gives to the Persians - it basically encapsulates Herodotus' view of the Persian Empire, and you will find that is not what you may have thought!

Some of his outlandish claims have recently been defended with new information, but that doesn't mean we need sentences like this in an encyclopedia article: "Herodotus was, however, by his day's standards, reasonably accurate in his accounts, respectful of evidence, and a master of narrative. It is unfair, in other words, to condemn him for relating tales of giant man-eating ants, if such stories were told to him." By Herodotus's day's standards, there wasn't exactly an established field of history like there was for astronomy and mathematics. This claim doesn't say much. The second sentence essentially apologizes for the mythological nature of Herodotus's work. Whether or not Herodotus's intention was for "The Histories" to be mythological or factual, the fact of the matter is: much of it is mythological or embellished.

"Herodotus is now recognized as a pioneer not only in history, but in ethnography and also anthropology." - Again, why is Herodotus being glorified in the Criticisms section? Regardless, I highly doubt there is a consensus on this claim.

Herodotus's work is interwoven with too much fairy tale to truly be defended as fervently as this article does. Herodotus's work was interesting, but it was, in many ways, good literature more than it was reliable history.

In support of the point raised in this section: the contents of this article are actually extremely out of date. It is a typical example of how popular knowledge stays stuck in 19th century levels of knowledge. Indeed, if you read any academic study on Herodotus from the past 20 years or so, you will find very little correspondence with this Wikipedia article. Depicting Herodotus as a historian in the modern meaning of the word makes no sense, and trying to defend his text to show that it either really was historically accurate or only wrong because his sources misinformed him, is equally bizarre. Herodotus' text was composed for an audience that expected certain things (both regarding contents and kind of stories), and engaged with scientific and philosophical theories of his time. Both of these considerations will have taken precedence over attempts to be truthful. Actually, to see trying to be truthful (or objective) as a virtue is a modern historical concept. Few researchers now think it was something that will have particularly motivated Herodotus. This automatically also makes discussions about whether or not his sources were accurate of secondary importance. I don't have time to rewrite the page myself (it would require a *major* overhaul to make it entirely up to date); but for anyone interested, check for example the following publications: R. Bichler, Herodots Welt: Die Aufbau der Historie am Bild der Fremden Länder und Völker, Ihrer Zivilisation und Ihrer Geschichte (Berlin 2000); R. Thomas, Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion (Cambridge 2000); R. Bichler and R. Rollinger, Herodot (Darmstadt 2000); E.J. Bakker, I.F.J. de Jong and H. van Wees (eds.), Brill's Companion to Herodotus (Leiden 2002). I know, saying that I don't have time is a lame excuse; that's how researchers always dodge having to write popular articles (and how the public never finds out what new ideas there are). But this is not even my field of study. In the meantime, maybe at least some kind of banner or note can be added to the page, notifying reader of the problems with its contents? Cheimoon (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings!

Another triumph for the ratings system!

• Trustworthy 1/5 (17 votes)
• Objective 4/5 (19 votes)
• Complete 4/5 (20 votes)
• Well Written 2/5 (16 votes)

And here is the current article. Hmmm. How can it score so low for trustworthiness and so high for objectivity? Well, I love ratings—they tell us what kind of audience we are writing for. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Major Renovation

This article in no way reflects the state of scholarship on Herodotus at the moment. The following I feel should be rectified:

• It takes an overly sceptical view of his work which is now generally discounted as misconceiving the aims and nature of his work. Detlev Fehling's rabidly anti-herodotean stance claiming that he is a 'liar' has been roundly shown to fundamentally miss the point and import modern ideas about historiography, culture and society into a context in which they inevitably make no sense (the locus classicus contra Fehling is Nino Luraghi's article "local knowledge in herodotus", but see also Flory, Thomas, Gould, Griffiths etc).

• The two main developments in herodotean studies, oral tradition and sophistic influence, are nowhere mentioned. For oral tradition, Rosalind Thomas' "Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece" is best, along with the articles in which she addresses her findings to the problem of Herodotus. With regard to sophistic influence, again Thomas' "Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion" is key, along with the insights of R.L.Myres, though Thomas' book being so new (relatively speaking - 2000), the full implications have not cohered themselves into several more works in this area quite yet.

• This leads in to the wider question of Herodotus as an 'historian'. His intellectual interests were far wider than this and history, rather than a profession as it is today, was a new genre which he created in order to cohere his other interests (incidentally, the fact that he is creating a genre instantly puts pay to Fehling's claim that he is lie and fabricating, since this would presuppose a genre to parody which, a priori, is impossible).

• It should be noted that the majority of authobiographical material about Herodotus is apocryphal, created either in the ancient tradition to fit with the characteristics of his work, or by modern scholars to help massage evidence from Herodotus to fit their theories (this is now less the case, but was typical of those who would 'correct' Herodotus, e.g. Cawkwell, Burn, de Ste Croix, How & Wells, Grote etc.)

• A discussion of the relative merits of different translations would be helpful - there is certainly an alarming disparity in quality between the various texts, with some cutting out sections deemed 'improper' altogether (e.g. blind scythian slaves shoving pipes up the vaginas of female horses to milk them).

• In the last few years, a trend has emerged in the scholarship which increasingly argues for the ubiquity of events contemporary to Herodotus being reflected in his historical interpretation of the past. Crucially, this brings Herodotus far closer in method to Thucydides in his method, since, though in different ways, they thus both become historians of their own time. Certainly, the indirect and direct approaches to contemporary histroy which their styles encapsulate can be said to be two sides of the same coin. The importance of a genos, polis or ethne's history was of immediate political significance in diplomatic disputes, social interaction and the creation and manipulation of identity. Thus, Herodotus' work is not antiquarian, but in many respects rather daring in coming to fairly frank and uncomfortable conclusions about important families (the Alcmeonids most notably), poleis (Sparta, Athens and Corinth primarily) and ethnai (in particular the Ionians).

• Considering how major this all is, I have removed the recommendation for this article to be put on Wikipedia CD since it is in such a state it may as well be a stub.

ajc --Ajcee7 09:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This critique is as perceptive and relevant today as it was last year when it was written. Too bad we appear to have lost this editor. Time to get out the books and do some work. Alcmaeonid 18:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The above criticisms remains valid in 2012. This is the poorest example of accuracy and scholarship by far I have seen on Wikipedia though there are certain speculative ideas here that though unorthodox should merit further thought. Though the Historia of Herodotus remains something of an enigma in both the validity of its content at least as claimed by its author, the final comments of the 2006 criticism as to the contemporary context have continued to be strengthened. The context of the onset of the events leading to the Peloponnesian War were initially raised by Charles Fornara in the 1950's and the late fifth century intellectual milieu was further explicated by Kurt Raaflaub, Rosalind Thomas, and others. Herodotus was highly original and revolutionary in his undrestanding of human sociaty and politics. Midway between history, literature, aethnography, and social commentary, he was more the Father of the Social Sciences in total than just the Father of History. The Wikipedia editors should encourage someone in the field to completely revise this artcile in a balanced and even-handed manner. SJF 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.231.112 (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

General Clean Up

There was a tag on the article, criticizing the tone and style. I have attempted to clean up the style and tone, as well as grouping related material into a single section to make it flow better. The "liars" material has been retained, but has been grouped more appropriately. Wdford (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Manuscript tradition

One important thing that is missing from this and the Histories_(Herodotus) article is any information of the manuscript tradition. OK, the content article has links to two small articles on particular MS fragments, but that is hardly adequate for a work of such importance. I see there is a listing at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/greek_classics.htm#Herodotus, but I have no expertise in this area and cannot judge its accuracy or completeness, and it does not provide any discussion of the issues. It would be useful also to have info on which MSS form the basis of modern editions. --Pfold (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pseudohistorians

I noticed that Herodotus has been placed in Category:Pseudohistorians. Is this an accurate description of him? Jarble (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's ridiculous. Thanks for pointing that out, I have removed it.Smeat75 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

?? Liar ??

Did Herodotus say anything that Christian church does not like? If yes, then he will be called by all bad names by Christian historians.

Idiotic comment. Herodotus died centuries before Jesus Christ's incarnation on earth. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Herodotus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs references plange 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to article: Herodotus's visit to Crimea. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herodotus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504214024/http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/logoi.html to http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodotus/logoi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Remove the map publicated. It is fake.

I stumbled across the following comment at the wrong place (the Media Viewer discussion page), so I'm just copying it without any judgement of merit. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to contribute to the discussion. Frlara (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove urgently the map considered as the map of Herodotus because it is fake and is manipulated. Original map of Herodotus contain the world "Illyria" in it that is erased by the map you are publishing on wikipedia. If you want to be serious and not be kidding with the history of Europian nations then remove this fake map and replace it with the original map of Herodotus which contain name "Illyrians" on it. Why you manipulate ancient maps and erase name Illyrian from them? Just because you are interested on creating an identity for greeks? Shame on you. History is not told right with manipulations. Tell the history of the world as it is and give to albanians their rights and stop censuring the truth about illyrians and albanians just because you are interested on protecting the greeks and their false identity. Check your sources and and correct them according to the certified atlas maps of the [[National Library of Scotland}} and here is the link of original map of Herodotus https://maps.nls.uk/view/101105572 79.106.126.218 16:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The map is not "fake." This commenter is just promoting a nationalist agenda. He or she seems to just be angry that the map happens to omit the country that he or she comes from, but the purpose of the map is not to list every single country that existed at the time, but rather to show how much of the world Herodotus and the Greeks knew. Since the map fulfills that purpose, it does not really matter that it does not attempt to list the names of every land that the Greeks knew of.

It is also worth noting that the commenter seems to be very confused about what the map is showing and seems to think this is a copy of an actual map drawn by Herodotus himself. It is not. If Herodotus ever drew a map of the world, that map has not survived. Instead, this map is a modern creation showing the world Herodotus describes in his book The Histories. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the corresponding map in in Wikimedia is much better than the wikipedia's one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_World_Map.jpg vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_world_map-en.svg The Wikimedia one is similar to the one in the times survey from 1920 mentioned above (https://maps.nls.uk/view/101105572). Any possibility of using the Wikimedia one as well? It seems so much more complete. Wouldn't know how to do this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.28.235 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Defining "modern"

he Histories were occasionally criticized in antiquity,[c] but modern historians and philosophers generally take a positive view.[43] <-- The reference is from 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theredrebellious (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Theredrebellious: What exactly is your point? 1986 is "modern." World history is usually divided into three eras: "Antiquity" or "Ancient Times" refers to everything that happened from the time of the earliest written records in the late fifth millennium BC until the decline of the West Roman Empire in the 400s AD. The "Middle Ages" refers to everything from the mid-400s to the beginning of the Renaissance in the mid-1400s. The term "Modern Era" or "Modernity" refers to everything that has happened since the beginning of the Renaissance (c. 1450 AD). Some authors distinguish between the "Early Modern Era," which is from c. 1450 to c. 1750 and the "Modern Era," which is from c. 1750 to the present day. Compared to the roughly 6,000 years of recorded history, or even the approximately 2,449 years that have passed since Herodotus wrote his Histories, the thirty-two years that have passed since 1986 are not even a drop in the bucket. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have other RS's that state modern opinion has changed since 1986, then the article must assume that that is still the prevailing view. Please note that doesn't mean historians have not found fault or regard him as reliable (he often is not) - but they are observing his writings as imperfect but earnest.50.111.22.143 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fehling can't be considered a serious researcher...

The quote by Fehling that ""there is not the slightest bit of history behind the whole story" about the claim of Herodotus that Pharaoh Sesostris campaigned in Europe, and that he left a colony in Colchia" is garbage and should be removed. This is a direct attack on Herodotus that is not gratuitous 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:F012:2F2F:8C95:7673 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, he's a known historian and most definitely a Reliable Source ... there many problems with Herodotus' writings - if you are some sort of weird "fan boy" defending everything he said, well, that's not good enough.50.111.22.143 (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Slave labor & pyramids

Where does H say that slaves built the pyramids? I searched the Gutenberg eText (maccauley translation) of Vol. 2 for the word "slaves" and also for "pyramid." I got no hits for the former. The discussions of pyramids include the following:

"he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years;"

"On the pyramid it is declared in Egyptian writing how much was spent on radishes and onions and leeks for the workmen, and if I rightly remember that which the interpreter said in reading to me this inscription, a sum of one thousand six hundred talents of silver was spent; and if this is so, how much besides is likely to have been expended upon the iron with which they worked, and upon bread and clothing for the workmen, seeing that they were building the works for the time which has been mentioned and were occupied for no small time besides, as I suppose, in the cutting and bringing of the stones and in working at the excavation under the ground? Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me): and she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.172 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You know this is a joke, right?

Currently this page includes:

"According to Lucian, Herodotus took his finished work straight from Anatolia to the Olympic Games and read the entire Histories to the assembled spectators in one sitting, receiving rapturous applause at the end of it."

You know Lucian was joking right? He wasn't a historian... he wrote 'True History' a story about people going to the moon and meaning moon-men... need I say more? 174.3.228.242 (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is his name pronounced? That is, (in English) where is the stress placed? 37.99.33.228 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis on 2d syllable. (I don't know the linguist conventions for adding it to the article, but a quick web search will give you several audio files that demonstrate how to say the name.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Name

What is Herodotus name In full 105.112.114.220 (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The full name of Herodotus is Herodotus. Ancient Greek names have only one part; there is nothing like modern family names, or like Roman clan names, or like Russian patronyms. Herodotus is just Herodotus, Aristotle is just Aristotle and Plato is just Plato. Sometimes, when there is a need to distinguish between two or more ancient Greeks with the same name, we add "of place-of-birth", for example Herodotus of Halicarnassus, or Aristotle of Stagira. (Bonus: ancient Greek names are usually meaningful phrases; for example, Herodotus means "Given by Hera".) Imerologul Valah (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)