ŷ������

Another interesting quote from the BCKnowlton postings in the glossary:

SOLON AND FDR:

Solon was the great reformer and poet, author of the original New Deal, the compromise that brought peace between the landed and the townsfolk, the rich and the poor. He was the Franklin Roosevelt of Athens.

Many would agree ”looking to the end, some 160 years later, when Herodotus performed" that this revolution in law was the basis for the prosperity, the might, and the brilliance of a Periclean Athens to come. But unlike most legislators, he was not allowed to profit from his work. After he had brokered the compromise, Solon was required to absent himself from Athens for ten years. This is why he travelled, first to Egypt, and then to see what he could see about this famous Croesus.

During the cold war we used to hear that Roosevelt's New Deal was the compromise that saved America from communism, the dose of socialism that prevented a revolution. But with the demise of Marxism, and the enveloping contextualisation of Marxist history, it becomes easier to see the New Deal in a positive and uncompromising light: as the greatest reform in the history of capitalist democracy, admirers would say, since the reforms of Solon.

The New Deal has its modern enemies, and history is always judging and reassessing things. When we say, "history will judge"€”and we use this phrase to counter claims of achievement or failure in the present or the recent past€”we say what is essential in Solon's proverb. Perhaps we also see why an historian might put these cautionary words in Solon's mouth, cast in a sort of fairy tale (he probably never met Croesus). The ancient reform was a key to Athenian greatness, but the present was a turbulent one. Herodotus knew that a Peloponnesian War with Sparta was coming.

I have been thoroughly reading BCKnowlton's glossary posts and they when read in their entirety are quite helpful. Thank you very much BCKnowlton!

This one is also very good: I was struck by the analogy made between War and Peace and The Histories!!!!

All of which is to say that while Herodotus may or may not have anticipated hypertext, he certainly anticipated the novel. Or at least one kind of novel. Something about the Histories, indeed, feels eerily familiar. Think of a novel, written fifty years after a cataclysmic encounter between Europe and Asia, containing both real and imagined characters, and expressing a grand vision of the way history works in a highly tendentious, but quite plausible, narrative of epic verve and sweep. Add an irresistible anti-hero eager for a conquest that eludes him precisely
because he understands nothing, in the end, about the people he dreams of subduing; a hapless yet winning indigenous population that, almost by accident, successfully resists him; and digressions powerfully evoking the cultures whose fates are at stake in these grand conflicts. Whatever its debt to the Ionian scientists of the sixth century B.C. and to Athenian tragedy of the fifth, the work that the Histories may most remind you of is “War and Peace.��

And also how much further into are future do we have to carry around the albatross of our past: (Conflict between East and West)

According to Mendelsohn, Herodotus was trying to tell us; the underlying cause—the aitiē—of both the scholarly and the popular revival is worth wondering about just now. It seems that, since the end of the Cold War and the advent of the Internet, the moment has come, once again, for Herodotus�� dazzlingly associative style and, perhaps even more, for his subject: implacable conflict between East and West.

And then Mendelsohn seems to deal with deja vu or is it ground hog day? You know with this following passage he was not talking simply about Herodotus: (I think this passage hits quite close to home).

"Then, there is the story itself. A great power sets its sights on a smaller, strange, and faraway land—an easy target, or so it would seem. Led first by a father and then, a decade later, by his son, this great power invades the lesser country twice. The father, so people say, is a bland and bureaucratic man, far more temperate than the son; and, indeed, it is the second invasion that will seize the imagination of history for many years to come. For although it is far larger and more aggressive than the first, it leads to unexpected disaster. Many commentators ascribe this disaster to the flawed decisions of the son: a man whose bluster competes with, or perhaps covers for, a certain hollowness at the center; a leader who is at once hobbled by personal demons (among which, it seems, is an Oedipal conflict) and given to grandiose gestures, who at best seems incapable of comprehending, and at worst is simply incurious about, how different or foreign his enemy really is. Although he himself is unscathed by the disaster he has wreaked, the fortunes and the reputation of the country he rules are seriously damaged. A great power has stumbled badly, against all expectations.

Reposting the glossary post here:

My understanding of that line was different. I thought it meant that until you are dead, your fortunes can change. Only once you are gone can you look at an entire life and judge it good or bad.

I lost both my parents 2 l/2 years ago, under horrendous circumstances. They were both on life support. My husband actually said, after they were gone, that it was like a play. Everyone behaved in the worst possible way. It's hard for me to even write about it but it changed my view of their lives and life in general and I agree with Herodotus. I think the Greeks understood.

It's taken this long to even partially remember their lives, their deaths seemed to erase everything good that had ever happened.
I think the greatest wish you can give someone is a good death.

Yes Oldesq, message 123 includes an article that BC posted in the glossary that I reposted here which says just that.

That is why I posted it. It is almost like judging a president in terms of how history judges him rather than how folks in the country may or may not be suffering when he is in term.

I tend to agree with your version of the timeline (when the person dies) but some readers of H feel it is even a bit later. I guess what is considered a good life (one that we enjoy when we are living) is not what H and the ancients considered the definition of a good life from their perspective and judgement. Look to the end still seems like a depressing thought to me and our sensibilities but death and preparing for death and having the right accoutrements with you at the time of death and your burial was even more important than let us say planning for your wedding is today.

Bentley

Vanessa (message 127)..you make a good point about fortune but I don't think that the two are connected in terms of Solon's line or H's meaning. I think they are two distinct parts of their beliefs which run in parallel with each other.

I think what you are saying possibly is that the living behaved in the worst possible way during that difficult time in your life. Are you saying that it changed the view of your parents and how they had or had not prepared for that time period. Or did things come out at that time which showed people to have a different side than you surmised. It is so awful that you had to go through this.

You do make some good points and maybe Solon in a way points out to this ending as to how you have prepared yourself for this.

A sobering thought this fine and beautiful day isn't it?

Bentley

I have printed all of this out and I have to read through it all so I may be off in what I'm saying. And yes, it's odd to think of Greece, which is heaven on earth as far as I'm concerned, and these dark thoughts. But they're true.

My parents behaved very well. I didn't mean that at all.
I'm not sure I can express it better than Solon!
We live our lives distracted by minituae. We're in constant denial of the impending doom. We have to live this way, it's how we cope. But the inevitable does happen and in a way it defines our lives.

Think King Lear. This is man.

I am not sure that everything is inevitable but life happens and we cannot predict its course or what happens many times. I think Solon expressed it best so not to worry (I thought that you were referring to others in your story).

I think though that the ancients and folks like Solon were not as distracted and were preparing themselves for this end while they were living knowing that the end defined them and who they were.

I think how we handle the out of our control moments or what fate deals us is part of what Solon was talking about too. Although he thought that rich people were ill equipped. Sounded a little like sour grapes to me on the part of the ancients. (lol)

Gee King Lear (now that is depressing).

Response to message 132:

I think Solon had it right to a large extent; a person is not just a sum of his or her parts or life events; but more than that; it is the impact on other people and their place in their world (not defined by themselves either). Like we are all part of a giant energy field if you really want to be esoteric about it and connected.

Do you think that we are more in denial nowadays about things in general than the ancients or even decades past. Do we think that we have to be happy every day or that we are failing ourselves or others; you hear a lot about the happiness quotient like all of us can decide each morning to be happy or not no matter what is going on in our lives of the world. I am not sure that folks were as conscious of always being happy and that you had to be happy; never mind commitment, duty, responsibility, honor or others more important than your particular joy at that moment. I think folks went through some dismal lives in order to give to others in their family what they did not have or would ever have. That to me is heroic and maybe when others look back on the honor of those lives; other wealthy and self indulgent types would pale in comparison when viewing the impact and the power of their lives on others and what their life in total meant to others, etc. Sort of an extension of Solon I think.

Oldesq, it is an intriguing discussion although it brings back some painful memories. It is odd how all three of us have some painful memories concerning the death of our parent or parents (and not only because of their passing either).

Like I said sobering thoughts on such a pretty day.

Bentley

I think we're definitely in more denial. When my parents were dying it opened up a whole side of life that I'd been totally protected from. It's as though we're all in Pleasantville where no one who is really suffering is visible. We hide them away in hospitals and nursing homes and we think that it just doesn't exist. What a shock it was to see how this is done. How we just deny this part of life. I heard someone the other day, I cant remember who it was, maybe Sara Palin? Someone who had a lot of problems in her life say "This is how life is supposed to be". It struck me as so true and so odd that we don't all realize this. It's as though we were raised on sit-coms and anything that happens that does not conform to the sit-com life is somehow wrong or a mistake or aberrant, when it's really just life.

It is a shame isn't it. Horrible isn't it. When someone said, "That's Life." I guess this is what they meant. Well here was Frank Sinatra's version:

That's life (that's life), that's what all the people say
You're ridin' high in April, shot down in May
But I know I'm gonna change that tune
When I'm back on top, back on top in June

I said that's life (that's life), and as funny as it may seem
Some people get their kicks stompin' on a dream
But I don't let it, let it get me down
'cause this fine old world, it keeps spinnin' around

I've been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate, a poet, a pawn and a king
I've been up and down and over and out and I know one thing
Each time I find myself flat on my face
I pick myself up and get back in the race

That's life (that's life), I tell you I can't deny it
I thought of quitting, baby, but my heart just ain't gonna buy it
And if I didn't think it was worth one single try
I'd jump right on a big bird and then I'd fly

I've been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate, a poet, a pawn and a king
I've been up and down and over and out and I know one thing
Each time I find myself layin' flat on my face
I just pick myself up and get back in the race

That's life (that's life), that's life and I can't deny it
Many times I thought of cuttin' out but my heart won't buy it
But if there's nothin' shakin' come this here July
I'm gonna roll myself up in a big ball a-and die

My life!

I guess he would subscribe to the ancient Greeks change in Fortune idea. I think we were raised on sit coms and wondered why those families all seemed so happy.

Bentley

Response to Message 136:

I agree.

I think you're describing life in many third-world countries. Ironically, many of them are the very people in the nursing homes and hospitals, doing the day to day caring for the suffering. I felt that they had an acceptance and a calm about suffering. Not that I'm advocating that. I think we should all fight it and be outraged by it, not accept it at all! But there was something surreal about the system. Aged Americans cared for by young third world people. It was as though we (Americans) had no clue how to handle it.

Response to Vanessa:

Message 138: so true; I saw that when my mother passed away. And she was in a very nice nursing home (as far as nursing homes go - I absolutely dislike them); I doubt that Americans can handle that kind of environment very well; too depressing. Solon was right, I think and the previous generations were much stronger I believe.

Bentley

I just took it at face value but it does seem odd as men would be raising other men's children.

Oh yes! In the middle ages wasn't there a free-for-all in May?

There's that famous painting by Van Eyck of a pregnant bride.

I seem to remember something like this in Sparta as well.

It's so easy to take our sensibilites for granted as "natural". I was listening to a tape (Vandivere?) where it was written somewhere that it was "natural" for men to have long hair. That's what's so wonderful about Herodotus, he's the first anthropologist and shows us that culture is the strongest influence on our lives. Personally, it really makes me appreciate the beauty of our Judaeo-Christian values. I know that makes me ethnocentric and all that, but I do think that they are more humane values.

I'm glad that people have found those articles from More Intelligent Life interesting.

I have been thinking recently of Astyages, and of an episode that comes near the end of what we are reading now. It has to do with divine revelations and human tendencies. Astyages has a dream in which his daughter Mandane "urinated so copiously that she filled up his city and flooded all Asia besides" (1.107.1). The Medes have Magi who interpret dreams; and though what they consider the implications of this dream are only implied, Astyages is frightened. In order to avoid them, he marries his daughter off to a humble yet respectable Persian. Once she is married, Astyages has another dream, in which "he saw a vine growing from his daughter's genitals and covering all of Asia" (1.108.1). Here the implications of the dream are made explicit: "the significance of the dream was that the daughter's child would replace Astyages as king" (1.108.2).

One wonders why this prospect should have so disturbed Astyages. Mandane was his only daughter, and he had no son. Did he think that he would live and reign forever? Who did he imagine would succeed him? Would not his daughter's son be a likely heir? Why didn't the prospect of being succeeded by his grandson please and reassure Astyages? Succession can be complicated when a king has a daughter but not a son. And then there are many stories about kings being overthrown by their sons; but this fear ought to have been assuaged by the prospect of his daughter's son becoming king after him. Surely that would happen later rather than sooner, and only after Astyages had enjoyed a long reign. And surely he could have taken steps in the meantime to see to it that the succession went as smoothly as possible.

But evidently it is the case that kings at the same time think they will never die, and fear that they are always about to be killed.

One can easily be Freudian about what is implicit in the first dream and explicit in the second. In the first dream, Astyages' kingdom is inundated by something that comes from his daughter's body. In the second dream, what grows from her womb takes his place on the throne.

Now it may be that Astyages understood this as an explicit threat of usurpation (and, of course, he may have understood it rightly or wrongly). One can't blame a king for taking steps to prevent his being deposed. All those stories about fathers being deposed by their sons address, I think, that universal anxiety Oldesq mentions. This is why I thought that the prospect of being succeeded by a grandson would have taken the curse off it.

The details of the story about Astyages' order to Harpagus to kill the child are obviously oedipal -- that is, they resemble the story of Oedipus. That story is, I think, about the tendency to want to avoid fate, and the possibility of actually delaying it.

Response to #s 133, 134, 136 and 139:

I think what Solon said was true back in ancient times. Happiness was not defined as it is now; happiness then was staying alive, pleasing the gods and your elders, marrying the right person, having offspring quickly, being heroic in war. This was what was expected of one's life then.

Success in war and most of the above led one to have a heroic life, and deserving of a heroic burial for the honor of their lives.
Death was a regular fact of life. There seemed to always be a battle and/or war going on, so fighting was a constant. If one survived until older age - you really accomplished something, and/or you were favored by the gods, as they would intervene and save you. To digress with a different example, when the gods allowed Paris to crawl away from his battle with Menelaus, the gods were sparing him, albeit with humiliation, so he could/would put the arrow into Achilles' heel later during the final Trojan War battle. This was fate in vivid detail.

It was a miracle most people lived out of infancy, with all the disease and ignorance back then. Of course, they didn't think they were ignorant. Death was not a rarity when someone became very ill; again, it was the will of the gods. As illustrated with the 1938 hurricane, I'm certain that storms and other natural disasters occurred in ancient times, and the death toll would have been very high, from lack of notice and lack of knowledge of nature's phenomena. (Lack of knowledge was still a problem in 1954; I was very young when Hurricane Carol struck the New England coast; up until when downtown Providence was shut off due to a major flood, i.e. the storm surge, the radio still forecasted "gale winds"!)

I do agree that the previous generations were much stronger. They had to be, to survive. Life's battles, often literally, were thrown at you at a very young age. Life expectancy was low by today's standards, so marriage was much earlier, and by late adolescence, you were an adult.

Hello BC...yes those articles were interesting and so is the account of Astyages.

I wonder if ones own mortality seems more relevant once your grandparents and maybe one of your parents have passed away. I recall also feeling quite invincible and that everything would always remain the same. Who wanted to talk about the other stuff. I see it in my own nieces and nephews who do not want to be reminded to visit older relatives and seem uncomfortable when anybody says that they haven't seen their aunt or uncle, grandparents for awhile and wouldn't it be nice to visit them. In their minds, everything is A-OK now and not to worry. They can always do that stuff tomorrow.

In terms of one's own mortality,as you become older maybe there is more of a recognition of what lies ahead and cannot be avoided. I certainly cannot fathom what goes through the mind of a king. But don't you think they feel all powerful and better than their fellow man and much smarter.

In the case of the king, he is used to being all powerful and getting his own way regarding everything except life and death (his own). He obviously felt that he could be killed by his successor and no matter who that might be; that person had to be expunged even if that person was his grandson. Horrible but that is what the king thought.

So many people do not plan their funeral or any of the details and leave it to their family to pick up the pieces; maybe they think that thinking about it will bring about the event itself sooner.

The king liked being king and could not picture the hereafter and did not like thinking about the alternative; so his decisions were not logical; he just thought prolonging the present would prevent the inevitable.

I am with Oldesq regarding the first dream; what from your viewpoint was the meaning? Were they to mean the same thing? H seems to report some bizarre images.

B

BC, I think you answered some of my recent post (149); must have crossed in the posting. Thanks.

Virginia, some very interesting comments.

B

Response to #147:

Could the urination dream be a prophesy as to a natural disaster or an outside king/people coming to conquer the kingdom?

I had the same questions BC. I assumed that his fear was of being deposed by his grandson. As you say, every king lives in constant fear of being deposed, even by their own children and grandchildren.

Didn't Sadaam Hussein kill one of his sons? I think the absolute, tyrannical power that they exert creates a paranoia. They project their own motives onto the people around them so they live in constant fear.

Like Lord of the Rings...holding on to my precious.

Virginia, I agree with everything you've said, except I don't think life is so different now. We're fighting a war overseas and at home in preventing terror. Death is everyone's fate. And I think much of life is a battle. To survive to a healthy old age is, I think, an accomplishment.

Bentley, your post made me smile with recognition, it's so true. It reminded me of a joke Jerry Seinfeld told when his child was born. He said "Don't kid yourself folks, they're here to replace us".

I recently listened to a teaching company course on Mesopotamia. It was pretty boring because it was so repetitive. One king killing the next, killing the next, killing the next. It was the way of coming to power. The way we vote today. So it's not illogical for a king to be looking over his shoulder, constantly!

Yes, that makes sense. But I think there's also the idea of be-fouling the land. A vine bears fruit. It's hard to think of that as a
negative. But urinating...odd, isn't it?

So sorry, I forgot to insert which post I was replying to!

Response to #156:

I agree about the war on terrorism, and making it to old age being still an accomplishment, but in Solon's time, death more often than not occurred at a much earlier age, and that was considered 'normal'. Military service here even with the draft doesn't require anyone until age 17 (Is that age still true?). Boys were learning to fight in early adolescence in Solon's time. I just feel that death by war or disease was much more prevalent in earlier times than today.
Everyone also grew up with the requirement that you had to please the gods/fate, to the point of human sacrifice, which wasn't a rarity then. That's certainly a rare event now. (I'm assuming there is some sacrifice still going on in very remote areas to be avoided.)

Response to l6l

Ohhhh! Good call! What a great explanation!

Yes, of course you're right.

l64 was a response to Virginia!

Response to message 158:

Very funny man; Seinfeld but what he said is also true.

Remember a king can also say that it is very lonely at the top. There is always someone clawing their way up to take over the top spot. Obviously paranoia and tyranny take over some of these folks and their minds.

Isn't it odd that after all of this time that human nature has not changed or transformed itself into something better. The same old behavior repackaged. I think that is what is startling about Herodotus.

For what it's worth I just discovered an interesting connection of the Gyges story to Plato's Republic. In the Republic Glaucon tells the story of Gyges only says that he had a magic ring that made him invisible. In that way he seduced the queen. His point was that no man would behave justly if he was sure he would not get caught.

That does not say much for honor among men. A sad commentary; if that is what they believed.

Well, Plato was writing a dialog and putting words and particular arguments in Glaucon's mouth. The entire Republic is an argument meant to prove that living a just life is worth it, even though it may not seem so. It's not an easy thing to prove.

Interesting connection.

Response to message 174 and 175:

I do not think you are wrong; these are the Herodotus' laws of history he keeps reinforcing with all of his historical references; there are so many references in all of the great books which have variations of the same themes; you reap what you sow, do unto others...., and so on.

I believe that Plato was right; would you pay your taxes if you did not have to; would you stop at all red lights and obey the speed limits if someone was not watching?

How moral and ethical the masses are depends I think on how strong their sense of community, church and family play in their lives and their fear of retribution or of being ostracized from their groups.

Belonging is everything. Order is maintained so things run smoothly.

Response to l76

It's not Plato who says this but Glaucon and Glaucon is supposed to be wrong. Plato sets us examples of what we all "know" is obviously true and then he shoots them down, one by one. It's not that people don't behave this way, just look at the financial crisis. But Socrates/Plato would say that people behave this way because they don't know the truth. If they really understood they would know it is not in their best interests to behave unethically. For example, the unethical people who created this crisis profited in the short run but in the long run they will suffer.

There is also the example in the Odyssey of the loyal swineherd who behaves ethically with absolutely no reward, no consequence. He is an example of someone who is basically wearing the ring of Gyges but always does the right thing. You could also say that Penelope did the same and was rewarded but the unethical suitors were slaughtered.

At the end of the Republic Plato says that the average man cannot understand, fully, the benefit of doing the right thing for it's own sake so he invents a myth of reward and punishment after death, so that when people see people escaping justice in life they will believe justice will come after death. But I think that Socrates/Plato believes that doing the right thing is its own reward in this life. I think....it's not an easy book to understand!

Oldesq,

You bring up some interesting points; it is apparent that the pendulum is swinging towards stiffer and more severe penalties and less rehabilitation, etc. What does that say about us?

As far as escaping justice in life, Vanessa, I have seen a lot of those in these financial scandals that wipe out everybody else and live happily ever after with their off shore savings.

How do Plato's theories show up in Herodotus aside from what goes around comes around?

Plato came after Herodotus. I think the "what goes round comes round" is a precursor. But Plato/Socrates started a real revolution, I think, which is part of why I thought they might have been exposed to other influences. I can't remember now but there was something earlier in this thread, I think. Nothing comes from nothing but I think Plato/Socrates were a real break from the past and their revolutionary ideas has been past down to us in our present religions and general thinking.

Vanessa, I am just trying to understand the connections that you see between H and Plato. I can understand the viewpoint that Plato/Socrates were more advanced and a break from the past. I agree with that.

message l8l

I was trying to figure out Plato's take on the Gyge's story.
H tells the story in such a way that Gyge's had no choice. Or maybe that's not right? I'm still confused about his culpability. Still, his ancestor's were punished which implies that he did do something wrong. Of course he did something wrong! He killed the king.
Plato tells the story as though Gyge's was an example of an unjust act that he got away with. But in H version Gyge's is discovered by the queen. Maybe that's the difference, Glaucon is saying that had Gyge's not been caught, had he been invisible, there would be no logical reason to be just. That justice is just a matter of getting away with a crime. This must have been a really popular story, the way we would use Adam and Eve to make a point.

I'm having a problem understanding it, I'm sorry if I'm confusing everyone else!

So, you think he did have a choice, then? So when the queen said he was too obedient, it was true.

Folks, I am bumping this thread; because I have added all 14 weeks of threads for the entire Herodotus discussion. Only 5 threads of the weekly topics show; you have to select view all on the topic header (Spotlighted Topics) to see all 14 weeks and threads. At any time by selecting view all; you can see all of the threads in any topic and post to any of them that have been opened already.

Bentley

Hello everyone. I have noticed that there are no spoilers allowed here - yet I wish to discuss somewhere some of the puzzle pieces I am assembling. I know most of them are fairly obvious, however, I don't want to spoil anyone's experience! Any suggestions? (well for one I do have the benefit of having read the Republic, so 'busting' Gyges came a bit easily. Still it would be good to discuss some of the other details in a larger context. I err on the side of extreme distrust when reading the classics. And Heroditus has already proven my distrust within the opening section of his first book :). Thanks in advance everyone!

ps - I come from a background in political theory, so this sort of exercise is sorely missed! I was truly hoping that such discussions that might ensue here would be remniscent of the methods used in the classroom.

Hello Mark,

We have a section of threads called Supplemental threads which are not no spoiler threads. Just send me a note indicating what discussion thread topic you would like to add and I will open up a supplemental thread on it. It is very easy for me to do. You are correct in that the weekly spotlighted threads are considered no spoiler threads; but the supplemental threads and the other books being read are not no spoiler threads. So just send me a note and I will add the thread.

Bentley