2. Herodotus (a)

Herodotus ‘s exploration and discussion of Egypt in The Histories covered many different topics and areas of Egyptian life. I was most struck by the opening description of the quest to understand antiquity.  The story was that the Egyptian King Psammetichus wanted to know for a fact that Egypt was the most ancient civilization and therefore devised a plan based around language in order to figure out the truth. He had two children brought up by a herdsman. The herdsman was told not to have a word spoken in front of the children and to just supply them with what they needed to survive. The King wanted to see what word the children would speak without any guidance from another human and what language that word would be from. The children’s first word was “becos”, the Phrygian word for bread. In the King’s mind this meant that in fact the oldest nation was Phrygia not Egypt.  This story has some levels of enchantment to it but sounds like the kind of folk tales that are told rather than historical facts. I found it very interesting that Herodotus did not say much to debate the idea that this proves that either Egypt or Phrygia are older.
In addition to the method seeming far from a historical way to determine antiquity I found it very interesting that language was a focus. Languages have gone through so many various changes and evolutions throughout our world’s history. It emphasizes what importance these separate languages and forms of communications had for early civilizations the same way they do today. Language helps for each country to form its own history and presence. It is one of the attributes that makes a place unique. It is clear through this story that the proliferation of one’s language shows a form of power and history. The Phrygians are thought to be the oldest civilization because their language has come through these children.  I see this as a clear sign of the power that is derived from the idea that “your language” is known by many and desired. This is how English is seen in many ways and I think contributes to many of Americans limits with understanding other world cultures. We do not feel that it is vital to learn other languages the way many others feel about speaking English. I see through Herodotus description of the Egyptians understanding of Antiquity and power and its relation to language very relatable in many ways to how language and power is viewed in today’s world. 

At the hands of some modern day historians and scholars, Herodotus’ attempts to record his travels through Egypt are reduced to an academic source not much more credible than Homer’s fanciful poems. In the essay “Did Herodotus Ever Go To Egypt,” O. Kimball Armayor presents arguments from modern Egyptologists and other authors of historical leanings that question the validity of Herodotus’ claims. Some say he completely misinterpreted the Egyptians, others say he had no intention to provide an truthful record but rather wanted to profit from storytelling, and still others believe the inaccuracy of his information proves he never went to Egypt at all. In light of modern archaeological evidence, Armayor questions Herodotus’ assertions that the Egyptians were black and circumcised, that he obtained truthful information from high priests or even commoners, and his geographical specifications and omissions. These doubts have led some modern scholars to view Herodotus’ writings as painfully misguided, if not outright deceitful. But even if we cannot take Herodotus’ “Account of Egypt” at face-value because of its historical contradictions, why can we not still value it for what it does provide?
 
Egyptologists say ancient Egyptians were highly xenophobic (a fact Herodotus himself acknowledged when he spoke of Egyptian reverence for cows and their refusal to share knives with Greeks) and the commoners would therefore not have had any interest in conversing with Herodotus, let alone the prestigious priests he claims to have spoken with. Additionally, he would have needed a translator, a fact he does not address. Furthermore, his descriptions of “black” skin are unclear, and historians think only the priests were circumcised. Finally, Herodotus’ geographical measurements have been proven inaccurate, and certain places like Chemmis have not been identified, while other absences, such as that of the Great Sphinx, are considered troubling.
 
With these being only some of the attacks on Herodotus’ veracity, it seems his writings cannot be regarded as anything other than far-fetched storytelling. Of course, some of the assumptions made by historians are also not infallible; for instance, Herodotus’ definition of “black” may likely have simply meant “darker than my own skin,” and there is no solid proof that the Egyptians, even the priests, would have refused to speak with him. However, there is little about Herodotus’ claims that can be absolutely proven or disproven. In arguing about facts recorded nearly 2,500 years ago, I believe the true worthiness of his work is both diminished and ignored by disappointed historians who presumptuously expected the account to adhere to modern-day standards and capabilities of accuracy. For one thing, measurement inaccuracies should hardly be considered a point of contention, since they were most likely estimated very roughly, and Herodotus’ sense of place orientation would have been based on little more than his internal compass. But more importantly, Herodotus was not aware of the anthropological methods of research common today, and did not claim to use them; it is not fair to consider him deceitful because he may have asked leading questions, or communicated through a possibly questionable interpreter, or not verified the information relayed to him by the Egyptians. Given the time period, when fact and fantasy blurred together in art, story, religion, and real life, it is hardly to be expected that Herodotus would have had the modern sensibilities to separate truth from fiction, both in the Egyptians’ legendary tales and their exotic daily life.
 
Perhaps he did purposefully embellish what he saw, or appropriated stories he heard as his own eyewitness accounts, or lied about going to Egypt at all. But I think it is more likely that he simply attempted to give a description of what he saw, and was unable to do so with complete accuracy because of cultural and language differences, a lack of authoritatively trustworthy resources, and possibly a tendency to mistake isolated incidents as universal peculiarities. Still, I was impressed by his lack of prejudice towards the Egyptians (especially if they were as inhospitable as some historians say), the extensiveness of his account, and his cautious attempts to warn readers about stories he considered doubtful. Far too many years have passed to determine the real truth about Herodotus, so what is the benefit of attacking him? I think his account should be appreciated for its literary value and authorial ambition, and even if the details cannot be used as a source of accurate information, the work itself is highly interesting from an anthropological perspective in regards to the mindset and cultural approach of an ancient man. Besides, even if one refuses to believe Herodotus ever set foot in Egypt, he still wrote a fantastic story. 

Herodotus made a life out of traveling almost everywhere, documenting the people and practices he encountered. He is regarded as both a historian and storyteller. It is precisely this fascinating mesh of methodologies – one of systematic analysis based on reason and facts combined with a humanistic interest in understanding different places and peoples – that catches my attention. Whether one considers him a historian, cultural anthropologist, explorer, or storyteller, Herodotus possesses an indispensible quality: curiosity.

Herodotus’ account of Egypt covered several different aspects, from its geography to its history and customs. He began with a geographic description, and as I followed his mental journey along Egypt’s presumed borders and topographical landmarks, I must admit he was already starting to lose my attention. His descriptive treatment of Egypt’s physical characteristics sounded flat, the matter-of-fact historian persona dominating his presentation. His geographic descriptions seemed detached from the Egyptian experience of the land, and his extreme thoroughness for minute details (for example, “…I have already before this shown that the distance along the sea amounts to three thousand six hundred furlongs, and I will now declare what the distance is inland from the sea to Thebes, namely six thousand one hundred and twenty furlongs: and again the distance from Thebes to the city called Elephantine is one thousand eight hundred furlongs.”) highlights Herodotus’ inclination towards scientific objectivity.

However, as I read on it became clear through his writing that there is this immense curiosity that underlies his personal theoretical considerations and penchant for detail. Taking the time to uncover such a vast array of cultural information speaks to an inquisitive nature that I believe forms the foundation of seeking out and appreciating travel.

It had struck me how open Herodotus seemed immersed in a situation where, “The Egyptians in agreement with their climate, which is unlike any other, and with the river, which shows a nature different from all other rivers, established for themselves manners and customs in a way opposite to other men in almost all matters.” But it is precisely this disparity that underscores how valuable curiosity can be – in the right (a.k.a. safe) situations. Curiosity is the positive motivation that pushes one towards learning. It helps people absorb new, sometimes opposing, ideas and puts their own knowledge in perspective. Amidst the intriguing Egyptian practices described, it is this underlying sentiment that appealed to me most.

Herodotus records important factual information about his observations on Egypt, Cairo, and the Egyptian way of life. He goes into a great deal of specificity and although his descriptions are so accurately detailed his writing comes off a mundane, he fluidly transitions through describing many aspects of Egyptian culture. I was interested in learning about Egyptian pets and animal care as it is (incredulously) relatable to the animal rights movements in modern civilizations. Specifically, I was surprised at learning about the extreme levels of respect and reverence held towards household cats and dogs, and shocked at the personal sacrifices made after one of these creatures had died (shaving eyebrows/body hair). I had assumed that empathy for animal rights was a product of civilizations advanced as my own and never imagined its existence in ancient societies.

However it is my personal opinion that the real gems of Herodotus’ An Account of Egypt are found in his re-tellings of succession stories within the Egyptian monarchy. Specifically, I was enchanted by the story of Pheros, son of Sesotris, who came to the thrown after his father committed suicide without embarking on a militaristic rite of passage voyage. He is blinded for ten years after catching a disease from a river water flood and is told by an oracle that he may only regain his sight once receiving water from a woman who has not slept with men besides her husband. After finding her and getting his sight back Pheros married the woman and killed, by burning, all the women who had failed him and offered stone obelisks of dedication toward the temple of the sun. I enjoyed this story for its grim romanticism. I liked the concept of a man needing a woman to see in, and how the metaphor is taken so literally. I also thought that, on regaining his vision, Pheros decided to grant importance to light – something that can be felt, although only truly understood when it is seen, and also perhaps the original symbol for wisdom’s illuminating quality.
One concept repeated throughout his account was the Egyptian relationship with death and the afterlife. The detailed burial practices were careful and deliberate, showing a great deal of faith in their traditions. Even more striking was that although judgment would be passed after a person died, usually concerning the actual fatal event, family members had a moral obligation to mourn their dead regardless of social status. The lengths to which an Egyptian would go to protect and mourn the body of his dead brethren seem limitless. In one specific anecdote, a brother risks his life ten times over to trick the royal guard into letting him sneak away with his brother’s corpse after he had attempted to loot a royal tomb.

Lastly, I enjoyed the brief descriptions of the seven social classes within the Egyptian community. Without its inclusion I feel as though An Account of Egypt would have been lacking a key element to painting a complete picture of Egypt. 

Despite naïve claims, inaccurate logic and shoddy thinking, Herodotus offers what I found to be some impressive demonstrations of scientific thinking and critical inquiry.  It is interesting how Herodotus’ accounts of Egypt, which at times seem assumptive and void of reasonable evidence, are at other times demonstrations of highly developed problem-solving.
 
One example of Herodotus’ advanced analysis I found especially interesting was his speculative discussion of the Nile, in which he explores the Nile’s annual flooding and why this river’s nature is opposite to that of all other rivers. 
 
Concerning this question, Herodotus explores in depth several theories of reasoning that have been previously presented.  Using advanced thinking, especially for his time, Herodotus questions the ideas of the previous thinkers and develops counter-evidence revealing their mistakes and illogic. 
 
For example, Herodotus disproves one account of the Hellenes by pointing out how if their ideas were correct, all other rivers flowing in the same direction as the Nile would likewise be affected in the same way. Herodotus continues to critically question two other accounts of the Hellenes. In analyzing the third theory, which he considers “the most specious, but nevertheless the most mistaken of all”, he develops a counter-argument by providing several pieces of contradictory evidence.
 
Herodotus’ reasoning in this section uses intuitive observations and an understanding of science and nature including the nature of the wind, the rain, and animal behaviors. Not only does Herodotus impress by critically engaging and providing evidence against so many scientific accounts, he continues by declaring his own opinion about the nature of the Nile.
 
The opinion Herodotus’ suggests, which involves the nature of seasons, the sun and the wind, seems well developed and intuitive. Regardless of whether or not the analysis and thinking that Herodotus uses to disprove other theorists and to develop his own ideas are entirely accurate, his use of evidence and advanced problem solving techniques should not go unnoticed. 

I found Herodotus’ An Account of Egypt extremely compelling when placed under the looking glass of “historical record.” Herodotus, thought to be one of the world’s first documented historians, strives to uncover the truth of Egyptian history through his writing—claiming to objectively relay what has passed through his ears and eyes throughout the course of his travels. To Herodotus’ credit, he does acknowledge the existence of multiple versions of “historical truths” and never fails to assert his opinion independent from these versions so as to maintain some shred of credibility (alongside his authorship). “If however after I have found fault with the opinions proposed, I am bound to declare an opinion of my own about the matters which are in doubt” he writes, “I will tell what to my mind is the reason why.” And he does.
 
It is apparent throughout the text that Herodotus has come to a cross roads with regard to the origin of multiple oral histories (i.e. why the Nile River flows in the direction opposite to other parallel rivers and whether or not Heracles was a god or a man according to disparate sources). He, thus, feels compelled to direct the reader’s gaze one way or another augmenting the validity of his personal reasoning and self-image in the process. Herodotus asserts himself, interjecting his first person presence in a variety of ways. “I for my part am of opinion that,” “this was so I conjectured myself,” “These, I am of opinion,” and “this I know, having myself also measured it” are just a few examples from the text.
 
Perhaps the most intriguing element regarding the formal aspects of Herodotus’ account of Egypt is the way in which he structures what he has heard in conjunction with what he believes to be true. In introducing the sacred bird called the phoenix he writes, “This bird they say (but I cannot believe the story) contrives as follows.” Thus, Herodotus appears very cautious in distinguishing what it is that “they say” as opposed to what he says utilizing connotative words such as “contrives” to his advantage.
 
Furthermore, while Herodotus claims to be preoccupied with the origin of Egyptian culture—informing the reader solely based on his own observations and the accounts given to him by Egyptian people—he distances himself and his knowledge of the subject from his audience quite frequently throughout. In ascertaining topics he “most desires not to speak” about and things “it is not permitted to [him] by religion to say” he maintains an air of superiority and control over the discourse of Egyptian origin.
 
Herodotus’ historical editing of his account of Egypt compels me to question the egotistical, self-propagating motives behind his work in addition to what we conceive of as “origin” or historical “truth.” 

Reasons for travel vary from leisure and pleasure to sightseeing and analyzing history. Herodotus takes the lead as the “father of history” with his great writings about his cultural experiences through his travels. Herodotus gives readers a taste of diverse cultures through his own Greek eyes in The Histories. Though his claims might not be entirely accurate, he allows a development of insight about the customs and society of ancient Egypt in his account of Egypt. Like a modern tourist, he makes note about the oddities of this world apart from what he is accustomed to.
 
Some practices are weirder than others in Egyptian society, as observed by Herodotus. He states that the Egyptians “established for themselves manners and customs in a way opposite to other men in almost all matters: for among them the women frequent the market and carry on trade, while the men remain at home and weave.” (p. 18) Herodotus continues to describe the roles that men and women take in their society, pointing out a case where the roles are actually reversed. The typical woman remains in the house and weaves while the men leave the house to work and deal with trade. Egyptian society has inverted these traditions.
 
Herodotus spends a lot of time in his work comparing the Egyptians to other lands that he is more familiar with. The “…but in Egypt” phrases recur throughout as he makes direct comparisons. “The priests of the gods in other lands wear long hair, but in Egypt they shave their heads: among other men the custom is that in mourning those whom the matter concerns most nearly have their hair cut short, but the Egyptians, when deaths occur, let their hair grow long, both on the head and that on the chin, having before been close shaven.” (p. 19) He continues his simplistic comparisons, remarking how this foreign land differs from others he has seen.
 
When humans travel, they attempt to connect with foreign culture by identifying with certain aspects of the alien society. Herodotus seemed to marvel at what he could not relate to, a world dissimilar to his own. Recording and observing put him on his pedestal of history, capturing facets of different cultures. He was a pioneer for exploring the diverse community of societies throughout the known world. He laid the foundation of a long line of historians and travelers, analyzing the unfamiliar and enriching the minds of readers about distant places.

We travel to learn and observe new things- to find beauty in them.  There is a desire to see and experience a different way of living, to feel it in the history, and to take part in its current momentum. The obvious difference between Herodotus’ travels and ours today is fact.  We can look in our guidebook or ask our host and know, immediately, a multitude of information.  Herodotus must take care to know the history of the histories he is told, to compare various stories to produce the “correct” one, or to present multiple accounts for the reader to choose. 
 
We travel, although we may not think of this as the main purpose, to be in awe of the ways all humanity does the same things, just in different places.  We all eat, sleep, love, and learn- yet there are thousands of ways to go about this.  One thing that has been lost to the modern traveler is the unexplained, the science of thousands of years that Herodotus was not privy to. A great deal of his tale concerns matters of geography, the science of the Nile, and discerning slight differences in gods and their lives.  These matters are interesting because then, there was no scientific answer. 
 
The unexplained and superstition were huge parts of ancient life.  Herodotus explains the priests, superstitions towards certain animals and professions, and goes into enormous detail on the role of gods. He explains and believes things through his own culture.  To be brought up believing that Zeus sends lightning when he is angry- it is taken as complete truth, no questions asked-that was their science.  We grow up now knowing that there are many different belief systems and histories, that there is science and the spiritual, either explainable (though not attainable) or unexplained and reliant on faith. 
 
For Herodotus there were not these two distinctions and reading his work is most exciting to see the points of aporia- the “facts” being explained in a different, equally possible way.  It is fascinating to observe these exchanges, a kind of dramatic irony in fact, as the modern audience knows the answer to the questions being asked.  Did I know why the Nile flows the way it does?  No.  Do I now?  Yes, I Wikipedia-d it.  For Herodotus the various stories will have to do. 
 

In his piece on the philosophy of poetry, Aristotle casually remarks that “poetry is more philosophical and more worth-while than history, for poetry speaks in general terms, while history concerns itself with detail.”  In his work, Aristotle offers little to nothing in defense of this statement, instead asserting it as a matter of common knowledge. The partition between philosophy and history then, was a recognized fact in Herodotus’ time. It is thus the somewhat sad fact that philosophers, not historians, defined the early role of the discipline, placing it far below their own.
 
History is, in a general sense, the faithful recount of past events paired with some reasoned explanation of why those events preceded as they did. From this then, I believe Herodotus is rightfully credited as the first real historian. Prior to Herodotus, such writing, with the Odyssey perhaps working as a somewhat functional albeit imperfect example, worked to advance the prestige of a people, a ruler, a society, a culture, or some other entity which the author felt compelled to advocate. This however, is not the case in Herodotus’ account of Egypt. Herodotus, it seems to me, tries his very best to accurately convey what he sees to the reader, and when something he relays is based on secondhand information, he is not afraid to share that with the reader. Moreover, any criticism of Herodotus’ accuracy overlooks the tremendous constraints he was under in terms of cultural barriers and his reliance on guides for explanation.     
 
One point of note also is that Herodotus was in exile when he wrote his history of Egypt, and thus can be seen as a historian more neutral than most in that he likely held no deep nationalist persuasions. Rather, Herodotus observes, explains, and then looks to others in order to better understand the Egyptian world, all of which being hallmarks of the historian.
 
Finally, Herodotus’ history does provide a fascinating look into the Egyptian world, from his description of the native animals to his speculation as to the methods of constructing the pyramids; all of his writing provides fascinating insights not only into the Egyptian world but also the Greek perspective.

Herodotus’ An Account of Egypt is a report on ancient customs, politics, and culture.The book is a hybrid of facts and story telling including observations and local legends. Herodotus is very definitive on hearsay versus knowledge. He compiles his information over a long period of time. His travels brought him around the Mediterranean and Western Asia, where he conducts interviews and studies the locals’ way of life. He sheds light on the period and the result is a comprehensive study of Egypt. Herodotus’ writing is especially compelling when he is examining culture. He goes into great detail about the religion of the Egyptians as well as the animals that live in the region and their importance.
 
An Account of Egypt describes the significance of animals to the Egyptian culture. Herodotus explains that there are very few animals in Egypt and they hold a “sacred” place in the community. Because of their importance, some animals live with men and are fed by men and women separately. Additionally, certain sacred animals are not used for food and if an animal is intentionally killed, the responsible individual can face a penalty of death. Thus, animals are heavily protected and treated with extraordinary care in Egypt.
 
Herodotus also examines the custom of making a vow to the God of the animal. During the process the owner of the animal shaves the head of his children and measures the amount of hair in a scale balanced against silver. The weight of the hair is equal to the amount of fish that the caretaker of the animal receives from the person who made the vow. Additionally, the fish cannot be eaten by the caretaker but rather is given to the animal as food. This custom demonstrates how animals are an integral part of religious practices for the Egyptians.
 
Like the Gods themselves, animals also have myths created about them. Herodotus describes the “sacred bird called the phoenix.” He notes the he has never seen a phoenix but according to the legend, the phoenix appears only when its father dies or once every five hundred years. However, Herodotus is able derive the phoenix’s depiction from several Egyptian paintings. The sacred bird has gold and red feathers and is the size of an eagle. There is also a myth describing the plight of the phoenix. The purpose of the phoenix’s journey is to transport its father from Arabia to the temple of the Sun in a special egg. The myth demonstrates the importance of animals to culture and provides perspective on how they are intertwined with life and the supernatural.

@font-face { font-family: "Times"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

In addition to reading the text assigned I also read the New Yorker article by David Mendelsohn entitled “Arms and the Man”.    This article interested me originally because I knew by the title it was written by a classics fanatic (the use of the opening lines of the Aeneid for the title was a big hint).   I found that the author made several interesting points that I would like to further discuss.

 

First, the author summarizes the subject of Herodotus’ work as the “implacable conflict between East and West.”   At the same time I think Herodotus is a mediator between the two.  He doesn’t not favor the Greeks nor the Egyptians which indicates that his intention is to present a text that is objective.   One supporting example is his description of the “foolish” myth the Hellenes have that Heracles came to the Egyptians and they tried to sacrifice him.  Herodotus says the Hellenes (Greeks) are “altogether without knowledge of the nature and customs of the Egyptians” and that the idea of sacrificing a human is utterly ridiculous.  This affirms that Herodotus is attempting to write the truth as he sees it.

 

A second point that I liked about Mendelsohn’s article was the image of Herodotus as a Hawaiian-shirt wearing tourist with a big camera and a stack of guidebooks.  I realized rereading portions of the text that this was absolutely true.  When you read Herodotus you can imagine sitting down on vacation somewhere and the guy just sits down with you and starts babbling about one thing or another.  At the same time if Herodotus is a tourist than it is interesting to look at what Professor said in class.  Namely that tourists are on a quest for authenticity.  I think this summarizes Herodotus’ text.  It is a step-by-step account of Herodotus’ search for the authentic Egypt.  He finds it by looking at a variety of secondary and primary sources on Egypt.  To me, this again indicates that his goal was to be objective.

 

Lastly, I appreciated Mendelsohn’s comment about Greek prose.  He said that prose was a form often ignored and not actually named till decades after Herodotus.  Despite this Herodotus made an effort to give his writing the same rhythm as the epics by Homer are written with.  What I liked least about this reading was the prose and I am glad that I can attribute that to translation.

@font-face { font-family: "Times"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

Even before I read Daniel Mendelsohn's article, "Herodotus: Arms and the Man," I was struck by how naturally the ancient historian's associative, casual and multidisciplinary voice would fit the modern-day format of a blog post or web page. As Mendelsohn points out, the digressions and minutiae that so characterize Herodotus' work would function perfectly as hyperlinks,and the equal attention he pays to the weird, small details of everyday life and greater historical events predicts our own era, in which a small bit of YouTube hilarity or the photographs our friends took last weekend can hold our attention just as readily as news regarding Afghanistan, Iraq, the economy or an oil spill. 

 

Of course, petty gossip and personal history have footnoted the telling of great deeds and events for centuries. This duality between individual specificity and a larger narrative characterizes most, if not all, great stories told throughout history, and is therefore not particularly unique to either the Histories or the digital media of our own era. Yet there is a larger concurrence between the format of Herodotus' Histories and the internet, namely, that both transcend any restriction of format. In Herodotus' case, this is due both to the personality of the author himself and the fact that his work had no real precedent. In this vein, Mendelsohn explains that before Herodotus, prose was a crude linguistic tool to the ancient Greeks, that the word "history" would have had the dry and boring connotations of a scientific treatise. Histories, in contrast, contained not only what we would consider historical texts but also writings on biology, theology, political theory, sociology, in addition to the sort of information one might find in a present-day guidebook.

By including multiple and often conflicting accounts of the same story, yet giving himself the last word on each matter, Herodotus managed the feat of creating a prose aesthetic that served to frame his vast leaps of thought while maintaining (at least theoretical) "scientific" objectivity in his accounts. Of course, in his moments of proto-gonzo journalism, Herodotus abandons any semblance of objectivity altogether, alternating between awe and disgust at the Egyptian way of life. Nevertheless, this unwieldy synthesis ultimately resulted in a formal archetype of sorts with influence on written work to the present day. Reading through An Account of Egypt, I was reminded of the vast quantities of fictional arcana written by Borges or even the dusty scrolls and tomes Indiana Jones pores over in his quest for artifacts. 

 

What I find most striking, however, is how present Herodotus himself is throughout his work, by virtue of the details and asides he chooses to include. His particular fascination with the Egyptians, evidenced by the amount of time he spends documenting their cultural esoterica, belies a greater humanistic curiosity in everything perceived as odd and foreign. It is true that, given proper indentations, hyperlinks, and headings, his writing would make for fine Wikipedia material, but in my opinion this would spoil the conversational tone of the work and ruin the fun of hunting for particularly interesting or amusing tidbits among the torrent of information. The more streamlined format of the internet is necessary given the truly vast sum of information it contains; however, in Herodotus' case, despite his compilation and study of accounts spanning hundreds if not thousands of years, the amount of information is still finite and therefore manageable enough for his unique, sprawling style to handle. 

 

With the notable exception of the tale of the Phrygians at the beginning of An Account of Egypt, Herodotus seems to largely regard the Egyptians as a people of firsts, having important religious and cultural influence on the Greeks/Hellenes. Perhaps his lingering focus on their culture and history can be explained by a sense of empathy for his fellow pioneers. 

 

Herodotus gives a fairly unbiased account of Egypt- of the land (he revisits the Nile throughout), of the people, their appearance, customs, religious practices and sacrifices,  the buildings( he seems to be impressed by the pyramids), and the animals he encounters.

 

He often states when he is going to give his opinion i.e.: "I however have an opinion about the matter as follows," p 33 and  generally goes about describing what he sees without too much editorializing. However, there are certain times when we hear Herodotus's voice of opinion slip out. In comparing customs and behaviors he relates them immediately back to the behaviors and customs of the Greeks and thus judges them as so. 

 

Herodotus seems astonished at the differences between the way people act in Egypt. On page 18 he says, 

 

"The Egyptians, in agreement with their climate, which is unlike any other, and with the river, which shows a nature different from all other rivers, established for themselves manners and customs in a way opposite to other men in almost all matters- for them, the women frequent the market and carry on trade while the men remain home and weave' and whereas others weave pushing the roof upwards, they push it downwards…" pg. 18

 

While he says that Egyptians act differently from all other men, we can't help but realize that the polarity of custom that he explores is a direct comparison between the men of Greece and the men Egypt, not all men and the men of Egypt.  His voice of nationalism pours out again when he speaks of the way that Egyptians write from left to right rather than right to left and eat indoors instead of outdoors. 

 

It is difficult to encounter anything without comparing it to that which one knows best. It is also common to feel as though one's way of doing something is better than its foreign counterpart, simply because it is familiar and comfortable. 

 

It is clear that Herodotus has a great appetite for exploring new places but it is also clear that he is not immune to the the "my city is better than your city" mentality. Nationalism is incredibly complex. It is interesting to the think about the way that the "my nation is more powerful than your nation" mentality  does not always stem from my nation is physically more beautiful or has more to offer or treats its citizens more kindly. Rather, it comes from sense of attachment to places we grew up or places which expose deep feelings about people and events. 

 

When exploring histories, topographies, societies, of foreign places, the historian faces a difficult challenge. How can one remove his deep personal connections with spaces of his past and approach new spaces in a totally unbiased way? 

Some scholars and historians these days like Daniel Mendelsohn started out a bit skeptical and confused about whether or not Herodotus was a historian. Frustrated with his colloquial and long-winded accounts filled with much of his own opinion, it seems as though scholars and historians today acknowledge Herodotus as “the Father of History” but still take an unconvinced stance on whether or not what he did was write the first historical account. As Mendelsohn notes, “Herodotus, by contrast, always seemed a bit of a sucker. Whatever his desire, stated in his Preface, to pinpoint the “root cause” of the Persian Wars…what you take away from an initial encounter with the Histories is not, to put it mildly, a strong sense of methodical rigor.” You can fault him for lengthy conversational jargon, but there was nothing like what Herodotus wrote before his time, so he had no basis or example to learn from.
 
It’s easy to give him a hard time for his statements, “it seemed to myself,” “I am bound to declare an opinion of my own,” and “I suppose” and the like, but at least the guy is honest, right? I find it important to note that Herodotus is honest about his confabulations. He is prompt to tell the reader when what he writes is of his own opinion and point of view. If something isn’t first hand experience, he lets the reader know that the information came from another source. He doesn’t make things up for the sake of entertaining an audience.
 
Herodotus’s technique got me thinking about what differentiates a tourist with a diary from a historian. I think it has to do with the intended audience. Herodotus wrote with an understanding that hopefully his works would be read and appreciated in the future by a wide audience. A diary is obviously not meant for this purpose. Herodotus started with what he knew- his own perspective on the happenings of the Greco-Persian Wars. He was able to pave the way for future historians by documenting his encounters and arriving to conclusions through investigating all that he experiences. He is a very traveled man, and he has a personal point of view of what the Persians go through which he is able to draw many conclusions about in his writings. Not that my opinion necessarily matters in the long run, but I raise a glass to commemorate Herodotus as the successful and meaningful Father of History.

History is an enigma. At the bedrock of fields such as social, cultural, and political history is the fundamental question of the discipline itself: “What is history?” Examinations of this question are referred to broadly as the “philosophy of history.” According to the editors at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one of the main questions in this field is, “What is involved in our knowing, representing, and explaining history?” Herodotus is revered as one of the first historians in the West to take his recordings with a systematic approach. We see this in his work An Account of Egypt, where he is sure to differentiate between things that he has personally witnessed, such as the pillars placed in lands conquered by King Sesotris, and those that he has only heard about, such as the story of the Phoenix.
 
But do Herodotus’s historical accounts really possess anything that could be referred to as “objectively” true? Herodotus really can’t resist comparing Egyptian culture to its analog in the Hellenic world. For instance, he points out that the Egyptian gods Oros and Osiris are referred to as Apollo and Dionysos “in the tongue of Hellas.” But wouldn’t it seem that due to a number of circumstances, geography not the least of which, that there is no way that the Greeks and the Egyptians could have had the same conceptions of these gods? Herodotus is obviously leaving something out by implying that these gods are more or less equal. Here we come to the dilemma, as stated by the SEP, that “There is no such thing as ‘perspective-free history.’”
 
Another idea in the philosophy of history that Herodotus’s “objectivity” falls victim to is that “Historical space is dense.” For example, many would say that at this moment the most “historically significant” event going on is the political and social unrest in the Middle East. But by making a statement like this we are disregarding the countless other happenings throughout the world, as well as their inseparability. “History” becomes what we see fit to record. In the text we see that Herodotus pays particular attention to the Egyptian’s account of Helen’s arrival at Taricheiai. It seems very possible that this is focused on because of how it differs from Homer’s account, something that would be very familiar to Herodotus.
 
It appears that history will never separate itself from our perspectives and interpretations. To step down from the philosophical soapbox though, the study of history and of various cultures seems far from useless. Even though circumstance may force certain filters on our perceptions, it seems like if we don’t at least make some effort to empathize then we will be as stuck as the Egyptians who (according to Herodotus) “call all men Barbarians who do not agree with them in speech.”
 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/