Weekly Journal 6
Thursday, February 16 8:10am-9:30am (1 hour 20 minutes), Locke Hall
Today’s class was incredibly different from any other class we have had. Today we got to truly enjoy Thanksgiving dinner without the barrier of Saran wrap. Dr. Sandridge uses this metaphor of Thanksgiving dinner to show us just how much we have been missing out on in reading Herodotus in an English translation. He likens this to us eating Thanksgiving dinner with everything still wrapped in plastic, therefore, we are missing out on all the delicious flavors and seasonings that it entails. However, in today’s class, we ripped off the wrap and truly savored this dinner. We did so by reading a portion of Herodotus in Greek.
Dr. Sandride gave us an excerpt from Book Three chapter 80 in the original Greek that Herodotus used to write his histories. The excerpt was divided into six sections and the class was divided accordingly. My group was assigned the first sentence. The task Dr. Sandridge laid before us was to translate the words he had underlined for us into English. He also provided us with the Greek alphabet so that we would know how to decipher the Greek words. It also helped that the English translation of the excerpt was on the bottom of the page so that it was easy for us to follow along. The first word my group had was “pente” which we quickly discovered was the Greek word for “five”. And that was about as far as my group got in terms of translating the words. However, I feel as though I could have gotten a lot more of them after Dr. Sandridge revealed their meanings. It was definitely one of those “Oh man I could have gotten that!” moments. It was cool to see just how much of the English language is rooted in Greek and other Indo-European languages. It was also fascinating to see just how much was lost in translation. For example, the Greek word “ubrin” (which translates to “hubris” in English) means “insolence” or “outrage” whereas in English, the word is associated more with pride and arrogance. It’s little things like this that can take away from us truly enjoying our Thanksgiving dinner.
Thursday, February 16 3:00pm-4:30pm (1 hour 30 minutes), CHS Dorm
I decided to start the required reading assignments the day they are assigned and so today I began to read Book Four of Herodotus. I don’t know why but I was expecting Book Four to start of exciting and full of crazy stories; but like always it began with the dry, boring stuff like the geography of the land (in this case, Scythia)and the different groups of people that live within it. However, it started to get interesting around chapter 8 which is a lot earlier than other books. Most other books in Herodotus don’t get to the good parts until the chapters reach the teens or early twenties. But anyway, in chapter 8 Herodotus begins to tell the story of how the first Scythians came to be, according to the Scythians themselves. I found this story particularly interesting because it served as an example of yet another woman being forced to be conniving in order to get what she wants. The role of women seems to be a recurring theme in Herodotus beginning with the story of Candaules’ wife. Like the wife, the snake-woman in the Scythian story also does not receive a name which reflects just how little regard men had for women. Like I was saying, this snake-woman was forced to use more manipulative strategies to get what she wants. Some may say that what she wanted was to have sex with Heracles and that holding his mares hostage is unethical, and in some ways, coercive. However, my argument still stands. Had a man wanted to have intercourse with a woman, all he had to do was say just that and the woman would have no choice but to comply in fear of suffering the consequences.
This whole story just got me thinking of how hypocritical society and gender norms are. For example, society expects men to be the breadwinners for the household and for women to stay home and take care of the family. And yet, when women do exactly that, they are scolded and labelled as lazy. So what are we to do? I’ve found that with so many double-standards within society, I might as well just do what I want. At the end of the day, someone is always going to have something to say about you so you may as well just do you.
Sunday, February 19 10:00am-12:30pm (2 hours 30 minutes), CHS Dorm
Today I really began to delve into Book Four. Like always whenever I read Herodotus, there is always one part or quotation that really stands out to me and gets me thinking. For today’s session the quotation was found in chapter 46: “For the Scythian nation has made the most clever discovery among all the people we know, and of the one thing that is greatest in human affairs — though for the rest I do not admire them much. This greatest thing that they have discovered is how no invader who comes against them can ever escape and how none can catch them if they do not wish to be caught. For this people has no cities or settled forts; they carry their houses with them and shoot with bows from horseback; they live off herds of cattle, not from tillage, and their dwellings are on their wagons. How then can they fail to be invincible and inaccessible for others?”
Now the reason I found this quotation to be of particular interest is because the whole of Book Four is set up to tell the story of Darius’ invasion of Scythia. But if the Scythians are impregnable, why is Darius invading them? Doesn’t he know that no one has ever successfully captured them before? What makes him think that he will succeed? But then it occurred to me. Darius is a very arrogant man. Just like the rulers before him, he is overconfident and unable to make sound judgements. Take Croesus. His arrogance prevented him from clearly interpreting the oracle and so he invaded Persia and lost everything. And look at Cambyses, in his hubris he invaded Egypt and so too lost everything. I have noticed that Herodotus enjoys showing just how dangerous overconfidence is, especially in a ruler because it ultimately leads to their downfalls.
Tuesday, February 21 8:10am-9:30am (1 hour 20 minutes), Locke Hall
For today’s class, we continued to discuss Book Three chapter 80 but this time in English. This portion of Herodotus tells of the discussion that took place after the death of Cambyses and the invasion of the Magi. Now that the throne was up for grabs, Darius, Megabyzus, and Otanes gathered to determine which was the best for of government to implement: monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy. Herodotus began with Otanes’ argument for democracy. Otanes claimed that democracy should become the new form of government because it allows for equality under the law and accountability for those in power. He argues that, as seen in Cambyses, monarchy warrants mindless outrage. The next proposal presented is by Megabyzus who favors oligarchy, or rather, aristocracy. He believed that the “Best of Men” know what is best for the community and that democracy overestimates the intelligence of the masses. Although Megabyzus agrees with Otanes that monarchy is not the way to go, he firmly believes that putting faith in the people can be dangerous. Finally, Darius presents his argument for monarchy. He states that when more than one person is in power, they all which to be the chief amongst themselves. And so they scheme and plot against one another until one eventually comes out on top, resulting in a monarchy anyways. He also claims that they gained their freedom through one man and so they should keep it through one man.
Now prior to our class discussion I would have wholeheartedly cast my vote for democracy. But Dr. Sandridge explained an interesting piece of history with the class. He told us that in ancient times, democracy was not as popular as it is today for three main reasons. The first reason is because of the common belief that the public simply is not knowledgable enough to engage in such vital decisions. And now that I think about it, I completely agree. How many of us are truly capable of making sound conclusions regarding political matters? Or does simply being a member of a community grant you the right to participate in the national agenda? The second reason why democracy was so unpopular is because it is inefficient when it comes to answering questions. Some situations are time-sensitive and there is simply no time to consult all the people of a nation on what the next more should be. Finally, democracy was often scrutinized because some matters require secrecy and in order for democracy to thrive, complete transparency is needed.
At the end of the day, humans are always envious and proud creatures and giving them power only serves to heighten these two characteristics. Dr. Sandridge shared a quote with the class that went something like this: “Anyone can handle adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character give him power.” I think this is so accurate. People can handle troubles as they come and go but what they do with power reveals who they really are.
Wednesday, February 22 2:30pm-3:30pm; 5:00pm-7:00pm; 8:00–10:30pm (5 hours 30 minutes), Starbucks and CHS Dorm
Obviously I was trying to get the rest of the reading and hours done in time for class tomorrow. And while five and a half hours is a lot of time, it really didn’t feel that long because I took a few naps in between when I felt myself lagging with the reading.
One thing that I found disturbing yet compelling is how murder played such a large role in Scythian culture. I mean the extent to which killing is encouraged is astounding. There are several examples in the text that support this. For example, in chapter 64 Herodotus explains that when a Scythian kills his first man, he drinks his blood. Each kill following that, the Scythian carries the heads to the king. When he brings the head, the Scythian shares in the loot that was acquired during battle. Those who do not present a head do not partake in the riches. And so wealth serves as an incentive for Scythians to kill. Another example that portrays the importance of killing is found in chapter 66: “Once a year the governor, each in his own district, brews a bowl of wine from which the Scythians drink who have killed their enemies. If they have killed none such, they may not drink of the wine but sit aside, dishonored. This is indeed the greatest disgrace among them. Those of them who have killed many men, each have two cups and drink of them both.” Again, an incentive is presented in order to compel the Scythians into murdering people. Of course no one wants to be dishonored so naturally they do whatever it takes to avoid being humiliated, in this case, killing your enemies.
