Book 6 Landmark Herodotus – audio recording
Here’s the audio recording for Herodotus Book 6. Listen online ordownload the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.
Herodotus update
Hi y’all,
Just a reminder about our call tonight:
8pm EST
1 866 628 8620 112431#
subsequent conference call dates:
Book 7 Mon Aug 11
Books 8 & 9 Mon Sept 8
Looking forward to our discussion on Book 7 and Marathon,
Andre
My notes on Book 6
Hi there, fellow readers of Herodotus,
I’ve posted my notes on (most of) Book 6 at the usual place: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ajdmt4cn3wfz_375gmtrjsc3
Talk to y’all on Monday!
Mark
Researchers hit a homer with ‘The Odyssey’
Using astronomical clues, they date one of literature’s most heralded events: Odysseus’ slaughter of his wife’s suitors. But the finding leaves many questions unanswered.
By Thomas H. Maugh II
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 24 2008
Delving into a 3,000-year-old mystery using astronomical clues in Homer’s “The Odyssey,” researchers said Monday they have dated one of the most heralded events of Western literature: Odysseus’ slaughter of his wife’s suitors upon his return from the Trojan War.
The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-odyssey24-2008jun24,0,5699547.story
Visit latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com
Book 6 Questions
Greetings Herodoteans,
I sincerely hope that your summer is off to a great start.
We will be discussing Book 6 and the Battle of Marathon among other fascinating observations from the “father of history” on Monday June 30 @8pm EST. The phone number for this and all future conference calls is 1 866 628 8620
code 112431#
I hope you can make the next call. Please peruse the questions below as you read through Book 6. This book reads very well and is the first of four books that sticks very closely to Greek-Persian relations as well as intra-Hellene relations. There is also some overlap between Herodotus in these books and Thucydides, especially Athens-Sparta relations. At any rate, be on the lookout in Book 6 for fugitive Greeks and nasty shipwrecks, and I hope to talk with you all next week.
Andre
Schedule for remaining discussions:
Book 7 – Aug 11 (new date, moved from Aug 4)
Books 8 & 9 – Sept 8
Herodotus Book Six Discussion Questions
1. In Book VI ch. 30, Histiaeus’ end at the hands of Artaphrenes and Harpagos is related in gruesome but cursory fashion: “they took him to Sardis and there hanged him from a stake. But they embalmed his head and brought it to King Darius in Susa” (p. 437). Just prior to this remark, Herodotus himself tells the reader that in his opinion “if, after being captured alive, Histiaeos had been taken to Darius, I suppose that Darius would have forgiven him for his offense and that he would have suffered no harm” (437). Knowing what we know about Darius in the Histories, would that be an accurate prediction? Why does Herodotus feel this way and what evidence from earlier in our reading could support his assertion?
2. In chs. 51-55, Herodotus digresses on the origins of the Spartan dual kingship. He comments on both the Spartan version and the common Greek traditional version. What are we to make of the story? Is Herodotus favoring one or the other? Are there other versions deliberately not mentioned by Herodotus? Why does Herodotus suddenly proclaim: “let that be the extent of what is said on this topic” (449)?
3. In ch. 84, Herodotus presents various views on the Spartan king Kleomenes’ madness and eventual death. After presenting the Argive and Spartan explanations, Herodotus claims: “For myself, I think that the best explanation is that Kleomenes was punished for his treatment of Demaratos” (460). What does this say about Herodotus’ judgment? Is he taking sides or does he have justification, according to his evidence, that his assertion has credence? What does this remark say about Herodotus’ regard for history in general?
4. Herodotus uses 94 chapters to set the stage for one of the most important battles in history. Given the actual details of the battle, why does Herodotus not go into more detail about the individuals and events on the battlefield? How does Herodotus contrast the Athenians to the Persians in this conflict? How is Sparta compared/contrasted with Athens? Persia??
5. Ch. 121 just seems to leap out of nowhere. After a description of the battle of Marathon and Sparta’s late arrival, Herodotus seems eager to address the veracity of Alkmeonid treachery against Athens: “I am astonished by that story about the Alcmeonids” (478). He then goes on to elaborate on the Alcmeonid clan, seemingly making an appeal for them, through chapter 131. How convincing is his defense? Why does Herodotus make this appeal here? What sort of tensions are betrayed in Herodotus’ words that show the movement between myth and history, fact and fiction?
Text Book vs trade book
Thought I would throw my feedback in via e-mail since the conversation is continuing…
I like the challenge of the text book, but it has reminded that it is possible to take English words that I understand on their own but when put together in a sentence, I have no idea what they are saying. 😉 So I gravitate to the examples that help illustrate the points.
Trade book recommendations would be helpful.
Matthew Evans
Behavioral Psychology and Economics June 2008 – audio recording
Here’s the audio recording for Behavioral Psychology and Economics June 2008 call. Listen online ordownload the mp3 file and listen to it as a podcast on your ipod.
Question for Eric Gold on “trust” as an intuition
On the first call we learned of a number of ways in which we are wired to make choices which might not be rational. As Eric was conducting the repeated coin toss experiment on today’s call, the thought crossed my mind (perhaps because I could not observe the coin toss) that it might not be fair. This was more emotional that rational, but in this case, the instinct was right, as Eric admitted to contriving a sequence to make a teaching point. So my question is how skepticism affects our decision-making. Are we better decision makers when we question as many of the precepts as we can? And how do decision models accommodate risks that the system is rigged?
Patrick Toner
perception behavior
Here is a really interesting presentation from TED (this is *not* the brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor) which some of you might have already seen. I don’t’ want to say too much upfront – the video (which is short) should do the work.
http://transformationteam.net/video/perceptual_experiment_tc
Beth
Lovin’ Phaedrus…how about you?
folks,
i’m lovin’ Phaedrus – especially after you get beyond the speeches and discover that what this dialogue is about – at least in part – is the exploration of rhetoric, deception and truth (starting on page 535 in our text or section 258 paragraph D).
at this point, socrates begins to debate a point near and dear to me – i.e. what is the relationship between the art of speaking and the truth-content of what is said.
pat and i were discussing just this issue last night (before I read these passages) so it was a real pleasure this morning when i continued my reading of phaedrus to discover plato’s exploration of these matters.
we all know that many politicians, business speakers, book writers disregard truth for the accolades that come from saying what they believe people want to hear. i feel pressure all the time in how we do business or from public conference speeches to say what audiences or clients want to hear – rather than what i may believe they need to hear. we could debate whether i am right about what they need to hear – but my experience shows me that almost every other speaker/consultant ignores the truth (i.e. does not even seek it, making them not liars but simply BSers) in favor of what is easiest to say.
Phaedrus explains this so well when he says:
“What I have actually heard about this, Socrates, my friend, is that it is not necessary for the intending orator to learn what is really just, but only what will seem just to the crowd who will act as judges. Nor again what is really good or noble, but only what will seem so. For that is what persuasion proceeds from, not truth.” (page 536; paragraph 260)
how is your reading of phaedrus going? thoughts on the above or anything else?
Phil
04. July 2008 by Arrian
Categories: Commentary, Plato | Tags: Plato | 1 comment