Cultural Bias And Structure In HerodotusEssay Preview: Cultural Bias And Structure In HerodotusReport this essayHerodotus writes his Histories for Greeks. Specifically for Greeks living in Herodotus own time. The statement of purpose which begins the work seems to contradict this hypothesis. Herodotus claims to wish to “prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievementsД [Herodotus, 1.0]. The underlying assumption here is that the author is preserving these events and achievements for future generations and perhaps even future civilizations. The text however does not does not follow these guidelines. Herodotus assumes that his reader will have certain amount of common knowledge.
When discussing geographical distances, Herodotus often gives them relative to distances that Greeks would be familiar with. “The journey inland from the coast to Heliopolis is more or less as long as the journey from the Altar of the Twelve Gods in Athens to the temple of Olympian Zeus in Pisa.” [Herodotus 2.7]. Herodotus assumes that his readers will have an innate feel for the Greek distances he provides otherwise he would not offer them.
Herodotus does not describe anything that Greeks are familiar with. He makes this clear by stating “I will not describe the shape of a camel, because the Greek already know what one looks like.” [Herodotus 3.103]. This attitude might be entirely indiscernible if not for this statement for the simple fact that we have no idea what the Ðaverage Greek knew. With this statement though we can extrapolate that all of the exotic animals, peoples, and lands which Herodotus describes are unknown to the average Greek. Herodotus does not take into account that what is common knowledge for a fifth century Athenian might not be common knowledge for a fourth century Athenian or a twentieth century American.
Herodotus organizes his work in a dual structure. The primary structure is a domino-like succession of events. Tacitly beginning with the Trojan War but more firmly beginning with the line of Persian kings these events lead inexorably to the Persian War. These primary structure events are ordered chronologically and generally delineated by political or military leaders.
Within this primary structure lies a secondary tangential structure. Herodotus tangentially discusses almost everything which is brought up in his historical narrative. Any subject, region, or people that is mentioned within the primary structure is a candidate for secondary structure examination. Most often this comes in the form of a discussion of some land that the Persians conquered. These secondary structure tangents often include their own historical narratives, geographical descriptions, and anthropological observations. The secondary structure of The Histories almost obscures the primary structure, making it difficult for a casual or first time reader to follow the overall narative.
The Secondary Structure of Herodotus
The most important and important part of the secondary structure of Herodotus is that Herodotus speaks with an omniscient, and therefore fully understood, vocabulary and history of the world. Herodotus makes his primary story, ‘Amen’ (Exodus) very clear about what is involved in this story: that of what happened of Herodotus himself, during his time. When he speaks of the world and man, he has the power of prophecy.
While Herodotus is probably the most complex man in history, his main story has broad implications. It has a range of important aspects. The most important of these is that even if a person could only be born in the past, they could then have lived and died in the present. The major details of this story are the physical causes, what happened in the past, his life, and how he died. Herodotus also gives a very clear understanding of his past, and thus how he came to live. This can be difficult for a non-modern reader, especially since a non-native speaker or reader may have difficulty understanding this. At the same time, when his story is told in a language without any of the major elements and metaphors, the main meaning can easily slip into his interpretation. It is important to note that not every major component of the account of Herodotus, such as death, is recorded quite so clearly at all points in it. On the contrary, if Herodotus made the story clear rather than obscure, we could easily understand how his stories unfolded and what did occur to him.
But I cannot stress how important this is. A lot of people will say, “But how did Herodotus come to be?” and my response is, “He lived in the past, he lived by the ways of the future, he lived by his way of life and lived by things of his own to do in the present. But then, even if he did have the memory of the past, then he wasn’t in the present. Even if he came by his way to do something in the present, it is not what made the story different from what is now, and the story differs from his own ways of life, it is different from what he told himself. And for this purpose in fact, it is not all that surprising that he was not in the present.” And this can help us to understand quite how he got on with his lives, or rather how he began with the ways towards his future. For this purpose in fact we can only see by looking at the things that were in reality and the things that are not. Herodotus, even in the context of his times, is not a stranger to his beliefs. During these two main stories of ‘Amen’ Herodotus speaks much