08-26-2008, 12:46 PM
If you have plans to buy Asheri e/a's Commentary on Herodotus I-IV: do not spend your money on it. It is not a very bad text, but it is already outdated. What has happened, is that Mr. Asheri's commentary was to be translated and updated when he died, and the new editors decided to respect Asheri's opinions and leave the text as it was. Only little references were added to later literature.
So, when discussing whether Herodotus has been in Babylon, we read that he was and get to read several arguments and references; plus one reference that one Rollinger has also said something about it. The problem is that Rollinger has decisively shown that Herodotus' stay in Babylon is impossible. In other words, the status quaestionis is presented in the wrong way.
The book also contains outright errors. The fall of Sardis is consistently dated to 546, which is based on a reading of a Babylonian text that has already been corrected in 1977. A book that costs 250 euro ought to be better; it also has to have maps that are designed for this particular project, and not maps recycled from other books.
I think that respecting the original text was the wrong editorial decision. You do not publish a commentary to express your respect for a colleague, but to make a useful text. Now, the book is less useful than it might have been. I really feel cheated.
So, when discussing whether Herodotus has been in Babylon, we read that he was and get to read several arguments and references; plus one reference that one Rollinger has also said something about it. The problem is that Rollinger has decisively shown that Herodotus' stay in Babylon is impossible. In other words, the status quaestionis is presented in the wrong way.
The book also contains outright errors. The fall of Sardis is consistently dated to 546, which is based on a reading of a Babylonian text that has already been corrected in 1977. A book that costs 250 euro ought to be better; it also has to have maps that are designed for this particular project, and not maps recycled from other books.
I think that respecting the original text was the wrong editorial decision. You do not publish a commentary to express your respect for a colleague, but to make a useful text. Now, the book is less useful than it might have been. I really feel cheated.
