04-10-2007, 08:12 AM
From the article being discussed, on Herodotus:
"He initially presented his work in oral prose, to an audience of Greeks in Greece. It is important to note that at the time, all storytelling in Greece was performed within the style of theatrical presentation. The people were not interested in getting simple facts handed to them. They wanted entertainment. Storytellers were entertainers, and they were more than anyone else aware of this fact. A storyteller had to keep his audience captivated and on the edge of their seats, or risk orating to an empty hall. Herodotus made tours of Greek cities during festivals, and gave personal performances to captive Greek audiences in return for payment. This must be remembered above all else."
So, it's okay for some here to crucify the History Channel for doing the same, but not for the guy who wrote the article in question to do the same to Herodotus? :wink:
To get it even more in perspective:
"This article is not meant to demean the value of The Histories, or the important role that Herodotus played for the subject of history. Prior to his time, all such accounts were handed down in the form of poems or epics. He was the first to present his story in the form of a narrative, and at least show an attempt at information gathering. For that, he must be commended.
The problem is that historians have given him and his narration more historical credit than it is due. Although his technique was pioneering, it is a far cry from an acceptable historical account."
"He initially presented his work in oral prose, to an audience of Greeks in Greece. It is important to note that at the time, all storytelling in Greece was performed within the style of theatrical presentation. The people were not interested in getting simple facts handed to them. They wanted entertainment. Storytellers were entertainers, and they were more than anyone else aware of this fact. A storyteller had to keep his audience captivated and on the edge of their seats, or risk orating to an empty hall. Herodotus made tours of Greek cities during festivals, and gave personal performances to captive Greek audiences in return for payment. This must be remembered above all else."
So, it's okay for some here to crucify the History Channel for doing the same, but not for the guy who wrote the article in question to do the same to Herodotus? :wink:
To get it even more in perspective:
"This article is not meant to demean the value of The Histories, or the important role that Herodotus played for the subject of history. Prior to his time, all such accounts were handed down in the form of poems or epics. He was the first to present his story in the form of a narrative, and at least show an attempt at information gathering. For that, he must be commended.
The problem is that historians have given him and his narration more historical credit than it is due. Although his technique was pioneering, it is a far cry from an acceptable historical account."
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
