Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Book One ends with "the most violent of all battles ever fought by barbarians," resulting in the death of Cyrus by Tomyris and the Massagetai. Cyrus's son, Cambyses, ascends to the Persian throne. Book Two begins with Cambyses's expedition against the Egyptians, but before we can get to that Herodotus serves up the biggest digression in the work.

Book Two is almost entirely concerned with Egypt and the Egyptians. A brief outline (suggested by Seth Benardete) shows the scope of his interests:

I. Part 1 -- the land and the river Nile (2.4 - 2.34)
a. the land, 4.3 - 18
b. the river, 19 - 34

II. Part 2 -- Egyptians customs (2.35-2.98)
a. customs and the gods, 35 - 50
b. festivals and the way the gods became Greek, 51 - 65.1
c. the sacred animals, 65.2 - 76
d. the way of life in upper Egypt, 77 - 91
e. the way of life of the marsh dwellers, 92 - 98

III. Part 3 -- Egyptian history, as understood by Egyptians (2.99-2.146)
a. the first kings up to Proteus, 99 -120
b. Rhampsinitus, 121 - 123
c. Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus, 124 - 135
d. Asychis, Anysis, and Sethos, 136 - 141
e. Egyptian chronology and theology, 142 - 146

IV. Part 4 -- Egyptian history, as agreed upon by Egyptians and other people (2.147-2.182)

What was it about Egypt that made Herodotus go on for such length, and in such detail? Perhaps it was that he had first-hand knowledge of the country and its people, and to some extent its animals. But by the end of book two it seems that it might be more than just a travelogue, as he seems to describe a special relationship between Egypt and Greece. Perhaps this is helpful to understand for later material?

He opens the book with an odd story. (Fancy that.) The Egyptian king Psammetichos conducts an experiment to determine who the first humans were. Two questions occur to me about this experiment: first, what is important about knowing who the first people were? And second, isn't there something wrong with this experiment and the conclusion?

I thought that was probably the strangest experiment ever thought of by anyone. Totally bizarre. Let's not commuicate with these children and see what their first words are. Does it really matter what the first language was? What is important are the languages which people use.

Thomas wrote: "The Egyptian king Psammetichos conducts an experiment to determine who the first humans were. Two questions occur to me about this experiment: first, what is important about knowing who the first people were? And second, isn't there something wrong with this experiment and the conclusion? "

I agree with Rosemarie, this is totally bizarre! Setting aside the...lunacy of the parameters in the experiment, how would a child's first word indicate who were the first people? Because the first "word" they identify is supposed to be Phrygian, and the child was raised in theoretical isolation, Phyrgian was the first use of language, and therefore Phygians the first people? Is that supposed to be the logic? Do BF Skinner and the behaviorists have anything to say about this?

Herodotus describes ethnography:
"I was unable to learn anything from anyone else on this subject, but I learned about other things at the greatest length, as an eyewitness as far as Elephant City, and beyond this point by asking questions and listening carefully." 2.30 Blanco translation.

I thought that was probably the strangest experiment ever thought of by anyone.

I agree, quite weird. If one doesn't hear language, you don't learn it. You might make up your own form of communication, but to come up with the Phrygian word "bekos" seems very odd. Does Herodotus think language is in our genes/instinct, passed on without any role modeling? Even animals model behaviors to their young. For someone dedicated to inquiry, observation..it just seemed out of character for how has presented his material thus far.

I thought that was probably the strangest experiment ever thought of by anyone

I agree. Very weird. Did H think that language is an innate quality, an instinct, passed along in our genes? If we don't hear language we don't learn it. They may have formed their own communication, but to come up with the Phrygian word "bekos" is quite odd.

I'm curious about the original Eight Gods and their expansion to the Twelve Gods. (2.43) I've never heard of this before, is he basically saying that eight Egyptian gods have parallels within the Greek 12 gods?

"I believe that all men know the same things about gods, whatever they call them."- Herodotus (Blanco translation)

Re Section 14: Egyptian farmers have an easy life compared to any other farmers I have ever heard of- and very helpful pigs.

After reading about the three theories as to why the Nile floods and Herodotus mocking the theory that comes closest to the truth, I realize how much knowledge of geography is important to history. How could he know what land lay to the south of Egypt? The source of the Nile wasn't discovered until the 19th century.
Although the ancient world was a small world, physically, it was culturally very important.

Chris wrote: "Does Herodotus think language is in our genes/instinct, passed on without any role modeling? Even animals model behaviors to their young. For someone dedicated to inquiry, observation..it just seemed out of character for how has presented his material thus far. ."

This is a story about what the priests at the temple of Hephaistos believe, so I don't think it's what Herodotus actually believes. The obvious conclusion is that the children are imitating the sound of goats, and the word they know that sounds most like this is the Phrygian word "bekos." Herodotus is kind enough not to contradict the priests (and we see he is sensitive to religious customs throughout this book) but he points out that Hellenes have similar silly stories.

Herodotus knows that language is learned, and so are customs. Later on he argues that most of what the Hellenes believe about the gods comes from Egypt, so understanding that knowledge is passed on, learned, or transmitted rather than innate is important to him. I think it's why he starts the book with this odd story that makes us think about origins.

Ashley wrote: "Thomas wrote: "The Egyptian king Psammetichos conducts an experiment to determine who the first humans were. Two questions occur to me about this experiment: first, what is important about knowing ..."

I wonder what Chomsky and the internal review board would say about such an experiment..! Child abuse and biased experiment to the max. An unhealthy obsession with being number one. Even on rereading, it's still a very disturbing story.

I see Herodotus's intriguing digression on the Nile flooding cycle (2:19-28) as an example of how he's willing to enter into questions that occupied quite a few other intellectual Greeks and to posit his own theories. His theory is further from the truth than the snow/rain theories (Nile flooding is actually driven by Indian Ocean monsoons), but it highlights his boundless curiosity.

Thomas wrote: "I think it's why he starts the book with this odd story that makes us think about origins."

Indeed. And our methods have certainly changed, but there are now entire fields of scientific study devoted to studying human origins - speech, cultural structure, physical evolution, etc. I found Herodotus' story interesting because it shows a universal human impulse to figure these things out.

Thomas wrote: This is a story about what the priests at the temple of Hephaistos believe, so I don't think it's what Herodotus actually believes.

Thanks Thomas. As I read further into the book it is more clear to me that Herodotus is related things that are told to him. Interesting about "bekos" most likely being an imitation of a goat's bleat. Makes sense.

It's interesting to see how Herodotus reasons about the Nile: "If I can make judgments about the the unknown from what is known, I can conclude that it is equal to the Ister in the distance it flows from its source." (The Ister is the Danube.) 2.33

This sounds like Aristotle when he says that human knowledge proceeds from what is known to us to what is known in itself. Herodotus does not apply the principle very carefully, but perhaps the germ of Aristotle's more rigorous process is here.

I'm also reminded of Lucretius, who assumes that invisible atoms ought to behave in a way similar to very small but visible particles, like dust motes in the sun. Herodotus seems to be making the same argument by saying that the Nile should be similar to the Ister, almost like a mirror image.

He finishes his treatment of the Nile, but the mirror image continues in his discussion of the Egyptians, whose customs "are at least in most respects completely opposite to those of other peoples." 2.35

Just another perspective, but I don't think we're supposed to take the experiment at the start of Book 2 too seriously. Like Thomas said, it's clear that Herodotus doesn't really believe it and, even if he wasn't a father himself, Herodotus seems such an acute observer that he'd know that babies progress through syllable sounds and gibberish before they get to making sense. I do wonder if it's a bit of light relief before the long, convoluted section on Egypt's topography. As Tom Holland said in a Q&A session at the Hay Festival (available online), for him the river Nile section was the most painstakingly dull part of the book to translate.

As I was reading about Herodotus' visit to the Cheops pyramid (where the interpreter provided an outlandish "reading" of the inscriptions, which, he said, detailed the amounts of radishes, onions, and garlic that the workers ate during the building of the pyramid), I recalled a similar experience I had when I visited Chichen Itza.

My ex-husband and I hired a guide, who was a university history teacher. To earn extra money to support his family, he would take private appointments to make the drive to the site and provide a personal tour. I had already done a lot of reading in preparation for the visit, so I was able to tell that he was very well prepared and extremely knowledgeable. Nice person!

Anyway, we were waiting for another group to exit one of the buildings (La Iglesia) and could overhear what that guide was saying. He was spinning quite a fanciful tale that the building was used as a cafeteria/picnic building of sorts for visitors, and he went into a lot of detail about the food that was brought in. Of course, all of this was completely false and sounded ridiculous even if you hadn't read anything at all, but I could tell his group was swallowing the entire story. Our guide's eyes got bigger and bigger as the story unfolded. As the group exited the building, our guide and the other guide made eye contact. The other guide just grinned and shrugged his shoulders.

When I asked our guide about it later, he said that a lot of people, to earn money, hang around outside the site, by the entrance, and offer themselves as historical guides for any groups that happen to come through without someone already hired to take them through. Some of them know what they are talking about, but many don't. They are just trying to earn a living and feed their families in any way they can.

I have no idea what he said about the other buildings, but I'm sure it was eye-opening :).

So, you could tell that this particular group swallowed the whole story, because, hey, this is an official guide to the site, right? And they took that information and those stories home and spread them around.

But it made me think...there are probably people right now going into historical sites all over the world, and, unless they inform themselves first, they are subject to the same potential misinformation.

Of course, we have tools we can use to get information so that we can process information more critically. But in Herodotus' day, there were no guidebooks or Internet or encyclopedias. And since he couldn't verify anything, all he could do say he was repeating what he had been told.

Very possibly Herodotus didn't believe the whole radishes story, but even if he didn't, he never did find out what the inscriptions actually said.

When I think of the tasks he set himself....Herculean, actually.

Great story, Paula. A friend of mine was just in Chiapas and had a similar experience with tour guides, one of them a ten year old boy. Sometimes the stories tell a truth we aren't looking for...

I have a lot of respect for what he accomplished. I know I take for granted the wealth of information at our fingertips. And when still, to this day, Herodotus remains the only glimpse we have into some of the places, people and things of the past, this work is a treasure trove. Even stuff he got totally wrong is of value, because it gives us so much insight into the assumptions, beliefs and interpretations of his day.

Plus his interest and curiosity about, well, everything, brings so much to life. Yes, some of the geography stuff was dull to me, but the rest, even in translation, just sparkles.

Rosemarie wrote: "I thought that was probably the strangest experiment ever thought of by anyone. Totally bizarre. Let's not commuicate with these children and see what their first words are. Does it really matter w..."

Yes, it was bizarre. But what interested me is that he did to some extent adopt the concept of scientific inquiry -- if you want to learn something, design an experiment and follow it through. It took two years; he was willing to be patient. But the idea of learning through controlled experiment is what impressed me here more than the actual experiment itself.

Rosemarie wrote: "After reading about the three theories as to why the Nile floods and Herodotus mocking the theory that comes closest to the truth, I realize how much knowledge of geography is important to history...."

But given the geographical knowledge he did have -- that the earth kept getting hotter the further South you go -- his conclusion actually seemed to me to be the most logical. Of course he was wrong, but like Lucretius he was wrong not because of bad logic but because of inaccurate or incomplete information.

Ashley wrote: "I'm curious about the original Eight Gods and their expansion to the Twelve Gods. (2.43) I've never heard of this before, is he basically saying that eight Egyptian gods have parallels within the G..."

Elizabeth Vandiver has some thoughts on this, and suggests that Herodotus is well off base in this section of his work. She thinks that the Greek and Egyptian Gods aren't the same gods, and that Greece didn't import them from Egypt, although probably there was cross-pollination going both ways. The Greeks and Egyptians interacted early on, as we see from the story of Io (and also from Menelaus having been blown off course down to Egypt on his return from Troy).

Paula wrote: "But it made me think...there are probably people right now going into historical sites all over the world, and, unless they inform themselves first, they are subject to the same potential misinformation."

The experts can also get things very wrong. In his lecture series on History of the Ancient World, Gregory Aldrete tells the story of German scholar Heinrich Barth in the mid 19th century spending time in Africa and coming across multiple structures of ten foot high stone pillars arranged in pairs with a stone cap across their top. One site had no fewer than 17 trilithons. He made the immediate link with Stonehenge and concluded that the structures represented a religious site. He also found at their base a grooved stone clearly intended to move liquid away from the base, which he concluded where used to collect the blood from animal sacrifices.

It turned out that these were actually Roman constructs, and were Roman olive presses. So even in the mid 19th century highly qualified scholars could be totally wrong about things.

Paula wrote: "I have a lot of respect for what he accomplished. I know I take for granted the wealth of information at our fingertips. And when still, to this day, Herodotus remains the only glimpse we have into..."

Excellent point. He really was a pioneer in the field of travel journalism.

I was amused by Herodotus's comments on the crocodile, but didn't believe them. Then I found this:

"Crocodiles do have tongues but they are built in a way where they cannot poke them out of their mouths. They can however, still swallow. It is also quite common for crocodiles to allow smaller birds to sit in their mouths to pick their teeth as they cannot maneuver their tongues around. A crocodile’s tongue lies between each mandibular bone of the lower jaw. Although relatively immobile due to its slender and snouted type build, a crocodile’s tongue can be pushed against the roof of the mouth to manipulate objects or pulled down to create a pouch for hatchlings."

So while they have tongues, probably they aren't very visible or identifiable at the distance a traveler is willing to approach them. And the birds in the mouth are totally accurate. So way to go, Herodotus!

The link to that quote:
http://animalquestions.org/reptiles/c...

I am still in the middle of Book 2, but I'm finding it fascinating and full of so much interesting information. Okay, probably some of it is incorrect, but at this point I don't really care -- I'm reading Herodotus for his general approach to events, his wonderful anecdotes, his observations, and if a few of them are wrong, that's not a big deal for me. Maybe it should be, but it isn't.

Everyman wrote: "Elizabeth Vandiver has some thoughts on this, and suggests that Herodotus is well off base in this section of his work. She thinks that the Greek and Egyptian Gods aren't the same gods, and that Greece didn't import them from Egypt, although probably there was cross-pollination going both ways."

The reason why Herodotus thinks what he does is that he doesn't trust the poets as the final authority. He says Homer and Hesiod are ones who composed the theogony for the Hellenes, and they lived "no more than 400 years" before Herodotus. Herodotus knows the gods are older than that, so it would make sense that the the more recent culture derived their knowledge from the older. This might also explain his great respect for Egyptian religion and the Egyptian people, who he thinks are the most pious and cleanest of all people. Perhaps the Hellenes still have a lot to learn from them.

Herodotus shows how religious knowledge was transmitted and transmuted at 2.54-57, where he shows how the first oracles came to Greece. The Egyptian priests say that two priestesses were abducted from Thebes -- one of them was taken to Greece, the other to Libya. Pretty simple. But the priestesses at Dodona in Greece say that two black doves flew from Thebes -- one to Dodona, the other to Libya. The dove in Greece settled on a branch in Dodona and declared that an oracle of Zeus should be established there. Herodotus finds this ridiculous -- how can a dove speak? Let alone speak Greek! So he comes to the conclusion that the woman was called a dove because her foreign tongue sounded like a bird, but after a while she learned Greek and became intelligible. The simple story of the Egyptians has become mythologized by the Greeks.

I think a careful reading of Book Two pays dividends in the long run, but I admit it is a bit of a slog. If any of you are getting bogged down in the swamps of the Nile, feel free to skim to the end. Things pick up again in Book Three and don't rely heavily on the details in Book Two.

Thomas wrote: "I think a careful reading of Book Two pays dividends in the long run, but I admit it is a bit of a slog. If any of you are getting bogged down in the swamps of the Nile, feel free to skim to the en..."

Finally made it to the end of Book 2 during my morning commute. Enjoyed the section on Egyptian customs, especially all the detail about the mummification process, and it was notable too how much more advanced and specialized Egyptian medical practices were, especially when compared to the Babylonians.

The passage that struck me most though was the alternative history of Paris' abduction of Helen, which runs counter to the more familiar plot in The Iliad and Shakespeare's Troilus & Cressida. This was the first time I'd ever read of an alternative course of events, so my jaw dropped a bit. Herodotus seems to contest Homer's view of events on historical and ethical grounds, in the latter sense by saying that it's highly unlikely Priam would have let his city and people burn just for the sake of Helen, and that it was more likely the war was based on a misunderstanding. I've no idea who to believe now...

Dave wrote: "The passage that struck me most though was the alternative history of Paris' abduction of Helen, which runs counter to the more familiar plot in The Iliad and Shakespeare's Troilus & Cressida..."

Herodotus says that he thinks Homer knew the Egyptian version, but he rejected it because it wasn't appropriate for epic composition. Is that because it eliminates the drama of the war?

The Egyptians version does seem a bit tame by comparison -- Proteus is a king, according to the Egyptians, and not a god; Alexander is captured because his slaves turn him in; Proteus deports Alexander because he has offended the guest-host relationship, and spares Alexander's life on the same grounds... (Very Greek for an Egyptian, I'd say.)

Menelaos still goes to Troy though, and when the Trojans tell him that Helen isn't there he thinks they are mocking him, so he lays siege to Troy out of anger. But he finds out the Trojans are right after all, Helen is indeed not there. So they sail to Egypt, where they are treated with great hospitality (again, very Greek) and pick up Helen and the stuff Alexander stole. But Menelaos gets stuck due to bad weather... so what does he do? Of course, he slays some children, just as Homer has him slay his own daughter, Iphigenia. The Egyptian story mocks Menelaos just as Menelaos thought the Trojans were mocking him.

I wonder if Herodotus isn't gently mocking Homer himself with this story.

Patrice wrote: "Another thing that impresses me is how ancient people realized that there was something difficult, and maybe wrong, about killing an animal. I would have thought that living an agricultural life, c..."

I think this is a trait that is peculiar to the Egyptians. The Persian magi, on the other hand, not only have no qualms about killing any kind of animal but do it with their own hands. Herodotus paints the Egyptians as very pious people, but also very body-oriented. Many of their customs are directed at cleanliness, such as shaving of the head, circumcision, cleaning their drinking cups every day, etc. Mummification might fall in the same category. (By contrast, Persian men are never buried until their bodies have been torn up by birds or dogs. Egyptians' bodies are preserved for eternity.)

Dave wrote: "The passage that struck me most though was the alternative history of Paris' abduction of Helen, which runs counter to the more familiar plot in The Iliad ."

I also found this fascinating. I was riveted to my book as I read it.

Whatever the truth was (and even whether there was a real Helen in the first place), it took a lot of courage (or foolhardiness?) to call Homer a liar when he created scenes of Helen on the ramparts of Troy talking about the Greek soldiers.

I wasn't convinced by the passages from Homer he cited as his claim that Homer knew all along that Helen had stayed in Egypt. So really, the question is whether we believe Homer or the Egyptians.

I can't recall offhand whether any of the tragedies that survived had Helen at Troy. I don't remember any such, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

Thomas wrote: "I think a careful reading of Book Two pays dividends in the long run, but I admit it is a bit of a slog. "

I'm not quite finished it yet (yes, I'm behind -- so what else is new!), but I'm not finding it a slog at all. I'm actually enjoying the respite from constant warfare and hostility.

Patrice wrote: "One thing I found really strange, how he hints about a story and then says "but i won't tell you that one". What's that about?
Nah, nah, I know something you don't know? I don't get it.."

I've been noticing that too, and wondering about why he did it. And I'm annoyed when he does -- I want him to tell me!

Thomas wrote: "I wonder if Herodotus isn't gently mocking Homer himself with this story."

I hope not. Though we have to remember that Herodotus was an Ionian Greek (I think Ionian; if Hallicarnasus wasn't in Ionia, it was close), not an Attic Greek. So he may not have had the same reverence for Homer that the mainland Greeks would have.

Everyman wrote: "I hope not. Though we have to remember that Herodotus was an Ionian Greek (I think Ionian; if Hallicarnasu..."

According to Herodotus, Halicarnassus was a Dorian city. But he writes in a poetic Ionic dialect, so I would expect he was affiliated with the Ionians in some way. (Vandiver seems to think so anyway.)

I'm not sure if he reveres Homer and Hesiod the way his contemporaries did, but he certainly has reverence for the gods, regardless of the belief system. It's surprising to me when he refuses to name certain people or gods (it isn't clear which) because he considers it "religiously offensive." ( 2.86, 2.170-171) I think this is because he believes that the gods are the same for all people, but each culture has its own religious customs, and he respects that.

Thomas wrote: "It's surprising to me when he refuses to name certain people or gods (it isn't clear which) because he considers it "religiously offensive.""

Yes, I noticed that too. It's in line with the practice Patrice objected to of his saying "I know a story about why this is so, but I'm not going to tell you."

Halicarnassus was indeed a Dorian colony. Technically it would be in the region that Herodotus refers to as Carian, but it's just south of Ionia, so certainly possible that Ionian culture would have rubbed off

For orientation, the city was on the southern part of modern Turkey's west coast, just north of Rhodes.

Interestingly, two of the wonders of the ancient world were right there - the great Mausoleum in Halicarnassus and the Collossus at Rhodes.

Rosemarie wrote: "I thought that was probably the strangest experiment ever thought of by anyone. Totally bizarre. Let's not commuicate with these children and see what their first words are. Does it really matter w..."


There have been many accounts of such experiments throughout history, How many of these are true and how many are false is debatable. They all take children out of society to see what language they will use if they are left to their own devices. ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languag...) uses this concept to wonderful effect in his wonderful The Dumb House.

Patrice wrote: "The Dorians became the Spartans, right? So he may be partial to the Spartans, although he seems to handle everyone fairly."

Yeah, more or less. I wouldn't consider myself enough of an expert to say if there were other migrations/population mixing, but the Dorians did originate in the area of the Peloponnesus that became Sparta.

Come to think of it, I'm reading Thucydides now, and in the first book he discusses how the various branches of the proto-Greek family settled out. I can't recall offhand exactly what he said about Dorians, but I do remember that area was one of the fertile regions the tribes fought over.

Patrice wrote: "Yes, I think the Dorians came down from the north to settle the Peloponnese. They were war like from the start. I always thought this ethnic difference didn't get enough attention. The war was abou..."

One of the appendices in my edition of Thucydides also discusses how that war was the first time that a Greek state other than Sparta was able to build a significant standing army and devote itself to total war. Essentially because the Athenians took over the power vacuum left by Persia and built up their own hegemony in the Aegean. Reminded me very much of the forces that lead to the buildup of power before WWI, actually.

But I think I'm probably getting a little far afield from Herodotus here, so I'll stop myself.

Patrice wrote: "The Dorians became the Spartans, right? So he may be partial to the Spartans, although he seems to handle everyone fairly."

In the next book he makes a joke at the Spartans' expense. Or maybe it's not a joke, just something I find funny....in any case it plays on Spartan laconicism, which is a quality that Herodotus does not himself embrace, judging by the length of this book.

I think his spirit of inquiry places him firmly in the Ionian camp, though you're right that he does treat everyone fairly. Vandiver devotes a whole lecture in her series to the "Ionian Enlightenment," where she makes a good argument for the influence of the Ionian philosophers on Herodotus. These were thinkers like Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus, who were attempting to find natural causes for observable phenomena. Herodotus seems to be looking for the same thing, though so far it seems to be more observation than anything else.

Thomas wrote: "Spartan laconicism, which is a quality that Herodotus does not himself embrace"

That might just qualify as a laconic understatement :).

Patrice wrote: "At footnote 2.109 of landmark, it is said that geometry is a Greek and not Egyptian invention as Herodotus thought. How can this be? The pyramids existed far before Euclid. Seems to me that geometr..."

Good question, especially since Euclid was from Alexandria. Okay, I suppose Alexandria was more Hellenistic than Egyptian at the time, but still...

Herodotus seems very complimentary, for the most part, about the Egyptians, describing the areas where they were the first to develop certain technologies. Couple this with his generally favorable treatment of the Lydians in Book 1, and I'm seeing him as a very fair minded journalist, perhaps not quite up with modern standards of journalism, but certainly not taking the position that the Greeks are the best and right and putting down the barbarians, contrary to what I have understood in the past was the basic Greek view that any barbarian (non-Greek speakers were all considered barbarians, without necessarily the negative connotations the term carries today) was less cultured and educated than the Greeks.

In 2.29 he claims to have traveled up the Nile as far as Elephantine. That's a pretty long way up the river; if he really did go that far up, it shows that he was genuinely a traveler of some ability.

And while apparently he doesn't go further, he reports information up to Meroe, which is another several hundred miles up the river, where he claims that they worship Zeus.

The whole issue of the comparison of Egyptian and Greek gods is confusing to me (and, Vandiver suggests, to scholars of the era too). I thought about trying to sort it out, but quickly gave up. Has anybody else tried it and felt even marginally successful?

I liked his comment at 2.35: "concerning Egypt, I am going to speak at length, because it has the most wonders, and everywhere presents works beyond description; therefore, I shall say the more concerning Egypt. " (Godley translation). Or, in the Holland translation, which I am quite enjoying, "About Egypt, however, I will have a good deal more to say, for it is a land which boasts an inordinate number of wonders, and possesses more monuments surpassing description than any other in the world."

I realize that Greece and Egypt were never (as far as I know) at war, but still, this praise of Egypt having more superb monuments than even his home country is quite a compliment.

This article addresses the relationship between Greek and Egyptian gods, including some archaeological evidence that Greeks identified Egyptian gods with the Greek ones. At the end there is an appendix that lists correspondences between Egyptian and Greek gods.

http://www.artic.edu/~llivin/research...

Patrice, regarding the origins of geometry, my understanding is that the Egyptians developed measurements, geometric "rules of thumb," and practical approximations. However, unlike the Greeks, they never formalized their observations into a systematic theory which grew by deductive reasoning.

The reason scholars believe/know no iron was used in building the pyramids was because they were constructed hundreds to thousands of years before we have any evidence of iron smelting in Egypt. Recent evidence has come to light that the Egypians had access to meteorite iron, but they would not have possessed it in significant qualities, and it was a luxury item.

Patrice wrote:
I just took him at his word. The God is the God with a different name. I think many people feel that way today, the name doesn't matter. He translates. ."

That works for me in monotheistic religions. But less so in polytheistic, where there are many different gods with many differing attributes. There, the name does matter because the gods differ so greatly from each other, whichever religion you're in.