Diplomas, term papers, abstracts to order. Historians of ancient Greece

AND historical prose arose in the 5th century BC, and it was it that became the basis for the development of a special branch of knowledge - the science of the development of society - history.

Historians of ancient Greece

The founder of this literary genre is Herodotus- a native of the city of Helicarnassus. In his life he traveled a lot, and was able to visit many places of the ancient world. Herodotus wrote an essay on history in nine books. The first four books are devoted to the history of the emergence of the Persian state, and some information about the states of that time is also given. In the following books, he described the Greco-Persian Wars until 478 BC. This work written by Herodotus has become the most important source of knowledge on the ancient world, it contains a very large amount of factual material and a retelling of many legends.

Thucydides- Athenian historian and strategist (c. 460-396 BC). Thucydides was removed from command for the loss of the city of Amphipolis in 422 BC, and while in exile wrote a book, The History of the Peloponnesian War. At the beginning of his work, Thucydides wrote a brief sketch of the early history of Greece, when the clash between Athens and Sparta was still brewing. The presentation by Thucydides differed significantly from the writings of Herodotus - full of legends and tales, and was one of the pinnacles of ancient historiography.

Another historian of ancient Greece was an Athenian aristocrat Xenophon(c. 445-355 BC). Xenophon was rather hostile towards Athenian democracy, so he left and later went over to the side of the Spartans. Xenophon is famous for his work "Anabasis", in which he describes the return home of the Greek mercenaries who fought on the side of the Persian prince Cyrus. Xenophon is also the author of "Greek History" in seven books. He extols in his writings and criticizes Athenian democracy. His works contain a number of important information on Greek history and economics of the late 5th - early 6th century BC.

Historians of ancient Greece

Herodotus

Thucydides

Xenophon

Book: Historians of Greece. Herodotus. Thucydides. Xenophon / trans. from ancient Greek I. Martynova, F. Mishchenko, S. Zhebeleva, S. Osherova; comp. and foreword. T. Miller. Note. M. Gasparova and T. Miller. - M.: Fiction, 1976. - 430 p. - (Library of ancient literature).

Characteristic: In ancient Greek literature, the names of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon are on a par with the names of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes or Plato. Like the great playwrights or the famous writer of dialogues, the three named historians created works that were already appreciated in antiquity as a classical norm and an example of a literary genre. Their work completes and crowns the formation of a rationalistic picture of the world in artistic prose, which began to take shape in the 6th century BC. It was then that the polis slave-owning society, established after the great colonization of the 8th-6th centuries, began to create a new culture within itself, supplementing and correcting the idea of ​​the world that the heroic epic gave the Greek.

In the VI century, the ideas inherent in the epic about the cosmos, the gods, about the lands and peoples known to the Greeks were revised. Then the first teachings about the material fundamental principle of the world and its structural unity appeared, and attempts were made to interpret the myths allegorically and find an explanation for them that did not contradict reason. In the same VI century BC. appeared the first chronicles, ethnographic descriptions of localities and cities. As far as can be judged from the indirect indications of later authors and from the surviving fragments, the first rudiments of narrative prose focused on the genealogies of the founders of cities, the sights of the localities and the customs of the peoples. The compilers were interested in colorful details and small details. Ancient legends, myths, tales served as a source of information for chroniclers. Where "facts" seemed meaningless, the chronicler rejected them or found an explanation for them that agreed with reason. The defining feature of these first monuments of narrative prose was the desire to "find the truth" and take from the legend that which can be verified with one's own eyes. The work of the chroniclers was accompanied by the word ίστωρία ("history"), which had a double meaning: "eyewitness testimony" and "investigation by interrogation."

The new artistic prose was the historical narrative of Herodotus and Thucydides - a literary genre that arose in the 5th century and differed sharply from both early ethnographic chronicles and the heroic epic. It differed from the chronicles in that it considered the fate of people and peoples, and from the epic in that it freed history from myth. The fact that new verbal creativity began precisely with this genre was due to the peculiarities of the life of the Hellenic world after the Greco-Persian wars (500–449 BC). The Greco-Persian Wars led to the unheard-of rise of Athens. Under such conditions, the events of the present acquired no less significance and interest for the Greeks of the 5th century than the events of the distant past. A keen interest in modernity contributed to the emergence of literature, which began to look for plots not in mythology, not in fiction, but in real life. And the first event that served as material for the creation of new literature was the Greco-Persian wars.

These wars, in which the independence of Greece was defended, involuntarily forced to think and comprehend what was happening, to shed new light on the relationship between the Hellenic and Eastern worlds. Chronicles of the 6th and 5th centuries BC described only the geography and ethnography of the area. Now it was necessary to understand and explain the fate of the peoples drawn into the war. Completed this task Herodotus in his "Stories"- history of the Greco-Persian wars. Herodotus acted in the same way as the epic poet did before him, who composed the heroic epic from separate "small songs". The vast material of chronicles, legends, oral traditions, his own travel observations and eyewitness information, Herodotus first brought together and used for one common purpose. The goal that Herodotus set for himself was also quite traditional for the epic. In his own words, he wrote his work in order to glorify the exploits of the Greeks and barbarians and explain why they fought against each other.

Herodotus centered his story around the history of the reign of those eastern rulers with whom the Greeks clashed, and stretched a thread from the depths of the 7th century to his own present, from the Lydian king Croesus to Xerxes. When describing these reigns, Herodotus used the compositional technique usual for the epic: he introduced detailed information about the peoples who had something to do with the rulers he mentioned, and thus created a complete picture of the entire Mediterranean world familiar to the Greeks - its history, geography, ethnography. This new picture of the universe was close to the epic in its "cosmic" scale, but carried a different vision of the world than in the epic. In the course of the presentation of events, Herodotus not only reported what he managed to find out, but also refuted what he found insufficiently reliable, contrasting his own opinion with someone else's as more reasonable.

Like the chroniclers, Herodotus is unusually attentive to the objects of the visible world, the customs of the peoples, the landscape and the animal world of different countries. But the "History" of Herodotus differed significantly from the chronicles not only in its volume, but also in its design. It was conceived not as a history of localities, but as a history of peoples. For the Greeks of the 5th century, it not only provided more accurate information about the countries they knew, but also gave the key to understanding the events of our time. Herodotus caught the repetition of the same patterns and thanks to this he was able to depict the Greco-Persian wars in their inseparable connection with the general course of world history. Here again Herodotus used the experience of the chroniclers. For chronicles, as well as for more ancient fairy tales and legends, the story of prophetic dreams and the predictions of oracles that came true was common, and Herodotus introduced this element into the description of the life of almost all Eastern rulers. Thus, the fate of the kings in Herodotus' History is subject to a certain mysterious world order, where their rise and fall are predetermined. All their attempts to avert trouble from themselves are doomed to failure. But the will of the deity, the subordination of man to fate - all this for Herodotus is only one side of the world order. Another law is inextricably linked with it - the law of retribution for human deeds. The idea runs through the whole narrative that all people bear retribution for their deeds. Human life, Herodotus shows, is not only destined from above, it also depends on the behavior of the people themselves. This second angle of view of events allowed Herodotus to interpret the victory of the Hellenes not only as a cosmic phenomenon, but also as an ethical fact, not only as the fulfillment of the will of the gods, but also as a manifestation of the moral superiority of the Hellenes over the Persians.

The "History" of Herodotus was a kind of "afterword" to the war with the Persians. Approximately fifty years after it, as an "afterword" to another war, now internecine, another work of narrative fiction was created - "History of the Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides. Its author was a military leader who survived the entire war, carefully observed its individual events and stages, and stood close to the affairs of both belligerents. The biography of Thucydides largely explains both the nature of the sources he used and his view of reality. Herodotus included his personal observations in ready-made chronicles compiled before him, and in his "History" material obtained from second hands still prevailed. Thucydides wrote in the wake of events, as an eyewitness, and tried to speak only about reliable, obviously verified facts. His focus was on the political and military life Greek city-states of the last third of the 5th century.

Thucydides was interested in both how battles are fought and how the political game is played. He not only managed to paint in his History a picture of the conflict of interests in Greek society, but also tried to make the entire course of Greek history dependent on the operation of purely utilitarian incentives. The distant legendary times, familiar to any Greek from myths and epic traditions, Thucydides rethought at the beginning of his work as a story of a gradual increase in wealth and sea power and the changes in political system. He did not refer, like Herodotus, either to the will of fate or to the law of retribution, but scrupulously examined reality. The analysis of the policies of the policies acquired a purely practical meaning for Thucydides: to find out what made Athens able to achieve power and why they failed to keep it. Just as Herodotus saw the source of the weakness of the Persians in their obedience to the will of the despot, and the strength of the Hellenes in their lack of autocracy, Thucydides established a connection between the interest of the Athenians in the affairs of the state and the power of their policy.

If Herodotus, describing events, usually asked himself the question “Why did they happen?” Thucydides asks himself “What determined the choice? Why are certain actions taken? Thucydides reveals the connection of real utilitarian causes and effects not only in the behavior of individuals, but also in the history of the Athenian state itself. If in Herodotus the tragic fate of his heroes is predetermined and all attempts to avoid it are obviously doomed to failure, then for Thucydides the tragic end of the sea power of Athens is not at all fatal and not inevitable. It might not have come if politicians had not made all their mistakes, if they had not put their selfish interests above the interests of the state as a whole. The misfortune befell the Athenians not by the will of the gods and not as a punishment for a crime, but as a result of an incorrectly set goal.

The “History” of Thucydides remained unfinished: the narrative ends in it at the events of 410 BC. The last years of the Peloponnesian War (411–404) have already been described. Xenophon of Athens in his "Greek History", which is compiled as a direct continuation of the work of Thucydides and brought up to 362 BC. Xenophon was born during the Peloponnesian War, and his work belonged to a completely new period in both the political history of Greece and in the history of its literature. In the literature of that time, the center of gravity shifted from poetic genres to prose, from mythological plots to plots borrowed from real life, and in them - from the depiction of the life of peoples to the depiction of the life of individuals.

Xenophon's attention as a writer is centered around depicting the life of two types of people: the philosopher and the commander. In memory of his teacher Socrates, Xenophon dedicated "Memoirs of Socrates", "Apology of Socrates", the dialogues "Feast" and "Domostroy". The image of the commander is drawn by him in such works as "Kyropedia"(a fictional account of the life of the Persian king Cyrus the Elder), "Agesilaus" (a biography of the Spartan king in whose army Xenophon served) and, finally, "Anabasis"(a story about the campaign of Cyrus the Younger and the return of the Greek detachment to their homeland).

In the center of Xenophon's narrative is the everyday, everyday life of his heroes with its practical concerns, needs and small entertainments. Like no one before him, he sees, loves and paints the life that his contemporaries live. The highest valor of a person in his eyes is the ability to behave with dignity in this life, the ability to be friendly with other people. All the positive heroes of Xenophon have the same properties: they are philanthropic, humane, loyal to their friends and themselves enjoy their love. Much more carefully than was done before him, Xenophon traces how moral qualities manifest themselves in human behavior. The work of Xenophon is another important step on the path of creating a new verbal art, the beginning of which was laid by Herodotus. This new, hitherto unknown art of prose for the first time interpreted human life rationalistically, as a connection between causes and effects, and tried to reveal this connection when depicting reality.

Greek prose writers abandoned the mythological plots familiar to poetry, describing the events of real life, and at the same time borrowed its artistic techniques from poetry, applying them in their new art. In the work of Herodotus, the scattered facts collected by the chroniclers were combined into one general picture with the help of compositional techniques transferred from the epic to prose, and this made it possible not only to explain the historical past of the people in a new way, but also subsequently to reveal in real life the reasons, that determine the course of historical events. This attempt was made by Thucydides. After him, in the prose literature of the 4th century BC. in essence, a new task was being solved: not the history of the people, but the development of the human personality, was rationalistically rethought. For the first time, writers offered their fellow citizens a norm and an example of ideal behavior not in the images of the heroes of the epic, but in the figures of living persons who belonged to history, and not to myth.

Format: Djvu.

GREECE HISTORIANS

Xenophon

The publication of the Library of Ancient Literature is carried out under the general editorship of S. Apta, M. Gasparov, M. Grabar-Passek, S. Osherov, F. Petrovsky, A. Takho-Godi and S. Shervinsky

Compiled and foreword by T. Miller

Notes by M. Gasparov and T. Miller

HISTORICAL PROSE OF ANCIENT GREECE

In the legacy of ancient Greek literature the names of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon are on a par with the names of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes or Plato: like the great playwrights or the famous author of dialogues, the three named historians created works that were already in antiquity evaluated as a classical norm and a model of a literary genre . Their work completes and crowns the formation of a rationalistic picture of the world in artistic prose, which began to take shape in the 6th century BC. e. It was then that the polis slave-owning society, established after the great colonization of the 8th-6th centuries, began to create a new culture within itself, supplementing and correcting the idea of ​​the world that the heroic epic gave the Greek. In the VI century, the ideas inherent in the epic about the cosmos, the gods, about the lands and peoples known to the Greeks were revised; then the first teachings about the material fundamental principle of the world and its structural unity appeared, and attempts were made to interpret the myths allegorically and find an explanation for them that did not contradict reason.

In the same VI century BC. e. the first chronicles, ethnographic descriptions of localities and cities also appeared. As far as can be judged from the indirect indications of later authors and from the fragments preserved by them, these first rudiments of narrative prose concentrated their attention on the genealogies of the founders of cities, the sights of the localities and the customs of the peoples. The compilers were interested in colorful details and small details. Here, for example, is the content of the Lydian chronicle reported by Athenaeus, an ancient Greek writer of the 3rd century AD. e. (XII, p. 515, D): “The Lydians reached such impudence that the first began to castrate women, as Xanthus the Lydian narrates.” The same Athenaeus (IX, p. 394, E) cites the following quote from the Persian chronicle: “Charon of Lampsakus, telling in his “Persian stories” about Mardonius, about how the Persian army was destroyed near Athos, writes about it like this: “ And then, for the first time, white doves appeared among the Greeks, which did not exist before.

Ancient legends, myths, tales served as a source of information for chroniclers. Where "facts" seemed meaningless, the chronicler rejected them or found another explanation for them, consistent with reason. “I describe it in the way that seems right to me, because the numerous stories of the Hellenes are funny, in my opinion,” said Hecateus of Miletus. An example of exactly how Hecataeus criticized myths can be found in Pausanias (III, 25, 5): “Some of the Hellenic poets wrote that Hercules brought the dog out of Hades by this road, although there is no way through the cave underground and hardly anyone can easily will agree that under the earth there is some kind of dwelling of the gods, in which they gather souls of the dead. Here Hecateus of Miletus found a more probable interpretation, saying that a terrible snake grew on Tenar and was called the "Hound of Hades", since the one bitten by him immediately died from his poison "1 ( Pausanias. Description of Hellas. M., "Art", 1938).

Thus, the defining feature of these first monuments of narrative prose was the desire to "find the truth" and take from the legend that which can be verified with one's own eyes. The word ίστωρία (“history”) was attached to the work of chroniclers, which had a double meaning: “eyewitness testimony” and “investigation by interrogation”.

Thanks to two features of the polis system - the absence of the power of priests in it and the huge role of a living oratorical word - criticism of the mythological tradition was not reduced to simple "corrections" of this tradition, but was able to give rise to new creativity, which opposed itself to traditional poetry and mythology. In the 6th century, it also manifested itself in the fact that, in contrast to the cosmogonic myths of the epic, Greek astronomers and mathematicians created a new doctrine of the cosmos as a whole, in which everything is subject to a general law, and behind the diversity of the visible world saw its hidden unity. In the 5th century, not only the cosmos, not only the world of inanimate nature, but also everything that is closely connected with man himself: his physiological states, his activities, his highest moral values, received a rationalistic explanation. The starting position of rationalism - the desire to understand the structure of the world not as a game of irrational forces, but as a rigid connection between causes and effects - also served as the starting point for the emergence of scientific medicine, philology, for the first concepts of historical development and the first experiments in the analysis of human characters.

There were also changes in Greek historiography that reflected a general change in ideas. Until the 5th century history among the Greeks was replaced for the most part by mythological traditions, which, however, early began to arouse bewilderment with their contradictions and improbability. Already in the second half of the 6th century, i.e. before the start of the Persian wars, the so-called logographs, those engaged in the presentation of the events of the past, discarding the poetic form of legends, wrote prose and accepted from myths only what seemed to them more probable. To the legends of antiquity they began to attach an account of the events of his time or the recent past, as well as talk about seen with my own eyes in foreign countries, which they had to visit. The most remarkable logographs in the era before the Persian wars, lived in Ionia and Miletus alone is famous for a few writers of this kind. The events of the Persian wars caused the first attempts at a real history.

"Father of History" was a native of Halicarnassus, one of the Dorian colonies of Asia Minor, and was born shortly before the invasion of Xerxes in Greece. Distinguished by great curiosity, he traveled to many countries, having visited during his travels, in addition to the lands inhabited by the Greeks, and in Egypt, and in Phoenicia, and on the banks of Pontus, and even in distant Babylon, which gave him the opportunity to describe as an eyewitness the East contemporary to him. In addition, he read and studied the writings of logographers and used the stories of contemporaries of the events described. At one time (about 430) lived in Athens, where he acquired the rights of citizenship and where, according to legend, he publicly read passages from his work during the Panathenaic period. (There is also a legend about Herodotus reading his history at the Olympic Games). The subject of historical work was Persian wars to the battles of Plataea and Mycale, inserted into a wide frame of stories about events from the life of other peoples. In his general view of historical events was completely on the point of view of the intervention of the gods in the affairs of people, and therefore was far from the thought of explaining the connection between events in a purely natural way. Herodotus was animated by the consciousness of the superiority of Greek freedom over the slavery of the barbarians and the love of political equality, but he still shared the old superstitions of his people - the belief in prophetic dreams, in omens, in the predictions of oracles, etc.

The second great historian, and even the greatest historian of all antiquity, was an Athenian . He was a quarter of a century younger than Herodotus and already belonged to a generation that passed through the school of rhetorical and philosophical enlightenment the time of Pericles. He made the main event of his era the subject of his historical work - big war between Athens and Sparta, which began during the life of Pericles and was called Peloponnesian (431–404) . He himself participated in this war and was even a strategist, but after one unfortunate campaign he had to leave his native city and live in exile, until the end of the war allowed him to return to Athens. Foreseeing the importance of this struggle, from the very beginning, he began to write down the events that took place, carefully checking the stories about what he could not see with his own eyes, but he did not manage to bring his historical work to the end. Thucydides already consciously avoided all fables, finding that although it is entertaining, but the actual truth in history is the most precious thing. On the other hand, he did not resort to the idea of ​​the supernatural intervention of the gods to explain the events that took place, trying output events from conscious activity of people depending on their characters and the positions in which they themselves were placed. Herodotus appealed more like a poet to the feelings of his readers, Thucydides, like a philosopher, acted mainly on their minds. He tries to explain the thoughts and moods of historical figures by putting into their mouths masterful speeches, which were affected by the influence of contemporary oratory. The historian of the Peloponnesian War had to witness the decline of his homeland, and main reason he saw this in direction taken by Athenian democracy, which became the instrument of ambitious demagogues.

160. Criticism of the weaknesses of Athenian democracy

IN negative attitude towards democracy converged among themselves, thus, both the comedian Aristophanes and the historian no matter how different their attitude to the new education was. In their attacks there were quite a few exaggerations (especially in Aristophanes) and the political prejudice of supporters of a party opposed to the democratic system (even in the truthful Thucydides), but on the other hand, many weak sides Athenian democracy were noted by them correctly. The main trouble, however, was not in the new education and not in the state structure, but that Athenian citizens were essentially a privileged minority, which lived at the expense of others, disposed of the fate of the population of other cities at its own discretion, weaned itself from productive labor for the sake of exclusively engaging in politics, litigation, entertainment, and meanwhile, in general, remained rather ignorant and easily submitted to the influence of demagogues who knew how to flatter him. All these weaknesses of Athenian democracy appeared after Pericles in the era

Historians and geographers of ancient Greece

Seneca believed that the main science of antiquity is philosophy, because only it "explores the whole world." But philosophy without history is like a soul without a body. Of course, myths and poetic pictures of the historical process alone, with all their colorfulness and brightness, could not satisfy the emerging science. Thought demanded not only these fabulous or semi-fabulous images, but exact names, dates, facts. Life demanded a realistic and accurate description peace. One of the first who tried to isolate the actual historical material in the myths was Hecateus of Miletus (c. 546-480 BC). Trying to introduce an element of objectivity and truth into the process of perceiving history, he precedes his "History" with the following phrase: "Thus says Hecateus of Miletus: I write it as it seems to me true, because the stories of the Hellenes are diverse and ridiculous, as it seems to me." The author leads to a more understandable and, most importantly, accurate perception of the events described in the myths. He has the beginnings of scientific criticism of myth. Nevertheless, even for the father of history, Herodotus, myth is still the most important part of history.

Orpheus, Eurydice and Hermes

Mythology and history are intertwined so closely that they are perceived by him as two equal principles ... And only Thucydides resolutely advocates the primacy of historicism. Demanding from scientists, first of all, the reliability of the information they provide when submitting material, Thucydides states: “No matter how difficult historical research, but still not far from the truth will be the one who recognizes the course of events of antiquity approximately as I depicted it, and prefers not to believe the poets , which exaggerate and embellish the events they sing, or the stories that the logographers compose (more elegantly than truthfully), stories that, for the most part, have become fabulous and, due to prescription, are not verifiable. On the basis of the above evident evidence, he will be able to make sure that the results of the study of such ancient events are reliable enough. The concepts of accuracy, reliability, reliability of the events described by the authors come to the fore. This is an indispensable, main condition for the fact that labor is created by creators "as a property forever, and not for momentary success with listeners."

Clothes of the Greeks and Romans (peplos, tunic, chiton, toga)

History has always played a noticeable, if not decisive, role in the education of the youth of antiquity. "History is an ancient author" (Bolingbroke). From about 750-753 BC. the Greeks began to systematically present their history, observing strict order and clarity. Varro characterized this period as "the dawn, or the beginning of historical time." Recall that Rome was founded at the same time. They start a little earlier and Olympic Games(776 BC). The first historians of the Greeks were Cadmus of Miletus and Acusilaus of Argos. This also includes Hecatea. Cicero called Herodotus "the father of history". Others consider it not entirely correct to give him the palm of primacy, saying that Herodotus in the development of Hellenic historiography belongs rather to "a middle, central, and by no means an advanced position." The beginning of historiography is usually erected to an earlier time, when the processing of mythological and legendary events had just begun. Historical science arose in Ionia, including Miletus, in the first half of the 6th century BC, and history, like prose, arose later than poetry.

Herodotus

The oldest works Greek prose were called "logos" ("word", "story"). Therefore, the first historians were sometimes called logographers. Historicism is also found among the “kikliks”, which arranged events in a temporal sequence. Their descriptions had a chronology, and so on. and so on. (VIII-VI centuries BC). It is also said that some writings about individual Hellenic and barbarian peoples and countries, including both legendary and historical, geographical or other data, were compiled before Herodotus and were used later by Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Strabo and other authors. They drew from them information and various options "which are absent in the stories of Herodotus."

The very term "historian" (historicos) arose later among Greek historians (Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch, Thucydides), first encountered by Thucydides. What does it take to be a good historian? The talent of an observer, the mind of an analyst, the skill of a writer, the industriousness of a peasant, the courage of a fighter. Bolingbroke noted in his Letters that the work of a philosopher begins with the activity of the mind and ends with the work of the imagination. The historian, on the other hand, acts as if in reverse order: he begins his work, relying on sources, and sometimes even ends it, referring to them. What comes first - reality or a source that tells about the events of the past and present, is not so important. Let's not separate this inseparable couple - imagination and reason. Like birds, they soar high above us, surveying everything that happens and rushing in pursuit of prey. Knowledge is their food. Lao Tzu said: “He who has knowledge and has the appearance of an ignorant one is on top ...” A scientist, historian, philosopher should have love for truth, for the fatherland. Like an artist, he is driven by a thirst for perfection! Historians and poets of antiquity strove for beauty. The very spirit of the era contributed to the emergence of rich, holistic natures. Such was the great Greek historian Herodotus.

Public readings of passages from it literally captivated the fervent imagination of the Athenians. Traces of his influence are visible in the plays of Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes. The "father of history" Herodotus (c. 480-425 BC) was from Halicarnassus (the western coast of Asia Minor). The lands were then under the rule of the Persians. There were famous poets in his family (Panassy), so he was married to the Muses from childhood.

In 455-447 BC. he, having left his homeland, spent about 8-10 years traveling. His life is filled with events and rich in adventures. The historian traveled a vast area from Libya to Babylon, from Assyria to Ecbatan, and visited Egypt, collecting information from the local Greeks, the mixed Greek-native population, and from the priests. Herodotus traveled through Asia Minor and the Northern Black Sea region, visited Olbia, was in a number of Greek states of the Balkan Peninsula and on the islands Aegean Sea. In his youth, he took part in the political struggle. Then his uncle Paniasid died. As a result, he himself had to leave his homeland. Sheltered the future historian Fr. Samos, to whom he retained a deep gratitude throughout his life. He took part in the founding of the all-Hellenic colony of Furia, which Pericles had thought to found earlier (on the site of the destroyed Sybaris). It should be emphasized: as they say, Herodotus was in power. Apparently, he was a member of the famous circle of Pericles-Aspasia (Pericles, Protagoras, Sophocles), which allowed him to be well aware of all the most important events, laws, persons, etc. His main merit is seen in the fact that he made an attempt to draw the history of the entire Greek world, to write an outline of world history. Previously, logographs described local stories. So there was a "History" consisting of nine books. It is based on the history of the enmity between Greece and Persia, as well as the Greco-Persian wars that followed this enmity. Since he spent most of his life in Athens, the history of the polis is central to his work. Apparently, this is why the Athenians appreciated his work so highly, giving him a reward for his gift (the amount of 10 talents, about 30,000 gold rubles). Let me remind you that Pindar received for his dithyramb in honor of Athens only 1/6 of the talent.

Road from Eleusis to Athens

Of course, his objectivity made him many enemies. Rarely does envy and malice take such sophisticated and Jesuit forms as among other figures of science and art. Plutarch broke into a speech ("On the insidiousness of Herodotus") and declared that the Greeks rewarded him "for their flattery to them." This is hardly the case. Such a significant award to the historian, according to S. Lurie, is more likely to be explained by considerable merits in the field of diplomacy or in the field of organizational efforts. His approach to history is interesting. Herodotus built a model in which the gods inevitably punish those who take away more happiness than fate allotted to them. In other words, Herodotus urged everyone to moderation in their desire for fame, power and money. He considered measure to be the basic law of history. The books illustrate the ethical standard of divine providence.

Thermopylae Gorge

In the mouth of the Persian nobleman Artaban, who teaches Xerxes, he puts this thought: “You see how a deity strikes with lightning living beings that stand out above others, not allowing them to ascend; on the contrary, small creatures do not irritate him. You see also that the deity always throws his thunderbolts at the largest buildings and at the most tall trees; after all, it is pleasant for a deity to cripple everything outstanding ... The deity does not tolerate anyone other than himself thinking highly of himself. In these words, some will see an attempt to justify inequality and inequality. It is hardly worth reproaching Herodotus for such a fall, although he was not an enthusiast for democracy either, accepting it with a very big reservation.

The thoroughness and special attention to detail that we see in his books are striking. Thinking about Greece, he did not forget to give a worthy place also to the history of ancient Persia, Egypt, Babylon, Scythia, etc. A detailed description of Babylon and its walls suggests that Herodotus reached it (by the river road along the Euphrates), having also visited Phoenicia. He admitted that one of his main tasks: "to describe the remarkable achievements, both our own and the barbaric (Asiatic) peoples." Perhaps the fact that he was born at the point of contact between Europe and Asia prompted him to strive to unite the cultures of the two continents.

Herodotus is completely alien to narrow parochial "patriotism", which sometimes smacks of chauvinism. In any case, he honestly tried to inform the reader of all points of view, to convey all the material available to him as a historian.

He saw this as the main condition for the development of independent thinking in people. We have already cited his words: "I am obliged to report everything that they tell me, but I am not obliged to believe everything." He criticized everyone and everything, supporting those whose views are closer to him, even if it was a tyrant or a stranger. Panhellenic patriotism was by no means the main core of Herodotus' books. Although one should not conclude from this that the ideas of patriotism are alien to him. S. Lurie wrote that in this case we could not talk about such a living and great phenomenon, “like Russian patriotism” (or French), rather, about comparison with such “stillborn and essentially reactionary teachings” as “pan-Europeanism”, or Let's say "pan-Islamism". As you can see, time is changing the emphasis: pan-Europeanism and pan-Islamism have become quite popular ideological currents.

Greek warrior figure

Herodotus can be called one of the best historical writers, a poet of history. What main theme his books became the liberation war of the Greeks against the Persians, of course. The historian only justifies his bread if he writes about what is most important and necessary for the country and the people. This is our position... If the first four books and the beginning of the fifth "History" can be called a story about the past of Hellas and the civilizations of the East associated with it, then the subsequent part of the work looks like the history of the present. After all, Herodotus was a contemporary of the Peloponnesian War, which began in 431 BC, when he was just over 50. The war captured almost the entire world of that time. He describes it quite objectively. I think the point is not even that the historian himself was from Halicarnassus, which was part of the Persian state, whose rulers were in close relations with the court of the king of the Persians. Simply, trying to be an objective historian, he considered this moment - objectivity - the main condition for the very existence of the science of history.

clash of civilizations

An anonymous critic even called him "the most Homeric writer", thus hinting at the closeness of his works in style to the works of the great Homer. It is worth reading at least an amazing passage that speaks of the feat of the Spartan king Leonidas. At the head of 300 Spartans, he managed to stop the Persian army of 300 or 400 thousand people at Thermopylae (albeit not many millions; apparently the numbers are exaggerated) ... The hordes of Xerxes began to approach. The Greeks, led by Leonidas, went out to fight to the death, grouping in the narrowest part of the passage in the gorge. In the early days, part of the Spartans defended the wall, while others fought the enemy in the very gorge into which they retreated. Now the Hellenes rushed hand to hand already outside this passage.

In a fierce battle, the barbarians died by the thousands. It did not help even the fact that the Persians were driven with scourges by the heads of their detachments.

As a result of the stampede, many Persians fell into the sea and died. Many enemies were crushed by their own. Nobody paid any attention to the dead. The Hellenes fought with the courage of the doomed. They certainly knew that they were threatened with imminent death from the Persians who bypassed the mountain. Therefore, the Greeks, showing the greatest martial prowess and courage, fought desperately. When the Spartans broke their spears, they began to hit the Persians with swords. In the ensuing fierce battle, King Leonid fell, and with him many other noble Spartans. A fierce battle began between the Persians and the Spartans for his body. Finally, the Hellenes wrested the fallen hero from the hands of the enemy.

“He (Herodotus) distributed light and shadows in his huge historical canvas under the strong influence of the political situation that had developed by the time he wrote his work,” wrote V. Borukhovich. - It was the time of the Peloponnesian War brewing, when the political contradictions between the two strongest political associations of Hellas - the Athenian and Peloponnesian unions - reached extreme aggravation and turned into open hostilities. It can be confidently asserted that the "father of history" was a supporter of Athens and expressed in his work mainly the Athenian point of view on everything that was happening then in Hellas. The reason was that Athens became the second homeland of Herodotus. The historian not only lived in this city for a long time, but was a member of the circle of the most prominent figures of culture and science, which was grouped around Pericles. There also included the artist Phidias, the poet Sophocles, the philosopher Anaxagoras. It is possible that these circumstances played a decisive role in choosing the theme of his essay. Athens was the leading political force in Hellas during the Greco-Persian wars, the organizer of the struggle against the Persians. Herodotus calls the Athenians "the saviors of Hellas". People like Pericles were able to appreciate the scale of his plan. He was valued not at all because he praised the family of Pericles. He glorifies his homeland, his country, which has assumed the role of organizer of the struggle against the invaders. And although in a number of cases the political predilections of Herodotus are obvious, I am impressed, especially since he turned out to be on the level of the great tasks set by himself on most issues.

Probably, Herodotus was the first who began to develop the theme of the clash of civilizations, which is so popular today ... And here he turned out to be a truly unsurpassed master. Historian Hammond wrote: “Just as Homer surpassed the writers of epic songs by writing a great epic poem, so Herodotus surpassed his predecessors by weaving his “fairy tales” into the historical canvas. His fluid style, even in translation, has unsurpassed transparency and charm, perfect for oral reading of a long story. The field of his research was the whole stretch of human memory and the frontiers of the known world; he composed his own "fairy tales" or tied the "fairy tales" of his predecessors to specific areas. The unity of his material was ensured not only by his mindset, but also by the central dramatic theme - the conflict between the West and the East.

By the way, Herodotus also wrote about our Scythian ancestors, singling them out of all the peoples on this side of Pontus: “We cannot offer a single people, known for wisdom, not a single man, famous for learning, except for the Scythian people and the king Anacharsis.” Apparently, he personally communicated with the Scythians. He gives their self-name - “chipped” (from “falcon”, which was one of the main symbols of our Slavic ancestors). According to Greek tradition, Herodotus believed that the Scythians (Slavs) descended from Hercules. One of the three sons of Hercules and the half-snake woman was the Scythian. The Scythians themselves believed that their first ancestor was Targitai, born from the love affair of Zeus and the daughter of the Borisfen (Dnieper) river. Paying tribute to their courage, Herodotus did not hide the fact that he was unpleasantly struck in the Scythians. Analyzing the fact of the capture of Asia by the Scythians, he highly appreciated their managerial abilities. He wrote: "Everything in her (Asia) was brought into disarray by their arrogance and contempt." Pretty accurate assessment of their nature.

peoples Great Steppe(Scythians)

Herodotus' description of the two-century history of the Greeks provided the fundamental basis that no historian could ignore in the past and cannot now ignore. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Herodotus raised history to a higher, more worthy level: he decided to write about the affairs of more than one state and more than one people, but "combined numerous and diverse stories, European and Asian, in the presentation." Already from the II century AD. imitation of the style and language of Herodotus became fashionable. He was buried in southern Italy, in a former all-Hellenic colony. An epitaph will be left on his grave, about which Stephen of Byzantium wrote:

The coffin of this remains hid Herodotus,

Lix's son.

The best historian ever

wrote in Ionic

He grew up in the Dorian homeland, but,

to avoid abuse,

He made the Furies a new homeland for himself.

Others even saw in him the first "cosmopolitan", the first "global historian", although these are by no means synonyms. So, unlike Thucydides, who considered it unnecessary to study other people's worlds, myths, religion, customs, traditions, Herodotus carefully examines the customs, customs, and orders of peoples with great interest. The English historian O'Brien, assessing the activities of Herodotus, noted among his merits that he neglected the narrow-minded Eurocentric approach and presented in the "History" a broad overview not only of the Hellenistic world, but also of Egypt, India, Babylonia, Arabia, Persia. He, in his own words, wanted to keep the past in memory, writing down the amazing achievements of "our and Asian peoples." We can say that Herodotus, giving in chronological order the most important events that took place in different countries, on several continents for a long time, thereby disciplined, streamlined history. Of course, glorifying first of all the victories of the Greek policies (mainly Athens) over the Persian Empire, presenting the conflict between the West and the East in the spirit of the struggle of civilizations or cultures, he did not avoid the obvious weaknesses of "European triumphalism". In his interpretation, the West became the winner in the dispute of systems, because on the side of that were the gains of freedom, democracy, civilization.

Depiction of Herodotus and Thucydides

O'Brien continues: “Global historians admire Herodotus for his breadth of vision, determination, and keen interest in the virtues of the barbarians, which he did not hesitate to contrast with the vices of the Greeks. They deplore the great failure in the writing of secular world history, which lasted until those few short decades just before the start of the French Revolution, when Voltaire and his Enlightenment contemporaries put forward this project again. And it will be noted with bewilderment that, with the exception of a handful of Stoics (Diodorus, Polybius and Dionysius), as well as geographers and ethnographers (Strabo, Ptolemy and Pliny), world history did not attract other scientists who worked in the Greco-Roman era. The author considers it a miscalculation of the ancients that those, living in empires that included many different cultures that bordered or contacted them (African, Arab, Persian, Indian, Chinese), are completely occupied by Europe. "Their works ... were mainly devoted to political events and scandals in Rome or (as in Thucydides) wars between the Greeks." Encyclopedist, to be sure, a rare type even in history.

Another Greek historian, Thucydides (c. 460-404 / 400 BC), managed to catch the glorious time of Herodotus. The Byzantine writer noted: “They say that once Herodotus read his “History” publicly, and Thucydides, who was present at the same time, listening to the reading, wept. Herodotus, noticing this, said to the father of Thucydides: "Olor, your son's nature craves knowledge." Being a noble and rich man, Thucydides in his mature years was appointed a strategist and took an active part in the Peloponnesian War. But in 424 BC, after the defeat in the battle for Amphipolis, he was expelled for 20 years from Athens (to Thrace). Staying there gave me the leisure to write 8 books of the famous "History of the Peloponnesian War". This work is valuable primarily for the abundance of ethnographic, historical-economic and socio-historical materials. He put reliability, not probability, at the forefront of his research. The historian, he emphasized, is simply obliged to accurately state everything that happened in reality. And since human nature remains unchanged, it means that events in the future (with all variations) will be repeated. Thucydides is also called the founder, creator of pragmatic historiography. Descriptive historiography, of which Herodotus was the spokesman, he opposed real story. According to Nietzsche, the culture of the realists found its final expression in his writings. Thucydides is "a great summation, the last revelation of a strong, strict, harsh facticity, which was rooted in the instinct of an older Greek." “Courage in the face of reality finally distinguishes such natures as Thucydides and Plato: Plato is a coward in the face of reality – therefore, he seeks refuge in the ideal; Thucydides owns himself, therefore he also retains dominion over things. Let us leave on Nietzsche's conscience Plato's reproaches for his dubious cowardice and praise of Thucydides, which he does not need at all.

Tombstone of an Athenian horseman. Marble

Looking for and finding causal relationships between historical events and the driving forces that determined the nature of certain events, the historian pays special attention to the personal factor. Thucydides is sure: what is the personality of the leader, leader, such is the history of the country ... A look at the events of the political and social life of the country from the point of view of an anthropologist, psychologist, clinician (and in last years we have become accustomed to this approach) is undoubtedly interesting. With Plutarch and Thucydides, the tradition of studying life originates wonderful people. Famous historians (Hobbes, Niebuhr, Ranke) considered his works exemplary.

I believe that modern historians would do well to recall the advice that Thucydides gives in the introduction to the History: “And yet he will not be mistaken who accepts these events rather as I described them from the evidence mentioned, and not as the poets sang them. with their exaggerations and embellishments, or, as prose writers have composed, in their concern not so much for the truth as for the pleasantness of the ear, reporting unprovable news and, due to the prescription of time, turned mostly into incredible fairy tales. Let them know that I have restored the events according to the most reliable evidence, as fully as the prescription allows ... As for the events of the war, I did not consider it worthy to write everything that I learned from the first person I met or that I myself could assume, but wrote down what was in front of me or what I learned from others, examining every detail as accurately as possible. Research was difficult, because the eyewitnesses of the events conveyed about the same thing not in the same way, but to the extent of memory or sympathy for one or the other of the parties. Perhaps this absence of fables will seem less pleasant to the ear; on the other hand, it will be considered quite useful by all who wish to clearly understand what was and what will be in the future, according to the property human nature may be the same or similar. My work is harmonious not to sound in a fleeting competition, but to be an asset forever. But in order to become a "property forever", the work of a historian must be not only factually accurate, but sharp and confident, like a brilliant surgeon's scalpel. To do this, you need to cut off all mythology (or if you leave it, then as a literary plot).

A.F. Losev writes that such a falling away of mythology for the first time made possible historical research as factual research (in the sense of describing facts) and as pragmatic research (in the sense of explaining their causes). They made attempts to establish a more accurate chronology of events. It doesn't matter that Thucydides made extensive use of Antiochus of Syracuse's History of Sicily in writing his history without ever mentioning it.

Thucydides

But taking into account the difference in approaches in the description of history by Herodotus and Thucydides is important. This difference was pointed out by the famous historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century BC): “Thucydides follows chronology, while Herodotus seeks to capture a series of interrelated events. As a result, Thucydides is unclear and it is difficult to follow the course of events. Since for each summer and winter different events took place in different places, he, leaving the description of one case halfway, grabs onto another that was happening simultaneously with him. This, of course, confuses us ... Herodotus, starting from the kingdom of Lydia and reaching Croesus, immediately goes to Cyrus, who crushed the power of Croesus, and then begins a story about Egypt, Scythia, Libya, following in order, adding the missing and introducing something that could enliven the narrative... Thus, it turns out that Thucydides, having chosen only one event as his theme, divided the whole into many parts, and Herodotus, who touched on many very different topics, created a harmonious whole.

Winner's Golden Wreath

In the same “Letter to Pompey,” he continues to compare the features of the work of great historians: “The third task of the historian is to consider what should be included in his work and what should be left aside. And in this respect Thucydides lags behind. Herodotus, after all, was aware that a long story is only pleasant to the listeners when there are respite in it; if the events follow one after another, no matter how well they are described, this (inevitably) causes satiety and boredom, and therefore Herodotus sought to give his composition a variegation, following Homer in this. After all, picking up his book, we do not cease to admire him to the last word, reaching which you want to read more and more. Thucydides, describing only one war, tensely and without taking a breath, heaps battle upon battle, collections on collections, speech upon speech, and in the end brings readers to exhaustion. Herodotus more skillfully combines the gift of historian and writer, although Thucydides is perhaps more concise and even more accurate.

book scrolls

To which of them to give the wreath of the winner? Decide for yourself. Herodotus is more interesting, although a certain detachment of Herodotus confuses me. There is not even an attempt to find an explanation for the events. But is a historian a storyteller who is called upon to entertain bored snobs?! The reader wants to see the story as a guide to action. This requires definitions and assessments that we see in Thucydides: “The desire for profit led to the fact that the weaker were in slavery to the stronger, while the more powerful, relying on their wealth, subjugated the smaller cities.” Or here Thucydides explains the goals of the military expedition undertaken by Athens against Syracuse (everything is clear and understandable, quite in line with the concepts of current geopolitics). The Athenians sent ships under the pretext of tribal kinship, but in fact they wanted to prevent the delivery of grain from Sicily to the Peloponnese, and also to try first whether it was possible to subjugate Sicily. But their adventure ended in a terrible defeat. Here is how the historian writes about this: “When the news of this came to Athens, the Athenians for a long time they did not believe that everything had completely died, although eminent warriors who had fled from the battle itself reported with certainty. Later, having learned the truth, the Athenians became bitter against those who, with their speeches, encouraged them to march, as if they themselves were not voting in his favor ... Everything and everywhere grieved them. Fear and intense panic seized them about what had happened. Indeed, as individuals suffered heavy losses, so the whole state was dejected by the death of many hoplites, cavalry and the younger generation, which they had no opportunity to replace with others. By the way, the influence of Thucydides is noticeable in the works of many ancient historians (Greeks and Romans). He pays special attention to style (although at times it looks somewhat archaic). He was considered an exemplary writer, such as Demosthenes was for oratorical prose or Homer for poetry. His work became a "property forever", and his examples became a "source of rhetoric".

Among the immortals, we also include Plutarch (c. 46-119 AD), a connoisseur of literature, history and natural sciences. Plutarch belonged to a wealthy old family. After studying in Athens, he chose the career of a politician and high priest of the Pythian Apollo in Delphi. The Greeks considered Apollo the god of prophecy, in their view, he seemed to own the whole Earth. Let us remind the reader that in history the ancient man saw, first of all, interesting and instructive entertainment, or, as we say, reading matter. With its help, teachers nurtured youth, and then, at the end of their days, reading a historical book, many brightened up their old age. The life of Plutarch, the author of the famous "Comparative Lives", is one of a kind... He visited Rome and Alexandria, Sparta and Sardis, talked with prominent people of that time (among them the emperors Trajan and Hadrian), had conversations with outstanding scientists and orators. Plutarch also showed himself to be a wise statesman, occupying the highest managerial position of an eponymous archon in his native Chaeronea.

Omphale ("Navel of the Earth") at Delphi

Plutarch was a fairly wealthy man. This allowed him to be creative without thinking about earning money (whereas Appian and Lucian had to "go to the officials" in order to live and create). There were almost no middle-class people at that time. Hellas, about which Lucian wrote that she was "brought up on a combination of philosophy and poverty", is a thing of the past. And if something is capable of finally destroying humanity, it is, in my deepest conviction, a monstrous stratification of society, which has gathered at one pole the completely desperate, downtrodden and literally ready for anything poor lumpen, and at the other - greedy, cynical, satiated -greedy, imperious and inhuman creatures mired in luxury. Alas, in the era of Plutarch, Greece and Rome more and more resembled just such a society. Under these conditions, the historian needed to find a foothold that would support his spirit and serve as a reliable support for creativity.

Such a point of support was for Plutarch the hometown of Chaeroneus, a provincial and small town. For a figure like Plutarch, it was not a place to cling to, especially since there were few libraries here. And the historian and the writer need books, because they are his main food. In his youth he studied in Athens, Delphi was his second home. He traveled all over mainland Hellas, visited Alexandria and Rome. It is known that the Greeks are an easy-going people. They often led the lives of merchants, travelers, mercenaries, cosmopolitans, for whom ubi bene ibi patria (Latin - "where it is good, there is the homeland"). Many drew knowledge, wisdom, the joy of communication from their travels, but still preferred to live and work in their homeland. Plutarch was faithful to his native city until the end of his life. Supporting the Boeotian poets, philosophers, scientists, singing Chaeronea, he founded here a kind of branch of the Platonic Academy.

Plutarch defended the ideals of civil community and polis publicity, stating that he did not see the meaning of life outside society, outside the homeland: “To live well means to live in a community.” Those who left the fatherland of their own free will, as it were, renounce it, thereby dooming themselves to many misfortunes: from being…” Plutarch in the depths of his soul hated and despised cosmopolitans, sharply condemned the theory and practice of ideology. Although his approach met with condemnation from some prominent historians and writers, such as Dio Chrysostomos, Lucian, Aelius Aristides, etc.

Pythia on a tripod. Drawing on a vase

Plutarch was a strong supporter of the participation of worthy people in politics. In his native city, he served not only as an eponymous archon, but also for much more modest magistracies. In 119 BC. he (already old age) was appointed governor of Hellas (Eusebius Pamphilus). Plutarch, under the first Antonines, was given a fairly wide opportunity to interfere in the affairs of the Roman administration of Greece. The historian did not shy away from politics and even reproached the Stoics for the fact that they theoretically demand that the sages participate in public life, but in practice they avoid participating in the affairs themselves. Although in words they are all masters (Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus), they give out advice, but none of them has ever served as a strategist, has not introduced a single law, has not gone to the council, has not spoken in courts, has not fought for the fatherland, has not participated at the Embassy. Instead, they "spent their lives in a foreign land, tasting, like some kind of lotus, peace - among books, conversations and walks." The historian himself confirmed this position with a special treatise "On the need for a philosopher to talk first of all with the rulers." And yet he is silent about his deeds in times of closeness to big politics. There are two explanations for this: either the reason is a certain modesty, or the results of his efforts were so insignificant that they were not even worth mentioning. In subsequent centuries, despite all the progress of civilization, humanity rarely allowed the writer and historian to become the head of power.

The time of his life fell on a tragic era. Greece lost its independence, becoming the Roman province of Achaia. True, Rome was more lenient towards the Greeks than towards other conquered peoples. Let us recall at least what Caesar did with the Gauls: their leaders were captured or killed, and their rebellious leader after the triumph of September 26, 46 BC. strangled. Taking one of the Gallic cities, Caesar ordered to cut off each besieged right hand. So Rome treated the Greeks, one might say, almost friendly. The Greeks hoped that the Romans who conquered them would restore the country to its former greatness, given Nero's sympathy for it. Philostratus even exclaimed in euphoria: “Nero gave Hellas freedom, being wiser than himself in this respect, and the cities returned to Doric and Attic customs! ..”

However, someone, and Plutarch, who knew Rome, had no illusions on this score. He understood that the Roman Empire was mired in robberies, corruption, murders, wars. He recalled terrible stories about civil wars, when the corpses lay in mountains ("level with the roof of the temple"). Temples and blood, blood and temples. Yet the Romans continued to absorb the cultural traditions of the Greeks. We have already spoken of the powerful influence of Hellenism. It can be said that Greece gave her blood to Rome. The cultural life of the Greeks from now on will already proceed within the framework of the Roman system. You have to pay for everything. Further, the Greeks will not have a brilliant galaxy of philosophers, nor historians like Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch. These are the last titans. And although there will still be a Greek Renaissance, it will manifest itself only in the superficial details of culture - teachers, mythologisms, translations. Gradually, the literary life of Greece freezes. People from the circle of the second sophistry will not come close to the glory of the great sophists of the past. Only a comet in the sky will flash the Greek Appian and the Syrian Lucian. Losev in The Mythology of the Greeks and Romans writes about the contribution of Plutarch (including to the history of philosophy): “Thus, for the first time in the entire existence of Greek literature, only Plutarch has an attempt to give the philosophical concept of Apollo, which the Pythagoreans barely outlined and which was not given neither Plato nor Aristotle. The fact that this writer was popular with his contemporaries and descendants is also evidenced by the treatise of a certain False Plutarch (“On the Rivers”).

There is absolutely no point in retelling the works of the latter. We only note that he aroused great indignation among philologists, and not so much because this unknown author used the name of a great historian, but because of his primitivism, "the poor imagination of the writer" (Jacobi), by demonstrating the poverty of his "mind". The authoritative publisher of Plutarch Wittenbach (who did much to restore the text and meaning of his treatise) called this work "a dirty little book of a deceiver, the most empty, stupid and, most importantly, the most false of all." Another, Bernhardi, wrote of him: "This little book ... is all filled with lies and dirty lust." Karl Müller began the essay on the treatise with a Laconian aphorism from Xenophon: “Sparta would have lived no worse if he had died” (and not survived, unfortunately for all readers).

Russian philosopher A.F. Losev

His stories and conversations were based on the development of three main themes (political, drinking and philosophical). Table conversations proceeded in such a way that serious topics were interspersed with jokes. Favorite topics of conversation are about rulers, the nature of democracy, and laws. For example, Solon stated in a conversation: “I believe that the king or tyrant will gain the most glory when he turns autocracy over citizens into democracy.” Anacharsis added: "And not one among all will be reasonable." Thales named the best state one in which there are neither poor citizens nor immeasurably rich, and Chilo is where they listen to laws more than orators. The change of topics was usually accompanied by a change of dishes, wines and interlocutors.

Dionysus and the spirit of wine

Conversations ended, as a rule, with a “female theme” (speech about their valor, virtues and vices). One of his stories is devoted to the ability to combine conversations and drinks: “Those who deprive the feast of philosophy ... act worse than those who extinguish the light. After all, well-bred and wise people will not become worse if the lamp is taken away: their mutual respect does not depend on whether they see each other. If rudeness and ignorance join the action of wine, then the golden lamp of Athena itself will not make such a symposia decent and joyful. After all, having gathered together, getting drunk and eating in silence would liken people to animals, and this is impossible ... Philosophers, condemning intoxication, call it drunken vanity; and vain talk means nothing more than empty talk. But empty chatter, exceeding a certain measure, turns into impudence, the most ugly and disgusting completion of drunken excess.

Greek Symposium

And although in the field of managing public life his achievements were not as noticeable as the "Biographies", which have become, perhaps, the most popular source of historical knowledge among lovers of antiquity, we still dare to give you advice: let the one in whom indestructible love awakened begin with Plutarch to history. In it he will find a rare combination of wisdom, harmony and knowledge. In the cup of his marvelous talent, the contents of the famous Apuleian cups seem to be merged. The fame of this outstanding historian of Greece will only grow stronger over the years ... Critic V. Belinsky, in a letter to V. Botkin dated June 28, 1840, speaking of his amazing impressions of Plutarch's Comparative Biographies, without hiding his admiration, exclaimed: “The book brought me together out of my mind... Some kind of wild, frenzied, fanatical love for the freedom and independence of the human person developed in me... Through Plutarch I understood a lot that I didn't understand. On the soil of Greece and Rome, the newest humanity has grown up. I hope that you, having entered the world of Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Plutarch, Livy and Polybius, will understand the whole pathos of these words of Belinsky: in some way they contain a reproach to the bloodless and cold, like reptiles, learned scholastics who claim the attention of a wide readership. . Reading Plutarch's lectures and conversations, listening to his stories, you remember the hero of the novel "War and Peace" by Nikolai Bolkonsky, who is carried away in his dreams to that glorious time in order to at least mentally be close to "Plutarch's people."

The story about the great Greek historian Xenophon (445-355 BC) will be brief, because information about him is scarce: he belonged to the aristocratic elite of the Athenian policy, received an excellent education, good military education. In his younger years he listened to the lectures of Socrates and served in the cavalry. His time is the time of a fierce struggle between the camps of democracy and the oligarchy. internal struggle in policies was against the backdrop of escalating relations between the most important centers of Greece and Persia. The two main warmongers were the then hegemons of the Greek community - Athens and Sparta. Two military-economic blocs formed around them - the Athenian Arche, led by Athens, and the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta. The result of these contradictions was the Peloponnesian War - "the first world war of antiquity" (431-404 BC). This war not only became disastrous for the Greeks themselves, but also involved Persia and Carthage in the conflict.

The main thing that that war showed was the complete failure of small polis states and, in general, a democratic system in conditions of serious military threat(with a large-scale military conflict). Chatting, living for pleasure, indulging in excesses in a democracy, of course, is more pleasant and much more fun (although it depends on who) than living within the strict framework of Spartan philosophy. Different upbringing and culture, and consequently also landmarks (there is little written about this), will further aggravate the differences, aggravate the misunderstanding of the parties. As noted, that war will call into question the solidity of such unshakable foundations of polis life as autarchy and autonomy, and even economic and political independence. As a comparison, again, take the history of a number of countries in the Caucasus, Eastern Europe or the Baltic states after the collapse of the USSR. Their chatter about complete independence can only mislead the ignoramus and the layman, who is completely unaware of world history and the laws of politics. Having left Russia's sphere of influence, all of them will inevitably sooner or later have to fall (have already fallen!) into the grip of a new host partner - the United States.

Warrior in full armor

The Greeks also could not stay away from conflicts and clashes of powers. Here is Xenophon in 401 BC. had to volunteer. He enlisted in the mercenary army of Cyrus the Younger, actively participated in the campaign against Artaxerxes, and even led a 13,000-strong Greek detachment on his way back to his homeland. So the Athenian found himself in the camp of Sparta, hostile to Athens. A great historian was born in his studies and camping days ... He dedicated the book "Memoirs of Socrates" to his teacher. He described the campaign in "Anabasis" (lit. "ascent", a hike from the sea up, that is, inland). It shows how the Greeks, leaving Sardis, moved along the borders of Syria to the Euphrates and reached almost as far as Babylon. Xenophon acknowledges that the Greeks willingly agreed to take part in Cyrus' campaign.

Greek and Persian Warriors

He has a description of the scene, from which the motives for the participation of a detachment of Greeks in the military adventure of Cyrus are completely clear and understandable. One of the commanders, Clearchus, frankly tells the soldiers, yes, I was expelled from my homeland, it’s true, I received ten thousand dariks from Cyrus, “I took the money, but I didn’t hide it for myself and didn’t squander it, but I spent it all on you.” Further, he says that “first he fought with the Thracians”, together with his soldiers “avenged Greece”, and then, “at the call of Cyrus, I took you and came to help him in case of need for all the good that he is for me did". What kind of "good" did Cyrus do for him? The point is understandable - he paid him, the soldiers decent money. That's all ... None of the Greeks have any doubts about this, everyone understands perfectly well what Clearchus is talking about when they tried to rebel and not go into the heat of battle: “Warriors! One thing is clear to everyone: as we are to Cyrus, so is Cyrus to us. And since we do not follow him, then neither we are his warriors, nor he is our payer. What ended the cheese-boron? What did the “freedom-loving Greeks”, “democrats” (or whatever you call them) decide? They argued and made a decision that is common for hired killers and prostitutes-politicians, whether it be Ancient Greece, modern Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine or Russia - let him pay “one and a half times more than they received: instead of a darik three half-dariks a month for each warrior. The mercenaries made it clear: no matter where and against whom Xerxes leads them, as long as he pays well. This is how all hired whores acted and act.

Being a part of the Greek world, Xenophon carried in himself, so to speak, its atoms. It is no coincidence that he became friends with the Boeotian Proxenus, who went to Cyrus the Younger, hoping in the service of the Persian "to become famous, to receive big influence and get rich." In addition, in Athens, the field of vigorous activity was closed to him. Significant are the words with which Xenophon was tempted by his friend Proxenus to take part in the adventure of Cyrus. He promised that in the event of the arrival of Xenophon, he would “promote his friendship with Cyrus, and the latter, according to Proxenus, is dearer to him than his homeland.” It is known that Xenophon agreed and took part in the campaign. But something else is also known (which should not be forgotten by the current satellites of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Moldavia, Ukraine, the satellites of the “new Cyrus”): when Cyrus was killed in battle (by the way, at the walls of Babylon), a number of mercenary strategists were captured and executed by the Persians themselves. True, Xenophon, who proved himself to be a talented organizer and commander, nevertheless withdrew the remnants of the troops from Mesopotamia (half of the 13,000th army). By the way, he twice persuaded the Greeks to stay in Pontus and found a new state there, and not to return to their homeland, because no one was waiting for them there. But these mercenary warriors were not at all attracted by the prospect of being on the ground as hard workers colonists. It was then that Xenophon entered the service of the Thracian king Sevf (400/399 BC).

D. Muslim Historians and Geographers As for the Muslim evidence for the existence of a route from the Baltic to the Black Sea through the north-west of Rus', they are completely