I would have to say that I consider Herodotus to be the father of history for several reasons.
First of all---nobody said you had to LIKE your father. Herodotus in his publication of the Histories gives the Western world their "First narrative history," p.156
Thucydides works came after. Granted, the chronology of the events is not enough to prove my point. I also accredit Herodotus as the "Father of history" because Herodotus inspired Thucydides to make his work. Granted, this inspiration was not so much positive as he (Thucydides) "Claims to have followed higher standards of research and accuracy (than Herodotus)" .
In this acknowledgment, it is impossible to believe Thucydides came to write in an unprecedented style that could not be categorized as either prose, poetry or philosophy in order to detail past and contemporary events. So while Herodotus' accounts may been riddled with flaws, its widespread acknowledgment, readership, and impact on Thucydides grants him the title of "the original"...the "father of history." By spurring Thucydides writings (which subsequently encouraged endless generations of historical recordings) Herodotus performed every fathers' task of perpetuating--something. In this case, written accounts of history.
However, something that is no directly related to either posted questions but that sincerely bothered me is this very early (the EARLIEST) idea that in order for history writing to be good, it must be dry.
Thucydides indirectly calls Herodotus out when he states, "...The chroniclers have composed [their writings] with a view rather of pleasing the ear than of telling the truth...This approach, Thucydides argues, may make his work 'less pleasing' but more likely to endure in the long run."
Yet I think ANOTHER reason Herodotus is the father of history versus some other individual who probably accounted for events far before Herodotus was published WAS the literary, READABILITY aspect of his "Histories." If he had never cultivated an audience for the newly created "historical writing," no one would have probably thought to touch Thucydides dry, albeit accurate accounts. History can be accurate and written beautifully. I think, at least.
I have a lot more to say but this post has gone on long enough---I'd rather hear what others have to say. (Sorry)
In my opinion, Herodotus is the father of western, modern day history. In the preface of Histories Herodotus wrote:
"... to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements of both our own and of other peoples; more particularly, to show how they came into conflict." (pg 157)
This seems very close to my current definition and understanding of what history is. Herodotus really focused on the why apposed to just the what, which is a very important aspect of history.
Also, Herodotus was one of the first to overlook the gods and supernatural forces in his writing.
This is coming from somebody who lives in 21st century America. As history evolves, so will the definition and so called “father.” I don't think there is just one "father of history," and it really depends on what definition you base your opinion off of.
On another note, I would really like to know more about is about your thoughts on the patterns Herodotus saw in growth and decline, especially the second one about soft cultures and hard culture. Do you think they’re still relevant?
Herodotus, I believe, should be considered the father of history, if in an unrefined state. While I'd argue he did not actively study history, he did document it as it happened "in order to preserve the essential facts and causes of recent events” (P. 157).
It frustrates me, however, that we've yet to address how we define history. This might be due to the large amount of non-human history I deal with, but I really think that we need to find some sort of separation between documenting events, as Herodotus did, and the actual scrutiny of those same events.
Thanks for bringing that up Travis, I was thinking the same thing.
I ran into this today in class when we were defining “science” but, I think there is an important distinction between history as a method of retelling stories and modern history. Modern history is the documentation of past events…essentially a timeline. Good history is presented with as many sides as possible; although winners write the history books, you cannot be a true historian if you understand one side to the story. We rely on our historical documents to be as factual as possible, so in that way I think Thucydides is the father of history. I would agree that without Herodotus, Thucydides might not have developed the style that he did, but Thucydides influenced the way we approach history and is vital to the way we document history today. On some level I think that Herodotus started to build the bridge between literature and history but Thucydides crossed it.
I also really Emily’s question about hard/soft cultures. We do similar things in our world today but we assign them different names. We live in a first world country and we assign underdeveloped countries as third world countries. This question seems a little irrelevant from our reading…but what is the point of assigning different cultures to these categories? I met a man this summer who hates the idea of western/eastern cultures, why do we create those barriers? Was is historians who created them? Or just wrote abou them?
Emily brings up an interesting point about the relevance of what Herodotus had to say. I don’t think that his concept of “hard” and “soft” theories are currently relevant (as the international atmosphere of the 21st century is drastically different from that of the world in BCE), but they are certainly relevant to understanding past occurences and actions.
What I find interesting about both Herodotus and Thucydides is that it doesn’t matter so much the relevance of what they said, but how they approached the topics at hand. The former deals with the underlying themes, the latter with complete accuracy. I agree that Herodotus is the father of history, for all the reasons that others have stated, and also for the fact that he acknowledged his own fallibility, in the sense that he acknowledged the fallibility in his stylization and his sources. In some ways, this is his saving grace. As is stated in the text…
“The twentienth century saw a growth in respect among scholars for Herodotus’s attempts to get at the cause of the events, his acknowledgement of fallibility, and his skill of drawing readers into the text. (p. 162).”
I wonder, then, if Herodotus was able to take his understanding of Histories’s inaccuracies to a new level. Do you think Herotodus was ever aware of how his own perspective of things changed the way he wrote about history? Do you think Herodotus was truly able to “capture” the spirit of his time, or did his own opinions get in the way? I think it’s important to keep in mind what Herodotus chose to write about.
To address Fred’s question of how we define history, I think we need to limit ourselves to human history alone. I think to wander into natural history would be swimming out into dangerous waters, although I do think the topic is interesting in how easily it fits into science and history. But that’s for another time. What I find curious is whether or not the definition of history changes as history progresses forward. Thoughts?
In response to ziz's question, I feel that Herodotus's classification of hard and soft cultures left a lot more breathing room in terms of interpretation than such categories as third and first world countries. I think here he was trying to offer two theories as to how humanity works in terms of identity,
"'Hard' cultures are... fiercely independent" whereas "soft cultures are open to conquest by outsiders... all Persians [prior to the empire's rise in power] look to Xerxes to maintain their safety and lavish lifestyles."(159) These two ideas as the analysis described them do not stagnate a people's or culture as Herodotus, using the example of Persia, showed that empires move fluidly between the two states. So empires and peoples do not exist a hard cultured or soft cultured as third and first world labels do, but constantly change in this system. Thus it seems that Herodotus established this reasoning as a qualitative way to classify and examine history whereas the modern notion of third and first world or west and eastern cultures lends itself more to connotations of subjectivity on the part of the classifier, Herodotus therefore maintains a sense of objectivity. This objectivity shows up throughout his writing.
I think in our search of a definition or understanding of History, we need to establish what we're looking at. I found Herodotus's embellished, oracularly influenced stories and accounts of history may not offer a completely accurate depiction of the Ancient world, but still serves its purpose to enlighten the reader about the times. Furthermore, given Herodotus’ attempts at objectivity throughout his writings, whether using the phrase “according to” or using voice to provide an account of certain events, I feel that Herodotus truly embodies what it means to be a historian. He understood perspective and how to examine cultures through different lenses and his writings remain timeless in that they give the reader, even the modern reader, an accurate depiction of the ancient world’s beliefs, customs and dialogue, perhaps embellished, perhaps resting in the supernatural, but in no way discrediting the time in which these people lived by way of fallacies.
I would like to go back to what Ziz said about Herodotus building the bridge and Thucydides crossing it. For me, an integral part of history (albeit modern history) is that it provides a directive for the future actions of civilizations. That is, Thucydides's history shows us patterns of growth and decline that are instructive in the context of current social problems. Pg. 29 Like many of his successors, Thucydides was more prescriptive than descriptive; hence the attraction of his work to readers who demand relevance and some immediately intelligible reasons for historical change and who prefer a man of action. This quote, in my opinion, displays the difference between Herodotus's and Thucydides's definitions of history. Herodotus perceives history as a glorious retelling of past events, which wraps occurrences together seamlessly. In a sense, this definition is a more artistic definition of history, because the finished product has creative nuances designed by an individual. Thucydides, on the other hand, felt that history was a quest for truth, and that stylistic embellishments would surely detract from the overall poignancy and accuracy of that truth as he presented it. I want to answer a couple of questions posed by Ziz and Jen, respectively. Ziz: I think that historians contributed to the creation of eastern/western barriers in the sense that their writings and stories spread and promoted the social constructs that form east/west ideology. Jen: I think that the definition of history is always changing, because ideas about civilizations, group dynamics, social systems of power, and human nature are always changing. Because of their different subjects, I define history as investigating human nature through civilizations, and science as investigating the nature of matter through logic and observation. My questions are:
What is the purpose of history? What does history teach us? How is history dependent on not only the writer, but the reader?
Everyone has said really insightful things, I wish I could adress them all! But i'll start with the "Father of History" question.
I think that both Thucydides and Herodotus have strengths and weaknesses, but I’m going to say Thucydides for the title of “Father of History”. I’m defining the title, though, not as the best historian but as the one who has had the most influence on modern history. I think, from what we read, Herodotus had some pretty profound insights on the patterns of history (hard and soft cultures, digressions, etc.) However, I think his influence was bogged down by his alleged “unreliable” information. “…he has been accused of deliberate falsehood, inconsistency, errors of fact and judgment…” We will never really be able to know how to true or untrue the reputation he had was, but we do know how it affected his readers. People did not take his work seriously, but saw it as more of a literary narrative with varying biased perspectives on a general event. Also, his style was very poetic, which is not how history is traditionally written today.
Thucydides had a very different approach to history that was focused on truth. His style was precise and to the point; “Thucydides displays the same rigor and respect for truth as modern-day historians”. I think his perseverance at the truth led him to have the largest impact on historians that came after him. As it was revealed later in the reading, he may have been dishonest or “bent” the truth on some of the speeches. However, I still think that his determination toward the truth gives him the title of “Father of History”, because modern history is based around focus and truth, not around varying perspectives and description. However, if I had too choose between these two authors, I would choose Herodotus. For you guys: Was your choice for “Father or History” the same as the historian you would most want to hear from? What do you think being the “Father of History” entails? Also, Do you guys think Herodotus’ label as unreliable says more about his writing or about the culture at the time?
On a different note, I wanted to address the talk about hard and soft cultures, which like other people I found incredibly interesting. Do you think America is a hard or soft culture? I was thinking about this a lot, and I couldn’t decide because we obviously have a central government but at the same time it doesn’t seem like as a country we would be easy to take over.
On a somewhat different note ( and I am sorry for the divergence )
Are we defining history and science based on these early minds, or are we trying to look at these firsts and identify what they are doing in our terminologies.
If we are defining our ideas of history and science on Aristotle, Herodotus, and Thucydides, can we debate about if they did science and history?
On the other hand, if we are using a separate definition of what history and science is, where are we getting that from? We have discussed it in class and gotten definitions, but are we ready to debate fine points about the two when it is still vague?
Maybe it is just my own ideas which are not fully developed, or maybe I have just been too willing to adjust them and have gotten lost. Nevertheless, it seems like our ideas of history and science are too vaporous to use as we have been.
I know that zealous use of a vague idea can forge it into a solid understanding and that this class is about discussing ideas and topics when we do not have a starting point.
On that note, I leave you with a quote from page 29
"[Thucydides is] in the category of history as science"
I agree a lot with what Travis said. I don’t know who the father of history is or even what history is; my understanding has gotten a little bit too shaky.
Herodotus says that he wrote Historie: "... to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements of both our own and of other peoples; more particularly, to show how they came into conflict." (pg 157)
Is history just about not forgetting?
I think a parallel we could draw that’s possibly but maybe not indicative of what history is, is that both Herodotus and Thucydides address pivotal, NEW, things in history. Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War saying nothing like it had ever happened before, never before had so much blood been shed, etc. It’s possible that history is really about documenting and not forgetting turning points in the story of the world.
Travis: Thucydides is in the category of history as science due to, “ the sophistication with which he analyzes power… and from the way he distinguishes between immediate and underlying causes.” –pg. 29
According to page 29, Science is sophisticated analysis and recognition of the difference between immediate and underlying. Not sure if I agree, but it’s one way to go.
Firstly, I think a historian’s legitimacy (or “father of history” in this case) depends on what you value in their work. Some of you appreciate Thucydides’ accuracy of events, while others prefer Herodotus’ interpretation, but often potentially bias viewpoint, of events. As someone who highly values analysis, even in the face of skewed information, I believe Herodotus proves to be a better “father of history.” Though this might be a naïve notion, I felt the embellishments in his writing were a bit impressionistic in a way that could perhaps give a better understanding of the situation. I don’t believe this to be a good quality in modern historians, but it certainly emphasizes a point when evaluating sources that are thousands of years old.
I think their unique takes on history can reflect on how scientific they were. Perhaps one could align Thucydides with a modern scientist (solid facts and method), while Herodotus portrays himself as more of a modern historian (he looks for cause and effect and possibly inaccuracy.)
In terms of how Herodotus distinguishes “hard” and “soft” cultures, I agree with Karl that it provides more leeway than labels such as first/third world countries, developing nations, industrialized countries etc. He merely uses it in a way to “examine history,” not to provoke connotations. Many of your comments are convincing me further that Herodotus was actually more objective and perceptive than critics make him out to be/ how I initially felt.
Furthermore, as a read more posts, I think we’re considering who we believe to be the “better” historian, rather than “father of history.” I feel like “father of history” constitutes a historian whose writing/perception of the world most closely resembles historians since his time, particularly influential historians.
I'd like to challenge the idea of using traditional methods to interpret history as mentioned by emily earlier. Herodotus may by today's standards contain many holes whether through bias or inexact sources, but ultimately he wrote as a reporter. Yet Thucydides seemed to make his own assertions (as well as use concrete evidence) to draw conclusions. We did not see this with Herodotus, who rather took a completely objective approach in recounting of history. In fact, as pointed out, Thucydides even conveyed his beliefs within his examinations of ancient history,
"Thucydides used invented speeches to convey his doubts about democracy. More recent writers such as Finlay, however, have pointed out that Thucydides stressed the importance of democracy when writing of Athen’s strengths.” (322)
I’d go as far as to say that Thucydides speaks from a position of assumed authority. Making unsubstantiated claims such as “But as want of money proved the weakness of earlier expeditions…” (32). Now this could very well be a logical conclusion given textual and oral evidence, but in his writings he makes little leeway for cause. Yet Herodotus approaches each question and event with a regard for perspective. His digressions (lacking in Thucydides writings) act as a supplement in providing an understanding of the past lost in Thucydides rigorous and calculated dissection of history. For this I say Herodotus is the father of history. Unlike Thucydides, he approached questions with an objective eye with inquiring tone. His writings invoke within the reader a visceral feel for the past, something I feel that holds as much weight as the exacting methods of Thucydides, who loses this idea in bold assumptions and subjective conclusions. A true father of History leaves questions for the future to apply to a grander scheme.
I’m interested in what others feel in terms of objectivity and subjectivity between the two writers (as high school as it sounds)
Last edited by Kdaum2011 on Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Oh, in response to Keaton: I think history is about not forgetting PATTERNS. On the contrary, if the facts are empty and hold no reference point, it's basically void of meaning. When this happens, the supposed "historian" pretty much becomes a stenographer.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
