My working definition of history, or at least the intention of historical recording, is the capturing of relative truths. The record should encompass such truths by presenting an objective account of the transpiration.
By that 21st understanding and standard it is somewhat hard to qualify Herodotus as a historian, but I don't feel that that is necessarily a fair standard- nor does it rule out his potential to play the role of the father of history. While Aristotle, by modern standards, strikes me as an inarguably huge figure in his contributions to how we scientifically and logically approach and observe the world we live in, he would be considered a pretty damn lousy scientist by contemporary standards. Just as Aristotle may be criticized for certain assumptions he made, and not relying on experimentation, modern scientific method etc. it is easy to criticize Herodotus for some of his embellishments and fantastic stories. Though his personal work may not be in itself a worthwhile history in the modern sense, the fact that he aimed to provide an explanation of the background of a culture's chronology, outside ethnology, military involvement, etc. certainly shows that what he was doing provides an important base and formula for continuing historical practice. "Public life implies public memory, and it was that field that Herodotus began to explore" (19). I'm very fond of this idea of public memory, and while many revisions and alterations in the methods of recording have been made, it is still this area that historians wish to reach.
In response to Patrick I think I have a similar confusion about the nature and definition of what history, (whether its the events or the subsequent recording.) I think the distinction is fuzzy because (at least in my understanding the two would be the same. The cumulative human-recorded and understood history of ourselves, the world, universe, etc. would encompass all that actually occurred. I guess gaining the impossible omniscience Mijia mentioned. That's why I don't feel comfortable with any definition that doesn't articulate that it is only striving to accomplish something- and can't accomplish that task in total. I suppose my question is if this is an impossible ideal, what achievable intention does history have?
I would say that Herodotus is the father of history (as a discipline), and Thucydides the father of researching methods of history. Herodotus drew information from various resources such as oral recounting and inscriptions around different places. (So did Thu.) I don't know if it's correct, but comparing to Thucydides, H seemed to get in touch with a wider range of information instead of analyzing the evidence in depth (as opposed to what Thu did.)
Although H included fabrications in his books, I feel what he did is closer to my understanding of history. History, as a discipline, is mainly the study of human activities in the past through examining and evaluating records of the past, which can be objective or subjective. For example, people who were involved in the same war are likely to agree on the starting date of the war, and there's usually an objective record of that time. But looking at the ruins or used weapons from the war can't tell us much about how humans played roles in it. In order to make history rich and meaningful, historians must talk to people or to look for written or other forms of evidence made by the people who either participated or were affected by that war. And that's where subjectivity comes into place. People experience differently event they are at the same place going through the same event, so even the primary sources are already somehow biased (because it's based on individuals' perspectives). An important job of historians is to make connections.
In response to Patrick, "Is history something you record or something you make? Is a historic event history in itself or is the record of that event history?"
I think history is something that people make. By simply recording what happen in our lives, we are not intentionally drawing big pictures of events. History becomes history largely because of the connections being made. One could be connecting sources that are gathered from different people/places, connecting several seemingly separate event, and connecting the past to present.
I think it's reasonable for H to add storytellings in his supposedly history books because surveying what happened across a large geographical area and wide span of time is an extremely demanding job. It's hard to imagine someone could do this on his own, and I don't believe anyone could ever. Adding his "alternative versions" of event might seem ridiculous from our eyes, but it served the purpose of replacing the stories he didn't believe and contributed to the connections to other stories.
My definition of history still stands as it was today (study of past events), though it has expanded. Now, I don't think history NEEDS to be factual. As long as someone accepts it as fact
For instance, someone who believes the Exodus from Egypt truly occurred would label the event as historical fact. It's true even if only for that one person
Another more relatable example would be when historians get it wrong. When a historian makes an new discovery and is able to prove something as historical fact, the public accepts it as history. As of now, Columbus discovering America is history. Does that cease to be history if it should ever be disproven? How many people need to convinced it is false before it ceases to be history? (I do however think that excepting this definition could be kind of dangerous)
And with that newly expanded definition, I believe that Herodotus is the father of history.
Herodotus was a pioneer. He was the first to really attempt to create an enormous, comprehensive history.
Sure he was imperfect, But I'd like to argue with Sam H. that even though Herodotus's work may not be the most reliable, he opened the door to a new way of recording history. Herodotus influenced many historians after him. And through Herodotus eye's, his Histories were very serious, though we later found many issues in them.
As an answer to Ben's question: Thucydides integrity reminds the reader to not blindly agree with everything they read, as it may not be 100% accurate ... It's a little worrying in some ways as well as there is a greater chance of the speakers words being misunderstood.
The fact that Herodotus influenced so many historians further supports my claim.
My question is whether mythology has any place in our histories...
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
