Greek and Roman Historiography

 

As I read the preliminary comments of the Greek and Roman Historians, I felt I was able to relate to them as well as the challenges and frustrations they faced. In the 'Histories,' Tacitus laments "that the truth of history was impaired in many ways." Among other factors, he ascribes this loss as partly due to the struggle of the free and the oppressed, the high and the low of society not recognizing or caring that their conflict would obscure a more transparent understanding and record of history. A record and understanding that if rendered more clearly would have proved invaluable to their respective and curious descendants. You can just picture Tacitus after hours of poring over very old accounts of history (not nearly as concise and coherent as he might have wished) slumped slightly forward in his Roman chair (perhaps a Savonarola x shaped Curule chair)  and looking wearily out of a window.  Tacitus looks to the left and then to the right and sighs. He shakes his head slightly and rolls his eyes. You can almost feel his disgust and chagrin.  His motivation seems to be in providing as broad and comprehensive a history of the time he writes on while at the same time highlighting specific instances of particular changes and the persons who were often the catalyst of those changes.    With Livy, you can sense his reluctant perseverance. His motivation of relating the past was to be a part of the harmony of past recounting of the history he was relating. What would have been his challenge in an attempt at a faithful account of the history in question? What would have impeded a wholistic rendering of historiography in the history he related? One challenge he admits is that the history in question goes back seven hundred years. In the beginning of the record and as you read further on, there is a sort of transition, as the record continues from not so precise in the certainty of some assertions to a more pronounced certainty and at the middle towards the end, a definite assurance as to the validity of the record that is being delineated. A scarcity of available sources from history from way back is a definite hinderance to wholesome and coherent historiography.  In the account by Thucydides, he asserts that certain reputed events of the past "could not from lapse of time be clearly ascertained." And as he proceeds to give a brief description of the country known afterwards as Hellas, he describes tribes trading spaces in a very unorganized manner, among other things.  One motivation of his seems to be an effort to spotlight just how massively monumental the Peloponnesian wars were for anyone either from his time or another to comprehend. If you read between the lines, there does not seem to be any hesitation on his part regarding his passion for this great event in the past. 

To be completely honest, I have an a priori commitment to a specific world view.  And my observation thus far in life is that my life experience has confirmed to me the validity of that world view. Having said that, I have an open mind, not in that I am going to change it, but that I have an active interest in other people's world views whether it is a priori or not, and I would never shun or disparage, discriminate, or be condescending or patronizing in my treatment of other people because of their world view. I don't like being ignorant if I can help it, and it is always better to courteously ask other people about their worldview rather than to rely on assumptions. Regardless of what they believe, I will treat other people as I want to be treated, with every kindness and consideration. I could not be true to my world view otherwise and I understand that such an approach is not always going to be reciprocated. But making the effort is the important thing to me. Actions speak louder than words so they say, and I prefer it that way. 

I remember reading a caution somewhere in this module against novel historical projects or approaches, and that makes a lot of sense. My purposes for writing and history is on the one hand, novel, but on the other hand, not unaccompanied by many observations as to their connections to other events in history. In a sense, I am like a spider, only I don't eat flies and I don't intend of trapping anyone. I just love big picture! Connecting one historical event with another in a vast and interesting web of history can be a fun voyage of discovery! One interesting example is that King Monguk of what was known as Siam corresponding with Abraham Lincoln on the subject of elephants. Interesting say I! It is sort of like some people and movies. "Oh! That guy is also in this other movie! Hey! That woman is so and so on such and such a movie!" And, historiography has informed me a lot, in a positive way as to how I can write more effectively and coherently, especially as an aspiring historian.  My challenge is to maintain an interest in what might be considered "novel" history and also to be able to support my historical theories with details that are connected to other established historical facts. It is a fun and sort of challenging pursuit and my caution to myself is not to jump to conclusions, but to base, as much as possible,  my conclusions in historical facts.