Herodotus - the Father of History

Two Stories to Tell

Herodotus has been called the Ð''The Father of History,' for being the first person to make historical observations without paying too great of an honour to divine influence. Roughly, twenty-five years later, Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War continued Herodotus' history, taking up from the moment Histories ends. Book One covers the fifty years between the end of Histories and the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, explaining the rise of Athens and her empire, as a direct result of the league which had formed to fight the Persians. Thus the histories of Herodotus form the basis for the histories of Thucydides. Having beaten the Persians, Athens flourished, and created new enemies within her new borders. States who had solely joined with Athens to wage war against Persia now found them subjugated by Athens instead. Ð''We did not become allies of the Athenians to enslave the Greeks but allies of the Greeks to free them from the Persians' the Mitylene envoy tells Sparta. Thucydides does not rewrite the history of what Herodotus had covered; thus, it could be assumed that he felt Herodotus had done justice to previous events, and it did not need to be altered. Indeed, it could be viewed that Thucydides was using Herodotus as an introduction to his own work. In contrast to this, Thucydides makes comments that seem to be direct criticisms of Herodotus' methods, and seeks to rectify them. This is not an Ð''either/or' question; Thucydides both continues and reacts to Histories, he is seeking to further Herodotus' work, and to improve upon it at the same time. Whilst having a great admiration for the Ð''Father of History', he also saw his mistakes and failings. It is this strive for perfection that led Macaulay to write Ð''he is the great historian. The others one may hope to match; him, neverÐ'...' .

The difference in style between the two historians is significant. Whilst Herodotus is fond of digression, Thucydides never deviates from the subject. The Peloponnesian War is much more structured and definitive; from the construction of arguments, the use of opposing speeches, and the self-confidence Thucydides emits throughout, it is a more convincing history. Herodotus, through his faults, has helped to shape the book. One example is Herodotus' use of the gods as historical causation; although Histories is admirable in that it lessens the influence of the gods compared to the general views of Greek society, The Peloponnesian War allows them almost no relevance at all. Oracles and dreams, such a major part of Histories, are hardly mentioned. Ð''Gods and women are conspicuous by their absence' , and when the gods do appear in the form of oracles or omens, Thucydides is sceptical of their importance. When Athens was hit by plague, an old oracle linking the Dorians to a Ð''death' was remembered; before, the people could not remember whether the oracle had said Ð''death' or Ð''dearth'. Ð''Certainly I think that if there is ever another war with the Dorians after this one, and if a dearth results from it, then in all probability people will quote the other version.' Another difference is subject matter. Herodotus chose few boundaries in his Ð''enquiry'; he researched widely ranging topics in areas beyond learning at times before living memory, and could hardly avoid mistakes. Thucydides wrote of his own world in his own time, and of a subject he was especially familiar. He could also offer expert opinion from both sides of the war, having been exiled. The entire method of historical causation is another difference between the two historians. Whilst Herodotus puts in numerous possible reasons for an event, and usually refrains from offering his own opinions, Thucydides claims that he has seen the different suggestions for causation, edited them, and given the reader the most viable. Therefore, although Thucydides implies his research is a more exact science, and the reader is inclined to believe him, he offers no grounds for argument; he neither names his sources nor reveals conflicting views to his own. Thus, however annoying for modern historians, he lessens the likelihood of reproach; he had seen Herodotus criticised and did not want his own work to suffer the same treatment.

These are both reactions to and continuations of Herodotus. The omission of the divine is a continuation; Herodotus was the first to lessen their significance, and Thucydides developed this. The enquiry into causation is also a continuation; by offering numerous reasons for an event, Herodotus influenced Thucydides into attempting to study every possible cause systematically. What Herodotus Ð''invents', Thucydides Ð''perfects'. There are even lines of great similarity between the two, for example the idea of hubris, of becoming too powerful or too successful. Herodotean causation is very fond of this as explanation; often a man's undoing is his greed and arrogance, for example the fall of Croesus. Thucydides also: Ð''[he] agreed with PericlesÐ'...and the deepest Greek instinct Ð'- a feeling for sanity and moderation, a hatred of Ð''the falsehood of extremes'Ð'...in which the Greeks saw the chief cause of ruin to men and states' . It is a matter of viewpoint; if the development of history is considered, then Thucydides is continuing what Herodotus started. However, the specific reasons for Thucydides' style and method are generally Ð''reactions' to the faults of Histories. Ð''Thucydides deliberately