CLAR1014

Interpreting Ancient History

1. Introduction
 Overview

a. Module Information
b. What is (Ancient) History?
c. The First Historians
d. Optimism vs. Pessimism
e. [Extras]
a. Module Information
READ THE MODULE BOOKLET!
• Module Aims
• Lecture & Seminar Schedule
• General/Background Reading
• Assessments Information
• inc. essay questions
Dr Philip Davies
Humanities B09

Office Hours:
Tuesday 10-11
Friday 11-12
 Sessions

1. Module Introduction Lecture:

2-4. Unit 1: • Thursday 9am
• LSS B63
Political Developments in
Archaic Athens
• Variable length (1h/2h)
5-7 Unit 2:
Seminars
Conflict and Diplomacy in • Weeks 4, 6, 8, 10
the Classical Greek World • Groups assigned by timetabling
8-10 Unit 3:
Alexander the Great & the
Creation of the Hellenistic
World
b. What is (Ancient) History?
 Narration
vs.
Analysis
N.B. Critical Engagement
c. The First Historians
 Herodotus
(c. 485 – 425 BC)

The Persian Wars

490-478
I cannot say for certain how it was that [Scyllias the
diver] managed to reach the Greeks [from the Persian
fleet], and the commonly accepted account is, at the
least, doubtful; for, according to this, he dived under
water at Aphetae and did not come up until he
reached Artemisium – a distance of ten miles. There
are other somewhat tall stories, besides this, told
about Scyllias – and also a few true ones; as to the
one I have just related, my personal opinion is that he
came to Artemisium in a boat.
Hdt. 8.9
For my own part I cannot positively state that
Xerxes either did, or did not, send the
messenger to Argos; nor can I guarantee the
story of the Argives going to Susa and asking
Artaxerxes about their relationship with Persia.
I express no opinion on this matter other than
that of the Argives themselves…My business is
to record what people say, but I am by no
means bound to believe it – and that may be
taken to apply to this book as a whole.
Hdt. 7.152
 Herodotus: Father of History?
• An interest in the recent past
• An interest in historical causation
• Engagement in critical evaluation of sources

• Accepts the fantastical and false (cf. Hdt. 2.71)

• Does not limit himself to ‘historical’ subjects
• Provides an only very broadly chronological narrative
 Thucydides
(c. 460 – 400 BC)

Peloponnesian War
431-404 BC
(Athens vs. Sparta)
And with regard to my factual reporting of the events of the
war, I have made it a principle not to write down the first
story that came my way, and not even to be guided by my
own general impressions; either I was present myself at the
events which I have described or else I heard of them from
eye-witnesses whose reports I have checked with as much
thoroughness as possible. Not that even so the truth was
easy to discover: different eye-witnesses give different
accounts of the same events, speaking out of partiality for
one side or the other or else from imperfect memories. And
it may well be that my history will seem less easy to read
because of the absence in it of a romantic element…My
work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of
an immediate public, but was done to last for ever.
Thuc. 1.22
 Thucydides: Father of History?

• Is far more sceptical of the religious and supernatural

• Presents a much more focussed, continuous narrative
• Restricts himself to war and politics
• Is more rigorous in his source criticism(?)
d. Optimism vs. Pessimism
Scientific Positivism
 Leopold
von Ranke
(1795-1886)

“to show how it

really was”

“wie es eigentlich
gewesen ist”
Postmodernism?
Ronald Syme (1903-1989)

The Roman
Revolution
(1939)
Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), pp. viii-viii, 509

It is surely time for some reaction from the ‘traditional’ and

conventional view of the period. Much that has recently been written
about Augustus is simply panegyric, whether ingenuous or edifying.
Yet it is not necessary to praise political success or to idealize the men
who win wealth and honours through civil war…
 
When a party has triumphed in violence and seized control of the
State, it would be plain folly to regard the new government as a
collection of amiable and virtuous characters. Revolution demands
and produces sterner qualities. About the chief persons in the
government of the New State, namely the Princeps himself and his
allies, Agrippa, Maecenas and Livia, history and scandal have
preserved sufficient testimony to unmask the realities of their rule.
The halo of their resplendent fortune may dazzle, but it cannot blind
the critical eye…
 NEXT WEEK

Overview of Unit Structure

Political Developments in Archaic Athens
e. Extras
 Further Reading
Cartledge, P. (2002) The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others, 2nd ed.
(Oxford), chap. 2 (‘Inventing the past: History v. Myth’)
Duff, T.E. (2003) The Greek and Roman Historians (Bristol), chaps 2-3
(introductory overviews of Herodotus and Thucydides)
*Erskine, A. (ed.) (2009) A Companion to Ancient History (Oxford), esp.
chap. 9 (J.A. North: ‘Ancient History Today’)
Finley, M.I. (1985) Ancient History: Evidence and Models (London)
Momigliano, A. (1984) ‘History and Biography’ in M.I. Finley (ed.), The
Legacy of Greece (Oxford), 155-84
Morley, N. (1999) Writing Ancient History (London)
*Morley, N. (2002) Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches (London)
Pitcher, L. (2009) Writing Ancient History (London)
Thucydides vs. Herodotus
This is the inquiry (historia) of Herodotus of Halicarnassus,
which he makes public so that the deeds of men are not
forgotten in time and so that the great and wonderful deeds
of the Hellenes and of the barbarians may not lose their
glory (kleos); and more particularly, to show how they came
into conflict. (Hdt. 1.1)

Thucydides the Athenian wrote the history of the war

fought between Athens and Sparta, beginning the account
at the very outbreak of the war, in the belief that it was
going to be a great war and more worth writing about than
any of those which had taken place in the past… (Thuc. 1.1)
In investigating past history, and in forming the conclusions
which I have formed, it must be admitted that one cannot
rely on every detail which has come down to us by way of
tradition. People are inclined to accept all stories of ancient
times in an uncritical way…[including the Athenians]…The
rest of the Hellenes, too, make many incorrect assumptions
not only about the dimly remembered past, but also about
contemporary history. For instance, there is a general belief
that the kings of Sparta are each entitled to two votes,
whereas in fact they have only one; and it is believed, too,
that the Spartans have a company of troops called ‘Pitanate’.
Such a company has never existed. Most people, in fact, will
not take trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more
inclined to accept the first story they hear.
Thuc. 1.20
[The kings] sit with the 28 Elders in the council
chamber, and, in the event of their absence from
a meeting, those of the Elders who are nearest of
king to them take over their privilege and cast
two votes, in addition to their own.
Hdt. 6.57

Pausanias’ officers were ready to obey the order,

with one exception – Amompharetus, the son of
Poliades and commander of the Pitana regiment.
Hdt. 9.53