Ancient historiography is ‘the study of the writing of history and of written histories’ relative to ancient civilisations, especially Greece and Rome. At the time, however, history was a completely different notion. Indeed, the Greeks traditionally understood their past through myths and legends, compiled in Homer or Ovid’s poems. It was not until the early 6th century that the pre-Socratic philosophers broke with these customs and began an inquiry (historia in Greek) into their origins. Therefore, can ancient historiography be considered a literary genre? And, if so, what would characterise it as such? A literary genre is defined in the Cambridge dictionary as ‘a style, especially in the arts, that involves a particular set of characteristics’. Ancient historiography is a genre of its own, because it possesses an entirely different set of attributes than modern historiography and at the time, it was a completely new genre, in opposition to poetry or theatre. Firstly, we will consider the origins of ancient history and how it was viewed in Antiquity and secondly, the differences with modern historiography which make ancient historiography a literary genre of its own.
To fully comprehend the writings of ancient historians, it must first be considered that ancient Greeks and Romans had a completely different understanding of their past. Until the early 6th century, legends and myths constituted the foundation of their origins and gods, heroes and monsters and the stories in which they feature were thought to be true. Therefore, as Nino Luraghi puts it: ‘early Greek historiography was born as a rationalising rewriting of myths based on the authors’ marshalling arguments of plausibility’. Indeed, the pre-Socratic philosophers, the first to questions these traditions of poems, attempted to find rational explanations to myths and shed light on their origins. Moreover, Luke Pitcher writes:
‘there is a fundamental difference between ancient history-writing, which, because of its affinities to rhetoric, is mostly concerned with putting an eloquent case for a version of the past and so tends to privilege the plausible, and modern history-writing, which is concerned with methodical investigation of sources and concerns itself only with the true’
Thus, Pitcher illustrates the fact that ancient historiography’s first aim was the pursuit of rationality and to find plausible explanations for the myths, unlike modern historiography, which places a much stronger emphasis on research and reliability. The concept of history did not exist at the time; it was an entirely different notion when the Greeks began to write about it. Nowadays, history is considered a science, through its methodical research and precise accounts; but, according to Roberto Nicolai, in ancient times, it was viewed as an inexact knowledge, in contrast to philosophy. Therefore, ancient sources cannot be entirely trustworthy, especially considering they were not researched as deeply and exactly as modern historiography.
On another hand, ancient sources cannot be used as documentation in their entirety as it was not their original purpose. In fact, it appears that they have a didactic aim in terms of politics or military in most cases. Indeed, ancient authors used history as a mean to present a lesson to be learned from the past and not repeated. Thucydides, having served as general in the Peloponnesian Wars, even analysed his recounts of the war. For instance, addressing an Athenian campaign in Sicily in Book 2, he exposes the reasons for Athens’ defeat, presenting them as ‘a miscalculation of the power’ and ‘a fault in the senders in not taking the best measures afterwards (…) but choosing rather to occupy themselves with private cabals for the leadership of the commons’. Therefore, by giving this critique, Thucydides is hopefully ensuring that these mistakes will not be reproduced in the future. He also describes his work as useful to ‘those who want to look into the truth of things that have happened and (given human nature) will happen again’, which highlights the fact that he was not writing history in the sense of epic like Homer, but rather for a purpose of memory. Moreover, another purpose of ancient sources was for memory and propaganda, which is seen in Titus Livius (Livy)’s references and descriptions of Augustus, as the emperor used the arts in general to strengthen his ideology and his public image. He hails him ‘Augustus Caesar, founder and restorer of all our temples’ and furthers the emperor’s propaganda around the battle of Actium and his role as peace-bringer by writing ‘when peace on land and sea was secured by the emperor’. Therefore, ancient authors also used history to carry political messages and memory of important events.
As Roberto Nicolai points out in ‘The Place of History in the Ancient world’, the only similarity between modern and ancient historiography is that it is a list of facts. None of the ancient authors organise these narratives in a chronological order until Herodotus and his Histories, whilst modern historiography is chronological. Moreover, modern historians always research and verify all their sources for their essays and articles, but ancient historians, not having the same amount of resources available, didn’t have much documentation for their historiography, thus decreasing their reliability. For example, Herodotus, often named as the ‘father of history’, references and analyses his sources as he details himself in his proem, but also sometimes invents or adapts facts for his narrative. It is the case for his description of Babylon’s walls, saying it is ‘a hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs’ (approximately 90 kilometres in circumference) and ‘in magnificence there is no other city that approaches to it’. However, archaeological research has proven that this is false and that Babylon was not as grand as Herodotus describes it. In fact, it is most likely that he never went to this city and that he simply pretended he had. Thus, ancient historiography is a literary genre of its own, because ancient authors considered history differently to how we do and due to its specific narrative conditions, such as the lack of chronology and of valid research.
Two main differences with modern historiography and which present ancient historiography as its own literary genre are the lack of primary sources and the often questionable extent of the texts’ values and limitations. Ancient sources are often scarce and incomplete due to the passage of time, with often only damaged fragments remaining. However, Felix Jacoby, a German classicist, brought together all remaining fragments of Ancient Greek historians in his book, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, which rapidly became a reference work amongst historians. Indeed, in some cases, despite only having fragments of the original text, we are able to decipher and deduce some areas of history. Moreover, Jacoby viewed history, and particularly ancient history, on an evolutional scale, improving its quality throughout the years. As seen previously, however, this is incorrect, because we cannot contrast the quality of ancient historiography and modern historiography as history was an entirely different concept. They do not have the same set of attributes or the same target audience. For example, Jacoby believed Hecateus of Miletus to be the first true historian and Thucydides to be the ‘best’ one, in terms of narrative and trustworthiness. This is technically wrong as Thucydides did not consider himself a historian, but more of a writer, and never refers to his work as historia, only as an examination (zētēsis). This clearly highlights the difficulty to be impartial and open-minded in order to understand these ancient sources, which
modern historians face when studying them.
Furthermore, ancient historiography is also characterised by the fact that all primary sources are in ancient languages, most commonly either Greek or Roman. This creates an additional difficulty for the modern historiographer studying ancient history as it is common for important nuances or details to be lost in translation or copying. Therefore, in general, when examining ancient texts, it is necessary to use a recognised translation, which despite the translator’s best efforts, is already slightly different to the original signification.
First and foremost, in ancient historiography, one must remember that the author is human and prone to lie and that history was far from being a science or an exact knowledge. For example, when reporting speeches, the ancient historians are obligated to change the truth, because it is virtually impossible for them to retransmit the exact speech. A central debate amongst Classics scholars and writers, the trustworthiness of the authors is key to the understanding of history. However, a biased author, despite not recounting the exact truth, illustrates other important points, such as the political climate of the time or his own particular views. A common example is Herodotus of Halicarnassus, dubbed the ‘father of history’ by Cicero and later ‘father of lies’ by Detlev Fehling and other historians. His Histories tell the causes of the Persian wars and describe the events, based on his method of opsis (investigation), akoe, (oral traditions) and doxa or gnomē (his own reasoning). Often described as an avid traveller, Herodotus might have exaggerated his travels slightly, as seen earlier with Babylon. Furthermore, his works contain a multitude of digressions on cultures, climates, environment or even myths. For example, when recounting some of his voyages, Herodotus mentions having heard of ‘winged serpents’ and seeing ‘innumerable bones and backbones of serpents’, which proved it, despite seeming slightly impossible. Also, he tells of ants ‘not as big as dogs but bigger than foxes’, which carry sand ‘full of gold’. This of course seems completely unbelievable and compromises Herodotus’ credibility. In addition, some of Herodotus’ sources and references seem overly practical and useful. Indeed, whenever he mentions an informant about an event, the person is local and can give precise information. On the other hand, Herodotus presents his work as an inquiry, historia, to remember the ‘deeds of men (…), the works great and marvellous’ and the ‘causes for which they fought for one another’. Therefore, he is writing a narrative of facts relative to the Persian wars, whilst also shedding light on some common legends and myths. However, in some cases, the author decides to believe the supernatural explanation, instead of finding a more rational one. For instance, when describing the battle of Artemisium, Herodotus describes a storm destroying a large part of the Persian fleet, who greatly outnumbered the Greeks. His conclusion is that: ‘All this was done by the god (Poseidon) so that the Persian power might be more equally matched with the Greek’. Thus, he accepts the divine intervention as a real event. In conclusion, despite their research, ancient historians are as reliable as their beliefs, which were extremely different.
Ancient historiography as a literary genre is not solely characterised by its differences with modern historiography or the ancient concept of history. Its attributes also include a certain style of narration and description. Indeed, despite being different to the epic poems, the works of the ancient authors were based on them, as they attempted to refute or explain the myths. Amongst many others, Homer’s poems were part of Greek memory and constituted their origins traditionally. The ancient historians researched and investigated their writings unlike Homer, but these works of epic are still crucial work in Greek culture. Therefore, as pointed out by Nicolai, it is logical that some authors like Herodotus or Thucydides use techniques from epic narratives in their recounting of speeches for example. The Histories are often described as largely novelistic. His anecdotes like the winged snakes or the golden ants serve an entertainment purpose. Herodotus even uses literary techniques like pathos to engage the reader. For example, when describing the death of Masistius’ horse in Book 9, the matter-of-factly narrating and the precise description create a sense of drama: ‘they could not kill him at first, because of his dress: he wore a purple tunic over a cuirass of golden scales inside it’. Moreover, Plutarch describes Herodotus’s style as ‘pleasant’, comparing him to a musician and says of his narrations that they ‘delight, please and affect all men’. As for Thucydides, Plutarch depicts him as ‘always striving for this vividness (enargeia) in his writing’, attempting to make the reader a spectator and create emotions. For instance, he describes the naval battle of Syracuse in 413 BCE in a descriptive manner: ‘some of them saw their own ships victorious; their courage revived, and they earnestly called upon the gods not to deprive them of salvation’. Therefore, these two examples of ancient historians using the style of epic poets to enhance their prose highlight the specific attributes of ancient historiography.
From the concept of history to the reliability of ancient authors, the difficulties and the particularities of works of ancient history make it entirely different to modern historiography, except for the ultimate aim to discover and present the truth. Ancient historiography therefore has a particular set of characteristics, setting it apart from any other literary genre, yet highlighting how unique it is. Indeed, whilst the process for historical research is quite similar whichever period is studied, the issues related to the time of the ancient authors confer a whole new dimension to ancient historiography and the works it encompasses. In a way, we need to be even more precise and documented when writing or researching ancient history, as everything is so uncertain or unknown. The Antiquity, despite being thousands of years ago, still holds secrets that we can only hope to unveil.