Objectivity in History

On the example of “Histories” of Herodotus

Zakurazhnova Alena
Liberal Arts and Sciences
Philosophische Fakultät
Culture and History Major, 3759997
alena.zakurazhnova@jupiter.uni-
freiburg.de

Abstract

Reflections on the nature of historical knowledge are as old as history itself. People have
always been interested in the past, and historians have tried to be objective. Current paper is
dedicated to examining the concept of objectivity in history with the main focus on Greco-
Persian wars in the “Histories” of Herodotus. Studying the content of the "Histories", one can
see that the narrative of Herodotus drastically differs from the works of his predecessors -
logographs. His "History", however, finds itself on the boundary between the old, naive, semi-
mythical thinking and the new scientific world perception. Herodotus tries to rationalize his
narrative, yet his explanations are often very naive in character. The worldview of Herodotus,
as of a man of his age, if full of naive notions of power and envy of the gods, the omnipotence
of fate, etc. Epic tales, folk legends and stories of the local population – that was from where
he was getting the materials of the days gone by. We, people of the XXI century, definitely
cannot call such approach objective. But what is the criteria of "objectivity" and can history be
objective at all? In response to this question, I would dare to give a negative answer. First of
all, because any history is created by people who by definition are the “subjects”.
Therefore, it is important to study history with all its multiformity and peculiarities, which
belong to one or another period on a time scale.
Part I

As a first step, let me explain the importance of the period I have chosen, namely – Greco-
Persian wars. This period, in my opinion, is essential for understanding the process of
formation and development of human society. Civilizations living at that time had a great
influence on the subsequent history of mankind. The Greco-Persian Wars have rallied the
Greeks in the face of a common enemy and consequently become not solely a turning point in
the history of Hellas. It was the first collision of East and West – of two civilizations, two
philosophies, and two different structures of human society. In contrast to the despotic Persian
Empire, where all people were subjects to a King, who had the supreme power over them, the
main principle of the existence of numerous independent Greek city-states was freedom.
Freedom of policy and personal freedom of every citizen. Freedom, for which every Hellene
would be ready to sacrifice his life with no hesitation. The relevance of the topic is also
explained by the fact that the victory of the Greeks over the strongest enemy had an enormous
impact on the development of all areas of socio-economic, political and cultural spheres of life
of the Greeks, which subsequently contributed to the flourishing of the Greek civilization in
V- IV centuries BC. That is why it is so important to get an objective account of the events
that took place during this turning point in ancient history.

The second reason why I have chosen exactly this example of historical work, is the figure of
Herodotus himself and the role his works play in world history. The outstanding Roman
orator, writer and statesman Cicero described Herodotus as the “father of history”. Unlike his
predecessors,
Herodotus was striving for the accuracy of the representation of historical events. He tried to
check everything what was believed to be true; during the numerous trips, being conscientious
and thorough, he gathered a lot of information which is considered nowadays. Of course,
Herodotus was not able to avoid the disadvantages: the replacement of accurate information
on a particular event by various fables, anecdotes and fabrications, questionable testimonies of
people, which were unworthy of trust; lack of unity and consistency in the statements – they
often contradict each other.

On the basis of this thought, my research question is what place in history, as we perceive it
today, the works of ancient authors take? In the age of progress, we strive for objectivity and
undeniable proof.
But what is actually “history” and should it be objective at all? By comparing different
historical theories, I am aiming to prove that there can be no undeniable objectivity in this
field and that we should perceive ancient history as it was seen by people who lived at those
times, even if the mythological influence is present and disturbs our minds.

In order to approach the stated problem, the concepts of objectivity and historical sources
have to be considered. Given that throughout the development of historical knowledge, the
problem of objectivity has always been attracting the attention of historians not only
concerning the methodology, but also in connection with solving certain historical issues, it is
no exaggeration to say that it is one of the perennial problems of historical science. Also, the
time this problem has been of a current interest, points to the fact that the answer to the
question of objectivity could not be found or at least, could not be the same at different stages
of historical thought. Neither do we have the univocal answer now. In a close connection to
the problem of objectivity, one has to see the importance of historical sources for the choice of
these very sources predetermine the level of objectivity of one or another work. Historical
source is the evidence of the past; it can be a manuscript, painting, paper, ritual, object, etc. A
researcher chooses the set of sources, which can be used as the basis for a certain assertion
about the past. The image of the past strongly depends on how a historian determines the
range of his sources.
Literature Review

The study of this subject in educational and scientific literature is really big. All the
information about the Greco-Persian wars is now only known from the Greek sources. Of
course, the most important part of my research will be dedicated to the “Histories” of
Herodotus. The work is divided into nine books, each of which named after one of the Muses.
The first half of the work of Herodotus (vol. I-IV) is an introduction, which includes novels of
folkloric character. In the second part of the "Histories" (vol. V-IX), the author gives a
description of the Greco-Persian wars. The main sources of historical and geographical
information reported by Herodotus were: 1) his personal observations during his travels and
the conclusions made about the findings, 2) narratives of people, and 3) written monuments.
Thus, the most important part for our research – history of the Greco-Persian wars, was
mainly based on oral tradition.

The second important step towards finding the answers to the question of objectivity in
history, is entering the discussion of objectivity of historians themselves. The pleiad of
brilliant thinkers have for centuries tried to find the recipe of objectivity of our knowledge of
the past, including the great Leopold von Ranke, who offered to write "how it really was." In
1961 the Englishman Edward Carr wrote a paper with the eloquent title: "What is History?"
Carr believed that a historian is a product of his age and society he lives in, so histories can be
as many as historians themselves. The main message of this work was to define the difference
between the facts of the past and historical facts. If the content of the first is infinite and
unknowable in its plentitude, the latter are the result of selection made by historian. But is
there generally accepted criteria for this selection, or it depends merely on the scientist
himself?

The answer to this question was tried to be given by another great British historian K. Jenkins
in
“Rethinking History” (1991) and "What is History” (1995). The key thesis of those works is
that historian invests much personal and subjective in his work, what finds its reflection in the
fact that the same historical events get different explanations. A similar discussion has not so
long ago appeared in American historiography. It was initiated by Peter Novick, the author of
the sensational book "That
Noble Dream”. Novick has determined objectivity, on one hand, as a functional "myth",
ensuring the unity of the academic community, and on the other hand, as an important
reference point, designed to minimize the contradictions between the historical fact and of its
various interpretations. Novick’s conclusion about the state of American historical scholarship
at the end of the XX century is unpromising. The worldviews of American historians were too
diverse to be gathered under one large universal tent, so each of them began to do what he
thought was right. The colleagues of Novick tried to challenge his pessimistic conclusion. For
example, in "Telling the Truth about History", J. Appleby, L. Hunt and M. Jacob argued that
objectivity is still possible to find in historical research.
Part II

The first part of this paper is dedicated to the "Histories" of Herodotus. I am planning to
explore the history of the Greco-Persian Wars 500 – 449 years BC in the classical period of
ancient Greek history. At first, it is needed to understand the tradition of history-making
preceding Herodotus and highlight the differences and a turning point in ancient story-telling.
The purpose of this part is examining and understanding the thought of Ancient Greek people,
the importance of myths and fables, and the extent to which those myths distorted the
accuracy of representation of the Greco-Persian wars. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to
define and read the main abstracts of the "Histories" and conduct the analysis.

The second step is to analyze the source base and scientific literature on the topic of
objectivity and give answer to a question "what is history?" Definition of history is one of the
most difficult in the theory and methodology of this science. To substantiate its features, one
has to get acquainted with the various interpretations and definitions. Essential step is to track
and understand the process and functions of historical knowledge, again, with the main focus
on subjective and objective components of historical knowledge. The purpose of this part is
understanding the peculiarities of historical knowledge, distinguishing it from other ways of
understanding the world and trying to find the criteria of an objective narrative.

Finally, on the basis of material studied, I am planning to come back to the beginning and
address the problem of objectivity in the works of ancient authors, more precisely – the events
represented in the period of Greco-Persian wars by Herodotus.
Part III
Outline

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Ancient tradition of historical writing

Definition of historia
Hecateus
Theoponus of Chios

3. “Histories”

Content
Understanding the world-picture of ancient Greeks
Analysis of the level of objective and subjective components

4. The notion of objectivity in the history of science

Problem of objectivity
The notion of historical sources, their classification
Different approaches to studying history

5. “What is History?”

Uniting the knowledge gained in parts 2, 3, and 4

Conducting analysis on the notion of objectivity in ancient tradition of historical
writing Giving answer to questions of whether history can be objective
Drawing the image of history

6. Conclusion

Bibliography
References

Carr, E. “What is History?” New York, 1961

Appelby, J., Hunt, L., Jacob, M. “Telling the Truth about History.” New York –
London, 1994 Jenkins, K. “Rethinking History.” New York – London, 1991
Jenkins, K. “What is History.” New York – London, 1995
Novick, P. “That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity” Question” and the American Historical
Profession.”
Cambridge, 1988.
Wardman, A. E. “Herodotus of the Cause of the Greco-Persian Wars: (Herodotus, I,
5).” The American Journal of Philology, vol. 82, No. 2, 1961, pp. 133-150.
www.jstor.org/stable/292402
Waters, K. H. “The Purpose of Dramatization in Herodotos.” Historia: Zeitschrift
Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 15, no. 2, 1966, pp. 157-171
www.Jstor.org/stable/4434920