Introduction

Historical consciousness refers to the ways in which people orient themselves in time. More than being just an understanding of or interest in history, historical consciousness comprises basic aspects of human life: the general consciousness that every human individual, every culture, every institution is embedded in time, has a past and future, and is prone to change. This consciousness is connected to the epistemological position that knowledge is also bound to culturally and historically specific frameworks of interpretation that differ fundamentally from those in the past and those to come. Because historical consciousness reflects this general historicist axiom, it is often, but not exclusively, understood normatively as a requirement for an advanced understanding of history.

Historical consciousness is generally studied in two ways: as the subject matter of studies that analyze temporal and historical awareness in past and present on a societal level, and on an individual level as a cognitive-epistemological category related to a specific skillset for the understanding of history. The first approach features in the work of theorists such as Reinhart Koselleck and François Hartog and in various empirical studies, and concerns the development of historical consciousness over time. These works historicize historical consciousness as they specify when, how, and under which conditions a specific modern historical consciousness has emerged and developed. The second approach is prominent in history education studies and history didactics, treats historical consciousness as an individual competence, and studies how the cognitive capacities of historical understanding can be trained.

The Concept Over Time

Historically, the concept “historical consciousness” saw its origins in German idealism, notably in nineteenth-century Hegelian discourse where philosophers used the concept to characterize Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770–1831) philosophy of history. Although historical consciousness does not feature in Hegel’s work as an analytical concept, his philosophy brings together consciousness and history, as he claims that history was characterized by the growing self-consciousness of spirit. Historical consciousness therefore relates to the self-awareness of spirit that itself is the constituting force of history. Translated to human subjective consciousness this means that historical consciousness does not denote a consciousness of the existence and character of an objective past, but the consciousness that history is itself the product of spirit.

It was the hermeneutic philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) who carried the notion historical consciousness beyond Hegelian discourse. With Hegel, he agreed that historical consciousness was a constitutive element of the historical worldview of Western modernity, but contrary to Hegel, Dilthey situated the possibilities of knowing the past in a notion of life experience (Erlebnis), rather than an abstract notion of spirit. Spirit to Dilthey is merely human spirit rather than a metaphysical concept. Dilthey claimed that “The historical consciousness of the finitude of every historical phenomenon, of every human or social condition and of the relativity of every kind of faith, is the last step towards the liberation of man”. Liberation here means the liberation of the dogmatism of Hegelian thought; historical consciousness is now no longer an insight in the workings of a metaphysical system that constitutes history, but an awareness of the finitude of all historical phenomena—a consciousness that allows for the exploration of new perspectives and the acceptance that all that is evil and ugly is also part of history. Yet Dilthey’s liberation of historical consciousness from Hegelian metaphysics also opened up the problem of historical relativity.

This problem was also one of the issues raised in the crisis of historicism, and also impacted the position of historical consciousness in German discourse, which increasingly challenged the “finitude” of the past and stressed that the relevance of the past relied on its meaning for life in the present. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) strongly criticized the historical consciousness of his age, which had resulted in an oversaturation of history in life, a surfeit of historical knowledge that weighted upon the present and hampered human creativity and vitality. Karl Jaspers distinguished “historisches Bewusstsein”—the concept Dilthey used when he spoke about historical consciousness—from “geschichtliches Bewusstsein,” and aligned the first with historicist knowledge about a past that is remote, in itself unique, and is causally related to the present. This is the scientific way in which historiography understands the past. Jaspers relates more favorably to the second: geschichtliches Bewusstsein, in which an individual relates to the past existentially, not just epistemologically.

A similar distinction was made by Hans-Georg Gadamer, whose Time and Method is seminal for the theory of historical consciousness, as his theory starts from the position that historical consciousness cannot escape its own historicity. This is a reaction to Dilthey’s position that historical consciousness relates to the finitude of historical phenomena. If historical consciousness can meaningfully understand finite pasts, it cannot be historical itself, which inadvertedly introduces the necessity to fall back to metaphysics for justification. Rather, Gadamer contends, historical consciousness is bound to the specific historical context from which we interpret the past. This is not problematic for Gadamer, because historical understanding is ultimately not about understanding the past objectively in itself—which is impossible. Rather it is about enlarging one’s own horizon of interpretation.

The study of historical consciousness has gained impetus since the 1970s through its conceptualization in German history didactics where authors such as Karl-Ernst Jeismann (1979), Jörn Rüsen (1989), and HansJürgen Pandel (1987) conceptualized historical consciousness as an individual competence that links historical understanding to temporal orientation in the present. As a competence, historical consciousness could be attained or improved through history education. Rüsen, for example, developed a theoretical model that could reveal four types or stages of historical consciousness—“each the precondition for the next”—that lead to an increasingly critical understanding of history:

1. A traditional stage that relies on the continuity of tradition;
2. An exemplary stage in which the past is used for the instruction of the present;
3. A critical stage that deconstructs notions of the continuity of tradition; and
4. A genetic stage that recognizes temporal change and historicizes change over time as a process of dynamic development. The didactic approach to historical consciousness served as an impetus for the internationalization of the concept, which is now widely used in history education and history education scholarship throughout the Western world.

Interpretations

As mentioned in the introduction, contemporary research on historical consciousness is not limited to education, another tradition studies historical consciousness as a collective phenomenon in history that is concerned with changing perceptions of the relationship between past, present, and future. It studies how historical consciousness, understood as the modern sense of history, developed through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a result of an increasingly accelerating sense of change in Western societies. According to Reinhart Koselleck (1972) the transition from a premodern historical consciousness in which histories serve as exempla that guide future actions to a modern historical consciousness that thinks of history as one singular process of development occurred between 1750 and 1850.

In the philosophy of history Koselleck’s widely acknowledged theory incited the discussion what comes after this modern historical consciousness. According to François Hartog (2015) contemporary historical consciousness is governed by a “regime of historicity” that is different from those in the past as it is “presentist,” and does not conceptualize history out of past experience or future expectation, but out of contemporary questions and issues. He connects presentism to the bankruptcy of metanarratives in the postmodern condition, and the loss of a belief in a larger meaning in history after 1989. Consequently, historical consciousness is considered as a defining feature of modern self-understanding. The question then raises what the relationship between historical consciousness and its cultural expressions in historical culture is.

In the 1990s, German scholars in the field of history education research investigated international or intercultural comparisons of historical consciousness. These scholars argued that historical consciousness and historical culture are intrinsically related. They conceptualized historical consciousness as an individual and mental process, which is expressed in the construction of a shared, collective historical culture. Historical culture and historical consciousness then appear as two sides of the same coin. But if one interprets historical culture as an expression of historical consciousness, one assumes historical consciousness to exist outside of historical culture, providing it with an essentialist and a-historical meaning.

Today the general equation of historical consciousness with modern historical consciousness has become increasingly problematic as an effect of globalization and multicultural classes, which resulted in scholars questioning the Eurocentric bias of the concept in history education studies. In some countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, educators call for the incorporation of oral traditions and cyclical conceptions of history in the curriculum, and argue for “indigenous epistemologies” as valid alternatives to modern historical consciousness as the epistemological framework of interpreting the past. An increasing emphasis on multiperspectivity makes the question of how to bridge different epistemological frameworks of historical understanding even more urgent. Hence the issue is to historicize and dynamize the concept of historical consciousness, and to deconstruct its Eurocentric assumptions.

Postcolonial discourse in particular challenges the idea of modern historical consciousness for its Hegelian legacy of reserving history for those who are conscious of the past, as history in the modern sense—a logic that casts large parts of the globe as “people without history”. This led authors such as Ranajit Guha to rally against the very principle of historicization to salvage subaltern pasts from the colonizing clutches of modern historical consciousness. Dipesh Chakrabarty, who himself deconstructed historical consciousness as part of the constituting myth of European modernity, acknowledged that such attempts ironically require “for its own decipherment a subject with historical consciousness”. Alternatively, Chakrabarty emphasizes that subaltern pasts and historicist pasts are supplementary rather than mutually exclusive, as they both put each other in perspective as different meaning-making strategies of a generally diverse ontological experience of history.

Finally, climate change poses a challenge for the theory of historical consciousness. Karl Löwith has already remarked that the apparent assumption of modern historical consciousness is one of “two worlds”: the spiritual world of history versus the unselfconscious, unspiritual, and therefore unhistorical world of nature. The self-evidence of this distinction is lost in a world where climate change and a global pandemic spur scholars to reimagine humans as geologic agents, captured in the notion of the Anthropocene. This implies a recalibration of historical consciousness on the level of historical imagination, as happens with research on “big history”, as well as concerning the theory of historical consciousness. Dipesh Chakrabarty emphasizes that the radical reimagination of humans as a species contrasts the ways historical consciousness is understood since Dilthey, namely, as a resource to expand and extend an individual’s private experience of the world through reflecting upon experiences from the past. However, a human self-understanding as a species does “does not correspond to any historical way of understanding and connecting pasts with futures through the assumption of there being an element of continuity to human experience”.

Conclusion

Historical consciousness is widely used in historiography, the theory of history, and history didactics, but in different ways. In historiography and the theory of history scholars study the rise of a specific modern understanding of history that sees the past as part of a causal process of progress tied to the present and projected into the future. They study the rise of historical consciousness in modernity and raise the question what comes after this modern historical consciousness. In history education studies and history didactics historical consciousness is theorized as a competency that allows individuals to make sense of the past through meaningfully connecting it to the present and the future—an operation that generally invokes the historicist idea of the essential alterity of the past, which in turn also raises the question of the limits of historical consciousness. These limits confront an urgent and interesting challenge for contemporary scholarship, which has been exemplified by two discussions concerning historical consciousness and intercultural historical understanding, and historical consciousness and ecological consciousness.

Introduction

Quasi-historical writings occupy a unique space between historical fact and literary interpretation, often blending elements of historical narrative, myth, folklore, and subjective interpretation. These writings differ from rigorous academic history, as they do not strictly adhere to empirical evidence, primary sources, or objective historiographical methods. Instead, they often incorporate fictional elements, ideological perspectives, and speculative reconstructions while maintaining a claim to historical truth.

The term “quasi-historical” is applied to a wide range of texts, including ancient chronicles, legendary accounts, nationalist historiographies, religious epics, and historical novels. These works have played a significant role in shaping collective memory, national identity, and cultural consciousness, often serving as political tools, moral guides, or literary masterpieces.

Ancient and Classical Quasi-Historical Texts

In ancient civilizations, history and mythology were often indistinguishable, leading to the production of texts that blended historical facts with legendary embellishments. In many cultures, oral traditions were later recorded in writing, resulting in quasi-historical texts that reflected both actual events and symbolic interpretations of the past.

In Greece, the works of Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE), often referred to as the “Father of History,” contain extensive narrative embellishments, mythological references, and dramatic reconstructions. While Herodotus made an effort to collect evidence and eyewitness accounts, his writings include mythical creatures, divine interventions, and exaggerated tales, making them quasi-historical rather than purely historical. Similarly, Thucydides (c. 460–400 BCE), despite his emphasis on evidence-based history, reconstructed speeches and events based on probability rather than actual records, a practice that aligns with quasi-historical methodology.

In China, the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) by Sima Qian (c. 145–86 BCE) combined historical documentation with moral storytelling and political commentary. While largely factual, the text also contained legendary origins of dynasties and supernatural occurrences, making it a fusion of history and folklore.

In India, texts such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana, while largely considered religious or literary works, contain historical references to ancient kingdoms, battles, and dynastic successions. These epics, composed over centuries, mix historical reality with mythological narratives, making them key examples of quasi-historical writing. Similarly, Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (12th century CE), though often cited as a historical chronicle of Kashmir, includes poetic exaggerations, divine interventions, and unverifiable claims.

Medieval Quasi-Historical Narratives

During the medieval period, quasi-historical writings flourished as history was often recorded through chronicles, religious texts, and court narratives, where historical accuracy was frequently shaped by ideological, theological, or political agendas.

In Europe, medieval chronicles such as Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136) presented a semi-mythical account of British history, including the legendary tales of King Arthur and Merlin. While based on some historical elements, the work incorporated fabricated genealogies, mythological figures, and nationalist propaganda, influencing later historical and literary traditions.

In the Islamic world, works like Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah (1377), though pioneering in historiographical methods, also contained philosophical and speculative interpretations of history. Similarly, Persian and Ottoman historical chronicles often combined historical facts with courtly embellishments, moral lessons, and supernatural occurrences to legitimize ruling dynasties.

In South Asia, Persian court historians such as Abul Fazl (author of the Ain-i-Akbari and Akbarnama) blended historical documentation with imperial glorification, portraying Akbar’s rule in a semi-mythical light. While based on administrative records and eyewitness accounts, these works often exaggerated Akbar’s virtues, making them quasi-historical.

Quasi-Historical Writings in the Colonial and Nationalist Context

The 19th and 20th centuries saw the emergence of quasi-historical writings that served nationalist, colonial, and ideological purposes. Many colonial-era histories were written to justify imperial rule, while nationalist histories sought to reconstruct glorious pasts to inspire independence movements.

In British India, colonial historians such as James Mill (History of British India, 1817) constructed a Eurocentric narrative that depicted Indian civilization as stagnant and in need of British intervention. His work was criticized for distorting history to serve colonial interests, making it a prime example of quasi-historical writing.

Conversely, Indian nationalist historians, such as Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, produced historical writings that glorified Hindu rulers and framed Muslim rule as oppressive, often amplifying historical conflicts to serve contemporary political goals. His work The First War of Indian Independence (1909) reinterpreted the 1857 Revolt as a nationalist uprising, despite the lack of a unified national consciousness at the time.

In Germany and Italy, quasi-historical narratives played a significant role in fascist propaganda, with leaders like Hitler and Mussolini promoting romanticized versions of their nations’ pasts to justify militaristic expansion. Similarly, Soviet historiography under Stalin was heavily shaped by ideological narratives, rewriting historical events to glorify communist achievements.

Quasi-Historical Fiction and Popular Culture

Quasi-historical writing is not confined to formal historiography but also extends to literary works, films, and historical fiction. Many historical novels and films blend fact with fictionalized narratives, making them influential in shaping public perceptions of history.

In literature, novels like Sir Walter Scott’s Waverley series (1814–1832) and Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace (1869) depict historical events while incorporating fictional characters and dramatized narratives. More recent works, such as Hillary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (2009) and Ken Follett’s historical novels, similarly balance historical research with fictionalized storytelling.

In cinema, films such as Braveheart (1995), Gladiator (2000), and 300 (2006) present historical events with exaggerated dramatization, altered timelines, and fictional dialogues, making them quasi-historical in nature.

Academic Challenges and Controversies

Quasi-historical writings pose significant challenges to academic historiography, as they often blur the boundaries between fact and fiction. The reliance on nationalist, ideological, or religious interpretations raises concerns about bias, historical revisionism, and political manipulation.

Historians have debated the role of memory, oral traditions, and myth-making in shaping historical consciousness. While some argue that quasi-historical texts provide valuable insights into cultural and collective memory, others caution against their potential to distort historical understanding.

The rise of pseudo-historical narratives in contemporary politics—such as conspiracy theories, historical distortions, and nationalistic reinterpretations—further complicates the discourse. The challenge for modern historians is to differentiate between history and quasi-history while acknowledging the influence of quasi-historical narratives on cultural identity.

Conclusion

Quasi-historical writings have played a crucial role in shaping historical consciousness across cultures and time periods. From ancient chronicles and medieval legends to nationalist historiographies and historical fiction, these texts serve as powerful tools of cultural memory and identity construction. However, they also pose significant challenges in terms of historical accuracy, political bias, and myth-making. The study of quasi-historical writings remains a vital area of inquiry, requiring a critical balance between recognizing their cultural significance and maintaining rigorous historical methodologies.

Legography in historiography refers to the study, construction, and interpretation of historical narratives based on legends, myths, and semi-historical accounts. It explores how legends shape historical consciousness and how they are incorporated into written histories, influencing cultural identity, political ideologies, and social memory.

Throughout history, many civilizations have developed legend-based histories, in which historical facts are interwoven with mythological elements, folklore, and oral traditions. While these narratives are often dismissed as ahistorical or unreliable, they have played a crucial role in shaping collective memory and national identities. Legography is particularly significant in societies where oral traditions and myth-making serve as primary modes of historical transmission.

Ancient Foundations of Legographic Historiography

Many of the earliest historical records contain legendary elements, as ancient historians and chroniclers often blended real events with mythical explanations. This was especially true in societies where historical writing was influenced by religious and cultural traditions.

In Mesopotamian historiography, texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh include references to real historical figures, such as King Gilgamesh of Uruk, yet they incorporate supernatural elements and divine interventions, making them part of legographic history. Similarly, the Sumerian King List, while offering a chronological record of rulers, attributes extraordinarily long reigns to early kings, placing them within a legendary framework rather than an empirical historical record.

In ancient Egypt, Pharaonic inscriptions and temple carvings often presented rulers as divine or semi-divine figures. While some of these texts contain factual accounts of battles and state policies, many are embellished with mythological narratives to reinforce the divine legitimacy of kingship. This form of legography was a tool for both historical documentation and political propaganda.

Classical Historiography and Legendary Narratives

In Greek historiography, historians such as Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus incorporated legendary tales alongside historical facts. Herodotus’ Histories includes accounts of the Persian Wars, yet it also describes mythical creatures, divine omens, and heroic exaggerations, blending history with legographic elements.

The Roman historical tradition similarly relied on legendary foundations, as seen in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita, which traces Rome’s origins to Romulus and Remus, figures of myth rather than historical record. This legographic approach was instrumental in constructing a heroic narrative of Roman greatness, which later influenced Roman imperial ideology.

Medieval Legographic Histories and Mythical Genealogies

During the medieval period, historiography continued to be shaped by legendary narratives, often serving the interests of dynasties, religious institutions, and national identities.

In Europe, medieval chronicles, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae (c. 1136), presented semi-historical accounts of British kings, including the legend of King Arthur, who, despite lacking concrete historical evidence, became a central figure in British national mythology. Similarly, the Icelandic sagas preserved a mixture of historical events and mythical traditions, shaping Norse historiography.

In the Islamic world, historical works such as the Shahnameh by Ferdowsi (c. 10th century) chronicled Persian history, but they also incorporated heroic legends and mythological figures such as Rostam and Jamshid, blending historical reality with literary embellishment.

In South Asia, texts such as Kalhana’s Rajatarangini (12th century CE) attempted to provide a chronological history of Kashmir, yet they included supernatural occurrences, divine interventions, and exaggerated accounts of rulers’ abilities, demonstrating the persistence of legographic traditions. Similarly, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, while religious epics, contain references to historical events and figures, leading some scholars to interpret them as semi-historical narratives.

Nationalist Legographies in the Colonial and Postcolonial Eras

With the rise of nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries, many emerging nations sought to reconstruct their historical identities through legendary narratives. Legography became a powerful tool for political mobilization and cultural revivalism, as national histories were rewritten to emphasize mythic pasts, heroic figures, and ideological themes.

In colonial India, historians like Vinayak Damodar Savarkar employed legographic historiography to reinterpret events such as the 1857 Revolt, framing it as the First War of Independence rather than a mere mutiny. Similarly, nationalist leaders re-emphasized the glory of ancient Hindu and Mughal civilizations, often relying on mythological sources alongside historical records.

In Europe, fascist regimes in Germany and Italy constructed legographic histories to justify racial superiority and imperial expansion. Nazi historiography, for instance, relied on pseudo-historical narratives about Aryan supremacy, linking mythological and fabricated historical elements to justify contemporary political policies.

Contemporary Legography and Popular History

In the modern world, legography continues to shape public perceptions of history through literature, cinema, and political discourse. Historical fiction, films, and television series frequently present historical events in dramatized, semi-mythical forms, blurring the line between historical accuracy and entertainment-driven storytelling.

Films such as Gladiator (2000), 300 (2006), and Braveheart (1995) take historical figures and events but alter them for dramatic effect, nationalistic sentiment, or ideological framing. These retellings, while engaging, often distort the real historical context, contributing to popular misconceptions.

Moreover, pseudo-historical narratives continue to be propagated in political and social discourses, often shaping nationalist ideologies, conspiracy theories, and cultural revivalist movements. The misuse of history in political rhetoric often involves the selective appropriation of legendary figures and events, reinforcing particular ideological agendas.

Academic Challenges and Debates in Legographic Historiography

Historians face significant challenges when dealing with legographic historiography, particularly in differentiating historical fact from mythic construction. The primary issues include:

• Source Reliability: Many historical sources, especially ancient texts, mix history with legend, making it difficult to reconstruct objective historical narratives.

• Political Manipulation: Governments and ideological groups often use legographic history to justify policies, create nationalist sentiments, or marginalize certain communities.

• Public Perception vs. Academic Research: While legends contribute to cultural memory, they often lead to misinterpretations of historical events, making it challenging for historians to promote evidence-based history.

Some historians argue that legography serves an essential function by preserving oral traditions and cultural heritage, while others warn against its potential to distort historical truth and promote historical revisionism. The balance between cultural narratives and empirical history remains an ongoing debate in historiography.

Conclusion

Legography in historiography represents a complex intersection of history, myth, and cultural memory. From ancient chronicles to modern nationalist narratives, legographic elements have shaped historical consciousness across civilizations. While such narratives have played a crucial role in identity formation and cultural storytelling, they also pose significant challenges for historical accuracy and academic historiography.

The study of legographic historiography requires a critical approach that acknowledges the cultural significance of legends while maintaining a rigorous commitment to historical evidence. By examining how legends and myths influence historical narratives, scholars can better understand the broader socio-political functions of history and its enduring impact on human societies.

Greek Historiography

• Ancient Greece is considered the cradle of historiography, as the concept of history itself is of Greek origin.
• Clio, one of the Muses in Greek mythology, was the Muse of History.
• The geographical location, the genius of the people, and their trade contact with the outside world played a significant role in the development of historical writing.
• The kaleidoscopic changes in the political system and the evolving lifestyles of the people further contributed to the foundation of Greek historiography.
• Ionia, a Greek trade center in the Mediterranean, is recognized as the birthplace of Greek history.

Homer

• The religious imagination of Greece produced a rich and diverse mythology, where every object or quality was personified as a deity.
• These myths became integral to the faith, philosophy, literature, and history of early Greeks.
• Up to 600 B.C., most Greek literature was poetic, transmitted through verse, conveying the lore, glory, and traditions of the race.
• Wandering bards recited the heroic deeds of gods and men in epic measures.
• Homer, the “blind bard,” was the oldest poet of the 9th century B.C. and is known for his immortal epics: Iliad and Odyssey.
• Homer is credited with laying the foundation of historical writing in poetic form.
• In Homer’s epics, the gods are portrayed as intervening agents in human affairs, similar to the theocratic histories of India.
• Homer’s epics served as the core of Greek education, influenced dramas, provided a foundation for moral training, and contained a wealth of historical material.
• However, Homer’s epics are not history but rather legends.
• “The work of Homer is not research, it is legend; and to a great extent, it is a theocratic legend.”

Hesiod

• Hesiod was another prominent 9th century B.C. epic poet, second only to Homer in the esteem of classical Greeks.
• Like Homer, Hesiod had a deep interest in the marvels of mythology.
• His Theogony was the genealogy of gods, outlining their origins and family relationships.
• Works and Days dealt with the theology of history, combining elements of mythology and practical life.
• Hesiod aimed to provide a respectable ancestry for the Greek gods, contributing to the development of their names and shapes.
• “Homer and Hesiod… made the gods for the Greeks and gave them their names and shapes.”
• Hesiod sought to systematize the genealogy of the deities, introducing causality into their family structure and establishing a consistent character of action for the gods.
• This effort dealt a significant blow to traditional mythology and opened the door to Greek science.

Dionysius

• Dionysius of Halicarnassus was a historian of the 6th Century B.C..
• His work, Persica, in five volumes, narrated the history of Persia.
• Dionysius defined history as philosophy teaching by examples.
• He was the earliest Greek historian to emphasize the value and function of history.
• Dionysius is credited with laying the true foundation of Greek historical writing.
• Charon, a contemporary of Dionysius, authored two historical works: History of Greece and History of Persia.
• Both Dionysius and Charon wrote narrative history, focusing on storytelling rather than analysis.
• Although they freed history from myths and legends, they were uncritical in their approach and unconcerned with accurately detailing past events.

Hecataeus (6th – 5 th B.C)

• Hecataeus of Miletus was an Ionian historian, geographer, and logographer.
• He was a proud product of the heyday of Miletus and wrote two significant works: Historiai (Inquiries) and Gesperiodos (Circuit of Earth).
• Hecataeus advanced both history and geography through his writings.
• Historiai begins with a skeptical note: “I write what I deem true, for the stories of the Greeks are manifold and seem to be ridiculous.”
• His Gesperiodos divided the known world into two continents, Europe and Asia, and included Egypt in Asia.
• In his Travelers Around the World, Hecataeus described the Persian World.
• He criticized ancient myths in his Book of Local Genealogies.
• Hecataeus boasted to the Egyptian priests that he could trace his ancestry through fifteen generations.
• His famous phrase, “Egypt is the gift of the Nile,” is attributed to him.

Herodotus (C.484-425 B.C)

• The outbreak of the Persian War in the 5th Century B.C. was a turning point in the development of Greek historiography.
• “When Ionia fell, her cities bequeathed their culture to the Athens that had fought to save them and transmitted to it the intellectual leadership of Greece.”
• The Ionians who migrated to Athens during the war brought with them the tradition of chronicle writing and criticism to the mainland.
• The Greco-Persian War, the most momentous conflict in European history, freed Greece from the rule of oriental despots and eastern mysticism.
• The war secured for Greek enterprise full freedom of the sea and stimulated the pride and spirit of the people.
• As a result, Greece entered its Golden Age.
• The new spirit of victory and freedom found expression in historical writing.
• One of the great achievements of Periclean prose was the development of history as a form of writing.
• A new kind of historical writing reached its culmination in the immortal works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius.

First Sight – Seer

• Herodotus was a native of Halicarnassus, a Dorian settlement in Asia Minor.
• He was born into a family of considerable political clout.
• As a student, Herodotus studied Greek poetry and was impressed by Homer’s epics.
• He was also influenced by the chronicles of Hecataeus.
• At the age of 32, Herodotus became excited due to his uncle’s involvement in political intrigue.
• Along with his uncle, Herodotus embarked upon extensive travels across the known world.
• He was the first to set out to travel as far as man could go, facing difficulties, discomforts, and dangers without hesitation.
• Herodotus’s travels took him as far east as Persia and as far west as Italy.
• He knew the Coast of the Black Sea and had been to Arabia.
• In Egypt, he traveled up the Nile to Assouan.
• He likely visited Thrace, Scythia, Babylon, Cyrene, Libya, Sicily, and possibly even India.
• Herodotus was thus considered the first sight-seer of the world.
• After completing his period of exile, he settled in Athens and lived in the court of Pericles for forty years.
• Later, Herodotus moved to Thurii, an Athenian colony in Italy, where he spent his final years.

His Histories

• Herodotus embarked on his travels with an insatiable thirst for knowledge.
• He observed and enquired with the eye of a scientist and the curiosity of a child.
• Armed with a rich assortment of notes on geography, history, and manners of the people, he meticulously collected information during his far-reaching travels.
• He composed his monumental work, Histories, based on his collected notes.
• The Histories consist of 9 books, each named after one of the 9 Muses, with the first book presided over by Clio, the Muse of History.
• The first five books recount the early conflicts between the East and the West and developments in Greece.
• The sixth book describes the Ionian revolt and the campaign of Marathon.
• The last three books focus on the Graeco-Persian Wars.
• Two-thirds of the work is devoted to his travels and what he learned from them.
• The remaining one-third deals with the events of the Persian Wars.
• His travels provided the stage setting for the central theme of his work.

Thucydides (C.471-399 B.C)

• Thucydides was born into a wealthy family, the son of a rich Athenian owner of gold mines in Thrace.
• He received the best available education in Athens and grew up in an environment of Greek enlightenment and skepticism.
• At the age of 36, Thucydides was chosen as one of the two generals to command a naval expedition to Thrace.
• Due to his failure to relieve Amphipolis in time during the Spartan siege, he was exiled.
• Like Herodotus, Thucydides spent the next couple of decades traveling, particularly in the Peloponnesus.
• After the oligarchic revolution in 404 B.C., Thucydides returned to Athens.
• Thucydides died in 396 B.C., with some sources claiming he was murdered.
• He left unfinished his monumental work, History of the Peloponnesian War.

Central Theme

• The central theme of Thucydides’ History is the suicidal struggle between the two mighty Greek city-states, Athens and Sparta.
• Thucydides begins his narrative where Herodotus left off, at the close of the Graeco-Persian War.
• He opens his work with the following words: “Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians from the moment it broke out, believing it would be an important war, more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it.”
• Thucydides asserts that the conclusions he draws from the evidence are reliable and that his work is not meant to win short-term applause but to be a possession for all time.
• After the prefatory remarks, Thucydides provides a summary of developments in Greece, from the Minoan times to the Persian Wars.
• He proceeds with a detailed description of the central theme: the origin, development, and denouement of the civil war.
• Thucydides’ History remains incomplete.
• The work was written in two stages and seeks to narrate the 27-year civil struggle as one continuous war.
• Later historians divided Thucydides’ work into eight books based on chronology.

Father of Scientific History

• Thucydides is not a chronicler but a seasoned historian.
• He claims his conclusions are drawn from proofs and he avoids exaggeration at the expense of truth.
• He turns away from the region of legend and relies on clear data, proofs, and evidence, arriving at conclusions “as exact as can be expected in matters of such antiquity.”
• His history is devoid of romance and is focused on exact knowledge of the past to aid in the interpretation of the future, as human affairs often resemble the past.
• Thucydides relied on research and thorough knowledge of his predecessors, especially Herodotus.
• He explored all available sources, observed developments, visited friendly states, and met prisoners of war.
• During his exile, he discussed the cause and course of the war with the Spartans.
• He made copious notes of the speeches of war veterans, ensured the accuracy of the information, and analyzed data to arrive at conclusions.
• His mastery over details is remarkable.
• Thucydides is scrupulously impartial, lamenting the fall of Athens but admiring Spartan discipline as an historian.
• He balances accounts of military campaigns with descriptions of political developments.
• Thucydides remains strictly neutral on controversial issues and never deviates from the central theme of his History.
• He rejects credulous statements, hearsay reports, and superstitions, applying reason and eliminating beliefs and traditions.
• He confessed his work might have been more romantic but he preferred it to be useful for those seeking to know exactly how events unfolded.
• His style is didactic, prosaic, and terse, reflecting his analytical approach.
• His accuracy in historical writing is unassailable.
• Thucydides is regarded as the father of scientific method in history.

Herodotus and Thucydides: A Comparison

• Herodotus and Thucydides both wrote about the recent past, with Herodotus covering the war between Greece and Persia and Thucydides focusing on the Civil War between Athens and Sparta.
• Herodotus wrote with the intention to entertain, while Thucydides aimed to provide factual information for future generations.
• Herodotus ranged across places and ages, whereas Thucydides confined himself to the specific events of the Peloponnesian War, though his range of study was also wide.
• Herodotus focused on personalities, believing that processes operated through them, while Thucydides focused on impersonal forces and factors responsible for the events, though he also recognized the role of exceptional individuals.
• Herodotus often relied on second or third-hand reports, while Thucydides based his work on eye-witness accounts, personal observations, or original documents.
• Herodotus was more credulous, whereas Thucydides was critical in his approach.
• Herodotus was more imaginative than pragmatic, while Thucydides was accurate, with even his geography being verified in detail.
• Herodotus was a delightful story-teller, and Thucydides was an incisive interpreter.
• Herodotus was concerned with what happened or was said to have happened, while Thucydides was more focused on how and why events occurred.
• Herodotus’ style was easy, spontaneous, and convincing, whereas Thucydides’ style was harsh, artificial, and repellent.
• Both have stood the test of time: Herodotus as the Father of History and Thucydides as the Father of Scientific History.

Xenohon (445 – 335 B.C)

Fourth Century Historian

• Herodotus and Thucydides were unparalleled and unrivaled among the hundreds of historians referred to by Plutarch and Athenaeus.
• Isocrates, known as “the old man eloquent,” tasked his pupil Ephorus with writing a universal history of Greece, which was ranked by his contemporaries alongside the work of Herodotus.
• Theopompus of Chios, another pupil of Isocrates, wrote about the recent past in his work The Life of Greece, a history of Greek civilization.
• Many historians have been lost to history and buried under the silt of time.
• A notable exception from the fourth century B.C. is Xenophon, a historian who stands out as a significant figure.

Soldier – Statesman

• Xenophon was born into a middle-class family in Athens and was known for his handsome appearance.
• He became a student of Socrates and later turned into a soldier of fortune.
• At the age of 30, he joined the service of the younger Cyrus of Persia and fought at Cunaxa.
• After Cyrus was slain in a civil war, Xenophon led the Ten Thousand Greek mercenaries under the Persian Prince to safety.
• He later joined the Spartans in their war against Persia and captured a wealthy Mede, extracting a rich ransom from him.
• He befriended Spartan King Agesilaus and supported him when Athens declared war against Sparta.
• As a result, Xenophon was exiled from Athens, and his property was confiscated.
• Unrepentant, he fought on the side of the Spartans and was rewarded with an estate at Scillus in Elis.
• He spent the next couple of decades as a country gentleman and wrote a series of varied works.

Versatile Writer

• In the Anabasis or Ascents, Xenophon narrates the thrilling story of the March of the Ten Thousand to the sea, describing a hazardous retreat through enemy country for five months and two thousand miles along the Tigris and over the hills of Kurdistan and Armenia to the Black Sea.
• The Hellenica recounts the history of the Peloponnesian War from where Thucydides had left off. It is a dull, dreary, and war-weary chronicle of alternating victory and defeat.
• History in the Hellenica is seen as an endless chain of battles, with facts selected to justify Spartan superiority.
• The superstition and supernatural elements, absent in Thucydides’ work, return with Xenophon.
• The Memorabilia is a repository of recollections, presenting Socrates as a paragon of perfection and providing glimpses of Greek social life.
• The Banquet contains conversations alleged to have occurred when Xenophon was a child.
• In the Oeconomicus, Xenophon, through the mouth of Socrates, expounds on the secrets of successful tillage, marriage, and property management.
• Several pages of the Oeconomicus rival the grace and charm of Plato.
• The Cyropaedia or Education of Cyrus reflects Xenophon’s ideals of education and government, focusing on physical and martial arts rather than cultural training.
• The best government, according to Xenophon, is an enlightened monarchy supported by an aristocracy devoted to agricultural and military pursuits.

Polybius (C.202-120 B.C)

• Polybius, son of Lycortas, a leading man of the Achaean League, was born at Megalopolis in Arcadia.
• He was a trained soldier and fought in the Roman campaign against the Gauls in Asia Minor.
• He accompanied his father on an embassy to Egypt and was made the League’s commander of the cavalry.
• After the League was defeated by the Romans, Polybius was taken to Rome along with other hostages.
• In Rome, the younger Scipio, the conqueror of northern Africa, befriended Polybius, introduced him to educated Romans, and persuaded the Senate to let him live with him.
• Polybius accompanied Scipio on many campaigns and served as his military adviser.
• Later, he was employed as the representative of Rome in arranging a modus vivendi between the cities of Greece and the Roman Senate.
• After sixteen years in Rome, Polybius returned to Greece and spent his retired life writing a Treatise on Tactics, a Life of Philopoemen, and his immense Histories.
• At the age of 82, he fell from his horse while returning from a hunt and died.
• Several Greek cities honored him with monuments.

Greek Historian of Rome

• Polybius was a Greek historian of ancient Rome.
• Fortified with a broader background of education, travel, and experience, he easily perceived that Rome was the center of gravity of the political history of the Mediterranean World.
• He conceived his work on a grand scale, attempting to write the history of “the whole,” referring to the Mediterranean world at the time.
• As he witnessed Rome at its greatest and most glorious epoch, he became an admirer of the “Eternal City.”
• In forty books, Polybius wrote down the history of Rome from the political point of view.
• Though he divided his Histories into 40 books, only five have been preserved.
• Substantial fragments of the rest have been rescued by the epitomists.

The Historian‟s Historian

• Will Durant calls Polybius “the historians’ historian.”
• Polybius departs from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon by starting his history more than 150 years before his time of writing.
• The extent of his field of study is five generations instead of one.
• Unlike his predecessors, Polybius wrote about the remote past.
• Since he lived in Rome, he shared the Roman tradition of viewing history as a continuous process.
• Polybius, with his critical mind, used trustworthy sources in his writings.

Character of Greek Historiography

• Ancient Greece was the birthplace of historiography, and the word “history” itself is of Greek origin, meaning an inquiry or investigation.
• Herodotus, the father of Greek historiography, initiated a “literary revolution” by using the term “history” in the title of his work.
• Greek historiography fundamentally rests on historical truth.
• Greek historians viewed history as a science of human action, considering it a process of search and research, or a form of thought.
• Greek historians were driven by insatiable curiosity, raising questions about human events and seeking answers to them.
• They not only collected facts but also tried to discover new insights, turning legendary writing into the science of history.
• Greek historiography separated history from myths and legends, focusing on human action rather than divine beings or mythical creatures.
• It is humanistic, concerned with human achievements and revealing man as a rational agent, investigating a dated past rather than the origins of things.
• Greek historiography is built on evidence, with Herodotus relying on hearsay and reports, while Thucydides emphasized the need for historical inquiry based on evidence.
• Both Herodotus and Thucydides identified historical evidence with reports from eye-witnesses.
• Greek historians developed a method for extracting evidence from eye-witness narratives, applying critical scrutiny to their accounts.
• They subjected these narratives to the same criticism used in court testimonies.
• Greek historiography was rooted in the belief that history enables self-knowledge, revealing what men have done and why.
• Herodotus wrote his history to ensure that the deeds of men would not be forgotten, while Thucydides aimed to draw conclusions for posterity.
• Xenophon sought a comprehensive view of human development, and Polybius was interested in using history as a guide for human conduct.
• Greek historiography is substantialistic, meaning only permanent, determined, and everlasting phenomena are worthy of study.
• Herodotus deviated from this view, seeing historical events as important and knowable in themselves, while Thucydides adhered to a more substantialistic approach.
• This anti-historical mindset continued in Polybius and influenced later Roman historians.
• The fifth-century Greek historiography had three serious shortcomings:
  
  1. It imposed a shortness of historical perspective.
  2. Its method precluded historians from choosing their subjects.
  3. It made it impossible to integrate particular histories into a single universal history.
• Despite these limitations, Greek historians are recognized as the founders of historiography.

Roman Historiography

• When transitioning from Greece to Rome, there was a noticeable shift from originality to imitation in historical thought and writing.
• For the first five centuries since the foundation of Rome, there was no historian.
• Until the Second Punic War, Rome was primarily focused on making history rather than writing it.
• During this time, Rome had no inclination or mood to write history.

Quintus Fabius Pictor (3rd Con. B.C)

• Fabius Pictor was the earliest Roman historian at the end of the third century B.C..
• During the first three centuries of the Roman Republic, there were only religious hymns and chants reflecting Rome’s historic or legendary past.
• Unlike others who relied on legends, Pictor compiled a respectable History of Rome in 202 B.C..
• Pictor based his history on official records such as elections, magistracies, events, portents, and holidays.
• In essence, Pictor used archival sources to write his history.
• Since Latin was not yet considered suitable for literary prose, Pictor wrote his history in Greek.

Marcus Porcius Cato (234-149 B.C.)

• Cato the Elder was the first Roman historian to write history in Latin.
• He held several significant positions: lawyer, quaester, aedile, praetor, consul, tribune, soldier, and general.
• Cato was known as the most powerful orator of his time.
• He published his own speeches and a manual of oratory.
• Cato also used his farming experiences to write a treatise called De agri cultura.
• The treatise was written in the oldest literary Latin, with a simple, vigorous style, and was pithily compact.
• Cato’s writing style was direct, wasting no words.

Marcus Terentius Varro (116-26 B.C)

• Varro was a soldier-scholar who balanced military campaigns with intellectual pursuits.
• He authored 620 volumes across 74 books, creating a one-man encyclopedia.
• His work Imagines consisted of 700 pen-portraits of famous men.
• Varro wrote several significant works, including On the Latin Language, On Country Life, Divine Antiquities, and Life of the Roman People.
• Life of the Roman People was a history of Roman civilization.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 – 43 B.C)

• Cicero was an orator, statesman, senator, man of letters, and philosopher, but not primarily a historian.
• He was well-known and popular for his torrential oratory and indignant eloquence.
• Cicero ruthlessly exposed the real or reported faults of his opponents, both public and private.
• He excelled in passionately presenting one side of a question or character.
• Cicero entertained his audience with vituperative humour and biting anecdotes.
• His 57 extant orations are more rhetorical than realistic, focusing on defamation rather than historical accuracy.
• His speeches reflect his identity as a politician rather than an objective historian.

Caius Julius Caesar (100 – 44 B.C)

• Amidst the turbulent transformation of Rome, Varro and Nepos engaged in antiquarian scholarship.
• Sallust wrote his brilliant monographs, and Cicero often retreated from politics to focus on letters and essays.
• Caesar continued his wars, documenting them in his Commentaries.
• Caesar began his career as an unscrupulous politician and reckless rake, but evolved into one of history’s most resourceful Roman generals, a tireless administrator, resolute reformer, and a major historian.
• Amid his campaigns, Caesar recorded and defended the Gallic and Civil Wars in his Commentaries.
• Caesar’s Commentaries are noted for their “masculine brevity” and “stern simplicity”, not being a partisan pamphlet.
• Ranked second only to Cicero in eloquence, Caesar’s commentaries hold a high place in Latin literature.
• Cicero praised Caesar, stating that it is thanks to him that Italy remains fortified, not by nature but by Caesar’s exploits and victories.
• Mommsen, the great German historian, paid a rich tribute to Caesar, noting that he connected the past glory of Hellas and Rome to the modern history of Western Europe.
• According to Mommsen, Caesar’s stature has outlasted thousands of years, influencing both Romantic and Germanic Europe.

Caius Sallutius Crispus (86 -35 B.C)

• Sallustius Crispus was a warrior-politician on Caesar’s side, governed Numidia, and later retired to a life of luxury in a Roman villa.
• He wrote several works, including Histories, Jugurthine War, and Catiline, which continued the theme of war through rhetoric.
• His works were able defenses of campaigns, battles, and wars, attacking the “old guard”, criticizing the senate, and challenging the courts.
• Sallust demanded that careers be opened to talent, exposed the moral decay of Rome, and asserted the natural equality of all classes.
• For him, history was an act of rhetoric, deepening his narratives with philosophical commentary and psychological analysis of character.
• Sallust’s style was characterized by epigrammatic compactness and vivid rapidity, which later became a model for Tacitus.

Titus Livius Livy (59 B.C – 17 A.D)

• Taine claimed that Rome’s historian (Livy) “has no history.”
• What little is known about Livy is that he was born and raised in Padua, then moved to Rome where he dedicated himself to rhetoric, history, and philosophy.
• Livy spent the last four decades of his life writing a history of Rome.
• He lived during the Golden Age of Emperor Augustus Caesar, alongside Horace and Virgil.
• Augustus Caesar took Livy into his friendship and encouraged him as a prose Virgil.
• Livy was fascinated by the astonishing ascendancy of Rome and developed a passionate reverence for the Eternal City.

His Work

• Livy was a voluminous writer, best known for his work Ab urbe Condita (From the City’s Foundation) which was originally written in 142 books, of which only 35 have survived in 6 volumes.
• His Magnum Opus was meticulously planned and executed, published in parts, each with a separate title under a general heading.
• In his preface, Livy states his intention to write the history of the Roman people from the foundation of the city in 753 B.C. to the death of Drusus in 9 A.D.. His premature death prevented him from completing the history up to the reign of Emperor Augustus Caesar.
• Livy thoroughly and critically studied earlier works, archival records, and private collections to compile his monumental history.
• His task was to assemble traditional records of early Roman history and create a continuous narrative of Rome, the first attempt of its kind.
• In his preface, Livy denounces the immorality, luxury, and effeminacy of the age.
• He praises the virtues that made Rome great, including the unity, solidarity, and holiness of family life, the pietas of children, the sacred relation of men with gods, the sanctity of the pledged word, and stoic self-control and gravitas.
• Livy portrays the stoic nature of Rome as noble, believing the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean was a moral imperative, a divine dispensation, and a lasting law over the chaos of the East and barbarism of the West.
• While Polybius attributes Rome’s victory to its form of government, Livy attributes it to the Roman character.
• For Livy, Rome was forever right, and Rome was the world.
• Livy’s history of Rome was considered ecumenical or universal history by the Romans.

Cornelius Tacitus (55 – 120 A.D)

• Tacitus, described as “the most brilliant of historians,” leaves no traces about his date or place of birth, nor his given name.
• Son of Cornelius Tacitus, Procurator of imperial revenue in Belgic Gaul, Tacitus received a sound education and mastered the oratorical arts, which are evident in his writing style.
• He married the daughter of Julius Agricola, the Roman Governor of England, establishing a connection with him.
• Tacitus served in several capacities in Rome, including lawyer, orator, praetor, senator, consul, and pro-consul of Asia.
• Tacitus was a prolific writer, making significant contributions to historical writing.
• His Dialogue on Orators demonstrates his enlivening style and skill in debating pros and cons, attributing the decline of eloquence in Rome to the suppression of liberty.
• Agricola is considered Tacitus’s most perfect monograph, detailing the achievements of his father-in-law as a general and governor.
• On the Situation and Origin of the Germans contrasts the virtues of the free Germans with the degeneration and cowardice of the Romans under despots.
• In Germania, Tacitus idealizes German tribes and contrasts them with the corrupt and immoral Roman upper classes.
• Historiae is acclaimed as the best historical writing since Livy, covering the period from Galba to the death of Domitian, exposing the evils of tyranny in ruthless detail.
• The Annals describes the tyranny of the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. Tacitus’s purpose is to hold up examples of political vice and virtue for posterity, showing that good citizens could live even under bad rulers.
• Only 12 books of the Annals survive from an original 16 or 18. Despite being mutilated, these books are considered some of the most powerful works in Roman prose.
• Tacitus is a historian of the decay, decline, and deterioration of Rome, focusing on its rottenness and the malignity of the human mind.
• His writings are filled with pessimism, highlighting despotism, cowardice, and immorality in Rome. He expresses his hatred for autocracy and despotism, observing that most plans of reform end in nothing.
• Tacitus rejects astrologers, auguries, portents, and miracles, though he accepts some, suggesting it’s wiser to accept one’s native religion rather than try to replace it with knowledge.
• He deeply ponders the meaning, purpose, and possibilities of life, offering striking and fascinating portrayals of personalities.
• Tacitus’s character drawings are highly praised for their clarity, vividness, and power, standing out in historical literature.
• He is praised for his breadth of view, especially in acknowledging the German power to resist Rome.
• Tacitus critically examines his sources, including histories, speeches, letters, and traditions of old families.
• His writing style is swift, colorful, and forceful, telling stories in a crisp, concise, and compact manner.
• The cumulative effect of his portrayal ranks him among the greatest historians.

Plutarch of Chaeronea (46 – 126 A.D)

• Plutarch was born into a wealthy family and received his education at Athens.
• He traveled to Egypt, Asia Minor, and Italy twice.
• Plutarch lectured in his native town, Chaeronea, and served in various public roles, including building inspector, chief magistrate, and member of the national council.
• He presided over municipal ceremonies and festivals and was a part-time priest of the Delphic oracle.

Works

• Parallel Lives: Plutarch’s most famous work, consisting of 46 parallel lives that compare great Romans with great Greeks to teach virtue and heroism.
• Notable pairings include Theseus and Romulus, Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Caesar.
• Plutarch is more interested in drawing character than in strict historical accuracy. Errors in names, places, dates, and events are common.
• Despite historical inaccuracies, his work is vivid, captivating, and lively.
• Shakespeare heavily influenced by Parallel Lives, and Napoleon carried it with him everywhere.
• Montaigne referred to it as his “breviary”.
• Moralia: A collection of Plutarch’s lectures and essays on wisdom of life, offering reflections on topics like health, women’s equality, and moderation.
• His ideas are simple and genial, with many being platitudes, yet they still provide refreshing wisdom.
• Plutarch advocates good cheer and rejoicing in life as it is the perfect initiation into mysteries.
• Lives and Moralia continue to be read with interest and benefit even today.

Minor Historians

• After Tacitus, historical writing declined in grandeur and became more scandalous.
• Suetonius’ Lives of Illustrious Men became a scandalous chronicle.
• Nicolaus of Damascus attempted a universal history.
• Arrian wrote many histories, but only his Anabasis survives.
• Josephus, a Jewish historian, is known for The Wars of the Jews and The Antiquities of the Jews, written in clear and forceful language.
• Dion Cassius completed his History of Rome, spanning from Romulus to his time, distinguished by its portents and a senatorial opposition perspective.
• These historians did not match Livy or Tacitus in contribution or achievement.
• With the decline of the Roman Empire, historical writing degenerated into compilation, edification, and propaganda.

Character of Roman Historiography

• Imitative: Roman historians adopted methods of Greek historians, as history was not native to Rome. For the first five hundred years, Rome lacked historians. They were influenced by the Hellenistic tradition and began recording Rome’s achievements.
• Humanistic: Roman historiography is focused on human actions rather than divine deeds. It analyzes human actions to understand their successes and failures, based on the belief that human will drives history, and human intellect works to achieve goals.
• Anti-historical: Roman historians were not interested in change. They believed that history could only focus on permanent phenomena, as anything impermanent was fleeting. They focused on substance or agents that remain unchanged, making their work anti-historical.
• Unhistorical: Roman historiography is unhistorical because it does not explore the causes behind events or question the validity of beliefs, superstitions, and traditions. It focuses solely on preserving the memory of glorious deeds or heroic events, particularly political episodes.
• Ecumenical History: Roman historians followed the Hellenistic tradition of writing universal history, viewing the Roman Empire as the world, similar to Alexander the Great’s empire. Historians like Livy and Tacitus considered Roman history as a universal history of the world.
• ‘Scissors-and-Paste’ Method: Roman historians used this method to compile universal history based on materials from earlier historians. This method was uncritical as it relied on compiled works without verifying the sources’ authenticity. Polybius, Livy, and Tacitus used this approach.
• History of the Remote Past: Roman historians, unlike the Greeks, focused on the remote past, particularly the foundation of Rome. They highlighted the noble moral examples of early Roman society, seen as simple and free from corruption, immorality, and irreligion.
• Stress on Moral Purpose: Roman historians had a strong moral purpose in their writings. Livy wrote to teach virtue and public morality. Tacitus focused on character studies, analyzing human virtues and vices. Plutarch compared great figures to teach morality, character, and heroism.
• Patriotic and Partisan: Roman historians glorified Rome and its greatness, showing a narrow outlook. They prioritized military conquests over peaceful administration and cultural contributions. Their writings were partisan, often used for propaganda and to support specific groups, presenting Rome as always right, regardless of circumstances.