Kenneth W. Harl, Ph.D. History/Classics 700 Senior Honors Thesis, Tulane University Historical Causation in Herodotus Carol Abernathy directed by Professor Dennis P. Kehoe, Department of Classics It is perhaps appropriate that Herodotus, intent as he was on recording the first, the biggest, and the best, and "other great and wondrous deeds," was accorded a superlative of his own, namely the father of history. Rambling and myopic in his obsession with detail, Herodotus seems to the incautious reader to do little to earn this accolade. In contrast to modern historians, Herodotus appears to include little analysis in his narrative and to draw few conclusions from his material. The ancients themselves criticized Herodotus' methods. Thucydides (I. 21)snidely dismissed his predecessor by refusing to include to mythodes , "mythical lore," in his history of the Peloponnesian War. Aristotle is well known for giving Herodotus the title "father of history," but in his Poetics it is clear Aristotle meant this honor as a dubious one. Aristotle relegates Herodotus to the company not of historians in the modern sense but rather of mere chroniclers. He intimates that the creative process, poiesis , is lacking in Herodotus and in history in general so that "poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars" ( Poetics 51a36). Aristotle set the academic approach to Herodotus for centuries. Scholars, even though fascinated by the wealth of information in the | |
|