greatness is to region as color is to individual

8/6/2019 Greatness is to Region as Color is to Individual

1/5

(ID#2437666) Page 1

ID#2437666

Professor Almeida

Honors 101A

14 November 2008

Greatness is to Region as Color is to Individual

What is the essential task of an historian? In what way ought he to accomplish this task?

These are difficult questions, and the answers to these questions, of course, are variable; no two

historians are likely to answer them in the same way. Despite their variability, the answers to

these questions are extremely influential; they not only determine how a historian records his

history, but the self-comprehension of all who read it. To demonstrate this idea, a comparison of

two classical Greek historians is in order. For the purposes of this essay, the comparison will be

concentrated in HerodotusHistory Book 6, paragraphs 110 through 117 and in Thucydides The

Peloponnesian WarBook 7, paragraphs 43 through 47. As a result of this comparison, the

reader should come to understand the former as a history concerned with the preservation of

color and the latter as a history concerned with the preservation of greatness, and be able to

grapple with the implications of this difference of concern.

The first element to be evaluated in each history is the issue of detail. In the selection

from Thucydides, there is a super-abundance of it. This is most evidenced by use of the

subjunctive clause. In most cases, these clauses serve as modifiers which give further insight

into a given word. In paragraph 44, the clause which was their only means of recognition

modifies watchword; and theclause by night the only possible means of communication

modifies loud cries. In both cases, the clauses give their modifiers greater clarity. Thucydides

is also explicit in his reasoning for a proposal or action. This is best exemplified in paragraph 47


2/5

(ID#2437666) Page 2

where Thucydides details at least four reasons for Demosthenes urging to withdraw from Sicily.

In Herodotus selection, there is significantly less detail to be found. Its few subjunctive

clauses are usually necessary for a proper understanding of the sentence and in most cases

involve gerunds. For example, in paragraph 112, the clause seeing them coming at a run is

necessary to understand why the Persians made ready to receive them, and in paragraph 116,

the clause rushing with all speed to defend their city is necessary to understand how the

Athenians reached Athens first. As an entire selection, the account of the actual Battle of

Marathon is surprisingly short, most of it discussed in paragraph 113, a mere five sentences long.

Although some detail is certainly put forth, it lacks thebreadth of Thucydides selection. In all

probability, however, this is due more to a lack of sources than to an omission by Herodotus.

The second element worth evaluating is closely related to detail, but fundamentally

different: it is the element of explanation. In Thucydides selection, actions and ideas are

explained just as often as they are detailed. It doesnt take much effort to find a clause beginning

with as or owing to scattered throughout the selection. Examples of this are everywhere: in

paragraph 43: As by day it seemed impossible; in paragraph 44: owing to the rout that had

taken place; and in paragraph 47: owing to its being the sickly season to name a few.

Also used as a device for explanation are the couple instances of parentheses in paragraph 43.

Herodotus method of explanation is very different from Thucydides. It is more

chronological and less extensive. In most cases, it is identified with the demonstrative, either as

an adjective or as the subject of a linking verb. A couple of examples of this are found in

paragraph 111: This was the order of battle, (an example of a preceding demonstrative); and

in paragraph 115: In this fashion the Athenians captured, (an example of a following

demonstrative). Perhaps the most notable difference in Herodotus explanation of things is


3/5

(ID#2437666) Page 3

found in the use of parentheses in paragraph 111. Unlike Thucydides, who uses parentheses to

explain the event, Herodotus uses parentheses to explain modern practice in light of the recorded

event. This difference leads to a third element of evaluation: resort to human experience.

Perhaps the only passage of Thucydides selection which requires human experience

from the reader is found in the beginning of paragraph four where he asks the reader the

question: how could anyone know anything for certain? This question requires the reader to

assimilate his personal experience with the still relatively colorless scene of a moonless night. It

engages him on a level which is unusual for Thucydides, who throughout the rest of the selection

merely recounts the events as they unfold.

Herodotus selection involves human experience in a greater capacity and in a different

way. In his selection, Herodotus concerns himself with two different stories about individual

persons: the first concerns Cynegirus in paragraph 114 and the second concerns Epizelus in

paragraph 117. Because neither of these stories is truly necessary to the historys plot as a

whole, they engage the reader in a way which Thucydides selection never does. By meeting the

reader on a more personal level with an element of human experience, they add what Herodotus

calls color (1.1) to the work.

Another dimension of this color is found in the fourth and final element of evaluation:

namely, commentary. In Thucydides selection, the most commentary one can find is in

thematic phrases such as ardor to cool and flushed with their victory in paragraph 43, and in

superlatives such as as much, or more than anything else in paragraph 44. In both

circumstances, commentary is kept to a minimum and no tangible judgment is cast.

Herodotus selection contains much stronger value statements than Thucydides. The

best example of this is in paragraph 112, where Herodotus says the Athenians fought right


4/5

(ID#2437666) Page 4

worthily. Despite its judgmental nature being somewhat ambiguous in context, it is certainly a

statement one would not expect to find in Thucydides. There is additional commentary provided

by Herodotus in paragraph 115 about a prevalent slander among the Athenians. While lacking

the ambiguous judgment present in the aforementioned phrase, it is certainly not a paragraph one

would expect to find in Thucydides; it lends a color to the work which is foreign to Thucydides.

From this evaluation, it is clear that both historians are attempting to record real events in

an accurate way from legitimate sources. That much makes them historians, but it is also fairly

clear from the selections that their tasks are different. Thucydides unique task (as he early on

explicitly states) is to preserve the greatness of the events he records. He does this by recording

the objective information with the utmost precision, believing that greatness is found not in

popular belief but in the reach of evidence (1.21). Herodotus task is to preserve the color

which these events have brought about, and he accomplishes this by giving primacy to individual

stories and a nonjudgmental commentary alongside the events he records. These are clearly two

very different approaches to history, and they have drastically different implications. Those who

read Thucydides will be inclined to historically understand themselves as part of a region and to

have zeal for the collective deeds of that region. Those who read Herodotus will be inclined to

historically understand themselves not as parts of a region, but as individuals whose influence in

history is attributed to their individual actions, not the collective action of a functioning region.

This difference in self-perception is a prime example of just how powerful the questions

of an historians task and his methodology truly are. The answers reach far beyond the historian

or his work; they influence the reader in a way which will help determine how he will function as

a human being. Shall he act as an individual, or shall he act in allegiance? These, I daresay, are

the very questions whose answers will affect the historical record of tomorrow.


5/5

(ID#2437666) Page 5

Work Cited

Herodotus. The History. Trans. David Grene. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Thucydides. The Landmark Thucydides: a Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War.

Trans. Richard Crawley. Ed. Robert B. Strassler. New York: Touchstone, 1996.

greatness is to region as color is to individual

Documents