HY4101

Just pasting this chunk from the ivle forums. Sorry for not posting here in the first place, but i’m a bit of an idiot when it comes to blogging stuff.

Forgive me for starting yet another new topic, but I think I’m heading off a related but slightly different track here.

I was thinking about the lecture & presentation for a bit, and Jinxun’s comment that “can the set of ‘criteria’ used to judge who the father of history is be instead used to define ‘history’ instead?” strikes a chord with me. Doesn’t the very idea of a Father of History (FoH from now on) serves as a legitimatizing tool for historians? I admit I haven’t actually done research on this yet, but off my mind I can see two uses for proclaiming a FoH; first, as legitimation of the discipline of history in the eyes of the public, and second, as an exclusive legitimatizing tool against ‘deviant’ historians/historians-wannabes who do not conform to accepted practices of writing history.

One, having an ancient figure being seen as the founder of the discipline can be beneficial. It tells the consuming public that historians had been writing about what has happened since the days of yore, and hence, historians today, with access to their predecessors’ works, know what happened in those days of yore. This allows practitioners of the discipline to seem authoritative, since with such resources, they know what they are talking about, so I can buy their book and pass my money over develop a clearer sense of my identity in some vague way.
An implication I see for this is that FoH may vary according to market audiences – telling British audiences that their FoH is Sima Qian is hardly a viable marketing strategy. ‘Western’ audiences can be told that Herodotus is real FoH, military types will easily accept Thucydides what with his text being required reading in many military academies and all, and the expanding Chinese market can have the Chinese Sima Qian as the real deal. When the Africans get their act together and form a gigantic market some guy can some up with another, preferably African, chap to be the new FoH. Of course, although this may seem that there are multiple FoH, this is from a meta-perspective of the historiographer only – to each target audience, they have only one FoH in simple and uncomplicated terms, which they can easily digest and go on with their everyday lives without asking historians difficult questions.

Two, as the presenters showed, each FoH candidate writes somewhat different styles of history. Assigning the title of FoH to whichever of the buggers will then logically give his style of writing legitimacy. FoH here is thus an inherently exclusive idea – calling some chap the Father of an entire discipline is to say he did it correct while his predecessors/colleagues comparatively did not, and his ideas are to be followed by practitioners who come after him. Historians who believe that although writing history is writing a narrative, it must be anchored by the critical use of documents will point to Ranke or even Thucydides as FoH, while probably scoffing at imaginary Egyptian rulers or vengeful ghosts written up by other contenders. Those deviant writers looking for alternative styles may well do the opposite, praising Sima Qian, for example, for his focuses on particular Chinese activities, like music or ritual, and consider him as the real deal.
If there are plenty of different FoH floating around right now, it is because there are a variety of different schools of writing history, and none of them can get other historians to agree on a single, definitive school for the discipline. If one really insists on accepting all comers out there (whoever they are) as FoH, that will by default mean they believe that there is no ‘authoritative’, responsible and professional method for writing history, that anyone can write whatever he/she wants, since academic legitimacy is shared by all writers of history. Peter Young’s rather Anglo-centric and anecdotal works on WWII will be as good as Williamson Murray’s highly analytical ones. (Another perspective that I can wholly empathize with is that such a proposer, possibly students new to this whole stuff, is scared s***less at what seems to be a huge can of carnivorous, hungry worms and choose the safest response available.)

… And I seem to have written far past the reader-friendly limit for forum posts. Erm, sorry about that. I probably going to get tl;dr, but anyway, I’m just trying to see ways how the title Father/Mother/Pioneer/Grandparent of History can affect historians and how history is written. From what I can understand, the question of who is FoH is one way to justify their authority and place to the public, and also a contest over what type of history writing is legitimate in the historian community. What do the rest of you believe?

            In his introduction, Weili has done a great job in getting us acquainted with the various historians and their various contributions to the field of history. I would now hope that I will be able to elucidate my group’s rejection of the very notion of “a Father of History”. In trying to achieve this, I will be limited my focus on the Greco Romans, namely Herodotus and Thucydides, the two individuals whose names have repeatedly surface in the debate/discussion on the topic of a “Father of History”.  Albeit the fact that this limited focus on the Greco Roman world will do little justice for the roles of the ancient Chinese historians (Wanrong will later help me fill in the gaps ) and that examination of only two historians may lead to accusations of the group being myopic, I would like to set clear from the outset that limiting the scope of our group focus did not really assist the group’s search for a “Father of History” in any significant way. Instead, the limited scope will serve as a reason as  to why we question the conception since we will see that even by basing our discussion sorely on the Greco-Roman world alone, it is extremely controversial to try and advocate someone as THE “Father of History”. 

            As mentioned by Weili, if we were to look back at any disciplines, there will always be a purported father of a discipline and there will always be a debate on who is the “rightful father.”  This shows that it is hard to have a satisfactory conclusion or consensus when one deals with this topic. Thus one might asks that since it is controversial to come up with a definite father of history (or any discipline for that matter), why do the conception exists in the first place? Perhaps it is human nature to want to trace the development of the human past so as to demonstrate progress? Thus the main thing is whether there is a need for the conception in the first place. Here, the group will like to point out that we feel that the conception is unnecessary (you may of course feel free to differ). One reason as to why we feel that the conception is unnecessary is due to the fact that we question the validity of the conception. We deem the conception to be too deterministic and this is problematic since we know that in History we cannot be too deterministic due to the very nature of the discipline itself. We all know that, History as a subject has changed over time and it may yet change again. Thus those who fit the criteria on being the father of history now may not be always seen in the same light in the near future especially if the current viewpoint on what History should change.

            To expound on this, let’s look at how Herodotus and Thucydides was viewed over the ages.

• In the fourth century, while Herodotus was widely admired for his style, he was also widely seen as a liar, while Thucydides was seen as the model historian because he was deemed as truthful and reliable. Because he was seen as the model historian, his view of history as political history was widely followed, and political and military history or “Thucydidean” history was seen as the most important, while other forms of history were sidelined. Thus, during that time Thucydides can be said to have been the “Father of History” and widely emulated, with Ptolemy, Polybius, and Arrian, to name a few historians, following in his style of history.
• Also, from the mid 16th century onwards, two things took place which raised the position of Herodotus: America was founded, and the Reformation brought about new interest in biblical history. In America, a lot of things more incredible than that described by Herodotus were found, and he was actually a great help in describing them. Also, Herodotus was used to support accounts in the Bible. Even better, there were men like Newton to declare Herodotus as the “Father of History”; Herodotus’ credentials were assured.
• In the second part of the 18th century, Thucydides was elevated to an even higher position in the atmosphere of the Romantic Movement. He became the model philosophic historian, putting together accurate examination of details with an in-depth understanding of the human mind. So now, Thucydides was seen as the “Father of History” again, but under a whole new criterion.
•  Today, Herodotus’ work, once seen to be full of “lies”, has now been backed up factors that show that events so far in the past can be reliable and accurate, ( i.e.; factors like research in archives and excavations, study of inscriptions and coins.) Herodotus has not only been put on an equal footing with Thucydides, he is also now being recognized as a pioneer not only in history but in ethnography and anthropology. Thus, it has become possible to see both of them as joint “Fathers of History”, especially when the two of them provide a balance in their different contributions to the writing of history. Conversely, there is some who views Herodotus now as the father of history whilst Thucydides is now relegated to a mere political scientist. Herein lays our argument that the categorisations of individuals actually differ according to the time period since the perspective about the “Father of History” and what is history changes over time.

According to Momigiliano the different fortunes of Thucydides and Herodotus can be attributed to the “tension existing between supporters of political history and the supporters of the history of civilization”. Therefore, to sum up, we cannot deny the subjectivity that is involved in the process and this is another problem that we have we the conception; that is the conception allows subjectivity to play an important factor. One may then argue that it is not possible to be totally objective in history and everything is fine as long as one tries to remain as objective is possible. The group recognise that full objectivity is never possible but the argument here is that the very conception of the notion is allowing for subjectivity to play a part. Is it not our role as historians, students of history to eliminate things that might cause subjectivity /hinder objectivity?

            To reiterate Weili’s earlier point, the group is not refuting the contributions of these brilliant individuals, we recognize their contributions.  In fact, the very contribution helps us in our argument on why there cannot be “A Father of History”. To illustrate, let’s briefly examine Herodutus’ contributions before moving on to Thucydides’. Herodotus was the first in doing all of this:

• He decided to extend inquiry to more peoples and places as well as to report faithfully and accurately what he learned.
•  He distinguished first and second hand information and probable and improbable accounts, between what he believed to be true and what he disbelieved but repeated because it had significance.
• I.e. he began to reconstruct by personal investigation the generation of the Persian wars and in the process he assembled much material about the earlier generations of Greek history. Even though he tied his account to the mythical tradition, he rationalised and historicised it as well as he could.
• He relied on facts rather than on false beliefs. He used an account from oral history to show that Helen and Paris never actually reached Troy. This provided a new account of Helen’s history. Thus this shows his attempt to use evidence to distinguish a fictional story from a true historical account, akin to a 20th century historian.

The fact that his histories are not limited to his personal circumstances but addresses a wider audience and have a clear sense of purpose (to record history and explain the past) suggest that Herodotus is the founder of history as we know it today. Thucydides on the other hand :

• Tried to report analytically and discover a “true” cause.
• He insisted on careful checking of eyewitness testimony, on precise chronology, on the total elimination of romance from work, on a rational analysis which has no patience with oracles and supernatural interventions etc.
• He even equipped himself with the most advanced medical knowledge and technical language and accuracy on his subjects (i.e. the great plague in Athens). His command of technical language and accuracy is unparalleled.

He was therefore a Greek historian who bears the closest resemblance to our perception of a modern-day historian, both in terms of his mindset and methodology where history writing was concerned. So doesn’t he have an equal claim to the title “Father of History? To sum up, I shall ask again the question of whether we can nominate an individual as the “Father of History” when doing so seems that we are crediting Herodotus’ contributions towards the foundation and development of history as an academic discipline as the most significant or groundbreaking than that of Thucydides.

            Thus, I have shown that there are certainly arguments that can be made on why a certain individuals can be the “Father of History” and as one can see, these arguments are based on the contributions that each person makes. The question then is how do we decide whose contributions are more important for them to be honoured by such a title. As mentioned and proven earlier the different Historians are viewed differently during different time periods and we feel that the reason for this is that the contributions made are valued differently in different time periods because human beings are products of their space and time, and according to the circumstances, values, attitudes and trends of their time, may appreciate the contributions of the three men more and raise either of them up as the “Father of History” just because the way he wrote or what he wrote about resonates with them in that particular space and time. They may also reject him simply because he fails to do so. Also, knowledge of history and its methods is constantly changing. We see these people during different time periods with different criteria and expectations in mind. This then reiterates my group point about the huge factor of subjectivity which is at play and therefore why we reject the very notion of the “Father of History”.  How do we then solve the problem? Will positing “Multiple of Fathers of History” be a more viable alternative or would the issue of subjectivity be a problem once again?

             Before bringing the discussion to an end, I would like to point out that many writings of the early Greeks have disappeared. Therefore, even if one is really insistent on accepting the notion of the “Father of History” or appointing an individual with the title of the “Father of history”, one cannot deny the fact that we can never definitively say that an individual is the “Father of History” when we do not have a comprehensive account. This is an important factor to be counted in especially if chronology is taken to be an important element in nominating someone as the “Father of History”, although whether chronology should be used as a criterion is (subjective) dependent on individual perception and preferences. In summation, it is really difficult and controversial to pinpoint THE “Father of history” even if we just looked at the Greco-Roman world. It will be even more arduous if the different historical traditions and roles of ancient Chinese historians are included.

Before I start, I will recap the parts that come before me, because it affects the understanding of my part. Khairunisa has given us a well-constructed picture of the role of the Greco-Roman historians in contributing to history as an academic discipline. Although she admitted that the limited focus on the Greco-Roman world did very little justice for the contributions of ancient Chinese historians, her part makes us aware of how the mindset and methodology of these ancient Greco-Roman historians resonates with our modern understanding of what is history. For as Weili has mentioned in his introduction, the Greco-Roman historiographical model is certainly by far the most influential one today. We are thus able to identify with the Greco-Roman historians.

It is impossible to provide a balanced overview of the controversy surrounding the title Father of history without considering the roles of the ancient Chinese historians too. Hence my job is to portray another, which I may term the “Sinic model” of history writing which is by most standards so radically different from the Greco-Roman model that it is highly debatable whether we can make any meaningful comparisons between them. No matter the differences, the fact remains that the Chinese had their own notion of what constitutes history that sometimes contradict the Greco-Roman model, but which nonetheless should still be seen as history, as I will explain later. As such, my focus here will be on the possibility of classifying Sima Qian, popularly referred to as the Father of Chinese history, into the grand picture of the historical evolution of history such that he has as much a claim to the title Father of history as Herodotus & Thucydides.

Like the Greco-Roman world, early Chinese history writing was clearly associated with the divine. The early historians were not only state officials, but were also expected to dabble in everything ranging from astrology and divination to secular roles like keeping records of official happenings according to their importance. Human and cosmic affairs were judiciously recorded by these scribes known as ‘shi’ (historians/astrologers) which continued until the advent of the Confucianist tradition that was (wrongly) ascribed to, but best symbolised by the work of the Spring and Autumn Annals, which brought about the secularisation of Chinese history writing.

The Chinese were still not asking questions in a systematic way but we should bear in mind that we should not superimpose the Western tradition of what history should be on what clearly is a very different civilisation altogether. Indeed the issue of what constitutes a critical enquiry in Chinese historiography to some extent departs from the Greco-Roman ideal, and would be one of the major obstacles in preventing us from making meaningful comparisons between the two models.

First, let us take a look at Sima Qian’s contributions to the field of Chinese historical writing. Unlike the previous, dynastic based histories before him, Sima Qian wrote a general history of the world as he knew it. He also was the first to write history as a series of biographies. He also attempted to write a history of the entire knowable past, beginning with the earliest records considered as reliable and continuing down to his day. He was the first to incorporate interpretation into his writing, not just recording. He also went beyond relying only on Confucian classics or accounts with clear didactic purpose as sources. His Shiji became the basis for the tradition of writing of Chinese history. Indeed, it would not be unjustifiable to claim that Sima Qian’s pioneering efforts were more widely recognized and less controversial in the context of Chinese history compared to that of Herodotus and Thucydides in the Greco-Roman world, indicating that Sima Qian’s achievements were clearly of a monumental scale that it is hard to find another viable contender as the Father of Chinese history.

But here I need to remind everyone that history writing is viewed rather differently by the Chinese historians. Although Sima Qian did incorporate the praise-blame paradigm in his work, most of the time he adopted a very neutral attitude that mainly seeks to portray events that occurred in an objective, even detached manner. Indeed, following in the tradition of Confucius, he saw himself only as a transmitter of history – grand synthesis of both the content and form of previous historical records, to preserve the traditions of the past.

Compared to Herodotus & Thucydides therefore, Sima Qian’s Shiji was conspicuously lacking in his own analysis and personal interpretations of Chinese history; indeed he relied very heavily on documentary sources (wholesale copying – plagiarism?) and generally had no original, narrative reconstruction of the past in his own voice that is based on his own reading of the evidence, should we therefore discount Shiji as an original piece of history writing? Should Shiji therefore be judged by another criterion since it had a drastically different notion of history & history-writing from the Greco-Roman historiographical tradition?

In case you wonder, Shiji is most definitely a work of history. Grant Hardy in his book “Worlds of Bronze and Bamboo: Sima Qian’s Conquest of History” explicitly makes this point clear: Sima Qian’s subject is the past; he ties his material to a clear chronology; he presents full narratives of historical events in a refined literary style; and his personal comments reveal a sophisticated understanding of the uses and difficulties of documentary evidence etc… It is undoubtedly the pioneering work in Chinese historiography.

However, it is hard to promote Sima Qian as the Father of History, given that the present-day historiography is undeniably based on the Greco-Roman tradition. Nevertheless, the failure of Chinese historiography to compete with Greco-Roman historiography in modern times had nothing to do with him. What matters is that when we compare the development of history as an academic discipline in the Greco-Roman and Chinese worlds in the specific context of their cultural tradition and unique historical experiences, it is clear that Sima Qian’s contributions are very impressive and arguably overshadow the achievements of both Herodotus and Thucydides when we adopt this limited perspective of evaluating their impact in the two separate worlds, Greco-Roman and Chinese.

Other notable differences in tradition of history (Greco-Roman & Chinese):

History was a latecomer in the series of inventions made by the Greeks in the archaic and classical period. It was a premature discovery. History was wrested from the province of mythology with considerable effort and its success was short-lived for history quickly lapsed into mythology again

Also, the systematic investigation and analysis of the past remained alien to Greek thought. The Greeks were much preoccupied with the past and yet in contrast to their contemporaries the Egyptian and Persians, they kept minimal records and showed scant interest in such records.

The Greeks’ different historical perspective is primarily the effect of a culture which is oral rather than literate. In contrast, the interest of the Chinese in history, even if we only base it on the simplistic notion of record keeping only, can be dated to antiquity. Indeed the amount of efforts devoted by the Chinese towards the recording of their past (both literate & oral) remained one of the most impressive features of the Chinese civilisation. More importantly, the concern shown by Chinese regarding what sort of legacy or judgements an individual will receive after his death (in accordance with the Confucianist praise-blame paradigm) is the best illustration of how much value history is accorded in Chinese society. History, therefore, can be said to resonate with the popular consciousness in the Chinese tradition, more so than in other civilisations; one could even be tempted to describe history as more than an academic discipline; it could even be regarded in the same vein as a religion

I am presenting to everyone the Chinese concept of history so as to portray the need to adopt a cultural-specific lens in order to properly recognise the achievements of Greco-Roman and Chinese historians respectively. Only by recognising the antithetical nature of the two modes of vision, the historical and the poetic can we understand the full achievement of the Greek historians. The extent of both the success and the failure of Greek historiography can be appreciated only when it is seen in the context of its own cultural milieu. In certain respects it overcame the formidable obstacles against which it had to contend in its cultural environment; in other respect, it became victim to those hostile forces. The same situation applies to the development of Chinese history as well.

There should not be a contest between the Chinese and the Greco-Roman writing of history because of the different beliefs of what history is. The Chinese, for instance, believed in the preservation of the past and in the continuation of tradition of representing that past. The Greeks, on the other hand, were starting to see the importance of rationality in various disciplines. In short, the Greco-Roman histories as written by Thucydides and Herodotus inject meaning into the past while the Chinese intention in writing history was just to preserve the past. In conclusion, in the debate of who is the Father of history, if there is a debate in the first place, (not that our group thinks there is a debate) we should not attempt to compare the Sima Qian with the Greeks because they existed in totally different civilizations with totally different views on the writing of history. Here we reiterate our stand that there can be no one Father of History because of different historical traditions and different views of history.

What one should bear in mind is that, all of these historians (examined) were attempting the best understanding of the past they thought possible. We might see some of these attempts as more accurate than others, but that is to follow our idea of what is true. Similar to the idea of how people of the past perceive history; one should note that they(people of the Past) also have different ideas about truth and what the point was in writing a true story about previous times. Part of this comes from each author’s particular purpose on writing history. Thus it makes no sense to nominate a father of history especially if the criteria for nomination are based on our guidelines and criteria.

Adopting the position that there is a Father of history greatly blinds us to the problem of how to reconcile the radically different models of the Greco-Roman and Chinese world in the discipline of history so as to make a meaningful comparison between them. As our group has tried to show again and again, it really tests your academic ability to the limits in trying to accomplish such a feat. Can we then realistically provide a satisfactory framework that will yield a viable Father of history in spite of the undeniable civilisation context? Or should we content ourselves with a compromise: accepting multiple fathers of history, which seems logical but nonetheless defies the basic aim in history to provide some clear meaning in our understanding of the historical past?

Who is the Father of History? Generally scholars agree that there are 3 main contenders for this title, namely Herodotus (currently regarded by most historians as the best choice for “Father of History”), Thucydides (Father of the “scientific approach” to history) & Sima Qian (widely-acknowledged as the Father of Chinese History). Their representative works: “The Histories”, “Records of the Historian” (Shiji), “The Peloponnesian War.”

What were their achievements in history, or rather the impact / influence of their historical works, which merit them such accolades today? Why is it so difficult to pinpoint one of these great individuals as the Father of History? Are they the only viable contenders? Why not Homer, Hecataeus, or even Confucius? Did they not also contribute in some ways to the development of the discipline of history? Should we then talk about multiple fathers of history rather than a Father of History?

In the first place, the very fact that scholars are even today debating about this issue regarding the Father of History clearly reveals the contentious issues and controversies that prevent any satisfactory conclusion or consensus. Actually this is also the case in other academic disciplines as well, e.g. Chemistry – the choice between Robert Boyle or Jabir Ibn Haiyan (also known as Geber), hence the debate is not limited to history alone.

The real controversy here is not just the way of judging the achievements of these ancient historians using our present-day perspectives (despite the inherent problems associated with this approach); the key sticking-point is how can we convincingly portray e.g. Herodotus’ contributions towards the foundation and development of history as an academic discipline as the most significant or groundbreaking of the 3, such that he deserves the title more than Thucydides or Sima Qian? This is clearly a very tricky question, and certainly merits serious consideration and discussion among historians.

When we purview the various scholarly works on this topic, we will realize that scholars generally use 4 main criteria to assist them in determining the credentials of the various candidates for the title Father of History. They are by no means definitive of course, but they would be extremely useful and relevant for the discussion about this topic.

1. The author should have a clear awareness of the need for trustworthy (plausible) sources or historical evidence.

2. He should be trying to prove to readers the viability of such sources or evidence through appropriate citations so as to discount bogus claims.

3. He should infuse meaning into the historical work such that it is elevated to a real piece of scholarly work of history that is recognized as such by subsequent scholars, in consideration of the historical and cultural context of the authors.

4. The works of this ancient “historian” should have a significant or groundbreaking impact / influence on the subsequent development of history as an academic discipline.

Before moving on to Herodotus, Thucydides and Sima Qian, I believe that it would be important to know that there were other great Greek individuals (scholars tend not to label them “historians”), who predated Herodotus, Thucydides and Sima Qian; nowadays historians do not regard their works as belonging to the academic discipline of history as we understand today, as I will explain shortly, but nonetheless I believe they deserve some mention because they did lay some form of a rudimentary foundation for the subsequent development of history as an academic discipline.

E.g. Homer introduced the idea of the narrative style in history writing through his famous epic poem “Iliad”, which recounted the great conflict known as the Trojan War in a sensational style but with a clear moral theme (negative role of women) throughout. However it was not based on empirical evidence, but simply a work of fiction (using myths & legends) that had no need for factual accuracy, and Herodotus contemptuously described it as a “poetic invention”. The key point is that Homer did not see the need to prove that his account was real, and that was not his main purpose anyway, so in that sense he failed the first criterion that we tend to ascribe to history writing: justifying any historical claims with appropriate sources (citations). Hence Homer’s poems were not considered part of history writing as we know today.

E.g. J. B. Bury (1958): Hecataeus as the “founder of history” who tried to fit Greek myths / fictions well within the fence of the possibility of human experiences. Hecateus in that sense tried to rationalize Greek myths, a crucial first step in undermining the use of myths as historical sources. His “Map of the World” was described as having the composition of “modern history” but nevertheless was geographical in its title and main argument. Hence Hecataeus was arguably the pioneer in developing the rationalistic method and advancing the progress in criticism regarding incredible and unbelievable claims. Yet one reason that some scholars believe that Herodotus, not Hecataeus, should be accorded the title is because Hecataeus dabbled in myth, genealogy, geography and ethnography but simply not history. Duce (1997): Herodotus therefore claims the title by default in the sense that his book “The Histories” was clearly a work about history.

What about Herodotus then? For one thing, he tried to differentiate between unsubstantiated stories and what he (“I”) knew, albeit mainly based on oral evidence, yet he did make an effort to check the veracity of his sources and examine his oral sources from a variety of local informants. Hence his citations were basically based upon hearsay (some would say gossip), even if it was substantiated by other local informants as well. His over-reliance on oral sources led some scholars, such as Detlev Fehling, to accuse Herodotus as actually being a writer of fiction who tried to give an appearance of reliability but in fact made up most of his stories. However, when we consider the historical context of Herodotus, we will realize that Greek society largely remained oral at least until the Hellenistic period, thus Herodotus was in fact relying on the most trusted medium of information in his time, and hence we cannot really fault him for his heavy dependence on oral sources.

But is this desire to achieve authenticity in history writing enough to therefore cement Herodotus’ claim to be Father of History? What were his truly significant accomplishments in this aspect? In the introduction to “The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus” by Carolyn Dewald & John Marincola, Herodotus was seen to have “put together an accurate account of the past and infused it with meaning by giving it causes, consequences and the intentions of the participants.” Personally, I feel that this statement reveals the crux of what history writing is actually about. I would say that this is the defining feature of history writing, for it injects a purpose into the record of history, transforming it into an academic discipline that requires human interpretation and analysis in the process. Herodotus in this sense is truly a pioneer of history writing as an academic discipline. As such, does he therefore deserve the title Father of History?

That said, Herodotus’ idea of causation and explanation in his history writing was mainly epitomized in the Greek word aitie, meaning blame or responsibility. This would then usually lead to tisis, which is the retaliation for injuries inflicted. In a way, it was a relatively simplistic framework that not only encompassed both human and divine explanations, but also tended to treat all causes as generally equal contributors to a historical incident.

Thucydides, on the other hand, called his historical work a report or writing up (xyngraphe), but it was really a real piece of analytical report which attempts to find a proximate or “true” cause for a historical incident. He was therefore different from Herodotus in this respect. He also set out to overcome certain weaknesses in Herodotus’ methods, for instance the insistence on careful checking of eyewitness testimony, on precise chronology, on the total elimination of romance from work and on a rational analysis which has no patience with oracles and supernatural interventions. As such, he could be said to have pioneered the modern day scientific-approach to history, due to his stubborn insistence on the secularization of history writing. His approach to history writing bears the closest resemblance to the history as we know today, so does he deserve the title Father of History more than Herodotus then?

When we contrast the Greco-Roman historians with Sima Qian (special case), we will note that Sima Qian judiciously cited most, if not all, of his sources (both oral & documentary). In fact there was a bibliography for his great work (Shiji) and he merely followed the tradition of previous methods of Chinese history writing in source citations. Let us consider Sima Qian’s achievements in perspective. He was indeed the first to try and write a history of the world (in this case meaning China and all the lands outside the borders of China of which he had any reliable knowledge), which was truly a grand enterprise in any case. From the period of the Qin dynasty to the reign of Emperor Han Wudi, he was pretty much on his own, for he could no longer rely on the works of his predecessors. He was therefore no longer just a transmitter of historical knowledge but was forced to invent some sort of methodology and framework to facilitate his groundbreaking work. His use of imperial succession and continuity formed the basis of a chronological, imperial framework that gave Chinese historiography an orderly chronological system.

His achievements were such that the structure of Shiji became the basic model for subsequent Chinese dynastic histories, known as Standard Histories (zhengshi), hence Sima Qian was truly the Father of Chinese History in every sense of the word. Shiji was certainly a groundbreaking work in the context of Chinese history. Sima Qian’s achievements therefore rivaled or even surpassed that of Herodotus & Thucydides when viewed within the limited context of their civilizations, hence does he not deserve to be in contention for the title Father of History?

I have therefore only provided as best as I can a general overview of what the notion of Father of History entails, and the immense difficulties inherent in trying to tackle a topic that is so controversial. Is it really plausible to pinpoint just one of them as the Father of History? Should we then propose multiple fathers of history instead? What do you all think?

This is just to add on to Christine’s comments below. I also posted this in the ivle forum.

Before we can even discuss who the ‘father of history’ is, perhaps the biggest question would be- what is the group’s definition of ‘history’?

I realize you do have a set of ‘criteria’ for being the ‘father of history’. However as the group as aptly pointed out, it is meaningless and very subjective to judge or to come to a decision about who is the ‘father of history’ for all of them made significant contributions according to different periods of time. Therefore can the set of ‘criteria’ used to judge who the father of history is be instead used to define ‘history’ instead? Or shld there be more criteria, such as-“a work of history should contain both elements of narrative and analysis” (I am just hazarding a suggestion here ) In addition, which time period are you referring to when defining/describing/setting guidelines for the term ‘history’? Is it history as we know now? This is because as we know, the term ‘history’ is fluid and means different things to different generations of people.

By extension, we can therefore answer questions of why the women or Sima Qian were left out as being ‘fathers’ or ‘mothers’ of history. Or why there aren’t multiple ‘fathers’ of history.

Overall, I think the problem can be somewhat eased if there was a definition or yardstick for what we mean by history here, according to what the group thinks. While such definitions can be subjective, they nevertheless show what the group thinks first of all of the key subject here, which is ‘ history’. Surely, the people who judged Heradotus as ‘father of history’ would have judged him so according to certain guidelines of what ‘history’ meant to them and what role should a historian play. Perhaps the group can clarify?

The presentation today focused on the pitfalls inherent in the concept of “a Father of History”. But looking at the question from a different angle, the concept “a Father of History” suggests that the discipline of history, as we understand it today, began somewhere. The presenters have given us many reasons not to pinpoint a single origin. However, what do possible origins have in common? I remember that there was a set of criteria for someone to be considered as a Father of History. Maybe we could debate that?

According to the dictionary, Providence refers to God, “especially when conceived as omnisciently directing the universe and the affairs of humankind with wise benevolence”. (I think this was the Providence mentioned in class, but if not please tell me.) Given this definition, if history is restricted to the “affairs of humankind”, would not Providence be a force outside history? And if Providence is indeed such a force unconstrained by historical factors, how then can the concept explain historical events except in a deterministic way?

And while we’re on the philosophy train, why does existence in and of itself matter? If this world should end in ice or fire, what reverberations would this have on a billion billion suns?

Hey everyone. I’ve been thinking a bit about what was said during class on Tuesday and something struck me. My impression of the post-modern movement is that it rejects the existence of universal Truth. Mark himself stated that quite emphatically. However, is not the rejection of universal Truth in itself, accepted as a truism? And is it not considered to apply universally? In that case are the post-modernists simply shooting themselves in the foot?

Isaac

From Tuesday’s lecture:

Oakeshott:
“History is the historian’s experience. It is ‘made’ by nobody save the historian: to write”.

This reminds me of passages from E H Carr’s “What Is History?”, in which Carr argues that it is up to the historian to set his own agenda and choose the sources which fit this particular agenda of his, out of “an ocean of facts”.

“He has the dual task of discovering the few significant facts and turning them into facts of history, and of discarding the many insignificant facts as unhistorical,” Carr asserts.

“The history we read… though based on facts, is, strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgements… The dead hand of vanished generations of historians, scribes and chroniclers has determined beyond the possibility of appeal the pattern of the past.”

Take medieval history, for example. We might read in a history book that “the people of the Middle Ages were deeply concerned with religion.” But Carr points out that “what we know as the facts of medieval history have almost all been selected for us by generations of chroniclers who were professionally occupied in the theory and practice of religion, and who therefore thought it supremely important, and recorded everything relating to it, and not much else.

“Our picture has been pre-selected and predetermined for us… it never occurred to me to enquire by what accident or process of attrition that minute selection of facts [that we call 'medieval history', for example], out of all the myriad facts that must once have been known to somebody, had survived to become the facts of history.

“… the few known facts are all facts of history… History has been called an enormous jig-saw with a lot of missing parts.”

(E H Carr, What Is History?, pp. 7-9)