• 3. The Systematic Historical Works of Greek The first, and in the estimate of modern exponents of "Kulturgeschichte," the greatest of the systematic Greek historians was Herodotus of Halicarnassus (c. 480-425 s.c.). By his interest in geography and in the civiliza tions of the East he gave evidence of his Ionic antecedents, while by his dominant concern with the Athenian democracy he gave proof of the transfer of historical attention to Hellenic so ciety. His was a narrative of Gra.co Asiatic relations and contacts from the reign of Crcesus of Lydia (560-546 B.c.) to the defeat of the Persian invasion in 478 B.C. The central theme was the destruction of the forces of Xerxes by the Greeks. But his work was not like that of his great successor, Thucydides, nar rowly political and military. It was the story of the struggle of two fundamentally opposed types of civilization, and to prove this antag onism, Herodotus surveyed the foundations of these two cultures to locate the deeper causes of the conflict. It combined, thus, the charac teristics of a "Kulturgeschichte" and a "Welt geschichte," though both were strictly limited in point of time. An ardent admirer of Athenian *democracy" he eulogized Athens and its tri umph over autocratic Persian imperialism with the epic fervor of a Bancroft. While recog nizing and stating the fundamental principles of. historical criticism, he often deserted them, especially in his credulity in accepting the tales he heard on his travels. On the whole, however, modern historical, archaeological and ethno graphic research has tended to confirm rather than to discredit his statements, and no subse quent historian has been more keen or sym pathetic in his analysis of human nature. As the scope of history has been broadened in recent years through the reassertion of the value and position of "Kulturgeschichte," the slogan has come more and more to be "back to Herodotus" rather than "back to Thucydi des," as was long so popular.
As much as subsequent historiography owes to Herodotus with respect to an of the proper scope of history, it is equally in debted to Thucydides (c. 465-396 ac.) for con tributions to the methodology of historical re search and to the construction of a coherent historical narrative. His theme, the Pelopon nesian War (431-404 ac.), was as much more narrow and restricted a field than that covered by Herodotus as the American Civil War would be as compared with the evolution of civilization in the 19th century. As his his tory was in part prepared by Thucydides dur ing the course of the conflict, it was the work of a scholarly and philosophic war correspond ent —an antique Hilaire Belloc — rather than of the dispassionate historian reconstructing the events of a distant past from a study of the documents. His sketch of the rise of Greece shows, however, that be had rare power in portraying the past if he had seen fit to utilize it. His greatest contribution to historiography was in the field of criticism and methodology. He set forth with great vigor the thesis that the permanence and enduring fame of an historical ivork should depend rather upon the accuracy of the 'statements than upon the entertainment furnished by the narrative. Ranke, at the
opening•of the 19th century, did not state more effectively than Thutydides had at the close of the 5th century ac., that accuracy of data was the foundation of history. The second great historical canon of Thucydides was "relevance" of material, something widely at variance with the long and numerous digressions of Herodo tus. To these should be added his ability in the mastery of details and their subordination to the movement of the whole narrative. In these respects Thucydides may rightly be held to have been the founder of scientific and critical history. Finally, while Thucydides has received much credit in this respect which really belongs to Polybius, he was proba ol y the first historian clearly and definitely to state the alleged &pragmatic° value of the writing and study of history. In the opinion of Thucydides, lithe accurate knowledge of what has happened will be useful, because, according to human probability, similar things will happen again." Though his writings must not be judged by the canons of Lamprecht's Historical Institute, the Sorbonne or L'Ecole des Chartes, they were not free from major defects. He was unable to grasp the concept of time and to view his facts in their true historical perspec tive. He narrowed the field of history not only to a consideration merely of contemporary political phenomena, but even to the external military and diplomatic phases of political activity. He missed the vital significance of the deeper social and economic forces in his tory, a weakness perhaps over-emphasized by Mr. Cornford. It can scarcely be doubted, moreover, that he carried the element of too far and omitted as much ma terial that was pertinent as Herodotus had included which was not germane to the subject. Again, he illustrated Carlyle's weakness in his dramatic interpretation of events in terms of great personalities, and he did not possess the latter's ability to portray a personality in its en tirety. Lastly, there appeared little or none of Mabillon's profound discussion of the critical use of documents; his sources were carefully concealed in order that the style of the narra tive might not suffer. One may agree entirely with Bury that "the work of Thucydides marks the longest and most decisive step that has ever been taken by a single man towards making history what it is to-day," wi hout re garding that statement as an unmix.d com pliment. Thucydides certainly was influential in bringing historiography under the domina tion of the "political fetish* and the spell of episodes from which it from classical times to the end of the 19th century, and from which it is only now beginning to escape. It must not be forgotten that, as Lamprecht has insisted, historical accuracy means as much the presentation of the complete analysis of an event, period or movement as it does the mere truth of such facts as are narrated. From the standpoint of this broader and more funda mental view of historical accuracy Thucydides will scarcely rank as superior to Herodotus. The ardent admirers of the former have for gotten that scope and content are quite as im portant in history as refinement of the methodology research.