GRECO-ROMAN TRADITIONS

GRECO-ROMAN TRADITIONS

The term “History” is derived from a Greek word ‘istoria’ which means inquiry. The first known author who used the term to describe his work was Herodotus, who is often considered as the father of history. In many ways, the works of Herodotus and his successors have been regarded as a yardstick for measuring other compositions. As such, it becomes important to understand some of the features associated with these works.

The chief features of the Greco-Roman traditions may be discussed in the following points:

Warfare as the focus of history-writing:

As the objective of history writing was to preserve memories of what were regarded as great or important events, what was regarded as being worthy of memorialisation was a great war and its outcome. This classical period witnessed the expansion of the Roman Empire which was inevitably marked by warfare. Therefore, the preoccupation with military activities by these writers is not surprising.

Moral concern:

While the Augustan age is generally regarded as the heyday of Roman imperialism, it is interesting that these contemporary writers voice a sense of discomfort, and even agony at what was perceived to be a state of decline. The tone of moral concern distinguishes the accounts of the classical writers. . The Latin writers adopted a solemn, moral tone, which has been regarded as a feature of the Augustan age.

Variety of sources:

The classical writers used a good variety of sources. Eyewitness observations were valued, but other sources of information, derived from tradition, religious centers, chronicles, interviews, and a range of documentary sources were tapped as well. The possibility of mutually conflicting versions was also recognized and strategies were evolved for resolving such situations. The archives and traditions clustering around shrines were obviously important sources that were drawn upon.

Humanism versus fate:

The most noticeable concern of these early historians was to provide a detailed narrative of what they regarded as central events. They were careful in describing the events but they rarely asked why it happened. This may be because the widely accepted idea of the time was the role of ‘fate’ and the validity of omens as indices of future events. Divine wrath is also occasionally invoked. Yet, it would be a mistake to dismiss these authors as simply superstitious. In fact, the importance of human agent with all his/her failings and triumphs is also duly recognized. 

Substantialism:

Substantialism implies a theory of knowledge according to which only that which is unchanging is knowable. But what is unchanging is not historical, it is the transitory event that is historical. According to Collingwood, Greco-Roman historiography can never show how anything comes into existence; all the agencies that appear on the stage of history have to be assumed ready-made before history begins. This became the chief defect of the classical writers.

In conclusion, we may say that the accounts of classical writers provide us with some of the earliest instances of raising and addressing questions of authenticity and plausibility. They also tried to give possible historical explanations. It is interesting to note that the histories provided by them are not simply eulogistic but are marked by anxieties about the present. They provided an enduring legacy of history-writing and their quest remains part of the historian’s endeavour even after centuries.