The Many Contrasts of Ancient and Modern History
Mary Alexander
HIST 100-50
Professor Isaac
September 25, 2012
1
Studying and recording history have changed with the times. In fact, the definition of
history itself has changed with the times. One of the few aspects of history that have not changed
is that ancient life and modern life are both loosely divided into those that care about history and
those that do not; those that are thorough in the recording of the past and the present and those
that go through life without even rethinking the previous day. Needless to say, the approaches on
history today are vastly different from those of mankind’s ancient ancestors. Because the
technology of today is far more advanced than what existed in ancient times, today’s generation
has more resources to record history with. There are cameras and computers and even seemingly
endless supplies of paper and writing utensils. The means of recording history are there, on top
of the fact that there are many people who are historians. Today, there are those who have made
it their profession to study the history of the past and to record what happens in everyday life in
order to make history.
Today, there are also textbooks. Samuel S. Wineberg touches on the concept of textbooks
when he says:
As vehicles for creating historical understanding, textbooks present intriguing challenges
and create a set of problems all their own. Textbooks pivot on what Roland Barthes
called the “referential illusion,” the notion that the way things are told is simply the way
things were. To achieve this illusion, textbooks exploit various stylistic
conventions….traces of how the text came to be are hidden or erased: textbooks rarely
cite the documentary record, and – if primary material appears – it is typically set off in
“sidebars” so as not to interfere with the main text.1
The issues with textbooks are often overlooked, but they certainly do exist. Textbooks are biased
in the sense that they educate readers with selective facts and figures. The textbook writers
decide what they wish to highlight in their books. History was increasingly skewed as time went
on because everything declined from what originally happened to what the next person in line
wanted to selectively pass on. Facts were taken out or even tweaked as each generation passed
2
said facts down. Not only was history skewed, but it was also simplified. Gilbert T. Sewall,
member of the American Textbook Council, asserts that:
Many history textbooks reflect lowered sights for general education. They raise basic
questions about sustaining literacy and civic understanding in a democratic polity and
culture. Bright photographs, broken format and seductive color overwhelm the text and
confuse the page. Typeface is larger and looser, resulting in many fewer words and much
more white space. The text disappears or gets lost.2
Sewall has been a professional on textbooks for twenty-five years, yet even he can see that they
are flawed. He recognizes that history textbooks take out some information and simplify the
preserved information. Readers are not as well-educated on the topics as they could be because
there is less data than what previously existed before the books were edited.
In ancient times, the issue of simplifying records of occurrences did not exist, whether the
events happened during the recorder’s life or before they were born. Writers were quite complex
in their language, regardless of the intellectual capacity of the general population. Herodotus, for
example, used very descriptive language and was adept at detail. His works used specific names
and locations that enhanced the vividness of the text to the reader. He began one of his works
with:
Croesus, king of Lydia, reigned over the peoples west of the river Halys, which flows
from the south between the Syrians and the Paphlagonians, and runs northward into the
Black Sea. He was the first foreigner, as far as we know, to have contact with the Greeks,
subjugating some by forcing payment of tribute and forming friendships with others. He
subjugated the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians who dwell on the Asian seaboard and
made a treaty of friendship with the Lacedaemonians. Before the time of Croesus’ reign,
all the Greeks were free.3
Despite the fact that Herodotus did not live during this time, he still seemed to know exact
locations and names without difficulty. This attention to detail enhanced his ability to tell stories.
The works of Herodotus are still very influential in today’s society. If anything, he is
known for telling a good story. As the Father of History4 and the Father of Lies,5 he established
3
the ancient approaches to history that have been altered and changed all the way to the modern
day. His two titles very appropriately label his approaches to ancient history. While he
supposedly established history, he also created a confident way of telling stories that are not
necessarily true. Because he used so many details and names in his stories, his works could be
presumably true to the casual reader. Even so, Herodotus is still authoritative enough in his
presentations to tell a good, convincing story. James Romm notes the difference between
Herodotus’s approaches to history as opposed to the modern historian’s:
Of course, Herodotus, as the chief storyteller of the Histories, stands in a relation to his
audience different from that of a lawyer to a jury because he isn’t trying to persuade us
toward a particular course of action. Nevertheless, he too uses stories to reveal the true
nature of events and the true character of people or even, in some cases, larger truths
about the universe and the gods.6
Modern history, by contrast, tries to persuade more than inform. Writers today like to influence
the thoughts and ideas of others rather than to tell a story. Also, most people in modern times like
to base history around themselves. John Marincola points out that:
There is, in general, a tendency as time goes on for authors, while not abandoning the
magnification of their theme, to present a more ‘personal’ call to history, that is, to say
something of themselves and the personal experiences that underlay their writing of
history.6
This generation is increasingly self-focused. In order to fully understand and appreciate history,
one must stand back and take a look at the ways in which the ancient historians did it. Today’s
historians must begin the process of unlearning what society wishes to hear and learning from
the mistakes and successes of the founders of history, such as Herodotus.
Because history has changed over the years, a lot of crucial information has become lost.
In order to fully grasp the events of the past, modern historians should turn to ancient historians
for methods of recording history and sharing it with the public. Herodotus had extensive
knowledge and used it without reservation or hesitation. The question then arises whether
4
historians are lawyers or investigators. Because many modern-day historians try to use history as
a form of persuasion rather than a documentation of validity, today’s society might answer that
question with the first option. Unfortunately, a lot of historians look into the past to find points
that will solidify their arguments. They record the history that pertains to the points they are
trying to make. Perhaps a future generation will find it within them to learn more effective
approaches to recording history.
5
End Notes
Samuel S. Wineberg, “Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts,” Phi Delta
Kappan 80, no. 7 (March 1999), 493.
1
“Senate Testimony,” American Textbook Council, 2011; available from http://www.
historytextbooks.org/senate.htm.
2
3
Herodotus, On the War for Greek Freedom, trans. Samuel Shirley, (Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, 2003), 4.
Raymond Kierstead. “Herodotus and the Invention of History,” Reed Magazine,
September 2011, http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/september2011/articles/features/classic
lecture/classiclecture.html.
4
5
Ibid., Kierstead.
5
James Romm, Herodotus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 123.
6
John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1997), 34.