True History and False History in Classical Antiquity

Abstract

Like all works of literature, works of history end up sooner or later with a readership quite different from that envisaged or hoped for by their authors. A subtle and polemical work such asThe Gallic Warof Caesar has become a standard text for teaching Latin in the early years of secondary education, as have the tender and sophisticated elegies of Tibullus and Propertius. In Italy, the unpopularity of ‘The Betrothed’ by A. Manzoni, a finely ironical and difficult but rewarding novel, is the result of the distaste or boredom experienced by children forced to read it at school.A similar fate has dogged Thucydides. As T. P. Wiseman has recently emphasized, Thucydides and Polybius, precisely because their historical method is close to our own, are regarded as the paradigms against which to judge ancient historical writing—quite wrongly. In fact they are untypical and exceptional; and one has moreover to ask to what extent they were even properly understood in antiquity. In a famous chapter near the beginning of his work (1. 22. 4), Thucydides proudly distances it from that of Herodotus, though without naming him: his own history is not designed for passing appreciation, but is to be of permanent value. Because human nature is always the same, a critical record of past events will present analogies and resemblances when compared with future developments. Knowledge of the past is thus useful, because it improves ones judgment and understanding and even suggests how to behave in situations in which one may find oneself.