| Summary |
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the methodological portion of Thucydides' introduction of History of the Peloponnesian War and compare his idea of historical writing with the modern conception. I argue that the main reason History possesses permanence is that Thucydides attempts to get to the essence of history. He insists that telling a "true" account of past events serves a vital purpose. Thucydides clearly demonstrates what his standard for knowledge is, as well as acknowledging ambiguity in recollection. Undoubtedly, we can never know to what extent he wavered from his set standards. The purpose of this investigation, however, is not to debate whether Thucydides was successful in applying and adhering to his criteria but rather to ask: Did Thucydides produce a reasonable definition of the modern historian's task? The increase of scholarly specialization has become extreme in the past forty years. With respect to Thucydides' introduction, specifically 1.22, can we formulate a set of procedural rules that will be acceptable to the majority of historians? In other words, does Thucydides exhibit the most basic principles of the historical profession, which are emphasized in his conviction for historic precision? This thesis will argue, indeed, that many of the links between Thucydides and contemporary historians are indeed plausible. Differences between ancient historians' and modern historians' notions of methodology may be more telling than similarities. Yet, the similarities link Thucydides' conception of history with ours. For Thucydides, history is not just the retelling of events; his methodology provides evidence, based on critical analysis, and enables these events to be preserved with some credibility for posterity. |
