Historical Narration Emerges with Style(s)

In reading Herodotus and Thucydides, I was struck by how sophisticated it was of both of them to, in their own way, analyze a set of events and retell those events through prose in their own voice. If we look back on the semester's readings we know that the origins of 'documenting' history (and values and norms) came from an oral tradition that used memesis. So here we have two authors that effectively separated themselves from the historical knowledge and broke it down according to their own methodologies -- that's pretty impressive!

A major difference between the two of them is their stylistic approach to the prose. Thucydides takes on a very detached narrative style (one could say with a smack of academic flair?), where aside from describing his methodology at the beginning, he does not refer to himself at all. Herodotus on the other hand takes on a much more personable approach where he is constantly referring back to himself and his own opinions as a way to contextualize the source of the material he is presenting.  We know that both accounts of the wars they document are not perfect as they are writing from their own ethnocentric perspective. However throughout much of Western history (especially after the Enlightenment), we have been inclined as a society to follow a Thucydides-type of approach to narrating history, where we remove ourselves from the narration in order to appear objective. Personally I prefer the approach Herodotus takes: explicitly subjective if equally manipulative! I suppose it comes down to the ongoing questions we keep asking in this course: is it better to reach for Truth even if we know we will never be perfect in reaching it? Or is it better to realize our limitations as humans and through that realization, evolve beyond seeking one Truth?

Oral Epic Identities AKA Relaying the Message

This week's readings reminded me that as much as things change, they often stay the same.

Let's start off with Havelock's statement that, He [Homer] is at once a storyteller and also a tribal encyclopedist (page 83). Throughout his 4th chapter Havelock describes how the poet intermingled the use of sounds, rhythms, repetitions, and bodily movements with the content of the story itself in order to engage the audience. By doing so he ensured comprehension of the messages within the epic as well as their sustainability for future generations. In this case the poet understood the capabilities of his audience and used the necessary strategies to successfully transfer information and knowledge, as noted by Havelock: The Homeric poet controlled the culture in which he lived for the simple reason that his poetry became and remained the only authorised version of important utterance (page 145). So the Homeric poet was essentially the sole expert at creating these oral epics and as such controlled the creation of identities that defined the social and ethical boundaries of the time (e.g., honor).

If we then tie in Havelock's interpretation of Plato's criticism of poetry, we can begin to see an evolution of thought. Plato lived in a time where rational analysis was a burgeoning discourse that challenged the process of learning by 'imitation'. With the rise of new strategies and tools for communication (i.e., prose) a new system of relaying the broad messages of social and ethical conduct was on the rise. Individuals were encouraged to learn how to analyze their world and deduce on their own how to identify themselves within it.

I would compare this divide to the current divide between traditional mass media and interactive new media where the identities that define social and ethical rules are created not by a sole source but by multiple ones using new strategies.