Herodotus on Tyrants objectivty
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
Examine the reports given by Herodotus of two classes of despotic rulers, the archaic Greek tyrants and the Great Kings of Persia, and thereby determine whether he has treated them objectively, or whether he has used them for the purpose of moralising.
Objectivity,in an historical context, is generally recognised as the quality of treating material based on the facts, uncoloured by the view or opinions of the author. The nature of Herodotus' Histories makes an assessment of objectivity difficult. To determine whether he wrote objectively, we have to consider both his sources and methods as an historian, as well as his aims as a writer. Much of Herodotus' information was gained from autopsy; what he had actually observed himself. Anything not derived from autopsy must have depended on the accounts of others, or been formed from intuition, guess work and imagination. Even that information which was gained from autopsy is not completely reliable, as it is tainted by Herodotus' own perspective and prejudice. Herodotus' efforts to remain objective and non-partisan are evident, and the author advises at several points that he has chosen to relate the most feasible or accurate version of events. Herodotus makes few clear value judgements in the authorial voice, and exhibits little partisanship to either side (of the east-west conflict). However, the fact that Herodotus had to filter his information and choose what was both historically accurate and pertinent to his story, means that he has forfeited much objectivity, simply by his choice of what to relate...