On the Greek Historians

...treated with order and method, to constitute a system a original: "σύστημα" (systema) and a solid structure b original: "πύκνωσιν" (pyknōsin) of an art? Or who does not know that, wherever something is done laudably by one person and unsuccessfully by another, certain reasons and rules can be observed? Whoever wishes to embody c original: "σωματοποιεῖν" (sōmatopoiein), meaning to give a systematic form these rules establishes an art. But, our opponent says, history is a bare narration of deeds that lacks all craft, except perhaps for style, which it borrows from another art. We, however, see a great deal of craft in history. So do all those who study it, not to entertain others with pleasant recitals at banquets and social circles, but to equip the mind with civic wisdom. The greatest philosopher Vossius likely refers to Aristotle here. would not have strayed far from the truth if histories had to be written in the same way as the annals of the ancient High Priests. Regarding these, I will quote a passage original: "περιόδῳ" (periodō) from Cicero in the second book of On the Orator: History, he says, was nothing other than the composing of annals. To preserve public memory, from the start of Roman history until Publius Mucius, the High Priest, the High Priest would record all the events of every year. He would publish them on a whitened board and display the tablet at his home so the public could read it. These are the records even now called the Great Annals. Many followed this style of writing. They left behind only monuments of times, people, places, and events without any ornaments. Just as among the Greeks there was Pherecydes, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus, so were our own Cato, Pictor, and Piso. They did not understand the techniques used to ornament speech. As long as their meaning was understood, they believed the only merit in speaking was brevity. Coelius Antipater, an excellent man and friend of Crassus, rose a little higher and gave history a more powerful voice. The others were not decorators of events but merely narrators. But truly, anyone who believes that such a bare list of facts is "history" departs far from the judgment of the ancients. For antiquity held these records in no better regard than fables. This is because such writings, much like fables, provide more pleasure than practical use. Indeed, Sempronius Asellio, as quoted in Aulus Gellius d, d Book 5, chapter 18. does not hesitate to say of that kind of writing: That is telling stories to children, not writing history. This noble writer spoke somewhat hyperbolically original: "ὑπερβολικώτερον" (hyperbolikōteron). They called things "fables" if they were useful in their own age but fell out of use once better methods were discovered. This is how Justinian also spoke in his...