Research Abstract: History - Greek historians have made a unique contribution in the field of writing. He paid attention to the writing of history through research and criticism, instead of only describing the writers of the past. He was not only interested in his family lineage to but was also aware of acquiring knowledge of the contemporary geography and environment. This is the reason why both the above elements have been found in a detailed form in the history written by him. Compared to the Greeks, the tradition of Roman historiography is backward in nature. Since he did not pay any attention to historiography for a long time, his thinking is not original. In this research paper, the study of a comparative study of the writings of Roman and Greek historians has been highlighted.
Key Terms: Historiography, Thought, Comparative Studies, Roman and Greek Historians.
Scholars and historians of different times have paid attention to the writing of history keeping in view their needs. Rise and fall is the eternal law of nature and man has been struggling since time immemorial. Mainly two forms of history were found in the beginning. First narrative and second scientific. In the first form of writing, history has been just a story, but the supporters of the scientific concept have been successful in changing its form by raising questions like when what, how, and why with each event.
Greek historians have made a unique contribution to the field of historiography. He has established history as a powerful independent branch of knowledge like literature and philosophy. Due to their interest in history, Greek historians first paid attention to the creation of historical literature. He was not only interested in his family lineage but was also aware of acquiring knowledge of the contemporary geography and environment. This is the reason why both the above elements have been found in a detailed form in the history written by him. The first work of historical importance was presented by Greek scholars in the form of Homer's poems, but there is a sharp difference of opinion among historians and scholars regarding its author. Instead of getting into a futile dispute regarding the name of the poet, we should focus our attention on his subject matter which proves that the poet's attitude towards beauty is the reflection of his living intelligence. Pro. Shotwell clearly states that Homer's poems can be attributed to the Greeks in the same way the Old Testament writings are attributed to the Jews.
After Homer, Hesiod is said to be the second Greek scholar whose attention was mainly on religion, but he also paid special attention to history writing. He has also described the birth of God and his behavior towards the public in his book. Hesiod has described four ages based on the name of four metals on the basis of the cycle theory, which is known as the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. He has described the last age as a time of human suffering and suffering while he has highly praised the first age. Secondly, by the time of the Silver Age, the feeling of inferiority in the human condition had started to rise, which in the Bronze Age, due to the void of the human spirit, started moving towards mutual domestic discord and conflict.
The real form of history writing in Greece started in the sixth century BC. Not considering the medium of poetry as appropriate, later scholars started writing history through prose. He paid attention to historiography through research and criticism rather than simply basing it on the description of earlier authors. Among the Greek writers we first find the description of Hecataeus who was the predecessor of Herodotus. He was born into a wealthy Greek family in the 6th century. He wrote his book after a detailed tour of Midda. In the first part of which he presented the description of the Iranian world, he criticized and refuted the ancient concepts in the second.
Compared to the Greeks, the tradition of Roman historiography is backward in nature. There is neither sharpness nor knowledge in their writings like the Greek historians. Therefore Roman historians are not placed in the same category as Greek historians. Since he did not pay any attention to historiography for a long time, his thinking is not original. In general, they supported and followed the ideas of their predecessors. This is the reason why no historian equal to Herodotus and Thucydides was seen in the history writing of Rome. The people of Rome have not provided any specific contribution to the writing of history, but the writing style of the Greeks is very attractive and influential and their analytical ability is clearly visible in their writing style.
There is depth in the thoughts of the Greeks. He was particularly interested in historiography and thought that history is a philosophy. He believed in unbiased historiography whereas the scholars of Rome were not original authors. He used only the descriptive method, his approach was mainly political and utilitarian. In fact, the Romans had adopted the tradition of historical narration from the Greeks and were highly influenced by the Greeks in this area. Therefore, the Greek influence is clearly visible in their historiography. Roman scholars did not pay any special attention to historiography until the time of the Second Punic Wars. He started his work in this direction only after the texts of great Greek scholars like Herodotus and Thucydides and scripted his achievements and works.
Difference Between Roman and Greek Historians: Roman historians were more of a follower of Greek historians as their approach was not very detailed. Following were the major differences between the historians related to both countries –
1. The scope of the writings of the Greek historians was very wide and they wrote about every aspect of human life, while the Roman historians mentioned only some important events related to the Fuphalin system.
2. The Greeks have described all the important aspects of life but the historians of Rome have not given any description of the basic questions of life.
3. Greek historians have given importance to the critical interpretation of the search for truth, but the scholars of Rome have not paid attention to knowing the reasons related to the incident, nor have they shown eagerness to know the truth.
4. In the establishment of the society, the Greeks have not given any special importance to the person and made only the essence, but the people of Rome were very closely related to the monarchy.
5. The Greeks clarified the solution to the controversial aspects of the entire history but the scholars of Rome have not paid any attention to the complex problems.
6. The Greeks raised the level of history and kept it alive, but the attitude of the Romans towards life was inconsistent and biased.
7. According to the Greeks, there is no permanent feature of policies and the nature of the state is constantly changing, but the scholars of Rome believed in the permanence of monarchy, which is helpful in the development of culture.
8. The Greeks had faith in creative leadership because they considered it helpful in culture and literary development, but Rome's historiography focused on autobiographies and did not give importance to the role of culture in literary development.
9. Greek scholars were not only the father of the method of historiography, but they also made a special contribution to the development of history, while the Romans only took the material of historiography from the defeated nations.
10. The Greeks had expanded the field of history by giving importance to humanism in history, but the scholars of Rome remained limited only to political and military events.
Because of the backwardness of the Roman historians compared to the Greeks: In the field of historiography, Roman historians have always been backward in comparison to the Greeks, for which the following reasons can be said to be mainly responsible.
1. Roman scholars did not give importance to the original evidence nor made detailed efforts to assess the facts. Government information was the basis of his historiography. The people giving this information were also not skilled and did not make any effort to authenticate the reliability of the information.
2. The approach of the historians of Rome was not analytical and critical. He used to be satisfied only by writing the incident and his attention was never attracted to the scientific approach.
3. The scholars of Rome never tried to know the sentiments of the defeated countries, so their records were not based on truth.
4. Historians of Rome were always engrossed in courtly luxuries and pleasures. He also did not have proper knowledge of the then customs, manners, and trade, nor was he aware of the lifestyle of the common people. Therefore, he did not use his personal knowledge and experience in his writings.
5. Roman historians did not pay attention to historiography while conquering countries, and when consciousness awakened in this direction, it was too late, so they gave importance to quantity instead of quality. Undoubtedly, he had enough source material, so he used it to write a detailed treatise and did not pay any attention to its merits.
Conclusion: Greek and Roman historians were completely distant from each other. The point of view of the Greeks was focused on truth and the field of their historiography was also very developed, whereas the scholars of Rome paid attention to quantity without giving importance to quality and completely rejected the social, economic, and cultural activities of human beings. This is the reason why Roman historians lagged far behind compared to Greek historians. Nevertheless, it is clear that the historians of both countries made significant efforts to create objective history keeping in view the circumstances and needs of their era.
Know About Hinduism. How old is it?