Histories of Historiography: A Review Essay

38 Historically Speaking · September/October 2008 Histories of Historiography: A Review Essay Zachary S. Schiffman The complexity of the history of historiography derives not only from its self-reflexive nature but also from the shifting and multiform aspects of its subject matter. "Historiography "—our American shorthand for the more cumbersome and British-sounding "history of historiography"—encompasses at least three separate but overlapping subject areas: the history of historical writing, the history of historical scholarship, and the history of historical consciousness. At the risk of creating confusion, we might also add a meta-subject: the history of writing about historiography, which, as we shall see, is not entirely synonymous with the genre of historiography itself. If all this sounds bewildering , it is, especially for the less method-conscious among us. Fortunately, though, we have at hand two practical examples of this undertaking whose clarity and good judgment dispel all confusion while, at the same time, revealing die manifold richness of this seemingly arcane subject. John Burrow's A History of Histories: Epics, Chronicles, Romances, and Inquiriesfrom Herodotus and Thucydides to the Twentieth Century—the long tide itself has an antique air—focuses primarily on the original and traditional meaning of historiography, namely the history of historical writing. This is not to say that he doesn't venture into the areas of historical scholarship and historical consciousness , but the beating heart of his subject lies in historical narrative. And what a veritable cicerone he is to die whole vast range of historical writing! His work everywhere bears the marks of a truly refined historical judgment, presented in a wry but economical style that belies its 500-page length. Indeed, if any comprehensive historiography might be deemed a quick read, this is it. Burrow confesses at the outset that "most readers of this book will not have read many or most of the historical works it discusses; indeed, that is a part of the book's justification." Although he certainly intended his work as an enticement for others to read further in the genre of history, most of his readers probably will not deepen their acquaintance with many of the authors he discusses beyond the very thorough narrative summaries and literary examples he provides. Perhaps he inclined toward thoroughness for this very reason, and in lesser hands the all too predictable rhythm of plot summary and exemplary quotation would have become tedious. But Burrow's trained eye is so discriminating, and his observations so apropos, that even those intimate with the works he discusses will benefit from his account of them. Predictably, Burrow begins by rounding up the usual suspects: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius among the Greeks, and Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, and Ammianus Marcellinus among the Romans. He also includes a number of their known associates: Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Appian, Cassius Dio, and Josephus. All in all, an auspicious gathering, with each individual suitably spotlighted and investigated. One can, of course, quibble here and there with what Burrow has to say about these figures. One might argue that, in his effort to oudine the plot of Herodotus's history, Burrow gives short shrift to Book Two, with its all-important chronology of Egyptian gods, under which Herodotus subsumes Greek religion and culture. An analysis of this topic would have resonated nicely with Burrow's treatment of Egyptian record keeping in the prologue . One might also dispute Burrow's inference that Thucydides cast his account of the Peloponnesian War as the story of Athenian hubris and nemesis, arguing instead that he sought to transcend the traditional moral economy of his day. And on a more factual note, one might observe that the great Roman defeat at Adrianople, detailed by Ammianus Marcellinus, was at the hands of the Goths, not the Persians. These quibbles, though, seem mean-spirited when one considers that innumerable differences of opinion will inevitably arise with a book of this breadth and depth—an enormous scope that itself excuses even the rare factual errors. Let Burrow's valedictory to Thucydides epitomize the style and substance of his impeccable judgment: "Almost all historians except the very dullest have some characteristic weakness. . . . But Thucydides seems immune . Surely no more lucid...