So what were the standards? The best place to start when dealing with ancient history is probably Herodotus, because it was largely in response to his work that the word history mean what his does. In the prologue to his work The Histories Herodotus states: Herodotou Halikarnesseos histories apodexis hede/ this [is] the publication/setting down of the result of the inquiries of Herodotus of Halicarnassus. The word history, as used by Herodotus, means merely inquiry or research. It was not until after his work, and largely because of it, that the word came to mean history, i.e. a work aiming at setting down accurately something that happened in the past. As a historian, Herodotus doesnt rate very highly. Here is a short list of criticisms by modern historians:
One reason for the embarrassment is that Herodotus' figures are badly wrong in the case of the Black Sea, where Herodotus' error on the length and breadth is one hundred percent and forty percent respectively, while his error on the more familiar Hellespont drops to one in six for both length and breadth, and that on the width of the Propontis to only one in seven (Armayor 47).
Much more embarrassing is the great Scythian bronze of king Ariantas that Herodotus claims to have seen for himself. In view of his claim, we can only try to decipher what he saw in the light of metrology. According to standard metrology, that of Hultsch for example, Herodotus' amphoreus is a liquid measure equal to the Attic metretes and I.5 Roman amphorae or about 39.4 liters, or some 10.4 gallons. According to standard metrology, therefore, king Ariantas' 6oo-amphoreis bronze must have held upwards of 6,244 gallons, like Croesus' 6oo-amphoreis silver bowl at Delphi (i.5i). Herodotus does not mention Croesus' dedication in this passage. Jacoby argues that Herodotus must have gone to Scythia before he went to Delphi or else he would have, but in that case we are merely left to wonder why
he did not mention the Scythian vessel when he came to tell about that of Delphi. But it seems difficult to believe a 6,244-gallon vessel in either place. (Armayor 51).
In the majority of these cases Herodotus casts a skeptical eye on the archaic legacy, leading some scholars to label him a 'Father of Empiricism,' but this formulation fails to account for other passages in which mythic and speculative thinking still predominate; indeed, the contradictions between the two approaches have led Lionel Pearson and others to question whether any coherent scheme of thought underlies Herodotean geography at all (Romm 98-99)
Der historische Wert der herodoteischen Überlieferung war damit erschöpft. Die Gründungssage selbst ist geschichtlich wertlos (Kleinknecht 136).
[The first account in Herodotus is] rationalism, pushed to its absurd extreme. Herodotus here parodies not just myth but rationalism itself. He makes the very plausibility of the demythologized tales suspect, particularly through unspoken or barely hinted comparison with the poetic originals
He joins together totally different and timeless myths in a logical and orderly chronological sequence of cause and effect never suggested by the originals (Flory 25).
Herodotus does not ever state at the beginning of his book or anywhere else that he will tell only the truth about the past, for the father of history does not always accept the superiority of truth to fiction. Herodotus often tells lengthy stories he admits are false, disproves plausible stories, or accepts preposterous ones without proof (Flory 50)
Professor Marg, in the introduction to his collection of articles on Herodotus, expresses a thought which must have occurred to many students of this author: "Wir sagten, Herodot gehort zu den schwersten Autoren, trotz oder gerade wegen seiner scheinbaren Leichtigkeit. Herodot ist voll von Gegensatzen" One such Gegensatz which has long puzzled me is the contrast between Herodotus the keen, shrewd, painstaking researcher and critic, and Herodotus careless and casual to the point of blamable negligence (Grant 283)
That should suffice. Basically, even though Herodotus is attempting to record the past, he often does it very poorly. Certainly, there are numerous mythic elements in his work.
But were all ancient historians so bad? Not exactly. After Herodotus, numerous historians expressed that the point behind history is accuracy in recording the past. Cicero, for example, who gave Herodotus his title Father of History, states in De Legibus that Quippe cum in illa [historia] omnia veritatem
referantur (1.5). Polybius, in his Histories, quotes Timaios views on history: hoti Timaios phesi megiston hamartema peri ten historian einai to pseudos; dio kai parainei toutois, ous an exelegxe dipseusmenous en tois suggrammasin, heteron ti zetein onoma tois bubliois, panta mallon e lakein historian. (12.11). Lucian states that compared to the mousikos, he de ouk an ti pseudos empeson [e historia] oud akariaion anaschoito, ou mallon e ten aruerian iatron paides phasi ten tracheian paradexasthai an tie s auten katpothen. (How to Write History 7).
Clearly even ancient historians were committed in some way to accuracy. However, accuracy and historical standards then were not as now. These same historians who state above that the goal behind history is truth and accuracy, feel free to include ethnic biases, third or fourth hand events, talk about the gods, talk about miraculous events, etc. They did not have the same worldview concerning magic and miracles as we do, nor did they have access to a wealth of written data, but rather relied mainly on oral traditions, eyewitness accounts, even rumor.
