Motives of great historians

My last post was about Machiavelli’s thoughts on his own work as a historian. Why talk about ancient Rome? His interest was moral:

But the matter being so manifest that everyone sees it, I shall boldly and openly say what I think of the former times and of the present, so as to excite in the minds of the young men who may read my writings the desire to avoid the evils of the latter, and to prepare themselves to imitate the virtues of the former, whenever fortune presents them the occasion.

He wanted to help his readers to do better and strive for virtue. Machiavelli, exiled to his farm after the fall of Florence, was hopeful for the future.

What about other historians? Why did they write?

Why not to study history

The worst reason to write or to read history is self-congratulation. Victor Hugo says “history recounts, it does not denounce.” If you’ve read his novels, you know that even the worst of people are presented sympathetically. Who doesn’t feel for Javert when he flings himself into the Seine?

Imagine a reader who studies history in order to denounce. Such a reader congratulates himself that he’s not Robert E. Lee, that unlike George Washington he never owned slaves, that he would never have followed Napoleon, that if he lived in ancient times, he sill would have been a modern progressive! Like the Pharisee congratulating himself for not being like that sinner, some readers only want a sense of superiority over the past. It’s intellectual onanism.

If you read this way, you will learn nothing that you didn’t already know, and you’ll likely get worse. You’ll also dishonor the authors, who were not writing for this reason.

Why Herodotus wrote

I, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, am here setting forth my history, that time may not draw the color from what man has brought into being, nor those great and wonderful deeds, manifested by both Greeks and barbarians, fail of their report, and, together with all this, the reason why they fought one another.

Herodotus writes out of respect for those who have gone before. They did great deeds, and it wouldn’t be good if such great deeds went unrecorded. Xerxes himself weeps to see the ship-bridge across the Hellespont. What great things they have done, and yet soon they will all be dead! The historian is able to stave off the oblivion of death by telling the stories.

Why Thucydides wrote

The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human things must resemble if it does not reflect it, I shall be content. In fine, I have written my work, not as an essay which is to win the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time.

His history is to be useful, to help his readers understand the future. Human nature is persistent, and studying how humans have acted in the past will help you predict their actions. History doesn’t repeat itself, but rhymes, and reading Thucydides will help you know the rhyme-scheme.

Why Tacitus wrote

I deem to be a principal responsibility of annals, to prevent virtues from being silenced and so that crooked words and deeds should be attended by the dread of posterity and infamy.

Tacitus gives a year-by-year account of the history of Rome during the time of the first emperors. It is often a depressing story of treachery, proscriptions, vice, and suicides. Does anyone read the Annals for fun? But Tacitus has preserved the tales of virtues and vices so that we can 1. know that it’s possible to be good and 2. fear that posterity will judge us if we are bad. It is a warning for the wicked.

What they have in common

The writers all write with hope, intending that the future be better. They write for readers who will take the lessons to heart. Shouldn’t you honor their wishes and study them with the same intent?