'Historians have a simple duty: to tell the truth.'- Discuss Many historians do strive to tell the intellectual truths of certain matters. However, it is not possible to categorise what is a historical truth, as it differs for each historian. History is an individual's interpretation of certain events using the methods and evidence which are available to them at the time, one historian's truth could be false to another. This may change over time, therefore so do interpretations and what is calculated as the truth. However, even when these calculations of truths do change, I believe that the many historians, at the time of recording history, have intentions of telling truths. Historians do have a duty to tell the truth. However, due to interpretations and circumstances at the time, this is not always possible. Truth for certain historians differ, depending on the time they are writing and what they will classify as truthful. For ancient historians, a moral message was important for something to be classed as accurate or truthful. In a modern sense, truthfulness if factual information with a sense of authenticity. Herodotus in his book Histories begins with a clear intention of preserving history, "this is the showing forth of the Inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus"1. This suggests that Herodotus' main aims will be to record history and preserve it. By recording history, in my view, it means there should certainly be some elements of truth there for it to be classed as history. However, Herodotus has claimed that he will record everything he hears, but he is under no obligation to believe what he is writing down, "I owe it to tell what is being told, but I by no means owe it to believe it".2 By doing this, I believe 1 Herodotus, George Rawlinson, and Tom Griffith, Histories (London, United Kingdom: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company, 1996) [1.1] 2 ibid, [7.153-2] 1
that Herodotus acquires less reputability, Herodotus is writing anything down which he hears, he is simply recording history and offering no analysis or interpretation, whereas if we compare his history to that of Thucydides it differs greatly. By looking at Herodotus from a modern perspective, many historians in modern day society class him as 'The Father of Lies', I believe many people view him in this way because, by giving no interpretation or assessment of hypotheses Herodotus is portrayed as not fulfilling a historian's duty of telling the truth. When analysing Herodotus, it is important to take into account that he did not claim to be a historian, merely an 'inquirer'. Yet, many historians debate that he was still in fact recording history and the fact that he states that good deeds of men should not be forgotten, early on in his book, does suggest he had intentions of preserving history, yet some of his accounts were not accurate or truthful due to the use of sources available. Some of Herodotus' recordings had a purpose of attracting readers, in book three, he describes gold-digging ants, bigger