Review

Reviewed Work(s): Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides by Virginia Hunter
Review by: June W. Allison
Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 298-301
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/294548
Accessed: 17-03-2017 19:18 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The American Journal of Philology

This content downloaded from 181.88.184.227 on Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
298 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

circumstances of dictation. If there were not, then Pisistratus' gesture was a

radical innovation, and J does not want this (his text was not "something
newly concocted," p. 134). Another serious problem with the Cynaethus-author
theory is that the language of Homer is deeply Atticized; but Cynaethus is from
Chios. And after all, the best reason for believing in something like a Pisistratean
recension is not the ancient testimonia, which are far from conclusive, but the
need to assume an oral Attic period in the history of the text.
"Cremation is the only way of disposing of the dead in the poems; this
must mean that both poet and audience have lost knowledge of a past when
inhumation was the normal practice" (p. 163). If we accept this remarkable
claim, and if the poems were composed at Athens, then the only conceivable
date is Early Geometric, 850-800 B.c. At no other time (and hardly then) could
inhumation have seemed abnormal; indeed, during the sixth century it appears
to have been increasingly fashionable, at least at the Ceramicus. J makes this
blunder in the course of arguing that Pisistratean Athens and the Homeric
poems exhibit close ideological ties, among which she stresses the significance
of Athena. The poems were "meant to be recited in her honour" (p. 165); to
accommodate her, the order of the Odyssey story was changed, in that her
failure to help Odysseus for 10 years "was blurred over by letting Odysseus tell
the story himself" (p. 169). In fact, we have seen that on one level the poems are
about "the power of Athena and the glory of her favourites, the city of Athens
with its ruler Pisistratus" (p. 171). Never mind Athens and Pisistratus; is the
poetry about Athena? Indeed is she any more important in the Iliad than is
Apollo? The formula al yap Zei TE nrrTEp Kai 'Arlvainr Kai 'AnoXXov keeps
matters in proportion. This formula also poses another (unrecognized) problem
for J: did Cynaethus invent it? If so, he himself put Apollo on Athena's level; if
not, as is more probable, then before he composed she had already risen as high
as she was to rise in the Homeric text, and we need no Cynaethus nor Pisistratus
to explain her prominence. In any case, a book on the oral-formulaic theory
which claims such prominence for Athena might have been expected to inves-
tigate her formulae.
Many readers will simply dismiss J's Cynaethus. In choosing instead to
argue against his claim to authorship, I have made the tone of this review
pretty negative. J's imagination is flawed, but she does have an imagination,
and her attempts to justify its overeager vision are more interesting than many
another writer's cautious contemplation of the familiar.

WILLIAM MERRITr SALE

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. Louis

VIRGINIA HUNTER. Past and Process in Herodotus and Thucydides. Princeton,

Princeton University Press, 1982. Pp. xviii + 371.
Past and Process deals with the methodologies of Thucydides and Herod-
otus. From the texts of the two historians, Hunter draws out the concepts or, as
she prefers, the "generalizations" which each brought to his work. She concludes
that the two shared a conceptual basis or, more specifically, that for both men
history is a process rather than a sequence of events or dates. This concept of

This content downloaded from 181.88.184.227 on Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEWS 299

history involves phases characterized by similar types of actions, such

or war, not their chronological relationship. These conclusions confirm
Hunter's claims for the book's originality: ". . . it is the first systematic a
to compare Herodotus and Thucydides as contemporaries, that is, as pre-
thinkers who employed rather similar concepts and intellectual tools
The analyses in accomplishing this aim are compelling, even if one di
with her interpretation of some details. Some will question, for exam
Hunter's views on Thucydides' method of chronology (pp. 43, 167-68)
understanding of how he intended to "publish" his history (pp. 288-94
The book has two parts; the first (Chapters I-III) is devoted to anal
the methods of inquiry and composition both historians use in present
past. In the second part (Chapters IV-VI) Hunter applies the conclusio
Part I to sections of narrative and concludes with more general observat
the concepts and methodologies of the two in conjunction with modern th
of historiography.
Chapter I is a well-organized investigation of Thucydides' methodo
as it emerges from the Archaeology. It has five sections. The first is an
of the basic features of the past (pp. 20-30), followed by a discussion of T
ides' method in selecting these specific aspects and the suppositions which
must underlie his choices (pp. 30-41). The third section provides an evaluation
of the generalizations he held about the fifth century and how they come to
function as the principles in the composition of the Archaeology (pp. 41-43). A
short discussion of chronology and Thucydides' notion of time follows
(pp. 43-44). In a concluding section Hunter addresses Thucydides' purpose as
revealed by the methodology she has uncovered. The results are convincing:
Thucydides possessed certain general concepts (e.g., how arche comes about,
what is needed for successful collective achievement) through which he viewed
and explained the past and which generate the inner logic of his account of the
past.
The only disturbing elements in this chapter are the repeated references
here and passim (e.g., pp. 105-6, 228) to the Archaeology as a "history of
civilization" (see also the phrases "development of" and "indices of civilization"
[pp. 20-21, 24-25, 42, 44-49, etc.] or the chapter's title, "mankind's progress to
civilization"). Thucydides never professes to "embark" (p. 17) on as expansive
a chore as the word "civilization" commonly implies. The Archaeology more
accurately, it seems to me, serves to disclose the accretion of power which leads
to the kind of kinesis the war represents. In it Thucydides answers some very
basic questions about how political units acquire and maintain power.
Chapter II is divided into two sections. In the first Hunter considers
Herodotus' procedures in investigating the past (pp. 50-65) by looking at a
selection of chapters from Book II (viz. 43-45, 49-53, 116-20). In the second
section she examines how the principle behind his researches is also the thesis
that provides the logic for the entire Egyptian Logos. In the case of Herodotus
the principle with which he works is the authority he grants the Egyptian
priests. It derives from two sources: the existence of written records and the
antiquity of these accounts. Against this authority he measures the mythoi and
gnomai of the Greek tradition. This chapter is not as tight as Chapter I;
Hunter's thesis is proved more by repetition of examples than by argument.
Chapter III functions essentially as a transition from the first two, in

This content downloaded from 181.88.184.227 on Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
300 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY

which Hunter had successfully isolated basic similarities in Herodotus' and

Thucydides' conceptualization of the past. Now in III she assures the reader of
the integrity of those conclusions by acknowledging the obvious differences
between the two. And she concludes:

Both employ generalizations and argue in such a way as to produce a synthesis

Thucydides alone begins with a theoretical and highly speculative construct an
consciously applies it to the early history of Greece. (p. 107)

The second part of Chapter III, entitled "Rationalism, Rationalization, and

Rationality," does not enhance the argument. Hunter does not discuss the
rational element in the respective histories. Rather, without warning, she se
about making unnecessary distinctions among rationalism, rationalization,
and rationality (pp. 107-13). The philosophical definitions she gives are suitab
to a handbook, are never adopted, and so have no purpose.
Part II begins with two chapters in which the principles used by each
historian in constructing the past are now revealed from an analysis of tw
narrative passages of like components (military exploits under great leade
figures): Thucydides IV.78-135, Brasidas in Thrace, in Chapter IV, and
Herodotus IV.83-142, Dareios' retreat from Scythia, in Chapter V. The descrip
tive titles of these two chapters, "Generalization, Process, and Event" and
"Cause, Event, and Chronology in Relation to Process," reflect no distinction
in the respective chapters and disguise the fact that both are divided into fo
parts with the same considerations in the same order:
1. The application of the concept of process to the narrative (Ch. IV,
pp. 119-42; Ch. V, pp. 176-83).
2. Selection and explanation in elucidating the process (pp. 142-66,
pp. 183-218).
3. Chronology. By showing that process is essential to understanding
their views of history, Hunter explains why the two historians beg demands fo
chronological precision (pp. 166-69, pp. 218-24).
4. Conclusions. Hunter ties up in a useful manner the connection
between the reasoning about the past with the presentations of the respectiv
narratives (pp. 169-75, pp. 224-25).
Chapter VI is the conclusion to Part II and the book. Five appendices
offer bibliographical summaries on some of the more controversial issues
the works of the two historians. These will be helpful to the nonspecialist wh
is unfamiliar with the scholarship.
Chapter VI is particularly disappointing, for instead of showing the
student of the philosophy of history how by virtue of this book he can understa
what Thucydides and Herodotus were doing in modern terms, Hunter presen
a series of what amount to book reports and summaries of modern thought
which are only superficially related to her own theories and exposition of th
concepts found in Herodotus and Thucydides. Technical terms abound, but
only to be discarded, redefined, and scarcely ever directly linked to the historia
(pages 240-52 and 277-82 are particularly onerous: see, e.g., the use made o
episteme, paradigm, and problematic). Some of the ideas we have not encoun
tered since the introduction. At times the discussion is obtuse and struggles,

This content downloaded from 181.88.184.227 on Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 REVIEWS 301

if Hunter needed to get a new notion on paper in order to understan

example, in discussing some statements of Chatelet, she writes:
... he looks at a particular aspect of historical time that manifests
Thucydides' History: it is defined first as "temps de l'homme profane.
historical time is "un temps d'intelligibiliti." Though this is only one
first aspect, of historical time, it is a valuable formulation. It remains, no
a first aspect of historical time. (p. 241)

Scattered among these attempts to deal with modern theory are inter
unattached discussions of arche, the nomos/physis distinction, and t
of logos. In the end the second claim Hunter makes for the uniquen
book (p. 4)-"It brings to the study of the ancient historians widely
and recognizable concepts derived from contemporary historiograph
methodology of the social sciences"-goes unfulfilled, because the au
not yet comfortable with these modern concepts and cannot, therefo
within easy reach of the modern theorist or historian the methodol
concepts of the ancients. The areas of the book that move in this d
primarily the Introduction and Chapter VI, read too much like unas
notes.

Hunter is at her best when she is dealing with the texts, espe
Thucydides. The discussion of Brasidas in Chapter IV is welcome
provides a coherent picture of what Thucydides seems to have int
presentation of the capitulation of the northern cities. She contro
well that the non-Greek reader can follow even a detailed analysis
the transliterated words is included).
A few isolated points remain. Often phrases and ideas are repeat
new insights or as if we had never heard them before (e.g., pp. 237,
especially the use of "links," or compare 86, 97, and 111). The word "
appears scores of times, sometimes in several pages in succession
266, 267, 268, 269, 272). Albeit a small point, the word becomes di
seems to force conclusions on the reader. Finally, I was somewhat
two statements in the preface (which would have profited from
ebullient and half as long). On page xi Hunter acknowledges t
graduate student with whom she "read and summarized a whole m
articles and books .. .," and again on page xiii of another studen
that his "care in searching out new bibliography, his meticulous
and his boundless curiosity bespeak a fine intellect ..." I do not
the process, but perhaps it is reflected in the notebook-like qualit
chapter and some of the appendices.
For this reviewer the substance of the book resides in those cha
IV, and V) where Hunter has argued her thesis from the ancient te
Process will be of greatest value to classicists and ancient historia
Hunter's solid comparative study of the methods and concepts o
and Thucydides.
JUNE W. ALLISON
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES
ATHENS

This content downloaded from 181.88.184.227 on Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:18:35 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms