I'm not actually sure that Plutarch does assess the "reliability or otherwise" of the narratives he transmits. In the Life of Theseus he actually pleads indulgence from his reader: he implies that it may all be legend, but that's what you have to accept when you are dealing with stories from ancient times. But he certainly won't let the fact that some or all of the story is probably made up prevent him from telling the story anyway... as if it really happened. (I suspect that the way some ancient cultures took this "indulgent" view of their own ancient history is significant, and explains how the further back into the past one went the more legendary and fanciful the narratives became... without anyone signalling the changes in any significant way.)neilgodfrey wrote:You have given the answer to the problem you raise. That's the "beauty" of the historical style -- the sources are stated and assessed for their reliability or otherwise.
Well, the precise definition of this may be a semantic one, and I can see our difference of opinion going down an blind alley, so I'm not going to pursue the point. However what does bother me is the context in which this definition is made: the binary opposition of "history" and "fiction". You imply that these are the only two options. I don't have much of an argument with saying that if a writer employs this rhetoric both the writer intends for his readers to know he's doing history. But does that mean that if he does not employ that rhetoric it follows that the writer and his readers know he must be writing fiction?neilgodfrey wrote:That's exactly what a reader of history appreciates.
More importantly still, do you believe that this distinction is a transhistorical function of all literature, or does it only apply to a specific historical period, within specific cultural expectations?
As a case in point, how would you classify the Babylonian Chronicle P, a text that narrates events of a much earlier period. Here's a sample of the text:
This clearly contains none of the rhetoric that Greek historians employed, so it manifestly isn't history writing in the Greek - or your - sense. But do you therefore think that whoever wrote or compiled this text believed he was creating "fiction"? Or that his readers, whoever they were, read it as "fiction"? I very, very much doubt it. And if it's not history and not fiction, what is it?Kadašman-harbe, son of Karaindaš, son of Muballitat-serua, the daughter of Aššur-uballit, king of Assyria, ordered the overthrow of the Suteans from the east to west, and annihilated their extensive forces. He reinforced the fortresses in Mount Šaršar. He dug wells and settled people on fertile lands to strengthen the guard. Afterwards the Kassite people rebelled against him and killed him. They appointed Šuzigaš, a Kassite, the son of a nobody, as sovereign over them. Aššur-uballit, king of Assyria, marched to Karduniaš, to avenge Kadašman-harbe, his daughter's son, and he killed Šuzigaš, the Kassite. Aššur-iballit put Kurigalzu, son of Kadašman-harbe, on his father's throne.
[…]
The enemy seized him. Together ... he put all of them to the sword, and he did not leave a soul. Those who were fallen, they put in distress. They coloured the midst of the rolling sea with their blood. They sent out their troops, fought zealously, and achieved victory. They subdued the enemy troops. He gathered the possessions of the vast enemy and made piles of them. Again the warriors said: "We did not know, Kurigalzu, that you had conquered all peoples. We had no rival among people. Now you [have overcome us] We have set out, sought the place where you are and brought gifts. We have helped you conquer ..."
[…]
... Tukulti-Ninurta returned to Babylon and brought ... near. He destroyed the wall of Babylon and put the Babylonians to the sword. He took out the property of the Esagila and Babylon amid the booty. He removed the statue of the great lord Marduk from his dwelling-place and sent him to Assyria. He put his governors in Karduniaš. For seven years, Tukulti-Ninurta controlled Karduniaš. After the Akkadian officers of Karduniaš had rebelled and put Adad-šuma-ušur on his father's throne, Aššur-nasir-apli, son of that Tukulti-Ninurta who had carried criminal designs against Babylon, and the officers of Assyria rebelled against Tukulti-Ninurta, removed him from the throne, shut him up in Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta and killed him.