?The middle decades of the twentieth century are leaving a powerful impression upon the methodology of history. The prominent and probably the most lasting features of this impression are the imperative necessity of looking at history from a world viewpoint, the steady abandonment of the nineteenth century?s logically impossible demand that history should be exclusively scientific, and the rise or decline in reputation of many of history?s eminent personalities, both writers and makers of history, as the result of a more sensible evaluation of the historian?s task, and a more careful investigation and examination of evidence. (?) It is now obvious (?) that the proper method of history is that which synthesises science and art, that creates a unity of thought and expression from the apparent contradiction of the objective and the subjective, that fives as much freedom to the discursiveness of the imagination as the control of the evidence will permit. One of the most interesting results of this new thinking on history?s proper subject matter and methods has been the renaissance of Herodotus. (?) Herodotus (?) was in a singularly advantageous position for looking at the world as a whole, and particularly at man, both Greek and barbarian (?). De Sélincourt brings such an unprejudiced and creative mind to the Greek scene in general (?) that it is a great pity that he did not have the guidance of someone better informed than he on the details of Greek history. (?) Scholars will perhaps decry the omission of any lengthy discourse on the problem of composition, and even if right, is not what is important about Herodotus. The open-minded scholar will find much to enjoy in the book, and the general reader will acquire a newly-balanced idea of Greece and the Mediterranean in the sixth and fifth centuries.? (J.W. Cole in Phoenix, 1964, pp.160-163).