HISTORY AND OTHER DISCIPLINES:

HISTORY AND OTHER DISCIPLINES:

For a long time, it was debated whether history was a social science or not. In this debtye about the nature of history in the 1930s and 1940s, it was accepted that history is one of the social sciences. And when history vecame social science, its relationship with the other social science became relevasnt. History is a social science because it studies society in a scientific methodology. It is substantiated by the fact that history cannot be studied without taking recourse to other subject.

¢  History is intimately correlated to Geography, and in the 50s, the two subjects were taught together.

¢  They are twin subjects – one stress time and the other emphasis on space, i.e history studies people of different times and geography deals with the people of different places.

¢  “Immanuel Kant remarks, “Geography and history fill up the entire circumference of our perceptions, geography, that of space and history, that of time.”

¢  Both history and geography are concerned with the inter-play of human and physical factors.

¢  Geography is the stage on which drama of history is enacted and it is the geography which determines the historical events and offer explanation for historical actions of mankind.

¢  Similarly, historical facts can serve as a good basis for arousing interest in geographical studies while geographical facts are taken into consideration while explaining historical fact.

¢  Various factors taken into consideration are physical conditions of the life of man, climate, means of communication, etc.

¢  All these factors determine the direction of human life and history created by man and his activities.

¢  Truly speaking, historical study without geographical background would be inaccurate and unscientific.

¢  Man’s mode of living, dieting and dressing, etc. are all determined by his physical environment.

¢  The correlation between history and geography becomes quite evident if we look at the equipments/apparatus used for teaching of these subjects, like maps, pictures and atlas.

¢  The subject matter of history, sociology, civics, political science, etc. are all within the scope of sociology.

¢  Sociology studies the development of the human society at large. It aims at developing man into an ideal social being.

¢  History studies the development of society under various periods and under various conditions.

¢  The teaching of history should invariably be guided by the knowledge of sociology.

¢  Similarly, study and teaching of sociology also requires a lot of knowledge of history.

One of the major disciplines with which history has relationship is Geography. There are some histories like military, religion etc. which cannot be studied without the peculiarities of geography.

The first thing we have to do id we have to place the people (society) in a particular geographical area. People first have to be located geographically. It is difficult to study history without this. The climate, soin, physical features also affect the way of life of the people. It affects the entire social organization so the geographical location of people definitely determines the entire pattern of life of those people.

The Annales school of French historians which developed in the 1920s (two important historians of this school are Marc Bloch and Lucien Fevbre)..their early works are geographical works rather than historical works. Geographical setting has to be studied in order to understand the life and culture of the people. Hisatorians sought professional help from other social scientists in order to get the geographical settings of their historical works. One important fact was the area of geography study to the historical content. Both history and geography worked closely in the area/study of historical geography. Historians have laid a lot of stress on impact of climate, physical features which influence historical events. Geography thus have a close relationship with history and historians have to ground themselves with the geographical realities, Therefore, there can have no study of history without any geographical tools. Historians have alsys to make use of tools which geographers used- historical alas, etc.

Economics; History and economics have almost inherent relationship. Without any economic history, historian cannot write a sensible history. Men would still participate in economic activities – production, distribution and consumption. And people in a society get nto a definite relationship – How are the people in power ..distribution give rise to…the whole question of wars, conflict in society, etc. are all related to economic activities in the society. Historian would not understand various historical phenomenon without studying economic activities and economic decisions in  the society. No matter what kind of society he studies, he has to study who is producing what, what is given to whose share, etc. Without any understanding of the law of economics, it is impossible to study history.

There are two absolutely fundamental issues in which historians are concerned. If economists do not base themselves on history, their economic studies become irrelevant. For economists, it is very important that they have a good grounding of the history of a society – the model which he studies.

Sociology: It is a science of society with a special focus on interrelationship between individuals and groups. In trying to study these interrelationships, sociology examines the basic units of the society. And other more organized groups like professional groups and  the basic unit like family. Sociology, therefore obviously cannot ignore the importance of the process of institutions by which they evolved. For  sociology, certain things became very important – like the role of values, norms, role of conflict and consensus, development of different social units, etc. A historian Is also concerned with these because he studies the development of these social institutions. But a historian’s perspective is much wide and broarder than a sociologist because he has always to generalize in the context of the past, present and future. Sociologists began to realise that they have to base their work on history. Without a historical perspective, their work becomes limited and narrow.

Political Science: The most important thing is to understand what is political science. The most important thing that political scientist study is the science of government and the study of power relationship. Since all societies are governed and the most important phenomena in society is power relationship in various level. And therefore, it is not possible for historian to ignore political science because there is always power relationship in society- even among the nomads. Therefore, power relationship is as basic to history as the latter is to economy. Power relationship must come before studying history. Until and unless political sciencetist know the history of the people to be studied, Seeley says that political science must be rooted in history.

Historians have found many solutions to the problem of power relationship, especially political historians.

Philosophy: It is the study of the system of ideas. Philosophy studies how ideas are generated and how these ideas are influencing the society. Therefore, philosophy deals with a realm which is very often beyond the physical world, and that is why, it would appear that philosopjhy has nothing to do with history.

But, in any society, what has been most important is the dominant ideas. And th other factor whidh are important are challenges to dominate these ideas. Therefore, history is not really inconnected to philosophy. For instance, in any era of history, there are certain ideas which are dominant. These ideas in a way controlled the thinking of the people. And gradually, challenges to dominate these ideas develop, eg. Rousseau’s idea had an important impact on French revolution. In that development, the whole process to challenge feudalism was developing.

Historical development of any society had never been devoid of any philosophical ideas. In the historical development in any period of time gives rise to its own set of ideas. The ideas which are emanated from a society – ideas are always emerged from certain historians. The concrete situations in society.

Each kind of society gives rise to its own ideas or philosophy. No philosophy develops in…It comes out of very basic historical realities. Without historical realities, there cannot be an emergence of ideas. Historians have to be very concerned in the realm of philosophy. Gradually, historias realize there is a need of philosophy of history.

Anthropology: is an area which has contributed very largely to the study of human society. In brief, it is the study of man.

Physical and cultural anthropology (social anthropology in Britain): Physical anthropology concentrates on the physical evolution of man. Cultural anthropology studies the way of life of the people. Both therse are part if a historical area of study. Without knowledge of physical and cultural anthropology of man, no historians can write any work of history. Without depending on each other, there can be no meaningful work.

Some historians say that history is a central social science. Other social science have specific studies but history incorporates all these other social sciences. Therefore, without history or without other social science, social science would have no meaning.

The historian’s work is not only related to other social science but it is also related to the natural sciences.

Historians study the development of human civilization and human civilization is heavily indebted to the physical/natural science,. In fact, the organization of society would not have been p[possible if there were no technological advances and development. There has always been technological advancement – beginning from nomadic stage in any human civilization. The whole process of success and all other development come about. The process of production is very central in human development.

One….which Marx constantly remarks is the necessity of understanding history. While emphasizing this, Marx has drawn attention to the tole of history, each society had its own level of scientific knowledge. Therefore, in every stage of human development, thereis also a development of a particular kind ofn natural science, These branches of natural science have their independent development. So by understanding the history of development of mathematics, we can know the level of scientific development of any particular society to the advancement of society.

Therefore, it is necessary for the historians to know about the physical sciences. A historian have to have enough knowledge of these natural sciences and have these natural sciences affected human civilization., In this way, he can write a comprehensive history.

Marc Block emphasis that it is necessary to have an integrated kind of various development that have aken place. (An integrated history), the annals school talk in terms of this.

A historian’s perspective e is a very broad perspective. A historian cannot limit the scope of history. This is a holistic approach and hoe the relationship beteen history and other disciplines of social science have developed.

There have been questions raised whether history can be a science. There has been a argument tha history can be a science and there is a positive argument that history can be a science. Today, history is accepted as social science.Scientific attitudes in history goes back to the time of Thycydides. He was perhaps one of the earliest historians who tried to separate histry from poetics and history frtom narratives. He began to follw the model of the development of the science of medicine. Hippocrati school – school of physicists and doctors. This was the field of science that was quite developed in Thycidides’ time. He began to model his own approach in the pioneers of medical school. He emphacizes the need for maintaining regular records and making observations so that they would arrive at accurate diagnosis. In fact, from the time of Greek historians, the idea that ..ist? can be written by following a scientific model.

In the 19^th century, this argument, the argument that history can be scientific becomes even more emphatic because it was the age od sicene. From the time….historians began tomake this claim that history must follow a scientific model.

But history face a lot of opposition. The major question is that it is impossible for history to have a valid system analysis beause there is a continous relationship between the observer (historian) and the observed. It has been a phenomenon which is not present in the natural sciences.

A history can never be detached from the study of his study. And therefore, for all other social sciences also, it is very difficult to arrive at any validity. Therefore, it has been argued that because the diff.in the involvements between history and natura science.

It is impossible for history and other social scientists to arrive at objective conclusions whereas natural scientists can arrive at objective conclusions. This is a very comples argument. Can history be a science.

Science and the scientific method is characterized by a number of assumptions.

1)      Scientists assume some form of determinism or Law of universal causation.

2)      2) Its empirical base

3)      3) The objectives of science can be summarized in the 3^rd….its systematic nature..

If all these these things are present in history, history can be studied scientifically.

Scientists are expected to formulate and verify empirical generalizations, develop a systematic theory and finally explain and predict. It has been often argued that history does not or cannot have one or more of the characteristics mentioned above. One argument against the possibility of a science of history calims that the historical phenomena are so cmplex that no regularities can be discovered in them.there are too many variables and possible relationshisps between different historical phenomena for them to be any order in these relationship.

The natural scientists are able to discover relationship and construc theories because what they observe are less complex. The point that is sought to be emphasized in this is that if historical phenomena are so complex that they cannot be organized into discoverable relationhips, thenm, there can be no scientific explanations or productions of historical phenomena. It must, however, be pointed out that the degree of complexity of existing phenomena is an empirical problem and not a logical question, and this is also debatable whether the social sciences are more complex than the natural sciences. From the fact that is difficult to sought out historical factors and measure relationships one cannot logically conclude that the discovery of generalizations is impossible, It is not denied that regular relationships exist. Critis only deny th historian’s ability rti discover these relationships. It is true, every historian knows how difficult it is to find order in the world of history. But thi des not prevent the historian from attempting to find generalizations nd succeed in doing so. All scientists, natural or social, realize that no complete description or explanations of any empirical phenomena is possible. Thus, it is unfair to criticize history for something which is true even to the physical science.

Another argument against the possibility of a science of hstory is based upon the argument that human beings are very complex and there is scuh thing called ‘the freedom of will’. This means that those who hold up this argument and fit for freedom of the will are usually saying that people are able to act without external restrainsts. In other words, free choice is uncaused. But it is difficult to accep thtat what people do is not determined by the sort of people they are or certain motives. And without accepting that events have causes, he whole attempt to describe and explain the world of history may be given up. This position, therefore, strikes directly at the first assumption opf the model of science, and just as a natural scientist assume some form of determinism, the social scientist, including historians must also assume some form of determinism or law of Universal Causation.

The main diference between the natural and social sciencesis that the practitioners of the natural sciences do not have to deal with values at all phases of their work, but social scientist have to do so from the very observations becvasue hey are dealing with people. No historian can ignore the fact that values, opinions and ideologies hold a significant place in history,. But it is not necessary tht the personal values of a historian need influence the work of a historian. Bias research will not survive the criticism. For instance, the historian who personnaly believe in racism or communalism and therefore ignores certain facts and data, so that his finding will agree with what he personally believed in, ie, the existence of racism or communal feelings in every society, will definitely produce a work which will not be albe to survie criticism which is based on an objective analysis of all the existing data.

From such arguments, it is quite clear that there are no arguments which deny history a place in the world of science, but one must also not forget that a historian as well as all social scientist are facd with many difficulties in their  discipline, It is true that history is not a full blown science and neither can we draw the sama analogies between history and natural sciences. The critical point is simply that it is possible to have a scientific attitude and use scientific methods in history. This can be understood on the way in which E.H. CArrh has put it, by understanding he aim of scientist s and historians and it is in an attaempt to grasp this that the historians can adopt a scientific attitudes which will make the interpretation objective.

Even the natural scientists say that this is the ultimate truth. There is nothing like a truth for all time to come, so history and natural science…some kind of acceptable point may be arrived, and thern there will…each of these arguments can be demolosihshed, countered.

It is because ogf this that history has found its place in the social science. It is only if we accept in a scientific model the understanding ofd human civilization, the, it would be relevnt for further generations.

SCOPE OF HISTORY AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER DISCIPLINES

SCOPE OF HISTORY AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER DISCIPLINES

            The historian’s area of interest in the society as a whole. The holistic approach of history develops out od the understanding of the scope of history. Tehrefore, other disciplines which throw light on societies have their relevance to history, enriching each other.

When we talk of the scope of history, there are two ways in which it is looked at. One way is the Traditional scope which is still very dominant idea even now. This traditional scope of history looks at history of different dynasties, different regimes, i.e dynastic history. This has been dominant for so long and it covers only one aspect of development of the society, that is political. The general masses of the society are nor perceived in the traditional scope.

There began to deveop a challenge to this traditional scope. In an attempt to try and challenge this, a ‘new history’ develops to try and understand a particular area of development in a wider perspective. This tries to reconstruct history based on different section of the American people. The forerunner of this was Charles Beard. His most significant work was his study of the American Constitution, by developing a methodology by looking at it from th people’s perspective.

One of the most recent challenge began from France and Germany. In stead of the traditional scope of history, they tried to reconstruct histry from below. One of the methodology for this was the Subaltern school which tries to study the different aspects of society. But the fact remains that traditional scope of history still remains very important for the historians to grapple with. It is therefore important to atudy the limitations of traditional scope of history.

One of such is that the traditional scope is very limited. Its approach is very limited. There is complete lack of other civilization to their writing. The historians concentrated only on their own civilization. This is a major problem of the traditional scope of history.

That is why, historians have been feeling that the cope of history has to be widened. Other major drawback of the traditional scope s that its perception is very limited. It alsi fails to comprehend that the content of history varies according to the material/methos available to the historian. This is te very basic element of history which the traditional scope of history fails to adjust itself to. It is because the traditional scope of history has not been able to give a very clear idea of the basic element of history.

Till the 16^th century, the materials which were available to the historians are very limited and the methodology of the writing of history were also not very well developed.

From 17^th century, a radical change began to take place in both the availability if materials and methodology. Scientific methods became available to the historians. The materials available began to widened. As a result of geographical discoveries, historians also benefitted from the expansion of knowledge. With the accumulation of knowledge, we find that there Is a big change coming in the methodology of history and these developments gave a new impetus to the scope of history in the post 17^th century.

A lot of new materials came in the 18^th and 19^th century with the collection of so much informations, a lot if new materials become available to the historians. European achives began to be opened. By the 19^th century, there was a pressure on the rulers that theyr were asked to open their archive records. This opening of the archives for the historians came almost as a revolution for history. History was now based on archival material. The archives mainaained records only of the rulers and therefore, they present only the ruler’s perception of thata particular development, so they tend to be one-sided.

The history from the 19^th century began to develop firmlu on their own. (Political history based on archival resources). By the 19^th century, the shape of history became greatly widened, including wider areas on which material is available.

The late 19^th century and 20^th century saw the possibility of arcaheological excavations which led to the expansion of knowledge and information. In the 20^th century, the scope of history began to undergo a change.

Today, the scope of history is very wide. It includes almost all aspect of the lives of the people. The historian of today would study the evolution of society, social formations, politics which govern power relationship, economic life of the people, cultural history of a society, philosophical and literary traditions, science and technological development . All these fall within the range of the historian today.

History is an integral component of world outlook that unites past, present and future, creates an integrated picture of the world and brings out the personal and human perspectives. History enables us to recognize our own fate, and that of the human race, and to become aware of the interconnections of nations and cultures, and provides a possibility of foreseeing the future. History also analyzes such concepts important for historical research as historical fact, historical truth ans the laws of history. It examines the structure and content of historical line and the peculiarities of historical explanation and prediction, and the interrelation of historical and sciencetific knowledge.

Thus, with gradual development in concept and meaning of history, the scope became wider.

POSITIVIST VIEW OF HISTORY

The Positivistic view of history as it is commonly known, is a combination of three traditions, namely-

a) The Positivist Philosophy,

b) The Empiricist Tradition and

c) The Rankean Tradition.

The interaction of these three traditions tried to put the practice of history on a scientific basis. This tradition claimed that the sources were all-important, that the facts existed independent of the historian, that neutrality is a desired goal, that total objectivity is possible in the writing of history and that history can be considered as science. At philosophical level, there were many contradictions among these traditions but in the sphere of history-writing, they have been used interchangeably, both by their followers and critics.

Despite their differences, what all these traditions shared became crucial for the development of historiography. Firstly, they all maintained that history (along with sociology, politics and economics) was a science and similar methods of research and investigation might be applied in both areas. Secondly, history dealt with reality and facts which existed outside and independent of the perception of the historians. Thirdly, history moved in more or less linear sequence in which events followed the earlier ones in linear chronological time.

The Positivists believed in the methods and ‘truths’ of the natural sciences. They wanted to apply these methods to the study of society as well. Hence, they designated these disciplines as social sciences. They believed that, by the use of inductive methods, it was possible to predict about the future of society as in the natural sciences. The contribution of the hard-core Positivist historians to the mainstream historical tradition has been rather limited. It is the Rankean and Empiricist traditions which have proved crucial to the development of historiography.

This view of history was criticized even during the 19th century by historians like Burckhardt and philosophers like Wilhelm Dilthey. Jacob Burckhardt, the former disciple of Ranke reacted against his method of history-writing and provided an alternative approach to that of Ranke. Augustin Thierry and Jules Michelet criticized the straightforward empiricism and stressed the points which the Rankean and Positivist schools had rejected. They also emphasized the moral side of history-writing in opposition to rational approach. The local and the particular were given more importance as against universal and general.

In the 20^th century, Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (1913) changed the very nature of research in natural sciences which also influenced the thinking about history. Thus, more serious challenge to the scientific approach of history writing came in the beginning of the 20th century.

Thinkers like Croce, Carl Becker and Collingwood questioned the very foundations of such an approach of scientificity, neutrality and objectivity. They denied the existence of facts independent of the historian and gave overwhelming importance to interpretation in history-writing. Such views of total relativism were also not helpful to most practicing historians who tried to adopt a more balanced view which accorded even importance both to the facts and the historians.

Even though there were many critics of this view, this tradition dominated the 19^th century history writing, and even in the 20th century, most of the professional history followed this trend. Most historians believe in its central premises that facts have a separate and independent existence and that most of our knowledge of the physical world ultimately derives from sense impressions.

IMPACT OF MARXISM ON HISTORIOGRAPHY

IMPACT OF MARXISM ON HISTORIOGRAPHY

The view of life and of history developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is the philosophy of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism seeks the essence of historical process in the changing material conditions of human life, and Marx believes that all change comes through the clash of antagonistic elements. Thus, to Marx, the basic causative factor in history is at all times the economic factor.

Influence of dialectical materialism:

It is through the dynamics of dialectical materialism that Marxism has influenced history writing. The central idea of the doctrine is that the knowledge of the productive activity of man is essential in the understanding of the history of man, and change in the forces and relations of material production resulted into class conflicts by means of which any society develops. Therefore, Marx and Engels emphasised on an inquiry into the mode of production and class analysis to understand the society and it was their two basic contributions to historical studies.

Marx theory of surplus value as an instrument of historical analysis and reconstruction has been extensively employed to explain historical changes. The base-structure model of historical analysis is a positive contribution to a proper understanding of the past.

Causal explanation:

The materialist conception makes causal explanation in history easier. Marx himself proposes class struggle as causative factor for historical change.  Studies were thus made by some French and American historians along the line of Marx’s interpretation of history that contributed greatly to the 20^th century historiography.

Emergence of Economic history as a major discipline:

As Marx emphasised on the influence of economic development upon the society, there was a rapid development of economic history. At the beginning of the 20^th century, economic history gained institutional recognition in England, France, and America and great works of economic history came to be written.

Conception of history as study of society:

Marx and Engels had pronounced history to be nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims. As a result, historical study gives larger space to the study of the social phenomenon in its varied manifestations. With Marxism, history became the study of society in the way in which modern social scientists understand it.

Role of the masses:

The influence of Marxism on modern historiography could be seen in the emphasis it laid on the role of the masses. Especially in revolutionary epochs, Marx even gave them a leading role in history and predicted that the social revolution of the proletariat would the capitalist class and they would take over the means of production and abolish private property.   Historical interest now began to shift its focus from political history which is made up of the activities of the states and individual rulers to larger and larger numbers of ordinary people.

Total History:

In the major historical writings of Marx and Engels, the different dimensions of life have been taken together to understand the society. Historical materialism points to the relevance of the parts and the totality of any phenomenon, since a proper understanding of their relationship sets the key to the dialectical method. Marxism has provided an organising principle and is now understood to suggest what has come to be called ‘total history’.

******rh27032014******

GRECO-ROMAN TRADITIONS

GRECO-ROMAN TRADITIONS

The term “History” is derived from a Greek word ‘istoria’ which means inquiry. The first known author who used the term to describe his work was Herodotus, who is often considered as the father of history. In many ways, the works of Herodotus and his successors have been regarded as a yardstick for measuring other compositions. As such, it becomes important to understand some of the features associated with these works.

The chief features of the Greco-Roman traditions may be discussed in the following points:

Warfare as the focus of history-writing:

As the objective of history writing was to preserve memories of what were regarded as great or important events, what was regarded as being worthy of memorialisation was a great war and its outcome. This classical period witnessed the expansion of the Roman Empire which was inevitably marked by warfare. Therefore, the preoccupation with military activities by these writers is not surprising.

Moral concern:

While the Augustan age is generally regarded as the heyday of Roman imperialism, it is interesting that these contemporary writers voice a sense of discomfort, and even agony at what was perceived to be a state of decline. The tone of moral concern distinguishes the accounts of the classical writers. . The Latin writers adopted a solemn, moral tone, which has been regarded as a feature of the Augustan age.

Variety of sources:

The classical writers used a good variety of sources. Eyewitness observations were valued, but other sources of information, derived from tradition, religious centers, chronicles, interviews, and a range of documentary sources were tapped as well. The possibility of mutually conflicting versions was also recognized and strategies were evolved for resolving such situations. The archives and traditions clustering around shrines were obviously important sources that were drawn upon.

Humanism versus fate:

The most noticeable concern of these early historians was to provide a detailed narrative of what they regarded as central events. They were careful in describing the events but they rarely asked why it happened. This may be because the widely accepted idea of the time was the role of ‘fate’ and the validity of omens as indices of future events. Divine wrath is also occasionally invoked. Yet, it would be a mistake to dismiss these authors as simply superstitious. In fact, the importance of human agent with all his/her failings and triumphs is also duly recognized. 

Substantialism:

Substantialism implies a theory of knowledge according to which only that which is unchanging is knowable. But what is unchanging is not historical, it is the transitory event that is historical. According to Collingwood, Greco-Roman historiography can never show how anything comes into existence; all the agencies that appear on the stage of history have to be assumed ready-made before history begins. This became the chief defect of the classical writers.

In conclusion, we may say that the accounts of classical writers provide us with some of the earliest instances of raising and addressing questions of authenticity and plausibility. They also tried to give possible historical explanations. It is interesting to note that the histories provided by them are not simply eulogistic but are marked by anxieties about the present. They provided an enduring legacy of history-writing and their quest remains part of the historian’s endeavour even after centuries.

Characteristics of Christian historiography in medieval period

In medieval Europe, the writing of history began with church histories. After the fifth century for nearly eight hundred years, the Christian writers dominated the field of historiography. Christian or medieval European historiography has been variedly called patristic, providential or salvation historiography.  

The main characteristics of Christian historiography in medieval period are:

1.       Universal history: The Bible History written on Christian principles is bound to be a universal history or a history of the world, going back to the origin of man, the Book of Genesis. Historiographical thinking was combined with the theological needs of history. The Bible gave a coherent history in a historiographical frame of reference.  The acceptance of Catholicism strengthened this historical homogenization, for one of its core elements was its character of being a universal religion.  The earliest Christian historical works were chronologies designed to link events from scripture with political events, and to create a universal history of humanity.

2.       Chronology- History periodized: Having divided the past into two, Christian historiography subdivided it again. Thus history was divided into epochs or periods; each with a particular characteristics of its own, and each marked off from the one before by an epoch-making event.

These histories had a concept of time which was changeless because it was the divine time. Gradually, however, there was a change in the concept of time. Influenced by the pre-Christian tradition of history-writing, the historians began to think of time in more temporal terms, as a measurable sequence. This change in thinking made possible the use of chronology to write history. Contacts with other regions such as the Byzantine and the Arab world brought different influences from which also the medieval European historiography benefited.

This fluid sense of chronological boundaries is also visible in the chronicles

of the high Middle Ages. Here two chronological systems dominated: the incarnation era

and the registering of reigns and pontificates, and numerous chroniclers strove to establish

a factual as well as a narrative unity of these elements. This resulted in a belief in the

natural changeability and the ephemeral nature of history as such, because all earthly

things were ruled by time. For the medieval chroniclers, historical change was primarily a

cycle of growth and decay of regents and kingdoms.

The medieval concept of the past thus was determined by an extremely peculiar, ambiguous,

even paradoxical, mixture of belief in historical progression on the one hand and its immutability on the other, of an epochal change and at the same time a continuity of times and historical situations. In the final analysis, it lacked a sense of the truly historical characterisation of the past. However, owing to its emphasis on verifiability of the chronological arrangement, this understanding cannot be classified as being truly timeless, but in various ways it nevertheless lacked a sense of assigning a specific peculiarity to each passing epoch. The past was perceived as a (temporal) development corresponding to the saeculum, the earthly time, with an unchanging character and essence. This engendered a widespread tendency to order historical events according to their respective time which was in no way seen as contradictory to the opposing tendency to detach the subject matter of the same events from their chronological order.

Historiographical thinking was combined with the theological needs of history

The Bible in the middle ages was seen not simply as a literal description of the unfolding of a Christian religion, but also as a chronicle of a succession of spiritual parts. The diverse texts of the Christian tradition were unified in the Bible, thus giving it a coherent history in a historiographical frame of reference which was blended with a unified system of symbolisms, so uniting history with tradition and representation. The acceptance of Catholicism strengthened this historical homogenisation, for one of its core elements was its character of being a universal religion which had little space for the particularist rules, norms and values of specific groups. The earliest Christian historical works were chronologies designed to link events from scripture with political events, and to create a universal history of humanity.

Another feature of medieval historical writing in Europe was that it seemed perennially poised at the crossroads between eschatological aspirations of a universal Christendom and the objective conditions of the real world.

In this fashion, world history came to be established as a computable, finite, yet unstable entity under the control of change in the historiographical traditions of medieval Europe. But, this view of world history soon came under stress. Two factors caused the stress: first, there was the manifestly continuous existence of the world despite the eschatological belief that the predicted end of the world was close; and second, there was the reception in the Occident, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of the Aristotelian concept of time as an endless process. The first factor was enhanced by the use of the AD chronology itself, which helped to deal historiographically with the institutional discontinuities of the Roman Empire. Hence it was ultimately in conflict with the eschatological belief in the finiteness of the existence of the world as an earthly city. The Aristotelian definition of time, came to be reintroduced in the Occident through the Arab translations of Aristotle’s original works from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. According to the Aristotelian concept, time was regarded as the mover of all things, elevated above all other divine creations. In consequence of the spread of this concept of time, it became difficult to conceive existence without time, even beyond Judgement Day. In other words, if time was prior to everything else, existence became inconceivable outside of or beyond time and thinking about a world without change became subject to fairy tales and mere speculation.

One major problem with medieval European historical writing was its perception of history

as primarily as a chronological progression.. Historical changes were seen in political rise

and decline or in change of rulership, possibly complemented by spatial displacement of

the centres of power, and historical events were installed in their precise temporal frame.

But these changes were not estimated, interpreted, or explained according to their

respective historical situations, as structural changes, changes in contemporary attitudes,

or, even in the historical conditions. Owing to a linear concept of time, the authors

recognized an irretrievability of history, but they did not acknowledge a thorough alteration

through the coming of new epochs. Therefore, they completely lacked any sense of

‘alternative pasts’ or of the historical peculiarity of each epoch. The twelfth century, as a

modern historian has remarked, the twelfth century was not simply concerned with ‘the

pastness of the past’ but with ‘its timeless edification’. The past and the present were

thus fused in one continuous narrative.

The tendency to link the present time with the period of the Roman Empire and to emphasise a continuity indicates a characteristic feature of the concept (or consciousness) of history in the high Middle Ages that seems to contradict the tendency to determine and record precise historic dates. On the one hand, the authors acknowledged and noted change and development, and they distinguished between epochs or phases in history; on the other hand, their perceptions of the events were imbued with an astounding sense of ‘timelessness’ that ignored a real difference in the epochal character insofar as this went beyond the political succession of power, reign, and kingdoms. On the contrary, it allowed events that were long past to be applied directly to the present.

Characteristics of Christian/western historiography in medieval period:

Ecclesiastical history suffers from a series of defects from the beginning itself. First, it had adopted the entire ancient pre-Christain and Jewish history without checking its authenticity. Hence, it become very difficult to accept the persons and events mentioned in the Gospel as historical personalities and events. Secondly, Church history is closely related to revelation, but in history, it is difficult to substantiate revelations. It is an accepted fact that knowledge can be gained through observation, intuition and revelation, but knowledge gained thorugh the last two methods cannot be called historical knowledge, which should be such as to be reflected and revived in the historian’s mind. Since this is not possible in the case of revelation it goes out of the purview of history, however, powerful an instrument it might be for philosophy and religion. Thirdly, church history made a very vicious distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ history. Religious history was sacred to it and secular history was profane. It developed such an antipathy and resentment for the ordinary and worldly deed of men that it did not care to regard them as worthy of our attention. Consequently, a good part of human activity, essentially the substance of it, ws excluded fromt e domain of history. What remained was speculative and hypothetical ideas that oculd hardly constitute history. Fourthly, Church history built around itself a ring of false guardianship of piety and authority, which defied all scrutiny and logic. It has ever been a wealness of church history that it never subjected itself to a dispassionate analysis either of its sources or of its interpretations. It is the solitary branch of history that claims exception from critical investigation of treatment.

Providential history: Christian historiography ascribed events not to their human agents but to the workings of providence, preordaining their course.

Apocalyptic history: Christian historiography attached a central importance to the historical life of Christ. It treated earlier events as leading up to it or preparing for it, and subsequent events as developing its consequences. It therefore divided history into two parts: the first part leading up to the birth of Christ has a forward-looking character consisting in blind preparation for an event not yet revealed; the second part has a backward-looking haracter depending on the fact that the revelation has been made.

These histories had a concept of time which was changeless because it was the divine time. Gradually, however, there was a change in the concept of time. Influenced by the pre-Christian tradition of history-writing, the historians began to think of time in more temporal terms, as a measurable sequence. This change in thinking made possible the use of chronology to write history. Contacts with other regions such as the Byzantine and the Arab world brought different influences from which also the medieval European historiography benefited.

Sheikh Ali’s : Characteristics of church historiography:

2 chief characteristics:

1)      First, it developed a special technique to treat inspired and sacred writings. It was concerned mostly with explaining the ways of God to man, and hence it was not interested in secular matters.

2)      Secondly, its approach was not objective but subjective. It was not based on reason but on faith and belief. It obeyed not any law that could be explained by logic, but a divine law which has a fixed course of action, and whose destiny is best known only to God. Therefore, whenever an extraordinary or unusual situation arose its explanation is sought in the Divine Will, and not on the basis of cause and effect. Consequently, the church historiographers developed a method of the own which interpreted situations in terms suitable for religious literature. They adopted an indirect method of conveying their ideas and wrote in allegory which bypassed critics,.

3)      Thirdly, it is highly defective in chronology. According to Sextus Julius Africanus, creation took place 5499 years before Christ. It divided the historical period into five parts – 1) from Abraham to the Trojan War 2) from the Trojan war to the first Olympiad 3) from the first Olympiad to the reign of Darius 4) from the reign of Darius to the death of Christ and 5) from the death of Christ to the reign of Constantine. Christian historiography achieved a certain unity which was theological and gave a religious meaning to history.

4)      Fourthly, the Christian Fathers developed a kind of history which was to vindicate the charge that Christianity was responsible for the fall of Rome. This they had to write in  order to answer the charge of the pagans who accused the Church of engineering the fall of the empire. The vindicatin came in a forceful way from Paulus Orasius (AD 380-420), a Spaniard who later became a disciple of St. Augustine. He wrote seven books of history against the pagans, and argued that the ultimate destiny of all mankind, whether pagan, Jew or Christain would depend on god.

5)      Fifthly, Church historiography falls into two heads, religious and secular. Religious history was based on the assumption that human history was guided by God, and this history comprised mostly of miracles and saints. The other name for such a religious history is patristic history. Secular history was known as pagan history, which received greater attention in later years, although religious history still maintained its ground. Until the Renaissance period, histories of both these types were written side by side with no improvement. The defects of patristic history persisted until the age of Enlightenment. But all history was the monopoly of the monk, who wrote both secular and religious history.

6)      Sixthly, in the period that followed the reign of Charlemagne a new type of historical literature, namely Annals and Chronicles, came into existence. The word Annals means annual information, particularly astronomical records determining the exact date of the Easter festival. This was no more than a kind of almanac table. This practice first began in England and later spread to other parts of Europe.  This Chronicle which followed was concerned with the events of a place. Its object was not to presents a piece of literary composition but to supply some information or prove a particular point. Chronicles give full information on contemporary happenings, but not on past events, and they are not very authentic or accurate accounts if events but merely narrativs of the events that took place when the author was alive. Of all the chronicles produced during the medieval period, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is the most famous.

7)      Finally, with the fall of the Roman Empire, the historians gained a wider scope to comment on the events. They raised their voice, while the empire was in the process of decay, against administrative inefficiently, corruption, increasing taxation, social derangement, economic strain, breakdown of law and order and the barbarian invasions.

8)      Thus, the historiography of the period was characterized by dogmatic interpretation, a primitive and crude style and a highly colored and subjective approach. The Churchmen and the monks alone were the custodians of history, and they presented their own point of view. History was an instrument in their hand to advance the interests of the Church, and to propagate the Christian faith by indicating how nations had suffered by not observing the Divine Law. Since a body of authentic record was not available, and since they did not bother to collect material by personal exertion, they wrote wither on the basis of old traditions and gospel stories or on contemporary events or on significant episodes such as the Crusades. Reason which had played such a vital role during the Greco-Roman period was pushed to the background and faith took its place. This did not in any way help in the promotion of thought.

9)      Gibbon went to the extent of saying the most powerful factor for the downfall of the Roman empire was Christianity which restrained the free thought and checked human liberty, as it was obligatory to obey not man-made laws but only  the Divine Law, the custodian of which was the church. Since the priests were the instruments to administer this law which was supposed to be infallible, there was no scope for flexibility of the law, and for the growth of the human mind. The historians became the key agents to foster such thoughts as they had the power too substantiate the thesis with reference to the events of the past. Consequently, the period has rightly earned the title of the Dark Ages. Christians considered the affairs of history as the expression of the Divine Will.

10)  In short, the Christian conception of history matured in the writings of St. Augustine. The City of God became manifest in the Church which warned against sin, injustice, immorality and impropriety. For the Christians the fall of Rome had no meaning because their real city was far away from it. St. Augustine considered history as a linear movement consisting of eight stages, five of the past, one that is present and two in the future when Christ will incarnate himself to save humanity. The motive force of this movement id the will and grace of God. The entire drama of history, moving from creation to dissolution and the advent of Jesus is the manifestation of Divine Will. All things good or bad form links of that long chain of Divine planning. Thus, the Christian outlook on historical change is ‘charismatic, linear, universal and impersonal.’

11)  Since its main purpose was to build faith in transcendental forces, it was far from rational or critical history, and a number of weaknesses have been noted by scholars.