***Come to class with written notes/answers for each question below, in order to facilitate your active participation. This will make your success in the class participation portion of this course much easier.

--What are the main points made in the Preface and in the Introduction to this book? 

--Chapter 1, on Greek historiography, begins with reference to Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.  In what sense are those texts works of "history" in Breisach's view?  How about in your view?  Has "heroic history" disappeared from the history of history?  What do you think?  What do you think Breisach thinks about this?

--Chapter 2 focuses on the differences between the writings of ancient Greek historians, especially Herodotus and Thucydides. What differences and similarities did Breisach identify? According to Breisach, what motives did these, and other Greek historians demonstrate in their works?

--Greek historiography in the age of Alexander, and in the Hellenistic era that followed him are the subject of Chapter 3.  What affect did Alexander and his conquests have on the development of historiography, in Breisach's view?  Can you think of developments at any other time in history that seem to have had a similar affect?  If so, when, where, and why?

--The early Roman historical writing described in Chapter 4 was affected by Greek mythology and Greek history.  How extensive was the affect, in Breisach's view?  Polybius is the historian most carefully examined in this chapter.  What were the central characteristics in his approach to history?

--Sallust, Cato, and Cicero were authors examined by Breisach in Chapter 5.  How did the "crisis" of the Roman Republic affect the writing of history, in Breisach's view?  If you have read texts by any of these authors, does Breisach's view seem reasonable?

--Chapter 6 covers historical writing in the age of Augustus.  Livy and Tacitus are the authors most carefully analyzed in this chapter.  What were the main characteristics of their work, according to Breisach?  What overall assessment of Roman historiography did Breisach posit?  What "historian" from this age has Breisach left out of this chapter?

--Breisach wrote about the development of Christian historiography in Chapter 7.  What attitudes about the world and about time affected the development of the Christian approach to history?  Augustine was the central figure in the early development of Christian historiography.  What was his contribution?  What contributions were made by the "barbarian" cultures--like the Carolingians, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Lombards--who are described in the later portion of the chapter?

--Who wrote the histories of the ninth to thirteenth centuries described in Chapters 8 and 9?  What were the aims of these historians, in Breisach's view?  How different was history in the thirteenth century from that of the ninth and tenth centuries?  How can the changes be explained?

--In Chapters 10 and 11, Breisach examined change in historical writing during the late-medieval and early modern period in western Europe.  What social, political, economic and religious changes took place, and how did Breisach describe their affect on history?  The time period is often considered the beginning of "modernity."  Did Breisach consider authors in this era to have adopted a "modern" approach to history or not, and why (or why not)?

--The impact of political changes, and the impact of changes in the perception of the world among westerners in the sixteenth century upon history, are the focus of Chapter 12.   What previously dominant forms of history were threatened by these changes?  Can you think of any similar changes from other eras that have affected history in such a manner? 

--Some new concepts related to history, according to Breisach in Chapters 13 and 14, emerged during the eighteenth century.  What exactly were those changes?  What names are given to them, what were the characteristics of the changes, and how, according to Breisach, did they affect the study and writing of history?

--From the end of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, historians were often prominent public figures who commented on a nation--usually their own--and its march forward toward a better future.  This is the work Breisach traced in Chapters 15 and 16.  Were the voices describing the past of individual nations truly unique, or were there common elements in the writing of these historians?  At the end of Chapter 15, Breisach makes an interesting comment about the view of democracy held by Alexis de Tocqueville.  What did Breisach say, and if true, were there any other historians who made a similar argument?

--Chapters 17-21 are about crucial changes at the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century that affected the study of history.  Identify the four or five changes.  How did each one affect history and affect the way it was viewed and studied by historians?  Do you think the changes were interrelated?  Why or why not?

--Chapter 22 covers historiography between the world wars. What was the essential change in western society that historians (like everyone else) struggled to understand in this period? How did it affect their approach to history? Why did the change contribute to reflection on historical "truth"/historical relativism?

--Chapter 23: What were, according to Breisach, the characteristics of historical writing in the U.S., England, and France between 1919 and 1939? What was common, and what was unique to historical analysis in those places individually?

--Chapter 24: What were, according to Breisach, the characteristics of historical writing in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union in the middle decades of the twentieth century? What was common, and what was unique to historical analysis in those places individually?

--Chapter 25 covers American historiography after 1945. What developments occured, and how were they linked to contemporary political and social trends?

--Chapter 26: In the twentieth century, use of social sciences by historians wanting to place historical study on a more verifiable footing was popular. How was social science methodology applied, and what sort of reactions did other historians have to this development?

--Chapters 27, 28, 29: How did events in the twentieth century shape the "national" historiography of England, France, the Soviet Union, Italy, and Germany? Explain for each one.

--Chapter 30: What approaches have been taken in the attempt to write world history, according to Breisach?  Did Breisach express an opinion on how he thinks world history should be written?  Do you agree or not, and why?

--Chapter 31: In this overview of twentieth century approaches to history, Breisach hints at an interesting question that applies to western historiography since the nineteenth century. Consider it in light of what you have learned by reading chapters 22 through 30. Here is the question: Since historians, by and large, struggle to find the "truth" about the past, which interpretative models developed since the nineteenth century help in the search for historical truth, and which ones do not?  Why? In the alternative,do you consider the quest for historical truth to be vain and/or unattainable?  Why?