Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, 2nd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
As you read this book you must take notes for the purposes both of class discussion and preparing for your précis assignments. DO NOT simply highlight or underline in your book! That is not good enough for our purposes; you must write out or type notes.
I want you to keep two categories of notes for this book:
A. Jot down notes that help you to answer the study questions.
Your notes for each individual question do not have to be very detailed, but they must be enough to allow you to remember and discuss the answer to that question in class.
B. When you complete each individual chapter, write between one and five sentences that summarize the thesis of that chapter.
Remember, thesis means "main argument" (it is not the same as the "topic"--it is what the author is arguing about the topic). You do not have to summarize all of the information in the chapter! Instead, focus very sharply on what the author is trying to prove about the topic by using the information in the chapter.
Week I
Pages xi-4.
Preface:
According to Breisach (B), what basic questions drive this book and why is a book of this sort necessary?
What does B tell you in the preface about the basic organization and approach of the book?
Introduction:
What fundamental question does B pose in this introduction?
How does he answer the question "does history still matter?"?
Does B think that people can live entirely in the present? Explain.
How does he use this idea (about not being able to live only in the present) to justify the study of history?
For B, is history only about change, or is it also about continuity (what does not change)? Explain,
How does B link the issues of change and continuity to the function of history and historians in the history of Western civilization?
How does he use these issues (change, continuity, how people make sense of the world that they live in, etc.) to explain why historical interpretations change?
So again, what questions is B trying to answer in this book? What is his aim?
WEEK II
Chapters 1-6
chapter 1
What point is Breisach (B) making in the first sub-section of this chapter about the difference between how we (moderns) see the Mycean period and how the early Greeks understood that era?
What is B's point about the role of gods and heroes in history as told by Homer? In other words, why did Homeric history focus only on heroic deeds and what was its function (its public purpose)?
How did the Homeric conception of history differ from our "modern" conceptions?
How did Hesiod's conception of history differ from Homer's? In particular, what was "new" about the idea of dividing history into time periods ("ages") and what kind of change was Hesiod describing? (Was he describing Progress? or Decline?)
According to B, what big changes in Greek civilization altered the ways the Greeks viewed history? For instance, does he discuss the impact of colonization and of new philosophical conceptions of man, nature, and time? Focus in particular on what he says about new forms of political life!
How did the historical approach of the Greeks circa 500 BC differ from that of Homer? In particular, did these "new" historians divorce themselves entirely from the heroic stories of Homer's epics? Explain.
What is B's point about the function of compiling chronological lists in ancient Greece? Did these lists equal a "history"? Explain.
What is the thesis of chapter 1?
chapter 2
In the first paragraph of this chapter, B suggests a major change in the purpose of writing history between Herodotus and Thucydides--what was this shift and how does B seem to explain its cause?
How did Homer's account of the Trojan War differ from Herodotus' account of the Persian War and Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War?
What basic similarities and differences does B see between the historical approaches of Herodotus and Thucydides?
What did Thucydides think caused the Peloponnesian War and why is that important to understanding how the writing of history was changing?
What were the basic differences between the way Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides treated the role of the gods and the role of men in shaping history.
What were the basic differences between the way Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides explained the causes of "their" wars, and what does this tell us about changes in the nature of historical argument?
Was Thucydides' understanding of the causes of historical events more complex than that of his predecessors? Explain. For instance, when Thucydides explained the fate of Athens, did he discuss both short and long-term factors, and did he combine narrative with analysis?
Should we "trust" Thucydides' quotations of long speeches, etc.? Explain.
How did the Greeks understand the relationship between style and the purpose of history? In other words, was the point of history for the Greeks (including Thucydides) to find the "objective" truth? Explain.
According to B, when and why did the Greeks begin considering the problem of working out "methods" for doing historical research? How, for instance, did Herodotus and Thucydides approach the issue of "methods" and documentation?
Once historians started to drop "gods and heroes" from the center of their accounts, how did they decide what was worthy of history? For example, did Herodotus and Thucydides consider the same sorts of topics worthy of history? Explain.
B suggests that in the 300s BC the Greek world view was "backward-looking" but not "historical." What does he mean by this? In other words, what is his main point about Greek historians after Thucydides? (Think about the section subtitle on p. 21!)
What was the public function of history in the 300s and how was this related to the politics of that era?
How does B explain the popularity of local and regional histories in the early decades of Macedonian rule and what is the difference between "history" and "antiquarianism"?
According to B, did local historians really protect tradition from the threat of skepticism? Explain.
Why does B call the writing of Xenophon (etc) "history writing without a clear public purpose," and how does B link the popularity of biographies to the collapse of the Polis?
What is the thesis of chapter 2?
chapter 3
What "problem" does B seem to be out to "solve" in the first paragraphs of this chapter? In other words, what is he trying to explain?
How did Hellenistic historians (those of the era of Alexander the Great and his successors) link the conquering hero--Alexander--to the past?
Besides Alexander's heroism, on what other issues did historians of his age concentrate?
According to B, what problem did Hellenistic Greek historians face? How does that explain why hero stories and gossip were the core of historical writing during Alexander's life?
How does B explain the characteristics of Greek historical scholarship in Ptolemaic Egypt? In other words, why did these historians specialize in textual criticism, and does B think they advanced historical theory or were concerned with the "truth"?
According to B, why weren't historians in the Hellenistic Greek city states concerned with the public purpose of history and what was the result?
What does B mean when he says that Greek history in the Helenistic era was "about" rhetoric, not finding "truths"?
Why had Greek history become apolitical in the Helenistic era?
According to B, why was there so much attention to local and regional history in the Hellenistic Greek city states? (What does he mean when he says their goal was mimesis?)
So, what is Bs point about the relationship between history and politics in Hellenistic Greece?
Did the Hellenistic Greeks find it easy to fit the stories of other peoples into their histories? Explain.
According to B, what basic historical-methodological problem did Greek cultural dominance of the Hellenistic "world" raise? (Hint--How did they "solve" the problem of establishing a common chronology?)
What is B's point about the difference between Greek historians in the "East" and those in the "West" (in Sicily)?
What does B mean (on p. 37) when he says that "Greek historiography had exhausted its possibilities"?
What is the thesis of chapter 2?
On pp. 38-39, B sums up his argument in chapters 1-3 as a whole: what is his thesis in the first three chapters of this book (when you put it all together)?
*How was Greek historiography shaped by and limited by the Greeks' conception of the future, and why couldn't they write world history?
*Did the Greeks consider history to be about "truth"?
*What did they think history was "for"?
*How did that shape their approach to the proper subjects and methods of history?
chapter 4
According to B, how did early Romans understand the history of Rome's foundation?
What social institutions shaped Romans' sense of the past and how did they record and understand the passage of time?
When and why did Greek historians first become interested in Rome?
Around 300 BC, what problems arose in the Greek mythological version of Rome's foundation, and what events led the Romans to produce their own histories?
For B, what is most important about the first (Greek-language) Roman histories (by Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus)?
According to B, how did the path of Polysius' own life shape his approach to the history of Rome?
Was Polybius' history "simply" narrative, or was Polybius trying to answer some big question? If so, what was his answer? (B discusses three points.)
What was the "cycle" of the history of governments as understood by Polybius?
Why did Polybius think at first that Rome was exempt from this "cycle" of history, and why did he later lose his faith that Rome could avoid decay?
What did Polybius think of earlier historians and how they had used sources?
How did Polybius use sources differently than his predecessors and what did he consider to be the purpose of history?
How doe B explain the rise of Latin-language histories of Rome in the second century BC?
What is the thesis of chapter 4?
chapter 5
According to B, what new social and political realities forced Romans to re-think their history in the late Republican period and why?
In what sense did late Republican Romans "nostalgia-ize" or "romanticize" their early history, and what was the impact on the writing of history?
What made the history written by Sallust different from that of his Roman contemporaries? In other words, what was Sallus's main argument and how did he try to link Rome's history to arguments about "larger" patterns of historical development?
According to B, why couldn't Sallus follow the logic of his argument/analysis through to its conclusion?
How does B explain the popularity of biography in the late Republic? In particular, what was the function of autobiography in this era?
Were Romans much concerned with history as scholarship?
According to B, who was the first Roman who showed real interest in the issue of historical methodology?
For Cicero, was history primarily about truth? And what did he mean by truth? Did he mean objectivity? Explain.
What is B's main point about the contributions of Greek historians to historical scholarship in the late Roman Republic?
What is the thesis of chapter 5?
chapter 6
Why did the Pax Romana under Augustine result in a new wave of Greek influence on Roman historiography?
What does B. consider important about the work of Diodorus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus? In particular, did they have much of a popular readership in Rome? Who did read them and why is that important?
What problem confronted Roman historians under Augustus? How can we see this, for instance, in the works of Livy?
For Livy, what was the key to the rise of "Old" Rome and how was that connected to his analysis of "New" (Augustine) Rome?
According to B, what was the purpose of Livy's history and why couldn't Livy follow through his analysis to its logical conclusion?
According to B, what was the main problem that the end of the Republic and the establishment of the Empire created for historians? In particualr, why did history become politically dangerous?
How did the creation of the Empire affect historians' access to sources and how did it affect the attitude of readers towards history?
Why didn't Roman historians fit Roman "decadence" into "universal" patterns of historical development?
How, for instance, did Tacitus explain Roman decadence (i.e., under Nero and Domitian)?
How did Tacitus understand cause and effect in history?
Did Tacitus lay out a clear conception of the purpose of history? Explain.
According to B, how were Roman Imperial conceptions of the past linked to their conceptions of the future?
What is B's main point about the writings of Flavius Josephus?
What is B's main point about the popularity of biographies in Imperial Rome?
According to B, what was the key to historical explanation for Plutarch and how did the ancients understand "character"?
Was there much writing in Imperial Rome about historical methodology? (What is B's main point about Lucian's How to Write History?)
Why were so few histories written during the late Imperial period?
What is the thesis of chapter 6?
On pp. 75-76, B sums up his main point (thesis) in chapters 4-6 as a whole: what is the thesis of this section of the book (he presents 5 related points)?
Week III
Chapters 7-11
chapter 7
What three points does B make about the difference between the early Christian conception of history and that held by the Romans and Greeks?
For early Christians, what were the most important historical sources and why?
How did early Christians understand the historical relationship between the New and Old Testament?
What was the idea of the "education of mankind" (see, for instance, p. 79), and how did it relate to the evolving Christian conception of history?
According to B, what were the non-Christian influences on the early Christian conception of history?
What impact did the official Christianization of Rome have on Christian historical thinking?
What does B see as most important in the works of Eusebius?
How did Christians understand the organization of historical time? In other words, what were some of the early Christian concepts of historical periodization? What, for instance, was the idea of "world ages"?
Why did the Visgoths' sacking of Rome affect St. Augustine's re-thinking of history?
What two forces did Augustine see as shaping history?
How did Augustine understand historical periodization? (e.g., the figure on p. 87?)
B argues that the historian Orosius had a great influence over subsequent medieval historical writing--in what way?
Why did the "fall" of Rome require a new Christian conception of history?
In what sense did the new Christian history "have to" erase much of the German epic tradition and was this erasure complete? Explain.
How and why did Christian German kingdoms (like the Goths) link their own histories to that of Rome?
Why was the issue of "continuity" so important for post-Roman Christian historians and how was this linked to the concept of Christian "universality"?
Why was the idea of Divine Providence so important to Christian historical thinking after the "fall" of the Roman (Western) Empire?
Why did post-Roman Christian historians run into problems applying the idea of "ages of the world" to "recent" history?
For Christian historians of this era, what was the purpose of history and of historical explanation?
How did the Christian conception of the purpose of history help Christian historians "link" the Old and New Testaments and how did it help them understand "post-Biblical" history?
How did Christian historians understand cause and effect?
For early medieval Christian historians, what symbolized the continuity of time (past, present, and future, linked by Divine Providence)?
Did contemporary historians describe the early medieval clergy as pristine and free of sin? Explain. (What is B's point about how contemporary historians treated church-lay relations?)
Did these Christian historians understand the world in terms of change, such as the movement of mankind towards reform? Explain.
Circa 750, what was the purpose of Christian history? Did Isadore, for instance, believe in historical "interpretation"? Explain.
What was the measure of "truth" for Christian historians and how did that influence their historical methods (e.g., use the example of Bede)?
Where did history writing flourish most in the 750s-900s and why?
According to B. what problem that had plagued Roman Christian historiography had the creation of the Carolingian Empire revive? Explain.
How does B explain the purpose and popularity of biography in the Carolingian Empire?
What was hagiography, what was its purpose, and how and why did the writing of the lives of saints change between 400s and 900s?
Were saints the only subjects of early medieval biographies? Explain.
What were the "gesta" and what were their purpose?
What were the "annals" and were their purpose? For instance, what sorts of matters were recorded in the annals and why?
What was the most popular form of medieval history writing and why?
What was the concept of "translatio imperii" and how did it shape the writing of history circa 800s?
What does B see as most important about the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?
What is the thesis of chapter 7?
chapter 8
In his first paragraph in this chapter, B more or less lays out the chapter's main point. What is it?
What was the function of regional histories in the new western European kingdoms? For instance, what was the purpose of Dudo's history of Normandy?
What was the purpose of Widukind's history of the Saxons?
What does B find most interesting and important about contemporary Germanic histories of German expansion into Eastern Europe?
What impact did Germanic expansion have upon native history writing in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe? For instance, what was the aim of Kadlubek's history of Poland?
How did conversion to Christianity change the way Scandinavians understood their own history?
In what sense did Celtic historiography differ from the pattern B has just discussed? For instance, why does he consider Geoffrey's history of Britain significant?
So, what was the public function of history in the "new" European kingdoms? For instance, what about Capetian France or Anglo-Norman England?
How did the Norman victory in 1066 change the writing of Anglo-Saxon history?
What new view of the English past arose from the histories of Eadmer, Oderic, and William of Malmesbury?
By the way, what do you see as a common feature of the lives of almost all of the historians discussed in chapters 7 and 8? What was their "profession" (besides writing history)?
What was the public function of Norman histories of Norman-ruled Italy?
According to B, what basic problem faced the monk-historians of the 11th-13th centuries?
How did the monk-historians solve this problem and how does that help us understand the public function of history in medieval Europe?
What is B's point about the purpose of "romance histories" in the 12th-14th centuries (for instance, in France and England)?
What is the thesis of chapter 8?
chapter 9
Again, B tells you his main point in this chapter in the first paragraph---so, what will be the main argument of this chapter? (Why call this chapter "The Ideal of the Christian Commonwealth"?)
What question is B asking in the first subsection of this chapter and what is his answer? Hint--What basic problem confronted medieval chroniclers who aimed at "universal" accounts?
What was the public function of the Saxon and Franconian chronicles and how does that help us understand the chroniclers' dilemma?
How and why did the contesting parties in the Investiture Conflict "use" history?
How does B explain the popularity of biographies of the Holy Roman Emperors?
When and why did Imperial historiography begin to decay?
How does B explain the legacy that early medieval historians bequeathed to their successors?
For medieval historians, what was the "true" subject of history? (Think about this: who was writing history in this era and why? How did they understand the concept of "truth"? And what did they see as the function of history?)
Did medieval chroniclers present history as a story of cause and effect? In particular, how did they understand causation?
B says that most chronicles contained three basic sections.
What were these and why was it hard to "connect" the first section to the last two sections?
Which section eventually got the most space and why?
What were medieval histories supposed to teach people about contemporary life?
Why was chronology such a serious matter to Christian historians?
What is B's main point about contemporary histories of the First Crusade? Is his point that all of these histories were "triumphal"? Explain.
How did contemporary historians treat the subsequent Crusades? Why?
What is the thesis of chapter 9?
chapter 10
What does B identify as the main social and political changes of the late medieval period and what paradox does he say these changes created in intellectual life?
According to B, what did new theological systems fail to explain and what were the implications for the study of history?
How did the "perceived relationship between God and human beings" change in late medieval Europe and how did that affect the writing of sacred history?
For instance, how did Hugh of St. Victor understand historical change? Did he see change in terms of progress? Explain.
Did the views of Hugh of St. Victor, etc., have much impact on later medieval historians? Explain.
How did "apocalyptic" twelfth century historians understand time?
How did Bishop Otto conceive of time, change and the translatio imperii?
What does B see as the major changes in chronicle writing in the late medieval period? In particular, how did chroniclers adapt to the "knowledge explosion"? (For instance, in England and in France...)
Did late medieval chroniclers follow Higden's prescription for explaining historical knowledge (see p. 148)? Explain.
Were there any major contemporary histories of the Hundred Years War? What sorts of works on the war does B consider most noteworthy?
Why were Burgundian chronicles of the Hundred Years War so popular among the region's nobility?
What seems to be B's main point about town and city chronicles in the 1200s-1300s? In particular, what was their public function and what new social relations did they reflect?
According to B, did the many major social and political changes of the 1200s and 1300s fundamentally alter the traditional Christian view of history? Explain.
What is the thesis of chapter 10?
Week IV
Chapters 11-14
chapter 11
At the start of this chapter, what does B identify as the main social/intellectual/political changes that characterized the period 1350-1700?
What is his main point about how these changes led to change in historiography?
Did Italian Renaissance historians immediately or universally adopt a "humanistic" approach to history? Explain.
What seems to have been the main characteristics of Italian humanistic historiography in the period before 1499?
What was its purpose?
How did it relate to ancient models of history writing?
Did all humanistic historians write in the service of republican governments? Explain.
Again, what seems to have been the main common threads linking Italian humanist histories in the period before 1499?
What does B mean by the "Calamita" and how did it influence Italian historiography? )This brings us back to the familiar question of how the writing of history is linked to thinking about the future...)
In particular, what were the main themes in Machiavelli's writings about history?
For Machiavelli, what was the point of writing history?
For Machiavelli, what were the main causes of historical events/occurrences?
For Machiavelli, what could people learn from history?
What new approach to world history did Giovio introduce in his work (in the 1550s)?
Where did the idea of the "Dark Ages" come from and why did humanist historians create this concept?
How did humanists periodize history and why?
Were the humanists really "secular" thinkers?
B poses this question on p. 160, "What did [the work of humanist historians from 1500 to 1550] mean for the development of historiography?" How does he answer that question? (Did their conception of causation change? Did their conception of the public function of history change?)
What was so important about the writings of Bionbo and Valla, who pointed out anachronisms in the republication and translation of various historical texts?
Why was such text criticism important and how was it related to the idea of change as "development"?
One might suppose that the "cosmopolitan" and "universalistic" ideas of humanism were antithetical to a "national" approach to history--does B think that this was so? Explain.
What was French textual criticism of Roman Law so important to the development of historiography?
What were the main similarities and differences between Italian humanist histories of the Church and the histories written by Lutherans?
What seems to be B's main point about Lutheran and English Protestant vs Catholic histories?
What is the thesis of chapter 11?
chapter 12
Yet again, B tells you the main point of this chapter in the very first paragraph--what is it?
Did the clergy still dominate the writing of history in the late 1500s and 1600s, e.g., in France and England? Why might this have been important?
What kinds of issues became subject to debate as a result of the effort to write "proper" French history in the late 1500s-1600s? Explain.
What was the connection between the new historical approach to law in France in the late 1500s and new approaches to studying history?
What was "antiquarian history" in Elizabethan England and why was it popular with both writers and readers?
What did antiquarian history examine and how, and did it offer bold interpretations?
For instance, what were the subjects of Stow's Survey of London, what kinds of sources did he use, and did he offer a synthetic argument?
If the antiquarian historians did not try to offer broad interpretive arguments, what was their contribution to the development of historiography?
What does B think most threatened "Christian universal history" in the 16th century and why?
How and why did the "discovery" of the Americas undermine traditional historical views?
How did Las Cases try to fit the American population into a Christian universal history framework?
How did Acosta try to accomplish the same goal?
B says that when "the unity of the sacred and the profane...began to fade...with it faded traditional universal history." What does this mean?
If historians no longer saw human and divine history as inseparable subjects, how did they now begin to conceptualize the "divisions" of history? What, for instance, would be the subject of divine history? natural history? human history?
Luther proposed a distinction between secular and ecclesiastical history. What did this separation infer and what subsequently became of ecclesiastical history in the 1600s? Did it still mean "divine" history? Explain.
How did the fading away of Christian universal history change the way historians understood historical periodization? For instance, what system of dividing up the past replaced the Biblical conception of "Four Empires"?
Why was that so important?
Did late 16th/17th century historians abandon the idea of God's will as a historical "cause"? Explain.
How did the task of the historian seem to be changing in the late 16th/17th century?
Did late 16th/17th century historians (e.g., in France) establish a single, agreed upon, understanding of historical "causes"? Did they, for instance, understand history as the story of of "progress"?
Did late 16th/17th century historians abandon efforts to "unify" all human history? Explain.
If we compare B's discussion of histories by Sir Walter Raleigh and Bossuet (the Bishop of Meaux), what kind of picture do we get of the changes in historical writing in the early 1600s?
How does the difference between histories by Sir Walter Raleigh and Bossuet connect us back to B's emphasis on the relationship between change and continuity in historiography?
On p. 186, B argues that in the 1500s-1700s, history (as a topic of study) began a "struggle" for its "place in the house of learning." What does this mean?
Could historians in England or France freely examine questions of politics in the 1600s? Explain.
What about historians in Italy?
So were historians central figures in the late 16th/17th century public debate over the nature of (how best to organize) the State?
What was the Italian ars historica movement and how did its supporters (the trattatisti) understand the place of history in human knowledge?
What is B's point in including a discussion of ars historica in this chapter sub-section, which discusses the problem of where history "fit" into the "house of learning"?
On p. 191, B uses the term "Pyrrhonism." What does this term refer to and what does B see as its causes in 17th century historiography?
B discusses the efforts of key philosophers of the 1600s--Bacon and Descartes--to establish the new study of epistemology (how humans grasp knowledge and truth) and how this related to the subject of history.
What did the Cartesian approach to knowledge mean for history's place in the "house of learning"?
What does B mean by "Erudite history" and how did it address the "Cartesian challenge"? (This is where we figure out how B is going to tie together his discussion of Italian Humanist historians, the French legal historians, and the English antiquarians!)
Did the Erudite historians (e.g., John Selden) focus on broad interpretive generalizations?
Did the fact that the Erudite historians did not make big generalizations mean that they did not try to explain historical change?
For B, what did the Erudite historians contribute to the development of historiography?
B argues at the end of this chapter that two very different approaches to history existed in early colonial North America--what were these?
How did the approach to history (the "point" of history) differ in New England and in Virginia?
How in the 1700ss did the original New England emphasis on "history as man following God's plan" and the Virginia emphasis on "history as collective efforts in a new, rich world" begin to merge? What are some examples?)
What is the thesis of chapter 12?
chapter 13
Again, by 1700 what forces had "shattered" the unified systematic Christian view of the past"? (B notes four points.)
What historical force seemed to dominate and shape new views of historical continuity? (hint--think about the type of state that would dominate modern history.)
How does B define the 18th century "erudite concept of truth" and how was this linked to an approach to historical methods?
Did one country have a monopoly on erudite history? Explain.
How did erudite historians help history gain greater respect as a field of scholarship? (Who read their works?)
What was the state of "university-taught" history circa 1700? For instance, where in the universities was history taught and why?
Was Vico a Cartesian? What did he think about human nature?
How did the philosophy of Leibniz apply to the study of history?
Does B think that the insights of Leibniz, Vico, and Herder moved beyond "erudite" history? Explain.
According to B, what is the core idea of the "progress theory" of history?
What basic (Enlightenment) perspectives on nature and humanity underlay progress theory?
What kind of progress did the philosophes see in history?
Why were the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" important to "progress theory"?
How did the philosophes explain the diversity of cultures?
What vision of the future fueled the historical perspective of the philosophes?
How did the philosophes understand the Middle Ages? Why?
According to B, what was so revolutionary about this concept of history as progress?
How did Turgot and Condorcet understand and explain historical change?
What did the philosophes consider the purpose of history?
Did all philosophes agree that rationality was leading towards progress? For instance, what about Rousseau? (Hint--Explain Rousseau's idea of man's decline into decadence.)
Did David Hume agree with the progress theory? Explain.
Back to Vico!
Explain Vico's version of the cyclical pattern of history. What was his main focus and what three stages of human history did he see? (What, for instance, characterized the era of the gods, of heroes, and of men?)
How did Vico explain the causes of historical change?
Did Vico consider progress (as a result of the march of rationality) to be inevitable? Explain.
Does B consider cyclical theories to be as optimistic as progress theories? Explain.
What is the thesis of chapter 13?
chapter 14
How does B characterize Enlightenment-era British historiography? What, for instance, shaped the British conception of the Future and how did that influence their views of the past?
Did Hume (ever the sore thumb!) agree with most British historians that Liberty was the result of ancient British traditions? Explain.
How does B describe the common attributes of British historical writing, e.g., of the very different histories written by Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon?
How did Gibbon explain Rome's "decline and fall"?
Does Gibbon's explanation sound familiar? Think about this: was Gibbon, like the ancients, focusing on the characteristics of individuals?
How does B explain the difference between German and French Enlightenment conceptions of reason? In particular, did the German thinkers see man's relationship to nature in the same way as did the French? Explain.
How did German Enlightenment conceptions of history differ from those of the French?
What does B consider significant about the manner in which 18th century Germans studied the history of law and government? In particualr, what sort of forces did they examine in these studies and what was their methodology?
How did the German approach to "universal history" differ from that of the French Enlightenment thinkers? In particualr, why were the German historians more interested in the detailed mechanics and processes of change?
What was the concept of the volk as first suggested by late 18th century German thinkers like Herder?
Why were German historians drawn more toward biological models than models from physics? How, for instance, did Herder use organic metaphors to describe the volk?
How did Herder understand the formation of cultures? For instance, did he see history as "progress"? Explain.
According to B, by 1800 had anyone synthesized the various peculiar strengths of the French, German, and English historical schools into a coherent "new" history?
What is B's main point about how the writing of history changed in the USA in the late 1700s?
How did most contemporary English writers and Loyalists explain the American Revolution?
How did Patriots explain the Revolution?
In the new American Republic, what fundamental rift in thinking about history (and about the meaning of the Revolution) had opened already by the end of the 1700s?
What different interpretations emerged of the meaning of the new nation? What is B's point here?
What is the thesis of chapter 14
Week V
Chapters 15-17
chapter 15
Think about this chapter's title: What is B saying about the public function of history in the early 19th century?
Was the public function of historiography identical across Europe--e.g., in England, France, and the German states?
What one theme seems to run through B's discussion of historiography in these states (and in the USA)?
B argues that after 1800, German historians finally synthesized the various schools of 18th century historiography into a new historical "science." Part of this process was a re-thinking of basic philosophical stands. So, how did the Napoleonic wars contribute to this process and how did Prussian scholars re-conceptualize philosophy after 1806?
How did the new German philosophy depart from the French Enlightenment? In particular, what role did it give to the State?
How did the German empahsis on the State effect the study of history--e.g., of ancient history? of legal history?
What were the "practical" implications of the German view of history for "contemporary" policy?
Based upon B's discussion, explain Hegel's theory of history.
How did the Spirit/Idea move towards self-realization through a dialectical process (thesis/antithesis/synthesis)?
What was the function of peoples/civilizations in the Spirit's advance?
What was the role of the individual in history?
And what was the role of the State?
[Note--I read Hegel a bit differently than does B. As I read him, Hegel does argue that the Prussian state was the highest stage of history--the Idea self-realized...]
Did Ranke, the "father of historical science," agree with Hegel's dialectical-idealist approach to history? Explain.
According to B, what made Ranke the "father of historical science"? In particular, what was his method and how did he teach?
Was Ranke a secularist? In other words, how did religion shape his view of history? Did he, for instance, consider history morally neutral or morally relative?
Compare Ranke's view of the state to Hegel's view--how was it similar and how was it different?
What "kind" of history did Ranke favor, and how was that related to the availability of sources?
[BONUS QUESTION B thinks that other historians misinterpret Ranke--what is his point here?]
Why were the Southwestern German states the center of German liberal historiography?
What became of German liberal historians in the early 19th century?
According to B, what events made German historians turn to supporting the Prussian monarchy and Prussian-led unification and how did that influence their views of history?
According to B, how did the mainstream of German historians respond to Unification and how did it shape their views of history?
Does he think that these "pro-Prussian" historians were "objective" in their research? Explain.
What public roles in German life did historians like the great classicist Mommsen play?
Was Mommsen's public role reflected in his historical works? Explain.
Does B think that the greatest legacy of 19th century German historians are their politically partisan histories? Explain.
Compared to historians who worked on publication of sources, guidebooks for methods, etc., does B think much of the legacy of the most famous late-19th century German historian, Treitschke? Explain.
According to B, what was the basic public function of historians in post-Napoleonic France?
How did Catholic historians understand the French Revolution? For instance, what lessons did Chateaubriand or de Maistre think the Revolution had taught?
And during the Restoration (1815-1830), how did conservative historians understand the Middle Ages and Why?
What was the ecole narrative?
What common concern seems to link the writings of the Thierry brothers (Augustin and Amedee), Dubois, Michelet, and Guizot?
How did Michelet conceive of the causes of historical change and development?
Do you see any commonalities between Michelet's views and that of the Germans? Explain.
How was Michelet's view of the past related to his hopes for France's future? Explain.
What does B call the "greatest internal problem" facing Restoration France, and how did that shape the writing of history? For instance, how did it shape liberal historical writing about the 1789-1799 Revolution?
French liberal historians generally identified the cause of the Third Estate with the cause of the Nation--was this view of the past "democratic"? (e.g., in the works of Sismondi or Guizot?)
Why does B say it would be wrong to treat the writings of French liberal historians of the 1820s-1840s as "propaganda"?
How did Guizot understand the forces causing the French Revolution and how was his view of the past linked to his conception of France's future?
SO--according to French liberal historians in the early 1800s what were the moving forces in history and how can we understand this view in relation to their politics?
How did the rule of Napoleon III (1451-1870) affect the writing of history in France?
PLEASE note the very interesting introduction to de Tocqueville on pp. 246-247...
What is the thesis of chapter 15
chapter 16
What is B's main point about the English historical response to the French Revolution? Why was the French Revolution such a threat to the "gradualist" thesis that dominated English historiography (think, for instance, of Burke)?
Besides the French Revolution, what other "force" was shaking up English historical thought in the early 1800s? Explain.
What was the Whig view of history?
What was Macauley's main thesis about why England was so "stable"?
What social classes were at the center of Macauley's history?
Why did Macauley's popularity fade after the 1860s?
According to B, why was the issue of historical identity in England different than in France or Germany?
In what sense did Carlyle's view of history contradict the Whig consensus?
What did Carlyle identify as the 2 great forces in historical change?
Following from this, how did Carlyle understand the history of the French Revolution and its implications for England?
According to B, were histories of the American Revolution alone able to create a sense of clear historical identity in the USA in the 1800s? Explain.
What was the main thesis of Bancroft's histories of the USA and what public function did these histories play?
OK, you've all had some US history---what problems do you see with Bancroft's approach?
How did Hildreth's thesis of US history differ from Bancroft's and why wasn't it as popular?
What is B's main point about the writings of US historians like Parkman, Prescott, and Motly? Hint--What public function did these "literary" historians play?
Explain B's main points about the US historiography about the Civil War in the 1800s regarding:
According to B, what "currents" helped make the 1800s a "golden age" of historiography? (He's summing up chapters 15 and 16 here!)
What are some examples of the public roles played by historians in Europe and in the USA? For instance, did all historians B discusses prosper as a result of the political importance of history? Explain.
What made "German historical science" different from the study of history elsewhere?
How did the "German style" influence historians outside of the German states?
Here is the chapter's toughest question: according to B, why did this new scientific history have a "corrosive effect on traditional historiography"?
What is the thesis of chapter 16?
chapter 17
This chapter "sets up" the next four chapters...
B. identifies 4 major changes in Western civilization in the late 1800s that would also change historiography. What were these 4 changes and why does he think that they had such an impact on historiography? (This is getting at one of his biggest points in the book, folks!)
What is B's main point on p. 269?
According to B, could late 19th century historians simply copy the methods of science without changing their fundamental view of the world? Explain. Why would a "strict" scientific history lead to a philosophical crisis?
According to B, why did historians start paying attention to economics?
" " "" "" did 19th century historians really concern themselves with the experience of "ordinary" people? Explain.
How does B explain the relative failure to write world histories in the late 1800s?
What is the thesis of chapter 17?
WEEK VI
Chapters 18-21
Chapter 18
Explain Compte's "possitivist" theory of history:
what did he see as history's main subject?
as the main force behind historical change?
as the 3 stages of historical development?
And how was his understanding of history linked to his view of the future?
Did contemporary historians think much of Compte's theories? Explain.
What did the English positivist historian Buckle see as the main forces shaping history? Explain.
How did the "historical science" of early French positivist historians like Taine differ from contemporary German "historical scientists"? What did Taine want history to explain?
After the German military victory over France (in 1870-71), French historians became much more open to "German" methods. Was Durkheim a supporter of the "German" historical approach?
What did Durkheim see as the purpose of history? And did most French historians agree?
Meanwhile, back in Germany.... Ranke's historical methods were coming under attack by Droysen and others. What was Droysen's main criticism of Ranke? of Buckle?
Why did Lamprecht's German History cause so much controversy in the 1890s? In particlar, what did he see as history's main focus and as the the main forces of historical change?
B says that Lamprecht and Droysen represented a more general crisis in German historiography in the late 1800s. What had become of the idealistic belief in transcendent absolutes and what did this mean for the Rankean approach to history?
Did post-Rankeans as a result have a clear philosophy of history?
Do you see a link between the problem facing German historians in the late 1800s (reconciling change and continuity) and the problem that had faced late medieval Christian historians (reconciling the sacred and the profane)? Explain.
According to the German historians Dilthey and Winelband, could history be explained in the same way that science explained nature? For instance, what did Dilthey say historians must do to understand the past?
So, how was Dilthey criticizing positivism?
How did Dilthey understand the study of history and did he think that anything in history was un-changing?
According to B, what were the consequences of Dilthey's approach? (What does B mean by relativism?)
After Dilthey, Windelband tried to "solve" the problem of relativism by making the study of "values" into the fixed, unchanging center of historical inquiry. Did Max Weber agree with that aproach? Explain.
Did Weber think that historians could really explain the past? In other words, did he think historians study the "actual past"? (Hint--what did Weber consider to be the difference between and "ideal type" and the "actual past"?)
So, for Weber, what could history actually tell us?
Explain the main point that B is making at the top of p. 284 about Weber's impact on German historiography.
Did English historians go through the same sort of intellectual crisis in the late 1800s as had German historians?
What public role did history still play in England in the late 1800s and how does B explain this?
Did "German-style" history have much influence on the USA in the late 1800s? Explain.
What public role did history continue to play in the USA in the late 1800s?
What does B mean by the "great divorce" among US historians at the turn of the century?
In the late 1800s, did American historians have a very clear sense of what the "science" in "historical science" meant? Explain.
According to B, why didn't historians in the USA have the same sorts of debates over philosophy and methods as historians in Germany or France?
What is the thesis of chapter 18?
Chapter 19
According to B, where, when, and why did intellectuals begin to historicize economics (to treat the economy as something that changes over time)?
I want to preface these questions by making clear that I think that B's analysis of Marx is overly simplistic (Marx was not nearly as "deterministic" as portrayed by B).... OK, so here we go!
How does B explain Marx's view of history?
According to B, what did Marx see as the main subject of history?
According to B, what did Marx mean by "modes of production" and how were these related to the stages of historical development?
According to B, how did Marx understand the causes of historical change? For instance, how was class conflict related to historical change?
How was Marx's view of the past related to his vision of the future? (eg., the "end of history"?)
According to B, since Marx's death what has been the major tension within Marxism (i.e., between academic Marxism and Marxism as political activism)?
How did Marxism affect non-Marxist economic history in Europe in the late 1800s?
Were American economic historians in the late 1800s influenced by Marx? Explain.
What was the main thesis of Beard's Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States?
What is the thesis of chapter 19?
Chapter 20
When historians in the early 1800s used the phrase "the people," what did they mean?
In the later 1800s (after political democratization had become more widespread), were all intellectuals (including historians) enthusiastic about the process? For instance, what did Burckhardt think of democratization and how was that linked to his preference to cultural history?
What "technical problems" limited historians who did want to write about "ordinary people" circa 1900?
What does B mean when he writes on p. 306 that "social history remained institutional history" at the turn of the century?
On p. 307, B compares institutional history circa 1900 to that in the 1500s-1600s. What is his point here?
According to B, what was at the heart of German historians' debates over feudalism circa 1870-1900?
" " " " what was at the heart of English historians' debates over the influence of Anglo-Saxon, Roman, and Norman institutions?
As you all know, by 1900 the USA was in the midst of great waves of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration. Did US historians still conceive of the "nation" as a "seamless whole" in this period? Explain.
How did US historians link institutional history to the idea of nationhood and how were their views related to "German" theories?
Did Turner and the New Historians agree with this "German thesis"?
What was the "Imperial School" of US history?
Background--How does B define the aims of the Progressive movement in the USA?
How does B explain Turner's view of history and in particular his "frontier thesis."
According to Turner, how did the frontier shape democracy?
Explain Turner's theory of "sectionalism."
Turner was an important figure in the transformation of US historiography. Does B consider him on of the Progressive historians? Explain.
How did Progressive intellectuals understand progress?
How does B relate the Progressive's critical analysis of American society and traditions to their social class origins?
How did the New Historians who would become Progressives understand the public function of history?
B says that the "scientific" approach of the New Historians/Progressives had implications both for the periods of history that would be studied in the US and for the way in which historians would "do" social history. What are his main points about these implications?
What is the thesis of chapter 20?
chapter 21
According to B, why was re-conceptualizing "world history" a necessary "new task" facing historiography in the late 1800s?
Why was the Christian perspective no longer an adequate "glue" for holding together world history?
And why wasn't it possible for positivism (e.g., Comte's approach) to fill the gap left by the collapse of Christian universalism?
How did Acton define universal history in 1898, and did all intellectuals agree with his view that history was the universal story of progress? Explain.
What is the thesis of chapter 21?
WEEK VII
Chapters 22-25
chapter 22
Why does B treat the onset of WWI as a turning point in modern historiography?
B says that by 1914, historians saw two possible paths to "scientific" history: the use of natural science as a model for historical studies; and the development of an independent "social science" based upon the idea that knowledge about human society is fundamentally different (and poses different methodological tasks) than the natural science. Did both views see history as having the same purpose/goal? Explain.
B says that during the 20th century (after WWI), a combination of factors shattered intellectuals' certainty that science was connected to progress, and that historians who believed in the "natural sciences" model of historiography began to doubt that history could reveal "truth." What forces were involved in this shattering of faith in science?
B says that in the late 20th century historians who believed in the "social sciences" model of historiography also faced a fundamental problem that threw into question the idea that history could reveal "truth." How does he explain that problem?
So, by the end of the 20th century, was there a single, clear, generally agreed upon (unifying) theory of "scientific" history?
Does B think that by the end of the twentieth century economic history was able to provide a single, clear, generally agreed upon (unifying) approach to history? Explain.
Does B think that by the end of the twentieth century social history was able to provide a single, clear, generally agreed upon (unifying) approach to history? Explain.
Does B think that by the end of the twentieth century world history was able to provide a single, clear, generally agreed upon (unifying) approach to history? Explain.
What is the thesis of chapter 22?
chapter 23
What does B mean by the terms "assimilationist" and "autonomist" in his discussion of the search for a "scientific" history?
What does B see as the main goal of the "New Positivist" philosophers of the 1920s-1940s? For example, what did Popper and Hemple say that historians must do for history to be "scientific"?
According to B, was the view of the New Positivists a workable solution to making history a "science"? Did that mean the end of positivistic history? Explain.
According to B, what was the main goal of the "autonomist" historians and social scientists in the post-WWI period?
Was it easy for social scientists to cast aside positivism without falling into the "trap" of relativism? Explain.
Think for yourself about this (B is not explicit): Why was the need to establish truths that were not "relative" such an important issue for intellectuals in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s?
How did Benedetto Croce deal with the problem of relativism? For instance, did he think that historians can be absolutely objective? Explain.
Why, according to B, did Croce's approach make all history "contemporary" history?
What was Croce's view of the purpose of history?
According to B, were American historians particularly worried about "scientific truth" or "relativism" in the 1920s and 1930s? Explain.
How did the Progressive Historians define "objectivity"?
Why does B call this subsection "a joyous relativism"?
Why were Becker and Beard more concerned than most American historians in the 1920s-1930s about the problems of objectivity and truth?
Becker eventually became skeptical about the ability of history to get at "truth"--how did he explain why history was useful even if it can't "depict the actual past"?
Did Beard think that historians could be absolutely objective or impartial? Explain.
What did Beard think this implied for historians? And what "act of faith" did Beard take as his own approach to history?
According to B, "Narrativism" was one post-WWII response to the problem of whether history can tell the truth, be objective, or be a science. What is "narrativism"? For instance, what did the historian Collingwood think historians really do?
How did Oakeshott describe the "proper" method of doing history?
How did Gallie explain the use of narrative in history?
B differentiates between the "narrativists" of the 1960s and those of the 1970s-present (the "post-modernists"), like Hayden White.
Does Hayden White think that historical narratives reflect (or describe) objective truths? Explain.
B points out that one of the key insights of post-modernism is that "language shapes cognition." What does this mean and why is it significant to the study of history? Think about this (a lot)! What do you think?
B briefly explains the approach of "deconstructionists" like Derrida (and also Foucault). In what way does the deconstructionist perspective cast doubt on our ability to understand the "true," "original" meaning of any historical documents?
What does that mean for the purpose of history? (What did Foucault seem to think about the purpose/function of history?)
What is the thesis of chapter 23?
chapter 24
How does B explain the origins of the modern quantitative approach to history?
In what areas of historical study were quantitative methods first applied and why? How, for instance, have French Annales-school historians, American economic historians, and political historians, and social historians used quantitative methods?
According to B, what are historians now debating in regard to the use of quantitative methods?
Does B think that quantification can for once and for all solve the question of how to make history "scientific"? Explain.
Before the advent of modern psychological theories (pre-Freud), historians had already discussed the role of psychological factors in history; what were the concepts of "collective psyche" and "national character" as understood by historians in the 1750s-1900?
What was Dilthey's idea of the "Weltanschuung" (circa 1880s)?
When did Freudian psychology begin to have a big influence on historiography and why?
How does B explain the main elements of the Freudian approach?
What are some examples of the application of Freudian concepts to history?
In the late 1950s, Erikson modified Freud's approach to psychological analysis; what was Erikson's "modification" of Freud, and how did he apply it to the study of history?
Does B seem to have much confidence in the "science" of psychohistory? Explain: what problems does he see in this approach and what does he think it has contributed to historiography?
What is the thesis of chapter 24?
chapter 25
What does B identify as the main "tensions in Marxist philosophy of history"? Explain!
According to B, why is it "ironic" that a Marxist political regime took power in Russia in 1917? Explain.
According to B, what was the main factor that influenced the direction of Soviet Marxist historiography in the Stalin era? Was it concern for the fine points of Marx's theories? Explain.
Why does B describe Stalinist history as more "nationalist" than Marxist?
After WWII, Stalinist Orthodoxy was imposed on historians in Eastern Europe; in the mean time, according to B, Marxists in the "West" faced a "dilemma." What was this dilemma?
How does B fit this dilemma into the context of one of the main themes in this book (the tension between belief in human free will and the search for laws of historical development)?
The "Frankfurt School" (also called the "Critical School") of Austrian and German scholars has tried to balance aspects of Marx's theories with commitment to individualism and democracy. What has been their main idea about how to "use" Marxist theory?
Has the Critical School argued that modern history has been the story of progress and ever-greater equality? Explain. Are they apologists for Soviet-style authoritarianism? Explain...
Marxism has had a great influence on historians in England and the USA; in his sub-sub-section on Anglo-Saxon historians, how does B explain the approach that Hobsbawm, Hill, and Thompson have taken to Marxism?
What is B's final verdict on Marxist historical theory?
The rest of this chapter focuses on non-Marxist economic historical approaches. One of B's points is that economists in the "West" in the 20th century have not paid much attention to what historians (even economic economic historians) have had to say. Why is that?
One economic approach to history that had a great deal of influence in the USA in the early 1900s was that taken by Charles and Mary Beard (who were influenced by the ideas of Veblen); what are some examples of the Beards' economic interpretations of US history?
B discussed several dramatic changes in the way that French historians since 1900 have interpreted the economic causes of the French Revolution. Explain how these arguments have changed (e.g., the views of Jaures, Lefebvre, Labrousse). According to B, do French historians now argue that economic factors were the main determining cause of the French Revolution? Explain.
So, is B's point that only Marxist approaches to economic history have come under criticism in the late 20th century? Explain!
What is "Cliometrics" (the New Ecomoic History) and how do "Cliometricians" go about studying history?
What are B's main criticisms of Cliometrics?
Is B trying to say that all efforts to explain history using economic analysis have failed?
What is his thesis in chapter 25? (Think about the chapter title!)
WEEK VIII
Chapters 26-Epilogue
Chapter 26
What was the aim of the Progressive historians? In other words, what did they see as the public purpose of history and as the public rule of historians and how was their view of US history linked to their view of the future?
The most famous progressive historians focused on the connection between politics and economics. How did progressive historians like Parrington explain intellectual history? Here again, how was the progressive approach linked to the Progressive vision of the future?
Since the Progressive believed in the power of human rationality and in progress, they had a hard time dealing with the brutal history of the US Civil War. How did Beard explain the significance of the Civil War?
In the early post WWII years, a number of "revisionist" historians criticized Beard's approach to the Civil War: what were their main criticisms, and why (according to B) did this version of revisionism fade so quickly?
B points out that, for all of their focus on conflict in American life, there is one entire aspect of American history--an aspect stepped in conflict--that the Progressives almost completely ignored. What was this "forgotten conflict" and why, according to B, did the Progressive not give attention to this issue?
Did the fact that the Progressives ignored the history of race in America mean that there were no historians writing about Black history in the early 1900s? Explain.
B makes the point that the approach to social history pioneered by A. Schlesinger Sr. was very different from that of the Beards and the other Progressives. How was Schlesinger's approach different?
B makes the point that the study of "sections" or "regions" of the United States has outlived F. J. Turner's thesis about "sectionalism." What about Turner's "Frontier Thesis"? Have historians generally found that Turner was correct? Explain.
How did the founders of the French Annales "school" (Bloch, Febvre, etc.) understand the scope of history (what the study of history includes and how it relates to other disciplines)?
B briefly discusses the concept of structuralism. What are the basic ideas associated with structuralism and how did the Annales historians adapt these ideas?
What are B's main criticisms of the Annales school?
The great Annales-influenced historian Braudel argued that historical change occurred at three levels, or in three different "rhythms." What are these and what do they mean? Explain.
Since 1945, Annales historians have dealt with issues beyond (or in addition to) demographics and economics, such as the history of mentalité. What does this term mean?
For B, what is the greatest strength of modern French social historiography?
What is the thesis of chapter 26?
Chapter 27
B begins this chapter by telling us that Whig historiography has not fared well in the post 1945 period. Why not?
B claims that there was a "quasi status-quo" in German historiography in the period 1918-1933 (the period of the Weimar Republic). What what does this mean?
According to B, what were the main characteristics of historiography in Fascist Italy and did the Italian fascists have a systematic theory of history (or view of history)?
B makes the point that, for all of their similarities, Nazi historiography differed in fundamental ways from Fascist historiography. How and why?
The Nazis sought to completely dominate German-language history writing in the 1930s. How did they go about trying to achieve this and did they succeed? Explain.
After 1945, one of the most powerful debates among Germany historians has been over the question of the "Sonderweg." What does this term mean and what different versiona of the Sonderweg thesis does B explain?
Have explanations of Germany's supposed "separate path" changed over time?
B compares the Annales social historians in France to the Historische Sozialwissenscraft approach in Germany. What are the basic differences and how would you explain the reasons that these differences exist?
What was the Historikerstreit and what issue were German historians debating?
How would you sum up the two basic sides in this debate (e.g., Nolte vs Habermas)?
In the US after 1945 what became of the approach taken by the Progressive historians and why?
According to B, what characterized the approach of "Critical Liberal" historiography in the US after 1945? Explain.
How did "Critical Liberal" historians relate to the sort of historical debates that had been taking place in Europe since the late 1800s and how did they conceive of the historians' public function?
According to B, what constituted the main shared ideas or perspectives of "so-called Consensus historiography" in the US? Explain at least 2 of B's examples of consensus historiography.
What does B describe as the main shared characteristics of "New Left" historiography? Explain, for instance, the main points made by W. LeFeber and W. A. Williams.
According to B, how did the New Left historians understand their public role as historians?
Were the New Left historians marxists? Explain.
What does B identify as the main trends in US historiography since the 1970s?
What is the thesis of chapter 27?
Chapter 28
At the start of this chapter, B identifies a "problem." What is this problem and what three approaches to World History will he discuss in this chapter?
What does B describe as the main shared characteristic of "progress models" of world history nd what problem does he see with such models? How, in particular, have historians tried to explain Western dominance in modern history?
What does B describe as the main shared characteristics of "multiple cultures model" world histories?
Explain the basic differences between Spengler's theory of history and that of Toynbee (this requires that you first understand their two theories!).
What does B describe as the main shared characteristic of "world systems theories" of world history?
Explain the basic differences between modernization theories (like Rostow's) and dependency theories (which is how B defines the view of Wallerstein).
According to B, does the systems theory approach of William McNeal differ from modernization theory and dependency theory?
B closes by discussing recent efforts to build a modified Christian view of world history. What seems to be his main point here?
What is the thesis of chapter 28?
Epilogue
B is convinced that we can learn a great deal from studying the history of historiography. For instance, he says that we learn that historians have shared one basic, over-arching function in all western societies (he says that this is one of the continuities we can see despite all of the historical changes during the past 4,000 years). What is this basic public function? Explain.
B argues that after WWII, the study of history in western cultures faced a shared problem or challenge (in the Soviet bloc, history had its own problems). What basic problem did the study of history face after 1945 and why did the public role of historians seem to fade away in the late 1940s-early 1960s?
B argues that historians and historiography have faced new problems since the early 1970s. What were these? Put differently, according to B, why was there now a greater public need for historians and why were historians finding it hard to fill that need?
In this book, B has argued that since the late 1800s historians have basically chosen one of two basic philosophical approaches to the question of what historians actually do. (In other words, there have been two different answers to the question "what is history?") What are these two approaches?
If "scientific" history has not really panned out (according to B), then are historians doomed to "hopeless relativism"?
What is B's solution to this conundrum? How can the study of the history of historiography help us?
If, for B, avoiding relativism is one of the two great challenges facing historians today, what is the "second task"? Explain! How can the study of the history of historiography help us?
Do you think that B believes in Progress? Explain.
B concludes that the study of history is of extreme importance for all cultures, including our own. WHY?
What is the thesis of this book?