History is the study of the past through available
sources. The analysis and the interpretation of the facts help the historian to
present his/her version of the past. Thus the past is reconstructed through
the interpretation of historians. Hence, the nature of history depends on the
approach of historians. E H Carr advises the readers that “study the historian before you
begin to study the facts”. He argued that any account of the past is largely
written to the agenda and social context of the one writing it. Obviously, the
historian’s way of looking at the past presents the nature of history
differently. The nature of history is often proposed in debates on the process and
the making of history. Thus, the nature of history is very complex and it is dynamic.
History Repeats
Itself and History Never Repeats Itself
The debate on the
repetition of historical events is centred on the nature of the historical process.
Aristotle defined history as ‘an account of the unchanging past’. He considered
history as unchanging because human nature is unchanging. Events are correlated
to one another and they always react in a particular manner, because they have
basic unity. Those
who believe that history repeats itself from time to time, argue that the
human mind is alike all over the world and forces that influence the events are
alike.
On the other hand, historians
view that history never repeats itself. They point out that history means a
record of important events and human deeds. Every event in history is unique
and it has no uniformity. If we accept the theory of repetition in history, it
means that there is no advancement in society. The basic nature of history is
constant change. The historical events are not uniform. Though some events may
have uniformity, it cannot be said that history repeats itself. In this
regard, G M Trevelyan said, ‘history repeats itself and also that history never
repeats itself fully’.
Cyclical and Progressive
Nature of History
Those who hold the cyclical view of history think that
history moves in circles. There is a starting point, an upward movement, a peak
stage, a downward movement, and a stage of decline in each historical
process. This process starts all over
again. Hence, the cyclical view conforms to the organic view of birth, growth,
maturity, decline, downfall, and disintegration. This view proposes that all
human events occur in cycles. Names, dates, and persons may change, but what
happened before will happen again. This view supports the idea of ‘history
repeats itself’. This theory ruled out the possibility of development and
change.
The progress view of history is the outcome of the
renaissance, which stated that the human race was continuously progressing. This
theory of history was formulated by Gottfried Leibnitz. He held that the human race was continually
getting better and better, it has become more civilized with the passage of
each new generation. The progressive or linear view of history considers
historical movement as a straight line from an unknown past passing through the
known present to the unknown future. According to this, there is a close
continuity and progress in history. The idea of progress links up the past with
the present and gives unity to history.
Universal
and Unique Nature of History
In the past, the world was divided into a number of social,
political, and cultural units. With
the result of the industrial revolution and improved means of communication and transportation, the different countries of the world were brought closer to each
other and the feeling of oneness grew among the people of different countries. This
gave rise to an integrated and unified culture and economy. Thus history
assumed a universal nature. The idea of Universal History captured the imagination
of eighteenth-century historians. The pursuit of inter-connectedness of
events led to the historian’s dream of a universal or world history. Immanuel
Kant thought that writing universal history was a feasible ideal by unifying
historical and philosophical thoughts. Leopold Von Ranke’s idea of such a
history may be taken as a classical example. He thought it was possible to
connect up all the main threads of historical themes and weave them into a
universal history.
On the other hand,
there is a popular understanding that all historical events are unique in its
time and place. The duty of a historian is to find out the unique
characteristics of that historical period and place. Historical events are
different from place to place and from time to time. The development of historical
studies like regional history, local history, microhistory, oral history,
gender history, and so on underlines the unique nature of history.
Croce and the Contemporary
Nature of History
Benedetto Croce, one of the
most famous Italian philosophers, defined “all history is contemporary
history”. It means that the past (history) has existed only in the minds of
contemporaries. It consists essentially of seeing through the eyes of the
present and in the light of its problems. He was also a protagonist of
Historical Relativism, which argued that history is present knowledge,
which must and does spring from current interests. To him ‘history is
contemporary thoughts about the past’. The propagators of this philosophy held
the view that there is no one truth about the past but innumerable truths as
many as there are perspectives. Their belief was that ‘we see different pasts at
different times, and what we see depends on our present situation. R.G.
Collingwood, the author of The Idea of
History, following the footsteps of B. Croce, asserted that “all history is
the history of thought”. He goes to the extent of saying that “Of everything
other than thought, there can be no history”.
Scientific
and Humanistic Nature of History
The scientific nature of history was insisted by J B Bury through
his famous post ‘history is a science, no less no more’. This
argument gained wide acceptance among historians of the scientific age. John
Seely asserted that “History was a science and had nothing to do with
literature”. During the age of science, the argument ‘history is a science’ got
its momentum. The method of
historical research involves the methods of science. Analysis, classification, and interpretation of historical sources are inextricably linked with
scientific methods. The historical research activities
like formulation of hypothesis, finding out of cause and effects, and the
method of generalisations are the methods of science. The interdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary approaches in history link it with
scientific inquiries.
History is humanistic. It is a narrative of human history. It
is the record of human deeds and misdeeds, successes, and failures. It endeavours
to find the cause of historical events in the personality of human agents, not
a divine agency. In other words, whatever happens in history happens as a
direct result of human will. Lord Action came out with the conclusion that
“History is the unfolding of human freedom”. G.J. Renier, defined history as
“the story of the experiences of men living in civilized societies”.
Subjective
Nature of History
Historians have no direct contact with the past. Therefore, it
is difficult for them to be objective in the representation of the past. W. H.
Walsh points out that “Every history is written from a certain point of view and
makes sense only from that point of view”. Thus history represents the
subjective account of the past. While interpreting the sources, a historian may be guided by several conditions,
which may reflect in his interpretation. Nationality, personal likes and
dislikes, and theoretical and philosophical perceptions of historians will
reflect his interpretation of the facts.
Further, no two historians can agree on what really happened in
one particular historical moment. Thus it underlines the subjective nature of
history.
Literary or Fictional Nature of History
Postmodern historians consider history as literary activism. Hyden White, the
American postmodern historian defines history as a ‘verbal fiction’. Historians
use the methods and techniques of literature in history while narrating or
describing a historical event. Further, while interpreting the sources, the historian uses his imagination. Thus history often reflects the nature of
literature.
Carlyle and the Heroic Nature of History
In his work, On Heroes, Hero-Worship and Heroic in History,
Thomas Carlyle put forward the ‘Great Man Theory’ to define history. He defined
that ‘history is nothing but the biography of great men’, and that it is a
record of human accomplishment, particularly of great souls’. He believed that heroes
shape history through both their personal attributes and divine inspiration. He gave great importance to individuals as decisive
players in history. What history requires according to Carlyle are geniuses and
not masses. Human progress is regarded as being primarily due to the work of
geniuses who appear in the world from time to time. He argued that “in all
epochs of the world’s history, we shall find the Great Man to have been the
indispensable savior of his epoch”. This heroic view of history was
also strongly endorsed by some philosophical figures such as Hegel, Nietzsche,
and Spengler. In Untimely Meditations, Nietzsche wrote that:
"...the goal of humanity lies in its highest specimens." This view
presented the heroic nature of history.
The Ever-Changing Nature of History
In the course of its development, the discipline of history has
updated with new types of sources, methods, and themes. Audio, visual and other
digital sources found their place in historical analysis. Interdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, and trans-disciplinary approaches introduced new themes and areas
of study in history. Historiographical approaches like microhistory, oral
history, local history, gender history, environmental history, black history, and
so on brought alternative readings in history. All these developments altered
the traditional understanding of history. Thus the nature of history became
complex and depended on the perspectives of historians.
