Nature of History

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.