Idea of History

Ancient notions of history were revived in the Renaissance and not only adapted to modern conditions but also subjected to critical scrutiny, focusing on the question of whether history was an art or a "science," a question debated by historians down to the past century, notably in the famous exchange between George Macaulay Trevelyan (1876–1962) and John Bagnell Bury (1861–1927). In the sixteenth century history was in effect promoted from the level of art to that of science, especially in the work of Jean Bodin (1530–1596) and his followers on the "method" of history, although his primary aim was to place historical knowledge in the service of the sciences of law and society. Yet history retained its relations with philosophy, especially as a fulfillment of the ancient Greek motto of self-knowledge. "Know thyself," quoted Bodin's disciple Pierre Droit de Gaillard in another "method" of history. "Now this knowledge depends upon history, sacred as well as profane, universal as well as particular." Such was one of the essential elements of historical study down to the famous work on the "idea of history" by Robin George Collingwood (1889–1943). Another contemporaneous French scholar, Henri de la Popelinière, likewise carried on Bodin's project by writing not only a history of history but also a discussion of the "idea of perfect history" (l'idée de l'histoire accomplie; historia perfecta), which followed Bodin's ideas but preserved the autonomy of the discipline of history.

Another central theme of the theory of history begins with Aristotle's (384–322 B.C.E.) famous and debate-inspiring contrast between poetry and history, which maintains that the latter stands in relation to philosophy as the particular to the general, and indeed this distinction was maintained not only by early modern scholars but also in the contrast made in the later nineteenth century by Wilhelm Windelband (1848–1915) and Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936) between sciences that were "idiographic," treating particulars, and those that were "nomothetic," seeking general laws. German "historicism" as defined by Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) was a view that likewise set history apart from philosophy through the principle of "individuality" (as well as development). Among the manifestations of individuality and vulgar empiricism were the isolation of particular "facts" and "events," which came under fire from more sophisticated views of historical knowledge.

In the early modern period, history, following the usage of "natural history," was defined especially as the knowledge of particulars (singulorum notitia, particularis cognitio), but increasingly it was also connected with the dimension of time and chronology, which, with geography, was regarded as one of the "eyes" of history. Here the central question was the form taken by the temporal process: where did it begin, and where was it headed? Was it continuous, filled with crises or revolutionary breaks, or perhaps cyclical? How could historians move back into that "foreign country" that is the past? Was ordinary memory, supported by reason, sufficient for such explorations, or was imagination required as well? Or did history require assistance from neighboring disciplines in the human sciences? All these questions and more have given substance, shape, and direction to the idea of history in modern times.