PSC HSST HISTORY-Historiography

Historiography

Historiography is essentially the history of writing history and how different viewpoints and

interpretations impact that writing.  The goal of this paper is to discuss how the writing of

history has developed over the last 2,500 years and how a modern historical outlook has

emerged, by where the past is seen as different than the present and the future; where time is a

constant movement toward new developments.  This is a linear view of time and history.  The

opposite is cyclical view of time, where the present and future are like, or almost like, the past. 

The modern historical outlook thus embraces the linear view and rejects the cyclical view.

Moreover, over time there emerged a modern historical methodology that stressed that in

analyzing history and things in the past, the emphasis should be on looking at secular, rather

than divine, causation.  This means that events in the past were caused by human actions rather

than divine beings. 

Finally, the modern historical outlook also stresses the importance of using primary sources –

documents from the time period – in writing history.

The History of Writing History in Europe

The Ancients

We start with the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians because of their important breakthroughs

in the measurement of time.  By creating an accurate measurement of time, they allowed

historians to deal with causation of events.  The Ancient Egyptians viewed time as happening in

recurring phases due to the influence of the Nile River, and thus believed in a cyclical view of

time (i.e., with a new Pharaoh, the calendar started over with year one).  While this is not a

modern view of counting time, the ancients did make a number of contributions concerning the

measurement of time such as the development of a yearly calendar made up of 12 months, with

30 days each for a total of 360 days, and at the end of the year, five festival days – not connected

with any month – occurred.  But this calendar was off by ¼ day each year.  Over a number of

years, this caused problems.  In the 1

st

century BC, Julius Caesar, to fix these problems, made

changes and ordered that an extra day be added every fourth year.  This new calendar became

known as the Julian Calendar, yet it was still off by 11 minutes too many each year.  Finally, in

1652, Pope Gregory XIII moved the calendar up 11 days to fix this, and ordered that in the future there would be times when there would be no leap year to compensate for the 11 minutes.  This

became known as the Gregorian Calendar and is considered modern.

Other Ancient Egyptian contributions included the solar clock, water clocks for night, dividing

the day into 24 hours, and deciding that there would be 12 hours in the day and 12 hours in the

night.

While the Sumerians also held a cyclical view of the development of time, they too offered

contributions, such as dividing the hours into 60 minutes, minutes into 60 seconds, and months

into weeks, with the weeks consisting of seven days (however, the seventh day was an evil day). 

Later, Persia, which included Sumeria, emerged and embraced Zoroastrianism, a religion that

asserted that good and evil spirits were in conflict until good spirits eventually would win out. 

This, then, was a linear view of the development of time.  That is, followers of Zoroastrianism

argued that events in future were not like events in the past.  Moreover, these views regarding the

development of time helped to influence Christianity and Judaism.  However, since this view

emphasized divine causation, it was not totally modern.

By the 5

th

century BC, the Ancient Greeks began to emphasize secular causation.  It was during

this time that the term “Histor” emerged, which was a word for an individual who tried to settle

legal disputes by finding out the secular/rational causes of something.  So in this sense, the

Greeks are modern (but since most of them adhered to a cyclical view of history, they are

actually not totally modern).

The two most important Greek historians during this time were Herodotus and Thucydides. 

Often referred to as the “father of history,” Herodotus was born when Greece was at war with

Persia during the Persian Wars (490-479 BC). Persia was ultimately defeated by the Greek city

states which brought about the “golden age” of Greece.  During this time, Greek scholars dealt

with specific problems and questions:

A) What is nature of God and universe? 

B) Why is there war and imperialism? 

C) What is the relationship between the individual and the state? 

Essentially they were involved in a search for truth and the meaning of life.  To answer these

questions, they sought answers in various ways, including rational philosophy, religion,

methodology, arts, play writes, and the study of history.

Herodotus was born in 484 BC in an area controlled by the Persians.  He became a merchant,

traveled a great deal, and turned into a very cosmopolitan person who appreciated numerous

peoples.  In fact, it’s possible that he went everywhere in the known world west of India.  He

gathered information from many different places and prepared to write a history that was

unique in that he was drawing primarily on primary sources – i.e., his own eye witness accounts,

documents, and drawing on accounts left by other people (however, they may not have beenaccurate or truthful, intentionally or mistakenly).  His writings were known as Histories and are

significant because he

A) Created the first history in the West to stress the importance of warfare in shaping history

B) Asserted that the past should be remembered so as not to forget what had happened.  This

was tied in with the cyclical view (i.e., now we can make the right decisions when the future

comes)

C) Stated that actions in past had been caused by human actions – secular causation

D) Wrote about all of known world west of India – first world history in the West

E) Wrote about cultures, not just war, politics – first significant cultural history produced in the

West. 

Herodotus wrote his work with the idea that it would be read out loud in public places, not

privately – so in that sense, his work was written as entertainment to maintain the interest of

people, of the audience (so there were lots of biographies and information on social and cultural

history – i.e., what life is like in Babylon).  His views were based on his own observations, and he

got a lot of these by being a merchant and being exiled from places for his radical views.  When

he died in 430 BC in a southern Italian Greek colony, he was the first in many ways.

Thucydides, the second great Greek historian, went beyond Herodotus in stressing secular

causation.  Born around 454 BC into a leading Athenian family, he came to adulthood when war

broke out in Greece between some of the city states.  The main war, known as the

Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), was between Greece and Sparta, and it was here that he lead

a major expedition against Sparta in 424.  He failed, however, and was disgraced and forced into

exile, but eventually was allowed back when the war was over.  During his exile, though, he

wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, in which he:

A) Stressed the importance of warfare in shaping history (this may have been natural since he

was writing about a war he was in)

B) Wrote a contemporary history – a history of a modern day event

C) Wrote on the evolution of war – a breakthrough, traced how it developed

D) Fully developed the idea of using critical analysis in trying to understand what happens – so

an emphasis on secular causation even more

E) Tried to be as objective as possible and is able, for the most part, to achieve this. 

Thucydides stuck to the idea of uncovering secular causes and consequences of war.  As a result,

his work is seen as the most modern work in ancient period, and possibly the best history

written until the 19

th

century.  But he did have one failing – he followed a common practice of

the time of making up speeches for individuals; a tradition that continued until beginning of 20

th

century.

Soon, however, the Greek city states were conquered by Philip of Macedonia before his son

Alexander would take over and expand the empire in east all the way to India, creating the Hellenistic Empire, which witnessed the coming together of cultural ideas of many peoples. 

When he died, the empire was divided into three parts.  In the western part of this empire, on

the Italian peninsula, the Romans were rising.

The Romans

Rome came to power by the 3

rd

century BC and by 275 BC Rome had control of all of Italy and

Sicily.  In the next 150 years (the Punic Wars), Rome became the dominate force in

Mediterranean.  Initially, the Romans didn’t have as much interest in the past as the Greeks, but

they did have writings of the yearly activities of the government which were referred to as

annals.  Eventually, though, they do have good historians writing about the history of Rome and

its people, but most, however, are “outsiders” and almost none were born or grew up in Rome

(and few were members of the ruling elite). 

One was Polybius. Greek and educated, he held important positions throughout his life.  At 32,

the Romans conquered his area, and following standard practice, the Romans forced the Greeks

to turn over hostages to make sure that the Greeks would adhere to the peace terms – he was

one of them.  He soon became a tutor in Rome, became a friend to the powerful, and got to travel

through areas of Roman control.  He was fascinated by Rome’s rise to power, which he argued

had come about primarily from warfare (thus he was like Herodotus and Thucydides in seeing

how important war was to bringing about changes).   Convinced that the same factors – a

steadiness of purpose and a sense of obligation to the state – explained success of Rome:

In doing so, he pointed to secular causation, actions brought about by humans, so he upheld the

tradition of Herodotus and Thucydides, but he made it clear that he was writing it for a civics

lesson for future generations, for he believed history was cyclical.  So he was modern in stressing

secularization of history but not so much in stressing that history was cyclical.

By the 1

st

century BC, the Roman Republic was facing problems – famines, unemployment,

internal fighting, etc.  In short, the Roman Republic was a shell of its former self.  One of the

major leaders of this time, Julius Caesar, wrote about his military campaigns in Great Britain,

Germany, and Gaul, and created a new genre – a military leader writing about his own

campaigns.  His works were important because they were

A) The only significant information we have about those military campaigns

B) Very well written – overall, writings of Roman historians are better written than those of the

Greek historians

Moreover, during this time, an increasing number of scholars were writing biographical studies.

Eventually, Octavian comes to power in Rome as the sole ruler and wanted to reestablish the

Roman Republic.  Instead, though, the beginnings of the Roman Empire took place.  Called the

Augustinian Age (Octavian called himself that), it brought about stability in the Empire, but at a cost – declining liberty.  The leading historian who wrote about it was Titus Livius (Livy).  An

outsider, he stressed that individual liberty was in decline.  Moreover, during this time

historians were under attack for their writings.  The Romans burned some historical works that

held the “wrong” views and some were indicted for their writings, but overall there was not

much interest because this took place at a time when the masses were less interested in history. 

Yet at this same time, the greatest Roman historian – Cornelius Tacitus – emerges.  An outsider,

he is seen as the Roman historian who used the soundest research methods.  Tacitus left a

detailed account of 16-46 AD and described the corruption and immorality of the Roman rulers

and is seen as the most brilliant of all of the Roman writers writing history.

After him, though, a decline in historians takes place with the last comprehensive history of

Rome and its people being written around 200 AD.  But little interest in reading of history

because

A) Rome is letting different backgrounds into Rome – little interest in a “Roman” history

B) Increasing breakdown in society, so people are worried about the present, not the past

C) Many afraid to write history due to repression.

The Christians

By the 3

rd

century AD, Christian scholarship represented the most vigor in writing.  Rome used

repression, but Christians won acceptance and were eventually made the state religion in the

Empire in the West.

A Christian view of the past emerged during this time with an emphasis on linear and divine.

Christian leaders accepted the Roman Empire to move toward their end goal, and thus a positive

attitude is shown in the writings of Ambrose, Jerome, and Eusebius, but soon the relationship

ended when the Visigoths began to rampage through the Empire and then in 410 sack Rome. 

This had a negative impact on Christians in Roman Empire because:

A) Visigoths are Christian

B) Many assert that Christianity had made Empire soft

C) By embracing Christianity, Romans believed that the traditional Gods were outraged, now

punishing Rome.

In response, Aurelius Agustinus, or St. Augustine, wrote City of God.  St. Augustine was born in

354 in North Africa, received a good education, was interested in a materialistic life and fathered

a child out of wedlock.  But soon he wanted more, a universalism of sorts.  First he turned to

Zoroastrianism but then moved forward to Christianity, but was not embracing it yet.  After he

went to Italy, he became a professor at Milan and was so impressed with Bishop Ambrose in

Milan that he converted fully.  He then went back to North Africa, became a priest and

eventually a bishop.  In his book he argued that it was a mistake to link Christianity to any

secular government because governments come and go, but Christianity would remain.  The unfolding of history was God’s plan developing and no secular power could help/stop/assist it. 

He urged caution not to tie Christianity to governments and laid out a Christian view of the

layout of history – linear, but driven by divine.

By 476, the Roman Empire in West collapsed, but in the East it continued as the Byzantine

Empire.

The Medieval Period

After 500, in the West, a new type of civilization emerged, one that was a combination of three

major influences:

A) Greco-Roman tradition

B) Germanic culture

C) Christianity

The Christian church becomes dominant over secular powers, and this situation continued for

about 1000 years. 

The period after 500, until 1500, is known as the medieval period.  From 500-700, not much

history was written, and what was written was of poor quality (an exception, however, is

Gregory of Tours, who wrote a history of the Franks).  From 700-900, a revival in the interest of

history takes place with an increase in quality as well.  Moreover, more history is written on

non-church topics, but not equal to ancient period.  Why an increase in interest?  In part

because certain secular leaders began to patronize the arts, and one such art was the writing of

history.  Two that did this were Alfred the Great and Charlemagne, while in England, Bede, a

monk, wrote Ecclesiastical History of the English People, one of the best works written during that

period. 

Most of the history during the medieval period, however, was written during the Carolingian

Empire (France, Italy, & Germany).  The greatest ruler was Charlemagne (768-814) and a

leading historian was Einhard who wrote about him in a very detailed biography that provided

the most detailed biographical sketch of a leader up until that time.  But by the 900s, the empire

collapses due to invasion and from 900-1000 there was very little writing of history. By 1000,

however, things were reviving, and from 1000-1300, the high Middle Ages, there occurred a

return to prosperity and stability and creativity.

During this time, several important things shaped society and the writing of history:

A) Origins of national states

B) Population doubled

C) Crusades into middle east, Europe, expanding knowledge

D) Revival in growth of trade and manufacturing

E) Growth of large townsF) Less church interference in state affairs

G) Rise of universities (among subjects taught is history).

At the same time, an increasing number of non-church histories are being written, but still

continued with linear and divine causation.

By 1300s-1400s the power of the church was beginning to wane.  The Great Plague, combined

with numerous wars, created an increase in social disorder that drove many people away from

the church.  Why?

A) Many were disillusioned, felt church couldn’t stop these catastrophes

B) Priests died during this time

C) Major problems at top of church, even two Popes for a time.

Overall, a decline in writing of history takes place.

The Renaissance

After Middle Ages, we enter the Renaissance, which started in Florence and then headed to the

rest of Italy before moving on to Northern Europe.  It was a time of great achievement in many

areas – literature, government, political theory, history, etc.  Scholars during this period were

referred to as Humanists and promoted positive developments in terms of writing history:

A) Emphasized secular causation, which grew out of their appreciation of ancient writings

(Greeks and Romans)

B) Conducted many searches for texts and documents from the ancient period and wanted to

find all the writings they could

C) Aided by the fact that the printing press was around – books were cheaper and more

widespread, and as a result, scholars had access to the works of other scholars.

The Humanists did have several shortcomings, however:

A) Looked at the past and divided history of West in three parts:

a. Ancient period

b. Middle Ages

c. Renaissance

By doing this, they overlooked the strong continuity from one period to the next.  In fact,

they viewed the ancient period and Renaissance as positives but saw the middle ages as

negative, or “the dark ages.”

B) By doing this, they viewed history as cyclical

C) Not much critical analysis of primary sources – adored ancients so much that they didn’t

analyze sources and just accepted them.

The ReformationAt the same time, religious leaders were not interested in pagan ideas of ancient times and were

more concerned with problems within the Catholic Church.  A famous one was Martin Luther

and his famous protests of the sales of indulgences, which exempted one from punishment or

purgatory.  Luther argued that this wasn’t sanctioned by original church doctrines and therefore

must end.  He tied this in with his view that salvation comes only from faith, not from good

deeds or paying money.  Luther and others gained strength over time and more secular leaders

came to support him as well.  Many from Northern Europe did so in part because they wanted to

break free or lessen the control of the church.  This combination came together to bring about

the Protestant Reformation, which involved Northern European countries breaking away from

the Catholic church and establishing their own churches.  Thus, the religious unity of 1000 years

had come to an end as Europe became divided into Catholic and Protestant sections. 

Outside of Germany, John Calvin was the most influential of the Protestant writers and was

influential in Scotland, England, and the Scandinavian countries.  He stressed the idea of

predestination – that God decided if you were saved or not before you were born.

After 1545, the Catholic Church launched a massive Counter Reformation, but was unable to

gain control of Northern areas (although they did get back some low countries).

Both events had a number of negative effects on writing of history:

A) Strong emphasis on divine causation, no analysis of human actions to bring about changes

B) Writing was very biased – i.e., Protestants claimed that Catholics as not part of original

church doctrines (i.e., Pope is anti-Christ) while Catholics argue that Protestants were with

the devil (i.e., using satanic rituals in their practice).

C) Tended to write only on religious issues and one had to be careful about what was written

depending on where you lived (as Sir Walter Raleigh noted in the 1600s).

But some positives did take place:

A) More emphasis on linear development

B) Spurs writing of historical works (so one side can show their views)

C) Each side wanted to find evidence of their views which lead to more research of church

documents

D) No monolithic history here; more views, even if biased.

During this time, Humanists continued to write.  An example was in England where some wrote

historical studies, historical fiction, etc. (one famous example was the writer Shakespeare). 

Many events influenced their writing during this time in England because in 1600s much

turmoil existed in England as many historical events took place.

The EnlightenmentIn 17

th

century, secular point of view being strengthened by:

A) New scientific discoveries

B) Maritime discoveries (new lands)

By the mid-to-late 17

th

century, these ideas were being analyzed and brought into systems.  The

most famous one who did this was Isaac Newton, who asserted that God created the universe

but never intervened again.  Those who adhered to this view did not accept miracles or divine

causation (so they were looking for secular causation).  These scholars were known as

rationalists – they looked for the rational causes of things and therefore they went beyond the

Humanists.  This point of view is the core of the Age of Reason (The Enlightenment).

This group also adopted a linear view of history, but it is a non-religious point of view.  Thus, for

the first time we have the coming together of secular causation and the linear development of

time.  It is here, then, the writing of history is very close to being modern. 

In other developments, scholars began to write in the vernacular.  That is, they had been writing

in Latin/Greek before, but now in English, French, Italian, etc.  The leading figure here was

Voltaire, a poet and playwright in his early life who was relentless in his attacks on government

abuses, bigotry within society, man’s inhumanity against man, and the superstitions of the

Catholic Church (indeed, he often would finish his letters by writing “crush” the Catholic

Church; as a result, he spent a lot of his life in exile).  He also wrote history – Age of Louis XIII

(1751):

A) Groundbreaking – took a topical approach to looking at this age (previously authors had

written in a chronological approach)

B) First study to take a detailed analysis of one country’s civilization

C) A great deal of critical analysis in his work

D) One of first works to be written in vernacular (French).

Five years later he published Essay on the Manner and Spirits of the Nations (1756), important because:

A) First Western work to demonstrate the contributions of Muslims and Asians to Western

society

B) First work to demonstrate connections between social and economic developments.

But he and other Rationalists did have some negatives:

A) Don’t use many primary sources, despite access to them.  Instead, they rely on secondary

sources

B) Often ahistorical. That is, these historians asked why people in past didn’t think of things

like we do today.  Critical of past people’s mindset and didn’t understand the forces that

shape different mindset of the past.England also had important writers, but the difference between England and France is that

while Voltaire wanted to change society the English scholars liked the society they had, for they

believed that the Glorious Revolution had brought about significant positive changes.  Two

major writers here were David Hume and Edward Gibbon.

Of the rationalists writing in England, David Hume (1711-1776) is mainly known for his multivolume History of England (1750-1762), which covered from when the Romans occupied England

to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  But he did it backwards and started his first work from 1703

to 1688, then on 1485-1683, then to 1485.  His was not as good as Voltaire’s in that he had very

little cultural or social history and was not very analytical, but it was compete chronologically

and was the most unbiased history of England written down until that time.  Best known,

though, of this group is Edward Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776), which was

famous because:

A) Grand theme

B) Very well written

C) Outstanding job of synthesizing a wide variety of secondary sources available at the time.  In

fact, he spent almost an entire lifetime researching this topic and read almost all the sources

on it. 

His work is the standard volume on the Roman Empire until late 20

th

century. One major

problem, though, that he and many Rationalists shared?

A) Not a lot of primary sources, he relied on secondary sources, so he did little independent

research.

Overall, the Rationalists were very close to being modern in that they did not accept a cyclical

view of history, but they also did not see it as a straight development of time.  Instead, they

believed that the future would be better than past, but believed it happened in a “go three steps

forward, two steps back” form, so eventually progress would take place.   They were thus

accepting the view expressed by Giambattista Vico, a historian/scholar of Italy who was

perhaps the best enlightenment historian.  He called this idea forward-back (courso-courso),

and he was the only significant historian who said that historians should try to understand the

mindset of the past to understand the things that those people did.

Overall, the rationalists had several positives:

A) Combined emphasis on secular with linear development – first time this happened

B) Wrote in the vernacular – works were accessible to broader audience now

C) Effort to understand mindset of the past.

But they also had some negatives:

A) Vico was the exception because most did not try to understand the mindset of the pastB) Many viewed most of history as not very good prior to time of Enlightenment, which was a

narrow view

C) Little use of primary sources.

The Romantics

The rationalists dominated until the Napoleonic Wars in 1815.  By then, a challenge to their

interpretations with the emergence of Romanticism.  These historians accepted some rationalist

ideas, especially the idea that history moves forward and there is progress, but they stressed

nationalism as the key to progress, and then tied nationalism to a grand plan by God to promote

liberty.  The leading philosophers of this view were Immanuel Kant and George W.F. Hegel. 

Both stressed the idea that history was the unfolding of God’s plan for the advancement of

freedom for mankind. 

Hegel developed a system called the “Hegelian Dialect of Progress” which asserted that at any

given point in time, there was a “thesis.”  That is, mindsets in certain periods are adhered to by

many, but those mindsets would be challenged by new ideas in the “antithesis,” and ultimately

out of this clash would be a “synthesis” which would ultimately become the new thesis.  This

would be continued over time and would help lead to the expansion of freedom, God’s plan, etc. 

Interestingly, Hegel argued that the German people would play a key role in this expansion of

freedom (but 20

th

century proved otherwise).

At same time, other German scholars were promoting advancement in the writing of history

with Leopold Von Ranke being a key leader in this area.  Born in 1795, he enrolled at the

University of Leipzig in 1814 and wanted to study theology and classical philology (i.e., look at

historical documents to see if there had been any mistakes in translating them and if they are

false).  When he graduated he became a college prep teacher (high school) and while there he

assigned books to his students but found that most of them had lots of wrong information.  To

remedy this he started to write his own texts, but unlike many before, he went to the primary

sources more than any other previous scholar.  Moreover, he published widely and became very

well known and soon earned a position at the University of Berlin.  While there he continued to

publish (over 60 books) and became well known as a workaholic.  Eventually he was made a

member of the Prussian nobility, where his motto was “work itself is pleasure.”  His lasting fame,

however, came from the seminars he established at the University of Berlin for teaching history

students how to research the past, and it is here that he stressed primary sources. 

Ranke was very modern in certain ways (i.e., historians can come up with their own

ideas/interpretations) but not so much in some areas.  For example, he held a point of view that

facts speak for themselves, but modern scholars don’t accept this notion because you are selecting

certain facts and leaving out others when you write, so you are getting things based on your

judgment as a historian.  You analyze it yourself and are clearly using your own judgment, and as a result, writing history is a very interpretive process involving the selection of facts and then

the use of those facts.

By the 1880s, however, the historical profession had come into its own.  By then a modern

methodology and outlook had occurred – primary sources, linear, and secular. 

New Interpretations: Marx

At this point, a professional elite of historians emerged on the scene.  But why now?  Until then,

most who wrote history weren’t professional historians; they weren’t paid to write/teach

history.  In fact, most were independently wealthy, but by last decades of 18

th

century, this

changed:

A) Industrialization was underway, and as a result, there was a higher demand for educated

people (i.e., management, schools)

B) More wealth equaled more institutions of higher learning, and the view emerges that there

should exist curriculum which would include teachings of history – to do this, teachers were

needed, which led to graduate programs.  People coming out of these programs taught at

colleges and were now paid to teach and do research.

The Initial emphasis was on traditional fields of politics, diplomacy, war, government, church,

etc.  Why?

A) Tradition

B) Many events from mid-19

th

century to late 19

th

century reinforced these areas – unification of

Germany and Italy, U.S. Civil War, nationalism growing – so there was an interest in these

things because they’re happening.

But traditional fields were being challenged by end of the 1800s – areas like social, culture, and

economics.  Why?  Because industrialization and colonialism brought an interest in new areas

such as social, cultural, and economic histories as well as the introduction of new scientific

theories – evolution, Freud, Einstein, etc.

But most historians believed that the traditional fields should still be emphasized, but one

scholar who challenged this view was Karl Marx.  He developed a grand theory that all

significant historical change was the result of economic factors – that this is what had shaped

history.  Born in 1818, educated at University of Bonn and Berlin, he studied law before moving

on to philosophy.  At Berlin he encountered the Hegelian Dialect of Progress theory and took it

to heart in one way but dropped the spiritual aspects of it, for he didn’t think there is a grand

scheme of God.  Rather, he believed that economic forces were the reason for historical changes. 

He earned his degrees, and then went on to journalism and by 1842, at only 24, he became the

editor of a newspaper.  Soon, however, the government repressed the critical paper and Marx,

recognizing his dangerous situation, moved to Paris with new wife.  While there he was influenced by other writers and works, such as Ludwig Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity (1841),

which argued that God is just outward manifestation of people’s fears or hopes.  Marx agreed

but argued that one cannot understate the importance of religion in history, for he argued that it

was a major obstacle to the betterment of mankind and that religion was “the opium of the

masses.”  It’s at this point that Marx’s ideas concerning socialism were starting to take shape.

Karl Marx, in Paris in the 1840s after being exiled from Prussia, spent sixteen months there

which helped to shape his philosophy.  At this time, Paris was in great political tension, a time in

which he was associated with the Utopian Society, which wanted to change society to make it

better, but it was unwilling to have direct confrontation with the state to bring about this

positive change.  Marx became disenchanted with the Utopian Society for he felt that if you

don’t confront the state, then you will get nowhere.  This is why, in part, he was soon attracted

to another group of socialists in Paris, known the “practical socialists.”  Three leading members

were Louis Blanc, Pierre-Joseph Proudham, and Mikhail Bakunin  who espoused the overthrow

the capitalist system and advocated confrontation with the state.  It is at this time that Marx

began to use the word communist to identify a type of system that he was identifying.  It is also

in Paris where Marx met Friedrich Engels. 

Engels was the son of a wealthy manufacturer in England but was shocked by the terrible

working conditions of the laborers in England and outraged by the inhumanitarian treatment of

said laborers by the owners.  When they met, Engels was close to finishing his first book, which

was a bitter attack on the capitalist system.  Thus, Marx and Engels’ views were similar on

capitalism and capitalists, and as their friendship blossomed, Engels performed three important

functions in connection with Marx:

A) He directed Marx to factual evidence in England concerning capitalists and working class

conditions and directed him to primary source material (much of it being statistics)

B) He introduced Marx to the economic theories of a number of English writers (Smith,

Malthus – view that future population will grow too fast for food production, Ricardo –

states that class conflict is in existence in society)

C) He often provided financial assistance to Marx and his family (Marx couldn’t do research

and write without this help).

Soon Marx was forced to leave Paris due to his writings (which denounced the Prussian

government, which pressured France to force him to leave).  For three years he lived in Brussels

in Belgium where he did much of his work on his “scientific analysis of history.”  In 1847, the

Communist League commissioned Engels and Marx to write a book stating the communists’

beliefs and theories and in 1848, they completed the Communist Manifesto, but few paid

attention to it:

A) Due to revolutions in 1848

B) Few people interested in these ideas.In the book Marx changed dialectal progress into Dialectical Materialism.   At any given time, he

argued, there existed a dominant mode of production.  However, it would be challenged and

would give rise to another mode of production (i.e., thesis, antithesis, new thesis).  He argued

that history is a science, and asserted that history would unfold through six stages:

A) Began with primitive communism as the major mode of production = prehistory

B) Replaced by slave labor = ancient period

C) Replaced by feudalism = middle ages

D) Replaced by capitalism = early modern period

E) Replaced by rule of the proletariat where workers would take control (which would be a

socialist system), at which point the state would then wither away, which would leave

F) Communism, and at that point there would be the end of history.

Marx was not taking a modern view in a couple of ways:

A) A type of cyclical development since he started and ended with communism

B) Secular causation is very deterministic; that is, there is no doubt that these things will

happen in this way.

Marx then left Belgium and went to Germany during the revolution.  There he started up his

own newspaper and denounced the Prussian government again while calling for the unity of all

the German states into a German Republic.  He then wanted war waged against tsarist Russia

so that it would be replaced by a socialist government.  However, none of this took place

because the revolution was soon put down.  Marx was then arrested and charged with treason,

but was found not guilty, but still exiled.  He briefly returned to Paris, but then went to London

(where he would remain for the rest of his life).

His early years in England were not good, and despite funds from Engles, he was short of money

and evicted several times while three of his children died (yet Marx can hire a maid due to cheap

labor).  In fact, only once did he consider taking a manual labor job (he did apply for a clerk’s

position in a railroad, but he didn’t get it due to bad handwriting).  During this time he would

often go to the pawn shop and pawn the family’s silver tea set as well as his winter coat.

We know much of this information because the Prussian government wanted to keep a close

watch on Marx (and others in exile), so an agent in England watched him and others.  A number

of times, the agent disguised himself as a salesman and would go to Marx’s house (and that’s

where the agent would write long reports on Marx).

In the 1850s, Marx and Engels considered emigrating to the U.S., but then:

A) In June of 1850, Marx received a ticket to the reading room of the British Museum and now

he could use all the books and read them; he soon became a fixture there

B) They had enough of a reputation that the N.Y. Tribune paid them to write about various

current events in EnglandC) In the 1850s, Marx inherited money that allowed him to move into countryside and buy a

house

D) In 1864, he inherited more money and bought a bigger house close to Engels; now they met

almost every day and discussed their work.

At this time, they were making their final preparations for their major work and in 1867, the first

of three volumes was published in the work Capital (1867).  But initially, little attention was paid

to it, and the attention that was paid to it was largely negative.  In the work, Marx developed

the ideas he stated in his Communist Manifesto.  It turned out to be a revolutionary work that had

significant ramifications in the 20

th

century.

Marx, in 1867, was selected as the first director of the First International, a communist group,

but lost it in 1871, and from then on he was in failing health, finally passing away in 1883.  Engels

lived on and finished the final two volumes before he died in 1896.

What is the present evaluation of his theory?  Some historians accept it completely, but most

don’t accept any of it.  Why?

A) Asserted that capitalism was dying, not the case, although it has been transformed

B) Asserted that class conflict was going to become more and more prevalent and would be the

source of revolution in industrialized societies, but instead it has diminished due to

conditions getting better due to reforms and working with the government

C) Asserted that revolution would occur in industrialized countries, but instead it has occurred

in the non-industrialized societies (i.e., Russia, China, Cuba, etc.)

D) Asserted that religion was going to die, wrong again

E) Asserted that nationalism would die and that instead the working classes would unite over

nationalistic lines and bring revolutions and that would be the end of nations, but he is

wrong yet again

Overall, the major problem is that he put too much stress on class conflict.  In doing so, he

overlooked other types of conflict, such as racial, religious, gender, ethnic, generational, cultural,

ideological, national, etc.  He also didn’t believe that society/government could bring about

reforms without conflict and revolution.

So why is there continued interest in his theories?

A) Because he offered a simple answer to a complex question (i.e., why is history developing as

it is?)

B) He was the first person to stress the importance of economic facts in the development of

history, and in doing so, he was breaking new ground

C) In the 20

th

century, communist revolutions were successful in Russian and China and the

West had to deal with the consequences of these successful revolutions

New Interpretations: The Annales SchoolAt this point, most historians still emphasized traditional areas of history, but around 1910, this

began to change as there developed in Europe a strong push to write about social and cultural

history.  This though was brought to a halt when WWI  broke out.  After that there was a

transition to the post-war period, but many moving back to social, economic, and cultural

history in 1920s Europe.  This culminated in 1929 with the formation of the Annales  School,

which was established in France with Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch as it’s heads.  The school

encouraged historians to look at social, economic, and cultural history (which oddly, Europe

was behind America as Americans began to do this work in the early 1900s with the Progressive

school).

However, there was an uphill battle in 1930s to get historians to accept these views, then in

1939, WWII broke out and the Annales school was hurt when Bloch was executed.  After the

war, though, the Annales school had many of its views accepted.

The Annales school could be seen in Fernand Braudel’s work The Mediterranean World in the Age of

Phillip II (1949) in which he talked of a need to understand the deeper realities of history.  In this

he meant the geographic, demographic, and economic forces that bring about changes in the

world.  He asserted that there are three different types of history:

A) Time of long duration; he argued that time was affected by bio-ecological changes the most

(i.e., changes in climate, terrain)

B) Economic and demographic forces, though, were a more rapid type of change

C) Political developments, however, were the most rapid type of historical change.

In Braudel’s mind, all were connected and all influenced each other.

After WWII, the Annales school members began to deal with world history and write about the

influence of Europe on other parts of the world.  What factors existed for the interest in areas

other than Europe?

A) Breakup of colonial empires after WWII (i.e., S.E. Asia, India, Africa, etc., are emerging third

world countries outside of the West, and a concern exists over where these countries will be

going)

B) Result of advancements in technology; now people can get to these areas and communicate

much more quickly.  The world seems to be shrinking, i.e., “global village”

C) After WWII, corporations began to become multi-national and now there was an interest in

these areas.

These reasons help to explain the increased interest in other parts of the world.  And while

Herodotus wrote the first world history, the first major type written in 20

th

century was by

Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (1918).  He taught in Germany and like many, he became

disillusioned with end of WWI.  He asserted that in history, there had been eight high

cultures/major civilizations, with each having a clear life of its own with a beginning and an end,and asserted that there was no reversing that deterioration (which, unfortunately, is a very

deterministic view).

At the time, Arnold Toynbee was thinking about writing a similar type of work, but he almost

gave it up.  But after reading Spengler’s views, however, he decided to complete it.  He then

wrote The Study of History in 10 volumes from 1934-1954.  A major work of the twentieth century,

it identified 22 major civilizations and asserted that deterioration could be reversed for a period

of time due to a number of factors, but in the end, all would cease to exist.  In that sense, his was

also a deterministic viewpoint.

Most historians don’t accept these deterministic views, but many accept the Annales School

belief that Western historians should pay more attention to non-Western history to understand

development of history in the West.