Where I have not found any history of any of these bishops, and have not been able by conversation with aged men, or inspection of the monuments, or from any authentic source, to obtain information concerning them, in such a case, in order that there might not be a break in the series, I have composed the life myself, with the help of God and the prayers of the brethren. (brolija)
In addition to considering his primary sources, the historian may rely upon the work of a large variety of experts : palaeographers, archaeologists, numismatics, etc.
Statistical evidence is increasingly being used by historians: the registers of baptisms, marriages and funerals.
Facts and explanations
Historical facts
In the past it was often thought that the function of a historian was simply to get at the facts and present them to the public. Marcus Tullius Cicero set out this ideal of absolute objectivity in the 1st century BC when he said: “the first law for the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice. The 19th century German historian Leopold von Ranke saw it his duty as a historian to “show it how it really was”.
It is now clear that such objectivity is not possible for several reasons:
- Selection: firstly, history is based upon the selection of the facts. We mostly know of the history of ancient Greece from Athenian viewpoint . we have no Theban, Corinthian or Spartian chronicle of the Peloponnesian war to compare with Thucydides account,
- Systematisation: as we have seen, evidence is always collected, evaluated and interpreted in terms of a pre-existing theory which guides research. The danger is that interpretative pattern will be imposed upon the data, determining which evidence is significant, and worth taking into account, and which is not.
-
Point of view: history is always written from some particular point of view, Collingwood argued that there is no “objective viewpoint”: “St Augustaine looked at history form the point of early Christian; Tillamont form that of a 17th century Frenchman: Gibbon from that of an 18th century Englishman; Momsen from that of 19th century German. There is no point in asking which was the right point of view. Each was the only possible for the man who adopted it”.
The British historian A.J.P. Taylor confessed that “historians seek to be detached, impassionate, impartial. In fact, however, no historian starts with his mind a blank , to be gradually filled by evidence”.
Despite these considerations, there is a large body of historical knowledge about which dispute is not easily possible, e.g. that Great Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3rd 1939. This knowledge may be referred to as “historical fact” without anyone being mislead.
Historical Explanations
Historians are interested in explanations of past trends and developments. These explanations are usually causal explanations, although the causes might be disguised as “influences”, “factors” or “trends”.
Russian novelist Lev Tolstoy expresses the puzzlement which we often feel when attempting the explanation of some great historical event when, in War and Peace, he seeks to know how the Napoleonic wars began.
The concept of a cause, as used in history, has some peculiarities. Historians usually seek for multiple causes, and they seek to order these in some form of hierarchy of priority.
They may distinguish:
- Underlying conditions which render the effect probable.
- Abnormal antecedents which are unusual factors which intrude in an otherwise comparatively stable situation and precipitate the effect.
- The motivation which lies behind the free and deliberate acts of conscious, responsible agents.
In arranging their causes in a hierarchy, historians often distinguish between deep, underlying and surface causes; long-term and short-term causes, and the immediate cause or trigger.
Men or movements?
Individual historians frequently demonstrate a marked preference for certain types of explanation. The first historian whose writings we possess, Herodotus, generally preferred to explain events in terms of the personal wishes and intentions of some powerful individual. Usually the motive for a war was thought to be a monarch’s desire for vengeance against an enemy who had previously offended him.
Thomas Carlyle stated , “the history of the world is but the biography of great men”.
Such approach can lead to psychologism, the attempt to understand history through psychology or even the psycho-analysis. This leads to absurd attempts, for example, to explain the holocaust by reference to Hitler’s relationship with his mother.
Other historians tend to prefer deep, underlying social causes. H.S.Chamberlin argued that racial characteristics were the dominant factor in history, Marx stressed the importance of economical rivalries and class conflict, Freud argued that unconscious psychological forces: the sex drive and the death wish were the supreme movers of history.
It does seem that the things that great men do often have results which they did not intend. It is clear that Mr. Gorbachev set out to reform the Soviet system, not destroy it.
Most historians consider that great forces really dominate history and the apparent power of remarkable statesmen is an illusion. This seems to be a the conclusion reached by Tolstoy.
The great historian Ranke suggested a compromise position: “General tendencies do not decide alone; great personalities are always necessary to make them effective”
