Without History one remains always a child. -Lorenzo Valla”
Scientific History
Approaching A New Genre of History
This chapter begins to explain history’s transformation from an art to a science during the Renaissance. Many new concepts were introduced to history during this time period, dividing it into genre's. History becoming a science wasn’t a unanimous decision. There were, and are to this day, many different perspectives and opinions about where history belongs (the arts or the sciences). Although this transformation of history can be summarized in a chapter, books could be named after it, and is a very large, diverse, and complex topic.
Introduction
The period of history’s transformation begun with a single word, humanism. Humanism is defined by historians Judith Bennett and Charles Warren Hollister as “an intellectual movement whose earliest beginnings are associated with Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374), that Stressed: (a) admiration for classical antiquity, (b) the educational importance of literature, art, and history; and (c) an optimistic assessment of the potential of human beings.” Donald R. Kelley also identifies humanism by its relationship with medieval humanities, especially grammar and rhetoric . Throughout this chapter humanism will be related to scientific history through Bennett and Hollister’s definition; admiration of antiquity, educational importance, and optimistic expectation of human beings.
Renaissance humanism had an interest in, and almost devotion to, classical culture. Humanists during the Renaissance admired the Greeks and Romans above all classic cultures, replicating their morals, social customs, politics, and literary terms. Poetry was valued during the height of classical culture, so it was only natural for Renaissance humanists to draw a parallel between history and poetry. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek historian from c. 20 BCE, famously agreed that history was philosophy teaching by example, and that history is a moral philosophy, related to poetry. Unlike poetry, history is dedicated to providing a literal (most obvious and no exaggeration) and particular (existing only in the context of the time, and not broad) truths.
History was valued as an art, as well as individually. What made history unique was its ties to classical grammar and historical sense. Historical sense is a term used to put the past in the context of the time, T.S. Eliot wrote “The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence”. Historical sense is important, because historians can evaluate a piece of history based off of its circumstances of time, place, etc., under which it was written. Historical sense is also used to understand the future, by looking into the past. In a way, the past has a presence over every person studying it, and the present can be viewed as a pre-constructed idea, based on the outcomes of ourz past.
History as an Art
Renaissance humanism created a genre of writing called the “arts of history.” This type of writing studied the methods of famous authors; Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, and more. Much of the writings imitated ancient texts. In addition to imitating these texts, humanist tended to elaborate on them as well. This is why, as a historian, you shouldn’t believe everything you read, even if the book is categorized as non-fiction. As an author, I grew up with a certain set of beliefs, morals, and ideas. Even if my papers do not reflect my opinions directly, I am very influenced by my past. In order to find the truth of history, we must first debunk the untruths of history. Understanding concepts of history is not as hard as defining history. Is history a subject? A writing topic? A specialty? Or an everyday experience? It could also be none of these examples I’ve just given. History as an art os not meant to be untranslatable, but it is difficult to assign a clear definition to, and is constantly changing (like history itself).
One master of history as an art was Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444), an Italian humanist who is famous for his History of the Florentine People; which was considered one of the greatest works during the Renaissance. Bruni created a new style of writing during his time by trying to give readings more overall meaning, not just a word-for-word translation. This was significant, because people’s emotions are more complex than a word-for-word translation. Having more narration behind a story is ultimatly more realtable than a timeline of events. Bruni used Livy as a model for his format, style, and language, instead of the old medieval style of formatting. Bruni paved the way for modern historiography, acknowledging the importance of history by saying “knowledge of the past gives guidance to our counsels and our practical judgment, and the consequences of similar undertakings [in the past] will encourage or deter us according to our circumstances in the present.”
For humanists, history was a way to add structure to the world and to understand it better. While truth was enhanced during the Renaissance, there were still doubts about how honest history was. Herodotus has been referred to as the father of history, but also the father of lies. Scholars once looked up to Herodotus as one of the creators of history, but as time went on they questioned his approach. This is one example of negative criticism towards the art of history and preludes the troubles history will face. Kelly expresses his concern with history, by saying it can unfortunately lead to the “admiration” (Kelley 190-191) of wrongdoers; like Caesar,Hercules, and Cyrus who acquired fame through unjust and often violent actions. There are many who are venerated for their accomplishments, even if their successes were paved with violent actions. Venerating men and women such as them, says more about our culture and society during a given time than we may initially recognize.
The Method of History
The beginning of historiography was not original to Renaissance humanists. Historiography began as early as Antiquity, from authors like Herodotus and Thucydides. Some sixteenth-century scholars were not satisfied with history being defined as an art; they wanted to apply methodical concepts to make history more of a science. One way to achieve this method was to translate ancient philosophical texts into the context of the modern era. An example of this is seen in Jean Bodin’s Republique.
The love of knowledge, says Aristotle, is natural to all men. It is passion to which the wise men of antiquity were slaves, and which still inflames the learned in our own day. It is the source of all science and of all philosophy. From an etymological point of view, what is the philosophy? It is the love of knowledge (41).
Bodin was a historian, lawyer, economist, and natural philosopher in the sixteenth century. He tried to use history for legal and political purposes, and implied the type of government he wanted was a republic like the one in Ancient Rome. Renaissance humanists translated literary texts from antiquity with the intention of dictating human decisions; like the way Bodin tries to make Tacitus or the Roman Rebublic relevant to his time. The idea that hindsight is 20/20 was appealing, and applied to every person. The key for history to become a science was organization. Organization gave structure to knowledge; like a skeleton to a body. Organization put an emphasis on genealogy (line of decent) which was important to the Ciceronian Laws. The Ciceronian Laws refer to the use of both truth and impartiality to achieve perfection under the influence of rhetoric. Organization also helped the status of a particular topic. For example, the Spanish philosopher Juan Luis Vives was upset that pagan history was better recorded than Christian history.
The difficult part about history is the impossibility of proving dishonesty. There are often times many variations of the same event, “making history filled with impurities” (Kelley). A counter argument to that statement would be history is what it is because of impurities. History brings a singular wisdom, but it isn’t without flaws. History has been negatively influence by political gains, lust, greed, military glory, and/or religious ambition; “Sixteenth-century historians loved the idea of disposition of narrative, the requirements of cause, analysis and critical judgment, the need for impartiality, and the priority (neglected by the ancients) of truth over beauty.”(Kelley). Bartholomeus Keckerman said history was a mode of arrangement, rather than subject matter. He criticized disorganization, claiming history was only truthful when it was combined with other fields (economics and politics primarily). This process was what began history’s metamorphosis from an art to a science. Previous sixteenth-century views only addressed particular facts, “lacking the status of particular truth”(Kelley 196). History alone wasn’t a science; it had to be applied to reason first, and had no further meaning than what it described. Only through reason could sixteenth-century humanists use history as a science. There had to be a reason why the Trojans open the doors to let the wooden horse into their city, otherwise it’s just a list of events. According to Jean Bodin, history was divided into three laws; human, nature, and divine. Bodin implied by this, that previous legal systems can be applied into contemporary law.
The Art of Criticism
Herodotus is called the father of history…but to some he was also the father of lies (Kelley 190).
In the Renaissance criticism was finding forgeries in the writing, while making sure all the information given was true. History that had been written long ago was seen with more skepticism than in previous generations. Writings from antiquity were more closely analyzed, and suspected to be untrustworthy. Bude wanted a “restitution” or a restoration of antiquity as a whole. The Renaissance contributed greatly to the transformation of history, possibly more so than any other era. A completely new way of writing and reading of history developed from this time period, “The conjunction of these impulses with archaeology and anthropology in a modern sense marked the beginning of an enlightened and truly (if in some cases excessively speculative) philosophical history.” (Kelley 216). Critic, a word which began as medical term, then turned into a literary one, led to an important part of historical development. Debating the great authors of the past was a new way to find a closer truth. It was through criticism that led to a closer truth than previously seen.
Universal History
Universal history appealed to many people in the sixteenth-century, both religious and secular. Universal history was being challenged, and considered a product of the succession of master narratives. It had little to do with historical methods or criticisms, and focused on origins, general patterns, and final goals. It attempts to present the history of humankind as a whole, from the very beginning of written history to the present. In Universal history there is no exclusion of certain eras, and all history is embraces, as long as the use of primary sources, archaeology, and research can prove these events to be true. Usually Universal history is divided into ancient, medieval, and modern sections and began in the nineteenth century. This big picture writing style helps us understand history better, by having limited biases, and adopting history as an art and science into its method. The best way to understand Universal history is to know all factual history is relevant to what makes our society today, and in order to understand the peasant in the French Revolution, you must also understand the struggles of the Bourgeoisie as well as the King of France.
Suggested Readings
Antonio Perez-Ramos, Francis Bacon’s Idea of Science and the Maker’s of Knowledge Tradition
Singleton, Charles S., ed. Art, Science, and History in the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1967.
Greenblatt, Stephen. The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012.
Jacob, P. L. Science and Literature in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. With over 400 Wood Engravings. New York: F. Ungar Pub., 1964.
Kaufmann, Thomas DaCosta. The Mastery of Nature: Aspects of Art, Science, and Humanism in the Renaissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Wightman, W. P. D. Science and the Renaissance. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, Published for the University of Aberdeen, 1962.
Sarton, George. Six Wings: Men of Science in the Renaissance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1957.
Mignolo, Walter. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.
Suggested Primary Sources
Leonardo Bruni, History of the Florentine People
Henry Cornelius Agrippa, Vanity of the Arts and Sciences
Lacroix, Paul. Science and Literature in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Illustrated with Upwards of Four Hundred. London: Bickers, 1878.