Periodizing Historiography

September, 2023.

Ancient Historiography

Greek Historiography (700 B.C.E. – 500 C.E.)

            The Ancient Greeks’ historiography was utilized to preserve grand memories or tales of the past, to educate citizens, and to serve as entertainment. These histories arose during the Archaic Period in the form of myths and poetry and had no sense of change over time. After an intellectual revolution in the sixth century, historians moved away from epic history towards prose history, in which they used generational counts, as well as focused their work mostly on the polis. The new form of biography also arose throughout this period, in which some authors focused their work more on heroic individuals. As the Hellenistic Age rolled in, another transformation in historiography occurred, in which the scope of history enlarged with the size of Alexander the Great’s Macedonian empire. Though historians were then making inquiries beyond the polis, their simplistic methodology limited their ability to develop proper means for finding out about the distant past thus they solely produced contemporary history.

Roman Historiography (509 B.C.E. – 476 C.E.)

            Roman historiography, in its early days, was heavily influenced by Greek forms, though remained individualistic through contradictory origin stories. These contradictions led to friction between Greek and Roman historians, resulting in the new Roman form of annals arising. The annalistic historiography cared little for theoretical analysis, instead opting for the ideal of accuracy and reliance on strong authorities to maintain a valid reputation. As the civilization matured throughout the ages, Roman historians encountered trouble reconciling the rise and fall of the empire in a continuous manner, for they refused to comparatively analyze their empire with others of antiquity. Historical monographs also arose during this period, however they were narrowed in on the empire itself, for there was little incentive to transcend the world of Rome. Thus, Roman historiography led to little developments theoretically, therefore crumbling with the empire itself.

Medieval Historiography (476 C.E. – 1450 C.E.)

            Though Roman historiography faded with the empire, its influence reached to the Christian historians throughout the early years of the common era (C.E). One major difference that set Christian historiographical practices apart, leading towards more theoretical development, is that the Christians understood and acknowledged the cyclicality of history – through the cycle of sin (judgement; retribution; restoration). This cyclicality grew into a concern for chronology, which was used by Christian historians to prove the enduring age of the tradition – these efforts resulted in history being periodized. As more kingdoms were being created, historical periodization was utilized by many to legitimize stakes of power through ancestral tracing back to the ancient cultures of Rome, Troy, and Greece. As time passed, the Christian historians were forced to reconcile with the cultural transformation brought on upon by the Germanic tribes; these occurrences drove the Christians to confront the shattering of their historically constructed world, since their history was a dichotomy between Rome and God. This led to the fusion of differing ideals, and therefore the Christian historians adopted the Germanic tribes into their existing timelines, recapturing a sense of universality within the faith. A massive shift was undergone during the reign of Charlemagne within the Carolingian Empire, in which the writing of history flourished. Historiography received a grand infusion of vigor through the increased revival of classical studies. Biographies were more popular than ever, bringing the scope of historians down to the humanistic level, and annals evolved into incredibly useful archival documents. A new form of historical writing also cropped up in this era; the gesta, which was similar to the biography, though focused on offices and positions throughout the ages. It is imperative to note that the Christian historiographical tradition, though eventually divided, lived on as dominant throughout the Middle Ages, and thus was the basis for most historical production.

            As the Early Period of the Middle Ages faded into the High Period, developments such as the rise of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle (and its demise after the infamous Battle of Hastings) produced evolutions in Medieval historiography.  With the number of kingdoms gaining power in Europe growing at this time, historians de jure turned their analytical focus towards supporting the legitimacy of dynasties, praising the piety of lords and kings, and placing contemporary events in the Christian view of the world. The form of biography even underwent an evolution, now sporting the “knight in shining armor” cliché, stemming from the Carolingian biographic historiography. As previously mentioned, chronicles played a large part in the development of historiography, in which their narrative was split between biblical history, local history, and contemporary analysis – thus, at this time, historians were utilizing knowledge of the past in analysis with the present.

            As the High Period turned towards the Late Period of the Middle Ages, education gained a wide-spread popularity that catalyzed the creation of many universities, which in turn led to the reassessment of historical practices. Resulting from the increase in education and more chronicles being produced in the vernacular, the world was changing at faster paces, and thus, historians were tasked with reconciling these changes with the overall Christian universal tradition. Though they struggled with an overwhelming amount of annalistic evidence, as well as attempting to fit the increasingly-modern world into Christian universal framework, historians utilized the chronicle to present encyclopedic knowledge. Despite all the transformations historiography undertook during these eras, the Middle Ages saw little deviation from the standards set by the early Christian historians.

Modern Historiography (1450 C.E. – Present Day)

Early Modern Historiography (1450 C.E. – 1789 C.E.)

The Italian Renaissance ushered in the end of the Middle Ages, as well as a new lens to view history with. Humanist study was born and thrived during this time, resulting from the vast changes the world was experiencing. Focus was now on the human self and their role in the larger, overarching history of an individual city-state or kingdom. Though many elements of Medieval historiography still breathed in the early Modern Age, immense worldwide changes occurred throughout this period that spurred evolution. In the earliest days of Modernity, these changes were absorbed into the Christian tradition, however, over time historians utilized a new approach that sought meaning within the larger scale of history in the flow of its occurrences. The Italian Renaissance brought the humanist aspect to historiography, which led to the founding of many universities. With the humanists branching further and further away from Christianity to explain historical events, the Reformation delineated the Christian status-quo.

As humanist study evolved into the production of scientific methodology, the Enlightenment was thrust upon Western Civilization. This was an era rife with scientific investigation, due to the invention of Baconian methodology, and thus historiography began to focus heavily on the recounting of historical facts. This scientific investigation also led historians to question the study itself – concurring on the notion that human events have order and reason, shaped by specific situations and motives. Thus, scholars began to create new schools of scholarship that informed the Enlightenment historians’ analyses with more humanist nuance. Given the scientific nature of the intellectual plane during this era, the enduring Christian tradition of Divine Providence was reduced to shreds, with historians tasked to bridge the gaps now left in the absence of God’s will. Enlightened Historians, primarily French philosophes, came up with progress theory, in which history itself shows a transformation from mankind being potentially rational to fully rational. This led to erudite history becoming the mainstream, with French erudites dominating western historiography.

Modern Historiography (1789 C.E. – Today)

The Enlightenment’s historiography set the stage for the eighteenth and nineteenth century’s historians, in which empiricism and historicism began to take a tighter grip over the field. In Germany, the field of history experiencing a transformative shift towards combining the methodology of philology with interpretation and traditional narrative history. Thus, the study of history became based on the finding of facts through critical research. It is also during this period that history began to be utilized to interpret ever-increasing progress, both in the nation and in technical means. During the second half of the eighteenth century, historiography became an important aspect of public life – it was primarily focused on political concerns, and history’s main role was to educate citizens that participated in public life. Thus, when nations experienced great upheaval, such as France during their revolution and America in its creation, the experiences had an impact on historical thought. These impacts led to intellectuals relying heavily on historiography to interpret and explain humanity, which can be seen as a “Golden Age of Historiography” – in which French, German, and English historians converged, greatly illuminating the Middle Ages.

During the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century, more forces continued to transform and shape contemporary life – science, industrialization, emancipation of the public, and the emergence and strengthening of a global world. These shifts caused historians to rely much more on philosophical explanations of worldly occurrences, which had a profound impact on historiography. One of these philosophical explanations, Marxism, led to historians focusing analysis on the distribution of wealth and labor under a Marxist lens, while others investigated Darwinian social evolutions. Marxist historians gained more momentum than those following Darwinian principles, leading to a historiography thoroughly concerned with the history of class struggle to bridge the gaps of history. Historians attempted to use these new schools of historical study to converge on a single, fully encompassing, objective, historical narrative in an endeavor known as The Noble Dream.

The onset of the world wars produced a sense of disillusionment with modernity, especially in the field of history. With historiography widened as such prior to World War 1, the field began to fragment slightly. A dichotomy erupted between those who still valued empirical objectivity within historiography, and those who saw the destruction caused by science in the world war, who opted for relativist ideals. The overarching goal of producing history to create a “grand narrative” was threatened by the influx of relativist thought. During the interwar period, historical relativists gained more footing, ousting the status-quo of objectivity, resulting in the systematic questioning of one of the founding principles of modern historiography. World War 2 and its subsequent Cold War Era produced another interesting shift in Western historiography, in which ideologies battled each other via patriotic sentiment. Objectivity was aligned with the free world, and relativity was confined to the socialist/communist Soviet Bloc.

The 1960’s saw the emergence of a new group of radical historians known as the New Left. The historiography of this group questioned the established norm and its perception of the past, stemming from the period of great social unrest in America during this time. This led to even more fragmentation and widening of the scope of history, resulting in studies relating to the history of minority groups, women, attempting to reform historiography. The notion regarding relativism disappeared in the 1980’s yet has been crawling back to the surface in recent years.

Recent historiography is a result of the vast transformations undertaken by historians of antiquity, building off each other until this very day. Historians of the post-Modern era have learned much from how historians have dealt with significant changes in the world; however, they have also gone through monumental changes as well. The rise and legitimation of social history has greatly widened the lens that historians use to view history, as well as widened the methods and approaches to their inquiry. This has led to the popularization and development of New Cultural history, which investigates the impact of specific cultural aspects on historical occurrences. In the current state of historiography, historians still face some of the same issues those of antiquity dealt with. However, over time, historiography has come a very long way; from orally traditional poems to Pontifically-controlled inquiry, to the ever – increasing widening of lenses. These developments showcase the complexity of humanity, and thus highlight the necessity of inquiring about the complexity of humanity as it has changed over time.