I. The Historian and His Facts

• The text explores the differing views on the nature of history through passages from Acton and Professor Sir George Clark.
• Acton, in 1896, believed in the possibility of achieving “ultimate history” through a comprehensive recording of knowledge, emphasizing the importance of facts.
• Clark, in the 1950s, challenged the idea of “ultimate history,” expressing skepticism and asserting that historical work is subject to constant superseding.
• The clash between Acton and Clark reflects the broader shift in societal outlook from the positive confidence of the late Victorian age to the skepticism of the beat generation.
• The nineteenth century was characterized by a focus on facts, aligning with a common-sense view of history that treated historical facts as objective and independent.
• Positivists emphasized the scientific aspect of history, advocating for the collection of facts first and drawing conclusions from them.
• The empirical tradition in British philosophy, from Locke to Bertrand Russell, contributed to the common-sense view of history.
• History was considered a corpus of ascertained facts, with historians tasked with collecting and presenting these facts.
• Acton and Clark’s differing views on the selectivity of facts and the possibility of achieving “ultimate history” reflect their respective historical periods.
• The text critiques the fallacy of objective historical facts existing independently of interpretation.
• Historical facts are argued to be selectively chosen by historians, and the process of historical interpretation involves subjective decisions.
• The distinction between basic facts and historical facts is explored, questioning what criteria distinguish facts relevant to history.
• The text illustrates the transformation of a fact about the past into a historical fact, emphasizing the role of interpretation and acceptance by other historians.
• The example of the Stalybridge Wakes incident demonstrates how a fact’s status as a historical fact depends on interpretation and acceptance within the scholarly community.
• The illusion of having all the facts in ancient and medieval history is discussed, highlighting the pre-selection of facts by historians with specific views.
• The text challenges the idea that all facts about the past are equally historical, emphasizing the interpretative element in historical selection.
• Historical knowledge is acknowledged as incomplete, and the influence of past historians in shaping our understanding of history is emphasized.
• The text questions the widely accepted view of mediaeval man’s religious devotion, pointing out the influence of chroniclers and the selective nature of historical records.
• The modern historian faces a different challenge compared to ancient and medieval historians, as the latter benefit from a vast winnowing process that simplifies and clarifies historical facts.
• Lytton Strachey’s notion that “ignorance is the first requisite of the historian” is cited, emphasizing that extreme competence in ancient or medieval history is often rooted in ignorance of the subject.
• The modern historian must cultivate necessary ignorance, especially when dealing with recent history, and has the dual task of discovering significant facts and discarding insignificant ones.
• The 19th-century heresy, treating history as the compilation of irrefutable and objective facts, is criticized for producing dry-as-dust factual histories and specialized monographs.
• Acton’s frustration as a historian is linked to this heresy, and the fear of becoming mere compilers of encyclopedias is noted.
• The fetishism of facts is completed by a fetishism of documents in the 19th century, considering documents as the Ark of the Covenant in the temple of facts.
• However, the text questions the true value of documents, stating that documents, even if found, must be processed by the historian before they can be meaningful.
• An example with Gustav Stresemann’s papers illustrates the selective nature of document publication, showing how the process of selection can influence the interpretation of historical events.
• Stresemann’s eastern policy is underrepresented in published documents, leading to a distorted view of his foreign policy in historical records.
• The fate of Stresemann’s reputation in Germany, the disappearance of volumes, and the selective nature of translations highlight the fragility of historical records.
• The limitations of documents are emphasized, stating that records of diplomatic conversations only reflect the perspectives of those involved and must be interpreted by historians.
• While facts and documents are essential to history, the text cautions against making a fetish of them, as they do not, by themselves, constitute history or provide ready-made answers to the question, “What is History?”
• The 19th-century historians’ indifference to the philosophy of history is attributed to a comfortable period of confidence and optimism, where the facts were deemed satisfactory, and questioning their meaning was considered unnecessary.
• The liberal 19th-century view of history is compared to the economic doctrine of laissez-faire, both rooted in a serene and self-confident outlook on the world.
• The text suggests that the 19th-century belief in the implicit and self-evident meaning of history was akin to an age of innocence, and modern historians must grapple with the awkward question of defining a philosophy of history.
• The challenge to the doctrine of the primacy and autonomy of facts in history originated in Germany in the 1880s and 1890s.
• Philosophers like Dilthey and Croce challenged the idea that history is about recording facts; Croce argued that history involves evaluation and interpretation.
• Collingwood, an important contributor to the philosophy of history, emphasized the historian’s role in reenacting the thought behind historical events.
• Collingwood’s views suggest that history is not a compilation of objective facts but a product of interpretation and understanding.
• The historian must respect facts but also engage in interpretation, recognizing the interplay between the past and present.
• The danger in Collingwood’s view lies in the potential rejection of any objective history, reducing it to a purely subjective and pragmatic exercise.
• The historian’s need for imaginative understanding and the inevitability of viewing the past through present eyes are highlighted.
• The obligation of the historian to facts involves not only accuracy but also the incorporation of all relevant facts into the narrative.
• The historian’s duty to respect facts is a continuous process of interaction, an ongoing dialogue between the historian and the past.

II. Society and the Individual

• The relationship between society and the individual is inseparable and complementary, not oppositional.
• The dichotomy of society versus the individual is likened to the hen and egg dilemma, where one cannot exist without the other.
• Every individual is born into and molded by society from birth, acquiring language and thought from the social environment.
• The Robinson Crusoe myth and Dostoevsky’s Kirillov illustrate the difficulty of imagining an individual independent of society.
• Anthropologists suggest that primitive man is more molded by society than civilized man, but both are products of their social context.
• The concept of individualism as a revolt against society is challenged; increased individualization is a normal process of advancing civilization.
• The cult of individualism is considered a pervasive historical myth, often associated with specific historical epochs like the Renaissance and capitalism.
• The process of individualization accompanies the rise of new social groups to power, emphasizing individual initiative in the early stages of capitalism.
• Signs suggest that the period of individualism as a dominant force in history is reaching its end, with the rise of mass democracy and collective forms of economic production.
• Abstract notions of tension between liberty and equality or individual liberty and social justice are critiqued as oversimplified and barriers to understanding.
• Individualism is described as a slogan of an interested group rather than a great social movement, hindering a nuanced understanding of social dynamics.
• The common-sense view of history, focusing on individuals writing about individuals, is challenged as oversimplified and inadequate.
• Historians are seen as both individuals and social phenomena, products and spokesmen of their societies, approaching historical facts from a societal perspective.
• The historian is likened to a figure in a moving procession, constantly changing relative positions, with new angles of vision appearing as history progresses.
• The truism remains valid even when historians study periods distant from their own time.
• Grote’s “History of Greece” and Mommsen’s “History of Rome” are classic works on ancient history.
• Grote’s portrayal of Athenian democracy and Mommsen’s idealization of Caesar are influenced by their contemporary political and social contexts.
• Grote’s neglect of slavery in Athens may reflect his group’s avoidance of the issue of the English factory working class.
• Mommsen’s idealization of Caesar is tied to his disillusionment with the German revolution of 1848–1849.
• The period from which historians emerge shapes their perspectives and influences their choice of subjects.
• The cult of individualism is considered a pervasive historical myth associated with specific historical epochs.
• Namier, a conservative historian, reflects the changing political landscape in England, moving away from 19th-century liberalism.
• Namier’s choice of subjects, focusing on the rational pursuit of power and the European revolution of 1848, reflects his conservative perspective.
• Namier’s rejection of historicism suggests a belief that political doctrine and dogma hinder free thinking.
• Historians like Grote, Mommsen, Trevelyan, and Namier are products of their historical and social backgrounds.
• Some historians, like Meinecke, reflect different societal orders in successive works, each speaking to a different historical epoch.
• Butterfield’s critique of the Whig interpretation of history changes over time, reflecting shifts in societal attitudes and events.
• The work of historians closely mirrors the society in which they live, and historians themselves are in flux, evolving with the times.
• In the 19th century, British historians largely viewed history as a demonstration of progress, aligning with the ideology of a society experiencing rapid progress.
• Post-World War I, Toynbee attempted to replace the linear view of history with a cyclical theory, reflecting a society in decline.
• British historians since then have, for the most part, abandoned the search for a general pattern in history.
• The kind of history a society writes or fails to write is a significant pointer to its character.
• Geyl, the Dutch historian, demonstrated how French 19th-century historians’ judgments on Napoleon reflected changing patterns in French political life.
• The thought of historians is molded by the environment of their time and place.
• Acton acknowledged the influence of one’s historical and social environment but sought history as a deliverer from undue influences.
• Understanding the historian requires studying both the individual and their historical and social environment.
• The question arises whether the focus of historical inquiry should be on individual behavior or social forces.
• The “Bad King John theory” emphasizes the role of individual behavior in history, often attributing events to the character and actions of specific individuals.
• The desire to postulate individual genius as the creative force in history is seen as characteristic of primitive stages of historical consciousness.
• The distinction between studying individuals and studying groups or classes is misleading, as individuals are inherently members of societies.
• The study of individual behavior should not exclude the consideration of unconscious or unavowed motives.
• History is a process of inquiry into the past of humans in society.
• Some people distinguish between psychology and sociology, but this division may be primitive, as the individual is inherently a member of a society.
• Carlyle’s assertion that “history is the biography of great men” is critiqued, and the importance of numbers in history is emphasized.
• History often involves considering the actions of millions of individuals, constituting a social force.
• Movements are started by minorities, but the multitude is essential for their success, highlighting the significance of numbers in history.
• Actions of individual human beings often lead to unintended or desired results, as noted by various schools of thought.
• Different perspectives, including the Christian belief, Mandeville’s paradox, Adam Smith’s hidden hand, and Hegel’s “cunning of reason,” highlight the idea that individuals, consciously pursuing personal goals, can be agents of broader purposes.
• Marx emphasizes the role of social forces independent of individual will in shaping historical events.
• The discrepancy between individual intentions and actual outcomes challenges the idea that history can be explained solely in terms of human intentions.
• The facts of history are about the relations of individuals to one another in society and the social forces that produce results often contrary to individual intentions.
• Collingwood’s view of history, focusing on the thought behind individual acts, is criticized for assuming that the thought of the individual actor is the relevant consideration.
• The rebel or dissident in history is not an individual in revolt against society but a product and reflection of social conflicts and conditions.
• Monarchs and rebels alike are significant as social phenomena and are products of the specific conditions of their age and country.
• Nietzsche, a radical individualist, was a product of European, specifically German, society, emphasizing the role of social forces.
• The role of the rebel in history has analogies with that of the great man, who is an outstanding individual and a social phenomenon of importance.
• The great man theory of history, attributing historical significance to exceptional individuals, has gone out of fashion but still occasionally surfaces.
• The great man is both a product and an agent of the historical process, representative and creative of social forces that shape the world and thoughts of people.
• History, as both the inquiry conducted by historians and the past into which they inquire, is a social process involving individuals as social beings.
• The reciprocal interaction between historians and facts is a dialogue between the society of today and the society of yesterday.
• The past is intelligible in the light of the present, and understanding the past enhances mastery over the present society.