Hegel, książki, Philosphy
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
Georg Hegel
THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
Table of Contents
...............................................................................................................1
............................................................................................................................................1
...................................................................................................................................1
.............................................................................................................................2
...........................................................................................................................5
.................................................................................................29
i
THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
Georg Hegel
This page copyright © 2001 Blackmask Online.
·
·
·
I.Original History
¤ 1
Of the first kind, the mention of one or two distinguished names will furnish a definite type. To this category
belong Herodotus, Thucydides, and other historians of the same order, whose descriptions are for the most
part limited to deeds, events, and states of society, which they had before their eyes, and whose spirit they
shared. They simply transferred what was passing in the world around them, to the realm of representative
intellect. An external phenomenon is thus translated into an internal conception. In the same way the poet
operates upon the material supplied him by his emotions, projecting it into an image for the conceptive
faculty. These original historians did, it is true, find statements and narratives of other men ready to hand.
One person cannot be an eye and ear witness of everything. But they make use of such aids only as the poet
does of that heritage of an already−formed language, to which he owes so much; merely as an ingredient.
Historiographers bind together the fleeting elements of story, and treasure them up for immortality in the
Temple of Mnemosyne. Legends, Ballad−stories, Traditions must be excluded from such original history.
These are but dim and hazy forms of historical apprehension, and therefore belong to nations whose
intelligence is but half awakened. Here, on the contrary, we have to do with people fully conscious of what
they were and what they were about. The domain of reality actually seen, or capable of being so affords a
very different basis in point of firmness from that fugitive and shadowy element, in which were engendered
those legends and poetic dreams whose historical prestige vanishes, as soon as nations have attained a mature
individuality.
¤ 2
Such original historians, then, change the events, the deeds and the states of society with which they are
conversant, into an object for the conceptive faculty. The narratives they leave us cannot, therefore, be very
comprehensive in their range. Herodotus, Thucydides, Guieciardini, may be taken as fair samples of the class
in this respect. What is present and living in their environment, is their proper material. The influences that
have formed the writer are identical with those which have moulded the events that constitute the matter of
his story. The author's spirit, and that of the actions he narrates, is one and the same. He describes scenes in
which he himself has been an actor, or at any rate an interested spectator. It is short periods of time,
individual shapes of persons and occurrences, single unreflected traits, of which be makes his picture. And
his aim is nothing more than the presentation to posterity of an image of events as clear as that which be
himself possessed in virtue of personal observation, or life−like descriptions. Reflections are none of his
THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
1
   THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
business, for he lives in the spirit of his subject; he has not attained an elevation above it. If, as in Caesar's
case, he belongs to the exalted rank of generals or statesmen, it is the prosecution of his own aims that
constitutes the history.
¤ 3
Such speeches as we find in Thucydides (for example) of which we can positively assert that they are not
bona fide reports, would seem to make against our statement that a historian of his class presents us no
reflected picture; that persons and people appear in his works in propria persona. Speeches, it must be
allowed, are veritable transactions in the human commonwealth; in fact, very gravely influential transactions.
It is, indeed, often said, "Such and such things are only talk"; by way of demonstrating their harmlessness.
That for which this excuse is brought, may be mere "talk"; and talk enjoys the important privilege of being
harmless. But addresses of peoples to peoples, or orations directed to nations and to princes, are integrant
constituents of history. Granted such orations as those of Pericles the most profoundly accomplished,
genuine, noble statesman were elaborated by Thucydides; it must yet be maintained that they were not
foreign to the character of the speaker. In the oration in question, these men proclaim the maxims adopted by
their countrymen, and which formed their own character; they record their views of their political relations,
and of their moral and spiritual nature; and the principle of their designs and conduct. What the historian puts
into their mouths is no supposititious system of ideas, but an uncorrupted transcript of their intellectual and
moral habitudes.
¤ 4
Of these historians, whom we must make thoroughly our own, with whom we must linger long, if we would
live with their respective nations, and enter deeply into their spirit: of these historians, to whose pages we
may turn not for the purpose of erudition merely, but with a view to deep and genuine enjoyment, there are
fewer than might be imagined. Herodotus the Father, i.e. the Founder of History and Thucydides have been
already mentioned. Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten Thousand is a work equally original. Caesar's
Commentaries are the simple masterpiece of a mighty spirit. Among the ancients, these annalists were
necessarily great captains and statesmen. In the Middle Ages, if we except the Bishops, who were placed in
the very centre of the political world, the Monks monopolise this category as naive chroniclers who were as
decidedly isolated from active life as those elder annalists had been connected with it. In modern times the
relations are entirely altered. Our culture is essentially comprehensive and immediately changes all events
into historical representations. Belonging to the class in question, we have vivid, simple, clear narrations
especially of military transactions which might fairly take their place with those of Caesar. In richness of
matter and fullness of detail as regards strategic appliances, and attendant circumstances, they are even more
instructive. The French "Memoires" also fall under this category. In many cases these are written by men of
mark, though relating to affairs of little note. They not unfrequently contain a large proportion of anecdotal
matter, so that the ground they occupy is narrow and trivial. Yet they are often veritable masterpieces in
history; as those of Cardinal Retz, which in fact trench on a larger historical field. In Germany such masters
are rare. Frederick the Great (Histoire de mon temps) is an illustrious exception. Writers of this order must
occupy an elevated position. Only from such a position is it possible to take an extensive view of affairs to
see everything. This is out of the question for him, who from below merely gets a glimpse of the great world
through a miserable cranny.
II. Reflective History
1. Universal History − 2. Pragmatical History − 3. Critical History
¤ 5
II. Reflective History
2
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
The second kind of history we may call the reflective. It is history whose mode of representation is not really
confined by the limits of the time to which it relates, but whose spirit transcends the present. In this second
order strongly marked variety of species may be distinguished.
1. Universal History
¤ 6
It is the aim of the investigator to gain a view of the entire history of a people or a country, or of the world, in
short, what we call Universal History. In this case the working up of the historical material is the main point.
The workman approaches his task with his own spirit; a spirit distinct from that of the element he is to
manipulate. Here a very important consideration will be the principles to which the author refers, the bearing
and motives of the actions and events which he describes, and those which determine the form of his
narrative. Among us Germans this reflective treatment and the display of ingenuity which it occasions,
assume a manifold variety of phases. Every writer of history proposes to himself an original method. The
English and French confess to general principles of historical composition. Their standpoint is more that of
cosmopolitan or of national culture. Among us each labours to invent a purely individual point of view.
Instead of writing history, we are always beating our brains to discover how history ought to be written. This
first kind of Reflective History is most nearly akin to the preceding, when it has no farther aim than to present
the annals of a country complete. Such compilations (among which may be reckoned the works of Livy,
Diodorus Siculus, Johannes von MŸller's History of Switzerland) are, if well performed, highly meritorious.
Among the best of the kind may be reckoned such annalist as approach those of the first class; who give so
vivid a transcript of events that the reader may well fancy himself listening to contemporaries and
eye−witnesses. But it often happens that the individuality of tone which must characterise a writer belonging
to a different culture, is not modified in accordance with the periods such a record must traverse. The spirit of
the writer is quite other than that of the times of which he treats. Thus Livy puts into the mouths of the old
Roman kings, consuls, and generals, such orations as would be delivered by an accomplished advocate of the
Livian era, and which strikingly contrast with the genuine traditions of Roman antiquity (e.g. the fable of
Menenius Agrippa). In the same way he gives us descriptions of battles, as if he bad been an actual spectator;
but whose features would serve well enough for battles in any period, and whose distinctness contrasts on the
other hand with the want of connection and the inconsistency that prevail elsewhere, even in his treatment of
chief points of interest. The difference between such a compiler and an original historian may be best seen by
comparing Polybius himself with the style in which Livy uses, expands, and abridges his annals in those
period; of which Polybius's account has been preserved. Johann von MŸller has given a stiff, formal,
pedantic aspect of history, in the endeavour to remain faithful in his portraiture to the times he describes. We
much prefer the narratives we find in old Tschudy. All is more naive and natural than it appears in the garb of
a fictitious and affected archaism.
¤ 7
A history which aspires to traverse long periods of time, or to be universal, must indeed forego the attempt to
give individual representations of the past as it actually existed. It must foreshorten its pictures by
abstractions; and this includes not merely the omission of events and deeds, but whatever is involved in the
fact that Thought is, after all, the most trenchant epitomist. A battle, a great victory, a siege, no longer
maintains its original proportions, but is put off with a bare mention. When Livy e.g. tells us of the wars with
the Volsci, we sometimes have the brief announcement: This year war was carried on with the Volsci.
2. Pragmatical History
¤ 8
II. Reflective History
3
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]