History of World 12
History of World 12
History of World 12
Early modern[edit]
During the Renaissance in Europe, history was
written about states or nations. The study of history
changed during
the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Voltaire descri
bed the history of certain ages that he considered
important, rather than describing events in
chronological order. History became an independent
discipline. It was not called philosophia
historiae anymore, but merely history (historia).
Voltaire, in the 18th century, attempted to
revolutionize the study of world history. First,
Voltaire concluded that the traditional study of
history was flawed. The Christian Church, one of the
most powerful entities in his time, had presented a
framework for studying history. Voltaire, when
writing History of Charles XII (1731) and The Age of
Louis XIV (1751), instead choose to focus
economics, politics and culture.[16] These aspects of
history were mostly unexplored by his
contemporaries and would each develop into their
own sections of world history. Above all else,
Voltaire regarded truth as the most essential part of
recording world history. Nationalism and religion
only subtracted from objective truth, so Voltaire
freed himself for their influence when he recorded
history.[17]
Giambattista Vico (1668–1744) in Italy
wrote Scienza nuva seconda (The New Science) in
1725, which argued history as the expression of
human will and deeds. He thought that men are
historical entities and that human nature changes
over time. Each epoch should be seen as a whole in
which all aspects of culture—art, religion,
philosophy, politics, and economics—are
interrelated (a point developed later by Oswald
Spengler). Vico showed that myth, poetry, and art
are entry points to discovering the true spirit of a
culture. Vico outlined a conception of historical
development in which great cultures, like Rome,
undergo cycles of growth and decline. His ideas
were out of fashion during the Enlightenment, but
influenced the Romantic historians after 1800.
A major theoretical foundation for world history was
given by German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel, who
saw the modern Prussian state as the latest (though
often confused with the highest) stage of world
development.
G.W.F. Hegel developed three lenses through which
he believed world history could be viewed.
Documents produced during a historical period, such
as journal entries and contractual agreements, were
considered by Hegel to be part of Original History.
These documents are produced by a person
enveloped within a culture, making them conduits of
vital information but also limited in their contextual
knowledge. Documents which pertain to Hegel’s
Original History are classified by modern historians
as primary sources.[18]
Reflective History, Hegel’s second lens, are
documents written with some temporal distance
separating the event which is discussed in the
academic writing. What limited this lens, according
to Hegel, was the imposition of the writers own
cultural values and views on the historical event.
This criticism of Reflective History was later
formalized by Anthropologists Franz Boa and coined
as Cultural relativism by Alain Locke. Both of these
lenses were considered to be partially flawed by
Hegel.[19]
Hegel termed the lens which he advocated to view
world history through as Philosophical History. In
order to view history through this lens, one must
analyze events, civilizations, and periods objectively.
When done in this fashion, the historian can then
extract the prevailing theme from their studies. This
lens differs from the rest because it is void of any
cultural biases and takes a more analytical approach
to history. World History can be a broad topic, so
focusing on extracting the most valuable information
from certain periods may be the most beneficial
approach. This third lens, as did Hegel’s definitions
of the other two, affected the study of history in the
early modern period and our contemporary period.[20]
Another early modern historian was Adam
Ferguson. Ferguson’s main contribution to the study
erous and more continual and substantial in recent
times. Before about 1500, the network of
communication between cultures was that of
Eurasia. The term for these areas of interaction
differ from one world historian to another and
include world-system and ecumene. Whatever it is
called, the importance of these intercultural contacts
has begun to be recognized by many scholars