Theory & History of HistoriographyCroce, Benedetto
Philosophy
Theory & History of Historiography
Croce, Benedetto
Historiography
enrichment of what we have found by means of analysis and meditation
and a confirmation or proof of our thoughts, which are not to be
neglected, especially when true evidence and attested evidence agree
with one another. To refuse the assistance and the facilities afforded
by attested evidence, owing to the fear that some of it may prove
false, or because all of it possesses an external and somewhat general
and vague character, would be to refuse _the authority of the human
race,_ and so to commit the sin of Descartes and of Malebranche. This
great refusal does not concern or assist the understanding of history.
All that does matter and does assist is that authority--including the
authority of the human race--should never be allowed to take the place
of the _thought of humanity,_ to which, in any case, belongs the first
place.
APPENDIX II
ANALOGY AND ANOMALY OF SPECIAL HISTORIES
In the course of the preceding theoretical explanations we have denied
both the idea of a _universal history_ (in time and space)[1] and that
of a _general history_ (of the spirit in its indiscriminate generality
or unity),[2] and have insisted instead upon the opposite view with its
two clauses: that history is always _particular_ and always _special,_
and that these two determinations constitute precisely concrete and
effective _universality_ and concrete and effective _unity._ What has
been declared impossible, then, does not represent in any way a loss,
for it is on the one hand fictitious universality or the universality
of _fancy,_ and on the other abstract _universality,_ or, if it be
preferred, _confused_ universality. So-called universal histories
have therefore shown themselves to be particular histories, which
have assumed that title for purposes of literary notoriety, or as
collections, views, and chroniclistical compilations of particular
histories, or, finally, as romances. In like manner, general inclusive
histories are either so only in name, or set different histories side
by side, or they are metaphysical and metaphorical playthings.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account