Tolstoy discusses five types in all. These five types are (1) the ancient historians, (2) the modern specific historians, (3) the modern universal historians, (4) the modern cultural historians, and (5) the new historians, i.e. those who see history through a new paradigm. He discusses these five types in chapter 2 of this epilogue.
As mentioned elsewhere, Tolstoy saw a paradigm shift taking place within history. This is a shift between the new view of history and the old view.
In this epilogue, he divides the old paradigm into two periods chronologically. So, under the old paradigm, we have ancient and modern views of history.
Tolstoy goes on to divide the modern views of history into three types.
The first group of modern historians are the specialist historians. These are the biographical historians and historians of separate nations, who narrate events as occuring solely by the will of a Napoleon, and Alexander, or in general by the persons they describe.
The second group of modern historians Tolstoy discusses are the universal historians. Writers of universal histories, Tolstoy tells us, deal with all the nations and seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians’ view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize history as caused by a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces.
A third class of modern historians—the so-called historians of culture—following the path laid down by the universal historians who sometimes accept writers and ladies as forces producing events—again take that force to be something quite different. They see it in what is called culture—in mental activity such as important books.
So, that makes five types in all.
quote from the chapter:
Writers of universal history who deal with all the nations seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians’ view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize it as a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces. In describing a war or the subjugation of a people, a general historian looks for the cause of the event not in the power of one man, but in the interaction of many persons connected with the event.
…
A third class of historians—the so-called historians of culture—following the path laid down by the universal historians who sometimes accept writers and ladies as forces producing events—again take that force to be something quite different. They see it in what is called culture—in mental activity.
Second Epilogue, key concept note 5
What types of historians are there?
Summary:
Tolstoy discusses five types in all. These five types are (1) the ancient historians, (2) the modern specific historians, (3) the modern universal historians, (4) the modern cultural historians, and (5) the new historians, i.e. those who see history through a new paradigm. He discusses these five types in chapter 2 of this epilogue.
As mentioned elsewhere, Tolstoy saw a paradigm shift taking place within history. This is a shift between the new view of history and the old view.
In this epilogue, he divides the old paradigm into two periods chronologically. So, under the old paradigm, we have ancient and modern views of history.
Tolstoy goes on to divide the modern views of history into three types.
The first group of modern historians are the specialist historians. These are the biographical historians and historians of separate nations, who narrate events as occuring solely by the will of a Napoleon, and Alexander, or in general by the persons they describe.
The second group of modern historians Tolstoy discusses are the universal historians. Writers of universal histories, Tolstoy tells us, deal with all the nations and seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians’ view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize history as caused by a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces.
A third class of modern historians—the so-called historians of culture—following the path laid down by the universal historians who sometimes accept writers and ladies as forces producing events—again take that force to be something quite different. They see it in what is called culture—in mental activity such as important books.
So, that makes five types in all.
quote from the chapter:
Writers of universal history who deal with all the nations seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians’ view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize it as a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces. In describing a war or the subjugation of a people, a general historian looks for the cause of the event not in the power of one man, but in the interaction of many persons connected with the event.
…
A third class of historians—the so-called historians of culture—following the path laid down by the universal historians who sometimes accept writers and ladies as forces producing events—again take that force to be something quite different. They see it in what is called culture—in mental activity.
Click here to read full text of Chapter 2 of this epilogue.
Please help improve this shared document by posting your suggested corrections, clarifications, and changes below. Thank you!